Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Vivek K »

The Tank will never be accepted by IA unless for garbage pickup duties. Simple reason - decades long relations with one vendor. There is no politics involved!
pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by pentaiah »

Its all in metallurgy and material science in which our manufacturing knowledge is immaterial to say the least.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

pentaiah wrote:Its all in metallurgy and material science in which our manufacturing knowledge is immaterial to say the least.
No it's not!
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

For better understanding of the series that began on my blog about canal based defenses in Pakistan, I've written an article on the military balance and potential offensive scenario (for India) in South Punjab-Sindh region. I've used the Mid-2002 deployment of IA (during Parakram) in Rajasthan Sector as an indicator of potential strike options.

In context of Arjun deployment, we can see that there is a vast tract of area south of Sri Ganganagar which can accommodate Arjun tanks even if we take the 10M MLC-70 class bridge argument at face value.

Here is the link: http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/st ... b-and.html

Any and all criticisms and feedback are welcome.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Vivek K wrote:The Tank will never be accepted by IA unless for garbage pickup duties. Simple reason - decades long relations with one vendor. There is no politics involved!
so what it is that made that decade long relations?

and you all should know there is no fat pack middlemen when we deal with Arjuns.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Philip »

I would not be that bold Saik,while the chances are certainly lesser,there is a lot of firang components in Arjun starting with the engine,thermal imagers,etc.If you go the Tatra route too with sourcing off material and components,a clever dick can push up prices.The stark fact is that if our politico-babu nexus want to skim the cream off any deal,they will do it whether it is a foreign product or local.Why are they so protective of production by PSUs? Patriotism? When you see how easily it is to pad prices when sourcing simple things like canteen items,imagine the scope for sourcing raw materials and simple components! The Q is which lobby is stronger,the crooked foreign interest lobby or crooked desi-production lobby (where there is also a goodly content of firang components,special steels,etc., to be imported).

I think that we should keep on examining the "weight" issue/excuse that has been plastered on Arjun.Some of the main reasons for its limited acquisition are weight,transportation,mobility difficulties in certain terrain,and uncertain logistic support because of small numbers in service (chicken and egg!) .I there could be a graph comparing it with other western heavies it would help.To my mind,the key point is the IA's armoured warfare doctrine,fighting with a smaller lighter 3-man crewed tank,which would also cost less against a heavier 4-man crewed tank.However,the smaller tank would have to perform no less than the heavier tank in terms of accuracy of its main gun,quality of armour protection,mobility,etc.,the advantage being gained because of an auto-loader.This beggars the Q,given the IA's predeliction for a 3-man crewed MBT,whether the DRDO/CVRDE tried developing an auto-loader for Arjun,which if successful,would certainly bring down the weight and size of the tank.A 3-man tank based upon the success of Arjun tech would be a very interesting and attractive product,and the basis for the FMBT.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Okay, let me put this way.. We have an agreement to maintain that % ratio [or ration] to those clouts to sell Arjun parts making up the food for the import brains, and the fat packs. Now, still there would be hassles in the sense, it might not be from this nation or that, etc.. or else, CAG notice to those entities.

Now, once proven that the chickens did arrive from firang, and the firang brains are satisfied, what is stopping? It may not be just firang only arguments... much more. and that is where the fat packs get in, and satisfy the equation, leading to such conclusions.

Had it been already 1000 Arjun order placement guaranteed.. I'll shut da f up.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Pratyush »

This post is relating to the requirement of MLC 70 bridge and related civilian infrastructure.

I recall an interview of an PWD minister of Maharashtra( late 90s), who stated the he did away the requirement of building bridges in the MLC 70 class, In order to speed up infra development. His rational was that the IA did not have tank in that category. This was in the late 90s.

The question based on my memory is, did the PWD of other states also had a similar requirement when it came to the construction of civilians bridges. If yes then when was that requirement waived off.

People associated with the PWD, will be best able to answer this question.
keshavchandra
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 22:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by keshavchandra »

Guys hurry up....open tv and watch special report on drdo....hurry its runnin now on discovery
Last edited by keshavchandra on 25 Aug 2012 18:20, edited 1 time in total.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

TV says induction of more Pinaka suffering due to tatra scam and stoppage of tatra assembly in BEML.

army has requested to MOD to sort out the tatra mess and get production restarted by BEML.
Neilz
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 21:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Neilz »

Discovery program has bits and pieces of info... but it appears to my novice knowledge that Arjun has digital display layout.. except secondary sight. cool look... and the level of sophistication of the Arjun simulator is something to recon with.. a marvelous achievement. And discovery documentary claims that till 1995 (or may be 90 ) specifications keep changing... the disappointing fact is there is no perspective or comments from Army is recorded... :-? ....
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Specs can change and that is a healthy sign.. but once delivered, then they can't change the spec but could perhaps ask for modification for the next phase if that is not a defect but an add on feature or something makes it better. Tranche based development model is ideal for IA-DRDO.

It is important that they sooner and not later to get into an agreement of minimum purchase of each tranches.. of course all tranches can be upgraded. one could see the business generation here.. and who would be trying oppose such a move?

firang clout onlee.
skher
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 23:58
Location: Secured; no idea

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by skher »

Philip wrote: Some of the main reasons for its limited acquisition are weight,transportation,mobility difficulties in certain terrain,and uncertain logistic support because of small numbers in service (chicken and egg!) .I there could be a graph comparing it with other western heavies it would help.To my mind,the key point is the IA's armoured warfare doctrine,fighting with a smaller lighter 3-man crewed tank,which would also cost less against a heavier 4-man crewed tank.However,the smaller tank would have to perform no less than the heavier tank in terms of accuracy of its main gun,quality of armour protection,mobility,etc.,the advantage being gained because of an auto-loader.This beggars the Q,given the IA's predeliction for a 3-man crewed MBT,whether the DRDO/CVRDE tried developing an auto-loader for Arjun,which if successful,would certainly bring down the weight and size of the tank.A 3-man tank based upon the success of Arjun tech would be a very interesting and attractive product,and the basis for the FMBT.
If weight cannot be lowered, then a wheeled 2 crew + 2 passengers can be considered; along with; long ranged missile capable 260 mm smoothbore gun/launcher. Perhaps the width can be changed to fit broad gauge track through more length.
Transportation difficulties are not more difficult than were for the Conquerer series, assuming weight is 65-57 tonnes. Airpower might resolve issue better.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

someone needs to put a summary for rest of us.....
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

IA's needs are in a quandary!
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

Here is second round of analysis about Defense Canals in South Punjab and Sindh covering the RYK Area.

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/ca ... ab-ii.html
vishnu.nv
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vishnu.nv »

Japanese have developed the Type-10 Tank which almost has everything Army wants from FMBT and still weighs 48 tonns only. They are about to begine the production of the above tank.
It has a Autoloader with 3 member crew and a 120 MM Smoothbore gun. If DRDO can produce a Arjun varient similar to type-10 we could replace the whole fleet with this hi/Low mix of Arjun and new Tank.
Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Will »

Katare wrote:
pentaiah wrote:Its all in metallurgy and material science in which our manufacturing knowledge is immaterial to say the least.
No it's not!

It is to a large extent.Dont think many youngesters consider or even know of metallurgy as a career. To think that once, in ancient times , India forged some of the best metal.
member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_20453 »

Arjun Mk-2 is certainly a better tank, the mine plough, new tracks, porposed new engine, active protection system and amor make it a step ahead of the Type-10.

I think T-72 should be quickly replaced by the Anders, If we purchase this with full-tot, we can have around 2000+ of these light weight tanks made in India at a decent price.
Anders is a nice light tank which can between 30 to 45 T depending on the variant.

http://www.google.be/imgres?q=anders+ta ... ,s:0,i:110

Anti-Aircraft vehicle, Mobile Radar vehicle

with Automated turret, Command vehicle

Engineering vehicle, w rocket artillery

Infantry Fighting Vehicle, with mine flail

It can carry 32 rounds, 3 crew and another 4 shock troops who can act as the tank's human protection units. A tank regiment I believe should always have shock troops protecting them against enemy anti tank units. Armed with semi auto snipers, rifles, LMGs, and Manpads to shoot down any incoming helos or anti tank air. Each Anders can carry it's human protection into battle. A regiment of 50 tanks will have a total of 200 shock troops to protect them, which is terrible force for any one to deal with.

It is also light enough to load 2 of these onto the c-17.
vishnu.nv
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vishnu.nv »

Septimus P. wrote:Arjun Mk-2 is certainly a better tank, the mine plough, new tracks, porposed new engine, active protection system and amor make it a step ahead of the Type-10.
I could not see how the above mentioned items make Arjun MK-2 Superior. Any way We are not comparing Arjun MK2 with Type-10. They had also Type-90 which was also similar to Arjun MK1, Leopard but they have suceeded in reducing the weight to 48 tonns. May be DRDO can take this tank as a case study while developing the FMBT.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by John »

Septimus P. wrote:Arjun Mk-2 is certainly a better tank, the mine plough, new tracks, porposed new engine, active protection system and amor make it a step ahead of the Type-10.
Depends on your definition of better but in terms of technology Type 10 is currently the most advanced tank out there (instrument panels/electronics , engine and armor) and the price justifies it over $ 12 million unit cost. IMO it should serve as blue print of what our own future MBT should be. But you know my views i don't think MBT have a place in wars of the future...
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

Photo-essay on Indian Canal crossing operations:

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/in ... tions.html
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Philip »

Watch the BBC's Top Gear lilliput,Richard Hammond in his new series "Crash Course".It features him experiencing an M-1 training as driver,commander,and gunner.Some of the ergonomic detailing in the M-1 needs to be redesigned A great insight into the M-1.One wishes that a similar feature is done on the Arjun.
uddu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2091
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by uddu »


Tracer fire by Arjun MBT's.
:twisted:
Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Nihat »

John wrote:
Septimus P. wrote:Arjun Mk-2 is certainly a better tank, the mine plough, new tracks, porposed new engine, active protection system and amor make it a step ahead of the Type-10.
Depends on your definition of better but in terms of technology Type 10 is currently the most advanced tank out there (instrument panels/electronics , engine and armor) and the price justifies it over $ 12 million unit cost. IMO it should serve as blue print of what our own future MBT should be. But you know my views i don't think MBT have a place in wars of the future...
i would agree with that, MBT''s will not be a part of future land warfare (at least not in its current form) with a 3 man tank crew and relatively heavy elephants which would make easy pickings for UCAV's and increasingly sophisticated portable ATGM's. in the long term we have to look at unmanned solutions which are lighter and capable of operating in all terrains , even if firepower is somewhat sacrificed.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

uddu wrote: Tracer fire by Arjun MBT's.
:twisted:
Nope, :roll: these are BMPs
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

http://i.imgur.com/nDFZj.jpg
one of the cool pics from mil photos place.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

thanks Saik

its gorgeous

which thread in mil photos?
A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1206
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by A Sharma »

DRDO episode on ARJUN MBT- INSIDE OUT on Discovery Channel on 8th September- Saturday at 1800 hr, 13th September- Thursday at 0900 hr and 22nd September- Saturday at 1800 hr.

Can somebody record and post on youtube
TIA
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

^that would be nice. yes.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

+1 pretty please
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5721
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Kartik »

second that..would be great if someone could record that. A Sharma, thanks for bringing it to our notice.
Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Hobbes »

i would agree with that, MBT''s will not be a part of future land warfare (at least not in its current form) with a 3 man tank crew and relatively heavy elephants which would make easy pickings for UCAV's and increasingly sophisticated portable ATGM's. in the long term we have to look at unmanned solutions which are lighter and capable of operating in all terrains , even if firepower is somewhat sacrificed.
Unless of course someone develops these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank)
You can check out some stories involving Bolos at
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/20-T ... /index.htm
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/20-T ... /index.htm
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

In continuation of previous post on my blog (Indian Army-Canal Crossing Operations), Part-II covering the bridging equipment of the army. There are also couple of excellent videos of river crossing exercise by Russian Army.

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/09/in ... on-ii.html

The topic is something I've studied for the first time while putting together the above post. So, please, if anyone has more information or if any aspect of details covered by me is wrong/out-dated, please feel free to give your feedback here on BRF or in comments section. This way, we can build a single repository of information on the subject.
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Yagnasri »

Hobbes wrote:
i would agree with that, MBT''s will not be a part of future land warfare (at least not in its current form) with a 3 man tank crew and relatively heavy elephants which would make easy pickings for UCAV's and increasingly sophisticated portable ATGM's. in the long term we have to look at unmanned solutions which are lighter and capable of operating in all terrains , even if firepower is somewhat sacrificed.
Unless of course someone develops these - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank)
You can check out some stories involving Bolos at
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/20-T ... /index.htm
http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/20-T ... /index.htm
A system with protection, mobility and firepower all combined into one is going to be around for a long long time to come. Be it a armoured hourse, war elephent, Tank or it a Bolo of the Sci fi novels.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Russia targets export markets with enhanced high urban performance main battle tank

Part-1 Part-2 Part-3

( via Janes IDR )
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5721
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Kartik »

A Sharma wrote:DRDO episode on ARJUN MBT- INSIDE OUT on Discovery Channel on 8th September- Saturday at 1800 hr, 13th September- Thursday at 0900 hr and 22nd September- Saturday at 1800 hr.

Can somebody record and post on youtube
TIA
Did anyone record this on Sept 8th?
KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by KBDagha »

Didn't record it but did get a chance to watch it. Some of the points summarised below:
1. Overall nice presentation, nice view of tank interiors and its firing on the move capabilities
2. Excellent view of simulators
3. In the end they talked about Mk2 version and showed testing of different ERA versions against Milan ATGM warhead

All in all good.

Regards,
Khambat
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by krishnan »

It got re-tele casted today morning...but i had to take my kid to doc so missed it
Post Reply