Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

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.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 21 Mar 2013 04:50

Misraji wrote:If this is the state of things to come ... :(
India wants to produce T-90C tanks

Today, the T-90C tank is the main striking force of the Indian army. India is interested in transition from the currently existing large-unit assembly to complete localization of production and subsequent modernization of the previously jointly manufactured machines. According to estimations of experts, in 2014-2019, India can additionally purchase about 600 new, modernized T-90C tanks and start their complete licensed production on the spot.
Today, India sticks to the same pattern at other enterprises producing various military equipment under Russian licenses. Indian Corporation "Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd" produces one of the world's best fighters Su-30 MKI under the Russian license.


They are working on next-gen while they want us to buy tin-crap ... :(

--Ashish


Uh oh - wasn't somebody saying that we are manufacturing 100% indigenously (from above, at least the Russians are saying it like it is :) )

India is interested in transition from the currently existing large-unit assembly to complete localization of production and subsequent modernization ..


Today, India sticks to the same pattern at other enterprises producing various military equipment under Russian licenses. Indian Corporation "Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd" produces one of the world's best fighters Su-30 MKI under the Russian license.


Some additional inputs for SU30 mki parts being 'imported' just because we need to finish production by 2015 :)

Russia's Ufa-based engine-maker will deliver the first 10 of 920 AL-31FP engines for the Su-30MKI Flanker-H to India before the end of March, the manufacturer said.

The contract with India , the largest one with a foreign client in post-Soviet history, was signed in October 2012, and engine deliveries are to be completed by 2022.


http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/russ ... 58129.html

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 449
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby alexis » 21 Mar 2013 10:40

Sanku wrote:
Yes Sir we do, the HAL press release is specific. We are importing some parts (not lot of parts) only because of capacity extension. That was the question asked in parliament "why is HAL importing some parts if it is the manufacturer" to which HAL replied "because we need to now finish our order by 2015 instead of earlier plan of 2017 and need extra capacity"

This one is a clear case Sir.


I beg to differ, Sir. The HAL release is not specific. It does not mention how many components are indigenously produced and how many are imported.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 21 Mar 2013 13:51

alexis wrote:I beg to differ, Sir. The HAL release is not specific. It does not mention how many components are indigenously produced and how many are imported.


It hardly changes the main point.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 21 Mar 2013 13:55

arnab wrote:
I thought what I've been implying was pretty clear i.e. Political hacks shouldn't muscle in on technical discussions (fine to do so in the hot air forum though). Wouldn't have happened in the older days of brf - but now you are a 'protected specie', I imagine :)

)


More personal attacks to get over the frustration of the standard tacit of disinformation couched as paraphrasing getting caught.
:rotfl:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 21 Mar 2013 13:58

Misraji wrote:They are working on next-gen while they want us to buy tin-crap ... :(

--Ashish


Maybe you didnt get the note -- It is standard truth in the world, you buy what is a available working product while working on next gen including the case for domestic production.
:roll:

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 21 Mar 2013 16:28

Sanku wrote:
Misraji wrote:They are working on next-gen while they want us to buy tin-crap ... :(

--Ashish


Maybe you didnt get the note -- It is standard truth in the world, you buy what is a available working product while working on next gen including the case for domestic production.
:roll:



But of course this gyan doesn't apply in the case of Arjun MK1 despite it being better than the tin cans. Hence the Army is justified in waiting for Arjun MK2 and closing the order at a pathetic 124.

This is a classic case of a dog casing its tail!

:rotfl:

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby P Chitkara » 21 Mar 2013 16:46

+1.
This logic being applied to rodina is fine. But, beware you desis....how dare you think the same logic applies to you as well :lol:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16242
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 21 Mar 2013 17:52

IF you all missed it there is a bone for the Indian dog:

And who knows, maybe, this tank can also be created by a joint effort of Russian and Indian gunsmiths


Of course India will have to buy other systems from the West, that the Russians are not capable of producing.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 21 Mar 2013 18:11

^^^^

Alas life is not so simple my friend. For example for tin cans we must get current maal and not wait for upgraded products. However in the case of transport aircraft we should have waited for the mythical IL476 (cira when the call was taken on the C17).

Life's such a baitch it actually demand consistency in logic and reasoning. We should all have some vodka to drown our sorrows.

:rotfl:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16242
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 21 Mar 2013 19:05

I think the Russians should have strong bridges and rails that can transport the Arjun.

"Indian gunsmith". Indeed.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 21 Mar 2013 21:13

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Maybe you didnt get the note -- It is standard truth in the world, you buy what is a available working product while working on next gen including the case for domestic production.
:roll:



But of course this gyan doesn't apply in the case of Arjun MK1 despite it being better than the tin cans. Hence the Army is justified in waiting for Arjun MK2 and closing the order at a pathetic 124.

This is a classic case of a dog casing its tail!

:rotfl:


Actually no, IA ordered 124 tanks in 1999 which are perhaps delivered by now, perhaps not.

It has also ordered for 124 tanks of the next version.

You can keep repeating the same lies, but that does not change the truth.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 21 Mar 2013 21:20

amit wrote:^^^^

Alas life is not so simple my friend. For example for tin cans we must get current maal and not wait for upgraded products. However in the case of transport aircraft we should have waited for the mythical IL476 (cira when the call was taken on the C17).

Life's such a baitch it actually demand consistency in logic and reasoning. We should all have some vodka to drown our sorrows.

:rotfl:


Some are always consistent in plugging for a certain set of interests. For example, I am consistent in plugging for best possible for Indian instrests.

Again it should be obvious to everyone that the cases are different. I know it is being repeated but there is not harm in repeating some basic truths lest things get clouded.

The fact that enormously overpriced deals for C 17s were made in breakneck manner without considering alternatives, is very different from a critical front line battle tank being acquired after waiting for 25 years.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3728
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Vipul » 22 Mar 2013 03:23

Absent the road and other logistics infrastructure near the chippanda border, C-17 was required to come in at a break-neck speed as the Lizard has developed rapid deployment capabilities. What other choice was there?

Alternatives to C-17? Really!!!! which one the IL-76 which has severe restirctions to operate in that theater or the mythical IL-476?

The Russians simply did/do not have anything to match the C-17.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16242
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 22 Mar 2013 03:31

C-17 discussion in an armoured vehicle thread?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6844
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 22 Mar 2013 05:00

For example, I am consistent in plugging for best possible for Indian interests.

Not on this thread. You have however been consistent in plugging for Russian interests here, usually a job reserved for Philip saar. :P

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 22 Mar 2013 05:07

Sanku wrote:Some are always consistent in plugging for a certain set of interests. For example, I am consistent in plugging for best possible for Indian instrests.



Sanku ji vouches for his own character because nobody else will :) Perhaps we should get baba ramdev to return the favour. As I had quoted earlier: "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" :)

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby arnab » 22 Mar 2013 05:29

Sanku wrote:The fact that enormously overpriced deals for C 17s were made in breakneck manner without considering alternatives, is very different from a critical front line battle tank being acquired after waiting for 25 years.


Only issue being that this "critical frontline battle" tank when purchased was found to be as bad as the ones purchased 25 years ago (as we found out during Op Parakram).Why spend good money on a bad product?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16242
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 22 Mar 2013 06:09

Why spend good money on a bad product?


Like I said, that is the only way Russia can fund her next tin can.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 22 Mar 2013 09:40

Sanku wrote:Actually no, IA ordered 124 tanks in 1999 which are perhaps delivered by now, perhaps not.

It has also ordered for 124 tanks of the next version.

You can keep repeating the same lies, but that does not change the truth.


It's funny to see how you call others liars (you've done that with me many times including the nuclear discussion thread) but when someone returns the compliment you run to the Admins and make a complaint - the classic action of an Internet bully who knows he can get away in the anonymity provided by the medium.

Don't worry I'm not going to complain against you, neither am I going to call you a liar. For some reason that I fail to fathom why you're a "protected species" on BRF! :lol:

Now let's see in MK1 we have a "working product" MBT which is better than the tin cans that we are buying from Russia. So the Army buys 124 tanks and when they are delivered the production line would be closed for two years till the MK2 becomes a "working product". And then the Army would contend to place another piddly order for 124 tanks.

And in the meantime, more tin cans are imported from Russia with money that will be used by Russia to develop their next gen tank which would be suited for its conditions. And then at a later date that tin can would be offered to India and the cycle will repeat itself.

And this is what you wrote in reply to Misraji:

Sanku wrote: Maybe you didnt get the note -- It is standard truth in the world, you buy what is a available working product while working on next gen including the case for domestic production.


So can you tell me, Mr Expert, why is it OK for the Army to buy 124 MK1s and then say they will only buy another 124 MK2 when it become "working product" keeping the line idle for more than two years when there's a pressing requirement for more MBTs?

Do you stand by what you said to Misraji, that it is standard thruth in the world that you buy what is available working product while working on the next gen including in the case for domestic production. Why does this truism on your part fail the smell test when applied to the Arjun?

You certainly got a note which the rest of us didn't. I just hope it was not promissory in nature. One thing I admire about you is the steadfast way you plug for the best possible interest of a certain entity. I'm sure Bharat Mata would have loved the devotion you show to the Bear.

Just for record let me post something along with this post. Nothing new for folks here but bears repeating.

Link

The Indian army didn’t even stand up its 1st Arjun armored regiment until May 2009, 35 years after the program began. To underscore the point, even that milestone followed a development that seemed to end the platform’s future. In July 2008, India had announced that production of the Arjun would be capped at the already-committed total of 124 vehicles. Instead, development would begin on a new next-generation tank, designed to survive and serve until 2040 or so.

That appeared to close the book on a failed project, but opinion in India was sharply split. Many observers cited this as the final failure. Other were noting the problems with the T-90s, and the Army’s refusal to conduct side-by-side tests, alongside recent test successes that began earning the Arun some military fans. In May 2010 desert trials alongside the T-90S, the Arjun did surprisingly well.

In response, the government and the Army changed course somewhat. Arjun production would double to 248. That’s an improvement, but DRDO insists that a 500 vehicle order is needed to give them the volume needed to iron out all production difficulties, and provide a platform for future development.

The Army’s plan still calls for 1,657 T-90S “Bhishma” tanks at about 12 crore (INR 120 million, about $2.78 million) each if prices remain stable. About 1,000 of those are slated to be built in India by Avadi Heavy Industries, the same firm that builds the Arjuns. They will be joined by just 248 Arjuns at about 16.8 crore (INR 168 million, about $3.92 million) each, as well as 692 older T-72 tanks upgraded to the T-72M1 “Ajeya” standard . This overall plan changes the force structure proposed in 2006, from 3,780 tanks (1,302 T-90s and 2,480 T-72s) to 2,597 higher-end tanks.


So 1000 T90s, an impressive 692 T-72s and just 248 Arjuns. And you say you have the best interests of India in mind.

This is a hacck thoo moment. :evil:
Last edited by amit on 22 Mar 2013 12:14, edited 2 times in total.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9467
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Mar 2013 11:06

Guruji, We are all adicted to firangi (Russians included) maal. Like to drink Tin mixed vodka shaken by natashaas of Delhi clubs. :D You expect any one to ask for Poor Arjun from Avadi. Let us face it unless we prohibit all imports of defence equipments and involve Private Sector in defence production, we will be having more Arjun like things.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby amit » 22 Mar 2013 11:13

^^^^^

Oh vodka and Natasahas are fine by me - that's the real world. And some people simply can't resist.

What get's me worked up is when a weakness for the two is equated to having India's interests at heart! :lol:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2013 14:18

Ah the usual pack :D

More comedy of substituting personal attacks for presence of knowledge.

Sorry for the frustration boys -- truth hurts.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2013 14:23

amit wrote:
It's funny to see how you call others liars (you've done that with me many times including the nuclear discussion thread)


Because my dear, I show the lie with open source media, where as others have no data but make a statement. Therefore I dont call others liars, only point the various instances where they have been lying.

In my case, people call me names without showing a single instance of how I am incorrect.
:lol:

Lets see if you can compile that.


So the Army buys 124 tanks and when they are delivered the production line would be closed for two years till the MK2 becomes a "working product".



PROOF????

And no a random blog by a person caught lying on multiple occasion is NOT PROOF. Neither is a random link. We are looking for meaningful proof, such as MoD press releases, IA statements, DRDO officers statements.

I talk data, not paraphrasing, impressions, and opinions (euphemisms to cover up what would be normally called lies)

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby P Chitkara » 22 Mar 2013 15:09

Sanku maharaj,the standard truth statement came from you, would you take some time in explaining why doesn't it apply to Arjun?

I will really like to know what is so super-duper about the tin can that is not there in Arjun. Someone please, please explain it to me.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9467
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Mar 2013 16:52

Shankuji, T72 and 90s were used and are being used in Iraq war,Chechen war and were hit like pulp by US and western type models and the same 72s and 90s are being loved and supported by you. There are comparitive trials which IA which is a great supportor of Tincans itself repeatedly said Arjun is proed time and again as better. Yet you continue with your arguments. What con we say to you.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2399
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yogi_G » 22 Mar 2013 17:58

Narayana Rao wrote:Shankuji, T72 and 90s were used and are being used in Iraq war,Chechen war and were hit like pulp by US and western type models and the same 72s and 90s are being loved and supported by you. There are comparitive trials which IA which is a great supportor of Tincans itself repeatedly said Arjun is proed time and again as better. Yet you continue with your arguments. What con we say to you.


While I am of the opinion that the tin cans are no match to the Arjun or the other western contemporary designs, to use the gulf war is a bad example. Apples to Oranges. Better example would be the recent Georgian conflict which exposed some weaknesses of the t-72.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 879
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Mihir » 22 Mar 2013 18:13

amit wrote:So can you tell me, Mr Expert, why is it OK for the Army to buy 124 MK1s and then say they will only buy another 124 MK2 when it become "working product" keeping the line idle for more than two years when there's a pressing requirement for more MBTs?


Because the Arjun doesn't have a smoothbore gun. Smoothbore guns are good because they fire shells on a flatter trajectory and are therefore more accurate. DRDO cannot design smoothbore guns. They are still hung up on obsolete rifled-bore guns.

Also, Avadhi is new to manufacturing tanks and cannot manufacture 50 Arjuns per year (except when they manufacture 70 in less than two years, but that is an outlier that is best ignored). On the other hand, Avadhi can manufacture as many T-90s as it wants because the line is imported wholesale from Russia. What about transfer of technology, you ask? You people misunderstand that term. It was T-90 technology that was transfered. The Russians do not have Arjun technology and cannot transfer it. QED.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16242
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 22 Mar 2013 19:08

Mihir wrote:
amit wrote:So can you tell me, Mr Expert, why is it OK for the Army to buy 124 MK1s and then say they will only buy another 124 MK2 when it become "working product" keeping the line idle for more than two years when there's a pressing requirement for more MBTs?


Because the Arjun doesn't have a smoothbore gun. Smoothbore guns are good because they fire shells on a flatter trajectory and are therefore more accurate. DRDO cannot design smoothbore guns. They are still hung up on obsolete rifled-bore guns.

.......................................


In the CONTEXT of the current discussion ("It is standard truth in the world, you buy what is a available working product while working on next gen including the case for domestic production"), that is no reason. Following the "standard truth" would have the IA buy more and more Arjuns (and NOT T-90s). Certainly not the 600 more T-90s that the Russian author seems to suggest that India is willing to buy.

(BTW, even with a rifled gun the Arjun seems to be superior to the T-90. Am I right?)

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby bmallick » 22 Mar 2013 20:32

Mihir wrote:
Because the Arjun doesn't have a smoothbore gun. Smoothbore guns are good because they fire shells on a flatter trajectory and are therefore more accurate. DRDO cannot design smoothbore guns. They are still hung up on obsolete rifled-bore guns.


Well, the whole world shifted from smoothbore musket to rifled guns in the late 19th/early 20th century because the projectile is spin stabilized and hence more accurate. So unless laws of physics have changed since then, your above statement is absolutely wrong.

The main advantages of smoothbore guns are their greater suitability for fin stabilised ammunition. A smoothbore gun is also ideal for firing HEAT rounds (although specially designed HEAT rounds can be fired from rifled guns) and but rifling is absolutely necessary to fire HESH rounds.

So the choice basically boils down to what you want your tank to do. If it is only to hunt down enemy Armour then you would be firing APFSDS or a HEAT round. So you choose SmoothBore gun. But if you also want to use your Tank to break down buildings, bunkers etc, then you definitely need the HESH round, hence rifle gun becomes a absolute must.

So its the requirements of the Army that is going to use it, that would decide what type of gun one needs on its tank.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2013 20:59

Narayana Rao wrote:Shankuji, T72 and 90s were used and are being used in Iraq war,Chechen war and were hit like pulp by US and western type models and the same 72s and 90s are being loved and supported by you. .


Urban legends have taken over this thread Rao-ji.

Rao-ji, Iraq war I had seen ONLY T 72 models of 1970s vintage, where as the US forces had 80s version of M1s. HUGE difference.

Further, the Iraqi's were hopelessly outnumbered, not by tanks, but by joint forces, they were hit by combined arms, including helicopters and artillery, and did not stand a chance.

This one particular myth is standard image building by Americans.

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

In chechn wars in the early phases Russian forces faced similar reverses as US and Isralie forces faced in urban combat. To their credit, Russians learnt their lessons fast, and made sure Chechns learned theirs shortly thereafter.
:mrgreen:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2013 21:02

bmallick wrote:So its the requirements of the Army that is going to use it, that would decide what type of gun one needs on its tank.


True, but the only thing is that barring the 400 odd challengers with the British army, the entire worlds tank force (50000+?) has moved over to smooth bores.

It is a settled debate, quite likely IA would ask Arjuns to have smoothbores when Arjun;s would be ready to be commissioned in larger numbers.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2013 21:10

P Chitkara wrote:Sanku maharaj,the standard truth statement came from you, would you take some time in explaining why doesn't it apply to Arjun?


It does, and it has been explained how, many times.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 22 Mar 2013 21:12

sigh you turn away and sanku goes back to form

In chechn wars in the early phases Russian forces faced similar reverses as US and Isralie forces faced in urban combat. To their credit, Russians learnt their lessons fast, and made sure Chechns learned theirs shortly thereafter.



Israeli and US tanks are more survivable and most of the crews survived
big diff

the russians cannot really do much with their tin cans other then stringing some rails around and few minor improvments

once the missile\rpg gets through - the crew is mostly cooked

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2013 21:15

Surya wrote:once the missile\rpg gets through - the crew is mostly cooked


How many T 72s have the US armed Sunni jihadis of FSA managed to take down in Syria?

We know the performance of Merks and M1A1s in Iraq. Those were cases where conventional forces had OVERWHELMING advantages against rag tag terror insurgents. Syria has Western spec op team arming the Jihadi's with their best weapons in urban combat.

I have no issues if the west drinks its own cool aid, however in India, the Saber's meet the Gnats and Mig 21 and the rest is history.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 22 Mar 2013 21:55

How many T 72s have the US armed Sunni jihadis of FSA managed to take down in Syria?


enough to show the fundamental issue remains - it cooks up and turns everyone to toast
videos posted in enough places


overwhelming is irrelevant

the question is what happens after a hit goes through

whether its 2 or 5 or 10

more US and israeli tank crews have survived while tin can crews have not.

All the spin in the world cannot change that.


Now regarding the sabre and gnat - one can hope so but as SL showed it will not.

The pukis are armed abundantly with the tools needed to destroy tin cans in built up areas
yea more infantry thrown in might reduce tank casualties and increase infantry casualties

its going to ugly and messy with not too many open areas left

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Misraji » 22 Mar 2013 22:19

As far as I am concerned, the pivoting point about IA's dishonesty was the fact that they dragged their feet on comparative trials vs T-90 for years(IIRC 2006-2010) while DRDO demanded the same.
We saw one straw-man thrown after another about BMW-vs-Maruti, AUCRT trials breakdown, plain delay while T-90s were ordered in bulk in the same period.

Note that since DRDO was demanding the trials, the argument about Arjun not being ready does not work.
Its a known fact that T-90 was suffering from thermal sight and engine troubles and was not ready in any case.

IA could simply have proved DRDO wrong then and no-one would have raised any more questions.
They didn't because they couldn't as the 2010 trials showed.

In my eyes, that one single fact changes the whole equation.
All the other cards including what the Rodina-lovers have played here is just smokescreen.
Any other card is simply a detraction made for the sake of argument from what, in my book, is the point where the whole argument got decided.

In that light, hence, the 91-improvement for Mk-2 tank, the new improved FMBT tank are just continuations of the same charade.

--Ashish

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby manum » 22 Mar 2013 22:57

Tanks represent a huge of expense out of which certain flows into the army as commission to various ranks...They could not allow Arjun, else the liquidity will dry out, so will be liquid from bottles..

No Indian organization is untouched with commission...Otherwise it woudn't have been a problem to upgrade or brace few bridges Arjun will have to cross...

No one wants to open the can of worms...

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5100
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby jamwal » 22 Mar 2013 23:58

I come back to this thread after weeks and the same argument is still going on. Sigh.
As much as I support the army, their attitude about indigenous stuff, specially related to Arjun has been very disappointing.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Hobbes » 23 Mar 2013 07:04

Tin cans rattle
While fellow travellers prattle
And the Arjun wins in battle.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Sanku » 23 Mar 2013 10:34

Surya wrote:
How many T 72s have the US armed Sunni jihadis of FSA managed to take down in Syria?


enough to show the fundamental issue remains t


If we go by the clip posted of Syrian tank man, the above is not true. He categorically says that apart from IED, crew losses have been minimal.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pattnayak, rahulm, SPattath and 49 guests