Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 15 Aug 2012 00:28

nelson wrote: A tank which exerts 0.84 kg/cm^2 at 58.5 tons will exert 0.96 kg/cm^2 at 67 tons even after discounting the difference in weight due to weight of the chains. This ground pressure MAY BE unacceptable for operation in deserts. What Army WOULD HAVE ASKED is to keep the ground pressure at 0.84 kg/cm^2, in spite of any increase in weight, which eventually resulted in the wider track width.

So, you start with the ASSUMPTION that the "IA IS RIGHT".
Then you HYPOTHESIZE what IA MUST HAVE THOUGHT.
And you are using that to PROVE that the "IA IS RIGHT"

Huh ... ?? ....

--Ashish

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 15 Aug 2012 00:42

^^Definitely i did not say that. All i said was this "increase in track width may have caused increased slipping of chains as brought out in the article and also increased susceptibility to mines". I did not even say that the above would have been a consideration for acceptability of Arjun to IA. But if the trend is to attack the poster more than the post, i can not help it.

OTOH, i expect IA to perceive threat in terms of what equipment adversary holds and how it will affect their operations better than any of us. In that respect they could 'hazard the guess'.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 15 Aug 2012 00:49

Misraji wrote:
nelson wrote: A tank which exerts 0.84 kg/cm^2 at 58.5 tons will exert 0.96 kg/cm^2 at 67 tons even after discounting the difference in weight due to weight of the chains. This ground pressure MAY BE unacceptable for operation in deserts. What Army WOULD HAVE ASKED is to keep the ground pressure at 0.84 kg/cm^2, in spite of any increase in weight, which eventually resulted in the wider track width.
So, you start with the ASSUMPTION that the "IA IS RIGHT".
Then you HYPOTHESIZE what IA MUST HAVE THOUGHT.
And you are using that to PROVE that the "IA IS RIGHT"

Huh ... ?? ....

--Ashish

Going by the ground pressures of various tanks that IA has in operation I can only guess that IA would have asked to keep ground pressure of Arjun Mk2 same as Mk1.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Aug 2012 00:56

nelson wrote: Going by the ground pressures of various tanks that IA has in operation I can only guess that IA would have asked to keep ground pressure of Arjun Mk2 same as Mk1.

You told us that the max weight for an MBT can be no greater than 50T as far as the IA is concerned. So why is the IA asking for modifications in a tank that will make it even heavier than it already is? If the 50T requirement was part of the GSQR as you say, why hasn't the IA asked for all work on the Arjun to stop since it will never meet the GSQR? Are they fond of wasting taxpayer money and DRDO's time?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 15 Aug 2012 00:58

nelson wrote:^^Definitely i did not say that. All i said was this "increase in track width may have caused increased slipping of chains as brought out in the article and also increased susceptibility to mines". I did not even say that the above would have been a consideration for acceptability of Arjun to IA. But if the trend is to attack the poster more than the post, i can not help it.

OTOH, i expect IA to perceive threat in terms of what equipment adversary holds and how it will affect their operations better than any of us. In that respect they could 'hazard the guess'.

How will the Indian Army know how many cheap Chinese (full-width) mines the Pakistan Army has? Which international monitor will really know?

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 15 Aug 2012 01:04

--SNIP-- DELETED THE POST.
Whats the point of dealing with the 50-Cent brigade?
This is just getting frustrating.

--Ashish

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 15 Aug 2012 01:08

That was polite enough, thanks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Aug 2012 01:17

A tank which exerts 0.84 kg/cm^2 at 58.5 tons will exert 0.96 kg/cm^2 at 67 tons

well this is wrong.. so, on the same linear scale think about 0.87-0.9 kg/cm2 exerting tin-can at 67 tons?

you are discounting the design factor altogether which made Arjun mk.1 those ground pressure values.

Now, do we really know what the specs are for Arjun Mk.2. You can't quote from a linear value conversion on ground pressure.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Aug 2012 04:11

Translated from here.

The agreement was signed yesterday at the exhibition DEFEXPO-2010. According to the President BELM, VRS Nataraja, the project will be based on the program, the OBRUM (Polish car battle twenty-first century). Indian requirements include the possibility of transporting the vehicle to the area of the battlefield into a helicopter overhead. Tank Indian version will be produced by BELM.

OBRUM BELM also has support for other initiatives, including construction engineering vehicle based on Arjun tank, renovation and modernization of the T-72 tanks and the modernization of BMP-2. Technical security of the car design based on Arjuna is to be coordinated by CVRD (Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment), Chennai, and funded by the Indian defense agency DRDO projects.

It is worth noting that the DEFEXPO-2010 offer of participation in the modernization of the Indian T-72 tanks also presented the U.S. company Raytheon. The Indian side in this project would represent the company Larsen & Toubro. Americans would have to provide electronic components, and L & T would handle the installation.

BELM also signed an agreement with the Slovak Tanaxem on the construction of armored vehicle designed for use in anti-terrorist operations and Counterinsurgency. Slovaks are to provide cannon, which will be assembled in India, and BELM will produce the vehicle's hull.

During DEFEXPO-2010 BELM announced the opening of a new plant in Palakkad in Kerala. There will be running the company's aviation manufacturing industry. BELM invested in the plant of 2.6 billion rupees (about $ 50 million).

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Aug 2012 04:54

Gentlemen, our friend Nelson's repeated reference to 10M canal defenses on Pakistan side got me reading about the subject. I intend to write about the development of such canals with defensive purpose from an area starting from Fort Abbas to the sector opposite our Barmer sector.

Here is the Part 1 of the series that I've posted on my blog -
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/pa ... south.html

MODS - how can I put the entire thing at one go on BRF? Thanks.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Aug 2012 05:14

Pl.read IMR July issue for a detailed piece about the T-90S vs T-90S modernised tank,etc. Cost $2.78M per unit,weight 48t.Among improvements are the AC,separate compartment for the ammo,remote 7.62mm gun,new diesel engine,auto-gears,60kph speed,various threat sensors and protective systems,new ERA,more accurate main gun,etc.Pics of the commander and gunner's stations in a larger turret more rectilinear in shape .40 rounds + ATGM missiles.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Aug 2012 07:07

Sure, the existing tin cans can be be paid $3M per unit + the original tin can cost of near $3M. no issues at all there totally $6M for beefed up tin-cans. Now Arjun Mk1 at $3M, may be +1-2M for upgrades has be paid through bleeding nose.. cause, there is no middlemen here, to smother the bleeds.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 15 Aug 2012 13:51

rohitvats wrote:Gentlemen, our friend Nelson's repeated reference to 10M canal defenses on Pakistan side got me reading about the subject. I intend to write about the development of such canals with defensive purpose from an area starting from Fort Abbas to the sector opposite our Barmer sector.

Here is the Part 1 of the series that I've posted on my blog -
http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/pa ... south.html

Nice article, I added a comment/question on your blog and then thought of another one. The first question I had (also posted in your blog) relates to narrower canals. Given that the arjun tracks seem to be around 5.5 to 6 m. long roughly, smaller canals should be fordable without a bridge. Also for smaller canals (say between 3-5 meters wide), what prevents IA engineers from hauling a couple of dump trucks filled with rock aggregate and dumping them in the canal to fill the gap and produce a rough bridgehead that tracked vehicles can go over.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Aug 2012 19:22

Saik,the costs of both Arjun and the T-90 series are affordable to India,half as much as Western MBTs. Arjun has as has ben said many a time a lot of key western content,esp. the powerpack.

Now upgraded T-90s and Arjun Mk-2 are also available to the IA to induct as it feels fit.However,from the horses' mouth,the DRDO itself,the plan appears to be to develop a new indigenous FMBT with advanced features by around 50t by 2020-2025.What now remains is the numerical mix of Arjuns MK-2s and upgraded T-90s to be acquired/produced until the FMBT arrives.This will also have an impact upon the earlier plans of upgrading large numbers of T-72s in the inventory,which one alternative ,if more arjuns and T-90s are to be built at Avadi which has production limitations,is to use the chassis for specialised armoured vehicles instead.With our rapidly deteriorating economy and rupee devaluation,where the funds aer going to come from remains to be seen.The top priority for the IA is the decision on the artillery acquisitions.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 15 Aug 2012 19:55

I would say, dessert ops are more needed than other terrain from logistics angle alone should secure Arjun Mk2 for a minimum of 1000 to 1500 tanks. Perhaps tranches of 500 tanks each, Mk2, Mk3 and Mk4., ending a nice lifecylcle for Arjun. As a honest citizen, one should vote for this approach.

Meanwhile, I don't care how they beef up T90s based on clout* network plans. It is mandatory for FMBT, that we have 1500 Arjun mk.2++ versions out there., and the industry is self feeding.

Arjuns can cross the desserts, and across the dried saraswati, and can cross over bridges (indus) on the other side of yellow sea, and return victorious with least ground pressure foot mark on the soil than any other tank, and with the most destruction foot mark for the enemy. At least, this is the minimum I can read.

One can see the clout* being restless.. and internal reviews are started attacking DRDO setup itself.. for their performance -- what a politics. even the worst type can't be this ridiculous. I shall delete this post, when they place the order for 1500 arjuns.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 15 Aug 2012 22:15

nachiket wrote:
nelson wrote: Going by the ground pressures of various tanks that IA has in operation I can only guess that IA would have asked to keep ground pressure of Arjun Mk2 same as Mk1.
....So why is the IA asking for modifications in a tank that will make it even heavier than it already is? ...

I surmise that the IA and DRDO under the aegis of MoD, had agreed upon capping of Arjun at a particular quantity and limited to a particular area of operations, leading to removal of weight restrictions on its further development.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 15 Aug 2012 22:18

PratikDas wrote:
nelson wrote:^^Definitely i did not say that. All i said was this "increase in track width may have caused increased slipping of chains as brought out in the article and also increased susceptibility to mines". I did not even say that the above would have been a consideration for acceptability of Arjun to IA. But if the trend is to attack the poster more than the post, i can not help it.

OTOH, i expect IA to perceive threat in terms of what equipment adversary holds and how it will affect their operations better than any of us. In that respect they could 'hazard the guess'.
How will the Indian Army know how many cheap Chinese (full-width) mines the Pakistan Army has? Which international monitor will really know?

Any decent army will have a fair assessment of its adversaries' capabilities through intelligence, and would not have the need to depend on international monitors.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 15 Aug 2012 23:35

nelson wrote:
PratikDas wrote: How will the Indian Army know how many cheap Chinese (full-width) mines the Pakistan Army has? Which international monitor will really know?
Any decent army will have a fair assessment of its adversaries' capabilities through intelligence, and would not have the need to depend on international monitors.

Firstly, I'm not suggesting the Army's knowledge and the information provided by monitors is related. I just don't think the link you provided (below) helps us in understanding the Pakistan Army deployment of Chinese mines. http://maic.jmu.edu/research/munitions/ ... ?sort=type

I guess it is easy to say that a decent army would know the nature and quantity of mine deployment from its own intelligence. Without detracting from IA capability, we do find tunnels coming across the border all the time. Good intelligence would have alerted authorities when the construction of the tunnel began, not when land began subsiding along a line above the tunnel. Had the Pakistan Army been more competent in digging this tunnel, we wouldn't have known for much longer.

Similarly, pretending like we know the full-width mine percentage and charging forth with poorly protected T90 seems foolish.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Aug 2012 23:57

nelson wrote: I surmise that the IA and DRDO under the aegis of MoD, had agreed upon capping of Arjun at a particular quantity and limited to a particular area of operations, leading to removal of weight restrictions on its further development.

Hmmm, a lot of guesswork to justify the original unverified claim of there being a specific weight restriction in the GSQR in the first place.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Aug 2012 01:10

what if the adversary suddenly gets afpak ops related M1 tanks at dead cheap-o price against some new condom-scratch-back agreement? with pakis anything can happen... and forget that.. what if chippanda club suddenly produces something out of the blue? what intelligence we have on them?

Even the super duper khaans feel chippanda nation is UN-penetratable! [INT]

member_23360 · Post by **member_23360** » 16 Aug 2012 02:53

http://frontierindia.net/history-of-arj ... evelopment

history of Arjun development, in GSQR No. 431, IA asked DRDO to increase the weight as well as width.

The changes in the GSQR No. 431 over the original were following.

Increase in width and weight
110/115mm gun was to be replaced with a 120mm gun.
Improved Sighting and Fire Control system.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Aug 2012 15:04

Even if we decide to produce 1000 Arjuns,we still have a major production problem at Avadi,whose production has to be ramped up to build at least 100 tanks per year.It already has ahuge orders on hand and we should seriously look at other alternatives/PSUs for some of the upgrade work or start expanding capability asap.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Aug 2012 17:19

^^^

Simple solution to the problem. End the tin can production and focus on the Arjun. Have never understood the need for a medium and heavy tank to begin with.

Arjun is desi, it works and is better then the tin can. So no question in mind WRT, ending the tin can line. It will free up industrial resources and focus the manufacturing facility for the Arjun.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 16 Aug 2012 17:53

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Aug 2012 18:57

+1M

x-posting from misc pic thread:

wilson_th · Post by **wilson_th** » 20 Aug 2012 19:13

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels ... -award-806

G. Munusamy, proprietor of Fluoro Carbon Seals, an equipment manufacturing company, received the award from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for developing and manufacturing high-pressure piston seals for the hydro-gas suspension system for Arjun Tank.

“The product will help the country save Rs 10 crore on foreign exchange and aid in production of 120 tanks,” said Cvrde director Dr P. Siva Kumar.

Today, the company, which is based at Mettukuppam in Thoraipakkam, has started exporting similar high-pressure items to Germany. Started by four brothers, the small firm began production of seals for Army in 2004.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 20 Aug 2012 19:23

Regarding those fuel tanks at the Back in Arjun 2, aren't they bit exposed, what if in Urban enviorments or combat DIrect hits at them, will those DIesel tanks explode, is thier anything which can conteract this, I am sure the designers would have a reason to put them there, anyone knowledgable can answer this.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Aug 2012 19:32

those can be dropped off in such environment. they are needed to give the arjun a better ferry range...the internal tank capacity seems to be a bit small for a tank of this size due to the engine being older gen and hence bulkier....apparently dropping in the latest MTU tank engine would save 2 feet of internal volume which would make those drop tanks redundant.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 23 Aug 2012 08:21

Avadi Engine Factory Completes 25 years
Excerpts

Uniquely placed as the sole supplier of diesel engines for various battle tank versions in the Army, the EFA is now embarking on a major plan to double its installed capacity and scale up its technical workforce in tune with the expanding needs of the country’s defence establishment.

“We hope to double capacity to 750 engines annually by 2014,” said Saurabh Kumar, EFA General Manager.

At the heart of EFA’s Rs. 330-crore expansion project is the establishment of a Rs. 190-crore Flexible Manufacturing System (FMS) that will be a vast technological improvement on its existing Italian technology-driven FMS. Once a raw material casting is loaded, the FMS will take over automated machining and tool change processes to deliver the four core engine components.

The three main variants of diesel engines are the V 46-6 for use in the Ajeya (T-72), V92S2 that powers Bhishma tanks and the UTD-20 for Sarath infantry combat-cum-armoured personnel carrier.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 23 Aug 2012 10:28

Philip wrote:When examining the past,one must in all honesty also remember that when Pak acquired the T-80UD ,there was no western bonhomie towards India in supplying arms,esp. from the US! What were our options also even if available? Hugely expensive western MBTs when compared with a far cheaper T-90,a follow-on design to the T-72 in service from a time-trusted supplier.One must never forget the sanctions that were imposed upon India by the US in the aftermath of P-2.Therefore,our "knee-jerk" reaction of T-90s to Pak's clever acquisition cannot be faulted.Unfortunately,Arjun has come of age too late.No disrespect to the tank,but why a Mk-2 if Mk-1 was perfect? Incremental improvements are the norm in any system .

Arjun was late in case of original purchase of 310 tanks in 2001, not for the follow on orders of 347 and 1000! It is the follow on orders that precisely showcase the vested interests in the Army. I hope it is a doctrinal issue and not due to corruption. However, after Adarsh, TATRA, Sukn land scams, i am not sure of anything!

Philip wrote: However,going by the veteran experts in the TV debate,we do have a very varied terrain and Arjun can certainly be used/employed with discretion where the terrain suits it best.No harm in manufacturing another few hundred or so ,at least the 500 figure that the DRDO says which will make it break even financially and have enough numbers in service to enable the logistic chain to also function smoothly.One can certainly reduce by a few hundred in number T-90 local production which is planned for the future and not yet in the pipeline

What a gratuitous tone - you are not offering breadcrumbs to your slave!
Arjun has the right to be inducted as the MBT of IA as it is made on GSQRs made by IA. People have spent their entire lives developing it; just ordering a few to placate someone is not correct.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 23 Aug 2012 10:32

srai wrote:From all the debate, it sounds like the IA needs 3 different MBT designs to satisfy its varied requirements for an FMBT:

Airliftable/Mountainous terrain -> Light tanks (< 50t) new type

Punjab Plains/Urban -> Medium tanks (50t) i.e. T72/T90

Deserts -> Heavy tanks (> 50t) i.e. Arjun Mk.1/2
And there is an amphibious requirement as well.

IMO, type 2 and 3 can be combined

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Aug 2012 10:40

The Super duper latest South Korean tank weighs 55 tons, so with current technology, one cannot hope to achieve 40-50 tons without some sacrifices.

mody · Post by **mody** » 23 Aug 2012 13:12

The ideal scenario with regards to the Arjun saga, should have been as given below:

1). The army should have ordered another 124 nos. of Arjun Mk1 in 2007, on top of the original order for 124 nos. This production would continued till 2012. So total order of 248 Mk-1 tanks. Used mainly by defensive corps.

2). Sanction development of the Mk-2 at the same time in 2007. The tank would have been ready by now, with all tests completed. A new order for 500 nos. of Mk-2 should then be placed then to have the production completed in 2017-2018, with ramped up production rates.
If sanctioned in 2007, they should have even asked for the new MTU 893 series engine, with 1600-1800 BHP power to be fitted in Mk-2 version. The new MTU-893 is smaller and much lighter as compared to the existing MTU-838. The weight of the tank would have been reduced and also the internal space freed up would have allowed for more internal fuel and additional ammo to be packed in.
With the addition of 200-400 BHP of more power, the mobility would have been improved and also an internal AC should have been added. The Mk-2 tanks would be part of the strike formations.

3). Firm up the requirements for Mk-3, with Le-Clerc type of Autoloader system and a 3 man crew and state of the art networked battle management system, atleast for the commander tanks. The width and the height of the tank to be reduced, thus lowering the total weight of the tank. The additional ERA packs mandated on the Mk-2 version, should be done away with. Add an Active Protection System, similar to the Trophy developed for the Mk-3 version. All these changes would bring the weight of the tank to about 55 ton range, and with the MTU-893 engine, that would give the army one hell of a tank. Other improvements such as an upgraded gun with a slightly longer barrel and improved and newer type of ammo etc., would be part of the package also.
Sanction a production run of another 600-800 Arjun Mk-3 tanks.

The older Mk-1 and Mk-2 tanks could also be upgraded, with the newer features developed for the Mk-3 version.

If a requirement for more then 1,000 nos. of MTU-893 engine is given to MTU, I am sure the price would be lower then what we are paying for the MTU-838 engine and perhaps MTU would also agree provide a license to manufacture these engines in India, with ToT.
They will not be selling a similar number of engines to all of their traditional customers combined over the same period of time, given the state of European economies and the state of their defense expenditure.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Aug 2012 14:40

^^^

Suggesting that to an army in love with the tin can, as we. Not going to happen. The only way the IA will ever accept the Arjun would be, if, they were told by the Raksha Mantri that they will have to take Arjun. Else they will have to loose all tanks.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2012 15:40

To be fair to the Arjun on the weight issue,can we have some stats showing where the heavy western tanks have fought and in what type of terrain? How different are they from the varied terrain that we have and how where they transported? THis would give us an insight into the suitability of MK-2 65t Arjuns and how many more that we can acquire.The debate between retd. senior cavalry officers in an earlier post was most interesting as some felt that there were areas where a heavy A MK-2 could operate.

As Prat and others have said,the IA has been fed for decades upon a diet of "diet" MBT with their 3-man crews and auto-loader and as the major part of the IA's armour cosists of T-72s and T-90s,they are loath to chnage their "diet".

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 Aug 2012 15:58

WRT, the 3 man crew. I am always puzzled by this point. AFIK, almost 50% of the IA tank fleet is/ was untill recently a 4 man crew tank. In the shape of the T55 and the Vijyanta.

Moreover, the concern about the weight is also not very clear to me. The Arjun actually exerts less ground pressure then a supposedly medium tank. Also the trrrain and wars are a red herring to me as, the western heavy tanks that were meant to fight WW3 in Europe have never fought on their home turf. While the most numerous representative of western heavy tanks has actually fought a war in the deserts of Arabia. Even the UAE operates the desert Leclere. The Isrealies operate another 60 ton tank.

Now, some may say that there is huge difference in deserts of Arabia and the riverine plains of the Punjab, with it network of DCBs. Gentlemen, I request you to study the terrain of the German plains. Where the western heavies were meant to take on the WarPact Armour. You will see that the differences are not that great. Nor is their much of a difference in terms of the density of urban and rural settlements.

I increasingly feel that the Induction of Arjun is being delayed and prevented on account of contrived reasons and contrived reasons alone.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 23 Aug 2012 17:41

+1. The ground presure is never talked by DDMs. All is for having more tin cans.

Jayram · Post by **Jayram** » 23 Aug 2012 21:49

Pratyush wrote:^^^

Suggesting that to an army in love with the tin can, as we. Not going to happen. The only way the IA will ever accept the Arjun would be, if, they were told by the Raksha Mantri that they will have to take Arjun. Else they will have to loose all tanks.

Yes but what is the Raksha Mantri is itself compromised(we all know what means) or unwilling (to raise a controversy). Then only public pressure will work. Keeping this issue alive in the media is the only strategy that may be workable.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 24 Aug 2012 02:39

Tanks are designed to achieve mobility in the most difficult terrains so there is no issues with local mobility of the heavy tanks with proper support infrastructure

Second argument of total weight limit of small bridges (50 tons) hold ground but there always is good old Indian Railway and off road crossing options.

If you want light tank take some armor plates off you'll end up with lighter tank with less protection. Other way would be to reduce size which would mean less space for electronics, crew comfort and over heating of stuff. If you want T72 rounds to bounce off at point blank range, acquire targets 5 KM away and shoot while moving with great accuracy than Arjun, Markava and Abrams is what you get.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 24 Aug 2012 07:34

^^ Is there a possibility that if a better govt comes that Arjun can be showed down the throats of these old coots who still want to drive the Penny-farthings?