Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 17:22

tsarkar wrote:Rohit,

The import and ToT were of the same Israeli round. You are correct that HAPP Trichy manufactures 120, 125 and 105 mm FSAPDS rounds.

Mk2 was supposed to bring advances from the Arjun round to the 125 mm round. It is supposed to be even better than the Israeli round. I am using the word “supposed”, because I don’t know how well the round performed in the field.

I am a sailor and clueless on the Russian rounds. My good friend referred ammunition only as Russian, Indian and Israeli. I doubt it whether he too knows the specific designation. These chaps arent too good with nomenclature.


I agree on the 'informed' bit. Keeping my dad as an example, my observation is that defence personnel tend to be very focussed on things they do or are supposed to do. But their GK about other matters related to military is pretty limited. My dad for sure won't be able to differentiate between T-55 and T-72. It is left to fanboys like us to troll the net/read up on literature and think of ourselves as arm-chair generals.

That apart, the real problem is the auto-loader on the T-90. The absolute limit of round is 700mm. The projectile will be lesser in length than these. I don't know wether the our T-90 came with 'modified' auto-loader, for there is a russian APFSDS with 740mm round length.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 17:25

^^ So lets assume T-90 uses the old auto loader and not the one which can use so called long rod sabbo , wont it be able to penetrate Paki tank with DRDO Mk2/Russian FSAPDS ?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 17:33

Austin wrote:^^ So lets assume T-90 uses the old auto loader and not the one which can use so called long rod sabbo , wont it be able to penetrate Paki tank with DRDO Mk2/Russian FSAPDS ?


Austin, I'm no expert on these things. But based on discussions that I've read through on internet (mainly tank-net.org), the same should not be a problem with Israeli and Indian 125mm round. However, we need to watch out for proliferation of ERA in PA and type of same.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 04 May 2010 17:59

Rohit,

My understanding is that these rounds are physically compatible with the T-90 autoloader; however the fire control system has to be programmed with data regarding these rounds.

Austin,

Yes, I believe the Mk1, Mk2 and the Arjun round all with muzzle velocities exceeding 1650 m/s can penetrate any Pakistani or Chinese tanks at ranges much exceeding the current 2.5 km of T-72. The Arjun gun beats any competion in the subcontinent. There was never any doubt on the efficacy and efficiency of that gun.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 19:45

tsarkar wrote:Rohit,

My understanding is that these rounds are physically compatible with the T-90 autoloader; however the fire control system has to be programmed with data regarding these rounds.

<SNIP>



Sir, I'm aware of the same. My comment was with respect to the limit on the growth potential of these ammo. For example, the US M829A1 tips the scale with projectile and penetrator length of 780mm - and is made of DU. And this ammo is of 1991 vintage - the famous 'Silver Bullet'. The latest M829A3 has projectile length of 924mm - the penetrator length will be in the same range. The russian ammo, even with modified auto-loader, cannot hope to match these specs.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 20:53

rohitvats wrote:But look at the beauty of it - Russians have to heavily modify the existing "Main Battle Tank" to add features which the Arjun already has or can be added to easily. I really hopes the pukis get M1A2.....


Well the Pakis evaluated the M1A1 during Zia era and one major reason for being rejected it as being too heavy , their current program is oriented towards 40 -50 T tank. Plus its one thing to buy the heavy tank and spend a huge amount to build the logistics and supply chain to them , Unkil will have no problem supplying the tank but the logistics is what will be the painful part for PA something PA will be well aware of.

Else asking for Abrams would be more logical to PA to fight talibans and more effective too.

More ever if Nag is indeed affective against modern armour with their warheads and top attack as DRDO claims then its a effective asymmetric response against multimillion dollar M1A2.

The problem is every one looks at the beauty of tank or plane but no one wants to look at the ugly logistics part , something professional army would give more attention to then beauty.

A nice write up on Nag ATGM , If Ajai is to be believed the IA calls it as worlds deadliest ATGM
Army opts for Nag missile as it enters final trials
Last edited by Austin on 04 May 2010 21:00, edited 1 time in total.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 04 May 2010 20:58

Yes Rohit, I fully agree with you. The autoloader limits growth potential on the T series and the Arjun does not have any such restrictions.The autoloader actually reduces the rate of fire - Project Gulmohar T-55 with L-7 gun had a better rate of fire than T-72.

The arguments against Arjun remind me of an article by Prem Shankar Jha in Outlook magazine in the 90's. He argued that Su-30 should not be procured because it offered more capabilities that required by IAF, it would start an arms race, the IAF was used to smaller fighters like MiG-21 and Mirage 2000, hence could not handle it. Fortunately no one paid any credence to him and his every point was proven wrong. Today a Bareilly based Su-30 can engage enemies in the western front as well as on the northern front with equal ease.

My point of view is that unless there are any fundamental design flaws or production issues with Arjun that we dont know yet, just like the IAF completely redrew its doctrine from older Air Defence and Army Support roles to full spectrum Aerospace Dominance with Su-30 induction, the Army needs to revisit its doctrines with Arjun. I believe Army is too accustomed to T series. Its perception is correct that T-90 + Invar does offer a qualitative edge over Pakistani/Chinese tanks, however the advantage is short term. Plus the pre ponderance of infantry/CI centric generals who play a role in collective decision making have the perception that inducting a different genre of tanks will leave less money for infantry modernization.

Austin - Correct. For example, the gas turbines would have placed excessive strain on Pakistani infrastructure. However, India has the logistic muscle and can support the Arjun. Money, even after accounting for corruption, was never a problem in India.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 20:59

Austin, pak didn't reject abrams, pressler happened to them. :wink:

Austin - Correct. For example, the gas turbines would have placed excessive strain on Pakistani infrastructure. However, India has the logistic muscle and can support the Arjun. Money, even after accounting for corruption, was never a problem in India.
sir, there is a diesel version available.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 21:12

Rahul M wrote:Austin, pak didn't reject abrams, pressler happened to them. :wink:


Rahul i do not find the PA running to buy their favourite Tank after sanctions got lifted but they are more keen to buy other stuff.

tsarkar ,not speaking for or against any tank .... tank warfare is limited to only Indo-Pak context and if IA is to be believed Arjun can be deployed in Rajasthan only , Punjab and Jammu is not suitable for Arjun due to weight issue.

So unlike a warship or aircraft that is useful in defending most parts of our territory , Tank warfare is limited to a specific country , the T's has the advantage that you can use it in plains of Punjab , Jammu or Rajasthan.

IMHO the key advantage of T's are logistics , its not the greatest tank out there money can buy ....but it has the greatest logistics advantage that the IA simply cant simply over look.

Plus its just a matter of time your enemy gets an assymetric advantage like 3rd gen ATGM like US Javelian or EU Trigat like we have with Nag. So quality in numbers is also something one cant over look in Indo-Pak context.

T in that way scores overall though it may be qualitatively not as good as Arjun is , although I just hope GOI agrees for the magical 500 Arjun Mk2 we all are hoping for to keep indigenous capability alive

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 21:37

Rahul i do not find the PA running to buy their favourite Tank after sanctions got lifted but they are more keen to buy other stuff.
that's because they had already used up whatever resources they had for a host of alternative solutions, viz.
> ukrainian T-80 buy
> MBT-2000/al-khalid
> upg to al-zarrar standard. w/o pressler in the 80's PA you would have seen abrams running around in PA markings.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 21:49

Rahul i do not find the PA running to buy their favourite Tank after sanctions got lifted but they are more keen to buy other stuff............


Because once the Americans left after the Soviet were pushed out, Pakistan was in doldrums financially. So, along with Americans went the money to buy and sustain those tanks. So, let us not bring in strawman here. There is a reason that PA bought T-85IIAP in 1990 from China. There next major MBT purchase was T-80UD in 1996.

tsarkar ,not speaking for or against any tank .... tank warfare is limited to only Indo-Pak context and if IA is to be believed Arjun can be deployed in Rajasthan only , Punjab and Jammu is not suitable for Arjun due to weight issue.


Why is Punjab and Jammu not suitable for Arjun? When IA has trialled them to death in these areas? What has weight got to do with deployment of Arjun? Are these riverine areas with bridges which cannot take Arjun? What lies between the Sambha based 3 (I) Armored Brigade and Sialkot to prevent deployment of Arjun? Sorry, that argument does not make sense.

Plus its just a matter of time your enemy gets an assymetric advantage like 3rd gen ATGM like US Javelian or EU Trigat like we have with Nag. So quality in numbers is also something one cant over look in Indo-Pak context.


While this one does not warrant a reply, let me still debunk the same for everyone's benefit. What exactly do you mean by this?

One, what extra numbers are we talking about? Do we need T-90 in numbers only just to act as cannon fodder? Your argument reminds me of certain Guderian who visits this forum occasionaly.

If the idea is to have better protected MBT in face of modern ATGM, 1,500 Arjuns are at any day better than 1,500 T-90. When Arjun was tested for protection level, IA was adamant that it be able to take on TOW-2 in PA service. So, why this canard about T-90?

God, the arguments keep getting weirder day by day..... :roll:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 21:49

Rahul M wrote:
Rahul i do not find the PA running to buy their favourite Tank after sanctions got lifted but they are more keen to buy other stuff.
that's because they had already used up whatever resources they had for a host of alternative solutions, viz.
> ukrainian T-80 buy
> MBT-2000/al-khalid
> upg to al-zarrar standard. w/o pressler in the 80's PA you would have seen abrams running around in PA markings.


Rahul my point here is if M1A2 is such a death wish and battle changer viz a viz IA for the men in brown that would be first in their wish list to US.

M1A2 is not there is because it simply does not meet their specific needs one is weight issue.

The PA do think T-80/AK-Khalid is good enough for them. I for one do not think PA will opt for M1A2 or any Abrams variant , which if they want they can get it for free.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 04 May 2010 21:54

[quote="Austin"] So unlike a warship or aircraft that is useful in defending most parts of our territory , Tank warfare is limited to a specific country , the T's has the advantage that you can use it in plains of Punjab , Jammu or Rajasthan.[/quote]

Flight operational requirements are different in Leh, Chabua or Jaisalmer. However fighters need to fulfill operational requirements in all locales. Similarly, a ship’s sonar is tested in different waters - remember the phrase. “testing the waters” ;-)

A tank has to be good in all geographies. What’s stopping the Army from testing Arjun in Jammu? IAF gradually expanded Sukhoi operations from Pune to Car Nicobar, Tezpur, etc within a few years of induction.

I believe it’s primarily a doctrine issue.
Last edited by tsarkar on 04 May 2010 21:57, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 21:56

Austin wrote: Rahul my point here is if M1A2 is such a death wish and battle changer viz a viz IA for the men in brown that would be first in their wish list to US.

M1A2 is not there is because it simply does not meet their specific needs one is weight issue.

<SNIP>


So, PA has weight issues with M1A2?

Now, answer a specific question - What weight issues?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 21:59

rohitvats wrote:Why is Punjab and Jammu not suitable for Arjun? When IA has trialled them to death in these areas? What has weight got to do with deployment of Arjun? Are these riverine areas with bridges which cannot take Arjun? What lies between the Sambha based 3 (I) Armored Brigade and Sialkot to prevent deployment of Arjun? Sorry, that argument does not make sense.


I do not know if this is true or not but is quoted as one of the points against Arjun in the Chanakiya Aerospace Defence in Arjun versus T-90 debate.

If the idea is to have better protected MBT in face of modern ATGM, 1,500 Arjuns are at any day better than 1,500 T-90. When Arjun was tested for protection level, IA was adamant that it be able to take on TOW-2 in PA service. So, why this canard about T-90?

God, the arguments keep getting weirder day by day..... :roll:


Sure by HVF standards if the best per Ajai they could do in two shift is 50 tanks per year then for 1,500 tanks they will take like 25 years to build , assuming they work very efficiently in two shift . Well they are not MDL so they may work :wink:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 22:00

tsarkar wrote:<SNIP>

A tank has to be good in all geographies. What’s stopping the Army from testing Arjun in Jammu? IAF gradually expanded Sukhoi operations from Pune to Car Nicobar, Tezpur, etc within a few years of induction.

I believe it’s primarily a doctrine issue.


Sir, IA has trialled Arjun in Jammu and related areas. When the Arjun was inducted in 43rd Armored Regiment, the same was based in Pathankot. The first place Arjun went were Jammu and that too in peak summer.

The weight canard was brought in very late into the debate. You cannot have a Western MBT with that level of protection in 45 tonne tank.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 22:06

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote: that's because they had already used up whatever resources they had for a host of alternative solutions, viz.
> ukrainian T-80 buy
> MBT-2000/al-khalid
> upg to al-zarrar standard. w/o pressler in the 80's PA you would have seen abrams running around in PA markings.


Rahul my point here is if M1A2 is such a death wish and battle changer viz a viz IA for the men in brown that would be first in their wish list to US.
{can they afford to 'buy' and maintain it ? considering the expenses already incurred in buying the T-80 and building al-zarrar and al-khalid ? the answer is clearly no.
the only option that remains is US giving the abrams for free and for obvious reasons, neither PA nor US would be going to town with this bit of news if it has happened.
of course this assumes that abrams is available in the first place, it may not even be on the table for PA.}


M1A2 is not there is because it simply does not meet their specific needs one is weight issue.
{weight issue ? :rotfl: what weight issue ?
when did PA or any other modern army ever talk of a weight issue ? (other than in the completely unrelated factor of air transportation)}

The PA do think T-80/AK-Khalid is good enough for them.{T-80/al-khalid is making the best of a bad situation. it helps that PA is primarily defensive and will not face the myriad ATGM's that our forces are going to face.}I for one do not think PA will opt for M1A2 or any Abrams variant , which if they want they can get it for free. {we do not know that yet}

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 22:10

rohitvats wrote:
Austin wrote: Rahul my point here is if M1A2 is such a death wish and battle changer viz a viz IA for the men in brown that would be first in their wish list to US.

M1A2 is not there is because it simply does not meet their specific needs one is weight issue.

<SNIP>


So, PA has weight issues with M1A2?

Now, answer a specific question - What weight issues?


From what I have read its over weight for the bridges and the terrain was not suitable for it , something they realized when they trialling the M1A1 tank , plus they mention other technical issue which they did not identified.

I dont think M1A2 is any lighter then M1A1 so if the latter has problem the former will carry it forward.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 04 May 2010 22:11

Thanks for the information Rohit. While I was aware the 43rd was based at Pathankot, I had the impression that all trials were held at Rajasthan. I didnt know there were trials at Jammu as well.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 22:19

Rahul M wrote:[color=#FF4000]{can they afford to 'buy' and maintain it ? considering the expenses already incurred in buying the T-80 and building al-zarrar and al-khalid ? the answer is clearly no.
the only option that remains is US giving the abrams for free and for obvious reasons, neither PA nor US would be going to town with this bit of news if it has happened.
of course this assumes that abrams is available in the first place, it may not even be on the table for PA.


Was maintenance was ever a problem for PA , they maintain what every they get free and in recent past they got a lot , the problem of expense is being over emphasises , while they can afford to maintain F-16 ,P-3C etc wats the big deal about Abrams if PA wants it

{weight issue ? :rotfl: what weight issue ?
when did PA or any other modern army ever talk of a weight issue ? (other than in the completely unrelated factor of air transportation)}


Well M1A1 deal was in late 80's , but if you can check up the archive if it exists you will find the problem of M1A1 and PA and one just does not buy a tank you buy the logistics as well.

IA and PA has stuck with the status of 40 - 50 T tank for bulk of their fleet only the variant has changed

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 22:24

tsarkar wrote:Thanks for the information Rohit. While I was aware the 43rd was based at Pathankot, I had the impression that all trials were held at Rajasthan. I didnt know there were trials at Jammu as well.


Sir, the initial series of tests on inducting them were conducted across the whole spectrum of terrains from Jammu to Rajasthan.

Got to drive and have a 'dekko' at these tanks during this period in Pathankot :P . The 43rd was equipped with Vijayantas before shifting to Arjuns.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 22:28

Austin, I'm well aware of the proposed abrams deal, the technical issue was poor accuracy of abrams original gun during trials in pakistan. weight was not mentioned as a factor neither did PA reject the tank(they might have retroactively invented stories to save H&D but that's a separate issue).

Was maintenance was ever a problem for PA , they maintain what every they get free and in recent past they got a lot , the problem of expense is being over emphasises , while they can afford to maintain F-16 ,P-3C etc wats the big deal about Abrams if PA wants it
if you read my post, that's precisely the point I'm making, PA can't afford anything unless it's for free, especially after it has invested a LOT in 3 extant tank projects, that alone explains why it has not gone begging for abrams, not any perceived weakness of the tank itself.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 04 May 2010 22:36

Rahul M wrote:Austin, I'm well aware of the proposed abrams deal, the technical issue was poor accuracy of abrams original gun during trials in pakistan. weight was not mentioned as a factor neither did PA reject the tank(they might have retroactively invented stories to save H&D but that's a separate issue).


Yes accuracy was a factor and M1A1 did not do well in trials shown to top brass including Zia the same day his plane crashed. So they may have invented the weight issue.

Although i still think if PA wants 300 odd Abrams to counterweight India they can buy it and that they are not doing it is perhaps there is a good reason other then money

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 04 May 2010 22:41

Rahul M wrote:Austin, I'm well aware of the proposed abrams deal, the technical issue was poor accuracy of abrams original gun during trials in pakistan. weight was not mentioned as a factor neither did PA reject the tank(they might have retroactively invented stories to save H&D but that's a separate issue)...........<SNIP>


Rahul M, why are we even arguing on these points? There is a clear flow to these kind of arguments:

--First, an argument is being created which, to those who know, are not based on any facts.
--Then, it is us, who are left proving the above argument(s) to be incorrect.

Why should the onus of proving or disapproving an argument be only on us? Why even get into this nonsense when other party is pulling things out of thin air?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1884
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 04 May 2010 23:37

So now the topic has changed from suitability of the Arjun for Indian army to suitability of the M1A1 for the Pakistani Army, with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink that the inability to acquire the M1A1 for PA should somehow be a factor in the eventual decision of Arjun being acquired for the Indian Army.

Also, not the thought process through which the Pakistani decision is analyzed, without *any* information about the Pakistani decision, the one factor that is used to beat the Arjun with, weight, is latched onto and put forward as *the* reason why PA did not acquire the M1A1.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 04 May 2010 23:53

Rohit, that is exactly right. What some here are indulging in here is reprehensible. It comes as a shock to us that some that were very highly regarded turned out to be so biased against domestic products. The defense of such glaring errors in judgement by the powers-that-be leaves one stunned? So let them carry on and worship the T-90. The Indian soldier will bravely fight and win irrespective of equipment. I guess the message here is that we need to look only at the victory and not try to minimize the cost in terms of lives lost.

I again request the Admins to lock this thread or turn it into a news only thread till the IA makes a decision.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 04 May 2010 23:59

could people PLEASE stop discussing about posters ? my patience is running out with this.
if you feel a poster is going out of his/her bounds, report his/her posts and write down why you think so, DO NOT post it in the thread.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 05 May 2010 00:42

I feel like the arjun vs t90 debate has reached its end for now.

I along with most posters feel that the arjun is indeed superior judging by tech specs and trial exercises and should therefore comprise the backbone of our armor.

For whatever reason T supporters feel otherwise? I'm still confused as to where they stand on the Arjun...(How the hell did the PA Abram acquisition process come into this debate?? o_O)

Anyway, maybe we should just wait till whoever is in charge of this process makes a decision.

I wonder what's happening on the APC front? Are we still looking at strykers?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 05 May 2010 03:50

I think a poll should be taken on BRF on Tincan vs Arjun, just to mirror the victory of Arjun in trials as a victory on BRF too.

The nationalists have won the debate and its time to seal it with a poll. 8)

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 05 May 2010 07:16

We're all nationalists. Nothing wrong with conflicting views. It's just that the direction in which this debate is being led by the opposition is a bit much. At this point, there isn't much to debate about. I feel its a done deal judging by the trials and tech specs and all that's left now is an order for more Arjuns.

Boudhayan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Boudhayan » 05 May 2010 08:15

any idea how much time would the MoD/GOI/IA take to come out with the "official" result and place fresh orders for Arjun ? Just can't wait for that great day !!!

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby a_kumar » 05 May 2010 10:34

Somebody on this thread earlier described in detail how one part of the projectile can rifle, while other part doesn't.

Not sure its the same projectile, but here is an interesting clip.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 05 May 2010 12:11

The rifling vs smoothbore in tanks debate is fundamentally on what the tank is optimized for. With smooth bore,you are essentially optimizing the tank only for the Anti Tank role and the tank lose ability to fire a wide variety of ammo that tanks traditionally did and compromise on the multi role nature of tanks.

With a rifled gun , you lose out a wee bit only in APFSDS performance but keep the full advantage of firing all other kinds of rounds. I think the DRDO made the right choice with sticking to the rifled gun for Arjun.

This seems to have got the goat of some guy as a gripe against the M1.

Check out his in Youtube- Real M1 firepower. He has put an entire series on it.

Like I said, I hope the DRDO develops a kick ass HEAT round that can be deadly up to some 6 to 8 kms range against armor and when the next round of comparos/ joint exercises with the Tincan 90s happen, would love to see the Arjuns take out "red flag tanks" out with sniper like long range shots out to 6 km while the TinCans huff and puff over sand dunes trying to get into range :twisted: :twisted: .

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2010 13:02

the NATO had to face around 55000 warsaw pact tanks and probably 100,000 IFVs in the armour divs and infantry divs (motor rifle divs). maybe that explains their preference for anti-tank optimization. mostly NATO would was expected to fight from defensive positions , not giving much chance to go up against bunkers and such on warsaw pact side.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 794
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby mody » 05 May 2010 18:51

The M1A1 trials for PA was an absolute fiasco. The trials were conducted in the entire PA top brass present, along with Zia.

Infact Zia was reluctant to go for the trials but was prodded to go, as not going would be preceived as giving a cold shoulder to the rest of the top PA brass and the american ambasador. Maybe he had an inclinging of what could be in store for him, as on the return flight from the trials the plane crashed and he died.

Anyways, during the trial M1A1 missed all the 10 shots that it fired and that too by a long margin and thereafter the tank broke down and could not function anymore.

All this discussion is basically going no where and the bottom line is that IA/MOD should place an order for 300 to 500 more Arjun tanks and then ask the DRDO to go for the following improvemtns for the MkII version:

1). A slopped Turret
2). Independent sight for the tank commander
3). A good battle field management software with dispay screen for the commander. This would provide complete battlefield information, along with the position of all other friendly tanks in the regiment/battalion. For this perhaps a GPS system would be required for the tanks.
4). Better top armour protection, to protect against TOP attack ATGMs.
5). License production of engine in India to reduce the cost and maybe go in for the latest MTU 883 1500 HP engine.
6). An active protection system similar to the Russian Shrotra/Arena system or the Isreali Trophy system.
7). Indian Fire/Gun Control System, refined to offer even better accuracy under all wather conditions.

There are no short cuts and simply importing systems is never going to solve any problem whatsoever. Importing a system should basically be only a stop-gfap measure till a similar system can be developed in house.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 05 May 2010 19:29

Why only 300-500? The arjun tank is superior to the T-90 in it's present configuration and should therefore be inducted in higher numbers. MKII development should take place alongside production and not after so we can start churning them out sooner. We should also try to rope in the private industry to help with R&D and improve the rate of production.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 May 2010 19:58

vina's M1 link was a eyeopener. looks like NATO inferiority in numbers during 80s and US superiority in airpower (90s) led to them sticking with m1 in tank vs tank only, while countries not similarly well endowed with a powerful airforce and overwhelming numbers like germany and israel went for a variety of rounds.

justifies sticking with a rifled cannon on arjun and developing a good heat round like the french did.

for the purpose of fighting through chokepoints like thick settlements and small towns through which highways pass (lot of small towns do not have bypass roads and canals and DCB may hinder outflanking attempts) , we should learn lessons from israel in equipping with heavily armoured combat tractors that can literally ram their way through villages and explode mines too and 8" short barrel howitzer guns specifically designed to smash houses and bunkers via fat shell in lobbed trajectory. range and speed not important, but should pack a huge warhead.

even if we have to "give up" any gains at the negotiation table later, the intent must be tear the place up end to end and leave behind the fear of the lord in terms of material and financial damage should we come back again.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Katare » 05 May 2010 21:48

Vina's link is very helpful in connecting some of the dots for bits and piece of information that I had about rifled/smooth bore guns.

Rifled guns are (cons)
1) Expansive than SB
2) have shorter life than SB
3) Are not optimum solution for AP rounds that are probably play the most important part in a classical MBT battle
4) May not be as robust as SB?

Rifled guns are (Pro)
1) More accurate than SB
2) Have longer range than SB
3) Can fire more type of rounds than SB which makes MBT a more versatile and independent fighting machine

I guess the answer lies in not the choice of the gun bore but in the achieved performance against the requirements of armed forces. If rifled gun can show the anti tank/armor performance for APFSDS/HEAT rounds with the reliability and cost than additional advantages of accuracy and diverse rounds wins the argument for Arjun.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 05 May 2010 23:26

vina wrote:With a rifled gun , you lose out a wee bit only in APFSDS performance but keep the full advantage of firing all other kinds of rounds. I think the DRDO made the right choice with sticking to the rifled gun for Arjun.


DRDO eh?
:lol:

So when you want to beat on the GSQRs (for whatever reason the mood of the day is) its all IA
When you want to give a thumbs up its for DRDO
:rotfl:

Katare wrote:Rifled guns are (Pro)
1) More accurate than SB
2) Have longer range than SB


Clarification, the above is true ONLY for full caliber rounds without freely spinning rotation rings. i.e. HESH or other such similar rounds.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby arnab » 06 May 2010 05:55

Sanku wrote:
vina wrote:With a rifled gun , you lose out a wee bit only in APFSDS performance but keep the full advantage of firing all other kinds of rounds. I think the DRDO made the right choice with sticking to the rifled gun for Arjun.


DRDO eh?
:lol:

So when you want to beat on the GSQRs (for whatever reason the mood of the day is) its all IA
When you want to give a thumbs up its for DRDO
:rotfl:



So do you admit that your 'arguments' about revisiting smoothbores because IA GSQRs were 20 years old were basically a red herring? What is your source that smoothbores are more accurate for HESH rounds (what am I thinking :eek: !!)? IA did conduct field trials recently between a smooth bore autoloader tank (T-90) and a riflled manual loader tank (Arjun). Reports indicate that riflled performed better than smooth bores.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests