Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

babbupandey · Post by **babbupandey** » 14 Jul 2009 13:40

can you please share the google page with us? if not please send me the link in private message. thanks.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 14 Jul 2009 23:41

77 Arjun tanks for Army by March 2010

NEW DELHI, 13 JULY: The Indian Army will get 77 of the remaining 124 main battle tank (MBT) Arjun by March next year with the conversion training to begin this winter for the 47 supplied so far, the Lok Sabha was informed today.
The minister of state for defence, Mr MM Pallamraju, admitted that it has taken a long time for the tanks to be inducted into the army as “trials do take time”. He added, “But, the good news is that the Army has a complete regiment of tanks”. Mr Raju said the conversion training was needed since the regiment was earlier equipped with T-55 tanks, and the officers and crew need to be trained in the new tank. “The tanks would become fully operational after the conversion training,” the minister said.

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.p ... &id=260808

abhiti · Post by **abhiti** » 15 Jul 2009 01:50

sanjaychoudhry wrote:77 Arjun tanks for Army by March 2010
The minister of state for defence, Mr MM Pallamraju, admitted that it has taken a long time for the tanks to be inducted into the army as “trials do take time”.

More correctly, trials for items for which babus don't get chai pani "take a long time". Remind me how long did trials of T-90 took?

koti · Post by **koti** » 15 Jul 2009 14:29

I think this is a new contender for the army's LWAV platform. According to reports this id currently undergoing army trails. And from what I've deciphered from the article, it is already ordered(??) for paramilitary forces.

http://mku.tradeindia.com/Exporters_Sup ... 5/C-8.html
Related News : http://www.dailyindia.com/show/322962.php

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Jul 2009 16:43

sorry for the late reply. the broadband line to my home machine was torn off in a storm.
this reply had to wait as a notepad !

_________________________________

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

Nag is a very high performance missile, a silver bullet if you will. and costs like that too !
IMO, it won't make economic sense to add all the hitech sensors on board an abhay just for 2 missiles.
the article mentions 2nd gen ATGMs. expect the milan. although this being a TD the ATGM might change in the future.

much better would be to make a NAMICA version of abhay if it is selected by IA.

do note that the abhay, for the same no of personnel carried is much more heavily protected than the BMP-2
(23 tonnes as against 14.3 for the BMP-2). in spite of that it has a higher pwr/wt ratio than the BMP-2 !!

it also has a higher caliber main gun, not to mention much better ride comfort/ergonomics and (presumably) better accuracy.

in short, it might just be what the doctor ordered, IA is in desperate need to increase its mechanised formations and
if they do deliver on what the article says, it will be a watershed event.
I would still want to know about some details, can the secondary gun be fired from inside the vehicle, for instance ?
I'm sure other details will be sought before we can come to some kind of conclusion.
one point would be at what stage is the TD project at now ?

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 15 Jul 2009 16:46

Army plans to buy armoured vehicles for vulnerable areas
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jul/ ... hicles.htm

In a bid to protect its troops in insurgency-affected areas, the army is planning to procure over 800 light weight armoured vehicles to be used in vulnerable places.

"We are planning to induct over 800 light armoured vehicles for protecting our troops from being attacked by terrorists during ambushes in areas such as Jammu and Kashmir [Images] and north-eastern states. These vehicles would be provided to units deployed in these areas," an army source told PTI.

"These vehicles would be used in counter-insurgency operations for patrolling, reconnaissance and convoy protection, logistics and search and rescue missions. Tenders for procuring these vehicles were released early this year," the source said.

Four companies have responded to the tender for armoured vehicles requirement of the army and have sent their products for trials.

The participants in the race for over Rs 250 crore tender include Mahindra Defence Systems, Tata Motors [Get Quote], Force Motors [Get Quote] and MKU Systems.

The trials of these vehicles, the source said, are being conducted simultaneously at two locations.

"We are carrying out the trials at Doda in Jammu and Kashmir and at our Armoured School in Ahmednagar in Maharashtra," the source said.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Jul 2009 21:13

Samay wrote:This ICV is a shame.on drdo
just the russian copy plus few more digital stuff ,.
such vehicles aren't required in wars anymore as they are obsolete concept,. {Oh dear ! is that so ? then the US stryker family, the widely used Piranha family, sundry russian designs are all obsolete ! really, militaries the world over are run by such bumbling idiots that you just need a keyboard to correct them ! }
just imagine why they were developing it!! {that's easy ! because the DRDO scientists are fools ? }
Nothing special in this ICV, not sufficient innovation to position it as a competitor in growing MRAP market {now think of that ! I never thought that an infantry fighting vehicle can compete with a mine protected vehicle !! seriously samay ji, you have opened my eyes ! someone please call the discovery channel future weapons producer ! quick !!}, neither it could be seen as a futuristic system that army can rely upon,for its needs in the battle.
Hence there is less probability that army will go for it in bulk.,specially when it requires a good apc . {now you have me confused. the armies don't need IFVs any more ? why ? surely you can explain it in simple terms to someone less gifted than you in innovation, like me ? TIA}

In the scanned brochure it is shown that the vehicle can host two missiles ,if these could be helena,is doubtful,. {the spelling is HeliNa, IOW Helicopter (launched) Nag ! I doubt the ICV is a helicopter ! but I'm sure you'll think of some innovation that will make the abhay fly ! }
while present requirement is to have a short range missile both for tank and gunships, which it could not have,because we dont make such missles.so it could not protect itself and soldiers inside,besides having a good armour (as claimed)

This ICV will only find its relevance in use against growing naxals, to be used by paramilitary and other forces ,since it could run at 35-70 km/hr (as claimed) . {that is certainly the most lucid and enlightening statement I've read on BR for a long time ! Oh ! the clarity !}

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

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Jul 2009 21:14

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

you do realise that you are making a royal fool of yourself by these ill-informed smart-alecky comments, don't you ?

from your comments it is clear you don't even understand the difference between an ICV and a MPV. (MRAP is not a type of vehicle, it is the name given to a procurement program of the US military. the generic type is called mine-protected vehicle or MPV. )

even a full fledged MBT will find it difficult to survive a hellfire hit, leave alone any ICV that weighs less than half ! of course your favourite MRAP contestants will have no problems in facing ATGMs !

ICVs are supposed to move along with tanks to give them support against enemy infantry units, both with the infantry they carry and their on board systems. such vehicles are NOT built to be mine-proof, armoured formations include their own mine plough vehicles that clear the path of mines.

abhay's rpotection features (see article) are already quite impressive with some growth potential !

additionally, abhay has laser warning system which would alert it as soon as it is lighted up by a hellfire's guidance system and it would activate its counter-measures.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Jul 2009 21:18

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

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

Regards,
Kiran

kiran, you might remember this post. my views on the issue are explained there. also do read the link contained in my post just below this one.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 77#p610677

at the end of the day, there's no alternative to the knowledgeable folk taking up the onus of taking a loud mouth to task.

mods doing it will always reek of highhandedness(whether real or imagined) to those who look for it !

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 15 Jul 2009 23:36

Overhauling of T-72 Tanks

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Jul 2009 00:00

The only valid thing that can be brought up against the Abhay is the whole concept of thin skinned (relatively) ICVs.

I personally want to have monsterous heavy weight ICVs but I am told by Mech Inf folks that it would be a sitting duck.

One of my tank hunter friends from Israel says it is difficult to target a fast moving BMP.

So tactics have a lot to do with it.

Still I would prefer a modular structure to add more protection (and weight) in diff conditions.

23 tons is still 'tinny'

30 tons would be the minimum for protection against IEDs and splinters etc.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2009 00:15

I think growth options will be there. though, as of now only the germans are building something in that class.
even now most armies seem to think that the sweet spot between protection and mobility is in the 20-25 tonne bracket. the russian BMP-T is more a tank than anything else, being based on the T-72.

but I do agree that future IFVs will need to provide near tank like protection. and I doubt for how long high speed will be a survival tactic on the battlefield !

30 tons would be the minimum for protection against IEDs and splinters etc.

splinters from what ? mine protection might carry too much weight penalty to incorporate, unless you mean smaller AP mines only.

edit : since the IA is not preparing to fight an iraq like occupation army battle anytime soon, IEDs might not be that high on its list of things for IFVs.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Jul 2009 00:40

splinters from air bursts. I was implying better top protection (ie. more weight)

I would prefer the higher weight to be factored in early like the Germans are doing.

Else like in Iraq - engines will wear out in the heavier versions and then CAG will scream bloody murder.

As for more powerful IEDs - never know what our 'friends' will try to slip in to the many groups who will do their bidding.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 16 Jul 2009 01:11

Rahul M wrote: you do realise that you are making a royal fool of yourself by these ill-informed smart-alecky comments, don't you ?

from your comments it is clear you don't even understand the difference between an ICV and a MPV. (MRAP is not a type of vehicle, it is the name given to a procurement program of the US military. the generic type is called mine-protected vehicle or MPV. )

even a full fledged MBT will find it difficult to survive a hellfire hit, leave alone any ICV that weighs less than half ! of course your favourite MRAP contestants will have no problems in facing ATGMs !

ICVs are supposed to move along with tanks to give them support against enemy infantry units, both with the infantry they carry and their on board systems. such vehicles are NOT built to be mine-proof, armoured formations include their own mine plough vehicles that clear the path of mines.

abhay's rpotection features (see article) are already quite impressive with some growth potential !

additionally, abhay has laser warning system which would alert it as soon as it is lighted up by a hellfire's guidance system and it would activate its counter-measures.

You are quite good in fault finding in the statement, I was indicating about what has been done so far in the name of development by the drdo,i.e waste of resources,.

I know that mrap/mpv and icv will be used for different purposes ,but if you are assuming that abhay is going to be selected by the army,is a dream ,.The army will not do this mistake because it is already indicated by the army that they are looking for futuristic systems ,so will be the use of the icv ,.and there are better systems available,.than a russian copy.,and that too developing an obsolete design, which is not the case with other countries like US,Russia,.

other than the spelling mistakes as in this case helena [was because of a familiar name] and that I indeed mixed nag with helina,
I don't think that you could even understand what is the real meaning about anything that is written, then why are you responding ?even when you are a mod,entering a flame war??

Rahul M wrote:that's easy ! because the DRDO scientists are fools ? }

I dont think so, but you can check it by your fault finding instinct .

Rahul M wrote:surely you can explain it in simple terms to someone less gifted than you in innovation,like me ? TIA

sorry but you wont be able to understand

Rahul M wrote:{that is certainly the most lucid and enlightening statement I've read on BR for a long time ! Oh ! the clarity !}

read the next post from sanjaychoudhry,for more enlightenment ,and to understand what I was indicating to,..
Army does not needs the obsolete drdo design

ICVs are supposed to move along with tanks to give them support against enemy infantry units, both with the infantry they carry and their on board systems. such vehicles are NOT built to be mine-proof, armoured formations include their own mine plough vehicles that clear the path of mines.

abhay's rpotection features (see article) are already quite impressive with some growth potential !

You are right about icv role, but this abhay is just a russian copy plus little innovation from drdo,and is an obsolete design.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2009 01:27

right brother, since you are so confident about your claims and condescending comments. you should have no problems in backing up each of your comments with data.

you do that, I'll eat my words and apologise. if not, you get a warning for trolling.
you have 48 hrs. now is Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:32:34 AM IST.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 16 Jul 2009 01:53

Rahul M wrote:right brother, since you are so confident about your claims and condescending comments. you should have no problems in backing up each of your comments with data.

you do that, I'll eat my words and apologise. if not, you get a warning for trolling.
you have 48 hrs. now is Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:32:34 AM IST.

I don't need to show that you are wrong or what you were doing , why dont you post some links that proves abhay is a generation ahead than others,
dear mod,you can take as much time as you need .

on the contrary, you do need to show proof for your BS comments.
you can't just post any old yarn and get away with it.
you still have that time. use it.
Rahul.
p.s. why do I have to 'prove' that abhay is a gen ahead or something ?
did I make any such assertion ? typical strawman tactics !

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 16 Jul 2009 21:44

Samay - AFAIK the Abhay was a TD vehicle and not a final product. The object was to validate the design and development capabilities. The concept that a 23 ton vehicle is less protected...well I think you need to do a little reading about armour and concepts. Example : a 3mm thick plate of steel is almost same as a 1.5 mm thick composite armour plate. In case of steel it basically depends upon the strength and resistence to penetration. Composite on the other hand will use a destructible layer to dissipate the energy of the projectile. Moreover it is difficult to penetrate. try this at home...take an electric drill with a normal cement bit. Drill through a conventional brick. Then try drilling a plastered wall, then try to drill through an outside wall (outside the house)...check the time, the approximate temperature of the tip. Also the bit will tend to get stuck in the multi layer target. (so many drills come with a reversing option)...same with composites. Also a 3mm steel plate armour will generallybe heavier than a 3mm composite plate armour.
You also mentioned that a speed of 35/70 kmph is low...well...armour generally does not NEED to go faster. This is not a race. What is more important is it accelerates quickly. AFV's/ICV's generally would not go to battle alone and will be a part of an armoured column. That way all they need is to stay along the tanks (this offers better offensive cap) and provide secondary cover to take out targets like infantry, MG nest's, etc for which using the main tank gun is overkill...As such the IFV will need to maintain speed with the tank and if push comes to shove have the ability to hit and kill enemy armour.
When Rahul pointed out the spelling mistake of the helina, he wasnt just referring to the spelling mistake but also the fact that Helina is for use from helicopters not from ground vehicles, in which case it is the NAG.
WRT IED's (i am referring to Shaped charge projectiles) conventional composite armour is designed to defend against HESH and HEAT projectiles which are more powerful than the IED's...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2009 22:23

You also mentioned that a speed of 35/70 kmph is low...well...armour generally does not NEED to go faster. This is not a race.

speaking of speed, armoured formations rarely cover more than 10-20 km in a day.
in a particularly good theater with drivable terrain and no enemies, 50km/day might be a good day's work !
surmising that 35km/hr is not enough and hence fit for anti-naxalite ops at best is ignorant stupidity at its worst.

WRT IED's (i am referring to Shaped charge projectiles) conventional composite armour is designed to defend against HESH and HEAT projectiles which are more powerful than the IED's...

nikhil, the underside of IFVs aren't usually covered with full scale armour, AFAIK except one version of stryker, no IFV/ICV is mine resistant to that extent.

IMHO, beyond rudimentary protection in the underside against mines, focus should be on shielding the vulnerable top. surya's point is very valid.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 17 Jul 2009 00:50

WRT IED's (i am referring to Shaped charge projectiles) conventional composite armour is designed to defend against HESH and HEAT projectiles which are more powerful than the IED's...
nikhil, the underside of IFVs aren't usually covered with full scale armour, AFAIK except one version of stryker, no IFV/ICV is mine resistant to that extent.

IMHO, beyond rudimentary protection in the underside against mines, focus should be on shielding the vulnerable top. surya's point is very valid.

Point taken!

koti · Post by **koti** » 17 Jul 2009 23:04

Jamal K. Malik wrote:Overhauling of T-72 Tanks

How many T-72's have been upgraded so far?
And can any one suggest a link to the upgrades the tank is receiving?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Jul 2009 09:35

Samay wrote:
Rahul M wrote:right brother, since you are so confident about your claims and condescending comments. you should have no problems in backing up each of your comments with data.

you do that, I'll eat my words and apologise. if not, you get a warning for trolling.
you have 48 hrs. now is Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:32:34 AM IST.
........

warning issued.

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 20 Jul 2009 12:39

From Livefist Abhay brochures

"Powerpack:
Abhay runs on a 550 HP indeginous turbocharged diesel engine with hydro mechanical........."

Does CVRD or any other defence PSU produce its own engines?

koti · Post by **koti** » 20 Jul 2009 12:54

Just wondering..
ERA tiles on tanks decrease the effectiveness of APFSDS rounds. This is done by causing the ERA tiles to explode on the sabots impact.
Now what happens to the ERA tile if it i hit with lower caliber ammunition like 5.56, 7.62 and 12.5 mm.

I was wondering what it(ERA) would do to the surrounding troops in case it is deployed in scenarios where Merkava is deployed. In an urban environment, passive armor definitely seems to have an advantage over active armor.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2009 13:02

first gen ERAs had problems with small arms fire. current ERA are immune to those.

koti · Post by **koti** » 21 Jul 2009 09:21

ERA also possesses one more issue. A T-90 may take one APFSDS hit but not two carl-gustaf hits.:-(
This does not hold true with Arjun by the way.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jul 2009 23:02

Yes thats the one. Cant seem to find it

not that one but a comparison with T-90.
http://frontierindia.net/dissimilar-com ... -90s-specs

edit : ah, here is the article you were looking for.
http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/1796 ... ort-23.pdf

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 21 Jul 2009 23:14

Thanks

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 22 Jul 2009 00:06

DRDO Newsletter Feb 09

“Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, has modernized T-72M1 tanks being rolled out from HVF, named Combat Improved Ajeya (CI Ajeya) with special features such as ERA, GPS, IFDSS and SGD. Army placed production order on HVF, Avadi, for 692 Nos of Combat Improved Ajeya tanks, out of which about 649 tanks have been rolled out from HVF till date. In addition, CVRDE has also transferred the technology to 505 Army Base Workshop, Delhi for integrating the CI Ajeya on T-72M1 tanks.”

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jul 2009 00:10

any idea if the CIA project will be capped at 692 or extended ?

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 22 Jul 2009 03:23

Rahul M wrote:any idea if the CIA project will be capped at 692 or extended ?

Apparently it is to be extended, if CVRDE is transferring technology (to integrate CIA into T72M1s) to the army workshop.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 22 Jul 2009 10:45

Any chaiwala / panwalla updates on indegenous tank engine development ? Who is the chosen technology partner and who is the chosen production agency?

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 27 Jul 2009 20:23

Any idea as to how many T72s have been converted to the T72-M1 Ajeya standard?

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 28 Jul 2009 00:13

If Abhay is going to be just a TD and not going to be inducted into Army when can we see the real one getting developed and inducted, I mean the FICV. If Abhay is really good as explained above, atleast if not inducted, the existing BMP-2s should be made equal to Abhay's level. I saw the Stryker on Military Channel, really awesome vehicle. We need something like that I guess pretty soon!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 30 Jul 2009 20:03

Wikipedia page on Mahindra Axe gives the impression that it has already been selected over Tata lsv. Can anyone confirm this?

alejandro_ · Post by **alejandro_** » 06 Aug 2009 04:56

Any idea as to how many T72s have been converted to the T72-M1 Ajeya standard?

What are the characteristics of this upgrade?

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 06 Aug 2009 07:18

yet another deficiency.... Army wants new thermal imager based panoramic commander's night vision sight for T-90 tanks

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 06 Aug 2009 15:40

T90 is the cash cow for the middle men now....

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 06 Aug 2009 19:24

aditp wrote:yet another deficiency.... Army wants new thermal imager based panoramic commander's night vision sight for T-90 tanks

http://indianarmy.nic.in/rfi/rfi060209.pdf

This is the RFI... which is being talked about.

it seems to be a planned upgrade not a deficiency from my point of view and a step in right direction... T-90 is more than 8 yrs old in IA... by the time the RFI moves to a stage of delivery another 1+ yrs (very modest) , 9+ years and an upgrade seems to be a step in right direction

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 06 Aug 2009 19:41

http://indianarmy.nic.in/rfi/rfi060209.pdf

This is the RFI... which is being talked about.

it seems to be a planned upgrade not a deficiency from my point of view and a step in right direction... T-90 is more than 8 yrs old in IA... by the time the RFI moves to a stage of delivery another 1+ yrs (very modest) , 9+ years and an upgrade seems to be a step in right direction

Of course, when its T-90 its a step in the right direction. Of course, when its T-90 accepting tranches and incremental upgrades makes perfect sense. Of course when its T-90, working with the manufacturer to resolve teething issues is a step in the right direction.

But when its the Arjun, tauba tauba!! The tank must do everything from get go, including 100% accuracy, low maintainance etc etc. Heaven help us if there is even a small deficiency, all hell breaks loose: "soldier's lives on the line" "there is no coming second" is immediately trotted out (which magically disappears when T90 is around)...

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 07 Aug 2009 08:15

New TARIAN Cloth Can Thwart RPG Weapons

More

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/06 ... sh_armour/