Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I suspect 1600 T90 will be produced by 2030 at the rate which we produce tanks like say 50/annum.
key thing is how many are going to be delivered in next 10 yrs, from where (avadi or russia?) -vs- how many arjuns can sneak in.
key thing is how many are going to be delivered in next 10 yrs, from where (avadi or russia?) -vs- how many arjuns can sneak in.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
This stationery tank freighter snuck up suddenly upon me as my train passed it https://picasaweb.google.com/1133537813 ... directlink. By the time I could retrieve my camera from my bag, rush to the coach door, I had no time to check camera settings which were on full manual mode. So , I just pointed my camera and hoped for the best. I could squeeze of 3 shots before the freighter faded in the distance.
The photos are about 2 hours old.
That looks like a BFAT. Judging from the muck on the track and wheels, the tanks have been put to some use in muddy terrain. Perhaps, returning from an exercise?
The freighter was hauled by a single BZA (Vijaywada) WAG-7, was in SR territory headed further south from what I could gather.
The photos are about 2 hours old.
That looks like a BFAT. Judging from the muck on the track and wheels, the tanks have been put to some use in muddy terrain. Perhaps, returning from an exercise?
The freighter was hauled by a single BZA (Vijaywada) WAG-7, was in SR territory headed further south from what I could gather.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Nice photograph rahulm , can any one id the tank , is it T-72 or T-55 ? looks more like T-72 to me.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Looks battered lot, look at the damage on the right top side
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Yes T-72.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
rahulm, I'm surprised that the main gun has not been covered (the exit point). As are the IR lights on the turret. And judging from the fact that only tracks have mud on them and tanks per se are 'clean', the mud could have been from the loading point.
Can you share where exactly was this taken? Thanx.
Can you share where exactly was this taken? Thanx.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
- Location: From Frontier India
- Contact:
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
^^^^ I assume the tanks are facing rear. Even if front facing, the speed of the wagons will be hardly 40 kmph. Won't hurt, tanks move faster.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Main guns on some tanks were covered. I think every alternate main gun was covered under a tarpaulin which I think were also used by tank crews as accommodation.
The uncovered IR kit also surprised me. Photo taken southbound a few kms before Nellore.
Unless the train had an engine on both sides, in which case the wagons could have been headed northbound too, pretty sure the main gun is facing direction of travel.
I can't make out the formation sign from the photo. Perhaps, someone with good photo editing skills may have better luck.
The uncovered IR kit also surprised me. Photo taken southbound a few kms before Nellore.
Unless the train had an engine on both sides, in which case the wagons could have been headed northbound too, pretty sure the main gun is facing direction of travel.
I can't make out the formation sign from the photo. Perhaps, someone with good photo editing skills may have better luck.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
^^^
Arjun will stand up to the great heritage of this regiment75 Armoured Regiment is the only Indian armoured regiment to be raised on foreign soil during the 1971 Indo-Pak war at Gadra road (now in Pakistan)on 12 March 1972, he added.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
But you see the Packis are still buying (or rather getting) TOWs. Also AFAIK it also cant defend against IR or MMR ATGMs.Rahul M wrote:all our adversary forces will eventually get out of the wire guided ATGM business, so that's a red herring.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
In the picture, has the tank expended one of its smoke grenades?
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I came across an interesting study on the 1991 Gulf War analysing results of the fight between US Amour and Iraqi Armour. I am not sure whether this has been read so I am posting the link below.
http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html
The title of the study is as follows
Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict
By Stephen Biddle
From International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996)
Best regards.
http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html
The title of the study is as follows
Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict
By Stephen Biddle
From International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996)
Best regards.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 15 Dec 2010 12:24
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Noticed some other funny things - no ERA blocks, no HMG mount, The IR searchlight is besides the main gun & open, and the other searchlight is were the HMG should be. Even in their stables, the manin gun opening are covered - are these being retired?rohitvats wrote:rahulm, I'm surprised that the main gun has not been covered (the exit point). As are the IR lights on the turret. And judging from the fact that only tracks have mud on them and tanks per se are 'clean', the mud could have been from the loading point.
Can you share where exactly was this taken? Thanx.
Last edited by schowdhuri on 14 Mar 2011 15:26, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Retirement looks like....they are quite meticulous with equipment which is not condemned......
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Or going to Avadi for upgrade program?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
An interesting read which contradicts the widely held belief that the Iraqis were wiped out by air support and the coalition forces only had to walk over them. There was intense ground action and tank vs. tank combat in the 1st Gulf War wherein the Iraqi T-72s were smashed by the M1s/ Challengers. The land battle accounts are described in more detail in the book "Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War" by Rick Atkinson.Ashutosh Malik wrote:I came across an interesting study on the 1991 Gulf War analysing results of the fight between US Amour and Iraqi Armour. I am not sure whether this has been read so I am posting the link below.
http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html
The title of the study is as follows
Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict
By Stephen Biddle
From International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996)
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
You mean to say that despite overwhelming air superiority and massive air support. Complete long range artillery domination. About 30 years of technological superiority in Armor and massive numerical advantages --vonkabra wrote: An interesting read which contradicts the widely held belief that the Iraqis were wiped out by air support and the coalition forces only had to walk over them.
The Americans still made heavy weather of the fight with rag tag Iraqi troops?
Tcchhh. No wonder their heroic movies of this war are about friendly fire incidents.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
But did they make heavy weather? The figures seem to suggest otherwise.Sanku wrote:You mean to say that despite --vonkabra wrote: An interesting read which contradicts the widely held belief that the Iraqis were wiped out by air support and the coalition forces only had to walk over them.
The Americans still made heavy weather of the Iraqi troops?
Tcchhh. No wonder their heroic movies of this war are about friendly fire incidents.
I thought there was more to learn here than this being just about Americans and their films or lack of them.
Technology and Training together made all the difference and how, according to the author, lack of either component would have made a fairly substantial difference in the scale of attacker's losses.
And, therefore how both are important for us as well.
Best regards.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Well that question has to be asked to those who think thusAshutosh Malik wrote: But did they make heavy weather?
There was intense ground action and tank vs. tank combat in the 1st Gulf War wherein the Iraqi T-72s were smashed by the M1s/ Challengers.
Sorry Ashutosh, but what figures? Such as these?Ashutosh wrote: The figures seem to suggest otherwise.
Between 600 and 2000 surviving Iraqi tanks and 610-2100 other armored vehicles actively fought back
With all due respects, there is not much here, all the article says (despite having no clue about what the figures really are)
is that
Wow, really now? No kidding?To account more fully for these properties of the war's conduct and results, I have argued that a nonlinear synergistic interaction between these variables caused the radical outcome of 1991. In particular, the Coalition's advanced technology made it possible to exploit Iraqi mistakes with unprecedented severity, enabling entire Republican Guard divisions to be annihilated in close combat with minimal losses.
That really was a eye opener, especially considering that in 2011 we are discussing an article dated
Some times sarcasm is just plain lost, aint it?From International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996)
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Alternatively, if Iraqis hadn't made the mistakes they made, maybe because of lack of training and therefore lack of skills (according to the author Iraqis did put up a fight) the scale of difference of losses wouldn't have been as lopsided.
The author in fact also gives an example of Marine divisions that were equipped mainly with 1960s-era M60A1 tanks with neither the thermal sights, 120 mm guns, DU ammunition, nor composite armor of the Army's M1A1s, and yet they also suffered miniscule losses, less than even those of the Army as per the author - so just the technology wasn't the difference.
The difference in the Technology and Skills in favour of US forces not just at 73 Easting, and the mistakes on the Iraqi side, seem to have made the compounded difference in losses possible.
Best regards.
The author in fact also gives an example of Marine divisions that were equipped mainly with 1960s-era M60A1 tanks with neither the thermal sights, 120 mm guns, DU ammunition, nor composite armor of the Army's M1A1s, and yet they also suffered miniscule losses, less than even those of the Army as per the author - so just the technology wasn't the difference.
The difference in the Technology and Skills in favour of US forces not just at 73 Easting, and the mistakes on the Iraqi side, seem to have made the compounded difference in losses possible.
Best regards.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Well, Sanku, since you are the expert, you must be right.Sanku wrote:Well that question has to be asked to those who think thusAshutosh Malik wrote: But did they make heavy weather?
There was intense ground action and tank vs. tank combat in the 1st Gulf War wherein the Iraqi T-72s were smashed by the M1s/ Challengers.Sorry Ashutosh, but what figures? Such as these?Ashutosh wrote: The figures seem to suggest otherwise.
Between 600 and 2000 surviving Iraqi tanks and 610-2100 other armored vehicles actively fought back
With all due respects, there is not much here, all the article says (despite having no clue about what the figures really are)
is that
Wow, really now? No kidding?To account more fully for these properties of the war's conduct and results, I have argued that a nonlinear synergistic interaction between these variables caused the radical outcome of 1991. In particular, the Coalition's advanced technology made it possible to exploit Iraqi mistakes with unprecedented severity, enabling entire Republican Guard divisions to be annihilated in close combat with minimal losses.
That really was a eye opener, especially considering that in 2011 we are discussing an article dated
Some times sarcasm is just plain lost, aint it?From International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996)
I am not an expert. I can just quote from a study that seems to be an interesting one and seems to analyse the results of the war in more than the typical "Americans/ badass/ etc. etc" balderdash. And seemed to bring out certain aspects that are relevant even if we are talking 15 years the study.
Are you also implying that there is nothing to learn from previous wars?
Maybe others can also throw some light on why the difference between American losses and the Iraqi losses occurred. And therefore what lessons we can learn.
As for the sarcasm, I thought you were being rather flippant about the films aspect. That of course is your choice. And I have no axe to grind either way. I don't hold either the American or the Iraqi flag - bottomline is what Indians can learn from the mistakes others made.
Best regards.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
First of all IMVHO there is no merit what so ever in discussing a 1996 article, since everything that has to be discussed has been discussed. However since this pointless discussion is better than the other pointless discussion which normally happens on this thread, let me play along for a while.Ashutosh Malik wrote:Alternatively, if Iraqis hadn't made the mistakes they made, maybe because of lack of training and therefore lack of skills (according to the author Iraqis did put up a fight) the scale of difference of losses wouldn't have been as lopsided.
Now, lets be clear here, the Iraqi's were hopeless outmatched in every possible way, Numerically, in the range of forces arrayed against them. training and technical level of weapons, this much the article agrees with.
Thus the outcome was a open and shut case in a frontal fight, post this, there remains very little learning, rather than stating the obvious in fanciful words. The conclusion can be summed up in one line, "The whole range of advantages that the US led forces enjoyed combined well with each other and gave poor untrained Iraqi's a walloping" -- i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
I mean now, did they have to write so much to point that out? Even in 1996.
IMVHO the article also aims to achieve some amount of special behavior or heroism in this hopelessly obviously one sided battle and to show that it wasnt because the Iraqi's ran away, it quotes such solid numbers as
Not a very compelling exactness of odds wont you think?Between 600 and 2000 surviving Iraqi tanks and 610-2100 other armored vehicles actively fought back
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Certainly not, that part is addressed in the post above.Ashutosh Malik wrote:
Are you also implying that there is nothing to learn from previous wars?
However do note that I am just a rookie, albiet just that I am wary of the US articles restating in words how "we won because we fought well and not because it would be a miracle to lose in such situation"
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
***Deleted Relink it later***
Last edited by Austin on 14 Mar 2011 22:37, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Guys,
SARCASTIC MODE ON
All the articles that state the T 72 lost to the M1A1 are lies. To preserve the Khans H&D. The T 72 kicked ass with a million M1A1s destroyed and a billion damaged. Suffering no losses to them selves. The USAF did not destroy a single Iraqi tank or APC. The Campaign was a misirable failure.
The Iraqis did not loose the ground campaign in 100 hrs flat. They kept on fighting and killed gazallions of US army men.
SARCASTIC MODE OFF
JMT
SARCASTIC MODE ON
All the articles that state the T 72 lost to the M1A1 are lies. To preserve the Khans H&D. The T 72 kicked ass with a million M1A1s destroyed and a billion damaged. Suffering no losses to them selves. The USAF did not destroy a single Iraqi tank or APC. The Campaign was a misirable failure.
The Iraqis did not loose the ground campaign in 100 hrs flat. They kept on fighting and killed gazallions of US army men.
SARCASTIC MODE OFF
JMT
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
There!! Fixed it for you.Pratyush wrote:Guys,
TROLL MODE ON SINCE I DONT HAVE REMOTELY MEANINGFUL DATA POINT TO THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION
Enjoy.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Indian Army deploys first indigenous tanks along Pakistan border
http://gulfnews.com/news/world/india/in ... r-1.776087
http://gulfnews.com/news/world/india/in ... r-1.776087
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Try and read the article before you comment on its worth.Sanku wrote: I mean now, did they have to write so much to point that out? Even in 1996.
This is what the article says:
Yet at the Army's National Training Center in the Mohave Desert, literally hundreds of battles have been fought between M1A1-equipped U.S. Army units and (simulated) T72-equipped OPFOR (or "opposition force") opponents, and the T72-equipped OPFOR almost always wins.(49)
Its a very nice analysis of what they think should have happened (given historical ratios of attackers vs defenders etc) vs what did happen.
There is a difference between an analysis and a belief and the article is the former.
~Ashish
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
The above war gaming result between MIA1 and T-72 is what I found very interesting. And even if there is some hyperbole in the above aspect, it does suggest that nations and armies that may not be as technologically advanced as the attacker (US in this case), there could be scenarios where the attacker could be given a relatively bloody nose. Again, I am not an expert. Better people may have more to add and critique.Misraji wrote:
Yet at the Army's National Training Center in the Mohave Desert, literally hundreds of battles have been fought between M1A1-equipped U.S. Army units and (simulated) T72-equipped OPFOR (or "opposition force") opponents, and the T72-equipped OPFOR almost always wins.(49)
Its a very nice analysis of what they think should have happened (given historical ratios of attackers vs defenders etc) vs what did happen.
There is a difference between an analysis and a belief and the article is the former.
~Ashish
Best regards.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
^^^ if I am not wrong then that is what happened to Indian Armored attack in 1965 wherein a largely Sherman reliant pakistani defenders were able to hold of the Indian Centurions even when India had the technological as well as the numerical (?) edge in this case. But then it could also be a case of poor decision making on the part of Indian planners. Maybe guru's can elaborate more.
Hence the argument that for a successful attack one needs stuff that is markedly superior to those defending than just being somewhat superior.
Hence the argument that for a successful attack one needs stuff that is markedly superior to those defending than just being somewhat superior.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
- Location: From Frontier India
- Contact:
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
90 points for upgrade has been passed off as 90 defects by some people.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Sanku wrote: There!! Fixed it for you.
Enjoy.
I knew when I posted that only you will respond.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Very incorrect. Pakistan being part of SEATO and CENTO resulted it in being given significant numbers of M48 Patton as aid. Most of the front line units were armed with Pattons with some second line units with ex WW2 Shermans. India too had mix of AMX13, Centurions and lots of ex WW2 Shermans. The Indian attack was halted by Pattons while the Pakistani attack was halted by Centurions.Gurneesh wrote:^^^ if I am not wrong then that is what happened to Indian Armored attack in 1965 wherein a largely Sherman reliant pakistani defenders were able to hold of the Indian Centurions even when India had the technological as well as the numerical (?) edge in this case. But then it could also be a case of poor decision making on the part of Indian planners. Maybe guru's can elaborate more.
Hence the argument that for a successful attack one needs stuff that is markedly superior to those defending than just being somewhat superior.
The reason for the failure of both Indian and Pakistani offensives was complete lack of operational proficiency at Divisional HQ, Corps HQ and higher levels in managing armoured thrusts. HQ both sides could not manage simultaneous multi regiment multi pronged operations in the same sector.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
That is why no amount of simulation can match the real thing, whether it is testing a nuclear fusion based weapon or tactics.Misraji wrote:Yet at the Army's National Training Center in the Mohave Desert, literally hundreds of battles have been fought between M1A1-equipped U.S. Army units and (simulated) T72-equipped OPFOR (or "opposition force") opponents, and the T72-equipped OPFOR almost always wins.(49)
Clearly the simulated tests were testing the conditions under which US and USSR/Rus Armored columns would slug it out, US army does not train to beat Iraqi's, it trains to beat Rus.
That article is trying to find some virtue in what was a foregone conclusion.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
So I am the official troll hunter for this thread? TxsPratyush wrote:Sanku wrote: There!! Fixed it for you.
Enjoy.
I knew when I posted that only you will respond.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Video of a TOW missile destroying a tactically loaded T-72
Couple of things in this video struck me (no pun intended):
- No-contact missile strike -- are debates over armor configuration overrated? Even when a missile like the Nag hits, its kinetic energy could probably flatten a tank regardless of what armor is deployed.
- T-72 destruction -- that tank just exploded out, rather than imploding in. Is this a result of ammunition being cooked off?
Couple of things in this video struck me (no pun intended):
- No-contact missile strike -- are debates over armor configuration overrated? Even when a missile like the Nag hits, its kinetic energy could probably flatten a tank regardless of what armor is deployed.
- T-72 destruction -- that tank just exploded out, rather than imploding in. Is this a result of ammunition being cooked off?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
My dear good sir,Gurneesh wrote:^^^ if I am not wrong then that is what happened to Indian Armored attack in 1965 wherein a largely Sherman reliant pakistani defenders were able to hold of the Indian Centurions even when India had the technological as well as the numerical (?) edge in this case. But then it could also be a case of poor decision making on the part of Indian planners. Maybe guru's can elaborate more.
Hence the argument that for a successful attack one needs stuff that is markedly superior to those defending than just being somewhat superior.
The 1965 war stands out for the stoic defence by Indian Armor (very well supported by Infantry) in the Battle of Assal Uttar......where every possible advantage lay with the Pakistanis but they lost their nerve. It was classical case of bad handling of a large and complex formation like an Armored Division. To put the record straight, initially, elements of the 4 Infantry Divison were also found wanting when first contact was made in the Khemkaran sector - but the leadership (GOC 4th Infantry Division) pulled the whole damn thing together and fought an outstanding battle. Full marks for Brigadier Theograj for his handling of 2 (I) Armored Brigade.
As for the Indian armor in Shakargarh bulge, as tsarkar has pointed out, it was lack of exposure of handling large scale formations in a fluid scenario and fog of war (along with over cautious approach) which prevented us from advancing and winning the war in this sector. Maj.General RS Sparrow did not know that he was facing a lone Cavalry Regiment of PA nor did the CO of 25 Cavalry Regiment knew he was facing the Indian 1st Armored Division.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Probably uses tandem warhead, the actual payload exploding within the tankSRay wrote:Video of a TOW missile destroying a tactically loaded T-72
Couple of things in this video struck me (no pun intended):
- No-contact missile strike -- are debates over armor configuration overrated? Even when a missile like the Nag hits, its kinetic energy could probably flatten a tank regardless of what armor is deployed.
- T-72 destruction -- that tank just exploded out, rather than imploding in. Is this a result of ammunition being cooked off?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
^^^It has a tandemn warhead and this missile uses the overfly attack mode ("fly-over shootdown mode") as opposed to direct contact.
The tandem warheads are fired downwards once the sensor senses the position of the armor below.
Check the TOW-2B layout here:http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/tow8.html and compare this with placement of warhead in TOW-2A here: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/tow7.html
The warheads are so placed to direct the explosive shaped charges in a particular direction. (forward in case of TOW-2A and downward/oblique in case of TOW-2B).
The tandem warheads are fired downwards once the sensor senses the position of the armor below.
Check the TOW-2B layout here:http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/tow8.html and compare this with placement of warhead in TOW-2A here: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tow/tow7.html
The warheads are so placed to direct the explosive shaped charges in a particular direction. (forward in case of TOW-2A and downward/oblique in case of TOW-2B).