Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

VijayN
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 11 Sep 2009 10:46
Location: Pretzel Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby VijayN » 21 May 2015 06:41



Version 2 of Armata T 14 launched!! Happy viewing Philip.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 21 May 2015 09:52

What happens when untrained manpower uses tracked AFV's

See 00:40 sec to 1:15 sec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=77&v=8hC-etXyJpo

Just show how just a very very slight error can be dangerous when working with tracked AFV's

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 21 May 2015 11:13

Tx Vijay! It is my dream to one day drive around in an AV to safeguard myself from the roadhogs and maniacs who disregard all rules of the road with impunity.last night I almost smacked into a two-whller whizzing at high speed without any lights,wearing black too. A cannon would be most useful too.One could simply blow away the maniacs "Sons" style!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 21 May 2015 17:11

Was puttering around the web, searching for info about what other nations are up to under "Armour".

Brits:

Does not seem (to me at least) to be very diff than the Russian stuff - exception, perhaps, the Russians have a ton of cameras all around to provide better visibility.

IF one were to discount for "doctrine", what is so different?

Do not know (as I post) if APS is missing in the British version. IF it is that is a major topic.



Image

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 May 2015 22:40

NRao wrote:Wiki stated that they were used for trawling - I took that to mean that the T-55s were not used as "armuor". : (

Hobbes wrote:As per the Wikipedia article on S/Lt. Khetarpal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Khetarpal, his unit (17 Poona Horse) was equipped with Centurions. If that is correct, it looks like the T-54/55 had a pretty undistinguished combat record with the Indian Army.

You're both right. My mistake. Centurions not T-55s.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1165
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rkhanna » 25 May 2015 10:46

T-14 and T-90 Side by Side. The Frigging thing is HUGE.

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38024980/2154212/2154212_original.jpg

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 25 May 2015 11:24

the form factor is a bit peculiar in the sense of being very long (perhaps longer than western mbt) but not much wider than the 50t T90 (48t raw + 2t ERA).

the turret looks very big for only the gun and electronics. perhaps it is capable of a 152mm gun and bigger shells as well.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 25 May 2015 12:03

Probably right ,a larger turret for a bigger gun and larger sized ammo. It is a beast and would also cost a whopping amount more than a T-90. It would be interesting to compare other western MBTs of approx. same size ,specs,costs,etc. and Arjun Mk-1/2 too.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 25 May 2015 12:19

my est is 60t at present. the crew areas in the hull must be having additional armour bathtubs and mine protection.

its going to be a expensive product in line with the sensor packed japanese MBT....which even has a ground penetrating radar to detect buried mines.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 25 May 2015 12:39

this is what the t90 should have been but never will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_10

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 25 May 2015 13:30

The T-90S is approx. half the cost of the T-10,but then the Russians/Soviets wanted an affordable tank that could be built in the thousands for themselves and exports. The T-10 on the other hand was built in low production,only 66 during the 2010-2014 period with far more T-90s produced during that time,perhaps around 1000.

What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-a ... 1542979845

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 04 Jun 2015 05:08

Found the following about Arjun Mk II

d. Arjun Mk-II
The Arjun Mark II will have a total of 93 upgrades, including 13 major improvements. The major upgrades would be missile-firing capability against long-range targets, panoramic sight with night vision to engage targets effectively at night, containerization of the ammunition, enhanced main weapon penetration; additional ammunition types, explosive reactive armor, an advanced air-defense gun to engage helicopters; a mine plough, an advanced land navigation system and a warning system which can fire smoke grenades to confuse laser guidance. Other upgrades are an enhanced Auxiliary power unit providing 8.5 kW (from 4.5 kW) and an improved gun barrel, changes in the commander's panoramic sight with eye safe LRF, night vision capability including for driver, digital control harness, new final drive, track and sprocket.



All these increased the weight from 58.5 tons to 63 tons.


So from Arjun they made it a Bhim.

Looks more like a Swiss Army knife version of a tank!!!!

has to do everything the armored crops thinks it needs on one tank.

brochuritis gone mad.

member_28700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28700 » 04 Jun 2015 16:59

Found this article on idrw.org. Heights of biased reporting. The name sounds like there is some good news but it is inevitably Arjun bashing all along.

http://idrw.org/armor-arjun-back-from-the-dead-again/

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 04 Jun 2015 18:14

Vaibhav, thats because its
IDRW and Strategy Page, a match for the ages. Each crappier than the other. :lol:

member_23891
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_23891 » 04 Jun 2015 21:33

Karan M wrote:Vaibhav, thats because its
IDRW and Strategy Page, a match for the ages. Each crappier than the other. :lol:


After reading the article and style of writing , I instantly got feel that writer is avid follower of our rspected Philip Sir.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 589
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Shalav » 04 Jun 2015 21:55

Just a size comparison. If the IA ever asks for the Armata, wonder how they will justify the size?

Click thumbnail for larger image on imgur

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9774
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jun 2015 21:58

The IA will gladly extend & widen the rail carts that the Armata will be transported on, but could not do the same for the Arjun. Anything is possible if you put your mind to it.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 05 Jun 2015 07:28

Rakesh wrote:The IA will gladly extend & widen the rail carts that the Armata will be transported on, but could not do the same for the Arjun. Anything is possible if you put your mind to it.

Not to mention strengthening the bridges and transport network and all the other things they said they couldn't do for the Arjun. I wonder if the Armata has a torsion bar... :rotfl:

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3938
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby arshyam » 05 Jun 2015 07:59

^^Ah, but who will transport them? At 5'6", our railways already operate the widest gauge worldwide, and yet there were rumours about the Arjun being too big for rail transport. Bunkum, of course. And this Armata seems bigger and heavier.

Time to start building a new rail network with even wider gauge. We should be ready to embrace the future :lol:

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 05 Jun 2015 08:07

The Russians are building an Arjun tank in T-14. They must have realized the limitations of their T-90 and other smaller tanks. So going in for a tank that can provide better protection and crew comfort for prolonged operations.

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby arijitkm » 05 Jun 2015 11:30

arshyam wrote:^^Ah, but who will transport them? At 5'6", our railways already operate the widest gauge worldwide, and yet there were rumours about the Arjun being too big for rail transport. Bunkum, of course. And this Armata seems bigger and heavier.

Time to start building a new rail network with even wider gauge. We should be ready to embrace the future :lol:


And from Horse mouth India Interested in Purchasing Russia’s Armata – Putin’s Aide :rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 05 Jun 2015 11:35

:mrgreen:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 05 Jun 2015 11:35

^^^

Well some one has to pay for making the tank usable for the Russians. Why should the Russians pay for it. When the Indians are the suckers for it.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 05 Jun 2015 14:36

Put an unmanned turret on top of Arjun and voilà it is a Armata

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 05 Jun 2015 15:28

Rather than the tank what would be more worrying will be the new tracked and wheeled Kurganets and Boomerang IFV's. The Russians will lobby extremely hard for them.

They fall just where the IA has eyes for the FICV. 7-8 troops, ~25 tons, amphibious, decent protection and fair bit of commonality between them being projected. What remains to be seen is how cheap they come in.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 05 Jun 2015 18:32

Who has taken my place?! (Some on BRF think I am the official spokesperson! :mrgreen: )

I am sure many including India have "expressed interest".Sure everyone wants to get an inside dekko at the tank and examine it thoroughly,especially the Chinese who will already be making models from available pics,ready to steal its plans,cheat and clone it without Russian approval,just as they did with the Flanker. But if any nation will be offered a first "test drive and first refusal",in order to seduce its army ,it will be India. Let's take an objective look at the issue and examine the chances of it arriving here.

The IA/GOI will want to see what major important differences are there between the Arjun-2 and the T-14. Which features on each tank score higher.Now that the A-2s trials are reportedly over,its parameters will have been established. The T-14 will also have to undergo unbiased trials to see whether it scores over the A-2 and by how much. To my mind,the potential of a larger and more powerful main gun ,which might appear on some production models will be a tempting carrot. Cost is a v.important factor,perhaps the most important. It is not a smaller T-90 which comes at a reasonable price which can and is being inducted in v.large numbers. It is as large/may be larger/heavier than even A-2. How this will also affect mobility/transportation is another factor.Will it fit into our C-17s and IL-76s? One expects that it is Il-76 compatible.Will it be able to ross over our existing bridges,culverts,ford canals,etc.,in the battle terrain from Kutch to Kashmir?

Unless it shows clear,major improvements and capabilities over the A-2,esp. in long-term upgradation as an FMBT,the Arjun lobby for producing more indigenous tanks will be a v.strong force to overcome.
What is also an unknown is the size of the future IA armoured corps,what the IA wants 2020 and beyond,type/capability of inventory ,etc. It is not an impossibility for both the A-2 and T-14 (Argument that will be trotted out: After all the IAF have got their Raffys,why must we in the IA not get our own Natashas?) to be bought/produced ,but then T-72 upgrades,T-90 numbers will have to be relooked at.Money is scarce. The IA like the IAF will have to "cut its coat according to the cloth".

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jun 2015 18:41

I think I may have logged on to Russi Rakshak Forum!! Sorry!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 05 Jun 2015 18:44

Philip wrote:Who has taken my place?! (Some on BRF think I am the official spokesperson! :mrgreen: )

I am sure many including India have "expressed interest".Sure everyone wants to get an inside dekko at the tank and examine it thoroughly,especially the Chinese who will already be making models from available pics,ready to steal its plans,cheat and clone it without Russian approval,just as they did with the Flanker. But if any nation will be offered a first "test drive and first refusal",in order to seduce its army ,it will be India. Let's take an objective look at the issue and examine the chances of it arriving here.

The IA/GOI will want to see what major important differences are there between the Arjun-2 and the T-14. Which features on each tank score higher.Now that the A-2s trials are reportedly over,its parameters will have been established. The T-14 will also have to undergo unbiased trials to see whether it scores over the A-2 and by how much. To my mind,the potential of a larger and more powerful main gun ,which might appear on some production models will be a tempting carrot. Cost is a v.important factor,perhaps the most important. It is not a smaller T-90 which comes at a reasonable price which can and is being inducted in v.large numbers. It is as large/may be larger/heavier than even A-2. How this will also affect mobility/transportation is another factor.Will it fit into our C-17s and IL-76s? One expects that it is Il-76 compatible.Will it be able to ross over our existing bridges,culverts,ford canals,etc.,in the battle terrain from Kutch to Kashmir?

Unless it shows clear,major improvements and capabilities over the A-2,esp. in long-term upgradation as an FMBT,the Arjun lobby for producing more indigenous tanks will be a v.strong force to overcome.
What is also an unknown is the size of the future IA armoured corps,what the IA wants 2020 and beyond,type/capability of inventory ,etc. It is not an impossibility for both the A-2 and T-14 (Argument that will be trotted out: After all the IAF have got their Raffys,why must we in the IA not get our own Natashas?) to be bought/produced ,but then T-72 upgrades,T-90 numbers will have to be relooked at.Money is scarce. The IA like the IAF will have to "cut its coat according to the cloth".


I wholeheartedly agree. It needs to be put to the test against A-2. The IA will be a mean force with both tanks fighting alongside each other. A true symbol of India-Russia relations.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jun 2015 19:00

And per past glorious IA traditions, may the losing tank be bought in the thousands and the winning tank be asked to prepare a Mk-2 or 3 or 4!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 05 Jun 2015 19:08

:rotfl: :mrgreen: :rotfl:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 05 Jun 2015 19:13

arijitkm wrote:
arshyam wrote:^^Ah, but who will transport them? At 5'6", our railways already operate the widest gauge worldwide, and yet there were rumours about the Arjun being too big for rail transport. Bunkum, of course. And this Armata seems bigger and heavier.

Time to start building a new rail network with even wider gauge. We should be ready to embrace the future :lol:


And from Horse mouth India Interested in Purchasing Russia’s Armata – Putin’s Aide :rotfl:


To a great extent, at this point in time, it is a self-generated, self-preservation mechanism.

What has tossed a huge wrench is the URK land grab. As we all know that a large chunk of the Naval build out has been impacted - perhaps the most major non-economics related issue. Throw in "funds" .............. and the self preservation mechanism kicks in to say "India is impressed". To be expected.


I would expect some Indians, who owe something to the Russians (BR experts are exempt) , to pop their head and say they are impressed too.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 05 Jun 2015 19:49

Vivek K wrote:And per past glorious IA traditions, may the losing tank be bought in the thousands and the winning tank be asked to prepare a Mk-2 or 3 or 4!


The Armata is a game changer. It has a smoothbore which is far better than the rifled gun of the Arjun. The coating and overall finish is also more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. It will be a great addition to the forces. Give it time to sink in.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jun 2015 19:52

"The coating and overall finish is also more aesthetically pleasing to the eye."

Are we planning to defeat PLA and PA by our TFTA looks now?

When the Arjun never got a chance to sink in, why should another russki crap be given time? But on russi rakshak, that would be an acceptable response.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 05 Jun 2015 20:47

Armata import is essential to support "Label in India" movement.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jun 2015 20:53

Yes!! if we make billions of "labelled in India" labels we could defeat the Chinese Economy!! We may need to use these labels for spares though so that may be a problem for the IA. But the volume of labels would makes us the most labelled economy!!

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 05 Jun 2015 21:07

In fact all components cannot be made in India. So Armata from Russia, label from China, glue from France, consultancy to stick the label from Israel would give best combination.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7007
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Anujan » 05 Jun 2015 21:31

Armata does not stick out 6cm on either side of the tank carrier of Indian railways like how Arjun does. So railways will charge less to transport them.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 05 Jun 2015 21:39

Aramta appears Stalin tank redux.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 05 Jun 2015 21:43

Vivek K wrote:"The coating and overall finish is also more aesthetically pleasing to the eye."

Are we planning to defeat PLA and PA by our TFTA looks now?

When the Arjun never got a chance to sink in, why should another russki crap be given time? But on russi rakshak, that would be an acceptable response.


The Arjun is rather brutish. It's masculine aesthetics were carefully devised to hide its deficiencies below the turret. The Armata with its sleek and smooth exterior is more in tune with our culture. Inducting the Armata will actually go a long way toward alleviating the sexism that plagues the IA. It's a no brainer. Just accept it.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2482
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jun 2015 22:22

The Arjun is rather brutish. It's masculine aesthetics were carefully devised to hide its deficiencies below the turret. The Armata with its sleek and smooth exterior is more in tune with our culture. Inducting the Armata will actually go a long way toward alleviating the sexism that plagues the IA. It's a no brainer. Just accept it.

This is getting weirder by the minute. So masculinity is not in keeping with our culture?? Here's an idea - fire all the males and hire an all female army. That would take away the sexism in IA (never heard of it beofre this). With such pleasing aesthetics, who would want to fight us??

I am a little confused here! What are we discussing, tanks, aesthetics? What is more important in Tank warfare - looks or capabilties? I've never heard of the enemy running away because the opponent is feminine looking and their aesthetics are in keeping with the culture of a nation. Appearing brutish should be a good quality. [Admins, please delete my posts if you need to].


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests