Artillery fire will conquer future battlefields

By Gurmeet Kanwal

The army’s victory against daunting odds during the Kargil conflict was underpinned by the overwhelming superiority of the firepower unleashed by the guns, mortars and rocket launchers of the Regiment of Artillery. Over a period of one and a half months, the sustained application of concentrated artillery firepower had systematically destroyed the enemy’s defences and, ultimately, it broke the Pakistanis, will to fight.

This was not the first time that the Gunners had met a challenge head on. Ever since the concept of causing destruction to the enemy’s war machine from a stand off distance evolved in warfare, artillery has been a battle-winning arm. In all the wars fought by the Indian Army since independence, the Gunners discharged their onerous responsibilities with extraordinary efficiency and supreme dedication. Besides Kargil, the battlefields of Chushul (1962), Chamb and Amritsar (1965), Longewala and Sylhet (1971), among many others, stand in mute testimony to the fury, zeal and the unflinching devotion to duty of the Gunners.

The tactical function of artillery is to achieve such fire supremacy on the battlefield that the enemy can neither interfere with our operations, nor develop his own effectively. The artillery performs this function by destroying or suppressing the enemy’s weapons systems, by causing casualties to his troops and equipment and by harassing the enemy continuously over a period of time, allowing him no rest. Concentrated artillery firepower severely degrades the enemy’s ability to prepare for battle and cripples his ability to fight coherently. The ultimate aim of all artillery fire is to break the enemy’s will to fight and make him capitulate on our terms.

Artillery fire is directed by observation post officers from their observation posts (OPs) that are sited in the forward defended localities with the infantry companies. These OP officers accompany their infantry comrades during an assault on enemy positions as forward observation officers (FOOs) and fight shoulder-to-shoulder with them. These young OP officers are the eyes and ears of the artillery. In order to engage targets deep inside enemy territory, air borne OPs fly in Cheetah and Chetak helicopters. Artillery guns, mortars and rocket launchers are deployed in camouflaged gun positions. They communicate with their OP officers and with the other fighting arms on radio and field telephone.

Field artillery consists mainly of field, mountain and medium guns, mortars and multi-barrel rocket launchers (MBRLs). In pre-independence days, the 3.7 inch Howitzer, made famous by Rudyard Kipling as the "Screw Gun", was the main equipment of Indian artillery. The 5.5 inch medium gun and the 7.2 inch Howitzer complemented it. The 25 Pounder gun was introduced into service just before the Second World War and was the mainstay of the Regiment of Artillery till the early-1990s. It could fire a variety of ammunition, including anti-tank, smoke and illuminating ammunition besides HE shells, up to a maximum range of 12,200 metres. Today, the premier field gun of the artillery is the indigenously manufactured 105 mm Indian Field Gun (IFG) and its lighter version the 105 mm Light Field Gun (LFG). These guns have a maximum range of over 17 km.

The 155 mm FH 77B Bofors medium gun, that created such an impact at Kargil, can fire a high explosive shell to a range of about 30 km. The 155 mm calibre is likely to be the standard gun calibre of the future. The 130 mm medium gun, that entered service just before the 1971 war with Pakistan, is a close second. This reliable Russian gun has proved its mettle in all types of terrain and climatic conditions, including at Siachen Glacier and the Bomdila-Towang sector in Arunachal Pradesh. The Grad BM-21 Russian MBRL is an immensely potent weapon that can cover a large area of ground with its inherent dispersion of fire. A battery of BM-21 MBRLs can fire a salvo of 240 rockets on an unsuspecting enemy locality in just 20 seconds and reduce it to rubble.

Besides these, a number of other weapons are also in service. These include the mule-portable 120 mm high-trajectory mortars with light regiments and the 160 mm heavy mortars that pack a solid punch. Field artillery regiments normally have 18 guns and are organised into three batteries of six guns each. The Regiment of Artillery also mans the Surface-to-Surface Missiles (SSMs) of the Indian Army. Missile groups of the Regiment are equipped with the Prithvi missile and, in due course, are likely to man other SSMs that may be entrusted to the army.

Before enemy guns and mortars can be effectively destroyed or neutralised, their exact location has to be accurately determined. This task devolves upon the Surveillance and Target Acquisition (SATA) branch. SATA units are equipped with Stentor long-range Battlefield Surveillance Radare (BFSRs) and cymbeline Mortar Locating Radars. Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs), also called unarmed vehicles (UAVs) have also been introduced into service recently but not yet in large numbers. UAVs are excellent reconnaissance vehicles for specific search of areas where enemy presence is suspected.

From a supporting arm with the limited role of neutralising large area of the ground with its inherent dispersion of fire the Indian artillery has graduated to an arm of decision on the modern battlefield. This was amply borne out by its performance during Operation Vijay in the Kargil district of J&K in 1999. Its role is now that of the purveyor of destruction in defensive as well as offensive operations.

In future too, the Indian artillery will play a leading role in the successful execution of integrated land-air opearations on the nation's battlefields. The emerging philosophy of employment of artillery firepower visualises the synergised orchestration of all firepower resources across the entire battlefield to cause firepower resources across the entire battlefield to cause destruction, systematically degrade the enemy's fighting denying them the ability to operate effectively. The concentrated application of massed artillery fire and the use of precision-guided munitions will disrupt the enemy's cohesion and ultimately break his will to fight.

It can be truly said that the artillery is now a co-equal partner with the infantry and the armoured corps in the successful execution of firepower and manoeuvre. In this era of strategic uncertainty, it would be prudent to invest further in building up artillery capabilities. As it continues to modernise and qualitatively upgrade its capability, the artillery’s contribution to success in future battles will be considerably enhanced in the decades ahead.
Feature

IAF and asymmetric war

By Sharad Dixit

Eighth of October, The Air Force Day, approaches again. The ceremonials planned had been grand. Events of Black Tuesday’ however, cast a shadow. The preoccupation of much of the world with possible repercussions caused the cancellation of the proposed ‘Fleet Review, a-la the Navy. Celebrations nevertheless would proceed as normal, with much painting of trees and towns - red invariably.

The occasion could also be one of introspection, of assessing where we have been and are headed. Of our objectives, our capabilities, our plans and their compatibility.

We read much about our modernisation - the SU-30, The MiG- 21 upgrade, development of missiles, fighter aircraft, helicopters, un-manned vehicles, communication systems and a plethora of gizmos. We also hear of acquisitions including mid- air refueling capability, Airborne Warning And Control System (AWACS) or its variants, jet trainers, long-range radars, anti- missile systems etc.

Despite our complaints of lack of resources, we are sinking a lot of money into military hardware, its development and acquisition. The specifics of military spending, however, is not the focus here. It is a glance at our concept of war in the foreseeable future.

The dominance of ideas/ideals propagated by the elite - be it national or international - is widely accepted. So it is in the field of warfare. The more publicised recent conflicts (Korea onwards) have all involved the US and other developed nations. Other conflicts though more savage, bizarre and unrelenting have got less footage for want of an affluent media. The concepts that have evolved from the ‘Ware with Fanfare, invariably highlight ‘Human Rights,’ ‘Innocent Civilians’, ‘Collateral Damage’ etc. This is because the military and intellectual elite of the developed nations would like us (the third world) to fight future battles on their terms.

The explanation lies in the societal organisation of the developed capitalist countries. The states are ruled not by the Bushes and the Blairs. Nor are they ruled by the people. The power lies with the major corporations whose representatives form governments and pursue their economic interests.

These would not always coincide with the interests of tranquility and stability. Wars are lucrative business. Witness the killings made by several petrol pump owners in the wake of the WTC bombings, The claims on governments by airlines and insurance companies, the uncertainty in the oil market and of course the machinations of the wily Musharraf, who has already manoeuvred sanctions, has been promised aid, gained importance as the sole interlocutor and marginalized India while grossly multiplying the threat to the latter.

The people in the rich nations however, are not power-less. Public opinion and the Justice System are effective checks on the wilder schemes. Thus the loss of their military personnel in distant lands for unknown causes is no longer acceptable. They are not really interested whether sub-human multitudes in places with unpronounceable names massacre each other or not. Remember President Bush during his election campaign? He did not know who India’s PM or his counterpart in Pakistan was. Hence the compulsion of the US (in particular) to fight antiseptic wars. Their concept as verbalised recently was ‘'to launch a $2 million missile to destroy a ten dollar tent and kill a camel". They cannot justify human losses. The projection of Humanity’ and avoidance of ‘Collateral Damage’ follows. Naturally they expect the victims to mimic the same route and get slaughtered.

‘Human Rights’ are similarly eulogised. There is much talk of Iraqi children not having private toilets or a tap in their house. Legalities of holding criminals and terrorists are debated. ‘Proof’ is sought to question subversives. It would be impossible to explain the dichotomy to children in India or Bangla Desh, who have no house, let alone access to drinking water.

Some in the Third World have recognised this. They send shivers down rich spines. Saddam terrorised the West with, hostages meant to create human shields. He threatened Chemical and Biological warfare. He pursued Ecological Warfare while setting Kuwaiti oil wells afire. Terrorism was an official policy of the government, enunciated by Tariq Aziz. Milosevic neutralised all the allied plans by bribing a French official and anticipating attacks. He embarrassed the US hugely by colluding with China to send disinformation regarding the Chinese consulate. The US is still paying in diplomatic terms for its faux pas of bombing the (empty) building.

He esculated the war in Kosovo the moment coalition attacks began, creating a nightmare of disaster control.

The premise therefore is that war cannot be ‘partial’. Each side must fight as beet as it can. With the weapons it has on terms of its choosing, at the time and place of its choosing. India needs to recognise this. The jargon is ‘Asymmetric Warfare’. We have suffered for decades at the hands of sponsored terrorists, indigenous dissidents and plain crooks. The enemy loses little as he is financed by narco-terror that costs him nothing, Indian finances diverted through coercion/subversion of government servants and politicians, and by extortion. The governments lose little as the casualties do not form a substantial vote bank. Individuals in power can be won over through a host of delightful means. The loss is inevitably the Services’, and the common man’s.

Future wars that we may expect would not be W.W.-II types with an identified enemy. We would need to fight unconventional ware with appropriate responses, or rather initiatives. Modern third world combat trends exploit society. They claim the benefits while undermining its structure. The culpability cannot then be restricted only to those physically acting. The ideologues, promoters, harbourers, beneficiaries and even accessories who fail to report anti-national activities must be severely punished. The state must not indulge this criminal element by housing and feeding it for years at public expense. Else every poor man may find this a convenient method for comfortable survival.

The IAF must redefine its role in this context. The creation of a monolithic monster that is meant to serve its Personnel, Administrative, Logistical and other supporting staff must be replaced by an effective, lean, mean fighting machine. Quantity must be replaced by quality and synergy. Weapon systems should of course be capable of dealing with the conventional threat.- Their efficacy however must be ensured through the creation of the necessary infrastructure, maintaining the volume and quality of manpower required, devolving power rather than centralising, and most importantly, acquiring task specific weapons. The doctrine must be reviewed to make it decisively offensive. We must not need weeks to react in support of the Army in future Kargils. We must be able to act punitively, perhaps more importantly, in non-conventional situations. This would require specialist weapons and critically, the political resolve to accept ‘Collateral Damage,. This would never be acceptable to devious politicians.

The resolve therefore will have to be forcibly extracted through aggressive persuasion, coercion and punishment of individuals reluctant to act decisively, willing to sacrifice the law abiding, the conscientious and the duty-bound to expediency.

The IAF has weathered many storm. It has the best wishes of the people of this country- well, many of them anyway. We ardently wish that it forces issues and creates a resurgent culture that would best serve the nation.
PTI Feature