Artillery Discussion Thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Feb 2011 12:12

Arjun was beaten up for not being suitable for IA "logistics chain" - everything from village bridges to train flatbeds. now it seems the current IA/IAF logistics cannot handle the munna M777

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Feb 2011 12:24

I don't think we should dismiss the trial results (if true of course) as the Army being too demanding, setting the bar too high etc. What is especially important to note is that the gun scored a zero on transportability by air (highly plausible and explainable), which its USP, its raison d'être. If the gun is going to have to be transported by road, Why not buy a full sized gun? The M-777 is not the panacea for our artillery problems, If GoI was ready to buy the ULH directly without a contest then surely what problem does it have buying the towed and SP artillery directly?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Feb 2011 12:30

it is indeed worrying if the limited nos of C-17 we are buying can only lift the M777. the C-130 are for para regiment. the Mi26 are very low units and have lot of downtime. if the Mi17V, AN32 and IL76 CANNOT carry the M777, it means we need to buy even more C-17 and MUST buy the Chinook to get any air-mobility on this thing. thats not a good proposition. even if buy Chinooks only to equip the mountain artillery regiments using M777 , still means billions of $$.

imo its better to ensure the M777 is changed in whatever way needed to permit carriage inside IL76 and hopefully the AN32...AND ensure the MTA is built to take it from day1.

thats why I claiming also downsize the M777 to a M777-105 using basically same kit but lighter comps and lighter barrel (39cal 105mm) and that should be liftable by Mi17V also

new 105mm ammo is claimed as highly lethal and capable of 30km range...not too far from older 155mm guns.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Feb 2011 12:34

Hundreds of M777 are being used in combat all over the world for many years. There is nothing wrong in the M777. Army as usual would have set up ridiculous parameters.

Though I agree that cost is very high and it was better to just go in for simpler Indian Gun. But to "fail" it; is absurd!

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 15 Feb 2011 12:46

I don't believe it either, without a doubt there is a bigger story behind it and a full scale inquiry should be launched to find the source of the leak without sabotaging the deal as this Arty is vital for our new mountain divisions , and as far as the claim about scoring Zero on transportation by air is concerned, that is just silly because if the M-777 cannot be carried by air then no modern gun anywhere in the world today can be carried by air.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Feb 2011 12:48

Marten wrote:What stops any of the contenders from setting up a 74-26 pvt-public partnership via an Indian arm if they are that keen?

BAE and ST kinetic have already done that with Mahindra and Punj-Lloyd respectively.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 15 Feb 2011 12:59

^^This is increasingly looking like sabotage, plain and simple. Whatever the IA picks, well, there's going to be a problem with it... 20-25 years of blocking. It's not a one-off effort but a broad, sustained campaign, aided internally by vested interests. In the MoD? Quite probably. In the IA? Well events of late have pointed to some corruption at least in the Army. So who knows?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 15 Feb 2011 13:10

I don't believe it either, without a doubt there is a bigger story behind it and a full scale inquiry should be launched to find the source of the leak without sabotaging the deal as this Arty is vital for our new mountain divisions , and as far as the claim about scoring Zero on transportation by air is concerned, that is just silly because if the M-777 cannot be carried by air then no modern gun anywhere in the world today can be carried by air.

I wonder what exactly can our mountain divisions do with 145 guns..As Ramana says, they would mostly land up as parade pieces, knowing the behaviour of Amerikhan. Most probably, this deal was nothing but one of the many 'payback deals' to Unkeel by MMS for the no-clear deal.

Some honest soldier (or one who has some grudges against the Army Chief) could have felt brave enough in this season of scams and published what is obvious to many - ie., exorbitant price for a limited number of guns (and limited resources to carry them to the mountain tops). OR the establishment themselves shivered in their dhotis (fearing CAG rap in their knuckles) and published it through known sources. Particularly interesting is the reminder to the Army Chief about the Adarsh scam - Western Naval Command Chief was the whistle blower of Adarsh Scam. May be they (establishment) wanted to kill the deal and deflect pressure from unkeel...

