Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 620
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Igorr » 03 Jan 2010 21:27

Singha wrote:thanks Igorr, any idea what is the capacity of the aft storage for apfsds rounds?
the old storage below the floor is said to be 39 rounds. I would imagine the new storage
cannot store that many rounds so some part of the old storage still needs to be used to
carry around 45 rounds.
According to the previousely published information they were developing an aft autoloading storage for 22 rounds. It can use the new unitary rounds.
Image Image

- Of course, the regular storage inside the hull can be used in its full capability too if needed.

Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bheem » 03 Jan 2010 21:44

Cut and paste from another forum

dwightlooi 12/16/2007 1:02:38 PM

..............

(2) The "new" US Army tubed artillery doctrine is that guns do not have to be particularly long ranged and they do not have to fire very quickly. That is not their value. If it is firepower or range that is needed, there are better solutions with greater potential than a shell pushed out of a tube by an explosive charge! Rocket systems or aerial bombardment are better choices for weight of fire and/or range.

(3) The "new" believe is that SPAs are to be small, light and preferably C-130 transportable. They have to out range line of sight weaponry sufficiently to remain behind the heavy armor action groups but do not have to out range enemy artillery. They need to be responsive and precise more than they need to be fast firing. Their mission is to support the armored spearhead or urban infantry action from 5~15km away delivery precise and near immediate fire on enemy LOS combat elements in plain view of friendly tanks or infantry when requested. Their mission is NOT to pull counter battery duty against enemy long range tube or rocket artillery. The MLRS, HIMARS and CAS cover will do those things.

bart
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 21:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby bart » 03 Jan 2010 22:25

Bheem,

We are not the US and neither are our adversaries the type of moth-eaten military or guerrila groups that the US has taken on of late. Plus the US doctrine generally assumes total air superiority, massive supply of cruise missiles, JDAMS, smart bombs and the like, plus the aerial firepower to deliver it anywhere, anytime, and in any quantity, all that enabled by carrier battle groups, B52s etc. Hence they can go in for 'innovative' tactics. But even they do not put all their bets on light artillery, they have huge numbers of Paladin SPH and though the Crusader program was canceled rest assured they will continue to have heavy artillery.

Also, the US artillery tends to be used in full-scale combat where they are openly in war, unlike our situation where we might have cross-border shelling, kargil type scenario or are responding to some provocation, but not in an open war. In such a situation IA might not simply be able to call in Brahmos or SU-30 strikes (assuming we had enough aerial weaponry in the first place and the financial ability to expend them) and might be restricted to artillery. Wouldn't you want IA to at least have the best possible artillery in that situation?

The Bofors guns were a huge factor in Kargil and proved their ability to work round the clock. The sustained and relentless artillery barrages were a major factor in reducing causalities on our side. It was one of the few good tools we had, and though we have added lots of equipment since then including Smerch and Pinaka the need of heavy artillery remains. The request for a light howitzer shows the IA is also evolving it's tactics, however it's tactics also rightly call for heavy tracked and wheeled howitzers.

vishnu.nv
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vishnu.nv » 04 Jan 2010 12:42

The current issue of the force magazine says the Arjun performed well in the desert trials where it was pitched against the T-72 and the T-90 tanks. This made army to rethink on arjun and a order of total 250 will be made for the MK1 and another 250 for MKII. :D :D

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Venu » 04 Jan 2010 12:57

vishnu.nv wrote:The current issue of the force magazine says the Arjun performed well in the desert trials where it was pitched against the T-72 and the T-90 tanks. This made army to rethink on arjun and a order of total 250 will be made for the MK1 and another 250 for MKII. :D :D


Is it possible for you to scan that article and post it here? I seriously wish to see it true.

sunny y
BRFite
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 14:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunny y » 04 Jan 2010 13:37

Hi Venu...here is the article...

http://www.forceindia.net/coverstory4.aspx

Also under construction at HVF are 124 units of the Indian locally-designed Arjun MBT, which recently underwent comparative trials with the T-72 and T-90S. These desert trials, it is learned, were fairly successful which has pushed the army to raise the initial order to 250 enough for six regiments with a possible product improved order for another 250 as Mark II version.


Thank god for this. :D
This is the perfect new year gift that one can ever have. 8)

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Venu » 04 Jan 2010 14:48

Thanks sunny,

Made my day. Hope this turns out to be true.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 Jan 2010 15:12

sunny y wrote:Hi Venu...here is the article...

http://www.forceindia.net/coverstory4.aspx

Also under construction at HVF are 124 units of the Indian locally-designed Arjun MBT, which recently underwent comparative trials with the T-72 and T-90S. These desert trials, it is learned, were fairly successful which has pushed the army to raise the initial order to 250 enough for six regiments with a possible product improved order for another 250 as Mark II version.


Thank god for this. :D
This is the perfect new year gift that one can ever have. 8)


time for me to trot out I told you so ? :D

viewtopic.php?p=621204#p621204

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KrishG » 04 Jan 2010 15:44

Photo of Arjun being transported (possibly for deployment)

Image

Sorry if posted previously.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Jagan » 04 Jan 2010 18:12

Pretty OldPicture. Cant remember where it first came from. but probably 3-4 years old.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 04 Jan 2010 20:55

Some folks in the know can you please find out more about the AArjun vs T-90/72 trials?

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 620
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Igorr » 04 Jan 2010 21:21

sunny y wrote:Hi Venu...here is the article...

http://www.forceindia.net/coverstory4.aspx

Have somebody the full story issue? Must be the T-72 upgrade program details there.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 519
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 04 Jan 2010 22:29

cheers for arjun :!:
That is really a new year gift :d

vishnu.nv
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vishnu.nv » 05 Jan 2010 00:12

News confirmed by Saraswat. :D :D :D :D :D :D

On Arjun, the Main Battle Tank developed by the DRDO, Saraswat said that the Army was "comfortable" with the first batch of 124 tanks. A second batch will be supplied soon

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... i%20engine
Last edited by Rahul M on 05 Jan 2010 01:07, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: url edited.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vinito » 05 Jan 2010 00:36

vishnu.nv wrote:The current issue of the force magazine says the Arjun performed well in the desert trials where it was pitched against the T-72 and the T-90 tanks. This made army to rethink on arjun and a order of total 250 will be made for the MK1 and another 250 for MKII. :D :D


What are the improvements in the MKII version of the Arjun?

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 05 Jan 2010 00:43

Vinito wrote:
vishnu.nv wrote:The current issue of the force magazine says the Arjun performed well in the desert trials where it was pitched against the T-72 and the T-90 tanks. This made army to rethink on arjun and a order of total 250 will be made for the MK1 and another 250 for MKII. :D :D


What are the improvements in the MKII version of the Arjun?


integrated BMS and LAHAT and active Protection

sunny y
BRFite
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 14:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunny y » 05 Jan 2010 01:42

What are the improvements in the MKII version of the Arjun?


The technologies that we are currently importing will be indigenised like FCS, Engine, transmission, TI, LWR, IR Jammer etc. Current Sagem FCS will be replaced by BEL FCS. German engine will be replaced by indigenous one.
I've read somewhere recently that DRDO is planning to develop all the necessary technologies for Arjun in the next 3 years.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jan 2010 02:05

If the report is correct, this is a positive development. However the order of only 250 for MKII is perhaps too less. If the army likes Mk1, then Mk2 will only be deadlier. A minimum order of 500 MK2 tanks should be considered for the best value for money. IA should embed its personnel into DRDO to ensure the Tank is to their liking.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vavinash » 05 Jan 2010 04:50

Min 1000 Arjuns. :twisted:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 05 Jan 2010 06:38

Vinito wrote:
vishnu.nv wrote:The current issue of the force magazine says the Arjun performed well in the desert trials where it was pitched against the T-72 and the T-90 tanks. This made army to rethink on arjun and a order of total 250 will be made for the MK1 and another 250 for MKII. :D :D


What are the improvements in the MKII version of the Arjun?


It was stated a few years back in various reports that the Arjun Mk.II version will have 10 improvements over the Mk.I version. Here's one of the articles which has some info on Mk.II version upgrades.
http://frontierindia.net/arjun-mk2-the-futuristic-mbt
...
Arjun Tank in the next phase will see comparatively major changes. It could be called as Futuristic MBT.
...
As the worldwide MBT’s are getting network warfare friendly, Arjun MBT will have a logical improvement via a Battle Field Management System (BFMS). BFMS will provide information to tank commanders at different levels. This could network with helicopters or UAV’s too.

The BFMS will give the geographical location of the terrain, location of our own troops, location of enemy targets, illuminate targets, help navigation, display the health of tanks, status of ammunition holding in the tank, fuel stock etc.
...
As the imaging technology improves, Arjun MBT will feature an “Auto Tracker.” The auto tracker is a system based on image processing. As the gunner sight is fixed on a target, a picture analysis takes place. When the target moves, the Arjun Tank gun and the sight gets aligned with the target and move automatically keeping the target in focus. This is particularly good in cross country, when target is moving, Arjun Tank might go through bumps or twists or turns for maneuvering, but the auto tracker will not loose the sight of the target. ... Another aspect is, the Arjun MBT turret is a heavy mass of approximately 16- 20 tons and gun mass is about approximately 2 tons. To stabilize the turret and gun is a difficult task. Currently Arjun Tank uses something called “director mode” .The top mirror of the gunner sight of Arjun Tank is independently stabilized. A computer evaluates the elevation of both top mirror and the gun as well as the angle of the turret. There is a continuous feeding of these parameters into the computer; the computer gives electronic instructions to the gun control system. Hence the Arjun Tank gunner sight is in the middle of the target even in the cross country environment. If momentarily the gun is misaligned, the firing circuit does not open and the gunner is not able to fire. Whether Arjun MBT is static, target is static or Arjun MBT is static, target is moving or Arjun MBT is moving, target is static or both Arjun MBT and target are moving; The Arjun Tank firing accuracy remains more or less the same, and achieves a very high level of accuracy.

Defensive aid like Shotra system for Arjun Tank is getting developed. An 81mm Anti-laser and Anti-thermal Screening Smoke Grenade is also going to be featured.

The Lahat missile’s laser designator module will be integrated into fire control computer.

There will not be any revolutionary physical changes on the Arjun MBT platform.


As far as quantities go, instead of throwing out numbers like 250 etc, IMO, you have to look at how many tanks IA has in its Brigade/Division formations. This will give more accurate idea as to how many Arjun MBTs will be ordered by the IA. Since IA ordered 124 Arjun Mk.I or equivalent to numbers of MBT in one armored brigade (assuming 2 regiments per brigade), I'm assuming IA plans to have Arjuns as in its independent/mechnized armored formations and not in its 3 armored divisions.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 05 Jan 2010 10:05

vishnu.nv wrote:The current issue of the force magazine says the Arjun performed well in the desert trials where it was pitched against the T-72 and the T-90 tanks. This made army to rethink on arjun and a order of total 250 will be made for the MK1 and another 250 for MKII. :D :D

This is great news indeed...
sunny y wrote:I've read somewhere recently that DRDO is planning to develop all the necessary technologies for Arjun in the next 3 years.


And if this is true, they have got a pretty small time frame to develop all these products.. I mean three years is hardly enough time to develop complex systems like FCS and BMS...

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2010 11:02

I believe the BMS was already in trials a while back - the network radios, displays, C3I sw. it maybe just be a question of phasing it in.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Jan 2010 12:05

IIRC already developed but not in production models.

sunny y
BRFite
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 14:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunny y » 05 Jan 2010 13:04

Bala Vignesh wrote:
sunny y wrote:I've read somewhere recently that DRDO is planning to develop all the necessary technologies for Arjun in the next 3 years.


And if this is true, they have got a pretty small time frame to develop all these products.. I mean three years is hardly enough time to develop complex systems like FCS and BMS...


Here is the source :
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 59572.html

My mistake it's actually 5 years not 3 years.....

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9869
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 05 Jan 2010 20:25

Great to know that more Arjuns may be ordered. But I feel we need to order at least 500 plus going up to 1000 plus to keep a production line going for some time. Even the Mk1 version is much better than anything Paki's got and we can always upgrade them to Mk2 later.

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Anabhaya » 05 Jan 2010 20:38

I doubt there is much scope left for large numbers of Arjun unless we begin to retire the oldest T-72's in service. Ofcourse that will happen in another 10-15 years from now.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 05 Jan 2010 21:17

Anabhaya wrote:I doubt there is much scope left for large numbers of Arjun unless we begin to retire the oldest T-72's in service. Ofcourse that will happen in another 10-15 years from now.

That should me more than enough time to show the army brass that the Arjun is much better than the upgraded T72M1... And its a sound investment to induct these tanks into our force..

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 06 Jan 2010 00:30

Is it actually possible that the Army conducted comparative trials without the media getting a hint of it(as it seems)? Considering the repeated references to comparative trials against the T-90 in practically every recent news report/opinion piece on the Arjun, its surprising it was finally such a low key affair.

Does anyone else have any source besides FORCE referring to competitive trials having concluded?

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sagar G » 06 Jan 2010 01:12

Is the DRDO developing any active defensive system for Arjun Mk.2 like the Active Arena Countermeasures System :?:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 06 Jan 2010 06:49

Narayana Rao wrote:Great to know that more Arjuns may be ordered. But I feel we need to order at least 500 plus going up to 1000 plus to keep a production line going for some time. Even the Mk1 version is much better than anything Paki's got and we can always upgrade them to Mk2 later.



Indian MoD outlines roadmap for MBT Arjun, Mark II in pipeline
...
On the requirement of Tanks by the Army and the present position of orders received from the Army for Arjun Tank and also time schedule to deliver the same, the Ministry replied “Total requirements of Army is about 3500 tanks. ...


Given that the total IA requirement is for around 3,500 MBTs, we can see the following breakdown between 2010-2020 time frame:
Known
1,640 - T-90S -> 310, 330, 1000 (licensed production)
~1,000 - T-72 UPG (Equipment of the Indian Army)
250 - Arjun Mk.1 -> 1st batch 124 w/ follow on 2nd batch (similar quantity) as reported recently
---------------------
Total: 2,890 MBTs

Rest of the remaining ~610 units (3,500 - 2,890) could be made up by the Arjun Mk.1/2 MBTs. It is also highly likely that once the Mk.2 standard becomes available the Mk.1s will be upgraded post 2015.

But we'll have to wait and see. It will be become more clearer what the IA's intentions are in the next few years.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9869
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 06 Jan 2010 09:54

Can any one tell me what is the basis for this 3,500 requirement. The new concept of war against China and Pak at the same time may need more MBT's. If we have to take on China we need good no of Tanks also right ? So how many will be avaliable agaisnt Pak in such condition. Agreed that future China war may be mainly done by Mountain Divisions. But still we did tired to expariment with T72 in Ladakh right. China got good roads up to our borders and there is no reason for them not to deploy their tanks against our forces. In such a situation 3,500 is Ok???

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 06 Jan 2010 10:25

3500 would be 2nd largest fleet of tanks in world, I dont think Khan will be having that many MBTs in service - something like 1000 will be retained perhaps.
that leaves only china.

the tank suitable terrains are indeed ladakh and north sikkim. if we can somehow
get tanks and supplies to the border, we can use the famed roads on their side to roll up large swathes of territory :twisted:

a good mix of IFV, T72(light) and T90/arjun(heavy) organized into powerful IBG supported by a sound aviation components and attached atrillery brigades is what we need.

the next war must never be fought on indian soil.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 06 Jan 2010 10:54

For a country the size of India and given its operational requirements...3 Armored Divisions is a proverbial drop in the ocean...so the 3500 MBT number is not sufficient..IIRC Israel has 8 Armored Divisions...

And we need to see the increase in numbers (MK-1) and additional numbers for MK-II in context with planned expansion of IA--conversion of ID into RAPID and planned IBGs, which again are likely to be armored bde centric....so we definitely need more tanks....otherwise how do we expect to "knock off" PA and swift and brutal offensive in a two front war....

PS: independent armored brigade has 3 Armored Regiments+1 Mechanized Regiment+1 Medium Regiment (130/155mm*18 guns)

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 06 Jan 2010 10:58

rohit, could you give me a ping at my email ? address is in my profile's signature.
TIA.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 06 Jan 2010 11:03

Rahul M wrote:rohit, could you give me a ping at my email ? address is in my profile's signature.
TIA.


you'll have to be more explicit with ur id---coul not find any id....

or

drop me a mail at rohitxxvatsxx29xx@xxgmailxxcom

**remove all the 'xx'

added later: I'm travelling and will not be able to reply for next couple of days..will do so by weekend...

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 06 Jan 2010 20:42

rohitvats wrote:For a country the size of India and given its operational requirements...3 Armored Divisions is a proverbial drop in the ocean...so the 3500 MBT number is not sufficient..IIRC Israel has 8 Armored Divisions...

And need to see the increase in numbers (MK-1) and additional numbers for MK-II in context with planned expansion of IA--conversion of ID into RAPID and planned IBGs, which again are likely to be armored bde centric....so we definitely need more tanks....otherwise how do we expect to "knock off" PA and swift and brutal offensive in a two front war....

PS: independent armored brigade has 3 Armored Regiments+1 Mechanized Regiment+1 Medium Regiment (130/155mm*18 guns)


Can someone give the Threat Analysis to comprehend the requirement?

It maybe worth mentioning (I saw a post mentioning Ladakh and North Sikkim) that unless one sees the terrain in Ladakh and North Sikkim, one would not know whether it is ideal tank country! It is just not that one releases tanks, constrictions, boulders etc makes movement slow and can be pulverised from the air.

Tanks inherent protection is speed and dispersion. Mountainous areas don't provide the same.

China has built 8 new airfields!

Planning force levels at various areas is quite a task by itself.

Mayuresh
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Mayuresh » 06 Jan 2010 23:40

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Anabhaya wrote:I doubt there is much scope left for large numbers of Arjun unless we begin to retire the oldest T-72's in service. Ofcourse that will happen in another 10-15 years from now.

That should me more than enough time to show the army brass that the Arjun is much better than the upgraded T72M1... And its a sound investment to induct these tanks into our force..

I would say - Sell the older lot of T-72s to some 3rd world country and replace them with more Arjuns! Else, gift them to Burma in exchange of some goodwill / mineral reserves / natural gas / etc.

More power to the Arjun, i hope we can induct 1,000 of them at the minimum, given the requirement for 3,500 tanks mentioned in one of the posts above!

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rajeshks » 07 Jan 2010 00:51

I think 3500 tanks is too much for India unless we are going to invade big country. We have enough to handle pak and for the eastern sector we can use tanks in not many places.

For the eastern sector what we need is APCs with say 50 cal guns for rapid movement + light artillery + CAS in the form of helicopter gunships(Fire support + anti tank role) and planes that can deliver LGM/JDAMs. Even if we fight chinese in the Tibetan plateau where tanks can be used, the performance of those heavy machines will be poor. we may have to dedicate our entire heavy lift capability to move even a few hundred tanks to those fwd areas. So a better option is to have LCH + BMP/Stryler for rapid troop movement + Light artillery + MMRCA that can deliver PGMs and can provide air cover + Mi-17/AN32. I think IA is moving exactly in this direction.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Craig Alpert » 07 Jan 2010 05:14

Bradley M2 / M3 Tracked Armoured Fighting Vehicles, USA
"The Bradley vehicle system includes the M2 infantry-fighting and the M3 cavalry-fighting vehicles."
"The Bradley is equipped with two M257 smoke grenade dischargers, each loaded with four smoke grenades."

The US Army’s Bradley Remanufacture Program (updated)
In response, the Americans rethought the armored personnel carrier, taking a page from the Soviet book. They created a more heavily armored, faster “Infantry Fighting Vehicle” named after WW2 General Omar “the soldier’s general” Bradley, and gave it an offensive punch of its own. M2/M3 tracked, armored IFVs can carry infantry – but they also have 25mm Bushmaster cannons, networked targeting sensors, and even TOW anti-armor or Stinger anti-aircraft missiles at their disposal.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 07 Jan 2010 13:04

What is the Threat Analysis that indicates the organisation and the array of equipment?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests