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.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 15 Dec 2011 13:58

If you start beleiving the BS PSG throws and take his word as analysis, well. there is nothing one can do. As tsarkar sir said, he is Rakhi Sawant of Defense Journalism. All show no substance.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1284
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 15 Dec 2011 15:19

Prasun K. Sengupta replies to someone at September 2, 2011 7:10 AM

To Anon@5.32PM: They’re not meant to complement each other in the same theatre, rather, they would be used in much the same way as the Soviets used a combination of T-64Bs/T-80s and T-72Ms during the Cold War era. In other words, the first shots to be fired by the Indian Army’s breakout forces will come from the Arjuns, with the T-90s being the follow-on elements for achieving the encirclement and envelopment objectives. My preferred between the two? The Arjun, of course. Why? That’s simple. On the battlefield it is almost impossible to distinguish (using thermal imaging or infra-red sights) between the silhouettes of the Indian Army’s T-72s and T-90s and the Pakistan Army’s Al Khalids, Al Zarrars, Type 85APs and T-80UDs. Therefore, the only way to avoid casualties caused by friendly fire is the employment of MBTs with distinguishable silhouettes by either side, especially in the initial hours of war breaking out. The Arjun’s silhouette (derived from thermal imagery) has distinct differences when compared to those of the T-90, T-72, Al Khalid, Al Zarrar, Type 85AP and T-80UD, a factor which will be critical for the hunter-killer fire-control systems employed by the Arjuns to seek out and destroy the enemy’s armoured formations in detail. In addition, crew comfort on board the Arjun will be of a higher degree when compared to the T-90S and T-90S+. Thirdly and lastly, the rifled-bore cannon offers distinct advantages over smoothbore types when armoured battles are fought at extremely close quarters, i.e. at ranges between 700 metres and 1.5km, as will typically be the case in both the plains of Punjab and deserts of Rajasthan, given the nature of the terrain prevailing in both areas.


Advocating for T-90's to achieve the encirclement and envelopment objectives of foot soldiers and Arjun for destroying the enemy’s armoured formations in detail :eek:

We should have a voting on these line,
- should we order 400 Arjun for destroying the enemy’s armoured formations in detail, which has design, heavy, performance issues and expensive (We can fix issue locally, big drawback)
- should we order another 900+ T-90AM to achieve the encirclement and envelopment objectives (we will know current shortcoming in next decade if any, which will be fixed incremental or with mid life upgrades of course free of cost T-90XYZ)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 15 Dec 2011 16:52

RKumar wrote:Prasun K. Sengupta replies to someone at September 2, 2011 7:10 AM

To Anon@5.32PM: They’re not meant to complement each other in the same theatre, rather, they would be used in much the same way as the Soviets used a combination of T-64Bs/T-80s and T-72Ms during the Cold War era. In other words, the first shots to be fired by the Indian Army’s breakout forces will come from the Arjuns, with the T-90s being the follow-on elements for achieving the encirclement and envelopment objectives. My preferred between the two? The Arjun, of course. Why? That’s simple. On the battlefield it is almost impossible to distinguish (using thermal imaging or infra-red sights) between the silhouettes of the Indian Army’s T-72s and T-90s and the Pakistan Army’s Al Khalids, Al Zarrars, Type 85APs and T-80UDs. Therefore, the only way to avoid casualties caused by friendly fire is the employment of MBTs with distinguishable silhouettes by either side, especially in the initial hours of war breaking out. The Arjun’s silhouette (derived from thermal imagery) has distinct differences when compared to those of the T-90, T-72, Al Khalid, Al Zarrar, Type 85AP and T-80UD, a factor which will be critical for the hunter-killer fire-control systems employed by the Arjuns to seek out and destroy the enemy’s armoured formations in detail. In addition, crew comfort on board the Arjun will be of a higher degree when compared to the T-90S and T-90S+. Thirdly and lastly, the rifled-bore cannon offers distinct advantages over smoothbore types when armoured battles are fought at extremely close quarters, i.e. at ranges between 700 metres and 1.5km, as will typically be the case in both the plains of Punjab and deserts of Rajasthan, given the nature of the terrain prevailing in both areas.


Advocating for T-90's to achieve the encirclement and envelopment objectives of foot soldiers and Arjun for destroying the enemy’s armoured formations in detail :eek:



only thing i can say is PSG is very very creative and has no idea what he is talking about and has no understanding of Armored warfare and tactics.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 15 Dec 2011 17:18

^^^He generally has no idea on most of the things he says.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 15 Dec 2011 17:23

^ I thought rifled guns had a better range and would be better beyond say 2.5km and below that all are equal. has a point about the silhouettes being very similar though....t90 and t72s will have a field day mixing in with paki formations and there's likely to be plenty of close combat when the 'discovery' is made when the formations are too close than normal.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 15 Dec 2011 17:47

d_berwal wrote:only thing i can say is PSG is very very creative and has no idea what he is talking about and has no understanding of Armored warfare and tactics.


Sirji,

Read the PSG views. Would like to know yours too. IIRC, you have posting good on certain areas. It's high time you give us a fresh round of updates.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3048
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 15 Dec 2011 18:35

Thanks srai/Rohit and Sarkar. There was mixing of terminologies, I thought. Anyway no need to split hair on that.

On second thought, is there any official designation for the first lot of second 124 batch Arjun tank which carries part of the overall modification of what is meant for Mk2 ? thanks.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20969
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 15 Dec 2011 23:09

PSG: "Injuns,circling the wagons"? Sound tactics!

Jokes apart,which type are we going to see airlifted to do duty on the Tibetan border?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9852
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 16 Dec 2011 05:17

Why air lifted? No roads?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1692
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Khalsa » 16 Dec 2011 07:09

Hi Narayana

Adding info from what I saw and what I know.

Arjun won't get airlifted because it is a beast or we buy the An-225 (not happening)
wait there is another way you could detach the turret and the body/ turret and airlift them separately and then re-assemble it at chushul airport.
Now imagine airlifting the crane that can lift a turret. So you can see the problem getting complicated.

The other option is by roads, well the roads are so narrow and weak over crucial passes such as Khardungla and Changa La, the standard 7 Tonner truck had a hell of a time hauling loads and driving up where it was barely narrow enough for me to drive a bicycle.

Now imagine hauling 60 tons on top of a trailer that requires a road twice as wide with soft bends. You have a problem again.
The only way to get around is to get the tank to drive itself around some bends. Which will wreck the road (imagine a regt or arjuns driving on kacha road) for everyone else.
There was a huge discussion around this when the Kargil war happened, whether SP on tracks would have been faster in getting inducted into the theatre as compared to towed tube arty.

The terrain looks favourable for armoured warfare and I was a fan for it. On ground running is a different matter. The Ladakhi terrain will eat through those tank tracks every week.
maintenance costs will be high like you won't believe it. The Mech Regt didn't do much when it was in Ladakh, i believe they were deinducted soon after the T-72s.

IMHO, the Himalayas only reverbate to the thump of artillery and the feet of the mighty Indian Jawan

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Gurneesh » 16 Dec 2011 08:13

c-17 can in theory carry one Arjun. Dunno how it will cope with that kinds of load while landing at ladakh.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby koti » 16 Dec 2011 09:06

Khalsa wrote:Hi Narayana

Adding info from what I saw and what I know.

Arjun won't get airlifted because it is a beast or we buy the An-225 (not happening)
wait there is another way you could detach the turret and the body/ turret and airlift them separately and then re-assemble it at chushul airport.
Now imagine airlifting the crane that can lift a turret. So you can see the problem getting complicated. ...


Namica!!!

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3231
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tsarkar » 16 Dec 2011 09:21

Khalsa wrote:won't get airlifted
AMX-13 tanks were airlifted by An-12 for Battle of Chusul in 1962
Khalsa wrote:roads are so narrow and weak over crucial passes
Stuart tanks were deployed to Zoji-La in 1948 over worse roads.

Agree Arjun is heavier, but the Indian warrior is innovative, and isnt specification driven. I believe NH-1A has been upgraded to handle T-72 and their transporters.

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby VinayG » 16 Dec 2011 10:02

Indian Army Looking For 300 Advanced Light Tanks OLD NEWS

reported in live fist 2 years ago (oct 2009) that Indian Army Looking For 300 Advanced Light Tanks old news any further update on this

also if IA is interested we can use polish Light tank ( Anders ) if we go for it this light tank will act as long range Anti tank platform also very useful against enemy infantry fortification over mountains in the NE regions and since it only weighs 32 tons and compact size i think C17 can carry 3 Anders at a time

WPB Anders

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 16 Dec 2011 11:02

sooner we productionize these the better. CV90 in various forms upto 120mm cannon is also available and in service...cost might be a bit steep given its swedish origin.

we need to finally stop BMP2 production, quality the Abhay-1 and start producing in huge nos. people seem to be deaf about the need to finally move beyond the BMP2 model when the sleek bradleys and CV90s make it look like a maruti800.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1871
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 16 Dec 2011 11:30

Gurneesh wrote:c-17 can in theory carry one Arjun. Dunno how it will cope with that kinds of load while landing at ladakh.

Practically it can

Watch this. Loading and unloading

:D

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 16 Dec 2011 12:03

with aman-e-bandar-e-tamasha prevailing on western front, its better we move 750 tanks to ladakh and 750 to sikkim on a permanent basis. we cannot depend on 55 C17 sorties to airlift just a regiment of Arjuns and expect not to have this process disrupted by damaged base or other priorities. even 55 T90 (if C17 carries two) would take 28 sorties!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20969
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 18 Dec 2011 07:35

Tx Khalsa,Uddu,guys for the insight into operating tanks at that alt.A year or so ago,I suggested a look at the new Russian light tank,which was a good replacement for the PT-76 light tank.The tank carries the same main gun as an MBT and can also frie missiles if I recollect.The use of lighter tanks/ICVs would be a better option than airlifting with great difficulty heavy MBTs which require extensive heavy-lift air support.Even if the BDR perform a miracle and establish good roads,seasonal rains,avalanches,floods,etc.,will keep our maintenance squads busy 365 days of the year.

This requires base camps,depots,etc.at strategic locations which can be connected and resupplied by heavy-lift helicopters,apart from any road networks that might exist.Howdver,concenrtasting everythign at just a few points also makes them vulnerable to PLAN rocket/missile attacks.Large underground/mountain caverns must contain workshops to maintain heavy eqot.,missile batteries ,etc.This will require enormous tasks of engineering/building and should be examined in the light of highly mobile forces also ,which will require hundreds of heloss and support aircraft.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 18 Dec 2011 08:04

Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 18 Dec 2011 08:49

SaiK wrote:Image


Going by this orbat (http://orbat.com/site/toe/toe/india/armytoe.html), this looks like a full Arjun Regiment comprising of 3 tank squadrons.

  • 3 x Regimental HQ Tank Troop (1 tank per squadron)
  • 6 x Squadron HQ Troop (2 tanks per squadron)
  • 45 x Squadron Tank Troops (15 tanks per squadron)

Total: 54 tanks in a Arjun MBT Regiment.

SRay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SRay » 18 Dec 2011 08:54

SaiK wrote:Image


Poorest photoshop job I've seen.

SagarAg
BRFite
Posts: 1164
Joined: 12 May 2011 15:51

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SagarAg » 18 Dec 2011 09:20

SRay wrote:
Poorest photoshop job I've seen.

Absolutely true. If you cut one formation and place it over others it matches perfectly. And just have a look at the background and the ground. :lol:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 18 Dec 2011 09:29



At 32 tons anders is too heavy. Will the IA accept some thing that weighs as much. Or will they insist on some thing under 25 tons, like the MGS, or the Centaro.

Both the Centaro and the Anders are fitted with the same gun.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1871
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 18 Dec 2011 10:41

SagarAg wrote:
SRay wrote:
Poorest photoshop job I've seen.

Absolutely true. If you cut one formation and place it over others it matches perfectly. And just have a look at the background and the ground. :lol:

This was discussed long back. So pls, not again.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1871
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 18 Dec 2011 10:47

Mr.Philiposky, we did field the T-72's there. For some strange reasons that decision was reversed.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html
My opinion will be not to field any tanks in Ladakh but go with Namica's and IFV's. Then for sure required number of LCH's and ALH's. We will need formidable air defense in these areas as well (ground based ones above the protection provided by IAF).

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 18 Dec 2011 13:43

^^^You need a tank to do a tank's job. We've inducted tanks there before and will do so again. As per news article couple of months back, IA is in process of expanding the Srinagar-Leh road to accomodate T-90 tank movement. And BTW, IA has already sanctioned an (I) Armored Bde for the Ladakh Sector.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2011 13:51

^aye - light tanks are ok for recce and infantry support from hull down, but would get slaughtered in a open attack or if they are caught in the open under any situation.

we need 750 strong t90/arjun force in Ladakh and 750 in north Sikkim. get the "A-team" onsite and let them sort it out. the B-team (T72) can patrol the aman-e-tamasha frontier or do the republic day parade thing with DD commentators praising them as the most advanced tanks in the world..."duniya mein T-72 ko ati adhunik tanko mein mana jaata hai" :rotfl:

we also need to retarget bulk of our artillery - paltry as it is - to the mountain sectors.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12338
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Dec 2011 14:58

Question for Gurus, were T-72's pulled out of Ladakh as par of some CBM measures in the late 80's early 90's

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20969
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 18 Dec 2011 16:11

Q;What doea the opposition have in these sectors?!

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby VinayG » 18 Dec 2011 16:54

Pratyush wrote:


At 32 tons anders is too heavy. Will the IA accept some thing that weighs as much. Or will they insist on some thing under 25 tons, like the MGS, or the Centaro.

Both the Centaro and the Anders are fitted with the same gun.


According RFI to IA needs 200 wheeled 8x8, 100 tracked tank destroyer and the Stryker has a version with a 105mm gun which is under 25t, so it is an option . that is the reason i think Khan has brought some strykers during Yudh Abhyas 2009 but havent heard much from after that and also there is no news about Centaro in IA shopping list. for tracked version Poland offered their light tank and BELM signed an agreement with the Polish OBRUM to participate in the construction of a light tank - a mobile platform, a new generation of combat vehicle . Indian version is to be manufactured by BEML. OBRUM gave a brief presentation on Anders during DEFEXPO-2010. since BELM signed an agreement with the Polish OBRUM to participate in the construction of a light tank this must be lighter version ie 25 tone version of anders .

in polish

http://www.altair.com.pl/start-4150.
TRANSLATED

Polish tank with India

Indian BELM signed an agreement with the Polish OBRUM to participate in the construction of a light tank - a mobile platform, a new generation of combat.

The agreement was signed yesterday at the exhibition DEFEXPO-2010. According to the President BELM, VRS Nataraja, the project will be based on a program implemented by OBRUM (Polish car battle twenty-first century). Indian requirements include the ability to transport the vehicle to the area of ​​the battlefield in a helicopter overhead. The tank in the Indian version will be produced by BELM.

OBRUM BELM also has support in other ventures, including construction engineering vehicle based on Arjun tank, renovation and modernization of the T-72 tanks and BMP-2 modernization. Designing the car on the basis of technical security Arjuna is to be co-ordinated by the CVRD (Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment), Chennai, and funded by the Indian defense projects agency DRDO.

It is worth noting that the DEFEXPO-2010 offer of participation in the modernization of the Indian T-72 tanks also presented the U.S. company Raytheon. Party of India in this project would represent the company Larsen & Toubro. Americans would have to supply electronic components, and L & T would handle the installation.

BELM also signed an agreement with Slovakia on building Tanaxem armored vehicle designed for use in anti-terrorist operations and Counterinsurgency. Slovaks are to supply the cannon, which will be assembled in India, and BELM will produce the vehicle's hull.During DEFEXPO-2010 BELM announced the opening of a new plant in Palakkad in Kerala. There will be running a production company's aviation industry. BELM invested in this plant 2.6 billion rupees (about $ 50 million).


there is also BMP-1 version of light tank with with 90mm or 105mm turret during the 90's after succesfully passeing all user trials but the tank wasn't inducted as IA decided that there wasn't any need for a Light tank. :!: Despite this DRDO continued with the project for another seven years and closed it in August 1996

now considering the present RFI What an irony!!. IA thought they dont need light tank during 90's. Now they probably are going for import or JV when there is already a successfully tested product available only thing it need is a little mordernization . The homegrown product is their, tried and tested. but some bad eggs in the IA

BMP-I Light Tank

Image

so i am still trying to patch the gaps like did IA shown intrest in STRYKER for wheeled version and will there be a desi version of anders under 25t for tracked version could not find any further news on this regard

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 18 Dec 2011 17:32

Well, before you jump the gun and blame the bad eggs in the army, please read the link you've provided from global security.com. Doesn't paint the DRDO in too bright a light.

Also, in todays environment, IMO, BMP chassis is not the ideal platform for Light Tank - it will carry all the drawbacks of the ICV to the light tank as well. If anything - they should check the feasibility of Abhay Chasis to the Light Tank concept and see if that works. But on a side note - what's the point of trying to build everything on one's own. the requirement is for 300 numbers - might as well take tried and tested concept fro abroad, get full TOT (ad ensure we not make same mistakes as in case of T-90) and get HVF to make it.

On the Stryker front - it is not a light tank by any yardstick. It is a wheeled APC with some bit of support weaponry.
Last edited by rohitvats on 18 Dec 2011 17:34, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2011 17:33

yes the T72's were withdrawn as part of CBMs with the chinese. the PLA was just looking for time to build up their infra though. now that can be used to push in anything from bicycle borne troops to ZTZ99 - CBM or not!

meantime we sat on thumbs for a while and didnt react until it was apparent the PLA did not have CBM on their mind this time.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2011 17:34

I would say get Stryker simply because Khan will continue to pour money to gold plate and buff it and hence best upg path.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vic » 18 Dec 2011 19:52

rohitvats wrote: BMP chassis is not the ideal platform for Light Tank - it will carry all the drawbacks of the ICV to the light tank as well.


why?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 18 Dec 2011 21:13

Inducting the heavier tanks is the easy part

hard part is maintaining them in those environments - if maint facilities can improve the way soldiers infrastructure has improved in Siachen then they can be reintroduced.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Dec 2011 21:17

perhaps we need the heated/cooled igloo concept using pre-fab pieces khan pioneered in the desert for his fighter planes.
would be much easier to work with machinery out of the freezing cold or burning sunlight. light materials can be found for some big walmart warehouse type things...

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 18 Dec 2011 22:05

High grade composite kevlar with blast proof alloys and light weight structures can take much of the weight. I think this is what DRDO is planning for the FMBTs. Layers of mini ERA/NERA combos could add to the robustness of the design, besides the trophy protection types. Wondering like a star-war-ic umbrella mesh protection.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 445
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 19 Dec 2011 01:06

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-general-krishnaswami-sundarji-1069842.html
Sundarji also planned a covert, albeit cynical, winter offensive against Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in which he was willing to take an exceptionally high casualty rate in snowbound, inhospitable terrain at heights of over 14,000 feet to resolve the Kashmir dispute over which the nuclear-capable neighbours have fought two of their three wars since independence in 1947. He achieved the near impossible task of ferrying tanks to a height of nearly 13,000 feet for the bold operation but at the last minute was ordered to call it off by the perspicacious Rajiv Gandhi.


Noob Koshchun, pliss to indulge - Were the T-72s in Laddakh meant to wrest away PoK ??

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 19 Dec 2011 01:39

aditp wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-general-krishnaswami-sundarji-1069842.html
Sundarji also planned a covert, albeit cynical, winter offensive against Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in which he was willing to take an exceptionally high casualty rate in snowbound, inhospitable terrain at heights of over 14,000 feet to resolve the Kashmir dispute over which the nuclear-capable neighbours have fought two of their three wars since independence in 1947. He achieved the near impossible task of ferrying tanks to a height of nearly 13,000 feet for the bold operation but at the last minute was ordered to call it off by the perspicacious Rajiv Gandhi.


Noob Koshchun, pliss to indulge - Were the T-72s in Laddakh meant to wrest away PoK ??


Nope. Where will you use tanks in operations for taking POK?

But this is interesting - this is the first ever open source (apart from Ravi Rikhye) mention of the plan to take POK in winter 1987.

Look what I found - a fictionalized account of real life incident (the author says so -read the entire story)
http://rajee.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/05/suman-my-daer-i-love-you-a-short-story.htm



“How ridiculous, sir? The officer has deserted his post and he has come down to me at SIALA complex. He is crying like a baby. He was to get married in November 1986. But Operation TRIDENT was in the offing and he was held up


This conversation had taken place on 20 February 1987 when INDIAN ARMY had just been made to back out from OPERATION TRIDENT ( Slicing away GILGIT & BALTISTAN areas from PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR!) a few days back by PRIME MINISTER RAJIV GANDHI on the insistence and request of then Pakistan’s ambassador to India. Perhaps, PAKISTAN did not forget this side of General SUNDARJI’s DISSUASIVE STRATEGY and began planning for OPERATION KARGIL. No one thought of this, then. We were to realize only 12 years later. What does the VEDIC NUMEROLOGY and ASTROLOGY SAY? Events repeat every 12 years? Huh?

James Blonde
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 23
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby James Blonde » 19 Dec 2011 02:33

The Gun that lost to Bofors in Lotus scam.

Image


Image

Giat at Les Invalies Paris Dec 12 2011


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests