Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Craig Alpert » 01 Feb 2010 03:20


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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 01 Feb 2010 09:13

Amit J wrote:.....<snip>
What is the apprx cost of the BTR-90 given tht the Stryker costs 1.5 mil USD apiece as per wiki


IMHO, it is not prudent to compare the price of BTR-XX with Stryker.The american product as usual comes with hell lot of bells and whistles....if we have to..we need to compare the base/bare minimum spec Stryker with any other IFV.

James B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2249
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby James B » 02 Feb 2010 01:02


nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8170
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 02 Feb 2010 03:16

^^ From above article,
Trials were scheduled, and then postponed, because of a shortage of Arjun ammunition. With the ammunition now available the army, significantly, has withdrawn the T-72 from the trials.

“The army knows that the T-72 would have performed very poorly in trials against the Arjun”, complains a senior DRDO officer. “Despite that, the army continues to sink money into its 2400 outdated T-72s. Any comparative trial with the T-72 would make it clear that the Arjun should replace the T-72.”

But that is as far as the army is prepared to accept the Arjun. According to the army’s long-term plan, which Business Standard has accessed, no more Arjuns are planned. Instead, the army will field equal numbers of T-90s and T-72s for the next 15 years, spending thousands of crores on extending the life of the T-72.


I don't understand what possesses the army to place so much faith in the T-72. Especially when the Chinese are arming themselves with the Type 99 and Pakis having copied that into the Al-Khalid, both of which are clearly superior to the T-72.

I still think that the Al-khalid is superior to the T-90 as well especially in the engine department. (1200hp vs 1000hp with weight being the same) This might end up turning into a monumental blunder especially considering the importance of armoured thrusts in the Cold Start doctrine.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Hitesh » 02 Feb 2010 03:24

One word: Logistics.

Replacing the T-series tank with Arjun would mean replacing the entire logistic chain and there is no real need for more than a couple hundreds of Arjuns. So unless GoI cough up the money necessary to replace the entire logistics chain, IA doesn't want the Arjun.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Brando » 02 Feb 2010 03:55

Even the Arjun is not on par with some of the other modern tanks in the world today like the Leopard 2 or the Type 90 (JAPAN) or maybe even the Type 99 in terms of the kind of technology they employ. The Arjun may fare slightly better than the T90 but that hardly is a conclusive argument to buy it considering the substantial costs involved. The Arjun is still by far a tank that would have been current in the 80s not in 2010. Buying yesterday's tank to use in tomorrows war is foolish and the Indian Army has done a service to the nation by leaving these things to posterity and parades. If only they had written to the Government a decade ago telling them to cancel the project entirely, the taxpayer could have saved a lot of money.

In any case, massive armor thrusts and the like are a thing of the past in the subcontinent, when you consider the nuclear neighborhood. Besides the Indian army seems to be looking for numbers in terms of armor rather than quality. If not they would have already bought an active protection system for the entire T90 fleet when they initially bought them from Russia. Maybe the intend to use the T72s as a first wave in armor to catch all the Paki RPGs and then send the T90s to mop up while the Arjuns serve as auxiliaries. Either way, spending so much on tanks in a futile when it is so much cheaper to buy RPGs that can take out any tank that the enemy can throw at you. Also, its faster to produce Anti tank RPGs than it is to build a tank.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4521
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 02 Feb 2010 04:03

Brando wrote: Either way, spending so much on tanks in a futile when it is so much cheaper to buy RPGs that can take out any tank that the enemy can throw at you. Also, its faster to produce Anti tank RPGs than it is to build a tank.


Thanks for that wonderful suggestion! Maybe we should also cancel all aircraft purchases and just invest in anti-aircraft missiles. cheaper to buy and use, and no need to train pilots also!

sourab_c
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 Feb 2009 18:07
Location: around

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sourab_c » 02 Feb 2010 04:31

Brando wrote:Buying yesterday's tank to use in tomorrows war is foolish and the Indian Army has done a service to the nation by leaving these things to posterity and parades.



How else do you propose we develop our indigenous capability of producing modern war machines? Also, how exactly do you define a "modern" tank?

I understand why the army is reluctant to accept the Arjun. You see, the army would not want to compromise national security in tne name of indigenisation but that leaves no room for indigenous development. There has to be a balance between foreign and indigenous procurment, which the Army has failed to achieve. Years and years of luxury "off the shelf" shopping has left our own companies like the DRDO crying for opportunities to grow. This HAS to change.

IA should look at the navy as a role model in this regard.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7009
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 02 Feb 2010 04:41

Brando wrote:Even the Arjun is not on par with some of the other modern tanks in the world today like the Leopard 2 or the Type 90 (JAPAN) or maybe even the Type 99 in terms of the kind of technology they employ.

And what are the technological shortcomings you have identified? How many of the tanks you have mentioned is on offer to India? Are any of them fielded by our neighbors or anybody we are likely to pick up a fight with in the near future?

The Arjun may fare slightly better than the T90 but that hardly is a conclusive argument to buy it considering the substantial costs involved.

Which is better? Giving all money to Russia vs Giving money to local suppliers? Can you also please suggest a price on freedom from foreign suppliers when sh1t hits the fan? (Do you recall the issue with drag chutes during Kargil war? The cost of Krasnopol during Kargil war? How everything seemed to double and triple in cost just at the moment we wanted them?)

The Arjun is still by far a tank that would have been current in the 80s not in 2010. Buying yesterday's tank to use in tomorrows war is foolish and the Indian Army has done a service to the nation by leaving these things to posterity and parades. If only they had written to the Government a decade ago telling them to cancel the project entirely, the taxpayer could have saved a lot of money.

We could have invested that money at 6% interest in State bank, 10 years later withdrawn it and given it to our foreign suppliers for buying tanks.

In any case, massive armor thrusts and the like are a thing of the past in the subcontinent, when you consider the nuclear neighborhood.

India-Pak war and artillery duels with airstrikes too were a thing of the past after the Shakthi tests. Unfortunately the "Phreedom Phyters" in Kargil did not read the brilliant analysis.

Besides the Indian army seems to be looking for numbers in terms of armor rather than quality.

That strategy worked awesomely for the Iraqis during Gulf war I and II

Maybe the intend to use the T72s as a first wave in armor to catch all the Paki RPGs

The T72 wave should be preceded by 1 million people all shouting "jeeehaaaard" to absorb all Paki ammunition RPG etc. Which brilliant army strategy book advocates suicide by "first wave" so that the "second wave" is successful?

Either way, spending so much on tanks in a futile when it is so much cheaper to buy RPGs that can take out any tank that the enemy can throw at you. Also, its faster to produce Anti tank RPGs than it is to build a tank.

putnanja-ji has wonderfully taken this suggestion and applied your brilliant analysis to the Indian Air Force

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ParGha » 02 Feb 2010 05:02

Hitesh wrote:One word: Logistics.
Replacing the T-series tank with Arjun would mean replacing the entire logistic chain and there is no real need for more than a couple hundreds of Arjuns. So unless GoI cough up the money necessary to replace the entire logistics chain, IA doesn't want the Arjun.


Logistics is the word, all right. The question of deployment and support is only the surface question. The strategic logistics questions when India looks at next generation of cavalry mounts will be (a) fuel consumption, and (b) ease/feasibility of indigenous production (at least of a stripped down basic version). Large number of units and low fuel consumption -- anyone should be able to understand why this is a big issue for India. Ability to quickly and cheaply produce in-country a basic, no frills model -- with or without licensing, if necessary -- may also become a strategic necessity (if anyone remembers the situation after 1962). Both requirements naturally lean towards lighter mounts that probably won't put undue burdens on existing logistics chain.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ParGha » 02 Feb 2010 05:21

Brando wrote:The Arjun is still by far a tank that would have been current in the 80s not in 2010.

True. The only good news about that fact is that most other tanks in service were also optimized for the battle-field of the 1980s.

Brando wrote:In any case, massive armor thrusts and the like are a thing of the past in the subcontinent, when you consider the nuclear neighborhood.

That still leaves you (a) minor armor thrusts and the like when you consider the sub-conventional conflict environment, and (b) massive armor thrusts in a post-nuclear environment.

Brando wrote:Besides the Indian army seems to be looking for numbers in terms of armor rather than quality.

Numbers and quality are not mutually exclusive. "Quality" of a system is measured by what it is supposed to do and how well it does the job. In a well-trained combined arms operation the maneuver elements (tanks and mech-infantry) more often than not just establish the kill-box for the artillery and CAS to do the killing... does it really matter then that each of the tank can go toe-to-toe with the enemy's tank? It is not a tribal/heroic chest-beating contest (though many revert to it unconsciously and often). A decent infantry support to the tank units can make anti-tank operations quite difficult; same with engineer support with regards to AT mines and IEDs. The whole team is important.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Brando » 02 Feb 2010 05:40

Anujan wrote:And what are the technological shortcomings you have identified? How many of the tanks you have mentioned is on offer to India? Are any of them fielded by our neighbors or anybody we are likely to pick up a fight with in the near future?

Various tanks I have mentioned are technologically superior in various ways. I think all of them are superior to the Arjun in terms of optics and fire control systems. India has never asked to buy any of these tanks. Type 99 is being fielded by China,
Anujan wrote:Which is better? Giving all money to Russia vs Giving money to local suppliers? Can you also please suggest a price on freedom from foreign suppliers when sh1t hits the fan?

If giving money to local suppliers means coming up with the Arjun, then the money would be better spent getting an active protection system and adequate night fighting capability on Russian tanks than giving the money to DRDO to play around with for decades. Freedom from foreign suppliers will never come by throwing money at DRDO. It comes by opening up the Indian industry to foreign investment and expertise.
Anujan wrote:We could have invested that money at 6% interest in State bank, 10 years later withdrawn it and given it to our foreign suppliers for buying tanks.

That is another good option or they could have invested in a sovereign wealth funds and invested it abroad for greater returns.
Anujan wrote:India-Pak war and artillery duels with airstrikes too were a thing of the past after the Shakthi tests. Unfortunately the "Phreedom Phyters" in Kargil did not read the brilliant analysis.

After Shakti tests India didn't have a credible nuclear deterrent to use. How many tanks were involved in Kargil ?
Anujan wrote:That strategy worked awesomely for the Iraqis during Gulf war I and II

It worked brilliantly in World War 2 . And the Allies in Gulf War1 and 2 had many many more tanks than Iraq ever had even if they were not deployed.
Anujan wrote:The T72 wave should be preceded by 1 million people all shouting "jeeehaaaard" to absorb all Paki ammunition RPG etc. Which brilliant army strategy book advocates suicide by "first wave" so that the "second wave" is successful?

This is standard infantry tactic that has been employed for more than 2000 years. The least experienced/least powerful units always form the first line. Units that are very weak are used as cannon fodder to absorb enemy attacks and hold the enemy so that more experienced units can flank and counter attack. This is battle tactics 101.

Anujan wrote:putnanja-ji has wonderfully taken this suggestion and applied your brilliant analysis to the Indian Air Force

He is just being ignorant in applying my suggestion to the airforce. Besides AAA and SAMs are easier targets for an aircraft and require specially trained operators. Even illiterate people can use and RPG to blow up a tank.
Last edited by Brando on 02 Feb 2010 05:53, edited 1 time in total.

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Brando » 02 Feb 2010 05:52

ParGha,
In a minor armor thrust, how do you envision such a conflict where armor is involved yet is not destroyed immediately by CAS from the enemy side. It would quickly devolve into total war.

What do you mean post-nuclear environment ? Is there a scenario of an armored thrust after Pakistan has launched its 90 odd nuclear weapons ? Or China its 400 odd ? Even during a ongoing nuclear battle, any "massive armor" columns would be promptly nuked.

Finally, to address your point of a infantry support to tank units. If that were the case any tank thrusts would be slow moving. The main attraction towards a massive armored thrust, ala General Patton's 5th Army would be the massive ground they can cover while inflicting massive damage along the way. Any infantry would need to be mechanized and again face the same risk that the tanks would face. Further the greater the number of infantry units attached the greater the burden on supply lines with greater requirement of perishables/fragiles like food and medicine resupply further slowing the armor.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4521
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 02 Feb 2010 05:56

CAS by the pakis? think again. When the hostilities start, the PAF airbases and aircrafts would be the first target.

The IA has already planned for the logistics chain for its strike corps. That is a big factor in cold start doctrine too.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 02 Feb 2010 06:05

The least experienced/least powerful units always form the first line. Units that are very weak are used as cannon fodder to absorb enemy attacks and hold the enemy so that more experienced units can flank and counter attack. This is battle tactics 101.



:eek: :eek:

We should bring back the Vijayantas and T 55s and man them - so that they can absorb the first hits. Damn - thats why we are persisting with tin cans -

Now if only the rest of the world used older tanks to absorb the first wave

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby anjan » 02 Feb 2010 06:48

Anujan wrote:Which is better? Giving all money to Russia vs Giving money to local suppliers? Can you also please suggest a price on freedom from foreign suppliers when sh1t hits the fan? (Do you recall the issue with drag chutes during Kargil war? The cost of Krasnopol during Kargil war? How everything seemed to double and triple in cost just at the moment we wanted them?)


The Arjun has foreign suppliers as well. The tank isn't going anywhere without the German engine and transmission. One way to get around it is to allow wholly owned subsidiaries that produce equipment in country and not using foreign nationals. Till that happens or wholly-Indian solution is found, anything this vital to the tank is still a pressure point. I don't believe the FCS is Indian either. Although I suppose the Israelis are somewhat more reliable than the rest.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ParGha » 02 Feb 2010 07:30

sourab_c wrote:How else do you propose we develop our indigenous capability of producing modern war machines?

Perhaps the expectations the country sets on them must be changed? I would think that India would want to set the expectations much higher on a few key strategic systems, but set the expectations much lower on the more common-place systems. Set the bar high ("See we don't have our own fossil fuel resources and the countries that do aren't very friendly/near; come up with an alternate energy platform"); and/or set the bar low ("See you have been making T-72s for a while now, now incrementally come up with a T-90 equivalent at home").

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2725
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Prem Kumar » 02 Feb 2010 08:52

Surya wrote:
The least experienced/least powerful units always form the first line. Units that are very weak are used as cannon fodder to absorb enemy attacks and hold the enemy so that more experienced units can flank and counter attack. This is battle tactics 101.



:eek: :eek:

We should bring back the Vijayantas and T 55s and man them - so that they can absorb the first hits. Damn - thats why we are persisting with tin cans -

Now if only the rest of the world used older tanks to absorb the first wave


In a perverse way, Brando is right. If the IA decides that refurbishing a T-72 ("bullock cart" per Ajai Shukla) is better than inducting Arjun, then they are essentially telling 2400 T-72 tank commanders that they are nothing but cannon fodder :x

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 02 Feb 2010 09:42

Gawwwd, how I wish the US donated a couple of Abrams regiments to the pukes.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 02 Feb 2010 09:59

Col Ajai Shukla on T90 v/s Arjun trials..

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... un/384353/

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby merlin » 02 Feb 2010 11:13

aditp wrote:Gawwwd, how I wish the US donated a couple of Abrams regiments to the pukes.


Ditto, ditto, ditto. In spades.

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1983
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby AdityaM » 02 Feb 2010 14:36

Brando wrote:The least experienced/least powerful units always form the first line. Units that are very weak are used as cannon fodder to absorb enemy attacks and hold the enemy so that more experienced units can flank and counter attack. This is battle tactics 101.

By this logic, no army would ever gain experience.
Please if possible start contributing to the Military Scenarios thread. I would love to read how a war plays out with your kind of logic

Marut
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 23:05
Location: The Original West Coast!!

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Marut » 02 Feb 2010 14:38

Brando wrote:
Anujan wrote:putnanja-ji has wonderfully taken this suggestion and applied your brilliant analysis to the Indian Air Force

He is just being ignorant in applying my suggestion to the airforce. Besides AAA and SAMs are easier targets for an aircraft and require specially trained operators. Even illiterate people can use and RPG to blow up a tank.


You are correct about the RPG threat to tanks. In the Thar desert and Punjab plains, a very well placed RPG shot bypassing the anti-RPG defences and two layers of armour, both regular and ERA, will blow up the tank like a tin can. Btw, do you use an RPG too? :roll:

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 578
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nrshah » 02 Feb 2010 16:15

somnath wrote:Col Ajai Shukla on T90 v/s Arjun trials..

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... un/384353/


Meanwhile, the Arjun is ready for production in larger numbers, with a production line at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) near Chennai established at a cost of Rs 50 crores. Capable of producing 20 Arjuns annually, it has already equipped India’s first Arjun unit, 43 Armoured Regiment. Now, a second unit, 75 Armoured Regiment, is being converted to the Arjun.


20 Per annum is very low if they want army to go for higher numbers. It should be 2.5 times of that atleast

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12520
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Feb 2010 16:27

Nrshah-> Without the Army ordering units they cannot increase the capacity, machinery Manpower etc. If the Army Orders say 800 Arjuns, these can easily be increased to 50 to 100 a year.But for 125 tank order that would be capacity anyone would build.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8170
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 02 Feb 2010 16:29

Brando wrote:
This is standard infantry tactic that has been employed for more than 2000 years. The least experienced/least powerful units always form the first line. Units that are very weak are used as cannon fodder to absorb enemy attacks and hold the enemy so that more experienced units can flank and counter attack. This is battle tactics 101. :eek: :eek:



Pray tell me where you acquired your brilliant tactical knowhow? :rotfl:
I hope Brig. Ray sees this post. He'll surely have a nice reply to this guy.
Indian army using Tanks as cannon fodder. Sheesh. :roll:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21169
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 02 Feb 2010 18:18

In 2008,the Russians supposedly offered us a piece of development of their new FMBT,which would be vastly superior to tanks currently being used.The tank,to have a 155mm main gun with an auto-loader and a three man crew in a frontal armoured capsule,would also fire missiles out to 6km and have a new self defence suite.No sighting or design details of this tank has been in evidence,and devlopment is likely to take a few years,but when it does arrive,it will be as revolutionary as the revealed 5th-gen fighter.

The task of the IA is to find out the most cost-effective way in which to keep numbers healthy while simultaneously maintaining the qualitative edge over our rivals.Tanks are extraordinary long lasting beasts.The Israelis used Centurion tanks long after their life span.Modernised T-72s with proper night fighing sensors and ERA can serve us for another decade or so and if the upgrades can be done at reasonable cost should be done,just as we are upgrading almost all th eairfraft in the IAF's inventory (MIG-21s,MIG-27s,MIG-29s and Jaguars).The only aircraft which might not be upgraded extensively is the Mirage-2000.Production rates for Arjun,even if we can produce 50 a year,will be for a large tank with a 4-man crew,when alternative newer tanks are becoming smaller and liked better by the armoured corps.This will give us 500 tanks by 2020,simply not enough to meet requirements and future challenges.As one army chief put it not too long ago,Arjun is "not a tank for the future which the IA needs".It has taken so long in development that it will lose its cutting tech edge in a faster period of time.

However,if the DRDO/Avadi can produce the extra Arjuns (and a MK-2 version is also hinted at ),say a few hundered within reasonable time,upgrade the T-72s AND produce T-90s simultaneously,then I'm sure that a suitable role for Arjun in the vast expanse of India's territory can be found so that our indigenous efforts are not wasted.The cost per peice should be examined,along with life cycle costs,maintenance,spares ,etc.Not all of Arjun is indigenous though!

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 02 Feb 2010 18:31

As one army chief put it not too long ago,Arjun is "not a tank for the future which the IA needs".It has taken so long in development that it will lose its cutting tech edge in a faster period of time.



The US army recently cancelled its FMBT, feeling the system to be too expensive and the Abrams, a 65T tank, too effective and hence extremely useful for the foreseeable future. Now the army chief in question is also known for protecting his cronies. No? And the then DGMF is known Arjun basher, possible because he doesnt wish to be seen conceding the T-90s inferiority, that he helped induct in the first place.

Terms like "80s tank" and "future battlefield" have no meaning, unless clearly spelt out. No wonder the army doesnt define them. Possibly no brochure has been published to date defining these terms. And by the way, if the Arjun is an 80s design relevant only upto 2010s, then the Tin -90 is actually an early - mid 60s design, almost irrelevant today - it carries over almost all flaws of the T-72..

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 02 Feb 2010 18:43

aha no thread can be complete without one of Philips " A general told me" or " air marshal told me " or "former naval chied told me" :) :mrgreen:


Same old nonsense is peddled out - 152 mm gun , 3 man crew blah blah and is peddled as revolutionary and now 5th Gen :eek:

Meanwhile the esteemed generals have not been able to visualise a jeep or a truck for 20 yrs ahead and our friend expects them to come up with a tank of the future based on some fancy djinn infrastructure.

Oh and the wonderful Israeli example - was never followed by us

and lastly the Arjun is more in the tradition\p[hilosophy of the Centurion types so go figure

Bhushan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 13:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bhushan » 02 Feb 2010 20:09

nrshah wrote:Meanwhile, the Arjun is ready for production in larger numbers, with a production line at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) near Chennai established at a cost of Rs 50 crores. Capable of producing 20 Arjuns annually, it has already equipped India’s first Arjun unit, 43 Armoured Regiment. Now, a second unit, 75 Armoured Regiment, is being converted to the Arjun.

20 Per annum is very low if they want army to go for higher numbers. It should be 2.5 times of that atleast


Aditya_V wrote:Nrshah-> Without the Army ordering units they cannot increase the capacity, machinery Manpower etc. If the Army Orders say 800 Arjuns, these can easily be increased to 50 to 100 a year.But for 125 tank order that would be capacity anyone would build.


I think the entire production of 124 tanks and their handing over of tanks is to be completed by March 2010. Wonder if building new assembly line worth 50 crores is a hint for new arjun orders already placed by IA as reported by a magazine (then quoted in BR) which would be great!

The other reason for low production volume of arjun tank (besides capping of orders) could perhaps be the issue of quality control as we have no prior experience of building 'heavy' tanks and that too indigenous ones. Building low volumes initially could help rectify problems/defects easily and quickly due to limited numbers. Besides the number of 'problem units' would also be less there by reducing costs of rectification. The case of Tata Motors is worth to note. When Indica was initially introduced the Tata's sold huge numbers which later developed problems which resulted in a bad name for Indica and huge loss for Tata Motors due to costs of recall. They had to go to the drawing board to re-engineer Indica and launched V2. They seemed to have learnt a lesson and thus Nano launch was with restricted volumes to see how it performs on road than in labs.

Same with Arjun tank. If any major defects are found in big numbers then any little hopes for own production and subsequently for exports would diminish. As and when production line of arjun stablise and mature there should not be any problems in ramping up the production capacity in a big way.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9919
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 02 Feb 2010 20:32

Now I think we are in a new round of Arjun bashing. Funny whenever Arjun comes up for testing etc (or LCA for that matter) we find it is called all kinds of names. Let us not forget it is most tested Tank around and so for Army could not convince the nation why it is good or what is bad with it.

Nations which can not produce imp weapon sys like Tanks and Fighters can not dream of becomming Super Powers. Army (and Air Force) shall understand it. If they want improvements in Arjun then they have involve in it at every stage. In this they (and IAF) have to learn a lot from Navy and what Navy could do within the limited budget and support.

Unless Army is told that there will not be any dancing with Natasha for Tanks they will continue to root for T series ( Remember another T Series and how useless that products was)
Last edited by Yagnasri on 02 Feb 2010 20:34, edited 1 time in total.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 02 Feb 2010 20:33

control as we have no prior experience of building 'heavy' tanks and that too indigenous ones.


:roll:

<sigh>

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36417
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 02 Feb 2010 21:56

“The army knows that the T-72 would have performed very poorly in trials against the Arjun”, complains a senior DRDO officer. “Despite that, the army continues to sink money into its 2400 outdated T-72s. Any comparative trial with the T-72 would make it clear that the Arjun should replace the T-72.” [sorry DRDO!, wait for the trials to end]

But there is also concern about the subjectivity of trials involving an entire squadron in tactical manoeuvres. Major General HM Singh (retired), the father of the Arjun, says, “It is impossible to measure the tactical performance of 14 tanks. There are too many variables, including the skill of the tank crews and coloured perceptions of the judges. A comparative trial should be a scientific comparison of each tanks’ physical performance in identical situations.”

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has not responded to an emailed questionnaire from Business Standard on the comparative trials and the condition of the T-72 tank fleet.

A strong performance by the Arjun will force the army to redo its maths. Conspicuous failure, on the other hand, could cap the programme at just 124 tanks.


I am sensing something is really brewing for Arjun.. this is not going to be a clean fight.. T72..!..or T90s, IA can make sure Arjun fail. Something is not right!? reading these in between the lines.

Sorry, it may be just my intuition.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 Feb 2010 22:29

Posters on the forum really seem to have outdone themselves this time in Arjun bashing.... and reached conclusion without giving thought to researching something on the topic on this very forum....:roll:

nachiket wrote:.....<snip>

I don't understand what possesses the army to place so much faith in the T-72. Especially when the Chinese are arming themselves with the Type 99 and Pakis having copied that into the Al-Khalid, both of which are clearly superior to the T-72. I still think that the Al-khalid is superior to the T-90 as well especially in the engine department. (1200hp vs 1000hp with weight being the same) This might end up turning into a monumental blunder especially considering the importance of armoured thrusts in the Cold Start doctrine.


Two things--(1)How many Al-Khalids and T-80UD does PA have? (2)What does the bulk of PA Armor consits of?

Answer - (1) 200-300approx. and 320.(2)Type-59(a derivation of T-54A and modified/under modification to Al-Zarrar standard)/Type-69(upgradation on the T-59) and Type-85IIAP.Both Type-69 and Type-85IIAP are undergoing upgradation.

Now if the bulk of the enemy armor that I'm going to face in the short to medium term is of the type above, do I really need to invest in a very expensive system?A upgraded T-72 of IA (Combat Improved Ajeya) will be superior to the upgraded Type-XXX of PA.As for the T-90 comparison with Al-Khalid, is bhp/ton the only sole criterion of capability?Al-Khalid also has BMS and hunter-killer facility which are a superior threat/features.So what is the solution?A T-90 with these features, right? And I think the new version of T-90M(?) addresses these.Now the million $$$ question is whether the next lot of T-90 in IA will be of these specs.It is for the IA DGMF to answer these questions.T-72 is quite all right in its place.

Hitesh wrote:One word: Logistics.
Replacing the T-series tank with Arjun would mean replacing the entire logistic chain........<snip>


You do know that Arjun is of size and dimensions because IA wanted a heavy MBT once our brothers across the border started trialling the Abrahams and is per the GSQR drafted by the IA? Surely,IA did think of logistics then? And have you ever heard that it is lack of funds (To re-establish the supply chain) which is holding back the Arjun induction in IA?

Finally, please educate me as to how did you arrive at the conclusion that IA needs only 'few' Arjuns?And how few is this 'few'.

nukavarapu wrote:Is it just me or it is just the pre-production versions of Arjun? The interiors look very crappy........<snip>


So, you haven't seen the interior of a tank and yet, the first one that you see, you call crappy?What were you expecting-leather upholstery and mirror shine finish with brasso? Did it occur to you that it is a MBT used in some of the most harsh conditions(43rd Armored Regiments in based close to Bikaner btw) and that the tank could be an old one and really put throught its paces all these years?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 02 Feb 2010 22:35

So, you haven't seen the interior of a tank and yet, the first one that you see, you call crappy?What were you expecting-leather upholstry and mirror shine finish?Did it occur to you that its a MBT used in some of the most harsh conditions(43rd Armored Regiments in based close to Bikaner btw) and that the tank could be an old one and really put throught its paces all these years?



Also does someone really expect the motorhama to be given a brand new tank to screw up???

Nirmal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 05 Jul 2005 15:51
Location: London, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Nirmal » 02 Feb 2010 22:38

SaiK wrote:
“The army knows that the T-72 would have performed very poorly in trials against the Arjun”, complains a senior DRDO officer. “Despite that, the army continues to sink money into its 2400 outdated T-72s. Any comparative trial with the T-72 would make it clear that the Arjun should replace the T-72.” [sorry DRDO!, wait for the trials to end]

But there is also concern about the subjectivity of trials involving an entire squadron in tactical manoeuvres. Major General HM Singh (retired), the father of the Arjun, says, “It is impossible to measure the tactical performance of 14 tanks. There are too many variables, including the skill of the tank crews and coloured perceptions of the judges. A comparative trial should be a scientific comparison of each tanks’ physical performance in identical situations.”

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has not responded to an emailed questionnaire from Business Standard on the comparative trials and the condition of the T-72 tank fleet.
Not long a go, it was reported that field trials of Arjun were successful and the IA was so impressed that they have ordered a further batch of 124 tanks. and now we are back to 124 and 'cap' possibility talk. All this is very confusing. Which of the 2 stories is correct?

A strong performance by the Arjun will force the army to redo its maths. Conspicuous failure, on the other hand, could cap the programme at just 124 tanks.


I am sensing something is really brewing for Arjun.. this is not going to be a clean fight.. T72..!..or T90s, IA can make sure Arjun fail. Something is not right!? reading these in between the lines.

Sorry, it may be just my intuition.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 02 Feb 2010 22:50

Rohit

on thing I will disagree with you

Surely,IA did think of logistics then? And have you ever heard that it is lack of funds (To re-establish the supply chain) which is holding back the Arjun induction in IA?


I have not seen the IA come out and say it was because of money for a new supply chain.

It has always been some complaint about performance or its not futuristic enough yada yada.

Money has never been a problem in the last decade when someone wants it desperately.

If they come out and say its money for supply line - then I got an entire set of questions

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 Feb 2010 23:02

Even the Arjun is not on par with some of the other modern tanks in the world today like the Leopard 2 or the Type 90 (JAPAN) or maybe even the Type 99 in terms of the kind of technology they employ. The Arjun may fare slightly better than the T90 but that hardly is a conclusive argument to buy it considering the substantial costs involved. The Arjun is still by far a tank that would have been current in the 80s not in 2010. Buying yesterday's tank to use in tomorrows war is foolish and the Indian Army has done a service to the nation by leaving these things to posterity and parades. If only they had written to the Government a decade ago telling them to cancel the project entirely, the taxpayer could have saved a lot of money.


And you do realize that Leo2 or Type 90 are evolutionary products and not the final ones of their development programmes? And as for the difference part,what is so earth shatteringly different in these tanks? Technology? What are main differences? And how easy or difficult is it to incorporate these gizmos into Arjun? And last I checked, Arjun MKII is to incorporate the bells and whistles that you are ranting about.You do realize that most important factor in the T-XX versus Arjun debate in the mentality of Indian Armored Corps and not lack of this or that? And by your admission, if it is somewhat superior to the T-90, well why not Arjun and why T-90? Stop tilting at the windmills.

In any case, massive armor thrusts and the like are a thing of the past in the subcontinent, when you consider the nuclear neighborhood. Besides the Indian army seems to be looking for numbers in terms of armor rather than quality. If not they would have already bought an active protection system for the entire T90 fleet when they initially bought them from Russia. Maybe the intend to use the T72s as a first wave in armor to catch all the Paki RPGs and then send the T90s to mop up while the Arjuns serve as auxiliaries. Either way, spending so much on tanks in a futile when it is so much cheaper to buy RPGs that can take out any tank that the enemy can throw at you. Also, its faster to produce Anti tank RPGs than it is to build a tank


Aha..Herr General Guderian has spoken!!!!! The days of massive armor thrusts are over.....
Herr General...can you educate me what is a 'massive armor thrust'? Let me give you some scenarios and may be then you can educate me better---

1. Commitment of Indian Armored Division--Yes/No
2. Assault of 1st Armored Bde of Armored Division--Yes/No
3. Assault by 2nd or 3rd Armored Bde of Armored Division--Yes/No (btw, you do know the difference between the 1st and 2nd & 3rd Armored Bdes of an Armored Division,Herr General?)
3. Assault by 16(I) Armored Bridage --Yes/No
4. Independent Armored Brigade+RAPID--Yes/No

And while you're at it, might as well call up the COAS and tell him so....for the poor blokes in the AHQ are working towards creating more Mechanized assets in the Indian Army....and implementing the Cold Start Doctrine(CSD) which will perforce have at its center...horrors of horros....Armored Regiments.....eeks.... :((

And thank you for telling us that IA has come up with a super duper device of capturing all the RPG/Bhaktar-Shikans/TOW of the PA....now what could it be? :-? May be they should use the service of Vina garu in marketing the same around the globe and make some bucks while they are at it.....and you know what, this is the reason we've not ordered the Active Defence Systems....we have secret field around ou T-72s which will go first and absorb the PA AT weapons....

What do you thing the IA is? Army of Xerxes in the movie 300 who sends his slave soldiers first to face the enemy.... :evil:
Last edited by rohitvats on 02 Feb 2010 23:05, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 Feb 2010 23:04

Surya wrote:Rohit

on thing I will disagree with you

Surely,IA did think of logistics then? And have you ever heard that it is lack of funds (To re-establish the supply chain) which is holding back the Arjun induction in IA?


I have not seen the IA come out and say it was because of money for a new supply chain.

It has always been some complaint about performance or its not futuristic enough yada yada.

Money has never been a problem in the last decade when someone wants it desperately.

If they come out and say its money for supply line - then I got an entire set of questions


Surya, that is exactly my point....may be it across in a wrong way....its all in the minds of Armored Corps chaps...

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 Feb 2010 23:14

In a minor armor thrust, how do you envision such a conflict where armor is involved yet is not destroyed immediately by CAS from the enemy side. It would quickly devolve into total war.


Aha..again the minor thrust.....Herr General, please to expedite the knowledge on this complex subject....this poor officer at German Staff College awaits the enlightments....

Finally, to address your point of a infantry support to tank units. If that were the case any tank thrusts would be slow moving. The main attraction towards a massive armored thrust, ala General Patton's 5th Army would be the massive ground they can cover while inflicting massive damage along the way. Any infantry would need to be mechanized and again face the same risk that the tanks would face. Further the greater the number of infantry units attached the greater the burden on supply lines with greater requirement of perishables/fragiles like food and medicine resupply further slowing the armor.


Again, please do call up the AHQ and COAS....for they are going against your teachings.......they plan to have something as abominable as a Integrated Battle Group(IBG) which again will be centered on a Armored Bde...such audacity..and they are also increasing the number of RAPID in the IA..it has gone up from 4 to 7 (errrr..Herr General..you do know what RAPID is :oops: )..such travesty I tell you....


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests