Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 11 May 2017 22:19

Malushahi i meant any 105mm heat shell..nothing special...500mm rha

The best 120mm rounds and kornet are in 1000mm to 1200mm of rha....

malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby malushahi » 11 May 2017 22:53

got it. misunderstood what you meant in the first instance.

in that event, can the atgm/heat tactic be scaled up to match the number, depth and density of fortifications on a very flat terrain, that offers very little to hide on approach?

needless to say, i meant exactly this when i mentioned dug-ins on the likely strike axes. being the largest consumers of cement and steel one can expect their fortifications to be at least somewhat better than the stone sangars to the west.

maybe getting ot for this thread.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 12 May 2017 06:17

malushahi wrote:got it. misunderstood what you meant in the first instance.

in that event, can the atgm/heat tactic be scaled up to match the number, depth and density of fortifications on a very flat terrain, that offers very little to hide on approach?

needless to say, i meant exactly this when i mentioned dug-ins on the likely strike axes. being the largest consumers of cement and steel one can expect their fortifications to be at least somewhat better than the stone sangars to the west.

maybe getting ot for this thread.

The Chinese, in flat terrain use trenches with underground tunnels for static defences. In mountainous terrain where rocks are plentiful fortifications do not need concrete - but can be built almost anywhere on demand with rocks. Personally - I am not sure that concrete bunkers are necessarily "better" than stone sangars in all circumstances simply because of availability and flexibility of material for stone sangars which can be set up and repaired or reinforced at short notice rather than the Maginot line type fixed defences of concrete bunkers

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 12 May 2017 06:26

Mountains have granite or igneous rocks like dolomite ? Could be as hard or harder than cured concrete

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1532
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 12 May 2017 07:02

what is a stone bunker ?
was it shaped naturally in the shape of a bunker by mother nature

if a bunker was made out of stone slabs ... would the joints be the weak point

(i already know what a sangar is btw)

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1614
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 12 May 2017 07:27

shiv wrote:
malushahi wrote:got it. misunderstood what you meant in the first instance.

in that event, can the atgm/heat tactic be scaled up to match the number, depth and density of fortifications on a very flat terrain, that offers very little to hide on approach?

needless to say, i meant exactly this when i mentioned dug-ins on the likely strike axes. being the largest consumers of cement and steel one can expect their fortifications to be at least somewhat better than the stone sangars to the west.

maybe getting ot for this thread.

The Chinese, in flat terrain use trenches with underground tunnels for static defences. In mountainous terrain where rocks are plentiful fortifications do not need concrete - but can be built almost anywhere on demand with rocks. Personally - I am not sure that concrete bunkers are necessarily "better" than stone sangars in all circumstances simply because of availability and flexibility of material for stone sangars which can be set up and repaired or reinforced at short notice rather than the Maginot line type fixed defences of concrete bunkers


Ill take a concrete bunker over a Sangar anyday. The bunkers destroyed by the recent attack on the LoC appeared to be made Sangar style, rock piled up with some kachha/pakka mortar to hold it together. The sangars blew up spectacularly with large amounts of material thrown about.. The structures utterly disintegrated even against 105mm shells. Even a common 6 inch RCC roof will keep light explosions out, and a well designed and made concrete bunker would have withstood even 155 mm shells without any problems. Sangars are desperate attempts to get some protection from material available locally. But Concrete is Concrete. Instead of Sangar style construction, even a hesco style fortification would have fared better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesco_bastion

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66605
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 12 May 2017 07:37

A stone sangar is also ok with prior warning. They will have underground trench with a couple of L turns for shelter. So even hesh created shrapnel inside wont work.

The only way is a plunging 45kg 155mm shell which is what we did in kargil. The ia very well knows what type of target needs what type of munition.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 12 May 2017 10:01

The issue with concrete bunkers versus stone sangar is logistics and preparation time versus quick and dirty construction while on the move. "Better and worse" are relative. In the battles near Walong in Nov 1962 where Indian forces often held their own - while being pushed back or while moving forward - it was stone sangars and fortifications from readily available local material. Concrete bunkers - once built are static. OT for this thread.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 881
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ParGha » 13 May 2017 01:03

shiv wrote:I agree that the air force and navy have a point. But it occurs to me that the army has a point too. Let me explain by simply quoting from an article that I had posted in the shivering thread written by Lt Gen Gautam Banerjee
http://www.vifindia.org/print/1828
No doubt, the whole system of induction and sustenance for PLA’s field forces in war would be ripe for interdiction by air power and special operations.


You need Indian Long Range Squadron (ILRS) / Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) type special operations forces for that kind of deep recce and raiding missions, and utility airplanes to resupply them constantly.

Indian Army has a long history with such mobility special operations -- from the Guides Cavalry to ILRS / LRDG days -- but now it has shrunk to just the Presidential Bodyguard Cavalry (~ one squadron sized). Every armored regiments deployed to the high-altitude areas should be authorized a Raider Patrol (in addition to its currently authorized Recce Troop) similar to the Ghatak Platoons in infantry regiments.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 881
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ParGha » 15 May 2017 15:45

Had a "doh!" moment -- at this heights it may just be cheaper and more effective to lay a network of sensors and use UCAVs or AirCav for "raiding", than to send out road-watch teams and keep them supplied with utility airplanes LRDG-style. It may have happened even many decades back with regular air-observation posts (light aircrafts and helos). That explains the independent recce squadrons going out of fashion with the Indian Army, and many of them being amalgamated into regular armored regiments (ex. the 90th Armoured).

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5100
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 21 May 2017 12:47

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Image


Image

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1532
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 21 May 2017 14:27

The photos about the Russians tanks are fake.
The are too light and never sink
;-)

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 » 25 May 2017 19:34

As usual BRF members are wrong about the high performance Russian weaponry - - this is the latest Littoral Combat Vehicle that is being tested by the IN. IA will shortly suggest the submarine profile as the next phase of improvements for Arjun MK 3.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2496
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 25 May 2017 20:49

Marten wrote:As usual BRF members are wrong about the high performance Russian weaponry - - this is the latest Littoral Combat Vehicle that is being tested by the IN. IA will shortly suggest the submarine profile as the next phase of improvements for Arjun MK 3.

It has become fashion to curse IA, DGMF on these forums. They MAY be, MAY BE corrupt and more likely to be doubtful of Arjun/DRDO/CVRDE, but I doubt they are that are pro-paki to support something that doesnt fit their doctrine. Afterall, life will go on for us even after we lose war, but for them they will be losing their men and honor.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4117
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 25 May 2017 21:09

ArjunPandit wrote:... Afterall, life will go on for us even after we lose war, but for them they will be losing their men and honor.


Will the men be "safer" in a T-72/T-90 or in a Arjun MBT Mk.1/2?

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 » 25 May 2017 21:11

ArjunPandit wrote:
Marten wrote:As usual BRF members are wrong about the high performance Russian weaponry - - this is the latest Littoral Combat Vehicle that is being tested by the IN. IA will shortly suggest the submarine profile as the next phase of improvements for Arjun MK 3.

It has become fashion to curse IA, DGMF on these forums. They MAY be, MAY BE corrupt and more likely to be doubtful of Arjun/DRDO/CVRDE, but I doubt they are that are pro-paki to support something that doesnt fit their doctrine. Afterall, life will go on for us even after we lose war, but for them they will be losing their men and honor.

Get off your soapbox and exercise your sense of humor.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 25 May 2017 21:31

But wasn't arjun designed as per DGMF specifications. What about the FMBT, has the DGMF released the specific requirements. if yes how different are they from Armata.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 25 May 2017 21:33

Why Indian tanks carry a log at the back
https://youtu.be/YEoaU6aQxMI

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1532
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 26 May 2017 02:18

shiv wrote:Why Indian tanks carry a log at the back
https://youtu.be/YEoaU6aQxMI


Daemn!!!

I expected that baby to crack, splinter, shatter.
Oh well definitely not the standard pine is it.

Pippal or Bodh variety.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2496
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 26 May 2017 02:43

srai wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:... Afterall, life will go on for us even after we lose war, but for them they will be losing their men and honor.


Will the men be "safer" in a T-72/T-90 or in a Arjun MBT Mk.1/2?

Without any intent to start a flame war or rehash of what has been discussed umpteen number of times in earlier incarnations of this thread, here are my points/speculations:

War is a business fraught with the losses of men. No war is zero loss game (that a noob like me doesnt need to remind anyone), but the primary objective is doctrine while minimizing losses. IA leadership would have taken a decision on doctrine and T90 fitting the doctrine, and available for purchase. IA is willing to take that loss. I would be highly surprised if IA hadn't already gamed that safety aspect as well. If IA is that incompetent and it hasnt, then we are anyways screwed.
Arjun may be the best and safest tank on earth but if IA does have trust in it(not in its capabilities) but the ecosystem around it. That's why the petulance to buy it. Even Bhim was not ordered. The day IA sees a use for it, it will be a bigger hit than a Pinaka.

What we should also not forget is, that IA has gradually Arjunized the T-Series.

And as much as i like 5000 arjuns (MK2, ...MKn) in IA, Arjun will remain in token orders till the time IA doctrine and Arjun dont converge and most importantly IA feels confident about it. Till then, unfortunately, it would take a raksha mantri as strong/obdurate as the PM Modi himself.

I remember a summarization of treatment of forces by babudom on BRF long back that Indian govt listens to Army chief, sees IAF chief ...something like that, highlighting that IA is too big of a tree to be shaken that easily. I dont think MP didnt even invest his capital into this issue and focussed more on IAF, which it found more pliable (if not outright compliant).

Having followed Arjun for years, sadly, we should forget any significant orders for Arjun till either of this happens 1. govt simply orders IA to take it and forget anything else 2. IA gets badly mauled in some conflict that highlights the need for it 3. Arjun is redesigned into something that IA would need for future.

To Marten sir, asking for humor in all this, sadly I am getting is a (tin) can(n)ed instead of an iron fist

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 30 May 2017 09:46

Use of APS ("Active Protection Systems") on tanks against Anti-Tank weapons

http://www.iiss.org/en/militarybalanceb ... apons-e66c
Declining utility of anti-armour weapons: Norway’s inconvenient truth
4-5 minutes
By Ben Barry, Senior Fellow for Land Warfare

The land-systems section of the recently released Norwegian MoD document ’Future acquisitions for the Norwegian Defence Sector 2017–2025’ envisages spending Kr200–350 million on replacing the Javelin anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW). This is to ’maintain the capacity to fight against heavy armored vehicles. There is a need for anti-tank systems that can penetrate APS-systems.’

APS uses radar to detect incoming anti-armour weapons and launch a countermeasure to intercept them or disrupt their ability to function properly. As things stand, the successful fielding of APS would change armour/anti-armour dynamics by greatly reducing the effectiveness of anti-armour weapons. Hitherto, the protection of AFVs against these weapons has been achieved by combined-arms tactics and by increasing AFV passive-protection levels.

Norway’s focus on the requirement to find new ways of countering APS is probably driven by its renewed focus on deterring a confrontation with Russia. Indeed, the new Russian Armata main battle tank contains an integral APS, and will be the first tank to be fielded with such a system from the outset.

The Norwegians also appear to be breaking a taboo among Western military officials and defence industries over discussing publicly the challenges of countering APS. This is surprising, as the events of 2014 in Ukraine have shown Russia to be a strategic competitor, resulting in NATO increasing the readiness of its land forces and recently deploying multinational battalions to Eastern Europe. The increased fielding of APS by Russia would considerably reduce the combat power of NATO land forces.

The implications go wider still. To attack enemy AFVs, most armies have invested heavily in anti-armour weapons with chemical energy warheads. Many of these are unguided rockets, such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and the more recent Saab AT4 man-portable anti-tank missile. Others are delivered by a wide range of ATGWs such as Javelin, which is fired by infantry, armoured vehicles or helicopters. The Military Balance 2017 identifies 39 different types of ATGW in service worldwide.

The first APS to be fielded on operations was the Trophy system, which Israel is fitting to its Merkava IV main battle tanks. This can destroy incoming RPG warheads and the Kornet ATGW. Analysis of open-source information indicates that Trophy can reduce the overall effectiveness of existing ATGWs and RPGs by about two thirds.

Other land forces, including in the United States, are now displaying increasing interest in APS, not least because of the continuing proliferation of advanced RPGs and ATGWs, including among non-state armed groups. The United Kingdom has been investigating APS for at least a decade, including its possible use to protect British AFVs in Iraq. The Netherlands has recently announced that BAE Systems is to fit its fleet of CV90 infantry fighting vehicles with the Israeli Iron Fist APS.

There remain a number of issues in terms of the development of effective APS. In theory, these systems could be overmatched by adjusting tactics, such as simultaneous volley firings of anti-armour weapons. However, even if such tactics are successful, the overall effectiveness of anti-armour weapons will still be considerably reduced. Current APS systems are also unable to defeat high velocity anti-tank ammunition fired from guns. This is likely to continue for some time. For armies that have to counter AFVs fitted with APS, the guns on tanks and the cannons on other AFVs will therefore be of increasing importance.

Norway has issued a timely warning to the armies of its allies. Its announcement identifies an inconvenient truth that will not give any comfort to the many armies that employ Javelin and other ATGWs.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52582
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 02 Jun 2017 03:19


Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2015
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 02 Jun 2017 03:53

ArjunPandit ji - pardon my saying so, but that is complete and total bull. Some sections of India society need to wake up this is 2017 - there is information all over the place freely available. And this is not the 60s or 70s. People are educated and the number of Engineers around has gone up. So information is freely available and people can interpret and rationalize. All sections of society need to be aware of this.

What the IA has done to the Arjun goes against - national security, increased reliance on one vendor/nation entrapping independent foreign policy, exposed the country to blackmail (monetary or otherwise), removed the chance of better protection and comfort for Indian tank crews, decreased economic security by taking away an industry with tremendous export potential and so on.

It is especially galling as the Arjun beat the tin can hands down in the army's own staged trials under their controlled conditions. It has given the finger to "Make in India". To have the T-72 in service when its shells "bounced off" the Arjun makes a mockery of the army's warfighting capabilities and intent.

So don't hide behind doctrinal issues.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 02 Jun 2017 13:51

Vivek you are wasting your time speaking for Arjun. Regardless of the merits of the tank. The Indian tank will not be inducted in Indian army.

The proposed FMBT was spoken off in 2012 by IA. but it went into hiatus. Only to be revived after the Armata was unveiled. With specifications the were a carbon copy of Armata.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19301
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby chetak » 02 Jun 2017 14:41

OT post but watch if interested.

twitter


MEDIA: German soldier demonstrates stability of Leopard tank

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/870226590025752577

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby pandyan » 02 Jun 2017 15:09

8) from comments: Yeah serve the enemies beer, it's easier to **** em when they are drunk

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 02 Jun 2017 16:26

3 axis stabilisation of guns is for pu$$ies. Real men use t 72 without any stabilisation.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1837
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 02 Jun 2017 18:40

<OT>
Well if they prefer Vodka then you can offer that as well

Watch around 3.45 onwards



or if you prefer some Japanese wine..
(for some reason the russians seem very animated about it - look at the comments)



</OT>

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Surya » 02 Jun 2017 19:17

shiv wrote:The issue with concrete bunkers versus stone sangar is logistics and preparation time versus quick and dirty construction while on the move. "Better and worse" are relative. In the battles near Walong in Nov 1962 where Indian forces often held their own - while being pushed back or while moving forward - it was stone sangars and fortifications from readily available local material. Concrete bunkers - once built are static. OT for this thread.


You can use pre fab metal components - joinable and gen cover with stones and held my mesh

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11084
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Gagan » 02 Jun 2017 20:08

Posting this article here.
Turkey lost 10 Leopard Tanks on an assault into ISIS held al-Bab, where they were taken out by IS fired russian ATGMs.
The report says, that turkey had the older version of the Leopard 2A4, and not the latest version 2A7.
The turks didn't upgrade their tanks to the latest standard - I wonder why?

Could it not be because these were uber expensive imports, and upgrading them was an expensive mess, requiring re-tendering, lots of sarkari paperwork yada yada?

Our fauj loves its imported weapons, there is no doubt. Sometimes I feel that the Generals are fighting a brochure war with the enemy - a dick measuring contest. Pakistan as we all know, doesn't yet make a bicycle chain, and so has to import everyting - Our Generals want to do the same to do a one up on the pakis. The fauj Generals need to come into the 21st century please. Make in India!!!

http://en.yibada.com/articles/186318/20 ... -tanks.htm

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 02 Jun 2017 21:17

Do you know for sure if Arjun tank can withstand a 'kornet' atgm hit ?
Have seen many videos where the M1 Abrams tank can't.
And like you've posted, the leopard couldn't.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 02 Jun 2017 22:02

Surya wrote:
shiv wrote:The issue with concrete bunkers versus stone sangar is logistics and preparation time versus quick and dirty construction while on the move. "Better and worse" are relative. In the battles near Walong in Nov 1962 where Indian forces often held their own - while being pushed back or while moving forward - it was stone sangars and fortifications from readily available local material. Concrete bunkers - once built are static. OT for this thread.


You can use pre fab metal components - joinable and gen cover with stones and held my mesh


As I said, pre-fab metal will need a logistics chain to move forward (or back) if men are setting up a defensive line in an active combat zone. Stones may be available locally, requiring no logistics line. That said - do you have any links to people who make pre-fab metal bunkers of this type - because any metal less than 3/4 inch thick would be useless - rifle bullets will go through 1/2 inch steel and just corrugated sheets might do the job just as well if it is just for structural support with rocks doing the actual protecting

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2015
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 02 Jun 2017 22:26

nirav wrote:Do you know for sure if Arjun tank can withstand a 'kornet' atgm hit ?
Have seen many videos where the M1 Abrams tank can't.
And like you've posted, the leopard couldn't.

So buy the Kornet - why the tin cans?

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 02 Jun 2017 22:43

Vivek K wrote:
nirav wrote:Do you know for sure if Arjun tank can withstand a 'kornet' atgm hit ?
Have seen many videos where the M1 Abrams tank can't.
And like you've posted, the leopard couldn't.

So buy the Kornet - why the tin cans?


The way I look at it, we have enough atgms for opposing tank forces. It can never be an either/or.
@ the MBTs, the 'tin can' is something that the army has already standardised.

We must introspect and ask tough questions as to why there has been continuous organisational opposition from the army for the Arjun tanks rather than calling the forces import pasand to making charges bordering on treason on the procurement wing.

Doesn't do anyone any good.
For the record, non of the imports have let us down in an actual war.and ALL our wars have been fought and won by them 'imports' and the forces.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2496
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 02 Jun 2017 22:47

Vivek sir,
no ji. FYI, Arjun is not my real name, it has been chosen for our beloved arjun. Just because I am defending IA, doesnt mean I dont care for Made in India any less than you do. With all the points that have been discussed on this and previous reincarnations of this thread, I doubt anyone including me can defend T-90 on performance grounds. Then the only thing I can hypothesize are doctrine and comfort. Comfort need not be logical. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong on that, but accusing IA to select T90 for money just stops short of accusing them of treason. Unless proven to be so, I would rather trust in IA than the armchair generals, even if all the facts prove to be otherwise. I am very well cognizant this may not be the rational and logical position.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2015
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 03 Jun 2017 00:44

ArjunPandit wrote:.... I doubt anyone including me can defend T-90 on performance grounds. Then the only thing I can hypothesize are doctrine and comfort. Comfort need not be logical...IA to select T90 for money just stops short of accusing them of treason. ....

Buddy, whatever your name is, you just made a good point. :rotfl:

BTW
a) Comfort - you could probably make an omlette on the interior of the tin cans in the desert during the summer. So you can forget about comfort in the cramped tin cans. The crews probably wear long sleeves to protect from getting burns all over by accidental contact with the walls.
b) Doctrine - doctrine based on gross weight = wrong! A Tank can travel on a surface or sink in it based on ground pressure (Recall from Physics - Pressure = Force / Area). Funnily enough, the ground pressure of the Arjun is lower than the tin can. So the Arjun can go where no tin can go!! So out goes the doctrine based on gross weight for attacking Paki lands.
c) Doctrine based on Indian bridges for transport - Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
national highways and state highways are designed for IRC class AA loading consists of either a tracked vehicle of 70 tonnes or a wheeled vehicle of 40 tonnes. Normally, Bridges designed for class AA should be checked for IRC class A loading also, since under certain conditions, larger stresses may be obtained under class A loading. All civil engineering designs have a Factor of Safety of 2 to 3. I'll let you figure what that means.

So based on above, even on doctrinal issues, the dabba Arjun comes out better than either of the tin cans. Add to that better crew protection and we have a .... "huuuuuge loser"! Figure that out O bright one.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 03 Jun 2017 01:01

On paper,Tata nano out featured it's competition.
Is cheaper cost wise too.
It still doesn't sell as much as it's competition and is being considered for discontinuation.

It's Swadeshi to boot and supposedly 'cheap' too.

I'd like to think that a military vehicle like an MBT has many more aspects to it rather than just total weight,or grroun pressure per feet or xyz metric .

Add to that not ready for induction when it was needed the most.
After a point we in the civilian domain can only make educated guesses, but we are never going to get the full picture as to what are the reasons for army preferring T90 over Arjun.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2496
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 03 Jun 2017 01:08

Vivek K wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:.... I doubt anyone including me can defend T-90 on performance grounds. Then the only thing I can hypothesize are doctrine and comfort. Comfort need not be logical...IA to select T90 for money just stops short of accusing them of treason. ....

Buddy, whatever your name is, you just made a good point. :rotfl:

BTW
a) Comfort - you could probably make an omlette on the interior of the tin cans in the desert during the summer. So you can forget about comfort in the cramped tin cans. The crews probably wear long sleeves to protect from getting burns all over by accidental contact with the walls.
b) Doctrine - doctrine based on gross weight = wrong! A Tank can travel on a surface or sink in it based on ground pressure (Recall from Physics - Pressure = Force / Area). Funnily enough, the ground pressure of the Arjun is lower than the tin can. So the Arjun can go where no tin can go!! So out goes the doctrine based on gross weight for attacking Paki lands.
c) Doctrine based on Indian bridges for transport - Prof. S.R.Satish Kumar and Prof. A.R.Santha Kumar, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
national highways and state highways are designed for IRC class AA loading consists of either a tracked vehicle of 70 tonnes or a wheeled vehicle of 40 tonnes. Normally, Bridges designed for class AA should be checked for IRC class A loading also, since under certain conditions, larger stresses may be obtained under class A loading. All civil engineering designs have a Factor of Safety of 2 to 3. I'll let you figure what that means.

So based on above, even on doctrinal issues, the dabba Arjun comes out better than either of the tin cans. Add to that better crew protection and we have a .... "huuuuuge loser"! Figure that out O bright one.


Sir, I get your sarcasm, but i did not even have or make any point. I am not even defending IA's decision to field it in favor of Arjun. I am just speculating if that is the reason of IA selecting Tin can over Arjun, WITHOUT accusing them of treason and assuming them to be as patriot as everyone on this forum, if not more. It's an emotional argument hence, there is no logic that can convince me otherwise.
Anyways I already stated that I am in favor of Arjun and the points you have started any casual reader would have already seen these points stated in this forum umpteen times. So no need to waste your sarcasm/insults on this poor noob, who does not make any pretense of being knowledgeable in front of you gurus. I come here to read get wise and occasionally post my thoughts.
BTW I didn't mean comfort in Arjun, i meant comfort with Arjun. They are comfortable using Tin Can, and know it can do job for them (whether it does or not that's a separate question, but that's what they seem to think). They dont want to look elsewhere.
Below is OT so please feel free to ignore below.
Let me give you two examples, and old doting professor in my college in the comp science dept who was very good in algorithms, data structures. However, was very comfortable using 3.5' 1.4Mb floppy drives. Once i took a USB pen drive of 64mb in his class and asked if i could submit my assignment program through the drive and he insisted on using 1.4mb floppy drive. I had to spend few extra hours because of that because the old man wouldn't let me use the USB drive of his newly purchased desktop because "it might infect his machine with virus" (his face gave me look if my USB would infect his desktop and him with HIV). There was another similar experience with a CRO of top 3 US bank again an relatively old guy(not as old as the prof) who was comfortable (according to him) using old version of MS Office and while reviewing a ppt together it tried to modify and I was not able to navigate in menu driven instead of the recent versions of ribbon as the action had been placed differently across the versions. People insisting on copying and pasting from menu instead of using keyboard are far too common to be quoted and this is a simplistic thing. Having just looked tanks from outside apart from Arjun in DefExpo i can say it is a far more complex machine than our household car, all the more considering the function it does. To speak of even myself I feel more at home with the non automatic cars and feel confident about driving rather than the automatic cards. I would not be surprised if the senior leadership feels more comfortable using the machines it grew up using.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2015
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 03 Jun 2017 01:22

So now we're discussing that it is the inertia of staying with the "junk HM Ambassador" in place of the shiny new tech "Maruti"? Really!

If you've been on BRF for a while then you would know that the "junk" Arjun is the most tested weapon system in the world that will not see war! It is the most ruggedized weapon system developed for "Indian Conditions" - and it works.

Funny that any other country - even China or Pakistan would have jumped at the chance to own a weapon system like the Arjun.

Boss, give up the "sir". We're seeing the continued demise of India and the decimation of any chance to build up its industrial strength. That is extremely regrettable!

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 03 Jun 2017 01:25

Allah oh Akbar.
The sucess/failure of a domestic weapons system = India's demise ?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests