Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

abhishekgoel · Post by **abhishekgoel** » 13 Aug 2012 12:53

ravar wrote:This is the email id of RM, Shri. A.K. Antony- ak.antony@sansad.nic.in

Sounds naive but if we can get adequate numbers to respond to, it might help. Also, exposure using contacts in media.

How much can RTI be of help since this is a defence matter?

I also feel if majority smells a rat then a strategy should be followed to highlight the issue.

1) Multiple mails to Mr. Antony copied to CAG and CVC. This step will
2) A formal unbiased report should be prepared on this issue here on bharat rakshak (all the references, citations and scientific analysis in a coherent logical and easily understandable manner). and that must be sent to Mr. Antony copied to CAG and CVC, and must be published on various blogs and news sites.

Step 1 can start now.
Step 2 there should be a team (the editors) which can decide on a template i.e. Various headings as per the story boarding.

If the report has quality then it can force a lot of persons to take attention and put this matter out to the general public.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 13 Aug 2012 12:55

Gurneesh wrote:
Khalsa wrote:Whats being advertised here ?
A cheap upgrade ?????

http://vmestoslov.info/wp-content/uploa ... /oplot.jpg
That is T-84 Opolt from Ukraine and is based on T80UD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-84

Thank you. It so looked like a cute T-55 upgrade.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 13 Aug 2012 13:53

Arjun was always a proper tank, it has weaknesses but they have been addressed with the MK-2. We can have plenty of versions, standard items on board should be active protection systems. Arjun BLT, Arjun fighting verions with the mine plough, tracked howitzer etc. There is no reason why Arjun shouldn't be ordered asap. I think an immediate order of a 1000 mk-2 verions and another 1000 of perhaps a NG mk-3 verions with weight reductions. This should be a mainstay of the IA for a long time.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 13 Aug 2012 17:42

^^^+1

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Aug 2012 19:16

IA is preparing to fight the last tank war better in Raj and Punj.
PLA is preparing to fight the next tank war better in Tibet.

in the cold exposed bare bones type of terrain, every ATGM will pick up the heat signatures of the big diesels , every tank will be visible on thermals even after they have passed by.....only well protected and well gunned beasts will survive a rumble in the jungle in such areas.

I dont know how confident IA feels about the T90 vs the ever moving versions of the ZTZ99 and its successors. Rus sure isnt spending a dime on developing the T90 further and is deploying resources on the next tank. we are busy becoming the biggest consumer of the F-4G Phantom in an era where everyone has moved to F-15.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2012 19:38

The interview posted earlier by DGMF lists out comprehensively the upgrade path for T-90 and T-72.

Just glossing over it the upgrade of T-90 seems to have 70 % of what T-90MS plus APS would be standard on all tanks of IA , seems like IA would be the largest operator of Israel Iron Fist APS and most deployed one too.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Aug 2012 19:46

srai wrote:From all the debate, it sounds like the IA needs 3 different MBT designs to satisfy its varied requirements for an FMBT:

Airliftable/Mountainous terrain -> Light tanks (< 50t) new type

Punjab Plains/Urban -> Medium tanks (50t) i.e. T72/T90

Deserts -> Heavy tanks (> 50t) i.e. Arjun Mk.1/2
And there is an amphibious requirement as well.

I sincerely wish you are in the GSQR group, with enough power to meet the opposing forces.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Aug 2012 19:52

Khalsa wrote:Black Eagle ?
http://s54.radikal.ru/i145/1101/38/cd3d39ae3ab3.jpg

Does anyone know what the story was with Black Eagle in the end ? Why did the Russians kill it or go so quiet on it at the very end.

Black Eagle was a rival design bureau tank Omsk it was eventually killed over T-90 and all design transferred to UAZ (Uralvagonzavod ) the maker of T-90 , reasons were Omsk were close to bankruptcy and they were reorganised , Black Eagle used GT engine not favoured by Army and T-90 offered greater logistics commonality with T-72B/BA

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 13 Aug 2012 20:47

So what would you risk? 3 less inches but with higher ground pressure over pressure activated mines and a danger of turret blowing off and cooking everyone inside or 3 more inches with lower ground pressure and better crew protection?

hmmm now will there be an answer for this

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Aug 2012 21:00

Philip wrote:When examining the past,one must in all honesty also remember that when Pak acquired the T-80UD ,there was no western bonhomie towards India in supplying arms,esp. from the US! What were our options also even if available? Hugely expensive western MBTs when compared with a far cheaper T-90,a follow-on design to the T-72 in service from a time-trusted supplier.One must never forget the sanctions that were imposed upon India by the US in the aftermath of P-2.Therefore,our "knee-jerk" reaction of T-90s to Pak's clever acquisition cannot be faulted.Unfortunately,Arjun has come of age too late.No disrespect to the tank,but why a Mk-2 if Mk-1 was perfect? Incremental improvements are the norm in any system .

Cheaper? Is it so? Saag.org and Broadsword, probably others too, demystified how T-90 was made to appear cheaper......

Unfortunately, huh?

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 13 Aug 2012 21:38

^^Typical weight required for activation of Anti-tank mines is in the range of 100 to 300kg, depends on the fuze used and is adjustable. The difference in pressure between 0.84 kg/cm^2 and 0.87 kg/cm^2 will not affect the probability of activation of the mine.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 13 Aug 2012 21:55

^^But a few extra inches of track width will right?

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Aug 2012 00:20

prabhug wrote:srai why do u think medium tanks do well in punjab plains???

It's unique to the Indian situation. Punjab and northern sectors are increasingly getting built up and have plenty of obstacles (both agricultural and military). Most of what IA owns and the civilian infrastructure, like bridges and town planning, are not geared for heavy tanks.

Judging by IA's resistance in acquiring more Arjun MBTs, we can assume IA is not willing to invest in a class of logistical support infrastructure which will allow heavier tanks to operate. It remains to be seen how long it takes to build a class of civilian infrastructure that will support heavier tanks.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 14 Aug 2012 00:23

Arun Menon wrote:^^But a few extra inches of track width will right?

Good point. The article below distinguishes between track-width mine and full-width mines. A full-width mine shows a very high probability of encounter for anything between Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Tanks.

MINE OPERATIONS

Antitank Mines

If the enemy is an armored force, tactical obstacles are predominantly AT mines. Track-width mines (M15s with the M603 fuse) have a lower probability of kill (M-Kill or K-Kill) than full-width mines (M21s and M15s with the M624 fuse). The ratio of full-width versus track-width mines in a minefield depends on the kill required. In general, a track-width minefield does not adequately affect the enemy's maneuver.

... and for a full-width minefield you'd need to plough the field anyway. So a few more inches of track-width shouldn't make much of a difference.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Aug 2012 00:52

pratikdas

thanks a bunch

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Aug 2012 02:39

There is a swedish researched blowing mines away at safe distance with EM pulse.. works even for IEDs. [20 meters]

I would say, source this tech.. and since it is new, very useful, and also reduces the weight for mine plowers.. btw, also useful for other infantray vehicle, and what an invention to protect our forces.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 14 Aug 2012 02:42

Austin wrote:
Khalsa wrote:Black Eagle ?
http://s54.radikal.ru/i145/1101/38/cd3d39ae3ab3.jpg

Does anyone know what the story was with Black Eagle in the end ? Why did the Russians kill it or go so quiet on it at the very end.
Black Eagle was a rival design bureau tank Omsk it was eventually killed over T-90 and all design transferred to UAZ (Uralvagonzavod ) the maker of T-90 , reasons were Omsk were close to bankruptcy and they were reorganised , Black Eagle used GT engine not favoured by Army and T-90 offered greater logistics commonality with T-72B/BA

Thanks Austin.
I remember a lot typical Russian Shoulder shrugging around questions about Black Eagle.
I guess the people at Omsk must have been disappointed.

If not a better design then at least different.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Aug 2012 02:50

Kanson,"Unfortunately" indeed.Unfortunately for Arjun.Imagine what it would've sounded like if I had said Arjun "fortunately" arrived too late! Ha!Ha!

The much smaller lighter 45t T-90 costlier than western 60-65t MBTs? Your facts aren't quite accurate.I think you've misunderstood my statement which referred to the cost of Russian vs Western tanks at the time the T-90 was chosen,the IA's choice, and not a cost comparison between Arjun and the T-90.Here are Wiki's stats. From these one can see that western MBTs cost as much as 25-50% more than either Arjun or the T-90 series,whose cost appears to be far cheaper and about equal.

In fact,Arjun has large western content,right from the engine,to French/Israeli systems and the Lahat missile.It therefore is far more cost-effective for the IA to buy more T-90s or Arjuns instead of a western MBT.

1.Arjun Mk-1: Weight 58.5t Cost-$3.1m. Mk-2 will weigh appox. 65t and cost much more with the increase in weight and numerous improvements,ERA,etc.

2.Leopard-2: Weight 62t Cost-$5.74m

3.Challenger-2: Weight 62.5t Cost-$6.8m

4.M-1 : Weight 67.5t Cost-$6.21m

5.T-90: Weight 47.5t Cost $2.77m to $4.5m (2011 figures,depending upon source)

6.Le Clerc: Weight 54.5t Cost: $27m in 2008?!

7.Type -10 (Japan): Weight 43.5t Cost $11.3m (2010)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Aug 2012 02:58

here
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 021511.php

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Aug 2012 03:47

Marten wrote:Real professionals would know that 3 more inches of track width do not make a tank more vulnerable to a mine-field.
Real professionals would also know that lower ground pressure HELPs in a desert, as opposed to higher ground pressure tanks that weight lesser.
Real professionals would also know what a GSQR is, and STFU when they do not know specifics.

Trolls, on the other hand...

And this statement by Dr Sivakumar clearly dispels the myth about the slight increase in track width making the Arjun Mk2 more susceptible to mines- after all it is the ground pressure that matters, not the width

We have increased the track width, to ensure that the ground pressure remains the same in spite of the increased weight.

Now how the Arjun Mk2 is more susceptible to mines when its ground pressure is similar to the Arjun Mk1 (which itself had a lower ground pressure than the much vaunted T-90) baffles me.

Unscientific arguments presented to support a thesis that is flawed at its very basis basically shows up that particular poster's motives as being in question.

link to interview with Dr Sivakumar

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Aug 2012 03:55

Speaking of mine clearance, DRDO has these:

Charge Line Mine Clearing (1A)(Baby viper) - CLMC (V)

A Charge Line Mine Clearing (Vehicle) equipment was designed and developed to meet the tactical and strategic requirement of the Army for neutralizing antitank land mines and creating a safe lane for the advancement of tanks or armored vehicles in a mine infested war field. The CLMC (V) consists of an explosive filled hose 300 m long laid in a box and mounted on a two wheeled trailer towed by a tank. The explosive hose is projected onto the minefield by a cluster of six rockets. It gets straightened in flight with the help of parachutes and detonates after landing actuating the anti personnel and /antitank mines by blast. A safe lane 6 m wide and about 250 m long is formed by a single unit. The store was accepted by the Army for induction into Service.

Arjun => 3.86m width
CLMC (V) => 6m wide safe lane

CLMC (P)

This equipment was developed to clear an infantry safe lane of 180 m length and 0.5 m width for the passage of assaulting troops. It consists of TNT/CE explosive filled hose , rocket motor, launcher, parachute and initiator. The system weighs about 317 kg and packed in 8 packs. The rocket motor on firing propels the linear explosive charge from safe distance. The parachute deploys at preset time and straightens the hose while landing. The initiators positioned at both ends of the hose initiates the explosive charge after pre-set time delay. The blast generated due to detonation of charge actuates A/P mines. HEMRL supplied more than 1500 sets

Future R&D efforts:
DRDO plans 500-cr unmanned vehicle project for Indian Army

...
Key DRDO laboratories, like R&DE (Engineers), Pune, have diversified from conventional tasks of making bridges, mine-laying and mine-clearance equipment to the more advanced systems involving robotics and artificial intelligence applications. A small group of robotics, set up in 2001-02 for designing UGVs, has since evolved into a full-fledged robotics development laboratory 'Saksham', which has been spearheading the DRDO's UGV initiative.
...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Aug 2012 11:21

I have heard for some unknown reason the M2 bradleys cost about 2X that of the M1A2. does anyone know why?

it seems the Stryker is hovering near the $5 mil mark now, probably without some add ons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker#Cost

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 14 Aug 2012 12:17

Arjun MK2

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 14 Aug 2012 12:48

^^Man that is one ugly paint job. DRDO really needs a world class PR department.

vic · Post by **vic** » 14 Aug 2012 12:54

The projected cost of Arjun Mark-2 in 2015 with all the requisite features is Rs. 37 crores, so we have to estimate the cost of T-90 also in 2015 with similar features. We cannot take the cost of T-90 in 2004 without 3 thermal imagers, without APU & AC, without self protection features etc. and then say it is cheaper.

The issue of weights also seems slightly odd. Arjun Mark-1 combat weight was 57 tons and T-90 was 46.5 tons. With the addition of new features Arjun Mark-2 combat weight should be around 60tons and similarly T-90MS is also around 49tons, how are we getting 65 tons for Arjun Mark-2?

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 14 Aug 2012 15:10

vic wrote:The projected cost of Arjun Mark-2 in 2015 with all the requisite features is Rs. 37 crores, so we have to estimate the cost of T-90 also in 2015 with similar features. We cannot take the cost of T-90 in 2004 without 3 thermal imagers, without APU & AC, without self protection features etc. and then say it is cheaper.

The issue of weights also seems slightly odd. Arjun Mark-1 combat weight was 57 tons and T-90 was 46.5 tons. With the addition of new features Arjun Mark-2 combat weight should be around 60tons and similarly T-90MS is also around 49tons, how are we getting 65 tons for Arjun Mark-2?

Arjun mk2 body weight is around 62t. and with attendant support equipment its final weight comes around 67t.

The Arjun Mk-2 will see the tank weight increase from 62 to 67 tonnes, as a result of specific requirements from the user — which include additions such as the track width, mine plough and Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) on the glacis plate, as well as the front of the turret. These two requirements alone will add three tonnes to the weight of the Arjun Mk-1. Along with other additions, the Mk-2 is expected to top out at 67 tonnes.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Aug 2012 15:21

^^ mineploughs are not standard equipment. the all up wt is around 62 t, well in line with tanks of similar protection levels.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Aug 2012 16:58

I doubt just the mine ploughs will increase the weight by 5 Tons from 62 to 65.

Likely the mine ploughs will add ~ 2 - 3 T ,the tank would weigh around ~ 64-65 T with ERA ,wider Tracks and bigger wheels , other changes in transmission , APS other electronics fit etc

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 14 Aug 2012 17:30

I think Arjun MK-2 should be the main heavy battle tank, get rid of the T-72 asap, no need to upgrade it, the T-90 should be upgraded to the MS standard and finish the manufacture to 1600 tanks, order 2000 Arjun mk-2 and order another 1500 of Anders tank with full-tot, I think it is a waste right now to spend time developing a new tank to replace the T-72, cost/ time required would make such an effort a waste.

At 35T the Anders seems to be the ideal light weight tank which can also be used for amphibious landings, high altitude mountain warfare, cold temperature areas, may be even air drops etc. it also has enough space in there to carry 4 extra passengers who can neutralize anti tank threats etc.

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

This can also be airlifted when needed, two fully loaded of these anders could easily fit in the C-17 with ammo too. It just needs an active protection system. I think with such a large order we won't have any probelsm with full-tot with the polish. It just has to be indianized

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 14 Aug 2012 17:35

At 35T the Anders seems to be the idea

It would be a hell lot better to specify the max weight of the tank in the GSQR.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 14 Aug 2012 17:43

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.be/2012/0 ... ction.html

Dependng on the version the weight of the anders is between 32 to 40 tons, apparently the Trophy has already been integrated on it.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Aug 2012 20:56

What is with all this light tank business? Why does one need a light tank? Because of the airlift restriction of IL-76? Hmmm...but guess what, no one seems to have told Chinese about it. You see, they'll not be obliging us with light-shight tank thingie...they'll throw their best armor against us. Already, PLA has started training in Tibet with armored detachments and there are pics on the internet which how PLA with their latest MBT some where in Tibet.

Look up the map of Ladakh and check the area opposite Chusul known as the Spanggur Gap as well as Dhemchok. The Dhemchok axis is flat and wide enough to afford a division level thrust into India. Why do you think IA has asked for an (I) Armored Bde for Ladakh? Or, it is widening the Srinagar-Leh road to take the T-90 trailers?

The light tank business is best left to Recce and Support Battalions...which can be added to Infantry Battalions to give some teeth. Or, the recce squadron/battalion of armored or mechanized formations. You need a MBT to deal with a MBT. And latest Chinese MBT tip the scale at >50T.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Aug 2012 21:40

^^^

I think it all depends on how much (and what timeframe) the IA and the civilian authorities invest in upgrading the infrastructure to support heavier tanks in the northern mountainous areas.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Aug 2012 22:01

The Arjun Mk-2 will see the tank weight increase from 62 to 67 tonnes, as a result of specific requirements from the user — which include additions such as the track width, mine plough and Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) on the glacis plate,

Eh? Weren't we being told on this thread that the Arjun's wider tracks make it more vulnerable to mines? And now we see that the user (Army) wanted even wider tracks in Mk2.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Aug 2012 22:31

WIKI wrote: Specifications (Il-76TD-90)

Data from [2]

General characteristics

Crew: 5
Capacity: 50,000 kg (Il-76)[nb 1]
Payload: 50 tonnes ()
Length: 46.59 m (152 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 50.5 m (165 ft 8 in)
Height: 14.76 m (48 ft 5 in)
Wing area: 300.0 m² (3,229.2 ft²)
Empty weight: 92,500 kg (Il-76TD-90)[nb 2] (203,962 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 195,000 kg (Il-76)[nb 3] (429,975 lb (Il-76TD-90))

Given these, what is the maximum number of Arjuns or T90s it can fly with? [arjun vs. tin-can onlee comparison]

I want the tin-can supports to yell saying it can carry two of them..

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Aug 2012 22:32

^^ zero for both. the cargo bay isn't large enough for either.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Aug 2012 22:50

yeah ask him about the army requesting tracks to be wider
am sure another non answer is forthcoming

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 14 Aug 2012 23:38

PratikDas wrote:
Arun Menon wrote:^^But a few extra inches of track width will right?
Good point. The article below distinguishes between track-width mine and full-width mines. A full-width mine shows a very high probability of encounter for anything between Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Tanks.

MINE OPERATIONS

Antitank Mines

If the enemy is an armored force, tactical obstacles are predominantly AT mines. Track-width mines (M15s with the M603 fuse) have a lower probability of kill (M-Kill or K-Kill) than full-width mines (M21s and M15s with the M624 fuse). The ratio of full-width versus track-width mines in a minefield depends on the kill required. In general, a track-width minefield does not adequately affect the enemy's maneuver.
... and for a full-width minefield you'd need to plough the field anyway. So a few more inches of track-width shouldn't make much of a difference.

There are two aspects to the discussion on increased susceptibility of tanks of wider tracks to mines.

1. Whether there is any relation between track width of armoured vehicles and probability of it becoming a casualty in a minefield. the same was brought out earlier also with support from a non-services source. Here is field manual which talks about this aspect (this happens to have same content as Globalsecurity page quoted above).

http://library.enlisted.info/field-manu ... 32/CH2.PDF

Pg 7

...Probability of encounter is affected by the type of enemy vehicle. The smaller the width or track signature of the vehicle, the less likely it will encounter and detonate a mine...

2. Full width mines or track width mines. For full width mines there would not be any difference due to 1 above. the point is, whether adversary has the ability to use such mines extensively. The same was also discussed y'day. Here is a link to list of mines in stock worldwide. The list is not exhaustive but comprehensive, IMO.

http://maic.jmu.edu/research/munitions/ ... ?sort=type

You can draw your own inference.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 14 Aug 2012 23:47

nachiket wrote:
The Arjun Mk-2 will see the tank weight increase from 62 to 67 tonnes, as a result of specific requirements from the user — which include additions such as the track width, mine plough and Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) on the glacis plate,
Eh? Weren't we being told on this thread that the Arjun's wider tracks make it more vulnerable to mines? And now we see that the user (Army) wanted even wider tracks in Mk2.

A tank which exerts 0.84 kg/cm^2 at 58.5 tons will exert 0.96 kg/cm^2 at 67 tons even after discounting the difference in weight due to weight of the chains. This ground pressure may be unacceptable for operation in deserts. What Army would have asked is to keep the ground pressure at 0.84 kg/cm^2, in spite of any increase in weight, which eventually resulted in the wider track width.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 15 Aug 2012 00:18

nelson wrote: 2. Full width mines or track width mines. For full width mines there would not be any difference due to 1 above. the point is, whether adversary has the ability to use such mines extensively. The same was also discussed y'day. Here is a link to list of mines in stock worldwide. The list is not exhaustive but comprehensive, IMO.

http://maic.jmu.edu/research/munitions/ ... ?sort=type

You can draw your own inference.

So what you're saying is that the Indian Army hazards a guess that Pakistan Army is too poor to afford full-width mines, or too incompetent to know the benefit of using them, so Indian Army says inshallah with T-90s and their smaller track-widths and gives it a go?