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
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Anujan »

What is the weight rating of our sand dunes in the desert sector? Can they support 60 tons or are they rated to only 50 tons?
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

Yogi_G wrote:The ex army chief's comments about air defenses being 97% obsolete reminds me of rehman malik's comment about his being 96% sure that some person was dead.
More than anyone, he would know best about such percentages. It is his business to know. So, please don't pass such gratuitous comments on someone and compare his office and person to a pakee. He is Indian Army chief, not PA.
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 »

Anujan wrote:What is the weight rating of our sand dunes in the desert sector? Can they support 60 tons or are they rated to only 50 tons?
Would it matter? The weight per square inch is what would matter - I thought. Whatever the correct term for it is. (PSI?)
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

NRao wrote:These were very, very specific requirements that were mentioned.Why the T-90 then?
NRao - please disabuse yourself of the notion that these light tanks were meant to be India's mainstay in these theaters. Light tanks serve a specific role which does not include taking on other Main Battle Tanks.

IA has asked for 2 x (I) Armed Bdes for these sectors and these will be equipped with T-90 tanks. Light Tanks are for recce and observation. Rest of the news articles on the light tank business are nothing but usual DDM on these matters.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

manum wrote:Why you calling Rohitvats...

I just did the same trick...proved a person is mad for another...both respectable in their own right...This is your game, right?
That comment is both in poor taste and even reflects poor understanding.

Brajesh Mishra is not considered very respectable for quite some time. ABV could use him, but post ABV the man is +ve dangerous, as it is, he is possibly responsible for some of the bad luck visited on the NDA govt through poor advise.

but that is OT.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Narayana Rao wrote:I thought they handleed much worst conditions in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh was handled in a very innovative way. It was a combination of Heli bridges, light tanks (amphibious PT 76), bypassing strong points and such.

Pak-Jab will not offer such opportunities. That is heartland of Pakistan, we will have to control territory, cross canals with Armor, engage in semi-urban battle.
nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nelson »

rohitvats wrote:
nelson wrote: I have already requested you to forget AM-50. There was no discussion centered on AM-50. NRao posted a video stating that AM-50 was MLC 70. I corrected it.
But why forget the AM-50? After all, even it does not meet the MLC-70 standard and you just argued about IA having to spend another INR 1,800 crores to replace them with Sarvatra?

But I can understand why need to forget AM-50 - because the number of units of this type is likely to be not half of what was assumed.
I said so because it would be straight forward to divide 400, the number of units you arrived at, by five which is the quantity of bridges in a Sarvatra set, rather than dividing by eight whose basis i am not sure of.
There has never been 'NO MLC-70 Bridge System is equal to NO Arjun induction' argument from my side. I have maintained previously and still do, that the decision of IA to restrict Arjun to one sector of operations, has been taken while considering the weight of Arjun and the requirement that large-scale induction of Arjuns in other sectors would entail complete revamp of the bridging systems that IA holds to MLC 70. This in turn would have been cost prohibitive, even if they were available at that point of time.
This is another canard.
There is no canard intended. It is a simple statement which is not being understood because of prejudice.
Allow me to ask two questions here:

- Which other bridging equipment are you referring to which would require up-gradation in case of mass induction of Arjun? Can you please list the same?

- Secondly, if Arjun is to be deployed in desert as no bridging restriction exists in deserts , what stopped IA from equipping 31 Armd Div from equipping with Arjun tanks? After all, AOR of the formation has traditionally being in the desert?
Firstly
All the assault bridges AM-50, BLG/MT-55 , dry Kruppmann and many of the replacment bridges would have been required to be upgraded.

It is not only the variety of bridges but also the simultaneity of the bridges that needs to be considered. As the formations move ahead, the bridges need to be held back or replaced for following formations. That would mean more bridges than the number of engineer units that one can count. Also, as with any instrument of war the bridges launched in operations are susceptible to destruction/failure. And in a complex operation where the entire success of breakout before daylight hinges on few bridges there would be a lot of redundancy factored into. So the overall quantity is not meagre and your estimate was not generous.

Let me put a hypothetical situation, there is an obstacle which requires four bridges to be launched facilitating breakout by a combat command. One of the squadrons that is part of the combat command is Arjun. Of the four, how many should be MLC 70? I would say, all four. The same applies at higher and lower levels.

Secondly
Restricting a particular strike corps or its principle battle-group to a specific area of operation would impose significant strategic rigidity. In any scenario, the army HQ would want to retain its flexibility of launching the principle battle groups anywhere along the IB. This would not be possible with a Arjun predominant division.
As an instance, i talked about the 10m capability which was dismissed last time around. Like previous time, i am only saying that weight was one of the considerations, but important nevertheless.
And yet - you were not able to point out where these mythical 10m capability of MLC-50 standard is required? And what equipment might this be which is tailor made to lay MLC-50 10m bridges over water obstacles? Can you please answer these two queries?
One unit of BLG/MT-55 in face of opposition would have sufficed. When there is no opposition or as a replament bridge there are many options.
Sarvatra will replace all the AM-50, if it happens, may be in another two decades. As far as question of why is concerned, i take it as an example of commitment of IA to true indigenous effort.
Now, please don't make virtue out of necessity. DRDO did not develop a MLC-70 Bridge laying system out of the blue. It did so because IA wanted it to.
So it is an example of IA sticking to its commitment, no?

Edited:- Replaced Kartik with MT-55
Last edited by nelson on 10 Apr 2013 09:29, edited 1 time in total.
manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by manum »

Sanku wrote:
manum wrote:Why you calling Rohitvats...

I just did the same trick...proved a person is mad for another...both respectable in their own right...This is your game, right?
That comment is both in poor taste and even reflects poor understanding.

Brajesh Mishra is not considered very respectable for quite some time. ABV could use him, but post ABV the man is +ve dangerous, as it is, he is possibly responsible for some of the bad luck visited on the NDA govt through poor advise.

but that is OT.
You are so right...
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Indranil »

DRDO is developing yet another state of the art Technology Demonstrator “Wheeled Armoured Platform” called WHAP.
VRDE is developing state of the art Technology Demonstrator “Wheeled Armoured Platform” called WHAP. WHAP is a multi utility armoured platform with modular design, configurable for variety of combat and combat support roles upto 26 ton GVW. It consists of a monocoque blast protected hull envelop with a combination of high hardness steel and add-on composite armour to provide scalable protection. WHAP is powered with a high power diesel engine and is equipped with 8x8 driveline with independent suspension. WHAP is designed for amphibious operation
upto a GVW of 22.5 ton.
More details
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by srai »

^^^

Good to hear on continued innovations by DRDO. Innovations can't wait for customers like the IA who tends to suddenly demand it without its own continuous participation.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

nelson wrote:<SNIP>

Allow me to ask two questions here:

- Which other bridging equipment are you referring to which would require up-gradation in case of mass induction of Arjun? Can you please list the same? <SNIP>
Firstly - All the assault bridges AM-50, BLG, Kartik, dry Kruppmann and many of the replacment bridges would have been required to be upgraded.
nelson - I will put in an answer to rest of your post later but first let us settle this bridging equipment argument.

I wanted you to write the above names of the systems to demolish this bridging argument for once and all. You see, last time we had this bridging equipment argument, I did spent some time researching the bridging equipment inventory of the Indian Army. Here is a link if you have time: http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/09/in ... on-ii.html

You see, there was a reason I was referring to AM-50 System - in the entire bridging equipment inventory, along with MT-55, this is the only MLC-50 system in the IA inventory. Let us see how others listed by you fare up:

1. PMP/PMS - This system imported from Czech Republic is MLC-60 class system. Regrettably, the BEML site seems to be down or I would have linked the capability of the system from the site. But there is a summary from BEML site on my blog.

2. Kartik BLT - This is again a MLC-60 Class BLT on Vijayanta Chassis.

3. T-72 BLT - This is a MLC-70 Class bridge. IA had ordered 135 number of this BLT in 2011.

4. Manually Launched Assault Bridge (MLAB) - This again is MLC-60 class bridging equipment.

5. Kruppman Assault Bridge (Floating) - As floating bridge, it can take loads from MLC-20 to MLC-80 loads. As trench bridge, it can again take 10 to 60 tonnes load. Here is a link to OFB website:http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/support/4.htm

As I said earlier, the weakest links are the AM-50 and MT-55 BLT systems.

Give me some time, I'll dig up the approximate number of AM-50 in IA service. Given that Kartik and T-72 BLT are in service, MT-55 BLT are most likely on last leg of their deployment.

Conclusion - So, Nelson, unless you've any further and more nuanced information on this bridging equipment capability angle, this bridging equipment upgrade to MLC-70 is a canard. And Dead. Especially when Arjun Mk1 weighs in under 60 tonnes.
nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nelson »

@rohitvats
As you say T-72 BLT is in service, but how many. IA ordered 135 units in 2011? How many have been produced as yet. IA also ordered first 40 units of production series Sarvatra in 2006. BEML started producing in 2010? How many have been delivered. Even we saw a prototype of Arjun slide launched BLT being demonstrated. Who is producing it? There is a gap between claim of development and induction in full numbers. Even to this date whether we are not sure if the induction is complete or not. So, in 2001-02, when the decision was made to anoint T-90 as MBT till 2017, such factors would have weighed in. This is reaffirmed by induction of the two Arjun regiments, inducted in/after 2008, to a particular area.

This bout of discussion on the topic started due to news reports carrying Dr Sarawat's statement to such effect that Arjun cannot be deployed in Punjab and they are deployed in Rajasthan, not COAS or DGMF but DRDO chief. He also said that any future tank developed will be 50 tonne max, because of such reasons. I don't know why he is spreading this canard.

I will leave it at that. Thank you.
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 »

one thing about pakjab is its thickly populated and much urbanized now. we have seen how IDF had to go specialized in that role with a fleet of heavily armoured dozers, SP guns and very thick top and bottom armour on Merkava (protection as #1 priority, firepower as #2 and mobility as #3). I think all their kit now feature things like remote cameras 360' and remote weapon stations with high angle of elevation(BMP2 has high elevation on its main cannon also I think but lacks the thermals, cameras and overall armour).

I detect no signs of a unified plan and equipment philosophy to engage in heavy urban and semi-urban fighting like IDF does.

the US lost a lot of kit to rockets and IEDs initially before doing emergency stuff like hajji armour to slat armour on tracked vehicles, MRAPs etc.

I hope our next "lesson" is not over the bodies of a few 100 needless KIA.

a MBT planning to operate in tibet will have much clearer visibility and open areas around it like in iraqi desert minus the heat but plus the cold.

a MBT planning to fight in TSP could be targeted from even 100m away with high quality RPG22+ kit on the side , top and rear aspects by shooters in the urban terrain and crops, smacked by heavy mines invisible in the ploughed fields , hit by EFP IEDs from the side, channeled into mines + artillery kill zones by networks of flooded canals and ditches .... its a lot tougher environment imo and a whole new level of planning and protection is needed.

basic M1A2SEP can shred anything at long distance, but the TUSK upg came out of the iraq fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OCPA- ... 165522.jpg
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by amit »

Singha,

I think the Israeli example in heavily urbanized terrain is not appropriate for comparison of the Arjun crossing through urbanized Punjab towards the Pakistani border. The most important difference is that the Arjun will not be facing a hostile urban population. Knowing the love and respect most ordinary Punjabi's have for tge Pakis, l expect folks would probably line the streets to cheers and offer lassi to tank crews.

Once the tanks cross into Pakistan then the situation faced by both T90s and Arjuns become the same.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:Singha,

I think the Israeli example in heavily urbanized terrain is not appropriate for comparison of the Arjun crossing through urbanized Punjab towards the Pakistani border. The most important difference is that the Arjun will not be facing a hostile urban population. Knowing the love and respect most ordinary Punjabi's have for tge Pakis, l expect folks would probably line the streets to cheers and offer lassi to tank crews.

Once the tanks cross into Pakistan then the situation faced by both T90s and Arjuns become the same.
The heartland of virulently jihadized, talibanized PakJabis, which are the main stay of the recruitment for LeT, JeM etc, which provide the foot soldiers for Bombay attacks and so and so forth will not be a hostile population?

This advise is basically as good as asking IA to commit suicide.

Once the tanks cross into Pakistan, the lack of infrastructure and the BCD defences would be a even bigger issue than before.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:
amit wrote:Singha,

I think the Israeli example in heavily urbanized terrain is not appropriate for comparison of the Arjun crossing through urbanized Punjab towards the Pakistani border. The most important difference is that the Arjun will not be facing a hostile urban population. Knowing the love and respect most ordinary Punjabi's have for tge Pakis, l expect folks would probably line the streets to cheers and offer lassi to tank crews.

Once the tanks cross into Pakistan then the situation faced by both T90s and Arjuns become the same.
The heartland of virulently jihadized, talibanized PakJabis, which are the main stay of the recruitment for LeT, JeM etc, which provide the foot soldiers for Bombay attacks and so and so forth will not be a hostile population?

This advise is basically as good as asking IA to commit suicide.

Once the tanks cross into Pakistan, the lack of infrastructure and the BCD defences would be a even bigger issue than before.
Sanku,

One final time. Bloody read a post before responding. You flaming antics are getting tiring.

I wrote: Arjun crossing through urbanized Punjab towards the Pakistani border..

Hello ji, in case you still don't understand that means Indian Punjab.

Later I wrote:

Once the tanks cross into Pakistan then the situation faced by both T90s and Arjuns become the same.

We all know your love a respect for the T90. You don't have to flog it to death.

And yes if, and when, the Arjuns become a part of the strike corps of the IA their infrastructure and logistics chain will be equal to that of T90. Comprende?

Hopefully your style of using bold for emphasis will get through to you. (However, if wishes were horses beggars would ride...)
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 »

my post was meant for the urban fight situation inside pakjab not on the march within our border.

pakjab will see people tying charges to themselves and diving under tanks as human mines even..of that I am sure. villages & towns are large and pukka often with the only major roads running through them and the outskirts impassable due to deep canals and blasted bridges. ideal for laying tank traps.

it wont be any picnic. the israelis try to get around such problems by a punishing regime of SP + MRLS indirect fire and heavy combat bulldozers to break obstacles and explode mines. and very heavy IFVs like Namer with MBT level of hull protection.

just as the US does in some desert, we need to build fake pakistani towns and villages as realistic as possible and practice religiously the close tank + IFV + dismounted infantry drills needed to negotiate these problems.
Last edited by Singha on 10 Apr 2013 12:09, edited 1 time in total.
Baikul
BRFite
Posts: 1462
Joined: 20 Sep 2010 06:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Baikul »

Amit ji, I got what you had said in your response to Singhaji quite clearly. But I do think there was some scope for confusion.

Not in what you stated, but in the direction of your response.

Singha ji has stated in the very first line that:
one thing about pakjab is its thickly populated and much urbanized now.
I think from your response in the first line,
I think the Israeli example in heavily urbanized terrain is not appropriate for comparison of the Arjun crossing through urbanized Punjab towards the Pakistani border.
It could be construed as meaning that you had missed Singhaji's intention. But, as I said, upon reading your entire post it was clear to me that despite that, your basic premise was sound.

Just my two cents.

Edit: I see that Singha ji has also clarified. Never mind.

On topic:
Singha wrote:...
pakjab will see people tying charges to themselves and diving under tanks as human mines even..of that I am sure. villages & towns are large and pukka often with the only major roads running through them and the outskirts impassable due to deep canals and blasted bridges. ideal for laying tank traps...........
Singha ji, I think we will see resistance, but I am not sure if we'd see massive soosai charges from the civilian population - IMO, historically Pakjabis as a class are known to make amends with occupying forces quite quickly. Unless we decide to hold and occupy post the war, which is a different story.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote:[

One final time. Bloody read a post before responding. You flaming antics are getting tiring.

I wrote: Arjun crossing through urbanized Punjab towards the Pakistani border..
As other have said, Singha was CLEARLY talking about battles inside PakJab.

Why would anyone talk about Indian Punjab in context of
one thing about pakjab is its thickly populated and much urbanized now.

I detect no signs of a unified plan and equipment philosophy to engage in heavy urban and semi-urban fighting like IDF does.
Clearly there is a GOOD reason I need to add emphasis. However, clearly the message is difficult to understand without emphasis. It is a different matter that some chose to ignore facts even after emphasis.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by amit »

Baikul, Singha,

I did realise that Singha was referring to Pakjab. However, I was responding over my handphone and you know the BRF site is not the best out there for mobile devices.

After crafting the response I did realise that I should have brought the second part of my response up first but then the effort would have been too much, again on the device I was using.

However, read in totality, I don't think there was any cause for confusion on what I was writing and I think both of gentlemen got my point.

In summary: Could have been crafted better, however, it did convey what I was trying to say, which is: While I agree that the situation in PakJab would be dicey, it would so for both Arjuns as well as T90s. I don't think a smaller tank would have any noticeable advantage.

If anyone disagrees with that, I would certainly like to hear their POV and if I find it to be convincing, I'm certainly willing to change my views. I don't have any dogmas in this case.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:
amit wrote:[

One final time. Bloody read a post before responding. You flaming antics are getting tiring.

I wrote: Arjun crossing through urbanized Punjab towards the Pakistani border..
As other have said, Singha was CLEARLY talking about battles inside PakJab.

Why would anyone talk about Indian Punjab in context of
one thing about pakjab is its thickly populated and much urbanized now.

I detect no signs of a unified plan and equipment philosophy to engage in heavy urban and semi-urban fighting like IDF does.
Clearly there is a GOOD reason I need to add emphasis. However, clearly the message is difficult to understand without emphasis. It is a different matter that some chose to ignore facts even after emphasis.
Here we go again. You are such an attention seeker that you have to get into a discussion between two posters with your abrasive style of posting. Sigh!

Even standup comedy gets tiring after a while.

Like I said: If wishes were horses beggars would ride.
Last edited by amit on 10 Apr 2013 12:42, edited 2 times in total.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by amit »

Singha wrote:my post was meant for the urban fight situation inside pakjab not on the march within our border.

pakjab will see people tying charges to themselves and diving under tanks as human mines even..of that I am sure. villages & towns are large and pukka often with the only major roads running through them and the outskirts impassable due to deep canals and blasted bridges. ideal for laying tank traps.

it wont be any picnic. the israelis try to get around such problems by a punishing regime of SP + MRLS indirect fire and heavy combat bulldozers to break obstacles and explode mines. and very heavy IFVs like Namer with MBT level of hull protection.

just as the US does in some desert, we need to build fake pakistani towns and villages as realistic as possible and practice religiously the close tank + IFV + dismounted infantry drills needed to negotiate these problems.
Agree with you on this Singha. But as I explained in my previous post, in the context of which is a better tank - Arjun or T90 - in this situation, I don't think either would have any noticeable advantage and whatever tactics that the Indian Army develops for this kind of ops, would apply to both.

However, I personally think that if the Indian armour does make a dash across the border, it would follow the Bangladesh tactics of going around towns and isolating them for the infantry to mop up, instead of charging in with heavy armour into built up areas. Note: The Israelis really did not have a choice in the matter, they had to go into the built up areas. OTOH the Indian armoured brigade has an option of going through the countryside, IMO and blocking off built up towns.

What are your thoughts on that?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

amit wrote: I did realise that Singha was referring to Pakjab. However, I was responding over my handphone and you know the BRF site is not the best out there for mobile devices.
.
Boss you can downhill ski all you want, but clearly, Singha was talking about challenges in PakJab, and your reply had nothing to do with PakJab.

Now even if we assume that you wrote a poorly worded post and it was not clear that you were talking about Indian punjab, the question remains, why ever any one would want to discuss population response in Indian punjab when the discussion is on urban tank battle in Pakistan?

Now you can return to your regular paraphrasing/summarizing/name calling exercises, but clearly trying to say that there is no hostile response in town when the discussion is on PakJab towns and then claiming it was about India, is extremely dis-ingenious .

I dont know why the above was being done, neither do I want to, but it is important to clear up the core matter.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by amit »

Sanku wrote:I dont know why the above was being done, neither do I want to,
You don't want to know and yet you secrete three posts into the thread! :eek:

I shudder to think about the amount of nandi droppings that we would have had to wade through if you really wanted to know what was being said!

But enough of this. I see you've got a reflexive habit of responding to anything, everything even if you make a hash of it (yes, yes I know by saying that I'm just rehashing your history of posting here).

I see NRao has the right idea. You should be ignored. I will do the same but with a twist. :D

When I feel like some entertainment, my ignore button will go off.

:rotfl: :rotfl:
Last edited by amit on 10 Apr 2013 13:41, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

^^^
Ignore all you want.

You can run but you cant hide.
:mrgreen:
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Vivek K »

The T-90 purchase is made to make sure that India does not field capabilities that Pukis could not match. 1,000 Arjuns, 400 LCAs, Pinaka etc will help us to dwarf Pukistan and focus on Chicom. But, the rotten few don't want that to happen for it would drain their funding sources.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by hnair »

er, why should any Indian armor enter the urban areas of pakjab, to achieve objectives? Our objective should be simple - demolish PA capability to basic law enforcement levels, kill the incurable and quarantine the rest of the animals, using their own shepherds. Not to "rebuild bakistan as per Djinnah's non-existent specs", that khan claims to do every time (but rarely does since WWII).

I thought the plan is to smash them up outside the city areas and then round up a few whiskey-dunking senior khakis, put them under the command of retired, tough-speaking Indian generals and let these second-rung pakjabis handle their public and admin tasks. They know how to handle the situation, having centuries of "managing" on behalf of invaders. IIRC, there were even news reports during Op Parakram about sounding up of retired Indian generals as Indian pro-consuls for the interim? So we dont have to think like khan, who is all about invasion, occupation and dominance or Yehudis, who are about maintaining a certain image.

But before that their main armor force should be smashed to smithereens with the kill ratios hugely in our favor and that must be done outside urban areas by a combo of our armor/air. If they hide inside urban areas behind jihadi human shields, then airstrikes it is. We dont even have to waste PGMs. Just drop dumb bombs and Hafeez's boys will gladly claim credit.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

hnair wrote:er, why should any Indian armor enter the urban areas of pakjab, to achieve objectives?
Hnairgolis saar. The point is of course valid. Even in 71, IA demonstrated that bothering with hard points was less fun militarly rather than shock and awe rolling quickly across the country side.

I have only one thought in this --> PakJab, is now almost a complete warren of pig stys from one end to the other. If you look at the population density, of 450/km2 (1,200/sq mi), this is not concentrated in Lahore, but spread across as multiple interlocked villages from one end to the other. In addition we anyway have the BCD fortifications.

Given this, is it practical that flanking manuverous could be carried out bypassing built up areas? IMVHO it would be tough, but of course I am willing to be corrected on this.
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 »

Per orbat dot com even that old favourite ryk sukkur line is now thickly populated nd no longer amenable to open battle.

Tsp has become a lebanon of sorts.
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 »

2010 Map:

Image
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

I am not sure where do we always get the idea of having Urban combat in Paki land ....these things are only good in scenario thread or in highly skewed lopsided environment like US + NATO and Iraq or Afganistan or Kosovo

The moment we enter into Pakiland and start doing urban fight using Tanks , Some NRO satellites would see many mushroom cloud over key indian cities. Thats good enough detterent for any urban conflict ideas.

In 20 years i dont recollect we even entered few km in Pakiland or did SF ops to get key figure involved in terrorism in India .....a good start can still be made if we can get Hafiz Sayeed or Dawood Ibrahim or Sayeed Sallaudin that would be a good show kitne main hai apne mein dum ... other then that such talks are as peppy as Saas Bahu serial.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

^^^ Austin-ji; the point is that Pakistan may not have any significant non-urban-village areas left. Where will we fight?
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Sanku wrote:^^^ Austin-ji; the point is that Pakistan may not have any significant non-urban-village areas left. Where will we fight?
You seem to have not read what PC said when he was HM after 26/11 , He said We would never fight :)

We are peace loving noook power onleee , mean while over past 15 years I have seen HM boss Sayeed Salluddin ( sorry about spell , i was never good in spelling pigs right ) has put on weight , I always thought when I was young that some indian SF guy would kill him but he now has better chances of dying from a heart attack.
jai
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by jai »

Does anyone remember IA's official reasons for rejecting tank Ex ?

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... nk-Ex.html

At 47 tons , with Arjun's armament package, and being an indigenous solution, I thought it came closest to the FMBT concept and also perhaps the best upgrade to existing t72' s - developed further - would also negate import requirements of the tin can.

Another example of Natasha lobbies killing local cost effective solutions.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

nelson wrote:@rohitvats
As you say T-72 BLT is in service, but how many. IA ordered 135 units in 2011? How many have been produced as yet. IA also ordered first 40 units of production series Sarvatra in 2006. BEML started producing in 2010? How many have been delivered. Even we saw a prototype of Arjun slide launched BLT being demonstrated. Who is producing it? There is a gap between claim of development and induction in full numbers. Even to this date whether we are not sure if the induction is complete or not. So, in 2001-02, when the decision was made to anoint T-90 as MBT till 2017, such factors would have weighed in. This is reaffirmed by induction of the two Arjun regiments, inducted in/after 2008, to a particular area.
Nelson – you need to first decide what is that you’re arguing about.

You have shifted the very premise on which the discussions have been built. Over last couple of pages, your arguments have taken different positions and each has different implications. Let me summarize your arguments (and my response) here for sake of clarity and reference:

(a) You have argued that one of the factors behind induction of T-90 tank (tank weighing less than 50T) was that the bulk of bridging equipment held by IA was MLC-50 rated. Induction of Arjun as MBT of IA, or even across other sectors apart from desert, would entail mass up-gradation and induction of MLC-60/70 class equipment. To that, I did back of the envelop calculation (using AM-50 and Sarvatra Bridge Layer System example) to show that the IA would be required to spend ~USD 200-300 million to upgrade the bridging equipment to MLC-70 standard of Sarvatra type.

(b) Next, you shifted the argument to the fact not only would AM-50 require up-gradation but also associated bridging equipment like MT-55, Kartik BLT, T-72 BLT and Kruppman floating assault bridge. On being pointed out (by me) that apart from AM-50 and MT-55, all other equipment are of MLC-60 standard, you brought in the argument that these MLC-60 standard equipment started becoming available only in mid-2000 and thereon.

Now, you do realize that by shifting the argument to point (b) above – which is the right positions as far as bridging equipment goes – you’re weakening the case for such mass scale induction of T-90?

However, first things first – I actually support the induction of T-90 tanks in 2002 and to some extent can even work with induction of second tranche. I could even understand the requirement for 2,000 T-90 in IA inventory if IA had been honest about induction of Arjun tanks. But it is not.

And these arguments about bridging equipment and weight and canal bridges and 4-man crew are all cooked up in retrospect to somehow delay and kill the Arjun program. However, we digress.

Coming back to 50T tank and bridging equipment of IA – when IA decided to express induct first batch of T-90 in 2002, the existing inventory of bridging equipment would have been of MLC-50 standard. So, during this period, the bridging equipment argument holds.

After Russians played hardball on ToT and no production could take place at Avadhi, IA inducted the second lot from Russia in 2006-2007 time frame. And post that, 300+ tanks have rolled out as of 2012 from HVF.

Now, you’ve yourself pointed out that Kartik BLT, T-72 BLT and other equipment (like Sarvatra) started becoming available in mid-2000. These MLC-70 standard equipment were not being inducted for Arjun tanks; these were being inducted because IA was in the process of replacing MLC-50 standard equipment (examples: MT-55 and AM-50) with new MLC-70 standard equipment. Existence of Arjun does not even feature in this decision on up-gradation of bridging equipment.

So, while 50T tank in 2002 and 2006 could be understood with respect to existing inventory of MLC-50 standard equipment, how does this bridging equipment argument hold up beyond 2008 when IA (Arjun tank or no Arjun tank) was as it is in the process of inducting new MLC-70 standard equipment across the board? Even a 50T T-90 tank will in future cross water obstacles and trenches on MLC-70 standard equipment.

This IA wide transition of bridging equipment to MLC-70 standard punctures holes into two other arguments against Arjun:

(1) That induction of Arjun would require substantial investment in upgrading the bridging equipment – as pointed out earlier, IA is at is going to upgrade the bridging equipment to MLC-70 standard, Arjun or no Arjun. So to say that induction of Arjun would entail additional investment is bridging equipment is plain incorrect.

(2) Arjun cannot be deployed across all sectors because of commonality of bridging equipment – again, if IA is upgrading entire bridging equipment paraphernalia to MLC-70 standard, all the engineering formations across the IA can support the Arjun tank.

Lastly, you spoke about numbers of these MLC-70 standard equipment in the IA and pace of induction. Let me ask you a counter-question – Does it appear that IA is losing sleep over this aspect? It does not to me. And that is because it knows it can manage for a while with earlier equipment which can support T-90 tanks.

Had IA been serious about induction of Arjun tank in large numbers, it would have been shouting from the rooftops about lack of bridging equipment holding up Arjun induction – and IA’s operational posture and readiness.

Didn’t it use the T-80UD in PA service argument to push the T-90 deal? And subsequently to get second batch of 330 T-90 in 2006? I’m yet to see the same level of eagerness when it comes to Arjun. In fact, as per interview of DG of HCF Avadhi which was carried IIRC in FORCE Magazine, IA has told HVF that it will not be inducting Arjun BLT. Any guesses, why?

And BTW, Ajai Shukla, one of the fiercest critics of Arjun, too accepts that Mk1 was ready for large scale induction by 2006.
This bout of discussion on the topic started due to news reports carrying Dr Sarawat's statement to such effect that Arjun cannot be deployed in Punjab and they are deployed in Rajasthan, not COAS or DGMF but DRDO chief. He also said that any future tank developed will be 50 tonne max, because of such reasons. I don't know why he is spreading this canard.
On the Punjab thing, he is simply saying what DGMF and others in IA have been saying for a long time. As for 50T FMBT - FMBT is as good as dead. As per reports by AS, IA has come around its senses to not ask for unobtanium and feels that iterative development of Arjun will serve as FMBT.
Last edited by rohitvats on 11 Apr 2013 13:27, edited 2 times in total.
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by KrishnaK »

Why does the IA prefer a 4 man crew to 3 in tanks ? What are the pros/cons, other than the obvious one in more manpower and hence operation expenditure.

rohitvats,
Other thank tank wagons and bridges, what other pieces of equipment are involved in transporting tanks within our own territory ? Tank tansporters ?
Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Misraji »

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Anujan »

Sanku wrote:
Drishyaman wrote: I just tried to clarify the muddy water as I found Anujan ji seriously concerned with Arjun’s Torsion Bar Issues. And I honestly, tried to pull him out of the comedy (according to Sanku ji) that people were having here.
Drishyman ji, Anujan ji does his above song and dance routine every one in a few months. He thinks this is being clever. I think its tiring.
I will tell you why I do the song and dance routine. And yes, I think I am clever.

If you take a step back and see: The countries which are "reliable arms suppliers" are not in any way inherently better than us in setting up a manufacturing line. What happened was US, Russia, Germany, France ityadi went through a near death experience -- WWII -- where they either scaled up manufacturing or died. In the height of WWII, San Francisco shipyards alone in massa was rolling out a ship every day. Now wrap your head around that!

Obviously their ability to manufacture stuff built up during WWII carried over, and to this day they know how to put together a tank and set up an assembly line.

Now the question is, should we learn it ourselves, or forever buy from them? Now let us analyze pros and cons. The cons of making it ourselves are obvious: Unit costs might be high, we cannot make the best machine, we cannot make enough of them quickly and so on. Now the cons of importing, in my opinion are far higher. The list of scams and fiascos are way too numerous for me to exhaustively enumerate: Bofors, HDW Submarines, LCA engines with Unkil sanctioning us, Krasnopol ammo, Viggen aircraft (latest wikileaks), Vikramaditya -- heck even French are squeezing our testimonials on the MMRCA now. Did you know that during Kargil when we needed brake chutes and tyres for aircraft, the foreign supplier had the temerity to send in used chutes and tyres and hike up the price for it? Yes, this happened. They over charged us even for body bags and coffins.

Coming to T90 itself, the testimonial squeezing list goes on and on. Armor, guns, ammo, fire control computer, malfunctioning TI.

To add insult to injury, in this specific case of T90 vs Arjun, it turns out that our product might even be better if not as good!

So next comes our ability to churn it out in numbers. As I see it, there are only two ways of doing it. We pass through a near death experience of fighting an all out multi year war. Or we stick with our manufacturing and improve it step by step. Now without doing either, the common complaint is "let us demonstrate the capability to make many tanks before we order any tanks and then we will think of ordering tanks, if that doesnt happen, we wont order tanks". Contrast this, with even Massa, which took the long term health of Boeing and Lockheed into account while choosing JSF/F22, and sourced it from both, so that their manufacturing lines stay open!

This is the naked truth. Unless we make it on our own and use our own, we will never make it on our own or use our own. And getting into the cycle of making and using local products is not going to be very pleasant and problem free. Countries which do rival the WWII antagonists -- China and Israel -- stuck with their products through phases of reverse engineering, Jugaad, refinement and now are genuine weapons designers and manufacturers themselves. If we dont pass through that phase (apparently every Israeli tanker riding the jugaad centurion was trained to maintain it because it used to break down so often. Dont even get me started about Chinese aircraft that their pilots had to bear for so long) we will forever import arms. Including used brake chutes, body bags and coffins.

On the other hand, what I see in this dhaaga ranges from outright Russie love to arguing over semantics of words. Paraphrased, there was even an argument between the difference of "is being", "was being", "is been" and "had been" !! And people post facts, semi facts, dis information and misinformation and information that is generally unverifiable.

Like Sanku-ji insisting on a smoothbore gun for Arjun. The beauty and convenience of this statement is if it happens by chance, it is a huge "I told you so!" moment and validation for everything that he ever said. If it doesnt happen, then it can always be passed off as something that is going to happen in the future or something that was considered but stonewalled by the obstinate DRDO/Avadi folks. The rest of us on the other hand, have heard nothing but praise for Arjun's gun. Which by the way is rifled because GSQR asked for it. And will become smoothbore if Army moves the goalposts and changes the GSQR which might happen, as we saw from MKII Arjun and FMBT 4 man crew, inbuilt AWACS and ballistic missile launch capable but 50ton tank requirement.

So we go round and round rehashing the same things over and over again. Can Arjun fire missiles? What is its range? Do we have bridges? What did AUCRT really do? Isnt Arjun taller and wider? Will it fit into a goods train? Doesnt it need 4 people? Can it fire APFSDS? What about logistics? Is it indigenous enough? Didnt the torsion bar break? Why is it so heavy? Avadi has quality control problems. They cant make it fast enough. I heard the gun barrels chip. I heard the track rubber pads wear out quickly. The hydropenumatic suspension leaked during transport.

All the while we are giving our testimonials in a platter for Russies to squeeze. And they set up a manufacturing line in our expense. Because we order 350 tanks at one go, but we order 12 Arjuns with an option of returning two. And I am sure Russies run risky experiments on us. Anyone heard how MBB pretty much used us to try out technologies of what is feasible or not on LCH? They then sold the successful risky technologies in their other projects and customers and left the unsuccessful risky technologies on our lap, like 3D vibration control. Which we took several years to fix! And LCH is one of our more successful projects and MBB one of the less evil arms designers!

So that is why I come here once in a while and politely ask if the sand dunes on the desert is rated for 50 tons or if they should be upgraded. The confusion on the face of the readers is far more palatable to me than when they are wondering if a rifled bore gun is better or a smooth bore gun is better.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Suraj »

Anujan wrote:All the while we are giving our testimonials in a platter for Russies to squeeze. And they set up a manufacturing line in our expense and run risky experiments on us. Anyone heard how MBB pretty much used us to try out technologies of what is feasible or not on LCH? And LCH is one of our more successful projects!
IIRC, that was during the Dhruv project, not LCH. Of course, that makes their action even more damning - that was our first copter design.

Absolutely agreed with everything else. I cringed when I first read the statement from some Army officer to the effect that 'the Army's job is to fight wars, and we need the civilians to give us the best possible weapons for the purpose'. Sounds logical on paper in isolation, but shortsighted in strategic terms, particularly when domestic military programs aren't exactly a generation behind the best comparable foreign equipment, except for niches like materials engineering for aero-engines.

That Army officers perspective, ironically enough, mirror's that of the TSP jernails across the border from him - he expects a quick clinical mission, with the nurses around him (i.e. MoD, GoI and the taxpayer) to feed him the best tools for it. Anything longer than a week, and we will have an extremely expensive logistical problem on hand, including the possibility that supplies simply may not be available for any price, turning whatever best-of-class item we field into a hangar/garage/drydock queen for the duration of hostilities. Which of course, would not be the Army's problem because it was the civilians' job to ensure he had everything to fight with...

In an ideal world the IA ought to be compelled to field only the Arjun and DRDO commissioned to design derivative platforms. Is it going to take an effort to build up support infrastructure, train additional tankmen, et al ? Absolutely. But we have a tank that's comparable or better than the best we've imported. Unless we lack the technical wherewithal altogether, we shouldn't be importing tanks. When we do have one on hand, effort and money should be directed at it's iterative improvement vs peers.

Mature powers realize that their strength isn't just in their cutting edge weaponry, but the military industrial complex that backs them. They've made TONS of mistakes getting where they are now, with hundreds of canned projects and many dead or maimed in the process of developing it. In our environment we've an LCA who's induction hangs fire even now, and a test crash could turn it into Marut v.2 overnight.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arnab »

Now that the 'shooting' and 'protection' abilities of the Arjun vis a vis T-90 have been established, we are left with the 'scooting' abilities of T-90 in urban areas! Unless the T-90 can outrun / out-manoeuvre an ATGM / RPG, it will be deficient to Arjun in such scenarios as well. Remember the Battle of Grozny anyone? and the decimation of the T-72s there?
Post Reply