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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 01 Aug 2011 09:22

it depends. if someone is buying just 100 as most buyers do its not cost effective to indigenize. but if IA buys say 2500 and issues to all divisions scout units, I am sure they'd be willing to replace those atlas elektronik / kollmorgen / thales kit with whatever we want and can pay for - be it desi / israeli anything. or BEL could assemble them under license to build the local LRU repair expertise and stockpile.

wrt to +50 and -30 , are lubricants for commercial vehicles any different? I am not aware of anything special done for a camry sold in nevada or arizona vs minnesota ? they seem to work atleast in commercial sense. the cold weather kit might have some engine warmer and deicer rig though. I understand you spent time in Canada maybe you know this best :oops:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20517
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 01 Aug 2011 14:20

Ja,mein General Shiv! Especially ven komponentz vill be made locally under TOT by Itzaloadovbullkrap PSU,requiring vun dekade verth of spares to be paid in only bullion,Ja?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 01 Aug 2011 17:46

shiv

Making sure changes are done to work in local conditions is a given. Its not unique to India. The Aussies also made appropriate changes for their German equipment, the Israelis do the same for the american stuff.

I think as long as the base product is solidly designed as these are - the rest can be worked on.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 01 Aug 2011 18:48

KMW also has a cute lil 4x4 truck called Mungo with the footprint of a hummer but carries ten people. fits inside a CH47 or CH53. used by heli mobile teams per the film. in the end there is a pic of it unloading pallets of artillery shells in that role.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSwCSUCz ... re=related

in first part of film, looks like wiesel light tank leading the mungo on patrol , for fire support.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 01 Aug 2011 19:45

so, on the Arjun road wheels and caterpillar tracks how much of it needs to be dressed with armor skirts so that it doesn't take direct hit and still functional to be mobile. Just wondering from pitchar onlee. It is quite open.

motivation for this question, is a counter question if the wheels for CV and P were different (questioned by S Prasad), and I am assuming CV - Combat Vehicle (production quality), and P - prototype, development version. I may be wrong..in assuming that the CV has extra reactive armor as wheel plates, to take the hits.

Now, I am not sure on the tracks.. they may need more protection or it is already built to take hits.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 01 Aug 2011 21:22

S_Prasad wrote:
SaiK wrote:not sure on the pic.. there are many pics that are floating around resemnling t90s to japanese type 10 tanks look alike for arjun mk2. it must the works of pakis.

imho, it should not be any diff looking other than this one
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g6jDhOXspGQ/T ... un+Mk1.jpg


If you observe the wheels of the two tanks parked next to one another are different although both of them are Arjun.
Also the naming convention seems to be different (P vs CV).
Can some one throw some light on this.


No difference except naming, the red paint on top bars and wheels. Dont see a radical change. One must be a prototype.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 01 Aug 2011 22:22

I do see a big change..in the sense if you say P is prototype, in the prototype version the wheels are actually grooved in more than the CV wheels.. makes me think there is an extra wheel plate protection there.

just take depth look.

Srivastav
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 24 Jan 2009 17:23
Location: where the polar bears live

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Srivastav » 01 Aug 2011 22:37

SaiK wrote:I do see a big change........makes me think there is an extra wheel plate protection there.

just take depth look.


CV 402 is tank ex

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 01 Aug 2011 23:19

apologies.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1023
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 02 Aug 2011 05:40

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g6jDhOXspGQ/T ... un+Mk1.jpg[/quote]


No difference except naming, the red paint on top bars and wheels. Dont see a radical change. One must be a prototype.[/quote]

Chacko notice the skirt (CV 402) and compare against t72. Also there is one other marked difference that is visible...just below the turret......

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 02 Aug 2011 06:14

the L2 pics here looks awesome, especially the the thick boxed armor
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/milit ... res-10396/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby shiv » 02 Aug 2011 08:11

Singha wrote:it depends. if someone is buying just 100 as most buyers do its not cost effective to indigenize. but if IA buys say 2500 and issues to all divisions scout units, I am sure they'd be willing to replace those atlas elektronik / kollmorgen / thales kit with whatever we want and can pay for - be it desi / israeli anything. or BEL could assemble them under license to build the local LRU repair expertise and stockpile.

wrt to +50 and -30 , are lubricants for commercial vehicles any different? I am not aware of anything special done for a camry sold in nevada or arizona vs minnesota ? they seem to work atleast in commercial sense. the cold weather kit might have some engine warmer and deicer rig though. I understand you spent time in Canada maybe you know this best :oops:


I think the lubricant problem is less with regard to parts that run hot like engines and more with parts that need lubrication but do not run hot. For example that hatch and mast and rotary parts that operate the 3.9 meter tall IR/TV surveillance device. Either they have a special lubricant/hydraulics for that - which means yet another "import item" or they have separate high temp and low temp oils.

One example that I recall was something I have posted before on BR. Some Russian ship was imported and a gun firing trial was to be conducted off Mumbai. The first shot that was fired damaged the mounting of the gun. This was because the lubricant that was used to absorb recoil was designed for Arctic temperatures and ran like water at Mumbai temperatures and the gun nearly blasted itself back on its mounting from the recoil.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 02 Aug 2011 09:19

^:rotfl:

with 20/20 hindsight like that I am sure IA has a good exp now in operating things that need hydraulics and lubes like Pinaka launchers and Bofors in sub zero temps.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8188
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 02 Aug 2011 09:37

^^^

But the same lube oil/ Hydrolic fluid may not be used on the imorted items. Unless the pump is modified.

That is the concern.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 02 Aug 2011 10:06

nobody is suggesting that full set of tests in India and some changes is not needed, even for something as "simple" as a recce vehicle.

by all means we should attempt desi clones of successful vehicles worldwide for reduced cost and better control on things.

the global majors having tied up with the 3 desi auto cos, its likely such issues will be pre-certified in whatever is offered for trails...

we should get Maruti into the matrix too, for light vehicles...

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8188
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 02 Aug 2011 11:11

The best idea is to have a HUMVVE type vehicle which can be configured for multiple roles. From utility/ Strike / ATGM/ Scout and any other that the IA deems fit. That way you do away for the need for the dedicated LSV/ Scout catagory vehicles.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8188
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 02 Aug 2011 11:15

The more I look at the Fenek the more I think of a light Nag missile carrier with 8 Nag ATGMS. With its mast mounted sight hiding on the reverse slope of a hill or behind a bush and egageing armoured formations.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 02 Aug 2011 11:25

my onlee worry about fennek is it seems to be a wide vehicle, same or more than hummer. might not jell very well with high mobility expections and mountain/jungle tracks of indic terrain.
its a fairly large vehicle even though very low slung.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7719
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 Aug 2011 11:27

^^^4 Launchers are more like it. 8 may be too heavy and cumbersome for a vehicle like Fenneck.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby bmallick » 02 Aug 2011 11:31

Pratyush wrote:The more I look at the Fenek the more I think of a light Nag missile carrier with 8 Nag ATGMS. With its mast mounted sight hiding on the reverse slope of a hill or behind a bush and egageing armoured formations.


Such a capability would surely provide good shoot & scoot capability. But would the small vehicle be able to lob on 8 Nags. Maybe 4 would be a better fit.

Also how difficult would it be to provide a mast mount the Sensors of Namica.

The mast mounted sensor allows us to be hidden and still be able to look for enemy and if required engage. Thus increasing our survivability tremendously. Taking the mast mounted further, the best mounted sensor is one which can be UAV mounted or Man mounted, i.e Namica able to take feed from sensors which is on Nishant or being carried by a Human soldier. The human soldier can be say 200-500m away. In case of the Himalayas, hills or sand dunes, Namica is maybe 400-500 m behind the small human recce squad, hidden in the valleys. The recce squad is on the crest and observing the enemy and directing fire, similar to like a forward controller for Artillery/ Ground attack crafts.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8188
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 02 Aug 2011 11:47

Rohit / Bmallick,

The number of Missiles is a design issue (I am no designer ) and if it can deploy only 4 then no problems. The mast mounted sight is the most interesting quality of the vehicle. If it can be adapted for the NAMICA, nothing like it.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 02 Aug 2011 11:48

ks_sachin wrote:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-g6jDhOXspGQ/ThjgJ1j2q4I/AAAAAAAAALc/9yjUbZm3efE/s1600/Arjun+Mk1.jpg



No difference except naming, the red paint on top bars and wheels. Dont see a radical change. One must be a prototype.[/quote]

Chacko notice the skirt (CV 402) and compare against t72. Also there is one other marked difference that is visible...just below the turret......[/quote]

All these do not mean a change in the basic design. armour can be applied based on requirement. Wheels can have different protection.

The above pic is from one of the def expos'. Arjun and Tank Ex side by side. IMO>

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 13 Aug 2011 18:37

The Armoured Fist

Part-1
Part-2

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby manum » 13 Aug 2011 20:49

^^saw it when it was on air...

T-90 looks so under-powered, clumsy wrt Arjun...and that black fart of T-90's while growling doesn't looks right to me...

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3512
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby suryag » 14 Aug 2011 03:43

In this video after seeing the Arjun and T72 in the same frame, i pity the crews serving in the T72s, they might be so envious of the Arjun crews. The Arjun crews have such great power in their hands when compared with the puny, underpowered, underarmoured T72. T90 is a little better

S_Prasad
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 54
Joined: 28 Jun 2010 02:43
Location: 27°42′09″N 88°08′54″E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby S_Prasad » 14 Aug 2011 03:54

One question about Arjun....... Can the Anti aircraft and the machine gun on Arjun be fired by the commander by sitting inside the tank as the T 90.
If not are they doing this as part of mk2 upgd?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 14 Aug 2011 12:37

I believe it is part of Mk2

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Gurneesh » 16 Aug 2011 02:16

Cross quoting from pics thread

Hiten wrote:this must be the longest available unmorphed train of Arjuns. Photographed during the handover ceremony

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/308484/misc/201 ... un-MBT.JPG

if only it didn't look all decked up to get married


Does that say Initial or final on the green placard. Initial would have gone to 45 th AR right ?? while this pic says 43 AR..

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8540
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rakesh » 16 Aug 2011 02:41

Gurneesh: It is final. You can barely notice the alphabet 'N' right next to 'A' in the word final. If it was initial...you would see a portion of this alphabet instead...I which is the third 'i' in the word initial. Yes, I know....I have no life :D

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 16 Aug 2011 11:50

Gurneesh wrote:
Does that say Initial or final on the green placard. Initial would have gone to 45 th AR right ?? while this pic says 43 AR..


when did 45AR get Arjun?
Arjun is with 43AR and 75AR.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 23 Aug 2011 05:29

Image

what is that behind the chief..... I sense at T-55 chasis... but what is it ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 23 Aug 2011 10:13

could be a command tank or ARV? more likely a command tank looking at the glass window where the main gun ought to be?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1660
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 23 Aug 2011 14:27

hmm command tank.... I never knew we used non standard as command tank.... i.e. a regt of T-72 with T55 as command tank.
could be ARV i know we have a few

either I am very glad at the reuse of such large number of T55s
with the Engrs and other users.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby krishnan » 23 Aug 2011 14:42

kolam? :mrgreen: We tamils cant do any function without one, not even a roll out cermony

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Jaeger » 24 Aug 2011 12:44

^^^Probably a driver training tank, along these lines:

Something Similar

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby VinodTK » 26 Aug 2011 05:44

Mahindra gears up for military march
The Indian Army’s future infantry combat vehicles programme, a $12-billion order to supply 2,600 vehicles, may actually see this playing out on the ground. Mahindras are among the four shortlisted entities, and if selected will actually see group entities Mahindra Satyam and Mahindra Systech collaborating with the defence division.

Mahindra Engineering Services, a part of Mahindra Systech, is working on the automotive design aspects, while Mahindra Satyam is creating the information technology backbone, or “battlefield management systems” in the defence parlance. Systech’s role as a key component vendor will increase, once the entire supply chain is put in place.
:
The alliance with BAE has helped in technology and product capability transfer from BAE’s South African arm, OMC.

From its Faridabad facility, the first batch of six MPV-I vehicles will be headed for Jharkhand to assist armed forces in counter insurgency operations. Already, states like Maharashtra, Jammu & Kashmir, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh have shown interest. “We are also expecting follow-on orders from Jharkhand,” said Khutub Hai, managing director and chief executive officer of DLSI. “The ministry of home affairs has a requirement of around 300 MPVs, for which request for proposals will be issued shortly.”

“Our vehicles are the most powerful in the category. It seats more people (16+2), as opposed to 10+2 in others. It also has a much higher level of improvised explosive device protection,” explained Hai.
:

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9747
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 26 Aug 2011 13:09

12$ for 2600 ? Is it correct?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11668
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 26 Aug 2011 14:28

Narayana Rao wrote:12$ for 2600 ? Is it correct?

Obviously DDM- nobody will pay $12 Billion, i.e $4.6 million for such vehicles, even Tanks are cheaper. Obviouxly DDM.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 26 Aug 2011 15:19

using the ural chassis was a very good decision. The MPVi is essentially the Cassipir Mk-6, although the idea for using the ural has come from India. They are using the 4320 chassis.
Ural India is based in Bengal and servicing would be very easy for MPVi units deployed in Jharkhand, Orissa and Chattisgarh.
Besides the Indian Army has been using Ural trucks for over three decades now. In fact it buys some 1000 vehicles every year.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 26 Aug 2011 18:06

D Roy wrote:using the ural chassis was a very good decision. The MPVi is essentially the Cassipir Mk-6, although the idea for using the ural has come from India. They are using the 4320 chassis.
Ural India is based in Bengal and servicing would be very easy for MPVi units deployed in Jharkhand, Orissa and Chattisgarh.
Besides the Indian Army has been using Ural trucks for over three decades now. In fact it buys some 1000 vehicles every year.


Are these Ural Chassis made in India or even Mahindra has fallen for Screw Driver syndrome? What is the engine used?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests