Artillery: News & Discussion

Abhay_S · Post by **Abhay_S** » 10 Aug 2015 20:11

Article on Dhanush

http://linkis.com/swarajyamag.com/biz/6OTuC

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 08 Sep 2015 16:24

Shot in the arm for army soon with delivery of 'desi bofors' Dhanush

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 08 Sep 2015 17:00

Overwhelmed by the numbers that have been ordered!!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Sep 2015 17:21

^^^"In the Artillery modernisation plan, the Indian army needs 814 Mounted Guns, 1580 Towed Guns, 100 tracked Self Propelled guns,180 wheeled Self Propelled guns and 145 Ultra Light Howitzers at a whooping cost of one lakh crores."

That's like 3,000 guns or $15 billion (?). At that price, (if the main idea is to have mobile firepower to quickly inflict pain on the enemy), I wonder whether artillery is the best way to go given finite resources. It is labor intensive, has too many moving parts and is expensive to boot.

What is the role of artillery in the 21st century (short/intense wars) within the Indian context?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 08 Sep 2015 18:29

They don't call artillery "King of the Battlefield" for nothing. It is just as relevant as every assault rifle out there. In fact even insurgents use mortars and would use bigger pieces if they could. For a soldier in the mountains pinned down by enemy fire, there would be nothing more likely to help them immediately than artillery in times of war.

So, ya, I would say it is relevant in the 21st century within the Indian context.

(Sorry, no expertise for a detailed exposition, hope the resident gurus explain)

member_28700 · Post by **member_28700** » 08 Sep 2015 19:10

$15b for 3000 artillery pieces works out to about 33 crores per piece. Isnt that too expensive given that Dhanush costs around 14 crores only

? Is the imported maal so expensive or does it also include the ammunition as well?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Sep 2015 19:43

Arun Menon wrote:They don't call artillery "King of the Battlefield" for nothing. It is just as relevant as every assault rifle out there. In fact even insurgents use mortars and would use bigger pieces if they could. For a soldier in the mountains pinned down by enemy fire, there would be nothing more likely to help them immediately than artillery in times of war.

So, ya, I would say it is relevant in the 21st century within the Indian context.

(Sorry, no expertise for a detailed exposition, hope the resident gurus explain)

They used to call battleships the Queen of the Seas. Tech changes, the enemy changes etc. The question I have (and I am not against arty) is that if the idea is to deliver hurt quickly today (even in the example of pinned down soldiers) on the enemy, is arty the best way in the face of so many options?

Just one example: the CBU -105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Se ... zed_Weapon
of which we apparently have some 562 units. And, we have the GBU-16 equivalents. The munitions are 1000 lb dumb bombs and they can be delivered a lot further, more quickly from stand-off distances. There are daisy cutters, FAEs, thermobarics and the like. Is wheeling a lot lof labor intensive and expensive machinery and/or lugging it into the mountains still the best way to inflict hurt?

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 08 Sep 2015 20:06

Cosmo_R wrote:
Arun Menon wrote:They don't call artillery "King of the Battlefield" for nothing. It is just as relevant as every assault rifle out there. In fact even insurgents use mortars and would use bigger pieces if they could. For a soldier in the mountains pinned down by enemy fire, there would be nothing more likely to help them immediately than artillery in times of war.

So, ya, I would say it is relevant in the 21st century within the Indian context.

(Sorry, no expertise for a detailed exposition, hope the resident gurus explain)
They used to call battleships the Queen of the Seas. Tech changes, the enemy changes etc. The question I have (and I am not against arty) is that if the idea is to deliver hurt quickly today (even in the example of pinned down soldiers) on the enemy, is arty the best way in the face of so many options?

Just one example: the CBU -105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Se ... zed_Weapon
of which we apparently have some 562 units. And, we have the GBU-16 equivalents. The munitions are 1000 lb dumb bombs and they can be delivered a lot further, more quickly from stand-off distances. There are daisy cutters, FAEs, thermobarics and the like. Is wheeling a lot lof labor intensive and expensive machinery and/or lugging it into the mountains still the best way to inflict hurt?

Oh yeah ? How many CBU-105s would you need for the ungodly rain of fire that was Kargil, which again was just a fraction of what a full scale war would have amounted to. A light aircraft like textron scorpion costs $3000 an hour to fly, how much do you think it will cost for several dozen Su-30s to be available on station all the time across the theater and how cost effective it is to have a 400 crore platform with 5 crore worth of weapons hanging on it against an 18 crore gun with a 40 thousand rupee shell, not to mention the 40 dozen layers of chain of command from infantry to pilot just to get fire support.

Arty is cost effective, arty is brutally efficient, arty is mobile, arty predates the rifle and arty will outlast any other weapon of warfare, as long as there is warfare.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 08 Sep 2015 20:40

In numerous operations in Afga , nato felt how artillery guns could have or saved their arse !!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Sep 2015 20:43

I read three books about the psychology and behaviour of men under fire in battle. The most scary thing for them is artillery. There is no warning. No hiding. That is what sends men crazy. Aircraft are next in line. And not to forget that Pinaka/Smerch are also "artillery"

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Sep 2015 21:19

germans & dutch got hit in afghanistan and flew in a limited number of Pzh2000 SP guns to provide counterfire when talib roving groups targeted their bases.
russians brought up some 300-400 guns + katyushas per mile of frontage in their final assault from two directions into Berlin and even then the generals felt it was not dense enough

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 08 Sep 2015 21:36

Cosmo_R wrote: They used to call battleships the Queen of the Seas. Tech changes, the enemy changes etc. The question I have (and I am not against arty) is that if the idea is to deliver hurt quickly today (even in the example of pinned down soldiers) on the enemy, is arty the best way in the face of so many options?

Just one example: the CBU -105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Se ... zed_Weapon
of which we apparently have some 562 units. And, we have the GBU-16 equivalents. The munitions are 1000 lb dumb bombs and they can be delivered a lot further, more quickly from stand-off distances. There are daisy cutters, FAEs, thermobarics and the like. Is wheeling a lot lof labor intensive and expensive machinery and/or lugging it into the mountains still the best way to inflict hurt?

Is there another alternative for sustained rate of fire (over many hours and days), with enough fire power, to essentially "clear" a given square area, at a reasonable cost, in control of the army?

Would an equal number of air assets not be more expensive to do the same job? New tech does not come cheap, would that not be more expensive. Even if in theory one has enough air assets, is it possible to produce the same rate of sustained fire from the air? In the Indian context, the borders that we need to cover are huge and so are the opposing assets on the ground. 3000 guns to do the job, IMO is NOT adequate.

Nothing against the smart munitions, precision strike is needed. We should also invest in our own Excalibur. But when we need fire power, across 2000+KM, for 500,000+ men, over a sustained period of time, I think artillery is still the most viable option.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Sep 2015 21:54

^^^"Oh yeah ? How many CBU-105s would you need for the ungodly rain of fire that was Kargil,"

The IAF fired 9 (out of 100 Israeli supplied LGBs) http://www.dailyo.in/politics/kargil-vi ... /5182.html

If the GoI had so willed it, no more than two dozen CBU/GBUs on supply depots on the other side of the LOC would have crippled the pakis.

There would have little need to send Jawans climbing vertically or indeed for the ungodly rain etc.

The QUESTION I have remains. If one insists on symmetrical responses and WW2 massed battles, yeah sure—arty vs arty, tanks vs tanks etc. OTOH, If as the COAS Gen. Dalbir Singh projects, future wars will be short and intense ones, then it will all be about getting your rock(et)s off to hit first and with little warning. How do you do that by wheeling your arty around/lugging it into the mountains to get it within 38-50KM range?

BTW, different forces use the term 'artillery' differently: the Russians also use it for rockets and the US uses 105MM guns on the AC-130s. So 'artillery' yes but does that mean only towed/tracked guns?

In the Indian context, the question is how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range. That's where I have a doubt about 3,000 guns at $15bn when it might be spent on more modern delivery means.

@Shiv, your point is good. I would add the terror of B-52s that would rain down 30 tons apiece with no warning sound and no escape envelope. On a smaller scale, that is what the Reapers also achieve with more precision.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 08 Sep 2015 22:51

Well , Sir artillery too have evolved in mobility and can fire cheap smart projectiles , in a war, to hold one's own ground in a enemy territory I see no alternatives to this. In low-high intensity border skirmishes relevant in India's context , artillery will remain as one of the main offensive weapon.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Sep 2015 00:28

Cosmo_R: "The IAF fired 9 (out of 100 Israeli supplied LGBs) http://www.dailyo.in/politics/kargil-vi ... /5182.html"

Which was due to the limited stocks we had and also, the MiG capable EO bombs etc were husbanded for a larger conflict. Those bombs were not Israeli Griffins BTW but US paveways modified to work with Mirage 2000s and Israeli Litening pods.

Arty in our context can be a huge advantage. Both punitive (fire assaults across the IB/LOC) and also war winning.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Sep 2015 01:29

Also, CBU-105 were only bought in 2010, a decade after Kargil war.

In any case, it's foolish to think deploying a few of these weapons would have crippled PA or PAF.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 09 Sep 2015 05:52

In the end it all comes down to cost and availability. Nothing beats artillery fire support when it comes to helping soldiers achieve their objectives. Aircraft cannot stay above you all the time and sometimes the airspace is contested and they cant come to your help at all. The smart weapons they fire are costly and limited in numbers.

Some weapon systems like the battleship may have been rendered obsolete, but that doesn't mean that everything old is useless. Artillery is the oldest, followed by the infantry gun. No amount of smart bombs are going to render them useless or obsolete.

Besides, with guided artillery projectiles, we might be having the best of both worlds.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2015 07:22

Cosmo_R wrote: In the Indian context, the question is how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range. That's where I have a doubt about 3,000 guns at $15bn when it might be spent on more modern delivery means.

@Shiv, your point is good. I would add the terror of B-52s that would rain down 30 tons apiece with no warning sound and no escape envelope. On a smaller scale, that is what the Reapers also achieve with more precision.

Cosmo cases of PTSD and men who just collapse in terror at the sound of an explosion have often been exposed to intense artillery fire. Air attacks are rarely so intense and never sustained - at least other than what the US is capable of doing. It does not apply to India.

The question you ask is a very specific and interestingly worded one. I will explain

how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range.

.

Are you speaking of artillery as offence or defence?

In case of a Pakistani or Chinese thrust in which they make rapid advances into India what you say is certainly true. But then again artillery was never primarily a "defensive weapon system". It is offence by design. It is designed to "kick the door down" an expression that seems to be getting very very popular. It is designed to neutralize anything and everything for a distance of 30 km in front where one's own troops are heading. Even from a distance of just 10 km away artillery shells are immune to countermeasures. Aircraft of the IAF simply cannot lay down the sustained volume of fire that artillery does. The US has used things like "rolling thunder" etc to lay down very heavy bomb loads - but bombs from aircraft have the inherent disadvantage of being dropped in a straight line and are inherently unable to saturate an area for a sustained period of time. Artillery can keep an area pinned down with fire for an entire night.

Aircraft drop bombs in a linear pattern. There is no option. That is their nature. They can hit pinpoint targets if need be, but if targets are dispersed and camouflaged neither the linear pattern nor the pinpoint selection will help and the aircraft have to go back every time and reload. Artillery can simply be directed to saturate everything in an area without discrimination and with virtually no risk as long as the artillery units keep themselves safe from counter batteries. If they are protected by our air force who can help destroy counter batteries and keep enemy aircraft at bay, the combination of AF/attack helos and artillery can be deadly. Don't forget that war is about combined operations using multiple weapons types. Both AF and artillery can and will be used. It's not a like a joust "Let's use only swords today"

Artillery for defence is possible and may be particularly valuable in mountainous regions where the only approach of an attacking force may be through a narrow valley. In fact even small arms and RPGs used by Taliban have kept NATO at bay in the Afghan mountains for a decade. Having strategically placed artillery tens of km away covering approach routes could cripple an advance and turn it into a rout.

vina · Post by **vina** » 09 Sep 2015 10:01

Aircraft drop bombs in a linear pattern. There is no option. That is their nature. They can hit pinpoint targets if need be, but if targets are dispersed and camouflaged neither the linear pattern nor the pinpoint selection will help and the aircraft have to go back every time and reload

Glide Bombs! Wing kits!

kit · Post by **kit** » 09 Sep 2015 10:02

shiv wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote: In the Indian context, the question is how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range. That's where I have a doubt about 3,000 guns at $15bn when it might be spent on more modern delivery means.

@Shiv, your point is good. I would add the terror of B-52s that would rain down 30 tons apiece with no warning sound and no escape envelope. On a smaller scale, that is what the Reapers also achieve with more precision.
Cosmo cases of PTSD and men who just collapse in terror at the sound of an explosion have often been exposed to intense artillery fire. Air attacks are rarely so intense and never sustained - at least other than what the US is capable of doing. It does not apply to India.

The question you ask is a very specific and interestingly worded one. I will explain
how do you land a large amount of explosives on the Pakis and/or Chinese who are not waiting for your on a conveniently located field within your range.
.

Are you speaking of artillery as offence or defence?

In case of a Pakistani or Chinese thrust in which they make rapid advances into India what you say is certainly true. But then again artillery was never primarily a "defensive weapon system". It is offence by design. It is designed to "kick the door down" an expression that seems to be getting very very popular. It is designed to neutralize anything and everything for a distance of 30 km in front where one's own troops are heading. Even from a distance of just 10 km away artillery shells are immune to countermeasures. Aircraft of the IAF simply cannot lay down the sustained volume of fire that artillery does. The US has used things like "rolling thunder" etc to lay down very heavy bomb loads - but bombs from aircraft have the inherent disadvantage of being dropped in a straight line and are inherently unable to saturate an area for a sustained period of time. Artillery can keep an area pinned down with fire for an entire night.

Aircraft drop bombs in a linear pattern. There is no option. That is their nature. They can hit pinpoint targets if need be, but if targets are dispersed and camouflaged neither the linear pattern nor the pinpoint selection will help and the aircraft have to go back every time and reload. Artillery can simply be directed to saturate everything in an area without discrimination and with virtually no risk as long as the artillery units keep themselves safe from counter batteries. If they are protected by our air force who can help destroy counter batteries and keep enemy aircraft at bay, the combination of AF/attack helos and artillery can be deadly. Don't forget that war is about combined operations using multiple weapons types. Both AF and artillery can and will be used. It's not a like a joust "Let's use only swords today"

Artillery for defence is possible and may be particularly valuable in mountainous regions where the only approach of an attacking force may be through a narrow valley. In fact even small arms and RPGs used by Taliban have kept NATO at bay in the Afghan mountains for a decade. Having strategically placed artillery tens of km away covering approach routes could cripple an advance and turn it into a rout.

Shiv ji one question .. wasn't carpet bombing (also GBU) designed to do the same thing ..sanitize an entire area ..also give an element of surprise ? Arty mobilization can be relatively easily picked up by recon .. so for same reason how long would arty survive against a well equipped opponent ? ..say counter air / missile strikes

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2015 10:04

artillery will have SAM protection. and mlrs units + Wlr will also stand protection duty.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 09 Sep 2015 18:02

It is designed to "kick the door down" an expression that seems to be getting very very popular. It is designed to neutralize anything and everything for a distance of 30 km in front where one's own troops are heading. Even from a distance of just 10 km away artillery shells are immune to countermeasures.

[ partial source: The Garud Strikes ]
In 1971, artillery would open the war . Akhaura sector saw saturated Pak artillery attacks. But at Akhaura , Indians had a full art. division (72) as opposed to 26 (18 105mm + 8 120mm) from Pakis.
Needless to say, Indian fire would annihilate Pak defences and would enable 4 guards (1 Rajput) to flank and cut off Pak divisions in the sector. Only the Railway station was left . This too would be captured in the subsequent days. 4 Guards would then do the unthinkable - cross the Titas(?) river,smash every Paki division in its path in the race to Dacca.

From the book and from different sources , this is what I gather.
- artillery is feared .
- With sufficient numbers, enemy will never have respite.
- you dont know where the shell is going to land.
- capturing/occupying territory bit by bit needs to begin with artillery attacks
- Human int, and I guess satellite images, UAVs these days help target fire. In 1971 war, humint( Mukti Bahini) and heli reconnaissance was used before directing artillery fire.
-takes enormous courage to stand/hide against it , let alone hit back.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 09 Sep 2015 19:23

Karan M wrote:Cosmo_R: "The IAF fired 9 (out of 100 Israeli supplied LGBs) http://www.dailyo.in/politics/kargil-vi ... /5182.html"

Which was due to the limited stocks we had and also, the MiG capable EO bombs etc were husbanded for a larger conflict. Those bombs were not Israeli Griffins BTW but US paveways modified to work with Mirage 2000s and Israeli Litening pods.

Arty in our context can be a huge advantage. Both punitive (fire assaults across the IB/LOC) and also war winning.

Fair point. But do we blow $15bn on 3000 guns when the conflicts the service chiefs see are short and intense ones? The resource constraint is important.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2015 19:45

kit wrote:
Shiv ji one question .. wasn't carpet bombing (also GBU) designed to do the same thing ..sanitize an entire area ..also give an element of surprise ? Arty mobilization can be relatively easily picked up by recon .. so for same reason how long would arty survive against a well equipped opponent ? ..say counter air / missile strikes

Carpet bombing is never carpet bombing. Bombers move forward at a minimum of 500 kmph and bombs fall in a long straight line. There is no way an area can be saturated using bombers dropping bombs in long lines from great heights. In any case they can be shot down by enemy fighters or SAMs. Carpet bombing did not work in WW2 or in Vietnam. Carpet bombing is no use against tank formations. Carpet bombing has received more media attention than its due. It was imagined in WW2 that it would work. It did not. The US continued its WW2 mentality in Vietnam and it did not work. There are occasions in which the US has made it work but that does not apply to us.

That apart India has no carpet bombing capability. India has used An 12s for bombing runs in 1965 and 1971 - making it look like carpet bombing. Those planes were very vulnerable and lucky to escape. They did not hit anything much but apparently did scare the Pakis a bit or so it is claimed. No reports exist of any damage done that I know of.

The reason why armies invest in artillery is because it is extremely effective and cheap. I am not sure what you mean by "Arty mobilization can be relatively easily picked up by recon". That is not true. They are usually camouflaged well with lots of decoys to distract recce and nowadays mobile and do not stay in one place. Remember that 10 artillery pieces can be put in 10 different spots and still shell the same areas simultaneously with deadly accuracy and each of those 10 can move a few 100 meters after every 3-6 shots to avoid counter battery fire. Artillery is far more accurate than "carpet bombing". They will also be protected by SAMs and our own air cover.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Sep 2015 19:48

Cosmo_R wrote:
Fair point. But do we blow $15bn on 3000 guns when the conflicts the service chiefs see are short and intense ones? The resource constraint is important.

Artillery is needed to help win those short intense ones. 1965 and 1971 were classic short intense wars.

War is not cheap. Preparation for war should not be cheap. Those who talk too much about cheap war prep live to regret it. We did that cheapo stuff in 1962. Never. Never. Never again. Losing a war is not cheap.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 09 Sep 2015 20:28

shiv wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:
Fair point. But do we blow $15bn on 3000 guns when the conflicts the service chiefs see are short and intense ones? The resource constraint is important.
Artillery is needed to help win those short intense ones. 1965 and 1971 were classic short intense wars.

