Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Mar 2011 13:49

Rohit,

Nice explaination.

Just to add what Rohit has said, Bill 2 ATGM from Sweeden was one of the first missiles to impliment the Overfly top attack profiles.

THX.

koti · Post by **koti** » 15 Mar 2011 13:54

krishnan wrote:Probably uses tandem warhead, the actual payload exploding within the tank

Tandem warheads do not explode inside tanks.
The first warhead just offsets the ERA blocks and later the second warhead(Bigger) attacks the tanks outer shell.
Often, the second charge will be a shaped charge.

Also note, if anything is capable of penetrating the armor(turret) of the tank, it is mostly sufficient to neutralize the crew and equipment. There is no point in going for one more round of Diwali inside the tank.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 15 Mar 2011 21:17

Sanku wrote: That is why no amount of simulation can match the real thing, whether it is testing a nuclear fusion based weapon or tactics.

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.

Read the document first.
All this banal talk of no-amount-of-simulation and nitpicking of Russia-vs-Iraq is such an obvious attempt at salvaging a lost argument.

Khans did what any intelligent nation would have done.
They analyzed the situation before the war, they analyzed the situation after the war and they tried to see where they went right/wrong.

This "foregone conclusion" is not even claimed by the victor, in this case. In their battles against T-72 OPFORs they lost.
Not sure, how you come to that conclusion.

The 73 Easting Project is a collaborative study conducted jointly by the independent Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the U.S. Army. Its purpose was to develop a data base of unprecedented detail on the conduct of a single battle (the "Battle of 73 Easting"), then to use modern computer simulation technology to represent that data in a "virtual re-creation" of the minute-to-minute activities of each participating tank, armored vehicle, truck, or infantry team.(14) The resulting data provides an important resource in itself. But the unique strength of the 73 Easting analysis is the power that computer simulation provides to conduct controlled experiments by changing key characteristics of the historical event, then re-fighting the simulated battle and observing directly the effects on the putative outcome. This makes it possible to test alternative cause-and-effect hypotheses with especially thorough, systematic counterfactual analysis.(15)

That is an amazing example of application of science to making decisions.
Rather than "foregone conclusions" ....

Sigh ... Don't know what frustrates me more ... Illiteracy or Educated illiterates ....
Anyway, my last post on what is now changing-goalposts operation on your part.

~Ashish

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 22:20

Austin wrote:***Deleted Relink it later***

Got it in the meanwhile. Excellent document, very indepth.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Mar 2011 22:26

Misraji wrote: Khans did what any intelligent nation would have done.

Well that settles it then, hopefully those emulating their intelligence would show marginal intelligence themselves and not discuss a 1996 document, particularly one which seems to have no other purpose than to show why despite obvious and and overwhelming advantage, winning against a starved rag tag army was a big deal.

And on what basis pray? Because their own computer simulation showed them that.

Why am I not impressed? By either the article or those who went ga-ga for it?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Mar 2011 22:56

Sanku wrote:
Austin wrote:***Deleted Relink it later***
Got it in the meanwhile. Excellent document, very indepth.

If you can read russian this is really an excellent and recent book on T-90 , more like T-80 verus T-90 and why the latter was chosen as MBT over former by Land Forces , well atleast you will enjoy the pictures if you cant read russian link

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 15 Mar 2011 23:20

Newest Russian Weapon Inferior to NATO/Chinese Standard: Russian Army Chief

LINK
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110315/163016351.html

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Mar 2011 23:31

He said that Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million rubles (over $4 million) per unit.

"It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards [Germany's main battle tanks] with this money," Postnikov said.

ouch !

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 15 Mar 2011 23:41

Rahul M wrote:
He said that Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million rubles (over $4 million) per unit.

"It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards [Germany's main battle tanks] with this money," Postnikov said.
ouch !

Bahaha...as time goes by it just gets easier and easier to point out what a load of sh*t the t-90, i mean the T-72 XX, is compared to our arjun.

manum · Post by **manum** » 15 Mar 2011 23:49

RoyG wrote:"Bahaha...as time goes by it just gets easier and easier to point out what a load of sh*t the t-90, i mean the T-72 XX, is compared to our arjun.

I would have liked it to be a good tank i.e. "T-90" at least we could say we defeated a world class tank.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Mar 2011 00:52

bah humbug he was paid to say that

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 16 Mar 2011 02:37

Austin wrote: If you can read russian this is really an excellent and recent book on T-90 , more like T-80 verus T-90 and why the latter was chosen as MBT over former by Land Forces , well atleast you will enjoy the pictures if you cant read russian link

Oye oye ..... Recent? Excellent? ....Stay up with the times ....
T-90, sorry, T-72XX, "fail to meet the standards that exist in NATO and even China" ....

Ooh boy ....

~Ashish

Mohit A · Post by **Mohit A** » 16 Mar 2011 05:02

Rahul M wrote:
He said that Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million rubles (over $4 million) per unit.

"It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards [Germany's main battle tanks] with this money," Postnikov said.
ouch !

According to wikipedia leopard tank costs US$5.74+ million (2007) per unit compared to that Arjun costs US$3.8 million (that too small orders of 124 ask for a 1000 and see those numbers falling).

The man is lookin for a better and cheaper option..Ask DRDO to give him a presentation on arjun mk-II..

..Imagine Arjun the MBT for Russian Army..

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 16 Mar 2011 06:08

Mohit bhai, we think alike!

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 16 Mar 2011 07:24

pandyan wrote:^^^ hey..we can even import it back!

Very clever my friend. I think you have found the perfect way to persuade IA to field Arjuns in huge nos!

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 16 Mar 2011 07:59

There is more simple method. Name it T 91. there is will be orders for few thousand. Problem is we need to arrange for chai pani also.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Mar 2011 08:04

..Imagine Arjun the MBT for Russian Army..

That indeed, seriously, is a very good idea.

Pay for the FGFA with Arjuns. Arjuns instead of bananas?

Win-WIN.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Mar 2011 08:33

soutikghosh wrote:Newest Russian Weapon Inferior to NATO/Chinese Standard: Russian Army Chief

LINK
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110315/163016351.html

He is speaking to his audience which is Parliament Body on Defence and aiming for higher.

And if he can get 3 Leo each costing $ 6million for the cost of single T-90 which cost $4 million he should simply buy it

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 16 Mar 2011 08:41

Wow! The fanboys don't give up do they!!! Everybody else is wrong except their beloved T-90!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Mar 2011 08:52

Yeah when the bubble burst and the context of that statement is put up then no one wants to hear it

I still say 3 Leo for 1 T-90 best deal , like X'mas bonanza

BTW he also mentioned in the same meeting the next heavy tank will be 65T and will have 125 mm MG

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 16 Mar 2011 08:55

Austin wrote:
And if he can get 3 Leo each costing $ 6million for the cost of single T-90 which cost $4 million he should simply buy it

Actually if you include the 'sunk costs' that they would have put into establishing the line and then buying only 250 odd, I wouldn't be surprised if the per unit cost was higher than a Leo. The IA (and GOI) certainly helped their cause by ordering 1000 of them.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 16 Mar 2011 08:58

Austin wrote:
And if he can get 3 Leo each costing $ 6million for the cost of single T-90 which cost $4 million he should simply buy it

Actually if you include the 'sunk costs' that they would have put into establishing the line and then buying only 250 odd, I wouldn't be surprised if the per unit cost was higher than a Leo. The IA (and GOI) certainly helped their cause by ordering 1000 of them.

p.s. Incdentally if the Russian army chief was 'aiming higher', why wuld he rank it even inferior to the Chinese stuff? woudn't just NATO do? This is just plain demoralising or the truth

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Mar 2011 09:19

^^ The Russian T-90A is cheaper then the export model , more like $1.2 - 1.5 million ( 2005 price ) , the T-90S is expensive because it comes with TOT and there is good money earned from export so the cost is around $2.5 million ( if you look at the export prices sold to various countries )

Most who followed the army chief knows he is known to make some interesting statement in the past , he didnt add India to the list else this thread would have exploded

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 16 Mar 2011 09:43

soutikghosh wrote:Newest Russian Weapon Inferior to NATO/Chinese Standard: Russian Army Chief

LINK
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110315/163016351.html

So what? Arjun has a lower standard than T-90 in India. Poor army men have to use the trash with 90 odd defects (some ex service men's pan walla told so). Indian Army is still promoting indigenous equipment, this shows how patriotic our army is. Also remeber, Arjun torision bar broke up during an an excercise. And Arjun dosen't has blast deflectors.

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Mar 2011 09:57

Austin you seem to have ignored the fundamental fact that arms unlike commercial goods do not have a MRP hence the 4 million price tag for T-90 which general mentions is for the RuA not India (and no I am not including offsets/ToT and the most expensive component i.e. Catherine TI). In fact if you would have followed the T-90 development programme closely it is IA which was the first ever customer of T-90 with Catherine TI sight RuA followed suit later with a token order and we have burnt a lot of money with integration and getting the french sight working with the T-90. For time being you may spin whatever you may want to from general's observation however you cannot rule out the fact that T-90 is at the end of the day a modified T-72.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Mar 2011 10:14

Negi , assuming he knows what he knows and $4 million is the cost , its still 25- 30 % cheaper then Leo from MRP and there is no way you could buy 3 Leo from the cost of T-90.

Any ways the good General is just playing to his audience which is the parliament and trumping up threat , he obviously added NATO and China and not India becuase those are Russia border country and it makes sense to trump up the threat to gain more money and more support from Duma.

The US General/Admirals have been doing that for the past 50 years during congressional hearing in their own way to gain support and funds.

T-90 is certainly has its genesis in T-72 but at the same time has many modifications to it , just because M-4 is based on 60's AR-15 does not make M-4 a bad design.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Mar 2011 10:26

As expected the fanboys will pick apart the cost.

Maybe he meant old Leopard 1s

which are probably better than this garbage

The worthwhile fact is that the tin can is inferior to Western tanks and even the Russians know it but our Natasha's children cannot accept it

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 16 Mar 2011 10:37

The general was possibly hinting at lifetime costs(sticker price + maintenance costs over the lifetime) ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Mar 2011 11:48

austin, he is clearly referring to the hundreds of ex-german and dutch surplus leo2A4's that are available quite cheaply on the market, not the latest leo2A6. I'm sure you are aware of that.

it really puts it into perspective that a russian general thinks german tanks made 25 years ago are still better than his latest russian MBT's.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Mar 2011 11:53

Rahul M wrote:austin, he is clearly referring to the hundreds of ex-german and dutch surplus leo2A4's that are available quite cheaply on the market, not the latest leo2A6. I'm sure you are aware of that.

it really puts it into perspective that a russian general thinks german tanks made 25 years ago are still better than his latest russian MBT's.

Yeah ! right he made clear the model number he is talking about and how the Germans are willing to gift it to Russia being a NATO country

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Mar 2011 12:17

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:austin, he is clearly referring to the hundreds of ex-german and dutch surplus leo2A4's that are available quite cheaply on the market, not the latest leo2A6. I'm sure you are aware of that.

it really puts it into perspective that a russian general thinks german tanks made 25 years ago are still better than his latest russian MBT's.
Yeah ! right he made clear the model number he is talking about and how the Germans are willing to gift it to Russia being a NATO country

This is standard, Aussie J 17 is superior to JSF we need F 22s now now now speech. I thought BRFites would know better.

r sawant · Post by **r sawant** » 16 Mar 2011 12:43

If the T-90 is such a piece of crap, what would be the aggresive capabalities of the IBG's, particularly against ATGW fighting retreat?

Also, I don't see us having the balls (politicians) to go to war with Pakistan until either Pakistan implodes or we have around or greater than 3:1 nuclear weapon ratio against Pak.

The only war I see in the distant future is if China invades us. How would the armour groups be used then?

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 16 Mar 2011 15:53

Sanku wrote:

This is standard, Aussie J 17 is superior to JSF we need F 22s now now now speech. I thought BRFites would know better.

Except that such speeches are made by Uncle Carlo and sundry lobbyists in Australia - not the chief of the defence forces.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Mar 2011 16:02

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:

This is standard, Aussie J 17 is superior to JSF we need F 22s now now now speech. I thought BRFites would know better.
Except that such speeches are made by Uncle Carlo and sundry lobbyists in Australia - not the chief of the defence forces.

If you check on that speech, it was a doom and gloom speech, "everything in Russia is behind PRC/West onleeeee,

our artillery sucks, our small arms suck, this sucks that sucks...

"

While there is no denying that Russia has lost its edge today compared to where it was, the above D&G is not to be taken at face value seriously? This is a general trying to get his govt to pony up the money needed for modernization etc clearly.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 16 Mar 2011 16:20

Some of us are very patriotic (about father Russia)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Mar 2011 16:25

chackojoseph wrote:Some of us are very patriotic (about father Russia)

Better than hating Indian forces with every muscle and pouring venom on them at every opportunity.

Kunal · Post by **Kunal** » 16 Mar 2011 16:48

Just cause theres plenty of Rajas around, doesnt mean you hate Manmohan Singh. I dont think any one here ever attacked Sanku's Army background personally.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 16 Mar 2011 16:51

Kunal wrote:Sanku's Army background

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Mar 2011 17:16

As can be seen, there are people who excel in being nasty and very little else. Quick to get personal they are.

What goes of my father wonlee... make their own spectacle they will.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 16 Mar 2011 18:59

Kunal wrote:.......I dont think any one here ever attacked Sanku's Army background personally.

Kunal it does not matter. There are imagined wounds that you cannot heal with Sanku. He has taken up the cause of defending IA's procurement without employing logic and perhaps common sense. How can the "Army Chief's" comments be swept under the carpet. That is a very serious claim and must be verified using "independent Israeli audit contractors" before a single T-90 is bought!

Whatever the case, how can one explain the venomous attacks on the Arjun by the ex-DGMO (Bharadwaj) and does anybody here remember "Bah! Humbug! Its a Dabba" episode of the just retired Col. Ajai Shukla?

And admitting to a mistake increases the respect for an institution not lower it.