Artillery Discussion Thread

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 31 Aug 2012 09:55

John wrote: Still DRDO needs to take initiative and push for more testing rather than just sit around waiting for Army to support a product almost immediately, we have seen numerous defense gov & private companies develop products on their own and aggressively push the products for years. Even NPO tested Onyk and funded the missile development on its own money, if NPO had simply abandoned testing do you think we would have ever funded Brahmos?

Certainly not. It is inadvisable develop a system without specifications from the forces. The users should in fact be part of the development process. DRDO has gone as far with Prahaar as possible. AFAIK there is no interest in Prahaar from the forces.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 31 Aug 2012 12:15

rohitvats wrote:IA has not been very appreciative of MBRL systems as were obtained earlier. The number of regiments we have of BM-21 is a testimony to that - this when coming from USSR, they were bound to be very cheap. I don't think IA ever liked the 'spray-and-pray' approach of BM-21 type of systems.

Not really true - BM21 & more so the rockets were prohibitively expensive. In early 80's each rocket was a little over Rs 10k which was not a trifling amount. To fire even one rocket one had to go through hoops getting permission. Once when Indira Gandhi came to watch a firepower demo, permission was given for 'wow - unbelievable' firing a grand total of 3 rockets.

Army loved the BM21, but it was too expensive in 80's. Why did they not get more later when cash was more freely available - that I have no answer to.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 31 Aug 2012 13:13

rohitvats wrote:You can drop the 'ji' part...rohitvats is quite all right.

Coming to the Rocket Regiments...well, I've head news of DRDO having enhanced the range of BM-21 system with new rockets which brings them into 30+kms range category. As I said before, I don't think IA is big fan of this short-range system (though, I am for sheer bad-ass value)...and the same is evident from the fact that IA never attempted (AFAIK) to increase the number of BM-21 in service.

From what I believe, IA does not see MBRL systems as a means to break up massed infantry attacks with very heavy volume of fire...IMO, it sees them as force multipliers to hit deep in the rear with smart munitions which give maximum bang for the buck. However, we did see the video of GRAD System mounted on TATA Vehicles...I hope we see 1 x regiment per division...but that is just a wet dream of a jingo

rohitvats ji, I am afraid I am a conscientious objector to droping the ji part. You are welcome to simply ignore it.

. Hum prasaad samaj kar dete hein, aap methai samaj kar khaiye.

Mention of MBRL usage by IA is very sparse in open sources. What little is there (discounting the area calculations in wiki) indicates they are not meant for breaking up of Infantry advances, for now. Much in line of your view. While Grad does bring in a baad-ass quality to the battle but you are right as of now it seems, IA sees MBRLs as another way of hitting the opponents C&C centers, a force multiplier instead of the force. Not that I do not believe in this line of logic. And 22 km BM21 does look like out of place in this regard.

In a politically muddied battle scenarios that IA can be expected to get saddled with, I believe, rockets should be gaining more trust from the IA esp. in medium range bracket. IAs response to Pinaka is understandable in this context.

For longer ranges, personally I was never a fan of 48 ton BM-30 (big, far but lazy). Prahaar is something I do not really understand. I hope in its final configuration it is actually as petite as it is shown in the expos. Here I run foul of what is reported to be the IAs stand. I had read in a CLAWS writeup how the IA missed Smerch kind of systems during Kargil. But I fail to understand how does one move such big rigs in mountain country. Is it justified for people to get excited about such (added later: heavier) long rangers.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 31 Aug 2012 13:32

schowdhuri wrote:
rohitvats wrote:IA has not been very appreciative of MBRL systems as were obtained earlier. The number of regiments we have of BM-21 is a testimony to that - this when coming from USSR, they were bound to be very cheap. I don't think IA ever liked the 'spray-and-pray' approach of BM-21 type of systems.
Not really true - BM21 & more so the rockets were prohibitively expensive. In early 80's each rocket was a little over Rs 10k which was not a trifling amount. To fire even one rocket one had to go through hoops getting permission. Once when Indira Gandhi came to watch a firepower demo, permission was given for 'wow - unbelievable' firing a grand total of 3 rockets.

Army loved the BM21, but it was too expensive in 80's. Why did they not get more later when cash was more freely available - that I have no answer to.

schowdhuri - my understanding is based on a discussion with couple of senior ex-arty gentlemen. While BM-21 did present a weapon system to target things like Infantry forming up for assault or concentration areas of tanks/vehicles...the accuracy was nothing great to write home about. And this would have compounded the 'expensive rocket' bit that you're talking about. For a BM-21 type of system to make complete senses, we would need more numbers and higher density of deployment to obviate the accuracy issue.

My understanding is that once money became easily available along with superior technology (like sub-munitions), IA went for Pinaka..our approach seems to mirror american one rather than the one adopted by USSR and other east-block countries. Using systems like Pinaka/Smerch with their long range and sub-munitions gives lots of options to the army commanders as well as best bang for the buck. A BM-21 type of system is not out of reach of Indian MIC...and money to support a sustained tempo of firing should not be an issue...one can see batteries of BM-21 firing away during various exercises in recent past.

There was a video of BM-21 system being tested on TATA 6x6 vehicle...I really hope we might see more of such systems @1 per arty bde.

From here:http://www.tatamotors.com/media/press-r ... php?id=741

Tata 6x6 7kl Refueler: Tata Motors has developed an indigenous high mobility, all-terrain and all-wheel drive refueler vehicle, specifically for the Indian Armed forces, Paramilitary, State police, DPSUs, State Government & Municipal agencies and the Aviation industry. The base vehicle has already been trial evaluated by the Indian Armed forces, for various applications like Common Gun Tower, HMV with material handling crane and Multi-Barrel Rocket launcher GRAD BM 21.

Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKx4-XcYa4c

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2012 14:53

i wonder why the russians have such a fetish for MBRLs...used extensively in chechnya1 and 2. in chechyna2 they used a lot of MSTA type SP guns as well to bombard villages from a distance and avoided urban fighting to extent possible. did not see much evidence of big nos of towed guns being used there. even tanks seem to have been used as LOS artillery using HE shells.

their usual SOP appears to be put hand in beehive, get bitten, withdraw and bombard everything using tubes, MBRLs and bombers for a while, then creep fwd cautiously using open space and armour for protection to avoid getting bitten again.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 31 Aug 2012 16:12

Singha wrote:i wonder why the russians have such a fetish for MBRLs...

They love it for the fear it induces. The MBRL salvo from the Ruskies had a devastating morale impact on the German army in WW2 and on the Chinese during the Sino-Soviet border clashes. A complete battle (Damansky island) was decided when the Soviets turned their Grads on the Chinese in 1969, it is said some 300 Chinese soldiers were wiped out by the MBRLs. China eventually reverse-engineered the system

after their Vietnam conflict with captured pieces. Ruskies always have been artillery intensive (100 gun concept) and the MBRL slides nicely into it as well.

kit · Post by **kit** » 31 Aug 2012 17:54

Americans are not so far behind.Witness what they did in Vietnam.Artillery is not for nothing called the God of War.Whichever and whatever way you use ., the ability to focus massive fire power from land or air, will be deciding factors for land warfare.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2012 19:14

actually it seems the american army had some (for its time) advanced C3I and training in WW2 and were able to focus the firepower of spread out tube units onto single targets in a devastating swarm attacks. no other army in WW2 was able to co-ordinate like this though the germans and soviets did mass artillery in the same units for breakthrough moves.
they had a lot of the 8" short barrel howitzers I think.

khan was not glarmourous in the day but quietly got a lot done
http://99div.com/olddirect/american_and ... 42756c6765

Massed Fires:
As a result of experiences in WWI, the major powers had seen the need to improve their abilities to mass the fires of their division artillery. However, most nations were bounded by tradition and habit and were slow to make the necessary changes to bring this about. Only the U.S. was willing to make a clean break with the past and to restructure its entire artillery command and control structure in pursuit of a mass fire capability.

Leading the way for the Americans was the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill OK, where in the 1920s a group of farsighted, innovative young officers became convinced that achieving such a capability should be a top priority. After much deliberation, they decided that in order to mass the fires of a division it would be necessary to make two major structural changes.

First, fire control within the battalion would have to be centralized at battalion headquarters rather than remain decentralized to the firing batteries. Hence the battalion commander would exercise fire control instead of the firing battery commanders. This idea caused great dismay among older artillery officers who liked the old arrangement and adamantly opposed diluting the authority of the firing battery commander. Despite high-level opposition to their ideas well into the 1930s, the officers at Ft. Sill knew that centralization was key to their success — so insisted on this change.

Secondly, to provide the battalion commander with the means to control the fires of the three batteries, Ft. Sill created a fire direction center (FDC) on the battalion staff to be manned by highly trained gunnery experts. All requests for fire would be funneled to the FDC where they would be processed, and fire commands relayed directly to the firing battery exec at the howitzer position. By 1934 Ft. Sill had developed a prototype FDC and in 1940 an innovative new graphical firing table was invented to help the FDC speed up its calculations. (Boyd Dastrup, King of Battles.)

With war looming in 1941, the war department finally approved the FDC system for the divisions — and FDCs were installed throughout the artillery. Refinements in the system continued to be made at Ft. Sill and in the units from 1941 to 1943. One of the most notable refinements was the time-on-target (TOT) mission in which not only are all batteries concentrated on one target, but the projectiles are programmed to arrive at the target at nearly the same moment. Hence, enemy personnel in the open are engulfed before they can take cover.

Subsequent combat operations proved the value of the massed fire and TOT techniques. In the Bulge, American divisions had no problem massing the fires of their 48 organic pieces of artillery. Although the massing of fires was normally limited to the fires of one division, at Elsenborn, by 20 Dec. there were four divisions defending the critical hinge of the northern shoulder. The V Corps Artillery Commander, Brig. Gen. Helmick, seized the moment and authorize the 2nd Division Artillery to coordinate the fires of all four divisions. On 22 Dec., the fires of three divisions (129 available guns) were massed by the 2nd Infantry Division on a single target. (It never became necessary during the battle to mass the fires of all four divisions.) On the 22nd, the 2nd Division fired 63 TOTs — mostly with 44 guns per mission.

The distinguished military historian, Trevor N. Dupuy believed that the U.S. FDC system was perhaps the most important reason why the U.S. artillery, by the end of World War II was "best in the world."
The Germans too were aware of the advantages of massed fires and tried to develop a capability during the Russian campaign. By February of 1944, their system had failed and they decided to design a new one. The new system involved a "fire control battery" to be attached to and to control the fires of each Volks Artillery Korps (VAKs). This system got its first test in the Bulge but ran into problems at the start. For example, there was only one fire control battery available in the 6th Panzer Army during the entire campaign — and it was not particularly effective. It was readily apparent to experienced American artillerymen that the Germans at Elsenborn were not massing their fires effectively in support of their attacks.

Air Observation:
Another aspect of the gunnery was observation. Artillery fire is most accurate when it can be adjusted to the target by a trained observer. To ensure that they had good observation during WWII, armies employed both ground and air observers. Air observation had the advantage of being able to see deeper into enemy lines (and better detect targets like enemy artillery) — but the disadvantage of being limited by the weather. An artillery air observation capability was desired by all armies of that period.

In June 1942, the War Department decided that the field artillery should have an air observation capability, and two Piper Cub planes were authorized at battalion and higher levels.
In the Bulge, whenever the weather permitted, the American artillerymen made maximum use of their observation planes — with excellent results. German General Thoholte later noted that American artillery directed by air observation was "exceptionally good" and fire directed by air observation "usually knocked out" its target.

On the German side at Elsenborn, the situation was quite different because they no longer could fly cub planes in daylight because of U.S. air superiority. Therefore, the artillery of 6th Panzer Army had no air observation capability in the Battle of the Bulge.

b. Mobility
In addition to being able to shoot, the field artillery must be capable of moving — and mobility was especially desired for the close support units of the division artillery. Mobility is required not only to transport the howitzers from one position to the next — but also to resupply the units with ammunition, fuel, and food. As noted earlier, howitzers are not much use if they cannot be supplied with ammunition.
..............
Conclusions
Re the U.S. Field Artillery in WWII:
There is no merit to the allegations that the U.S. Field Artillery fought WWII with obsolete weapons of inferior quality. All of the American howitzers and guns were virtually new and compared quite favorably with those of the Germans — and they were more highly motorized. In the area of artillery technology, the American proximity fuse was an achievement unmatched by the Germans, though the Germans were ahead in missile technology.
In the area of artillery operations, the Americans were noticeably more effective at controlling the fires of the artillery by mastery of the massed fire techniques.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2012 19:25

if you read the above, all the concepts of a modern artillery division like C3I network, centralized control center, air observation, high caliber guns, motorization, MRSI (multi round simultaneous impact) began there. to this khan has added a mass of SP 155mm guns and MLRS of both normal 300mm rockets and ER ATACMS missiles. only the marines use 155mm towed guns anymore probably.

throw in the fire finder radars, meteriology units and satellites and UAVs also.

we need to see two arty divisions in ladakh and two in north sikkim in support of our units.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 31 Aug 2012 20:43

German artillery had a fetish for Big Bertha type of weapons. While they certainly added value and dd work of making short shrift of opposition defenses like at Sevastopol Heavy Artillery. They had more psy-ops value than actual utility and also imposed burden on the supply chain and logistics chain….not to mention the retooling required in the munitions factories. May have served in satiating the Fuhrer’s ego.

American artillery was much more effective as they used massed guns in delivering a devastating barrage as when required in achieving a breakthrough. They had more in common with RUssian doctrine than they would like to admit. The cookie cutter pproach in churning out Shermans is also paralleled by the RUssian avalanche production of the T-34.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 31 Aug 2012 22:15

ravi_g wrote:<SNIP> I had read in a CLAWS writeup how the IA missed Smerch kind of systems during Kargil. But I fail to understand how does one move such big rigs in mountain country. Is it justified for people to get excited about such (added later: heavier) long rangers.

I my opinion, the above requirement could well have been in terms of range.

A Smerch type of rocket would have allowed the Indian Army to target logistic nodes and C&C centers deep into Northern Areas. Accuracy in such cases would have been important because the presence of high ridge lines and narrow valleys would have meant that the salvo had to fall in a narrow box to be effective. Its 250 kg warhead offers many options in terms of smart sub-munition

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 31 Aug 2012 22:35

^^^The Pakistan Army artillery was trained by the american and has always worked to a high standard...given the history of innovation in US Artillery as shown in Singha's post, guess we know now why this was the case.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Aug 2012 22:54

old dogs will recall and like this one - the anglo-aus Malkara ATGM...one of the first wire guided ATGM .... big and slow, almost like a model airplane but a fat warhead
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca5_1297178630

kit · Post by **kit** » 01 Sep 2012 02:50

rohitvats wrote:^^^The Pakistan Army artillery was trained by the american and has always worked to a high standard...given the history of innovation in US Artillery as shown in Singha's post, guess we know now why this was the case.

precisely the reason for ranting as to why IA is still not able to get its guns in place !
The way i see it., IA technically needs to have the largest number of high caliber guns in the world.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Sep 2012 10:54

Lt.Gen Eric Vaz was a proponent of massed artillery fire in 1971 ops. He didn't get much help.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Sep 2012 08:51

MBRLs saved the SLA in ops against the LTTE,I was told by a Lankan gen.In the torturous search for new artillery,we should hugely increase numbers of Pinaka ,Smerch and tactical SR missiles like Prithvi to partially fill the void,as these would need no contest having already been inducted into service.Even after the arrival of the long-awaited new artillery,the numbers of MBRLs in service with the IA will give it a very solid capability.The rapid induction of attack and light armed helos will also help,but the IA should get control of operating the attack and armed light helos to integrate and synergise these capabilities into its warfighting doctrine.

vic · Post by **vic** » 02 Sep 2012 12:09

I the above posts are supposed to make one believe that Naieve Army brass is unable to understand, use, employ indigenous Prahaar but they have a great understanding of Smerch at the cost USD 1 billion.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 02 Sep 2012 14:55

Prahaar isn't a MBRL, Pinaka is.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Sep 2012 18:40

the M109 has another latest model, the M109A6-PIM.
looks like it will be in service for decades
http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_ ... m109a6-pim

I would run with the M109 for our tracked howitzer requirement ... it does not even seem to be a contender in the contest

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 05 Sep 2012 23:33

that's because the legacy M109 is 39 caliber.

And IA's Filed Artillery rationalization plan is adamant on 52 caliber, the recent OFB order for some new 39 calibers notwithstanding.

One 52 caliber M109 upgrade offered essentially involves a replacement of the M126 with the Panzerhaubits' gun. But that is marketed by Rheinmetall which as we know is off the menu.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 06 Sep 2012 04:53

in the last 10 years we could have done with a couple of hundred 39 caliber guns, would have been more than useful

but plan B has never been in the arty planners view OR someone will cry logistics

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Sep 2012 11:00

The M 109 A6, can be upgraded to 52 cal. So that in not the reason why it was not a contender. The primary reasons were its age and the fact that it was an American system.

The latter may no longer be applicable in it case now.

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Sep 2012 19:57

super duper javelin !

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4e_1303166536

if the nag did that ., well never mind !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2012 20:02

speaking of age, the FH77B is also dating back to early 80s yet still considered good enough, given we are going to produce more of it locally.
and these M109 would not be boneyard models but hopefully new productions under FMS.

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Sep 2012 12:23

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19615

Army, DRDO test Pinaka rocket system in Pokhran

Pinaka, a state-of-the-art weapon system for destroying areas of enemy troop concentration, communication centres, air terminal complexes, gun/rocket locations etc, has been developed by DRDO. High operational mobility, flexibility and accuracy are the major characteristics, which give the weapon system an edge in modern artillery warfare.

"The rocket system is meant to neutralise a large geographical area with rapid firing of rockets. With a strike range of 40 km, Pinaka could fire a salvo of 12 rockets in 44 seconds. It was also put into field testing for assessing its capability during the Kargil conflict," said an Army officer.

Does this imply that Pinaka has not been inducted yet? If so the Smerch induction suddenly makes more sense.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Sep 2012 12:36

^^^

The Fh 77 was a politically a reliable choice, from a neutral country. Whereas the 109 was not. It may be considered politically acceptable today. But, I think that India should go for a modern design, that is made in India.

We have been importing like crazy. Its time that we gave an opportunity to the Pvt sector and built the domestic Mil Ind complex.

It is possible to do so. If the customer gives clear product requirements and not change them every now and then.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 10 Sep 2012 21:21

how to do you propose they take on the import lobby?

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Sep 2012 23:01

It won't be possible to take on the import lobby directly. However, we can push them out slowly. Earlier 0% of Indian arms were indigenous. Slowly it increased to 10%, then 20%, 30% and so on. We can ease them out instead of kicking them out. This can be done without endangering too many people's lives/careers/reputations.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 10 Sep 2012 23:15

nakul wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19615

Army, DRDO test Pinaka rocket system in Pokhran

Pinaka, a state-of-the-art weapon system for destroying areas of enemy troop concentration, communication centres, air terminal complexes, gun/rocket locations etc, has been developed by DRDO. High operational mobility, flexibility and accuracy are the major characteristics, which give the weapon system an edge in modern artillery warfare.

"The rocket system is meant to neutralise a large geographical area with rapid firing of rockets. With a strike range of 40 km, Pinaka could fire a salvo of 12 rockets in 44 seconds. It was also put into field testing for assessing its capability during the Kargil conflict," said an Army officer.
Does this imply that Pinaka has not been inducted yet? If so the Smerch induction suddenly makes more sense.

Oh no nakul ji! Don't worry! Have curry!
Pinaka is unqualified success for DRDO, OFB and private sector (L&T and Tata SED). Current production is 1000 rockets/year and as per OFB spokesman the demand is many times more than that. They are building another factory to meet the demand. Actually there were some issues with the accuracy of rockets until a few years back but they seems to have taken care of them with some help from Israel (Muzzle Reference System). Recently media reported that OFB is running out of Tatra trucks for Pinaka production!!

These tests appears to be of MkII version with higher packing density propellant for 20% enhancement in range. I only hope they can keep the pedal to the metal for this one for as long as possible. Fills in some of the gap created by Bofors debacatostrophy!

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 10 Sep 2012 23:17

Katare wrote:
Oh no nakul ji! Don't worry! Have curry!
Pinaka is unqualified success for DRDO, OFB and private sector (L&T and Tata SED). Current production is 1000 rockets/year and as per OFB spokesman the demand is many times more than that. They are building another factory to meet the demand. Actually there were some issues with the accuracy of rockets until a few years back but they seems to have taken care of them with some help from Israel (Muzzle Reference System). Recently media reported that OFB is running out of Tatra trucks for Pinaka production!!

Aapke muh mein ghee shakkar

Let the trend continue for Prahaar

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 11 Sep 2012 10:51

Katare wrote:
Actually there were some issues with the accuracy of rockets until a few years back but they seems to have taken care of them with some help from Israel (Muzzle Reference System).

Not muzzle reference system but Trajectory Control System (TCS).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Sep 2012 10:56

there is a video of the IMI TCS floating around somewhere. the IDF uses it on their american mlrs launcher rockets iirc.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 11 Sep 2012 14:00

Singha wrote:speaking of age, the FH77B is also dating back to early 80s yet still considered good enough, given we are going to produce more of it locally.
and these M109 would not be boneyard models but hopefully new productions under FMS.

Ah, but we do have some idea of the forces at play, don't we. Little before the FH77, the FH80 had come for trials, and was rejected as too complex for our jawans to handle. So, how did the FH77 get selected then, specially since it was not the top choice anyway. In the mix there was also a Russian 152 SP which was actually cheaper than the wheeled guns (the 155 SP trials were also going on roughly around that time with GIAT etc). The Russians got so fed up with the way things were going they finally refused to send the 152 SP for trials, so two 152's were actually bought, and languished in School of Arty for quite some time.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Sep 2012 00:42

Merlin, Is the TCS as forward steering nose cone modification to the rocket? A nose cone with controllable fins and a guidance package?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 12 Sep 2012 12:18

Not sure of the details. I remember reading it as a sensor on each rocket + some kind transmitter (on launch vehicle perhaps?) sending correction data to shape trajectory. In the forward nose cone I think but am not sure how it controls the rocket, most probably with controllable fins.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Sep 2012 06:59

http://imi-israel.com/vault/documents/a ... 0tests.pdf

Merlin is correct.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 14 Sep 2012 03:07

When will this circus end?

Howitzers tender scrapped again

Howitzers tender scrapped again

NEW DELHI: Government has scrapped an army tender worth over Rs 4,600 crore to procure 180 self-propelled howitzers, the fourth such cancellation, and initiated a fresh process in this regard. The tender issued two years back was cancelled recently following complaints of snag in the guns of one of the two companies. The two companies include Konstrukta of Slovakia and Rheinmetall of Germany.

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Sep 2012 03:59

I did it!!!!

I don't feel the pain anymore.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 14 Sep 2012 05:15

putnanja wrote:When will this circus end?

Howitzers tender scrapped again

Howitzers tender scrapped again

NEW DELHI: Government has scrapped an army tender worth over Rs 4,600 crore to procure 180 self-propelled howitzers, the fourth such cancellation, and initiated a fresh process in this regard. The tender issued two years back was cancelled recently following complaints of snag in the guns of one of the two companies. The two companies include Konstrukta of Slovakia and Rheinmetall of Germany.

Nothing will happen till we get a clean government at the center.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Sep 2012 07:34

I am sure nobody will show up in the 5th round.
this is like a rock concert where its promised Elvis will uncloak and come out of hiding after all these years.

eventually the M109A6 is coming to us via FMS