All with my conspiracy hat on

jai · Post by **jai** » 15 Feb 2011 13:21

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-bu ... /190986?hp

Gen VK Singh in an interview to Bakra Butt..oops..Barkha Dutt blaming the military for changing requirements often as the prime cause of delay in the Arty modernization....go to 32.40 minutes of the interview.

Also, mentions that "after Bofors, there has been a need to do things cleanly ..and that it also depends on the weapons system needed - if there are many manufacturers then we will get it, but if there is only one, it will never come".

Waat saar, conveniently forgetting FMS ??

Also, seems very guarded in not saying anything that may seem remotely against MOD or Kangrass.....the straight talking general seems to be at his diplomatic best...H(er)MV ?

Why does She not ask these questions to the defense minister instead who I think should be answerable for these delays more than Gen. Singh....??

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Feb 2011 13:28

Nihat wrote:.. and as far as the claim about scoring Zero on transportation by air is concerned, that is just silly because if the M-777 cannot be carried by air then no modern gun anywhere in the world today can be carried by air.

I think that in practice this is closer to the truth. Most of us are basing our view that the M-777 is very air portable from the few pictures, videos and stories of American troops in Afghanistan, But in reality what percentage of the deployments are by air? And this is in a low intensity conflict scenario where they have massive air lift capacity, facing close to no artillery threat and can stay put at the same place for days. The situation is almost completely opposite in our case.

L Ram · Post by **L Ram** » 15 Feb 2011 13:33

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Arm ... ation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koalitsiya-SV.jpg

This is a self propelled double barel arty gun which i saw in net while casual browsing. can't the DRDO can redesign the same with our two 105 mm light feild guns mounted on the same chasis as the russians planning with 152/155 mm gun variant.

just my thoughts.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Feb 2011 13:34

Marten wrote:
abhik wrote: BAE and ST kinetic have already done that with Mahindra and Punj-Lloyd respectively.
As bidders, not component manufacturers contributing to assembly in their native lands.

The towed Artillery contract entails complete indigenous manufacture and assembly of a large portion of the total number of guns ordered.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Feb 2011 13:35

in arunachal atleast the road comms are often N-S and to reach even adjoining valleys needs a detour south to the foothills or even into assam. due to isolated nature of these valleys hundreds of distinct dialects and communities came up there instead of a more homogenous community and common language as commonly seen in river valleys.

bottomline is any landslide, air or missile attack that takes out a road makes it tough to redeploy resources in places like arunachal...air mobility the only quick fix.

we need imo a modern 105mm gun that even Dhruv(I hope) and Mi17V should be capable of lifting to say 12000ft.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Feb 2011 13:38

We're back to the IA bashing, it seems.

Has anyone here seen the five pages which are supposed to have been leaked? Or is anyone sure about the facts according to which the gun seems to have failed on multiple parameters?

How about using some common sense before jumping the gun (pun intended)?

Please ask yourself - how can the gun fail air transport trials? If it has, it fails the air-transport trial because of incompatibility with which platform and under what scenario? IL-76 can sure carry it - it does the FH-77 with ease....Can AN-32 carry it? Don't know...but google tells me that AN-32 cargo hold dimension is 12.48 (11 metres flat) x 2.30 x 1.84 metres while M-777 is 9.5 m (31ft 2in) in towed position. AN-32 can lift ~6,500kgs while M-777 weighs ~3,200kgs. So, theoretically, AN-32 can carry it. But does carrying such a cargo places restriction on AN-32 in terms of operation from ALG? Only the IAF and IA can answer these.

But did M-777 fail any particular air-transportability scenario? Like carry under-slung on Mi-17? May be yes....the margin between empty and MTOW is very narrow from M-777 and mountain ops (movement under slung) perspective.

Let us not twist the context without having the complete set of information.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Feb 2011 13:44

Leaks can also happen in MOD isnt it ?

jai · Post by **jai** » 15 Feb 2011 14:24

L Ram wrote:http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Arm ... ation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koalitsiya-SV.jpg

This is a self propelled double barel arty gun which i saw in net while casual browsing. can't the DRDO can redesign the same with our two 105 mm light feild guns mounted on the same chasis as the russians planning with 152/155 mm gun variant.

just my thoughts.

While No expert, I agree that we need tracked and wheeled howitzers more than towed types and these may work better in the mountains....a la PZH 2000 / Archer - FH77BW L52 or G6 along with rocket solutions like the Pinaka which are road mobile.

Additionally, IMO - IA needs to think of unconventional solutions - what about anti aircraft solutions in direct fire mode for mountain use - these should be highly effective and would kill two birds with one stone - hit the dragon choppers and air support and men on the hills. what about mounting and trying out ZSU 23's on available trucks...

How about creating smaller dia rocket solutions (smaller brother of Pinaka) that can be mounted on smaller truck/ SUV chasis ? Good number of Namicas along with a anti personnel - air bursting variant of Nag ?

DRDO should be creating our equivalents of Atmos and Caesar using what we have available in our inventory...ie 105 mm and 130 mm guns....

And....all this noise around M 777 being ineffective is just that....noise. ..just to reduce the prices or at best/worst, handiwork of the dragon - after all, the guns would be targeting them !! Ignore them I say...just get the damn guns !!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Feb 2011 14:33

Marten wrote: ...if any of the parties were interested, they could have set up the ecosystem to manufacture in India and support assembly globally. If they choose to do it only after winning this single contract, it is owing to the fact that their objectives are limited to the obligcations of that one contract only. So, are the local cos in for the long term or simply one contract?

All the global players are here for the long term because they are not only after one single contract but are vying for many and will compete for more in the future. As far as investing in facilities and 'ecosystems' with out any firm orders no company public or private, domestic or foreign will do that, Its not something reasonable to expect.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Feb 2011 15:18

There are some hard facts which need to be enunciated.

Firstly,the Russian transport planes are NOT going to be retired.All 100+ AN-32s are being upgraded with the frist say some already recd.The IL-76s are also to be upgraded,Russian industry has assured the GOI/MOD that the IL-476s,Il-76s with key all-round improvements are in production (glass cockpits,better range,fuel economy,engines,etc.,)for the next 3 Phalcon platforms,the Ukranian defence industry is also being streamlined to match Russian requirements-latest news reports,for the whole gamut of earlier Russo-Ukranian weapon systems.AN-124s are also available if ordered.

The MI-26s are also available and at Aero-India there was in a mag, a superb pic accompanied by reports of how in Afgahnistan downed Chinooks were salvaged by ...MI-26s! The pic of a Chinook hanging under an MI-26 says it all.In the ehavy helo contst there should actually be "no contest"! If we acquire extra MI-26s,the problem of airlifting ULHs will cease to exist.We can simply airlift a hundred + in a week or two.It is going to be a few years before we have a decent road infrastructure and imagine the wear on the artillery as well beinghauled up the Himalayan heights taking weeks to get into position.

As Marten(?) said about Chacko's post,why on earth during the last 20 years did the IA not ask the DRDO to develop a light mountain gun/howitzer? As others have also said,105 and 130mm guns with special ER ammo can be lethal in thos eheights.We need to adapt and innovate until the perfect solution can be obtained.Under no circumstances however can the innsidious FMS route be used to acquire asub-standard piece of eqpt. when other foreign alternatives are available.If it took a stand-off between both the T-90 and Arjun for the latter to prove its worth,then for such a critical weapon system to be used against hordes of marauding Chinese,a contest has to be made to ensure that the IA gets the best weapon.The argument that "there is no alternative",the TINA factor, that we must buy the BAe gun,is as valid as that of the CWG that there was no alternative to Suresh Kalamadi and a blank cheque had to be given to him to "save the CWG and India's reputation"!

The more one sees how this requirement has been jinxed,the more likely the fact that skullduggery has been at work to scuttle all rival contenders to the successors of Bofors.Should we ask Signor Quattrochi for his views on the subject?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 15 Feb 2011 15:37

jai..fyi..ZSU are indeed used in direct firing mode by IA... and also by paki ( with their ZSU equivalents ) in kashmir... quite a hellish weapon in direct firing mode...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Feb 2011 16:39

PS:There are several articles of the moment describing how armies are examining the use of MBRLs in preference to conventional artillery.The advantages are rapid salvoes of greater intensity,long range and accurate targeting through new rounds with terminal seekers,ER propellants,etc.I am not sure if there is literature on this subject available in the Indian context,IDR,etc.,of MBRLs in mountainous terrain.Was there any study done post-Kargil?It would be most interesting to study the same as armies abroad are favouring the acquisition of MBRLs in greater numbers in their inventory.MBRLs in concert with ULHs ,not replacing ULHs in the mountains,would be quite a lethal combination.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Feb 2011 20:59

Looks like The IA should put the IN in charge of the 155mm gun procurement!

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 15 Feb 2011 21:03

jai wrote:
L Ram wrote:http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Arm ... ation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koalitsiya-SV.jpg

This is a self propelled double barel arty gun which i saw in net while casual browsing. can't the DRDO can redesign the same with our two 105 mm light feild guns mounted on the same chasis as the russians planning with 152/155 mm gun variant.

just my thoughts.
While No expert, I agree that we need tracked and wheeled howitzers more than towed types and these may work better in the mountains....a la PZH 2000 / Archer - FH77BW L52 or G6 along with rocket solutions like the Pinaka which are road mobile.

How do you get the tracked Howitzer deep into the mountains? Just because it is tracked does not mean it will get anywhere.

Second, the need to rapidly get some arty pieces in place requires being able to airlift it with a helicopter.

Now, as pointed out by many -- if the 777 cannot be airlifted (the Fail grade), then no other 155 can be airlifted to the location. To begin with it was designed for quick airlift and deployment to forward locations, specifically with use of a helicopter (not just C-17 or C-130).

Talk to the Marines who have used it in AfPak and you will get nothing but complete and total admiration for the gun. A Chinook can airlift one of these along with a complement of Marines to a forward location. Consequently, Mi-26 also can transport a gun, initial ammo and a complement of troops to a forward location, which can subsequently be supplied by Mi-17.

(An Mi-17 would barely be able to airlift it with carrying capacity of ~4,000kg, at altitude it is unlikely to be able to)

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 15 Feb 2011 21:05

ramana wrote:Looks like The IA should put the IN in charge of the 155mm gun procurement!

[OT]
Japs to Lalu: Give us Bihar and we will make it like Japan in 10 years.
Lalu to Japs: Give me Japan and I will make Japan like Bihar in one year[/ot]

You might even see DRDO made 155mm on warships.

sum · Post by **sum** » 15 Feb 2011 21:12

Consequently, Mi-26 also can transport a gun, initial ammo and a complement of troops to a forward location, which can subsequently be supplied by Mi-17.

But dont we have only 3 Mi-26s in IAF inventory?

Did the IA fail it on basis of Mi-17 not being able to lift the 777? All in all, the IA has made a fine khichdi of the artillery saga and is a case study on how not to go about procuring a particular system.

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 15 Feb 2011 21:31

sum wrote:
Consequently, Mi-26 also can transport a gun, initial ammo and a complement of troops to a forward location, which can subsequently be supplied by Mi-17.
But dont we have only 3 Mi-26s in IAF inventory?

Did the IA fail it on basis of Mi-17 not being able to lift the 777? All in all, the IA has made a fine khichdi of the artillery saga and is a case study on how not to go about procuring a particular system.

Without a heavy-lift chopper, how does IA expect to forward deploy arty pieces of 155mm? Of course it can be transported in pieces and assembled -- but that defeats the purpose of rapid deployment.

With all the emphasis on rapid forward deployment -- acquiring additional C-130J, C-17, some talk of additional IL-76; they have not addressed the last-mile problem. How do you get heavy equipment from airports to deployment areas. There will be need for acquiring some medium (~10-12 tons like Chinook) to heavy-lift (~20 tons like the Mi-17) helicopters in decent numbers for rapid deployment of troops (>25-30) plus equipment (vehicle/artillery/ammo).

Much like the AN-32, C-130J, IL-76, and C-17 spectrum of transport aircraft, a similar spectrum of helicopters with airlift capabilities is needed. Dhruv (~2 tons), Mi-17 (~4 tons /30 troops), Chinook (~10-12 tons/ 50 troops), Mi-26 (~20 tons /90 troops).

I suspect IA tried the Mi-17 because it is rated at 5 tons externally slung weight, but I do not believe it can airlift that at altitude in the mountains.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Feb 2011 22:27

Philip wrote:There are some hard facts which need to be enunciated.

The IL-76s are also to be upgraded,Russian industry has assured the GOI/MOD that the IL-476s,Il-76s with key all-round improvements are in production (glass cockpits,better range,fuel economy,engines,etc.,)for the next 3 Phalcon platforms

Source?????

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Feb 2011 22:59

sum wrote: But dont we have only 3 Mi-26s in IAF inventory?

Did the IA fail it on basis of Mi-17 not being able to lift the 777? All in all, the IA has made a fine khichdi of the artillery saga and is a case study on how not to go about procuring a particular system.

On what basis are you claiming that the gun was failed? Because the DDM says so?

Was the gun failed in one sub-set of a parameter like air-trasportability or did it miss the bus completely? Why is FAIL being construed as if the gun has completely failed under the said parameter? How come you're taking DDM at face value,that too about such a controversial topic, and blaming the IA for the issue? You yourself don't have the answer and yet, you feel comfortable in bashing the IA? What gives?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Feb 2011 23:12

Rohit is absolutely right. The "IA is buying a failed gun onlee

" is a DDM contention. Most of these prized goofs could't tell a howitzer from their own backsides. They'll see a zero in one column and start shouting from rooftops that the gun failed. Also don't discount the possibility that they may have been paid to do just that. Along with the guy who leaked the report. It should be obvious that it is no coincidence that every time the IA is close to acquiring an artillery system, the whole thing somehow collapses.

One thing's for sure. The chinese must be laughing their a$$es off while rubbing their hands in glee.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Feb 2011 00:06

Well it is just possible that all the issues stem essentially from compatibility problems.

May be 777 works great in a infrastructure and environment which it was built for (Heli and fixed wing asset types and numbers, typical operational geographies yada yada

Just possible it will not work in Indian setup -- this is what IA found out; essentially. Maybe its a great gun, but just doesn't fit into IA's SOPs.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Feb 2011 00:18

Well nothing will fit the IA SOP for they want things made with unobtanium otehrwise want to fight with Lee Enfields.

rohitvats the "DDM" was quoting verbatim from a report and not their own language.

A couple of years ago I asked Is the Indian Army ready to fight?

The answer in a few years. The "clean" Rakhas Mantri, who cancels any thing with a whiff of corruption, instead of going after the wayward people and unrelasitic specs from the Indian army have ensured that they will be equipped with only obsolete stuff.

Total Jai Ho!

Look at the Krasnopol shell. Its an assault breaker for the plains. Instead they want to use it in high mountain airIless density) where there is hypersonic lift induced and try to hit targets above the heights and this exhausts the battery and then claim it fails. What they need is missile not a shell.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Feb 2011 00:45

for now i will wait and see what the IA says

But looking at all the clips of the 777 I wonder what the practical rate of fire is going to be

it seems horrendously manual (as Singha pointedout sometime back - they have stripped it clean)

sigh

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Feb 2011 00:52

Wonder if Renuka Chowdary's hand is there in this deal also being torpedoed?

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 16 Feb 2011 03:29

Philip wrote:PS:There are several articles of the moment describing how armies are examining the use of MBRLs in preference to conventional artillery.The advantages are rapid salvoes of greater intensity,long range and accurate targeting through new rounds with terminal seekers,ER propellants,etc.I am not sure if there is literature on this subject available in the Indian context,IDR,etc.,of MBRLs in mountainous terrain.Was there any study done post-Kargil?It would be most interesting to study the same as armies abroad are favouring the acquisition of MBRLs in greater numbers in their inventory.MBRLs in concert with ULHs ,not replacing ULHs in the mountains,would be quite a lethal combination.

Weight wise it should be possible to air lift the multiple barrels(empty) of Pinaka ,unmounted from the truck, with a helo and assembled on mountain tops on top of a towable undercarriage and subsequently loaded with helo lifted pinaka rockets. Smaller but higher hp tractors for towing them would be more helpful in narrow mountainous areas. The tractors 4x4 will be able to navigate terrain without roads much better towing the MBRLs.

JMT

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 16 Feb 2011 04:18

Sanku wrote:Well it is just possible that all the issues stem essentially from compatibility problems.

May be 777 works great in a infrastructure and environment which it was built for (Heli and fixed wing asset types and numbers, typical operational geographies yada yada

Just possible it will not work in Indian setup -- this is what IA found out; essentially. Maybe its a great gun, but just doesn't fit into IA's SOPs.

I think SOP for a ultra light howitzer will only get formulated if we operates one... how can one have a standard operating procedure for some thing one doesn't have?

what this report may be is preliminary finding for improvements or calibration issues.

Since its a FMS route - IA fixing up a report and lowering up the standards are baseless allegations. In FMS route possibility of making money is almost non existent.

In M777 case we as Indian Govt is asking US to sell it to India.
Its not a typical buyer seller engagement.
Price is fixed.
BAe is just a manufacturing agency here.
US govt/ DoD is the seller.
Leaking the report dose not have any effect on price.
As the product is unique and seller enjoys the monopoly conditions.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 16 Feb 2011 04:37

Surya wrote:for now i will wait and see what the IA says. But looking at all the clips of the 777 I wonder what the practical rate of fire is going to be. it seems horrendously manual (as Singha pointedout sometime back - they have stripped it clean). sigh

A well-trained crew can get off 3 rounds per minute, or 5 rounds per minute in the "oh, shyt!" scenario. Being stripped down to the bare essentials is the beauty of it; its technical advances are completely in the material sciences department.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 16 Feb 2011 04:46

ParGha wrote:
Surya wrote:for now i will wait and see what the IA says. But looking at all the clips of the 777 I wonder what the practical rate of fire is going to be. it seems horrendously manual (as Singha pointedout sometime back - they have stripped it clean). sigh
A well-trained crew can get off 3 rounds per minute, or 5 rounds per minute in the "oh, shyt!" scenario. Being stripped down to the bare essentials is the beauty of it; its technical advances are completely in the material sciences department.

this is what a well trained crew can do with m777, 1 round per 10 sec approx http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb3tfk8dxvU

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 16 Feb 2011 08:14

d_berwal wrote: this is what a well trained crew can do with m777, 1 round per 10 sec approx http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb3tfk8dxvU

Here's another one posted earlierhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5JDpSsaco, at high elevation takes about 45 seconds for a round(although maybe they are not in frenzy mode). Note how the elevation has to be changed(lowered) so that the shell can be rammed in.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Feb 2011 08:18

For all the hullap-gulla about the M-777 and compatibility in Indian scenario, people forget that as of now, we operate the 105mm IFG or its 'lighter' variant LFG. M-777 is lighter than IFG and only slightly heavier than LFG. And LFG/IFG have a seven man crew. Now, think of Indian Mountain Division with 4*M-777 regiments and one can appreciate the potential. Rewind to 1999 and replace guns in pics like these (http://flashnewstoday.com/wp-content/up ... argil.jpeg) with M-777 and may be, that much lesser FH-77 units might need to be pulled from other formations.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Feb 2011 08:25

rather than spend $10b buying a new fleet of Chinooks perhaps its better to improve E-W road logistics in arunachal, sikkim and other areas so towed guns can actually be towed into battle and redeployed with some ease.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Feb 2011 09:26

And the area gets development.