Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Juggi G
BRFite
Posts: 1070
Joined: 11 Mar 2007 19:16
Location: Martyr Bhagat Singh Nagar District, Doaba, Punjab, Bharat. De Ghuma ke :)

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Juggi G » 14 Oct 2009 09:49

US Pitches the Stryker to India
The Rediff News Bureau

Image

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1545
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Dmurphy » 14 Oct 2009 09:50


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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 14 Oct 2009 11:34

is there a huge diff in ground pressure between a (heavier BMP + its thin tracks) and a (lighter wheeled IFV and its 8 tyres deflated appropriately for soft terrain) ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rajeshks » 14 Oct 2009 14:10

Singha wrote:is there a huge diff in ground pressure between a (heavier BMP + its thin tracks) and a (lighter wheeled IFV and its 8 tyres deflated appropriately for soft terrain) ?


Singhaji, Please go thru the link i posted in prev page.
http://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html


Relevant to off-road mobility, wheeled vehicles tend to have a ground pressure considerably higher than that of their tracked counterparts. The Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP), which is the average peak pressure under the tires of wheeled vehicles or under the road wheels of tracked vehicles, varies between 200 to 270 kN/m2 for the latter and 300 to 450 kN/m2 for the former. This implies inferior performance for wheeled vehicles on soft ground. There is at least one notable exception, however. The French Panhard VBL M-11 (a 4 x 4 vehicle weighing 3.55 t) has an MMP of only 220 kN/m2. In this case, a very light wheeled armored vehicle achieves an MMP in the range of tracked vehicles.

Generally speaking, the ground pressure of wheeled vehicles rises significantly with the platform's weight. In the case of tracked vehicles this correlation is not as evident. In light of this, the renowned British tank expert Ogorkiewicz has argued to abandon concepts of wheeled combat vehicles weighing significantly over 22 - 23 t. Even a multi-wheeled configuration (8 x 8 -- that is, eight powered wheels) with variable tire pressure can not solve the problem -- resulting only in a very complex, hence expensive, design.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 14 Oct 2009 14:21

rajeshks wrote:
Singha wrote:is there a huge diff in ground pressure between a (heavier BMP + its thin tracks) and a (lighter wheeled IFV and its 8 tyres deflated appropriately for soft terrain) ?


Singhaji, Please go thru the link i posted in prev page.
http://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html


Relevant to off-road mobility, wheeled vehicles tend to have a ground pressure considerably higher than that of their tracked counterparts. The Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP), which is the average peak pressure under the tires of wheeled vehicles or under the road wheels of tracked vehicles, varies between 200 to 270 kN/m2 for the latter and 300 to 450 kN/m2 for the former. This implies inferior performance for wheeled vehicles on soft ground. There is at least one notable exception, however. The French Panhard VBL M-11 (a 4 x 4 vehicle weighing 3.55 t) has an MMP of only 220 kN/m2. In this case, a very light wheeled armored vehicle achieves an MMP in the range of tracked vehicles.

Generally speaking, the ground pressure of wheeled vehicles rises significantly with the platform's weight. In the case of tracked vehicles this correlation is not as evident. In light of this, the renowned British tank expert Ogorkiewicz has argued to abandon concepts of wheeled combat vehicles weighing significantly over 22 - 23 t. Even a multi-wheeled configuration (8 x 8 -- that is, eight powered wheels) with variable tire pressure can not solve the problem -- resulting only in a very complex, hence expensive, design.


Great. Good info.

How does it help India?

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 437
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 14 Oct 2009 21:37


saptarishi
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 05 May 2007 01:20
Location: ghaziabad
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby saptarishi » 17 Oct 2009 13:56



nice one :!:

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 437
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 21 Oct 2009 07:39

October is almost over. No news of Arjun vs Bhishma mahabharat. Have all paanwallahs gone back to UP / Bihar?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9466
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 21 Oct 2009 19:48

Can we really expect the so called comparitive trials to take place??? Army is predetarmined to make Arjun a failure. So even if some sort of trial takes place it will be manupulated for sure.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 21 Oct 2009 20:13

I wonder what is the logic behind having the trials in pleasant Indian winter ; I was under the impression that Army usually evaluates tanks during summer in Rajasthan .

jai
BRFite
Posts: 369
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby jai » 21 Oct 2009 20:40

Drdo needs to bring in natashas :rotfl:

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 514
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 22 Oct 2009 14:22

is there any news on Arjun ? Have not heard anything for a long time. How is the Arjun mark II going on ? Any news from Panwalas or mulla ?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9466
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Oct 2009 20:12

DRDO has to engage some natashas for any news to come out on Arjun :rotfl:

On the serious note some one has to write to Anthony He is not that bad person.

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 492
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Ankit Desai » 27 Oct 2009 07:11

Army to get 124 Arjun tanks in six months

These 124 tanks are in various stages of production. All of them will get inducted into the armed forces in March and April,
Selvamurthy said,

adding that a few tanks have already been handed over. "Other organisations are also giving us orders."



Ankit

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9466
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 27 Oct 2009 18:29

Is this 124 are in addition to what was already delivered or to be delivered. My understanding was 124 was already kept ready and only to be delivered. So why 6 months are needed for that.

What about the prodection line and other systems developed for Arjun are they going to be kept dorment so that our Army top brass can dance with Natashas :rotfl:

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1052
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 27 Oct 2009 18:52

It is pitty.. that IA is ready to buy 1000 T90 so that they can use it until 2020 but not Arjun. If they induct arjun, they can easy upgrades and so on....

I dont understand why the hell they order when they know that is Arjun is going to production line in 1-2 yrs.... I fear LCA is also going on the same lines (20-40 planes end of the story) As people are already discussing MRCA, 5th gen russian plane but not LCA/MCA. And the story continues ....

Anyways it is OT

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Oct 2009 19:13

The 124 Arjuns were first ordered in 2000 and supposed to delivered over next 5 years.

This data point (and many more can be furnished) alone is enough testimony to the saga of Arjun specifically and many Indigenous efforts generally.

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Asit P » 27 Oct 2009 19:26

Narayana Rao wrote:Is this 124 are in addition to what was already delivered or to be delivered. My understanding was 124 was already kept ready and only to be delivered. So why 6 months are needed for that.


This figure of 124 indicates the total number of Arjun tanks ordered by the Army (There is no additional order). As on 25th May, 2009 - 45 of these 124 had been delivered to the army. The remaining shall be delivered within the next 5-6 months from now.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 27 Oct 2009 23:43

Hey I know this may seem nuts but still... Does BSF have any effective Armour or Anti Armour capabilities...

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 27 Oct 2009 23:51

BSF is Border Security Force.

They are to defend.

Tanks are for offensive action.

Hence, tanks should not be required by them.

Anti armour weapons maybe required in case the enemy attacks without notice. But then, it would be a failure of the Intelligence!

jai
BRFite
Posts: 369
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby jai » 27 Oct 2009 23:54

No I think this is a good idea. BSF, ITBP, AR etc should be equiped with excellent anti armour capability....nags, jevelins, a good number of NAMICA's, fast attack boats, even Cheetah's and Chetaks's armed with machine guns..this will certainly make our borders better secured.
:twisted:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 27 Oct 2009 23:56

jai wrote:No I think this is a good idea. BSF, ITBP, AR etc should be equiped with excellent anti armour capability....nags, jevelins, a good number of NAMICA's, fast attack boats, even Cheetah's and Chetaks's armed with machine guns..this will certainly make our borders better secured.
:twisted:


Then make them a part of the Army or let the Army become a part of them.

Why have different forces with different command to add to the confusion?

When there is war or impending war, tactics and deployment change and the BSF on the border takes a different role with the Army.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 28 Oct 2009 00:05

I understand the fact that the BSF is a defensive unit in nature.. so all i am saying is they can make use of some old tanks/ IFV ( I am thinking T72 for now ) with AT missiles mounted on them at least for posturing and deterrence.. This way they free up the army to take up newer tanks early on.. and in war they could be used to provide security along the rear and flanks of the advancing tank columns... Just a possibility....

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16767
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 28 Oct 2009 00:14

old tanks are better held by the army itself as reserve than giving them up to the BSF which has no experience in operating or maintaining those.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 823
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nash » 28 Oct 2009 10:17

anybody have any information regarding Arjun V/s T-90 :?:

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 437
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 28 Oct 2009 10:30

Looks like the Arjun has put Bhishma to rest again, and a news blackout is in place. Otherwise somebody would be crowing bout the Arjun's failure from the roof top :mrgreen:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 28 Oct 2009 11:35

The Pakistanis use old tanks that have lived their life as pill boxes on the DCBs.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 28 Oct 2009 12:48

RayC wrote:The Pakistanis use old tanks that have lived their life as pill boxes on the DCBs.


Ray Sir, could you please expand DCB's???

jai
BRFite
Posts: 369
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby jai » 28 Oct 2009 13:12

This may ease induction of Indian made equipment along with good foreign ones - Arjun / Abhay etc if DRDO now opens up for technology transfers and partnerships with local co's -

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Reposito ... kin-custom

"Under the revised defence procurement procedure, which will be effective from November 1, Indian firms will be allowed to bid for tenders to supply weapon systems and platforms to the armed forces by joining hands with foreign manufacturers to co-produce them domestically. DPP-2009 will have some new measures to promote private sector participation in the defence sector — largely the preserve of DRDO, defence PSUs and ordnance factories till now — as well as ensure “integrity and transparency” in all acquisitions, A K Antony said. "

This may even open the possibility of private firms aquiring DRDO tech and further improving it using international help....how much happens and how much remains wishful thinking needs to be seen... :wink:

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3241
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Tanaji » 28 Oct 2009 15:18

Bala Vignesh wrote:
RayC wrote:The Pakistanis use old tanks that have lived their life as pill boxes on the DCBs.


Ray Sir, could you please expand DCB's???


Ditch Cum Bundh defences. The Indo Pak border is supposedly dotted with them on both sides as a defence to impediment massive armoured strikes from either side.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1980
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 28 Oct 2009 15:21

Tanaji wrote:Ditch Cum Bundh defences. The Indo Pak border is supposedly dotted with them on both sides as a defence to impediment massive armoured strikes from either side.


Tanaji Sir, Thanks...

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9466
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 28 Oct 2009 19:21

Sorry to ask but did some one (Patton ???) not said that Fixed fortifications are monuments to humon stupidity ?

We read about this defences time and again.

Can any guru say how these thing are so formidable even in today and age ? Is it our weakness or something speacil about them which can not be over come even today?

I think it may be our weakness. Pak has no statigic Depth and one deep thrust will creat some serious problems to them. I feel only because of our weakness (even in 1971 in the western sector) we could not make that thrust. Is even current armor is not capable to do it ?
Any one to educate kids here

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 28 Oct 2009 21:39

Bala Vignesh wrote:
RayC wrote:The Pakistanis use old tanks that have lived their life as pill boxes on the DCBs.


Ray Sir, could you please expand DCB's???


Ditch cum Bund are ditches that carry water for irrigation, but have high bunds, the walls of the ditch are steep and difficult to climb. The bunds have the bunkers. The water level is controlled by the headworks.

To cross them is difficult.

I will leave it at that!

The tanks are at the other side of the minefield and can be taken on by the derelict tanks on the bunds which are being used as pillboxes!

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ArmenT » 29 Oct 2009 12:04

Narayana Rao wrote:Sorry to ask but did some one (Patton ???) not said that Fixed fortifications are monuments to humon stupidity ?

We read about this defences time and again.

Can any guru say how these thing are so formidable even in today and age ? Is it our weakness or something speacil about them which can not be over come even today?

Yes it was Patton who said that and he was referring specifically to the Maginot line. There was a method to the madness for the French when they built it though. In WW-I, a lot of the fighting was done in the trenches and territory was not lost or gained easily. The French also suffered heavy losses in WW-I fighting and their population hadn't recovered yet. In fact, when the line was proposed, they had a shortage of manpower available to serve in their military. The maginot line was intended to provide positions that could easily be defended by a smaller group of soldiers.

Some of the younger officers such as DeGaulle wanted to invest in tanks and aircraft, but they were overridden by the minister for defence, Andre Maginot, who was also a veteran of trench warfare in Verdun in WW-I. Maginot had seen how effective fixed fortifications were in his trench warfare days.

In a way, the Maginot line did serve its intended purpose because the Germans knew that if they came through there, they would find the fighting much harder. So instead, the Germans figured out a way to bypass the line and go around it! Unfortunately the French had put their hopes on the Maginot line and were not prepared for other possibilities, which is why General Patton called it a monument to human stupidity.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunny y » 29 Oct 2009 12:36

Hi

I have query related to the use of the latest technologically advanced products like LCD's, touchscreen etc. in indian weapons. I mean when we look at the US weapons like armoured vehicles, strykers etc it seems like they make extensive use of LCD's, touchscreens etc. as is clear from some photos of strykers from YA-09 or from what we see in Future Weapons.

What is the percentage of these products in our Tanks, armoured vehicles etc ??
If possible, can anybody please post some interior pics of Arjun, T-90 etc ??


Thanks

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 671
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby milindc » 29 Oct 2009 14:29

sunny y wrote:Hi
If possible, can anybody please post some interior pics of Arjun, T-90 etc ??

Boss, you seem to be interested in interior pics of lot of things.... :lol:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 29 Oct 2009 15:08

Rao sir, to make armour thrusts really effective one needs a strong mechnized infantry component in support and lots of helicopters plus airborne brigades if not divisions. all this costs money -vs- a infantry heavy truck mobile army.

compare the 1st airborne div deployed to iraqi desert in support of 3rd division - they apparently came with 25k people and 400 helicopters.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1545
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Dmurphy » 29 Oct 2009 17:25

sunny y wrote:I have query related to the use of the latest technologically advanced products like LCD's, touchscreen etc. in indian weapons. I mean when we look at the US weapons like armoured vehicles, strykers etc it seems like they make extensive use of LCD's, touchscreens etc.
Sunny, LCD, touchscreen and other gizmos sure do signify advancement of technology but may not be appropriate all the time.

Although a bit out of context, read about the hi-tech thermal imaging systems we use in T-90s and T-72s and how suscpetible they are to rough weather. We don't want to depend on such delicate stuff in war, do we?

JMT.

Gurus will be able to explain better. But the little child in me too yearns to see our defence equipment decorated with gizmos. :)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunny y » 29 Oct 2009 19:23

milindc wrote:Boss, you seem to be interested in interior pics of lot of things.... :lol:


I am sorry but I didn't quite understand it. Well, anyways I am actually not related to defence sector. I am just a defence enthusiast. So you can very well imagine my situation, not being able to get into all these things that I wish I could. That's why I was asking for inside pics of our tanks, armoured vehicles.

Sometimes I wonder how easy it is to get a picture of cockpit on internet (I am sure the people who had actually put them there must have gone through many difficulties) but not tanks.


Dmurphy wrote:Gurus will be able to explain better. But the little child in me too yearns to see our defence equipment decorated with gizmos. :)


Couldn't have agreed more. Well as far as problem in thermal imaging systems is concerned I wasn't aware of it. But I don't think it would be much of a problem. I mean when Americans can put them & use them in places as varied as Iraq, Afghanistan & their own country then Why can't we ??

Although a bit out of context, I think much of the reason why we have these doubts is because of DRDO. I think they should release promotional videos of their developed products on youtube or any other good video sharing site (In this case Americans are doing pretty good through Future Weapons on Discovery). It will definitely motivate youngsters to join DRDO & to learn more about our capabilities & may also put a tight slap on all those people who simply love to bash DRDO.


Thanks

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 755
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Shameek » 29 Oct 2009 22:20

RFI put out for 200 wheeled and 100 tracked advanced light armoured combat vehicles.
Livefist Link


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests