Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 437
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 30 Jun 2009 16:19

A first: Foreign interest in Arjun tank

Seeking to build up its armoured warfare capabilities to crush a potential threat from Venezuela, its Latin American neighbour Colombia has shown interest in buying India’s indigenous Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun.

The first ever expression of interest from abroad in the MBT Arjun could translate into an export order worth Rs 1,700 crore, with Colombia wanting to raise at least two regiments of main battle tanks.

“Bogota has expressed interest in the MBT Arjun. The Colombian army has an immediate requirement for 10 tanks to be followed up with the induction of another 100 over five years,” said a senior official, on the condition of anonymity.

The competitors for the Colombian order include France (MBT Leclerc), US (MIAI Abram), Israel (Sabra), Korea (KI AI) and China.

India’s reluctance to export military equipment could tip the scales in the favour of international suppliers. The ministry of external affairs had recently turned down a Bolivian request for a line of credit to buy seven Dhruv advanced light helicopters worth over Rs 300 crore from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.


:cry:

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vavinash » 30 Jun 2009 18:01

Its only a RFI. I doubt GOI babus (morons) will allow export of arjun since they didn't allow credit to bolivia to buy the dhruvs. Have the MEA babus done anything about bolivia's case yet?

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunilUpa » 30 Jun 2009 19:49

In case of Bolivia, the reason for refusing the export of Dhruv may be the current Gov., AFAIK the current Bolivian leader is a chum of Hugo Chavez. What MEA has got anything to do with Line of Credit?

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1294
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KrishG » 30 Jun 2009 19:57

If there should be any request for comparitive field trials (as with MMRCA) we should atleast send a couple of Arjuns for field trials against Abrams, Leclerc and Type-99s. It would give us necessary insights into the areas in which Arjun is better and areas at which work still would hve to be done.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 437
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 30 Jun 2009 21:36

^^^ The turbine powered Abrams will out accelerate all others, and the IA will start howling of poor mobility :evil:

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby p_saggu » 30 Jun 2009 21:40

There are 2 dhruvs already on order from Bolivia. I think this is a follow on order for which a line of credit was requested from GOI.
Wiki Link

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16760
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 30 Jun 2009 21:47

aditp wrote:^^^ The turbine powered Abrams will out accelerate all others, and the IA will start howling of poor mobility :evil:

then it will run out of its quota of fuel (since neighbouring venezuela isn't supplying any) and all others will overtake it ! :rotfl:

naird
BRFite
Posts: 206
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby naird » 30 Jun 2009 23:05

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090609/jsp/nation/story_11083655.jsp#

Defence rethink on Israel freeze
SUJAN DUTTA
New Delhi, June 8: The defence ministry is having second thoughts on its decision to freeze business with a major Israeli military firm because it is likely to boomerang on the armed forces.

The other contender, Bae Land Systems, which displayed its gun at an exhibition in Delhi, opted out of the race. :shock: :-? :cry: With Singapore Technologies banned, the government will now have to cancel the tender unless the ban order is revoked.

When did Bae system opt out, never heard about it. Is it DDM or is this true ?

I believe the bofor's gun is out of picture then.

BijuShet
BRFite
Posts: 1575
Joined: 09 Jan 2008 23:14
Location: under my tin foil hat

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby BijuShet » 30 Jun 2009 23:40

naird wrote:http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090609/jsp/nation/story_11083655.jsp#

Defence rethink on Israel freeze
SUJAN DUTTA
New Delhi, June 8: The defence ministry is having second thoughts on its decision to freeze business with a major Israeli military firm because it is likely to boomerang on the armed forces.

The other contender, Bae Land Systems, which displayed its gun at an exhibition in Delhi, opted out of the race. :shock: :-? :cry: With Singapore Technologies banned, the government will now have to cancel the tender unless the ban order is revoked.

When did Bae system opt out, never heard about it. Is it DDM or is this true ?

I believe the bofor's gun is out of picture then.

It seems BAE did not participate in the Tender process. This link from Aroor blog may be of help.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1144
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 03 Jul 2009 00:27

Columbia interested in Arjun !
Interesting news , let the columbians do the trials for us as even trials cant take place correctly here .
What if Arjun wins ? :wink:

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby k prasad » 04 Jul 2009 14:41

sudeepj wrote:Furthermore, tech focus claimed the life of the barrel to be 500 rounds, which is about the same as the wiki figures for L55.


It isn't 500 rounds but 500 EFCs... the distinction is important, since different rounds have different EFCs, and on different types of guns as well (this part I'm not very sure of). Thus, a 500 EFC on an L55 may be different from the Gandiva 500 EFC life, especially since we will be using different rounds. However, in general, the life will be roughly around the same, which, in itself is amazing.

However, do note that i have read 1500 EFC life for the L55 in (IIRC) the manufacturers info (I think it was GD's brochure), so that itself is a 3x lifespan improvement. In general, Smoothbores have a far longer life, but given that none of that matters in combat, when your life can be cut down to a matter of seconds if you miss, I think we decided to take the extra cost in return for the extra kill.

sudeepj wrote:DRDO claims the dispersal for its gun to be 0.2 mil (I dont know what that means).. How does that compare with the L55?


Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil.

A mil is short for milliradian, and is the most common military measure of small angles, especially with Arty observers and Snipers. 1 mil is approx 3 minutes of an arc. Of course, the value itself varies according to the defined standards.

Most generally, 1 mil at 1 km is 1 m. Thus, 0.2 mil at 2 km range is approx 40 cm dispersion... pretty damn accurate. Of course, the other errors through the FCS, sensors, and most importantly, terminal ballistics add up, and the accuracy drops; but the 0.2 mil itself is pretty good, especially compared with smoothbore guns.

sudeepj wrote:That just leaves the ammo and the FCS.


This is the major push that is now needed, else the gun is not going to be of any advantage. The NATO countries have excellent high quality ammo, which makes their firing quite accurate... I dont know about India, but from what I've heard, quality needs to improve drastically.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KiranM » 06 Jul 2009 18:20

Very interesting study by RAND on Medium Armoured forces. Very rational and interesting.
Also the case studies give excellent insight into combined arms warfare, the main topic notwithstanding.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG709.pdf

Some interesting excerpts;


Unfortunately for U.S. tankers, and in spite of U.S. Army doctrine,
U.S. tanks did have to fight German tanks and did so at a great
disadvantage. Most tank engagements were small actions. Historian
Charles Baily notes that the 2nd Armored Division’s biggest tank battle
through the end of World War II “involved only twenty-five German
tanks.”49 This action occurred in mid-November 1944 in the vicinity
of Puffendorf, Germany. Over a two-day period, the U.S. 1st Battalion,
67th Armored Regiment, 2nd Armored Division, suffered 363
casualties and lost 57 tanks to well-sited German tanks. The battalion
claimed only four German tanks destroyed—two by Shermans and
two by M36 tank destroyers.



Despite the training, situational awareness, and combined arms
advantages the SAA enjoyed in Angola, the service ultimately
decided that those advantages were not sufficient to address the
operational environment. The SAA chose to make itself heavier
with the introduction of the Olifant MBT.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KiranM » 08 Jul 2009 19:46

KiranM wrote:Very interesting study by RAND on Medium Armoured forces. Very rational and interesting.
Also the case studies give excellent insight into combined arms warfare, the main topic notwithstanding.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG709.pdf



Any comments? I highly recommend reading the case studies on South African Army.

Regards,
Kiran

Vinito
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 18:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vinito » 09 Jul 2009 03:47

Samay wrote:Columbia interested in Arjun !
Interesting news , let the columbians do the trials for us as even trials cant take place correctly here .
What if Arjun wins ? :wink:


it would be even better if the Russians field their T-90 in the competition and the Arjun comes out tops....will be a slap in the face for the IA to bring them to their senses.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby p_saggu » 09 Jul 2009 04:22

The refusal to Columbia for the Arjun tank line of credit, could it have to do with Brazil asking India to not supply the same to Columbia?
With Kangress in power, you never know. Just to remind everyone...
In 2008, Brazil approved the sale of 100 MAR-1 anti-radiation missiles to Pakistan despite India's pressure on Brazil to avoid just that.

Brazil's Defense Minister Nelson Jobim called these missiles "very effective ways to monitor" areas flown by war planes, and said the deal with Pakistan was worth 85 million euros (167.6 million dollars). He dismissed suggestions that the transaction might be questioned in light of Islamist extremist massacre who perpetrated in Mumbai, India, which some Indian officials suspected was launched from within Pakistan. "Brazil negotiates with Pakistan, not with Pakistani terrorists," Mr Jobim said. "To cancel this deal would be to attribute terrorist activities to the Pakistani Government."

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunilUpa » 09 Jul 2009 04:28

p_saggu wrote:The refusal to Columbia for the Arjun tank line of credit, could it have to do with Brazil asking India to not supply the same to Columbia?
With Kangress in power, you never know. Just to remind everyone...
In 2008, Brazil approved the sale of 100 MAR-1 anti-radiation missiles to Pakistan despite India's pressure on Brazil to avoid just that.

Brazil's Defense Minister Nelson Jobim called these missiles "very effective ways to monitor" areas flown by war planes, and said the deal with Pakistan was worth 85 million euros (167.6 million dollars). He dismissed suggestions that the transaction might be questioned in light of Islamist extremist massacre who perpetrated in Mumbai, India, which some Indian officials suspected was launched from within Pakistan. "Brazil negotiates with Pakistan, not with Pakistani terrorists," Mr Jobim said. "To cancel this deal would be to attribute terrorist activities to the Pakistani Government."


Err Saggu Ji are you confusing the Dhruv-Bolivia episode with Arjun-Coumbia?

KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KBDagha » 12 Jul 2009 09:14

Hi All,
Techfocus for August is up:
http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/2009/aug09.pdf

Interesting pics of Abhay (Which I had but lost it :( ) and 105mm light tank.

Regards,
Khambat Dagha.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16760
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 12 Jul 2009 18:45

Tech Focus article on Abhay ICV from Aroor's blog.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/07/dr ... ailed.html

pretty impressive !

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vavinash » 12 Jul 2009 19:21

Brazil is pretty much with chinkis and anti-US. India only supports them when there is something of mutual benefit. Otherwise they can be considered as chinese allies. It would be a good idea to supply Arjun to Columbia as it opens doors to future sale of Dhruv, LCH, astra and nag in due course of time.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Prem Kumar » 13 Jul 2009 09:43

Very interesting read regarding Abhay ICV. Is this going to be a Technology demonstrator or is the IA planning to induct it?

KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KBDagha » 13 Jul 2009 11:20

It's a TD. VRDE has already started work on new and improved variant. All the learnings will be incorporated. Also as informed TCS and various other software firms will be providing their expertise.

Regards,
Khambat Dagha.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2178
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Prem Kumar » 13 Jul 2009 19:47

Thanks Khambat. Do you know if the IA has expressed an interest for a new ICV (or) is the approach one of build-it-and-they-will-come?

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1144
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 13 Jul 2009 21:10

This ICV is a shame.on drdo
just the russian copy plus few more digital stuff ,.
such vehicles aren't required in wars anymore as they are obsolete concept,.
just imagine why they were developing it!!

Nothing special in this ICV, not sufficient innovation to position it as a competitor in growing MRAP market, neither it could be seen as a futuristic system that army can rely upon,for its needs in the battle.
Hence there is less probability that army will go for it in bulk.,specially when it requires a good apc .

In the scanned brochure it is shown that the vehicle can host two missiles ,if these could be helena,is doubtful,.
while present requirement is to have a short range missile both for tank and gunships, which it could not have,because we dont make such missles.so it could not protect itself and soldiers inside,besides having a good armour (as claimed)

This ICV will only find its relevance in use against growing naxals, to be used by paramilitary and other forces ,since it could run at 35-70 km/hr (as claimed) .

No wonder why army does not prefers many drdo products,as they are good but obsolete ,.

KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KBDagha » 13 Jul 2009 21:13

This time they have involved army and also private players :)

Regards,
Khambat Dagha.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16760
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 13 Jul 2009 21:20

Samay wrote:This ICV is a shame.on drdo
just the russian copy plus few more digital stuff ,.
such vehicles aren't required in wars anymore as they are obsolete concept,.
just imagine why they were developing it!!
..........

:rotfl: :rotfl:

this is where you should be : viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4631&start=200 or viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3753&start=680 instead of this thread.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KiranM » 13 Jul 2009 21:59

^^^ OT but Rahul, is there a feature to assign folks to a 'whine' list and give them posting rights only to the whine, humour and newbie threads? Depending on improvement in quality of posts wider rights can be given. Just my 2 cents

BR Mil forum is losing badly in the signal to noise ratio.

Regards,
Kiran

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 13 Jul 2009 23:08

DRDO to continue indigenous Arjun tanks production for Army

Allaying fears of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) scientists that the production of the Arjun main battle tank will be stopped, the government has decided to continue with its manufacture, and added that a second regiment of the indigenously built combat vehicle will be raised soon.

The Army had made it clear that it would buy no more than the 124 Arjun tanks that it has contracted for because it was unhappy with the tank on various counts.

A senior Defence Ministry official said: At present, the Army has been supplied with one regiment of 45 Arjun tanks. Another 77 tanks will be supplied by March 2010. Also, the apprehension of the scientists has been allayed and the production of the tank will continue.

The official also added that the government is planning to raise a second regiment of Arjun tanks. The first regiment of the combat vehicle will become fully operational in October this year.

http://www.littleabout.com/news/23332,d ... -army.html

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1121
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby koti » 13 Jul 2009 23:25

Is there any way we can couple one or two Nag's on Abhay? Or is it too much to ask for in terms of weight, sensors and space?

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby p_saggu » 13 Jul 2009 23:31

Sometimes this entire Arjun saga seems like a Chankiyan attempt by the cunning yindoos at declaring Arjun not good enough.

I've often wondered, if the officers and men who drive the arjun love the damn beast, the tank performs superlatively in trials, how is it that the top brass can't see the obvious? I don't deny the other end of the story line about corruption in MOD and the need for further improvements in the Arjun as a MK II version.

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby p_saggu » 14 Jul 2009 00:17

wrt Brazil,
I think teh Babus in delhi believe that Brazil = China. Hence in spite of all the talk of friendship with that nation, no strategic projects are ever completed.

#Brazil came to us for space launcher tech, which India declined.
#India might purchase embraer platforms, but not the radar system for the AEW.
#The brazilian sale of the MAR anti radiation missiles to pakistan.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1144
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 14 Jul 2009 01:06

Rahul M wrote:
Samay wrote:This ICV is a shame.on drdo
just the russian copy plus few more digital stuff ,.
such vehicles aren't required in wars anymore as they are obsolete concept,.
just imagine why they were developing it!!
..........

:rotfl: :rotfl:

this is where you should be : viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4631&start=200 or viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3753&start=680 instead of this thread.

Perhaps you know that place better, and I was not whining at all. Those drdo chaps are diverting their energy to make a tin box, and then name it abhay(fearless :shock: ) in front of hellfires and those antitank stuff lying around your borders ,,.
Also they do not mention in their brochure,as who will be fearless ,those infantry men inside or the vehicle itself!! perhaps they were talking about machines,but machines dont have emotions to be fearfull or fearless .!
Isnt it humourous ?

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby p_saggu » 14 Jul 2009 02:08

All this halla about the Arjun was just so that the T-90 order could go to the russians for 1200 tanks. They even tried to scuttle the Arjun tanks trials. Someone had put in ball bearings in the Arjun engine oil. They were out to find fault at the slightest provocation, the final report on the tank trails was made in such a manner that even the defence minister was aghast.

Now that this has come online, it is time for the second batch of Arjuns to start building. Then on to Mark II Arjuns.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1144
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 14 Jul 2009 02:17

p_saggu wrote:All this halla about the Arjun was just so that the T-90 order could go to the russians for 1200 tanks. They even tried to scuttle the Arjun tanks trials. Someone had put in ball bearings in the Arjun engine oil. They were out to find fault at the slightest provocation, the final report on the tank trails was made in such a manner that even the defence minister was aghast.

Now that this has come online, it is time for the second batch of Arjuns to start building. Then on to Mark II Arjuns.

May God bless the markII Arjun tank :)

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby p_saggu » 14 Jul 2009 02:21

God will be needed at every step of the way. Because if there is a Arjun Mark II, there is also the next gen tank that Russia is developing for which the IA has evinced keen interest. In fact, the very features of the Arjun that the Army was criticizing, were included in the specs that the army wanted for the next gen russian tank!

At present, the Arjun is easily much more advanced than the T-90. I had once asked a T-90 tank driver about the tank. His only statement was the extreme heat they had to endure in rajasthan in this thing. According to him, because this thing was made for the cold climates in Russia, there was no AC included. This was nearly a year before the AC controversy hit the headlines. This was not the only issue there.
When I asked about the comparision, between the Arjun and the T-90, there was a silence. It seems that the Army has pointedly prohibited its staff to talk on this subject.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 935
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Venkarl » 14 Jul 2009 10:37

p_saggu wrote:When I asked about the comparision, between the Arjun and the T-90, there was a silence. It seems that the Army has pointedly prohibited its staff to talk on this subject.


Exactly...my childhood friend in Army did talk about good things about Arjun...and was hailing the comfort in it...but when asked about why T-90 > Arjun @DGMF?......started talkin about Surya missile :lol: ..it was in 2005..

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby p_saggu » 14 Jul 2009 11:08

Errr is that the Surya missile or the Shourya missile? Zameen-Asmaan ka difference there and mighty critical too. :eek:

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby babbupandey » 14 Jul 2009 11:36

p_saggu wrote:God will be needed at every step of the way. Because if there is a Arjun Mark II, there is also the next gen tank that Russia is developing for which the IA has evinced keen interest. In fact, the very features of the Arjun that the Army was criticizing, were included in the specs that the army wanted for the next gen russian tank!

At present, the Arjun is easily much more advanced than the T-90. ...


This is interesting, last year Lt. Gen. Bharadwaj (DGMF) was quoted as saying that Arjun does not fulfill their requirements and they need to lookahead at least 10 years. He also said that they need newer technology (coupled with wads of cash?) for fulfilling their requirements.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 935
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Venkarl » 14 Jul 2009 12:01

p_saggu wrote:Errr is that the Surya missile or the Shourya missile? Zameen-Asmaan ka difference there and mighty critical too. :eek:


Its a Surya Sagguji...things he said still ring in my ears :) correction it was 2006 . Also, he also told me that GTRE is working on a Gas turbine engine for Arjun....but that was 2006 :roll: don't know whats the update now...

Can you reply to my query on Google Update thread plzzzz? <begging smiley>

p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1058
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby p_saggu » 14 Jul 2009 12:29

Err, I replied on the google page. Now about the Surya missile. Please please mail me. There is stuff I've heard too.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 935
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Venkarl » 14 Jul 2009 12:59

Theory exams are over. Don't know if all set for practicals. I am an ignorant on this...Maybe BIG gurus here are enlightened on this.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest