Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 30 Jan 2009 19:48

Philip wrote:I think that the next Russian turretless FBMT,the one with the 155mm gun,with special armoured crew compartments sepaarte from the magazine ,will provide the crew with a smaller insurance premium to pay.A smaller three crew tank with an auto-loader to me is far more suitable than a larger costlier tank with a 4-man crew.What the DRDO should've done instead of wasting their money on Tank-Ex (which nobody wants and if the IA does not want any,which foreign customer will buy it?) ,was to have swiftly engineered an Arjun-2 with various improvements as has been done on the Leopard variants.There was ample time to have done so.

Philip Sir...you have a thing for all things ruskie.I see a residual ruskie influence.The FMBT is another half baked idea by the Jarnails.The next thing that we are going to hear is a FSPH - Something with a 200 mm gun and 200 km range.Will beat the hell out of all things Swedish,African or Israeli.The buggers need to fund their retirement bungalows and dream vacations.DRDO isn't going to pay for their childrens' education and therefore the Arjun is dead.

The smaller insurance premium is part of a larger Russian plan to insure their Industrial growth.The Russian lobby is extremely well entrenched in the IA and IAF...will take a while to shake off.

BTW the credentials of the COAS are suspect.A Lt.Gen who was leading an investigation into irregularities in the IA's Northern Command was quickly transferred.The COAS was commanding the NC earlier.Makes me very queasy.Wolves in Uniform.

http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/20 ... commander/

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 30 Jan 2009 21:53

It looks like the locally made T-90 variants are also going to have a version of the Kanchan Armor. Also, I read some months back that the Russkies didnt do the ToT for the main gun, which also had to be developed locally. If we go ahead and reverse engineer the Kaktus ERA, we can emulate the Chinese and call the T-90 indigenous China does for the A-100( Smerch copy) T-59 etc.

Regarding the M-46 upgrades, are we using the Soltam one or the OFB one or both ?

Rather than go for what the glossiest brochures say, it may make sense to produce a large number of OFB M-46 155mm upgrades to fulfill towed artillery requirements. What is the difficulty in doing this ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jan 2009 21:56

soltam one.

ramdas · Post by **ramdas** » 30 Jan 2009 23:03

Is the OFB upgrade notup to the mark ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jan 2009 23:15

there was a competition long back, there was even a third competitor at some stage IIRC.
soltam was chosen in the end, they probably had some prior experience in such things.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 31 Jan 2009 00:47

The buggers need to fund their retirement bungalows and dream vacations.DRDO isn't going to pay for their childrens' education and therefore the Arjun is dead

@Anshul: Criticize as much you may, but please do keep the language civil.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 31 Jan 2009 01:42

The T-90 acquisition was a kneejerk urgent acquisition because of Pak's savvy in acquiring hundreds of T-80s from the Ukraine after the collapse of the Sov.Union.Had Arjun been available at that time perhaps the need for an imported tank would not have arisen.

Well, the T-90 today is 100% foreign where the Arjun - lets assume is 50% foreign. By importing *more* T-90 tanks we are not helping ourselves. We are rather increasing our dependence on Russia. The Arjun is a superior platform to the T-90. The Arjuns flaws have been ironed out.

In terms of local content, R&D potential etc - Arjun beats T-90 hands down.
In terms of upgrade potential - Arjun beats T-90
In terms of crew protection and survivablity - Arjun beats T-90.

So why buy more T-90? Because the army wants the tank of the future? In that case why are they buying more T-90 in the first place? The FMBT story is a farce.

Tell you what. The continuing acquisition of T-90 and the sabotage of Arjun is a disgrace. A scam. A tell tale sign of corruption in the higher echelons of MoD and the Army itself.

Somebody should order a thorough probe.,

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 31 Jan 2009 02:10

Philip wrote:Well Vina,if the DRDO takes three decades to build a turkey,that too only partly indigenous with a foreign engine,don't blame the Army.

Philip - the Arjun was available since 1995. It had problems but still offered a solution superior to the T-72s.

Had Arjun been available at that time perhaps the need for an imported tank would not have arisen.

Check the facts - Arjun was available then and if the Army had shown vision, it could have been a deadlier weapon by now and all the problems with logistics owuld have been sorted out. The Army cannot escape blame.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 31 Jan 2009 17:53

Why do western MBTs and Arjun do not have an auto-loader compared to Chinese and Russian designs ??

What are advantages of rifled tank gun over smooth-bore. Arjun seems to be the only modern MBT with a rifled gun as even the Challenger is being upgraded to accommodate the 120mm Rheinmetall L55 smooth-bore gun used on the Leopard-2 ??

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jan 2009 18:15

There is a fact that Arjun is reportedly 25% more expensive than the T-90,probably why the IA thought that they could get more tanks for the buck by buying more T-90s.Coming back to the T-90 purchase,if the IA had bought earlier say the Leopard instead of the T-72 and we had a history of German tank imports,the army would still be buying/preferring later versions instead of Arjun,which they have consistently said had faults and didn't arrive on time.There is no tilt towards Russian tanks,it's just that we have had a history of buying Russian tanks from the T-54/55,T-72 onwards and when we had to match Pak's acquisition of the T-80,we chose the available T-90,the next development of the T-72 instead of the still imperfect Arjun.Several Army chiefs have gone on record about Arjun and if one wants to argue the point against them go ahead.The IA is the end user and finally calls the tune.

The two points that I've wanted clarification for remain,the cost of Arjun against the T-90 and why the DRDO is reportedly pursuing the Tank-Ex when no one wants it? Instead as I've said ,a Mk-2 Arjun could've been developed if the DRDO was confident enough and had the funds.One does not deny though that several technological achievements have been made with the programme.Armour,suspension,etc.,which as mentioned is to be incorporated by the Russians into the FMBT.What we seem to lack in some of our major programmes is the ability to put together what we've developed seamlessly into a total weapon system.Where we've been behind in developing a particular key component,it has held up the entire project as the Kaveri engine did for the LCA.It is in these areas where we are behind the major manufacturers in technology that we must develop JVs for the same,so that projects arrive on time.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 Jan 2009 20:08

Phillip,

The case of Arjun is not so simple as " a turkey delivered late". The fact is that in the '80s the IA was apprehensive of a possible acquisition of the M1A1 by the Pakis. The Arjun GSQRs therefore talked of a "heavy", cmparable tank..By the 90s, the threat had passed and the IA said "lets stick to what we know best", ie, the T-series of tanks..Now any one who has worked on slightly complex project management would know that it is not possible to change the dimensions of the project on a continuous basis..Obviously no one in the IA could tell DRDO "sorry mate, now we need a light T series philosophy tank"...The problem is of doctrine and philosophy now, not of the effectiveness of the platform.

You are right, IA as te user should call the shots. But when a nation is trying to set up a military industrial complex, sometimes the services need to "invest" in critical domestic tech..Very often, it is the political leadership that does that..A very comparable example is that of the Merkava..Unfortunately, the Indian political leadership is quite bereft of people with grand visions!

Ramesh · Post by **Ramesh** » 31 Jan 2009 21:53

ramdas wrote:
Rather than go for what the glossiest brochures say, it may make sense to produce a large number of OFB M-46 155mm upgrades to fulfill towed artillery requirements. What is the difficulty in doing this ?

1. The number of M-46 available is less.

2. There are certain other issues like:
(a) Rate of fire- Low. We need max rate of fire posssible.
(b) Time required to deploy.
(c) some degree is self propulsion is essential these days with the adversary fielding weapon locating radars.
(d) M-46 cannot fire in high angle which is essential in the mountains.

The up gunning of M-46 is a stop gap arrangement till we develop the political will to purchase new gun systems or better still private companies step in to produce them. Even the bofors company started to develop artillery gun in the 1970s because of a swedish govt initiative to develop the replacement for its french gun and the US offered gun had higher running cost. Now, it is a world leader in the field.

anand rathore · Post by **anand rathore** » 31 Jan 2009 22:00

can anyone give the list of possible contenders in 155 mm competition and qualities detail of them?

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 31 Jan 2009 22:09

anand rathore wrote:can anyone give the list of possible contenders in 155 mm competition and qualities detail of them?

Why is that every trainee that joins, wants other members to work for them. Anand, do your own research, enlighten us all.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Jan 2009 22:10

anand, I second baljeet.
please search up a bit in the older pages of this thread.
googling is highly encouraged, spoon feeding is not !

regards.

added later : and kindly do not highlight all your post with boldface/big fonts etc.

anand rathore · Post by **anand rathore** » 31 Jan 2009 22:17

Rahul M wrote:anand, I second baljeet.
please search up a bit in the older pages of this thread.
googling is highly encouraged, spoon feeding is not !
regards.

added later : and kindly do not highlight all your post with boldface/big fonts etc.

thanks but please help once,let me have some legal text material to be started

Ramesh · Post by **Ramesh** » 31 Jan 2009 22:38

A krish wrote:

What are advantages of rifled tank gun over smooth-bore. Arjun seems to be the only modern MBT with a rifled gun as even the Challenger is being upgraded to accommodate the 120mm Rheinmetall L55 smooth-bore gun used on the Leopard-2 ??

Firing a HESH shell from a rifiled bore is better because of the stability provided to the shell in flight due to the spin imparted. However, in case of a HEAT shell the spin imparted due to rifling of bore reduces the effectiveness of the shell. So, it basically depends on wether you intend to use HESH or HEAT in your engagement.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Jan 2009 22:43

Ashu, are HEAT shells even in use nowadays from tanks ?

APFSDS seems to be the all favourite these days.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 31 Jan 2009 23:32

APFSDS seems to be the all favourite these days.

But, smooth-bore is preferred for firing APFSDS rounds as it converts most of the energy into linear kinetic energy and that enhances it's performance.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Jan 2009 23:48

sure, there is 'some' degradation of performance in firing APFSDS from rifled bore guns, but not as much as to create a huge disadvantage. there is also some gain in accuracy I believe.(added later : don't mean for APFSDS)
so it's not a complete loss.

that's not the case with HEAT rounds which are pretty much unusable from rifled guns.

Ramesh · Post by **Ramesh** » 01 Feb 2009 00:03

Some targets like bunkers are better engaged by HESH and spin due to rifling increases its effectiveness.
In case of anti tank shots, the length of the projectile that can be stabilised as a ratio of its dia is limited. If a longer round is required for eg as in APFSDS, smooth bore and fin stablisation is the way. Smooth bore also gives a flatter trajectory, whereas a spinning projectile rises up after a certain distance, so it may not engage low silhoutte targets at longer ranges.

These are part of trade offs which have to be considered at the design stage.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 01 Feb 2009 04:38

Does anyone know how many Ferret armoured cars were purchased by India ?

I know India made some 90 Armoured Scout cars on the Nissan Chassis but work in this direction has halted almost completely - it seems that armouring standard Gypsys etc is the new trend.

One other thing - India has a lot of M-46 pieces around. There were some very substantial purchases of M-46 guns in the early to mid-1990s with some suggesting that up to 1300 were procured.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 01 Feb 2009 04:51

Wiki lists no more than 550 pieces.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 01 Feb 2009 05:04

This time Wiki is dead wrong. 550 were inducted in the initial procurement period. When no more 155s were coming the IA moved to standardize on the 130 in the interim and substantial second hand purchases were made. The whole process was documented in JDW in the early 1990s and the Asian Age.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 01 Feb 2009 06:11

Sanjay - yessir you're right!

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010928/main5.htm

The upgradation of the 1800-odd 130 mm guns to the level of Bofors guns will enhance manifold the firepower of the Artillery, which along with the Infantry Regiment was instrumental in evicting Pakistani regular soldiers who had occupied high-altitude mountain peaks and ridgelines in Kargil.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Feb 2009 06:17

Do they have the ammo for such a large upgrade? Also why does one need same standard for mtns and the palins? The aux power is needed to negotiate hairpin bends in the mtns. The Bofors type can be used for mtns exclusively and the upgraded M-46s elsewhere.

Ramesh · Post by **Ramesh** » 01 Feb 2009 09:14

There are certain advantages of 155mm over 130mm M-46 like the tnt content and the variety of ammunition that can be fired. Aux power is required to shoot and scoot esp with weapon locating radars appearing in the neigbourhood.
Rate of fire with upgraded M-46 is less and there are certain other issues which i can not say here.

nitinr · Post by **nitinr** » 01 Feb 2009 12:56

http://**************/2009/0 ... m-mbt.html

This link talks about 248 Arjuns. Is it a spin or new order for 124 more Arjun's have been given. Anybody in the knowhow of this.

Presently, as things stand, Indian Army HQ is adhering to a modified MBT force structure, whose original version, as proposed in 2006, had called for a fleet of 3,780 MBTs, comprising 1,302 T-90s 2,356 T-72s and 124 Arjun Mk1s. The modified structure now calls for 2,473 higher-end MBTs, including 1,409 T-90s, 248 Arjuns, and 692 T-72M1 Combat Improved Ajeyas. The Army’s gameplan is to have 21 regiments of T-90s and 34 regiments of upgraded T-72M1s and six regiments of Arjuns by 2020

sum · Post by **sum** » 01 Feb 2009 13:43

Anabhaya wrote:Sanjay - yessir you're right!

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010928/main5.htm
The upgradation of the 1800-odd 130 mm guns to the level of Bofors guns will enhance manifold the firepower of the Artillery, which along with the Infantry Regiment was instrumental in evicting Pakistani regular soldiers who had occupied high-altitude mountain peaks and ridgelines in Kargil.

Whoa, so we will have approx 2200 155 mm guns(1800 + 400 odd bofors) with us which is not a ad number ( issues with upgraded 130mms notwithstanding). Ceratinly, a far cry from the "400 155-mm guns left with the IA"

of the DDM...

If only we had even completed our bofors contract of 1100 locally produced versions along with the 400 off-the-shelf guns in 1986, we would be n a very strong position even today despite no new guns coming through.

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 01 Feb 2009 14:02

nitinrastogi wrote:http://**************/2009/0 ... m-mbt.html

This link talks about 248 Arjuns. Is it a spin or new order for 124 more Arjun's have been given. Anybody in the knowhow of this.
Presently, as things stand, Indian Army HQ is adhering to a modified MBT force structure, whose original version, as proposed in 2006, had called for a fleet of 3,780 MBTs, comprising 1,302 T-90s 2,356 T-72s and 124 Arjun Mk1s. The modified structure now calls for 2,473 higher-end MBTs, including 1,409 T-90s, 248 Arjuns, and 692 T-72M1 Combat Improved Ajeyas. The Army’s gameplan is to have 21 regiments of T-90s and 34 regiments of upgraded T-72M1s and six regiments of Arjuns by 2020

problem relating arjun tank was it missing its target i.e turret problem
is it an option that arjun tank be fitted with artillery guns turret instead of it regular guns,?its armor is good
that may give life to this project as well

btw how much is the 155mm artillery req ,is it upto 4000?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Feb 2009 14:14

sum, not all m-46's have been converted to 155mm. that number is still very low AFAIK.
and not all will be converted.
so, DDM is correct in this instant.
also isn't IA's holding of m-46 is ~ 1300 and not 1800 ?

nitinrastogi, plz that report is from plagarist and professional liar prasun sengupta who likes to mix every bit of fact with 5 portions of falsehood.
kindly don't bring his garbage on BRF.

namit k, you know absolutely nothing about the arjun project, so kindly read up or shut up unless you want to be out of BR.

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 01 Feb 2009 14:21

Rahul M wrote:sum, not all m-46's have been converted to 155mm. that number is still very low AFAIK.
and not all will be converted.
so, DDM is correct in this instant.
also isn't IA's holding of m-46 is ~ 1300 and not 1800 ?

nitinrastogi, plz that report is from plagarist and professional liar prasun sengupta who likes to mix every bit of fact with 5 portions of falsehood.
kindly don't bring his garbage on BRF.

namit k, you know absolutely nothing about the arjun project, so kindly read up or shut up unless you want to be out of BR.

yes i know less about arjun,but i dont hate something
i was reffering to an earlier news in which denel(SA) offered to fit its guns in arjun,

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Feb 2009 14:52

ok, let me get this straight, what do you mean by

problem relating arjun tank was it missing its target i.e turret problem
is it an option that arjun tank be fitted with artillery guns turret instead of it regular guns,?its armor is good

this makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever !!!

>>arjun's gun's accuracy is phenomenal and much better than T-90.
>>an accuracy problem is NOT a turret problem
>>fitting arjun chasis with a artillery gun would make it a SP gun, not a tank. unless you want to replace tanks with SP artillery(in which case I would strongly recommend you for the BR Hall of Infamy), I'm not sure how that solves IA's tank problem.

mating arjun chasis with a 155mm gun has been already tried and was extremely succesful until it was canceled at the behest of the Honourable Renuka Chowdhury, UPA Minister for woman and child affairs, India's premier military expert !

read about the project here :
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... rupak.html

and if you are interested in knowing about such projects, may I request you to browse through BR mainsites many articles and resources ??
like this one for instance : http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... &Itemid=26
it would help maintain peace, if nothing else.
thanks.

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 01 Feb 2009 16:56

Rahul M wrote:ok, let me get this straight, what do you mean by
problem relating arjun tank was it missing its target i.e turret problem
is it an option that arjun tank be fitted with artillery guns turret instead of it regular guns,?its armor is good
this makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever !!!
>>arjun's gun's accuracy is phenomenal and much better than T-90.
>>an accuracy problem is NOT a turret problem
>>fitting arjun chasis with a artillery gun would make it a SP gun, not a tank. unless you want to replace tanks with SP artillery(in which case I would strongly recommend you for the BR Hall of Infamy), I'm not sure how that solves IA's tank problem.

mating arjun chasis with a 155mm gun has been already tried and was extremely succesful until it was canceled at the behest of the Honourable Renuka Chowdhury, UPA Minister for woman and child affairs, India's premier military expert !

read about the project here :
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... rupak.html

and if you are interested in knowing about such projects, may I request you to browse through BR mainsites many articles and resources ??
like this one for instance : http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... &Itemid=26
it would help maintain peace, if nothing else.
thanks.

i had been to those pages earlier ,
rahul m,i accept that what i posted had some fault but let me post something relevant
and plz for the sake of neutrality and unbiased discussion plz dont edit/delete my post

from domain b

Indian Army to freeze Arjun MBT orders at 124

New Delhi: Bringing a long festering internal debate back into public focus, the Indian Army has now said that it would not increase the size of its orders for the Arjun Main Battle Tank. It has placed an order for 124 of these indigenously developed tanks with the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. According to the Army's director general (mechanised forces) Lt Gen Dalip Bharadwaj, "Army will no more place orders for Arjun beyond 124 that was already contracted. That is because Army is now looking 20 years ahead and wants a futuristic MBT."

Lt Gen Bharadwaj was speaking on the sidelines of an interactive session with defence private industry at CII here. According to Gen Bharadwaj, "Arjun is a contemporary tank and may be used in the next decade or so, but not for a technologically advanced, next generation warfare some two decades hence."
http://www.domainb.com/defence/land/ind ... _army.html
from Indianexpress:
Consider these: At a mammoth 58.5 tons, Arjun is a full weight class over the Russian T-90 and nowhere near as agile.

• In May, the Defence Ministry publicized the Army chief’s inauguration of a product called Bogie Flat Arjun Tank (BFAT) built by Bharat Earth Movers in Bangalore. What it didn’t say: these were specially built rail wagons wide enough and reinforced to carry the massive 3.85-m-wide Arjun. For, the tank will crack the existing freight wagons.

• According to the Army’s latest trials, the decade-old problem of overheating persists. Two of the tank’s main subsystems, the fire control system (FCS) and integrated gunner’s main sight, which includes a thermal imager and laser range-finder, are rendered erratic and useless by the Arjun’s abnormally high peak internal temperature, which moves well beyond 55 degrees Celsius. This is in testimony to the Parliamentary committee.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arjun ... ked/16589/

from Bharat Rakshak itself

The Arjun has been plagued with technical problems with regards to the fire control system, which has reached its developmental limit. Engine overheating problems in desert conditions as well as poor operational mobility, due to its excessive weight and width are also some of the other pressing concerns. Transporting the Arjun has also proved to be a problem, as the 58-tonne tank protrudes 6cm beyond the permissible 3cm limit on either side of tank transporters used for India's current MBT, the T-72M1. The MoD has allocated $3.9 million to build three transporter types to move Arjun. The improved cooling pack, has limited ammunition-carrying capacity and obstructs gun depression towards the rear. The commander's periscope sight, laser warning sight and muzzle reference sight also need modification. A recent CAG (Comptroller & Auditor General) report stated that Arjun's imported content had risen from 27% to nearly 60% in the 15 pre-production series (PPS), substantially enhancing costs.

its limited mobility was amongst man issue thats why i wrote that it should be coverted to artillery

you're right rahulm and i was wrong that it is not turret problem and neither targeting , , but none of us is intelligent enough to know what extra problems with Arjun are and none of us could design a successful tank for Indian army as well ,but finding fault in any thing is easier isn't it??

even more easier in an open discussion

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 01 Feb 2009 17:09

RahulM, the army may have actually purchased over 1300 more M-46 after the initial 550 - 1800 may not be so far off including reserve stocks. Estimate 60+ 130mm M-46 regiments exist at present plus 20 or so upgunned to 155 (about 180-200). There is an option to upgrade an additional 20 regiments under the Soltam deal but I don't know if it has been done.

What I would like to know is how many have been upgunned and if the Soltam option has been taken.

The option to covert the entire stock is there but take into account some of those guns have seen a lot of use and overhauling their mechanisms plus upgunning them may be a bit expensive. Ramana, the ammunition production capacity is there to meet demands but whether it is utilized is another story. Also stocks and production capacity of 130mm ammunition of all types are vast in India.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Feb 2009 18:32

namit, you are late by about 5 years in your information and of course if you take DDM to be the ultimate guide please stick with it.
don't bother us with that drivel.

what exactly is the point of your posts, may I know ?

sanjay, you are right there exists some confusion about the m-46 numbers and personally I'm not sure of actual holdings.
can't find the links now but the numbers upgraded until now is around 100 IIRC with options for another 500 or so.

ah, here is one link

In 2000 Soltam Systems Ltd. won a $47.5 million contract to upgrade 180 artillery pieces of the Indian Army following a tender process which lasted six years and involved competition from French, Swedish, Czech an South African companies.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... l/m46s.htm

AFAIK, the options for further upgrades haven't been exercised yet.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 01 Feb 2009 18:44

RahulM, I think you are correct about the option not being exercised. However, we don't know for sure. I mean who knew that we switched over from the AM-50s to a new Soltam 120mm mortar until some article or the other appeared after an OFB design was rejected.

The stocks of M-46 are very large at one time over 200 per year were being obtained to convert 105mm IFG regiments.

Open question- how many BRDM-2 (not the striker version) and Ferrets did India obtain ?

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 01 Feb 2009 21:04

mating arjun chasis with a 155mm gun has been already tried and was extremely succesful until it was canceled at the behest of the Honourable Renuka Chowdhury, UPA Minister for woman and child affairs, India's premier military expert !

The most recent conversion of Merkava- Mk 4 to Sholef by the same Soltam Systems proved to be unsuccessful. But it never entered production as it was outright rejected by IDF. Wonder why ??

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Feb 2009 21:42

@Sanjay:

1. My understanding of the ORBAT for a arty bde of Infantry Division is 3*Field Regiments+1*Medium (130mm/155mm)+1 Light Regiment (120mm mortars). While for Armored Division it is 4*Medium Regiments. The RAPIDs also may also have a Medium Regiment heavy Arty Bde.
2. You mentioned that number of M-46s were imported and Field Regiments converted to the same. Did these Regiments change from Field Regiment to Medium Regiment(nomencalture)?
3.Also, has the ORBAT of the Infantry Divisions also being altered to it being Medium heavy?

Thanx.