Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 998
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 09 Sep 2014 04:14

@srai if you go few post back you will very much find what i am looking for in Arjun , any info from you is highly welcome.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 09 Sep 2014 10:11

vaibhav_kumar wrote:Well Arjun has a number of firsts for an Indian tank. IA wants stuff that we do not have even in the phoren maal tanks.
Uncooled thermal imager which was later used in T-90 as theirs was not working.


T-90 in IA service uses THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (Arjun TI sight is different make) (may be the mid-life upgarde of T-90 which is very near as it has been 12+ years since the first one got inducted will share the TI sight technology from Arjun MK II )

Missile firing,
T-90 fires Refleks missile

Active protection,
India did not buy Shtora-1 or any other Russian Active protection system on T-90 most probably because of cost and maturity of technology.

mine plougher (of all things),
T-90 has KMT make mine plough even T-72 has them.

mobile camouflage (ever heard of such requirements for Ruskie tanks?),
this has more to do with signature reduction technology development than a must have requirement. (i am not gonna compare T-90 vs Arjun signature)

remote controlled weapon system (as per wiki)
T-90 has a remote-controlled anti-aircraft gun station

I am just putting out correct facts

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 » 09 Sep 2014 11:07

Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which oversees the army’s tank force, has formally proposed that the Arjun be gradually improved through successive models --- Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV and so on --- rather than attempting a major technological leap into the unknown, which is what the FMBT would be

:shock: sounds like Karan M sir had a quiet word with the natives...

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby merlin » 09 Sep 2014 11:16

Singha wrote:Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which oversees the army’s tank force, has formally proposed that the Arjun be gradually improved through successive models --- Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV and so on --- rather than attempting a major technological leap into the unknown, which is what the FMBT would be

:shock: sounds like Karan M sir had a quiet word with the natives...


Keep developing Arjun Mk2, Mk3, Mk4 while the IA inducts the T90, T95, T100 :rotfl:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8141
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 09 Sep 2014 11:31

But for that to work the Arjun must be ordered in its current iteration in numbers till the next iteration is defined and developed. Rather than giving blue sky requirement once the current iteration is developed and then cap the purchase at 100 odd units.

Still it is a massive vote of confidence, from the IA.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9685
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 09 Sep 2014 11:33

This is how Makarva and Leopard were developed in the same manner. No problem if each trench is not tested endlessly and no orders are placed at all. Let them order 500-1000 tanks of various trenches at once so that some serious production commitment/investment can be made. About 50 Tanks are damaged or being retired per year. Let us just take a decision to add 50 per year irrespective of the trench even MK1. In any event Arjun is always better than tincans.

NM's made in India seems to be getting foothold every where. Next IAF and Tejas.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vic » 09 Sep 2014 13:39

We need to have three lines:-

Arjun Heavy Mark-3, 4 & 5 (60-70 tons)

T-xx copy. (45-55 tons) We should terminate T-90 contract and develop our own version of 3 men crew tank using the production line Avadi. After all Army wants T-xx for what ever reason and we should give it to them.

Two men crew tank, call it whatever FMBT or Tibet Tiger in weight class of (30-40tons).

The main technologies are in any case being developed for Arjun and all three tanks would be variants with lot of commonality.

member_28700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28700 » 09 Sep 2014 14:04

I have one newbie question, is it in anyway possible to reduce the weight and maybe dimensions of the Arjun eg. using an autoloader and hence a 3 man crew. Would that reduce the space and hence the dimensions of the Arjun? I agree this would require re-designing the tank to some extent but a tank in 50 ton category, is that not what IA wants from their FMBT which now is hoped to be the Mk3 :?:

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 » 09 Sep 2014 14:12

the T90 HMG can be remotely operated from inside the turret but its not a RWS in the proper sense with night vision/optronics etc seen in western products and even the tata kestrel (its sourced from kongsberg iirc)
some of the better ones might have a link to the commander and gunner thermals and proper AA gun style tracking of flying objects.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8141
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 09 Sep 2014 14:35

vaibhav_kumar wrote:I have one newbie question, is it in anyway possible to reduce the weight and maybe dimensions of the Arjun eg. using an autoloader and hence a 3 man crew. Would that reduce the space and hence the dimensions of the Arjun? I agree this would require re-designing the tank to some extent but a tank in 50 ton category, is that not what IA wants from their FMBT which now is hoped to be the Mk3 :?:


Simple answer is no. If you want a 50 ton tank. You have to design it from the scratch. Using experience gained from the Arjun, it is certainly doable. However, it will be a 10 year project. Once the GSQR for the vehicle is released.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rien » 09 Sep 2014 14:46

I would like to see the T-72 upgrades cancelled and more Arjun orders placed. What with more bullet trains and better roads, I'm starting to think the infrastructure to support Arjun is going to be in place on a massive scale over next 5-7 years.

member_28700
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28700 » 09 Sep 2014 15:01

a newbie question again. Does any of the BRF elders recall why the weight of the Arjun went in the 55-60 ton category when the initial requirement was for a 45-50 ton tank? I remember having read few years back that it was because of some transmission issues but cannot find the article now. Can anyone confirm this or tell the actual reason if this is not it :?:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8141
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 09 Sep 2014 16:50

Vaibhav,

The tank was always designed to be in the 60 Ton class. The GSQR also specified it. This was done to make sure that we had a tank to match the M1A1. However, the in the late 80s Pakistan did not get the tank as expected.

Then the Pakies went ahead and bought the T 80. The T 90 was picked up as a panic purchase. "As the tank was not up to the mark"(This is a point of contention and a cause of repeated flame wars on this very thread).

In the meanwhile the IA started claiming that they needed a 50 ton tank. Never mind that they never ever bothered to release the GSQR, for it.

While the Arjun Vs Tin can saga was on going. The IA came up with the FMBT program, while demanding the Arjun, Mk 2. So a 60 ton tank went up to 65 tons.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby chackojoseph » 10 Sep 2014 07:15

Singha wrote:Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which oversees the army’s tank force, has formally proposed that the Arjun be gradually improved through successive models --- Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV and so on --- rather than attempting a major technological leap into the unknown, which is what the FMBT would be

:shock: sounds like Karan M sir had a quiet word with the natives...


Or usual lack of imagination. I have always accused them of that. Anyway, those Mark 3, 4 etc have been in my post last year or so. Tanks in IA service will be of following nature in future

Heavy
Medium
Light and or Amphibious.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 10 Sep 2014 07:41

There was a report in a mag that the cost of Mk-2 is now 36cr. as against 20cr for Mk-1.Where does this compare with T-90 costs and that of other firang MBTs?

Surely the route for a future Mk-3/FMBT whatever is to have more automation with a 3-man crew,smaller profile,lighter weight without compromising upon firepower,armour,etc. A smaller tank would certainly cost less.Overseas,some concepts are being examined which feature a 2-man MBT.Whether it would be practical is to be seen.But the day of the gargantuan dino will surely end.

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 » 10 Sep 2014 08:11

there is need for a low tech 205mm (8") desi gun of say only 20km range but firing a massive 100kg demolition shell for clearing lanes through minefields and built up areas without depending on co-ordinated barrages from corps level and indep artillery units.
I think even in WW2 Krupp used to make such guns. the US army had it and the pakis have a few.

it can also be used to deliver mines and quickly rebuild or build up fresh minefields to hamper enemy advances.

but the sheer weight of shell is a deterrent and will need some hydraulic lifter and rammer feeding off a supply vehicle at the tailgate.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 10 Sep 2014 08:55

Philip wrote:There was a report in a mag that the cost of Mk-2 is now 36cr. as against 20cr for Mk-1.Where does this compare with T-90 costs and that of other firang MBTs?

Surely the route for a future Mk-3/FMBT whatever is to have more automation with a 3-man crew,smaller profile,lighter weight without compromising upon firepower,armour,etc. A smaller tank would certainly cost less.Overseas,some concepts are being examined which feature a 2-man MBT.Whether it would be practical is to be seen.But the day of the gargantuan dino will surely end.



Dog's tails is always gonna stay crooked. You very well know that that cost includes the brand new infrastructure (recovery/transportation etc.) for the new Arjun tanks, while the tin can gets to share its infrastructure with the older tin cans and also lack the multitude of improvements on the Arjun. In fact the tin cans even shed their standard issue gadgetry like the shorta suite to keep costs artifically down, which you conveniently seem to forget every time.
Last edited by member_22539 on 10 Sep 2014 09:08, edited 1 time in total.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8141
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 10 Sep 2014 09:07

Singha wrote:there is need for a low tech 205mm (8") desi gun of say only 20km range but firing a massive 100kg demolition shell for clearing lanes through minefields and built up areas without depending on co-ordinated barrages from corps level and indep artillery units.
I think even in WW2 Krupp used to make such guns. the US army had it and the pakis have a few.

it can also be used to deliver mines and quickly rebuild or build up fresh minefields to hamper enemy advances.

but the sheer weight of shell is a deterrent and will need some hydraulic lifter and rammer feeding off a supply vehicle at the tailgate.


GD, ij this an on topic post? :P :twisted:

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 » 10 Sep 2014 09:43

^^ well it is a armour vehicle for sure. I doubt 8" howitzer could go on a truck. its tracked or train.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby jamwal » 10 Sep 2014 10:59

Arjun's size also means that it's comfortable for the crew. Autoloader will take up quite a bit of space, equal to one crew, maybe more. T-90 interiors are cramped and you can't move an arm without bumping in to something. Combine it with lack of any air-conditioning and you have a claustrophobia inducing oven which will reduce crew efficiency in adverse weather.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8141
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 10 Sep 2014 11:29

Singha wrote:^^ well it is a armour vehicle for sure. I doubt 8" howitzer could go on a truck. its tracked or train.


Like This Or this

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 » 10 Sep 2014 11:32

precisely...the future of south asia belongs to the brawler not the LR sniper. crushing weight of artillery is the key to victory or survival. artillery is the king, queen and prince of the battle. north korea also has a nasty piece of work 170mm koksan.

I think IA had the right idea with the uber 155mm-52 capable of firing dozens of rounds in co-ordinated MRSI fires that would devastate entire towns in two minutes with upto 40-50 guns networked together in iaccs. but korruption and unable to close on any article derailed that idea. one can always hope the dhanush is 'the one' though...


One interesting feature of the Pion is the firing alarm. Because the blast of the weapon firing is so powerful - it can physically incapacitate an unprepared soldier or crew member near it from concussive force - the Pion is equipped with an audible firing alarm that emits a series of short warning tones for approximately five seconds prior to the charge being fired.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 10 Sep 2014 13:00

Finland upgrades BMP-2 IFV's

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/kotimaa/art-1 ... 10461.html

main points.

- Modernization costs 25-30 million euros without taxes.

- That means over 200000€ per vehicle.

- 110 BMP-2's are going to be upgraded.

- Vehicles are upgraded between 2015-2019.

- Vehicles will serve until 2030.

- Upgrades include better night vision equipment and they are adding stealth characteristics

- Upgrade will be done by either Conlog or Oricopa


( via mp.net )

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20412
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Sep 2014 07:28

Arun,where is the new infrastructure? Everything,including "tincans" are rolling out of Avadi. Whatever costs are incurred there modernising the edifice,will be affect overall costs of all tanks,T-90s as well as Arjuns.

No one is suggesting a cramped 3-man crewed tank on the T-90 lines,but a better 3-man crewed tank,designed with better ergonomics and taking advances of the various tech developments that have/are being developed.A larger gun.Better sensors,armour,ATGM and anti-helo defences. The reduction of a crew member results in overall savings with a smaller tank,materials savings plus lesser manpower too.A smaller tank would also be harder to hit with a smaller profile.Quite some time ago we had a report where the doctrine of Soviet/Western tanks were discussed.The Russians had two tank types types,for blasting a hole in the defences and pouring in large numbers of swift armour into the breach. A combination of Arjun and T-90s could perhaps work in similar fashion for the IA.In any case,the prod. figs given for Arjun MK-2 are so low that it will never be possible to replace T-90s,or even the large stock of T-72s.many of which are being upgraded.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 11 Sep 2014 09:31

So essentially, turn the Tin-Can into an Arjun with a 3 man crew which will turn into a death trap because of the auto loader? Btw, an auto-loader is going to cost a lot more than training 1 crew member and puts the crew at increase risk when hit with AT weapons. You also have maintenance costs. I just don't get what your fascination is with this piece of sh*t. The IA needs to stop making excuses and just place a grand order and get on with it. We should be inducting a SUPERIOR product which will ensure that our crews return home safely and can better kill the enemy.

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 » 11 Sep 2014 10:11

way I see it, tanks might even 2 manned in the future with 1 driver and 1 C3I operator managing the electronics and selecting targets for the automated gun to strike at. this will mean a hull mounted autoloader, but perhaps in the merkava arrangement with engine in the front and ammo/autoloader in the former engine bay behind all of the armour.
a third guy might be there for general duties, relieving the other two, repairing things, helping with ammo reloads, help with security ....

but thats a completely separate vision like a next gen merkava not a t90 with lipstick.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rudradev » 11 Sep 2014 10:45

Long live the Tank. The Tank is Dead.

It is now a full 100 years since the First World War, when the Tank made its appearance as a game changer along the Western Front, punching through the previously insurmountable trenches where both sides had dug in. The full glory of rolling armour, of course, had to wait for the next war, when Tank brigades received their opportunity to furnish legendary victories at Kursk and the Ardennes.

But if you think about it... 100 years. In 1914, the Napoleonic instruments of battle: mounted Hussar cavalry, wooden ships, grapeshot, muskets were exactly 100 years behind the state of the art. And by all accounts, technology has advanced a LOT faster in the century between 1914-2014, than it did in the previous century of 1814-1914.

Horse Cavalry had already run its course as an effective weapon by the time of the Crimean war in the 1890s, as the Charge of the Light Brigade clearly attests. The armies that were still relying on it in the 1930s, such as the Poles in their vain attempt to stop the German Blitzkrieg, were simply destroyed. But the beginning of the end for Cavalry came much sooner than 100 years after Waterloo.

Today the Tank is in the same position. Against a technologically superior enemy with air dominance, tanks can be knocked out by distant JDAMs that they never even see, or by unmanned drones. Against an enemy of more or less equal technological capacity, they are easy prey for TOWs, multi-barrel rocket artillery, and attack helos/aircraft (even as long ago as the 1980s, Saddam's vastly superior tank force could make few lasting gains against the Iranians; and we all know how well Pakistan's Pattons fared in the 1965 war against India).

And against an enemy of inferior technological and resource capacity fighting an asymmetric urban war... the Tank is prone to swift disabling by ATGMs, IEDs and even well-placed RPGs. The Israeli experience in Lebanon in 2007, and the Ukrainian experience in Novorossiya more recently, give clear indications of that.

So yes, the embedded interests of the armour-building industry will continue coming up with higher- and higher-cost solutions to try and avoid all these pitfalls. Anti-helo defences, anti-ATGM defences, what have you. But already, the cost-benefit ratio is ludicrous; there is simply NO justification for adding these bells and whistles to an already pricey piece of equipment whose actual combat value is eminently questionable.

I don't think India should waste money on a soon-to-be white elephant like the Arjun. The day of the MBT is OVER... between IFVs specialized for COIN, APCs for mech infantry and self-propelled artillery units there simply isn't a niche for big, expensive tanks to fill anymore. We have other defense R&D priorities that will provide a far longer-reaching return on our investment into the future. No point pouring undeserved crores of rupees into that hole.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 998
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 11 Sep 2014 11:00

secrecy have its own value and the soviets played it very well, remember the mig 25 saga ? t series too played with our psyche , we purchased 90s when the porkis fielded 80s but legacy of secrecy continues with 90s, with only bits of info coming out about its true capability in Indian condition and context . well i wont blame the poster for his unconditional love for all thing russian because i too get nostalgic when i go through sputniks but words like glasnost and perestrokia were common then !

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 11 Sep 2014 11:41

Rudradev wrote:Long live the Tank. The Tank is Dead.

It is now a full 100 years since the First World War, when the Tank made its appearance .......

Today the Tank is in the same position. Against a technologically superior enemy with air dominance, tanks can be knocked out by distant JDAMs that they never even see, or by unmanned drones. Against an enemy of more or less equal technological capacity, they are easy prey for TOWs, multi-barrel rocket artillery, and attack helos/aircraft (even as long ago as the 1980s, Saddam's vastly superior tank force could make few lasting gains against the Iranians; and we all know how well Pakistan's Pattons fared in the 1965 war against India).

And against an enemy of inferior technological and resource capacity fighting an asymmetric urban war... the Tank is prone to swift disabling by ATGMs, IEDs and even well-placed RPGs. The Israeli experience in Lebanon in 2007, and the Ukrainian experience in Novorossiya more recently, give clear indications of that.


there is no alternative to a TANK/ MBT in battlefield only some one with zero knowledge of tank warfare can come out with such an argument.

- Ukrainian experience in Novorossiya : Ukrainian Army before the upraising was only on papers vs Novorossiyan fighters are vetrens of russian era. Ukrainain experience actually show what happens when you give MBT to untrained troops who have not practiced/ trained on MBT's.
-- Most of the MBT kills are by ARTY at night when UA MBT's were parked in open and uncovered land and all parked together.
-- Untrained troops leaving there vehicles and running out and saving them selves in combat situations
-- an MBT requires 3/4(depending on model of mbt) trained crew to be effective, even if one of them is untrained their effectiveness goes down.
-- uncoordinated and untrained troops in an MBT will loos their sense of direction in minutes and will be forced to come out of their vehicle to gain a perspective and fall prey to snipers and other troops.
-- irony is novorissiyans are able to do much much better in the same MBTs abounded or captured from UA, because of having better & vast experience with these machines in their past.

MBT's are not suited for buildup area fighting without suitable modifications, but syrian war is a learning for tank forces.



So yes, the embedded interests of the armour-building industry will continue coming up with higher- and higher-cost solutions to try and avoid all these pitfalls. Anti-helo defences, anti-ATGM defences, what have you. But already, the cost-benefit ratio is ludicrous; there is simply NO justification for adding these bells and whistles to an already pricey piece of equipment whose actual combat value is eminently questionable.


- if armored formation have decent AA capabilities imbedded (Tunguska and Manpads etc) Attack helies will have a hell of a time coming near.
- even missile fired for Tank gun is capable of taking out helicopters.

ATGM
- the effectiveness of ATGM against a moving MBT is only possible in marketing literature. In real life only a very highly trained ATGM crew is able to achieve it that also not 100%.
- ATGM crews themselves are prone to giving out their location the moment they fire and fall prey to counter fire.
- Most of the ATGM in service world wide require them to be placed dangerously withing the firing range of MBT and open to be acquired/ spotted.

try doing cost benefit analysis of 45 MBT coloum with 2 Tunguska imbedded vs Attack Helies (against well trained crews)
try doing cost benefit analysis of 45 MBT coloum at > 25kmph vs ATGM teams required (against well trained crews)

I don't think India should waste money on a soon-to-be white elephant like the Arjun. The day of the MBT is OVER... between IFVs specialized for COIN, APCs for mech infantry and self-propelled artillery units there simply isn't a niche for big, expensive tanks to fill anymore. We have other defense R&D priorities that will provide a far longer-reaching return on our investment into the future. No point pouring undeserved crores of rupees into that hole.


APC/ IFV can be taken out by even 12.5mm fire and motar's

self-propelled arty is no match for a Moving MBT column

Any country which does not have a sizable well trained MBT force is like an open invitation to their adversaries

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_20317 » 11 Sep 2014 12:12

A tank is technically dead many times over. But so is an infantryman. Also helos and arty......

Tactically tanks are still quite relevant esp. in vast open country despite the ditch and bund and whole lot of opposition. Everybody and everything, even the hunter, is hunted in a running battle not just the tank.

Besides its not like a tank has stood still. Tanks have given rise to still other pieces of machinery which would not have been there not been, 'The Tank' in the origin, in the first place. In fact even in the short period between WW1 and WW2 the tanks were furiously evolving - Char B1 and Renault FT if you may and the various Pzkws...... and so on. These again were a hunt for a new capability.

Technically speaking the trouble in recognition arises when we think of a tank as a singular piece of equipment instead of a set of evolving capabilities. Best is to ignore the tank and meditate on the Track. That is where the distinctive technical element is. Tank is a murti the Track is the God.

Besides Tanks are a man's best toy. This is how big men play their board games. Dominating the Board - taking real estate - that is the idea. It is a bagawat against the whole mard biratheri :lol: to denounce a tank. What is happening in BRF.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8141
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 11 Sep 2014 12:47

Well the tank has had its day may times over. But till date it has endured. The list of factors listed by Rudradev are very relevant, when one has to evaluate the future of the tank.

However, I have a counter question. If not the tank, then what? You will always need a vehicle that does the job of the tank. In teh 19th century it was the cavalry. In the 20th is is the tank.

In the 21 what will it be?

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 » 11 Sep 2014 13:38

the tank is not dead and will never die. as long as there is war, there is a need for a mobile, well protected, direct fire weapon ... whether against tanks, IFVs, infantry, buildings and the tank is it....all these indirect fire weapons just dont hack it against moving targets and opportunity targets - you need to be onsite to put some heat on target. one more thing is cost - a $3 mil tank is way cheaper than a gunship heli/fighter to own and operate and is available all the time vs periodic visits from the AF.

ofcourse massa claims to be moving out that paradigm with $100k artillery shells and $100k SDB3 launched in huge volumes but nobody has that kind of money or AF to use effectively.

for breaking through tough defences nothing beats a mass of tanks supported by a mass of artillery. for taking out targets from cover, nothing beats a hull down tank. you think a ATGM crew with its pitiful 3 reloads of javelins and maybe another 10 stashed away at points along a ridgeline is comparable to a T90 with 40 HE shells locked n loaded? the T90 will not only fire and relocate faster, but protect its crew much better and when all is done, deftly make an escape. it also has a HMG to protect infantry. and it can lay a dense smoke screen to withdraw behind. once the hole is breached, for marauding in loose formation behind enemy lines and shooting up their supply dumps and convoys nothing beats tanks either.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby TSJones » 11 Sep 2014 14:09

the tank is indispensable in a ground offence. when combined with supporting arms and infantry there is no better method against a hostile force. the US is sending tanks and supporting vehicles to Europe even as I write this message. the US is most definitely *not* abandoning tanks.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9685
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 11 Sep 2014 14:19

Gurus, tank is having mobility, firepower and protection. Tell me which other system has all the three of those. AC's can not stay in air for every and can not occupy the land. Tanks with infentary support can hold the real estate or take real estate better than anything we have as of now. No alternative is visible in near future.

Distant future who knows.

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 » 11 Sep 2014 15:26

for OIF march to baghdad (western prong), massa for the 3rd infantry division concentrated some 500 abrams, huge number of Bradleys, 250 M109 155mm, unknown MLRS incl ATACMS missiles and some 200 apache helicopters between them the 1st airborne div in support role ... some one had posted numbers a while back - truly frightening concentration of power. it was a division only in name, more like 'army group' (multiple corps). in 21 days of fighting and 100s of km it ran through some 5 iraqi divisions before taking baghdad.

without tanks it was plain impossible to achieve so much so fast.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9685
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 11 Sep 2014 15:32

I still remember when idiots in India and particularly Telugu media prasing the one million "strong" Iraqui army and saying US is seriously out numbers etc rubbish just forgetting the enormus amount of mobile Armour power which later just rolled over the so called strong army and "elite" Republican Guards.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vic » 11 Sep 2014 16:50

Almost 95% cost of a Tank is in its engine power pack, gun & ammo, FCS, Armour technology. Hence Arjun technology can easily be used to build multiple variants like 4 men crew, 3 men crew for western border and 2 men crew and say even One man crew for eastern border.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18860
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 12 Sep 2014 16:34

Fantastic writeup on the origins of Kanchan armor from the horses mouth, its creator.

http://www.inae.in/newsletter/artmar1.pdf

My Tryst with Indigenous Armour Development
Dr T. Balakrishna Bhat
Born little after India’s independence, as a child,
I used to imagine and feel that I owned the
whole great country. My father was a respected school headmaster who used to get respectful
salutations from members of nearly every house situated all along a seven kilometer long
path of walk to his school through hills and fields. He would reciprocate with appropriate
affectionate words without stopping his walk. It was a thrill to walk with him. My mother
would often be cheerfully singing tunes and hymns while taking care of the small farm, all
the workers, children, cows and guests with infinite patience and love. It was a great joy to do
every type of work to help her and receive her blessings. Early in the morning, every day,
father would gently wake me up by teaching me shlokas, maths, words, spellings and
grammar while sitting by my bedside even as I lay on the bed with closed eyes, and end the
day similarly at night. This process I believe gaveme many things, including a habit of not
wasting a single moment from the time one wakes upto the moment one falls asleep.

At the age of 14, I joined Sri Ramakrishna Mission Balakashram at Mangalore where the
rigorous discipline of perfectly doing all the chores along with studies toughened the mind-
body system. Here I had the chance to tutor (free)classmates and younger students, which
increased my grasp on the subject and also strengthened my self-confidence.

In 1967, I joined the B.Tech programme at IIT Madras. Here, I concentrated totally on
understanding the principles and deeper aspects rather than on securing grades. This quest
made me read a large number of books and to some extent journals available in the Institute
library where I would often sit up until it closed late in the night. After B.tech, I secured
admission with scholarship to do PhD at Washington State University, but, when I learnt that
USA had sent its 7th fleet in readiness to attack India during the Bangladesh conflict, I
changed my mind. Instead, I went to IISc Bangalore to study M.E from where DMRL
recruited me.


At DMRL, for the first six months or so, I visited
all the groups and glanced through all the
books and journals and generated hundreds of resear
ch ideas. Initially I worked on TEM and
intermetallic alloy systems. One day, Dr. V.S. Arun
achalam, who had joined as our new
director called me aside and in his characteristic
excited way asked me whether I prefer to
work on pure science and maybe hope to get a Noble
prize one day, or work on an important
development work. Because of the training at IIT, p
roud to be an engineer, I immediately
chose the latter path.

Next day Dr. Arunachalam called me to his office and excitedly explained the scattered notings in his little diary
about the Chobham armour trials shown in a hazy way in England to the visiting Chief of Army Staff and asked me if we can quickly develop and demonstrate a similar one. Though I knew nothing, I sensed that every atom in my body was excited.
First I made a quick dash to TBRL, ARDE and weapons related laboratories studying all available reports and papers to understand the nature of the threats and their operating principles and mechanisms. To find some solution, I went into a contemplative enquiry mode and scanned the rather difficult journals such as “Journal of Applied Physics” at the libraries in IISc and TIFR to look for sound principles based on which one can construct appropriate armour materials on our own ab initio. Various ideas such as Konda’s effect, deflection of shockwaves, splitting of the jets, avoiding momentum multiplication, using extremely high viscosities of glass like substances, facilitating lateral dispersal of momentum and energy, breaking up the projectiles or deflecting the proje ctiles etc. were conceived. Appropriate tailor made materials and structures were thought of. It was realized that while in most engineering materials and applications we need to maximize strength, sometimes strength and toughness, in armour we need to maximize the product of strength, ductility and the volume that participates in energy absorption. Increased speed of plastic wave and increased homogeneity of strain that accompanies it is critical. These are unique requirements. Further,it was observed that while homogeneous deformation is key for maximizing energy
absorption, inhomogeneous flow is desirable for momentum absorption such as in the case of HEAT and for turning or breaking the shots. For dissipating or absorbing shocks, layered structures should be preferred. Accordingly, many new materials and structures were conceived and made.


The first results of the trials on the HEAT rounds came within a few months and, may be for
the beginner’s luck, were truly fantastic. Soon, larger samples were made and tested at PXE
Balasore. The plates not only defeated the HEAT rounds but also withstood the KE, APDS
rounds. The round was trapped inside. To see what happened to it, the plate was brought to
DMRL. It was cut open the same night to see what actually happened to the shot. I and Dr. Arunachalam walked from Lab Quarters to DMRL at well past midnight to examine the plate from inside. To our shock, the shot was not inside, hiding, but had actually broken up to fine dust!


It was an exciting beginning. A comprehensive and confident programme thus began at
DMRL. Using a variety of starting materials such as ceramics, hard steels, tough composites, and
energetic explosives, the armour programme advanced in many directions to meet a host of
challenging requirements. Success after success came in the form of armour system for MBTArjun and its continuously improving features. For T-72 Ajeya and for T-90 the required armour technology was developed indigenously. Armour for light vehicles, helicopters and many other applications like lancer helicopter, Vijayanta tank, ICV-Abhay and Mi-17
helicopters also emerged out of the programme to meet the requirements. It gives great satisfaction and excitement to me and my research team.


More than 20,000 tonnes of various armour materials have been produced to meet the various requirements. An Armour Technology Centre has been set up in the 700 acres of land specially acquired for the purpose.

There are a few critical factors which I believe have contributed to the above successes in the tryst with indigenous armour development:
1.Full trust, support and freedom provided by the organization.
2.From the user’s side, the area of protection is one thing that is close to the heart of every member from soldier to the chief, and evokes spontaneous, deeply supportive and encouraging responses.

My heartfelt acknowledgement is to my family and wo rk related family whose unfathomabledepth of emotions, support and commitment has enabled the attainment of deeply satisfying results in my tryst with destiny in the service of the nation, which reconfirms my childhood feeling that I indeed own the whole country is correct. I also acknowledge that while something has been do ne, there is a lot more to be done and forever so.

Jai Hind

Ranjani Brow

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Ranjani Brow » 12 Sep 2014 18:55

@DRDO Techfocus - August 2009
Image

---------------------------

DRDO Technology Focus Archive: Link



Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest