Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 19 Dec 2008 13:24

During this time Smerch, upgraded Grad, Pinaka have been added which increase arti power

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 19 Dec 2008 13:49

But rockets cannot replace guns. Only a sustained fire from multiple howitzers can clear entrenched enenmy in the mountains.

Raj Malhotra wrote:During this time Smerch, upgraded Grad, Pinaka have been added which increase arti power

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Dec 2008 08:13

I wonder how the new exposed gun atop the latest Russian product is supposed
to be protected?

in a vanilla MBT the breech and loading part of the gun, shock absorbers are
protected by frontal turret armour.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 20 Dec 2008 22:38

Indian Army to buy new artillery gun

Twenty years after Bofors scandal, the Indian Army is looking to buy a new artillery gun. This was amongst the decisions taken at a meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council attended by Defence Minister AK Antony and the three service chiefs on Friday (December 19).

To fill the gaps in India’s defences, the government has decided to develop a short range surface to air missile and this will give protection to airfields and warships. This is being developed with French collaboration.

The Army will also get a light howitzer, one that can be transported by helicopter to mountainous terrain like in Kashmir, and this will be bought from the United States of America (USA). The development of a tactical communication system has been sanctioned. This will allow the Army to be in touch with forward units during battle. Private players are being roped in for this project.

DDM or M777 is selected?

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 22 Dec 2008 05:32

[quote="Aditya G"]But rockets cannot replace guns. Only a sustained fire from multiple howitzers can clear entrenched enenmy in the mountains.

Aditya, I am no expert on artillery but your statement led me to this question...wouldn't a MBRL be more effective in neutralizing/clearing enemy presence over a area (even entrenched ones based on warhead used on rocket)....I believe Howitzers are used more than rockets due to the cost factor...firing a salvo of rockets though effective in terms of enemy casualties and objectives may not be all that cost-effective....please let me know your comments on this....

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 22 Dec 2008 15:06

Yes, that is what I meant.

Yogi_G wrote:
Aditya G wrote:But rockets cannot replace guns. Only a sustained fire from multiple howitzers can clear entrenched enenmy in the mountains.

Aditya, I am no expert on artillery but your statement led me to this question...wouldn't a MBRL be more effective in neutralizing/clearing enemy presence over a area (even entrenched ones based on warhead used on rocket)....I believe Howitzers are used more than rockets due to the cost factor...firing a salvo of rockets though effective in terms of enemy casualties and objectives may not be all that cost-effective....please let me know your comments on this....

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 22 Dec 2008 22:43

If this is true then it is very good news but I don't think that AK Antony has it in him to take "any" decision at all. IIRC M777 dropped out of the competition citing unrealistic specifications for ultra light guns. Bofors also failed tests of other versions of 155mm guns (as did all other guns)

sunilUpa wrote:Indian Army to buy new artillery gun

Twenty years after Bofors scandal, the Indian Army is looking to buy a new artillery gun. This was amongst the decisions taken at a meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council attended by Defence Minister AK Antony and the three service chiefs on Friday (December 19).

To fill the gaps in India’s defences, the government has decided to develop a short range surface to air missile and this will give protection to airfields and warships. This is being developed with French collaboration.

The Army will also get a light howitzer, one that can be transported by helicopter to mountainous terrain like in Kashmir, and this will be bought from the United States of America (USA). The development of a tactical communication system has been sanctioned. This will allow the Army to be in touch with forward units during battle. Private players are being roped in for this project.
DDM or M777 is selected?

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 22 Dec 2008 22:57

Actually, the current messy state with Pkiland, could be an excellent opportunity for the MoD to place emergency orders for arty guns, even if it has to be Bofors...(though seriously, Congress wont have the guts to go for Bofors, however meritorious the gun might be and however compelling the situation might be)

Mayura · Post by **Mayura** » 23 Dec 2008 09:55

Yes, this is the right time to go on modernizing the army.But, these politicians must make up their mind.

Does India have Panzerhaubitze 2000, G6-52's?? how many??

Are we considering anything about NLOS-C types?? ( Saw this in action on the discovery channel's Future Weapons)

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 24 Dec 2008 04:03

Not sure if this is the right thread for this:

As indicated in the article India ordered them in September then why does Shiv Aroor put a spin on the heading?

Regardless, I am happy that our military will have an opportunity to carpet clean and sanitize our surroundings.

26/11 prompts India to seek cluster bombs
Shiv Aroor
New Delhi, December 23, 2008

http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index ... 5&Itemid=1

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 26 Dec 2008 14:08

I wonder whether Indian Army brass will accept Arjun lying orphan now or they will clamour for more T-90s

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 26 Dec 2008 16:24

Raj Malhotra wrote:I wonder whether Indian Army brass will accept Arjun lying orphan now or they will clamour for more T-90s

Ahem.....I know this sounds unpatriotic....but any engagement with the Puke tank regiments, is likely to be a blessing in disguise for the Arjun. Deficiencies of the T-72 & T-90 would be exposed no doubt. Yes, the poorer copy of the poor chinese copy of the deficient russian design = Al zarrar & Al Khalid will be laid a waste, but hopefully our army will emerge wiser. Inshallah the DGMF would be replaced and the Arjun would receive a proper induction.

prasadha · Post by **prasadha** » 26 Dec 2008 21:27

Hi

I see in some postings that the poster thinks they are more intelligent than the armed forces which has made choices out of strategic requirements or because they didn't have a choice. While some ranting is qualified with apologies for being "unpatriotic", do those posters imply that the armed forces are not patriotic. I would like to believe that the armed forces are much more prudent than the armed chair critics who want the armed forces' choices being exposed in a war.

Just having an internet connection does not make everybody an expert, I suppose.

Please excuse me if I sounded offensive.

Regards

Prasad

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 26 Dec 2008 23:01

prasadha wrote:Hi

I see in some postings that the poster thinks they are more intelligent than the armed forces which has made choices out of strategic requirements or because they didn't have a choice. While some ranting is qualified with apologies for being "unpatriotic", do those posters imply that the armed forces are not patriotic. I would like to believe that the armed forces are much more prudent than the armed chair critics who want the armed forces' choices being exposed in a war.

Just having an internet connection does not make everybody an expert, I suppose.

Please excuse me if I sounded offensive.

Regards

Prasad

No I dont mean that the armed forces are unpatriotic. Just that they lack the virtues to nurture indigenous systems. It is easy to dismiss the backers of Arjun as "ranters". Tell me have you come across any objective data placing the Arjun behind the T series in combat capabilities? Decisions in the army are taken by Generals and not the soldiers or junior rung officers. Tell me have you ever come across any general (IA or other), who would ever admit to having taken a wrong decision? Granted the T-90 was available post OP Parakram, while the Arjun wasnt. But surely after the purchase of 347 tanks off the shelf, thare could have been a more parental view towards the Arjun to accept it into service. Instead the amy went along for a full T-90 force. And dear, who says that the T-90 doesnt have any problems. It is just that we dont know about them, bcoz the army (read sr officers as juniors dont speak officially) doesnt want us to know. Recall the thermal imager & AC issues with the T-90. These are long out of media coverage. Had these problems affected the Arjun, the army (read DGMF) would have released umpteen statements.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Dec 2008 23:57

prasadha wrote:Hi

I see in some postings that the poster thinks they are more intelligent than the armed forces which has made choices out of strategic requirements or because they didn't have a choice. While some ranting is qualified with apologies for being "unpatriotic", do those posters imply that the armed forces are not patriotic. I would like to believe that the armed forces are much more prudent than the armed chair critics who want the armed forces' choices being exposed in a war.

Just having an internet connection does not make everybody an expert, I suppose.

Please excuse me if I sounded offensive.

Regards

Prasad

prashad, you are correct in almost every point that you make.

but in the case of arjun the decisions by IA are mostly inexplicable to any reasonable person and it has perplexed many a retired officer. army might have very good reasons for what decisions they are taking but as of now it doesn't make any sense to even the knowledgeable of lay public.

see here for example :
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... &Itemid=26
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... arjun.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... about.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... -t-90.html

on another note, 'the military should be knowing what they are doing since they are the military' isn't much of a logic. we are all proud of what the Indian armed forces does for us but that shouldn't mean that the public can't question the govt/MOD why a particular decision is being taken when it is their money that is being spent.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 27 Dec 2008 11:02

Lot of Brass is corrupt and wraping themselves in the flag does not cure it!

Rahul M wrote:
prasadha wrote:Hi

I see in some postings that the poster thinks they are more intelligent than the armed forces which has made choices out of strategic requirements or because they didn't have a choice. While some ranting is qualified with apologies for being "unpatriotic", do those posters imply that the armed forces are not patriotic. I would like to believe that the armed forces are much more prudent than the armed chair critics who want the armed forces' choices being exposed in a war.

Just having an internet connection does not make everybody an expert, I suppose.

Please excuse me if I sounded offensive.

Regards

Prasad
prashad, you are correct in almost every point that you make.

but in the case of arjun the decisions by IA are mostly inexplicable to any reasonable person and it has perplexed many a retired officer. army might have very good reasons for what decisions they are taking but as of now it doesn't make any sense to even the knowledgeable of lay public.

see here for example :
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... &Itemid=26
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... arjun.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... about.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... -t-90.html

on another note, 'the military should be knowing what they are doing since they are the military' isn't much of a logic. we are all proud of what the Indian armed forces does for us but that shouldn't mean that the public can't question the govt/MOD why a particular decision is being taken when it is their money that is being spent.

Ravishankar · Post by **Ravishankar** » 27 Dec 2008 13:02

India Wraps Smerch Tests

NEW DELHI - The Indian Army has received and begun inducting the 36 Russian-made Smerch Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) ordered in 2006 for $450 million.

The Army wrapped up flight stability, accuracy and consistency tests last month at India's missile testing range at Chandipur, in the eastern Indian state of Orissa, Army sources said.

Full report : http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =ASI&s=TOP

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 27 Dec 2008 23:09

Rahul M wrote:
uddu wrote:.......
NAMICA cannot become a light tank. Fit a gun and it becomes BMP-II.
why so ? some reason please !
can you find no difference between a gun armed NAMICA and a BMP-2 ?
Also it will not be possible to deploy NAMICA without support of tanks.
what tanks ? why not ? again, some reasons supplied would be nice.

if you intend to reply, please do so in the artillery and armour thread.
this discussion is increasingly going OT.

First the army requires a tank that is light and can be transported. converting a BMP-II to do a tanks job, to make it a tank. Is it possible. What about the protection level required. Everything from engine to suspension need to be reworked. It's better to start a separate light tank project based on the requirement of the army.

Without support of tanks, it's very vulnerable to infantry attacks. With light armour. The main purpose of tank destroyer is a supporting role to tanks. Removing the burden on the tank crew and provide some kind of advantages in terms of range.

Your strategy works against small nations with limited armour.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2008 00:23

First the army requires a tank that is light and can be transported. converting a BMP-II to do a tanks job, to make it a tank. Is it possible. What about the protection level required.

yes it is possible. a large number of IFVs nowadays are virtually light tanks.
check the protection level of a BMP-3 for example @ ~19 tonnes.
IIRC the bradley had an even better record facing iraqi armour than the abrams.
the new stryker is also designed to some extent to handle enemy armour on its own.

all modern ICVs including the BMPs have very good protection against small arms and are designed to withstand 23-30mm cannon fire in the frontal arc.
their vulnerability is against MANPATGMs but that is also true for most MBTs.
all tanks whether light or not are designed to operate along with some infantry support when operating against infantry.

moreover Indian BMP-2s are already recieving some engine upgrade and are reportedly also looking at incorporating the BMP-3 turret which would make it much heavier.

so suspension and engine are small consideration given that the baseline BMPs are already receiving such upgrades.

Without support of tanks, it's very vulnerable to infantry attacks. With light armour. The main purpose of tank destroyer is a supporting role to tanks. Removing the burden on the tank crew and provide some kind of advantages in terms of range.

both tanks and heavily armoured ICVs are equally vulnerable to MANPATGMs armed infantry without infantry support.

I've already explained that I'm NOT talking of using the NAMICA as is as a light tank.
armour,an external gun (12.7mm or thereabouts and NOT a cannon. so it DOES NOT become a BMP-2 on attaching a gun as you claimed) and probably an engine upgrade are the modifications required to make the NAMICA a light tank.
all this will take its weight upto 17-18 tonnes, a bit less than the heavily protected BMP-3.
cost will still be waaay cheaper than a from scratch light tank design that would see concrete orders of only about 100-150 at best.

Your strategy works against small nations with limited armour.

works against any enemy if properly used. NO light tanks are meant to be used against top of the line MBTs and the Indian Army is certainly not fool enough to think so.
they have identified a niche for a light tank and this one fits it nicely IMO.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 28 Dec 2008 02:18

Armoured columns consist of three distinct systems...the MBT (Heavy, Medium), Light vehicles(generally faster, and lighter than tanks, longer range weapon systems) and the Support vehicles (recee, logistic, etc).
Like Rahul already mentioned. The NAMICA is not a light tank...what he envisages is what is sane. The NAMICA will generally be the second line of defence behindthe MBT (T, Arjun), but also have longer range weapons (NAG) and also (hopefully) longer range seeker/FCS etc. The MBT line acts as the defensive line protecting a core of light vehicles (the MBT have hit ranges of 2.5 km (main gun-no missiles)...or 5 km (missile fired through main gun). The problem is (AFAIK) that once the missile is fired, the reload takes longer. This is where the NAMICA dedicated carrier takes over. It can fire a salvo of 8 missiles & consider a 75% hit probability it will take out 6 tanks. This gives the MBT's time to get into range and get their job done. The NAMICA should have a 12.7mm or a pair of MMG's to then take over (once reloads are used up) to help in clearing infantry support for the enemy tanks).
Most BMP-2 have protection in the frontal arc for a 30mm AP round. The only problem that i see with the BMP's is the fuel cells made into the doors. which i feel is dangerous for dismounted infantry (explode outwards) and will result in a firepower or mobility or fatal disablement of the vehicle.
As for a vehicle light enough to be airlifted to forward positions, the NAMICA and a couple of BMP-2s armed with a 30 mm cannon or 100 mm (which makes it a light tank) can be an ideal combine for infantry support.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 28 Dec 2008 02:23

Rahul, I think your idea of modified NAMICA is something like Russian BMPT Tank Support Combat Vehicle (i.e. good offense and defense).

http://euroasia.cass.cn/2006Russia/Mili ... 083546.jpg

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Dec 2008 02:47

A real example of what NAMICA type vehicle is/can/should be used for is the FV102 Striker of the British Army. It forms part of the Formationa Recce Regiments of the Royal Armored Corp of which 5 are active as of now. These regiments form part of a Mech. Heavy Bde or the Armored Divisions.

Each regiment has 3 Sqns with 3 Troops of Scimitar and 1 Troop of 4 FV102 Striker Vehicles. Each Striker has 5 ready to fire Swingfire ATGMs and 5 reloads.

In IA case, we've some Recce & Support Battalions in the Mech and Gaurds Regiment. These are ideal candidates for the NAMICA vehicle. Plus it will not be a bad idea to equip/have a composite Sqn with NAMICA and Jeep/Manportable ATGMs at Division level esp for those Div. which are likley to be facing the brunt of PA Strike elements.

Added Later:

@RahulM: NAMICA cannot and should not be considered as a Light Tank. It is a dedicated AT platform with associated FCS and detection system. Unlike the TOW mounted on a M113, as the RaakitMard from across the border do, this is a dedicated Tank Killer. And it will require the support of other Light/Heavy Armour. PLease see the composition of a Recce Sqn in the Formation Recce Regimets of British Army as posted above. Each Troop of Striker (FV102) is supported by 3 Troops of Scimitar (FV107) which has a crew of 3 and mounts a rapid fire 30mm cannon.

There are enough example of Light Tanks floating around, both the wheeled and tracked ones. We do not need to think of NAMICA as light tank, modifications or no modifications.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Dec 2008 09:19

Rahul, it seems that a Light tank is meant to take out a tank using it's main gun.

But a better Infantry fighting vehicle that can take out tanks (not its main job) using missiles. Check out Abhay.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/abhay.htm

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Dec 2008 10:03

For those talking about using the NAMICA as a souped up BMP, or a light tank - consider the question, which formation of the Army uses BMPs today? The Mech infntry. And they have twin tasks for their BMPs - quick mobility across the terrain for the "infantry" AND some anti-personnel and anti-armour capability built in. How many personnel will a NAMICA be able to carry? Without an estimate of the "personnel carriage" penalty.... I think (might be wrong) NAMICA wont carry more than 3-4 fully armed infantry - i think that would be too high a penalty for a replacement of BMPs.

@Rohitvats - the days of dedicated "tank killers" - pretty much obsolete as a doctrine today, isnt it? With fairly accurate and lethal ATGMs being MANportable, you are much better off by equipping the frontline infantry units lavishly with ATGMs - much cheaper to start with, and a less complex logistics chain.

As you rightly pointed out, the M113s are not "ATGM carriers" - they ALSO carry ATGMs - they are multi tasking units.

that brings me to the question - why cant we replace the Konkurs on our BMPs with the NAG - is it the weight of the missile?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2008 11:09

these are the facts :

a) IA is reportedly looking for light tanks to arm its its mountain divisons and rapid reaction forces.

b)the destination forces mentioned imply that this light tank would be deployed in regions/theaters where it is not feasible/time consuming to deploy MBTs. that means in case of deployment to mountainous terrain this would be IA's main and most powerful vehicle. when deployed as part of rapid reaction forces these would be expected to hold off enemy forces till the MBTs can be deployed.

c)in the roles envisaged this light tank can be expected to engage other similarly armed and armoured vehicles(high altitudes) or infantry,light skinned vehicles and possibly some amount of MBT armour (RRF).

d) IA is reportedly looking to mate the BMP-3 turret to the BMP-2 chasis along with some engine upgrade. a modified NAMICA can easily be given protection level at par with this vehicle.

e)the closest example to what I was talking about in terms of role(and NOT armaments fit) is the BMD-4
and it is likely that the new gen of IA IFVs would spawn off one such dedicated CV.
if anything NAMICA's missiles would have much much more lethality and hit probability against even MBTs than any such IFVs can hope to with their 90mm/100mm guns.

f)An ideal such airborne force would therefore comprise of a combination of cannon armed IFVs and the NAMICA. and a suitably up armoured and re-engined NAMICA would hold its own against MBTs as good as(if not better) as any IFVs.

@rohit, in the niche IA has identified it won't be possible to deploy ANY MBTs so the point of tank support for such vehicles is moot. the justification for a mod NAMICA as a light tank comes from the very fact that it is based on an existing platform that is in widespread use thus easing up the logistics train by a huge margin. as I said, a combination of lethal but slow rate of fire round armed NAMICA and a higher rate of fire but less lethal round armed IFV(possibly a BMP2/BMP3 combo) would make for a devastating light armour force.

@uddu, abhay is an IFV whose main function is troop carrying with a secondary attack ability. it's firepower can't even be compared against that of the NAMICA.
a 40mm cannon can't hope to do much against a modern MBT. it would be little more than mincemeat, not only would its armour not be able to protect against a MBT round, it's 40mm cannon would be hopeless in trying to defeat tank armour.

@somnath, please understand that the BMP-2 is NOT used as a light tank by IA as of now and any comparison with a light tank role is therefore, ahem injudicious. and NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY is talking of replacing BMPs with NAMICA. (please,please read the pages before you hit the keyboard)

@sid, BMP-T is based on a tank chasis and is intended to serve two purposes :
a)provide troops MBT level protection in battle taxi mode
b)provide anti-personnel firepower support to MBTs operating within its zone.
as you can understand, BMP-T is primarily intended for urban warfare type scenarios. @ 47 tonnes it's a much heavier vehicle than most IFVs.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 28 Dec 2008 12:02

First the army requires a tank that is light and can be transported.

Requirement of any equipment is based on the threat analysis and own capabilities.

Since the Army has no longer felt the requirement of any recce regiments or light tanks, it would be worthwhile knowing as to why the Army should have recce and light tanks.

The survivability of light tanks in today's environment with a plethora of A Tk wpns is a moot point.

For recce, armed helicopters under command the Mechanised Force can do a better recce, given the speed, reach and flexibility of such helicopters. (Race to the Swift - Richard E Simpkins, Brassey). Richard E Simpkins is an acknowledged guru of Mechanised Warfare.

Rahul,

It is interesting info that you give of the IA looking for light tanks. Source?

If the adversary can employ MBTs (given the implication that own MBTs will be employed once they arrive, the light tanks having held the adversary till then), I wonder if light tanks can hold their own against the adversaries MBT).

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2008 12:06

RayC sir, this came out in a news report during the discussions in the war in tibet thread. I am not able to find it now !

btw, plz check PM in a couple of minutes.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 28 Dec 2008 12:13

RayC wrote:
First the army requires a tank that is light and can be transported.
Requirement of any equipment is based on the threat analysis and own capabilities.

Since the Army has no longer felt the requirement of any recce regiments or light tanks, it would be worthwhile knowing as to why the Army should have recce and light tanks.

The survivability of light tanks in today's environment with a plethora of A Tk wpns is a moot point.

For recce, armed helicopters under command the Mechanised Force can do a better recce, given the speed, reach and flexibility of such helicopters. (Race to the Swift - Richard E Simpkins, Brassey). Richard E Simpkins is an acknowledged guru of Mechanised Warfare.

Rahul,

It is interesting info that you give of the IA looking for light tanks. Source?

Ray C saar, this might have been discussed to death before if so I apologise for taking this up again.

I agree that choppers would make better recce sources given their obvious advantages as you mentioned.

In that case would be NRUAV be adopted for army use, I know I brought the point some time back about moding the NRUAV to be used in the Himalayas and was shot down as there would be operational challenges in that environment. But that should not be a overtly difficult problem in the plains of Gujarat, deserts of Rajasthan and again the plains of Punjab If they could be employed then may be after being re-engined with the Shakti engine they could add a Heli-Nag payload as well......Yes/No????

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 28 Dec 2008 13:04

andy B wrote:
Ray C saar, this might have been discussed to death before if so I apologise for taking this up again.

I agree that choppers would make better recce sources given their obvious advantages as you mentioned.

In that case would be NRUAV be adopted for army use, I know I brought the point some time back about moding the NRUAV to be used in the Himalayas and was shot down as there would be operational challenges in that environment. But that should not be a overtly difficult problem in the plains of Gujarat, deserts of Rajasthan and again the plains of Punjab If they could be employed then may be after being re-engined with the Shakti engine they could add a Heli-Nag payload as well......Yes/No????

Andy,

I am an old timer and very unlearned in these US abbreviations. What is NRUAV?

It would be nice if you once again raise the issue of 'moding' (and what does that mean) in the Himalayas so that I can venture an answer.

What is a Shakti engine?

One of the problems that I find is that folks look at wpn systems in isolation, based on the manufacturer's glossies. I view systems on the threat analysis and the organisation.

Being an infantry man, I am amazed as to what all the folks want the Infantryman to carry as if carrying that load is a Christmas stocking! Further, none looks at the Manpower Ceiling and the organisation.

At the rate at which the BRF members want the Army to evolve, it astounds me as to if India has the will, the finances or the Army has the organisation to assimilate whatever is suggested. Yet, it is fun reading all the stuff.

Yet, it is required so that there is some tab on the governmental machinery to wake up and see what is feasible and what is not!

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 28 Dec 2008 13:30

Andy,

I am an old timer and very unlearned in these US abbreviations. What is NRUAV? - Naval Rotary UAV being developed by DRDO and IAI based on the Chetak http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

It would be nice if you once again raise the issue of 'moding' (and what does that mean) in the Himalayas so that I can venture an answer.- Under modifying I meant to re-engine with the Shakti (Ardien A1H) used by the Dhruv ALH to give it more power for better payload and improve its perfomance a notch when operating in hot and high conditions

What is a Shakti engine? - As mentioned above

One of the problems that I find is that folks look at wpn systems in isolation, based on the manufacturer's glossies. I view systems on the threat analysis and the organisation.- Saar I have read through the brochures and the scenarios where I am suggesting the NRUAV to be used are different from where it was orignally designed to be used, however there are some obvious similarities in that the plains and ocean are both open expanses and if the NRUAV can be controlled from a ship it can be controlled by a ground control station as well.

Being an infantry man, I am amazed as to what all the folks want the Infantryman to carry as if carrying that load is a Christmas stocking! Further, none looks at the Manpower Ceiling and the organisation. - Saar what is amazing is that even with the massive brain drain in India we still have ample people to do some ingenious work, yes we lack behind the goras as they got a head start of about 50 years, but having said that we have caught up quite well even with the way they have pondered over major projects for years before giving the go ahead and squabbling over and over with the requirements and blame games. These are our jewels (DRDO, BEL, BHEL, OFBs etc) and if we take care of them they will shine brilliantly and the serve the country very very well not just in the military sector but in the civilian sector as well

At the rate at which the BRF members want the Army to evolve, it astounds me as to if India has the will, the finances or the Army has the organisation to assimilate whatever is suggested. Yet, it is fun reading all the stuff. - Saar we have the finances to a good extent IMVHO we lack the will due to political rantling the Armed forces always loose out on what they need most at the time. Saar the 6th pay comm for examle is the best example right now which clearly shows the mismanagement of such an imp subject by the current govt.

Yet, it is required so that there is some tab on the governmental machinery to wake up and see what is feasible and what is not - Couldn't agree more it is us the people that need to hold this mantle and make the monkeys in Delhi wake up

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Dec 2008 15:32

RahulM, I dont think I have ever mentioned that IA uses BMPII as a light tank. In fact the "light tank" bit for NAMICA would be a huge red herring - dont think there is any doctrine/requirement of the IA that necessitates a "light tank". I was mentioning that BMPs are "multi tasked" platforms, and NAMICA would not be a replacement for them, and even as a supplement, would be a logistics heavy one in a mech infantry unit.

My question with NAMICA (and hence the NAG ATGM itself!) is what is the operational doctrine necessitating an ATGM carrier? If it is simple recce roles (as are used by some other countries), it would seem to be a waste of time, as it would be better to simply integrate the existing missiles on to a BMP chasiss, rather than a new one. So a mech infantry regiment with Konkur equipped BMPIIs would be better off having a few recce ATGM carriers fitted out with Konkurs, rather than another brand new missile!

About the light tank, I dont think there is a wargaming scenario that IA has where a tank "lighter" than the T72 will be viable. Anything lighter will be easy meat for even RPG type projectiles in a battlefield, forget new gen ATGMs. Surely not for any conflict with China on the Tibetan heights!

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Dec 2008 15:49

I do not know much about operational war doctrine , but logically an ATGM being a more expensive but reliable weapon would definitely be useful in a scenario when an armored regiment would find itself outnumbered in the battlefield , ATGM platforms like NAMICA will definitely tilt the advantage in favor of the friendly forces as one would be able to take out moving tanks from a stand off distance and also be able to achieve one shot one kill.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2008 16:35

somnath wrote:RahulM, I dont think I have ever mentioned that IA uses BMPII as a light tank. In fact the "light tank" bit for NAMICA would be a huge red herring - dont think there is any doctrine/requirement of the IA that necessitates a "light tank". I was mentioning that BMPs are "multi tasked" platforms, and NAMICA would not be a replacement for them, and even as a supplement, would be a logistics heavy one in a mech infantry unit.

I've mentioned already that it is IA that is reportedly looking for the light tanks and I guess if they are chances are they have a doctrine that requires it. I'll try to dig out the report.
the "logistics heavy" part is an argument that defies common sense, I'm not sure why you are still continuing with it without providing even one reason why you think so.

the BMP replacement argument is an obvious strawman, NOBODY said so.
as for requirement, given that PLA would deploy its various ICVs in Indo-tibet border areas IA would require something like a light tank to counter them.
and NO, throwing ATGM armed infantry is not a solution for this scenario as you say. infantry requires the advantages of terrain, low mobility of enemy armour and absence of enemy infantry to successfully ambush tanks/ICVs.
Indo-china theaters are not gaza city that would offer such advantages to infantry. the chinese would overwhelmingly control the areas with boots on the ground and simply crush any unprotected infantry with a combination of armour artillery and infantry.

somnath wrote: About the light tank, I dont think there is a wargaming scenario that IA has where a tank "lighter" than the T72 will be viable. Anything lighter will be easy meat for even RPG type projectiles in a battlefield, forget new gen ATGMs. Surely not for any conflict with China on the Tibetan heights!

RPGs ?

have you checked the range of an RPG ? plz compare it with the effective range of any weapon on a regular ICV.

what you say is true ONLY for urban warfare/insurgency type scenarios and few modern APCs can handle such environments. this is the reason why the russians developed the BMP-T.
in an conventional battlefield RPG wielding infantry would have miniscule chance of surviving long enough to come into firing range.

and since IA is not planning on occupation of an enemy country anytime soon, we don't really need to worry that much about RPG wielding infantry.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 28 Dec 2008 17:51

I've mentioned already that it is IA that is reportedly looking for the light tanks and I guess if they are chances are they have a doctrine that requires it. I'll try to dig out the report

Would love to see that - would be a completely new perspective! If theres none, we (rather the IA) will need to invent a doctrine/requirement for the system, rahther than the other way round!

the "logistics heavy" part is an argument that defies common sense, I'm not sure why you are still continuing with it without providing even one reason why you think so.

Really? Consider a para infantry unit - which was one of "your" doctrinal uses in one of the earlier posts. If it has to carry NAMICAs - it has to now start maintaining a whole BMP train, a new missile and all its attendant logistics. Makes it heavier doesnt it? Now consider a mech infantry unit. It carries X number of BMPs capable of carrying Y nos of soldiers and delivering Z firepower in terms of ATGM shots. Now with NAMICA (in case inducted beyond niche recce roles), it would have to field A (surely >>X) nos of BMP tracked vehicles, in order to carry the same Y nos of soldiers - increases the load on its maintenance chain doesnt it? Further, along with its Konkurs/Fagots, it now has to also maintain a logistics train for NAGs. IMHO it will be "tougher" on the missile logistics than on any vehicle - there is electronics, reload setups and a lot of "delicate" logictics associated with missiles. All in all, again increases the load on the mech infantry's logistics column!

the BMP replacement argument is an obvious strawman, NOBODY said so.

I thought you mentioned somewherer that a gun on the NAMICA and it becomes a "better" BMP? Or was it a "light tank"? Sorry if I misunderstood.

Net net, the whole NAG affair will be quite a waste unless there is an IA doctrine for dedicated tracked tank killers. OR they come up with Helina pretty soon. OR of course, we find out that IA has a "light tank" requirement which can be fulfilled by an ATGM carrier. On the last hypothesis - just a thought - cost of each Nag missile will easily be a multiple of an APFSDS shot - would be interesting to know if the IA would be happy with a 12 shot "tank" platform that is several times more expensive than a "40 shot" "light tank"!

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 28 Dec 2008 17:59

andy B wrote:
At the rate at which the BRF members want the Army to evolve, it astounds me as to if India has the will, the finances or the Army has the organisation to assimilate whatever is suggested. Yet, it is fun reading all the stuff.

At the rate at which the army hands back the excess surplus budget amount back to the Govt, it would seem plausible if the army could setup an Indian factory to produce decent armour-jackets to protect every Indian soldier who appear so ill equipped. Is that too much to ask ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Dec 2008 18:33

somnath, really. you are misquoting, misunderstanding and distorting everything I have been saying till now without reserve to suit whatever you believe personally.
I'm now finding it hard to believe that you want a fruitful discussion on this topic.

this is getting a little tiring for me. coupled with my other obligations it is not possible to continue this discussion with you any longer.
thanks for humouring me till now.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 28 Dec 2008 19:44

Iam wrote:
andy B wrote:
At the rate at which the BRF members want the Army to evolve, it astounds me as to if India has the will, the finances or the Army has the organisation to assimilate whatever is suggested. Yet, it is fun reading all the stuff.

At the rate at which the army hands back the excess surplus budget amount back to the Govt, it would seem plausible if the army could setup an Indian factory to produce decent armour-jackets to protect every Indian soldier who appear so ill equipped. Is that too much to ask ?

Iam mate, I was quoting Ray C saar and trying to post my views on his posts.

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 28 Dec 2008 21:28

andy B wrote: Iam mate, I was quoting Ray C saar and trying to post my views on his posts.

No worries mate, I was simply trying to fill in to that quote, I hope ones liners are not barred on this forum

kit · Post by **kit** » 28 Dec 2008 23:02

Iam wrote:
andy B wrote: Iam mate, I was quoting Ray C saar and trying to post my views on his posts.
No worries mate, I was simply trying to fill in to that quote, I hope ones liners are not barred on this forum

well actually no ., it increases the post count for one .. like this post

.. and cross 100 you are a BRfite !

ah i see one of our hardest working moderators is taking things too personally .. you are already doing a good job Rahulji .. you need to take a chill pill once in a while

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Dec 2008 23:05

Vikram_S: Each Rocket Regiment = 3 Batteries @ 6 systems each.
Therefore, 36 units = 2 regiments.