Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 05 Jun 2015 22:31

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

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

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


What is imp is creating a harmonious society. Why is this so confusing for you?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 05 Jun 2015 22:33

Getting the Armata platform MAY BE OK. India can then do her real thing and fit that platform with German engines, a British canon, French sensors, Israeli missiles and ammo and Indian armor. Paint from PakiLand.


And, I wonder why was India impressed by only the T-14? What about the rest of the others in the stable based on THE platform? Not impressed?

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 06 Jun 2015 05:19

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


always trust you to hit the right note. the savings due to this will be huge which can always be used for FCS/TI/AC replacement if need be.

however the larger but cliqued point of 'commonality' cannot be wished away - even if only in terms being 'russian' wrt T-90/72s.

also bear in mind russians have 'stood' by us like a 'rock' for ages now.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Anujan » 06 Jun 2015 05:40

Arjun has proved to be deficient in 63 parameters in the 8th round of testing. Armata has zero deficiencies as far as I can see from brochures and web articles etc. Arjun is not ready, Armata is the best choice.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 06 Jun 2015 06:05

Anujan wrote:Arjun has proved to be deficient in 63 parameters in the 8th round of testing. Armata has zero deficiencies as far as I can see from brochures and web articles etc. Arjun is not ready, Armata is the best choice.


again on the dot.

and we can't wait for those 63 parameters to be fixed in the 21st trial post 10 years!! besides the CVRDE support/prod capabilities have also been called in to question.

Armata has 'zero' deficiences as noted in brochures/web because it comes out of the russian 'repertoire'. they manufacture tanks for a living and have been doing it for donkey's years now.

so no surprise when you say - Arjun is not ready, Armata is the best choice. the sad part is while the decision makers understand this, the arjun lobby here on BRF 'never' reconciles - IMO.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 06 Jun 2015 06:21

I beg the admibs to rename this the Russo Rakshak forum. The posts above are simply disgusting. One individual is praising the "pleasing finish" while another states that the Armata has no deficiencies in brochures wile the Arjun has 63 deficiencies. And then the same poster has the gall to call a tank that broke down on its first unveiling ready while the Arjun that has been tested for hundreds of thousands of miles as not ready.

Indians have been corrupted beyond repair!!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 06 Jun 2015 06:25

I say death to the proponents of the Indian tank. Imports forever, that need to be fixed by getting fire control post purchase. That need new engines post purchase. That need a new gun post purchase. Need new ammo to be imported as an emergency purchase cause we don't have the TOT for the Ammo. Let's have an import chant, the way people used to chant sachin's name.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 06 Jun 2015 07:02

The Armata is already in series production. There were three on display in one parade alone. What's the Arjun:parade ratio in comparison? Plus, the Russians also demonstrated that their ARV works with the Armata. In the middle of the parade at that! Do we have videos of the Arjun being recovered similarly?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1841
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 06 Jun 2015 07:17

Gais, enough of Armata r@ndi rona. Iph you don't stahp i will kry :)

OK, check out Kestrel in action and an early tracked chassis variant.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... st-1044472

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 06 Jun 2015 08:04

I stand by Philip. T-90 unlike the Arjuns wont cook off and burn our jawans alive. This is why he peddles it.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 06 Jun 2015 09:08

Thakur_B wrote:Gais, enough of Armata r@ndi rona. Iph you don't stahp i will kry :)

OK, check out Kestrel in action and an early tracked chassis variant.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/thre ... st-1044472


Dosent comes with Natasha's :(( :((

Cannot levitate :(( ::

It cannot shoot Brahmos :(( :((

Kill it, and buy the russuian junk onlee :(( :((

Abandon all domestic efforts and only buy the Russian maal. :(( :((

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 06 Jun 2015 09:52

RoyG wrote:I stand by Philip. T-90 unlike the Arjuns wont cook off and burn our jawans alive. This is why he peddles it.

You forgot - the tin can also is aesthetically pleasing in line with our culture leading to a harmonious society. BTW, the Arjun has much superior protection compared to the T-90.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 06 Jun 2015 17:36

Forget the rhetoric.Wait for the GOI/IA to decide what's best for us.They have all the facts of the matter ,classified performance data whatever.At the moment the talk of acquiring the Armata is only talk. Even if it is offered,or we are "showing interest",just look at the long lead time it has taken to take a decision on the Rafale.I don't think that a T-14 buy is anywhere round the corner ,esp. as CVRDE is having such a tough time delivering on existing projects,T-72 upgrades,T-90 and Arjun production. Getting back to delivering the "food" ordered already and creating the support infrastructure for the 124 A-1s (which are allegedly facing support problems in the field) with the IA ,should be the immediate priority.

As said before,the T-14 has to be put through thorough trials ,comparing it with the A MK-2 before assessing whether it would make a significant difference qualitatively vis-à-vis Pak and China for the IA,and whether sev. hundreds of Arjun Mk-2s are sufficient for the moment until a superior FMBT is required to replace obsolescent tanks being retired.The planned fig. of 4500 tanks has to be reviewed in the light of the current economic conditions,number,type and cost options.

One may admire the T-14s features,but as I said in my post,it certainly won't come cheap and unlikely right now as we have v.little money to splurge .The IA decided years /a decade ago that their mainstay MBT would be the T-90,picking up along the way whatever Arjuns Avadi could churn out. Since the Mk-2 has supposedly met with success in trials thus far,and if it has met with all the dozens of improvements demanded by the IA,it would be logical for the GOI/MOD to order another batch of Mk-2s,at least another 124-300 to keep the Arjun production line running smoothly.A prod rate of approx. 1 MK-2 tank/week would see at least 50 MK-2s produced /yr,250+ tanks built in 5 years time,with hundreds of T-72 upgrades and new T-90s from earlier orders to be also completed by 2020.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 06 Jun 2015 18:44

"Fact of the matter" is that India can be self reliant WRT tanks - that much is proved. She needs to implement it, that is all.

I would follow the supposed 1500 up engine being worked on internally, and perhaps a few other similar techs that can influence, and then read the tea leaves on a progressive basis.


As far as the T-14, seems to me it has been designed for the Russians.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Anujan » 07 Jun 2015 09:11

Arjun's flat front always bothered me. If a round hits it, it would penetrate. Armata has sloping front. A round will get deflected up or down and wont penetrate. Also rifled guns dont get much muzzle velocity like smoothbore guns. Maybe Armata will be a viable upgrade path for all the T72 given commonality of logistics (they are both after all from Russia and therefore are similar)

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 07 Jun 2015 09:48

Anujan wrote:Arjun's flat front always bothered me. If a round hits it, it would penetrate. Armata has sloping front. A round will get deflected up or down and wont penetrate.


correct. this had bothered the decision makers too which is why they went for the T-90s. Armata too has similar front which makes it an easy choice.

Also rifled guns dont get much muzzle velocity like smoothbore guns.


right. another point why the T-90s came in. a 'minor' irritant of non transfer of gun barrel TOT (which forced the SDREs to put their own guns) apart, it has been a smooth ride otherwise. why this advantage has to be frittered away if one has to look for future options, may i ask?

Maybe Armata will be a viable upgrade path for all the T72 given commonality of logistics (they are both after all from Russia and therefore are similar)


the commonality factor - i did note in one of my post too but i have a slightly different POV wrt the T-72s. it would be better if Armata takes over as the main MBT - 'punching' the holes in the theory that a heavier tank (similar to Arjun) cannot be IA's main MBT. being latest gen with zero deficiences - as noted by you, also adds to the value. T-72s can be replaced by the venerable T-90s. this helps all russian commonality on which we both agree.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 07 Jun 2015 11:29

The reason why Arjun and comparable western tanks like the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 have straight angles rather than sloping ones is because they have composite armor, which works best when facing a kinetic round head on. The russian crap has just steel for armor (with inserts like, hold your breath, SAND, particularly in the older models). So, it is is better served with WW2 kind of sloped armor. In fact, I think under the ERA, the T-90 turret has straight angles (surprise, surprise). So, there goes another vaunted advantage of the T90.

Image

The Western tanks put ERA on top of this composites and they are arranged at an angle, which is what Arjun has done in Mk2 version as well.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 07 Jun 2015 15:16

Unless one has access to hard data on the vulnerability factor of the hulls/turrets of each tank type,from either trials or evidence from the battlefield,it is pointless to say which tank has better armour/defences unless armour thickness/type is specified,results of trials,etc. Only comprehensive testing will enlighten one.The chief advance of the T-14 is the remotely controlled crewless turret with all its accompanying bells and whistles,and the better crew protection of the armoured capsule. Let's see what gives when that happens.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby amit » 07 Jun 2015 15:28

Pratyush wrote: Dosent comes with Natasha's :(( :((


I'm a newbie here so I have a question for the experts. Maybe Pratyush ji you can help.

Since the Armata is so much bigger than T-90, are the Natasha's associated with Armata correspondingly, "ahem..." bigger than those associated with T-90s?

I ask because if so, it could prove to be a problem for short dark rice eating folks. We may need to ask the TFTA Pak armoured brigade to help out.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby amit » 07 Jun 2015 15:30

Philip wrote:At the moment the talk of acquiring the Armata is only talk.


Boss that's the fear. I think most folks are worried about a "butterfly" effect starting.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby amit » 07 Jun 2015 15:35

Philip wrote:The chief advance of the T-14 is the remotely controlled crewless turret with all its accompanying bells and whistles,and the better crew protection of the armoured capsule. Let's see what gives when that happens.


Philip,

Is the above based on "access to hard data"? If it is not then

... it is pointless to say which tank has better armour/defences unless armour thickness/type is specified,results of trials,etc. Only comprehensive testing will enlighten one.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 08 Jun 2015 01:42

India had shown interest in a polish light tank. I hope they seriously look into the PL-01 too. Looks rather similar to the Russian tank in many ways

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19877
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Jun 2015 02:20

In fact we should look into every program with access to such state of teh art design tools like Photoshop and MS Paint :lol:

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 08 Jun 2015 03:54

Will each Arm-rat come with a tow truck??

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 08 Jun 2015 08:49

Amit,the crew is not housed in a vulnerable turret no matter what type of armour it has.The T-14s crew is in an "armoured capsule" in the hull,lower down and less exposed. A turret can be attacked from behind,top attack apart from shells,missiles striking it from various angles. Even if the turret is somehow blown off ,the crew will remain by design unscathed. This is the key feature of the new MBT,automated turret,with the crew heavily protected in the hull.The bells and whistles,active/passive defences,etc. are icing on the cake. If as is suspected,it is going to be fitted with a larger gun,it wil outrange its adversaries .Early days though,one has to wait and see what the final Mk-1 production versions feature.

Light tanks/amphib tanks are a must for the IA.The '71 war win was due to many factors,one was the PT-76 which easily mastered the riverine terrain of E.Pak,as the IA by-passed Paki strong points like the Japanese in Malaya in WW2. We need to have tanks operating in the mountains,where such ops are possible,which are easy to airlift,deploy and sustain. perhaps one light tank design might suffice for both kinds of terrain.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 08 Jun 2015 09:22

Vivek K wrote:Will each Arm-rat come with a tow truck??

They are called Armoured Recovery Vehicles. And no, they need to be bought separately. Possibly from Poland who also have Natasha technology. http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Now-CBI ... 859963.cms

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby amit » 08 Jun 2015 10:48

Philip wrote:This is the key feature of the new MBT,automated turret,with the crew heavily protected in the hull.The bells and whistles,active/passive defences,etc. are icing on the cake. If as is suspected,it is going to be fitted with a larger gun,it wil outrange its adversaries .Early days though,one has to wait and see what the final Mk-1 production versions feature.


And you know this how? By looking at nice brochures and heavily Photoshopped pictures on the web? I hope you do realise that the top down view picture of the new tank side by side to the T-90 has all the hallmarks of a photoshopped image - and not a very professional executed one at that.

Look, let me make a rhetorical statement. It's up to you to disprove it.

I think the Arjun is a far better tank with more growth potential than the T-14. Do you agree?

A simple Yes/No will suffice.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 08 Jun 2015 10:50

Same, same.

crew is not housed in a vulnerable turret no matter what type of armour it has.The T-14s crew is in an "armoured capsule" in the hull,lower down and less exposed. A turret can be attacked from behind,top attack apart from shells,missiles striking it from various angles. Even if the turret is somehow blown off ,the crew will remain by design unscathed.


PL-01 too is exactly same. And more actually. Cheaper too.

Possibly from Poland who also have Natasha technology


Nope. BAE. Brit.


BTW, this concept machine has a unique skin, developed by the brits.

From a tech point of view it is a better option. Light at 35 tons and carries a 120 gun too. Proto next year. Prod in 2020.

If Russian, then why not Poland?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 08 Jun 2015 12:07

Image

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 08 Jun 2015 12:10

Any country but Indian. Interesting no.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 08 Jun 2015 14:55

India should forget this Arjun business and make a Light Combat Tank. It should have a 155mm main gun, missile firing capability, a remote weapon station, composite armour, APS, and space to carry a section of soldiers into battle (like the (like the Merkava), etc. This should fit within the footprint of the existing T-72 for logistics purposes and should weigh no more than 42 tons.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19877
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Jun 2015 15:04

What is the STR and ITR of this tank?

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 08 Jun 2015 15:10

Karan M wrote:What is the STR and ITR of this tank?

:mrgreen:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 08 Jun 2015 15:23

Karan M wrote:What is the STR and ITR of this tank?



What ITR &STR. IThe will have warp capability. Can cloak, and comes with Natasha's.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19877
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Jun 2015 15:24

Pratyush wrote:
Karan M wrote:What is the STR and ITR of this tank?



What ITR &STR. IThe will have warp capability. Can cloak, and comes with Natasha's.


Is it as manly as Putin? Is it as honest as MiG
Is it as reliable as the T-90?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 08 Jun 2015 15:25

It is all the that and more. It is awesome x million.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19877
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Jun 2015 15:28

Phillip will cry himself to sleep in happiness on reading that. Such good news.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8434
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 08 Jun 2015 15:43

Too bad he is on my ignore list.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 08 Jun 2015 17:19

The "polka" looks interesting.No idea however about the bells and whistles and full specs though.Surely when this concept tank is in production avatar it is well worth a hard look at .Nothing ventured,nothing gained! We can't be blinkered,but have to watch developments worldwide to see whether our designs could incorporate some of the ideas relevant to our needs.In the past we used for decades,Polish Iskra trainers,Polish built Polnocny LCTs and the Poles are even upgrading their legacy MIG-29s!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 08 Jun 2015 17:36

Multiple points here:

1) When one looks at it very serious, the T-14 is nothing "revolutionary", actually not even unique. It is a tank based on a good system for the Russian forces - it was designed for the Russians (as it should be). But, from a features stand point it is actually a little behind the curve

2) IF Poland can invest in a "tank" .............. in short support a MIC that can attract export capable attention, I just do not see why India cannot do it. Look outside for ideas, but there is absolutely no reason to buy Russian. None. Ideas, yup. ProductS, I do not see a need to do so.

3) What has happened has happened. In 2015 (onwards) India better build a robust internal capability mentality. Not the "make in India" or "made in India" nara, but a total change in thinking, a state of mind, whatever one wants to call it. For the time being Look outside, lean inside, in the future it should become "Look inside"

4) The decisionS India makes today (this year) will impact the next 20-30 years. Not worth leaning on the Russians, no matter how tempting the product may be made out to be.

5) India cannot be distracted by what others are "doing" - the Poles are upgrading their MiG-29 for their own good. Means nothing WRT India. (BTW, the Poles are being helped by Israel Aerospace Industries to upgrade their MiG-29s. India should use the Israelis too for such activities. And perhaps spares too.)


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests