India Army Artillery

[Nilgiri]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1501461818606497794

 

[Zapper]

Can't entirely trust the source but good if true

After clearing trails, Indian Army to get 12 Dhanush in May


https://idrw.org/after-clearing-trials-indian-army-to-get-12-dhanush-guns-in-may/

 

[Nilgiri]

I'd like to see if there is any interest on having a solid discussion for a while on some of the mechanics and force potentials of artillery (esp SPH), especially the K9 (as it is now and the new upcoming A2 and its design trend internally).

@Baljak I hope can provide some good insight and any details/info.

Let us start with the video release (of A2) I saw some days prior:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505288593283158017

Argument no. 1 (that a military buddy commented to me) goes along lines that this is (even considering the positive impression and track record of Korean ground tech and expertise in Mech Engg. and robotics).... that this is fairly complicated system overall and maybe bit sluggish. The components could also be fairly sensitive and maintenance intensive for field use etc.


I lean towards argument no. 2 in that it looks pretty reasonable, especially considering this is probably only way to design it while keeping the autoloader below the turret ring. Pzh2000 concept is also fundamentally the same. What we are seeing is also likely the sustained rate of fire (i.e a round fired every 10 seconds etc constrained more by barrel heating limits than anything else)....rather than a look into its peak burst rate.

IMO, simpler design basically would involve putting everything in the turret itself...like Archer and Auf1 etc.

This however creates a number of problems with ammo replenishment... and IIRC a large reason SP70 project died.

i.e Lifting up ammunition from ground level to turret level essentially means either a dedicated raised loading platform (as used with Archer) or replicating what K9 has done anyway.


My mil bud then expressed his concern a bit more (he was part of PzH2000 vs AS 90 trials in his country):

The opinion of the test crews was that the PzH2000 took some effort to keep working properly, and was sensitive to dust/gravel getting into the machinery. They also commented that the more robust AS 90 was ”conscript friendly”, but from a country with no conscripts. In contrast they felt that the PzH2000 needed to be used by career soldiers to not break down too often, and was from a country who did use conscripts (at the time.)

We then got into a longer (ongoing) convo about some force structure choices within NATO and Europe (mostly on conscription effects on raw manpower availability for system choices)....and also towed artillery....which I might get into a bit later depending how this one goes.

But I wonder if any interested members have some thoughts (direct or indirect to artillery) to share on this....

Given K9 platform use in and use (via Firtina) in , this discussion might be of interest to both Indian and Turkish members as well to participate and follow.


BTW, An interesting reference buddy gave me (which likely betrays his origin) btw is this clip of the Bandkanon 1 which he told me still holds the speed record for (autoloader) burst fire in this realm at 14 rounds in 45 seconds.

@MisterLike @Anmdt @Cabatli_53 @T-123456 @Stuka @Saithan @Gessler @Yasar @what @Bogeyman @Test7 @Joe Shearer @AlphaMike @Madokafc @Vergennes et al.

 

[Gary]

I'd like to see if there is any interest on having a solid discussion for a while on some of the mechanics and force potentials of artillery (esp SPH), especially the K9 (as it is now and the new upcoming A2 and its design trend internally).

@Baljak I hope can provide some good insight and any details/info.

Let us start with the video release (of A2) I saw some days prior:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505288593283158017

Argument no. 1 (that a military buddy commented to me) goes along lines that this is (even considering the positive impression and track record of Korean ground tech and expertise in Mech Engg. and robotics).... that this is fairly complicated system overall and maybe bit sluggish. The components could also be fairly sensitive and maintenance intensive for field use etc.


I lean towards argument no. 2 in that it looks pretty reasonable, especially considering this is probably only way to design it while keeping the autoloader below the turret ring. Pzh2000 concept is also fundamentally the same. What we are seeing is also likely the sustained rate of fire (i.e a round fired every 10 seconds etc constrained more by barrel heating limits than anything else)....rather than a look into its peak burst rate.

IMO, simpler design basically would involve putting everything in the turret itself...like Archer and Auf1 etc.

This however creates a number of problems with ammo replenishment... and IIRC a large reason SP70 project died.

i.e Lifting up ammunition from ground level to turret level essentially means either a dedicated raised loading platform (as used with Archer) or replicating what K9 has done anyway.


My mil bud then expressed his concern a bit more (he was part of PzH2000 vs AS 90 trials in his country):

The opinion of the test crews was that the PzH2000 took some effort to keep working properly, and was sensitive to dust/gravel getting into the machinery. They also commented that the more robust AS 90 was ”conscript friendly”, but from a country with no conscripts. In contrast they felt that the PzH2000 needed to be used by career soldiers to not break down too often, and was from a country who did use conscripts (at the time.)

We then got into a longer (ongoing) convo about some force structure choices within NATO and Europe (mostly on conscription effects on raw manpower availability for system choices)....and also towed artillery....which I might get into a bit later depending how this one goes.

But I wonder if any interested members have some thoughts (direct or indirect to artillery) to share on this....

Given K9 platform use in and use (via Firtina) in , this discussion might be of interest to both Indian and Turkish members as well to participate and follow.


BTW, An interesting reference buddy gave me (which likely betrays his origin) btw is this clip of the Bandkanon 1 which he told me still holds the speed record for (autoloader) burst fire in this realm at 14 rounds in 45 seconds.

@MisterLike @Anmdt @Cabatli_53 @T-123456 @Stuka @Saithan @Gessler @Yasar @what @Bogeyman @Test7 @Joe Shearer @AlphaMike @Madokafc @Vergennes et al.

I don't have much interest in the army, but here's what I think. There seems to be a resurgence of interest in field artillery. Now that the West are again faced with the prospect of near peer conflict from Russia and China.

If the 2000s and 2010s are characterized by the undisputed control of the air by the West, the 2020's battlefield could be radically different where one's ability to control the skies are questioned. Hence we're seeing a very exciting development for field artillery from the XM1299 to the purportedly 1000 miles gun.

XM1299 Prototype 155 mm Self-Propelled Howitzer | Military-Today.com

The XM1299 is a new US 155 mm howitzer that is currently being developed. Currently this new artillery system outclasses all other US Army's howitzers in terms of range, rate of fire, area coverage, lethality, survivability and other factors. It could be fielded within the next couple of years.

www.military-today.com

the XM1299 are a very interesting project for me, it seems the US Army are remedying there long neglect on long range tube fires. Some notable characteristics I see is the increase in barrel length (58 calibers) and new research on munitions propellant. Reportedly the XM1299 are able to shoot projectiles as far as 70+km .

This kind of capability will be helpful maybe in the European theaters against Russia. Especially if used in the counter battery role against Russia heavy artillery like the 2S7 Pion. The 25 days war in Ukraine shows that artillery duel are still a thing. Ukraine manages that really well with relatively old SPH fleet like the Giatsint-B, Pion, Akatsiya and MSTA-S, combining mass fire with drone for fire correction. Am sure the US and its NATO allies could do even better.

This kind of suppression by fire capability could free up airpower for other things.

One more thing is the ability to shoot and scoot, before the Russian-Ukraine war, there are serious concerns from Western military watchers that the time window of current self propelled artillery are not enough to ensure safe scoot from Russian artillery.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494600134813966337

Again this shows just how important network centric warfare as well as capable ISR to locate, detect and identify targets in a modern battlefield. Especially in the counter battery role. Modern wars are very fast and deadly. Now wonder the Germans doesn't even bother to have towed artillery anymore and go full self propelled.

 

[Saithan]

I’d also point out that with the age of drones laser guided precision is going to be dominating the field.

But I’m thrilled to see how the unmanned loader is working and think it’s a fair point that we should take into consideration. Tanks are suppose to be in the thick of battle, and with their armor they’re suppose to handle punishments of sorts. But the ATGM are evolving and we’ve seen what drones can do. Like Ataturk said freedom is in the skies.

However none has said that tanks can’t fire laser guided ammo, so with that in mind. I think it’s important to have a robust system that is easily serviced while on the move.

Perhaps that is why TAF had picked 4-man turret for Altay, but if it’s possible to make a robust automatic feeder that can be switched over to manual if needed then I don’t see why unmanned turrets shouldn’t be preferred.

 

[Nilgiri]

I was planning to reply some more salient points....but I am short on time....and will get to it later. Please do stay tuned. There is stuff to address in both Alphamike and Saithan replies.

@Baljak please do tell us anything you would like to share/analyse a bit more.

 

[Yasar_TR]

The way I see self propelled artillery guns is a bit like tanks.
It is becoming more and more evident that the tanks are becoming easy targets to ATGMs and to aerial drones. So their use and design in the battlefield, is in the process of being reconsidered. They will not cease to exist; but we may see them in a different way to what we had been used to.
Same is going to happen to artillery pieces. Automation is great. But as soon as you take out human factor from the equation, you are leaving the machine open to mechanical problems. Auto loader in heavy artillery has to deal with both the shell and the propellant charge. Latter of which changes with respect to range. Above all this, there is the cost factor involved in conventional artillery rounds, which is comparatively cheap. But when you factor the amount of rounds you need to fire to achieve results and the likelihood of missing important strategic targets altogether, it may be actually not very cheap. Guided precision artillery rounds with longer ranges will be the future of battlefield artillery batteries, so that they will be placed further back; Away from enemy fire, and away from drone attacks.

 

[Baljak]

Automation of modern tank and artillery systems is an active solution to inefficient manpower consumption. Currently, South Korea's military force has decreased from 700,000 to 500,000 in the past, which is related to the low birth rate and the development of state-of-the-art military equipment.

Currently, China has 2,220 self-propelled artillery, while South Korea has 3,040 self-propelled artillery. South Korea suffered fatal damage to North Korean troops who received Soviet military weapons from lack of military equipment in the past Korean War. North Korean Soviet tanks and artillery have traumatized South Koreans, and since the 1960s, South Korea has become abnormally obsessed with artillery and missile technology. No one denies the importance of artillery system in the mountainous terrain of the Korean Peninsula.

This primitive Towed Howitzer system is still a great means of supporting firepower on the battlefield. But in order to handle this scrap, we need nine people, a shovel and a pickaxes.

Just a few decades ago, artillerymen relied on primitive compasses and protractors to calculate distances and angles to fire a single round.

However, modern automated artillery systems automatically calculate Fire Direction Data through the observation equipment operated by the Foward Observer, and offer a variety of benefits for fast firing, including fast avoidance maneuvers and basic loaded.

AN-TPQ-36 Counter-Battery Radar

There is a saying in the artillery tactics I learned when I was serving in the artillery unit in the South Korean army. "Don't fire more than 3 round in the same spot".

Counter-Battery Radar allows to locate enemy artillery almost accurately in minutes. Automation of artillery is absolutely necessary because there are Counter-Battery Radars in modern times and various means of responding to artillery.

Some foolish people argue that artillery system needs harder armor. We should not make the mistake of comparing tanks and artillery systems on the same line. Think about it. For hundreds of years, the main purpose of artillery was to provide firepower support to our forces through siege weapons or extensive explosions. In the past, 105 mm artillery systems had a maximum range of only 18 km, and later 155 mm artillery systems had a range of 40 km, and in modern times, the range increased from at least 50 km to 60 km as barrel length and propellant technology developed.

It is impossible for ICBMs and MLRSs to replace the role of self-propelled artillery, and if propellant technology develops in the future, self-propelled artillery may have a range of 300 km. In the future, all countries that study artillery systems will focus on range and accuracy.

As Stalin said, artillery is still the god of war

 

[Nilgiri]

I don't have much interest in the army, but here's what I think. There seems to be a resurgence of interest in field artillery. Now that the West are again faced with the prospect of near peer conflict from Russia and China.

If the 2000s and 2010s are characterized by the undisputed control of the air by the West, the 2020's battlefield could be radically different where one's ability to control the skies are questioned. Hence we're seeing a very exciting development for field artillery from the XM1299 to the purportedly 1000 miles gun.

For the near peer conflict stuff (esp for China).... I feel there needs to be serious re-eval for USMC to bring back tanks into its doctrine.

USN should have also kept CV-60 to CV-64 in reserve...and possibly CV-67 and enterprise (CVN-65) as well....rather than sending those to scrapyard

A number of 688s were IMO also prematurely retired.

F-22 production ended prematurely....and wont be brought back (really bad mistake IMO).

There lot more I could get into.... but these will do for now to show what I mean....

Artillery (further dev) IMO is somewhere in the 5th - 10th rungs in the priority ladder (and similar ghost ladder of missed opportunity) for the US IMO.

But they (artillery) are much more critical for smaller/ less developed militaries in general.

So I feel for countries like Korea, Turkey, India etc....its a much more prioritised scope of talk compared to US especially and Russia, China after them.

But there are of course valid arguments as to how much the pro and con was of updating + refurbishing + reserving the older systems compared to new-build w.r.t US. (Large but finite) Manpower basis comes into play again given no conscription after Vietnam.

the XM1299 are a very interesting project for me, it seems the US Army are remedying there long neglect on long range tube fires. Some notable characteristics I see is the increase in barrel length (58 calibers) and new research on munitions propellant. Reportedly the XM1299 are able to shoot projectiles as far as 70+km .

This kind of capability will be helpful maybe in the European theaters against Russia. Especially if used in the counter battery role against Russia heavy artillery like the 2S7 Pion. The 25 days war in Ukraine shows that artillery duel are still a thing. Ukraine manages that really well with relatively old SPH fleet like the Giatsint-B, Pion, Akatsiya and MSTA-S, combining mass fire with drone for fire correction. Am sure the US and its NATO allies could do even better.

This kind of suppression by fire capability could free up airpower for other things.

One more thing is the ability to shoot and scoot, before the Russian-Ukraine war, there are serious concerns from Western military watchers that the time window of current self propelled artillery are not enough to ensure safe scoot from Russian artillery.

It is a good project and somewhat to be expected.... artillery, tanks and so on, they all have their role to play within the same concept framework as before. So they all need RnD and implementation for the newer era.

Again this shows just how important network centric warfare as well as capable ISR to locate, detect and identify targets in a modern battlefield. Especially in the counter battery role. Modern wars are very fast and deadly. Now wonder the Germans doesn't even bother to have towed artillery anymore and go full self propelled.

Actually, mobility is quite a more nuanced thing between SPH and towed than one might think. Not so straightforward....it depends on lot of factors unique to the country (and allied + threat countries around it).

Also towed artillery is far more deployable by air too.

buddy snippet:

You can make towed artillery work well if you have the right type of howitzers. The FH77s we had did need some kind of semi-flat surface where you could place them for the actual shooting bit, but they could go through the terrain as well as wheeled SP systems. This was due to them having a built in engine that you not only used when positioning them, but it also hooked up to the 6x6 truck that towed them for longer distances, and worked in tandem with it. The setup together could go through worse terrain than the 6x6 could on its own, with the howitzer pushing at the rear.

A well drilled crew could position it and have the first round off in under 90 seconds without prior warning (such as if you got a priority fire mission while on the roll), and be off again in 60 seconds. The Archer is much faster than that of course, so superior if you need to do shoot and scoot.

======================================

@Saithan @Baljak @Yasar posts I will get to later.... ran out of time again heh.

@Amardeep Mishra when you brought up 155mm in our chat.... this was the thread page I was referring to, have a read and muse when you can (start at top etc).

 

[Nilgiri]

I’d also point out that with the age of drones laser guided precision is going to be dominating the field.

But I’m thrilled to see how the unmanned loader is working and think it’s a fair point that we should take into consideration. Tanks are suppose to be in the thick of battle, and with their armor they’re suppose to handle punishments of sorts. But the ATGM are evolving and we’ve seen what drones can do. Like Ataturk said freedom is in the skies.

However none has said that tanks can’t fire laser guided ammo, so with that in mind. I think it’s important to have a robust system that is easily serviced while on the move.

Perhaps that is why TAF had picked 4-man turret for Altay, but if it’s possible to make a robust automatic feeder that can be switched over to manual if needed then I don’t see why unmanned turrets shouldn’t be preferred.

Tanks and SPH run on quite different chassis selection criteria in the end.

When you pick/design a robust large chassis (like say abrams, leopard 2, altay etc) , thats indicative from get go of the turret choice you will go for as well generally.... as you have the volume and mass buffer on offer (that favours manual loading advantage).

Its a design philosophy branch in the end IMO.

Autoloaders (and their pros and cons) are suited to smaller chassis (and make 2 for price of 1 etc) philosophy branch .

You just wont be able to harness what a robust +heavy chassis (as designed) with an autoloader design change. A new turret will be downrated or existing turret (volume and baked in protection + weight) will not be used effectively like before.

SPH works on quite different norms compared to tank as the performance requirements, powerplant + dynamic reqs and crewing reqs are quite different to tanks.....that offers lot more leeway to experiment and optimise (say with full or semi autoloader) w.r.t a proven chassis you inherit.

 

[Nilgiri]

The way I see self propelled artillery guns is a bit like tanks.
It is becoming more and more evident that the tanks are becoming easy targets to ATGMs and to aerial drones. So their use and design in the battlefield, is in the process of being reconsidered. They will not cease to exist; but we may see them in a different way to what we had been used to.
Same is going to happen to artillery pieces. Automation is great. But as soon as you take out human factor from the equation, you are leaving the machine open to mechanical problems. Auto loader in heavy artillery has to deal with both the shell and the propellant charge. Latter of which changes with respect to range. Above all this, there is the cost factor involved in conventional artillery rounds, which is comparatively cheap. But when you factor the amount of rounds you need to fire to achieve results and the likelihood of missing important strategic targets altogether, it may be actually not very cheap. Guided precision artillery rounds with longer ranges will be the future of battlefield artillery batteries, so that they will be placed further back; Away from enemy fire, and away from drone attacks.

I agree. But the most competent and professional militaries (of scale) will wargame all of this to find best doctrines for more relative "legacy" concepts and systems.

Hardening armour of the gauntlet (by new evolving know-how), need not mean the fist inside it has to change all that much.

There is lot of constraint by budget and inertias regarding this too....that will need best optimisation on legacy vs evolving legacy vs new frontier stuff.

 

[Nilgiri]

Automation of modern tank and artillery systems is an active solution to inefficient manpower consumption. Currently, South Korea's military force has decreased from 700,000 to 500,000 in the past, which is related to the low birth rate and the development of state-of-the-art military equipment.

Currently, China has 2,220 self-propelled artillery, while South Korea has 3,040 self-propelled artillery. South Korea suffered fatal damage to North Korean troops who received Soviet military weapons from lack of military equipment in the past Korean War. North Korean Soviet tanks and artillery have traumatized South Koreans, and since the 1960s, South Korea has become abnormally obsessed with artillery and missile technology. No one denies the importance of artillery system in the mountainous terrain of the Korean Peninsula.

This primitive Towed Howitzer system is still a great means of supporting firepower on the battlefield. But in order to handle this scrap, we need nine people, a shovel and a pickaxes.

Just a few decades ago, artillerymen relied on primitive compasses and protractors to calculate distances and angles to fire a single round.

However, modern automated artillery systems automatically calculate Fire Direction Data through the observation equipment operated by the Foward Observer, and offer a variety of benefits for fast firing, including fast avoidance maneuvers and basic loaded.

View attachment 41549
AN-TPQ-36 Counter-Battery Radar

There is a saying in the artillery tactics I learned when I was serving in the artillery unit in the South Korean army. "Don't fire more than 3 round in the same spot".

Counter-Battery Radar allows to locate enemy artillery almost accurately in minutes. Automation of artillery is absolutely necessary because there are Counter-Battery Radars in modern times and various means of responding to artillery.

Some foolish people argue that artillery system needs harder armor. We should not make the mistake of comparing tanks and artillery systems on the same line. Think about it. For hundreds of years, the main purpose of artillery was to provide firepower support to our forces through siege weapons or extensive explosions. In the past, 105 mm artillery systems had a maximum range of only 18 km, and later 155 mm artillery systems had a range of 40 km, and in modern times, the range increased from at least 50 km to 60 km as barrel length and propellant technology developed.

It is impossible for ICBMs and MLRSs to replace the role of self-propelled artillery, and if propellant technology develops in the future, self-propelled artillery may have a range of 300 km. In the future, all countries that study artillery systems will focus on range and accuracy.

As Stalin said, artillery is still the god of war

Brilliant post! I have nothing to add further much but just resound a few of your points.

Tanks and SPH are indeed very different....SPH are not doctrine developed to be any kind of spearhead like a tank or IFV often is. They are meant to be kept further back and destroy things from a distance....so their design and design improvements all reflect that (compared to how its done with tanks).

It is interesting to note your take on South Korean approach to artillery today as memory legacy of Korean war. Out of interest compared to the 3k SPH, how much towed artillery pieces does South Korea currently have? Are they mix of 155 and 105?

Manpower restriction (esp in non conscript force structure) is big factor in Western countries as well. There will be key evolving trends to watch out for there and in East Asia as well.

Re-inserting @Joe Shearer @Anmdt if they have anything to add at this point.

Also @Milspec @Rajaraja Chola et al. might find this page convo interesting.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Brilliant post! I have nothing to add further much but just resound a few of your points.

Tanks and SPH are indeed very different....SPH are not doctrine developed to be any kind of spearhead like a tank or IFV often is. They are meant to be kept further back and destroy things from a distance....so their design and design improvements all reflect that (compared to how its done with tanks).

It is interesting to note your take on South Korean approach to artillery today as memory legacy of Korean war. Out of interest compared to the 3k SPH, how much towed artillery pieces does South Korea currently have? Are they mix of 155 and 105?

Manpower restriction (esp in non conscript force structure) is big factor in Western countries as well. There will be key evolving trends to watch out for there and in East Asia as well.

Re-inserting @Joe Shearer @Anmdt if they have anything to add at this point.

Also @Milspec @Rajaraja Chola et al. might find this page convo interesting.

I have a lot to say, but am busy absorbing all that has been said so far by people who know what they are talking about. This is a good time to listen, rather than to talk.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If I were to say my say, it would be on the unstable balance between protection, firepower and mobility at the micro-level, and the difficulties of balancing human resource against capital-intensive machinery at a higher than micro-level.

It is clear that all of us will comment in the context of what our countries specifically face, and will continue to face for some period of time. So whatever has been said so far is of great value, of phenomenal value, but it misses fire, to borrow an idiom from a microscopically smaller firearm, if we do not convert it into the demands of our own particular country 's defensive context.

As the bishop might well have said, explaining to his good lady the marks left by the actress on his collar, "Context is everything."

 

[Baljak]

Brilliant post! I have nothing to add further much but just resound a few of your points.

Tanks and SPH are indeed very different....SPH are not doctrine developed to be any kind of spearhead like a tank or IFV often is. They are meant to be kept further back and destroy things from a distance....so their design and design improvements all reflect that (compared to how its done with tanks).

It is interesting to note your take on South Korean approach to artillery today as memory legacy of Korean war. Out of interest compared to the 3k SPH, how much towed artillery pieces does South Korea currently have? Are they mix of 155 and 105?

Manpower restriction (esp in non conscript force structure) is big factor in Western countries as well. There will be key evolving trends to watch out for there and in East Asia as well.

Re-inserting @Joe Shearer @Anmdt if they have anything to add at this point.

Also @Milspec @Rajaraja Chola et al. might find this page convo interesting.

I apologize for the wrong information earlier. Over the past 2 years, the number of self-propelled guns has increased again. As of 2022, South Korea has 3,300 self-propelled artillery (155 mm K9, 155 mm K55, 105 mm K105A1) and 5,500 towed howitzer (155 mm KH179, 155 mm M114, 105 mm M101).

However, out of the 3,300 self-propelled artillery, the remaining 5,550 towed howitzer (KH179, M114, M101), including 850 105 mm self-propelled artillery (K105A1), are for infantry units.

155 mm self-propelled artillerys such as K9, K9A1, and K55 are mainly deployed in only 8 artillery brigades.

K105A1 self-propelled artillery made by improving the 105 mm towed howitzer.

In fact, most Koreans still want to produce more K9. South Korea has a factory facility that can produce 350 K9s a year, but recently, defense spending has been focused on the navy and the air force, so it lacks the budget to invest in ground forces.

South Korea has been thinking about disposing of 105 mm towed howitzers for years. In the end, the conclusion was that the old 105 mm artillery system was combined with the vehicle to made a self-propelled artillery.

There is a realistic reason why South Korea improves the 105 mm towed howitzer and makes it a self-propelled artillery. South Korea has 3.4 million 105 mm ammunition used during the Korean War. Disposal of all these ammunition costs a lot of money and it is impossible to sell it to another countries. No country wants to buy 105 mm ammunition.

For this reason, the project to improve the M101 to K105A1 is still underway. Maybe the remaining 2,000 105 mm towed howitzer will be converted into vehicle-type self-propelled artillery. The Korean Ministry of National Defense seems to want to have at least 4,000 self-propelled guns.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is a realistic reason why South Korea improves the 105 mm towed howitzer and makes it a self-propelled artillery. South Korea has 3.4 million 105 mm ammunition used during the Korean War. Disposal of all these ammunition costs a lot of money and it is impossible to sell it to another countries. No country wants to buy 105 mm ammunition.

What an opportunity!

Those who have worked on the ORBAT of the Pakistani Army and the Indian Army as these organisations face each other over 3,300 kms of troubled borders will have noticed that the Pakistani Army is distributed in linear fashion, north to south, starting from a station named Chilas in the extreme north of the country, and flowing down through Rawalpindi, Kharian, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Lahore, Bahawalpur and Multan through to a city near Karachi named Malir, using as a base the extremely good cantonment (military base) infrastructure that it inherited from its predecessor British Indian Army, as well as the superb roadways infrastructure, and the layered obstruction to land forces attacking that has been built up using the country's excellent network of canals.

In contrast, the Indian Army inherited very large area cantonments, but distributed in a series of east-west chimneys, each starting from the border and heading back towards a distant base several hundred kilometres away.

On one side, a shield; on the other side, a number of stabbing instruments.

The trouble is that these stabbing instruments are not single, indivisible formations; they are formally under Corps (=2 or 3 divisions, or more) command, but in reality, they are run by the division commanders in a more or less independent manner.

This is where the possibility of acquiring significant amounts of 105 mm guns and ammunition becomes very attractive. It allows planners and decision makers every opportunity to review current policies and re-structure policy to allow a better way to defend the country, without vastly expanding the number of soldiers in service.

Let us hope........

PS: Just thought of adding this.
There is already a ready-made design for carrying a 105 mm gun in a vehicle. The vehicle used is the Russian BMP2; these are produced under license from the Kurganmashzavod, in Medak, Telangana, and by 2020, 2,500 BMP2s had been built. On the 105mm gun carrying platform, besides the gun itself, around 40+ shells can be carried in the vehicle. This was demonstrated in February 2020.

 

[Nilgiri]

I apologize for the wrong information earlier. Over the past 2 years, the number of self-propelled guns has increased again. As of 2022, South Korea has 3,300 self-propelled artillery (155 mm K9, 155 mm K55, 105 mm K105A1) and 5,500 towed howitzer (155 mm KH179, 155 mm M114, 105 mm M101).

However, out of the 3,300 self-propelled artillery, the remaining 5,550 towed howitzer (KH179, M114, M101), including 850 105 mm self-propelled artillery (K105A1), are for infantry units.

155 mm self-propelled artillerys such as K9, K9A1, and K55 are mainly deployed in only 8 artillery brigades.

View attachment 42005
K105A1 self-propelled artillery made by improving the 105 mm towed howitzer.

In fact, most Koreans still want to produce more K9. South Korea has a factory facility that can produce 350 K9s a year, but recently, defense spending has been focused on the navy and the air force, so it lacks the budget to invest in ground forces.

South Korea has been thinking about disposing of 105 mm towed howitzers for years. In the end, the conclusion was that the old 105 mm artillery system was combined with the vehicle to made a self-propelled artillery.

There is a realistic reason why South Korea improves the 105 mm towed howitzer and makes it a self-propelled artillery. South Korea has 3.4 million 105 mm ammunition used during the Korean War. Disposal of all these ammunition costs a lot of money and it is impossible to sell it to another countries. No country wants to buy 105 mm ammunition.

For this reason, the project to improve the M101 to K105A1 is still underway. Maybe the remaining 2,000 105 mm towed howitzer will be converted into vehicle-type self-propelled artillery. The Korean Ministry of National Defense seems to want to have at least 4,000 self-propelled guns.

What an opportunity!

Those who have worked on the ORBAT of the Pakistani Army and the Indian Army as these organisations face each other over 3,300 kms of troubled borders will have noticed that the Pakistani Army is distributed in linear fashion, north to south, starting from a station named Chilas in the extreme north of the country, and flowing down through Rawalpindi, Kharian, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Lahore, Bahawalpur and Multan through to a city near Karachi named Malir, using as a base the extremely good cantonment (military base) infrastructure that it inherited from its predecessor British Indian Army, as well as the superb roadways infrastructure, and the layered obstruction to land forces attacking that has been built up using the country's excellent network of canals.

In contrast, the Indian Army inherited very large area cantonments, but distributed in a series of east-west chimneys, each starting from the border and heading back towards a distant base several hundred kilometres away.

On one side, a shield; on the other side, a number of stabbing instruments.

The trouble is that these stabbing instruments are not single, indivisible formations; they are formally under Corps (=2 or 3 divisions, or more) command, but in reality, they are run by the division commanders in a more or less independent manner.

This is where the possibility of acquiring significant amounts of 105 mm guns and ammunition becomes very attractive. It allows planners and decision makers every opportunity to review current policies and re-structure policy to allow a better way to defend the country, without vastly expanding the number of soldiers in service.

Let us hope........

Earlier in this thread, this concept was brought up for India for 105 mobility:

 

[Joe Shearer]

Earlier in this thread, this concept was brought up for India for 105 mobility:

Isn't this exactly what we need in the high plains of Ladakh?

 

[Nilgiri]

I will be returning to the thread soon.

In the time being:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1513041795374284803

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1513054919951282176

The towed oldies:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512929653748809729

 

[Nilgiri]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521127944684335104