Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 861
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 04 Apr 2021 01:06

Security Scan - Wheeled Armoured Platform


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRe462BX49Y



Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2844
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 04 Apr 2021 13:33

Manish_P wrote:Nachiket ji, please check the post by Akshay Kapoor sir in the small arms thread. He states there is or very soon will be a severe shortage even in such a basic (as compared to ICVs and tanks) product as troop transport trucks!


I wouldn't be surprised. However, repeated COAS'es have proudly stated that they are ready to fight a 2.5 front war. Wonder where that confidence is coming from?

Probably from the valor of our grunts.

Not on any great planning by the generals. They're still implementing Sunderji's plan at a glacial pace.

This might not be a nice thing to say, but I'll say it: "Our generals are unprepared to fight even their last war, let alone the next one"

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1643
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 04 Apr 2021 14:37

2 Front war can be fought and won today. I share a short summary of my Concept of Ops below. This is based on detailed assessments by me and some others. Have also run it by a former VCOAS and he liked it.

There are some ammunition and a lot of B veh shortages but those can be made up in months cheaply. B veh shortage can be 40% solved just by removing VFJ and buying directly from AL. VFJ adds a 20% mark up to trucks it buys from AL and then sells to RM without any value addition.

Main point is that 2 front war can indeed be won. Here is the concept of Ops. Gents please feel free to share and discuss. I can be reached on noquartergiven108@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/Ak5985965/status/13 ... 30369?s=20

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 861
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 05 Apr 2021 01:27

i know there is talk about building a light tank from the K 9 chassis but i think we should use the krestel chassis to build a light tank and a wheeled SPG.

the south africans had some innovative armour concepts that we can take inspiration from.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G6_howitzer

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8486
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 05 Apr 2021 08:39

^^^

Too logical.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1215
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby shaun » 05 Apr 2021 10:47

Atmavik wrote:i know there is talk about building a light tank from the K 9 chassis but i think we should use the krestel chassis to build a light tank and a wheeled SPG.

the south africans had some innovative armour concepts that we can take inspiration from.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G6_howitzer


The denel guns were supposed to be assembled in India long back but for ..

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10944
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Apr 2021 21:15

Philip wrote:Anyway, this is the AV thread and successive chiefs for decades have gone down the T-series route,mainly because there was no alternative! It is only in recent times that western milware was available to us. There is a famous story early on in Arjun's development.The DRDO/ IA wanted the Leopard German engine.Repeatedly refused.So the DRDO began developing its own engine.When a prototype was first successfully tested ,the German offer came post- haste! Arjun took time to mature- no need repeating the saga here, and further orders of T-series happened. We are now sufficiently advanced in tank tech to decide upon future needs and decide what shape those reqs. demand. End of story.

Thank you for mentioning the bolded part. Please stop bringing non-relevant issues into this thread. I have had to move your post to the relevant thread. *PLEASE* also use spell check when you type. Thanks.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10944
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 06 Apr 2021 05:28

https://twitter.com/singhshwetabh71/sta ... 70432?s=20 ---> T-90 with AH-64. Who would've thought.

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21310
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2021 12:59

Yes,only in India will you find both west and east,though,surprisingly,do many know that German U-boats use an Ru. navigation system?! It's used universally in the maritime sphere.Over 100 German naval vessels use the Ru. Navi-Sailor 4100 system ,says the German Bild paper.

V.interestingly is the latest Ru." Burlak" tank. It's got a unconventional forward sloping turret with a long overhang,meant to replace turret on all T-series MBTs. Reportedly developed in secret since 2006, the Burlak was to have replaced turrets by 2025.Budget restraints. The ERA slopes from bottom to front instead of conventional sloped turrets,plus has two auto-loaders, storage units,one in the overhanging bustle which allows rapid loading of diff. types of ammo. Will provide the link shortly.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8486
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 07 Apr 2021 14:14

April fool's day has come 7 days too late.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2601
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 07 Apr 2021 14:31

Philip wrote:...V.interestingly is the latest Ru." Burlak" tank...


^ That might be a good example of forced (economic) juggad, going by this article... along the lines of our Tank Ex :D

Russia May Have a Secret Main Battle Tank
A “new” tank concept has surfaced in Russia, about 10 years after the country abandoned it in favor of the sleeker, newer-looking T-14 Armata tank. Production problems with the Armata, however, could allow the “Burlak” tank to take its place. Despite the lofty promises, the Armata project was mired in financial and technological difficulties that slowed development to a crawl. Today, the Russian Ground Forces have precisely zero Armata tanks, with serial deliveries now promised for later this year.

So what comes now? A Russian military blog recently uncovered another tank design that apparently lost out to the Armata in the late 2000s. The Burlak, is an interesting compromise design that leverages Russia’s huge inventory of older tanks and existing tank technology to produce a vehicle that’s almost as good as the Armata.

The Burlak takes a new tank turret and puts in on a modified T-80 tank chassis. The turret’s hexagonal geometry is derived from the T-90A tank that’s currently in service, but lengthened considerably in the rear to accommodate a dual-feed auto loading system for the main gun. This would allow the 125-millimeter main gun, the same caliber as the Armata’s gun, to quickly load two types of ammunition.

One feature that makes the Burlak more affordable—and easier to manufacture—than the Armata, is its use of the T-80 tank chassis. That tank was considered a failure, since its gas turbine power plant was unreliable. But Russia built about 3,000 T-80s, and so hundreds, if not thousands, of them are still stockpiled across the country. A refurnishing and new power plant could make a decent home for the Burlak turret.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21310
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2021 16:43

Gents,in our debates about pros and cons of Arjun vs T-series,we're perhaps ignoring the "woods for the trees".MBTs are part of the jigsaw of armoured warfare which involves more than just the merits of an MBT,forgetting its accompanying AVs protecting infantry advancing on the battlefield,networking between various other AVs,SAM,ATGM AVs,drones,etc..The UKR spat and Azeri-Armenian conflict saw drones emerging as key factors.We've had several years of debate over Arjun,etc.but can take comfort that the very same issues are being discussed at length in the US a the future tank to replace the M-1 or to merely upgrade it,etc.Here is a report on the same,quite long,but an excellent read,I'm just quoting xcpts.
I trust this will spur more interesting ideas and concepts.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/fut ... m1-abrams/


But why put a human in your heavy tank? Because, bluntly, remote control remains awkward and autonomous robots remain stupid. Sometimes you need an experienced human in the vehicle, onboard. That way they can use all their senses to understand the situation – the smell of smoke, the sound of the guns, the vibration of the engine — instead of staring at a screen. That way, too, their input can’t be hacked, jammed, or otherwise disconnected.


Other functions can be automated in the near future, but not the ability to command a tank in combat, Bendett told me. “This is not something that can be replaced by a neural network or an advanced algorithm anytime soon, given that no one can truly replicate all the nuances of a tank commander’s experience that may span many years, and even decades.”

“The future replacement for an M1 should be a family of vehicles, [including] a manned, well defended tank … which in turn commands a team of mid-sized, heavily defended UGVs [Unmanned Ground Vehicles] for ISR and combat roles, [plus] drones,” he added. “If the UGVs are unable to accomplish their task for some reason, it would be up to a manned tank with a commander who has extensive experience.”

If a manned main battle tank remains necessary, can the M1 Abrams continue to fill that role, or does the Army need a new MBT?

The M1 Abrams could be the centerpiece of the future manned-unmanned armored force, said Bendett. Much as it’s been upgraded in the past multiple times since its introduction in 1980, it just needs to be upgraded again, with counter-drone defenses, electronic warfare, and a command system for the robots.

But there are only so many upgrades the old M1 can take, argued Guy Swan, a retired armor officer now with the Association of the US Army.

“One thing is for sure, we cannot continue to hang more on the M1 Abrams frame,” Swan told me. “The tank, while I believe it’s still the best in the world, is far too heavy to navigate regions of the world where ground forces may have to operate.”


“The future tank can and will indeed be less than 60 tons – a threshold for many roads and bridges – without losing crew protection,” he said, thanks to new active and passive protections. That must include sophisticated “masking” both of its visual appearance and of its infrared and radio-frequency emissions, he said, because in a world of drones, “traditional camouflage is not enough.”


A clean-slate tank design would allow for a new engine, Swan added, preferably a hybrid-electric one that puts less strain on supply lines than the M1’s gas-guzzling turbine. It would also allow for an improved turret, although Swan felt the existing 120mm cannon has plenty of potential with upgraded targeting systems and ammunition.

Others felt more firepower was needed for future wars. “55 to 65 tons, [with] a bigger gun or laser, on-board loitering munitions, [an] unmanned turret, [and] hybrid engine,” wrote one retired officer.

Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Nikhil_Naya » 07 Apr 2021 17:12

The following is based on my discussion with a veteran from quite a while ago, he was a part of the armored corps. Would like to have all your insights and I think it is very relevant in the current context of having tanks on the northern/ northeastern front.

He was like the doctrine that we always had was to have a heavy armour presence in the plains with light armour - 'Tank Destroyer' - types in the hills. This being due to the drastic de-rating of the tank's engines in the high altitudes, leading to losses in acceleration and mobility. Also, terrain challenges meant that tank transporters couldn't really provide 'last mile connectivity. None of our tanks had APU's which meant that the engines had to be running. To start a T'series engine in the winter at a high altitude takes up quite some time and it takes time to build - Movement speed. This meant, that in the hills we preferred lighter armor with an offensive punch like RCL's, Anti Tank Rocket teams, BMP/BRDM's with high-velocity cannons, and also per him this was to be the primary playground of the NAMICA. This would allow quicker mobility, higher 'rounds per minute' while the MBTs act as the 'ground domination' when we take up ground. Of Course, what happened with the NAMICA was a different story - with endless trials.
Also, lighter armor has better efficiency, which for our logistics needs at that time, were considered good (he quoted that typically a BMP would take 2/3rd or less fuel than the MBT for the same distance'). This is apparently true for the ammo as well.

In the current context, I think instead of light tanks with 105mm guns, if we have WhAP type vehicles with 30MM Rapid gun firing HE/AP type 'bullets' following up with a NAG/ equivalent and then scooting with their superior acceleration and mobility. This is supported by Infantry AT Missiles (Milan) who are also carried by the WhAP. Additional armouring by ERA Tiles, Slat armor, etc for the WhAP is also possible - we can remove the 'Amphibious' part of the package and replace that with additional armor without adding too much to the weight? Or Am I waaay off the line here.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 07 Apr 2021 18:31

Nikhil,
Definitely not way of the mark.
However, as much of what you veteran friend says was the operational doctrine was the army has upended it by inducting MBT into Ladakh.
So either:

A) The earlier doctrine was wrong and the Army when faced with tanks at high altitudes in Ladakh realised that its thinking had been wrong all along and decided to increase the token presence of Armr in Ladakh to counter the Chinese
B) We shed our well-reasoned doctrine at the drop of a hat (i.e. Chinese induction of Armr in Ladakh) i.e have become reactive even if the doctrine may have been right and well thought out.

Either way the lack of RMA type of thinking in Armr warfare, the lack of induction of platforms like Namica are biting us in the backside.

Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Nikhil_Naya » 07 Apr 2021 18:41

I think induction issues - NAMICA, Lack of BTR/ BRDM types, Lack of Road Networks - we had to rely on the Airlifters, Lack of a rail network. Hopefully, this will change.
A few Rudras and LCH here plus the light / fast armor will change the balance in our favor easily.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8305
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 07 Apr 2021 23:06

Nikhil_Naya wrote:I think induction issues - NAMICA, Lack of BTR/ BRDM types, Lack of Road Networks - we had to rely on the Airlifters, Lack of a rail network. Hopefully, this will change.
A few Rudras and LCH here plus the light / fast armor will change the balance in our favor easily.

Unfortunately, the NAMICA, WhAP and LCH have seen no orders. The WhAP finally might have recently if some reports are to be believed, but the number quoted is only 100. If our doctrine requires such platforms, and indigenous ones are available, where does the disconnect lie?

Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Nikhil_Naya » 07 Apr 2021 23:39

nachiket wrote:
Nikhil_Naya wrote:I think induction issues - NAMICA, Lack of BTR/ BRDM types, Lack of Road Networks - we had to rely on the Airlifters, Lack of a rail network. Hopefully, this will change.
A few Rudras and LCH here plus the light / fast armor will change the balance in our favor easily.

Unfortunately, the NAMICA, WhAP and LCH have seen no orders. The WhAP finally might have recently if some reports are to be believed, but the number quoted is only 100. If our doctrine requires such platforms, and indigenous ones are available, where does the disconnect lie?


From what my paanwala has told me, the orders are coming soon. There is some key date announcements that will happen on certain dates. That is probably why HAL is proceeding with the manufacturing of the LCH and the news about WhAP/Kestrel (It will be called a different name). Should not be saying this but a lot of it has to do with our previous government. Things are maturing now but C-19 put a cap on spending. Resource allocation is now key. That is why piecemeal orders. They are closing all Military Farms (130+) and that real estate will be reused including in some areas for private projects - this will help in funds management.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 861
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 08 Apr 2021 09:16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQuE3cA ... q06vtdaD7s

the video is about the end military farms but watch @ 19:39. the primary focus is on the Joint commands and the furious pace of missile testing is in prep for these theater commands. large scale orders will be placed once these commands are formed.

bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby bharathp » 08 Apr 2021 10:18

Nikhil_Naya wrote:
nachiket wrote:Unfortunately, the NAMICA, WhAP and LCH have seen no orders. The WhAP finally might have recently if some reports are to be believed, but the number quoted is only 100. If our doctrine requires such platforms, and indigenous ones are available, where does the disconnect lie?


From what my paanwala has told me, the orders are coming soon. There is some key date announcements that will happen on certain dates. That is probably why HAL is proceeding with the manufacturing of the LCH and the news about WhAP/Kestrel (It will be called a different name). Should not be saying this but a lot of it has to do with our previous government. Things are maturing now but C-19 put a cap on spending. Resource allocation is now key. That is why piecemeal orders. They are closing all Military Farms (130+) and that real estate will be reused including in some areas for private projects - this will help in funds management.

i am a nobody, I dont have access to any paanwallas. but going through all the peices, here is my deduction:
lch - hal is building without firm orders - but what date are they building for? why the hurry to build them?
kestrel - 100 units to be placed - why such peicemeal?
the lca mk2 is to roll out in aug 2022 (from the youtube videos of tarmak)

we may see all this for 75th independence day?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21310
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Apr 2021 18:06

The point made about our unified commands and " missile testing" is interesting because there is a push in the US for greater
production and induction of missiles especially in the face of the PRC threat,growing more audacious by the day.What the PLAN has done in the Indo-China Sea sending in large numbers of its fishing bumboats as squatters to occupy atolls,etc., the PLAAF is doing the same on a daily basis entering the Taiwanese air defence airspace! Occupy illegally then claim it to be yours is the hallmark of the PRC.Missiles are hugely expensive and PGMs using smart kits for dumb bombs,etc. do help,but the demand for missiles by each service only increases.

A need for a light tank is quite valid for the Himalayan regions.If one can be found fit for amphib warfare too, like the old PT-76s good for marshy,riverine terrain, a sufficient number can be ordered ,using a large no. of common components with our existing AVs, it will help reduce costs and ensure easy operationability.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests