Artillery: News & Discussion

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Jul 2017 17:10

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
negi wrote:^ You are getting worked up for no reason ; point was simple there was no indication of anyone losing a life or getting injured until Niran posted . Point that no one cared about asking about injured hence is moot .
Point is - 8-10 men standing within 2-3 meters of a 155mm shell bursting. Laws of physics - they will be hurt. Why do you need a media report for that ? So the fact that no one asked this question means one of two things - either they can't do any independent thinking and value add here. Or they don't care.

But they shouldnt be within 2-3 meters in a test. IIRC a cable or a long rope is attached to the firing mechanism for a test fire. This was how Arjun based 130mm was tested. So if this was not done here, only reason i can think of, was the gun was deemed sufficiently mature to treat it like a regular unit, and then this happens. Or the blast effect was so high that even troops several meters behind the gun were affected, in which case, folks better think about further safety measures. Perhaps some fortification behind which troops can shelter

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2017 17:24

Karan M wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote:
Point is - 8-10 men standing within 2-3 meters of a 155mm shell bursting. Laws of physics - they will be hurt. Why do you need a media report for that ? So the fact that no one asked this question means one of two things - either they can't do any independent thinking and value add here. Or they don't care.

But they shouldnt be within 2-3 meters in a test. IIRC a cable or a long rope is attached to the firing mechanism for a test fire. This was how Arjun based 130mm was tested. So if this was not done here, only reason i can think of, was the gun was deemed sufficiently mature to treat it like a regular unit, and then this happens. Or the blast effect was so high that even troops several meters behind the gun were affected, in which case, folks better think about further safety measures. Perhaps some fortification behind which troops can shelter

I don't think that an unproven gun would be treated in such a cavalier fashion by anyone.

There are strict precautions and protocols and written orders specifically governing each trial.

the gun is unproven until the trials are concluded to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Jul 2017 17:32

which makes these injuries all the more bizarre. perhaps SOPs need to be changed.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jul 2017 17:57

1. This was not an untested gun.
2. I think Akshay Sir would be better off saying 2-3 mtrs from the rear wheel of the gun since the muzzle is way too far. Even here the distance could have been more. We have no exact images to go by.
3. SOPs are fine. Arty guys do it day in and out.
4. Injuries happen when dangerous things explode nearby. Force Fields are yet to be invented.
5. The important thing is there will be an Inquiry, identification of problem and rectification if there is a problem in the gun or ammo irrespective of who made the Gun - OFB or BAE and who made the Ammo.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jul 2017 18:04

This is an M777 firing video US army - check the proximity and cable length-

A video of IA arty - proceedures on using Arty guns are clear if you watch

Also notice the difference in after shock in firing of various calibre guns.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jul 2017 18:11

... and for some TFTA action - Here is the Dhanush itself

As you can see this is under testing. You judge the distances.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 23 Jul 2017 18:40

Thank you Deejay, does this mean the lanyard was used during user exploitation trials. Let me also apologize for not enquiring about any injuries etc. Based on past coverage, one would assume no issues when media doesn't report. Bad assumption, as things have borne out.

OT: My only take here is that folks also do not spend time on the Mil flight safety thread enquiring about known missing crew. Ideally folks would also be equally interested in such things. Having seen first hand what a peacetime casualty does to the family (even second or third gen), and how they are made to run pillar to post for closure, let's also focus on such painful things and try to change processes and attitudes there. We're all on the same side so the sniping should stop. With respect to all.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 23 Jul 2017 18:44

Can anyone share the shrapnel (airburst) radius? Unnamed sources claim 100m for 155. Is this correct?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2017 19:04

^^^^^^^

If that is what they are doing with an unproven gun, then it is very very foolish.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jul 2017 19:09

Marten wrote:Thank you Deejay, does this mean the lanyard was used during user exploitation trials. Let me also apologize for not enquiring about any injuries etc. Based on past coverage, one would assume no issues when media doesn't report. Bad assumption, as things have borne out.

...

Marten Sir, from the videos it is very clear that 02 men would remain in close proximity while the gun is fired. 03 men would be further away. Why were their more men around would depend on deployment of shells around, observers and standby team etc - but this is speculation. Answer is we do not know.

Injuries can happen with ammunition and live firing all the time. It normally does happen in large exercises and is rarely reported. Please try to understand I am questioning the line of thinking that IA will have double standards in inquiry into imported systems viz desi systems given that these accidents lead to injuries.

The gun will get back to firing and I really hope and pray it succeeds.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jul 2017 19:11

chetak wrote:^^^^^^^

If that is what they are doing with an unproven gun, then it is very very foolish.

Unproven Gun? This is the second time you have said this. How was Dhanush an unproven gun? What was "foolish" in following the procedures similar to the gun from which it evolved - the Bofors. Please see the video.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Jul 2017 19:22

Even for combat proven guns, the risk of faulty fuses and shells leading to such a situation can and does happen. To an extent it can be minimized with strict quality controls but some amount will always be there.

See the video below of the troops firing the CAESAR 8x8 self-propelled artillery system. The firing officer triggers the firing with the wired remote control unit (as opposed to the traditional lanyard) but still he is close enough to the gun. And even if he could do the firing from a larger distance (larger wire, wireless device), the loaders position is close to the gun muzzle. Same for the Israeli Atmos where the firing officer is in the cab of the truck

The risk of injury due to a faulty shell burst is a little less for crews of self propelled artillery, especially the tracked ones like the Pzh2000, the K9 etc, since they are ensconced in their armored hull

But not all guns can be self-propelled armored ones

Danish troops firing CAESAR 8x8 self-propelled artillery system

Elbit Systems / ATMOS

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Jul 2017 19:31

Marten wrote:Can anyone share the shrapnel (airburst) radius? Unnamed sources claim 100m for 155. Is this correct?

Shrapnel radius will depend on what height did the shell go off and also on the vector in this case luckily it was pointing away. However if someone was in 10-20 meter radius it won't matter it will be lethal.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Jul 2017 19:41

I think a stronger opinion can only be made once we have enough data which I am afraid we may not get access to ; I mean if RCA says faulty or old shell it would make all of those involved very very bad for it would mean we never learnt from 2016 incident . However if it comes down to some issue with the gun alone then obviously things will go back to the drawing board and it won't be wrong to say that SOPs should be revised where the proposed changes stand to save lives of our men ; I mean Dhanush is completely electrically operated and electronically controlled so it shouldn't be too difficult to setup a test harness which allows for firing the gun from confines of a safe concrete barricade say 50-100 meters away . Sure people can poke holes and say then trials won't be proper user trials as such for in war gun will be operated by men in close proximity and that is a valid point however that's a question which any modern fighting force will have to confront i.e. a large part of modernization means to minimize risks for this is not just about saving lives of men but also to save resources and time which has gone into training of our men, all this if you even look at it from practical pov with a risk of coming across as insensitive.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2017 19:55

deejay wrote:
chetak wrote:^^^^^^^

If that is what they are doing with an unproven gun, then it is very very foolish.
Unproven Gun? This is the second time you have said this. How was Dhanush an unproven gun? What was "foolish" in following the procedures similar to the gun from which it evolved - the Bofors. Please see the video.

has it been released into the IA service?? No

Is it still under trials?? Yes

It is unproven. Doesn't matter what the pedigree is.

There is a fully documented procedure for acceptance of a weapon/system into Indian military service. It details the various steps that have to be mandatorily completed and signed off by all parties concerned.

This gun is at best a work in progress and problems are to be expected.

it is not a comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the gun/ammo itself.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Jul 2017 20:08

Having followed the train of thought best in motion by ramana. Should we brace ourselves for similar news from the ATAGS trials as well. That the fuse related issues will cause barrels to explode.

Bishwa · Post by **Bishwa** » 23 Jul 2017 20:11

Chetak,
An unproven gun is fired with the gunner hidden in a pit at a distance from the gun and pulling a rope to trigger the gun. This is to protect the manpower from accidents.

The Dhanush must have gone through that in the very initial firings.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jul 2017 20:12

chetak wrote:...

has it been released into the IA service?? No

Is it still under trials?? Yes

It is unproven. Doesn't matter what the pedigree is.

There is a fully documented procedure for acceptance of a weapon/system into Indian military service. It details the various steps that have to be mandatorily completed and signed off by all parties concerned.

This gun is at best a work in progress and problems are to be expected.

it is not a comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the gun/ammo itself.

Okay, so it was a personal bench mark. I thought you were refering to the "Proof Tests" which were carried out for Dhanush. The mention is in this link.

http://currentaffairs.gktoday.in/indian ... 39389.html

The Indian Army has successfully conducted ‘user-validation’ trials of indigenous Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) Dhanush in the Himalayas. It clears the way for the induction in the Army. Earlier, proof firing tests of Dhanush’s armament systems were carried out during technical trials in June and September 2016 and some initial integrated firing tests were successfully carried out in December 2016.

...

The video I have posted with Gun firing into the sea is the proof test video. It is in the Chandipur Test Range, I think.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 23 Jul 2017 20:29

was going through the comments and videos posted , well , Dhanush does have automation but ppl needs to be near for running it. A layer sits on the left hand side of the gun, operating the fire control computer and driving the howitzer when in self-deployment mode. Even CAESAR and ATMOS have crew near to their gun. What I find lacking is personal protective gear with our boys wearing caps.The injuries could have been minimised with better PPE but alas its the same like our infantry , isn't it.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 23 Jul 2017 20:40

How do you prove an "unproven" gun if you don't use it the way it is meant to be used?

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Jul 2017 20:40

Ramana sir. I would like to agree with you that new (if not match grade ammunition) should be used for proof trials. But user exploitation trials will contain testing with different batches (and aging) of ammunition.

In an ideal world old, deteriorated ammunition would not be stored or retained further for usage neither for trials nor for war time.

I am sure with our long history, the artillery core must be well versed with the safe usage of the ammunition. But they are also dependent of being given proper records of the storage history... assuming that the ammunition has been stored well and with diligent care, in the second place. The first place being the assumption that the manufacturing quality of the ammunition has been perfect by the OFB.

Please check this - Indian Army let down by Ordnance Factories,

Inquires of the CAG reveal performance of OFB have dipped in the last four years - since 2013. Earlier, from 2009-2013 the shortfall in production of different types of ammunition varied from "54 to 73 per cent." Subsequently, from 2013 to December 2016, the CAG observes, "the Army's demand was not met in respect of 64 to 95 per cent types of ammunition."

Not only did the OFBs fail to produce critical ammunition for the Indian Army, but produced poor quality ammunition, the CAG has observed.
Of the ammunition found to be faulty, the majority were 81 mm and 155 mm ammunition, the CAG observes. The 81 mm ammunition that the CAG mentions are mortars which are used respond to ceasefire violations by Pakistan. The 155 mm ammunitions are artillery shells - those used by the Bofor's Field Guns. These two alone accounted for about 59 per cent of ammunition returned.

ramana wrote:Yusuf of DFI article in Swarajya on Dhanush says the shell that burst was 12 years old.

Arrhenius Equation says says we lose half life for every 10 degree C of temperature storage.
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/bas ... enius.html

I agree with Singha that match quality ammo should be used for the proof and user trials.

We don't know how those 12 year old shells were stored.

I deal with these sort of issues of chemical aging.

Then the other report said air bubbles in the shell.
So its double whammy.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2017 21:05

abhik wrote:How do you prove an "unproven" gun if you don't use it the way it is meant to be used?

The new gun has to meet all pre determined specifications and milestones and the results have to be analysed and certified as having met expectations.

Only after all this will it be accepted into service. until then the firing trials (especially) are to be treated as dangerous and risky and precautions have to be taken.

A burst barrel can be lethal to people standing closeby.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 23 Jul 2017 21:07

chetak wrote:
abhik wrote:How do you prove an "unproven" gun if you don't use it the way it is meant to be used?

The new gun has to meet all pre determined specifications and milestones and the results have to be analysed and certified as having met expectations.

Only after all this will it be accepted into service. until then the firing trials (especially) are to be treated as dangerous and risky and precautions have to be taken.

A burst barrel can be lethal to people standing closeby.

As stated earlier those tests had been done.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Jul 2017 21:10

deejay wrote:
chetak wrote:

The new gun has to meet all pre determined specifications and milestones and the results have to be analysed and certified as having met expectations.

Only after all this will it be accepted into service. until then the firing trials (especially) are to be treated as dangerous and risky and precautions have to be taken.

A burst barrel can be lethal to people standing closeby.
As stated earlier those tests had been done.

any idea as to who made the barrel?? I hear that bharat forge in/near pune was doing some work in this area.

also

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Thz ... ry&f=false

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Jul 2017 21:14

Please specify what are the 'pre determined specifications and milestones' and how are they determined

Also please elaborate on the precautions which need to be taken and whether all the precautions taken during the trials will still eliminate the risk/chance of faulty ammunition being sent to the frontline units.

chetak wrote:
abhik wrote:How do you prove an "unproven" gun if you don't use it the way it is meant to be used?
The new gun has to meet all pre determined specifications and milestones and the results have to be analysed and certified as having met expectations.

Only after all this will it be accepted into service. until then the firing trials (especially) are to be treated as dangerous and risky and precautions have to be taken.

A burst barrel can be lethal to people standing closeby.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Jul 2017 21:21

That's true, sir.

But please check the effect of a 155mm round going off a few feet/mtrs in the air.

Or even on the ground (you can check the videos of 155mm IEDs in Iraq)

Even a EOD bomb suit will not give guaranteed protection

shaun wrote:was going through the comments and videos posted , well , Dhanush does have automation but ppl needs to be near for running it. A layer sits on the left hand side of the gun, operating the fire control computer and driving the howitzer when in self-deployment mode. Even CAESAR and ATMOS have crew near to their gun. What I find lacking is personal protective gear with our boys wearing caps.The injuries could have been minimised with better PPE but alas its the same like our infantry , isn't it.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 23 Jul 2017 21:29

BTW how many 155mm guns does the IA have currently? Only around 200 of the original 400 bofors guns were said to be operational, did they manage to salvage any of the rest? Also how many M46 were upgunned.
90K rounds manufactured per year does not sound like a lot, If we have say 450 guns, it's just 200 rounds per gun per year.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Jul 2017 21:43

So many wise words in this one post by Shiv Ji (i have edited it to keep the ones i want to refer to).

I also hope that heated, off-the-cuff, ranting posts do not make this forum lose valuable, knowledgeable posters like Rohitvats, Tsarkar, Deejay and others from the services and Hari Nair, Raghuk from the institutions.

I think soldiers need to be given space to speak and for us to listen

To me, this one single sentence encapsulates what BRF should stand for

shiv wrote:This is the difference between information and knowledge, but BRFites outside of the armed forces do not understand.

Most desis have zero experience of holding a weapon let alone shooting a firearm and it is deadly powerful stuff - that can put one's own life in danger from various issues ranging from mishandling to component failure. And this is at peacetime when no one is shooting at them.

Flying itself is unnatural and flying up in a 5 ton metal box is definitely more risky than going to office every day.

On the other hand we have forum strategic thinkers who tell us "Oh 105 mm is not enough for Himalayas. We need 155 mm" and so on. We see these weapons as toys that will kill Pakis and Chinese and do not even think for a millisecond that an artillery shell is a bomb that is thrown forward by another bomb. One bomb (the propellant) goes off within a few meters of the faces of men who are operating the cannon and the other bomb is supposed to fly off tens of kilometers and burst under a paki's ass. Great fun. No one on BRF stops to think about the risk of bomb no 2 (the artillery projectile) going off a few meters away. Only people who have operated this stuff or have seen it from close by can see how dangerous this equipment is even when handled well and with no failures and how these people are actually putting their lives on line every day - peacetime or wartime. They just don't talk about it.

So by and large we are a bunch of ignoramuses and operate under the excuse that "We are here to learn". Fine. Let us all learn - but no one is going to learn anything by contempt for the people whose job we want to learn about. I think soldiers need to be given space to speak and for us to listen. The media are idiots, no better than us. Anyhow - I am hoping to see some positive changes in BRF.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 23 Jul 2017 22:17

Manish_P wrote:That's true, sir.

But please check the effect of a 155mm round going off a few feet/mtrs in the air.

Or even on the ground (you can check the videos of 155mm IEDs in Iraq)

Even a EOD bomb suit will not give guaranteed protection

shaun wrote:was going through the comments and videos posted , well , Dhanush does have automation but ppl needs to be near for running it. A layer sits on the left hand side of the gun, operating the fire control computer and driving the howitzer when in self-deployment mode. Even CAESAR and ATMOS have crew near to their gun. What I find lacking is personal protective gear with our boys wearing caps.The injuries could have been minimised with better PPE but alas its the same like our infantry , isn't it.

PPE including ear muffler and ballistic helmets are basic protections not luxury and just like our infantry, we tend to ignore it. I have told all along , big ticket inductions of systems is necessary but the men running those systems needs the highest level of protection , be it armoured carrier , light weight helmets and body armour , comm gear etc.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2017 22:22

GCF, OFB Jabalpur, pored over 12,500 documents from Bofors to develop this Dhanush gun. They added more improvements to that design. And lessons learned from the SOLTAM upgrade. They test fired 2000 rounds before handing over for user trials.
Those are the specifications that were met.

There are two issues. The May 2017 issue was due to the fuze activating at short distance from the muzzle.

The July Shell hitting muzzle brake is due to side-slap.
Happens rarely. Looks like it happened in SOLTAM upgrade also.

If one notes the small print the muzzle brake bore for Dhanush is larger than the SOLTAM upgrade barrel.
If one wants to eliminate effect of side-slap then barrel has to be short or barrel erosion limits have to be tightened to reduce clearance. Taht is barrel life restricted. As GCF makes the barrels this is not a problem.

In many militaries disposal of aging ordnance is a major problem.
One solution is to use it up in tests and demonstrations.
This is where the bug bites.
Sometimes very publicly.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2017 22:23

shaun et al can we have a list of standard PPE used in NATO and FSU countries in artillery troops.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2017 02:21

Xxxx
Ramana wrote in artillery thread

"one notes the small print the muzzle bore for Dhanush is larger than the SOLTAM upgrade barrel.
If one wants to eliminate effect of side-slap then barrel has to be short or barrel erosion limits have to be tightened to reduce clearance. Taht is barrel life restricted. As GCF makes the barrels this is not a problem."

If after a n number of shell firing the gun can be pulled into EME workshops and

1) rebore to a slightly bigger size and have appropriate shell dia

2) fit piston rings like on the shell to accommodate the over size bore

Of course the bore has to be machined to the largest dia after erosion or make the e eccentricity equal in the length of the bore

Or cut and weld and heat shrink that part of the barrel with new piece?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2017 02:23

It's not simple like that. Re machining causes other problems. The barrel bore is always larger than the shell diameter or won't fit. Shell has a driving band of copper at the base to provide tight fit for gasses to push the shell out of the barrel. The barrel is coated with chromium to give low friction surface. All this wears out and barrel has a finite life. US 175mm guns were rated for 2000 rounds for barrel erosion. In Vietnam the barrels shattered not just cracked after 425 firings. The investigation repeated the conclusions and a huge inventory was benched. However the investigation led to better understand how thick pressure vessels work for repeated loadings.
As GCF makes the barrels just order more barrels. It's not import.

Of the 415 Bofor guns that were purchased in 1980s about 200 only are there. I think it's barrel erosion. Let's ask around. Or better do the digging ourselves.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Jul 2017 02:43

deejay wrote:... and for some TFTA action - Here is the Dhanush itself

As you can see this is under testing. You judge the distances.

This video tells me the crew is testing the Dhanush in real world conditions and hence no long length cable from far away is being used... hence niran's post about mass casualties is very plausible.. i would presume given how closely packed the guns are, crews from several guns were injured.

I applaud your optimism deejay sir.. but seriously, expecting OFB to rectify this & its ammo QA is hoping for the impossible. Any other DPSU, including HAL, one can expect rectification. OFB .. you were asking me why I was so cynical about their 7.62mm gun.. this is why.
Their "expansion" of the Bofors to this Dhanush variant.. I am not sure as to how much core R&D went into this as versus rough thumb rules.
ADRDE at least for ATAGS would have done everything from basics.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2017 03:35

I think we should let the true root cause for the May and July incidents be competed.
They did come to the root cause of the early barrel burst.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2017 03:55

From the ScribD linked by tsarkar

The M572 PD does have limitations. It is not watertight and is not drop safe. Prematures have occurred when the weapon is fired at high muzzle velocities from longer-barrelled weapons. These factors led the South African company Naschem, a division of Rheinmetall Denel (Pty) Ltd, to develop the essentially similar, but upgraded M841 PD fuze with some additional components. These components can be retrofitted to existing M572 PD fuzes. The M841 PD can be used with projectiles fitted with Base-Bleed (BB) units and weighs 770 g.

pandyan · Post by **pandyan** » 24 Jul 2017 04:40

Excellent talk by Col Lalit Rai and great background on history, people, topography of Jammu & Kashmir. Watched this for the first time.
Colonel Lalit Rai’s sterling account of the role played by his battalion in the icy heights of Khalubar, coupled with first hand accounts of daring, death and triumph moved the 1200+ audience to tears. It was particularly poignant that General Thimayya had 50 years earlier in 1949 played an equally stellar role in Kargil.

Posting here because of relevance to recent discussions on hardship (With examples) faced by armed forces. His speech starts around 38 minutes.

niran · Post by **niran** » 24 Jul 2017 06:54

ramana wrote:shaun et al can we have a list of standard PPE used in NATO and FSU countries in artillery troops.

-Helmets which every soldiers have
-Ear plugs rubber one preferred over silicon one WRT to maintenance like plain water wash.
- Ear muffs for commander (Commander needs to communicate both orally and through radio thus radio equipment forces him to use mufflers) why? muffs there are ear plug radio equip? coz communicating orally to team necessitates taking off the the ear peace ear plugs are pain in the arse to do so.
BTW ear plugs reduces 80% noise if used properly i.e. squish the plug between your thumb and index finger of hand corresponding to the ear(most important) use the other side hand to pull the ear up and away form the head, push in the squished plug.see it takes at least 46 seconds for a trained ones.
these are the PPE for arty all over the world, khan people have those 3M googles too, but have never seen it with others.

WRT trails:
initial trails is done the current trails re user trails e.g. @chetak co. ltd. manufactured a tablet(arty gun) his intial trail would be will the tab boot up on from power button or will it blow off or the buttons fall off with few presses. that stage with Dhanush is done.
current trails are user trail such how quick is goole map(arty shell). how good does the tab (Dhanush) render BRF site(Arty shell)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2017 07:33

Not so fast.
Yusuf as you seem to have a hang of it a few questions:

1) In the first shell burst in the barrel attributed to age (12years old shell) and air bubbles in the shell, what was the charge used? Maximum? Was the fuze recovered? What was its condition?

2) In recent May 2017 shell functioning out side the muzzle, Was the debris collected? By any chance what was the charge and again was the fuze recovered? And did it function?

3) In the recent July 2017 trials what was the charge and did the shell function?

Thanks if any one can get this information.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2017 08:42

the atags will be perhaps the first army howitzer in world with a 25 liter chamber unless the pzh2000 and denel G6 has it.
naval cannons however have been 55cal for a while incl all the USN ships.

we got to be careful about considering every aspect of this on the atags.