Artillery: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1230
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 11 Apr 2018 03:58

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote:Do these 2 foreign designs honestly look that much more TFTA than the OFB Dhanush Mounted Gun? Get a better paint job and then people will be going waah waah over the desi solution as well.

Now to find out more details on the OFB MGS solution..

The mounting points is different. OFB seems to have loaded the turret behind the wheels, whereas ATmos, Caesar and even the Tata solution was loaded atop the back wheels. That gives a much more shorter overhang. I don't think this OFB solution is complete yet. Imagine the gun firing at 90 degrees to the truck's orientation. What is stopping it from rolling the truck over. I think Tata will do a fantastic job of mounting the gun on their truck.


I think there are shovels underneath that overhang that are not deployed, that will transmit the recoil to the ground. These shovels are not clearly visible in that picture.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3980
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kartik » 11 Apr 2018 04:04

Yes, there are mounts that basically anchor the gun to the ground and if I'm not wrong, the truck itself gets its rear tires lifted off the ground. I can't believe that OFB would've prototyped that entire system without realising that they would need to have a way to prevent the entire truck and gun from tipping over when the gun is pointing at 90 degrees to the truck.

Somewhat similar to the Ashok Leyland 6 x 6 with the Nexter CAESAR gun

Image
Last edited by Kartik on 11 Apr 2018 04:12, edited 1 time in total.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3980
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kartik » 11 Apr 2018 04:06

nam wrote:Image

Tata denel mgs. It is quite neat. OFB looks like they welded dhanush on to the first tatra they found.

Hope ofb refines it and Tata brings out a mgs based on atags.


Tata should do this with the ATAGS and bring it out in a couple of years' time. That should eventually become the most common Mounted Gun system for the IA. But the OFB- Dhanush MGS should offer a cheap alternative that could be brought into production sooner than the ATAGS-MGS.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6981
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Indranil » 11 Apr 2018 05:20

ATAGs is one of the biggest guns around. The Dhanush mounted on a properly designed Tata 8X8 would do great wonders. Between OFB, Tata and DRDO, they have all the pieces of this puzzle.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 11 Apr 2018 06:39

tsarkar, The Dhanush has 360 traverse. Recall the fake Chinese made Swiss bearings. Now they get them from the OEM used on the Bofors. They provide the traverse.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 11 Apr 2018 06:59

Indranil wrote:
Kartik wrote:Do these 2 foreign designs honestly look that much more TFTA than the OFB Dhanush Mounted Gun? Get a better paint job and then people will be going waah waah over the desi solution as well.

Now to find out more details on the OFB MGS solution..

The mounting points is different. OFB seems to have loaded the turret behind the wheels, whereas ATmos, Caesar and even the Tata solution was loaded atop the back wheels. That gives a much more shorter overhang. I don't think this OFB solution is complete yet. Imagine the gun firing at 90 degrees to the truck's orientation. What is stopping it from rolling the truck over. I think Tata will do a fantastic job of mounting the gun on their truck.

Do the truck mounted systems fire their guns at 90 degrees angle? I can't recall seeing photos of those mounted guns firing at those angles to the truck.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shaun » 11 Apr 2018 07:16

The prototype Swedish came out for their FH-77B, mounted on a modified variant of Volvo's commercial dump trucks A25C (6x6)
Image

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 11 Apr 2018 08:50

We do so much analysis based on images and paint schemes. If people on BRF get swayed so easily by paint schemes fata abdul has no chance to figure out which system is good based on technicalities.

Why are we so quick in running down OFB design...? Because it doesnt look like other designes...? Did we see how actually the gun stabilization system works for OFB design..? Surely its not only the truck which keeps the gun in place while firing. There are hydralic powered legs which will plant the system in ground to absorb the recoil. How are the positioned..? If that is good enough then it doesnt matter that much where the gun is mounted vis a vis rear axel. Why are we jumping guns to think OFB desiners were so naive that they could not think of basic factors as recoil forces while firing sideways...? Why are we so quick to dismiss it as a shoddy welding job..?

May be it was easiest to mount it that way with Dhanush changed minimally as it is. It looks like a prototype anyhow. It could even be just a Proof of Concept.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 11 Apr 2018 14:26

ramana wrote:tsarkar, The Dhanush has 360 traverse. Recall the fake Chinese made Swiss bearings. Now they get them from the OEM used on the Bofors. They provide the traverse.

Most howitzers, including FH-77B dont have 360 degree traverse.

https://www.forecastinternational.com/a ... RC_ID=1455
30°left/30°right


srai wrote:Do the truck mounted systems fire their guns at 90 degrees angle? I can't recall seeing photos of those mounted guns firing at those angles

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/t5_52.htm

This artillery system can fire in 360° arc, however it has to return to the 80° arc to simplify the loading process.


Photos of 90 degree traverse in the link.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 571
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nrshah » 11 Apr 2018 15:12

To me, I am least concerned if OFB prototype will work or not. May be it is prototype and will be refined or if it doesn't work,it will be trashed. We ignore good products as well - Arjun, so compared to that it is fine. I am sure Tata will take this up in that case.

What is truly amazing is change in attitude of OFB. This is in stark contrast of Dhanush where it sat for donkey years while having blue prints of Bofors. atleast they are being proactive... See the no of rifles they are churning in small arms thread... Many will be junked, but a successful product always have history of other proof of conepts and prototypes... F23 precursors to F22 and Sukhoi berkut to T50......

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1582
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 11 Apr 2018 16:02

JayS wrote:We do so much analysis based on images and paint schemes. If people on BRF get swayed so easily by paint schemes fata abdul has no chance to figure out which system is good based on technicalities.

Why are we so quick in running down OFB design...? Because it doesnt look like other designes...? Did we see how actually the gun stabilization system works for OFB design..? Surely its not only the truck which keeps the gun in place while firing. There are hydralic powered legs which will plant the system in ground to absorb the recoil. How are the positioned..? If that is good enough then it doesnt matter that much where the gun is mounted vis a vis rear axel. Why are we jumping guns to think OFB desiners were so naive that they could not think of basic factors as recoil forces while firing sideways...? Why are we so quick to dismiss it as a shoddy welding job..?

May be it was easiest to mount it that way with Dhanush changed minimally as it is. It looks like a prototype anyhow. It could even be just a Proof of Concept.


You have a fair point, however I think OFB deserves the bad press here. They held nation's defense under siege, for all they are bothered about is overtime pay. Service men have lost their lives because of OFB's negligence.

Forget Dhanush, they have been building IFG for donkey's years. Yet they did not bother to create a bare bones 155 MM version of the gun. For all the TFTA, the Chinese primary gun in Tibet is a bare bones 155MM!

Now their back side is on fire due to fear of loosing contracts, they seem to taking initiatives. The fact that they have charging double to four time the market rate for product sold to forces, I am sure they could get some consultant to design a sensible prototype.

Given our requirement in mountains, I would very curious to know how well the truck can travel through the gradients with 7-9 ton on it's back, without flipping over.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1234
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Vips » 11 Apr 2018 17:27

nrshah wrote:To me, I am least concerned if OFB prototype will work or not. May be it is prototype and will be refined or if it doesn't work,it will be trashed. We ignore good products as well - Arjun, so compared to that it is fine. I am sure Tata will take this up in that case.

What is truly amazing is change in attitude of OFB. This is in stark contrast of Dhanush where it sat for donkey years while having blue prints of Bofors. atleast they are being proactive... See the no of rifles they are churning in small arms thread... Many will be junked, but a successful product always have history of other proof of conepts and prototypes... F23 precursors to F22 and Sukhoi berkut to T50......


Dont be surprised, Babudom has realized that Private sector threatens their breakfast , lunch and dinner so they have to perform.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2254
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby abhik » 11 Apr 2018 17:56

The denel system looks TFTA with 360 degree traverse, but the optimal position is with the barrel facing "backwards" else loading is not practical. Also (I assume) the crew would be operating from the small platform (truck flat bed) rather than the ground which might present it's own risks.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1582
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 11 Apr 2018 18:24

BF CEO gives an update on the change in MoD, where now companies like have access to testing ranges for weapons. It was not the case before 2015.

https://twitter.com/DefencePost/status/984017574433378304

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1582
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 11 Apr 2018 18:44

Just had a look at BF's Bharat ULWH. That thing is definitely more TFTA than M777.

M777 looks a cowboy product in front of it.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1582
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 11 Apr 2018 19:33

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 11 Apr 2018 20:07

Since Sardar Baldev Singh the first Raksha Mantri (RM), Indian defence ministers were really Ministers for Disarmament except for three wartime RM; Y.B. Chavan, Jagjivan Ram and George Fernandes.

Nirmala Sitaraman joins the ranks of those three illustrious leaders.
She is now the fourth greatest RM for India.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1467
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ArjunPandit » 11 Apr 2018 21:52

ramana wrote:Sine Sardar Baldev Singh the first RM, Indian defence ministers were really Ministers for Disarmament except for three wartime RM; Y.B. Chavan, Jagjivan Ram and George Fernandes.

Nirmala Sitaraman joins the ranks of those three illustrious leaders.
She is now the fourth greatest RM for India.


OT but why not MP, he was the one who saved Tejas and rooted for the artillery

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 930
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shaun » 11 Apr 2018 22:09

another pic of mounted dhanush
Image
Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3980
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kartik » 12 Apr 2018 04:10

Dhanush is a 155 mm/45 caliber gun, so how come that image of the Dhanush MGS mentions it as being a 155 mm/52 cal. gun? Did they increase the caliber of the Dhanush for the MGS? Or it is a typo?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2205
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Cybaru » 12 Apr 2018 04:17

That thing looks huge and mean! Year of the Dog is the Year of the artillery! It's possible that we are looking at 155/52 cal setup.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 12 Apr 2018 04:39

Nam, OFB has no budget for R&D. It does what it is told.
The baby steps were spare barrels for Bofors.
Then DG Artillery tasked them with Dhanush.
BTW they won a contract to upgrade 130mm to 45 caliber. It's called Sarang.

I still am not sure why those muzzle strikes happened. Need a plausible explanation from the system.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 12 Apr 2018 04:40

Cybaru wrote:That thing looks huge and mean! Year of the Dog is the Year of the artillery! It's possible that we are looking at 155/52 cal setup.


Yes. MGS is supposed to be 52 cal.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 12 Apr 2018 04:49

DefExpo2018 from kakarat

viewtopic.php?p=2265316#p2265316

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 12 Apr 2018 10:59

nam wrote:You have a fair point, however I think OFB deserves the bad press here. They held nation's defense under siege, for all they are bothered about is overtime pay. Service men have lost their lives because of OFB's negligence.

Forget Dhanush, they have been building IFG for donkey's years. Yet they did not bother to create a bare bones 155 MM version of the gun. For all the TFTA, the Chinese primary gun in Tibet is a bare bones 155MM!

Now their back side is on fire due to fear of loosing contracts, they seem to taking initiatives. The fact that they have charging double to four time the market rate for product sold to forces, I am sure they could get some consultant to design a sensible prototype.


Am sorry but how exactly you think you can objectively analyze any system base on technicalities with such prejudice..? Without objectivity things quickly move to being only rhetoric. Make no mistake in understanding that OFB, DPSUs are mere pawns in the game. They have been kept deliberately under the thumbs. They are subjected to exact kind of environment and treatment from almighty babudom that the Forces are given. They need freedom from babudom and reforms not be written off. They hold capabilities which are key for national defense in short term. To be fair to OFB, they have been trying to make Dhanush for quite a while, since 2000 or so, IIRC the initiative has started in bits and pieces. But the real boost was only when IA took proactive interest.

nam wrote:Given our requirement in mountains, I would very curious to know how well the truck can travel through the gradients with 7-9 ton on it's back, without flipping over.


Now that's a valid comment, without rhetoric.


On a side note, until about an year ago, I thought OFBs have literally no chance of reforms and best way forward is to sell them. But looking at their proactivity in recent time, especially in Artillery and small arms side, I feel may be there is still hope with right kind of impetus from the top. After all the whole damn scene at the top has changed largely due to one man as of now. Who knows, with sustained Dharmic rule at the top for long enough time may give wings to even OFBs, given some danda and free hand from top.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1462
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 12 Apr 2018 11:17

Kakarat wrote:An Important exibit at DefExpo2018 the Mounted Gun System a joint product of OFB and BEML. Its basically 155mm 52cal Dhanush mounted on a BEML Tatra and according to the officials it is heading to trials within the next couple of months

https://twitter.com/kakarat2001/status/ ... 2538476545

Image

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1462
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 12 Apr 2018 11:33

Kartik wrote:Dhanush is a 155 mm/45 caliber gun, so how come that image of the Dhanush MGS mentions it as being a 155 mm/52 cal. gun? Did they increase the caliber of the Dhanush for the MGS? Or it is a typo?


From my discussion with the OFB person incharge of MGS, the 155mm 52cal gun has been tested and there are two versions od Dhanush. the 52cal is a upgrade of the 45cal which was in work for sometime now and even the Dhanush 52cal will also head for trials soon

The officials of both OFB and BEML are not calling it as Dhanush MGS but 155mm 52cal MGS

In my presence a forginer approched and asked if it was a mounted bofors the OFB official immediatly said no its a indiginous gun with more thn 80% indian content which is similar to bofors but highly modfied and upgraded

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1462
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Kakarat » 12 Apr 2018 14:04

The much awited Kalyani 155mm 39 CAL Ultra Light Howitzer (ULH)
https://twitter.com/kakarat2001/status/ ... 6522272768

Image

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 12 Apr 2018 14:30

Kakarat wrote:The much awited Kalyani 155mm 39 CAL Ultra Light Howitzer (ULH)
https://twitter.com/kakarat2001/status/ ... 6522272768

]


Looks good.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 12 Apr 2018 14:43

Kakarat wrote:
Kartik wrote:Dhanush is a 155 mm/45 caliber gun, so how come that image of the Dhanush MGS mentions it as being a 155 mm/52 cal. gun? Did they increase the caliber of the Dhanush for the MGS? Or it is a typo?


From my discussion with the OFB person incharge of MGS, the 155mm 52cal gun has been tested and there are two versions od Dhanush. the 52cal is a upgrade of the 45cal which was in work for sometime now and even the Dhanush 52cal will also head for trials soon

The officials of both OFB and BEML are not calling it as Dhanush MGS but 155mm 52cal MGS

In my presence a forginer approched and asked if it was a mounted bofors the OFB official immediatly said no its a indiginous gun with more thn 80% indian content which is similar to bofors but highly modfied and upgraded


We have seen news about 52cal Dhanush previously 2-3times at least. It must have been posted here also. It was also mentioned somewhere that 52cal version is up for testing.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby JayS » 12 Apr 2018 14:46

Kakarat wrote:The much awited Kalyani 155mm 39 CAL Ultra Light Howitzer (ULH)
https://twitter.com/kakarat2001/status/ ... 6522272768

Image


how does it compare with M777 in weight..? The Ti version..? And in terms of cost..?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1582
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby nam » 12 Apr 2018 14:51

JayS wrote:
Am sorry but how exactly you think you can objectively analyze any system base on technicalities with such prejudice..? Without objectivity things quickly move to being only rhetoric. Make no mistake in understanding that OFB, DPSUs are mere pawns in the game. They have been kept deliberately under the thumbs. They are subjected to exact kind of environment and treatment from almighty babudom that the Forces are given. They need freedom from babudom and reforms not be written off. They hold capabilities which are key for national defense in short term. To be fair to OFB, they have been trying to make Dhanush for quite a while, since 2000 or so, IIRC the initiative has started in bits and pieces. But the real boost was only when IA took proactive interest.


My view is Sab mile hai. OFB is definitely a pawn for MoD babus, however the employees are not innocent though. They go on strike at the drop of a hat. The union boss was lying on the face when he said OFB is "non-profit" and for the welfare of the country. OFB was charging 3-4 times for items they buy from the market and sell it to the forces. Obviously some of the providers would be relatives of the employees.

I would give them some slack on the day they hit their production targets.


Now that's a valid comment, without rhetoric.


Pakis drop the idea of producing Turkish towed artillery. The reason given was it is heavy. Then I figured out that the beggars don't have money to replace the existing trucks, which is required to tow the new gun. Their old trucks cannot. Moreover in the mountains towing them up hill requires powerful trucks.

So IA will similar issue. We are using new AL trucks. however it will still be an issue in the mountains. But we now have a solution.

BF has brought out MGS version of their ULWH. We have 155 MM/39 cal MGS with soft recoil, right here ! This is mentioned by Kakarat above.

Image

This is innovation. BF can easily create a 52 cal weapon mounted on a proper truck. Solves our "weight" problem.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1467
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ArjunPandit » 12 Apr 2018 21:24

with the kind of product line we have, we could be in list of top arty exporters by mid-end of arty guns. The problem is who needs arty apart from beggar porkies. Unless of course we cut the P5 in costs

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 12 Apr 2018 21:53

tsarkar wrote:
ramana wrote:tsarkar, The Dhanush has 360 traverse. Recall the fake Chinese made Swiss bearings. Now they get them from the OEM used on the Bofors. They provide the traverse.

Most howitzers, including FH-77B dont have 360 degree traverse.

https://www.forecastinternational.com/a ... RC_ID=1455
30°left/30°right







Bofors and Sweden were a bunch of losers. By 1986, the F104 contract issues that led to fall of Tanaka govt. in Japan were well known.
They managed to screw up a cash cow product by giving a measly low bribe!!!

Now OFB & DRDO can design their own gun-howitzers and thanks to the rigorous testing by IA this process is quite robust as can be seen by the Dhanush, Sarang and ATAGs.

Thanks for the pdf for now I understand the Zelar multipurpose fuze.
Again by putting high acceleration requirement they managed to ensure no compatibility with NATO ammo at low charge.

Wonder how the Reschef/BEL and ECIL fuzes work.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 12 Apr 2018 22:03

nam wrote:Given our requirement in mountains, I would very curious to know how well the truck can travel through the gradients with 7-9 ton on it's back, without flipping over.

This could be added to BR's "engineering from 2D images" section as an appendix to our planned "aerodynamics from 2D images" booklet that was suggested on the Tejas thread.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1248
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 13 Apr 2018 12:34


hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby hnair » 13 Apr 2018 13:03

^^^^ That Beast seems fully ready to point an accusing finger and bring molecular level changes down range!!

First time, am seeing the full view of Team Tata's ATAGs so clearly.... very cool 8)
(Republic Day ones does not get good angles to see the full form of the APU part nor the whole bells n whistles)

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6982
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby Prasad » 13 Apr 2018 16:37

All these discussions n headaches aside. They've got an ATAGS at the Hall 8 which you can see as soon as you enter. The sheer massive size of the system hits you right in the face quite frankly. That thing is massive up close. Dick waving might be classified as schoolboy stuff by shiv saar but when you've got a long long gun yourself, it feels bloody good.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10443
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pankajs » 13 Apr 2018 17:41


pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10443
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Artillery Discussion Thread

Postby pankajs » 13 Apr 2018 17:50

JayS wrote:
Kakarat wrote:The much awited Kalyani 155mm 39 CAL Ultra Light Howitzer (ULH)


how does it compare with M777 in weight..? The Ti version..? And in terms of cost..?

In the previous video, Baba Kalyani talks of a Titanium and a steel version with a weight of 4.5 and 5.5 tons respectively. Wiki lists M777 weight at 4.2 tons. Seems pretty good for a first time effort.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Parikshit, Rakesh, sooraj and 38 guests