Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jun 2011 08:19

thats not a marder.
this could be the incident:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15125921,00.html

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Jun 2011 08:30

thanks Ankit

thats a Fox carrier
I think a captain and another OR lost their lives in that attack

the Marder is a heavy tracked IFV

Der spiegel and others have mentioned the incident and say it was a 100 kg IED

we know nothing can survive that but am curious to see what happened to the vehicle itself

I read medics struggled to extract the dead and wounded

I am amazed that not all were killed

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jun 2011 08:43

you might find it in militaryphotos.net forums

the IED could have exploded before or after the vehicle had passed...limiting the damage somewhat.

darshand · Post by **darshand** » 08 Jun 2011 12:36

Surya wrote:thanks Ankit

thats a Fox carrier

Don't think that's a Fuchs - looks more like a Dingo.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 08 Jun 2011 18:36

Can you identify the Unit this Arjun belongs to?
http://mod.nic.in/samachar/sep16-04/image_n%5C3c.GIF

This is one of the earliest inductions of Arjun, If you ID the formation, can you share the patch of the unit too. thanks.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Jun 2011 18:44

Cheenum, Arjun MBT, as per all open sources, has been inducted in only two regiments - 43rd and 75th Armored Regiments. Also, we know from media sources that 43rd is with 24 RAPID and the formation sign in above pic is of the same division. So, the unit must be 43rd Armored - in fact, this unit was the first one to receive the tanks and convert to pure Arjun Regiment.

However, without knowing before hand which Regiments have Arjun MBT, there is no way of knowing to which Regiment the tanks belong to. For example, if you see T-90 pics, all you can make out is the Armored Div or (I) Armored Brigade to which the tanks belong to and not, the Regiment.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 08 Jun 2011 19:36

Thanks Rohit, I too was checking out... This tank is question is incidentally from the 43rd Armoured Regiment and is having the formation sign of 24 RAPID (created the formation sign myself using a Hi-Res Tank picture, currently not there in BR page, so if anyone wants the missing crests. PM me).
As you rightly said, other examples of MBTs (55,72 and 90s) have the division or (I) Armoured Brigade formation signs (31div or 33 div, 2IAR or 3IAR). funnily i have not seen a tank sporting the 1Armoured division formation sign, have you?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Jun 2011 20:44

cheenum wrote:<SNIP> funnily i have not seen a tank sporting the 1Armoured division formation sign, have you?

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//8c/2 ... dd0752.jpg

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 09 Jun 2011 06:58

An unclaimed old and rusted war-tank was recovered from river Ravi near Lakhanpur in district Kathua today. it could be Pakistani tank, may be abandoned during 1965 or 71 war or washed away in flood and then buried under the debris. The Army officers from Mamoon Cantt and also from local Kathua unit rushed to the area and cordoned it. The Army experts were also called. They started digging operation using machines and man power under the supervision of GOC Rising Star Corps Lt Gen A K Choudhary and Brig J K Sharma Commander 21 Sub Area and managed to extricate the rusted and old ‘unclaimed tank’, abandoned at the river bank at around 9 am. It was hurriedly lifted with cranes, placed on a ‘large tralla’ and taken to Mamoon Military Station.

A Defence spokesman from 9 Corps of the Western Army Command claimed that due to rust and being so old, the chasis number could not be traced. He refused to own that this tank belonged to Indian Army. He also refuted the villagers/ public claim that tank belonged to Pakistan. He, however, said the tank which was apparently looking like a huge iron structure without any colour, emblem, insignia and broken canon was found to be Vintage tank.

It was believed by the Defence experts that this tank was of Vintage series of the British Army, probably used in between 1938 and 1946 in operations/ wars in the un-divided India in Punjab area and might have gone washed away and thus missing. However, more facts are being ascertained about this mystery.

Rusted tank recovered in Jammu

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 09 Jun 2011 09:52

Tribune had rightly identified it as a Valentine.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2011 10:06

could be a tank cannibalized in some british-india army depot and sold for scrap. the scrap dealer could not cut the thick metal and left it somewhere. the entire front glacis is missing.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 09 Jun 2011 10:31

That could just have rusted away.

Ps: I recall a story from 65 war when a bridge was mistakenly blown up by the IA. Because a retreting IA tank was mistakenly identified as a Paki tank and it was still on the bridge. I am not sure if it was a Centurian or a Sherman.

Was that tank recovered and repaired after the war. Or was just left in place.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 09 Jun 2011 11:26

I have a question, with Pakistan having T-80s and we having T-72 & T-90, wouldn't IFF be an issue in the dusty, smoke filled battle fields. This would be more so for airborne systems of ours. How would that be countered?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 09 Jun 2011 13:11

bmallick wrote:I have a question, with Pakistan having T-80s and we having T-72 & T-90, wouldn't IFF be an issue in the dusty, smoke filled battle fields. This would be more so for airborne systems of ours. How would that be countered?

Better situational awareness primarily through data-linking. Though that will be harder in the absence of a reliable GPS coordinates.

Traditionally its done via the FACs (HAL Cheetah) from the Army Aviation Corps. With the proliferation of MANPADS, that role will probably be taken over by UAVs.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 09 Jun 2011 13:13

Singha, that's the rear of the tank... the turret was usually set a little more forward.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2011 14:34

you are right, checked a pic on google images.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 09 Jun 2011 16:00

bmallick wrote:I have a question, with Pakistan having T-80s and we having T-72 & T-90, wouldn't IFF be an issue in the dusty, smoke filled battle fields. This would be more so for airborne systems of ours. How would that be countered?

well one of the topics every one studies in IA armour corps and Army aviation is MBT identification, one can easily distinguish other MBT on the basis of certain key identification marks like:
- number of wheels
- layout of smoke grenade
- layout of turret
etc. its not really a big issue.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jun 2011 16:09

us army suffered major fraticides in GW1 in spite of all that, and the abrams are hugely different from the t-series tanks in looks. they ended up using identification markings on front and side of turrets.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 09 Jun 2011 16:46

^^^ Long ago while in Madrassah we solved these types of problems in a Mobile Ad-hoc networking class. IIRC, this was a term project and different people could implement different protocols to maintain and monitor a list of trusted nodes that activate/deactivate at different times and in different subnets. This could possibly solved by one duplex satellite link which deals with relative positions. Each node as and when it comes active transmits its presence, the satellite then provides the coordinates of all other friendly nodes in the downlink. This list of friendly nodes can then be plotted on a screen and the FCS do things accordingly. I guess something like this might already be implemented on a platoon level formation awareness software ... no ?

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 09 Jun 2011 18:44

Arjun Mark II tank to be tested from June 11.

The latest version of India's main battle tank, Arjun Mark II, will be tested for the first time at Pokhran in Rajasthan from June 11, a senior official has said.

Developed by the country's leading defence research and development organisation, the DRDO, the machine and its performance will be closely watched by the Army.

"We have made some recommendations on the MBT and it will be tested. The turret related tests will start from June 11 and that of chassis automotive system (lower part of the tank) will start from June 25 extending for a month. This is a DRDO exercise and the user (Army) will be observers. This is the first time Arjun Mark II is going for testing," the official told PTI.

The Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) has designed Arjun Mark II with the 93 recommendations put forward by the various stakeholders including the Army.

Arjun Mark II can fire missiles, have an enhanced Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) with a capacity of 8.5 KW (against Mark I's 4.5 KW), Explosive Reactive Armour panels (ERA), mine plough, Automatic Target Tracking (ATT), Advanced Land Navigation System (ALNS), digital control harness, advanced commander panoramic sight among other features, the official said.

Arjun will have a better gun barrel with an Equivalent Firing Charge (strength of the barrel to sustain firing) of 500 rounds against T 72's 250 rounds.

"Mark II will be able to travel at a speed of 60 km per hour in normal terrain and 40 km per hour in harsh terrain. On completion, the MBT will weigh around 66 tonnes," the official said.

The CVRDE is co-ordinating with Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), Pune, High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, Instruments Research & Development Establishment (IRDE), Dehradun, Centre for Fire, Explosive and Environment Safety, Delhi and Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad for designing Mark II.

"After the testing, the MBT will go for a first user trial in October 2011 and production is expected to start from July 2012 after the second user trial," the official said.

"If everything goes on track, Heavy Vehicles Factory here will roll out its first batch of Mark II by the end of 2014 and a unit will cost Rs 35 crore. Mark II will have 90 per cent Indian components in its making," the official added.

At present, there are 2456 T 72s, over 300 T 90s and 110 Arjun Mark I deployed across the country.

SEARCH

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Jun 2011 18:53

Vipul wrote:

"Mark II will be able to travel at a speed of 60 km per hour in normal terrain and 40 km per hour in harsh terrain. On completion, the MBT will weigh around 66 tonnes," the official said.

The Arjun's excellent p/w is going to take a major hit, until the development of the new 1500hp power pack is completed, and that could be a while. It's probably the ERA bricks that account for most of the weight increase though. I see a lot of merit in Rahul's slat armour suggestion now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2011 19:23

I read somewhere era is 3tons for a T80. for arjun assume 4t due to bigger hull and turret area.

still does not explain the increase from 56t(Leo2ish) to 66t (firmly in merkava/ambrams weight category)

looking at the other items listed, the APU might add atmost a couple 100kg. a heavier L55 cannon has not been mentioned. add few kg for extra sensors and toys.

mine plough would be a couple of tons. its only used when needed.

that still leaves around 4t to account for - if its all armour, would be truly a very heavily armoured tank perhaps with improved bottom , turret top and side hull protection

a list of the 93 changes would be a pleasure to read.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Jun 2011 19:27

^^It was 58.5t earlier not 56 IIRC. The news item makes no mention of adding any extra armour except for the ERA. 66t is more than both the latest Leo2 as well as Abrams though less than the 70+t Merkava monsters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2011 19:31

if it was 58.5t then 4t ERA and 2t mine plough would explain the peak weight of 66t. without the plough would be 63-64t.

the abrams is a bigger vehicle, with a wider chassis, bigger engine bay and a massive turret with a capacious bustle. I dont know how to interpret its weight vs others but wiki says something of long and short tons
Weight 67.6 short tons (61.3 t; 60.4 long tons)

I am inclined to think abrams peaks off around 69t with full ammo, extra gear stored on sides,....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jun 2011 19:35

Trials begin ..
no pics yet!

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 09 Jun 2011 21:24

indigenous engine??

is this part of the Arjun on trial now?? Chacko sir??

Among the upgrades, the Mark-II tank would feature an indigenous engine that would replace the German engines of the 58-tonne Arjun Mark-I.

http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstyp ... sid=243874

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Jun 2011 21:42

pragnya wrote:indigenous engine?? is this part of the Arjun on trial now?? Chacko sir??

Among the upgrades, the Mark-II tank would feature an indigenous engine that would replace the German engines of the 58-tonne Arjun Mark-I.
http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstyp ... sid=243874

Trials have not yet begun. There is no 1500 hp indigenous engine. DRDO works on National Mission for developing AFV engines and DRDO creating a roadmap "Defence technology Vision 2050": Dr VK Saraswat : My two recent articles on the 1500 hp engine issue.

Trial's have not begun. It is scheduled mid June though.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jun 2011 21:52

Singha,
Short ton = 2000 lbs
Long ton = 2240 lbs

So will the IA now balk at the weight of 66 tons?

John · Post by **John** » 09 Jun 2011 22:12

Was there an additional MG added in MkII variant?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 09 Jun 2011 22:35

ramana wrote:So will the IA now balk at the weight of 66 tons?

I feel 66 tons is DDM, This is way too high for Arjun. also the Mine Plow is a special accessory for few tanks in a regiment (usually a dedicated tank is used for it - remember the T55s plodding along in Ex Vijayee bhavee?) so adding that weight to the regular tank looks like an excuse to diss Arjun.
ChackoJi, your update from Paanwaalas please.

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 09 Jun 2011 22:42

Are tank weights measured as empty weight, or loaded for bear with ammo, full fuel, extra fuel barrels strapped on, crew, etc.?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Jun 2011 23:22

chacko ji, don't forget to take your camera. of course, I don't want you to get in trouble snapping pics without permission.. so send a request to IA right away, if you are planning soon to visit the trial/ briefings to press.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jun 2011 03:09

Raman wrote:Are tank weights measured as empty weight, or loaded for bear with ammo, full fuel, extra fuel barrels strapped on, crew, etc.?

I'd imagine it would be the empty weight but its still a good point. The M1A2 for example carries upto 1.5 tons of fuel internally. Also 39 rounds of ammo will weigh over 1 ton (incl. weight of canisters).

vic · Post by **vic** » 10 Jun 2011 08:35

cheenum wrote:
ramana wrote:So will the IA now balk at the weight of 66 tons?
I feel 66 tons is DDM, This is way too high for Arjun. also the Mine Plow is a special accessory for few tanks in a regiment (usually a dedicated tank is used for it - remember the T55s plodding along in Ex Vijayee bhavee?) so adding that weight to the regular tank looks like an excuse to diss Arjun.
ChackoJi, your update from Paanwaalas please.

I think that 66 may be typo for 60

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Jun 2011 08:38

cheenum wrote:
ramana wrote:So will the IA now balk at the weight of 66 tons?
I feel 66 tons is DDM, This is way too high for Arjun. also the Mine Plow is a special accessory for few tanks in a regiment (usually a dedicated tank is used for it - remember the T55s plodding along in Ex Vijayee bhavee?) so adding that weight to the regular tank looks like an excuse to diss Arjun.
ChackoJi, your update from Paanwaalas please.

IMO, the 66 tons is debatable. IMHO, they will use the ERA selectively and let the protection levels (read kanchan) where it is. So, weight may not be added. ERA could be added at frontal and other parts selectively and kanchan removed. Other changes will come with replacement. I don't see it adding weight to drastic levels. It could be managable and with consent of Army. And I don't use paanwala info

.

SaiK wrote:chacko ji, don't forget to take your camera. of course, I don't want you to get in trouble snapping pics without permission.. so send a request to IA right away, if you are planning soon to visit the trial/ briefings to press.

Thank you for the concern. I have been able to get more info because I don't break the rules. The Mark-II as I keep saying will not be radically different externally. Most of it are add ons. The turret interiors are the place am expecting most changes.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jun 2011 09:16

I don't think so, adding extra nERA and ploughs will reduce the weight from what it is now. So, add 5-10% by weight, unless this version goes for some advanced materials for inner mass.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Jun 2011 09:32

nERA will not be used over Kanchan. The weight should not change. As for the plough, its an attachment. 58 tons to 66 tons is bit more. IMO, Cummings engine with 1500 hp is used. In this case, the weight increase may be ok. If Cummings is used, only then the 90% Indian (minus electronics and some others) claim can be admited. Apu has doubled.

You should also take into consideration the weight reductions that have taken place.

The final verdict will come after this trial. The user trials will come after that. This trials will see the final shape of the tank. AFIK, all the tech have been tested already. so, what is left is fine tuning in this trials.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2011 09:35

I think it makes sense to use era on the side skirts where the hull armour below the turret is generally thin and on the turret bustle to protect from side and rear shots. could be used on turret top also for urban warfare protection.

imo IA should take aside 15 arjuns and 15 T90s and form a composite regiment to install and test out all the numerous urban warfare technologies in a indic context and make a list of what works for us + is needed vs brochure goodies.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 10 Jun 2011 14:21

is this how Arjun MKII looks?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 10 Jun 2011 14:35

^^^type 90 mbt Japan