Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 28 Apr 2017 11:50

>>DRDO need to listen to the IA
>>CVRDE would be best advised to sit with the IA
So where did the ASR for Arjun come from?

Ramana saar, sorry to be blunt but what Philip says here is utter rubbish. The only insight that is provided here is how DGMF decides to subvert the purchase process to benefit the Russian lobby. It is a right shame and any serving/retired officer who turns up on this thread to defend their actions must first be asked to explain how Babus could subvert the acquisition of an MBT DESPITE the IA being clearly the party that is giving the DRDO a BS set of ASRs and updates.

RohitAM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 21:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby RohitAM » 29 Apr 2017 01:20

Would the DGMF like their DRDO-designed new tank (or Arjun Mk-II) to be like the USS Defiant in dimensions with Borg-defeating USS Enterprise technology, while they themselves import the equivalent of a transport freighter with sub-warp capabilities and obsolete technology?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52803
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 29 Apr 2017 02:18

Phillip, You are a long standing memebr here. Now ask them why the engines could not be replicated after so many Vijayanta, T-72, and T-90s? You think its the DROD fault or the limits of the technology transfer agreement?

Also a T- series tank wont be an Indian tank. It will be a Russian tank with Indian features. When such a tanka appears the first comment will be why should we buy(!) this unproven Indian tank when we can import ready tested Russian tank!!!!

Sorry wont cut ice with me.
They dont want Indian made tank.

I would like the officers who made those 93 improvements and 13 changes to stand up and say why they did that hwne they had no acceptance authority?Will they do that?

Atleast one of them?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52803
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 29 Apr 2017 02:20

One member with less than 50 posts has reported me!!

Go ahead why don't you make your arguments instead of hidden from view of others reporting?

Anothe guy makes threats on twitter to report BRF to authorities for LCA thread.

Claimms he was long standing memebr here and doenst like the flow here.

I don't recall even one post by that person either.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2637
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 29 Apr 2017 05:02

Ramana saar,

It could be me, I am not sure. To be honest, I didnt like the tone and tenor of post. However, the 'report' click was more late night exploration to see what happens while reporting or if moderators can be reported. I dont remember if I clicked second stage.

In any case, I would like to apologise publicly. Hope you let it pass.

Thanks
Arjun

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2637
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 29 Apr 2017 05:12

OT: Mods please delete if need be.
What i did not like in the comment was
ramana wrote:
The armored corps does not want to fight.
They want to be in parades in New Delhi.

Obviously, I dont have even a fraction of your posts. However, this is certainly not true. Reading this on a day when a 3 bravehearts were martyred by 3 cheap terrorists, was a bit too much.
Again, I have an memory lapse, and I still dont remember if i reported you or not, but such aspersions on a highly professional force is not done. You are correct to criticize them on their unfair evaluation trials, unrealistic specs, partiality visible on the face of it, but being a senior member I am sure you know the quoted statement is not correct.
My or someone else having <50 posts at that time does not make him or me any less patriotic than you.
While I stand firm on my point, I dont mind apologizing for wasting mod's time on a silly thing.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52803
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 29 Apr 2017 05:18

Ok. No problem.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 29 Apr 2017 10:20

ramana wrote:One member with less than 50 posts has reported me!!

Go ahead why don't you make your arguments instead of hidden from view of others reporting?

Anothe guy makes threats on twitter to report BRF to authorities for LCA thread.

Claimms he was long standing memebr here and doenst like the flow here.

I don't recall even one post by that person either.

ramana I recall niravs posts very well. He would get upset at insults heaped on the armed forces. His mistake was to talk on Twitter instead of acting.

But when one gets really upset at a person's post the forum rules encourage reporting rather than making an insulting retort.

If forum administrators see a complaint about a post they do not send messages to the complainer and complainee asking why they need secrecy and why they should not slug it out in the open. You know very well that slugging it out in the open can earn both people warnings. Slugging it out in the open with a forum admin will earn only one person a warning. I mean it is ironic that we are discussing this parallel with Chinese psyche - where we find out what happens to those who disagree with the CCP and still follow the rules.

Unfortunately you as the seniormost and longest surviving forum admin, privy to complaints has done exactly that - ie the "Throw a challenge" and forced the hand of the complainer as if it is his fault for not being open.

May I also point out that there are forum lurkers who have lurked for 8-10 years and then joined. They may have only a few posts to their credit. How is that a qualifying or disqualifying factor?

When I saw the comment
The armored corps does not want to fight.
They want to be in parades in New Delhi.

..my first reaction was :"And you know all this because...?"

Do you have an anwser to that question sir. Let us all discuss this in the open

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19935
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 29 Apr 2017 11:25

Ramanna,given the large number of licence built AVs/MBTs, one must ask the Q why we did not ask for TOT for key items like engines,esp since Arjun has so many imported components. The point I was trying to make was that given the IA's predeliction for smaller T-series MBTs, which can be moved to fight on any terrain instead of heavyweight Arjuns,why there was no attempt at developing our own 3 man MBT with improvements over the T-72/T-90,or incremental improvements as we've made with MIG-21s,etc.? The flaw lies with those who framed the contract.Given that we've acquired/acquiring almost 3000 T-series MBTs, the Q needs to be asked.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8071
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 29 Apr 2017 11:50

The armoured corps IMO is split on the Arjun.

On the one hand they want improvements to it which add weight. But on the other hand they want the tank to loose weight.

I hope that nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Has the IA come with the GSQR for the FMBT and specified what capabilities are being sought by them for MBT in 2030s and beyond. As the 72s will no longer be supportable beyond that time.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 29 Apr 2017 14:05

Philip wrote:Ramanna,given the large number of licence built AVs/MBTs, one must ask the Q why we did not ask for TOT for key items like engines,esp since Arjun has so many imported components. The point I was trying to make was that given the IA's predeliction for smaller T-series MBTs, which can be moved to fight on any terrain instead of heavyweight Arjuns,why there was no attempt at developing our own 3 man MBT with improvements over the T-72/T-90,or incremental improvements as we've made with MIG-21s,etc.? The flaw lies with those who framed the contract.Given that we've acquired/acquiring almost 3000 T-series MBTs, the Q needs to be asked.

Did not ask for TOT?
Please support your argument with any one open source document, including CAG reports. MTU had exactly 124 on order over seven whole years, not even spares until that line item was cleared. Why weren't orders for 1000 placed when requirements were projected at higher numbers? Name one company that will do TOT for 200 engines. Three man MBT, Sir? You have Insider knowledge on this requirement, one assumes. FMBT is four man crew, with 50 ton and no auto loader. Is it possible? I'm happy to be proven wrong, and even more happier if DG has approved acquisition. Babus will get on any gravy train but IA surely understands ten years of concept development and seven more of trials and so on. After all, they managed to do a ten year trial cycle with MK 1 itself! Let's keep aside notions of propriety aside and bring open info to the table. Am here to learn so would like you to share links instead of Russian propagandu.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 880
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ParGha » 29 Apr 2017 16:19

Pratyush wrote:The armoured corps IMO is split on the Arjun. On the one hand they want improvements to it which add weight. But on the other hand they want the tank to loose weight.


Then the solution is two types of tanks: a heavy 60+ ton "heavy cavalry" to slug it out on the politically sensitive Punjab+Jammu sector, and a lighter ~40 ton "medium cavalry" for Rajasthan, Ladakh, Sikkim and expeditionary missions.

The heavy type doesn't need a lot of range, but needs exceptional fire-power, protection and ability to move in paddy-fields; Arjun MK 2 should aim to fill this role for 3-5 armored brigades. The medium cavalry needs firepower, range/fuel-efficiency and be easily maintainable; T-90 and T-72s for now, and a Japanese Type 10 inspired modern medium tank for the future. Even there the T-90 and Type-10 inspired design need to be put on a diet to bring them down to T-72 weight range with modern materials.

India is too big and diverse terrain- and threat-wise to have a one solution that fits all.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 29 Apr 2017 16:36

in concert a massive fleet of 1000 gunships a mix of Rudra and LCH. with 6 or 8 ATGMs each, they can play havoc on enemy movements at night.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2637
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 29 Apr 2017 20:33

Singha wrote:in concert a massive fleet of 1000 gunships a mix of Rudra and LCH. with 6 or 8 ATGMs each, they can play havoc on enemy movements at night.

Certianly but seems like it will be a long time when we will have these in 1000s. Also, we should add Apache to this list as well. LCH and Rudra should be mass produced for deterence/dissuasion purpose, especially on chinese front.

However, the current orders are only 179 for LCH (could not find if contract has been signed). Hopefully, it is increased and production rates are increased

Srutayus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 05:53

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Srutayus » 29 Apr 2017 22:20

hope that nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark

One does hope that the bias against indegenous products stems from institutional and other causes, rather than from actual corrupt practices.

But we have seen an army chief who was offered a bribe in his office in a manner that suggests that this was not an exceptional thing, an Air Force chief and his family who almost certainly were involved in a corrupt procurement process, the painful videos from the sting 10 years ago where money, material and sexual benefits were being traded for influencing the procurement process etc.

All these issues, institutional as well as others, absolutely need to be tackled for modernization and capability building to proceed.
Tackling such issues in the Army is very tricky due to morale issues that could result, perception issues and the political fallout. But we do need to talk about it as a first step.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 01 May 2017 08:11

It's armoured corps day today

It was the armoured corps that held Zojila in 1948
It was the armoured corps that took the brunt of the Paki attack in the Chhamb sector in 1965
It was the armoured corps that won the battle Asal Uttar for us in 1965
It was the armoured corps using light amphibious tanks that helped the Indian assault in Bangladesh in 1971

Let us have a sense of perspective before throwing out casual derogatory remarks about our own
Image
Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52803
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 01 May 2017 10:19

1 May is Indian Armored Corps day.
Celebrate the victories in 1965 and 1971 wars.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 01 May 2017 11:22

Major Atma Singh the fac in a humble hal krishak seems to have played a pivotal role in longewalla...guiding the maruts and hunters to target.

What platform does that role now? Can we use the new prop trainer with extra fuel tanks for this?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19935
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 01 May 2017 11:23

Dear Martin,it was in the media,FMBT reqs. given to the dRDO (3-man crew,upgunned main gun,weight,etc.) and CVRDE said "it was impossible".During Dr.Saraswat's tenure.

India's future main battle tank now grapples with a weight issue ...
http://www.business-standard.com/.../in ... -with-a-...
Jan 3, 2012 - While insisting that the DRDO's 60-tonne Arjun tank weighs too much to ... The army wants the FMBT to weigh just 50 tonnes while bettering all the Arjun's features. ... who will develop the FMBT, say it is impossible to build the FMBT 15 ... finalisation of the FMBT's Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirements ...

Subsequent to that report,there have been further reports some posted here:

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... surprised/
Army invites proposals for building tanks, DRDO surprised
DRDO officials are stunned by the Army's RFI and are wondering why it was issued when it is already working on it.


By: Press Trust of India | New Delhi | Published:June 26, 2015 5:19 pm
DRDO, DRDO officials, Army DRDO differences, Arjun tank, Army RFI, Righ to information, Army DRDO, DRDO RFI, India latest news The Army has earlier been at loggerheads with the DRDO over the Arjun tank that it had developed.
Intending to replace Soviet-origin Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), the Army has invited proposals from domestic and foreign firms for manufacturing ‘Future Ready Combat Vehicle’ (FRCV) tanks, significantly at a time when DRDO is already working on such a project.
The Army has issued a Request for Information (RFI) inviting responses from companies by July 31 to manufacture tanks which will replace the T-72 tanks, official sources said. The RFI is open to both domestic and foreign firms.
According to the Army, the best design will be chosen and given to nominated developing agency for production of the prototypes. The selected prototype will be given to production agency for bulk production.

No full-time DRDO chief, 6 major decisions stay stuckTank TroubleArmy places fresh order for 124 more Arjun tanksGovt announces new Defence Tech CommissionArjun vs T 90: Tank trials to kick off next monthWhat went wrong with LCA,Arjun Tank,Akash missileNo full-time DRDO chief, 6 major decisions stay stuckTank TroubleArmy places fresh order for 124 more Arjun tanksGovt announces new Defence Tech CommissionArjun vs T 90: Tank trials to kick off next monthWhat went wrong with LCA,Arjun Tank,Akash missileNo full-time DRDO chief, 6 major decisions stay stuckTank TroubleArmy places fresh order for 124 more Arjun tanksGovt announces new Defence Tech CommissionArjun vs T 90: Tank trials to kick off next monthWhat went wrong with LCA,Arjun Tank,Akash missile

The move is significant as the country’s premier defence research agency DRDO is already working on a futuristic tank — Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT).
The Army has earlier been at loggerheads with the DRDO over the Arjun tank that it had developed.
Defence experts hold the view that if the Army goes in for a foreign tank, it will spoil the indigenous effort of nearly 30 years of designing and building the Arjun tank that can be used for making the next-generation tank.
Asked about Army’s RFI, Director of DRDO’s Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE), which is working
on the FMBT, told PTI, “We have a long-term perspective plan from the Army. We are working on the technolgy development and will continue with it”.
DRDO officials are stunned by the Army’s RFI and are wondering why it was issued when it is already working on it.
They are hoping that the Ministry of Defence, which has been pushing for ‘Make in India’, will look into the issue.
A senior official noted, “DRDO has been doing well with the Air Force and the Navy but always hits a roadblock when it comes to the Army”.
Meanwhile, Army sources maintained that the RFI is open to all and even the DRDO can take part.


http://www.defproac.com/?p=2461
*PLease check out this feature on the IA's new FRCV requirement which has replaced the FMBT requirement.
A few points.Tank weight about 50T,"medium category".Modular,which can accommodate the IA's specific needs anywhere where required,climate,terrain,etc.,where the MBTs physical dimensions allow transportability on existing infrastructure,bridges,etc. including civvy bridges "on both sides of the intl. border"!
Spin off of a family of AVs based upon the basic concept. Will replace T-72 series MBTs.
V.high all-round protection needed.Tank's firepower well-matched with contemp. MBTs.Variety of munitions

Pl. read the entire article,as it explains the pros and cons of the various trade-offs required in arriving at a conceptual solution. One should study the T-14's concept/detail;s in parallel with the FRCV,to see whether the Ru MBT has solved some of the design issues raised in this analysis of the desi FRCV requirement. If the report is accurate,then a whole new concept for a platform for a family of AVs,a la Armata is envisaged.
The T-14 may not be suitable for us given our own unique requirements,but may possess some elements which our FRCV could incorporate.
What is abundantly clear is that the tank's weight cannot exceed approx. 50t

*For comparison: The T-14s firepower,ammunition /missile options.Wiki.
The 2A82-1M 125 mm smoothbore cannon can fire high-powered munitions, including armor-piercing discarding sabot projectiles, guided missiles, shaped-charges and other types of munitions.[21] The Vacuum-1 sabot round, developed for the 2A82-1M gun, has a penetrator that is 900 mm long,[2] and is capable of penetrating 1,000 mm of RHA equivalent at a distance of 2,000 meters.[22][23][24] The new controlled-detonation Telnik HE-Frag shell is also available and has entered service.[25][26] The gun is also capable of firing guided missiles like the 9M119M1 Invar-M which has an effective range of 100 m to 5km and can penetrate about 900 millimetres (37 in) of steel armour and can also engage low-flying air targets such as helicopters.[27] a feature first implemented on 1960s Soviet tanks, with a new 3UBK21 Sprinter ATGM developed specifically for it. These missiles can be used for air defense.[11]

The secondary armament consists of a 12.7 mm Kord (GRAU index 6P49) machine gun with 300 rounds (not observed during the 2015 parade) and a 7.62 mm PKTM (6P7К) machine gun with 1,000 rounds.[2][27][28] All guns are remotely controlled.[27] In addition, another 1,000 rounds can be stored separately.[16] A 12.7 mm machine gun is installed above the turret roof-mounted commander's sight, which avoids visual obstructions, while the turret front has a peculiar slit that is speculated to be intended for the coaxial 7.62 mm machinegun. The 12.7 mm turret-mounted Kord heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles and it’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.[18] In the future, the tank’s turret will also carry a 30 mm sub-caliber ranging gun to deal with various targets, including low-flying aerial targets, such as attack planes and helicopters.[18][21]

In the future, the T-14 may use the 2A83 152 mm gun instead of its current 2A82 125 mm gun.[27][29][30][31] This gun, created around 2000 for the T-95 prototype,[2] has a high-speed APFSDS shell with a 1,980 m/s muzzle velocity, only dropping to 1,900 m/s at 2 km.[32][33][34][35] However, Russian engineers have so far kept the 125 mm-size gun, assessing that improvements in ammunition could be enough to increase effectiveness, while concluding that a larger bore weapon would offer few practical advantages.[36]

The T-14 can use anti-aircraft missiles.[2][37] A 30 mm anti-aircraft gun may be installed in the near future along with the 12.7 machine gun.[38]


The timeframe given in the article for the FRCV to arrive is around 2025/27.The cost given is a massive $5.5M! The T-14 costs under $4M,some reports say around $3.5M. Therefore,for the next decade at least,most of the tank fighting that might occur if we are engaged in a large-scale ground war will be with our exiting types,of which the T-72 is the most numerous in the inventory.The huge numbers of T-72s and T-90s in the pipeline make it more important right now to complete the planned upgrades of T-72s to almost T-90 std. and keep T-90 prod. on track. Since the FRCV is a decade+ away ,there is no reason why another batch of Arjuns be manufactured so that we can at least recover most of our investment made over 3 decades.
Given the enormous size of our battlefield with Pak and China,There is certainly a place for pardon the word, "niche" for Arjun. AFter all the Soviets planned to use their heavier T-80s to blast holes in NATO's defences and then let hordes of lighter T-72s rush through in "molniya" /blitzkrieg fashion. Until 2025/27 arrives, we should eat what's on our plate,what we can "cook"!

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 01 May 2017 12:37

Philip Sir, I do have respect for your knowledge and insights. I do not however agree with this. My earlier post was also clear about the FMBT being mission impossible. They started with a 4 man concept and updated it to 3 man. Also added the autoloader. Rohit had posted on this. Let me simply withdraw from the conversation because there is no way for you to see the light, and for me to understand the DGMF position.

Shiv saar, I know you did not point to me, but let me say this. Our quarrel is with the decision makers (specifically DGMF and advisors), not the Armoured Corps. I really hope they have the best equipment for their doctrine/strategy/plans/survival. In them, rest our hopes of victory.
PS: All I can say is please do look up Lt Gen Shivane's interview, as well as that of Lt Gen Saha. Both are enlightening.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19935
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 01 May 2017 13:28

Martin,no problem with you,The remark by the DRDO about not gelling well with the IN unlike the IN and IAF says enough. When such a thing happens,the prime stakeholder,responsible for the taxpayer's hard earned money to be spent wisely(that too by a paltry few taxpayers in the country!),
must immediately take measures to set the relationship back on track.This, previous govts. have miserably failed to do and babudom,who love throwing red tape into the works delight in delays,which means more ad-hoc funding for projects taking decades to arrive,keeping their parasitical interests alive, delays,cost-escalation all unaccountable for,buried in tons of papaer tied up with thousands of miles of red tape.

In my opinion,it is the 3 services who ultimately do the fighting,not the backroom boys and babus.Therefore,greater weightage must be given to the end-user when requirements are drawn up.If they are too ambitious for our defence industry,whose industrial base in military matters is patchy,(we are the world's biggest importers of arms) then either we get what we can't from abroad in part (like GE engines for the LCA) or through JVs,,the best example being BMos. read Dr.Pillai's book on the BMos "mantra".It is a great primer on how to succeed in the Indian context.
If you read the latest article posted about the FRCV,one will swiftly realise that the disconnect still exists between the DRDO/CVRDE and the IA and that this GOI must take immediate measures to rectify the same.

The FRCV requiremnent as said is a decade+ away. The need for the next 10 years is completing the huge job on hand at Avadi,where there have been delays,in upgrading the huge number of T-72s,firming up contracted T-90 production and also more Arjuns (qty to be mutually agreed upon by the IA and DRDO) so that our desi efforts do not go down the drain and we recover most of our massive investment over 3 decades. This is the immediate job for the MOD/GOI as far as armour is concerned.The arty/MBRL need is an equally critical priority.

PS:If I was the DM,I would get the COAS and DRDO chief together,both told in advance what the subject of discussion would be,and give them exactly 10 mts to decide how many Arjuns would be ordered.If they still failed to agree,then the DM would take a decision based upon his previous deep study of the same,where he was assisted by experts both from the IA and DRDO!

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9476
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 01 May 2017 14:09

While I agree with you that IA, IN and IAF views shall be very critical. But they also have a duty to the nation to explain the rational basis for such views. Arjun II specifications were prescribed not long ago. It is expected that IA has predicted all the future requirements and done that. Now IA does not want it and looking into something else. If the IA think that the Arjun II does not suit future requirements of IA then there is no need to spend time, effort and money on it. Why IA wasted national resource on Arjun effort if it does not meet its requirements?

While I have no doubt in saying MoD babus are the major issue and the political leadership like Saint Antony are also a major problem. I also agree with the idea that DRDO has major issues. But armed forces leadership can not also escape some blame.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4146
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 01 May 2017 17:02

What is clear is that the indigenous capability to design & build a modern MBT exists in India. Whether the IA nurtures it is another question altogether.

Srutayus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 05:53

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Srutayus » 01 May 2017 23:11

What is clear is that the indigenous capability to design & build a modern MBT exists in India. Whether the IA nurtures it is another question altogether.

Let us honor our brave men of the Armoured Corps by ensuring that they go to battle in a sophisticated and superior Indian Tank, designed, made and upgradable without permission in India, rather than in the cramped interior of an inferior import whose supply chain, upgrade rights and key technology are all in a foreign country with its own interests, which is separated from us by difficult logistics over vast distances.
Last edited by Srutayus on 02 May 2017 04:54, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52803
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 02 May 2017 00:38

ramana wrote:1 May is Indian Armored Corps day.
Celebrate the victories in 1965 and 1971 wars.


Very nice picture on Twitter of Lt. Gen Hanut Singh (R) the architect of Battle of Basantar.

https://twitter.com/rathorekaran17/stat ... 3176565760

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52803
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 03 May 2017 01:02

rohitvats, What happened to the Projects APDFS thread???

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52803
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 03 May 2017 02:35

Still at it.

Poona Horse Home Page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20041204124 ... dopak2.htm

Do read the citation for 2Lt. Arun Khetrpal PVC

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19935
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 04 May 2017 13:37

New theory that the Nazis lost the war due to German "Inefficiency",their tanks kept breaking down! Qite relevant today when easy to operate and maintain "rough and tough" eqpt. is needed instead of very expensive difficult to maintain super-spec eqpt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05 ... ry-claims/
Nazis lost the war through 'spectacular inefficiency', new account claims
Tiger tank at the battle of Kursk
The Tiger tank was a formidable weapon but complex and unreliable CREDIT: REX FEATURES
Henry Bodkin
2 MAY 2017 • 5:11PM
Germany lost the Second World War because it was “spectacularly inefficient” and its tanks kept breaking down, according to a new history.

Britain and America, by contrast, were able to manufacture tanks and warplanes at a far quicker rate, and the equipment was more reliable when used in action.

The controversial new thesis, which seeks to challenge the “myth” of an efficient and well equipped Nazi war machine versus the make-do-and-mend British, is propounded in a new book by historian James Holland.

We were much more efficient at making tanks and planes than the Germans
James Holland, author of The War in the West

He said the Wehrmacht’s iconic was a marvel of complex engineering, but too liable to failure, with 50 per cent of all Panzer fatalities in the war due to mechanical faults.

“A very different picture emerges and one that makes the Germans look frankly pretty inefficient and the British and Americans pretty good,” he said.
“We were much more efficient at making tanks and planes than the Germans - they were spectacularly inefficient.”

The War in the West explains how British planners favoured tanks that were easy to maintain on the battlefield, even if they could be outgunned by the enemy.

British soldiers on an American-built Sherman tank in Sicily

British soldiers on an American-built Sherman tank in Sicily CREDIT: IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM

He said historical accounts of the war had focused too heavily on the experience of individual frontline allied soldiers, and their impression of the Germans’ fighting ability, without taking into account Wehrmacht’s logistical ability.

“The Tiger had a six-speed, semi-automatic, hydraulically controlled pre-selector gearbox,” Mr Holland told the Today Programme.
“If you put an 18-year-old in that it’s going to break.”

“The Tiger was...incredibly complicated, mechanically unreliable, very difficult to sustain in combat, unusable for anything other than short distances.

nazi book

The book claims that, because of Germany’s faltering access to the raw materials of war it would have needed to wipe out all its enemies in the first phase of the conflict in order to ensure victory in the war.

“They didn’t manage that, and then invading the Soviet Union was an act of desperation to secure the oil and food and steel they needed.”

The book also seeks to quash the narrative that Britain was overly reliant on American equipment, pointing out that 31 per cent of all armaments used by the US in Europe were supplied by the British.

The War in the West - a New History: Germany Ascendant 1939-1941, Volume 1 by James Holland is published by Bantam (£25). To order your copy from the Telegraph Bookshop for £20 with free p&p, call 0844 871 1514 or visit books.telegraph.co.uk

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1832
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby uddu » 04 May 2017 15:01

The Tincans are our Tiger tank. breaking down and unreliable.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 04 May 2017 17:00

Image
Image

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8071
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 04 May 2017 18:21

Thakur, why post arjun picture in this thread and cause heart burn. We both know that it is a dead end and has no future.

The IA has already moved on to fmbt. And we all know why shape it will take. So let's give arjun a quit burrial.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Surya » 04 May 2017 18:27

no let it be

what a beauty

Will always use it to beat the DGMF for eons to come

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 04 May 2017 18:58

Surya wrote:no let it be

what a beauty

Will always use it to beat the DGMF for eons to come

Hear hear! I'm stunned they still cannot overcome the natashabaazi.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52803
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 04 May 2017 19:09

So what has IA done to get the problems with Arjun in their custody documented and fixed?
Is there a base repair depot stocked with the spares etc?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8071
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 04 May 2017 19:26

Who cares about spare parts. It's not Russian so deserves to die.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 875
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 04 May 2017 20:27

Philip wrote:New theory that the Nazis lost the war due to German "Inefficiency",their tanks kept breaking down! Qite relevant today when easy to operate and maintain "rough and tough" eqpt. is needed instead of very expensive difficult to maintain super-spec eqpt.

This isn't a "new" theory. It has been the mainstream consensus for at lest the last 15 years.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1547
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 05 May 2017 02:32

Thakur_B wrote:Image
Image


Thank you for posting this.
Mogambo Khush Hua.

Screw the Tin Cans

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3711
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby hnair » 05 May 2017 12:55

Thakur_B, those links does not seem to work for me! Would love to see the original photo links, if you have them

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11092
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Gagan » 05 May 2017 20:49

Once the Arjun Mk2 modifications are complete, DRDO and Avadi need to start an advanced light tank program too. Base it on technologies developed in the Arjun, but make it light - a fresh design, involve the Army's designated people in the project from the begining, and the Def Min to himself monitor the progress.
Target a completion in 4 years or so.

A light tank to replace all the T-72s, and other leftover tanks.

A new generation of amphibious infantry combat vehicles, both tracked and wheeled is needed. Is this Tata Kerstel design downselected?

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2378
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 06 May 2017 00:42

Gagan wrote:Once the Arjun Mk2 modifications are complete, DRDO and Avadi need to start an advanced light tank program too. Base it on technologies developed in the Arjun, but make it light - a fresh design, involve the Army's designated people in the project from the begining, and the Def Min to himself monitor the progress.
Target a completion in 4 years or so.


DRDO doesn't even need to create a new design.

Take T-90 shell. We anyway manufacture barrel & it has kanchan armour. Develop a home grown autoloader, single piece ammo from Arjun, resolve known T-90 problems and replace all the T-90 electronics with Arjun electronics. Continue with the T-90 engine and once Bharat pack is available, use it.

Fundamentally T-90 with all Indian components. What excuse will IA come up then?

We want indigenisation. Doesn't matter if it looks like T-90 or Arjun.
Last edited by nam on 06 May 2017 00:46, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests