Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

sourab_c
BRFite
Posts: 188
Joined: 14 Feb 2009 18:07
Location: around

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sourab_c » 29 Oct 2009 23:25

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



From the "dreaded" Wikipedia-

Canada originally purchased 66 Stryker Mobile Gun System vehicles in 2003, which were expected to arrive in 2010. However, in 2006 the Canadian Forces asked its government to cancel the MGS acquisition. The MGS was originally intended to be used in the "Direct Fire Unit"[26] which will include Tow Under Armour (LAV III) and MMEV (ADATS on LAVIII). The MGS was originally intended to provide the direct gun fire capabilities of the retiring Leopard I tanks[27] however with the recent usefulness of tanks in Iraq and hurried deployment of Canadian Leopard 1 tanks to Afghanistan combined with political changes in Canada and the Canadian Military - the purchase of more modern tanks occurred with the announcement of the purchase of surplus Leopard 2s from the Netherlands.[28] The MMEV project has also since been canceled, and the TUA requirement cut in half.

If the IA is considering STRYKER at all- this is suggesting that more modern tanks are a better option.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4116
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 30 Oct 2009 03:56

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



From the "dreaded" Wikipedia-

Canada originally purchased 66 Stryker Mobile Gun System vehicles in 2003, which were expected to arrive in 2010. However, in 2006 the Canadian Forces asked its government to cancel the MGS acquisition. The MGS was originally intended to be used in the "Direct Fire Unit"[26] which will include Tow Under Armour (LAV III) and MMEV (ADATS on LAVIII). The MGS was originally intended to provide the direct gun fire capabilities of the retiring Leopard I tanks[27] however with the recent usefulness of tanks in Iraq and hurried deployment of Canadian Leopard 1 tanks to Afghanistan combined with political changes in Canada and the Canadian Military - the purchase of more modern tanks occurred with the announcement of the purchase of surplus Leopard 2s from the Netherlands.[28] The MMEV project has also since been canceled, and the TUA requirement cut in half.

If the IA is considering STRYKER at all- this is suggesting that more modern tanks are a better option.


I think one has to look at the overall composition of armored vehicles in the IA. I mean IA already has plenty of 3000+ MBTs (T-90S, Arjun, T-72s) and 3000+ ICVs (BMP-1/2), and one could argue that if these could be used in the scenarios IA intends in the North and North-East, they would have done so using these MBTs/ICVs. However, an RFI for 200 wheeled and 100 tracked light armored combat vehicles shows that IA looking for some capability that it does not currently possess with its armored forces. This will definitely offer IA more flexibility in its future operations. In any case, 300 vehicles of a new type is nothing in numbers compared to the thousands of MBTs/ICVs IA already possesses.

On the other hand, in the example you gave, Canada was trying to phase out all of its MBTs and replace them with LAVIII versions, which is not the case with IA. IA is merely supplementing its MBTs/ICVs with a new light armored type to give it capabilities it feels it lacks with its current armored fleet.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Oct 2009 08:15

To my knowledge we have some1800 t72's and we have not purcoased1200 t90's so we may not have 3,000 mbt's similarly we may not have bmp's also. If we are going for ICV then we shall go for a heavy verity now.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 30 Oct 2009 08:54

obviously the canadians were daft to think a TOW equipped IFV could fill
the role of a MBT! esp in static 'silent watch' sentry missions and patrolling IED prone areas, nothing beats the intimidation factor of a tank with its ugly 120mm snout pointing your way.

a 120mm gun round will cover the 2km to target way faster than a TOW
and a MBTs thermal imaging and stabilized sights make for fast targetting
of enemies with no "warm up" time. a round would already be in the breach. makes it tougher for jeep borne shoot n scoot types to launch a volley and hide.

however for recce units and airmobile units who avoid a toe-to-toe brawl,
wheeled stryker looks ok to me.

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 » 30 Oct 2009 08:58

just a random query, what is the heaviest vehicle that can be safely para-dropped ?

I've seen vids of BMP-2's being para-dropped. anything heavier ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 30 Oct 2009 18:41

Some russia weeled one with a 150 or 155 gun used to be there which belong to their airborne divisions I do not remner its name. But I read it some where long back Any gurus?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Ankit Desai » 03 Nov 2009 08:18

Indian Army to induct all 124 Arjun tanks by April 2010

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


Ankit

mody
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 03 Nov 2009 15:34

The dumbness on part of the Army for not going for the Arjun in numbers is beyond explanation.
There is a program on Nat geo that shows the factories refurbishing and upgrading the M1A2 Abrams. Unless the tank has been completely destroyed in combat, all the damaged or old tank are completely taken apart in one factory and then some of the parts are shipped to the other factory and the tank is completely rebuilt, almost like new to the latest standard. The whole process takes 10 months. The design shows the flexibility of the tank, the potential for upgrade that was always built into the design. The first Abrams that came out had a 105 mm gun which was not enough to defeat the T-64 armour. Yet the tank was persisted with and incrementally upgraded and improved to finally become the beast that it is today.
Even now all of the old Abrams that come for refurbishing are upgraded to the lastest standard and in many cases they have to cut holes in the body of the tank to fit the latest electronics and sensors, as no such equipment existed in the older model tanks.

The US army plans to keep the Abrams in service till an astonishing 2040. That means the tank would have remained in service for over Half a century.

The army should be made to order a further 500 nos. of Arjun's and then partner with DRDO to design the next generation Arjun that will be ready by 2020 at the latest and be the tank of the future.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 03 Nov 2009 15:43

The Russians used to para drop much larger vehicles then the BMP-2.
They had special parachutes that were fitted with small rockets, which were triggered by a proximity fuse. The rocket would ignite when the para dropped vehicle was close to reaching the ground and cushion the impact of the fall.
Don't know if these kind of things are still in use or not.

Offcourse the US Army used to air drop the M551 Sheridan Light armoured tank during the Vietnam war. Though the weight of the tank was only about 15 tons.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7631
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 03 Nov 2009 16:56

@Mody:
The army should be made to order a further 500 nos. of Arjun's and then partner with DRDO to design the next generation Arjun that will be ready by 2020 at the latest and be the tank of the future.


Amen to that. But I guess the timeline proposed by DRDO for Arjun MK II is lesser. 5 years???

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 » 03 Nov 2009 17:00

The Russians used to para drop much larger vehicles then the BMP-2.

which ?
TIA.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 03 Nov 2009 17:15

Don't know the exact models that used to para drop. A television program basically was showing methods of para dropping heavy equipments and it showed the Soviet system with Rocket assisted drop.
The inference from the program was that this allowed the soviet army to para drop vehicles weighing more then 15 tons. More like 20 to 30 ton. I don't exactly recall the vehicle showed in the video, but most probably it was a tank.

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 » 03 Nov 2009 22:24

mody wrote:Don't know the exact models that used to para drop. A television program basically was showing methods of para dropping heavy equipments and it showed the Soviet system with Rocket assisted drop.
The inference from the program was that this allowed the soviet army to para drop vehicles weighing more then 15 tons. More like 20 to 30 ton. I don't exactly recall the vehicle showed in the video, but most probably it was a tank.


I saw this video too.. It was a BMP 2 they had dropped using the retro rockets to induce rapid deceleration... I also remember seeing a video of an Gajraj dropping a T72... Not sure if it was them or us...

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 » 03 Nov 2009 22:42

I also remember seeing a video of an Gajraj dropping a T72

that is unbelievable !! :eek: :eek:

the T-72 has problems getting into the IL-76 as it is while on the ground and requires hours of expert driving and loading coordination. a para-drop will be next to impossible.

I think you saw a BMP-2 drop. there was once such done during vayushakti-99, it didn't use rockets IIRC.

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 » 03 Nov 2009 22:52

Rahul M wrote:
I also remember seeing a video of an Gajraj dropping a T72

that is unbelievable !! :eek: :eek:

the T-72 has problems getting into the IL-76 as it is while on the ground and requires hours of expert driving and loading coordination. a para-drop will be next to impossible.

I think you saw a BMP-2 drop. there was once such done during vayushakti-99, it didn't use rockets IIRC.


Oops... Then a T 55 may be... But i am damn sure it was a MBT... The Rockets were in the Russian video...

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 03 Nov 2009 22:54

I have seen such a drop live on DD many moons ago ( I am talking '89) Strangely, in my mind it is associated with some NCC day. I don't know why.

it could have been a PT-76 though. Maybe.
Last edited by D Roy on 03 Nov 2009 22:57, edited 1 time in total.

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 » 03 Nov 2009 22:55

google for the BMD series (1,2,3,4) chances are that's what you saw.
best would be of course if you can locate the youtube link ! :wink:
TIA.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 03 Nov 2009 23:00

could be a BMD-1 for all you know. . I distinctly remember a whole bunch of parachutes though

but then when did the Indian Army stop operating BMDs?

Oh by the way, I don't need to google for the BMD series. Just FYI.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 03 Nov 2009 23:09

the utlity of paradropping such vehicles is questionable. time to get it unhitched, servicable and into action, etc., might make the whole thing not effective. and then there's the problem of having sufficient numbers on the ground, and that too in a safe ground that isnt under fire...

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 » 03 Nov 2009 23:13

droy sahab, that was in response to bala's post not yours ! :wink:

specifically this :
Oops... Then a T 55 may be... But i am damn sure it was a MBT


we have never operated the BMD btw.

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 » 03 Nov 2009 23:16

Lalmohan wrote:the utlity of paradropping such vehicles is questionable. time to get it unhitched, servicable and into action, etc., might make the whole thing not effective. and then there's the problem of having sufficient numbers on the ground, and that too in a safe ground that isnt under fire...

lekin jatayu saar, at least in the one incident I watched, that process was completed really fast, in under ten, possibly five minutes.

also, the advantage of a mobile force like this is that it can choose a drop location away from the immediate firezone and drive there. unlike para infantry.

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 » 03 Nov 2009 23:27

Rahul M wrote:droy sahab, that was in response to bala's post not yours ! :wink:


Rahulda.. Will do my utmost to find the video...

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 » 04 Nov 2009 02:27


D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 04 Nov 2009 10:04

Hi Rahul,



i have seen some Russian arms transfer report list India as a recipient of the BMD series. I wonder.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 04 Nov 2009 10:37

edit.
Last edited by Rahul M on 04 Nov 2009 11:10, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: this gets tiring after a while, please use the whine thread.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 761
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby kvraghav » 04 Nov 2009 10:41

Delhi's 505 EME Workshop OverHauls the First T-90


I have some doubts.What is the extensive overhaul that costs 4 crores(1 million $)on the tank which costs 2 million dollars and that too so early.also it tells about these tanks were used for AUCRT.Does it means 1600 were ordered without completion of AUCRT or Were these the tanks used for AUCRT and being overhauled now?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 04 Nov 2009 10:48

kvraghav wrote:
Delhi's 505 EME Workshop OverHauls the First T-90


I have some doubts.What is the extensive overhaul that costs 4 crores(1 million $)on the tank which costs 2 million dollars and that too so early.also it tells about these tanks were used for AUCRT.Does it means 1600 were ordered without completion of AUCRT or Were these the tanks used for AUCRT and being overhauled now?


Here is the reason:

subjected to extensive accelerated user cum reliability trials by the Army and fed to 505 Army Base Workshop for overhaul in 2009.

Abhisham
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 09 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Abhisham » 04 Nov 2009 11:02

sameer_shelavale wrote:Natasha has shut mouths of high commands and tied their hands with 'Ruble-Tapes'. Thats why there is news blackout about Arjun and no talks of comparative trials. Don't expect anything from army high command about Arjun. All this is being done for smooth orders of TIN-90.


Well should we just stop the army bashing for a change. I personally don't support IA's decision to buy the T-90, but that doesn't give one an excuse to malign the whole services and/or the army top brass. There are many factors and interests involved in military dealings which have been instutionalized over the years and not all of these factors are army specific. Also there are many in the services who sincerely serve our nation and don't deserve this bad press.

I would not divulge too much details, but the Arjun did have problems with its FCS during the last comparative trials. Lets just hope things go smoothly this time around.

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 » 04 Nov 2009 11:11

abhisam, I was going to logout but your name got me to post.
after a long time ! welcome back !

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3391
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 04 Nov 2009 21:53

Googling for "light tank" reveals that a "Light Tank" is an oxymoron like "expensive maruti".

How can a tank ever be 'light'? :roll: Gone are the days of light tanks like Stuart or even as recent as Scorpion. What we have today are MBTs and IFVs. Some IFVs are just more powerful than others. Perhaps an IFV with a bigger gun is what the Army really requires.

It escapes we as to why we are not pursuing a Abhay or even BMP variant with a 90 mm or even 105 mm gun. :x

We do have Tank Destroyers like Centauro. But why not a CV-90 instead?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4116
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 05 Nov 2009 03:56

rohitvats wrote:@Mody:
The army should be made to order a further 500 nos. of Arjun's and then partner with DRDO to design the next generation Arjun that will be ready by 2020 at the latest and be the tank of the future.


Amen to that. But I guess the timeline proposed by DRDO for Arjun MK II is lesser. 5 years???


IA has a history of ordering a few pieces at uneven intervals as it apparently expects the manufacturer to keep its production line running indefinitely without planned regular orders :roll: ... guess IA doesn't quite understand the business operational management side of things.

Ideally, IA would need to order another 200 Arjun MK.I right away to keep the production lines (and its parts suppliers) running after 2010. IA would also need to give a firm commitment with an intent to purchase 300+ Arjun MK.II when they will be ready around 2013. This way the manufacturer and its part suppliers (and their employees) can plan and execute the order accordingly. They aren't just sitting around idly. But this may be too much to ask of the IA ... given its history of support for the Arjun :(

Abhisham
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 09 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Abhisham » 05 Nov 2009 05:56

Rahul M wrote:abhisam, I was going to logout but your name got me to post.
after a long time ! welcome back !


Thanks Rahul. I have been quite busy with work lately. I still try to visit BR, not as frequent a before though.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7631
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 05 Nov 2009 10:11

Aditya G wrote:Googling for "light tank" reveals that a "Light Tank" is an oxymoron like "expensive maruti".

How can a tank ever be 'light'? :roll: Gone are the days of light tanks like Stuart or even as recent as Scorpion. What we have today are MBTs and IFVs. Some IFVs are just more powerful than others. Perhaps an IFV with a bigger gun is what the Army really requires.

It escapes we as to why we are not pursuing a Abhay or even BMP variant with a 90 mm or even 105 mm gun. :x

We do have Tank Destroyers like Centauro. But why not a CV-90 instead?


Aditya, most of Light Tanks in the market are based on the same platform as the IFV/ICV used/manufatured by the country. The difference is the Gun versus 25/30mm canons most ICV/IFV carry. what the IA wants is a system with 105/120mm gun.

CV-90 has two Light Tank versons: CV-90-105 with 105mm Gun and CV-90-120T with 120mm high pressure low recoil smoothbore gun. As for the BMP with 105mm gun, I'm not sure the platform can take the modification.

Please check the link for details and video of CV-90-120T: http://www.military-today.com/tanks/cv90120t.htm

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 05 Nov 2009 10:39

Bala Vignesh wrote:
mody wrote:
I saw this video too.. It was a BMP 2 they had dropped using the retro rockets to induce rapid deceleration... I also remember seeing a video of an Gajraj dropping a T72... Not sure if it was them or us...


That is news!

BMP 2 has been paradropped!

In so far as Light Tanks is concerned, if there was a requirement, it would surely be procured/ produced.

Is there a requirement?

If so where and why?

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1920
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby AdityaM » 05 Nov 2009 10:56

RayC, When a vehicle like a bmp/tank is paradropped, are the vehicle operators sitting inside, or do they jump separately and join the vehicle once on ground?

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7345
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby krishnan » 05 Nov 2009 11:01

Most probably they dont stay inside it.

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 806
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rakall » 05 Nov 2009 11:03

AdityaM wrote:RayC, When a vehicle like a bmp/tank is paradropped, are the vehicle operators sitting inside, or do they jump separately and join the vehicle once on ground?



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 05 Nov 2009 11:16

AdityaM wrote:RayC, When a vehicle like a bmp/tank is paradropped, are the vehicle operators sitting inside, or do they jump separately and join the vehicle once on ground?


They jump separately as far as I know.

Likewise, RCL jeeps have been paradropped.

Marrying up is the issue since parachutists can be buffeted by the high wind conditions, if any! However, there are steerable parachutes these days.

Guns are carried under-slung.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Nayak » 05 Nov 2009 11:21

The americans learnt paradropping the hard way, seems that men would be dropped first and then the heavy materials. Many soldiers were killed or wounded when the stuff landed on the head. Since then heavy stuff first and then finally the men would be dropped. Read this from a nice ww 2 book 'Highway to Hell'.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 05 Nov 2009 20:10



what you are talking about is at 3.30
Russian paradrops.

another one
after 2.30


But dropiing only icv or bmp not tanks


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests