Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 01 Feb 2009 21:51

a krish, sholef isn't latest by any means. the prototypes were made in mid 80's.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6944
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Anujan » 01 Feb 2009 23:32

namit k wrote:its limited mobility was amongst man issue thats why i wrote that it should be coverted to artillery

No you did not. You talked about some "turret issue" that affects accuracy. If you had done some research, you would have stumbled upon the auto-collimating muzzle reference system of Arjun, and two axis stabilized sight and FCS for the gunner which gives it about 90% First hit probability. What is this nonsense about "turret issue" that affects accuracy ? There are articles after articles which say that the army itself has no complaints either with Arjun's accuracy or its lethality.

And now this new rabbit from the hat about "mobility". What mobility ? Arjun has a *lower ground pressure* (pressure = weight/area, wider tracks for Arjun) than T90, has faster top speed, better acceleration, can handle steeper grades, ford deeper and cross longer trenches. What is this mobility issue you talk of ?

namit k wrote:but none of us is intelligent enough to know what extra problems with Arjun


Yes, but we are intelligent enough to pick up on news reports about delay in TOT for T-90, cost escalation, faulty thermal sights in T90, and this whole bogus argument (in the day and age of computerized FCS) of "we will be so small that the rounds will miss us". (Why bogus ? because Arjun is only 10 cms taller and 10 cms wider than T90, for a tank that is roughly 3.5m x 2.5m from the front. Even that 10cms is negated when you consider better gun depression and hydraulics which means the arjun can find better hulldown positions), the idea of storing Ammo in the crew compartment, the army trying its level best to cancel comparative trials (using words like "can you compare a BMW to a Maruti ?"), trying to introduce non quantitative aspects to comparative trials (like a "capture the flag" exercise, which depends more on the skill of the tank commanders rather than the capabilities of the tank itself. We all know how that is going to go down. The first time Arjun prototypes were tested, it was crewed by a T72 crew, who were not trained on the Arjun and made a complete mess of the trials).

After all this, it is not the case that "none of us is intelligent enough to know what extra problems with Arjun", it is the case that nobody seems to know what is exactly the problem with Arjun, and everybody seems to bring up a new problem and when confronted with evidence, do a rapid downhill skiing. Except that the problem they quoted, becomes part of the accepted folklore. Sorry for the outburst, I will try to shut up till next time, when I am sure someone will come up with "But didnt the torsion bar break in the Arjun ?"

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Rahul M » 01 Feb 2009 23:48

Ashu wrote:Smooth bore also gives a flatter trajectory, whereas a spinning projectile rises up after a certain distance, so it may not engage low silhoutte targets at longer ranges.

are you speaking of a generic rifled bore round or the arjun APFSDS ?

because the arjun's main gun, though rifled, fires sabot rounds that does NOT rotate the sabot.
thanks.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Sanjay » 02 Feb 2009 01:56

Regiment Nomenclature is very dangerous. There were SP units using M-46 towed weapons. The 105mm regiments converted I believe retained their nomenclature as field units. The light regiments 120mm were removed from Indian ORBATs at one time - regiments were re-designated batteries and attached on an ad hoc basis. There is 1 heavy regiment (60 Heavy) in the army - used to use 7.2inch howitzers. If I am not mistaken this regiment converted to the Prithvi missile (the basis of 333 missile group).

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2145
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Vivek K » 02 Feb 2009 02:04

Facts are very simple no matter how much Philip can sugar coat them - no bribes have been paid to IA for the Arjun (and the Brahmos). So try as hard as you may, these systems will never be accepted by them. Let us call a spade a spade. The recent sabotage of the tank goes to prove this.

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Anabhaya » 02 Feb 2009 02:38

Vivek K wrote:Facts are very simple no matter how much Philip can sugar coat them - no bribes have been paid to IA for the Arjun (and the Brahmos). So try as hard as you may, these systems will never be accepted by them. Let us call a spade a spade. The recent sabotage of the tank goes to prove this.


I fully agree. There not one valid reason to keep buying more and more of Russian equipment except perhaps for a grave grave grave error in the judgement of the IA. Might sound a little arrogant to be passing a judgement on the judgememnt of the IA being a non-professional but then look at how the IA is making a joke of itselves.

Sabotage the Arjun.
"We want tomorrows technology" and then keep buying upto 2000 T-90 tanks. :rotfl:

Stinks to high heavens.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby K Mehta » 02 Feb 2009 13:52

The problem I think is of who is at helm.
the previous army chief wasnt so dead against arjun, while the current one is.
Its opposite in case of LCA as of now.
JMHO etc.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20169
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Philip » 02 Feb 2009 15:15

Collating the various posts,a key factor emerges if you examine the various details and problems in depth,that there has been limited communication,cooperation and conceptualisation of weapon systems like the Arjun,LCA,etc., by the services,the DRDO and the MOD-representing their Political masters.Now one famous grouse by the services is that they are NEVER asked for input when foreign policy and defence policies are being drawn up by "Babudom".There is no "national strategy" or "Grand Strategy"at all.In fact,Babudom deliberately keeps apart the military from the politicos,where the defence chiefs allegedly do not have a smooth direct access to the PM,etc.,as was the case in earlier times,especially during the era of the Raj.It was certainly far better during Mrs.Gandhi's time in '71.The late FM Sam Mankeshaw has also gone on record about the signal contribution of the then Defence Minister and Def.Sec.too.There are several "defences" to keep the services form having their full say on matters directly concerning them and we have seen the disgraceful way in which they were treated by Babudom over the Pay Commission spat.It is only after the chiefs protested and the refusal to accept their new scales that a service officer is being inducted into the pay revision process,where Babudom awards itelf the plum pay scales to the detriment of all others.

This latter day "divide and rule" policy between the politicos,services and the "indigenisers" ,has been the prime reason for the lack of intimacy between the services and most of the DRDO/PSUs resulting in the delays in both local production and imports too of weapon systems. A total change in attitude and functioning of the three entities must take place and the buck stops with the PM/DM in particular.

Despite my faith in the IA for choosing the (supposedly cheaper,technologically contemporary-admittedly with its own faults) T-90 over Arjun for the various reasons spelt out by many of us,I for one cannot understand why a friendly face-off or competition between the two is not being done,especially as it has been revealed to the media that several of the items of technology developed in the Arjun project are to be used by Russia in their FMBT designbeing drawn up for the IA.Such a contest would expose both tanks to their strengths and weaknesses at least for the record and more importantly the development of indigenous tank technology for the country.We have been debating the merits of smooth bore vs rifled bore main guns,ERA vs modular armour,suspension,engines-GT vs diesel,missiles fired from guns,a variety of defences,IED defence,tank size,gun size,crew numbers,etc.It would be most illuminating to see what such a trial brings out.
Such a trial could include the logistics of transporting the tank from its secure bases within the country to see if the criticism of Arjun's transportation poses a problem as mentioned in other posts,using it in the various terrain prevalent in the subcontinent to see which performs better and where.If conducted over a suitable period,one could also see how easy or difficult it is to maintain the tank in the field,changing engines,tracks,etc.,simulating a host of battlefield problems including night fighting abilities.A final cost-effectiveness and battle effectiveness analysis could be established for both which would serve as an excellent guide for our FMBT.

If the IA does not carry out such an exercise at some forseeable time in the future,the sooner the better,as at least 124 Arjuns are to be inducted,then the lingering doubt will remain in some minds whether the IA is being unjustly prejudiced against the Arjun.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7701
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 Feb 2009 22:44

Sanjay wrote:Regiment Nomenclature is very dangerous. There were SP units using M-46 towed weapons. The 105mm regiments converted I believe retained their nomenclature as field units. The light regiments 120mm were removed from Indian ORBATs at one time - regiments were re-designated batteries and attached on an ad hoc basis. There is 1 heavy regiment (60 Heavy) in the army - used to use 7.2inch howitzers. If I am not mistaken this regiment converted to the Prithvi missile (the basis of 333 missile group).


Sanjay, thank you for the reply. SP units equipped with M-46 could be because of the phasing out the Abbot SP system. IIRC, the Medium Regiments in the Mechanized formations have the bulk of Bofors. Is the status of Light Regiment same as you quote or was it part of downsizing of the IA in early 90s and may be they are back to usual strength?
Thanx

ksmahesh
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 10 Jan 2007 17:55
Location: Mt Everest - its the coolest one

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ksmahesh » 03 Feb 2009 00:49

I donot understand why do we have to treat Arjun vs T-90 tanks as exclusive case. Both are different tank and have strengths and weakness. Why IA cannot have a blend of X Arjun + Y T-90. The numbers X and Y decided by IA people. A cursory look of our borders prove that we need:
1. A tank that can be air lifted (at lets say Leh). I remember reading about T-72 was ait lifted here but I am not sure about T-90 or Arjun. Would be glad if someone could answer that.
2. Tanks that can negotiateThar and Punjab plains.
3. Tanks that can also overcome the soggy ground in BD sector (the numbers of such tank need not be high vis-a-vis Porki sector)

Competition T-90 and Arjun in all terrains will prove what combination of Arjun/T-90 should be used.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Rahul M » 03 Feb 2009 00:58

except the first point which neither satisfies AFAIR, (remember reading something about T-90 will not fit in the IL-76) arjun is superior on all counts.

however all such discussions are passe since we don't make the decisions.

Let's NOT get into a T-90 vs Arjun discussion again. we have been there done that and nothing we say here is going to change what happens out there.


So even if you feel let down by the happenings, kindly discuss news only
DO NOT bring in new ideas and opinions on this controversy.
this thread has gone down on more than one occasion on this issue.
thanks for co-operating.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Sanjay » 03 Feb 2009 02:07

I have never been able to figure out anything regarding those light regiments. Apparently the BSF has hundreds of 120mm mortars just lying around and God knows how the army deploys them now. I wish I could answer the questions you ask - but I want to know the answers too.

Ramesh
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 21:10

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Ramesh » 03 Feb 2009 21:32

Rahul M wrote:
Ashu wrote:Smooth bore also gives a flatter trajectory, whereas a spinning projectile rises up after a certain distance, so it may not engage low silhoutte targets at longer ranges.

are you speaking of a generic rifled bore round or the arjun APFSDS ?

because the arjun's main gun, though rifled, fires sabot rounds that does NOT rotate the sabot.
thanks.


It was a statement on the smooth barrel Vs rifiled barrel discussion, not specific to any equipment.

skher
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 23:58
Location: Secured; no idea

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby skher » 06 Feb 2009 00:25

K Mehta wrote:The problem I think is of who is at helm.
the previous army chief wasnt so dead against arjun, while the current one is.
Its opposite in case of LCA as of now.
JMHO etc.


Perhaps combat arm membership also affects decision-making.
Previous COAS was from infantry and hence less likely to have a personal problem with Arjun.Similarly,the present ACM is from the helicopter cadre and will not have to deal with the 'fighter mafia'.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby K Mehta » 06 Feb 2009 12:28

skher wrote:
K Mehta wrote:The problem I think is of who is at helm.
the previous army chief wasnt so dead against arjun, while the current one is.
Its opposite in case of LCA as of now.
JMHO etc.


Perhaps combat arm membership also affects decision-making.
Previous COAS was from infantry and hence less likely to have a personal problem with Arjun.Similarly,the present ACM is from the helicopter cadre and will not have to deal with the 'fighter mafia'.

I didnt think of this. Maybe prejudices and neutral opinions matter in this case. Other groups might also play a role, as you mentioned.
OT
I just hope the LCA covers most of its ground (Hopefully gets IOC) before ACM Major retires.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3632
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Neela » 06 Feb 2009 19:22

http://www.drdo.com/pub/nl/2009/jan09.pdf

90 Arjun tanks are at various stages of production

Also,

The remotely~operatedvehicles
developed by R&D Engineers for handling hazardous
operations have been accepted by Army after trial evaluation
and order for 20 numbers arc under placement. Orders also
have been received for \6 number of Armour Engineering
Reconnaissance Vehicles and Armoured Amphibious
Dozers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ramana » 06 Feb 2009 23:13

A query?
Ashu wrote:A question for tech experts here:
How difficult is it to develop terminally guided artillery shells like krasnopol http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/kuw/krasn.htm locally?

Is is technically feasible and financially viable to put a ring laser gyro in this kind of system?



Also since the import of artillery is a long way off what is the ammo picture for those Bofors and upgunned M-46s?

After POKII there were reports of difficulties of setting up the factory for the ammo. Is it resolved now. Or is it on trial basis?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ramana » 06 Feb 2009 23:20

One big problem with those type of guns is the metallurgy of the barrels- metal alloys and heat treatment. Its one thing to make a few pieces and another to make a lot to equip armies. All that needs world class metallurgy facilities on production scale.

The Army should get of its high horse and make sure that production facilities are built for such materials or tey will end up with 25 pounders only. From the never endging saga they end up in a Vedantic way of neti, neti(Not this! Not this!) and end up with nothing (Sunya)!

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby sunilUpa » 07 Feb 2009 03:22

Army falls for Arjun, induction by month-end

Posting in full...I think the news deserves that and an exception can be made this time wrt copyright..

In what may be considered as a fillip for the country’s indigenous production of defence equipment, the first-ever fleet of Indian-made Arjun battle tanks would be inducted into the Army by February end.

A total 45 tanks would form this armoured regiment and the first order of tanks is expected to arrive within next three weeks. In the first phase, 18-20 tanks would be handed over to the Indian Army by the heavy vehicle factory, Avadi, Tamil Nadu. Already, about 85 tanks are in various stages of production.

Notably, the induction is coming almost 36 years after India announced its programme to build own tanks, and the process was laced with glitches and delays.

The tanks would be available at the Armoured Corps Centre and School (ACCS), Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, where training of personnel would be carried out. It would take a few months more before the Arjun is actually deployed in one of the armoured corps on field duties. It is likely that the deployment could be the Indo-Pak border where a majority of the 59 tank regiments of the Army are deployed.

The induction is coming despite stiff opposition from within the armed forces, which tested the tank to the hilt and agreed only after various parameters were met. Defence Minister AK Antony stood his ground and made it clear that the 58-tonne Arjun would be inducted, as it was working fine.

Well-placed sources in the government said the tanks earlier had to be handed over by January end, but the deadline was extended by a month. Sources in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) confirmed that the tanks were ready for shipment and handing-over to the Army.

Rather, the move implies that the induction would be carried out without waiting for the much-awaited comparative trials of the indigenous Arjun tanks with Russian-made T-90s, as had been desired by the DRDO.


AoA onlee..

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ramana » 07 Feb 2009 03:30

I would like a skrimish of the Arjuns with TSP tanks like the Israeli and Syrian tanks in the mid 80s. I think the Arjun will outgun and out run anything the TSP has.

jaladipc
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 20:51
Location: i CAN ADA

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby jaladipc » 07 Feb 2009 10:09

sunilUpa wrote:Army falls for Arjun, induction by month-end

Posting in full...I think the news deserves that and an exception can be made this time wrt copyright..

In what may be considered as a fillip for the country’s indigenous production of defence equipment, the first-ever fleet of Indian-made Arjun battle tanks would be inducted into the Army by February end.

A total 45 tanks would form this armoured regiment and the first order of tanks is expected to arrive within next three weeks. In the first phase, 18-20 tanks would be handed over to the Indian Army by the heavy vehicle factory, Avadi, Tamil Nadu. Already, about 85 tanks are in various stages of production.

Notably, the induction is coming almost 36 years after India announced its programme to build own tanks, and the process was laced with glitches and delays.

The tanks would be available at the Armoured Corps Centre and School (ACCS), Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, where training of personnel would be carried out. It would take a few months more before the Arjun is actually deployed in one of the armoured corps on field duties. It is likely that the deployment could be the Indo-Pak border where a majority of the 59 tank regiments of the Army are deployed.

The induction is coming despite stiff opposition from within the armed forces, which tested the tank to the hilt and agreed only after various parameters were met. Defence Minister AK Antony stood his ground and made it clear that the 58-tonne Arjun would be inducted, as it was working fine.

Well-placed sources in the government said the tanks earlier had to be handed over by January end, but the deadline was extended by a month. Sources in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) confirmed that the tanks were ready for shipment and handing-over to the Army.

Rather, [b]the move implies that the induction would be carried out without waiting for the much-awaited comparative trials of the indigenous Arjun tanks with Russian-made T-90s, as had been desired by the DRDO[/b].


AoA onlee..

seems like some one working on their best to avoid the comparitive trails again and again.And now they are inducting them right away with no more comparitive trails.

vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2202
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby vivek_ahuja » 07 Feb 2009 10:19

ramana wrote:I would like a skrimish of the Arjuns with TSP tanks like the Israeli and Syrian tanks in the mid 80s. I think the Arjun will outgun and out run anything the TSP has.


Provided its deployed as it needs to be deployed, and not relegated to a tertiary sector where it waits out the war.

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby vasu_ray » 07 Feb 2009 11:37

jaladipc wrote:seems like some one working on their best to avoid the comparitive trails again and again.And now they are inducting them right away with no more comparitive trails.


you bet, the result could put the T-90 procurement (2000 nos?) in abeyance. Accepting the Arjun wouldn't raise a needless furor from Army's pov...

babbupandey
BRFite
Posts: 180
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 16:53

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby babbupandey » 07 Feb 2009 12:00

124 Arjuns were already slated for induction. It does not mention how many more will be ordered.
The army has already ordered 1200 T-90s

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby RayC » 07 Feb 2009 12:10

Sanjay wrote:I have never been able to figure out anything regarding those light regiments. Apparently the BSF has hundreds of 120mm mortars just lying around and God knows how the army deploys them now. I wish I could answer the questions you ask - but I want to know the answers too.


What exactly you want to know about Light Regiments?

I am not too sure how many are left, but since the Infantry Mortars are not far out in range the manpower is being (or to be used) for longer range artillery for optimal efficiency and overall manpower planning.

Or so I believe.

But as an infantryman, I sure think they have their value.

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby AmitR » 07 Feb 2009 12:15

vasu_ray wrote:
jaladipc wrote:seems like some one working on their best to avoid the comparitive trails again and again.And now they are inducting them right away with no more comparitive trails.


you bet, the result could put the T-90 procurement (2000 nos?) in abeyance. Accepting the Arjun wouldn't raise a needless furor from Army's pov...


Excuse me for my lack of full knowledge about Arjun. But the story so far seems to be:

1) Indian Army creates a ruckus about poor quality of Arjun. DRDO claims to have fixed it.
2) Then they order 124 tanks under the MoD pressure presumably .
3) Refuse to go for comparative trials.
3) Agree for comparative trials.
4) Suddenly start inducting Arjuns before comparative trials. Or maybe this was the plan all along.

I have a feeling that Arjun will be made to sit out and rot while people make black money out of T-90 deal. :evil:
Arjun in the long run will give tremendous boost for India's self reliance in defence sector. But before that we will have to weed out the middlemen and babus.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3457
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby kit » 07 Feb 2009 13:21

With all the invincible T 90 s is the army trying to avoid a war ? That was what quite a few people were thinking after the mumbai blasts ! Anyway not going into that topic again .. its not even a controversy now , so many things are so clear as day light now and the defence minister also seem to know what is going on .

ps : Does any one know what percentage the Russkies kick back !? Its almost a fact now that they do it for all arms purchases !

Sorry for the rant, Rahul M !

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11313
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Aditya_V » 07 Feb 2009 13:31

Kit- Its not only the Russians, all foreign manufactures have to pay the KB's . Otherwise none of them will get the business.

With DRDO projects, nobody gets foreign jaunts and the MOD Babu, Politico, media nexus can't make much money out of these projects

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Shankar » 07 Feb 2009 14:12

Ray C sir

what is the composition of typical indian arty brigade

like how many guns
and do all brigades have MBRL attached ?

AmitR
BRFite
Posts: 322
Joined: 25 Jan 2009 17:13

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby AmitR » 07 Feb 2009 15:15

babbupandey wrote:124 Arjuns were already slated for induction. It does not mention how many more will be ordered.
The army has already ordered 1200 T-90s


124 Arjuns vs 1200 T-90 :eek:
It does not look fair enough. Is it not possible that Army cuts back the order of T-90 and make Arjun numbers swell up to at least 400-500.

And maybe the army knows something about the Arjun and T-90 that is not in public domain. Like what if the new generation tank from Russia is based on the same chassis as t-90. It would be easier to convert T-90 to new design than Arjun. But all that is speculation.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20169
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Philip » 07 Feb 2009 17:25

There was a post/report about the IA shortly getting the first T-90M,which is "1.5" times better than the basic T-90S.This version will come (indigenously)with some of the tech developed for Arjun too like Kanchan armour,as the Russians have supposedly refused (or too expensive to obtain) to hand over full TOT for that aspect.Another 124 Arjuns are also supposedly to be acquired,but one remembers that the DRDO/HVF wanted at least 400 to break even.Depending upon how soon they can roll out oif the factory and enter servcie,we might see as time goes by more Arjuns if the indigenous T-90 production gets any hiccups.I'm sure an evalution of both will be done by the IA,in secret most likely,as revealing the details would only help the enemy too.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby sunilUpa » 07 Feb 2009 18:25

:eek: :eek: :eek: Wow, people can't stop whining, can they?

Army gave DRDO a chance to demonstrate Arjun (I am not talking about the winter trials) and DRDO blew it (what was that..incorrect temperature settings for electronics?). They blew their chance in grand fashion in front of every one. You expect Army to have any confidence in DRDO?

At last Arjun has been inducted. Now we need to know how many will be inducted eventually.

George J
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby George J » 08 Feb 2009 01:56

Army falls for Arjun, induction by month-end
............................Rather, the move implies that the induction would be carried out without waiting for the much-awaited comparative trials of the indigenous Arjun tanks with Russian-made T-90s, as had been desired by the DRDO



What would have happened if the T-90 had gone up against the Arjun?

1) T-90 performed better than Arjun: IA would have been vindicated, Russian OEM will get a great marketing coup and DRDO would go back to the drawing board with a maligned product.

OR

2) Arjun performed better than T-90: IA would look like a bunch of incompetent idiots and EVERY procurement choice they made would be called into question. Russian OEM would have egg on its face and it would jeopardize further orders and prospective clients (Klub vs Brahmos fiasco). DRDO gets to chalk up another product that is not "de-linked" from service.

Either way it was too big of a risk for the IA. It did the honorable thing. This way it gets to notionally induct the Arjun, DRDO gets to work on Mk.II and improvements, T-90 remains "capable and frontline". Everybody is happy.

Lets face it we are not going to have Tea at RYK anytime soon (or ever) so at least use the time and resources to build capabilities.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Sanjay » 08 Feb 2009 02:06

Ray Sahib, thanks for the offer. The Light Regiments - as artillery regiments - has 12 120mm mortars apiece didn't they and at one time there were about 40 of them.

Subseqently - in the 1990s - they were sort of removed from the ORBAT of the infantry divisions artillery brigades. There was some suggestion that the said weapons could be assigned to infantry battalions on an ad hoc basis. Right now the OFB has developed an improved 81mm mortar with a max range of 7300m and a new long range 120mm with an HE bomb range of 10km but the latter was rejected in favour of a Soltam design with a range of 9km. While the 120mm mortar is way too large for any mountain infantry units, and may well remain an artillery weapon, is there any possibility of the weapons being assigned to augment the firepower of the infantry battalions in the plains ?

Your point about the manpower and logistics aspects are part of the reason for the quandry over the light regiments. I was told once that they had been converted into light batteries - one wonders if those were merged into regmients of 18 or something.

The value of a 120mm mortar is undeniable. The question is whether the infantry or the artillery should use it.

Yogesh
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 01:37
Location: Vasundhara
Contact:

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Yogesh » 08 Feb 2009 02:13

Well said mate :)
George J wrote:

Either way it was too big of a risk for the IA. It did the honorable thing. This way it gets to notionally induct the Arjun, DRDO gets to work on Mk.II and improvements, T-90 remains "capable and frontline". Everybody is happy.

Lets face it we are not going to have Tea at RYK anytime soon (or ever) so at least use the time and resources to build capabilities.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby RayC » 08 Feb 2009 07:27

Even though Artillery is not Small Arms, since the issue was raised, I will clarify.

The Arty Bde, which is a part of the Div, has three Field Regiments and one Medium Regiment.

Each Regiment has three Batteries and each battery has two troops and each troop has 3 guns.

Brigades do not have arty integral to it. Usually one Regt from the Div Arty is affiliated to it.

The guns are never left 'idle' in any operation.

The are in direct support to the unit/ formation in action and the other guns are in indirect support and some formation/ units can have guns at priority call.

To put it in simple terms,

1. 'in direct support' means the guns are dedicated to the unit/ formation for its operation and Observation Post officers are provided by this unit in direct support.

2. 'In indirect support' means if the guns of the units in indirect support are not being used, it can be directed to fire in support of the unit in indirect support.

3. At 'Priority call' means that in case there are two units wanting the fire of guns in indirect support, the unit in the attack/ defence which has the priority call will get the fire over the other unit wanting the fire support.

MBRL is not a part of Div Arty.

Arty that comes from outside the Div resources is called Reinforcing Arty.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Baljeet » 08 Feb 2009 07:41

I say, lets make AK Antony for PM. Atleast this guy has balls and stands firm. Next in line, take out a whip and start whipping these loser IAS & IPS Morons. There is no substitute of professional soldier. IAS&IPS are living in a fools paradise, false sense of security. Get Rid of bad apples, natasha's digging Indian Military Officers. Let desi maal ring true. There was another report recently how Indian Power Comapanies have been importing turbines from china instead of buying from BHEL, All chinese imported turbines at every single place have failes, blades break off from hinges, rivets falling off, metullargy is slumdog.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby RayC » 08 Feb 2009 08:20

Sanjay wrote:Ray Sahib, thanks for the offer. The Light Regiments - as artillery regiments - has 12 120mm mortars apiece didn't they and at one time there were about 40 of them.

Subseqently - in the 1990s - they were sort of removed from the ORBAT of the infantry divisions artillery brigades. There was some suggestion that the said weapons could be assigned to infantry battalions on an ad hoc basis. Right now the OFB has developed an improved 81mm mortar with a max range of 7300m and a new long range 120mm with an HE bomb range of 10km but the latter was rejected in favour of a Soltam design with a range of 9km. While the 120mm mortar is way too large for any mountain infantry units, and may well remain an artillery weapon, is there any possibility of the weapons being assigned to augment the firepower of the infantry battalions in the plains ?

Your point about the manpower and logistics aspects are part of the reason for the quandry over the light regiments. I was told once that they had been converted into light batteries - one wonders if those were merged into regmients of 18 or something.

The value of a 120mm mortar is undeniable. The question is whether the infantry or the artillery should use it.


The 120mm Mor range is 7125yds or 6515m. The weight of the shell is 13.2 kgs, it effective lethal area 32m and safety distance in war is 320m (overhead) and 300m (Enfilade).

81mm Mortar maximum range Charge 8 is 5300m and effective Killing Zone is 90m. The weight of the shell is 4.2kgs.

The requirement of a weapon system is to ensure at each stage of the battle there is:

1. an appropriate weapon system that can take on the attacking enemy or the enemy's defence (in case we are attacking);

2. and appropriate destroying power for his various equipment. Tanks will require minimum of a medium shell and so would bunkers.

3. and wherever feasible have multiple weapon cover.

The difference between 120 vs 81mm is marginal when compared to the fact that it will release manpower for let us say, additional arty regiments. 120mm has to be carried by mules in mountains, while 81mm is man portable as it weighs 42 kgs.

Given the fact that owing to better roads and prime movers, (Bofors can move without its prime mover some distance and hence shoot and scoot) even medium guns can go into the mountains which are more lethal and has longer range than 120mm Mortars, what would be preferable? 120mm Mors or medium guns like the Bofor?

If 120mms are given to the Infantry, where will the manpower come from?

If 120mm is with the infantry and they are not man portable, how will it be taken where it is required?

The issue must be addressed holistically.

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Singha » 08 Feb 2009 08:40

is there widespread use of mortars fixed inside BMP chassis as a cheap form
of SP mobile artillery for close infantry support ? what would be the pros and
cons of this approach vs using the 105mm truck mounted concept (Tata power showed a prototype iirc) except range?
there are even bomblet and sensor fused mortar shells on the world market
though the short range => the enemy armour would already be too close for
comfort when these can be brought to bear.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby RayC » 08 Feb 2009 08:51

Singha wrote:is there widespread use of mortars fixed inside BMP chassis as a cheap form
of SP mobile artillery for close infantry support ? what would be the pros and
cons of this approach vs using the 105mm truck mounted concept (Tata power showed a prototype iirc) except range?
there are even bomblet and sensor fused mortar shells on the world market
though the short range => the enemy armour would already be too close for
comfort when these can be brought to bear.


The safety distances required for Mortars (even in war) for attacking infantry makes field artillery a better option.

Only medium shells in direct hits are effective against tanks.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests