Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13098
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 01:21

^ Ah nice so we have been correcting these bridges to support 50 tonnes onlee for all these years ; the British too were clairvoyant to have made them for T-90 weight class onlee , how convenient .

By the way please to post the details of this field of study since you seem to post about it with so much authority , before you respond make a list of bridges their age and then tell me how did you conclude they can only support 50 tonnes not more not less in all these years :)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 17 Aug 2017 01:34

Negi: Was that jibe really necessary? Can you please edit your post before the mods do it for you?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 17 Aug 2017 01:50

negi wrote:By the way please to post the details of this field of study since you seem to post about it with so much authority

Here. Feel free to get an M.Tech in Mechanical or Civil engineering and then come educate us about bridge fatigue.

negi wrote:before you respond make a list of bridges their age and then tell me how did you conclude they can only support 50 tonnes not more not less in all these years :)

This is why I advised you to read my posts before commenting. The director general of DRDO has said that canal bridges in Punjab were incapable of supporting the Arjun Mk-II's weight. I don't know about you, but I consider him to be a credible source ... not one that someone with that half-baked knowledge allegedly acquired in a first year engineering course could easily dismiss.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2017 01:57

I think negi is taking it personally. Let's not shoot the messenger.

Negi please edit your remarks.

we need to agree to disagree without name calling.

And you both are Mainsite crew.

----
One thing intriguing for me is that T-90S has seen combat since its development. What is the track record wrt survivability from ATGM fire and its lethality wrt to its main gun performance?

I think two more Arjuns MKII should be made and the existing Arjun MK1 logistics and spares problems sorted out. Having 500 heavy tanks will have its own logic. And base then in Rajasthan and Gujarat areas if terrain permits.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 17 Aug 2017 03:03

Ramana, the problems with assessing the T-90's combat performance are twofold. One, it has been used only sparingly - both in Syria as well as in Ukraine. So there's very little data to work off, and certainly nothing on the basis of which any real conclusions could be reached. Two, it's hard to tell what info is faked and what is real. Claims and counterclaims are flying thick and heavy.

The only seemingly credible study has come from Phillip Karber who visited Ukraine and interviewed personal several Ukrainian personnel. He writes that:

In early September, the Russians also introduced small numbers of the T-90 MBT, which also sports upgraded armor, a new gun and more sophisticated fire control with very effective night/all weather vision; but its most noteworthy attribute is a new active-armor defense system in addition to ERA. Using radar to detect an incoming missile, the active armor system fires a shotgun-like spray of pellets which disables the guidance in the head of the missile as it approaches the tank. The author has interviewed several Ukrainian anti-tank ATGM gunners, who have complained bitterly about the “magical shield” that sends their AT-5 guided missiles off in the sky or to the ground out of control just as the missile is about to hit the tank.
...

Against tanks of equal generation and capability, 37 the Ukrainian gunners have generally been able to achieve a favorable loss exchange ratios. This reverses, when the modern T-72M are introduced, with Ukrainians losing three tanks to every one killed. In five company size engagements documented where T-90s have participated, the Ukrainians have taken double their normal losses and there is no evidence they have been able to kill a single T-90.

But then, Karber has also been dismissed as a fraud by other academics, so his entire report might be a work of fiction.

In Syria, there has been only one known known engagement of a T-90 by an ATGM. The missile managed to hit the tank, but the crew survived. The extent to which it damaged the vehicle is not known. The Russians claim that the Shtora system was turned off when the incident took place.

In any case, the discussion is moot because India never procured the Shtora or the APS.

As far as the base armour goes, the Russians have made tall claims, but there has been no independent corroboration. If DRDO or the Army have tested it against their own ammo, they're keeping the results under wraps.


As far as firepower goes, the gun and it's ammo are generally seen as mediocre. The Mango, first introduced in 1986 is still the primary AP round, it's hard to imagine that it's competitive thirty years down the line. The Russians have claimed that better rounds are in development, but we do not know if they're in production yet. The primary anti-tank armament remains the Reflecks missile. A friend of mine who was involved in the trials tells me that he was very impressed with it, but then again, Shook Law has also reported quality issues with the rounds that were delivered to the Army. The answer again is, "who knows?"

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 17 Aug 2017 03:26

Marten wrote:Clutching at straws now? A heavy tank with proven Armour is not good but enemy bridges will be kept standing so your 50t tank can roll over and continue the good fight where it is magically better than evading the same dense fire that a proven heavier Armour won't? Really?


This sort of thing does happen in the fog of war. E.g. capture of the Ludendorff Bridge in WW II. Alternatively, you could capture a crucial bridge using paratroopers or commadoes. But if the bridges themselves are not capable of bearing a 67 tonne tank, every little ditch will become a natural obstacle. Further, if the bridges in ones own territory are unable to bear the required weight, the whole matter becomes moot.

Marten wrote:PS: I will control terrain with my BLT that takes gasp ten minutes to lay out. That allows me to take the off chance that my supposedly immobile heavier tank with lower ground pressure can also outflank enemies quicker and afford better protection than what happened to the tincans.


How many BLTs? What is the capability of the engineer brigade accompanying the strike corps? I am not sure.. Even if you do lay a BLT type bridge, how about the approaches to the river bank? Once the tanks are across, their appetites will need to be fulfilled by trucks etc. If the river bank is churned up, can the trucks make it across? I think, BR armchair Guderians under estimate the difficulty of crossing these natural obstacles, especially if contested.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7462
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 17 Aug 2017 05:06

^^^ Good post. I agree with respect to the bridges. If the tanks weigh more than the load bearing capacity of the bridges, then it is a no go. My question is how much does it take to bolster a bridge over a riverine? I am not a civil engineer, hence it could be a completely stupid question. But aren't for example IR fixing century old bridges all the time? We are building an entirely new road/rail network in the NE. Is it that difficult to bolster a few bridges on the western front. What am I missing?

Also, river banks are unlikely to be disturbed more by a tank with lesser ground pressure. So that is not a good argument IMHO.

Another horrible argument (not made by you) is that Arjun can't be airlifted. Where can the T-90s be airlifted. Certainly not to Leh or even the NE with the C-17s. The C-17s carry less than 30 Tons to Leh when they get in there before the break of dawn, in winter. Even, if it was possible to airlift the tanks to a sector, I think it is safe to say that that we will not win the war in that sector. We have 10 C-17s. At 70% availability, you are looking at 7-14 tanks per day IN THE MOST IDEAL OF CONDITIONS.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2063
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 17 Aug 2017 06:24

I am a PhD in Civil Engineering - first load bearing capacity is measure by putting the load footprint on the structure and performing an analysis to see if the loaded footprint will exceed the capacity of the bridge. Remember in Civil Engineering a factor of safety of 2-5 can be used by designers thereby a "so called 40 ton" capacity bridge could carry 80 - 200 tons. Failure occurs through fatigue (load times the number of repetitions). Therefore if an Arjun weighing 65 tons traverses a bridge capable of 40 tons, the bridge will not fail immediately (factor of safety not being taken into consideration). And retrofitting/strengthening of the bridge can be performed - steel girders on new pier/foundations can help to enhance the declared capacity of the bridges.

It isn't the capacity of the bridges that is a problem! There is a problem with moral fiber.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 17 Aug 2017 09:05

Indranil wrote:^^^ Good post. I agree with respect to the bridges. If the tanks weigh more than the load bearing capacity of the bridges, then it is a no go. My question is how much does it take to bolster a bridge over a riverine? I am not a civil engineer, hence it could be a completely stupid question. But aren't for example IR fixing century old bridges all the time? We are building an entirely new road/rail network in the NE. Is it that difficult to bolster a few bridges on the western front. What am I missing?

Also, river banks are unlikely to be disturbed more by a tank with lesser ground pressure. So that is not a good argument IMHO.


Plausible.. though I have seen T55s tear up freshly laid asphalt like it was a kachha road. In tank wars, a matter of hours can be the difference between a smashing victory and ignominious defeat. Consider the Longewala battle, if the Pak tank commander had dis patched just one squadron of tanks onwards towards Jaisalmer while fixing the Longewala post with the rest of his tanks, they would have made it to the airport by the early morning hours and there was nothing to stop them from destroying the hunters on the ground! In time terms, the Pak tanks were about 4 hours away from Jaisalmer. The only reason the Pak commander did not do so was because 'it wasnt his job..', it was supposed to be a follow up regiment that would invest Ramgarh and Jaisalmer.

Even if an obstacle can be crossed by using BLTs etc., at the very least, a few hours may be lost doing the same and that can be the difference between victory and defeat.

As for the T90 disadvantages, they are well known. Poor safety, aged APFSDS design, poor reliability etc. etc. Small consolation that Paks are on similar tanks.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13098
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 09:37

Well at least now part of logistics is forgotten because no one could articulate what is that they meant by 'logistics' precisely and we now have only bridges left to conquer fair enough. So the entire argument now rests upon British era bridges that are magically tuned to support 50 tonnes fair enough ; so let me ask this question in a different way how many of these bridges if destroyed will lead to our tanks being stranded ? Basically how many of them if do not exist lead to a detour of more than 5-10 kms (assuming we could live with such a detour) ? I am sure if someone is so passionate about basing an entire argument based on availability of bridges we need to talk about such data .

See it is like this if these bridges are indeed critical and if not crossed or destroyed would mean our tanks having to take a huge detour or worse stranded then imo they will be the first to go down during war ; so my question remains the same are we going to base an argument on bridges alone ?

Let me take a guess here let us say these numbers are in tens or say low hundreds , then is it too big of a deal to upgrade them to support say 60 tonnes we have known about the bridge deficiency for quite some time right ? Are we upholding some British tradition by not upgrading these bridges or we want them to be 50 tonnes so that only T-90s can roll over them ?

My tone might not come across as nice but what I am calling out is the fact that bridge argument is an excuse , not because the facts are not right (perhaps all the bridges are indeed rated to 50 tonnes only, however personally I am skeptical of any such exercise being done with such thoroughness) what I am calling out is the fact that as a nation we are saying we will not build a heavier tank because of bridges from the past , what does it take to upgrade a bridge ? Anyone who knows procurement price of a MBT or it's spares would know in comparison former would be a pocket change .We are obviously talking about bridges in critical choke points only right ? Because during war how many of them can you count on , specially those in the forward sectors ?

All in all when I see such reasons/excuses I only see it as lack of intent .

Once bridges are done let me point out the guys who brought out logistics, rail wagons and bridges also talked about lower silhouette perhaps that also needs to be dissected once the dust settles on the bridges.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2205
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Prem Kumar » 17 Aug 2017 09:51

If the bridges won't bear the weight, fix the bridges. That's what peace-time is for. A tank takes decades to design & build. Bridges can be rebuilt and/or strengthened for a fraction of the cost & time. Do it on a war-footing with ambitious targets like "fix/buttress 1000 bridges in 2 years", like the Gadkari highway plan.

This "oh - what can we do about the bridges?" hand-wringing betrays indecisiveness (or an intent to sabotage the Arjun tank induction). Where there is a will, there is a way

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 » 17 Aug 2017 09:52

Even if an obstacle can be crossed by using BLTs etc., at the very least, a few hours may be lost doing the same and that can be the difference between victory and defeat.

Sir, wouldn't it be rather convenient for the enemy to let the bridges remain standing if it understands the difference between victory and defeat lies in the hours that it can gain by blowing up the bridges?

(Not addressed to you) We started with road ratings, then moved to rail width and bogie limitations, and after discarding those, we are now moving to not only British era structures (which btw will ALSO be rated as part of the IBMS), but also to the final frontier, literally, of Pakis not being Pakis and letting convenient structures remain in place so as to allow (invading) Indian forces to cross over peacefully. One expected better structured arguments ("awesome" pun fully intended).
Edited to add: I've gone a post too far in trying to reconcile this in my mind. In effect, Operation Market Garden 2 failed.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7462
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 17 Aug 2017 10:52

sudeepj wrote:
Indranil wrote:^^^ Good post. I agree with respect to the bridges. If the tanks weigh more than the load bearing capacity of the bridges, then it is a no go. My question is how much does it take to bolster a bridge over a riverine? I am not a civil engineer, hence it could be a completely stupid question. But aren't for example IR fixing century old bridges all the time? We are building an entirely new road/rail network in the NE. Is it that difficult to bolster a few bridges on the western front. What am I missing?

Also, river banks are unlikely to be disturbed more by a tank with lesser ground pressure. So that is not a good argument IMHO.


Plausible.. though I have seen T55s tear up freshly laid asphalt like it was a kachha road. In tank wars, a matter of hours can be the difference between a smashing victory and ignominious defeat. Consider the Longewala battle, if the Pak tank commander had dis patched just one squadron of tanks onwards towards Jaisalmer while fixing the Longewala post with the rest of his tanks, they would have made it to the airport by the early morning hours and there was nothing to stop them from destroying the hunters on the ground! In time terms, the Pak tanks were about 4 hours away from Jaisalmer. The only reason the Pak commander did not do so was because 'it wasnt his job..', it was supposed to be a follow up regiment that would invest Ramgarh and Jaisalmer.

Even if an obstacle can be crossed by using BLTs etc., at the very least, a few hours may be lost doing the same and that can be the difference between victory and defeat.

As for the T90 disadvantages, they are well known. Poor safety, aged APFSDS design, poor reliability etc. etc. Small consolation that Paks are on similar tanks.

I am not disagreeing with the time criticality at all. Arjun will break bridges faster. Agreed. But Arjuns shouldn't be tearing up roads/river banks etc. faster. It should be the opposite. An elephant breaks a bridge, but the deer leaves a deeper footmark. Do you see the analogy?

Also this argument of "we don't have the right infrastructure is a good one for 10-15 years. Beyond that, it becomes a question of will. I mean if we decide today that we will fix the infrastructure to support better and heavier tanks, how much time would it take to fix the infrastructure?

There may be better reasons for not going for Arjun. I don't understand tanks, IA does. But this lack of bridges theory has been drawn out for too long IMHO.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13098
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 11:09

Arjun exerts lesser force per square inch than a T-90 however that is not a factor when bridge itself cannot bear it's load.

Another data point is one of the sources of bridge aspect as Mihir pointed out was DRDO DG's observation , key point to note is that observation was made not about bridges in Punjab in general but about bridges over the canal network in Punjab that too this was observation made during trials so my personal interpretation of this is the 50 tonne limit has been verified for bridges over a certain canal where trials took place other bridges over other canal system could be worse or better we do not know. Our canal network depending on which one we talk about actually goes back to the 19th century , on an average the width of these canals is within 100 feet more importantly their depth is only 20-30 feet (water depth is much lower) so it should not be a big deal to build new bridges or strengthen existing ones, in fact depending on season and water depth may be a tank can ford through them using a snorkel but then again that is splitting hair.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2017 11:15

The Army uses a version of Bailey Bridges. Some where in this forum some one had posted the design ratings.

Lets find it

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13098
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 11:24

^ Sir Sarvatra has a MLC-70 rating and can support the Arjun I think issue has been usage of such support equipment is called out as additional logistics burden in academic terms it is a fair assessment , that is why only factor now left is the bridges on the canal :)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2017 11:54

Also the new tender is for a short span 5m MLC 70 bridge!!!

jayasimha wrote:R&DE(E), Pune has developed a 5m short span bridging system.
Interested parties may respond along with their company profile, financial & technical
capabilities.
After EOI stage, information about criteria and process of selection for Transfer of
Technology (TOT) will be given to interested parties.
Interested industry partner may write to Director, R&DE(Engrs), Pune

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/IITM/5m_SSBS.pdf

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 17 Aug 2017 11:56

How wide are the canals? If less than 5m i.e. ~15 feet this new bridge will span it.

I think the bridge obstacle is being forded.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4124
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby JayS » 17 Aug 2017 12:01

I was looking at the Bridge rating method in India when the new bridge on Brahmaputra river was inaugurated recently by Modi. I think IRC (Indian Roads Congress) Chapter 6 specifies the design specs for bridges in India. Though I am not sure if this is official GOI specs as well.

Here is the link to pdf: http://www.manuneethi.in/FILES/IRC%20CO ... ice-sec-II).pdf

Class AA (I suppose all the major bridges should be of this class) bridges are suppose to be 70ton capacity. Specific design specs for tracked wheel vehicles i.e. tanks is specifies, in terms of width, length, load etc.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2017 12:16

Marten wrote:Clutching at straws now? A heavy tank with proven Armour is not good but enemy bridges will be kept standing so your 50t tank can roll over and continue the good fight where it is magically better than evading the same dense fire that a proven heavier Armour won't? Really?


The enemy might keep the bridge if they know they can roll over their Al Zarrar or Ak-Khalid or T-80 over it but when they know our Arjun cant pass over it. Please know that rejection of Abrams by PA in mid 80 one of the primary reason was it all up weight and PA didnt had to pay a dime to get that and still rejected it.

There is nothing like heavy tank or medium , its MBT , The Armour is always about Armour to Volume ratio and not about it being heavy or medium , T-90 and Arjun would have the same armour protection level how they approach is different (Please spend time on forms like tanknet to be better informed on the subject. ) ..... Have you see one of the most heaviest Tank Abrams performance in Iraq and yemen ? There is nothing greater protection that heavy tank affords on the contrary mobility is an issue over different terraine.

The T-90 on the contrary could easily pass over narrorw terraine in Syrian landscape and fight

Mobility is the key to armoured maneuver warfare and the current 2000 plus T series be it 90 or 72 with logistics and ARV/BLT etc built over past 30 years will have a clear edge over 125 Arjun whose number are small and whose logistic footprint etc wont be able to match up with what the army right now , its an unfair advantage the T's have but that is something IA will have to live with for decades to come. In much the same way a 36 Rafale will not be able to match up the logistics of 272 MKI built in India over past 25 years its an unfair advantage MKI has.

Arjun is a better tank in certain aspect compared to T-90 today and they can still use Arjun in defensive formation within Indian side but crossing over LOC and fighting in enemy territory is a different ball game if that ever happens.

If you dont agree with me on this lets agree to disagree and move on

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 » 17 Aug 2017 12:27

Austin wrote:SNIP

The T-90 on the contrary could easily pass over narrorw terraine in Syrian landscape and fight

Mobility is the key to armoured maneuver warfare

Arjun is a better tank in certain aspect compared to T-90 today and they can still use Arjun in defensive formation within Indian side but crossing over LOC and fighting in enemy territory is a different ball game if that ever happens.

If you dont agree with me on this lets agree to disagree and move on

1. Thanks for the gratuitous advice -- you should also use some of it yourself. Would have been helpful early on forming a coherent and cogent argument instead of circuitous arguments now tapering off to fait accompli.
2. We have been discussing precisely Mobility and you have shared zero inputs on why T-90s or T-72 are more mobile (despite less rugged/reliable engines?).
3. Logistics on the enemy side will not depend on enemy charity -- am sure your well read self already knows every viable bridge will be rigged to blow when the invading force is nigh on them.
4. T-90 fighting a ragtag force vs. a (semi) professional force in PA? Surely you do know which ATGMs were used against the Abrams? :) Shall leave Syrian, Yemeni inputs to Singha saar.

Let's agree to disagree, for it is bias on both our parts.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13098
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 12:56

Austin the delta between the width of T-90S and Arjun is less than 9cm are you serious when you make an assertion about T-90 being narrower by 9cm is what it takes to become better suited for Syrian landscape ?

as for Pakis's getting Abrams in 1980s ; firstly Arjun is not Abrams it is made here around the GSQRs not an import made for conditions which may not be the same for importing country . Just drawing that analogy based on weight is flawed even the Pakis never rejected it for weight , no one rejects a tank for weight as per Paki folklore Abrams failed trials and T-55 won now irrespective of what the truth around the matter is it has no bearing on the discussion at hand .

If I were to recap the debate it started with Logistics angle. We have had Vickers Mk1/Vijayantas, Centurians ,M4 Shermans , T-55, T-72 , T-90s and Arjuns in our fleet aside from Arjun all were imports , for a moment if one were to take a step back and look at the time periods these tanks served us and our geo-political position during that time can someone tell me whether most of these acquisitions were done with LOGISTICS in mind or may be just based on who was ready to sell a TANK to us at that time for less or with lesser strings attached (aside from the tank fleet which we inherited post independence) ?

Arjun's introduction changes the equation it is not about buying a tank anymore ; may be buying parts for a foreseeable future but in the long term it stands to change things for India not only in military aspect but there could be good fall outs for civilian sector too.

To reduce the debate to a point where it is hung on some bridge on a canal dating back to 19th century shows we want to stick to a pov rather than admit the fact that we have not done enough to make a push for it to be inducted into the IA ; I don't think anyone can deny that there will be issues , one should be able to easily predict that now ; specially in areas like mass production , getting accepted into the field and meeting all asks but for all that to happen it needs a push , T-90 is not a BAD tank but it is the one which will come in Arjun's way . When some border skirmish will spill over and the GOI will get pressurized to act and at last moment when IA will ask for more tanks what will GOI do ? We will buy more tanks simply because we never rallied behind our own when we had the time . Hey no one is saying T-90s need to be replaced today they will have to be when they approach their EOL; question is do we have that candidate ? If Arjun Mkxxxx has to be that it needs to be pushed today concerns raised addressed today otherwise 10 years down the line some bridge is going to fail somewhere.

I have not heard about width being an issue until now; on rail wagons may be , but 9cms should be addressable right , transport them without skirts ? I assume tank skirts can be attached or removed in the field.

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 » 17 Aug 2017 14:19

Negi, for your viewing pleasure:
Image

(Basically max permissible clearance appears to be 3600mm?) More details are readily on IR sites. They have exhaustive material, and I do not think for a moment that any cargo that might damage either tracks or rail infra can be moved.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13098
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 15:13

Total space available is 3250 + 2* [2135-(3250/2)] = 4195 mm .
Last edited by negi on 17 Aug 2017 15:20, edited 1 time in total.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1652
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Zynda » 17 Aug 2017 15:18

I think another issue raised was the possibility of Arjun mounted flat beds scrapping against passenger platforms? Per the above diagram, I think the dimension of 3175 mm represents the max allowed below platform level. I don't know how tall the IR flat bed wagons are from rail track level and if mounted Arjun sides would indeed scrape against platforms.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13098
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby negi » 17 Aug 2017 15:23

The flat beds can always be made trapezoidal where base honours the constraint due to platform but be broader at the top to accommodate the tracks ; Arjun's height is 2311 mm so some room is there to play with.

T-90s also will have to be placed a bit elevated because even without their skirts just the width from track end to other track end is 3370 mm.

Here Turkey is moving the Leo2A4 the closest tank to Arjun in terms of dimensions on a "1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) standard gauge"

Image


. We have a wider 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in) broad gauge in place I for one find it very very hard to believe that we are dealing with a show stopper it is more of a technical issue which can be addressed.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8073
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 17 Aug 2017 16:26

I distinctly recall one of the PSU having a rail flatbed that was designed for arjuns transport. So the comment about rail transport is flawed in the extreme.

Please note that a flat bed road transporter exists for the tank as well.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4116
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 17 Aug 2017 16:26

Austin wrote:

Mobility is the key to armoured maneuver warfare


With more powerful engine, a GERMAN one at that, not russian, with rifled German superior gun, much more rigouresly tested than any other Tank ever, also remember Arjun beat bhishma in on the move target hitting competition scoring all vs 0.

So Arjun wins in both these parameters against t90:
Mobility
Maneuver

____________________
Thanks Sarvshri Negi, Marten & Vivek on very educational posts about bridges-bogeys-trains.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2017 16:30

Manish_Sharma wrote:
Austin wrote:

Mobility is the key to armoured maneuver warfare


With more powerful engine, a GERMAN one at that, not russian, with rifled German superior gun, much more rigouresly tested than any other Tank ever, also remember Arjun beat bhishma in on the move target hitting competition scoring all vs 0.

So Arjun wins in both these parameters against t90:
Mobility
Maneuver

____________________
Thanks Sarvshri Negi, Marten & Vivek on very educational posts about bridges-bogeys-trains.


Sure ,Take Arjun to Tank Bathlon and prove the point ......Nothing better than demonstrating with more than dozen competitor to compete.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 17 Aug 2017 16:47

negi wrote:Austin the delta between the width of T-90S and Arjun is less than 9cm are you serious when you make an assertion about T-90 being narrower by 9cm is what it takes to become better suited for Syrian landscape ?


The advantage of medium tank with lower profile , lower weight and powerful gun, even the ERA withstood ATGM hits where western tanks could not faced with ATGM.
as for Pakis's getting Abrams in 1980s ; firstly Arjun is not Abrams it is made here around the GSQRs not an import made for conditions which may not be the same for importing country . Just drawing that analogy based on weight is flawed even the Pakis never rejected it for weight , no one rejects a tank for weight as per Paki folklore Abrams failed trials and T-55 won now irrespective of what the truth around the matter is it has no bearing on the discussion at hand .


The Pakis rejected Abrams on Weight , Fuel and Accuracy , reportedly the day when zia was demonstrated the tank it managed to just hit 1 of the 6 targets and he left the demonstration and then the world . The Arjun GSQR was a panic reaction of IA of the purchase of Abrams by PA , So one heavy tank had to be met by another one .....in retrospect it might look foolish but those days we panicked to any thing that Pakis got from US from F-16 to AWACS to Abrams and went into some panic purchase
To reduce the debate to a point where it is hung on some bridge on a canal dating back to 19th century shows we want to stick to a pov rather than admit the fact that we have not done enough to make a push for it to be inducted into the IA ; I don't think anyone can deny that there will be issues , one should be able to easily predict that now ; specially in areas like mass production , getting accepted into the field and meeting all asks but for all that to happen it needs a push , T-90 is not a BAD tank but it is the one which will come in Arjun's way . When some border skirmish will spill over and the GOI will get pressurized to act and at last moment when IA will ask for more tanks what will GOI do ? We will buy more tanks simply because we never rallied behind our own when we had the time . Hey no one is saying T-90s need to be replaced today they will have to be when they approach their EOL; question is do we have that candidate ? If Arjun Mkxxxx has to be that it needs to be pushed today concerns raised addressed today otherwise 10 years down the line some bridge is going to fail somewhere.


I dont have any axe to grind against Arjun or any tank nor am I going to doubt the integrity or wisdom of why IA bough T-90 or why IAF bought Rafale i leave that to professionals , there are many factors we may not know that went into decision as arm chair people .

I dont doubt that T series comes with a unfair advantage of Logistic , Training , Manpower , Maintenance people who are familiar with its working for more than 3-4 decades something you cant steal away from them like it or not so they will have an inherent bias towards the T series , Arjun has its own merits and lets says being a superior tank in number of parameter can be used in its own way.

Dont forget Germany and EU are very sensitive to Civilian Casulty , If there is a full scale war between us and Paki I can bet every penny that EU and Germany would be the first to put any arms embargo on both the countries to avoid civilian casualties. The French and UK are the only EU countries that be the last to care amount EU contries

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 17 Aug 2017 16:59

Can somebody really find the Link where DG DRDO says about how weight of arjun is on higher aide with the rated capacity of Punjab Bridges or is it that the DRDO DG said "on the sidelines of.." that "The Army says so and so"

://www.google.co.in/amp/www.businessinsider.in/Who-is-ARJUN-the-overweight-battle-tank-on-display-in-Parliament-aiming-at/amp_articleshow/53542486.cms

during an interaction with reporters on the sidelines of the 9th Defence Expo in Goa this March. Dr S Christopher DG, DRDO gracefully accepts that the weight of Arjun is on the higher side. "Army says there are bridges where MkII might find it difficult (to move). This the reason why we have developed the other bridge and made our tank go over it again and again when displayed at DefExpo. We are trying to tell the army that even if we may not be able to use it as it is everywhere, there definitely can be places where it can be used,"

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4116
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 17 Aug 2017 17:50

Austin wrote:Sure ,Take Arjun to Tank Bathlon and prove the point ......Nothing better than demonstrating with more than dozen competitor to compete.


No biathlon is just Olympic type games, Olympics gold medalist wrestler-boxer-judoka doesn't mean they're going to be Paramveer Chakra winners.

Arjun is indigenous and already tested in much more difficult situations than t90 so nothing to prove.

See German Leo Tank can go any terrain in Russia or western Europe and bitchslap t90 but Russians will never ever have a debate to buy Leo instead of T-Series.

Same way Arjun doesn't have to prove anything more, especially against a t90 type which gets knocked out on its own without opponent hitting it. BELT BREAK, OIL LEAK.

Austin Saar if you say biathlon is criteria then at least t90 has failed, no?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 17 Aug 2017 20:09

Zynda wrote:I think another issue raised was the possibility of Arjun mounted flat beds scrapping against passenger platforms? Per the above diagram, I think the dimension of 3175 mm represents the max allowed below platform level. I don't know how tall the IR flat bed wagons are from rail track level and if mounted Arjun sides would indeed scrape against platforms.

Finally found a copy of Chacko's article on the web. He notes that...
MBT Arjun is broader and heavier than other tanks in our fleet, resulting in special, but not insurmountable, difficulties in transportation. During the last 15 years, various prototypes of Arjun MBT has been moved for trials to various sectors, by both, rail and road, by existing means of transportation, albeit with adhoc expedients, but without facing any serious difficulties.

The existing BWTA wagons have pay load capacity of 60+ tons ; the Arjun weighs 58.5 tons. The only issue is that the width of the tank is more than that of the flat and so, the tracks protrude on both sides. A six inch wooden sleepers when placed on the floor of the wagons before loading the Arjun MBT ensures that the tank tracks move over adjacent platforms without fouling with them. With this arrangement Arjun MBT’s were moved as class ‘A’ ODC on Chennai-Delhi, Delhi-Suratgarh, Delhi-Jaiselmer, Chennai-Balasore and Balasore-Delhi lines, on several occasions.

So my memory was right. The Arjun has been transported along certain routes with ODC clearance. There's no indication that this is possible along other routes that T-72s and T-90s are transported over, but it has been done nevertheless.

Looking at the diagram Marten posted, it seems that ODC would be needed along every route that features a bridge or tunnel ... which results in a straight-up increase in transportation costs.

The major concern, as I expressed earlier, is, what happens in wartime? The routes the Arjun can be transported along are already limited. When the enemy starts targeting even these routes, or if they're committed to transporting other supplies, will the Arjun make it to the field in sufficient numbers? The Army, for whatever reason, thinks it won't. Add Dr. Saraswat's assertion about bridges in Punjab, as well as reliability concerns to the mix, and you can see why the brass is not very enthused about the Arjun.



Anshuman.Kumar wrote:Can somebody really find the Link where DG DRDO says about how weight of arjun is on higher aide with the rated capacity of Punjab Bridges or is it that the DRDO DG said "on the sidelines of.." that "The Army says so and so"

It was posted on the previous page.



Prem Kumar wrote:If the bridges won't bear the weight, fix the bridges. That's what peace-time is for.

Unlike the MAFI project or Project Seabird which tsarkar mentioned here, that's not in the Army's hands. Even the MoD cannot do it alone.

Therein lies the problem. If the armed forces are called to action, it is usually because they're the last resort of national power that can be used against a grave national threat. So their operational plans and procurement decisions have to reflect ground realities. They cannot be based on theoretical ideas of what other arms of government ought to do in order to increase their effectiveness.

Equipment that causes or exacerbates logistical bottlenecks won't be bought. Period. That's why only 248 Arjuns are being purchased, for deployment in the Rajasthan/Gujarat sectors. It's why the FRCV is being limited to 50 tons. It's also why the Army is limiting the acquisition of tracked howitzers to 100 units or so, while it's throwing most of its weight behind towed guns instead.

I know I'm veering off topic with this discussion, but until the government takes a comprehensive approach towards national security and uses all the elements of national power to achieve its national objectives, any dreams of quickly developing infrastructure to support platforms with heavy logistical footprints are unlikely to materalise.

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 » 17 Aug 2017 20:34

Just one note Mihir, Chacko's article doesn't account for the BFAT (or buffer height adjustment). Also, ODC is likely not required if we refer two things from the previous posts: actual image, yt video of Arjun on a BFAT with no overhang, and the diagram I posted today actually says clearance is much more than BFAT width (accounting for curvature and incorrectly placed posts).

Edited to add, empty BFAT will be non-ODC. Loaded wagons will be ODC Class C. Info thanks to Col Arun Kumar here: http://www.defproac.com/?p=982.

Found a more illustrative DRDO publication on FMBT.
http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/ind ... 11426/5924
Last edited by Marten on 17 Aug 2017 21:02, edited 2 times in total.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1201
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Gyan » 17 Aug 2017 20:41

jayasimha wrote:List potential make in India Projects

http://www.makeinindiadefence.com/List% ... ojects.pdf
-----------------------------------

30.3.17 Potential ‘Make Projects
( Actually file name says updated 10.7.2017

http://www.makeinindiadefence.com/Updat ... 7.2017.pdf


It seems that T-90 super gun cannot achieve more than 600mm RHA penetration.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 17 Aug 2017 23:40

Marten, gotcha, thanks! Class C ODC is disappointing (requires authorisation from the Railway Safety Commissioner), but it's probably not across all routes. The major ones should take it as Class A ODC. Do you know if the BFAT is being modified to transport the Mk-II as well? The original 61 ton rating wouldn't work, even after removing the mine plough.

About the interference with the signalling equipment; I checked, and it was an issue with the Bhim, not Arjun.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Srutayus » 18 Aug 2017 01:06

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/t-series-tanks-have-been-having-snags-delay-in-overhaul-mix-of-components-the-reason/articleshow/60109663.cms
The T-72 tanks made under transfer of technology from Russia may be the mainstay of armoured division of the Army but they have given more trouble to the personnel out on the field and during training exercises on many occasions.
A driver who took out a T-72 tank for a trial run at Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi died after a gas leak inside the cabin from a fire detection system on Wednesday. Sources said there have been breakdowns and a few minor accidents in the T-series tanks during deployment or training exercises. "The track record is such that a few army officers have objected to using the tanks because of minor accidents that has led to injuries to the crew," said a DRDO official who did not want to reveal his identity.
There have been instances of cylinder blasts and barrel blasts. "When shell do not fire, there were cases of barrel blasts. But, a gas leak leading to suffocation and death of the driver is a rare case," said an official. Most of these accidents are kept under wraps.

Recently, India dropped off from a multi-nation tank exercise held in Russia after two of the T-90 tanks airlifted from India broke down during a race.

"Though technology transfer is available, certain parts need to be imported. The transfer will be done only after protecting the donor country's expertise,"

the current tanks cannot fire high penetration rounds of armour-piercing thin missiles

DRDO, however, takes inputs from these snags to perfect the tanks that are being manufactured in Avadi including Arjun Mk2 tanks which are yet to be inducted into the Army. "We have ensured that these snags do not happen in Arjun tanks. The indigenously developed tanks have performed better than the Russian T-series tanks in Indian conditions," said an official.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 18 Aug 2017 01:45

Highlighting crucial info:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/t-series-tanks-have-been-having-snags-delay-in-overhaul-mix-of-components-the-reason/articleshow/60109663.cms
The T-72 tanks made under transfer of technology from Russia may be the mainstay of armoured division of the Army but they have given more trouble to the personnel out on the field and during training exercises on many occasions.
A driver who took out a T-72 tank for a trial run at Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi died after a gas leak inside the cabin from a fire detection system on Wednesday. Sources said there have been breakdowns and a few minor accidents in the T-series tanks during deployment or training exercises. "The track record is such that a few army officers have objected to using the tanks because of minor accidents that has led to injuries to the crew," said a DRDO official who did not want to reveal his identity.
[b]There have been instances of cylinder blasts and barrel blasts. "When shell do not fire, there were cases of barrel blasts.
But, a gas leak leading to suffocation and death of the driver is a rare case," said an official.[/b] Most of these accidents are kept under wraps.

Recently, India dropped off from a multi-nation tank exercise held in Russia after two of the T-90 tanks airlifted from India broke down during a race. The trouble for T -72 stems from a mix of imported and indigenously made components. Many of the tanks need to undergo a overhaul long overdue due to capacity constraints.
"Though technology transfer is available, certain parts need to be imported. The transfer will be done only after protecting the donor country's expertise," said an official. Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi has been sending its technicians to armoured divisions to repair defective T-series tanks in the last three years.
Sources said there is a move to tackle the issue under Make in India programme by which the defence ministry is planning to make smooth-bore gun barrel and 1000Hp engine for T-72 and T-90 tanks. The barrels are being upgraded because the current tanks cannot fire high penetration rounds of armour-piercing thin missiles while the power to weight ratio of engines need to be upgraded from the existing 17hp/ton.


DRDO, however, takes inputs from these snags to perfect the tanks that are being manufactured in Avadi including Arjun Mk2 tanks which are yet to be inducted into the Army. "We have ensured that these snags do not happen in Arjun tanks. The indigenously developed tanks have performed better than the Russian T-series tanks in Indian conditions," said an official.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52816
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 18 Aug 2017 01:48

So they have decided to make the T-72/90 gun in India and are seeking non-OFB supplier.

It's news to me that T-72 gun cannot fire the FSAPDS rounds.
Good that they plan to make the 1000 bhp engine.
Kirloskar/Diesel Locomotive works all can bid for it.

What about the engine for the T-90 that OFB claims to make?

BTW the driver dying from fire suppression system leak should be attributed to production lapses at Avadi and not the tank per se. No wonder the 'official' is anonymouse.

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 » 18 Aug 2017 11:21

Mihir wrote:Marten, gotcha, thanks! Class C ODC is disappointing (requires authorisation from the Railway Safety Commissioner), but it's probably not across all routes. The major ones should take it as Class A ODC. Do you know if the BFAT is being modified to transport the Mk-II as well? The original 61 ton rating wouldn't work, even after removing the mine plough.

About the interference with the signalling equipment; I checked, and it was an issue with the Bhim, not Arjun.

Sir, the capacity is 75 tonnes per the stenciled capacity. An additional ton or two would perhaps be the margin (although IR work to a higher level of precision than my post) :). You're right about the Class C not being applicable across all divisions (it is supposedly Class A across most, but I edited it out of the post because I do not have any documents from the MC to share). It is per the route and the rates apply only to the specific sector where the margins are lesser than 3". That is atypical, as you would know. Class A, B, C margins are now 9", 6", 4" -- this is on both sides. We haven't yet heard of the rates applied to T-90s, but don't want to guess. There is a CAG report indicting IR for overcharging IA for five covered wagons by applying ODC Class C.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests