Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 20 May 2010 20:56

Tanaji wrote:
I am struggling to put into words (in great part due to lack of time) why I think the Arjun - in its present form - is a non-starter for the future. Having said that - in a sentence - IMHO of course - it has to do with: funds India has (which IMHO is a great deal more than even 3-4 years ago - not an issue IMHO), technologies (Arjun "upgrades" will simply not suffice for a good solution IMHO) and expeditionary (political - the ChiPak thinking is passe, it is more Chi centric here on out and Indian "national interest" whether we like it or not or even plan for will dictate where we will go to push our weight) needs.

I agree with the views
Is it me or does anyone find this logic bizarre ? "Arjun is not fit for the future in the current form" "It is time for a change"... which one can at least understand. If this is so, why is the T90 acceptable for the future (which is what we are going to be stuck with for the near future, all 1200 of them)? The T90 lobby raises nary a whimper when 1200 T90s get ordered, but the moment when the Arjun lobby questions why only 2 x 124 Arjuns, we get the above logic.

Add to the fact as per this lobby, the Army is not responsible for *anything* . It apparently does not set the doctrine, does not set the specs and is not responsible for selection either. So why are they complaining that Arjun is not "fit for the future"? You cant have it both ways... duck under the cover of "Army is not responsible for low Arjun orders because we dont do anything" and then say "Arjun is not fit for future" when as per the previous logic they have no say in any case!

lol ditto. arjun too late...arjun not fit...arjun upgrades will not suffice...army not responsible...ChiPak passe...overwhelming superiority o_O??...The inventiveness is extraordinary. I believe bullsh*t is the commonly used term.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 May 2010 21:06

why is the T90 acceptable for the future

arjun too late...arjun not fit...arjun upgrades will not suffice...army not responsible...ChiPak passe...overwhelming superiority o_O??...The inventiveness is extraordinary. I believe bullsh*t is the commonly used term.

The confusion is understandable.

In my (current - or to be written) book the progressions is something like T-90/Arjun, Arjun "Mark 2", and the future. In whatever parameters the "Mark 2" should be "superior" or perhaps more current than the T-90 and Arjun. And, I am talking about this "futrue" -- whatever that is.

Also, just to be clear, IMHO, the change will be dictated or influenced by other factors - more than a philosophical discussion that solely relates to what a tank should be in relation to what a tank is today.

As a very small example, I would envision that funds would overcome even a restriction on the Kanchan metal being able to be shaped, perhaps leading to a wedge shaped turret (IF such a one is needed or more useful). Or a political decision would compel some major change in the design of the tank - perhaps make them very, very light OR perhaps even design one for India and one for expeditions and NE. Fund for research could trigger a round of very light and in some cases very small (miniature) components. (After all we are looking at things in 2025ish. Add 15 years to your life and imagine.) (IA is supposed to get a dedicated sat in about 3 years - so also the IAF, IN sat goes up in about a year.)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 May 2010 21:20

The inventiveness is extraordinary.

In fact I would argue that there has not been enough, which is why India is where she is.

My next argument is that in 10-15 years ground realities will force issues (thankfully) that we were scared to talk about today. India just cannot become a 2nd largest economy in 2035ish and have 3rd world thinking - a great recipe for servitude I would think.

If we were to think that the present gen Arjun would suffice for 2025 it is absurd. The chinese have already installed some of the techs on that "wish list" - in 2001!!!!! The French have some as far back as 1998 - granted older versions!!!! Just as the AFs are getting comfortable with UAVs, so are the various armies getting comfortable with automated "tanks". And we are still discussing "Mark 2" and are thrilled with that discussion?

Thomas_S · Post by **Thomas_S** » 20 May 2010 21:25

NRao wrote:
The inventiveness is extraordinary.
In fact I would argue that there has not been enough, which is why India is where she is.

My next argument is that in 10-15 years ground realities will force issues (thankfully) that we were scared to talk about today. India just cannot become a 2nd largest economy in 2035ish and have 3rd world thinking - a great recipe for servitude I would think.

If we were to think that the present gen Arjun would suffice for 2025 it is absurd. The chinese have already installed some of the techs on that "wish list" - in 2001!!!!! The French have some as far back as 1998 - granted older versions!!!! Just as the AFs are getting comfortable with UAVs, so are the various armies getting comfortable with automated "tanks". And we are still discussing "Mark 2" and are thrilled with that discussion?

Hmmmm... ok we should always look at the future.You have a point there....then why are we inducting 1600 T-90 now which is inferior to Arjun Mk1?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 20 May 2010 21:29

I agree with you on the future.

However, our future tank should evolve from the superior product on hand.

The arjun in its present configuration is SUPERIOR to the T-90.

Therefore more orders than the measly 124 is a MUST for NOW.

More orders will expand production infra which will allow us to produce more tanks in the present and may be utilized to a large extent for production of "FMBT".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 May 2010 21:35

Thomas_S wrote: Hmmmm... ok we should always look at the future.You have a point there....then why are we inducting 1600 T-90 now which is inferior to Arjun Mk1?

That is a valid discussion to have IMHO.

BUT it is not related to the "wish list" that triggered this other - FMBT related - discussion.

I can assure you that had India had the foresight it has today about the economy things would have been slightly different. And, AGAIN, this is NOT a knock on the T-90/Arjun/A-Mark-2. ALL those took birth in a different political/economical/technical environment. What has happened has happened, nothing we can do about that.

BUT the political/economical/technical environment has already changed - even as compared to 2005. (The Indian Army may be poor, but India is not.) It WILL change more by 2015, and even more by 2020. It is claimed that Indian economy will be #2 (behind the Chinese) by about 2035-40. Will be (by estimates) bigger than that of the US by a cool 2 Trillion dollars a year!!!!!

Given JUST that why would anyone think in terms of a "Mark 3"? It is silly.

((( BTW, I do not believe Anthony when he says that the IA wanted these 124 tanks. My suspicion is that there are other reasonS - does not mean that the Army does not benefit from this acquisition. )))

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 May 2010 21:38

Tanaji wrote: Is it me or does anyone find this logic bizarre ? "Arjun is not fit for the future in the current form"

NRao can speak for himself, but I would like to clarify that by asking for more from "Arjun" I am looking at more than 50 tanks per year, and Mk II etc. Which I think are given.

I am looking at Arjun as the base model for the future Indian tank line up, in 20-30 year time frame.

I do not expect or want to see T series still being a factor in those times (other than the point of the best upgrade use of the inventory)

--------------

PS> After the post I see that I am on the same page as NRao, so what ever he was alluding to (which he fleshed out later) and what I think are more or less in sync.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 May 2010 21:42

RoyG wrote:I agree with you on the future.

However, our future tank should evolve from the superior product on hand.

The arjun in its present configuration is SUPERIOR to the T-90.

Therefore more orders than the measly 124 is a MUST for NOW.

More orders will expand production infra which will allow us to produce more tanks in the present and may be utilized to a large extent for production of "FMBT".

Sure. Agreed.

HOWEVER< what I am saying is that with the funds India will have, access to technologies she will have and the political pressure to throw her weight around India will be forced to produce a far superior product. Now if that new product comes from the components of "Arjun" or somewhere else I cannot say.

On "measly 124", sure. that is fine with me too. However, there will come a time when that "wish list" will have to kick in - no two ways about that. Cut-and-paste or whatever (and this is not a knock on anyone who has said that), the fact remains that somewhere along the way India will be forced to build "a tank" that will accommodate that "wish list".

On THAT "wish list": it is not something from a star wars movie. Some versions are already in tanks. It is more than doable. I would like to think that India is mature enough in 2020-25 to implement all of those items. IF true, then this effort will post date the "Mark 2". May be it can be based off of the "Mark 2" - dunno.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 20 May 2010 22:04

I agree that the FMBT will have to be a reality although I'm still not really sure what it'll be (Perhaps Arjun MKIII?).

In my opinion, it should evolve from the Arjun Mark II and should spring out of a well established production infra. Whether it goes through a minor or major evolution, I feel that it will still build upon tech from arjun.

Private participation and further orders I feel is a must not only to make this a reality but to boost numbers of the Mk I and Mk II so that we can deal more adequately with PRESENT threats.

IMO the DGMF and army leadership has been criminal in the way it has handled this whole affair and I feel that there needs to be a complete change in our procurement policy and transparency.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 May 2010 22:31

Austin, I am aware of your new found love of everything armor and desire to comment on the same, but a bit of reading never hurt anyone. As for the Air Superiority and use of MBT (M1A2) in PA service, Vivek has already given a detailed reply. But here are my two cents:

Austin wrote:Vivek no body is disputing that you dont need a well protected tank and both the T-90 and Arjun are well protected tanks.

The fact still remains that PA tanks will be vulnerable to attack chopper and sheer fire power of the IA once we manage to establish Air superiority over a given area.

IA has inducted systems like Smerch and Pinaka which can be equipped with anti-tank intelligent sub ammunition which can attack the tanks on the most vulnerable top , the sheer number of attack choppers both heavy and light equipped with F&F Helinag can take care of any tank out there in a reasonable air superiority and air coverage provided by IAF.

Even if the tank is made immobile they can easily be taken out and are quite vulnerable , tanks them self have limited ability to defend them self against air attacks and even if they are accompanied by compliment of mobile AD system the IAF/IA can jam those or degrade it.

How many Pinaka and Smerch does IA have and will have in foreseeable future? Do we have them (or will have them in short to medium term) in so many numbers to actually be able to blunt a large scale armor offensive on their own? And that too by an Armored Division? OK, may be by a regiment, if these are in the said area - but a M1A2 equipped Armored Division?

Wiki tells me that IA has/will have 72 Smerch units and 2+2 (ordered) Pinaka Regiments (72 units) in near future? This number will definitely go up but, will the concentration of MBRL reach a level to blunt an armor division assault? Will IA concentrate these systems in it's Holding or Strike Corps? And how many? Are 2 Regiments enough or 3 or 4?

And as for Attack Choppers - which ones are you refering to? The present 2 Squadrons of Mi-35 or planned 22 Gunships? Do these constitute 'overwhelming' firepower? So overwhelming that they (in conjunction with others) blunt an armor offensive?

And do you realize what 500 M1A2 mean? Enough tanks to raise two frsh Armored Divisions. Think about that. We have grand total of 3; PA has 2+2 Mechanized Divisions. Add another two to PA Orbat and do you see the impact? So, instead of two Strike Coprs, PA can have 4 to our 3. Do you realize the gravity of situation?

Most 155 mm Howitzer are now available with intelligent Anti-Tank round and can take out tanks from long standoff ranges much like a BVR missile would do for an aircraft ditto for MBRL , with the availability of UAV realtime intelligence has made the situational awarness much better then what one could think 20 years back.

And where are these 155mm systems? And does not the argument apply to PA Arty as well? What about the fact that they have higher number of quality 155mm SP Arty than us?

PA is in a hopeless situation even if it gets 500 M1A2 considering that we have significant edge on many fronts and its only getting better , needless to say no war is without losses but IA/IAF does have a very significant and comprehensive edge over any PA onslaught

Those 500 M1A2 can create serious imbalance in the sub-continent.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 May 2010 22:36

Sanku wrote:
NRao wrote:
The change I envision is NOT a knock on the Arjun. It is just a matter of time for change. Simple as that.
I agree with the views (though as you said not fully fleshed out) -- I had made a cross post from Ramana, as to how a entire thrust by TSPA in 71 was neutralized by MBRL fire before they could even attack (in Khem Karan sector)

Thats was 71. Those issues have become even more important now.

That comment from Nightwatch was about 71 battle in the Shakargarh bulge. And it was patently wrong. I had replied to the effect to that news article.

Neither was there any MBRL in IA service in the said period nor did we destroy two PA Armored Brigades of any PA Armored Division. Only one Armored Brigade from PA fought in that Battle - this was an Independent Armored Brigade and PA I Corps Reserve. PA 6th Armored Division, while in I Coprs control, was never committed to the battle.

That articel was someone's flight of fancy

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 20 May 2010 22:51

Right on the head Rohit.

Whatever happened to brains like Sundarji? Atleast the guy had independence of thought.

The current crop of jarnails is mentally bankrupt.They simply don't inspire confidence.

Probably DSC Wellington needs to seriously look at this aspect.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 May 2010 23:04

air power's impact on ground forces is way overestimated, in the balkans even after near 80 days(?) continuous bombing campaign under complete air superiority, the most tech advanced air forces could do no more than scratch yugoslavia's armoured forces. we don't have 5% of that PGM capability, neither is PAF the regional equivalent of the YAF.
to think that with our pathetic state of artillery, both in terms of quality and quantity and a piddly 20 gunships for a million man army facing a half a million one, we are in any position to knock out pakistan's armoured forces by air power and artillery would be seriously deluding oneself.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 20 May 2010 23:37

Rahul M,

The next war may force us to slash our manpower in the west. It may very well be a piddly 10 gunships for a *half a million man army facing the same*. Coupled with our pathetic state of artillery and armor our advantage wont be all that much. 500 m1a2s+existing armor coupled with a large quantity of anti tank missiles, superior artillery, upgraded cobra gunships, and defensive emplacements seems quite formidable to me.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 21 May 2010 00:49

I recommend a reading of "The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East" by Abraham Rabinovich for a gripping account of Op Badr and the slaughter brought on by ATGM and artillery on IDF armour.

JimmyJ · Post by **JimmyJ** » 21 May 2010 11:59

When Arjun beat T-90
BY : Shankar Roy chowdhury ( former Chief of Army Staff)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 May 2010 12:01

rohitvats wrote:
Sanku wrote: I agree with the views (though as you said not fully fleshed out) -- I had made a cross post from Ramana, as to how a entire thrust by TSPA in 71 was neutralized by MBRL fire before they could even attack (in Khem Karan sector)

Thats was 71. Those issues have become even more important now.
That comment from Nightwatch was about 71 battle in the Shakargarh bulge. And it was patently wrong. I had replied to the effect to that news article.

Wow, interesting. I thought Nightwatch was pretty reliable (though to be honest that was the first and only reference to such tactics in 71 that I had heard of as well)

Thanks for the perspective, though I tend to agree with you, I hope you hear back from Nightwatch and the matter is closed once and for all.

vina · Post by **vina** » 21 May 2010 12:12

BY : Shankar Roy chowdhury ( former Chief of Army Staff)

Bah!.. What would a retired Armored Corps officer (even if he became the COAS) know about fighting today's war in Punjab and Rajasthan deserts !. He supports the Arjun and not TinCan 90 and must be biased of course. Harrrummph. He wants the Army to induct the Arjun aye ?.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 May 2010 12:17

vina wrote:
BY : Shankar Roy chowdhury ( former Chief of Army Staff)
Bah!.. What would a retired Armored Corps officer (even if he became the COAS) know about fighting today's war in Punjab and Rajasthan deserts !. He supports the Arjun and not TinCan 90 and must be biased of course. Harrrummph. He wants the Army to induct the Arjun aye ?.

Vina you do the Gen grave injustice by assigning your pet fancies to his article -- his article is very balanced and does not beat about the bush on all manners of issues. This is not a monochrome article like your views have been.

I would claim that so far what ever I have said are in close alignment with the views that he has expressed there.

I encourage everyone to read the FULL article, its small but is a good adequate coverage of the matter at hand.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 May 2010 12:42

Indeed compared to the fanboy rant we were subjected too and the biased views we have seen in this thread , the Gen informed opinion breathes fresh air into the whole debate he has nicely summed up to quote the wise Gen sahab.

At the end of it all, the Arjun remains a good standard design, extremely badly executed so far which can still be rescued but only if the ministry of defence can enforce accountability on the DRDO and the Ordnance Factory Board for technological upgradation, design rectification and enforcement of quality control within a laid down timeframe and as an ongoing process. This did not appear to be the case earlier, when the initial production batch of five tanks were formally handed over to the Army with much fanfare, and then immediately retrieved by the factory after the ceremony to rectify quality shortfalls as demanded by the exasperated users! These and other negative experiences have hardened user cynicism, but all that must become water under the bridge now, and users must accept Arjun as a Mark I version to be upgraded and improved during further production into a Mark II and beyond.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 21 May 2010 12:52

Good god

the tag team missed vina's sarcasm in unison

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 May 2010 13:04

Sanku wrote:
Wow, interesting. I thought Nightwatch was pretty reliable (though to be honest that was the first and only reference to such tactics in 71 that I had heard of as well)

Thanks for the perspective, though I tend to agree with you, I hope you hear back from Nightwatch and the matter is closed once and for all.

Sanku, I think I was not clear enough. I did not reply to Nightwatch but had posted a small analysis on the TSP Thread after the said article was posted. At the expense of repeating myself, this is what a quick reading and analysis revealed:

(a) The only MRL operated by India before Smerch and Pinaka was the BM-21 GRAD. SIPRI Trade registers mention that 200 of these systems were first ordered in 1974 and delivered between 1974-1977. So, I don't know which MRL is the Night Watch report talking about. I've also not seen the mention of same in the Orbat of formations that fought in the Shakargargh Battle.

(b) The only PA Armored Division in the Sector was 6 Armored Division - which was part of PA I Corps (other formation under it was 17 Division). PA I Corps was the GHQ Strategic Reserve and did not even enter into the battle. The formation that opposed Indian I Corps advance into the Shakargargh Bulge was the 8 (I) Armored Brigade - reserve formation of PA I Corps.

So, I don't know which 2 armored brigades of PA were destroyed and by which MBRL of Indian Army.

If IA had managed to destroy two armored brigades, the story would have been completely different. The whole of PA front in Sialkot sector would have collapsed. IA could have outflanked the Lahore and Southern Kashmir defences and we would have had Bangladesh repeated on Western Front as well - or Nimitz would have loosened it's airwing on India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 May 2010 13:10

the warsaw pack "deep battle" concept also seems all about getting into the rear areas of the enemy and cutting off flow of supplies and reinforcements to the front lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deep_battle

The theory moved away from the Clausewitzian principle of battlefield destruction and the annihilation of enemy field forces, which obsessed the Germans. Instead deep operations stressed the ability to create conditions whereby the enemy loses the will to mount an operational defence. An example of this theory in practice is Operation Uranus in 1942. The Red Army in Stalingrad was allocated enough forces to hold the German Sixth Army in the city, causing attrition which would force it to weaken its flanks to secure its centre. Meanwhile reserves were built up, which then struck at the weak flanks. The Soviets broke through the tactical zones of the German flanks and exploited the operational depth, closing the pocket at Kalach-na-Donu.

The operation left the German tactical zones largely intact. But by occupying the German operational depth and preventing their retreat the German Army forces were isolated. Instead of reducing the pocket immediately, the Soviets tightened their grip on the enemy forces, preferring to let the enemy weaken and surrender, starve him completely, or a combination of these methods before delivering a final destructive assault. In this way the Soviet tactical and operational method opted to besiege the enemy into submission, rather than destroy it physically and immediately.

In this sense, the Soviet deep battle, in the words of one historian, “was radically different to the nebulous ‘blitzkrieg’” method, although it produced similar if more strategically impressive results.[31]

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 May 2010 13:15

can cold start be abandoned or suitably modified for efficient "deep battle" ideology?

we'd need a heavy mechanisation of troops to accompany indep armour brigades our own version of the "motor rifle division"

in any case, we need to do it anyway - this has been hanging on a limb for 2 decades now. we have strike corps that are not fully mechanized let alone any other formation !

the fond hopes of not needing to innovate and invest is dead as its amply clear PLA is building / has built the infra to mass mechaized forces
near sikkim and ladakh and make lightning quick and decisive moves when the day of the dog dawns.
the fond hopes of PA being starved is dead as americans are busy supplying them tons and tons of goodies like 150 M109A5 howitzers same as
the US army themselves use and the pakis tank modernization and al-khalid production is going along smoothly for many years now while people had been sitting on their rear ends running down arjun and avadi unable to perform full rate t90 production. less said about our tank upg prog the better.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 May 2010 13:21

Singha wrote:can cold start be abandoned or suitably modified for efficient "deep battle" ideology?

we'd need a heavy mechanisation of troops to accompany indep armour brigades our own version of the "motor rifle division"

in any case, we need to do it anyway - this has been hanging on a limb for 2 decades now. we have strike corps that are not fully mechanized let alone any other formation !

It is in a way similar to Deep Battle Concept (DBC).

DBC concept called for Forward Detachments to breach the German Defences and establish the bridgeheads. Then, the OMG would pour through these bridgeheads and take the battle to enemy's rear. These Forward Detachments were combined arms formations and oriented for maneuver warfare.

Compare this with IBG and Strike Corps.

But as you've already said - where are those damn tanks and AFV and SP Arty? Where is the MBRL? The 100 gun concept?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 May 2010 15:06

vivek_ahuja wrote:Agreed. However, note that IA artillery is a different threat assessment altogether, but which does not change the nature of the mathermatics involved in any way. That is, tanks are still tough targets even for artillery when presented as a unit away from the system. By this I mean that the tanks are tough targets when you ignore the supply system behind and around them. You bombard an area with rockets and more often than not the tanks will come out unscathed, but their supply and support systems can be destroyed. As a whole, however, their long term ability to sustain and survive and initiate combat operations is severely degraded (not destroyed, mind you, since it only requires a new supply system to make up for the losses and rearm the tanks). On the short term, their ability to provide resistance to an IA assualt remains unchanged when considered tank-to-tank.

Tanks are tough and that is what it is suppose to be , but is any tank tough enough to beat a tandem heat warhead ?

I mean look at DRDO own claim about Nag ( supported by IA ) , look at claims from similar manufacturer around they all claim the same that Tanks with ERA can be defeated by Tandem Warhead , all modern anti tank systems from the cheap gun fired Reflex to anti-tanks system have these. Heck even the newest RPG these days have the capability to immobilize a heavy tank if not kill it.

What you say is true if one use the normal rocket or 155 mm round where the probability that a tough Tank can survive unless its a direct hit is very high and as you have rightly mentioned the light skinned vehical ( logistics ) can still be severely affected

have they been? I was not aware of that status within the IA.

indeed they are the Smerch has such a warhead link , DRDO developing anti-tank bomblet for Prithvi and Pinaka , IA is already scouting for Smart 155 mm round.

Needless to mention the new type of anti-tank missile like Kornet , Nag and Milan-2T have the similar warhead. Plus you have a much better situational awareness of the battlefield with the availability of UAV and micro-UAV.

What is the dispersal area of such sub-munitions when the artillery round deploys overhead as opposed to a typical deployment area of a Battalion worth of tanks and support units and also when they are on the move?

You are assuming that these are non the intelligent sub-munitions and hence the dispersal area viz a viz mobility provided by tanks will help the tank win

quoting by example, the deployment of much larger concentrations of AH-64s in the first gulf war ahead of advancing M1s is a case study. The vast majority of the Iraqi firepower destroyed on the ground were in fact first found to be relatively intact when encountered by lead elements of the advancing M1s with the odd battalion or company sized unit being destroyed on average by the Apaches. The point being that over such a vast front as found in that war (and much larger in our context) so that by the time period in which the ground elements advanced to contact, the attacking helicopters had very little time in which to destroy front-line combat units. At the same time, however, the apaches wreaked havoc on the supply units deep behind the front-lines while combat was ongoing at the FEBA so that reinforcements could not reach the front. This was of course because of the movement deployment of the approaching supply and reinforcement units was far more amenable to airborne attack than the dug in front-line units maneuvering to contact. As such, in the Indian context, the deployment of attack helicopters in the quantities that we would have would yield much better results when attacking soft-skinned rear-echelon units and should be used for front-line support only when extraordinary circumstances (such as a friendly unit being overrun or intelligence based tank lager found etc) present themselves. We simply must leave the IA Tank Corps to carry its own weight on the FEBA if the overall objective is to win the war and not fight "wars for a ceasefire" as is famous in the Indian sub-continent.

What you say has a point , but it is also a fact that Iraq lost the tank war equally due bad tactics as much as due to old equipment ( please remember the T-72 provided to Iraq where of 70's and not even to Warsaw standard much less to soviet standards ) , not that they could have won if they had but that is a point that cannot be underestimated when some on quotes the superiority of M1A1 over Iraqi T-72 which undoubtedly was there

There is no point in have having a relative intact firepower , if you cannot fight a co-ordinated war and Iraq ability to fight a co-ordinated war was completely diminished by US and Allies with hard kill and soft kill method. Not to mention the morale was itself quite low.

How do you jam IR based missiles or massed unguided AAA, especially when they are scattered across the battlefield and camouflaged within the fog of war? More importantly, why present this as an added job for the IAF when the massive IA Tank Corps is sitting nearby?

You can spoof the IR missile you can jam them as well there are IR jammers available in the market from the usual suspect , but you can always jam the source of that missile which is most likely to be RF , if you do use an AAA and that to an unguided one then the probability that he may get you is always low if you take into account the the so called fog of war , but if you do have a guided AAA then yes it is a problem but something you can always tackle with CAS ,Arty or even choppers.

You do not expect a zero casualty war for IA , but across the board conventional capability of IA and IAF is far better then what PA can put up and its just getting better for us with new systems in pipeline and the entire arty and attack copper modernisation that is taking place.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 21 May 2010 16:14

[quote="rohitvats]But as you've already said - where are those damn tanks and AFV and SP Arty? Where is the MBRL? The 100 gun concept?[/quote]

The 100-gun concept is DOA in India. And western governments have done their best from letting India acquire the necessary hardware.

At the Bangalore meet 2 years ago, I had given out a paper highlighting the effects of 100-gun vs 60-gun. And why the South African deal was so important to India - it would have enabled us to finally get a decisive conventional edge over Pakistan. And the operative words here are

decisive conventional edge

as well as

finally

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 May 2010 18:19

yes I remember that meeting and your handout. while indian arty deals were stalemated by vested interests for 10+ years on orders of their paymasters, the conventional gap with pakistan was closed and overtaken in areas like tanks and SP guns.

this was done to make the pakis more secure and even to harbour ambitions of some limited offensives now to take the fight into our turf.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 May 2010 19:09

abhischekcc wrote:[quote="rohitvats]But as you've already said - where are those damn tanks and AFV and SP Arty? Where is the MBRL? The 100 gun concept?

The 100-gun concept is DOA in India. And western governments have done their best from letting India acquire the necessary hardware.

[/quote][/quote]
How is that? Which guns were denied to us? Western govts. may have done their best in denying technology to us in many other areas, but AFA artillery is concerned, we dug our own hole and jumped into it.

vic · Post by **vic** » 21 May 2010 19:18

I think that South Koreans are producing MTU 893 under license for their K-2. If they can get the license, why can't we? why do we need to import "huge initial batches?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 May 2010 19:24

vic wrote:I think that South Koreans are producing MTU 893 under license for their K-2. If they can get the license, why can't we? why do we need to import "huge initial batches?

Because the Germans denied it to us. Even for direct import. We were stuck with the older version. Remember, SoKo is a US poodle.

vic · Post by **vic** » 21 May 2010 21:12

nachiket wrote:
vic wrote:I think that South Koreans are producing MTU 893 under license for their K-2. If they can get the license, why can't we? why do we need to import "huge initial batches?
Because the Germans denied it to us. Even for direct import. We were stuck with the older version. Remember, SoKo is a US poodle.

I am talking about "now". Why can we not take license to manufacture mtu 838 or 883 or 893 for Arjuns rather than importing it. Pls note that Mtu "was" offering 883 tropicalised in delhi def expo.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 May 2010 21:38

NRao wrote: (After all we are looking at things in 2025ish. Add 15 years to your life and imagine.) (IA is supposed to get a dedicated sat in about 3 years - so also the IAF, IN sat goes up in about a year.)

I did add 15 years and makes me sick to my stomach to see 1600 T90s and 1000 upgraded T72s at 5 crore each behind the Futuristic FMBT tank as second and third rung tanks.

I mean what is this hatred for Arjun that they are ready to upgrade T72s (which according to Austin himself were "rammed down their throat"). But won't scrap them and order 1000 Arjuns instead. This way the country can build more componants indigineously.

The right thing to do is: Stop producing anymore t90s 500 are enough and start scrapping T72s or sell/gift them to Srilanka/african countries. Instead place the order of 2000 Arjuns and work on Arjun Mk III as FMBT.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2010 21:52

^^^

well.

I am sure there are those that feel that the Arjun was "rammed down" too.

The dynamics of Indian politics is nothing to wonder - it is as sure as the rise of the sun.

However, from what I have read (because of the "wish list") I am inclined to believe that "events" will force (as I have stated so often in my past few posts) the issue. I am fairly confident that neither of the two Arjun "order"s were because of logic - i am fairly sure that some higher up has intervened (among plenty of others intervening).

BUT, I am inclined to believe that this phase is behind us. Talks of T-90/Arjun/Arjun Mark-2s will be irrelevant one way or the other. Offers made, accepted or not accepted will become a thing of the past. Decisions (IMVVVVHO) will be based on events that no politician or a DGMF will be able to control - they will try and influence, etc, but they will not be able to have the same influence as in the past.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2010 21:53

I did add 15 years and makes me sick to my stomach

Why? If I may ask (understandably posting on the internet has its own dynamics).

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 May 2010 21:54

Manish_Sharma wrote:
The right thing to do is: Stop producing anymore t90s 500 are enough and start scrapping T72s or sell/gift them to Srilanka/african countries. Instead place the order of 2000 Arjuns and work on Arjun Mk III as FMBT.

??

That would be a huge waste of perfectly good money and perfectly good tanks. Not to mention it would create a HUGE hole in the number of front line tanks available. You can order 100 Arjuns a year + T 90s at 100 a year + upgraded T 72 and yet NOT or barely meet the target of 3000 top end tanks at the end of 2020 This still leaves 2000 old T 55 and Vijayanatas to replace.

To do what you ask for we need to produce 300+ Arjun's a year (even if assume that GoI is willing to basically throw away all the money already spent on tech transfer for T 90 -- remember these are being made in India and T 72s line etc etc)

Now while that is a nice wish, it will happen just about as soon as both the critters in the picture that Austin posted, sprout wings and fly away.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 May 2010 21:54

if the germans are taking the lead of the eurofighter deal, they should be kicked out if we ask for the newer tank engine and its denied.

if they are ready to sell the EJ200 what is so strategic about the tank engine? or is it hidden pull from unkil?

due to less order and unsure future of arjun I dont think anyone had asked recently

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 May 2010 22:08

Kick the Germans because of ......

Kick the US because of .........

Russians no need to kick, they will self-kick, because of .........

South Africans ....................

Swedes .......................

UK, who cares.

Japanese will sink anyways.

...........

Cool. I like that idea. Neti, neti, neti ............. only Indians stand.

(Doing what I do not know.)

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 22 May 2010 12:36

Russia to start licensed production of foreign military equipment

Russia will launch in July the licensed production of thermal imagers developed by a French firm as part of efforts to gain access to advanced foreign technologies, a Russian daily said on Friday.
A plant in the city of Vologda in central Russia will assemble the Thales-developed Catherine FC thermal imaging cameras for T-90 tanks in service with the Russian army.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 May 2010 14:06

looks like they have also realized how far they have fallen behind in EO and not ashamed to seek foreign collabs now from friendly franco-germans-italians.

they have patched up with ukraine to revive the old russo-ukrainian missile/aerospace brains trust design shops.

I would expect israeli deals too - EO, EW, UAV, tank technologies, seekers, counter terrorist eqpt and PGMs strike me as areas they could get help from israel.