Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19842
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2016 18:38

I see where you were quoting the IR jammer from, its from Elbits brochre. But one hasn't been seen on Mk2 as of yet.
IMO more than a IR jammer, they should go for a hard kill system but one which works against FSAPDS too, like an Iron Fist derivative.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3940
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby arshyam » 31 Mar 2016 19:01

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Please bear with me for 2/3 days while I try to get some non classified info. Bridging info is sensitive as you can understand.

Sir, please don't think I was hurrying you up, was just posing a general question that came into my mind :). I didn't realize that this was what you were trying to find out. And no, if it is sensitive info, I will beat a quick retreat here. Please share what you can, no worries.

Looked around a bit, and found this excellent review by Rohit-ji on his blog: Indian Army - Canal Crossing Operation-II (Blogspot)

SARVATRA is a multi – span scissor launched fully fabricated bridging system which is carried on a TATRA vehicle and is used to cross the obstacles during advance of tank columns.
<snip>
As the source of the above description suggests, L&T has played a crucial role in the development of this system and partnered with DRDO for the R&D. However, instead of awarding the contract for production of this system to L&T, MOD gave the contract for the same to BEML.
<snip>

Salient Features
Load Class: MLC-70 - this means it can handle MBT Arjun {Not sure what MLC-70 means, is 70 the tonnage?}
Single Span Length: 15/20 m
Multi-Span Capability: 75/100 m
Roadway Width: 3.45 m during transportation; 4 m during use
Span Height: 2.6 m to 6 m
Construction time: 15 minutes
Crew: 1 driver + 3


From what I've been able to gather, Indian Army has three types of BLT in service. These are T-55 BLT, Kartik BLT and T-72 BLT. While DRDO has developed a MLC-70 BLT based on Arjun tank, the same may not be inducted into the service


There is also this embedded video on the same page, but it does not work for me:


A similar one, that I found worked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VUpsQqefXM

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 31 Mar 2016 19:06

Karan M wrote:I see where you were quoting the IR jammer from, its from Elbits brochre. But one hasn't been seen on Mk2 as of yet.
IMO more than a IR jammer, they should go for a hard kill system but one which works against FSAPDS too, like an Iron Fist derivative.


Then what is that panel like thing on the front right glacis? I thought it was an IR jammer.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 31 Mar 2016 19:07

^^^

DRDO built a BLT variant but AFAIK the IA said they didn't want it.


Arjun BLT
Image
The Arjun BLT (or Bridge Layer Tank) is a combat engineering vehicle, designed to carry, lay and retrieve an assault bridge. It was developed by DRDO. The reason this bridgelayer was developed, is because the current Indian AVLBs are not capable of supporting the Arjun MBTs, that are much heavier than the previous tanks, operated by the Indian Army. It is worth mentioning that to date there were no production orders on this armored bridgelayer.

This combat engineering vehicle is based on the Arjun main battle tank, which is in limited service with the Indian Army. The turret was replaced with a bridgelaying system. It can handle larger loads and uses cantilever type bridgelaying method, where bridge is laid horizontally. The main advantage of such design, is that it can not be observed some distance away by the enemy.

It is an MLC-70 class bridge, with a payload capacity of 70 t. It provides passage for wheeled or tracked military vehicles. It is also capable of supporting the lighter T-72 or T-90 main battle tanks, that are currently in service with the Indian Army.

The Arjun BLT can carry two types of bridges. A steel bridge can span a gap of 24 m, while aluminum bridge can span a gap of 26 m. The bridge can be recovered from either end. On travelling the bridge is carried in two halves one on top of the other. It is claimed that Arjun based armored bridgelayer is superior to the T-72 based units.

This armored bridgelayer has a crew of two, including driver and commander (bridge operator).

The Arjun BLT has the same level of cross-country mobility as the Arjun main battle tank. Vehicle is powered by a German MTU MB 838 Ka-501 turbocharged diesel engine, developing 1 400 hp.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19842
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2016 19:07

So for Mk2 - going by memory
LAHAT (didn't work out so CLGM being finalized)
FSAPDS Mk2 for Arjun
ALWCS
New ammunition storage
ERA + NERA
New CPS
New RCWS
mine protection seating for driver
New APU
Reliability improvements - running gear, fuel system etc
New muzzle reference boresighting

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 31 Mar 2016 19:11

^^^

Upcoming modifications on the Arjun Mark II
...
I know, like every married person, that “major” and “minor” are relative terms. But here is the list of 19 major modifications that the Arjun Mark II will feature. The list was finalized after extensive user opinion canvassing and feedback from the DGQA, DGEME, OFB, other DRDO labs.

1. Missile firing capability
2. Commander’s TI panoramic sight Mk II
3. Driver’s uncooled thermal imaging night sight
4. Additional ammunition (don’t ask… won’t tell!)
5. Enhanced ammunition penetrator
6. Effective alternative to muzzle reference sight (MRS)
7. Resin-based CCC
8. Ten-round containerised bin
9. Explosive reactive armour panels
10. Infra-red/Thermal imaging resistant paint
11. Air defence weapon remote firing
12. ALWCS (advanced laser warning and countermeasure system)
13. Roof mounted driver’s seat
14. ATT in GMS (gunner’s main sight)
15. Advanced land navigation system
16. New final drive with increased reduction ratio
17. Advanced running gear system
18. New track system
19. Mine plough

In addition, there are 74 “minor” improvements (adding up to 93 improvements in all) that are not really that minor. For example:

1. An improved sprocket wheel that modifies the manufacturing process from rolled homogenous armour (which required gas cutting and machining) to a forged sprocket which is 50% the cost, 50% easier to build and gives a longer life.

2. Another minor modification is the incorporation of stainless steel fuel tanks. The painting required for the insides of the earlier mild steel tanks was creating residue that clogged the fuel lines and filters. But stainless steel requires no painting.

3. Internal electrical wiring has been comprehensively re-laid, incorporating the dozens of modifications that have been incrementally carried out over the years. The wiring has now been laid systematically, making it easier to track and repair.

4. The radio harness has been modified, and internal communications are now digital. That makes it easier to integrate audio alarms and provides an SMS facility between the crew (how ‘bout sum chai?). It is totally noise free… now the crew can communicate easily.

5. Another improvement is the incorporation of a new compact Auxillary Power Unit (APU), which provides 8 KW of electrical power (uprated from the existing 4.5 KW APU). This requirement is based on fresh load budgeting calculations, allowing the tank to operate in “silent mode” with the additional electronics… also keeping a cushion for future electronic enhancements.


...

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19842
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 31 Mar 2016 19:19

Thanks SRai- explains exactly why DRDO didnt redesign the turret. IA was ok w/it. Also that in turn reiterates that despite all the armchair q'backing on the net, how heavily protected Arjun turret is.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 31 Mar 2016 19:28

Akshay Kapoor wrote:That is why I said earlier that most bridges held by the Corps of Engrs cannot handle Arjun MK2 for sure. I am not sure about MK1. I know from open sources that some Sarvatra (good truck based bridge) bridges were ordered from BEML (developed by L&T and DRDO R&D Engrs and both wanted L&T to build them but AKA gave BEML the order). I don't know how many have been inducted. I am trying to get information.

...


Total requirement is 50 Sarvatra bridges. Cost is Rs 22 crores each. The entire order is worth Rs 1100 crores.

Army, DRDO want L&T; but Antony bats for BEML
February 15, 2010
...
Antony has ignored the recommendations of the army, the DRDO, and his own officials, while nominating BEML as the nodal agency for the Rs 170 crores contract to build the first eight Sarvatra bridges.
...
BEML, one of the MoD’s eight Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs), claims that it should be the nodal agency because it manufactures the Tatra high-mobility vehicles on which the Sarvatra bridge is carried. Each of the Sarvatra’s five sections is mounted on a Tatra. But L&T points out —- and the army and DRDO agree —- that BEML has had nothing to do with the engineering of the Sarvatra, a complex, decade-long process of engineering aluminium structures.

Whichever of the two is the nodal agency, initially L&T will manufacture the bridges while BEML will build the Tatras. But the nodal agency will obtain more prestige and profit: recognition as the builder of the Sarvatra, and profit margins over the entire bridge. The nodal agency also decides the improvements in technology. It could choose an alternative partner in the future, or even go it alone.

L&T worries that the initial contract for eight bridges is merely the thin end of the wedge. Once BEML is nominated the nodal agency for those, a precedent will have been established for the army’s entire requirement of 50 Sarvatra bridges. Priced at about Rs 22 crores each, the entire order is worth Rs 1100 crores.
...
The Sarvatra Bridge allows Indian mechanised forces, including the 60-tonne Arjun tank, a quick crossing over canals and rivers that come in their path. Capable of bridging a 75-metre canal or river in less then two hours, this would leave the enemy with little time to side-step forces to block the Indian advance. The Sarvatra will replace the East European PMS Bridges, which require 57 Tatra vehicles to bridge 100 metres. In contrast, the Sarvatra, with just five Tatras, bridges 75 metres. At Rs 60 crores per set, the PMS costs almost thrice as much as a Sarvatra.



According to this DRDO newletter SARVATRA BRIDGING SYSTEM:
  • 5 LSP ordered followed by
  • 22 sets order placed (BEML)

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3485
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya G » 03 Apr 2016 03:12

Tata FICV technology demonstrator ~old pic

Image

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 07 Apr 2016 17:46


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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 09 Apr 2016 17:11

Image

Lt Gen Ak Singh, GOC-in-C, Southern Command ( Retd )

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kersi D » 12 Apr 2016 17:42

Karan M wrote:Thanks SRai- explains exactly why DRDO didnt redesign the turret. IA was ok w/it. Also that in turn reiterates that despite all the armchair q'backing on the net, how heavily protected Arjun turret is.


And when Arjun "meets" all the parameters, IA will find some faults with the turret !!!

member_28911
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28911 » 12 Apr 2016 18:45

Kersi D wrote:
Karan M wrote:Thanks SRai- explains exactly why DRDO didnt redesign the turret. IA was ok w/it. Also that in turn reiterates that despite all the armchair q'backing on the net, how heavily protected Arjun turret is.


And when Arjun "meets" all the parameters, IA will find some faults with the turret !!!


Arjun turret is boxy and real men like curves so IA has to reject Arjun MBT

member_29190
BRFite
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_29190 » 12 Apr 2016 23:04

Let me put forth a alternate view.

I agree with IA's decision to go for T-90 and has nothing to do with Arjun's capabilities.

From IA's point of view, it's prime objective: be ready for war. NOW.

It is a simple question for Armour corps. Do I have enough trained men who know their kit and do I have the logistics to sustain them?

This question is where Arjun always had a disadvantage.

Commonality b/w T-72 & T-90, when it comes to training, logistics, screw driver job by OFB is the strong point. So you have an upgrade in capabilities with the minimum cost. I can take 3 men from T72 and put them on T-90. Can I put the same 3 men on Arjun?

Pak(65 war) & Saudi's showed us what happens when TFTA kit with no training is inducted. Nor can we expect IA to trust OFB's on national defence, when none in BR trust OFB's to productionise a gun efficently.

As I see in the near future, IA will continue to push back with idea of mass induction of Arjun.

So what is the way forward? My humble opinion is DRDO should start "Indianising" T-90. i.e. replacing Russian components with Indian ones.

Rusian Engine with Indian Engine. Engine size which can fit T-90 & future Arjuns.
Arjun optics on T-90
Arjun armour on T-90
See if it is possible to have Arjun hydro shocks on T-90
See if it possible to convert T-90 auto-loader to take in single piece ammo. Improve ammo layout.
Either make Arjun 120mm smoothbore or T-90 rifled.
Same Active defence, ERA etc

So ultimately T-90 only in exterior and all Indian inside. So the next time when DRDO offers Arjun 2/3/ FMBT, it will just be a better T-90 !

Reduce the need for two line of training & logistics.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 13 Apr 2016 00:24

nit wrote:Let me put forth a alternate view.

I agree with IA's decision to go for T-90 and has nothing to do with Arjun's capabilities.

From IA's point of view, it's prime objective: be ready for war. NOW.


Yep good point. Point acknowledged

nit wrote:It is a simple question for Armour corps. Do I have enough trained men who know their kit and do I have the logistics to sustain them?
This question is where Arjun always had a disadvantage.
Commonality b/w T-72 & T-90, when it comes to training, logistics, screw driver job by OFB is the strong point. So you have an upgrade in capabilities with the minimum cost. I can take 3 men from T72 and put them on T-90. Can I put the same 3 men on Arjun?


Yes good point making with the men and all. However the upgrade was not at minimum cost.
Except if you mean the minimum cost at which we allowed ourselves to be raped by the Russians and the Russian Army lobby.
The amount we have to beg the Russians to give us for which we have already paid for is bloody amazing.
Vikramaditya
Frigates (SHIT-L system)
T-90
T-72 (night blindness)
Su-30MKI (localisation)
the localised Kilo-refit
I could go on

nit wrote:Pak(65 war) & Saudi's showed us what happens when TFTA kit with no training is inducted. Nor can we expect IA to trust OFB's on national defence, when none in BR trust OFB's to productionise a gun efficently.


Hmmm.... so did we induct a training kit when we got our first T series tanks or were our tankers born inside a tank and were familiar with them from birth.
If anything you are more likely to make a mistake with training when inducting something off shelf.

Have you heard of the tank training system that we have for the Arjun.
http://www.cae.com/uploadedfiles/conten ... ystems.pdf

I have not heard of anything similar for the T-72 or 55 or even the 90



nit wrote:So what is the way forward? My humble opinion is DRDO should start "Indianising" T-90. i.e. replacing Russian components with Indian ones.
Rusian Engine with Indian Engine. Engine size which can fit T-90 & future Arjuns.
Arjun optics on T-90
Arjun armour on T-90
See if it is possible to have Arjun hydro shocks on T-90
See if it possible to convert T-90 auto-loader to take in single piece ammo. Improve ammo layout.
Either make Arjun 120mm smoothbore or T-90 rifled.
Same Active defence, ERA etc
So ultimately T-90 only in exterior and all Indian inside. So the next time when DRDO offers Arjun 2/3/ FMBT, it will just be a better T-90 !



So literally you are either asking for the FMBT or the Tank-Ex.
Therefore you are asking for a new Tank.
Which will be made in India using a German or Russian Power Pack (yeah we don't do engines as yet).

Nit, the fact is we need a clean design and we got one by going for the Arjun.
While on the face it looks like the Leo the face and the engine are as close as it gets.

The metallurgy behind the armour is ours, the battle management system is ours.

It makes my skin crawl to think of putting this in the T-series.
I have very little love / loyalty left towards the Russians that I used to when my father was in the army.
Mainly because the world has changed and the Russians have become very transactional however unlike the rest of the world their transactions seem to leave a bitter taste in the mouth of the consumer's cheque payer. i.e you and the govt.

The T-series are great and yes our folks are trained very well on it and know all about it.
However we also operated the Vijayanta series before and the Corps of EME is well equipped to handle few different logistical lines for different tanks.

I have seen excellent repair and rehaul work being done by the EME.

Your reasons cited above are excellent and I see you making an effort for a breakthrough however the only way forward is to end this dependence on phoren drugs.

We have started to make it in India, perhaps next step would be to consume in India as well.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 13 Apr 2016 01:31

Please read this Nit

Almost mandatory reading for Arjun haters and Arjun lovers alike.
http://www.forceindia.net/PressureontheGroundAugust2012.aspx

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 13 Apr 2016 03:44

nit,

Most of us are advocating for decent orders for Arjun MBT Mk.1/2 where it becomes viable for industry to productionize it and support it. Viable order is 500 units.

Look at Arjun production lines--they have sat idle for more than four years because the IA ordered only 124 Mk.1 tanks and then asked for uber Mk.2, which they are only ordering 118 units and seem to keep putting it back for user trials with one additional request or the other. For an army with over 3500 MBTs, surely 500 Arjuns is little to ask for! It has already proven to be superior to the T-series so no one is asking the IA to induct an inferior tank. Yes, like any new product, some expenditure will be incurred for support infrastructure but that is peanuts when compared to the costs associated with the raising of a questionable 60,000 strong Mountain Strike Corps (MSC). Then, the IA has plans to induct further 300 T-90MS for mountains. Why can't the T-90s on the deserts of Rajasthan be relocated to the mountains and then those replaced with Arjuns?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 13 Apr 2016 05:09

srai wrote:nit,
Why can't the T-90s on the deserts of Rajasthan be relocated to the mountains and then those replaced with Arjuns?


Yes that would be brilliant and idea.
I don't know why seriously don't know why ?

I am sure there is more playing areas in Rajasthan that could be used by the Arjuns but I suspect that Arjuns are not part of Strike Corps formation because of lack of viable playing fields for them and thus it might not get all the allocated areas unless they become part of the strike corps.

A catch 22 situation.

However I still agree 500 is a good figure and just as we have stringent offset this and offset that clause.
We should have a clause for the Armoured Corps that you have will have an X %age of your tanks as Desi Arjuns.


Another thing that comes to my mind in regards to why we were seeing another round of push back for the Arjun Mk2 is that these Arjun Mk2 will not be replacing the T-55s anymore. They will be replacing the much beloved T-72s, the darlings of the Armoured Corps.

Look No old school Brigade Commander, Div Cdr , Co wants to lose his 72s because they are getting Arjun.
For them the upgrade path is via T-90 so its going to become even worse.

However NaMO and Parrikar have to break through.
They must break through.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 13 Apr 2016 05:38

"The tank is too heavy to be deployed across the border with Pakistan. It is unable to effectively traverse terrain filled with natural and/or artificial obstacles. Or areas criss-crossed with rivers and canals. That rules out most places in Rajasthan, Punjab and the mountainous terrain of the J&K sector."

Will gurus here please explain how weight of a tank directly affects it's capability to traverse terrain filled with natural or artificial obstacles ? Also how it affects criss crossing water bodies ?

NB :The Arjun’s heavier weight is distributed over a larger area because of its larger tracks. Its nominal ground-pressure is lower than the Russian tanks. So, the Arjun can actually move more easily in Punjab

Revisiting past :http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://wap.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/army-scuttles-arjun-trials-to-push-through-russian-t-90-purchase-112112602007_1.html&ei=bjsBIq0W&lc=en-IN&s=1&m=749&host=www.google.co.in&ts=1460510205&sig=APY536xchv2F40c0s9A5J3TuY8L9MICxGA

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kersi D » 13 Apr 2016 09:33

Let the Indian Army test / select / opt / choose the T 14 Armata (weight > 50+ MT)

OVERNIGHT all the roads and bridges in Punjab / Rajasthan / J&K et al all over India will become strong to take the heavy weight !!!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 13 Apr 2016 10:43

Shaun,

It's an old argument being rehashed over and over again. It's not very truthful to state in such as expansive way as in the quote, which makes it sound like Arjun can't go anywhere. A case of weight anxiety similar to electric cars and range anxiety.

Let's debunk that myth in 2016:
  • MLC-70 class bridging systems -> all new military ones are rated at 70-t: Savarta (75m span), Arjun BLT (26-m span)
  • National Highway (NH) -> all bridges would be rated 70t or higher.
  • Railway carriage -> already has special carriage made and works within the permissible limits of railways
  • Transport vehicle -> already exists
  • Medium Fording (without prep) -> capability demonstrated (much less water ingress than T-90s)

So the truth is Arjun MBT can go many places with the current infrastructure. A little more investment in MLC-70 bridging systems by both the IA and highway authorities would address remaining weight anxiety.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ArmenT » 13 Apr 2016 11:02

Shaun wrote:"The tank is too heavy to be deployed across the border with Pakistan. It is unable to effectively traverse terrain filled with natural and/or artificial obstacles. Or areas criss-crossed with rivers and canals. That rules out most places in Rajasthan, Punjab and the mountainous terrain of the J&K sector."

Will gurus here please explain how weight of a tank directly affects it's capability to traverse terrain filled with natural or artificial obstacles ? Also how it affects criss crossing water bodies ?

NB :The Arjun’s heavier weight is distributed over a larger area because of its larger tracks. Its nominal ground-pressure is lower than the Russian tanks. So, the Arjun can actually move more easily in Punjab

Not a guru by any means, but the weight affects how it crosses bridges over water bodies. If you have a deep, fast-flowing river with a bridge across it that is rated for (say) max. weight of 50 tons, you *may* be able to drive a 60 ton tank across it (hoping that the bridge builders used a decent factor-of-safety in the design and the contractor of the bridge didn't skimp on the materials and use substandard stuff). However, you probably wouldn't want to drive a 70 ton tank across it. It doesn't matter if the 70 ton tank has lower ground pressure, because when it gets to the middle of that bridge, what matters is the weight of the tank, not the ground pressure that it exerts. Remember that even if a bridge is rated for 50 tons, your average vehicle crossing that bridge could weigh a lot less and your tank might have been the heaviest thing it has seen in a while (who knows if it will even hold up 50 tons now) Last thing you want is for the bridge to collapse after two heavy tanks have got across and the rest of them are still on the other side of the bridge.

The other alternatives to crossing such a water obstacle are:
(a) Find a different crossing point on the river that is shallower and with lower flow rate.
(b) Build your own temporary bridge that is built for 70 tons.
(c) Use a tank that weighs less to cross.

(a) requires prior recon to make sure it is a suitable point and also, it might not be fordable during certain times of the year. Also, such crossing points may need to be found on the other side of the border.
(b) requires an investment into further hardware (e.g.) bridge laying tanks, rafts etc. <<< *** IA is already invested into building this capability ***
(c) requires a lighter tank.

Option (a) is where Arjun has advantage over T-90, as it seems to have better fording capabilities, but it may not be practical to use everywhere (you can build all the bridges on your side of the fence, but there may be places across the border where even Arjun can't ford over). Option (b) is what the IA should be really expanding their capability on, since they have already got an investment into it, instead of going for option (c)

Just my two cents.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 13 Apr 2016 11:18

Already the Arjun BLT with 70T capability is available.
http://www.military-today.com/engineering/arjun_blt.htm

Everyone is forgetting what the tank is supposed to do after crossing the bridge. If the protection of the tank (T-72, T-90) is not good, then its better not to cross. When Arjun crosses and gets to the other side, there is nothing that can stop them.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 13 Apr 2016 19:34

Thank you all, for the replies. @srai sahab , I think it's no harm repeating as the "system "gets the limelight required. So the main argument are bridges with required specification. IA have all the details of those bridges and they very well know , those cannot support Arjun.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 13 Apr 2016 20:06

The biggest drawback of the T90 is how deadly it is to the men inside if the tank is penetrated. Some 20 odd propellant charges are scattered all over the hull and the turret.. If penetrated, there is **no way** that tank is not brewing up! Further, if a mine blows up under the tank, the resulting spall will ignite the charges stored in the auto loader.

The second biggest drawback is the two part ammunition restricting the rod length of the APFSDS.

The third biggest drawback is the underpowered/unreliable engine.

If one could redo the autoloader so it could take longer rounds, if one could redesign the turret or hull to take more of the rounds and protect them well instead of scattering them all over.. But now, we are talking about a new tank.. :-)

The DRDO should continue work on both the T90 and the Arjun, improving both. Already, the T90 uses the Kanchan armor. Other improvements can also be added.. Such as a new autoloader! and an extended turret bustle to store rounds not in the autoloader.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2495
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 13 Apr 2016 20:08

Sudeepj, what is the point in wasting time with a dead end tank? The Arjun has the ability and the space to be expanded while the T-90 does not. Just let the T-90s die of and cannibalize them. Buy more Arjuns!

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 13 Apr 2016 20:33

I love the Arjun.. :-) But after waiting so long, I would rather see our cavalry in a better tank than the stock T90, even if its not the Arjun.

Arjun is a heavy tank, in the same tradition as the Abrams or Leopard. Only the US has a huge force centered around heavies. All other heavy tank armies number in the 500 odd. Britain, France, Germany each have around 400 heavies. So a force structure around the Arjun will be smaller, given its cost.

Secondly, after reading about some campaigns, I think we underestimate the importance of the weight issue. Putting up engineered combat bridges over water obstacles is possible.. but it will necessarily slow down an armored thrust by a few hours. That time difference can be the difference between victory and defeat. Had the porkies gone for a heavy, they would have had to upgrade their bridges to get their tanks to the battle and that would have solved this problem, but they didnt, so here we are.

Lastly, I think another capability that the T90 has but the Arjun doesnt is the snorkel equipment. To me, its an amazing thing that a 50 ton tank can simply go 'submarine' into water that is 5 meters deep and come out the other side fighting fit. :-)

Perhaps the Arjun turret over the T90 chasis is the solution.. Perhaps a new evolutionary tank design around the T90 concept.. I dont know. But to me, after 10+ years of Arjun being ready, its apparent that the Army is just not going to buy it in numbers.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2495
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 13 Apr 2016 20:41

Sudeep, again you're using half truths to make your point. It has been shown umpteen times that the Arjun is cheaper yet you say - "So a force structure around the Arjun will be smaller, given its cost.".

"putting up engineered combat bridges over water obstacles is possible.. but it will necessarily slow down an armored thrust by a few hours. That time difference can be the difference between victory and defeat"

Why will it take an extra few hours? What water obstacle are you trying to cross in the Desert? If needed, the engineered bridge would accomplish the same objective in a similar time frame. Have you heard of electric motors? They are a wonderful thing and have different ratings for different type of loads.

"50 ton tank can simply go 'submarine' into water that is 5 meters deep " - There it finally is!! Arjun needs to be a submarine now!!! Arjun has proven its fording capabilities. Please provide a source for T-90 (equipped with all electronics) going submarine!! Define your battle theater and then state the importance and prove T-90 has superior fording capability than the Arjun.

"Perhaps the Arjun turret over the T90 chasis is the solution"! Utter BS! This is the problem with Indians!!

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 13 Apr 2016 20:56

I am not in any kind of decision making capacity, I can only try to understand how those who are in such capacities come to their decisions. They have a point of view, I am simply trying to understand it. Your rants are quite besides the point.

Btw. Does anyone know if our T90s ever use/practice with the snorkel?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2495
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 13 Apr 2016 21:04

PLease support your comment regarding T-90s amazing "submarine capabilities" up to 5 m depth. How long can t stay in it with all electronics intact?

a) The most significant setback to production of MBT Arjun was the change in requirements put forth by the Army in February 2007. The tanks produced by HVF, Avadi were to be issued to the Army after inspection at the factory site in the Joint Receipt Inspection by the representatives of HVF, DRDO and Army. The issued tanks were put through two trials - the Field Trial and the Accelerated usage-cum-reliability trials (AUCRT), by the Army. Joint Receipt Inspection was conducted (March 2005) for first five MBT Arjun manufactured (2003-04) in the pilot phase, one year after production. The inspection of the second lot of nine pilot MBT Arjun, took place in February 2007, two years after production. By 2007, 53 MBT had already been produced by HVF, Avadi. It was during this inspection in February 2007 that Army reported water ingress in the fighting compartment of tank while crossing shallow parts of a river and raised two additional requirements in the design of the MBT Arjun viz. zero level ingress of water in the fighting compartment and lead time for fording (time from tank’s entry into water to exit from water) to be minimised to 30 minutes.

We noticed that the corresponding benchmark fixed by the Army for T-90 tank was more relaxed, allowing 2.5 litres of water ingress. The requirement of zero level water ingress for medium fording was not stipulated in the Army’s requirements (GSQR of 1985) or in subsequent stages of development which had seen many changes in design. In fact, the Joint Action Plan (of Army and DRDO), in August 1999, had cleared the medium fording capability of MBT Arjun. This issue was also not raised in the Joint Receipt Inspection of the first batch of pilot MBT Arjun. The new requirements necessitated the DRDO to modify the design of the second lot of nine pilot MBT Arjun. The same got modified and were issued to Army by September 2007. The first lot of five pilot tanks was brought back from Army, got modified and issued to Army till October 2007. Balance 39 tanks of the bulk production were dismantled, reworked and issued to the Army in 2008-10. The whole task of dismantling and reassembly of 53 MBTs entailed an additional cost of Rs 84 lakh. The Ministry stated (May 2014) that modifications were considered essential to improve overall performance from user’s perspective. The reply undermines the impact of the modifications in derailing the production and issue of MBT Arjun, which was a significant factor that led to an import of T-90 tanks that cost Rs 4,913 crore in November 2007 as discussed in Paragraph 8.3.4. The reply also does not address why the benchmarks on MBT Arjun regarding water ingress and fording, were more stringent than the corresponding requirements on T-90 tank.

Medium fording was one of the eight instances we noticed, where Army placed benchmark of parameters on MBT Arjun which were more stringent in comparison to those placed on T-90 tanks. These are detailed in Annexure XIX. We could not assess the impact of these benchmarks on the performance of the two tanks from our scrutiny of the Report on comparative trials of MBT Arjun and T-90 tank (February/ March 2010- referred to in Paragraph 8.3.2.8 ). While we appreciate the Army’s quest for improving the quality of MBT Arjun, the imposition of more stringent parameters precluded a level playing field and more importantly, the inability to freeze the designs led to several changes in design, consequent delays in acceptance of MBT Arjun by the Army and in the overall, the production and issue of MBT
Arjun.


So it would seem from the CAG's report that your claim that

Lastly, I think another capability that the T90 has but the Arjun doesnt is the snorkel equipment. To me, its an amazing thing that a 50 ton tank can simply go 'submarine' into water that is 5 meters deep and come out the other side fighting fit.


is false and you should not spread inaccurate information to defame the Arjun. Please get at least your facts correct to express your love for the T-90.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 13 Apr 2016 21:35

This Video shows 3 Saudi M1A2S (US SEP [System Enhancement Program] Equivalent) being destroyed by Iranian Tosun (Tosan) ATGM (Soviet Konkurs ATGM upgrade). As of March 2016, a total of 6 M1A2S Abrams tanks were destroyed with the crews not surviving.


sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1851
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 13 Apr 2016 22:29

The use of snorkel on T90 (and other tanks, such as the leopard) is well known. You can do a simple google image search to see it yourself. These tanks can actually go as much as 5 meters below water. This is not the same as medium fording where the water level stays around the turret ring or deep fording where the water is below the turret hatches.

Here are some russian tanks snorkeling.


[youtube]WzYdSFFaS-8?t=412[/youtube]

Here is the leopard II snorkeling.
[youtube]C26rJiOnKLk&nohtml5=False[/youtube]

Here is an occasion when a bridge across a major river was captured intact, inspite of the defenders plans to destroy it, and tanks rolled across that bridge, cutting campaigns short by several months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludendorff_Bridge


Here is how bad a contested river crossing can go for the attackers.
http://www.historynet.com/rage-over-the-rapido.htm

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8228
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 14 Apr 2016 00:03

Sudeep,

Everything that the T-90 can do, the Arjun can. The GSQR for Arjun was more stricter than the T-90. That has been covered in detail by CAG. And nobody, not even the Army has countered that report. By the way Indian Army does not use snorkeling under any circumstances. Snorkeling has very limited uses anyhow. It is useful as a last resort, only when the bed of the river/riverine is soft. Otherwise, not.

What you say about the bridges is true. Existing bridges are much better than temporary bridges in terms of logistics and speed. But are there bridges whose carrying capability is exactly between 50-70 tons? This has been a long standing question on BR, and nobody has answered it. It will be great if you can compile a list of such bridges. If you can, you will have a strong point. Otherwise not.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4702
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 14 Apr 2016 03:11

Shaun wrote:Thank you all, for the replies. @srai sahab , I think it's no harm repeating as the "system "gets the limelight required. So the main argument are bridges with required specification. IA have all the details of those bridges and they very well know , those cannot support Arjun.


You can see DRDO's silent frustration at the recent Defense Expo. They as a protest demo-ed Arjun Mk.1/2 going over MLC-70 bridge (many times over) :mrgreen:


Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 14 Apr 2016 04:22

Hmmm river crossings... let me add.

While we see it as a river crossing
Armoured Units see it as crossing a River bed (filled with water for a long time)

So i overheard this in the officers mess.
In a war (don't know 65 or 71)

Regiment wanted to cross a medium river or nullah to flank.
Engineers detachment + Armoured 2 Lt + 4 men were sent to recee and report on the best place to make aggressive crossing.

This meant analysing the soil, especially the middle of the river and looking for simple silver sand + pebbles which would be idea as opposed to murky silt which would signify a bottom in which a tank would be stuck.

Now for reasons such as the detachment being under stress , spooked because they were intermingling with the enemy lines and it was dark.
The job was botched.

The detatchment reported good sand + pebbles on either side and sand in the middle.
Where as it was just sandy on ONE side and was quite silty.

The lead tanks made a dash in the morning and were caught and did not go anywhere.
They were fortunately retrieved and the aggressive move never registered with the enemy.

The CO called for an Engineer assisted move the next day and the intiative was lost.


Now the reason for the saga cited above.

Look at the Russian crossing above which has the title combined arms.

Look at the Tanks Crossing.

If it was our Arjuns then they would be idea as
1. more horse power pushing them quickly over the river bed
2. less pressure over river bed as they have bigger surface area
3. more contact area on the river bed due larger tracks and more wheels

(disadvantage)
1. the entry point where the tanks almost create a bit would get bigger and bigger by the time the 4th Arjun went over it.
This could be negated by an Armoured Bulldozer or a Arjun with a blade covering it with more soil from the time to time or using a different launch point.

I think Arjun will do well in any River Crossing.
We need to expirement and try this and not take the words of the Russian Arms Lobby in New Delhi.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2495
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 14 Apr 2016 09:15

Sudeep, please go back to the comparative trials. Don't you think that a biased IA would have used this quality against the Arjun if it could? Also let me ask you this, if the Arjun beats the T-90 in medium fording, would it be any worse in "submarining"?

You have raised false issues
a) submarine qualities
b) Higher cost of Arjuns vis a vis T-90
c) Extra time for heavier bridge for Arjuns

And these are incorrect. Like Indranil stated - anything the T-90 can do, the Arjun can do it better. And since it is Indian and better, which of the two should IA buy?

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nelson » 14 Apr 2016 13:29

^
For full fording, 5 litre ingress was permissible for T-90. Auditor halves it to 2.5 litre ingress limit for medium fording for Arjun; and questions zero ingress limit set by IA.

Q. Is the relation between full fording( at 5 mtr depth of water) and medium fording (air intake, exhaust and barrel mouth above water ) linear?

durvasa
BRFite
Posts: 170
Joined: 11 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby durvasa » 14 Apr 2016 15:44

I am just shocked by the number of Russian-apologists we have in every part of our military ecosystem including on defence forums!

If Modi-Doval-Parrikar can't break this cabal, no one can! It's no easy to break this addition quickly but hopefully by 2019, Indian defence will be in Indian hands and arms! Or we are destined to beg the middling powers like Ukraine and Poland even for Kargil-level localised conflicts!

DexterM
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 372
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby DexterM » 14 Apr 2016 16:38

nelson wrote:^
For full fording, 5 litre ingress was permissible for T-90. Auditor halves it to 2.5 litre ingress limit for medium fording for Arjun; and questions zero ingress limit set by IA.

Q. Is the relation between full fording( at 5 mtr depth of water) and medium fording (air intake, exhaust and barrel mouth above water ) linear?

Could you please share the relevant links for us to compare:
1. Ingress allowed at Low/Medium/Full for T-90s. Vs. the same documentation for the Arjun (MkI will do).
2. Source or proof that T-90 is compliant with 5 lts for Full fording but Arjun is not as you imply.
3. Comparison of fording results at the head to head trials.

Those who have served India with pride and honour, our salutes to you.
Let's not dilute that seva param (sarvottam uttishta) dharma.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 14 Apr 2016 16:40

Sudeep,

Full fording snorkel on the T series has also to be prepared and then undertaken.

Under all combat conditions the primary capability to cross dry and wet gaps would be provided by the Bridge Laying Tanks (BLT). These are integral to an Armoured Brigade's Engineer Squadron. The domestic T-72 based BLT is MLC70, post survey a BLT can deploy the bridge in 15 mins.

Cost concern wrt both tanks is valid and would not be able to match the T90's cost. The Arjun however provides more capabilities, better mobility and survivability, that counts for a lot.

The sad part is the IA is chasing numbers to ignore the capability that Arjun brings, their thinking is very different.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests