Bharat Rakshak

My question is why can't separate the two: the fire power and the protection of infantry thrusting inside?

Fair question, I s'pose. Let us think this through then. Imagine you do separate the firepower from infantry protection. What you will end up with is a mass of unprotected guns and missiles leading the main assault, closely supported and followed by mechanised infantry. Ideally, you would want the firepower component to be operated by live human beings (it being good for morale and all), which means that they will need some sort of protection. As the tip of the spear, they will face the brunt of enemy fire, and unless well protected, would be vulnerable to a range of weaponry including assault rifles and machine guns. So you give them enough armour protection to withstand enemy fire, and then a little mobility too (you know, since they may have to manoeuvre over bad terrain to get into an advantageous position to mount their assault). Before you know it, you have built yourself an MBT.

The normal tank shell is not designed to target infantry and it is insufficient for well armoured tanks from a large domain of angle.

First of all, what is a "normal" tank shell? HEAT? AP shot? A bullet being fired out of the co-axial machine gun? Secondly, what does "target infantry" mean? Because infantry can be exposed, simply dug in, or hide behind heavy fortifications. The problem of neutralising each type requires its own unique solution, and you can’t group all infantry under one definition. And finally, when you say stuff like "a normal tank shell... is insufficient for well armoured tanks from a large domain of angle", you appear to be oversimplifying things by considering each little element of a tank in isolation. Tank armour is strongest at the front and weaker at the sides and the back. The aim of any armoured commander is to get a flank or rear shot while presenting his own front to the enemy. These are basic tactics. Tank battles, therefore, are highly fluid, involving constant firing and manoeuvring for an advantageous position. It is not as if two tanks present themselves face-to-face and fire at each other until one bursts into flames.

Tl;dr: A tank is a complex combination of firepower, armour, and mobility. An armoured unit is an even more complex combination of tanks, infantry, artillery, and engineer support. These elements do not fight in isolation, and making such an assumption will not help you understand how they function on the battlefield.

In Second world war infantry had no means to credible means to destroy a tank from a distance". Here "from distance" has to be kept in mind.

No. Long-range anti-tank guns were deadly when used properly. The German 88 mm flak gun, 75 mm Pak 40, and even self-propelled systems like the Stug III and Jagdpanther IV were highly effective against Allied tanks at extreme ranges.

Then what else do you use for attack? Fast ICVs lack the firepower to take on enemy tanks and dug-in troops, and they aren't any faster than tanks. Helos lack the staying power to maintain a sustained presence on the battlefield, and are very vulnerable to enemy fire.


The point being…?


Okay. Do tell us what the main point is.


"Crux" means something vital, fundamental, decisive. Apart from "planning, execution, co-ordination", there are other things that are far more crucial than stealth or speed. In the overall scheme of things, stealth is an afterthought.


Am I the only one here who can’t make head or tail of the first sentence?


You aren't serious, are you? If a helicopter lacks staying power, what good is it when the enemy counterattacks? What is the point if it can’t consolidate the gains on the battlefield? Are you seriously suggesting that an army use helicopters to attack the enemy, have them return to base, and then scramble infantry to the front to hold captured territory? And the enemy will permit you the time for all this… why?

@abhishekgoel

I think sufficient amount of info has already been supplied to the queries you raised. Leaving specifics I'll just try to generalize things for you.

Stratergy and Planning are supreme in any millitary conflict. Equipment and resources can perform overwhemingly well or depressingly low based on the quality of plan. In Trojan war for ten years what the best of greek arms failed to achieve.. a wooden horse did.

Unlike US Army most of the armies in the world don't have the luxury to get what ever they want out of their wishlist. So, generals tend to make stratergy based on what is available to them, and what they are expecting their enemies to field in war.

Every equipment has its weakness. Relying solely on a specific line of equipment will give your enemy oppurtunity to master stratergies to counter them and give you a hard time in war. Thats why armies prefer to construct an offense made up of several interlinked forces. Which makes overall situation complex for the enemy to respond.

Based on the enemies defenses and terrain a general will choose the appropriate set of equipments. Something worked in kargil, something else worked in longewala...and so on.

At times, I really wish we had "hit the wall"smilies....



Jokes apart - tanks do exactly what the infantry used to do - capture the enemy land but in the shortest time-frame possible. They are offensive weapons with a big cannon and protection against but the most dedicated weapons. Rather than fight set piece battles, they allow quick and rapid maneuvers with option of hitting the enemy from flanks or even rear. They are the hammer which knocks down doors so that infantry can walk in and hold ground.Those who talk of tanks becoming obsolete have not seen the effect of a squadron of tanks advancing on an infantry position. There is no more frightening sight with iron beasts rolling down and spewing HESH/HEAT rounds at the same time.

Although Tanks are still relevant, IMHO, and are actually crucial in Indian subcontinent but there is some truth in the questions being asked here about MBT effectiveness in 2012. We all know armor and fire-power has always competed against each other for eternity. Most of the time, shields were stronger than swords, and up to WW2 MBTs had an upper hand in protection. In our times, fire power has a decisive upper hand over state of the art armor available to soldiers.

Long rods of Tungsten and DU are almost certain to penetrate any tank armor that exists today. Basic science is against steel (ceramic) based armor as compared to much denser, stronger and harder material available to make penetrators. Economics also favors ammunition you only need few Kgs of exotic material to make a round but would need an unaffordable 50 ton of it to make a tank. Until someone makes a breakthrough in armor technology with new materials like cubic boron-nitride or single crystal carbon or polycrystaline diamond or unobtanium, firepower will remain the winners way. At short range RPGs are almost as deadly to MBTs as tank ammunition or missiles. Rs 10Lakh missile handled by 2 men crew hiding behind a small bush, can easily take out an Rs 30 Corer MBT with a F&F missiles from couple of KM away. Combat helicopters and ground attack aircraft mostly come out winners against MBTs. Most countries are either reducing their MBT inventory or going for lighter and more movable vehicles and tanks. The question that needs to be asked is - Do large and slow moving MBT's still provide the crew protection the way they did in WW2 era. The answer IMO is a certain no. In that case MBTs should give away some space (what? how much? to whom?) for other strategies and weapons to improve total fighting effectiveness.

Just to give an example of the psychological effect and fear that tanks induce, in one of the most hostile battlegrounds for tanks -- Afhanistan, a German (IIRC) commander was on record saying that the Taliban would first scoot at the sight of tanks even if it were just one. And these are veterans of using RPG against tanks and perfected the art and were role models for the terrorist scum fighting against Israeli tanks. Tanks also serve as a morale booster for the invading forces. NBC protection is another plus point. Picture Saddam before and after his tanks were taken out on the deserts of Kuwait, he still had a lot of battle-hardened infantry but Saddam was a defeated man already.

With improving technology the BMPs/Strykers of today could fill in some of the roles of tanks but it tough to see tanks become invalid in the near future.

Combination of Mobility, firepower and protection are best offered by a MBT system and there is no are other system matching it as of today. Try to fire a laser guided ATM in the heat of the battle and keep ti targeted for two/three minutes and we will find out how difficult it will be. Fire and forget advertisements of modern version of ATM may be met with active defense now being provided to MBTs. Age old race between protection and offensive power.
Further option to attack at the place and time of their choice is a major advantage of the MBT and we cannot have defenses everywhere and in adequate number. Fixed defenses are monuments to human stupidity (as per Patton) and anti tank missile teams are almost fixed defenses which can be bypassed or destroyed with long range artillery mortar fire or even by infantry, snipers etc. Helicopters which cannot hold ground in the first place, are notoriously difficult to maintain. IFVs can not match MBT toe to toe and one does not always fight semi literate Iraqi forces in night and complete air supremacy and other equipment to make war just like a video game. We do not have that much tech and money to waste.
Chi+Paki forces will be first one to attack us (I do not see any Indian PM of UPA or even NDA initiating aggressive war on Pakis) and it will be at the place and time of their choice. We can not keep ATM teams all around waiting for that to happen. We have to keep lot of Arjuns and few (hopefully few) tincans to meet such eventuality. True that most of the Paki stuff may be junk but they will have to option to choose to the time and place.

We have an excellent system in Arjun and should order more regiments.

Frankly, I find these repetitive doubts expressed about the relevance of tanks at this point of time quite naive and uniformed. These days when active defences are rendering almost all man portable ATGM useless (granted they have still quite a way to go, but I am sure they will get there), such questions are at best ignorant and at worst propaganda. The two prevailing trends in tank protection is increasing tank armour, be it reactive or composite and new and fast developing active protection measures. We even have the el cheapo armour like the slat armor that renders most cheap RPGs useless. From what I have read, the use of increasing amounts of composite and reactive armor in tanks have prompted the need of tandem warheads of increasing size, soon approaching the point where they are too heavy to be man portable. Tank armor is only going to get thicker even if tanks through automation become lighter. Coupled with active defence systems, ATGMs are gonna have a hard time in the future. What will the infantry do then, employ anti tank donkeys or cattle? (since warheads would be too heavy for dogs). I wonder what is more comforting for advancing infantry, allied air power that destroys and then runs away or allied armour that pulverises opposition and keeps on going. Try to put yourselves in their shoes and do a little less of armchair theorizing. These days tanks are even used against insurgents and you are questioning their relevance in real wars, try to see how naive this is.

no missile in the world, not even a AAM can deliver a 9kg hit on target 2km away at supersonic speed inside 2 seconds. and immune to any EW. and deliver 40-45 such hits in rapid order, while manouvering the firing platform across rough terrain in parallel, with highest levels of armour protection.

ATGM launchers dont even come close in number of reloads, speed of missile , protection .... OK as support for infantry and tanks, not OK as a the edge of the zulu spear. they need to evolve and become more survivable using non-LOS techniques, like using SA15 Tor type VL array to launch top-attack missiles from behind cover, and use a bigger tank hull to hold more ready use VL missiles than the usual 2 arm launcher or limited number of 4-6 box mags. a LORROS type elevated mast for the optronics is also a must...as is a direct video feed from UAV or fwd observers. The ATGMs also need to get longer ranged, the days of 2-3km are over except in the mountains, where a javelin shooter doing padmasana behind a rock wall is ok.

expect the ARV purchase from BEML to be canceled.

Now, CBI to probe BEML’s ARV deal with Army

@Mihir
Thanks for reply regarding 5) point read you commentary of role of aircrafts in WWI.

@Boreas, Rohit , Narayan and Yogi
Thanks for your inputs.

@katare
Thanks for understanding the points related to economics, the constraints, resources capabilities and the theory of optimization.

Given Infinite wealth army have luxury of every decorative trophies; even which who have lost the relevance, but in reality there is no such luxury.

I will try to take a general scenario
Consider two nations A and B (which capability of near to China or India or Pakistab).

Now consider the scenario of hostilities between them in 1960s and in 2012.

in 1960s
Nation A: sends a 50 tanks and an infantry division to capture some post of Nation B. (cost of each tank @10 lakhs each comes to 5 crores todays price it will 250 crores ignoring logistics cost.
Nation B: come to know about it when the tanks are within the few kilometres of Border by seeing the dust columns and would try to rush in their own tanks(cost again 250 crores ignoring logistics cost. ) if near by or try to stop there advance by asking infantry to lay mines. If logistics permit deployment of tanks a tank battle will ensue otherwise infantry will be most probably routed tanks would have a free run
Nation A: wins the post objective achieved. Great tank victory. OR
Nation B: defends successfully as there tanks division moves in fast:Great tank victory.

In 2012 and beyond.
Due various gadgets tank price have increased 10 times at 50 crores a piece. so cost is 2500 crores for 50 tanks.
Nation A: sends a 50 tanks and an infantry division to capture some post of Nation B. cost ignoring logistics is 2500 crores.
Nation B. Due to saltellite imagery comes to know of the tank movement within hours the tank moved. They marked out an area where it will cross, the border. They remove there units from there. As soon as the tank column enters their territory. One of the following action is undertaken.
a) A cruise missile with sub kiloton nuclear bomb is detonated: cost 100 crore for missile and 500 crore for bomb. Nation A loss of > 2500 and a heavy loss of Man. Nation B wins
b) A heavy bomber with a high intensity bombs. something a litter smaller than MOB, FOB. cost 1000 crore for bombs. Nation A loss of < 2500 (some tanks might survive and a loss of Man but less than above. Nation B wins
c) A squarden of aircrafts to bomb a to destroy tanks. cost 1500 crore for bombs. Nation A loss of < 2500 (some tanks might survive and a loss of Man much . Nation B wins
d) If they want to play battle tanks lets send the tanks and infantry. Depends on who had better planning strategy.
e) do nothing. cost zero outcome loss nation A wins

Now there can be infinite number of other possibilities and people can construct better scenarios than me. But this is what is on the top of my mind I have simplified it(may be over simplified it) for easy understanding.

After the much vaunted ATGMs, we have now moved on to nuclear bombs. Tanks must indeed be mighty weapons to have to be stopped by nukes. Please do tell me how this nuke argument is applicable only to tanks. Would it not be endangering mechanized infantry or any massed forces for that matter. So, should we give up mechanized infantry too? Furthermore I cant believe that you are making a cost-benefit analysis on the use of nukes with just taking into account the cost the nuke and the cost of the destroyed forces, have you even considered the real costs of using a nuke on the overall conflict and its lingering effects. Also, you seem to have moved from attack helicopters to fighterbombers and now strategic bombers. If this is what it takes to kill a tank, then it is indeed money well spent. Taking an uninformed position and defending it with theoretical gymnastics is indeed a spectacular sight to see.

I suggest that Goel saab man his kirana shop diligently rather than troll daily here on BRF with his knowledge, or lack thereof, of things military or armoured. If he is so interested in learning he should start by posting his queries in the newbie thread.

How quick we are in calling others trolls and questioning other's knowledge. We are all here to learn and the admins are here to do their job, if you don't like a post report it please but keep out words like "troll" etc out.

Goel ji
Post your queries on this link

^+1 (Yogiji). Goelji - do move your queries/scenarios to newbie thread though, you'll probly catch less flak. Question is - what other weapon can give you offensive firepower, mobility and holding power as tanks? They might be countered well in terms of defending, but how do you break down enemy positions?

Will airpower alone do it?

assumptions as per your post:
- Nation B will detect enemy Tank movement within few Km of Border by seeing dust column and would try:
A) Try and rush own Tanks
- Time taken to mobilize its own Tanks would be couple of Hours even if they are within 50km of Border and within that time Nation A's Tank column will rout the infantry and would lay a trap for enemy Tanks (both tactically and strategically Nation A would have won if they dont #$%! up the maneuvers and their recee was correct.

- Now imagine if this thing was at night more surprise for Nation B as tank column will not be detected and lesser time to respond.
B ) Ask infantry to lay mines
- They have to be super lucky to predict the exact path of attack to achieve a total defeat of Nation A
- Mines can be taken care of even in 60' era.




Again your Assumptions:
A) use of sub kiloton nuclear bomb on its own territory ?
- One has to be mad to use it in first place and secondly use it on own territory, have you assumed the loss suffered by Nation B itself and its own Army because of such a device.

B )A heavy bomber with high intensity bombs for 50 Tanks and 1 Infantry division?
- Not much damage as Divisions AA columns would surely have a field day for the lone bomber
- Plus probability of damage to more that 10% of Tanks even if no AA asset is available is not possible as 50 Tanks would be spread across minimum a large area around 7-10km and one plane cannot target all assets and even in a worst case scenario only the Tanks which have a direct hit or have a explosion in a radius of 15 meters would suffer. A direct hit would kill a tank and others would just do some damage not enough.

C) Nation B sends 15-18 aircraft's and you assume that they will kill the Tanks. Well first they have to over come:
- Divisional AA assets ( shoulder launch AA missile, Mounted AA missiles e.g SA8, Tangushka, Igla, Akash SAM)
- As soon as enemy aircrafts take off they will be detected and will be intercepted.

D) Send in Tanks to take out tanks and assume Nation B will win how:
- Nation B only know the area towards which Tanks are headed cannot pinpoint the area of attack for detecting tank movement. So some element of surprise is still with Nation A.
- Time to mobilize their own columns will be again 4-6 hrs minimum by that time battle will be over.

you have simplified things toooo much and your assumptions are just for sake of putting a argument and hardly realistic.

@abishekgoel:

The fundamental problem with your perspective is that you are missing out on a LOT of steps, the grunt work, which eventually leads to winning land after the stealth bomber leaves. Thanks to NATO footage, it seems the concept of the battle is reduced to using smart weapons to knock out the enemy's capital assets, and then the war ends. The smart weapons can degrade the capital fighting capability but at the end it is the boots on the ground who win and hold the land.

You are looking at the battle from a 30K feet level, you need to look at from the inches for which they are actually fought for. There is a huge amount of "stuff" which happens after the stealth bomber leaves, and before the flag flies.

====

Do you wonder why even in second Iraq war, it was the US tanks which were the first to roll down the streets of Baghdad as they made a dash realizing that there was little opposition? It was not an Apache or thin-skinned vehicles or any other fancy stealth stuff. Read about what happened when the Apaches led the attack on Karbala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Attack_on_Karbala




And that infantry needs the protection, mobility, and the fire-power of the tank. To be truly effective it needs to be complemented with artillery support for softening, mechanized infantry which can keep up with the tanks, and air-cover to provide security and tactical offensive support.

what about Infantry? So many able bodied men, what a waste of resource. The moment we detect a fly entering into our border , let us start puking er no sorry nuking. All it needs is some people who can press buttons. Savings crores in salary , weapons, training etc.
Use the nuke to make the pakis puke that is the new mantra

With due respect to Goelji, time to move on to other topics.

This video was posted on mil photos forum...



I iz Happy

^ Whoa awesome video. The shot near 3:35 with dhruvs and arjun combo is something that is beyond words!
good doesnt start describing this vid!

I found the following two links on Arjun Mk II. It looks absolutely cutting edge if what these two links say is correct.

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... erges.html

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... 7238162818

Apparently the the gun and the armour are world beating and Israel is adopting the technology in exchange for the other advanced technology developed by Israel. With the amount of new advanced technology in the Mk II, I am not surprised it is so expensive, and the small numbers ordered doesn't help.

Ch Gupta is known to spin yarn out of nowhere, take whateever he writes with a ton of salt

In the video posted by Gurneesh, the exhaust fumes from the T-90 tanks seems to be extremely heavy.
Is this normal or does is it seem much more smokey as compared to other tanks around the world.
Probably the smoke would also depend on the quality of the fuel.

Would love to have the feedback with regards to the Arjun tanks from the two regiments that are currently operating the tanks.
I am sure most the troops using the tanks, would have used other older tanks like Vijayanta or T-55 or T-72 as well.
Do they feel confident enough that if they come up against tanks of T-72's capabilities they would surely win 10 times out of ten?
Do they they feel like they are operating the best tank currently available with Indian army?

Anyone here has ever got any feedback from the proverbial horse's mouth with regards to the Arjun tank currently in operation with IA?

Note the Dhruv blades, they appear almost "static", so lazily do they turn. The Arjun's seem to have digital camo (unless I am seeing things) and that scheme really suites the Arjun well.

At 3.35 time shot is truly shakina....

I don't understand the problem with Arjun's weight, i work with Israeli fellows who operated Merkava 3 tanks in past, Merkava officially weighs 65 tons but they said that it can be increased to 80 tons with speed of 65 KMPH and they were very successful against t72.

whats the problem with Indian Army

There is no problem with Indian Army as such. Israelis design, build and operate tanks as per the requirements of terrain obtainable in their country and its vicinity. India must do the same. You can figure out for yourselves the terrain obtained on the other side along the LC and IB from Chamb-Jaurian to Fort Abbas, and from that visualise what problems it could pose to heavier tanks.

There is a motivated group against the Arjun. Perhaps DRDO should have let army personnel scout around the world for techs to be integrated into the Arjun. Arjun represents a failure for the Indian Mili Industrial complex. The user likes the product but will probably buy it only if it is re-imported from US/Russia.

DRDO has been unable to change the army's mind-set against domestic products. No further money should be wasted on this successful but dead project adn DRDO should only undertake army projects with a full integration of army personnel from the design stage.

The smoke is due to intentional burning of diesel in the exhaust. The resulting dense smoke serves the same purpose as smoke launchers.

Thanks, Gurneesh.

Sorry, but in this case, there is a problem with the army. The Arjun weighs, looks and feels the way it is because IA GSQR wanted it that way. As for the terrain and weight - well, the ground pressure of Arjun is lesser than T-90. It can go places where even T-90 cannot. BRF has a detailed history of discussion on the Arjun topic. You might want to scan that.

In the Trishul blog link above they have a picture of a tank, can someone ID if that is upgraded MkII. If so then it is a radical change in the layout of the tank top, Based on the side grill, i guess it is merkava....
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... erges.html

It definitely isn't a Merkava http://www.supervideo.com/MerkavaMkIVcommanderHatch.jpg

It looks like a modified Arjun since the top is flat and the back/sides is square on an Arjun. http://i042.radikal.ru/1101/3a/ac992493b225.jpg

I asked this before, but I got no answer - What is the black fabric or lining like thing between the block holding the gun and the turret in the Arjun tank. It looks like an ad hoc attachment, I wonder if there is any way to make it look more TFTA (Ya, I know I'm being an ass).

If you are asking a specific question, it helps to provide a picture to go along with what you are saying. I don't know what you are referring to in your description.

I'm fairly certain that's the Israeli Namer APC equipped with the Iron Fist APS (not Trophy).

Maybe one of the old-timers can confirm that.

I know that I will be entering into this debate here, very late. Still, I will save this for some other day. Thank you.

I think the black fabric is shown in this picture



That is not present on all Arjun pics out there, but is also present on some T90's. IMHO it could be used to keep away dust.

Arjun has lower ground pressure than T90 which means it will be better in spongy terrain (like marshes, sand etc).

But a bridge sees only gross weight (and not ground pressure) and T90 might have an advantage here.