Armoured Vehicles in Nuclear Backdrop

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 01 Apr 2010 18:26

Fascinating thread... but are heavily armoured vehicles (or at least large formations of heavily armoured vehicles) relevant anymore in the Indian context?

Forgive me if I am completely mistaken, but it seems as if our generals and planners are still trying fight the '65 and '71 wars again.

Surely 39 years has changed a lot of things in warfare (and not just the hardware) but given geo-political realities, Pakistan's and China's possession of thermonuclear weapons, and advances in hand held anti-tank weaponry, is it worth India's while to be worrying about whether Arjun is better than the T-90?

What do we really see our tank formations doing?

**Thread split off to rescue the original one.**

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 01 Apr 2010 22:03

alok p wrote:Fascinating thread... but are heavily armoured vehicles (or at least large formations of heavily armoured vehicles) relevant anymore in the Indian context?

Forgive me if I am completely mistaken, but it seems as if our generals and planners are still trying fight the '65 and '71 wars again.

Surely 39 years has changed a lot of things in warfare (and not just the hardware) but given geo-political realities, Pakistan's and China's possession of thermonuclear weapons, and advances in hand held anti-tank weaponry, is it worth India's while to be worrying about whether Arjun is better than the T-90?

What do we really see our tank formations doing?

Here is a perspective: With all the advancement in warfare we fought Kargil war with soldiers climbing all the hill tops and America had their tanks rush to Bagdad in both the wars and later petrol the streets. So the time of tank is not gone and it will continue to evolve. Armies will need more lethal platforms in the form of advance tanks and better armor to protect it's soldiers.

We can fantasies the wars with airplanes onleee but that is a fantasy for the near future

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 01 Apr 2010 23:02

Pat wrote:
alok p wrote:Fascinating thread... but are heavily armoured vehicles (or at least large formations of heavily armoured vehicles) relevant anymore in the Indian context?

Forgive me if I am completely mistaken, but it seems as if our generals and planners are still trying fight the '65 and '71 wars again.

Surely 39 years has changed a lot of things in warfare (and not just the hardware) but given geo-political realities, Pakistan's and China's possession of thermonuclear weapons, and advances in hand held anti-tank weaponry, is it worth India's while to be worrying about whether Arjun is better than the T-90?

What do we really see our tank formations doing?
Here is a perspective: With all the advancement in warfare we fought Kargil war with soldiers climbing all the hill tops and America had their tanks rush to Bagdad in both the wars and later petrol the streets. So the time of tank is not gone and it will continue to evolve. Armies will need more lethal platforms in the form of advance tanks and better armor to protect it's soldiers.

We can fantasies the wars with airplanes onleee but that is a fantasy for the near future

...but that is precisely my point. Our tank formations played virtually no active combat role in Kargil and which city do we expect to be patrolling with tanks?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 Apr 2010 23:05

alok,
not sure what you want here but a) you can't use tanks to go up slopes that you need mountain climbing equipment for. hope thats clear. b) you don't use tanks to patrol streets of a town. this isn't the middle east. if we are going to face a war from either the pukis or the chinese or both, we'll need tanks to crush their armoured columns. Can you fight anti-tank wars with ATGMs and attack helis and infantry?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Apr 2010 23:06

kargil was a very limited border conflict that too in a mountainous area. no need to add virtually, our tanks played no part in kargil. arguably, neither did the navy submarine fleet and 75% of the IAF fighter fleet.

we should disband all of it ?

Our tank formations played virtually no active combat role in Kargil and which city do we expect to be patrolling with tanks?

let me ask a question in return.
> do you agree that there exists a chance of an Indo-Pak Indo-China conflict in the future ?
> if so what form can it take ?
> can you be sure there will be no tanks in that play ?

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 01 Apr 2010 23:09

Agree that armoured vehicles may not always be suited to urban warfare. Some are (Merkava perhaps) and some are not (as the Russians found out in Grozny), but given the obsession with which tank performs better in the desert, what desert war scenario are we looking at here? And are there realistic chances of that happening under the threat of thermonuclear annihilation?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 Apr 2010 23:13

Why are you fixated on urban warfare? There are other theatres of war. If it does come to a head, there will be armoured columns marching in towards our border. How would you counter it? Allow the nuclear overhang to control you and not put up a defense? Even with a nuclear overhang and suppose they use a tactical nuke, the Arjun is designed to operate under NBC conditions. Not so with others. So its a better choice anyway.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Apr 2010 23:13

And are there realistic chances of that happening under the threat of thermonuclear annihilation?

I will be honest, I don't know, I'm not a seer.

since you say know the answer why don't you tell us ?

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 01 Apr 2010 23:16

alok p wrote:
...but that is precisely my point. Our tank formations played virtually no active combat role in Kargil and which city do we expect to be patrolling with tanks?

Kargil example threw everyone of. Kargil example was meant to emphasize the low tech warfare we still fight and engage in. As an army we still bank on 20th century techniques since our hardware does not support anything better.

During a fight with pukis in Rajasthan and similar terrain (possibly Punjab too) we will need tanks and a heavy armor thrust to penetrate and break the will of the enemy to fight.

Now the question will be whether T90 can fulfill all the objectives satisfactorily or do we need a better platform? My take is: a better platform like Arjun will be an advantage especially since it is not too expensive.

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 01 Apr 2010 23:18

Rahul M wrote:kargil was a very limited border conflict that too in a mountainous area. no need to add virtually, our tanks played no part in kargil. arguably, neither did the navy submarine fleet and 75% of the IAF fighter fleet.

we should disband all of it ?
Our tank formations played virtually no active combat role in Kargil and which city do we expect to be patrolling with tanks?
let me ask a question in return.
> do you agree that there exists a chance of an Indo-Pak Indo-China conflict in the future ?
> if so what form can it take ?
> can you be sure there will be no tanks in that play ?

Let's not boil everything down to kargil just because the previous poster raised it and i responded to it.

yes, there is a possibility of an India-Pak or India-China conflict in the near future, but will it necessarily be all out war? I doubt it. And even if it is, I doubt it will go on long enough to see large scale use of armour on the battlefield.

The last question is absurd.
Can we be sure flying unicorns will play no role in the next India-China/Pak conflict? No. Do we spend billions buying them? No!

Ideally we should invest in weapons systems that will have some utility in the event of a likely conflict. Unfortunately the Government of India and the armed forces don't always seem to believe that.

We should be asking, in what scenario will we need heavy armour? Are they worth the investment these days?

To draw an analogy from the WW2 navies, 20+ years after Billy Mitchell showed that Battleships without proper escorts will get slaughtered by aircraft, the Royal Navy and the Japanese Navy refused to learn the lesson and kept building and maintaining big fleets of Battleships and kept sending them out without air cover to see them get slaughtered repeatedly. Sure, the battleships looked impressive in a fleet review and possibly worked in a large armada, but with limited resources and men, are they the best investment to make?

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 01 Apr 2010 23:22

Rahul M wrote:
And are there realistic chances of that happening under the threat of thermonuclear annihilation?
I will be honest, I don't know, I'm not a seer.

since you say know the answer why don't you tell us ?

I don't know either, and I am not a seer.

But, none of us are, but the least one can hope are that the people making decisions are thinking along these lines, and preparing for likely events and not just fixated on fighting the last war a little better.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Apr 2010 23:25

fine, I get it, you think tanks are obsolete, what's the alternative ?

as for the other point, unlike you most people aren't half as certain that MAD scenario is at work in the Indo-Pak context, kargil showed that quite plainly according to some. by your logic we shouldn't invest in anything other than WMD and delivery systems, right ?

The last question is absurd.
Can we be sure flying unicorns will play no role in the next India-China/Pak conflict? No. Do we spend billions buying them? No!

is it ?

you can't be sure if flying unicorns will play a role or not ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Apr 2010 23:28

But, none of us are, but the least one can hope are that the people making decisions are thinking along these lines, and preparing for likely events and not just fixated on fighting the last war a little better.

there are two points here

# how do you know the next war assuredly would not be like the last war, with reasonable tech advancements ?

# even assuming that the next war is different, on what grounds do you think people are preparing for the last war and not the projected (which is by no means certain) next war ?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Apr 2010 23:38

alok p wrote: I don't know either, and I am not a seer.

But, none of us are, but the least one can hope are that the people making decisions are thinking along these lines, and preparing for likely events and not just fixated on fighting the last war a little better.

The point you're making hinges on the obsolescence of the modern MBT. Which is still not the case today. Tanks haven't been rendered obsolete by ATGMs any more than aircraft have been to SAMs or surface ships to submarines(or vice-versa). When push comes to shove, tanks have a very fair chance of survival thanks to composite and reactive armor and passive and active defence systems. The day that stops being true, rest assured the army will stop inducting them.

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 01 Apr 2010 23:48

Rahul M wrote:fine, I get it, you think tanks are obsolete, what's the alternative ?

as for the other point, unlike you most people aren't half as certain that MAD scenario is at work in the Indo-Pak context, kargil showed that quite plainly according to some. by your logic we shouldn't invest in anything other than WMD and delivery systems, right ?

The last question is absurd.
Can we be sure flying unicorns will play no role in the next India-China/Pak conflict? No. Do we spend billions buying them? No!
is it ?
you can't be sure if flying unicorns will play a role or not ?

There's probably no "the alternative" because we also have to think of the situations where tanks will play no role. And that is my point, instead of fixating on which tank performs better in the desert, we have to start by questioning whether we will be in a situation where we need tanks in the desert against other tanks (as opposed to tanks v aircraft/helicopters/nukes which is a one way street anyway)

Once we figure there isn't a scenario where we'll need tanks in the desert or anywhere, we can then see what possible scenarios will arise and invest appropriately. I can't, in the space of one post (or twenty), elaborate on the defence purchases policy for the next decade, but just offering a few points for thought.

It's a simple consumer mantra if you ask me "are we getting enough bang for our buck?" (pun totally intended. with apologies.)

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 01 Apr 2010 23:56

Viv S wrote:
alok p wrote: I don't know either, and I am not a seer.

But, none of us are, but the least one can hope are that the people making decisions are thinking along these lines, and preparing for likely events and not just fixated on fighting the last war a little better.
The point you're making hinges on the obsolescence of the modern MBT. Which is still not the case today. Tanks haven't been rendered obsolete by ATGMs any more than aircraft have been to SAMs or surface ships to submarines(or vice-versa). When push comes to shove, tanks have a very fair chance of survival thanks to composite and reactive armor and passive and active defence systems. The day that stops being true, rest assured the army will stop inducting them.

Not necessarily. One of the factors leading to the decline in the importance of the tank (and not just obsolescence, the two things are separate) is probably ATGMs no doubt, but that is not all. Apart from the threat posed aircraft, i think an armoured thrust will, these days, be met with tactical nukes.

I am not an Army man myself (and before you all jump on me for that, let me remind you that this is still a country where the civilians control the Army and not vice versa) but I am asking a bigger question than just military tactics. For the billions we are spending (and are going to spend) on armoured vehicles, are they the best investment to make in the India's defence needs in the present context?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 00:03

you still haven't answered the original question, which scenario do you envisage ?

Once we figure there isn't a scenario where we'll need tanks in the desert or anywhere, we can then see what possible scenarios will arise and invest appropriately.

that is the very point isn't it ?

as of now there is NOTHING that suggests that we don't need tanks.

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 02 Apr 2010 00:15

Rahul M wrote:you still haven't answered the original question, which scenario do you envisage ?

Once we figure there isn't a scenario where we'll need tanks in the desert or anywhere, we can then see what possible scenarios will arise and invest appropriately.
that is the very point isn't it ? as of now there is NOTHING that suggests that we don't need tanks.

It's too late in the night to keep repeating what I just said in slightly different words.

I suppose its just too much fun to discuss the performance of tanks in the desert to the smallest minutiae than bother about whether it has any connection with real world warfare.

Just a pity that our Army also seems to be thinking like that.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 00:22

alok, so tanks are useless because you said so ? beautiful piece of logic.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 02 Apr 2010 00:22

Egad we have another Guderian on BRF

So masses of tanks slugging out with each other is the only use of the tank according to you??

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Apr 2010 00:51

alok p wrote: Not necessarily. One of the factors leading to the decline in the importance of the tank (and not just obsolescence, the two things are separate) is probably ATGMs no doubt, but that is not all. Apart from the threat posed aircraft, i think an armoured thrust will, these days, be met with tactical nukes.

With regard to aircraft, this isn't a recent development. Aircraft were used for CAS in '65 and '71 as well. The IA will like before count on IAF support and mobile SAMs travelling with armoured columns to fend off the threat.

With regard to nukes, once you start factoring them in you might as well disband the military and prepare to slug it out till armageddon. But, why is it that tanks are particularly susceptible? If employed against it, a tactical nuke will wipe out an infantry formation as well. Also, no aircraft will survive a nuclear strike against its airbase.

The Pakistanis know they wouldn't get away with it. India has a stated policy of no-first-use and no-proportionate-response. First nuke goes off, land of the pure becomes land where there is no land.

In an conventional conflict, the IA will aim to thrash the Pakistanis short of the point of desperation. And tanks still remain the most potent offensive weapon available to ground forces.

I am not an Army man myself (and before you all jump on me for that, let me remind you that this is still a country where the civilians control the Army and not vice versa) but I am asking a bigger question than just military tactics. For the billions we are spending (and are going to spend) on armoured vehicles, are they the best investment to make in the India's defence needs in the present context?

What would you suggest we spend the billions on as an alternative?

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 02 Apr 2010 00:52

alok p wrote: Not necessarily. One of the factors leading to the decline in the importance of the tank (and not just obsolescence, the two things are separate) is probably ATGMs no doubt, but that is not all. Apart from the threat posed aircraft, i think an armoured thrust will, these days, be met with tactical nukes.

I am not an Army man myself (and before you all jump on me for that, let me remind you that this is still a country where the civilians control the Army and not vice versa) but I am asking a bigger question than just military tactics. For the billions we are spending (and are going to spend) on armoured vehicles, are they the best investment to make in the India's defence needs in the present context?

"i think an armored thrust will, these days, be met with tactical nukes" This is a huge presumption that will put an army into inertia. This way you can defend but never be on offensive..

Now I do understand why our ancestors never attached their enemies in foreign lands. They made such presumptions and waited for enemies to attack. To me it seems convenient...

shyams · Post by **shyams** » 02 Apr 2010 03:29

Pat wrote:
alok p wrote: Not necessarily. One of the factors leading to the decline in the importance of the tank (and not just obsolescence, the two things are separate) is probably ATGMs no doubt, but that is not all. Apart from the threat posed aircraft, i think an armoured thrust will, these days, be met with tactical nukes.

I am not an Army man myself (and before you all jump on me for that, let me remind you that this is still a country where the civilians control the Army and not vice versa) but I am asking a bigger question than just military tactics. For the billions we are spending (and are going to spend) on armoured vehicles, are they the best investment to make in the India's defence needs in the present context?
"i think an armored thrust will, these days, be met with tactical nukes" This is a huge presumption that will put an army into inertia. This way you can defend but never be on offensive..

Now I do understand why our ancestors never attached their enemies in foreign lands. They made such presumptions and waited for enemies to attack. To me it seems convenient...

I agree. Rather than worrying about tactical nuke response, we should make an "aar ya paar" decision and go for the kill. Offense is the best form of defense. And also, we should "let" our enemy know through our doctrines (which we may already have, if I remember correctly), and our demeanor/actions that we would respond with strategic nukes in response to tactical ones. That itself should fill fear into the hearts of our enemies, and they would not respond with a tactical nuke response for fear of annihilation.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 02 Apr 2010 06:21

Armour is here to stay for a long time. It will evolve with time as it has in the past. If you look at the tank design concepts of the past and current tank designs, they are very different in the overall outlook. In the military design world it is all about one-upmanship. There will always be a time when the current technology will be outdated and something better will replace it.

There was a time, when some designers thought that A2A missiles were advanced enough to do away with the gun. This deficiency was exposed during the Nam war. There was a time when a 84mm RPG could take down a tank...now it will be difficult for it to take on AFV's as well. With the advent of better offence, there will also be better defence in place.

The presence of RWR+Chaff/Flare+EW suite on modern a/c give them a very high degree of survivability against missiles however, a gun (30mm) can do more damage in the hands of a skilled pilot.

Now, we are entering into an era of Active defence even on armoured Vehicles. ERA though passive can be classified as being a semi-active form of defence.
ARENA/Shtora etc will change the way we look at armour. Already gen 2 AT missiles which do not have tandem warheads will find it difficult to damage modern MBT's.
It is possible that future MBT's will have Anti air missiles a a part of their armament. A couple of Short range SAM's over the turret...maybe...
Armour is here to stay for a quite some time...

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 02 Apr 2010 07:37

alok p-ji

Right from the days of Alexander, one of the abiding principles of battle has been to quickly concentrate maximum firepower at the weakest point in enemy defenses. Alexander did it with horses, we do it with tanks. Now you might think that there are 3 reasons why tanks are useless

1. RPG/ATGMs - These threats were always around since WW-II and the balance of terror between the two has been more or less the same.
2. Armored thrust will be met with a tactical Nuke - this is a simplistic assumption. Paki armored thrust wont be met by a tactical nuke because we have NFU policy. Paki tactical nukes will be met with a assured credible annihilation of their cities because that is our published nuclear doctrine. We do not comment on the effectiveness or scale of enemy's nuclear attack, just that a nuke attack will be met with a nuke attack (in this sense, a nuke launched on Mumbai which fails to explode the the same as a nuke which does explode and it will trigger a retaliation)
3. India-Pak wars wont involve armored thrusts - this is the common mistake most people make. Army moves and counter moves are not based on enemy's intention, but on their capability. Think back to Kargil. ABV had gone on a bus, the relationship was cooling down, but they exploited the weakness in our capability -- retreating during winters and lack of surveillance. What do you think will happen if we wind out our armored regiments? How will we reply to Paki armored thrusts?

As far as tanks are concerned, they are still the cheapest way of rapid ground advance to concentrate firepower quickly at a place and time of our choosing. Planes cant do it, Ships dont go over land, Ballistic & Cruise missiles have their limitations (remember that even the lowly Mig 21-bison carries more ordinance farther than the Prithvi). As far as investing somewhere else wisely -- with the cost of the Vikramaditya (minus the planes & armament), we can buy 5-6 fully armed regiments of the Arjun (probably even more than that, depends on the latest figure of how much price gouging has been done on the Viky onlee

)!! That is some serious firepower, probably enough to take over Lahore! Having these parked in the Punjab/Rajasthan border is like a investment for peace. Helps in Indo-Pak bhaichara

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 02 Apr 2010 08:20

Anujan wrote: 3. India-Pak wars wont involve armored thrusts - this is the common mistake most people make. Army moves and counter moves are not based on enemy's intention, but on their capability. Think back to Kargil. ABV had gone on a bus, the relationship was cooling down, but they exploited the weakness in our capability -- retreating during winters and lack of surveillance. What do you think will happen if we wind out our armored regiments? How will we reply to Paki armored thrusts?

Fair point, but the question can also be turned around. Why does one does not invest in a decisive capability for an armored thrust? Is it because there is no such intention?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 02 Apr 2010 09:31

ShauryaT wrote:Fair point, but the question can also be turned around. Why does one does not invest in a decisive capability for an armored thrust? Is it because there is no such intention?

ShauryaT-ji

The state of our forces today is due to a combination of issues positive and negative: Doctrine, how much they think is sufficient/sustainable for a given cost/logistics are peripherally related to the the armed forces' intention. Our procurement policy with inbuilt politics, lack of vision, corruption & procedural delays, ityadi do not amount to "intention", it amounts to "sloppy execution". So the fact that we have not bought 10,000 of the worlds best tanks does not mean we dont intend to make a decisive armored thrust: the reasons might be elsewhere.

Let me give you an analogy. Our armor procurement might be shabby, but does not compare with the pigs breakfast we made out of our Arty procurement. What to make of that? We dont intend to shoot Arty during war? We want to limit the amount of ordinance we wish to shoot during a war? Similarly Airfoce. What is the sanctioned strength vs actual strength? (intention vs execution). How many ACs are serviceable, state of the art and adequate? Does our force levels and quality of our Air assets reflect the intention of the intensity of aerial bombing we wish to undertake if hostilities break out?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 02 Apr 2010 10:14

People have been claiming that tanks are obsolete since at least the early 1920s. Here's a post I made about that topic earlier. Reposting since that earlier thread got trashed.

Quoting from Viktor Suvorov ("Inside the Soviet Army").

When will we be able to dispense with the tank?

One day, in Paris, I bought a book, published in 1927, on the problems
of a future war. The author was sober-minded and reasonable. His logic was
sound, his analysis was shrewd and his arguments unassailable. After
analysing the way military equipment had developed in his lifetime, the
author concluded by declaring that the proper place for the tank was in the
museum, next to the dinosaur skeletons. His argument was simple and logical:
anti-tank guns had been developed to the point at which they would bring
massive formations of tanks to a complete halt in any future war, just as
machine guns had completely stopped the cavalry in the First World War.
I do not know whether the author lived until 1940, to see the German
tanks sweeping along the Paris boulevards, past the spot at which, many
decades later, I was to buy my dusty copy of his book, its leaves yellowing
with age. The belief that the tank is reaching the end of its life is itself
surprisingly long-lived. At the beginning of the 1960s, France decided to
stop production of tanks, because their era was over. It is fortunate that
this delusion was shattered by the Israelis' old `Sherman' tanks in the
Sinai peninsula. Israel's brilliant victory showed the whole world, once
again, that no anti-tank weapon is able to stop tanks in a war, provided, of
course, that they are used skilfully.
The argument used by the tank's detractors is simple--`Just look at the
anti-tank rockets--at their accuracy and at their armour-piercing
capability!' But this argument does not hold water. The anti-tank rocket is
a defensive weapon--part of a passive system. The tank, on the other hand,
is an offensive weapon. Any defensive system involves the dispersal of
forces over a wide territory, leaving them strong in some places and weak in
others. And it is where they are weak that the tanks will appear, in
enormous concentrations. Even if it were possible to distribute resources
equally, this would mean that no one sector would have enough. Try deploying
just ten anti-tank rockets along every kilometre of the front. The tanks
will then choose one particular spot and will attack it in their hundreds,
or perhaps thousands, simultaneously. If you concentrate your anti-tank
resources, the tanks will simply by-pass them. They are an offensive weapon
and they have the initiative in battle, being able to choose when and where
to attack and how strong a force to use.
The hope that the perfection of anti-tank weapons would lead to the
death of the tank has been shown to be completely unfounded. It is like
hoping that the electronic defences of banks will become so perfect in the
future that bank robbers will die out as a breed. I assure you that bank
robbers will not become extinct. They will improve their tools, their
tactics, their information about their targets and their methods of
misleading their enemies and they will continue to carry out raids.
Sometimes these will fail, sometimes they will succeed, but they will
continue so long as banks continue to exist. The robbers have the same
advantage as tanks--they are on the offensive. They decide where, when and
how to attack and will do so only when they are confident of success, when
they have secretly discovered a weak spot in the enemy's defences, whose
existence is unknown even to the enemy himself.

Soviet generals have never been faced with problems of this sort. They
have always known that victory in a war can only be achieved by advancing.
To them defensive operations spell defeat and death. In the best case, such
operations can only produce a deadlock, and not for long, at that. Victory
can only be achieved by means of an offensive--by seizing the initiative and
raining blows on the enemy's most vulnerable areas.
Thus, to win, you must attack, you must move forward unexpectedly and
with determination, you must advance. For this you need a vehicle which can
travel anywhere to destroy the enemy, preferably remaining unscathed itself.
The one vehicle which combines movement, fire-power and armour is the tank.
Perhaps, in the future, its armour will be perfected, perhaps it will not
have tracks but will travel in some other way (there have been wheeled
tanks), perhaps it will not have a gun but be armed with something else
(there have been tanks armed solely with rockets), perhaps all sorts of
things will be changed, but its most important characteristics--its ability
to move, to shoot and to defend itself--will remain. As long as there are
wars, as long as the desire for victory lasts, the tank will exist. Nuclear
war has not only not written it off, but has given it a new lease of
life--nothing is so suited to nuclear war as a tank. To survive a nuclear
war you must put your money on these steel boxes.

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 02 Apr 2010 10:46

Pat wrote:
alok p wrote:
"i think an armored thrust will, these days, be met with tactical nukes" This is a huge presumption that will put an army into inertia. This way you can defend but never be on offensive..

Now I do understand why our ancestors never attached their enemies in foreign lands. They made such presumptions and waited for enemies to attack. To me it seems convenient...

Isn't that the point of nuclear weapons for a country like Pakistan, which cannot match India conventionally? To deter a large scale offensive?

HOW CAN WE IGNORE NUKES? HOW CAN WE NOT TAKE NUKES INTO ACCOUNT??!! HOW CAN WE NOT PLAN FOR NUKES WHEN PAKISTAN HAS EXPRESSLY SAID IT HAS NO ISSUES WITH A FIRST USE POLICY!!

What makes you think that Pakistan will first target our tank formations, then wait for us to respond and then try to attack our cities? I can't believe that people are seriously suggesting that we somehow pretend nukes don't exist when we worry about our weapons systems!

As to what to do with the billions saved, how about getting more Nuclear Powered Subs, developing more SLBMs, more ICBMs to counter China, World Class Drone aircraft, mechanizing a larger percentage of our armed forces, paying our soldiers better, ensuring that the IAF has more than the necessary number of squadrons of modern aircraft, more ships to patrol the Indian Ocean, better aircraft and support for our anti-terror forces.... but this is just off the top of my head. I mean, all of these we can actually put to some use (or at least use as a strong nuclear deterrent) as opposed to keeping them lying around in the hope that somehow nukes will go away and we can fight 1971 war.

On a general note, calling future enemies rude names and deriding their weapons systems is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 11:02

I don't get it, fighting with tanks is unrealistic because of nuclear umbrella but "World Class Drone aircraft, mechanizing a larger percentage of our armed forces {which means more tanks + APC basically}, ......., ensuring that the IAF has more than the necessary number of squadrons of modern aircraft {

}, more ships to patrol the Indian Ocean," is realistic ?

oh and don't SHOUT, it's bad manners.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 02 Apr 2010 11:16

alok p wrote: HOW CAN WE IGNORE NUKES? HOW CAN WE NOT TAKE NUKES INTO ACCOUNT??!! HOW CAN WE NOT PLAN FOR NUKES WHEN PAKISTAN HAS EXPRESSLY SAID IT HAS NO ISSUES WITH A FIRST USE POLICY!!

Wow!! Why the yelling? You have it written all over you.

alok p wrote: As to what to do with the billions saved, how about getting more Nuclear Powered Subs, developing more SLBMs, more ICBMs to counter China, World Class Drone aircraft, mechanizing a larger percentage of our armed forces, paying our soldiers better, ensuring that the IAF has more than the necessary number of squadrons of modern aircraft, more ships to patrol the Indian Ocean, better aircraft and support for our anti-terror forces.... but this is just off the top of my head. I mean, all of these we can actually put to some use (or at least use as a strong nuclear deterrent) as opposed to keeping them lying around in the hope that somehow nukes will go away and we can fight 1971 war.

Are you by any chance getting a Ph.D in Technology Strategy? Because such credentials will probably add more weight to your perspective and make everybody back off.

In anycase, lets say you have 100 Nuke subs and 10,000 SLBMs aimed at Pakistan and China. But, you have NFU policy.

So what are you going to do when another 26/11 happens? Throw 10 of those nukes first?
What happens when Pakistani non-state actors launch another Kargil, throw another 10 SLBMs at them?
You talk about IAF, but should IAF be shut down as well.

Listening to your screams one would think, one fart by Indian guard at Wagah and Pakistan will launch a nuke.

So what use is IAF or Indian Navy? Whats the point of offensive fighter aircraft and nuke subs, because the moment they do their job, Pakistan will push the button.

While at it, whats the point of guarding the border? If Pakistan attacks India and then India retaliates, Pakistan will anyway push the button as you so vehemently point out. Lets all pack bags and move out of the country.

On a general note, calling future enemies rude names and deriding their weapons systems is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

Ok.. that is a fair statement. But, who do you have in mind for "future enemies", am dying to find out

niran · Post by **niran** » 02 Apr 2010 11:32

the rants of Shri Alok_p reminds me of a certain British PM during 50s and his white paper

British Defense Minster Duncan Sandys (pronounced "Sands") released his"White Paper" that stated that the day of manned combat aircraft was over and that guided missiles were the way of the future.

he single handily destroyed the once top British armed Aircraft industries and it wasn't appreciated for another decade that the whizzy missiles being developed in the 1950s wouldn't turn out to be so whizzy when they actually went into combat.

and now you are proposing and end to MBT, good, Sire, please imagine this,

an IA battalion is to crossover to pacquistan, you Sire is among the affsars, supposed to lead,
and there are few choices

a- Ride a donkey clutching your missile launch kit and yelling
b- Ride a bicycle and doing the above
c- drive an open jeep and doing the above
d- coolly under the MBT Commander's hatch and blowing off your enemies.

please, think hard, get enlightened, throw out your idea.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 02 Apr 2010 11:39

alok p wrote:
Isn't that the point of nuclear weapons for a country like Pakistan, which cannot match India conventionally? To deter a large scale offensive?
HOW CAN WE IGNORE NUKES? HOW CAN WE NOT TAKE NUKES INTO ACCOUNT??!! HOW CAN WE NOT PLAN FOR NUKES WHEN PAKISTAN HAS EXPRESSLY SAID IT HAS NO ISSUES WITH A FIRST USE POLICY!!

What makes you think that Pakistan will first target our tank formations, then wait for us to respond and then try to attack our cities? I can't believe that people are seriously suggesting that we somehow pretend nukes don't exist when we worry about our weapons systems!

As to what to do with the billions saved, how about getting more Nuclear Powered Subs, developing more SLBMs, more ICBMs to counter China, World Class Drone aircraft, mechanizing a larger percentage of our armed forces, paying our soldiers better, ensuring that the IAF has more than the necessary number of squadrons of modern aircraft, more ships to patrol the Indian Ocean, better aircraft and support for our anti-terror forces.... but this is just off the top of my head. I mean, all of these we can actually put to some use (or at least use as a strong nuclear deterrent) as opposed to keeping them lying around in the hope that somehow nukes will go away and we can fight 1971 war.

On a general note, calling future enemies rude names and deriding their weapons systems is a sure fire recipe for disaster.

SO based on your theory we will not have tanks and will become defensive (and have an impotent army). In near future Pukis will attack India with their armor and we nothing to fire back except for INSAS since we are afrais of nukes that they have. Finally with great difficulty and with our left over tanks (T72s) we will stop pukis 100 miles from Delhi and then we will redraw the map and wait for the next war.

BTW: By this argument we should not maintain heavy lift capability or air doninace planes or ships to land large forces on beaches...

funny

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 02 Apr 2010 12:04

alok p wrote: Isn't that the point of nuclear weapons for a country like Pakistan, which cannot match India conventionally? To deter a large scale offensive?

HOW CAN WE IGNORE NUKES? HOW CAN WE NOT TAKE NUKES INTO ACCOUNT??!! HOW CAN WE NOT PLAN FOR NUKES WHEN PAKISTAN HAS EXPRESSLY SAID IT HAS NO ISSUES WITH A FIRST USE POLICY!!

Because nuclear weapons are always instruments of last resort. While Pakistan AFAIK doesn't have a stated nuclear policy, they will employ them only if its existence as a nation is under threat.

That said, what sort of planning can you do besides making your peace with God, and/or digging an underground bunker to live in for the next thirty years? Eventually though India will 'win' in such a conflict because of our larger size and better air defences.

I suggest you read up on the Cold Start doctrine for starters. It'll give you an idea of how the army plans to conduct conventional operations without crossing the nuclear threshold.

What makes you think that Pakistan will first target our tank formations, then wait for us to respond and then try to attack our cities? I can't believe that people are seriously suggesting that we somehow pretend nukes don't exist when we worry about our weapons systems!

India is working on a missile defence shield, IRBMs and SLBMs. And practically speaking short of renouncing violence that's all it can do.

As to what to do with the billions saved, how about getting more Nuclear Powered Subs, developing more SLBMs, more ICBMs to counter China, World Class Drone aircraft, mechanizing a larger percentage of our armed forces, paying our soldiers better, ensuring that the IAF has more than the necessary number of squadrons of modern aircraft, more ships to patrol the Indian Ocean, better aircraft and support for our anti-terror forces.... but this is just off the top of my head. I mean, all of these we can actually put to some use (or at least use as a strong nuclear deterrent) as opposed to keeping them lying around in the hope that somehow nukes will go away and we can fight 1971 war.

There is no 'winning' a nuclear conflict. That is the entire point behind the MAD concept. India is working on various second strike options and a scarcity of funding in those in avenues is not an issue. With regard to your proposals - aircraft bases can be nuked, surface fleets can be nuked, submarine bases can be nuked. Highly paid soldiers get vaporized just as easily as a rag-tag militia. Anti-terror forces are of no use either, in a nuclear conflict.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Apr 2010 12:50

alok p, please ask yourself these questions:

What do you mean by a "large armor forces"? How large? If there is doubt about the use of large scale armor (but again, what is large scale?) in next India-Pakistan shooting match due to nuclear over hang, why does Pakistan Army maintain 2 Armored and 2 Mechanized Divisions? How will you stop assault by PA Mechanized forces and another thrust along the Shakargarh bulge? Or another Kehm-Kharan?

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 02 Apr 2010 13:40

Rahul M wrote:I don't get it, fighting with tanks is unrealistic because of nuclear umbrella but "World Class Drone aircraft, mechanizing a larger percentage of our armed forces {which means more tanks + APC basically}, ......., ensuring that the IAF has more than the necessary number of squadrons of modern aircraft { }, more ships to patrol the Indian Ocean," is realistic ?

oh and don't SHOUT, it's bad manners.

Shouting was the only way to register shock at some people saying we should just ignore nukes when talking about heavy armour.

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 02 Apr 2010 13:51

The assumption all posters are making (and I repeat I am trying challenge this) is that we will need armoured forces to make an armoured thrust into Pakistan. What do we hope to achieve by this? Occupy all of Pakistan? Dismantle terrorist networks? I would have thought that objectives in a war determine the use of weapons not the other way around.

Since this is an Internet discussion and not an academic seminar, I think throwing around credentials (esp when there is no way to verify them anyway) is a waste of time. Plus the question was not raised in the context of military tactics or weaponry, but a broader approach to India's defence.

Ballistic missile shields are not the panacea to all nuclear attacks since they deal (probably effectively) with one form of nuclear warhead delivery. Plus no one, and absolutely no one, has given any one of these ABMs a 100% chance of success and even then, there's no guarantee that no one will come up with decoys, saturation tactics, etc. to overcome ABMs. Its not a sureshot and the risk of nuclear annihilation is always there.

In any case, I also ask why this obsession with Pakistan when it comes to armour? Should we spend so much time and money to deal with one possibility (somewhat remote) when there are other immediate defence needs crying out for attention?

alok p · Post by **alok p** » 02 Apr 2010 13:58

a_kumar wrote:
alok p wrote: As to what to do with the billions saved, how about getting more Nuclear Powered Subs, developing more SLBMs, more ICBMs to counter China, World Class Drone aircraft, mechanizing a larger percentage of our armed forces, paying our soldiers better, ensuring that the IAF has more than the necessary number of squadrons of modern aircraft, more ships to patrol the Indian Ocean, better aircraft and support for our anti-terror forces.... but this is just off the top of my head. I mean, all of these we can actually put to some use (or at least use as a strong nuclear deterrent) as opposed to keeping them lying around in the hope that somehow nukes will go away and we can fight 1971 war.
Are you by any chance getting a Ph.D in Technology Strategy? Because such credentials will probably add more weight to your perspective and make everybody back off.

In anycase, lets say you have 100 Nuke subs and 10,000 SLBMs aimed at Pakistan and China. But, you have NFU policy.

So what are you going to do when another 26/11 happens? Throw 10 of those nukes first?
What happens when Pakistani non-state actors launch another Kargil, throw another 10 SLBMs at them?
You talk about IAF, but should IAF be shut down as well.

Listening to your screams one would think, one fart by Indian guard at Wagah and Pakistan will launch a nuke.

So what use is IAF or Indian Navy? Whats the point of offensive fighter aircraft and nuke subs, because the moment they do their job, Pakistan will push the button.

While at it, whats the point of guarding the border? If Pakistan attacks India and then India retaliates, Pakistan will anyway push the button as you so vehemently point out. Lets all pack bags and move out of the country.

Don't deliberately misquote me. I have outlined a wide range of defence needs that could do with immediate attention and not just nukes. Please read carefully before attempting to counter what I have said.

Since this thread has been changed, I think I ask a fair question when I say, what is the use of armoured forces for India the present and near future

a_kumar wrote:
On a general note, calling future enemies rude names and deriding their weapons systems is a sure fire recipe for disaster.
Ok.. that is a fair statement. But, who do you have in mind for "future enemies", am dying to find out

I am assuming when random epithets are tossed around they refer to all people in a State and not a small category of non-State actors who may or may not be receiving the aid and comfort of some elements of the Government. Go easy on the wordplay. Whatever intentions our present foes may have for us, we would be better served by not calling them names on the internet and deriding their intelligence. Happy?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Apr 2010 15:39

Has anyone any idea on how many PSI force would be required for a nuke to disable a tank like T-90 or Arjun? How many PSI's will be needed to disable the crew in the tank (which is now days very well protected and can perform in a NBC environment)?

Added later.......

I just dug out this 2007 article I wrote Indigenous NBC sensor for Arjun MBT

Successful completion of the sensor task in MBT Arjun has prompted Indian Army to request DRDO to integrate the system in its other armoured vehicles.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 02 Apr 2010 16:04

Slightly unrelated maybe, but the IA tactics on fighting under the nuclear umbrella has undergone significant changes in the last 7-8 years..Initially, there was an attempt to equip all frontline units with NBC equipment - personal body suits, decontamination equipment, the works...But exercises showed that soldiers simply got weighed down by the mass of NBC equipment...So the IA doctrine is to now keep forces sufficiently dispersed to enable the division/corps absorb a tacticaly strike, the rest of the units can move on wih their "hatches" (of tanks, APCs) down...All armoured platforms are therefore being made NBC-compliant, but there is less emphasis on equipping each soldier with an NBC suite...apaprently exercises from Divya Shakti onwards have practised battles under NBC usig various tactics...Bharat Karnad writes about it extensively in his book..