Arjun thread

Locked
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Post by vina »

Brando wrote: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.
That is why it is absolutely absolutely necessary that India have the superiority in technology and capability to achieve air superiority over the battlefield . Without air superiority, you cannot do any of that. US engineering corps worked unhindered..

Chinese field 300 Flankers? .. Get something that can shoot those out of the sky!. Invest in next gen stealth platform to deal with them..

Contrast the experience of the Indian Army in fighting in unfavorable terrain under "surprise". The 1962 war in NEFA with China and the Kargil with Pakistan. Kargil's terrain was lot tougher than NEFA admittedly , but we still won in Kargil while we lost in NEFA. The difference was air power, which was extensively employed in Kargil, but was totally absent in NEFA.

I submit that the IA alone couldn't not have won in Kargil, without the Air Force. Despite the leaps in capabilities in Kargil when compared to NEFA, and the 37 odd year difference, IA would not have been able to neutralize the disadvantage of terrain without the Air Dominance that the IAF established and the crucial blows it struck in ground support.

Anyways.. OT for the Arjun thread..
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Post by vivek_ahuja »

vina wrote: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 Laddhak is a no starter..
Unfortunately, unless you suggest dismantling the Arjun at 58 tonnes before loading it on the IL-76 with a maximum carrying capacity of ~45 tonnes, I am afraid the statement of comparing the Arjun and T-72 airborne deployments does not hold.

You will have to send in the Arjun with one flight carrying the turret, and another aircraft bringing in the hull. You would also have to assemble the two after landing in say, Leh. Bringing them out for redeployment is even more of a hassle, given the limitations on take-off at high altitudes.

Based on this idea, if the Army says the Arjun has a mobility problem as agianst the T-series tanks, they are not lying. The Army has had a lot of experience in relatively rapide deployments of the T-series tanks. It can be readily appreciated that they are looking at the Arjun as a liability as far as this particular aspect is concerned. Whether the Arjun brings in a better capability for that extra effort is another matter altogether.
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!
With all due respect, the conditions in 1962 and the conditions today are somewhat different. While it is true that in 62 you had the forward policy deployments that forced Army units to occupy politically vital but militarily vulnerable locations, the same is not true today. In 62 the IA was indeed deployed in valleys and such where the Chinese had the elevated positions surrounding them. And we all saw the results of that.

But in the future, if a war is going to be fought there, you can bet that the IA is not going to be the one exposed. The chinese will have to go through valleys and hills with the IA in the elevated positions. Infantry support by static armour is useful in a defensive battle.

Further, with large number of villages and urban centres cropping up in the region, with large mountain roads being built and so forth, the battles are not going to be all in the hills.
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.
nobody is suggesting movement along narrow roads during a battle. but a pre-battle deployment to assist a stronghold is better, and required, if I might add, given the numerical superirity of the chinese.

These are not conventional battlefields. And conventional tactics will not survive. I have never appreciated the massively conventional thinking of the IA during those early years. It took a war and thousands of deaths to bring non-conventional thinking to solve this problem. History is good as a reference to past mistakes, but not a manual to future battles.
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).
That is a bad example of poorly executed operations and poor tactics. The use of tanks in the above was not proper and was used as a standalone measure, not a supporting measure for standard Infantry. Lack of coordination and poor training of the relevant tank crews was paramount to the defeat there. Unless you think that the IA is built along the same lines, I would hold back such comparisons.
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 ?
No, but why would you want to move them across the hills to begin with? What if the chinese attack you?

-Vivek
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Post by rohitvats »

Vina: A small clarification here. Indian Army has actually explored the option of using tanks and IFVs in Ladakh region. The BR has a page where the 1st airlift of the T-72 tanks has been explained by the IAF IL-76 guy who did it. I don't have exact figures for the tanks that were airlifted. Same is the case with BMP-2s. Please see the pictures below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/opticonfusion/2231987944/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9852749@N04/757502149/

But you're correct on the acount that if we can operate T-72s in Ladakh, we very well can operate Arjuns.

Your other observation about NEFA is coorect. I do not think how one can take a tank to those areas, leave alone fight

Question to gurus: does the lower density of air in such altitudes has -ve effect on engine performace for a vehicle like MBT?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Post by Philip »

Crew 3 vs 4 advantage?Surely it's obvious.Smaller crew smaller tank,smaller profile,better survivability,speed,fuel economy,cost of the tank,to mention a few advantages.The tank can also be used in terrain where a heavier,larger tank cannot.Provided that the crew and ammo are in separate compartments for better crew survivability,a three-man crew is preferable.especially as it also helps reduces by 25% the personnel costs for the army.Current experimental designs feature even larger calibre guns and turretless tanks to keep the profile down even further.Worldwide the holy grail is to find ways of cutting down on manpower and manning costs,especially in warships and subs.In the recent India Today article on the Army's "Cold Start" doctrine,Lt.Gen.Thamburaj was quoted as saying that "technology has enabled us to reduce the numbers of soldiers for an attack".Therefore looking at the 3 vs 4 issue holistically,it is quite obvious that a smaller crew comes with larger advantages.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

vina wrote: Yeah.. Whatever.
Much better vina; thank you for the change in language.

Now for some reason you think that light tank == T 72 and heavy tank == Arjun is what I mean; First and foremost I am talking of light tank for future requirements; I am talking of possible operations theater since as iI think you know I dont think of tanks in terms of T 90/Arjun camps but doctrines. So the question of how light is light is a open question.

Secondly -- you now say that J&K has mixed terrain -- some hilly some plain and some steep mountains -- which I agree and which was my point too -- so even by your admission there are no "NO" light tank country -- at least limited light tank country even going by what you say. Also note that tanks have been used in hilly terrain in J&K.

Army has airlifted T 72s to ladakh. (I dont think it can yet airlift a Arjun there in one piece at least); further using Armor as rapidly mobile pill boxes to run up a road and block a pass is a useful tactic too. Will the tanks be at a disadvantage? Yes; will the tanks still give a advantage that can be used at the cost. Possibly yes.

Further if you notice it is not 62 anymore -- thus because something was not done in 62 does not automatically preclude its use ever. The IAF was not used in 62. Will the next war over Tibet not use IAF? So I am afraid that train of logic takes us nowhere.

Vivek has neat believable little scenarios where T 72s are being used in Tawang as well as NE region (which know is a little "hilly") Perhaps you can look them up?

Russian failures in of Chechnaya and Grozny had far more similarity with Israeli debacle with Merks recently than for the reasons of terrain.

The point of Hannibal was that terrain does not preclude the use of equipment in a point blank manner -- there is no deoband fatwa here. That is all.

Further the Tibetan plateau example was to show that there are indeed "hilly" regions that you may fight in after you cross the mountains -- you need to cross the mountains but after that there are hills before you get down into plains. There are mountains but before and after them there are hills of all manner.

So given the geographic nature of our country I think we have pretty much every possible theater of op around us -- Again reading Viveks scenario's may cause you to think differently.

If Vivek is around and reading this; it would be nice if he can jump in with his thoughts too.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Added later -- I see that the cavalry has stepped in for rescue of the beleaguered garrision -- hail Capt (will Capt do) Vivek. (This was a joke in case some one missed it)
Last edited by Sanku on 24 Apr 2008 13:55, edited 1 time in total.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Lt.Gen.Thamburaj was quoted as saying that "technology has enabled us to reduce the numbers of soldiers for an attack"
IIRC, there was the issue of the speed with which the autoloader loads the round into the gun as compared to manual loading by a gunner. Things like that can make a lot of difference during a battle

However, I may be out of touch with that. Was that issue resolved?
If Vivek is around and reading this; it would be nice if he can jump in with his thoughts too.
Actually, I did. Refer my post above.

-Vivek
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Post by rohitvats »

vivek_ahuja:

Code: Select all

Based on this idea, if the Army says the Arjun has a mobility problem as agianst the T-series tanks, they are not lying. The Army has had a lot of experience in relatively rapide deployments of the T-series tanks. It can be readily appreciated that they are looking at the Arjun as a liability as far as this particular aspect is concerned. Whether the Arjun brings in a better capability for that extra effort is another matter altogether. 
Apart from the scenario mentioned (airlift to Leh), which other aspect of Arjun will hinder in rapid deployment into the western theater?
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Post by vivek_ahuja »

rohitvats wrote:Apart from the scenario mentioned (airlift to Leh), which other aspect of Arjun will hinder in rapid deployment into the western theater?
Who said anything about the western theater?

Look, all these analysis are to be done on a case by case basis. That's what I keep telling anyone who would listen. There is no such thing as a universally perfect tank.

I presented a situation to you where the Arjun's weight is a problem. It has nothing to do with what it can achieve in the desert. If the Arjun out-performs the T-90 in the desert, then that's wonderful. But the T-series tanks are lighter and that has some advantages. You cannot throw that out of the window during the analysis.

Further, India has the distinction of having the most varied of terrain. If the IA feels it needs two types of MBTs based on the requirements of the different terrains, then that cannot be ignored without consideration.
sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Post by sauravjha »

oh by the way ,
the -72 autoloader had a funny habit of loading the gunners arm in the breech rather than the ammunition.

the iron fist of the soviets, Say wot?
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Post by vina »

rohitvats wrote:Vina: A small clarification here. Indian Army has actually explored the option of using tanks and IFVs in Ladakh region.
I am aware of that. Also notice how the value of that was concluded to be iffy at best. I read that article in BR long long ago.
Question to gurus: does the lower density of air in such altitudes has -ve effect on engine performace for a vehicle like MBT?
Turbo charged engines dont suffer a loss of performance with altitude , unlike normally apsirated vehicles. Turbo charger supplies the "boost" and the engine doesnt know whether it is operating at ground or at high altitude. Most diesel engines are turbocharged and high HP tank engines will definitely be.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Post by rohitvats »

Vina: Thanks for the info. :D
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Post by vina »

vivek_ahuja wrote:Unfortunately, unless you suggest dismantling the Arjun at 58 tonnes before loading it on the IL-76 with a maximum carrying capacity of ~45 tonnes, I am afraid the statement of comparing the Arjun and T-72 airborne deployments does not hold.
I am aware of the T-72 and IL-76 limit thing. I did read the article in BR about T-72 in ladakh. But that is a "logistical" thing isn't it. The Arjun will need new logistics. No two questions about it. It is an investment that will have to be made in future anyways. The T-72 weight limit is not cast in stone. The next gen IL-76 replacement can well be made to cater to the higher weight class of future platforms. After all, the IL -76 too is legacy by Russian stds. Unkil sized C5s and C17s to Abrams!.
Infantry support by static armour is useful in a defensive battle.
....
nobody is suggesting movement along narrow roads during a battle. but a pre-battle deployment to assist a stronghold is better, and required, if I might add, given the numerical superirity of the chinese
Agree with the rest of the piece about Arunachal. But why a tank for this? .. How about the traditionally elegant thing for this. The mountain gun ?., which could be dismantled , put on mule packs and assembled again ? . How about a modern high mobility gun ? . You can get similar /better firepower as a tank with far higher mobility and deployment flexibility with a field gun at far less weight, cost and complexity. ..You can even put them on nearby hillocks /elevated spots with best field of fire, places which a tank simply might never be able to access!
What if the chinese attack you? Vivek
In this day and age, chinese massing an army of a significant size and us not knowing it are impossible.There will be enough warning. Chinese attack us will be the mirror image of us attacking them. They too will face the same terrain and adverse ground problems that we will. Kick them in the shins when they are in the mountains .. Us facing massed Chinese armor either in Brahmaputra Valley or in Ladakh with their supply lines secure and flanks safe means that we haven basically been soundly defeated in air and land for that to have come about.
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Post by d_berwal »

sauravjha wrote:oh by the way ,
the -72 autoloader had a funny habit of loading the gunners arm in the breech rather than the ammunition.

the iron fist of the soviets, Say wot?
can you provide any evidence of the no of times such an incident has taken place in IA T-72's
sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Post by sauravjha »

may be you can ?
given your experience on the T-series.

That is something that a late pentagon expert, Tom Gervasi used to swear by ,in his real analysis on the Soviet Union's military power
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Post by d_berwal »

sauravjha wrote: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
http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html
more interesting read

http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/EQP/era.html

something from US experts (i think has been posted before)

Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was "effectively impenetrable" have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on "The Future of Armoured Warfare" in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour" – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, "Relikt", which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the "Lion of Babylon" (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military's best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."
Last edited by d_berwal on 24 Apr 2008 15:51, edited 1 time in total.
sauravjha
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 14:11

Post by sauravjha »

so tell me should we get the T-80 or the T-90 or the T-80 oplot or maybe the T-72 B
Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Post by Brando »

Despite having so many T-90's we still dont have the Shotra system on that, which is what makes it formidable. IA doesnt seem too concerned about it either.

As for the logistics problems of the Arjun, the Israelis faced similar problems with the Merkava which is much taller than what their transports could carry at that time and also quite heavy. Design and redesign as well as other compromises over the years have helped them rectify these problems. Given Arjun's present status, I think we can only hope for a Mk3 or Mk 4 version to be on par with the best in the world.

IMO comparative trials should be taken up next to truly judge the tank. The IA's constant criticism about the Arjun makes one wonder if the people responsible have a vested interest in India acquiring Russian tanks only.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Post by vina »

d_berwal wrote:These tests will do much to discount the argument of the "Lion of Babylon" (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military's best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."
Ok. So how do we know that the export version sold to us ie. the T-90S is not "our" "Lion of Babylon"?
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Post by d_berwal »

vina wrote:
d_berwal wrote:These tests will do much to discount the argument of the "Lion of Babylon" (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military's best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."
Ok. So how do we know that the export version sold to us ie. the T-90S is not "our" "Lion of Babylon"?
because it has been tested by IA
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

for the adventurous china, and if they say they have more height to fire at us at low, then their tanks are just as useless as their slopes would be to advance. their tanks will tumble faster than our tanks could climb.

besides, anti-tank weapon config with attack helos are worser anti-tank testing tanks should do. Can arjun withstand latest fire and forget top attack missiles like nag or a javelin.

tank armour has to protect against such missile attack, other solid explosives, and du rounds. which tank does it? for mountain warfare, i would invest more in anti-tank and mountain warfare helos, and self propelled guns rather tanks.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Post by niran »

d_berwal wrote:
because it has been tested by IA
Sir, you mean to say eyeraki never ever put their "Babylonian Lions"
to test.
If memory serves me right, during preparation of Gulf war 1 there were
few IA (r) Cavalry affasers claiming to have trained Republican gaurds
in intricacies of T72, they further claimed Rep.Guard will cause heavy
causalities,yada yada.
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Post by Igorr »

Brando wrote:Despite having so many T-90's we still dont have the Shotra system on that, which is what makes it formidable. IA doesnt seem too concerned about it either.
IMHO it means IA is satisfied with T-90S armor and doesnt think the tank needs additional defence. The difference is that IA knows exactly what T-90 armor can withstand, and we do not.
vivek_ahuja wrote: IIRC, there was the issue of the speed with which the autoloader loads the round into the gun as compared to manual loading by a gunner. Things like that can make a lot of difference during a battle

However, I may be out of touch with that. Was that issue resolved?
In active moving on hilly ground it's not easy for man to work as a loader. Look for YouTube video with loader work inside Abrams or Chally. I have a video about this from Discovery Ch. program. May be I'll upload it somewhere.

BTW, T-72 were used in Chechen war very effectively as a long arm in mountain hilly areas. Due to IR sensors it has to be especially effective in the night. Israel DF did it too, but with Merkava deployment limitation.
Of course, such eventual long time deployment of an arty system in mountains is more comfortable, if the crew is defended inside with all contemporal gadgets (TI, optics). i.e. it preferably may be a SPH or a tank.
Bad example:
ImageImage

Good example:
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ajay pratap wrote:
d_berwal wrote:
because it has been tested by IA
Sir, you mean to say eyeraki never ever put their "Babylonian Lions"
to test.
I am sure that we can all agree that Iraqi Mil-Ind complex (including Army) is not at par with ours? Despite our having trained them?

Secondly the specifications for Iraqi Ts vs the American tanks especially w.r.t. to electronics etc was outmatched. This is less of case with India even with T 72 after they will go through the upgrade package and all that.

In any event if a T vs Abrahms bang up is done the doctrine of use as well as the people manning the tanks will play a big role; and even if the Americans set the doctrine as they did in the Iraq war; IA will be stretched for sure but is still likely to put up a better show because of training et al.

Performance in war is not just about one-to-one equipment match up but many more things. In Cope thunder IIRC even a Mig 21 Bis took on a F 15 under test conditions.

In any event I was not aware that we were buying the Ts to fight US troops -- the Abrahams vs T mismatch if any will be the last thing on the planning agenda :lol:
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Post by Surya »

Sanku

The T 72 could barely shoot beyond 1000 meters. Better rounds and electornics can do a little bit more but it was and is basically a crappy tank.
And this from the few men who have taken it into combat.

A 200 kg IED under the hull split the damn thing like a tin sardine can.

THe Merkavas and others do get disabled but do nto split that horribly.

It goes back to our threats. Because the Pakis got the T 80 and Al Khalid - the Army reacted as usual and got the T 90. Imagine if th ePaks get the M1 - Then the Army would have cried for the Leo 2 or if we had financial constraints taken the Arjun.

An ARMY whos idea of a GSQR was a cut and paste from Jane's and kept changing with each advance is not exactly in aposition to think any better.

As D_berwal has confirmed the one unit which has taken part in Combat was never involved with the T 90 selection process- Wonder why??

vina, vivek and others : And finally this is not new. This whole battle was played out in a previous generation-

vina - you may also be able to dig up on this. whats your email
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Post by niran »

one thing in life I have learned"Never, say Never"
The requirement for Arjun changed midway just
because TSPA was going to get Abraham.
why do you think Sir, Amrika Bhadur will not donate few
spare Abrahams in future. IA has to be prepared for evrything
and any thing. IMVVHO Arjun is the safer bet. So
"We Want Arjun, and we want it now"
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

its a matter of the cup and the lip, IA to fight against M1s and leapords. Pakis and Chinx put together are highly capable to source them into their inventories, be it what versions or copied stuff by the dragon factories.

we should never ignore the top tanks to fight against with.. btw, if IA tells the nation, hey.. we never bought stuff or prepared to fight against unkil.. or any other forces other than pakis.

just imagine these arguments before shooting our own legs.
Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Post by Brando »

Igorr wrote:
Brando wrote:Despite having so many T-90's we still dont have the Shotra system on that, which is what makes it formidable. IA doesnt seem too concerned about it either.
IMHO it means IA is satisfied with T-90S armor and doesnt think the tank needs additional defence. The difference is that IA knows exactly what T-90 armor can withstand, and we do not.
Now that is a leap of faith.......
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Post by Tanaji »

If anyone thought this thread was making allegations, here is one

http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/apr/24tank.htm

Arjun battle tank sabotaged?

And not, its not by Ajai Shukla.

Either vina is a soothsayer or very prescient. Either ways, he should buy a parrot and sit outside MoD.... he would make a fortune selling fortunes! ;)
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Post by Singha »

the tentacles of the T-series lobby and their backers in Avadi look quite deep.

there is obviously more lifecycle money to be made per T-series tank importing spare parts from Russia than arjun can ever provide. having a
big single MTU is so much worse for money making than a menagerie of
suppliers across Russia and indo-rus agents brokering stuff...some retd
forces people are also operating as agents as are sons and relatives of top
politicians.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Vivek K »

Sanku wrote:
Vivek K wrote: We feel the same way about you my friend! :D
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.
Sanku, you're very welcome!! Anytime you want "compliments", do let me know! 8)

On another note can you back up your claim that "reports backed by all agenices sincluding DRDO and CVDRE show that tests are pending".
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Vivek K »

Fresh in especially for my friend Sanku!!
Arjun tank trials may have been sabotaged: Govt

Quoting the article in full since it is so relevant to the debate.
NEW DELHI: The Government on Thursday spoke of the "possibility of sabotage" in winter trials of country's indigenous Arjun Tank prompting Army Chief, General Deepak Kapoor, and other top officials to rush to the Avadi tank factory to carry out fresh inspections.

Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh told reporters that the possibility of sabotage of the recent winter trials of the Arjun tanks should be examined.

He said though the German engines in the tanks had been used for over 15 years, "it should be examined how they broke down during the winter trials.

"How can this happen all of a sudden?" he wondered as he responded to questions whether the tanks had failed in winter trials conducted by the Army.

Eight years after the force placed an order for 124 tanks with the Ordinance Factory Board, the Army, in a scathing indictment of the tank's performance, has told the parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence that the tanks had "faired very badly".

Army officers have informed the Committee that the tanks were miles away from meeting the Army's requirement and several improvements needed to be carried out before they could be declared battle worthy.

Soon after the Minister's comments, a high-level Defence Ministry team, comprising the Army Chief and Secretary, Defence Production Pradeep Kumar left for Avadi tank factory near Chennai to carry out on the spot inspection of the tank.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Post by Vivek K »

Hmmmm....! So now the IA procurement policy is doubted by ex-army (Ajai Shukla), people and now even the GOI. Surely a proud moment for IA procurment folks.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Post by vina »

Tanaji wrote:Either vina is a soothsayer or very prescient. Either ways, he should buy a parrot and sit outside MoD.... he would make a fortune selling fortunes! ;)
Haa. Haa.. Very funny.. the picture of ol me sitting out in the street with the parrot and the cards.

But frankly, it seemed very implausible that the Renk transmission and MTU combo that has been proven over years and in multple platforms including the Arjun could go so kaput without much reason.

Sabotage jumps right to the front of possibilities.!

Anyway, another feather to the old spidey sense , after calling the crash of the Sensex!
Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Post by Baljeet »

BRFites has been hinting something like this for long time. it is sort of a kudo that people on this forum have the technical expertise to analyze the product. Now the cat is out of bag, guess "Natasha's days are numbered". Lets wait and see what happens to the people involved in the procurement process. I have little faith if anything will come out good for Arjun.
gopal.suri
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22

Post by gopal.suri »

vivek_ahuja wrote:
vina wrote: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 Laddhak is a no starter..
Unfortunately, unless you suggest dismantling the Arjun at 58 tonnes before loading it on the IL-76 with a maximum carrying capacity of ~45 tonnes, I am afraid the statement of comparing the Arjun and T-72 airborne deployments does not hold.

You will have to send in the Arjun with one flight carrying the turret, and another aircraft bringing in the hull. You would also have to assemble the two after landing in say, Leh. Bringing them out for redeployment is even more of a hassle, given the limitations on take-off at high altitudes.

Based on this idea, if the Army says the Arjun has a mobility problem as agianst the T-series tanks, they are not lying. The Army has had a lot of experience in relatively rapide deployments of the T-series tanks. It can be readily appreciated that they are looking at the Arjun as a liability as far as this particular aspect is concerned. Whether the Arjun brings in a better capability for that extra effort is another matter altogether.
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!
With all due respect, the conditions in 1962 and the conditions today are somewhat different. While it is true that in 62 you had the forward policy deployments that forced Army units to occupy politically vital but militarily vulnerable locations, the same is not true today. In 62 the IA was indeed deployed in valleys and such where the Chinese had the elevated positions surrounding them. And we all saw the results of that.

But in the future, if a war is going to be fought there, you can bet that the IA is not going to be the one exposed. The chinese will have to go through valleys and hills with the IA in the elevated positions. Infantry support by static armour is useful in a defensive battle.

Further, with large number of villages and urban centres cropping up in the region, with large mountain roads being built and so forth, the battles are not going to be all in the hills.
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.
nobody is suggesting movement along narrow roads during a battle. but a pre-battle deployment to assist a stronghold is better, and required, if I might add, given the numerical superirity of the chinese.

These are not conventional battlefields. And conventional tactics will not survive. I have never appreciated the massively conventional thinking of the IA during those early years. It took a war and thousands of deaths to bring non-conventional thinking to solve this problem. History is good as a reference to past mistakes, but not a manual to future battles.
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).
That is a bad example of poorly executed operations and poor tactics. The use of tanks in the above was not proper and was used as a standalone measure, not a supporting measure for standard Infantry. Lack of coordination and poor training of the relevant tank crews was paramount to the defeat there. Unless you think that the IA is built along the same lines, I would hold back such comparisons.
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 ?
No, but why would you want to move them across the hills to begin with? What if the chinese attack you?

-Vivek
Arjun can be deployed a in the platues. I wonder the need for rapid mobility when it has to be done in peace times and army be trained. Arjun has characteristics to operate in th terrain once taken there (please see the specs). Arjun can be dismanteled, 2 turrets can fly in 1 plane, 1 chasis. Now comes the best part. All this can be put toghter back in flat 1 and a half hours or even less. By just looking at weight, we might be looking at wrong angle, because, platue is nothing but plains on top of the mountains.

On the Sabotage issue, they should have looked at it sice 1996.
Locked