Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 14:32

RayC wrote:A few years back, tanks were sent to Avadi for overhaul and refit. We know the story of how good it was done, wherein in had to be taken back again.

Since you know people, just go and ask Lt Gen Jat Verma.

I have visited Avadi myself. Good for photo op! :rotfl:


I am not defending Avadi. I am just mentioning that timelines were tight. At the same time, on Arjun Tank they have done reasonable job.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 14:42

chackojoseph wrote:
RayC wrote:A few years back, tanks were sent to Avadi for overhaul and refit. We know the story of how good it was done, wherein in had to be taken back again.

Since you know people, just go and ask Lt Gen Jat Verma.

I have visited Avadi myself. Good for photo op! :rotfl:




I am not defending Avadi. I am just mentioning that timelines were tight. At the same time, on Arjun Tank they have done reasonable job.


Chacko,

Why I raised the issue, is because Jat gave me a mouthful when crap came and the CO raised Cain!

I think that Arjun should pass muster. I am not an Armoured Corps man and so I cannot comment.

Those whose life is at stake are the best ones to comment and I leave it to them.

I am safe in the cyberspace to act as an 'expert', drawing a leaf from the real experts (unlike me) who know more.

I hang around here for knowledge and I daresay it is better than Times Now! Or even NDTV!

BRF post (some of them) are gems for information!

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 21 Mar 2010 14:48

somnath

what prevented them from upgrading T 72s in mid 90s?? why was there no urgency on that front??

Upgrade plans have been sputtering over years

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 21 Mar 2010 14:49

somnath wrote:IA felt it needed someting more than the T72s it had...Obviously Arjun was not a viable option at that time..and yes, even then some people, including former PM Deve Gowda had argued that an upgraded T72 would be cheaper and deliver the same functionality...I guess upgrading an existing tank by shipping it off to Russia is more complicated and time consuming than simply buying a new one off the assembly line...

Dear Somnath, DeveGowda talked abt T-72S tank, which provided the same functionality as expected from T-90S, like missile firing, superior FCS, Reactive armour etc. and available for the cost of 5-6 Cr compared to 12-13 Cr for T-90S.

Also, the IA obviously liked what they saw in T90 for the follow on orders to come through..
.
If what RayC tries to project that as interim then why not buy T-72S to match the pak T-80 in numbers and then later on went for the upgrade path ?

So what i'm saying is this interim business is just hogwash, the way Army went with 1000 more order without rectifying the problems encountered in T-90S shows that it is not an interim purchase... that's the point i like to make.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 14:49

RayC wrote:Chacko,

Why I raised the issue, is because Jat gave me a mouthful when crap came and the CO raised Cain!

I think that Arjun should pass muster. I am not an Armoured Corps man and so I cannot comment.

Those whose life is at stake are the best ones to comment and I leave it to them.

I am safe in the cyberspace to act as an 'expert', drawing a leaf from the real experts (unlike me) who know more.

I hang around here for knowledge and I daresay it is better than Times Now! Or even NDTV!

BRF post (some of them) are gems for information!


Sir,

I have this point to make. I do not defend DPSU's. Hub of CITU and other regressive people who hold our nation's forces at risk. They will even sabotage. probably the weakest link in the entire supply chain.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 21 Mar 2010 14:51

chackojoseph wrote:I am not defending Avadi. I am just mentioning that timelines were tight. At the same time, on Arjun Tank they have done reasonable job.

Chacko ji, i heard that even those came from the Army base workshop faced high rejection rates. I dont have links to tell the story. Do you aware of ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 14:54

Kanson wrote: If what RayC tries to project that as interim then why not buy T-72S to match the pak T-80 in numbers and then later on went for the upgrade path ?

So what i'm saying is this interim business is just hogwash, the way Army went with 1000 more order without rectifying the problems encountered in T-90S shows that it is not an interim purchase... that's the point i like to make.


So what is your answer to fill the void if everything is hogwash?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 14:56

somnath wrote:
Negi saab, to start with, Avadi is not as big a factor with the T90 as it is with Arjun - in case they goof up on the former, there is always Nizhny Tagril to turn to to fill up the numbers, for Arjun, they are basically it!! And that is a big factor IMO in the Army's thinking...

on the contrary avadi is a very big factor in T-90, beyond a certain number no govt is going to allow unlimited imports from russia (it's tagil btw, not tagril) and IA knows this quite well.
But your (and many others') point on Army's GSQR is very moot - obvioulsy GSQR management is something that IA learnt the hard way in the last couple of decades...The initial GSQRs might well have been put down as a response to a reported Paki acquisition of the M1 (Gen Zia's last act in office was to view a demo of the M1!)...Over the years, that "threat" didnt materialise, and possibly the Army itself realised the infrastructural/logisitical challenges of a heavier tank..Its a fair point you are making actually, but for the DRDO (and Arjun lovers), it earns nothing but brownie points...
a bad tank is a bad tank is a bad tank, even russia, with her decades of investment in infrastructure for t-series tanks understands that and is going away from the faulty design of the T-72/90.
you do not go to war in an inferior system just because you have the infrastructure for it, when better alternatives are available. it's not as if GOI was going to deny funds required for setting up arjun infra. as of now the army is unable to even spend the funds allotted to it, (albeit due to MOD shenangians and also due unreasonable demands from IA) so it's not as if it is massively cash-strapped. secondly, has the army ever made this point that logistics is the problem ? it's a moot point raised by people to defend this indefensible decision.
The point of GWI and II, made repeatedly, by you and others on the other hand, is not so simple though IMHO..It presumes that in modern warfare, a tank squares off against anotehr tank in a sort of a duel

which only makes it clear that you haven't bothered to read the points raised ("by him and others") in the first place. may I request you to do that first before discussing the merits of those points ? :wink:
it is against MANPATGMs and RPG's that the tincans will be most vulnerable and PA has been massively stocking up on those.
...Its a system that comes into play, not a piece of equipment..By that logic, even Russian aircraft operated by the Iraqis performed very poorly against Coalition aircraft - should we then banish Russian aircraft as well and plump for Western stuff only? Neither are Indians operating T72s Iraqis, nor are our adversaries Amercican/British forces with the sort of situational awareness and firepower and above all, materiel resupply capabilities that Pakistan can think only in their dreams....
apples and oranges. no one is arguing on those general terms, the weakness of the T-90's armour and ammo storage arrangement is well documented. it's precisely because the situations of the air force was different that you don't see people arguing across the board about them.
These things dont work acording to plan always in any case...Merkava is the most "armoured" piece of beast in the world, custom made by Israel due to its unique needs...Israeli armoured forces didnt really cover themselves in glory in the last couple of campaigns did they?

as against which army ? the russian army in chechnya ? or the T-series tanks on both sides in the georgian conflict ? :lol:

what % of merkava's were write-offs ? how many crews died out of the total number that were hit ? what would the situation have been if those were T-90/T-72 in stead of merkavas ?
And they were facing precisely the sort of general threats that the Merkava has been designed for (ATGMs, RPGs, IEDs etc)...
and it gave a very good account of itself in one of the most hostile environments for a tank, urban warfare with the adversary armed with modern ATGMs.
So its a bit of a simplistic fallacy to conclude that a "heavier", western design tank is the "best solution...
the fallacy is in this quoted simplistic rehetorical statement.

chackojoseph wrote:
:roll: Wrong. Arjun Was ready.


Joseph saab, well thats news then, we were still reading of engine related problems at that time..In any case even if it were, was Avadi ready to deliver 200 odd nos in short time?
within a year of starting production of arjun,
Arjun production line is already very close to producing its installed capacity of 50 tanks a year.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... arjun.html
if higher production rate was required, I daresay that would have been done too. at any rate better than the T-series for which TOT was always being withheld.

oh and btw, how quickly were the T-90's supplied ? the original interest was noted in 1998-99, when did the first tanks arrive ?

The FMBT is very important to carry on the Arjun legacy..And I wont be surprised if India's FMBT is a "lighter tank", of the 45-50 ton class...the lessons in Kanchan armour, electronics, BMS can be utilised there...And DRDO can do nothing better than pro bono say that the manufacturing will be handled by a Tata Motors or M&M....A production run of 1500 tanks would be business of 30k crores (assuming 20 crores/tank)..Enough for the Tatas to acquire even a Mannesmann or a Rhinemtall in case that adds value..

wishful thinking at this point. we are much better off not wasting public money on trying to develop a tank that will not be accepted at the end of the day. the best way would be to disband CVRDE for there is absolutely no hope that IA is going to accept an Indian designed tank.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 14:59

RayC wrote:
Rahul M wrote::roll:


I have no quibbles with you at all.

All I would appreciate is that you establish your credentials to indicate that the are more intelligent and wiser than those you call as 'dumb'.

If you prove so, I will not complain. I sure find it unfair that a person who has not interacted with the Army (maybe flying visits) to abuse and demean a set of otherwise intelligent people as dumb. Isn't it great that such dumb men have protected you so that you can sleep well at night? Dumb were they? You remind of the saying in Few Good Men! Am I outraged? You bet I am.

Will I report, no we have been taught in my school to take things on ourselves and not 'sneak'!

I raise this issue since it indicates that one is one sticky wicket and so one is being offensive and using the Mod cover to whitewash his irrationality and rather unbecoming conduct for a Mod.

for the last time, I've not called the army dumb, you are (again) raising allegations that are absolutely false. neither have I *ever* used mod powers in an argument. kindly quit this barrage of personal attacks.
I know you have problems with me, but kindly don't disrupt this thread in your blind hatred.

And then justifying the good old Gurdial, no longer on earth as the same Gurdial now in DRDO!
Christ! to what length one can go to prove a point
that is only your assumption, you are now posting it as fact. if the date you provided is correct, he would be around 75 at that time, not unthinkable for a retd army officer to work with DRDO as an adviser at that age.

secondly, even if I'm wrong (till now we only have your assumption for it) I take grave offence at your insinuation that I'm somehow misleading anyone deliberately. when it is amply clear that even if I'm mistaken on this account (which is by no means obvious) it is an honest mistake. I believe anyone in my place would be right to expect an apology but I also know it would be foolish to do so in this case.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 15:02

it's not as if GOI was going to deny funds required for setting up arjun infra.


That is news.

How many defence deficiencies have been made up?

And I am sure it is the Army's fault!

The Army is made up gladiators!
Last edited by RayC on 21 Mar 2010 15:20, edited 2 times in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 15:04

Kanson wrote:Chacko ji, i heard that even those came from the Army base workshop faced high rejection rates. I dont have links to tell the story. Do you aware of ?


If you have been living in forces and have seen the functioning of MT section (military transport), you get the picture on how things work. They will fix it for the next run only. Only the sahab's car will be well oiled. If BRD's were efficient......

But, the current gen vehicles of the Army I have seen on the road are reasonable unlike what I saw in the past.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 21 Mar 2010 15:06

These things dont work acording to plan always in any case...Merkava is the most "armoured" piece of beast in the world, custom made by Israel due to its unique needs...Israeli armoured forces didnt really cover themselves in glory in the last couple of campaigns did they?

:eek:
Care to elaborate which campaign???

Also care to explain what happened to the assorted tin cans that have gone up against the Israelis, the Chechens and even the Georgians??

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 15:11

somnath wrote:
negi wrote:Joseph saab, well thats news then, we were still reading of engine related problems at that time..In any case even if it were, was Avadi ready to deliver 200 odd nos in short time?


In 1996 the Arjun Tank was passed and the production tank design was designated.

Then army was sleeping on it. it had nothing to do with 200 or 300 production.

Never a engine problem has been reported after that.

The tanks which were sent back had calibration problems, not production problems.

Technically, I pointed out that the fact that 'it was not ready' was wrong.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 15:37

Rahul M wrote:

for the last time, I've not called the a
rmy dumb, you are (again) raising allegations that are absolutely false. neither have I *ever* used mod powers in an argument. kindly quit this barrage of personal attacks.
I know you have problems with me, but kindly don't disrupt this thread in your blind hatred.


And then justifying the good old Gurdial, no longer on earth as the same Gurdial now in DRDO!
Christ! to what length one can go to prove a point
that is only your assumption, you are now posting it as fact. if the date you provided is correct, he would be around 75 at that time, not unthinkable for a retd army officer to work with DRDO as an adviser at that age.

secondly, even if I'm wrong (till now we only have your assumption for it) I take grave offence at your insinuation that I'm somehow misleading anyone deliberately. when it is amply clear that even if I'm mistaken on this account (which is by no means obvious) it is an honest mistake. I believe anyone in my place would be right to expect an apology but I also know it would be foolish to do so in this case.


I would like to do a personal attack on someone who is NOT worth it. To be frank, you do not come to that honorific state! They day you come to the status. I shall let you know!

Let us not get, as the American say, get cute!

Check your posts! Unless as a Mod you remove them or modify them since you have endless time to do so! You have insulted the Army quite regularly and I take it that you are not Reagan! Memory and mind down the drain!

I have taken grave offence to your demeaning the Army vs IN. So, don't get clever! I have not reported your posts since I am not a 'sneak'.

Hopefully Jagan observes this thread and passes his judgement. He has has said we should lay off. But if you insult the Army repeatedly, I think it would be a shame for me, having had the best of my years in the Army, to stand still and allow it to happen, just to preserve my membership to BRF. If to be a coward and sell your own down the drain for your own interest is what is expected, then I am at fault.

I expect an apology from you far from my apologising to you!

What a
laugh at 75 one is still in active service!

Pigs will fly!

"When hell freezes over" and "when pigs fly" are common phrases used emphatically (and only in informal contexts) to mean "That will never happen!"

I love it.

You know all and those in uniform are chumps!

It is our misfortune that you were not there to help us on our bumbling and stupid ways!
Last edited by Jagan on 21 Mar 2010 19:25, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: User had been requested several times not to get into specific flamewars . Third warning given. One month ban

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 15:56

What a
laugh at 75 one is still in active service!


for the record.
viewtopic.php?p=841630#p841630
Rahul M wrote:.......... it is likely that he would have retired by that time, am I correct ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 16:13

Rahul M wrote:
What a
laugh at 75 one is still in active service!


for the record.
viewtopic.php?p=841630#p841630
Rahul M wrote:.......... it is likely that he would have retired by that time, am I correct ?


:rotfl:

No, in active service to be NOW in the DRDO!

I thought there was only one PC Sorcar!

It surprises me to what extent one can go to prove he is right, including resurrecting the dead. (though for sure I cannot say so)!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 16:40

awesome !
so "Mr Trivedi who was with KPMG and now is with JP Morgan" means "Mr trivedi works for both KPMG and JP Morgan" ! :lol:
don't you just love the english language and the new features of it you learn on BR !

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3240
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Tanaji » 21 Mar 2010 16:45

RayC and the Bengali baba should meet each other in Kolkotta, gift each other mishti dohi, kiss and make up...

Well maybe not kiss...

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2010 16:52

RayC Sir, allow me to address this debate from another angle – That is the number of MBT required by India Army. You’ve better understanding of the Orbat and TO&E of Indian Army, so please correct me wherever I’m wrong.

As per the 14th Lok Sabha – 16th Report of Parliamentary Committee on Defense (PCD), the numbers of tanks required by Indian Army is 3,500. The same can be corroborated by looking at the present structure of Indian Army:

Armored Divisions*3 – 6 Armored Regiments each with 55 tanks – 990 tanks~1000
Armored (I) Brigades*8 – 3 Armored Regiments each with 55 tanks – 1,320 tanks
RAPID*6 – 2 Armored Regiments each with 55 tanks – 660 tank
Mechanized (I) Brigades*2 – 1 Armored Regiment each with 55 tanks – 110 tanks
Infantry Divisions* 7 - 1 Armored Regiment each with 55 tanks – 385 tanks

Total – 3,465

(This is pretty close to ~ 4,000 numbers as spoken about in general media. The difference can be on one major account: I’ve assumed Tanks/Regiment as 55. This is for more modern tanks. Older tanks, like earliest version of T-72, T-55 and Vijayantas are held in higher numbers. IIRC, as high as 70 per regiment.)

Now, coming to the existing strength of MBT fleet of Indian Army –

T-90 – 667
T-72 – 2,400
T-55+Vijayantas – 1,000
Total: ~4,000

(Some of the older tanks would have been removed from active service post the induction of T-90 and number of tanks in active service should be around 3,500)

Another account in a different Parliamentary Committee on Defense Report states that accepted break up of tank inventory is as follows:

- 30% modern/latest MBTs
- 40% current MBTs
- 30% Old MBTs

Assuming, the IA opts for 4,000 tank fleet to cater for additional raisings, the above percentage can be broken down as follows:

- 1,200 – This category and some more (1,647 tanks) is being filled by T-90
- 1,600 – Considering that about 50% of T-72 fleet is up for up gradation, this category will be filled by 1,000 odd upgraded T-72. You’ve yourself mentioned the 1,000 figure based on your conversation with your Staff College course mate.
- 1,200 – Under Project Gulmohar, the T-55 are to be upgraded and retained till 2017. The numbers of T-55 are rumored (internet gossip – no official source) to be around 550. But then, some of these are really old and only a small percentage of fleet may be available for up gradation and active service. In my opinion, the earlier versions of T-72 (with marginal upgrades – may be CIA) will be used for this role.

Now, if the IA is serious about inducting Arjuns in any substantial numbers, say around 1,200, then it will have to place the order now. As the induction of Arjun gains momentum, the number of tanks in the latest bracket will increase. This will allow for gradually phasing out the tanks in older category. In due course of time, the tanks in latest category will consist of ~2,900 modern MBTs and 1,000 in the upgraded tanks. Not only will this give IA an unmatched Armor Force, it will also place it favorable for future inductions and upgrades. At a later date, when the FMBT fructifies, it will start filling in the shoes of latest category while the Arjun and T-90 will ease out the upgraded T-72s.

But for all this to happen, the orders will have to be placed now. The iterative development can go on in parallel for development of MKII of Arjun and the modifications can be retrofitted to earlier Arjuns. This is something, which we have not seen coming from the Army.

As for the requirement for the T-90, I’ve already shown above, how there is more than enough space for both of them.

In my opinion, in case the IA implements the organization for Cold Start and associated IBG without major reshuffle of existing armored formations (minor is inevitable), the overall requirement for for MBT will increase by over 1000 additional modern tanks. And I hope the same are filled up by more Arjuns.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 17:01

IIRC Gen Sundarji's re-org plan called for 80 armoured regiments, as of now we have 63 right ?

p.s.
(This is pretty close to ~ 4,000 numbers as spoken about in general media. The difference can be on one major account: I’ve assumed Tanks/Regiment as 55. This is for more modern tanks. Older tanks, like earliest version of T-72, T-55 and Vijayantas are held in higher numbers. IIRC, as high as 70 per regiment.)
# of holdings was 72/armoured regiment for the older tanks. for the new gen it is 62/regt.

55/ regt was a cost cutting measure of the 80's going by media reports.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 17:07

Last I remember is that an Armd Regt is of 45 tanks.

Nothing wrong with the Arjun if I go by what BRF and Shukla says.

But to assume that Rahul and some of the BRF feel the Army is dumb and they know all, then there is something very worrisome, unless it is proved.

If it is proved, I will join the bandwagon and go ballistics!

Am I to understand that fools have held the Pakistanis at bay and defeated them all these years/

I pains me to even surmise such ideas even if tongue in cheek!
Last edited by RayC on 21 Mar 2010 17:21, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2010 17:12

RayC wrote:Last I remember is that an Armd Regt is of 45 tanks.


Correct Sir. The number 55 takes 45 Active+10 Reserve tanks per regiment. The reserve number goes up in case of units with older tanks like T-55 and Vijantas, purely due to the serviceability related issues. Also, it is interesting to see that the planned number of Arjun MBT (124) is to be with only two armored regiments - 43rd and 75th. Which means 17 reserve tanks per regiment.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 21 Mar 2010 17:16

RayC wrote:Last I remember is that an Armd Regt is of 45 tanks.

Nothing wrong with the Arjun if I go by what BRF and Shukla says.

RayC sir,
although Im not an expert in this field,but one question ,
Why armies like PLA,PA,IA(incidently all neighbours) prefer russian design and field concept of tanks , any common factor/doctrine to consider? WW2?

Even pA decided not to go with M1Abrams ,but with T80 ,why?
Chinese are just tuning the old russian designs, what lies in it that we cannot see ?

I think the main reason why they are still not going with ArjunMBT as its Main tank by composition lies somewhere in this??

another example is all western EU/USA following their own similar patterns ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 17:24

rohitvats wrote:
RayC wrote:Last I remember is that an Armd Regt is of 45 tanks.


Correct Sir. The number 55 takes 45 Active+10 Reserve tanks per regiment. The reserve number goes up in case of units with older tanks like T-55 and Vijantas, purely due to the serviceability related issues. Also, it is interesting to see that the planned number of Arjun MBT (124) is to be with only two armored regiments - 43rd and 75th. Which means 17 reserve tanks per regiment.


Really?

And it goes up as per vintage?

Thanks.

News to me!

I am dated and have no access to the new policies. Do quote from where you got this fact that vintage and the fluctuating numbers is the gospel!
Last edited by RayC on 21 Mar 2010 17:26, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Gerard » 21 Mar 2010 17:25

Samay wrote:Even pA decided not to go with M1Abrams ,but with T80 ,why?


That choice was made for the TSPA.
(Pressler Amendment)

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 17:27

rohitvats wrote:Not only will this give IA an unmatched Armor Force, it will also place it favorable for future inductions and upgrades. At a later date, when the FMBT fructifies, it will start filling in the shoes of latest category while the Arjun and T-90 will ease out the upgraded T-72s.


that would be a real shame if it happens IMHO...IA would be the only Army in the world to be operating not one, but 3 very different types of tanks - Arjun, T90 and the FMBT...Replicates the circus that we have in the IAF fighter fleet today..

To those who are so sanguine about the capabilities of Avadi to ramp up production of Arjun, now or even in 2001, only need to look at CAG's performance reports on Avadi in overhauling T72s over the years...

Rahul M wrote:on the contrary avadi is a very big factor in T-90, beyond a certain number no govt is going to allow unlimited imports from russia (it's tagil btw, not tagril) and IA knows this quite well.


Not true at all...Push comes to shove, any number of imports can be justified - you need to only look at the Su30 contract, how many more are we importing compared to what ws envisaged?

On the larger point though, the whole argument around "bad tanks", "death traps" etc is more than a bit vacuous...T90 is "bad", and the western heavy armour philosophy is "good", in what context? We are not fighting in urban theatres like Israel or US, we are not sending tanks to quell domestic insurgency like Russia...Our armour battles are, in the foreseeable future, going to be short limited affairs against Pak across the Rajasthan and Punjab plains..the adversary is equipped with a T72 clone as well, and arguably has lesser C3I and materiel resupply capacities than we do...

As far as we can tell from public readings of Cold start material, the IA is looking for a large volume of firepower to be delivered through quickly mobilisable platforms...Right now, as we speak, can we induct Arjuns at the same pace as T90s? Can we set up the logisitcs and infrastructure at the same pace? My understanding is that the Ia thinks not..

therefore, it is wiser to use tech sponoffs from the Arjun project and look to start developing the FMBT today - have a 10 year timeframe for induction...In case the IA is really serious about a "light" tank in our scenario, the FMBT can also be a light tank, but using specific Arjun tech..There is no wishful thinking here..My understanding is that this is exactly what is in the works..DRDO is doing its bit of posturing to ensure that the Army is kept on leash while planning for the FMBT...(you only have to see how the "comparative trials" have now been described as "doctrinal development" ones by Dr Saraswat!)...

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2010 17:31

Rahul M wrote:IIRC Gen Sundarji's re-org plan called for 80 armoured regiments, as of now we have 63 right ?

p.s.
(This is pretty close to ~ 4,000 numbers as spoken about in general media. The difference can be on one major account: I’ve assumed Tanks/Regiment as 55. This is for more modern tanks. Older tanks, like earliest version of T-72, T-55 and Vijayantas are held in higher numbers. IIRC, as high as 70 per regiment.)
# of holdings was 72/armoured regiment for the older tanks. for the new gen it is 62/regt.

55/ regt was a cost cutting measure of the 80's going by media reports.


While I'm not aware of the planned number of Armored Regiments, but IIRC, the Army Plan 2000 called for 4 Armored+7 Mechanized+7 RAPIDS....so that would be around 66 Armored Regiments. And in case we planned to retail the 8 (I) Armored Brigades, the number would be around 90. So, that number of 80 may well be true (for I don;t thinl all the present day Armored(I) Bdes were there in 1985).

I was not aware of the cost cutting thing wrt tank holding per regiment. I guess, that is why the number of Arjun/Regiment is 62. @62 tanks per regiment, the number of MBT required will easily jump the 4,000 mark.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 17:36

somnath ji, Avadi is producing arjuns at close to 50/year within a year of starting production. perhaps they can produce at a decent rate if there's a sympathetic bunch of people who know the design inside out (in this case from DRDO) helping them at it ?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2010 17:37

RayC wrote:
Really? And it goes up as per vintage? Thanks. News to me! I am dated and have no access to the new policies. Do quote from where you got this fact that vintage and the fluctuating numbers is the gospel!


Sir, there is no open source information (from GOI/IA) which will corroborate the above fact. However, the same is based on news and articles as available on the internet. And a visit to T-72 and T-55 equipped Regiment gave the same story. Also, you need to look at it purely from serviceability issue. If the required strength of tanks/regiment at any given time is 45, I'll need more of older tanks to ensure that I match this number.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 17:45

Samay wrote:Even pA decided not to go with M1Abrams ,but with T80 ,why?
Chinese are just tuning the old russian designs, what lies in it that we cannot see ?
as gerard said, abrams was not available to the PA. similarly, PLA can't buy western tanks due to arms embargoes.
china's recent tanks are decidedly moving the western way, the type 99's overall specs look like that of an arjun minus the 4th loader, a far cry from the T-72's. the type-99 is heavily influenced by the leopard tank.

I think the main reason why they are still not going with ArjunMBT as its Main tank by composition lies somewhere in this??

another example is all western EU/USA following their own similar patterns ?
would you quit repeating this BS ? the arjun is made to IA's own GSQR.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 21 Mar 2010 17:49

would you quit repeating this BS ? the arjun is made to IA's own GSQR.

GSQR, is it available on the internet?
Last edited by Samay on 21 Mar 2010 18:25, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2010 17:52

that would be a real shame if it happens IMHO...IA would be the only Army in the world to be operating not one, but 3 very different types of tanks - Arjun, T90 and the FMBT...Replicates the circus that we have in the IAF fighter fleet today..


somnath, you do realize that tanks cannot be produced overnight. And before the IA can standardize on any single tank, it will face a problem of having multiple types in its inventory? Just take the example of Tube Artillery modernization- What are the types that we have - D-30/M-47/Bofors/IFG. As and when the new 155/52 mm system enters service, the older ones will be phased out. Even if Arjun in not inducted, IA will have three types of MBTs - T-90, T-72 and FMBT. So, why the surprise?

Not true at all...Push comes to shove, any number of imports can be justified - you need to only look at the Su30 contract, how many more are we importing compared to what ws envisaged?


We already had the IA order additional T-90 because of delay in production of T-90 at Avadhi. But what everyone forgot was that the delay was due to Russians acting smart on the ToT. Now, with Avadhi producing T-90, what kind of "push" is envisage?

As far as we can tell from public readings of Cold start material, the IA is looking for a large volume of firepower to be delivered through quickly mobilisable platforms...Right now, as we speak, can we induct Arjuns at the same pace as T90s? Can we set up the logisitcs and infrastructure at the same pace? My understanding is that the Ia thinks not..


Why are you assuming that T-90 and Arjun induction is a "either" game? If the IA has to maintain a credible armor, it will need more of new tanks. Unless, of course, IA wants only T-90 now and hence, there is nothing stopping IA from ordering more Arjuns. How on earth will induction of Arjun hamper the implementation of Cold Start? IA already has T-90 and more planned, the T-72 is due for upgrade and these will be used for implementing the CS setup. As and when Arjun comes online, it can start replacing the older versions of T-72 and other tanks (T-55 and Vijayantas).So, where is the complication?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 17:56

is it available on the internet?
:rotfl: :rotfl:
this has to be the funniest post I've read in a LONG LONG time !
this is like asking if delhi is in India.
for starters :

re-linking for your reading pleasure :
viewtopic.php?p=841165#p841165
please read MajGen RS Chawla's comments.


p.s. if you are not satisfied with this, you should yourself search the net and see what info is available on this. spoon-feeding is not encouraged.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2010 17:58

Samay wrote:
would you quit repeating this BS ? the arjun is made to IA's own GSQR.

is it available on the internet?


Good Sir, you do realize that GSQR stands for General Staff Qualitative Requirement and is penned by the Army/Defence Service. So, if Arjun looks and feels the way it does, it is because it meets the GSQR of tha IA.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5305
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 21 Mar 2010 18:00

For several pages now I've read about the T-90 vs Arjun argument which has me pretty puzzled. The army placed the T-90 orders before the the Arjun became a viable option. It was a judgement call and I don't think it requires that much debate.

Question is what now. Deliveries of the 124 ordered so far will be concluding shortly. The issues with the Arjun (correct me if I'm wrong) are three fold:

1. From a logistical perspective, the T-90 is a better option than the Arjun. No argument there. But, what about a decade in the future or further; does the Army want continue to import the Russian successor to the T-90? At some point it'll need to break from the T-xx, why not now?

2. 'The Army is now looking at the future. FMBT-2020'. :-o - This one completely went over me. The US Army's FMBT is still in the concept stage. The IA wants to start inducting in a decade? The IA's future fleet has to follow from the Arjun family. I sincerely hope the Army gets that.

3. The army doesn't need any further deliveries. - Which is brings me to my question for forum gurus...

What does the army's future armoured strength look like? I understand the IA still has 800 Vijayantas and 500+ T-55s in active service, not to mention almost 2000 T-72s. Accepting that the T-90 order is not reversible, isn't there still enough room for the Arjun to serve as well? There seem a lot of tanks well past obsolescence still in service, besides the T-72s which are... past their prime lets say.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 21 Mar 2010 18:10

edit.
Last edited by Rahul M on 21 Mar 2010 18:14, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: warned for trolling.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 18:14

The army placed the T-90 orders before the the Arjun became a viable option. It was a judgement call and I don't think it requires that much debate.
that's not quite correct, the arjun was ready at the time although the project was being sent on a wild goose chase.
Accepting that the T-90 order is not reversible, isn't there still enough room for the Arjun to serve as well? There seem a lot of tanks well past obsolescence still in service, besides the T-72s which are... past their prime lets say.
there is certainly space for arjun but whether it will be filled by it is another question.
expect IA to continue with T-55 and T-72 and T-90's till the new russian MBT shows up.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 21 Mar 2010 18:31

RayC wrote:
Kanson wrote: If what RayC tries to project that as interim then why not buy T-72S to match the pak T-80 in numbers and then later on went for the upgrade path ?

So what i'm saying is this interim business is just hogwash, the way Army went with 1000 more order without rectifying the problems encountered in T-90S shows that it is not an interim purchase... that's the point i like to make.


So what is your answer to fill the void if everything is hogwash?

As i said, the purchase of T-90S was not interim. That is what i'm trying to say.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2935
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 21 Mar 2010 18:37

Samay wrote:
RayC wrote:Last I remember is that an Armd Regt is of 45 tanks.

Nothing wrong with the Arjun if I go by what BRF and Shukla says.

RayC sir,
although Im not an expert in this field,but one question ,
Why armies like PLA,PA,IA(incidently all neighbours) prefer russian design and field concept of tanks , any common factor/doctrine to consider? WW2?

Even pA decided not to go with M1Abrams ,but with T80 ,why?
Chinese are just tuning the old russian designs, what lies in it that we cannot see ?

I think the main reason why they are still not going with ArjunMBT as its Main tank by composition lies somewhere in this??

another example is all western EU/USA following their own similar patterns ?

Fwiw, Chinese say now that their Type-99A2 tank as equivalent to M1A1 and it weighs, as another member pointed out, close to 60 tons.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 18:44

Rahul M wrote:somnath ji, Avadi is producing arjuns at close to 50/year within a year of starting production. perhaps they can produce at a decent rate if there's a sympathetic bunch of people who know the design inside out (in this case from DRDO) helping them at it ?


Is it 50? Most reports seem to suggest 30..Given that Avadi struggled to overhaul more than 50-60 T72s a year, dont know what sort of confidence intervals are required for (say) 100 Arjuns a year...

We already had the IA order additional T-90 because of delay in production of T-90 at Avadhi. But what everyone forgot was that the delay was due to Russians acting smart on the ToT. Now, with Avadhi producing T-90, what kind of "push" is envisage?


Well, the first batch of Avadi-produced T90s were to be from CKDs, nothing more than screw driver tech - ToT wasnt the problem with that, and even then there were delays....

Rohitvats, you are misunderstanding me..I am not saying that Arjun is a "misfit" under the Cold Start doctrine...Simply that under the threat scenarios assumed under Cold Start, we are not envisaging large scale armour battles over long periods..So an upgraded T72 (like T90) that can be quickly mobilised and inducted in large numbers quickly as well is probably good enough for now..

about having multiple tank platforms, say having both Arjuns and T90s in large quantities - its a logistical nightmare...Two very different types of tanks, two different types of tank transporters, recovery vehicles, ammunition -the works...No country maintains two different fleets of disparate tanks..The problem would be compounded in case we have the T90, Arjun AND the FMBT all together...

Left to me, I would rather use the Arjun fleet (the 124 ordered) as a test bed for indigeneous tech...Things like the BMS, or new armour developments...So while we design the FMBT, some of the key accessories are tested out simultaeneously - hastens the development process..

For good reasons or bad, the IA has decided upon the T90 as its present MBT - that b attle is "lost"...forcing down a second platform in large quantities would only worsen the situation in terms of logistics et al...The best chance for DRDO concenow is to concentrate on the FMBT and getting it off the ground...


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest