Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 26 Mar 2013 17:04

Is there a supposed implication that
Protection on tincan == Protection on IFV

wilson_th · Post by **wilson_th** » 26 Mar 2013 18:40

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -90-punjab

In reply to a question related to shortcomings of Arjun tank, Saraswat said that during trials the tank was found better in mobility and accuracy in comparison to Army's mainstay T-90 tanks. "During the trials it was found that canal bridges in Punjab were incapable of carrying its weight," he said.

Edited for formating

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 26 Mar 2013 19:36

rohitvats wrote:
Sanku wrote:Can any one id this vehicle<SNIP>
Warrior IFV of the British Army.

Thanks, I couldnt for the life of me place it. I thought it was some variant of Stryker at first, but the silhouette was all wrong.

tushar_m · Post by **tushar_m** » 26 Mar 2013 22:06

Sanku wrote:Can any one id this vehicle

its some version of M2 Bradley of US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Mar 2013 03:09

If the T 90 engine failures etc were so minor- wonder why the article got pulled down

right in the midst of the very heated Arjun vs tin can debate

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 27 Mar 2013 04:37

Is there a supposed implication that
Protection on tincan == Protection on IFV

I can now safely retire - the youngistan brigade can carry on the good fight

It seems to be a Bradley - unfortunately all these IFVs get cut up like butter by RPGs

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Mar 2013 06:37

During operational deployment even T90s will not cross punjab bridges for safety and operational secrecy reasons. What is that point being rehashed again and again ? It is simple logistics (elementary) my dear wilson!!.

No bridges in India will be used during war or designed for war for that matter. period. bridge laying tanks on top of arjun is the way to go.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Mar 2013 13:42

Reminds me of the great war film, "A bridge too far".Op Market-Garden ,Monty's magnum opus meant to seize the Rhine bridges.With the network of canals and rivers in the Punjab,on both sides of the broder,do we have any lit./articles on conducting armoured warfare in this theatre?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Mar 2013 13:48

Reminds me of the great war film, "A bridge too far".Op Market-Garden ,Monty's magnum opus meant to seize the Rhine bridges.With the network of canals and rivers in the Punjab,on both sides of the broder,do we have any lit./articles on conducting armoured warfare in this theatre?

Here is one from the other side on the '65 attacl on Lahore: Intriguing reading.I am only posting the introduction as it is too long to post in entirety.

The Indian attack on Lahore in particular and Ravi-Sutlej Corridor in general
has remained the subject of too much propaganda and too little analysis. On
Pakistani side the Battle for Lahore was seen as a superhuman effort while on
the Indian side it exposed many glaring weaknesses in the Indian Army at unit,
brigade, divisional and corps level.

On the other hand the total failure of the main Pakistani attack in Khem Karan
was ignored or forgotten in the smoke screen of glory created by official
propagandists who successfully shifted the entire public attention on laurels of
Aziz Bhatti etc. Thus, many glaring failures like surrender of an entire tank
regiment on Pakistani side in Khem Karan were overlooked. If Niranjan Parshad
was sacked on the Indian side no one realized that the Pakistani GOC 1st Armored Division survived unceremonious dismissal simply because he was close to the then army chief.
Unfortunately, instead of dispassionate analysis the Battle for Lahore or Ravi-Sutlej Corridor as one may call it was overclouded by tales of heroism at individual and unit level on the Pakistani side.On the Indian side, it led to various drastic changes in high command and re-thinking about unit employment.

The Battle for Ravi-Sutlej Corridor 1965 A Strategic and Operational Analysis
December 30, 2001

Here is a viewpoint from our side:Just one excerpt;

Crossing Ichhogil Canal: How Lt-Col Hayde did it

by Maj-Gen Kuldip Singh Bajwa (retd)

IT was September 6, 1965. The troops of 11 Corps stormed into Pakistan in Amritsar-Khemkaran sector. The goal: to secure the east bank of the Ichhogil Canal in Lahore�s outskirts. On Sept 8, 1 Corps proceeded to Pasrur-Sialkot sector. The goal: to secure the near bank of the Ravi-Marala Link Canal. This strategy of offensive-defence was launched to relieve critical pressure of the Pakistani attack in Chhamb-Akhnur sector.

As the decision was taken in a hurry, there was little time to prepare troops mentally and emotionally for the inevitable. Troops could not be recalled from the units. The artillery and signal parties could not match with the infantry battalions. This resulted in the failure of communication.

The operational scenario in 15 Infantry Division in Amritsar sector was dismal. Of the seven infantry battalions that went into action, six had wavered under the first impact of the enemy fire. Only 3 JAT had resolutely advanced to the Ichhogil Canal, captured Dograi on the east, and Batapore-Attoke Awan in Lahore�s outskirts. This was a remarkable military achievement.

The brick-lined Ichhogil Canal, 112 feet wide, 30 feet deep, with a depth of 20 feet of fast flowing water, ran parallel to the border, 8 km inside Pakistan, and only a short hop to Lahore. The home bank was lined with concrete pillboxes. On the east bank, astride the Grand Trunk Road (GT) from Amritsar to Lahore, Dograi was a sizeable town. The whole complex was a strong defence structure.

In the early hours of Sept 6, 3 JAT bypassed the Pakistan border post at Wagah and captured Ghosal-Dial villages after a sharp fight. Though Commanding Officer 15 Dogra tasked to advance to the canal, Commander 54 Infantry Brigade accepted his plea that his battalion was in no state to undertake the mission. Subsequently, Lt-Col Desmond Hayde, Commanding Officer 3 JAT, readily agreed to take the challenge.

Just past 9 am, 3 JAT advanced to the canal with C Squadron Scinde Horse. Near Dograi. Though the battalion came under accurate artillery fire, it moved forward to quickly attack from the northern flank. After a stiff fight, one company from 3 Baluch ran back from Dograi over the debris of the bridge, partially demolished a little earlier.

By 11.30 am, 3 JAT was in full control of Dograi and the canal bank. However, it came under heavy machine gun, mortar and observed artillery fire from the tall buildings of the Bata Shoe factory and the Attock Awan village across the canal. Though Pakistani Sabres had destroyed most battalion support weapons, reserve ammunition and defence stores carried in the follow up transport, the enterprising Lt-Col Hayde chose to tackle the situation very aggressively. He led C and A companies across the demolished bridge to secure Batapore on the left of the GT road and Attok Awan on its right.

Around 2 pm, two enemy tanks marched down GT Road from Lahore. Machine guns opened up. While firefight was going on, the Pakistani tanks broke contact and sidestepped behind Batapur. Having seen this, the machine gunners also pulled out.

The C Company grabbed this opportunity and pushed forward deeper into Batapur. Soon after, three truckloads of Pakistani soldiers were seen rushing from Lahore at great speed. Subedar Pale Ram, who had reached the far edge of Batapore with a C Company platoon, demolished the first two at point blank range. The third turned back to flee. Meanwhile, the two Pakistani tanks appeared from Batapore, and tried to cross over to Attock Awan. The leading tank brewed up with a direct hit from the Scinde Horse troop of tanks. The second Pakistani tank and the third lorry were destroyed while both were trying to escape.

3 JAT effectively dealt with the enemy reaction. The battalion had fought at Ghosal-Dial, Dograi, Ichhogil Canal, and Batapore-Attocke Awan. There was no communication with the brigade headquarters. Despite the outstanding feat of 3 JAT being known through the armour radio net, no senior commander had come forward to determine the operational situation on the ground. Except for a troop of tanks on the east bank of the canal, there was no sign of any follow up force. The demolished bridge over the canal was fast crumbling away. Lahore was intensifying.

By mid-afternoon, Lt-Col Hayde was seriously concerned about the fate of his two companies across the canal. He had sent an officer to the brigade headquarters but no response.

At about 3 pm, the tank troop commander, informed Lt-Col Hayde that his squadron commander had asked him to pull back to Ghosal-Dial. The gallant 3 JAT pulled back the two companies from across the canal, abandoned Dograi, and were back in Ghosal-Dial by 5.15 pm.

In the generally depressing operational scenario on the first day of the war, the gallant 3 JAT led by Lt-Col Hayde stood out in the highest traditions of military grit and valour. Their outstanding achievement of putting two companies across the Ichhogil Canal practically in Lahore�s outskirts was not exploited. In the words of Field Marshal Maurice Comte De Saxe, French Army, �When we have incurred the risk of battle, we should know how to profit by the victory, and not merely content ourselves, according to custom, with the possession of the field.�

Major-General Karl Von Clausewitz, the well-known military thinker of the Prussian Army, said, �Next to victory, the act of pursuit (in this case exploitation of the crossing of the Ichhogil Canal) is the most important in war.� Exploitation of success in battle, whenever it comes, is vital, as the elements that caused or assisted in it may not obtain again.

During the operations in 1965, the stout and gallant 3 JAT was the only battalion that crossed the formidable Ichhogil Canal. This exceptional operational achievement was, however, overshadowed by their subsequent recapture of Dograi on Sept 21-22. The cry that involuntarily comes from the heart �Bravo 3 JAT!� is tinged with regret at this lack of recognition of an operation outstanding in its own right.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/mili ... ction.html

Major A.H. Amin, 11 PAVO Cavalry

http://orbat.com/site/history/historica ... karan.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Mar 2013 14:04

Sanku jee I would suggest you remove those pictures of burning soldier its quite gruesome , since you got your answers . Not sure if the soldier survived but if he didnt then RIP

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 27 Mar 2013 15:09

Rohit is right, as usual

The photo is of a British Warrior IFV, which was attacked by a mob in Basra, Iraq

The fire was caused by Molotov cocktails thrown at it by the mob

The crew suffered burns but no one was killed

Anyway OT for this thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Mar 2013 09:31

Army to upgrade entire fleet of infantry combat vehicles

NEW DELHI: India is undertaking an ambitious programme to upgrade its entire fleet of over 2,000 infantry combat vehicles with advanced weaponry and night-fighting capabilities, even as it inducts more T-90S main-battle tanks, upgrades its T-72 fleet and plans a futuristic "smart" tank for battles beyond 2020.

Army chief General Bikram Singh is pushing hard for speedy modernization of the 1.13-million force, especially the fighting arms of infantry, artillery and mechanized forces, which had virtually stalled over the last few years due to shoddy management of procurement projects as well as bad blood between his predecessor Gen V K Singh and the defence ministry.

The Army wants to bolster the "shock and awe" capabilities of its mechanized forces, which includes 63 armoured corps regiments and over 30 mechanized infantry battalions, in tune with its war doctrine that lays stress on being prepared for high-intensity, fast tempo and short-duration battles. Both strategic mobility and enhanced firepower are required for rapid offensive thrusts into enemy territory.

While infantry combat vehicles may be the slightly poorer cousins of tanks in terms of armour-protection and weaponry, they perform the critical task of carrying soldiers into the battle zone backed with fire support. Apart from being amphibious, they are also useful in urban combat and asymmetrical warfare.

"The plan is to provide desired offensive capabilities to our BMP-II and BMP-IIK infantry combat vehicles, which can carry 10 soldiers, on three fronts: thermal imaging integration, armament upgrade and engine upgrade," said a source.

Back-of-the-envelope calculations show the overall cost of this entire project could touch Rs 10,000 crore. The armament upgrade alone, for instance, would be worth over Rs 5,000 crore, with the BMPs to be equipped with two twin-missile launchers on each side, 2nd-generation-plus ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles) and 30-mm automatic grenade launchers.

"It also includes TIFCS (thermal imaging fire control systems) to increase accuracy of weapon systems and panoramic sights for the commanders to be able to look in all directions," said the source.

While over 950 BMPs have already been fitted with thermal imaging modules, the rest will now be equipped with advanced "TISK" systems that integrate ATGMs, auto-canons and PKT machine guns to ensure they can be fired accurately at night. "This integration should be completed by mid-2014. The existing 285 horsepower engines of the BMPs will also be upgraded to 360 horsepower," he said.

As for the armoured corps, they have already inducted around 800 of the planned 1,657 Russian-origin T-90S tanks and 124 indigenous Arjun tanks (the Mark-II version of which is being developed with "89 improvements"), apart from upgrading its old warhorse fleet of T-72 tanks.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 31 Mar 2013 11:28

^BMP upgrade seems to be needed since the IFV project is now in limbo, but why do we need to upgrade these old T-72s, why not replace all of them with Arjuns?

vic · Post by **vic** » 31 Mar 2013 18:45

Indigenous IFV programme is killed and costly upgrade programme equivalent to cost of new IFV will be launched.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 31 Mar 2013 18:50

Do you have cost details of upgrade [VIC] ji

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 31 Mar 2013 19:59

Arun Menon wrote:^BMP upgrade seems to be needed since the IFV project is now in limbo, but why do we need to upgrade these old T-72s, why not replace all of them with Arjuns?

Even if the IFV project was going as smooth as makhan it would have taken at least till 2020 to get it designed and fully tested. And another 10-15 years of production to completely replace the legacy BMP. So I reckon the BMP upgrade is required any way.
As far as the T-72s are concerned, they are not the oldest tanks in our inventory. AFAIK we still have a considerable numbers of T-55s which have to be replaced first. And last I heard the Army isn't even getting the T-90s it ordered at the required rate(for what ever reasons).

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 31 Mar 2013 20:13

Austin wrote:Army to upgrade entire fleet of infantry combat vehicles

..with the BMPs to be equipped with two twin-missile launchers on each side, 2nd-generation-plus ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles) ..

Hope its an indigenous solution using the Nag or the Cannon-launched Laser Guided Missile.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 31 Mar 2013 21:39

^^^

No, it wont be. It will be based on a Russian BMP upg package discussed in this thread only.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 01 Apr 2013 09:13

^I think it is the BMP-2M with:
The Weapon System With the Fire Control System and Kornet-E Guided Weapon Designed to Equip Armoured Vehicles
Designed to upgrade light combat vehicles (IFV, APS and others).
Components:
armament including a 30mm 2A42 automatic cannon and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun, two launchers for the Kornet-E ATGMs (one launcher for two missiles) and a 30mm automatic grenade launcher (AG-30);
automated day/night Fire Control System;
armoured cupola with a basket and seats for the crew members.
The fighting vehicle equipped with the new weapon system obtains innovative capabilities:
firing capability by any ammunition by day and at night, on the move and afloat;
automatic target tracking;
improved fire accuracy by any ammunition;
increased rate of fire by missiles;
extended range of target detection and recognition;
effective anti-aircraft fire;
reliable engagement of up-to-date and future tanks;
firing capability against entrenched manpower equipped with antitank weapons.
Sighting and observation system comprises optical, thermal and TV-channels and provides the gunner and the commander with effective capabilities to fire at any target in current combat operations.

Source/video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYU5rdPVcQw

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Apr 2013 09:50

Surya wrote:
Is there a supposed implication that
Protection on tincan == Protection on IFV

I can now safely retire - the youngistan brigade can carry on the good fight

It seems to be a Bradley - unfortunately all these IFVs get cut up like butter by RPGs

You are insulting yourself Surya, dont. These dont know what a vehicle means from a tank. To them they are all the same. They are here for one line comedy.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Apr 2013 09:59

Manish_P wrote:Rohit is right, as usual

The photo is of a British Warrior IFV, which was attacked by a mob in Basra, Iraq

The fire was caused by Molotov cocktails thrown at it by the mob

The crew suffered burns but no one was killed

Anyway OT for this thread

Thanks for the extra information Manish

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 01 Apr 2013 10:01

Tank carries 3 to 4 and GI s on the turret, watch Bridge too far, or battle of the bulge?

IFV are those which carry GIs inside with no chance to leap out in case of flames

T45/T55 are still in Amry station workshops awaiting manual gear boxes

mody · Post by **mody** » 01 Apr 2013 13:01

The BMP upgrade report gives a requirement for a 2nd Gen plus ATGM missile. Quite a shame, when we have a 3rd Gen, NAG ATGM, available in house.

All upgrade programs should be locally driven. When we can build the Arjun tank, why can't we upgrade the BMP-I and BMP-IIs in house.
A totally Indian driven upgrade should be possible. (We may source some of the components or system from various global sources). The Army working with DRDO, would need to come up with the upgrade package that they need. The upgrades being offered by Russia, can be a good starting point. The decide on all the sub-systems that would be need to carry out the upgrade. The focus should always be on indigenous systems first. Even the uprated engine of 360 HP should be available in India or Private sector companies should be able to develop the same. The requirement of almost 2,000 engines, would be well worth the effort. The armour and most of the weapons fit, as well as any new electronics etc. should also be within DRDO's capabilities. Off the shelf type of items or non-critical items may be sourced directly from any good global vendor including Russian ones, if found to OK.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Apr 2013 20:01

We should've ages ago worked on prototypes of upgrades of our MICVs-it would've cost peanuts with the amounts we have spent on other "tech demonstrators".Why does it have to take the MOD/IA/DRDO so long to realise that we have huge numbers of weaponry from the Soviet era,that have to be replaced or upgraded where they can,as we do not have unlimited funds.We have over 1000+ T-72 to be upgraded according to some sources,the number reduced if more Arjuns ordered.T-90 production-in fact all armour production at Avadi is allegedly behind schedule. But who really cares? All that our politicos want is to enjoy their "black cat" status,find new scams to milk,and use any means to get re-elected.As for aam admi-the evil take them!

Unless there is a revolution in the DRDO,our children and grandchildren will be debating the same in years to come,that is if they don't close down BR by then."A plague upon all their houses!"

vic · Post by **vic** » 02 Apr 2013 06:41

Abhay was practically terminated by saying that we will go for Make and Buy category. Now Make and Buy is killed after claiming that we do not know how to evaluate tenders. So back to import. Mirage 2000 upgrade was budgeted at 87% of new planes, similarly the BMP upgrade would be equivalent to new BMPs and perhaps costlier than indigenous IFV.

For instance, in order to show Arjun as costlier, number of essentials were removed from T-90 original contract. Further Arjun assembly line is considered part of Arjun price but T-90 assembly line is budgeted separately.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 02 Apr 2013 06:53

sigh

Philip saar

you start

Why does it have to take the MOD/IA/DRDO so long to realise that we have huge numbers

and end

Unless there is a revolution in the DRDO

in the space of few lines - did MOD and IA suddenly get absolved of all problems??

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Apr 2013 07:08

fortunately for us the Russians shot themselves in the foot with the pathetic BMP3 design, else the program would be replace all the BMP2 with new BMP3.

but by the time BMP2 upg is over, their new offering IFV should be on the market and the makkah-madina cycle will repeat again with Hajji IA top brass making the pilgrimage to urals factory to pay homage to the one true god.

pagan shrines like avadi and pune will be stoned and punished as blasphemers in the ritual of the stoning on mt.arafat. Qurbani will be given by halaling some convenient bakra like a domestic project.

the one true god is a demanding being.

srin · Post by **srin** » 02 Apr 2013 08:25

Phillip - DRDO can't do anything independently. If you recall, DRDO chief's authority to sanction funds was also curtailed.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Apr 2013 11:52

The Rusies are already working on a universal family of Armored vehicles. So BMP 3 or no BMP 3. We will be buying from the Russians by 2015-16. While shelving the FICV project.

And the story will continue.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 02 Apr 2013 13:23

Pratyush wrote:The Rusies are already working on a universal family of Armored vehicles. So BMP 3 or no BMP 3. We will be buying from the Russians by 2015-16. While shelving the FICV project.

And the story will continue.

The problem with FICV project lies with MOD - there is some game plan afoot to give back-door entry to DPSU into the deal. The IA is keen for private players to participate in the project and come up with some solution.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 Apr 2013 14:18

Rohit Ji,

At the moment, it seems that regardless of what happens, the IA will have an imported solution rather then having a domestic solution. Unless a clear and visible steps are not taken by the MOD. That for certain catagory of items. Only solutions sourced from domestic industry will be accepted.

Secondly, WRT, the FICV, IIRC, even the domestic players had stated that they would like to use the facilities at OFB Medak, as it made no sense to establish such a facility from the scratch.

vina · Post by **vina** » 02 Apr 2013 16:19

Hmm. What is the Arjun MBT doing in Bangalore Kerala ? Right on Ali Asker road, just in front of Safina Towers / Amazon India, where there is the DRDO complex (man, the defense types have the corner on all the chi-chi land in Bangalore, Kerala, the per-sqft cost of land there must be astronomical, where the Raja Ramanna complex on Infantry Rd - Ali Asker Rd, Millers Rd stretch).

Any Moojahid working at Amazon Kave Kamplex in Miller's Road, pliss to take a look. It is visible from Ali Asker Rd, from the gate, along with what looked like a bridge that gets deployed on a bridge layer tank etc.

Was meeting some Very Senior Jarnails and Karnails in the city today and happened to take a look and say what looked like an Arjun (there is an old broken tank as well right near the road, but the Arjun was parked further into the compound) and stopped to take a second look. Very TFTA looking onree.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 02 Apr 2013 17:53

Abhay IFV is not being followed up. It was developed as a Tech demonstration item and now simplt kept. We may go for BMP version once again. Lot of foregn maal to eat once again.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Apr 2013 20:35

rohitvats wrote: The problem with FICV project lies with MOD - there is some game plan afoot to give back-door entry to DPSU into the deal. The IA is keen for private players to participate in the project and come up with some solution.

This is exactly what I feel. The private companies can't bear the cost of this continuous stalling process while tax-funded/bailed DPSUs can.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 03 Apr 2013 00:13

AKA approves Rs 2,800 cr night-vision devices' proposal

The Defence Ministry today approved a Rs 2,820 crore proposal to provide night-vision devices to the Army to enable its tanks and infantry combat vehicles to have capability to fight in both day and night conditions.

Under the plans to do away with the night blindness of Army's mechanised fleet including the Russian-origin T-90 and T-72 tanks and the BMP Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICV), around 5,000 thermal imaging sights would be procured from defence PSU Bharat Electronics limited, they said.

For the T-72, which are the main stay of the Indian Army, 2,000 pieces of TI sights would be procured for Rs 1,000 crore while 1,200 pieces would be bought for the T-90 Main Battle Tanks for Rs 960 crore.

1,780 pieces of TI sights would be inducted for the BMP Infantry Combat Vehicles for Rs 860 crore, they said.

The Army has been worried over night-fighting capabilities of its armoured columns and reports had earlier suggested that only 50 per cent of the tank fleet of the forces had this ability.

Meanwhile, the ministry also cleared a proposal to upgrade the existing inventory of M-46 130mm artillery guns to 155mm guns through the Ordnance Factory Board.

The OFB has plans of modernising its facilities under a Rs 15,000 crore plan in the ongoing 12th Defence Plan.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 03 Apr 2013 04:26

So the Tin cans continue to be cheap?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Apr 2013 05:26

Yes Srin.Some time ago Ramana mentioned a body in the US that provides perspective plg. for their armed forces and lists out tech and systems that need to be developed and inducted into the forces.In our situ,such a body should involve the services right from the start as they are the end users,along with the DRDO and pvt. players.But often the DRDO goes on its lonely path developing "tech demonstrators" that nobody wants,and what is wanted appears decades late and of poor qlty.Therefore,unless a "hire and fire" policy is adopted,making the heads of projects and their teams accountable,we will continue to get substandard service from the DRDO/PSUs,whose output will be "patchy",some successes and many failures.In many cases too,we just do not have the tech base to develop cutting edge mil. tech and have to depend upon JVs,etc. to develop the same and then to produce it in numbers on time and of the quality expected.

Now the DRDO/CVRDE developed Tank-X using their own funds.Why couldn't they have also developed an FIVC? It would've cost far less than Tank-X which didn't meet with the IA's requirements.Why not our own artillery-we are finally producing the old Bofors guns and upgrading 130mm guns into 155mm guns out of sheer neccessity (the mother of invention) and desperation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Apr 2013 07:24

as long as those cans and tins and visions are made in desh, with zilch firang tech.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 03 Apr 2013 07:54

^^^
Just saw the episode of "Battle of 73 Easting" of the series "Greatest Tank Battles".
When you have a 70-ton behemoth running rings around you and slicing you up with one shot while your shots bounce of its armor,
one realizes how futile it is to be in a Tin-can against a western heavy MBT.

We have completely shot ourselves in the foot by using that piece of outdated technology (and its successors) for this long.

--Ashish

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Apr 2013 08:02

^^^

You just made a mortal enemy on this thread

who will kill you with his experience.