War is not cheap. Preparation for war should not be cheap. Those who talk too much about cheap war prep live to regret it. We did that cheapo stuff in 1962. Never. Never. Never again. Losing a war is not cheap.

The costliest military is the one which comes second best.

Return on Investment <<<< 0 if one loses.
Return on Investment >= 0 if one wins.

Comparision is between 15B $ inside India for 3000 artillery vs >20B outside India for 120 mrca aircraft or ~1 billion each for the latest bomber which US is building.

infact with our dhoti-shivering politicos who think of airforce as a major escalation, it is better to have 10000 artillery guns which they will think of using rather than 300 aircrafts which they keep inside bunkers doing puja.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Sep 2015 20:30

the situation at present seems to be TSP has around 50 panter 155mm and around 200 M109A4 & A5 while only around 200 of our original 400 FH77 might still be in service after 30 yrs of induction. they are assembling more panters and always on the lookout to pickup more m109 from the boneyards.

so forget about china, we have less 155mm pieces than TSP

and I am assuming their 150-200 M109A2/A3 are retired.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 09 Sep 2015 20:42

About 200 M46 130MM guns have been upgraded to 155MM through kits supplied by Soltam. Another 200 Pieces were to be upgunned before that program came to a halt.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 10 Sep 2015 04:55

^Have the come to a halt? Any links?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Sep 2015 05:14

Virupaksha wrote: infact with our dhoti-shivering politicos who think of airforce as a major escalation, it is better to have 10000 artillery guns which they will think of using rather than 300 aircrafts which they keep inside bunkers doing puja.

They did that in 1962 and kept the Air Force out
They did it again in the prelude to the 1965 war in the April '65 Rann of Kutch operations
They had to be pushed into letting the IAF do its job in 1999 and still demanded that LoC not be crossed

It's never about artillery alone or planes alone. They are both limbs of the same war winning creature. Artillery and Air Force together turned the tide in Kargil.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 10 Sep 2015 05:34

Arun Menon wrote:^Have the come to a halt? Any links?

Israeli firm Soltam that was contracted to upgrade the Indian Army’s 130mm guns is now a part of Elbit. Soltam’s contract was suspended midway after allegations that it had bribed officials.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Sep 2015 05:59

Cosmo_R wrote:Fair point. But do we blow $15bn on 3000 guns when the conflicts the service chiefs see are short and intense ones? The resource constraint is important.

The shorter and more intense the conflict, the less the leeway to do anything fancy like manouever warfare. Firepower is key then, land as many huge blows within the shortest time possible. In which case, the role of artillery is more and more important. $15Bn will buy you punitive/dissuasive capabilities in peacetime, and offensive capabilities in wartime. In the case of airpower, its limited to wartime. Those $6-8Bn MMRCA's cant be used across the IB during a "hot" peace, but the 155mm most certainly can.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 10 Sep 2015 07:28

Arun Menon wrote:^Have the come to a halt? Any links?

The process is being restarted with Tata, Kalyani, Mahindra, L&T and OFB slugging it out to upgrade remaining guns.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 10 Sep 2015 07:54

^Thanks for the info. Pls do tell if you hear anymore.

Falijee · Post by **Falijee** » 11 Sep 2015 05:40

India Gets Its First New Artillery Guns Since the 1980s

Apologies if posted earlier !

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 Sep 2015 09:40

Arti guns in small arms thread.

member_29172 · Post by **member_29172** » 11 Sep 2015 10:28

Yagnasri wrote:Arti guns in small arms thread.

Relatively small, everything is relative only

But still good to hear the arti drama is done once and for all.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 11 Sep 2015 12:05

Yagnasri wrote:Arti guns in small arms thread.

Perhaps referring to the size of the order

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 13 Sep 2015 01:30

Guru's want to know your thoughts on the new SAAB ground launched SDB:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmUU1SUDeAo

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Sep 2015 08:47

shiv will say that it is BS considering that it will have 9 kg warhead onlee.