Search found 914 matches
- 15 Aug 2012 22:18
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^Definitely i did not say that. All i said was this "increase in track width may have caused increased slipping of chains as brought out in the article and also increased susceptibility to mines". I did not even say that the above would have been a consideration for acceptability of Arju...
- 15 Aug 2012 22:15
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Going by the ground pressures of various tanks that IA has in operation I can only guess that IA would have asked to keep ground pressure of Arjun Mk2 same as Mk1. ....So why is the IA asking for modifications in a tank that will make it even heavier than it already is? ... I surmise that the IA an...
- 15 Aug 2012 01:08
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
That was polite enough, thanks.
- 15 Aug 2012 00:49
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
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,...
- 15 Aug 2012 00:42
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^Definitely i did not say that. All i said was this "increase in track width may have caused increased slipping of chains as brought out in the article and also increased susceptibility to mines". I did not even say that the above would have been a consideration for acceptability of Arjun...
- 15 Aug 2012 00:17
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Indian Army: News and Discussions 15 Apr 2012
- Replies: 3969
- Views: 491438
Re: Indian Army: News and Discussions 15 Apr 2012
Micro-management in such situations has become a bane and has reached alarming proportions. The corps commander should have eminently avoided visiting the place. I think Nitin Gokhale of ndtv might have a sympathetic ear. His twitter handle is nitingokhale. Sorry, that's about it. Inquiry into such ...
- 14 Aug 2012 23:47
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
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'...
- 14 Aug 2012 23:38
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^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 http://www.g...
- 13 Aug 2012 21:38
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^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.
- 13 Aug 2012 10:32
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^
In the same post, it was brought out that increased weight in Mk-II has been circumvented ingenuously. I compliment the ingenuity. At the same time it has minor drawbacks pointed out.
In the same post, it was brought out that increased weight in Mk-II has been circumvented ingenuously. I compliment the ingenuity. At the same time it has minor drawbacks pointed out.
- 13 Aug 2012 10:06
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Yes such mines do exist. They are activated on principles of seismic or magnetic signatures of AFVs. However what an adversary can lay, during hostilities, is what he holds or is likely to hold in his inventory, not from the catalogs of modern mines.
- 12 Aug 2012 14:13
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
And you're missing the point completely - Arjun was >50T the day it came out of the factory. Why did not army raise the red-flag then? Care to answer this one 'small' point? @Rohit Even though it is not in open domain, I believe that IA did raise the 'red flag' often times, on the weight issue. And...
- 12 Aug 2012 13:46
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^Again that was not my intention. Even though it would not mean anything to people who contribute here, I acknowledge their effort and knowledge of Indian defence as unparalleled in open domain. However use of 'diffidence' was in reference to a particular word 'canard'. After considerable search th...
- 12 Aug 2012 13:33
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Do you even realize the what that article paints IA as? It paints IA and its senior officer corps as people who cannot stand-up and say what is right and what is wrong for them but must rely on a newspaper to fight shadow wars. Why the fvck did IA not say so when the tank was being conceived? If 50...
- 12 Aug 2012 13:18
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^My intention was not portray any one as a villain, but merely to bring out the diffidence in accepting some article and touting it as a canard. That is why i said, TIFWIW.
- 12 Aug 2012 12:49
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^If you mean the Arjun turret on T-72 chassis, Tank-Ex , was shelved as unviable.
The T-XX in above post was used to denote T series tanks T-55, T-72, T-90 and so on.
The T-XX in above post was used to denote T series tanks T-55, T-72, T-90 and so on.
- 12 Aug 2012 12:43
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
FMBT is 50T gross, at least in concept. Arjun MkII is 67 Tons. They belong to different classes, just like T-XX and any western MBT.
- 12 Aug 2012 12:34
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
... Well, well, well......what do we have here? Another canard? So, IA ORDERED THE T-72? And because the Canal bridges have the 50T ceiling? Well, how about the fact that initial Indian Army preference was for Leopard 2 and it was USSR which torpedoed the effort by offering T-72 at throwaway prices...
- 12 Aug 2012 12:30
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
You see, I did not make up that article. Where as people are ready consume articles from the same media riling IA they are not ready to accept even a single counter argument. This is an indication of prejudiced minds, shaped by concerted reporting by likes of Col retd Shukla, SU, Aroor, Suman Sharma...
- 12 Aug 2012 12:05
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
For one, at 58.5 tons, the Arjun is more than 10 tons heavier than the T 90. The added weight and size gives the tank several advantages over the Russian machine in terms of more armour, greater capability to carry ammunition as well as extra sensors. The plan to compare a 58.5 ton machine with a 4...
- 12 Aug 2012 10:35
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: The 2012 Olympics Thread
- Replies: 1904
- Views: 189633
Re: The 2012 Olympics Thread
Bolt won the 100 m in 9.63 sec. But the time for 4X100 relay at 36.84 is nearly 2 sec faster than 4 X 9.63 (which is 38.52). Is it because the relay runners get a running start? Just curious. Yes, the additional time taken for initial acceleration to full sprint is saved for the last three runners.
- 12 Aug 2012 09:59
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
... Interesting that nelson brought this up. A little googling brought up this article: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/we-have-the-worlds-best-bridging-system-rnde/664222/ After successfully designing Sarvatra-the longest multi-span bridging system in the world, Research and Development Establis...
- 12 Aug 2012 01:18
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
That was pretty decent language and tone, thanks. If i can exercise the option (a) now, I am done with it.
- 12 Aug 2012 00:17
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
nrao sahab, the rajasthan front does not feature bridges, only the punjab one does. max weight has no relevance there since the army already operates the relevant bridging equipment for whatever canals the pakis might have dug on the other side of the borer. even in punjab, whether the bridges over...
- 12 Aug 2012 00:07
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
It is quite easy to dismiss the need for adequate bridging capabilities as 'tail wagging the dog'. However the need has been acknowledged and is being worked upon. To this date the success achieved has been few and far in between. Here is a list of equipment being developed towards fulfilling the n...
- 11 Aug 2012 23:54
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
All bridges are not automatically laid. Krupmann and MGB equipment are used to bridge gaps upto 9.8m by a method known as rush crossing.Gurneesh wrote:I need help in finding any 10m MLC 50 class bridges that IA uses (i.e. which can transport t70/90). Googling did not show anything
- 11 Aug 2012 23:52
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
If people had hopes of larger order for Mk II they were mistaken. Yes truth is bitter, but it does not stop from being truth. The same has been brought out by the article which started this round of discussion. I have maintained through this discussion that a number of factors would have gone behind...
- 11 Aug 2012 19:12
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
If you want monologues and others only to applaud without contesting the points put forth, fine. But that will be doing disservice to the traditions of BRF and there would be no need to call it a forum.
- 11 Aug 2012 19:02
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Terrain also includes obstacles or gaps (wet and dry). A bridge or a crossing does not see ground pressure, it sees weight. Military Load Classification is a term used to denote the maximum weight. Please apply your mind before laughing at others. I am reporting your post. The same point was brought...
- 11 Aug 2012 17:40
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
It is quite easy to dismiss the need for adequate bridging capabilities as 'tail wagging the dog'. However the need has been acknowledged and is being worked upon. To this date the success achieved has been few and far in between. Here is a list of equipment being developed towards fulfilling the ne...
- 11 Aug 2012 17:32
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Arjun Mk1 weighs 58.5 tons without ploughs. That is heavy enough to preclude its use from a major portion of the western theatre. "PRECLUDES" << thats says a lot man :D You are actually saying that Army top brass are/were idiots to ask for heavy tank even though it is/was impossible to fi...
- 11 Aug 2012 17:29
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
@Rahul M The result is there for all to see. The numbers and area of operations of Arjun are restricted to a particular sector. You can question the IA/MoD through all democratic means at your disposal, including RTI. Increased susceptibility to being a mine casualty is incidental due to increase in...
- 11 Aug 2012 16:59
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
UK and France will likely be left with around 150-200 of heavies each once all proposed cuts and trims are done. Netherland has retired all its leopards and has no plans to get any replacements. I dunno about germany , italy and spain but they are unlikely to be more than UK or France. what are the...
- 11 Aug 2012 16:47
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^That is also correct. But the scaling of mine ploughs in Armoured regiments and the tactics of using them in combat will have to be kept in mind too. When you complain about weight, don't you include the weight of plough in it? And for tactics.. Tanks with ploughs are used at forward positions to...
- 11 Aug 2012 16:05
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^^^Economies of scale of scale can be achieved, provided that many number of tanks are usable. I think that was the starting point of this 'discussion' for the past two days.
- 11 Aug 2012 15:58
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
TATRA was never indigenous. just CKD kits. they never even changed the right hand drive to left. But the percentage of indigenous content is rough about the same even though Tatra has not been labeled one. HVF is a PSU much similar to BEML and the import conditions for parts of Arjun and Tatra are ...
- 11 Aug 2012 15:55
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
^^That is also correct. But the scaling of mine ploughs in Armoured regiments and the tactics of using them in combat will have to be kept in mind too.
- 11 Aug 2012 15:47
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
The cost of T-90 quoted in Broadsword factors in what has been pointed out here less the missiles and ammunition. Other wise the production cost of T-90S by HVF is about 11 crore, from the same page. I don't expect Col retd Shukla to have missed out on that point. When you say that such jugglery can...
- 11 Aug 2012 15:37
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Is there any offical figure as to how much an Arjun MK-1/2 costs/will cost in comparison with a T-90/upgraded T-90? This will give us a view as to the eeconomics of operating the two types. Ajai Shukla's blog quotes Def Min statement in Parl that Arjun Mk2 will cost Rs 37 crore apiece, nearly doubl...
- 11 Aug 2012 15:27
- Forum: Trash Can Archive
- Topic: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
- Replies: 4308
- Views: 552476
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
The killing ratio of a minefield or stopping power is calculated for different tanks based on the track width among other factors. There is a near linear relation ship between the kill ratio and the track width. An increased track width will result in a higher kill ratio for same density of mines in...