Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 24 Feb 2016 09:35

Until recently China was making us look like fools and now even Iran. When will we stand on our own feet and put an end to this tamasha!

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 24 Feb 2016 10:05

The corrupt IA should read the disgraceful innuendo in the Russian's analysis. India has produced a much superior tank than the T90 but the morally bankrupt institution brings disgrace on the country by ordering 1000s of foreign junk over the Arjun.

Kudos to the Iranians for believing in themselves and understanding that wars cannot be fought with foreign weapons or screw driver produced assembled crap. God help the IA.
Last edited by hnair on 25 Feb 2016 08:17, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: No broad-brushing and abuse against IA. Warning issued

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2302
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Manish_P » 24 Feb 2016 11:10

@ Vivek K

I can understand your angst but would request you to please temper your language and avoid crass generalisations like referring to the entire IA as 'corrupt', 'morally bankrupt institution'.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1672
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 24 Feb 2016 23:20

@Vivek

I have sat with Indian Armoured Corps officers in their mess. I have seen them lose officers in a peacetime bridge crossing exercise.
There is nothing corrupt about what they do and nothing corrupt in their dealings.

There is very old mind-set that says Russian Tanks are the best. Their low silhouette will cause many of the tank fired shells to bounce or miss.
The make up of the machinery is simple, they understand the T Series like their mother.

And now what we are trying to do is make them believe that the Arjun can do better as well.
Its going to take some time.

There are many similarities between Tejas and Arjun.

The previous 2 years have been great for Tejas, I hope the next two are fruitful for Arjun too.
Meanwhile if you know any defence people, then influence their mindset even if they don't want to listen.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hitesh » 25 Feb 2016 03:22

Khalsa wrote:@Vivek

I have sat with Indian Armoured Corps officers in their mess. I have seen them lose officers in a peacetime bridge crossing exercise.
There is nothing corrupt about what they do and nothing corrupt in their dealings.

No but their mindset need to be changed for the good of our nation.

There is very old mind-set that says Russian Tanks are the best. Their low silhouette will cause many of the tank fired shells to bounce or miss.
The make up of the machinery is simple, they understand the T Series like their mother.


Unfortunately, the Battle of 73 Easting have shown otherwise. The t-72s were decimated despite local numerical superiority and dug in defenses. They were outgunned and outmanned and the low silhouette did diddly squat against the modern optics and superior firing acquisition technology which is now standard among MBTs of the world. Their mindset are dinosaurs and they need to move on into the 21st century warfare.

And now what we are trying to do is make them believe that the Arjun can do better as well.
Its going to take some time.

Have them interview the commanding officers and surviving soldiers of the Iraqi Tawakalna Republican Guard Division and their minds will change overnight.


The previous 2 years have been great for Tejas, I hope the next two are fruitful for Arjun too.
Meanwhile if you know any defence people, then influence their mindset even if they don't want to listen.[/quote]

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby hnair » 25 Feb 2016 08:18

Vivek K, warning issued for abusing the entire IA. Desist please

Everyone, please use the report feature, instead of answering in kind

kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby kmkraoind » 26 Feb 2016 23:22


TOW missile v T-90, direct hit: Probably first-ever footage from Syrian battleground.

The above video was taken from this https://www.rt.com/news/333729-tow-t90-hit-video/

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 27 Feb 2016 00:18

Manish_P wrote:@ Vivek K

I can understand your angst but would request you to please temper your language and avoid crass generalisations like referring to the entire IA as 'corrupt', 'morally bankrupt institution'.

Manish, it does not give pleasure to anyone to berate an institution that we have idolized all our lives. We have all cried over losses of brave men like Vikram Batra and Vijayant Thapar! We also donated our salaries so that the widows/families of our brave soldiers are cared for.

Patriotism cannot be blinded by the actions of the institution. No less a person than the army chief ordered the trials and the results (please also see the CAG's report) showed that despite attempts to handicap the Arjun in these trials, the Arjun came out as superior. So points like lower silhouette, familiarity with Russian tech are not germane to the discussion. When the head of the IA ordered the trials and yet the institution did not place a mass order of Arjuns and instead ordered a 1000 additional T-90, what does one understand from this action?

Banning me will not help correct the injustice. India's future abilities will be impacted if T-90 orders are not shelved and replaced with Arjuns. History will mock India and the Chinese will be the direct beneficiaries of this action of the IA.

The board warning issued to me just evidences our inability to call a spade a spade. We hide behind blind patriotism to the extent that we become apologists for the actions of a few that bring disgrace to a proud nation.

member_29172
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_29172 » 27 Feb 2016 10:14

I do agree with Vivek, more than calling the army corrupt however, call the specific people involved corrupt. Moreover, little to no effort has been done from BRF's side to promote Arjun and bring out the facts. BRF never generates ideas, it either moans and whines or keeps posting the same old same old India bashing farticles from the same old suspects of bbc, randee tv and so on.

Generating idea and educating the local populace/morons who read some crap about DRDO and start whining about it, should be our major aim.
Yes, we know the truth, Yes we are fans of weapon systems and genuinely interested in where we are headed but we are nothing more than an isolated island till we don't spread our ideas to the outer internet. TOI is one of the top ten pages in alexa ranking, where is BRF?

How can you possibly expect our ideas to be heard and the real voice of citizens be heard when a propaganda tool is much more read than BRF?

The onus of educating common people is on us, make infographs, write blogs, create websites, publish books. My comment might seem like a tangent but a lot of these silly arguments would be avoided if our side of the story is concretized and spread religiously. I mean common it's DDM we are going against, they have no technical knowledge, they don't know the difference between a Su-30 and a F-18.

The wall of BS created by these worthies would take much to crumble. I would request everyone to collaborate on knowledge creation and gathering facts and figures for the sole purpose of educating online viewers and newbies.

And again, to Vivek, calling the entire Army corrupt won't be fair, the upper echelon, certainly.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 28 Feb 2016 04:09

Data point.

U.S.-made missile goes up against one of Russia’s most advanced tanks




WATCH: U.S.-made missile goes up against one of Russia’s most advanced tanks
Resize Text Print Article Comments Book mark article Read later list
Saved to Reading List
By Thomas Gibbons-Neff February 26 at 4:40 PM

In a video posted to YouTube Friday, Syrian rebels appear to have filmed themselves firing for the first time a U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missile at a Russian T-90 tank.

According to the video’s caption, the TOW strike occurred in the Syrian town of Sheikh Aqil, a suburb just northwest of Aleppo.

The BGM-71 TOW is an aging wire-guided anti-tank missile system that the United States has been supplying to CIA-vetted Syrian rebels. Since their first appearance in 2014, the missiles have popped up throughout the war-torn country, often in videos showing rebels attacking Syrian troops and government-backed militias.

[This highly advanced U.S.-made anti-tank missile could now be on Syria’s frontlines]

Friday’s video is significant because there is very little footage, if any, of a U.S. TOW going up against one of Russia’s most modern battle tanks. In this case, it is unclear if the T-90 in the video was crewed by Russian or Syrian troops. When Russia first began pumping equipment and personnel into northern Syria in September 2015, there were confirmed reports of the T-90s at Russia’s airfield in Latakia, though they were likely only there to defend the airfield. Russia has supplied various other types of tanks to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad’s military. However, the arrival of the T-90s in September was the first shipment of its kind in the almost five year-old war.

In November 2015, the tanks appeared well to the east of Latakia, near Aleppo. Around the same time, a report from Al-Masdar Al-‘Arabi news indicated that a small detachment of T-90s was given to a Syrian Army mechanized unit to help with current offensive operations in the region. In recent weeks, the advanced battle tanks were filmed during a CNN segment on the outskirts of Raqqa.


In the video, the missile appears to strike the turret of the tank. As mentioned on other blogs, the T-90 appears to be equipped with a Shtora–a device designed to disrupt incoming wired-guided and infrared guided missiles, much like the TOW. In this case, it appears the system failed or wasn’t active. Though the video shows the tank’s crew member bailing out, it looks like the strike did not penetrate the turret and potentially glanced off. T-90 tanks are covered in what is called “reactive armor.” The armor serves an outer shell to the tank’s hull that, when struck, counter-detonates to disrupt the flight of the incoming enemy missile. Reactive armor can be mounted on various other tanks and is not unique to the T-90. However, the T-90’s reactive armor is likely a more advanced version of the types found on older Russian and Syrian tanks.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 28 Feb 2016 05:01

Was it tow-2 pr 2a?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20712
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 28 Feb 2016 13:39

Reports posted earlier indicate a continuous game of improving tank armour by newer ERA tiles/panels vs improves ATGMs like TOW. These have been used not only on the latest versions of T-90s but also on upgraded T-72s.If the crew survived the hit as indicated,then it proves the statement that latest Ru ERA tiles are sufficient protection against current known western ATGMs.Perhaps this could be the new Kaktus armour or Relikt,said to be twice as effective as Kontaakt-5.

Russian export MBTs generally had a lower std. of armour compared with those in service with the Ru Army.Here's an old Janes' report.
IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION" By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz (self.wargame)

Being a huge fan of armored decks, I found this to be an interesting read:
Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"
By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."


Kontakt-5:



Kontakt-5 is a type of third-generation explosive reactive armour (ERA) originating in the Soviet Union. It is the first type of ERA which is effectively able to defeat modern armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds.

Introduced on the T-80U tank in 1985, Kontakt-5 is made up of "bricks" of explosive sandwiched between two metal plates. The plates are arranged in such a way as to move sideways rapidly when the explosive detonates. This will force an incoming kinetic energy penetrator or shaped charge jet to cut through more armour than the thickness of the plating itself, since "new" plating is constantly fed into the penetrating body. A kinetic energy penetrator will also be subjected to powerful sideways forces, which might be large enough to cut the rod into two or more pieces. This will significantly reduce the penetrating capabilities of the penetrator, since the penetrating force will be dissipated over a larger volume of armour.

Newer KE penetrators like the US M829A2, and now M829A3, have been improved to defeat the armor design of Kontakt-5. The M829A2 was the immediate response. The M829A3 is a further improvement of this as well.

Image i - The advanced Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour on this Indian Army T-90S is arranged in pairs of plates with a triangular profile


https://www.reddit.com/r/wargame/commen ... nds_up_to/

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 03 Mar 2016 14:49

Test Firing of New Tank Ammunition for Arjun MBT MOD Press

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) successfully conducted test firing of new tank ammunition Pene¬¬tration-Cum Blast (PCB) and Thermobaric (TB) Ammunition, specially designed for Arjun Tank at Chandipur, Odisha on 6th Jan 2016. The trials were found to be very effective and the damage was devastating with the firing of ammunition successfully destroying the target tank and severely damaging its turret, barrel, tracks, ammunition bin, various sights, antennas etc. The ammunitions have been developed by Pune based DRDO laboratories Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) and High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL). An innovative chemical composition has been developed by HEMRL after extensive research for the TB ammunition. During the development phase, these ammunitions were extensively evaluated against different simulated targets viz., armour plates, concrete structures and fortifications. The trials were conducted jointly with Army and was aimed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the ammunitions on derelict tank fitted with instrumentation to measure the shocks, blast pressure and temperature at various locations and on advanced imaging systems. The trials were unique as for the first time such evaluation is carried out in India which will give a quantum jump in the fire-power of Arjun tanks.

The technical trials were witnessed by Directors of HEMRL & PXE, Director DQRS, Army representatives and other senior officials from DRDO.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1954
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 03 Mar 2016 18:07

My understanding of TB weapon is that an initial charge creates a cloud of inflammable substance and a second charge ignites it - using up oxygen and creating a vacuum.

I can understand thermobaric against buildings, but how does it work against another tank ? If it explodes outside the tank, how would the tank be affected ?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 03 Mar 2016 18:19

srin wrote:My understanding of TB weapon is that an initial charge creates a cloud of inflammable substance and a second charge ignites it - using up oxygen and creating a vacuum.

I can understand thermobaric against buildings, but how does it work against another tank ? If it explodes outside the tank, how would the tank be affected ?


The answer is in the press report itself. Basically, it will rip out a chunk of the external sensors mounted on the turret. Also, damage to main gun, tracks etc. This would mean that MBT would be fighting "blind"/"sitting duck" (i.e. at a much degraded capacity) after a TB round hit.

Austin wrote:Test Firing of New Tank Ammunition for Arjun MBT (MOD Press)

...The trials were found to be very effective and the damage was devastating with the firing of ammunition successfully destroying the target tank and severely damaging its turret, barrel, tracks, ammunition bin, various sights, antennas etc. ...
Last edited by srai on 03 Mar 2016 18:21, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 03 Mar 2016 18:21

^^ Nice. This is lateral thinking. M-kill the opponent tank.

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby raghava » 03 Mar 2016 19:58

They must manufacture these TB rounds in huge numbers...

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 » 03 Mar 2016 20:12

And you do not need to hit weak areas to work...just exploding anywhere near a tank is good enough

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby raghava » 03 Mar 2016 21:40

Singha wrote:...just exploding anywhere near a tank is good enough


... and if what Singha saar says is correct, we may soon see this Thermo Baric Explosive in arty rounds, mortar shells, and IAF dumb and smart bombs

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Prem Kumar » 03 Mar 2016 22:39

Thermobaric explosives (also known as FAE - Fuel Air Explosives) have been known for a while. IAF even has thermobaric weapons. But what I think has happened here is that they have miniaturized it to fit into a tank shell.

Its a brilliant idea - hit the tank at its weakest spot & mission kill it! More bang for the buck than building better kinetic penetrators. Also, since thermobaric weapons are "area weapons", the resulting explosion will likely engulf the tank, taking out multiple exposed systems in one go!


It can also be used in artillery shells, with this miniaturization. Will puncture the eardrums/lungs of any hidden infantry - essentially mission-killing them too

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2342
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby VinodTK » 07 Mar 2016 17:04

Tata Motors enters agreement with two others for infantry combat vehicle project worth Rs 50, 000 crore
Tata Motors Ltd. along with Bharat Forge Ltd. and the US-based General Dynamics Land Systems will develop the future infantry combat vehicle (FICV) for the Indian armed forces, the company said on Monday.

In a statement Tata Motors said an agreement has been signed with Bharat Forge and General Dynamics for this purpose.

The FICV will replace the Indian Army's fleet of 2610 Russian-designed BMP (Sarath BMP-II) series armed vehicles, that are in operation since 1980.

According to the statement, Tata Motors will bring its design, development and integration of mobility platform strengths to the table while Bharat Forge will bring on board its competence with fighting platforms and manufacturing strengths.

On its part General Dynamics will bring its expertise and system of systems integration.

According to the statement, FICV is a high mobility armoured battle vehicle for infantry soldiers and will be compact, tracked and amphibious.

The vehicle will not weigh more than 18-20 tons and will be air-portable.

The firing range of the anti-tank missile will be beyond four kilometres and with capability to carry a three-member crew and eight combat-kitted infantrymen.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 07 Mar 2016 17:17

VinodTK wrote:Tata Motors enters agreement with two others for infantry combat vehicle project worth Rs 50, 000 crore
...

The firing range of the anti-tank missile will be beyond four kilometres and with capability to carry a three-member crew and eight combat-kitted infantrymen.


Probably should standardized on NAG ATGM. Have a common mount that has provisions for ready-to-fire 1 or 2 NAG missiles. This missile, its seeker(s) and various components have weathered through IA's rigorous (and really long) trials in Indian conditions. It should be the primary choice.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 624
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rajsunder » 07 Mar 2016 22:50

Khalsa wrote:@Vivek

I have sat with Indian Armoured Corps officers in their mess. I have seen them lose officers in a peacetime bridge crossing exercise.
There is nothing corrupt about what they do and nothing corrupt in their dealings.

There is very old mind-set that says Russian Tanks are the best. Their low silhouette will cause many of the tank fired shells to bounce or miss.
The make up of the machinery is simple, they understand the T Series like their mother.

And now what we are trying to do is make them believe that the Arjun can do better as well.
Its going to take some time.

There are many similarities between Tejas and Arjun.

The previous 2 years have been great for Tejas, I hope the next two are fruitful for Arjun too.
Meanwhile if you know any defence people, then influence their mindset even if they don't want to listen.

No one is questioning the Armored Core officers, but those officers who join russian companies as consultants and the procurement officers who will buy tin cans even after they have defects but want ARJUN to be 100% defect free before even ordering them.

We have even seen the proof of step brotherly treatment in the CAG report.
Last edited by rajsunder on 07 Mar 2016 23:22, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 07 Mar 2016 23:08

There is very old mind-set that says Russian Tanks are the best. Their low silhouette will cause many of the tank fired shells to bounce or miss.
The make up of the machinery is simple, they understand the T Series like their mother


With all due respect, do these Officers think that technology does not advance? Even the Indian Nag is a top attack missile. So much for "silhouette", etc.

I am no expert on such matters, but, I would no be surprised if the dialogue has moved to first-sight, first-fire model.

And, of course, in urban areas every thing changes.

Familiarity with the machine should matter, but even there the Russians themselves have moved on.

Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Ganesh_S » 07 Mar 2016 23:50

NRao wrote:Data point.

U.S.-made missile goes up against one of Russia’s most advanced tanks

The BGM-71 TOW is an aging wire-guided anti-tank missile system that the United States has been supplying to CIA-vetted Syrian rebels. Since their first appearance in 2014, the missiles have popped up throughout the war-torn country, often in videos showing rebels attacking Syrian troops and government-backed militias.


OT. Not sure if this was some kind of bravado about US weapons superiority but gives an impression of how boldly US is willing to conduct its foreign policy in the region.

In the current geopolitical scenario it becomes an acceptable narrative...the one which our neighbors keep flaunting abt time and again. No surprises the US turns a blind eye and continue the Supply of goodies to its partners in crime.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1672
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 08 Mar 2016 03:53

rajsunder wrote:
Khalsa wrote:@Vivek
I have sat with Indian Armoured Corps officers in their mess. I have seen them lose officers in a peacetime bridge crossing exercise.
There is nothing corrupt about what they do and nothing corrupt in their dealings.


No one is questioning the Armored Core officers, but those officers who join russian companies as consultants and the procurement officers who will buy tin cans even after they have defects but want ARJUN to be 100% defect free before even ordering them.

We have even seen the proof of step brotherly treatment in the CAG report.



Yes I agree with you.
However we should question all officers. No one is beyond inspection, in the army , as the army used to say.

All right here is my rather simplistic second gear solution to the countering the approach of the Tin Can Lobby.

First of all we need to stop adopting the mindset of Amreeka or Roosiya when building desi weapons. We are not major industrial design and manufacturing power house yet with all functions from A to Z.
We are bred to dismiss anything designed by us.
Tejas.... arre bakwaas plane , Druv come on yaar. Honestly I kick myself at the fact how the goras have given us our mindset where we actually keep ourselves from progressing further by dismissing it ourselves.
The F-35 program has dissing articiles written about it by every press in the world.
The Tejas program... nope just us. We are the only ones dissing our LCA. No BBC or ABC or CNN has written a massively crtitical article about Tejas or Dhruv.
The chinese actually managed to put two articles praising LCA and Arjun with a decent critique.

Anyway moving back to the point.

Think like Israel... the Mekrava concept was born and bred in the minds of Israeli Armoured Corps officers. Why because they were the ones the country believed in.
So the soldiers became the forefront or the face of design and construction or Mekrava , but they were not just poster boys.
They forged , constructed and above all DEFENDED the Mekrava with civilians.

What the Arjun group needs to do is increase participation of the Army Armoured Corps Officers by leaps and bounds. I do not know the current level and if I don't that means its not creating the ripples we need it to.
Go for the retired officers first, leave the serving officers. We breed incompetency sometimes by telling them to tow the line and not think differently. So go for the retired ones. They are free of the line of command and are slightly more open.

Pay them more and form a core group that is responsible for making subtle , surface changes to the tank and then drive the changes deep down if opportunities arise.
Project these officers massively above their actual punching weight. (this is your marketing area).

Now force the govt to force the army to create a joint unit which is an experimental unit designed to evolve the Arjun into Mk3 or FMBT.
This will be the turning point because no way the will the Russians be willing or able to set up an experimental unit here to evolve the T-90 into what ever their next generation tank is called.
Now they will create their own product, they will be stakeholders of the first order.

No CAG report , No nothing will stop the MARCH of the Arjuns then.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 08 Mar 2016 04:06

^^^

That is where private company would do well--marketing and sales. Public companies have a tendency to fail miserably when it comes to promoting their products to the end users. For one, they don't even have properly staffed and funded marketing/sales/lobby team.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20712
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 08 Mar 2016 10:26

Our patchy performance DPSUs have studiously kept out pvt. industry for decades,wanting them to be captive suppliers of individual components. I know some cos ,who also export a lot,fed up with the DRDO for all its 'talk and talk". However,things are changing rapidly.We've today's report about Tatas and Kalyani linking up for the FICV with GM providing expertise as well.This is the way,same method used for BMos,etc.,'cept that here it is a pvt. entity which is entering the field.Competition will be from L&T. There are a number of new players who are accelerating their def product production ,esp in aerospace.

Add to this piece of news is another item that the GOI has no plans of disinvesting HAL,BEL,whatever.This is also good news as profitmaking giant DPSUs,-never mind HAL's book-keeping acrobatics,are the "family jewels" and must never be sold off. They should be managed better with a focus on their core capabilities.Pvt. industry can take up the slack and extra workload if they have too much on their plate. The LTA,MTA,100 seater passr. jet,etc.,are some of the projects that can be turned over to pvt. industry .

Nevertheless,I don't see MBT prod being released to the pvt. sector. Arty.,yes,is being done. Avadi has a huge orderbook on its plate and the MOD needs to finalise the second batch of Arjuns asap to keep that prod. line active.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19516
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Mar 2016 13:54

Khalsa wrote:Think like Israel... the Mekrava concept was born and bred in the minds of Israeli Armoured Corps officers. Why because they were the ones the country believed in.
So the soldiers became the forefront or the face of design and construction or Mekrava , but they were not just poster boys.
They forged , constructed and above all DEFENDED the Mekrava with civilians.

What the Arjun group needs to do is increase participation of the Army Armoured Corps Officers by leaps and bounds. I do not know the current level and if I don't that means its not creating the ripples we need it to.
Go for the retired officers first, leave the serving officers. We breed incompetency sometimes by telling them to tow the line and not think differently. So go for the retired ones. They are free of the line of command and are slightly more open.

Pay them more and form a core group that is responsible for making subtle , surface changes to the tank and then drive the changes deep down if opportunities arise.
Project these officers massively above their actual punching weight. (this is your marketing area).


DRDO did that. The gent who led the Arjun program was a rtd IA Major General.

IA response was to accuse these folks of 'having forgotten the olive green' when they refused to tow the IA line vis a vis the Arjun.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 08 Mar 2016 14:36

Absolutely no idea, therefore I suspect that MP was able to bring various parties to the table because the LCA lack a group within India that strongly supports a foreign products. He is unable to overcome such a lobby for the Russian tank.

???????

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 08 Mar 2016 19:52

These love and affection for imports (while ignoring routine essential buys like BPJs) is guided and controlled from Major General and up levels who are mostly acting on Political Mandate.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1672
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 09 Mar 2016 00:12

Karan M wrote:DRDO did that. The gent who led the Arjun program was a rtd IA Major General.
IA response was to accuse these folks of 'having forgotten the olive green' when they refused to tow the IA line vis a vis the Arjun.


Karan, yes I believe I remember this fella.
Did he have a a photo of him standing next to Colonel Ajay Shukla in the factory or at the range or something ?

Recruit more. Recruit many more of these retired generals.
How many would you like ? Chandigarh is awash with them in the morning as they seek to exercise their lungs with morning walks and jogs :D

Stand up a gang of them, put a dozen generals together and I tell you what. They will feel like they are back in the fight.
Let the army accuse them of not towing the line for months, years, decades. Change will come Change will come.

Its a mentality change it will take time.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 09 Mar 2016 00:45

Khalsa, that is where I disagree with you. It is not a mentality change but pure and simple corruption. The betrayals here rank with those that led to the East India Company's take over of India.

Call a spade a spade!

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1672
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 09 Mar 2016 05:12

Even then my answer stands...... buy a dozen of them and corrupt them with the Arjun Bug.
;-)

Yep I agree with you, however at the upper echelons. Yes corruption begins there, lives there.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54392
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 09 Mar 2016 05:32

Its related to Congress milking all arms purchases.
So need to concentrate on CBM.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rkhanna » 09 Mar 2016 09:42

Its a brilliant idea - hit the tank at its weakest spot & mission kill it! More bang for the buck than building better kinetic penetrators. Also, since thermobaric weapons are "area weapons", the resulting explosion will likely engulf the tank, taking out multiple exposed systems in one go!


Question for Gurus, (not a physics major ;P) but wouldn a TB round still be able to damage a Tank even with a Shotra/Arena type weapon in play specially if the Warhead can Proximity detonate?

Also aside from the tank its aimed at the resulting blast wave would also hit any Dismounted Infantry and Soft Skinned Vehicles in close vicinity of the targeted tank no?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1672
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 09 Mar 2016 23:41

ramana wrote:Its related to Congress milking all arms purchases.
So need to concentrate on CBM.


CBM ?
Confidence Building Measures ?

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nirav » 10 Mar 2016 00:49

Khalsa wrote:Its a mentality change it will take time.


I have long held a view that mentality can be altered or set in a specific direction when the attempt is made at the right time.

imvho, the best time frame to impress and channel young armed forces men and women to support indigenization is in their formative/training years. Right at the academy.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1672
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 10 Mar 2016 04:23

that would be hard to do when the academy is run by people who do not have the mentality we need(want)

let me clarify the Armoured Corps Training School would have the crem dela crem of Regiments that are equipped with T-Series.
How then these confident, masters of their craft instructors suddenly start worshipping desi maal.

Now to counter myself I do know the school has a squadron of Arjun and they were so reluctant to pick it up.



Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests