Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Feb 2010 23:42

T-90 order can be capped but I see higher chances of M1 Abrams being procured via FMS instead of more orders for Arjun.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Feb 2010 23:56

samay ji, I quite understood what you were trying to say but you didn't get the point I was making.

the reason army is not accepting arjun is not for some perceived 'defects' vis-a-vis the T-90, the reason probably lies elsewhere. to put it differently, it is not some shortcoming on DRDO's part that is holding up the arjun acquisition. they have created a product that is FAR better than the T-90 but yet the army wants more of the inferior T-90 at a higher cost !

there is nothing that remains for the DRDO to do, except perhaps rename the arjun as T-91 and sell it through rosbonexport.

to us fulltime layman and part time paanwala audience there appears to be NO good reason for the army not to accept the arjun in large numbers in stead of the T-90. the army itself has not been able to give any reason.
the saddest thing is that a number of retd officers are as perplexed by this decision as we are.

nachiket wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
as for the T-72, we should perhaps look to retain the CIA versions and even upgrade them further if needed. all the rest should be modified to tank support/heavy APC like the BTR-T/BMP-T. total T-90 numbers in IA can be capped at around 700-800 if we cancel the additional direct order placed from russia and cut-back the domestic production which has just started. the arjun should be ordered in numbers instead.
Not necessary. Even if we procure all T-90s currently ordered that is still less than half of the total IA tank force.
It is much more important to replace the T-72s that still make up the majority. They can be replaced with the Arjun.

nachiket, please go through the details again, about 700 T-72's have been upgraded very recently to CIA (combat improved ajeya) standard at significant cost. you can't just discard them after 5 years or so.
as for the proposal to convert older T-72 to tank support/heavily protected APC, that is not a bad thing at all. modern ATGMs make older ICVs like BMP-2 *very* vulnerable. if a better use can be found for the older T-72 that also solves this problem somewhat, what could be better ?
it's not unheard of, have a look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 06 Feb 2010 00:27

aditp wrote: You said it! The defending forces were mere T-72s. Wonder what would have happened to the Tank commander racing all out in hatch down in mid afternoon towards the defensive formations, if the defenders had Arjuns instead. I guess the scotch ould have changed sides, and the jernail would have to shake one more hand.

result would have been same ... @ that exercise, that point in time.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 06 Feb 2010 00:27

Thinking out LOUD here...
What are the chances that the army take the "older" t-72 and instead of upgrading them to CIA standard, they um say "downgrade" and retain/add certain characteristcs, i.e. Night vision, mine detection, NBC protection and some light/medium firepower and convert them to ICV (Infantry Combat transport Vehicle) standards and use those to transport troops as we still don't have ICV in places like the NE and AP where it's uses could be much appreciated...
THis way, the older t-72's are still more than capapble for transporting troops, weight, hp, range and fuel should not be an issue, when you remove some of the unncessary heavy equpiments that the "TANK" had and make it into an ICV...
RayC is this just Jingoistic thinking, or something that is feasible with allocated, cost/schedule and Needs of Indian Armed Forces??

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Feb 2010 00:43

Rahul M wrote: nachiket, please go through the details again, about 700 T-72's have been upgraded very recently to CIA (combat improved ajeya) standard at significant cost. you can't just discard them after 5 years or so.
as for the proposal to convert older T-72 to tank support/heavily protected APC, that is not a bad thing at all. modern ATGMs make older ICVs like BMP-2 *very* vulnerable. if a better use can be found for the older T-72 that also solves this problem somewhat, what could be better ?
it's not unheard of, have a look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit

Rahul ji I'm aware of the T-72 upgrade. But the total number of T-72s in the IA is around 2000. Upgrading 700 still leaves about 1300 obsolete T-72s. What I'm advocating is that instead of upgrading the rest of the T-72s we can retire them and replace them with Arjuns. And we can continue the T-90 procurement side by side till current orders are fulfilled since the IA would be looking at maintaining the current numbers of about 4000 tanks if not increasing them.
As you have pointed out above the retired T-72s can be converted into IFVs if feasible.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2010 07:58

it will be difficult to convert a tank to a ICV just like that. the israelis came up with the Nemer from older Merkava because its engine is front right and
space behind turret is used for ammo and carrying a additional wounded trooper...so removing the turrent and this ammo storage cleared on continguous space.

for a T72 to retain its engine bay and front driver area, just removing the
turrent doesnt open up much space because the tank is small. I figure if
they make a dabba out of the turret section only around 5 people could fit
in and the tank with 750hp engine would be grossly overpowered and uneconomical for a ICV.

the surgery has to be more radical and engine in the back replaced with a
much more compact 350hp diesel unit mounted in the front, new transmission etc...in effect making a new ICV...for which we already have a TD which IA wouldnt touch with a 40ft pole - Abhay.

its far easier to bring Abhay up to speed , incorporate whatever features
are needed like thermal imager, Nag tubes etc and run with that.

we desperately need more modern ICV and lots of it to complete the
true mechanisation of various units.

a whole family of Abhay based things could spring up like mortar launcher,
command vehicle, radar vehicle for spyder, ..... as it did for BMP.

the mountainous proportions of the Nemer
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/ ... Namera.htm

the interior has equivalent level of hull and mine protection as the
merkava probably....while BMP2 guarantees 12.7mm protection at 150m
from front and side

Nemer will deal with HMG fire like it didnt
exist.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Feb 2010 10:03

My take on the reason for IA's attitude on the Arjun:

T90 follows basicaly the T72 philosophy - the IA's training, tactics, doctrine, logisitics are therefore all in place to adopt T90..Arjun on the other hand, requires fresh tactics, doctrine, manpower planning (it will require 33% more personnel to operate than the T series) and above all, logistics chain...the IA's armour threat perception is from Pak, which also operates a T72 family tank, therefore T90 is considered adequate...

The uncharitable exaplanation is that IA is too lazy to reinvent its entire "armour" wheel given the above facts, and therefore is simply finding reasons to not have to induct Arjun..

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 06 Feb 2010 10:07

You cant say army is lazy. Its not lazy, its just that other factors are forcing it to take certain decisions that it would itself like to avoid.

How do you expect that army which is lazy to accept a new technology to fight a war

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Feb 2010 10:10

krishnan wrote:You cant say army is lazy. Its not lazy, its just that other factors are forcing it to take certain decisions that it would itself like to avoid.

How do you expect that army which is lazy to accept a new technology to fight a war

Its not about being "lazy" in the physical sense of the term, but in the intellectual sense...Organisational inertia - its a feature of every large organisation, but the successful ones develop means to cut through that more often than they dont...

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Feb 2010 10:29

somnath wrote:
krishnan wrote:You cant say army is lazy. Its not lazy, its just that other factors are forcing it to take certain decisions that it would itself like to avoid.

How do you expect that army which is lazy to accept a new technology to fight a war
Its not about being "lazy" in the physical sense of the term, but in the intellectual sense...Organisational inertia - its a feature of every large organisation, but the successful ones develop means to cut through that more often than they dont...

From a defensive mentality or not a single inch of ground will be lost, to an offensive mentality and thus change of tactics and organisation, from the proactive concepts of Gen Sunderjee to the Cold Start of Gen Bipin Joshi (not accepted by the GOI when suggested, but accepted when Op Parikrama showed the infirmities), one wonders where is the inertia, intellectual or otherwise!

The fact that the much touted Armies and much admired here too are coming to India to learn High Altitude Warfare and COIN, would hardly indicate that the Army is not 'on the move'.

Even the Cold Start has been revisited!

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Feb 2010 10:37

>> logistics chain.

all tanks in IA use the same grade of diesel and lubricants one hopes

T72 and T90 guns, sights, engines, gearboxes would be different so they each
need their own chain and so does the Arjun.

can the T72 gun fire the T90 ammo? if not, again T90 needs its own ammo lines,
as does the Arjun. the T90 gun is newer and can probably handle higher
pressure/high velocity shells compared to T72.

T90 missile supply is not useable on T72. arjun uses lahat missile. no
commonality there.

T90 probably has better instruments and interiors than T72 and needs its own
simulators and training curriculum

we have seen pix recently of Arjun sitting comfortably on a flatbed tank truck
as will the T-series. the truck didnt look anything special to me, maybe the
flatbed is rated for a higher point load thats all.

it appears to me, T90 and T72 logistical chain differs by the same amt as the
T72 and Arjun logistical chain!

yes tankers coming off a T72 regiment will adapt more easily to the T90, but
for new tank recruits no such hangups exist. How hard is it under cvrde supervision to train a few dozen senior instructors for Arjun?

India has (fortunately) never had to face a existential war post-independence.
existential wars of the type IDF and soviet union had to face are guarantees of
quick innovations and result oriented thinking cutting across all boundaries and
ego domians. IDF modded the shermans, pattons and M113 into a 100 varieties
and developed the merkava through four generations.

Arjun will need more quota of diesel and one more person - so medical arrangements have to be tuned for the higher number of persons in a unit and also extra rations to feed the force. but these are not hard changes.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 06 Feb 2010 10:51

for a moment if we think that the cold start doctine should be executed from 2 different borders? the Indo-Pak and the Af-Pak borders, the need of the hour is to strenghten the Afgan army and allow for sharing of bases and provision them with common mil equipment to use when the need arises

In this case don't we need more IBGs?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Feb 2010 15:29

It never bothered Airforce to have dozens of kinds of aircrafts and now also go for MRCA. Pak FA, LCA (hopefully) Su 30 mki at the same time. So what happend to the supplu chain problems. But when comes to Arjun Army has a problem. One more thing in all the resent (that is from 1990) wars the T series proved to be as good as the T Series cassettes of our Gulshan Kumar. Cheap to purchase and thorugh after one or two uses and contain onlu D class music. I agree that we can not take Iraq performence into considaration but what about Chechenia Russian also got kicked in thieir balls there. One wonders if IA really blind to all these happenings.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 06 Feb 2010 18:12

Good Karnail reacts to intense passion of Arjun supporters and presents a plan for its induction

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 06 Feb 2010 18:30

^^ From above article by Karnail

The answer, in my opinion, will depend upon doubling the rate of retirement of the obsolescent T-72s. One replacement stream is the T-90, being produced at the HVF, Avadi. A second stream of Arjuns must supplement this, for which the following broad process must begin:...

Exactly what I said here..
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5096&p=819330#p819004

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 06 Feb 2010 21:47

Rahul M wrote:samay ji, I quite understood what you were trying to say but you didn't get the point I was making.
the reason army is not accepting arjun is not for some perceived 'defects' vis-a-vis the T-90, the reason probably lies elsewhere. to put it differently, it is not some shortcoming on DRDO's part that is holding up the arjun acquisition. they have created a product that is FAR better than the T-90 but yet the army wants more of the inferior T-90 at a higher cost !

there is nothing that remains for the DRDO to do, except perhaps rename the arjun as T-91 and sell it through rosbonexport.

LOL ,who says DRDO didnt made a marvel, perhaps Arjun could easily be compared with sort of tanks like Challenger(uk), . It is sure that some people in army/mod have 'something ' with them that they are not accepting Arjun in large nos ,.
Instead DRDO is behaving like an obedient dog, tommorow if army kicks them again and ask them to design a fully featured next generation stealthy tank ,they will start building it,not a single question asked,who cares if a project is dumped, after all it is a matter between govt organizations.,. therefore some extra efforts in other platform should be made be it exports or
.
DRDO should resort to its own kind of arm twisting ,to make things work .

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 06 Feb 2010 22:38

a few simple poochs, on the on-going IED war in Afgan, how resistant are the Indian troop carriers like Abhay, T-72, T-90 and the Arjun if say they are deployed?

which of these 3 types are better NBC warfare equipped?

can we ship off the retiring T-72's and other assorted equipment to strengthen Afgan army, from our perspective they will be play 'sleeper cells' for equipment until hostilities break out with TSP and we land our mil personnel to commandeer this equipment to form IBGs storming into TSP's Af-Pak border?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Feb 2010 23:12

^^
all are NBC protected. I don't remember exactly how operating in an NBC environment affects offensive capability of these tanks, IIRC it affects the older tanks i.e the T-72 more. the newer ones i.e arjun and T-90 can operate in NBC environment without much problem.
I seem to remember reduction of available power and increased fuel consumption is the chief problem.
as for IEDs, no tank is completely immune to IEDs, that includes the abrams which had a pretty torrid time in iraq. mine protected vehicles (MPV) require a design approach which is at variance to what is required for tanks.
tanks for example are designed to have as low silhouette as possible, MPV's OTOH have a V-shaped hull (to deflect away the blast force from IED explosions) which automatically necessitates a much raised suspension and high silhouette. tanks are primarily armoured at the front and the sides, to protect from tank shells and missiles, while MPVs are mainly armoured at the bottom (with only nominal bullet-proof armour at the front and sides).
only now some are starting to create vehicles that will have a decent degree of both, mine protection and overall armour protection. one version of such stryker vehicles are planned though it will be more of a MPV than a tank-ish ICV and hence suited to a low intensity conflict rather than a full fledged war.
tanks are meant to survive IEDs/mines by a combination of tactics and assistance of mine-plough equipped tanks etc to cut a mine-free path.

everything said and done, arjun would probably fare better than the T-90 in case of an IED blast since
> it is heavier (yes, that helps ! tanks are known to have turned turtle by extra-large IEDs. hard to do that to a heavier tank)
> as it is heavily armoured with much better crew protection, even if the tank is damaged the crew will most likely survive, unlike the T-90.

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

Samay wrote: DRDO should resort to its own kind of arm twisting ,to make things work .

not a very smart idea, since the only thing that can get twisted here is the nation's security.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 06 Feb 2010 23:35

Thanks Rahul M, to increase the T-72/90's IED resistance, can they be padded underneath with V-shaped kanchan armour plates?

added later: add ability to the tracked wheels connected by hinges to the chassis so as to raise or lower the chassis as needed without running to Russia for this

can a APU (fuel saving) be designed for regular movement of tank vs. the tank's original engine is used only during combat?

these APU's can also help with T-72's converted to do ancillary roles such as radar, missile transportation, as robotic dummies to absorb enemy fire

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Feb 2010 00:26

In one of the previous posts, I'd tried to do analysis of number of Armored Regiments required by IA.Basic calculation is as follows:

--3*Armored Division*6 Regiments each--18
--8*Independent Armored Brigades (IAB)*3 Regiments each--25 (because 4 IAB is supposed to have 4 Armored Regiments)
--7*RAPIDS*2 Regiments each--14***
--2*Independent Mechanized Brigades (IMB)*1 Regiment each--2
--8 Infantry Divisions (ID) in plans*1 Armored Regiment each--8

***Source: Orbat.com.4 existing+1 new (12 ID-12 Corps)+1 undergoing conversion (4 ID-1 Corps) + 1 planned

Total:67

In addition, 21 and 2 Strike Corps have one plain Infantry Division each (54th and 22nd respectively). As 4th ID, part of 1 Strike Corps, is undergoing conversion to RAPID configuration (source:blog of Suman Sharma), I'm assuming these will also follow suit. Assuming these are over and above the planned 7, there will be further requirement of 4 Armored Regiments.

That brings the total to--> 71 Armored Regiments/3095 Tanks (45+10 per Regiment). And this number will only go up as IBG start forming.

Now, IA has the following strength of tanks:

T-72 - 2,418 (Ajai Shukla's website)
T-55 - 550 (BR Armor page)
Vijeyanta - 800 (As above)
T-90 (310+347+10) - 667
Total - 4,435. (Please correct me on the numbers in case some one has more exact numbers)

Again, Ajai on his blog mentions that IA has 59 Armored Regiments. If we have ~4000 tanks in all, this means that averags number of tanks held per regiment will be 70. This again means that apart from T-55 and Vijeyanta Regiments, units with older T-72 are holding a higher number of tanks.

Now, further assuming that IA goes for modernization of 50% of the T-72 fleets (~1200 tanks) and we induct only the planned number of T-90 (1,657), this amount to ~2,900 tank and gives only 50 Armored Regiments(T-72-60 tanks/regiment and T-90-55 tanks/regiment). Where are the balance Armored Regiments going to come from?

So why is the IA not ordering the Arjun in required numbers to get the mechanized forces in shape and be in position to implement the Cold Start?

Why do I have the feeling that we've not heard the end of T-XX import saga?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 07 Feb 2010 00:28

hypothetically speaking if Arjun takes a Kaveri derivative as its engine, can it work in two modes, the APU mode and the battle power rating mode with the same engine? that's great addition to also having the ability to replace the engine easily

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 07 Feb 2010 00:44

vasu_ray wrote:hypothetically speaking if Arjun takes a Kaveri derivative as its engine, can it work in two modes, the APU mode and the battle power rating mode with the same engine? that's great addition to also having the ability to replace the engine easily

No it cannot. A turbine is a fuel hog and consumes huge amounts of fuel even at idle. Defeats the purpose of having an APU.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 07 Feb 2010 00:54

self-deleted - wrong terminology!

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 07 Feb 2010 01:41

Are the BRDMs still in use in IA, if yes then in what numbers

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Feb 2010 01:47

vasu_ray wrote:hmmm... what's the relation between super cruise vs. power rating of a gas turbine?

super cruise ? tanks ?

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 07 Feb 2010 01:55

super-cruise as in efficient fuel consumption by a gas turbine, and if it can do that at least on 2 different power settings (e.g., 52kN and 10kN)

even in its fuel efficient state, the consumption of a gas turbine could exceed a regular combustion engine?

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 07 Feb 2010 09:21

vasu_ray wrote:hmmm... what's the relation between super cruise vs. power rating of a gas turbine?

Obnoxiously OT but still

Super cruise is the physical phenomenon of travelling supersonic without using the reheat mode of your jet engine. As such, it is as much a function of low weight, low aerodynamic drag as it is of the thrust available from the jet engine. So although an engine may be designed for providing supercruise ability to a particular aircraft, remember that the a/c also needs to be designed with this objective specifically in mind. Supercruise, is not a technical spec of an engine. It is an effect achieved by an engine / airframe combination.

Eg1 : The English Electric Litening of the 1950s, was the first a/c to achieve supercruise, though more by chance than design.

Eg2 : The raptor's engines, if fitted to a B-52, wont cause it to supercruise.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 07 Feb 2010 09:46

yes, there is a state of equilibrium the engine achieves (with the right airframe/drag) so that fuel consumption is low to produce maintain the same thrust

for a tank, the intake airflow has to be speeded up by effort, and say all other aspects of the gas turbine reach a equilibrium mode, (difficult with a variable drag/load) can the engine be fuel efficient relatively?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 07 Feb 2010 10:35

Gas turbines are indeed smaller than equivalent diesel engines for a given power rating, but they also hog more fuel (true for current models of tanks that use gas turbines). This is why tanks that use gas turbines usually have an APU or battery backup to handle internal systems when the tank is idling. Read somewhere that it takes about 10 gallons of fuel to get a M1A1 started from the point of hitting the start button to where the gas turbine has revved up and is ready to move the tank. Hope that answers your question about gas turbine efficiency.

Another big problem with gas turbine powered tanks is that they don't handle sand and dust all that well compared to diesels, which might put a damper into gas turbines being used to power tanks in India.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Feb 2010 10:50

I retrieved this from my HDD, but sadly I cannot quote the source since I did not save that.

Combat movement average (not highway cruise average) for gas turbines is about three US gallons per mile.

During Operation DESERT STORM, the U.S. Army's VII Corps had to stop and wait for refueling trucks for thirsty Abrams tanks at a critical moment, and much of the Iraqi Republican Guard was able to escape. Ideally, more reliable fuel-efficient diesel engines will also reduce the need for tractor-trailers to transport tanks in-theater, like was done in Saudi Arabia.

The Abrams gas turbine engine puts out 1000F degrees of heat, four times more than diesel engines. As a result, they can be detected and targeted much farther away, and take much longer to cool down when a tank needs to hide.

A big secret in the US Army is that the Abrams gas turbine is expensive to maintain and replace. The Army devotes 25% of its annual maintenance budget for all ground combat systems to Abrams gas turbine engines, and other 25% to the rest of the tank. Diesel engines are much cheaper, more reliable, and require less maintenance.

A May 2001 study by the Defense Science Board "More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden" noted that fuel makes up 70% of the cargo tonnage needed to position the US Army in battle. The study said that if M1A1 tanks were 50% more fuel efficient , the Persian Gulf War buildup could have been 20% faster and ground forces ready to fight one month sooner. They noted that a fuel delivered by ocean tankers costs only around $1 a gallon at the port, but transporting it inland can drive the cost up to $50 a gallon.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 07 Feb 2010 10:55

Surface Engineering for Gas Turbine Engines
Dr. William Brindley - Manager Repair Center for Excellence
Rolls-Royce Corp.

Compressors are frequently housed in Custom 450 which corrodes badly by salt spray (particularly of there are small amounts of SO2 in the environment). Coatings can reduce this problem. Another problem (particularly for the T-56 compressor in desert warfare) is erosion from sand ingestion. Hard coatings (such as TiN) are effective to fight such erosion. In some cases use of this coating has reduced inspections from a 300 hr to 2000 hr frequency.

Gas Turbine

A practical example of the issue is that our helicopters have great problems with sand ingestion.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 07 Feb 2010 11:01

RayC wrote:I retrieved this from my HDD, but sadly I cannot quote the source since I did not save that.

http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 07 Feb 2010 12:49

dust and sand can be taken care by air filters

whatever is being done to the stealth aspect of aircraft driven by gas turbines can be applied to tanks to mask their heat signature, I doubt this since the ranges involved in an engagement are smaller

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 07 Feb 2010 12:54

T-55 - 550 (BR Armor page)
Vijeyanta - 800 (As above)

550+800=1350 , at least these museum tanks should be replaced by Arjun, .
Let them upgrade vintage t72

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 07 Feb 2010 13:33

Samay wrote:
T-55 - 550 (BR Armor page)
Vijeyanta - 800 (As above)

550+800=1350 , at least these museum tanks should be replaced by Arjun, .

No, IA tactics use these old tanks as the first initial thrust to catch all the Paki RPGs and then send in our better tanks in a flanking maneuver.

You cant use this tactics if all the tanks are upgraded. Then what will we do for old & broken down tanks?

Chankiyan onlee

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 07 Feb 2010 14:22

No, IA tactics use these old tanks as the first initial thrust to catch all the Paki RPGs and then send in our better tanks in a flanking maneuver.

You cant use this tactics if all the tanks are upgraded. Then what will we do for old & broken down tanks?

What are you saying, that is insane. !!
If such is the tactics of IA ,it must be change, there could be lot of methods to disengae/disfigure paki thrust,but not like this.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Feb 2010 17:40

Samay wrote:
T-55 - 550 (BR Armor page)
Vijeyanta - 800 (As above)

550+800=1350 , at least these museum tanks should be replaced by Arjun, .
Let them upgrade vintage t72

That is what I was trying to bring out in the calculation above.Where are the additonal armored regiments going to come from if the IA caps imports of T-90X, modifies %age of T-72 and limits production of Arjun MK1? The development from here can take three forms:

--(A) IA inducts more Arjun;not for the love of the machine but because of likely shortage of armored regiments and growing bad blood about T-90X. Achieve the number of armored regiments and wait for the FMBT to come out.But the problem here is that the IA may actually start liking the Arjun and subsequent variant (MKII and MK III) before FMBT comes in. And that may put the lid on further T-XX imports.

--(B) Order Arjun in just enough quantities to keep the media and glare off the back and somehow again prove that Arjun is deficient in X or Y. This is where the T-90X versus Arjun trials are crucial. God forbid, if there is any shortcoming(s), DRDO will again be marched to get the thing in order.Some more time will be lost (or gained if you look from IA's perspective), again someone will cry wolf about the lack of home production/availability of Arjun and order more T-90X;this is exactly what happened in case of additional order for 347 T-90X.

--(C) IA orders 124 Arjuns and to buy time asks DRDO to come up with MK2 in X years. Again time is lost, again IA will get oppurtunity to cry wolf about the imediate req. of tanks and lack of domestic production and import T-90X.

I sincerely hope some sense prevails amongst our Guderians and Mansteins.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Feb 2010 17:50

Anujan wrote: No, IA tactics use these old tanks as the first initial thrust to catch all the Paki RPGs and then send in our better tanks in a flanking maneuver.

You cant use this tactics if all the tanks are upgraded. Then what will we do for old & broken down tanks?

Chankiyan onlee

Herr Generalleutnant Anujan Von Chanakyastien...it seems that time at the Staff College under Herr General Guderian has allowed you to imbibe all the advanced concepts of the Armored Warfare.........

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 07 Feb 2010 18:55

Anujan wrote: No, IA tactics use these old tanks as the first initial thrust to catch all the Paki RPGs and then send in our better tanks in a flanking maneuver. You cant use this tactics if all the tanks are upgraded. Then what will we do for old & broken down tanks? Chankiyan onlee

I seriously doubt if this is true. We cannot let our soldiers be cannon-fodder. Can you provide a source for this?

Instead, it is much better if the Arjuns are sent firs to catch all the Paki RPGs. The Kanchan armour is strong enough to thwart all the RPGs and still protect the crew inside, given that it withstood a direct hit from a T-72

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Feb 2010 19:44

Mayuresh wrote:
Anujan wrote: No, IA tactics use these old tanks as the first initial thrust to catch all the Paki RPGs and then send in our better tanks in a flanking maneuver. You cant use this tactics if all the tanks are upgraded. Then what will we do for old & broken down tanks? Chankiyan onlee
I seriously doubt if this is true. We cannot let our soldiers be cannon-fodder. Can you provide a source for this?

Instead, it is much better if the Arjuns are sent firs to catch all the Paki RPGs. The Kanchan armour is strong enough to thwart all the RPGs and still protect the crew inside, given that it withstood a direct hit from a T-72

^^^Before anyone else comes out with new strategy to capture all the PA ATGM and RPG-XX........the above post from Anujan was sarcastic in nature....someone, lovingly called Herrr General Guderian had proposed this brilliant tactic.....

and the talk about Arjun armor and paki rpg is quite presposterous......