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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pragnya » 16 Mar 2011 19:28

does the IA use 84mm Carl Gustav in anti armour role??

http://products.saabgroup.com/pdbwebnew ... es&Id=7996

also drdo had developed a similar system -

Image

Image

Image

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/11/dr ... -anti.html

is this operational?? anybody??

TIA.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 16 Mar 2011 19:59

I guess when the Russian army chief says T-90s are junk, it is meant for getting money from the govt. However, when the Indian DGMF disses Arjun, it is because of genuine problems with the tank??

One think to notice is that the Russian General is dissing the entire russian arms industry. It is hard to believe he is doing that to get more money for the russian armed forces. In the US, the armed forces play up the opposition arms(like say for e.g SU-30), mainly to get money from congress for buying additional stuff. If the Russian general is dissing the local arms industry, is it because he is in favour of importing western arms and doesn't like locally produced ones?

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby manum » 16 Mar 2011 22:03

that is why we need to develop our own military complex...and do or die live with it...this is only way we can rule out what Russia is doing and what USA can do...
Army must risk it...and so other forces, if they want to rule out unnecessary round the clock politics...and our running in circles...and Arjun is the way...this is the way we can also remove the dirty part of relationship and enter into relationship of equals...and army must understand it...

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby anjan » 16 Mar 2011 23:49

Surya wrote:The worthwhile fact is that the tin can is inferior to Western tanks and even the Russians know it but our Natasha's children cannot accept it

I like how when Indians make a statement its because of Natasha and Vodka but the Russian statement is the word of God. Incorruptible and all that. No hidden agendas of any sorts possible.

At the end of the day everyone picks and chooses what they want to hear to match their preconceived notions.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 17 Mar 2011 00:57

putnanja wrote:I guess when the Russian army chief says T-90s are junk, it is meant for getting money from the govt. However, when the Indian DGMF disses Arjun, it is because of genuine problems with the tank??


DGMF did not diss the Arjun, not for the longest time.

One think to notice is that the Russian General is dissing the entire russian arms industry. It is hard to believe he is doing that to get more money for the russian armed forces. In the US, the armed forces play up the opposition arms(like say for e.g SU-30), mainly to get money from congress for buying additional stuff. If the Russian general is dissing the local arms industry, is it because he is in favour of importing western arms and doesn't like locally produced ones?


No he wants more money for modern equip purchase, which would essentially be paid to Mil-Ind complex to make newer stuff. This is not very different from Air Chief labeling LCA as Mig21++.

Note We have Arjun program to take on after T 90s, Russians have none and they desperately need a new program, thats what he is asking for.

The same thing is happening at both ends. The chiefs want more, and they are frustrated at what their mil-ind complex is giving them currently (whose reason is the money that the politicians are allocating in both cases)

Kunal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 17
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kunal » 17 Mar 2011 01:13

Fact is: with a little forward planning and support for in house engineering and development, army would have had a better tank than current arjun (working with drdo or whoever). Instead all throughout the 90s and 00s all an army officer could say about arjun project was: "biggest failure of indian army". That too even when having zero knowledge about the tank. Now, even the most senior officers, who have seen the tank just once, never miss a beat when it comes to praising its qualities. But, in the end the situation today is such that few in the army are contributing to its development, or for that matter any other defence r&d programme in a meaningful way.

In army, we often have armoured officers taking centre stage and leaving the rest to their own fates, just like in air force we have the fly-boys doing the same. There is a cosy class hierarchy which creates comfort zones. On the other end, there is hardly any support for r&d. In the end, army is not where it could have been; blame whoever or whatever you care to. Army and Air force needs to put a little more spotlight on its engineers and create the right environment for them to start making weapons, not just using them. We need a few of our brightest and most passionate officers to work in r&d. This is needed for the future.

Everyone points to the navy to make this point. And truly, they do have some great ambassadors for their scientific and engineering programmes. But, even they rotate the best of these guys every two years back to sea duty. We could be creating monstrously productive researchers and engineers within the forces. I personally feel that would be the point of no return as far as indigenous programmes are concerned.

Arjun wise, all I can say is that it has a 50/year production line, and that will never lie vacant. Make of that what you will.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby arnab » 17 Mar 2011 04:08

Sanku wrote:DGMF did not diss the Arjun, not for the longest time.

No he wants more money for modern equip purchase, which would essentially be paid to Mil-Ind complex to make newer stuff. This is not very different from Air Chief labeling LCA as Mig21++.

Note We have Arjun program to take on after T 90s, Russians have none and they desperately need a new program, thats what he is asking for.

The same thing is happening at both ends. The chiefs want more, and they are frustrated at what their mil-ind complex is giving them currently (whose reason is the money that the politicians are allocating in both cases)


What does that statement about DGMF mean? 'not for the longest time'? eh?

Well if both chiefs want more from their mil complexes (but only the Russian Chief appears to be saying it. Infact he is saying he wants to import Leos because T-90s are inferior to Chinese products) - why are we buying in large numbers something that even the Russians don't want in their own army? Afterall, the china factor should severely weigh in our calculations and I'm sure the Russian army chief knows that.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby manum » 17 Mar 2011 08:57

I guess we must ask army what is happening about 'T90' may be file an rti exactly asking why and how...
Some part of things look apparent to me....and should be transparent from the side of IA...

Baldev
BRFite
Posts: 501
Joined: 21 Sep 2009 07:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Baldev » 17 Mar 2011 17:10

Kunal wrote:Fact is: with a little forward planning and support for in house engineering and development, army would have had a better tank than current arjun (working with drdo or whoever). Instead all throughout the 90s and 00s all an army officer could say about arjun project was: "biggest failure of indian army". That too even when having zero knowledge about the tank. Now, even the most senior officers, who have seen the tank just once, never miss a beat when it comes to praising its qualities. But, in the end the situation today is such that few in the army are contributing to its development, or for that matter any other defence r&d programme in a meaningful way.
armed forces are just users they just ask what they want.

on the other hand developing a certain thing is totally different than using and when the same people in armed forces asked to develop certain system i am sure they can't do it either.

and for arjun those officers never going into the tank so they should not be asked except who deal with tanks or those soldiers who drive the tank. comfort in tank is main thing, a soldier never been asked how he feels in a tank with temp upto 60 degree and what would he prefer in next gen tank he gets :!:

russian tanks have circular turret which is small to house ammunition and also crew comfort is also main thing but tank ex is definitely better than t90 when it comes to crew comfort/armour/safety at the same weight.

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby manum » 17 Mar 2011 19:05

Baldev wrote:armed forces are just users they just ask what they want.

on the other hand developing a certain thing is totally different than using and when the same people in armed forces asked to develop certain system i am sure they can't do it either.


Armed forces are not just users...they will have to be justified users...beacause years of hard work and complete series of assembly lines and money is made available to them...they will have to become responsible users and help those assembly lines to make them more strong...

Armed forces need to enter into design process and become a good client....because there is a quote of my teacher...'all the great designs require great client'...you cant just demand, designer and client must grow intelligent together that is the purpose of any new product and its making process...
If you guys know...israel forces are taught philosophers text and town planners and architects works to understand cities...urban warfare...and new ways of tactical thinking...
for ex. They consider doors as walls and walls as door when they raid houses in cities...in that negate any possiblity of in house ambush and pass though houses by making holes in the walls....

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 18 Mar 2011 02:04

Sanku wrote:DGMF did not diss the Arjun, not for the longest time.


"Longest time" ?? Really ... This rewriting of history must stop ....
BRF has had this debate for good part of the previous decade.

Around middle of previous decade DRDO started clamoring for comparative trials while DGMF held it off.
You blamed that one on MOD/Politicians ... That was also time for Austin's new found love for Armored vehicles.
Nobody has forgotten that.

None of the old-timers have corrected the your "longest time" because its just gotten boring to listen to Army/DGMF/tin-can lovers twist facts
as more and more damning evidence comes out ....
That doesn't mean its the last word in the debate or that its true.

Sanku wrote:As can be seen, there are people who excel in being nasty and very little else. Quick to get personal they are.
What goes of my father wonlee... make their own spectacle they will.


What now ... Sentimentality, theatrics and sobbing ...
Its a standard "Told you so" lungi dance by everyone ...
And its not that you haven't dissed out your fair share of sarcasm, criticism etc ...

So suck it up.

~Ashish

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 18 Mar 2011 03:10

None of the old-timers have corrected the your "longest time" because its just gotten boring to listen to Army/DGMF/tin-can lovers twist facts


:D

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Cybaru » 18 Mar 2011 04:44

We need a "Like" button on phpbb like on facebook!

Awesome post Misraji! Thanks for opening that can of Whoopass.

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 18 Mar 2011 04:48

Surya wrote:
None of the old-timers have corrected the your "longest time" because its just gotten boring to listen to Army/DGMF/tin-can lovers twist facts


:D


Old-timers was meant in a good sense .... :mrgreen:

@Cybaru..

I usually don't prefer to be in the front lines.
You guys usually are ..... Hats off ...
And I have read some good posts from you ... Thanku ... :)

~Ashish

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 18 Mar 2011 06:42

I read this thread regularly even though I very seldom participate in the discussions here. However, I must say that I find it amazing that a comment like that from a Russian general - especially the China part, where Russians are really worried about the Dragon's intentions in Siberia - is being sought to be spinned as a sales pitch for more money!

I mean if we can say that, then I suppose we can also say that the lament by successive Air Force chiefs about depleting numbers is also just a gimmick to get more money to pay for more planes and All Iz Well with the IAF as far as the number of squadrons are concerned and there's no need to hurry the MRCA deal? Or for the matter the Tejas being late is no big deal?

I understand that Armed forces sometimes try to put pressure on those who control purse strings by doing a bit of fear mongering. The US does it all the time, the latest being the shivering in pants reaction to J20. However, never, ever, does the actual serving officers or people of the level of Generals do that in person because that undermines the moral of the folks who actually use these equipment - for example just imagine what the T90 tank crews in Russia must be thinking after reading the General's comments. What would their moral or confidence in their equipment be if they had to go into a tank battle with China tomorrow, knowing that their commander thinks that China has better tanks?

Such rumors are usually floated through friendly defense columnists or bloggers and I'm sure the Russians know the drill very well as they have a very well developed defense blogging community. Yet we have the Russian General himself making this comment! Go figure!

It's one thing to root for a particular product or country in terms of defense purchases. It's a totally something else when this level of fascination (or should I say fanaticism?) is displayed. I mean no Russian defense forum or bloggers have spun the General's comments thus, have they? Then why this more loyal than the Emperor crap?

Finally that "quick to get personal" post should be archived! This is from the same guy who in the same time period was calling others "habitual liars" on another thread after his usual fumble with facts! :rotfl: :rotfl:
Last edited by amit on 18 Mar 2011 08:00, edited 1 time in total.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 18 Mar 2011 07:06

Good catch Amit!! It is amazing to see the extent that some will go to keep the Arjun out.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 18 Mar 2011 08:04

Vivek K wrote:Good catch Amit!! It is amazing to see the extent that some will go to keep the Arjun out.


Thanks Vivek.

I personally don't think anyone on BRF has a hidden professional agenda (I know I'm sticking my neck out here) when they dish the Arjun and glorify T90. That's why I think this behavior could be explained by a distinct display of a lack of courage.

It takes a lot of courage to publicly admit that you were wrong about something and then move on.

JMT and all that.

Back to lurk mode!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 18 Mar 2011 09:38

Not sure if this really matter but for balanced view on this subject

Ministry of Industry for the fact that Russia has retained its own arms production

Director of Development Department, the military-industrial complex of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia Igor Karavayev does not agree with the statement of representatives of the Ministry of Defence that the Russian military equipment is expensive and inferior to modern Western standards, according to Interfax. Objective assessment of tests, objective figures on the level of military-technical cooperation and the pace with which increases our exports of arms and military equipment, to suggest otherwise "- he said at a press conference in Moscow.

Loaves added that referred to the eve of the Commander in Chief Land Forces, Alexander Postnikov tank , T-90A was tested in three climate zones and three countries - Saudi Arabia, India and Malaysia, having received a positive evaluation. "Those tests that were carried out in Saudi Arabia in an open tender, wholly and completely refute the allegations Commander in Chief" - the director of the department.

According to him, the only tank that has proved in alll the tests in Saudi Arabia, and also carried out after a march-throw defeat more than 60% of the targets was the Russian T-90A. "No" Leopard ", nor" Leclerc ", or" Abrams "to this level has not reached - explained Karavayev. Consequently, to say that our tanks worse western counterparts, it is not entirely reliable information. "

According to him, declared Commander of Land Forces of the cost of the machine, at least a half times the price for which the manufacturer is ready to deliver it in the interests of the Russian Defense Ministry. "The T-90A exceed at least a half times its nearest competitor -" Leopard "- said Karavayev.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 18 Mar 2011 09:46

^^^^^^^^^^^

Objective assessment of tests, objective figures on the level of military-technical cooperation and the pace with which increases our exports of arms and military equipment, to suggest otherwise "- he said at a press conference in Moscow.


I suppose this explains why the 1,000 number which India's Army bosses have agreed to is so vitally important to the Russian Military Industrial Complex - and not just in monetary terms.

But, oh the rich irony of it all! :wink:

The Russian MIC has to rely on certification from other Armies in order to counter the comment by the Commander in Chief of Land Forces of Russia's own Army.

The Indian Army thinks Russia's MBT is a better tank than the Russian Army head and the Russian MIC has to tout that as a counter to criticism from the end users for which the tank was originally designed for!

The question is, who do you suppose has a vested interest in this spat? :P

I suppose the much vaunted Russian MIC is in the same boat as our SDRE DRDO which needed Israeli certification of Arjun to convince the Indian Army brass!

The world in certainly round and Karma is a bi!ach!

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 18 Mar 2011 11:03

I don't know, but reading this thread in particular I sometimes get the feeling that:

BRF actually stands for Bharat Rosobor*nexport Forum.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 18 Mar 2011 16:24

This thread is so much fun, people falling over each other and frothing at the mouth since basic data points are not conducive to a point of view backed by references.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 18 Mar 2011 19:22

This thread is so much fun, people falling over each other and frothing at the mouth since basic data points are not conducive to a point of view backed by references.



for balanced view on this subject



aha the two messiahs have spoken

Fair and balance wot!!


wonder how much fun it will be if our boys will be charred and turned into mush needlessly :(

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 18 Mar 2011 21:07

Sanku wrote:This thread is so much fun, people falling over each other and frothing at the mouth since basic data points are not conducive to a point of view backed by references.


You should hardly be the one talking about data-points.

On the previous page, we had the an article from Khans doing a proper analysis using data, testimonies,computer-simulations and what not.
You weren't impressed because it was "foregone conclusion" .... :roll:

~Ashish

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KiranM » 18 Mar 2011 22:56

Misraji, clowns survive on the audiences' reaction, good or bad. Gimmickry with words only carry so far.

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 » 20 Mar 2011 21:05

Yawn.. All so predictable and as per script. Libyan Tin Cans of T series are getting "plinked" from the air and blowing up with turrents flying off and crews being incinerated to cinders. That script runs like a broken LP record! GW1, GWII now Libya! :roll: :roll:

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 21 Mar 2011 00:25

^^^
Yawn ... That was a foregone conclusion and is therefore hardly a data-point.
For a balanced view on the subject, somebody from Tin-can camp will get back to you shortly.Please be patient.

:mrgreen:

~Ashish

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 21 Mar 2011 00:51

^^^^^ The thread is getting "funner" by the day!~

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Gurinder P » 21 Mar 2011 08:47

vina wrote:Yawn.. All so predictable and as per script. Libyan Tin Cans of T series are getting "plinked" from the air and blowing up with turrents flying off and crews being incinerated to cinders. That script runs like a broken LP record! GW1, GWII now Libya! :roll: :roll:


Murphy's Law for Amoured Vehicles:

Top hit missiles always equal butt hurt for tanks

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9995
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 21 Mar 2011 08:49

Guys, today's "Mission Army" at 10 P.M on Nat Geo has one hour feature on the mechanized division of the IA...don't miss it!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pragnya » 21 Mar 2011 11:45

don't know if these have been posted before. sorry if it is a repost.

it is well known both T-90/T-72 are underpowered, have poor transmisson which is mechanical and have cooling issues . there was a french solution (SESM) for this. it would atleast take care of mobility part besides being efficient. whether IA would be interested in this?? :roll: but this solution may cost a bomb.

some related article (oct 2010), video and brochures.

This driveline is the virtually unchanged for the T-90 which is considered as a modern tank but still uses two separate manual transmissions and the same old-fashioned steering system. The T-90 is equipped with a 1000 hp engine, but is no big leap forward in the mobility of the vehicle, as most of the 70’s design drawbacks persist: poor cooling system, slow manual gearboxes, difficult to handle for tired or inexperienced drivers, long vehicle downtime in case of repair, and a reliability which may fall below expectations.


http://indiandefencereview.com/defence- ... -T-90.html

SESM brochure -

http://www.renk.newsfactory.de/cms_medi ... %20350.pdf

SESM video -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3LXoG3B ... r_embedded

cheers..

PS : don't know how to post videos. can somebody tell me?? TIA.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9995
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 22 Mar 2011 08:34

Anyone catch the Mission Army yesterday?

Lots of details on the T-90s and good shots of the Arjun in action in the Thar. Wonder why the IA didn't make the participants perform a task on the Arjun and kept them only to the BMP and T-90 ( could have had more inside view of the Arjun that way)?

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby P Chitkara » 22 Mar 2011 12:21

Saw it yesterday - was awesome! They will cover the arty in next episode. Arjun probably was not given enough exposure due to lack of numbers??

An officer was commenting when he saw the tank for the first time, he was taken aback by the sheer size or something to that effect.

Another thing that was very clear was how cramped the inside of the 90 is - that part of switching on the comm and tuning the freq brought it out clearly. I wonder how spacious Arjun is compared to the 90.

vonkabra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vonkabra » 22 Mar 2011 13:10

sum wrote:Anyone catch the Mission Army yesterday?

Wonder why the IA didn't make the participants perform a task on the Arjun


Be happy they showed the Arjun at least.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9995
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 22 Mar 2011 13:15

vonkabra wrote:
sum wrote:Anyone catch the Mission Army yesterday?

Wonder why the IA didn't make the participants perform a task on the Arjun


Be happy they showed the Arjun at least.

Yes, thats true and have to thank the lord for that.

Also, they said during the show that the temperatures in the desert are very high and the IA tanks are not even air-conditioned. Didn't the Arjun Mk-I have AC or is it only from Mk-II?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Mar 2011 14:02

Saw some glimpse of the Nat Geo IA special , interesting these guys get an opportunity to drive the tank and fire its MG , one of the contender Kuldeep who stood out compared driving the T-90 was like driving Formula One car in the desert. I think they have already shown some good Arjun footage in previous episodes.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2011 17:13

sum wrote:Lots of details on the T-90s and good shots of the Arjun in action in the Thar. Wonder why the IA didn't make the participants perform a task on the Arjun and kept them only to the BMP and T-90 ( could have had more inside view of the Arjun that way)?


My guess is that Arjun's are "new & special" as of now, so the work horse T-90 which has already seen wide deployment will be given to outsiders to fool around with.

The fact that they fielded Arjun goes to show the rapid acceptance that IA has for a Indian equipment once it clears its trials.

Didn't the Arjun Mk-I have AC or is it only from Mk-II?


Wasnt Arjun supposed to have cooled thermal jackets for crew?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2011 19:23

Arjun of any vintage never had AC. nor is there any plan to have AC.

the APU power only intended to drive the turret and vital electronics, not crew comfort.

I wont see a AC army vehicle in my lifetime.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 515
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 22 Mar 2011 20:50

Singha wrote:the APU power only intended to drive the turret and vital electronics, not crew comfort.
I wont see a AC army vehicle in my lifetime.


Singha ji, aren't they planning to have AC in the T90 ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 22 Mar 2011 21:02

sameer_shelavale wrote:Singha ji, aren't they planning to have AC in the T90 ?


It is not airconditioner exactly or you can call it as a mini air conditioner. What they have "experimented" with is using cooling to selective part of the body that will help the crew operate without fainting. Its not in production or implementation.

On Arjun, they have used heat management system, there by bringing down the temperature inside the turret.

T-90 cannot support the selective cooling as "experimented" in Arjun. So, they want heat management systems as done on Arjun's.

vonkabra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vonkabra » 23 Mar 2011 10:49

Austin wrote:Saw some glimpse of the Nat Geo IA special , interesting these guys get an opportunity to drive the tank and fire its MG , one of the contender Kuldeep who stood out compared driving the T-90 was like driving Formula One car in the desert. I think they have already shown some good Arjun footage in previous episodes.


The challenge involved the contestants turning on the engine from the driver's seat, going to the commander's seat to receive set radio frequency, receive radio message and then return to the driver's seat to start driving. What I found interesting was that the interiors of the T-90 seemed to be so cramped that the contestants had to get out of the tank and then climb up the turret to get to the commander's seat. Then climb out again to return to the driver's seat.

So basic question - are all tanks this cramped? And if the driver gets incapitated for some reason, does this mean that the gunner or commander will have to expose himself to fire by getting out of the tank to get to the driver's seat?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests