Bharat Rakshak

okay let's accept for a moment you need a Hi-Lo mix in your tank force and that it will take some time before a majority of the bridges are replaced (strategic mobility) okay so we induct a number of Gulshan kumar ooops T-series tanks into the order of
battle. A lot of people here claim that the T-90 and the Arjun will go into battle hand in hand (pardon my French). But that isn't really happening , is it?

All that we see is spats and trials that never seem to end. the sense of deja vu is becoming too much to bear (oof!)

True but there is a real reason for it -- and it is not the "curse IA die die" reason that seems to be the vogue these days

Saurav, Arjun has been "tested" more than the battle some tanks have seen. So the point is simple - IA does not like the Arjun and never will even if it could fly. The IA would only like Arjun to do the disappearing trick.

The Arjun program could have become a good export candidate too. Guess how many countries will buy a tank that the army of the exporting nation does not want? At issue presently is the gearbox of the Arjun made by Renk. Anyone that has dealt with gearboxes has heard of Renk. If Renk cannot make a gearbox, then .......

I used to tell an old story. In the old days, becoming an OEM supplier to Maruti was as difficult as supplying the Arjun to the army. I know a gent that tried to supply headlamps to Maruti. If you were not on the procurement mafia's good list, your supplies would fail simple tests - the store keepers would put the headlamps in the rain and let them get damaged and then send them for testing.

The Arjun has been tested under all conditions and has proved itself. The IA will never buy it if it is pushed by DRDO. If the tank design was taken over by a pvt company that had links with the IA's procurment people and could wine and dine etc., etc. the Arjun would be let into the stable. Anyone that thinks otherwise ........

I am curious as to why you think this is a matter of language or semantics. Surely its not everyday that a army officer testifies to a Parliamentary Standing Committee. Additionally, as you yourself has stated many times on this thread "Army is an institution". Given these two facts, one would think and hope that whenever a person representing an institution testifies before the representative body of the GoI, he would word their statements with great care. And given that this is the Army, that is anal about detail by their very nature, it is unlikely that a parliamentary scribe misrepresented what the person said. It is not as if the scribe went "Oh, you said suboptimal performance, but let me put it down as miserable failure" and the Army representative happily agreed to go on with the scribe's version.

Some exaggeration of the nature of failure was surely intended in the testimony. Just as I dont believe in your quote of "Army die die", I dont believe that in Arjun's case they are Bambis frolicking with Baby Seals in virgin snow powder either. A section in MoD wants to keep the baksheesh from Txx flowing, and this is supported by a non-zero number of people in IA for whatever reasons. Sadly, the obstacles faced by Avadi provide impetus to such sections.

The other point I would like to make is if Avadi cant manufacture T90 fast enough, thats a point against T90 if it needs to import them. The T90 is a system, and although I concede your point that its not a design flaw of T90, the end result is we have a tank that cant be manufactured fast enough for whatever reason. Arent you counting the fact that Avadi cant make Arjun fast enough as a negative?

One thing I would love to know is how much resources of Avadi are tied down in assembling CKDs of T90s that prevent it from ramping up Arjun production.

-----------------------
Allakh Niranjan!

You should read the Army Chief's latest coment in this regard. Talking about T-90 tech transfer, you know its not easy you see..... it will take time...... etc etc

So much for common with T-72.....

Wasn't T-72 and T-90 commanality lie was told in parliament?

Well IA is not bambi frolking in the snow for sure . But many things can be more easily explained by doctrine and such and not necessarily money especially w.r.t IA (not sure about MoD) Plus given the pain that Arjun has given them it is natural to see some bitterness -- they accepted Arjun is 2000 even with "some" reqs not met (Par. Rep) if they see the same after 7 years? They are human.

Secondly T 90 is a reality -- irrespective of Arjun or not -- so a lot of baksheeh would any way come Arjun or not. -- That kinds of makes the argument of baksheeh a little weak -- unless we are dealing with very very greedy people in a very very weak system.





Thats a problem for ALL manufacture in India -- at least T 90 has the saving grace of having a line to back it up outside India.

So I look at it the other way actually -- at least IA has a option outside the tender mercies of Avadi -- they have never done anything per schedule -- perhaps in the next battle IA should wave a letter of indent that fire shells.

I am not sure whether that statement is correct -- would you please compare the testing T 90s have gone through in their "entire" development cycle as compared to Arjun? Perhaps you can compare it with Challenger?

Keep in mind that Arjun was the first tank where as each of the other comes from a established design house.

If it has been tested why does DRDO agree to test it more?

Sorry that statement does not stand logical scrutiny IMVHO and hence any arguments based on that assumption are not something we can debate.

Its easy to make a allegation -- but this is the second time you have made the testing statement and the second time you have been asked for data to back your allegation.

Perhaps the Arjun keeps going through tests because it does not pass them? Can it be as simple as that?

Come now, you seriously want me to reply to that?

Another gem based on the above. Can you explain the logic of the above conclusions again?



Errr....! Care to refresh my memory? What dat you need? About the Maruti incident?


Speaking a lie a thousand times does not make it come true my friend!

People are making all kinds of conjectures, principally the one about CVDRE Avadi. What exactly is the issue with Avadi, is it personnel, mgmt, facilities. both Aroor and Shukla have been in the premises, filmed the tank, took joy rides, were impressed with the facilities. Now, the carping about Avadi has started. IIT-M, a renowned mechanical engg school and Anna Guindy Univ are nearby for consulting on issues about R&D on tanks. DRDO chief was involved in the tank project Arjun and is from IIT-M. So what exactly are the issues, i would like to know.

No conjectures; please refer to the data posted by d_berwal or google - Avadi manufacturing (not CVDRE) has been behind schedule massively for Arjun (promise of 124 tanks by 06 vs 53 made so far); T 90 -- 1 year delay.
T 72 delay again.

Remeber T 90 is only assembly right now and T 72 has been around for ages.

The numbers do their own talking -- unfortunately a joy ride for a Shukla and Arror (Aroor!!!!!!!) is not the measure of performance -- that precisely the reason they are not the certifying agencies.

What does Avadi's delays in manufacturing Arjun have to do with DRDO? If Avadi messes up, why blame DRDO?

Plus, in what way do these production delays have any bearing on Arjun's acceptance into the Army? If its a good tank, accept it and get the line ready... I can't understand why we're using Avadi's incompetence or problems in surmounting technology as an excuse against Arjun.

Yes indeed and the lie being spoken is some how Army is anti-arjun because of XYZ -- when theres 30 years worth of reports about
how tests why tests and what tests
which are backed up by paper trail; CAG reports; DRDO cross verification; parilamentary reports; individual exp of officers and jawans.

Perhaps all that was falsified? Or the simple truth that Arjun takes so long to build because thats the best our Mil-Ind complex can do in terms of abilities?

I feel like I am in Alice in wonder land.

Behind schedule manufacturing problems have nothing to do with whether Arjun is performing adequately for the needs of IA. Schedules are always a mgmt issue. On T-90 I heard there were issues with Russia on parts supply. this is always the case, some key part comes from Russia. I remember this happened in Mig21 manufacture too.

You model is totally mistaken. The T-80UD and Al-Khalid moving was made in Pakistan in answer of Arjun development in India. lighter, more numerouse tanks is the best assymmetric answer to western type of armor. They hoped India will no capability to make Arjun in enough number, and I cannot say, they were totally wrong, arent they. So India needs both Arjun and T90 for counting such assymmetric treat.

based on certain argument here, T90s need not test again if they have to correct any defects. hence, drdo being asking to test again means the arjun is riddled with defects, and is a berry berry bad tank.

While T90s don't get tested for defects or has no defects at all, hence its a berry berry gooood tank. btw, did'nt arjun fail tests when it was filled with explosives and blown up. the tank developed soot all over, and the engines went bad. T90s survived that 'cause, it never need such tests, as there is no such defect or requirements to test T90s.. its a differenct kallaaass! of a tank.. 1 t90s = 10 m1A3s = 16 leopards = 19 merkavas. Arjuns never can be equated by the way.. its a test class tank.

sorry.. could'nt resist.

Huh... enough of this license manufacture and TOT .. with news like IAF SU fleet grounded for want of tyres I can only imagine how RU & co are honouring the TOT agreement.

I wont be surprised if eventually bulk of the T-90 will come as CKD as against license manufacture in house due to obvious reasons.. also RU will get yet another oppertunity to make some extra moolah .

In case of Arjun we know where our limitations wrt mass production and hence will be able to accurately predict as to how many will CVRDE roll out each year.

I'm agrree that Arjun isnt slow tank (who say it's slow btw?). But I cannot agree with the sentence that T-90 - isnt cutting edge. It's exactly what was said in your citation: T-90 creates the rules in world tank-building, evry tank designed after 2000 has autoloader, 3-members crew, only 6-weel and reduced weight. wrt Leos, abrams' and chift's- how many new built western tank were sold last 5 years on the open free market? I can said only last 2 years were contracted as 550 T-90. Oil rich countries like Algeria and Libia could buy Leclercks as well, but they choose T-90. So, there are all proves needed that T-90 is cutting edge indeed.

It may be my ignorance showing, but which tanks are you talking about when you say "designed after 2000"?



Igorr,

If I may suggest, you need to get over this issue of sales as a representation of tank quality. It holds a lot of loopholes and is not a good model for analysis.

For one thing, going by that model suggests that during its time, the T-72 might have in fact been the best tank in the world, and yet that is an exaggeration.

Further, as far "oil-rich" countries going in for the T-90 over western tanks are concerned, I would say that this analysis fails to include other factors that are not in fact a direct result of the T-90's superiority.

For one thing, have you considered the fact that these countries have limited or no pool of highly qualified tank crews that are capable of operating a western tank effectively? Or that they lack the amount of high quality technical equipment and manpower to support such a technologically advanced vehciles in the desert when the war begins?

Russian tanks, and especially the export models, were traditionally designed for ease of use. They have not supported a technological infrastruture to develop in the countries that have operated them over the years. Most of them lack that very infrastructure requried to make a shift from east to west even if money is available. And yet they have ample experience with Russian tanks, and so the trend continues.

Further, political aspects dictate that western support for spares and emergency war equipment is always hamstrung by domestic and international politics given the military stances of most of these countries. The Soviet Union and now Russia have been dependable partners for these countries, and that matters a lot to them.

Sales are not just about technology, but also involve major investments in manpower and infrastructure, which most of these countries seem unwilling to partake.

JMT

-Vivek

Please:
- SK XK-2
- Japan New 44ton MBT Type 10 (TK-X) - although with only 5 wheels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLnjfYKhcU4
- China's Type-99
- Turkey future tank project

- In most aspects Leclerk also fall in this cathegory even when designed before.


- So I can ask WHAT can represent the issue of quality if not the mature success on the open market? Whether you know more objective and credible cathegory for judging? Countries chose T-90 for their souvereighnity defence, what can be more decisive? If a country like US can push its mediocre M16 for A-stan and Iraq armies, I can understand, it's not the issue for prove anything. If Algeria, Libia or India buy from Russia when they have as well to buy from France, Germany etc. France and GB will be happy to sell for such countries, willnt they? They indeed sold a lot, at least in Algeria and Libia Russia is only the second after France in weapon deals during last 10 years.
Maitemance is a part of quality, because maitemance problems decrease battle readinness. It's very hard to design battle system with low maitenance needed, looking on 5th gen fighter specs for maintenance issue. So let not to turn T-90's advantage in 'deficiency'.

I never said the open market success is not an issue. I just said its not the only issue that can be used to justify quality of tank simply because acquisitions of these kinds often take into account non-technical parameters that can lead to a wrong conclusion.

And I never said I knew what a credible category for judging an entire tank from front to end would be. If you want to discuss systems within the tank on a case by case basis, then that can be done. But to take a tank as a whole and say "this tank is the best", is obviously not a correct way to go forward. Each tank has advantages and disadvantages for each environment and battle conditions. And as such the problem of such superficial comparisons are complex to say the least.

I learn new things here everyday. I don't claim to know all the answers, but I do know the problem and hence am able to make out mistakes in a model when suggested. You want to have a technical discussion on a step by step basis, please go right ahead, but let's not start making blanket claims about a tank as a whole. Somehow I just don't see how a tank as such can be superioir to another one. Only some of its characteristics can be said to be superioir to the other and based on that each country makes its own assessment.

If it means that Algeria decided that its neighbours will never have anything closer to the T-90, let alone more advanced tanks, then I don't see why they would waste money on the latter.

But as far as India is concerned, I am highly sceptical that the acknowledged superioirty of the T-90 in certain aspects of its design is of much use given the adversaries and the terrain, environment and technologies. I see a more political hand involved in the latter along with fiscal issues that seemed to have overridden the technical analysis



Again, this is jumping to conclusions. That is what I am trying to point out here: the fact that France, Germany etc are willing to sell to the Algeria and so on does not mean that the latter is in a position to accept them or use them or willing to spend unnecessary money on them

...but it's often happen when some peoples superficially claim 'backwardeness ' of T-90 as something naturally and obvious.

- Egypt has M1A1, Morocco and Libia has T-72 and easy can achieve the best French tanks if they want. Algeria also a border state with NATO and could care about possibility of invasion from the North. It's not only the question of neigbors, now it can be marine descent operation, so it's useless to claim Algeria doesnt need good tanks because its neigbours have no.


India could easily ask France or even Germany, Leo-2 logistic chain is more closely fit (than) future Arjun regiments than T-90s. I could not see how Russia was only Indian possibility for tank accusition.


- You are literraly right: these countries didnt want accept other tanks, or use them or willing to spent money on them
They bought many other equipment from different countries but not the tanks. BTW, at least according to the Russian claims, T-90S armor is on the pair with most western tank modification. I dont see cause to not believe them while any castomer can check it with tests. I'm sure, the test of armor were made in India too, and it was satisfying, but as you know, armor issue is between the most secretive in the field.

Oh boy now we are actually comparing T 90s with Leo 2s.
The Algerians and libyans really have no major enemy. If they had to face a Merkava - u bet they would have gone for the Leo or Leclerc

Maybe the Egyptians realised after ater seeing their tankers turned into mush in T62s etc. that M1s were the real deal.

Right now the only thing the Israelis are a tad bit worried are the Egyptian M1s and F 16s

All one has to do is go on the Golan and see the insides of T series tanks. Pity the poor syrians. This was what a Centurion did to them. There was no body left to remove. They just washed out the remains.

Next time I am there I will take a picture of the inside.

Do not want to even imagine what the Merkava did in later conflicts?

In the case of Arjun army has been behaving more in a 'group-think' attitude. Ajai Shukla is right pointing out that people actually working with the Arjun have confidence in the tank whereas the top brass doesn't, which i too have figured through my numerous conversations. Add to that the institutionalized corruption vis buying foreign arms you have the current situation.

IMO most of the smaller problems vis arjun might it be with transmission, HSU, MRS are all engineering defects which can be rectified and so can the strategic mobility. If forced to buy the Arjuns I forsee IA will order small quantity coupled with Avadi's abysmal performance, Arjun will die a slow death in some holding formation of the IA 10 years down the line. My two cents, we should rather wait for the first 124 to be delivered to see if the IA places additional orders.

We feel the same way about you my friend!

Yes.. That is a fair point . I agree that Paki option was narrowed down to numbers when the M1A2s weren't going to come through and they went for a high/low mix of T-80 and Al-Khalid (modernized legacy T-55?) , and their assumption of India not fielding Arjun in numbers played out .

And yes, you are right that the newer tanks you mentioned.. SoKo K2, Japan's Type 90, and the LeClerc are 3 man , auto loader and 6 wheel bogie machines , which tend to be lighter than the 7 bogie, 4 crew machines. The Japanese type 90 infact looks uncannily like Arjun (both of which look like Leo2).. not surprising given that the Germans were consultants to both !.

The answer to that, is 1) K2 and the Turkish next gen tanks are use a massive number of LeClerc systems and hence the LeClerc like layout and hydropenumatic stuff , autoloader etc. 2) So Ko and Japanese tanks have to be smaller, because Japan and So Ko's terrain are hilly and not really meant for desert and plains warfare.

India's tank terrain is the classic armor battlefield of vast open deserts and rolling flat plains. These kind of terrain are tailor made for large heavy armour, with standoff engagement capability and need low ground pressure to navigate sand and marshy areas in wetlands. That way, probably a 7 bogie design is needed. The 4 man crew was selected for the Arjun because back then, there was no good autoloader that was implemented (other than the T-72) and a human could outperform an autoloader in loading large single piece ammo..

Notice however that crew protection wise, the newer 3 man/auto loader tanks you mentioned are alteast a generation ahead of the T series. They have bustle mounted auto loader and ammo storage and armord ammo storage in separate blow out compartments .. T-90 continues with the "legacy" ammo storage method.

If the Army wants a 3 person tank, with a smaller weight and foot print, it will not be too difficult to do that. India can source the Merkava IV autoloader or the LeClerc Autoloader and put in either the engine it is developing (which will be successful given the huge experience Indian pvt sector has with diesel engines.. and they are tapping ig) the common rail version of the MTU engine if need be as a back up option ..(both these engines are lot more compact).. Once those are done , a decision can be made to either reduce the weight of the tank with those savings or to up armour the Arjun, keeping the weight as the same.

However, all that is for the follow up version of the Arjun, MK II.. First, they need to get the Mk1 into service in numbers after debugging it fully, establish the reliability and engineering performance of the components and then use those components or follow ons for future tanks. That is the ONLY way tank development can progress.

Importing dead end T-XX series is not the answer to either future needs or strategic imperatives for India.. Our armour needs to be dominant over the Pakis in technology, capability AND numbers. The only way to do it is to have a cutting edge tank that is locally designed and produced. Something that the Pakis and Chinis should have great difficulty matching.

There is another point,that for most of our inventory of tanks (TT-72 series),the crew is only three thanks to the autoloader.Therefore,progressing from the T-72 to the T-90 is an easier task for the IA.both mentally and physically.The larger,heavier Arjun with an extra crew member perhaps (and here we have no neutral independent confirmation) lacks favour with our tank crews.

why should an extra crew be an issue.. unless the crew space is cramped or compromises the mission itself.
4 vs 3 is just a numbers game and one can come up with points in support of both pov's ,yes I would agree a four crew tank without an autoloader will require a different operational procedure to operate but this change is outweighed by the advantages which Arjun loffers over the T-series.

Look at the IAF they have quickly transitioned to a two crew MKI and I am sure it wont be difficult to train the fresh batch of tankers to operate the Arjun .

Look Sir; you go about claiming that Arjun has been "tested adequately" when all reports backed by all agenices sincluding DRDO and CVDRE show that tests are pending.

From a quarter such as yours the above statement is the greatest compliment possible -- thank you.

We should also consider the general opinion of officers about the Arjun. After all we are disucssing the army's attitude vis-avis local products.

As far as I know, most army guys, junior or senior, are quite ignorant about projects unless they have used the systems. And then they have poor opinions of most of those because of some bias and their first poor impressions due to teething problems, plus the delays and failures.

On Arjun, the vast majority is ignorant. Their opinions vary from the absurd to the disillusioned. To change such a tide of angst is impossible. So, unfortunately, we won't be hearing well of the arjun from army side anytime soon. Not unless gen HM Singh is ruling the roost.

With this background, it is certainly feasible to see where the opinions in the report are coming from. The trials would have been reported in data form to higher officers. And the higher you go, the harder it is for them to understand the engineering aspects, esp of a tank. They would have read the summary and decided that the tank has failed miserably. There is a disconnect between ground realities and institutional directives.

Arjun can only be forced down the throat of the army under these circumstances. If it is, it will probably change the opinions of those who do not want it. If it ever sees action, it will certainly change its image completely. But, the question is: If you force them to accept arjun, will the army to deploy it in the primary MBT role? I don't think so. For that, you have to stop T90 acquisition completely and adopt Arjun exclusively for the MBT role. This is not gonna happen. Army will give minimum orders to keep the Arjun line turning over. But, they won't induct it into attack cores or major formations.

Vina; I absolutely completely agree with your post -- I would however like to add a few points -- what you say above especially in the highlighted part is exactly what the Army has been saying through the Chief as well when projecting the future needs for a tank. This has some how been taken as anti Arjun position.

Secondly -- WE do care about a light tank as well as heavies -- in all probablity the next place where India will fight a battle will not be rolling planes but hills of our own.

I agree with most of the post but the above bit --

- first and foremost it is simply not feasible to stop T 90 aquisition. Its done -- too late. Even otherwise it would not be the prudent thing to do given that end of the day (and these are outside scope of IA)
1) Arjun still has teething troubles
2) Avadi is still not there yet.

Secondly Army just does not have the numbers of Tanks it needs -- so if it gets Arjun (in numbers) it will have no option but to use it -- what can be done to squeeze the army towards this end is to move out all the T 55s and Vijayanta's out and put T 72s in reserve.
You bet IA will use the Arjun.

5AR & 6AR plus an element of 7cav i guess

Due to their exceptional training and demonstration of fire on move and static fire capabilities during the exercises after induction 6AR got the honors of being called LANCERS so today 6AR is called 6Lancers.....

when ppl call 1st round hit probability.... i know couple of gunners of T-90 who haven't missed a single round / missile in last 5 yrs....

Use your brains. India is not light tank country. Our terrain is deserts , flat plains and marshlands along the border with Pakistan and then the tallest and most impenetrable mountain ranges in the Kashmir border and along the border with China in the North east and Ladakh.

If you want to operate tanks in Kargil like scenarios or along arunachal border, perish that thought. There was other machines called the Aeroplanes and helicopters that effectively operate in such terrains. Terrain such as Kashmir and Arunachal kill one of the key strategic aspects of tanks.. something called mobility ..Tanks cant hop mountains. Planes and helicopters can. Tanks are sitting ducks in such terrain, irrespective of whether it is light or heavy . Our mountain terrain where we will face battle is not some Golan or So-Ko /Japan kind of "mountainous".. but Himalayas. Heck, even an Ooty /Kodaikkanal kind of place will be unemployable for tanks.

Indian tank battles will be fought along the deserts of Rajastthan, Sind and Gujarat and the plains of Punjab and if doable in the Rann of Kutch and of course in overseas deployments if such things happen in a very changed strategic situation as part of some alliance.

Our operations philiosophy is also closer to the west. Exchange ratios like the Soviet had of around 3 to 4 soviet tanks in exchange for 1 western tank are un-acceptable. Our wars, will be short , intense and sharp , the aim will be to destroy the maximum amount of enemy material and war fighting ability and inflict huge damage , scenarios in which firepower dominance will be supreme.

Why dont you read a little before making such comments Vina? I am sure it will not hurt. You can read about use of tanks in J&K both by India and by Pakistan; possible use of tanks in Ladahk region; IA airlifting T 72s. BMPs in these areas? Possible use in Arunachal (read Vivek's scenarios perhaps -- Battle for Tawang) Possible use along Burma border hill tracts (Thanks Vivek) Use of tank in BeeDee areas?

You can read about Hannibal crossing the alps with elephants and non conventional armor use. You can think what would we need to do if we ever took the war into the Tibetan plateau.

You could also use a dose of the same advise that you give IA in plenty which is to "use your imagination"

Perhaps if you cared to expand your horizon; you would actually be a civil and well behaved since we all know "Vidya dadati vinyam"?

alright just to aid the discussion on the T-series here's an interesting read (probably posted before)

https://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/a ... well98.pdf

the link seems to be blocked?????.....

Works fine for me!

How-ever, the T-72 garnered its own share of problems in the Gulf War, as the less ca-pable T-72M and T-72M1 tanks were easily destroyed by first-line US and UK tanks.4 This is one of the main reasons that the last model, the T-72BM, was hastily redesignated the T-90 to try and shake off the stigma from Iraq.

The problem with reading is that there is something called "misre ading" as well. J&K has vast terrain differences.. Plains / foothills of Jammu adjoining Punjab and of course the mountains of Kashmir and high plateau Ladkhak.

Ladkah is a high plateau. But how do you get tanks with sufficient armour to withstand mobile anti tank weapons up there ? . So a light tank wont cut it. If you finesse it and say T-72, well, if you deploy a 40 ton tank, you can deploy the Arjun as well .. Frankly, this entire T-72 class upwards tank in Ladhak is a no starter..

As for Arunachal, tanks there are ridiculous... My grand father served in Tezpur areas in 1962 (also in Akhnoor in 1965)... I never heard him or his pals saying anything about tanks in NEFA (as that place was called back then). All of them said that the chinese manned the ridges and were shooting down, while the Injuns were fighting uphill in difficult terrain! . Fat lot of good tanks chugging up hill in low gears done you any good. A couple of Chinis hiding in the ridge and using hand held anti tank weapons would have made mincemeat of them.

Go back to WWII and see what the Germans did in Yugoslavia in the mountains. I don't read massed tanks there. Read up the experience of the Russians in Afghanistan in the Panjshir valley with massed armor.. (there are hundreds of rusting hulks still lying there) , also , Russian armored assaults on Chechya and Grozny as well (where they were simply massacred).



See what I meant about misreading. There is a difference between riding through the mountains on roads uncontested vs FIGHTING in the mountains. Hannibal after all just CROSSED the alps , not fight in it. As for taking tanks into the Tibetan plateau, sure. (if someone even attempted such a fool hardy venture, given the ease of Chini supply lines vs ours). how do you get the tanks there , without securing the mountains to cross? Are you gonna use tanks to do that ?

Anyways.. I thought you said that you needed light tanks to FIGHT in the mountains.. not ride through them!


Yeah.. Whatever.

I agree with Vina about the improbability of using tanks in the Tibetan plateau. But given conventional doctrine. I wouldnt be surprised if the Chinese engineering crews were able to build roads thought the forests of Arunachal or through the Ladakh region in record time.

The US Army engineering core built their own roads in the desert for their supply and logistics people as their front lines advanced. I would imagine the chinese would do the same given the great connectivity on their side of the border.

Also another factor that needs to be taken is the unlikely hood of there being glorious tanks battles ala WW2. Today's battle field would most probably littered with everything from Light attack helicopters to infantry, so tanks arent the safe havens they used to be. A couple of Attack helicopters and a battlefield commander would see his armored groups vanish very quickly.