Army Indian Army Artillery Archive

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
8,097
Points
113
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
Indian MoD orders six regiments' worth of Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launchers

by Rahul Bedi


India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has signed a INR25.8 billion (USD353.5 million) contract with two domestic private-sector companies and a public-sector enterprise for the supply of six regiments’ worth of indigenously developed Pinaka Mk I multi-barrel rocket launcher (MBRL) systems to the Indian Army (IA).

1598992001958.png
A Pinaka MBRL system. The Indian government announced on 31 August that it placed an order for six regiments’ worth of the system for the Indian Army. (BEML Limited)


The Indian government’s Press Information Bureau (PIB) announced on 31 August that the deal includes procuring 114 launchers with automated gun alignment and positioning systems (AGAPSs) and 45 command posts from Tata Power and Larsen & Toubro.

A total of 330 high-mobility vehicles - worth a combined INR8.42 billion - will be manufactured by BEML Limited at its Palakkad plant in Kerala, with deliveries expected to be completed within three years. The majority of these vehicles, however, will not be fitted with launchers, but will instead be used to carry additional rockets for the Pinaka systems.

Meanwhile, the rockets, which have an estimated range of 38-40 km, will be manufactured by private-sector company Economic Explosives Limited in Mumbai. The rockets had previously been made by the state-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB).

The PIB stated that deliveries of the recently ordered Pinaka systems are to be completed by 2024, adding that all six regiments’ worth “will be operationalised along the northern and eastern borders to further enhance the armed forces’ operational preparedness”. This region includes the disputed 4,057 km-long Line of Actual Control (LoAC) with China.

 

crixus

Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
594
Reaction score
693
Points
93
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
In indigenously developed artillery gun which suffered a barrel burst in field trials earlier this month injuring four army personnel may need to go back to the drawing board, officials told ET. The malfunction of the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS), a 155 mm/52 calibre gun system designed and developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), occurred during internal developmental firing at the Pokhran (Rajasthan) firing ranges on September 12.

The incide ..

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
 

Gautam

Committed member
Professional
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
158
Reaction score
659
Points
93
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Firing trials of indigenous Howitzer gun successful at LPR Khamaria

Date :30-Sep-2020
By Ashish Rajput

1601547156280.png

Development level firing trials of indigenously developed 155 mm x 39 calibre Ultra Light Howitzer gun evoked good results at Long Proof Range (LPR) Khamaria in Jabalpur. The gun is being developed by Bharat Forge, Pune, in technical collaboration with Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The country had procured M777 Ultra Light Howitzer guns from the United States and indigenous production of equivalent guns in India will prove a milestone to augment its strategic strength in cost efficient manner. According to experts, it is the first time when any advanced gun has been indigenously developed in the country and its prototype has been fielded for test firing in Jabalpur.

The Ultra Light Howitzer gun has been designed and developed with rigorous research with the help of DRDO. LPR Khamaria, Commandant, Brigadier, Nishchay Raut, while talking to ‘The Hitavada’, informed that development test firing for prototype of 155 mm x 39 calibre gun was started two days back at LPG Khamaria. Total 24 rounds firing 12 rounds in a day was conducted from the prototype gun. Initially, development level firing from prototype gun was up to the mark.

Team of technical experts will review findings of test firing for further improvements to make it ready for further trials. Brigadier Raut informed that since LPR Khamaria got approval for testing of long barrel guns, it is the third biggest gun which is being fielded at LPR Khamaria after successful proof trials of indigenously developed Sharang and Dhanush gun systems.


The gun exists in both towed & mounted versions. If they gun gets proven in firing test avenues for both open up. Won't have to import BAE M777 anymore. I personally love the mounted version more :
Kalyani Group's MGS Poster.jpg
Ee-FXv0U8AAUhOt.jpg
Kalyani Group's MGS-2.jpg
Kalyani Group's MGS-3.jpg
Kalyani Group's MGS-1.jpg

You have to give it to the BEML folks. OFB makes MGS, its mounted on the BEML-Tatra trucks. Now the Bharat Forge Ltd. is using the same truck. No matter who wins the orders from the Army, BEML's trucks have already won. The facelift of the truck was also probably done by the Bharat Forge.
 

Gautam

Committed member
Professional
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
158
Reaction score
659
Points
93
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
4,462
Reaction score
8,860
Points
113
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
@Nilgiri @Paro

Finally managed to finish the Ramjet artillery round article I was writing. Do let me know what you think :


Its a commendable effort to update us all. Much appreciated.

The basic concept is likely to be easily understood by most readers, but let me pose a few questions and topics to take this a bit further maybe here (and/or maybe a follow up part 2 for later at your discretion):

1) What do you think of the two basic layouts you present?

i.e annular combustor (ramjet air passes through the centre) vs central combustsor ( ramjet air passes around it) regardless of the fuel/OX picked.

2) What are the issues stopping a pure fuel-only ramjet (no oxidiser carried/binded and just uses the compressed air flowing through)?

i.e There must be a reason a hybrid rocket stage (essentially) to add the requisite del V to the system is only one being investigated here.

3) Can you explain what the rationale is behind the need for the propellant to be fuel-rich? (There is a key reason for this)

4) Can you explain more on the fuel burn rate "balance"? i.e why its bad for it to be "too fast"?

It is not actually the higher speed argument vs propellant burn out....given theoertically the impulse curve (of del E or del F or del V) doesnt really matter as long as you impart the same net amount of it (in perfect world).

But there are practical considerations (same underlying reason why jules verne proposed idea to get to the moon is unfeasible with the material realities we have)....in this case it would be where the choked (throat) flow would arise downstream, i.e the exit nozzle...w.r.t its throat ratio and geometry. That would be the biggest factor in limiting what you can do upstream to introduce the max initial flow conditions for the nozzle...and thus have threshold for the entry velocity/pressure (i.e energy) profile of fluid it could process...above which you just waste the energy (and likely also introduce significant problems to the structure itself because of that).

"Too slow" burn obviously is well understood in comparison... as the del energy driver in that direction is more easily grasped...heck too slow means you add significant mass penalty given the fuel you carry for longer over the duration...that basically limits the range in the end (i.e effective net energy added per mass/cost) and imposes a clear unfeasible threshold from that end.

5) What would the approach of a different "primer" maybe be (or why has it been excluded if so).... say electric primer initiated for an appropriate bulk propellant (say f5 which seems to have been selected for further study) look like w.r.t design and safety/reliability considerations of having a flow heat initiated bulk multi-stage primer (effectively) proposed?

@ANMDT @Combat-Master @Cabatli_53 @T-123456 @Vergennes @Dante80 @Test7 @#comcom @UkroTurk @Kartal1 et al. might find this topic interesting.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
2,693
Reaction score
9,615
Points
113
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
@Nilgiri @Paro

Finally managed to finish the Ramjet artillery round article I was writing. Do let me know what you think :

All my concern is accuracy, the advanced artillery munitions are slowly shifting to have dedicated seekers (even Image processing) for better accuracy. From more range or a more accurate guidance and engagement ability, i would choose the latter.

And isn't there a more feasible way to extend the range ? Using simpler mechanism (rocket-assist, glider wings, terminal boost if further needed)

Probably this would evolve into a shell similar to the US made hyper-velocity projectile and will be used in different purposes. So, the range will not be primary concern and a ramjet will be meaningful.
 

Gautam

Committed member
Professional
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
158
Reaction score
659
Points
93
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
Its a commendable effort to update us all. Much appreciated.

Thank you. Excellent questions, I am not sure I can answer them all. Let me try.....
1) What do you think of the two basic layouts you present?

i.e annular combustor (ramjet air passes through the centre) vs central combustsor ( ramjet air passes around it) regardless of the fuel/OX picked.

As far as I can tell annular combustors are preferable for propellant with no oxidisers. Only the fuel is carried, oxygen is extracted from the intake air. The intake has 2 functions: heat up the air via compression & provide oxygen for the combustion.

The Brahmos missile's ramjet works like that. If you watch the launch sequence you will notice the nose cap being blown off as the solid booster pushes the missile forward. Its only a while later that the ramjet kicks in & there is a noticeable increase in exhaust gases. Before the ramjet ignites the intake compresses the air heating it up then sends it to the isolator. The isolator slows the hot air down to subsonic speeds. This creates a "pressure bulge", sort of like a traffic jam, further heating up the air. Only then the now super heated air is sent to the combustor.

An annular combustor ramjets maintain a "positive balance" of air. Which means there is always more air inside the isolator, than the combustor needs. This allows the missile to perform some dramatic maneuvers without worrying about stalling the engine. The Brahmos can do an elevated S-maneuver before striking the target, then there is the steep dive maneuver to strike targets on the reverse slope of a mountain. All these maneuvers are going to leave the intake without air for a while. The combustor can keep taking air form the isolator until the intake recovers.

As always there are problems of compatibility. It seems the annular combustor has a liking for liquid fuel(Brahmos) or gel fuel (LFRJ). I am not sure why this is the case.

As far as central combustor ramjets go, they don't have a separate isolator. Some have a small isolator section at the end of the intake. Most of them don't even have that. But they have multiple combustors. Remember how the isolators used to slow down and heat up the air. In a central combustor type ramjet, the primary combustor provides the additional heating. The secondary combustor is comparable to the annular combustor. These combustors don't have a "positive balance" & are thus incapable of performing some of those very high angle of attack maneuvers. The deficiency of oxidsers during maneuvers can be compensated by compounds like Ammonium Perchlorate which breaks down at high temperatures to release a lot of oxygen.

There are advantages to central combustor types too. The ramjet ignites sooner, sometimes at much lower speeds. Sustaining ignition is relatively easier. The design of such an engine is simpler, thus it can be mass produced more easily. Since the design is simpler the ramjet engine can be miniaturised more easily without degrading performance etc.

Again for reasons not known to me, the central combustor type ramjets have a liking for composite solid fuel & gel fuel. The SFDR has a central ramjet engine with solid fuel.

Notice the interesting thing about gel based fuel ? All types of ramjets apparently like it. Gels usually have a density in between solids & liquids. Meaning gel based fuels have energy/mass greater than liquids but lower than solids. But unlike solids, gels are easily throttleable. Gels don't need an elastomeric container that liquid fuel needs to maintain centre of gravity, as gels don't slosh around in flight. Gels are also easier to store. Unlike solids they are not prone to accidental ignition, unlike liquids they don't flow out incase of a leakage. They are quite literally the best of both worlds. As long as you can stabilize them, but that's for another day.

If we could replace the liquid fuel on the Brahmos with a gel based fuel there would be a massive increase in energy. That energy could go into increasing speed & range of the Brahmos. The final goal of upgrading the Brahmos appears to be taking the range to 800-900km & speed to Mach 5. We started making the Brahmos missile's ramjet engine in Indian in 2011. Previously the NPO Mashinostroyeniya used to make them :


1603519013058.png

The Russians get license fee as it is their design. With a new fuel the engine design would change, especially the fuel injection parts. Most of the redesign work will be done in India as the fuel is developed by DRDL. Would the Russians still get the license fee after the re-design, I doubt it. The new solid boosters are Indian, seeker & computers are Indian, launchers are Indian too. The only Russian owned IP was the ramjet and the fuel & now those are about to be challenged.

I have gone off the rail again, haven't I ? I will stop.
2) What are the issues stopping a pure fuel-only ramjet (no oxidiser carried/binded and just uses the compressed air flowing through)?

I think I have mentioned this above. If the intake stalls due to a high angle of attack, there would be no recovery. Soon the engine will stall, once an ramjet (or scramjet) stalls there is no restarting it. That is why so much emphasis is put on sustaining ignition.

A 155mm shell is too small to have an isolator. So either you have oxidisers or take a straight flight path with no trajectory correction. The former is preferred as the later would cause a degradation of accuracy.
4) Can you explain more on the fuel burn rate "balance"? i.e why its bad for it to be "too fast"?

It is not actually the higher speed argument vs propellant burn out....given theoertically the impulse curve (of del E or del F or del V) doesnt really matter as long as you impart the same net amount of it (in perfect world).

But there are practical considerations (same underlying reason why jules verne proposed idea to get to the moon is unfeasible with the material realities we have)....in this case it would be where the choked (throat) flow would arise downstream, i.e the exit nozzle...w.r.t its throat ratio and geometry. That would be the biggest factor in limiting what you can do upstream to introduce the max initial flow conditions for the nozzle...and thus have threshold for the entry velocity/pressure (i.e energy) profile of fluid it could process...above which you just waste the energy (and likely also introduce significant problems to the structure itself because of that).

"Too slow" burn obviously is well understood in comparison... as the del energy driver in that direction is more easily grasped...heck too slow means you add significant mass penalty given the fuel you carry for longer over the duration...that basically limits the range in the end (i.e effective net energy added per mass/cost) and imposes a clear unfeasible threshold from that end.

That is a big question. Let me just address the bold part. Its bad to be too fast right now because it degrades accuracy. This is a 155mm shell, there are stringent restrictions on size and mass. The cruise missiles can afford to be faster as they have the internal space to carry fancy guidance systems, a 155mm doesn't have that luxury.

Thus until we have reliably proven the guidance tech, it is sensible to go for a relatively lower speed version. The speed & range can be improved upon later.
5) What would the approach of a different "primer" maybe be (or why has it been excluded if so).... say electric primer initiated for an appropriate bulk propellant (say f5 which seems to have been selected for further study) look like w.r.t design and safety/reliability considerations of having a flow heat initiated bulk multi-stage primer (effectively) proposed?

All electronics that are placed on an artillery shell are placed on the nose of the shell. There is a good reason for that, electronics don't like being hit. An electric primer would have to placed much behind on the shell & is likely to be hit hard when the shell is fired. In defence hardware, electronics is our weak spot. Let's not take too many risks just yet.
All my concern is accuracy, the advanced artillery munitions are slowly shifting to have dedicated seekers (even Image processing) for better accuracy. From more range or a more accurate guidance and engagement ability, i would choose the latter.

The Army would chose the same. The guidance is the only thing that worries me. We can handle making ramjets, electronics is a different story. Though we did have many successes recently, electronics has been our weakness for a long time.

The org. handling the development of guidance equipment is RCI. They make IIR, AESA, PESA, MMW seekers. They also made the Pinaka's TCS system. Maybe they can make something work. Let's see what turns up.
And isn't there a more feasible way to extend the range ? Using simpler mechanism (rocket-assist, glider wings, terminal boost if further needed)

All other options don't give you the range that a Ramjet can. We do have rocket assisted VLAPs, Base Blead & Boat Tail ammo.
Probably this would evolve into a shell similar to the US made hyper-velocity projectile and will be used in different purposes. So, the range will not be primary concern and a ramjet will be meaningful.

I would personally love to see a naval main gun fire this.
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
4,462
Reaction score
8,860
Points
113
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Thank you. Excellent questions, I am not sure I can answer them all. Let me try.....


As far as I can tell annular combustors are preferable for propellant with no oxidisers. Only the fuel is carried, oxygen is extracted from the intake air. The intake has 2 functions: heat up the air via compression & provide oxygen for the combustion.

The Brahmos missile's ramjet works like that. If you watch the launch sequence you will notice the nose cap being blown off as the solid booster pushes the missile forward. Its only a while later that the ramjet kicks in & there is a noticeable increase in exhaust gases. Before the ramjet ignites the intake compresses the air heating it up then sends it to the isolator. The isolator slows the hot air down to subsonic speeds. This creates a "pressure bulge", sort of like a traffic jam, further heating up the air. Only then the now super heated air is sent to the combustor.

An annular combustor ramjets maintain a "positive balance" of air. Which means there is always more air inside the isolator, than the combustor needs. This allows the missile to perform some dramatic maneuvers without worrying about stalling the engine. The Brahmos can do an elevated S-maneuver before striking the target, then there is the steep dive maneuver to strike targets on the reverse slope of a mountain. All these maneuvers are going to leave the intake without air for a while. The combustor can keep taking air form the isolator until the intake recovers.

As always there are problems of compatibility. It seems the annular combustor has a liking for liquid fuel(Brahmos) or gel fuel (LFRJ). I am not sure why this is the case.

As far as central combustor ramjets go, they don't have a separate isolator. Some have a small isolator section at the end of the intake. Most of them don't even have that. But they have multiple combustors. Remember how the isolators used to slow down and heat up the air. In a central combustor type ramjet, the primary combustor provides the additional heating. The secondary combustor is comparable to the annular combustor. These combustors don't have a "positive balance" & are thus incapable of performing some of those very high angle of attack maneuvers. The deficiency of oxidsers during maneuvers can be compensated by compounds like Ammonium Perchlorate which breaks down at high temperatures to release a lot of oxygen.

There are advantages to central combustor types too. The ramjet ignites sooner, sometimes at much lower speeds. Sustaining ignition is relatively easier. The design of such an engine is simpler, thus it can be mass produced more easily. Since the design is simpler the ramjet engine can be miniaturised more easily without degrading performance etc.

Again for reasons not known to me, the central combustor type ramjets have a liking for composite solid fuel & gel fuel. The SFDR has a central ramjet engine with solid fuel.

Notice the interesting thing about gel based fuel ? All types of ramjets apparently like it. Gels usually have a density in between solids & liquids. Meaning gel based fuels have energy/mass greater than liquids but lower than solids. But unlike solids, gels are easily throttleable. Gels don't need an elastomeric container that liquid fuel needs to maintain centre of gravity, as gels don't slosh around in flight. Gels are also easier to store. Unlike solids they are not prone to accidental ignition, unlike liquids they don't flow out incase of a leakage. They are quite literally the best of both worlds. As long as you can stabilize them, but that's for another day.

If we could replace the liquid fuel on the Brahmos with a gel based fuel there would be a massive increase in energy. That energy could go into increasing speed & range of the Brahmos. The final goal of upgrading the Brahmos appears to be taking the range to 800-900km & speed to Mach 5. We started making the Brahmos missile's ramjet engine in Indian in 2011. Previously the NPO Mashinostroyeniya used to make them :


View attachment 4777

The Russians get license fee as it is their design. With a new fuel the engine design would change, especially the fuel injection parts. Most of the redesign work will be done in India as the fuel is developed by DRDL. Would the Russians still get the license fee after the re-design, I doubt it. The new solid boosters are Indian, seeker & computers are Indian, launchers are Indian too. The only Russian owned IP was the ramjet and the fuel & now those are about to be challenged.

I have gone off the rail again, haven't I ? I will stop.


I think I have mentioned this above. If the intake stalls due to a high angle of attack, there would be no recovery. Soon the engine will stall, once an ramjet (or scramjet) stalls there is no restarting it. That is why so much emphasis is put on sustaining ignition.

A 155mm shell is too small to have an isolator. So either you have oxidisers or take a straight flight path with no trajectory correction. The former is preferred as the later would cause a degradation of accuracy.


That is a big question. Let me just address the bold part. Its bad to be too fast right now because it degrades accuracy. This is a 155mm shell, there are stringent restrictions on size and mass. The cruise missiles can afford to be faster as they have the internal space to carry fancy guidance systems, a 155mm doesn't have that luxury.

Thus until we have reliably proven the guidance tech, it is sensible to go for a relatively lower speed version. The speed & range can be improved upon later.


All electronics that are placed on an artillery shell are placed on the nose of the shell. There is a good reason for that, electronics don't like being hit. An electric primer would have to placed much behind on the shell & is likely to be hit hard when the shell is fired. In defence hardware, electronics is our weak spot. Let's not take too many risks just yet.


The Army would chose the same. The guidance is the only thing that worries me. We can handle making ramjets, electronics is a different story. Though we did have many successes recently, electronics has been our weakness for a long time.

The org. handling the development of guidance equipment is RCI. They make IIR, AESA, PESA, MMW seekers. They also made the Pinaka's TCS system. Maybe they can make something work. Let's see what turns up.


All other options don't give you the range that a Ramjet can. We do have rocket assisted VLAPs, Base Blead & Boat Tail ammo.


I would personally love to see a naval main gun fire this.

Thanks for reply, I'll continue this convo a bit later with a bit more of what I know from my experience that I think can be applied...time is a bit short for me right now.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
4,462
Reaction score
8,860
Points
113
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
As always there are problems of compatibility. It seems the annular combustor has a liking for liquid fuel(Brahmos) or gel fuel (LFRJ). I am not sure why this is the case.

Again for reasons not known to me, the central combustor type ramjets have a liking for composite solid fuel & gel fuel. The SFDR has a central ramjet engine with solid fuel.

They are related reasons due to ignition and boundary layer effects (too long to get into). My research discipline is combustor based for jet engines...and there is key reason we use annular geometry as the basis....it is related to both navier stokes and surface area maximised by annular. That is long conversation to get into.

When you have a solid, these issues rest differently as the burn interface dynamics are different in that you can't really atomize readily (instead you have a flame front to work with)...and thus you just have a given surface area to work with, so optimization as close to sphere (thus cylinder with elongation) as possible is preferable.

Gels are covered well in your reply (i.e largely best/shared advantages of both worlds, but also needs new RnD). Kudos.

Most of the redesign work will be done in India as the fuel is developed by DRDL. Would the Russians still get the license fee after the re-design, I doubt it.

They won't as the IP would be fundamentally different.

If the intake stalls due to a high angle of attack, there would be no recovery.

A 155mm shell is too small to have an isolator.

The 2nd answer is the best one... i.e the length/diameter ratio you have to develop the energy interaction for combustion...just not being sufficient in this size/speed at our present understanding/materials.

High angle of attack, I don't see it happening since the geometry is axi-symmetric and distribution inside would also be approximating that....so you won't really developing some kind of thrust moment as the thrust and CoG will more or less always be aligned and you can ensure this (w.r.t perturbations etc) relatively easily.

Its bad to be too fast right now because it degrades accuracy.

Well what I was getting at is this isn't due to the fuel burn rate itself but rather the nozzle's ability (and also the case esp for some particular solid fuels) given this 155 mm space to work with...w.r.t the thrust you are trying to achieve to make this worthwhile.

Every rocket fuel (del E intensity/stochiometric capacity) effectively has a ratio of Length-Diameter constrained by the nozzle, case and flame front picked. This restricts the burn rate that can be picked as we have 155 mm fixed and thus the nozzle size and ratios largely fixed. Going near/ higher than that means you get accuracy issues, other issues and even detonation depending on the geometry interface of the case and nozzle.

Within the envelope there is of course scope of study for the burn reliability/consistency of the fuel options you have...esp with regarding their production and quality control/assurance. But India is fairly experienced in this field.

All electronics that are placed on an artillery shell are placed on the nose of the shell. There is a good reason for that, electronics don't like being hit. An electric primer would have to placed much behind on the shell & is likely to be hit hard when the shell is fired. In defence hardware, electronics is our weak spot. Let's not take too many risks just yet.

This is good answer I hadn't thought of. Kudos. The 155mm size is also an issue I feel to reliably detonate a primer internally.
 

crixus

Contributor
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
594
Reaction score
693
Points
93
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
We need precision projectiles like Elbit ones :
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
4,462
Reaction score
8,860
Points
113
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India

Zapper

Contributor
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Messages
712
Reaction score
1,497
Points
93
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
India
Sharang

1605821449425.png

Dhanush Howitzer

1605821579194.png

L&T's K9 Thunder

1605821643749.png

Kalyani ULH

1605821724118.png

Bharat 52 Autonomous Towed Howitzer

1605821771856.png

Tata's truck mounted 155/52mm Howitzer

1605821873985.png
 

Zapper

Contributor
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Messages
712
Reaction score
1,497
Points
93
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
India
Top Bottom