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
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by srai »

uddu wrote:
Well made! Finally a detailed documentary on Arjun MBT.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Kartik »

Thanks a lot for posting this video Uddu!
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Nice Video indeed on Arjun , Discovery Channel got some good access to it specially the full motion simulators for tanks and ERA tests.
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 »

posting a interesting discussion on the abrams (fast, heavy armour, non-infantry friendly) vs the merkava model (slower, heavy armour, more oriented to combined actions with infantry). at some point given the rabbit breeding rate of TSP, we will have to plan for fighting through dense urban areas like the IDF has to in lebanon...
for tibet a "pure" tank like the arjun/abrams/leopard looks best - if we can find a way to get good numbers into the fight and sustain their fuel and ammo chain.

--
http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=3339

The Abrams is perfect for what it was designed for, that being the Cold War -- heavy tank warfare on a massive scale across the mostly flat fields of Europe. There, it's high-speed mobility and advanced fire on the move capabilities give it a HUGE edge over the simpler, cheaper Soviet tanks -- American tankers can outflank, outmaneuver and outshoot their opponents.

Abrams vs. T-72 is rather like the Germans' Royal Tigers against Shermans, with the one major difference that the Abrams is not just heavily armed and armored up the wazoo but fast as greased lightning. But it has the same Achilles heels as well -- it burns up gas at a frightening rate (3 gallons per mile, which makes the Tigers' 2 gallons a mile look tame when you add it up over battlefield distances), and it's too heavy for most bridges (70 tons!!).

In an URBAN fight, though, the Abrams has major problems. In urban fights, you need close coordination between infantry and tanks; the infantry are primary, with tanks providing fire support. This is impossible with the Abrams because of its gas-turbine engine's super-hot exhaust; infantry can't get close to an Abrams, much less ride on top of it like they did with the older M-60s and M-48s.

Furthermore, the Abrams is just too freaking big to maneuver well in city streets. Again, same problem the Royal Tigers had -- the Abrams is a bit shorter than the Tiger, but it's just as wide and nearly ten feet longer.

Finally, the armament of the Abrams is pretty lousy for urban warfare. The big M256 120mm smoothbore cannon is devastating against enemy tanks, but it's not so hot in urban because the only ammunition types available for it are the M829 series armor-piercing sabot rounds or the M830 series high-explosive anti-tank rounds. In urban, an ordinary high-explosive round is far more useful, as the bulk of tank work is to demolish enemy fortifications.

Then you have the machine guns, which also need some serious work. The only gun you can fire while buttoned up is the single coaxial 7.62mm, which has pretty limited firepower -- it's only a medium machine gun (they're STILL ignoring Patton, who always said tanks needed TWO coax machine guns). There's a bigger .50-caliber machine gun on top of the commander's hatch, plus a second 7.62, but both are naked mounts with no gun shield or cupola. Another unlearned lesson there, or maybe a choice of sleek looks over battlefield practicality -- they SHOULD have learned from the Vietnam War, where they had to retrofit the M113 APCs with gun shields for their .50-cals becuse of VC snipers.

My suggestion would be to take some of the surplus M1 and IPM1 tanks we have lying around and retrofit them into Urban Engineer Tanks. Fit them with dozer blades to clear debris, load them with a mix of high-explosive and "beehive" flechette rounds -- the former for blowing stuff up, the latter for REALLY putting the hurt on massed infantry, and replace the hot gas turbine engine with an ordinary diesel engine (like EVERYONE ELSE uses in their tanks). Put gun shields or better yet cupolas on both of the top-mounted machine guns -- and while you're at it, replace the 7.62mm with a Mk-19 automatic grenade launcher. Or better still, dispense with the flexible-mounted machine guns altogether and put in a couple of servo-controlled mini-turrets with GAU-19 .50-caliber Gatling guns, allowing the tank crew to wipe out infantry while safely buttoned up inside.

warpig883
*TFF Staff*
Posts: 3169
(4/17/02 12:04:20 am)
Reply | Edit | Del Re: Urban MBTs = Dead MBTs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Strider that exhaust isn't so hot you can't be around it. It is not like a jet. Granted you cannot sit on top of the exhuast but you can safely walk behind it. The ears will take the worst beating. The gas turbine is LOUD.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Aditya_V »

So Snmoothbore Abrams, is missing a rifled heat round?
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 »

I think the abrams does have a AP round now packed with ball bearings. was used in post-OIF I guess.

read the description of this video...meant for south korea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QfMEquDSo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8

would be a useful kit for Arjun if we dont have it we should develop one for T90 also
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Excellent! jai hind, I hope they get 2000 tanks at a min.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Amazing video. Confirms all the data about MK1 including hit pk against various mobile, static targets when Arjun is moving and static. 90% Pk achieved. World class standard - Arjun at 25 km/hr versus target at same speed.
At 8:41 you can see the test methods employed, a moving Arjun hitting a moving target in the sand, they have put a target on rails in the distance behind the dunes, simple yet effective! While static targets are tanks themselves.

10:29, what a suspension!!

At 8:53, see the turret top. On the left hand top, you can see the new Commanders Sight. It has a CCD/TV, TI and LRF. At 9:57, you can see it rotating. This was intended for the MK2 and has now been integrated and is clearly working well. Further on in the video you can see the images from it.

From 12:33 on, provides a very good view into the detailed systems.

At 12:33 the gunner manipulating his joystick to move the IGMS sight and position the gun, which follows the sight.

The commanders new 360 degree sight is also shown, at several times in the video, it clearly has a very high resolution TV color TV camera/CCD sensor, the latest gen TI, and also a LRF! First views of this versatile device. Believe an Indian firm played a role in its development. This is likely a prototype of the Arjun MK2!!

At 12:38, Drivers compartment shows a color LCD panel with all the vehicle information on it. You can see the electronic gearbox and the large yoke used to slew the tank, (akin to a steering wheel). This is also an Arjun MK1 feature.

At 12:39 you can see the modernized FCS, with the yellow ballistic control computer marked "console" and a dial to select various kinds of ammo. Usually used to enter ballistic data for different rounds.

NBC panel clearly shown at 12:42

Just check out the clarity of the viewing screen plus the TV sensor at 12:49. Since the tank is operating buttoned up, the video panel bezels are all lit up in blue (nice). This is either a feed from the Gunners day sight or the new Commanders sight.

At 12:52, you can see the amount of space the Arjun has inside. A big plus over the cramped, claustrophobic T-series tanks! The equipment is all carefully positioned not to hit the crew.

Also, provides a good look at the efforts put into separate crew from ammunition.

14:59 check out the detailed containerization of each round, separated from the other, plus the heavy covers with locking handles. This makes this tank a huge step above and beyond the firetrap T-72 and T-90s which have around 27 rounds of ammunition exposed and hanging around in either open clamps, in the fighting compartment and beside the driver. Note the tank is an Arjun MK-1 as shown in the very next frame as it fires!

The open hatch with black lining within is likely Kevlar, to prevent spall! As the tank fires, Natarajan (often credited as the father of the Arjun tank) mentions that 13 rounds were on target after gun zeroing as versus 8 from the Army requirement post GZ, to tell the importance of training.

15:34 onwards and several points during the documentary, you have the simulators shown. These are the DRDO simulators developed along with MACMET and clearly full motion sims, networked along with all the other crew sims.

ERA shown in the video is clearly ERA MK-1 designed for protection primarily against ATGMs.
From 17:00 on. These are on the T-72 upgrades. The video also shows a Milan warhead tested against ERA MK-1 in the HEMRL test facility. Pretty much seems to have degraded the effect of the warhead entirely, with only a small hole in the base armor.

And also against a tank, with a suspended warhead. Amazing and shows how far DRDO has come, the design validation process and how the nearby module is completely immune to sympathetic detonation. And hence proof against even small arms fire and splinters, which is a big plus for infantry beside the tank.

Mentions that the ERA (MK-2) designed for the Arjun is for penalty of only 1.5T.

MK2, this is at 3:28
Early on, you have a lady working on a CAD image of the MK2.

Again shown at 21:12, shows the new smoke grenade launcher layout as well, and with the new mine plough. This too appears to be a new design.
Unlike the ones here: http://defenceforumindia.com/jh4cz/asse ... parade.jpg
http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/2 ... 300005.jpg

One jarring issue - talking about the mythical warrior from the mythological Mahabharat etc. When Dwarka has been discovered, and every likelihood of the war having taken place, it could have been simply the warrior prince from the Indian epic. But no, everything Indian is mythical or mythological whereas we bend over backwards for all other cultures.

That quibble apart, this is an amazing video.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Regarding ammo, there is a new FSAPDs confirmed, as also the LAHAT and now apparently, the CLGM to replace/complement it. There should also be an AP round. Shukla or somebody alluded to a new round, and a round of the type is the only one missing in the current loadout. Though HESH is useful against ground targets, an APERS can target ATGM teams and infantry beyond LOS.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

gorgeous video - Disc channel really knows how to produce these

nice to see the large number of simulators - come a long way indeed

no wonder the tin can group was never able to come to grips - with technological leap in every area.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by srai »

You can also see how easy it is to change engine on Arjun.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Khalsa »

uddu wrote:
what a great doco. A really well done piece of work.
What a generational gap.

Yup the usual tractor driver is no longer gonna fit the bill.
You will need to train them better but then you are gonna get better outcome as well.

but once again what an awesome doco.
Loved the visuals and the high speed footage.

And the best part was the complete lack of Army guys backing it up.
For once I just wanted to hear our scientific community talking about it.

they were so proud of their baby ... and I loved that
sniff sniff
SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1163
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SagarAg »

SaiK wrote:Excellent! jai hind, I hope they get 2000 tanks at a min.
How many Arjun tanks have been on order by our IA :?: 248 (124 MK-1 and 124 MK-2) ? Right?
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Khalsa »

Surya wrote: no wonder the tin can group was never able to come to grips - with technological leap in every area.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
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 »

loved the firing part in the first 20 secs
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Khalsa »

SagarAg wrote:
SaiK wrote:Excellent! jai hind, I hope they get 2000 tanks at a min.
How many Arjun tanks have been on order by our IA :?: 248 (124 MK-1 and 124 MK-2) ? Right?
Korrect

:-)
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by srai »

I believe the Indian Army finally realised that Arjun MBT Mk.1/2 already had most of the specifications for their "future" MBT idea :wink: It is for this reason the IA dropped the FMBT idea recently and is instead pursuing more iterations with Arjun MBT.
Last edited by srai on 03 Feb 2013 07:45, edited 1 time in total.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

so, it takes a discovery to get more awareness. I hope, the real brains behind decision making sees them and applies their logic accordingly.

i don't care which version mk.2 or mk.3, but wishes/jingo requirements are 2000 tanks.
ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by ArmenT »

Khalsa wrote: Yup the usual tractor driver is no longer gonna fit the bill.
You will need to train them better but then you are gonna get better outcome as well.
The training simulator's purpose is to train the entire tank crew simultaneously, not just the driver. This allows the team to learn how it moves in different terrains and to make full use of the tank's capabilities. With regards to driving, I believe the Arjun is easier to drive than previous tanks actually. About a year ago, a Tamil channel (Kalaignar TV) did a special where they interviewed some DRDO officials and the interviewer (who was actually a Tamil film star and hadn't driven a tank before) got a chance to go through the simulator and later drive an actual Arjun tank through an obstacle course. He claimed that it handled beautifully and was so easy to drive that a 12-year old could do it.

The video of that program was posted on BR and I translated it into English (part 1 here and part 2 here.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vic »

Only 124 ordered. Second 124 is still an intend not a contract, hence no delivery dates.

Anybody has a idea what is the loaded combat weight of T-90? Is it 42+5 =47 or 47+5=51 tons? My feel is that tin can lobby is comparing the empty weight tin can with our fully loaded tiger, for inflating their light & fluffy claims.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by svinayak »

Surya wrote:gorgeous video - Disc channel really knows how to produce these

nice to see the large number of simulators - come a long way indeed

no wonder the tin can group was never able to come to grips - with technological leap in every area.


Arjun is rated 5th best Tank in the world on this video
Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Misraji »

Thanku for the that link, Singha Saar. Extremely cool.
From the link:
...
The argument was never really settled until Iraq, even in all the "Reforger" exercises when the Abrams kept causing the games to stop to have the rules changed...they were simply showing up in places ready to fight where it was "impossible" for any "normal" MBTs to have made it so far, so fast...
...
(I've heard reports that on long "road marches" the ride is so smooth that one of the problems is M1A drivers falling asleep in that soft reclining drivers seat...)
Never thought speed would be an advantage attributed to a 60-tonne juggernaut.... :shock:
The sleep story... Is this where anti-Arjun brigade picked it up from?

--Ashish
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

x posted from corruption thread

Philip said
PS:The Centurion like the Hunter which could've sold another 500+ if production had continued according to some sources,was inferior to the Chieftain at the time.True the Centurion performed well in combat,Israel picked up a lot of tanks from nations replacing them,but it was no match for more modern tanks which appeared later.It's why we were given the VLT (Vijayanta) to produce at home.The Challenger,M-1 were never offered to us along with cutting edge western weaponry until the last decade.Remember also after P-2 the sanctions regine that the US imposed and its impact on the LCA.

Darn I was too young and did not realise that we were first world then. with strong bridges and roads. So sad to see the poor infrastructure today
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

T-90MS Spotted at IDEX-2013 , New Sighting device for the driver plus better side ERA coverage

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/7330/img7178f.jpg
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8453/im2g7172.jpg
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vina »

This removes one of the grievances that the IA had WRT, the lack missile firing ability of the Arjun tank
Oh. Don't even get me started on that bit. The "experts" among the IA (or should they be called Brochure readers) "concluded" with great authority and were quoted by (Shook Law , V1 (the beer buddy with DGMF and other star wearing brass version) and others) that since the Arjun had a "rifled" gun, it CANNOT fire a missile or an APFSDS round and hence was "outdated".

Thankfully, Sanku Maharaj Ji after the beating he took here on that, has stopped parroting that twattle. But those are words that should be framed in gold and nailed behind that dork DGMF's chair at his office. Of course Maharaj Ji wants to put a smooth bore on the Arjun, so that it will have "commonality" with the Tin cans , forgetting that the tin cans have rounds with separate shot and charge and an autoloader, while the Arjun has a unitary round and is manually loaded!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

vina wrote: Thankfully, Sanku Maharaj Ji after the beating he took here on that, has stopped parroting that twattle.!
Vina ji, so you surface after the all around illumination session on BRF just to take cheap shots based on false hoods?
:rotfl:

Since you cant be trusted to even get a basic small thing straight -- let me say this to you -- what I said was --

a rifled gun needs to jump through hoops (pun fully intended for those who can figure out -- not for you) -- to fire Missiles and AFSPDS

This is basic physics -- not what I say, a simple google should confirm that. Perhaps next time you can try and actually discuss what people are saying instead of your pet frustrations?

But then, dont let truth come in the ways of your regular posts.

Also I propose that commonality to be with 99% if all tanks in the world (hint which means 99% of all world ammo) -- I wonder if was possible for you to compress more falsehoods in two passages.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nachiket »

I think Austin was the one clamoring for commonality with the T-90's 125mm gun. When the unitary and two-piece ammo problem was pointed out, another demand for T-90 style autoloader was also made IIRC. :mrgreen:
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Two piece round is something even US is considering for future rounds as APFSDS keeps getting longer :wink:
Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Misraji »

An AMAZING account of the Reforger 1982 exercise in which M1 Abrams (participating for the first time) wiped the floor with Red-force armored forces while being outnumbered!!!.
The annual NATO 'Reforger' exercises held across the breadth of Germany each autumn are the main tactical exercises of the NATO tank forces. Fictitious Orange and Blue armies, composed of units from different NATO countries, fight mock battles to test their tactical skills, and the ability of their logistics units to repair and maintain them. 'Reforger '82' was the first time the M I Abrams was involved in such a demanding series of tactical exercises. The battalions of the 64th Armor were committed mainly to the 'Blue' Army.

At dawn on the morning of 13 September 1982 a Canadian 'Orange' task force, consisting of a mechanized infantry company backed by several Leopard I tank companies, began 'attacks' against opposing Blue forces. The main defense line of the Blue 3rd Inf. Div. (US) was met, and 'battle' was joined with elements of the 2/30 Infantry outside Dingolhausen, FRG. About noon a Canadian infantry platoon deep in the rear of the friendly Orange forces began moving forward to assist in clearing out stubborn American resistance at Dingolhausen. While passing through a wooded area far outside the battle area, it stumbled on to a tank battalion hidden in the woods. The tanks were slab-sided, like the later-model Canadian Leopard Is; but more ominously, they carried on the turret fronts the bright blue marker squares that characterized them as 'enemy' Blue Army tanks. The Canadian platoon was quickly 'wiped out'.

The commander of the hidden Blue tanks informed division that his concealed position had been discovered. Although forced to launch its counter-attack prematurely, his ruse had worked. Most of the 'enemy task force' had flowed by without noticing his tanks. Now it was time to take advantage of the Canadian Orange troops' mistake. Lt.Col.John Kelsey ordered his tanks to prepare for action. To the delight of the tankers, their M1s could hardly be heard by the dismounted guards' at the wood's edge due to the quiet turbine engine. More appealing was the tanks' response as the battalion charged out into the open.

One of the M1 companies charged into a
 Canadian mechanized infantry company which
was riding into action on M113 APCs. The
 Canadians were 'wiped out' before they could react.
The second Abrams company was ordered to swing 
further out from the woods to attack the Leopard
 company supporting the infantry. The Leopards
 were caught with their pants down as they were
 refueling at a POL point. Nine Leopards lined up
in a neat row suddenly became victims, with the IR 
rotating amber maneuver beacons signaling wiped out. With two of the M1 companies engaged, the third Abrams company homed in on another Leopard company attacking 2/30 Infantry at Dingolhausen. They struck unexpectedly from the rear; and there were suddenly a lot more static Leopards littering the German plains. For the coup de grace the second M1 company, after bypassing its victims at the POL point, swung behind another Canadian Leopard company attacking towards the Blue force lines. The company commander radioed to supporting AH-1S TOW Cobra attack helicopters lurking in hover behind the tree line of the Steigerwald on the Canadians' right flank. The Cobras popped up and began missile attacks on the Leopards, while the M1s simultaneously attacked them from the rear. The result: Orange Task Force wiped out. One of the Canadian officers later recalled: 'One minute it's quiet, with no contact; the next minute you are overwhelmed - swamped with quick, whispering death.'

The commander of the 3rd Inf. Div. , Maj.Gen. F. K. Mahaffey, summarized his feelings about the M1's performance in 'Reforger '82': 'Operationally the M1 exceeded our expectations during "Reforger". The fighting capability of the system proved to be so much more than previously assumed that it required a new perspective on mounted combat. During the exercise, there was an initial tendency to treat it as "just another improved tank". But all this changed as the exercise evolved and the full potential of the M I became apparent to all. The umpire adjudication process served to highlight a mindset existing among too many that the tactics and employment of the M1 units should conform to the doctrine developed for the much slower, less survivable M60 tanks. In this regard it is important for all to understand that what makes the M I units truly different - by an order of magnitude - is the tank's extraordinary capability to fire while moving at high speeds [30-40 mph] with an accuracy and effectiveness, by day or night, at least equal to that of an M60 firing from a stationary position.

These views were shared by the tankers as well. SFC J. Fields, a platoon leader with 2/64th Armor: 'As we swung and faced the enemy you could see the mass confusion they were in, with the tracks [M113S] and tanks nearly bumping into each other trying to get out of there. They were totally caught by surprise . . . It's just remarkable that you could have four tanks running in pattern with the gun tubes oriented in the right direction and moving at 40 mph.' The commander of I/64th Armor, Lt.Col. J. Quinn: 'The second day was the most devastating. We had two of my companies and the 3/64th Armor attacking on line in Bowling Alley West. That was a magnificent sight. We just completely overwhelmed the Orange forces. There was nothing they could have thrown up there to keep our two battalions from rolling right on through. They absolutely could not react to the speed of that tank no matter how hard they tried. And I know that they tried harder and harder every day to plug their holes, but once we found the hole we were through it and in their rear so fast they just could not react. We kept them disrupted, confused and just generally frustrated for three days.' One tank loader added: 'It seemed like the enemy didn't have a chance, even though they had us outnumbered.
Source: The M1 Abrams Battle Tank (Osprey Publications)

--Ashish
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vic »

And Indian Army wants more T-90s and Apaches rather than combination of Arjuns + LCH
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

vic wrote:And Indian Army wants more T-90s and Apaches rather than combination of Arjuns + LCH

Err No, there are enough orders for LCH in any case. Even though I agree that 22 Apaches are pointless, given that LCH will dominate (200+?)

This is very different from Arjun + T 90 mix were 1600 T 90s are there in the plan (and the decision was taken about 10 years ago and has NOT changed since) -- the tentative plan calls for something like 1500 Arjuns too, but it is only any body guess when they will come.

So very very different force mix in the two cases.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nachiket »

Sanku wrote: This is very different from Arjun + T 90 mix were 1600 T 90s are there in the plan (and the decision was taken about 10 years ago and has NOT changed since) -- the tentative plan calls for something like 1500 Arjuns too, but it is only any body guess when they will come.
Please do share a link where this grand plan is outlined by someone in the IA.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote: This is very different from Arjun + T 90 mix were 1600 T 90s are there in the plan (and the decision was taken about 10 years ago and has NOT changed since) -- the tentative plan calls for something like 1500 Arjuns too, but it is only any body guess when they will come.
Please do share a link where this grand plan is outlined by someone in the IA.
This is based on the statement given by Minister of state for Defence in NDA cabinet, this is also captured in one or two reports of standing committee for defense.

This has always been the grand plan, IFF some one can persuade those making the tanks to actually make them.

It is one thing to plan and want, and another to actually create a working product in enough numbers.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Aditya_V »

Sanku-> if there were orders the tanks will be made.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Aditya_V wrote:Sanku-> if there were orders the tanks will be made.
That would be true, if they could keep to schedule and quality on the first set of orders. If Mk II order is as per quality and schedule, a new set of order should be coming (assuming that the plan outlay has the money for the same) -- CVRDE needs to demonstrate that they can churn out 50 Arjuns a year (which is their current capacity) -- at the given quality.

Would you ask HAL for a order of say 200 LCAs and plan your fleet around those before you see them deliver the first 20?

Any new equipment which is being manufactured for the first time, will get small orders and only when they are fulfiled in time and quality will new orders come -- that is the standard method.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Philip »

The head of the ADA has himself admitted in an interview that only 20 (IOC)+20 (FOC) LCAs of MK-1 std. will be delivered by 2018.This endorses other reports about HAL's production rate of only 8 aircraft per year.Therefore hopes of "200 LCAs" by 2015 appears to be farfetched.We may be able to induct about 100 to MK-2 avatar eventually and prolong the upgrades like we've done with the Jaguar.Other more capable aircraft will be the backbone of the IAF in both this and the next decade.

Similarly,if production of Arjuns is just 50 per year and MK-2 arrives by 2015,we will be able to produce between 250-300 only.This will result in only about 10-15% of the IA's tank inventory filled by Arjuns.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

There was a better source, but this one should do for the time being:

Tejas SP-1 to be handed over to IAF in September
HAL on other hand after facing several criticism on failure to set up a production line for Tejas , HAL has promised smooth supply of aircrafts once final IOC of the aircraft has been achieved . it was also informed that once final IOC is achieved HAL in next 3 to 6 months from there onward will be able to produce 8 aircrafts per year , plans are gradually to increase the production to 16 aircrafts per year .
Not the biggest of deals to increase production rate.

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote: This is very different from Arjun + T 90 mix were 1600 T 90s are there in the plan (and the decision was taken about 10 years ago and has NOT changed since) -- the tentative plan calls for something like 1500 Arjuns too, but it is only any body guess when they will come.
Please do share a link where this grand plan is outlined by someone in the IA.
Any links? Looked around, found nothing so far. 1500 does sound good though.
Post Reply