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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 25 Feb 2009 23:11

Manish,

The allotment of following wagons is directly controlled by Movement Directorate Army
headquarters :--

(a) Broad Gauge.

(I) MBFU
(ii) MBWT.
(iii) BRS.
(iv) BWM.
(v) MBKM.

(b) Metre Guage.

(i) MBWX (A).
(ii) MBWZ.

IIRC MBFU is what carries the tank and it is a flatbed.

Here is a link for the various types of rakes and flatbeds used by the Indian Railways:
http://www.irfca.org/gallery/Wagons/?g2_page=5

I think someone familiar with the Railways will be able to give the right nomenclature of what carries the tanks.

It is too late at night out here for me to ring my ex Col Adm now a Brig and check it out. He organised the movement by rail in Op Parakrama and he would know.

Technically, a commercial lorry is rated with a carrying capacity of 7.5 to 10 tons. Let us say it carries double this. It still, as I see it, way below what a tank weighs without fuel and ammunition.

manish
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 29 Jan 2009 16:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby manish » 25 Feb 2009 23:42

RayC wrote:Manish,
....
IIRC MBFU is what carries the tank and it is a flatbed.

Here is a link for the various types of rakes and flatbeds used by the Indian Railways:
http://www.irfca.org/gallery/Wagons/?g2_page=5

I think someone familiar with the Railways will be able to give the right nomenclature of what carries the tanks.

It is too late at night out here for me to ring my ex Col Adm now a Brig and check it out. :oops: He organised the movement by rail in Op Parakrama and he would know.

Technically, a commercial lorry is rated with a carrying capacity of 7.5 to 10 tons. Let us say it carries double this. It still, as I see it, way below what a tank weighs without fuel and ammunition.

Thank you sir. Please note that it wasn't my intention to be rude/patronising. I hope I did not come across as that :) . All of us on the forum have learnt a lot from you regarding military affairs, so sometimes people like me might just slip up and push the envelope a bit in our attempts to gather info from you, sorry.
I was just 'hypothesizing' that KR wouldn't have had issues with weight as nearly a decade has passed since full fledged service began, that's all. I agree that a tank would still be a LOT heavier than a loaded truck.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 25 Feb 2009 23:54

manish wrote:
RayC wrote:Manish,
....
IIRC MBFU is what carries the tank and it is a flatbed.

Here is a link for the various types of rakes and flatbeds used by the Indian Railways:
http://www.irfca.org/gallery/Wagons/?g2_page=5

I think someone familiar with the Railways will be able to give the right nomenclature of what carries the tanks.

It is too late at night out here for me to ring my ex Col Adm now a Brig and check it out. :oops: He organised the movement by rail in Op Parakrama and he would know.

Technically, a commercial lorry is rated with a carrying capacity of 7.5 to 10 tons. Let us say it carries double this. It still, as I see it, way below what a tank weighs without fuel and ammunition.



Thank you sir. Please note that it wasn't my intention to be rude/patronising. I hope I did not come across as that :) . All of us on the forum have learnt a lot from you regarding military affairs, so sometimes people like me might just slip up and push the envelope a bit in our attempts to gather info from you, sorry.
I was just 'hypothesizing' that KR wouldn't have had issues with weight as nearly a decade has passed since full fledged service began, that's all. I agree that a tank would still be a LOT heavier than a loaded truck.


Notwithstanding, I learnt something that I did not know - that there was an ex in Gujerat, which Singha brought out! Surprising it did not appear in the Calcutta media or maybe I missed it, So, one thing leads to another and we all get educated.

I just hope I am not too brusque! Maybe I do come out so, even if that is not my intention. But then so many years of the military style of writing does grow on one, even if that is not how one started out in life!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2009 00:16

Manish,

I wondered about the bedding in because in an accident on this railway, IIRC, it was stated that it was because the earth filling had not settled down. So, I thought that maybe they wanted to use the heaviest load running on the line to tamp the earth further.

Also, I was intrigued as to why the tanks are going to Karwar? There were no tank units located earlier. Has it now been located, I wondered.

Then Singha's post has intrigued me further. If the ex has terminated on the Gujarat Coast, then why are the tanks not returning to their bases and the Konkan Rly does not lead to any tank unit location!

So, why is what is intriguing me.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2009 00:30

Makes sense to ship them back to Karwar and rail transport to Secbad which seems to be the base or or SCR junction to final destination?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 26 Feb 2009 00:36

RayC sir, this was quite a big exercise involving navy and IA units operating in amphib role.

I think there are images in the misc pics thread.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rajsunder » 26 Feb 2009 01:11

RayC wrote:
Kunal wrote:It is just not fair for you to put up such a statement. To suggest that drdo or any one here is asking for coffins to be rolled out for our soldiers is horrible. It is galling to read such statements from supposed gentlemen.


The problem is that you chaps don't read and jump to conclusions without cause.

Read this:

Would you, as an Indian citizen, be happy and comfortable to be in 2009 with a 1980 tank which is obsolete and is not capable to meeting the current battlefield environment? And to make the matter worse, the adversary having tanks that are current!

You maybe, but ask those who will lose their lives in such a coffin!



I stated that in 2009 if you had a 1980 tank, it would be a coffin!

Now since you possibly have no idea of a battlefield or a war environment (or else you would not have given that post), let me take you through with baby steps, lest you give me a start and let loose another slur at me like 'supposed gentleman'!

1. The 1980 tank has no hope in hell to survive in a modern Anti Tank environment.

2. When this ancient tank is hit, its ammunition, in all probability, will explode.

3. The tank will catch fire.

4. Then what would happen to the crew?

5. They will walk out of the tank like as if they were Superman, Batman and Spiderman rolled in one?

6, If such an situation is not sure death, then what is?

I, as a retired soldier, have no qualms in facing realities and stating it so. I have no false pretensions or pride for equipment that is outdated and not capable of facing contemporary battlefield conditions, since I owe it to my soldiers that I shall get them the best that India can afford.

Further, imagine fighting today's war with a blunderbuss and not the INSAS, I would not give it to my troops even if the blunderbuss was made by my first cousin!!

Added Later:

Tanaji,

I was alluding to a 1980 tank in 2009 battlefield and I am told that I a 'supposed gentleman'!
Such a tank has no hope in hell in the modern Anti Tank environment and so what would that tank be? Is such a statement as - To suggest that drdo or any one here is asking for coffins to be rolled out for our soldiers is horrible. It is galling to read such statements from supposed gentlemen - totally out of context not make one get perturbed, more so since it indicates that I am a heartless chap! Do you expect me to be Jesus?

But Sir, unlike T90 which does not have any provision for protection from ammunition blast, Arjun has a blast protection door that protects crew from the affects of the blast inside a TANK.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 444
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 26 Feb 2009 01:14

ARyC sir, with the T-90, the army is actually in an updated 1960s tank in 2009. :wink:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 26 Feb 2009 08:38

well as the LSTs and Trenton are based in karwar, made sense to ship them back again cheaply rather than organizing a train from gujarat coast and trucks to ferry them to the train.

the flatbed train in karwar was probably just locked down and kept waiting until the return.

I have always been a proponent of rapid deployment exercises involving comandeering of
civilian a.c for a day(sunday) to move men and materials at lightning speed across the country like hyd/blr to leh or jabalpur to dibrugarh.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2009 08:43

[quote="rajsunder"]

I agree with you that from safety point of view, what you say is right.

But my contention was different. Maybe I was not able to explain the issue.

All I was trying to state, that every time the tank was up for trials, it apparently had become obsolete vs the environment and so again, it went back to the boards.

To be frank, to me, it does not matter which tank is selected. All it matters is that it should be the best that India can afford.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2009 08:44

aditp wrote:ARyC sir, with the T-90, the army is actually in an updated 1960s tank in 2009. :wink:


eerm... updated means what?

Change of the paint?

What is today's Arjun? It is updated from the original or is it a brand new tank?

It all depends on what one perceives as updated.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2009 09:55

Manish,

I was re-reading your posts. I find I have not answered one query - are the tanks put in place with a crane? Trucks and tanks roll onto the railway flatbeds and the tank 'rakes'. The train is placed at the end of the siding and a plate ex the flatbed falls on the siding and the tanks and the trucks roll along to their respective 'rakes'. Tanks are moved in separate trains and the trucks in separate trains.

At major military stations, we have what is known as the 'military siding'.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 26 Feb 2009 12:42

how do they cross the gaps between the rakes? worst case, a truck starting at
front or back has to cross over half the wagons :eek:

cant they just drive in at an angle from the platform itself?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 26 Feb 2009 13:16

Singha wrote:how do they cross the gaps between the rakes? worst case, a truck starting at
front or back has to cross over half the wagons :eek:

cant they just drive in at an angle from the platform itself?


There are steel plates that cover the gap and the width is same as that of the rake. It is dropped over the gap that is their because of the buffers.

The tanks/ trucks drive on the platform to the end of the platform (actually siding) and because the plates (they are on both sides of the rake) have been dropped, they drive into their rakes. The first tank or truck is the one that is to go to the end of such rakes that have been joined together to make the train. Something like the vestibule trains being joined wherein one can go from one compartment to another.

It is a very fast way of loading tanks and trucks on the train.

manish
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 29 Jan 2009 16:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby manish » 26 Feb 2009 17:00

RayC wrote:Manish,

I wondered about the bedding in because in an accident on this railway, IIRC, it was stated that it was because the earth filling had not settled down. So, I thought that maybe they wanted to use the heaviest load running on the line to tamp the earth further.

Sir, you are right about that, I mentioned that in my post above as well - during the heavy Monsoon season, some sections of the tracks had problems at around the year 2000 or so IIRC. There were certain stretches cutting through hills(like the one pictured above) where the trains had to roll VERY slowly to avoid risking landslides. In fact, one of the tunnels located right off the river Sharavati at Honnavar was a nightmare to construct due to the loose soil involved and IIRC cost some 11 lives in multiple mishaps and landslides. I was just a kid in those days, so can't be too sure on that number.

BTW, this is not related to the issue at hand, but the KR journey is an absolute pleasure, especially during the monsoon season when it is virtually impossible to find a single piece of land without greenery on it.
RayC wrote:Also, I was intrigued as to why the tanks are going to Karwar? There were no tank units located earlier. Has it now been located, I wondered.

Then Singha's post has intrigued me further. If the ex has terminated on the Gujarat Coast, then why are the tanks not returning to their bases and the Konkan Rly does not lead to any tank unit location!

So, why is what is intriguing me.

Even I speculated that the exercise could be one of the explanations in my original post, that is why I asked why a train headed down south would take the KR, although I have no clue as to where the tanks are/were located :) . All I knew was that there were no tank bases along the Karnataka Coast. With my (extremely) limited knowledge, Avadi HVF was one thing that came to my mind regarding armour in the south, but KR could not have been the preferred choice to go there. So it must have been the issues you pointed out - bedding-in and/or a logistics proving run utilising the opportunity thrown up by the tri-services ex at Karwar in all probability.


RayC wrote:Manish,

I was re-reading your posts. I find I have not answered one query - are the tanks put in place with a crane? Trucks and tanks roll onto the railway flatbeds and the tank 'rakes'. The train is placed at the end of the siding and a plate ex the flatbed falls on the siding and the tanks and the trucks roll along to their respective 'rakes'. Tanks are moved in separate trains and the trucks in separate trains.

At major military stations, we have what is known as the 'military siding'.


Thanks! I was wondering how they would fit into the specially widened 'space' meant for them on each wagon without traversing the narrower space surrounding it, this clears it up.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3284
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Tanaji » 26 Feb 2009 21:28

Apologies for

  • Delay in replying
  • If I came across as too brusque, that was certainly not the intention.

This whole Arjun affair seems to bring out extreme opinions on either side, and I am afraid that none of the institutions involved have come out smelling of roses.

I am the first to admit that I am neither qualified nor capable of evaluating weapon systems. However the more I read about this fiasco, the more frustrated one becomes given the maze of confusion, deceit and denials that has surrounded it. Having grown up watching India import one system or the other at enormous costs, its every Indian's hope that one day we would be able to build something truly world class; hence so much involvement with the Arjun project. I am sure that the IA is a better judge, given that they have all the information but one has to understand that the skepticism about the IA (not ignoring the criminal roles played by MoD, CVRDE etc) arises from 2 issues:

  • We civilians are incapable of trusting the government, or for that matter, any power of authority. Given the absolute crass performance of bureaucracy in all aspects, they have lost any credibility or trust. The belief that a bureaucrat must be corrupt if he is alive, has taken hold firmly in our lives. When the IA/MoD (I know they are distinctly separate) prevaricates in this matter and at the same time orders T90s which are inferior in some aspects, one tends to believe the worst.
  • As a society, we have become less honest and more corrupt as time has gone by. As a result we tend to view others by the same prism.

I accept and agree with all your other comments: there has been no finer institution than the Indian armed forces. But, in the end, they too are from the same society as us, and the babus and the society are determined to drag them down.

In any case I am going off on a tangent and OT.

Amitabh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Amitabh » 27 Feb 2009 16:05

Is that reactive armour on Bangladeshi Type 69 tanks?

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=77643

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 27 Feb 2009 16:10

looks like it. but the ones on hull and on front turrent are kept in storage perhaps.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 27 Feb 2009 17:54

I think that the logic is unassailable,the need for a tank for the 21st century and not the 20th.Both Arjun and the T-90 (newer),were designed in the last century.I also wonder how a large 60t behemoth will become "invisible" no matter what magic tricks are added to it.Hard and soft kill sensors and weapon systems are currently being developed by the major tank manufacturers,but a radical new design is needed that gives massive firepower with a larger calibre gun,anti-air missiles too,excellent mobility and improved crew protection.The turretless tank concept,with a three man crew is one that appears to be the way that future MBT designs will look to.It seems pointless to want a large tank with four man crew when automation is available.With the huge development in electronics,glass cockpits for tanks with aircraft like technology would radically alter its configuration.The T series are a progressive one,with each model an improvement on the former design.It would be interesting to see what the T-95 holds for a potential user and whether a perfected Arjun with a MK-2 version appears soon..

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1966
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby AdityaM » 01 Mar 2009 04:13

End of the road for Jonga

Two weeks ago, the army’s last Jonga made its 500-km journey from Mhow to Jabalpur, 300 km east of Bhopal, to rest at a memorial there.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 01 Mar 2009 04:27

Rahul M

I thought there were not supposed to be any more posts on this Arjun\T 90 discussion.

But it looks like the handful of T 90 lovers are back with the same nonsense and wet dreams ie. tank of the 21st century, turretless, invisible, 600 mm gun and so on .

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 01 Mar 2009 11:32

The Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), or S-Tank, was a Swedish tank (although some consider it to be a tank destroyer). It was known for its unconventional turret-less design, with a fixed gun traversed and elevated by engaging the tracks and adjusting the hull suspension. The S-Tank was developed in the 1950s and was the first main battle tank replacement to use a turbine engine. The result was a very low-profile design with an emphasis on defense and heightened crew protection level. S-Tanks formed a major portion of Swedish armored forces during the 1960s, 70s, 80s and part of the 90s, but have since been removed from service in favour of the Leopard 2.

When Arjun was contemplated even this concept was on the anvil.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Raja Bose » 01 Mar 2009 14:14

AdityaM wrote:End of the road for Jonga

Two weeks ago, the army’s last Jonga made its 500-km journey from Mhow to Jabalpur, 300 km east of Bhopal, to rest at a memorial there.


So with the retirement of the sturdy Jonga, is the Gypsy now the workhorse for the army? Anybody has info on how the army gypsies are different from the regular ones sold by Maruti? The para ones which operate in the desert I recall have sand filters, special tyres, suspension and cooling but what about the other gypsies in use by the army.

manish
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 29 Jan 2009 16:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby manish » 01 Mar 2009 17:13

Raja Bose wrote:
So with the retirement of the sturdy Jonga, is the Gypsy now the workhorse for the army? Anybody has info on how the army gypsies are different from the regular ones sold by Maruti? The para ones which operate in the desert I recall have sand filters, special tyres, suspension and cooling but what about the other gypsies in use by the army.

Not quite an answer to your question, but probably the imminent retirement of the Jongas was the reason that drove M&M(Israeli origin Axe) and Tata(LSV) to pitch in with their concept vehicles. The small size and the civvie origins of the gypsy may prove to be a limiting factor in some ways(Towing capacity, ability to mount some of the heavier guns/AT weaponry, operating envelope etc) I guess? RayC sir, could you shed some light on what is the perception within the Armed Forces regarding this? Did anything come out of the supposed trials that were held for both the LSV and Axe?

Here are the brochures if anyone's interested:
http://www.defencesolutions-tatamotors.com/pdf/lsv.pdf
Tata's Defence Solutions site has some other interesting products as well.

I could not find the Axe brochure on the M&M Defence webiste, here is some other link:
http://www.vicky.in/straightfrmtheheart ... an-humvee/

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 01 Mar 2009 18:04

RayC wrote:The Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), or S-Tank, was a Swedish tank (although some consider it to be a tank destroyer). It was known for its unconventional turret-less design, with a fixed gun traversed and elevated by engaging the tracks and adjusting the hull suspension. The S-Tank was developed in the 1950s ....... but have since been removed from service in favour of the Leopard 2.

When Arjun was contemplated even this concept was on the anvil.


So "turrent less" wasn't exactly earth shattering was it. The swedes go for a conventional turrent design (can see why, the damned thing cant fire while on the go and maneuvering, like modern tanks) and abandon their turrent less design after 30 years of experience, while the "Quantum Leapers" in India want to go literally "back to the future" :P :P

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunilUpa » 01 Mar 2009 19:17

Born-again Arjun raring for battlefield

At a firing point of the Defence Research & Development Organisation’s (DRDO) 114-year-old Proof and Experimental Establishment (PXE) — a strip of secluded beach in Chandipur — the Nakul tank with the MBT Arjun’s turret and the Russian T-72’s chassis readies to fire its 120-mm cannon to test target-grouping and ammunition. Several thundering rounds later, DRDO scientists are back in the lab to analyse. The result: satisfactory.


So Tank EX- has been named Nakul?


Maj Gen Anup Malhotra, director, PXE, said much of the “teething troubles” of the Arjun have been overcome. “Over the past year, we have been testing the barrel, recoil and breech of the Arjun’s firing mechanism, as well as the ammunition. Between 60-70 barrels have been tested here. The tests are satisfactory, and we will be sending the results to the CVRDE, which is developing the tank. If the Army has objected in the past on certain aspects, they are correct in doing so. If they want to evaluate, it is a good sign. Better now than in battle,” Malhotra said.


CVRDE associate director R Jayakumar said the only common feature between Nakul and the current version of the Arjun is the barrel. “The rest of the turret has been revamped, including the gun control and fire control. Also, as a proactive measure, we will incorporate 12 futuristic technology systems include automatic target tracking, defensive aids, laser warning, tank simulator systems and also automate target tracking,” Jayakumar told The Indian Express.


The Army continues to be guarded on the issue. “We’re neither categorically accepting or rejecting the Arjun MBT. Any comment will be made after the trials this summer,” said Group Captain R K Das, CPRO (MoD) Kolkata

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 01 Mar 2009 23:45

Jongas were a real powerful vehicle with the Nissan 1 Ton engine.

Marutis, though more comfortable and driver friendly, was no patch when operating in High
altitude or climbing steep incline.

Right now, there is a mix of Marutis, Mahindra and so on.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Raja Bose » 02 Mar 2009 00:29

RayC sir,

Exactly what I was suspecting. Then why the undue haste in retiring the trusty Jonga?? These new M&M/Israeli creations I bet are yet to be inducted in any numbers. And I would presume a Jonga is way more sturdy than a Mahindra Jeep.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 02 Mar 2009 01:17

so Karan -> Nakul now. chankian move to get into the winning team - pandavas.

Yudhistira was a classic yindu politician - all talk and less action.
Arjun has been treacherously killed
Bhim was deemed to keep bad company and banished
now only Nakul and Shahadeva are left 8)

I would petition to name the T-90 as Shakuni or Dushashana

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6959
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 02 Mar 2009 01:29

Singha wrote:so Karan -> Nakul now. chankian move to get into the winning team - pandavas.


Reading carefully with DDM filter on, Nakul seems to be Arjun Mk-II testbed rather than Tank-Ex.

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4127
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pgbhat » 02 Mar 2009 01:44

Singha wrote:I would petition to name the T-90 as Shakuni or Dushashana

:rotfl: too much

VijayV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 16 Apr 2006 21:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby VijayV » 02 Mar 2009 11:07

Singhaji

The poor Soldier will be Drupadi.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Raja Bose » 02 Mar 2009 11:12

....and the public as usual will be Dhritarashtra.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 02 Mar 2009 11:17

with no krishna in sight !

/time to flee before ramana ji comes at us with a stick in hand !

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 653
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby k prasad » 02 Mar 2009 11:44

Shaant Gadhadhaari Bhim!! Shaant... The Great Dhritarashtra (MoD) is going to pronounce his justice... erm... sometime..

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nrshah » 02 Mar 2009 11:50

History repeats itself...

-Nitin

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 444
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 02 Mar 2009 12:47

Incidentally, Dronacharya (Maj. Gen HM Singh) has comfortably retired and is nowhere on the battlefield.

That should round up the mahabharat.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 02 Mar 2009 20:00

Raja Bose wrote:RayC sir,

Exactly what I was suspecting. Then why the undue haste in retiring the trusty Jonga?? These new M&M/Israeli creations I bet are yet to be inducted in any numbers. And I would presume a Jonga is way more sturdy than a Mahindra Jeep.


They were fuel guzzlers.

The other issue I suspect was that the ancilleries were made in shacks (social upliftment policy of our good governance govt). Hence, the reliability was suspect. It was a loss making organisation. In fact, they even tried to market it in the civil market when globalisation picked up.

They did not succeed!

Yes, the Jonga is missed. It was an uncomfortable vehicle, but a workhorse!

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby HariC » 02 Mar 2009 22:46

RayC wrote:The other issue I suspect was that the ancilleries were made in shacks (social upliftment policy of our good governance govt). Hence, the reliability was suspect. It was a loss making organisation. In fact, they even tried to market it in the civil market when globalisation picked up.


Who can forget. some of the civil versions were FUGLY - and I am being nice.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Raja Bose » 03 Mar 2009 01:45

Sure hope the new M&M/Tata/etc. creations get inducted atleast in basic versions otherwise Army is stuck with a hotch-potch of vehicles and who knows may have to eventually rely on bhaade-ka-tempo (rented tempos)


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests