Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 02:27

Surya wrote:depends on how you take the numbers

For example I could speak to 1 guy of these tanks in combat

and he could be the only guy in the armoured corp who has seen combat in T series since 71

Now I can ask you how many guys have you spoken to who have been in combat with tanks with the Arjun philosophy like M1s and Merkavas against the tin can series

Who is the frog in the well here?

do u even know if ever IA has used Tanks in last 10 -15yrs in combat ? AND WHERE ?

If u dont know the answer... u are way far away from reality if IA

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Mar 2010 02:30

Um, I don't think this battle of "Who's got better chaiwallahs?" is going to establish anything. Why don't we stick to public sources?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 02:30

so u tell me

The only T series in combat would be IPKF

which other combat did we see.

I am willing to be educated

nachi

correct - it does not help

but berwal wants us to discount the reports, the shuklas, etc - because he knows - so we play that game

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 02:33

Surya wrote:so u tell me

The only T series in combat would be IPKF

which other combat did we see.

I am willing to be educated

nachi

correct - it does not help

have we not seen combat after IPKF

we have i guess

public domian tells me that

i dont know hhere ur chai comes from... mine is fress from pure indian assam tea garden

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 02:35

post it please

after all its public

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 02:36

Surya wrote:post it please

after all its public

just google india wars ... u will know where all we have been active after IPKF

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 02:37

nah nah

you can find and post

so please do - cmon its simple - plus you get to prove me wrong

I would love to see where our T 72s fired in anger other than IPKF.

After all any new knowledge is good

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 02:38

Surya wrote:nah nah

you can find and post

so please do - cmon its simple - plus you get to prove me wrong

can u think of how yindoooosss have used YemBhTee in oppp Vijay and along YelOC

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 01 Mar 2010 02:40

d_berwal wrote:
Surya wrote:nah nah

you can find and post

so please do - cmon its simple - plus you get to prove me wrong
can u think of how yindoooosss have used YemBhTee in oppp Vijay and along YelOC

Why the riddles sir? If its public knowledge as you claim, why not just post what you know? It would save us all a lot of time (and typing).

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 02:40

I cannot think

I would like to read an after action report.

you see I am simble yindoo.

All these chankian actions only your chai walla told you about is not enough for my peanut brain

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 02:41

Surya wrote:I cannot think

I would like to read an after action report.

you see I am simble yindoo.

All these chankian actions only your chai walla told you about is not enough for my peanut brain

how many wars we have had is open public knowledge .. IPKF was not last

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 02:42

Surya wrote:nah nah

you can find and post

so please do - cmon its simple - plus you get to prove me wrong

I would love to see where our T 72s fired in anger other than IPKF.

After all any new knowledge is good

why it has to be Anger

u have aemail or goooogle ID

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 02:49

meaning I need to have RPGs or ATMs or mines or other tanks thrown at it.

Yes I do

balaji_b4 at garam hawa

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Mar 2010 02:55

Surya wrote:meaning I need to have RPGs or ATMs or mines or other tanks thrown at it.

Yes I do

balaji_b4 at garam hawa

ru on google

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Mar 2010 03:38

Guys if it is open source then please let us all know too. Why this cat and mouse game?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 01 Mar 2010 03:51

Rahul M wrote:
PS: Rahul saar, why saab? I've not earned the epithet dude yet - will work towards it though.

Not passible! First, get your PhD from a world renowned institution and that too wonlee in Technology Strategy (all else is bakwas), then we will see - maybe you can dethrone the other sahib we have on board! Anymore becoming saab is becoming really important, last I heard, even the IAF is gung ho about Saab!

CM

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 04:35

vivek

I don;t believe there is any open source info.

so even if something happened that is not grist for this discussion

d_berwal

you can try balajib4.71 with chacha

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 01 Mar 2010 07:02

Arjun vs T 90: Tank trials to kick off next month

After immense pressure from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) the Army has decided to go ahead with comparative trials between the Arjun tank and the T 90 Main Battle Tank (MBT) next month. While it will be interesting to see how the ‘indigenous’ tank holds up to the Russian origin mainstay of the Indian Army, the unfairness of comparing two totally different tanks has rankled experts both within and outside the military establishment.
...
...
This, after the Army has virtually ruled out the Arjun for further orders and instead wants DRDO to use it as a base for a new tank that would find a place in its war plans. For the Army, the last nail in the Arjun coffin came after the accelerated user trials in 2008 that resulted in a massive setback after the power pack failed four times during just 1,000 km of running. ???
...
...
While the Army has been forced to schedule the tests after intense lobbying by DRDO, the huge difference in the class of the two tanks has irked experts who do not see any scope for comparison between the two weapon

systems.

For one, at 58.5 tons, the Arjun is more than 10 tons heavier than the T 90. The added weight and size gives the tank several advantages over the Russian machine in terms of more armour, greater capability to carry ammunition as well as extra sensors. The plan to compare a 58.5 ton machine with a 46 ton tank has been described as ‘absurd’.

The T 90’s weight is crucial to the Army’s war plans along the long Indo-Pak border, especially in the plains of Punjab. The T 90 as well as the older T 72 were ordered because they weighed below 50 ton — the load carrying capacity of thousands of canal and river crossings all along the border.At close to 60 tons, the Army would find it impossible to deploy the Arjun in the Punjab sector as well as parts of the Jammu region.
...
...
Already, the first squadron of Arjun tanks that had rolled out of the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi faced massive quality issues and had to be sent back for refurbishing. However, the biggest worry that the Army has is not the technology of the Arjun but the reliability factor given its past performance in trials as well the lack of continued testing in harsh terrain and climatic conditions unique to India. The outcome of the 2008 Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT) (crucial to clear it for bulk production), where the German engine failed four times, is still fresh in the Army’s mind.
...
“Tanks have a certain shelf life and now we need a new deign looking into the future. We now have a base and expertise to start on the futuristic tank,” Lt Gen KDS Shekhawat, who retired as the DG of Mechanised Forces at Army HQ in 2008, had earlier told The Indian Express.

Strange that the Lt Gen Shekhawat thinks that we need a new design, while the T-90 is basically the T-72 design from 25 years back.

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 01 Mar 2010 07:35

The above IE article is a perfect example of yellow journalism. It was not the MTU engine that "failed" it was the Renk transmission which was sabotaged that "failed."

Renk is essentially the gold std. in tank transmissions to allege their failure is suspicious to say the least. When Renk technicians were called in to investigate at DRDO's insistence, sabotage was obvious. The IE rag nonetheless repeats the bald faced lies of engine failure.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Mar 2010 07:37

People like the lt Gen have tarnished the image of the country by dissing the Arjun time and again. Will the Paki Army refuse to fight the Arjun because it is heavier than their Al-Khalids and the extra weight gives the Arjun the edge? I thought that it was the job of the General to get us a tank that had a clear edge. Why did he OK the night blind T-90 which cannot fight in the summer heat?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 08:13

10 years later - he still talks about weight in isolation.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Mar 2010 08:14

one wonders if the army had forgotten about the load bearing capability of canals when forming up the GSQR.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 01 Mar 2010 08:17

well what do you expect

Would be interesting to know where our friendly neighbourhood DGMF was during T 90 tamasha???

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Mar 2010 10:41

Rahul M wrote:one wonders if the army had forgotten about the load bearing capability of canals when forming up the GSQR.

GSQR was issued in Aug 1972.

Today is 2010.

In the intervening 30 plus years, topography has changed, infrastructure has changed, geopolitics has changed, geostrategy has changed, threat perceptions have changed, technology has changed, in fact, everything imaginable has changed.

It is obvious that to keep pace with these changes since the tank took years to come, it would be incorrect to assume that the GSQR should not change. Therefore, to feel that the IA has been changing the GSQR arbitrarily and forgetting issues would be like stating that the IA should have been in a Rip Van Winkle mode to 'support' Indigenous expertise ( a favourite refrain here) and put at stake the lives of defence personnel and India's national capability to win wars.

If one goes through the history of the Arjun, one will see changes being made by the Army based on the changed environment in all spheres as also by the DRDO to indicate their newly found expertise in tank designing - all because it took years to roll - 30 years plus!

I am not aware who desired the increased weight, but then with all the new 'desires', be it of the Army or the DRDO, it apparently boils down to the fact that the weight may not be suitable for the topography, terrain, tactical environment and so on as of today.

Lastly, what the IA wanted in 1972 cannot hold good in 2010 and so to feel that the IA at at fault not to have cranked the weight factor that canals can bear in in the GSQR is most surprising a comment.

vina · Post by **vina** » 01 Mar 2010 10:48

If one goes through the history of the Arjun, one will see changes being made by the Army based on the changed environment

Err. It was more like changes based on every latest issue of Jane's All The World's Land Combat Vehicles

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 01 Mar 2010 10:49

but sir aint the the T-72 and T-90 of the same era technology....and we are still going to use them for many many years

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Mar 2010 10:56

vina wrote:
If one goes through the history of the Arjun, one will see changes being made by the Army based on the changed environment
Err. It was more like changes based on every latest issue of Jane's All The World's Land Combat Vehicles

Are you aware of the history of the development of the tank?

There was the 110/115mm gun replaced with a 120mm gun and an improved Sighting and Fire Control system incorporated in the modified GSQR.

Jane's or the requirement of the season?

By your logic that should be wrong, right?

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Mar 2010 11:04

^ Well all that is fine and dandy but the fundamental constraint with any kind of product development is the user and producer at some point in time should reach a consensus on freezing the REQs for acceptance trials , as long as the platform itself has enough scope for growth in terms of being upgraded or re-engineered changes like a larger caliber gun, engine with improved power taring and fuel efficiency , AC yada yada can be incorporated with newer blocks/tranches .

The Arjun as a platform has plenty of room for such upgrades unlike the vintage T-72 based designs which have been pushed to their limits in form of new T-90 (just like the F-16 block 60s).

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 01 Mar 2010 11:05

Ray sahab,

A tank with lower ground pressure will be more mobile, with better accuracy offer more chances of winning, and with better armour bring the fighting lads home. Rahul should perhaps re post the T90 blow up pictures from the Russiaa-Georgia skirmish.

So where is the problem? I would love to hear you explain it to all of us. To me it sounds like DRDO rubbed someone in the Army procurement the wrong way. The army keeps raking up the embarrasing AUCRT trials of 2008 where it sabotaged the Tank's "RENK" transmission (BTW from ships to tanks to reactors in chemical plants - RENK is a trusted name for transmissions) and complained of the Arjuns Torsion bar problems (the Arjun has no torsion bar).

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Mar 2010 11:06

negi wrote:^ Well all that is fine and dandy but the fundamental constraint with any kind of product development is the user and producer at some point in time should reach a consensus on freezing the REQs for acceptance trials , as long as the platform itself has enough scope for growth in terms of being upgraded or re-engineered changes like a larger caliber gun, engine with improved power taring and fuel efficiency , AC yada yada can be incorporated with newer blocks/tranches .

The Arjun as a platform has plenty of room for such upgrades unlike the vintage T-72 based designs which have been pushed to their limits in form of new T-90 (just like the F-16 block 60s).

Good point.

It however would be a 30 year plus freeze.

If that is OK, then as the song goes - All is well!

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 01 Mar 2010 11:13

but sir wouldn't it have been more prudent to gradually bring newer models of Arjun online as the israeli's did with merkava.... End of the day, to a lay person like me this is something which seems most peculiar.... Why not gradually build your expertise, instead of trying to get it all done in the first try.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Mar 2010 11:44

Vivek K wrote:Ray sahab,

A tank with lower ground pressure will be more mobile, with better accuracy offer more chances of winning, and with better armour bring the fighting lads home. Rahul should perhaps re post the T90 blow up pictures from the Russiaa-Georgia skirmish.

So where is the problem? I would love to hear you explain it to all of us. To me it sounds like DRDO rubbed someone in the Army procurement the wrong way. The army keeps raking up the embarrasing AUCRT trials of 2008 where it sabotaged the Tank's "RENK" transmission (BTW from ships to tanks to reactors in chemical plants - RENK is a trusted name for transmissions) and complained of the Arjuns Torsion bar problems (the Arjun has no torsion bar).

Let’s leave the conspiracy theory out, even though it is fashionable to do so when it mystifies one as to what’s going on. Being nationalistic, patriotic and swadshi is one thing and being concerning about the lives of those who will defend us with the equipment given, is another! I assure you that the Indian Armed Forces are as patriotic as you in the BRF.

I have visited DRDO establishment in the line of duty and I have also visited commercial industries, not in the line of duty out of curiosity and inquisitive interest. There is a vast difference! One is bureaucratic and lazy and the other is out to make the finest product and be competitive.

A tank is designed on the three traditional factors determining a tank's effectiveness in battle and that is its fire-power, protection, and mobility.

Increasing protection by adding armour will result in an increase in weight and therefore decrease mobility; increasing firepower by installing a larger gun will force the designer to sacrifice speed or armour to compensate for the added weight and cost.

The mobility of a tank is described by its battlefield or tactical mobility, its operational mobility, and its strategic mobility. Tactical mobility can be broken down firstly into agility, describing the tank's acceleration, braking, speed and rate of turn on various terrains, and secondly obstacle clearance: the tank's ability to travel over vertical obstacles like low walls or trenches or through water. Operational mobility is a function of manoeuvre range; but also of size and weight, and the resulting limitations on options for manoeuvre.

Strategic mobility is the ability of the tanks of an armed force to arrive in a timely, cost effective, and synchronized fashion.

Tactical mobility is gauged by the tank agility based on the function of the weight of the tank due to its inertia while manoeuvring and its ground pressure, the power output of the installed power plant and the tank transmission and track design. In addition, rough terrain effectively limits the tank's speed through the stress it puts on the suspension and the crew.

Tanks are highly mobile and able to travel over most types of terrain due to their continuous tracks and advanced suspension. The tracks disperse the significant weight of the vehicle over a large area, resulting in a ground pressure comparable to that of a walking man. A tank can travel at approximately 40 kilometres per hour (25 mph) across flat terrain and up to 70 kilometres per hour (43 mph) on roads, but due to the mechanical strain this places on the vehicle and the logistical strain on fuel delivery and tank maintenance, these must be considered "burst" speeds that invite mechanical failure of engine and transmission systems. Consequently, wheeled tank transporters and rail infrastructure is used wherever possible for long-distance tank transport. The limitations of long-range tank mobility can be viewed in sharp contrast to that of wheeled armoured fighting vehicles.

So lower ground pressure has it own issues!

The Army sabotaged? Any links to prove so?

I am not aware of the skirmish between Russians and Georgians and so cannot comment.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Mar 2010 11:48

Srivastav wrote:but sir wouldn't it have been more prudent to gradually bring newer models of Arjun online as the israeli's did with merkava.... End of the day, to a lay person like me this is something which seems most peculiar.... Why not gradually build your expertise, instead of trying to get it all done in the first try.

I am sure that people are at it.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 01 Mar 2010 11:50

Vivek K wrote:Ray sahab,

A tank with lower ground pressure will be more mobile, with better accuracy offer more chances of winning, and with better armour bring the fighting lads home. Rahul should perhaps re post the T90 blow up pictures from the Russiaa-Georgia skirmish.

So where is the problem? I would love to hear you explain it to all of us. To me it sounds like DRDO rubbed someone in the Army procurement the wrong way. The army keeps raking up the embarrasing AUCRT trials of 2008 where it sabotaged the Tank's "RENK" transmission (BTW from ships to tanks to reactors in chemical plants - RENK is a trusted name for transmissions) and complained of the Arjuns Torsion bar problems (the Arjun has no torsion bar).

And also in mid 2008 ACURT 2 Arjun's ran non-stop for around 3000 Km to evaluate the tank’s requirement during its service life & they were successful....

BTW here is that T90 blow up pic from Col. Ajai Shukla's blog
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... eorgia.jpg

UPrabhu · Post by **UPrabhu** » 01 Mar 2010 11:55

The current Army leadership like that generation believes in anything imported is Good philosophy. Only time will cure us of this disease.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Mar 2010 11:57

UPrabhu wrote:The current Army leadership like that generation believes in anything imported is Good philosophy. Only time will cure us of this disease.

In close touch with them, are you?

I am going for the Bengal Area Raising Day today and if I remember, I will ask the Army Commander who is to be the next Chief as to if that is right even though you are close to the top brass of the IA.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Mar 2010 12:04

And also in mid 2008 ACURT 2 Arjun's ran non-stop for around 3000 Km to evaluate the tank’s requirement during its service life & they were successful....

Point is?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 01 Mar 2010 12:11

According to me which is the better tank doesn't matter, Indian army should buy the minimum quantity required to make the MBT Arjun project viable and should support the Indigenous development of the future versions

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Mar 2010 12:16

Kakarat wrote:According to me which is the better tank doesn't matter, Indian army should buy the minimum quantity required to make the MBT Arjun project viable and should support the Indigenous development of the future versions

And why so?

Would you be in a tank that is not upto the mark?

If so, go ahead get more like you and form a regiment of such tanks.

Your dying will not be lamented.

I am not against the Arjun if it meets the bill, but I am sure against those who state we must support the indigenous industry even if it means we sacrifice our lives.

BTW, has India produced a car of its own, except maybe Tata, but I don't know if it was original? Why are you not up and against this?

Easy to get patriotic and nationalist when your own life is not at stake!!!!!!

Like pseudo secularism, this is pseudo nationalism.

Why waste money buying weapons to fight terrorists? Let's do it with gullel (slingshots)!!

It is like the same habit seen everywhere in India - own house clean and spotless, but the dirt and muck thrown out on the street over the balcony!

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 01 Mar 2010 12:23

I am not against the Arjun if it meets the bill, but I am sure against those who state we must support the indigenous industry even if it means we sacrifice our lives.

Ray,

How hard is it to see that the continued obsession with T-series IA is needlessly endangering the lives of thousands of its personnel?