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.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby mody » 05 Sep 2018 15:20

ramana wrote:Wonder when the CLGM will ever materialize!



Will most probably take some more time. CLGM is currently caught up the Arjun vortex. It was designed to be fired from Arjun's 120 mm gun. Now with the Arjun MK-2 still not cleared and looks like will probably never be cleared, or cleared in small number like 118 or max 240 (+/-10), developing CLGM makes no sense. The quantity required will be too small.
The army and DRDO should come together to spell out the GSQR for FMBT with perhaps a 125 mm smoot bore or 130 mm smoot bore gun. CLGM can then be designed and developed as per the same. Personally a 130 mm gun would be better. Rheinmetal has already developed and unveiled a 130mm gun. DRDO has to think 1 step ahead of the 125mm bore and go with 130mm. CLGM designed for 130mm gun, will also have a higher range.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby chola » 05 Sep 2018 15:36

mody wrote:
ramana wrote:Wonder when the CLGM will ever materialize!



Will most probably take some more time. CLGM is currently caught up the Arjun vortex. It was designed to be fired from Arjun's 120 mm gun. Now with the Arjun MK-2 still not cleared and looks like will probably never be cleared, or cleared in small number like 118 or max 240 (+/-10), developing CLGM makes no sense. The quantity required will be too small.
The army and DRDO should come together to spell out the GSQR for FMBT with perhaps a 125 mm smoot bore or 130 mm smoot bore gun. CLGM can then be designed and developed as per the same. Personally a 130 mm gun would be better. Rheinmetal has already developed and unveiled a 130mm gun. DRDO has to think 1 step ahead of the 125mm bore and go with 130mm. CLGM designed for 130mm gun, will also have a higher range.


We have a 3rd gen project to replace the old Russian INVAR on the T-90s.

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/pune/army-to-equip-t-90-tank-with-3-g-missile-system/amp_articleshow/62515076.cms
The sources said the third generation missile should achieve a DoP of 800-850 mm and will be capable of hitting targets up to a range of 8 KM in day as well as night. The missiles, to be fired from the 125mm gun barrels of T-90 tanks, will be able to hit targets by taking a pre-flight programmed manoeuvres.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 05 Sep 2018 18:32

Who spots the targets at 8kms? It is very difficult for the TC to look for targets that far ahead and not lose situational awareness of his 3km—0.8km primary AOR.

It may be better to assign that work to a FAO-type role, who orders missile fire or calls in fire from a NAMICA. That also makes a case for continued 4-man or even 4+6 man tank+HIFV like Merkavas.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2284
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby darshhan » 05 Sep 2018 20:48

I cannot understand IA's obsession with tank cannon fired atgm. What exactly is the point.?

Just have couple of Namicas or any other missile carrier vehicle accompany the tanks. They will be able to do this task much better.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5610
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Sep 2018 22:06

^^^ Just excuses to not induct the Arjun tank.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 861
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Mihir » 05 Sep 2018 22:18

darshhan wrote:I cannot understand IA's obsession with tank cannon fired atgm. What exactly is the point.?


The Mango is an old design that lacks range as well as penetrating power against modern armour. Hence ATGMs.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Bishwa » 06 Sep 2018 07:42

darshhan wrote:I cannot understand IA's obsession with tank cannon fired atgm. What exactly is the point.?

Just have couple of Namicas or any other missile carrier vehicle accompany the tanks. They will be able to do this task much better.


One use case for tank fired ATGM i have read about : The tank is behind a sand dune and when it climbs the dune and hits the crest, its main gun is pointing skywards and uselfess and its underbelly is exposed too. An ATGM fired will allow it to engage targets beyond the dune without exposing the tank.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16413
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 06 Sep 2018 08:12

how is the target acquired ?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7823
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 06 Sep 2018 08:45

Rahul M wrote:how is the target acquired ?



For clgm, third party designation. But it will not work with Russian missile.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19551
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Sep 2018 08:56

Target acquisition could be through NCW and the IA is planning to acquire a huge qty. of drones.An 8km range would give the MBT a big advantage over the enemy.No need for an AV aux., but the new Ru Terminator AV, is a hybrid between a missile tank destroter and an ICV, also equipped with a cannon.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1448
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 06 Sep 2018 09:25

Any developments on LOAL for ATGMs ?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2478
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 06 Sep 2018 09:49

darshhan wrote:I cannot understand IA's obsession with tank cannon fired atgm. What exactly is the point.?

Most Armoured Corps officers I spoke with compared tank gun and sabot rounds to Japanese battleship Yamato. The culmination of battleship technology with largest (18") guns and thickest armour ever built but obsolete.

Tank primary threat and targets are no longer other tanks but bunkers, aircraft & helicopters, small fast tactical vehicles and dug in personnel with cheap ATGM.

Just like navies have moved from large battleships to smaller missile armed and active protection + EW equipped destroyers and frigates, our armored and mechanized folks prefer a lighter tank able to fire missile not limited by line of sight and using APS instead of armour for defence.

darshhan wrote:Just have couple of Namicas or any other missile carrier vehicle accompany the tanks. They will be able to do this task much better.

Correct. Which is why BMP-2 with Konkur accompany T-72/T-90 for long range firepower. Nag is expensive because of its IIR seeker. INVAR cost comes inbetween Nag and Konkurs. What is needed is a cheap non line of sight missile.

Rahul M wrote:how is the target acquired ?

INVAR advertises as being designated by helicopter, drones and man portable systems. It flies not inline with the laser beam but significantly offset to the laser beam and this enables NLOS targeting.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 06 Sep 2018 22:27

Rahul M wrote:
sudeepj wrote:The golden age of the ATGM is past us. Active protection systems will render most of these obsolete within the next 5-7 years. The golden age of a sensor fused, drone integrated, 2 or 3 person tank is still ahead of us.

for the current designs, possibly.

APS have a limited protection bubble, of a few metrs beyond the extent of the vehicle. I would predict if APS do become as ubiquitous & effective as you imagine, weapon designers would respond by mounting a kinetic terminal stage on ATGMs instead of a conventional HEAT warhead. the terminal stage would be programed to fire just outside the protective bubble of the APS. further development might see a smaller kinetic stage initiated first to trigger the ERA.
another approach would be to target APS directly, with a dummy fired to pinpoint the location following by simultaneous firings at the APS itself in order to overwhelm & destroy it. akin to a SEAD/DEAD mission but on a much smaller range.


You can expect this kinetic stage to be some kind of an EFP. The issue is, EFP 'long rods' quickly lose energy and can also be defeated by ERA. Further, the EFP penetration is a fraction of shaped charge penetration (1.x times the diameter of the charge, compared to 6-7 times for shaped charge), so ERA+conventional passive armor can easily defeat it. Small crew, all aspect armor + ERA + APS will make the next gen tanks enjoy an advantage for perhaps a decade or more. Sure, the advantage will be eroded in time, but while newer solutions are developed, the Tanks will rule. JMT.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 934
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 13 Sep 2018 04:45

RInfra to deliver parts prototypes for Arjun Mark II ahead of schedule.

Reliance Infra is planning to deliver prototypes of the hull and turret for the Arjun Mark II main battle tank (MBT) to the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) six month ahead of the deadline. The prototypes are being manufactured at the company’s facility in Silvassa.

RInfra had won the contract to manufacture the prototypes in 2017 through a competitive bidding process. Other bidders included L&T, Bharat Forge, the Mahindras and Godrej.

“We are ready to deliver the hull and turret for the Arjun Mark II MBT six months ahead of schedule,” a Reliance spokesperson told BusinessLine. “This is amongst the first such projects to be awarded to the private sector in India, with the longer-term objective of creating alternative capacities and capabilities.”

The CVRDE has been looking to scale up the manufacturing capacity of Arjun tanks to meet the Army’s requirements. Private sector players were hence considered as an alternative supply line in addition to the Ordnance Factory Board, which has so far been the sole supplier of indigenous components for the MBTs.

Without disclosing the details and size of the CVRDE order bagged by RInfra, sources said the company is targeting an overall opportunity of ₹2,500 crore once mass production starts.

The Defence Acquisition Council gave the green signal for the ₹6,600-crore procurement of 118 Arjun Mark II MBTs to equip two regiments back in 2014. This will be in addition to an earlier order for 124 Arjun Mark I tanks currently manufactured by state-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, Chennai.

The Mark II version developed by the CVRDE was based on the Army’s recommendations following comparative trials of the Arjun Mark I and Russia’s T-90.

One of the main requirements, according to experts, was to reduce the weight of the tank as well as incorporate an anti-tank missile firing capability. The weight of Mark II has been reduced to less than 50 tonnes. The updated model has over 90 improvements over the previous version. Also, it largely relies on indigenous components.

VickyAvinash
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 07:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby VickyAvinash » 13 Sep 2018 07:06

Is the weight mentioned in the news true? Less than 50T? Seems to be an error

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2209
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Katare » 13 Sep 2018 07:22

This was a weight reduction exercise by making a integrated hull (whatever that means) as per DRDO publication earlier but i don’t think weight would go anywhere near 50 ton with the crew of 4.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 13 Sep 2018 07:42

VickyAvinash wrote:Is the weight mentioned in the news true? Less than 50T? Seems to be an error

Its meant to me less than 500T. Then it would be correct no?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15485
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 13 Sep 2018 10:30

From 65+ tons to 50 tons? Doesnt at all seem feasible.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7823
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 13 Sep 2018 12:08

Not for Arjun. But perhaps a new vehicle using the technology developed for Arjun is possible in the weight class.

Did we not see a design study for a new tank.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 13 Sep 2018 15:27

Correct that drop seems to be too sharp....
what the heck ?

is this is an unknown or hidden Future Combat Vehicle aka Arjun Mk3

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2296
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby JTull » 13 Sep 2018 15:30

Arjun Mk-II: 50T


Seems that one of chota-bhai's finance guys got hold of the press release. Always creative! :P

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 13 Sep 2018 16:40

JTull wrote:
Arjun Mk-II: 50T


Seems that one of chota-bhai's finance guys got hold of the press release. Always creative! :P

Vonlee 10 ton saar!!!!
Russell Peters would have a field day with this...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19551
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 13 Sep 2018 18:11

From around 65t to below 50t is nothing short of a miracle...if it is the same MBT with a 4-man crew. Anyway,the CCS has passed the acquisition of over 400+ extra T-90s.I think that the arty reqs. are of a higher priority than further MBTs.It's proving to be a great desi success story with ATAGs,etc. More SP arty could be given a higher priority. Perhaps a light/amphib tank acquisition of a couple of hundreds may take place for the ANC and mountains.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 861
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Mihir » 13 Sep 2018 21:07

Katare wrote:This was a weight reduction exercise by making a integrated hull (whatever that means) as per DRDO publication earlier but i don’t think weight would go anywhere near 50 ton with the crew of 4.

I hope this doesn't mean they're building a tank destroyer :|

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 13 Sep 2018 22:56

There are some un-manned and turret less design from drdo floating on web.. Not sure if it is the "prototype".

Turret less design( however with proper rotating gun) with current tech may be a viable option. Tonbo has the 360 view sight tech, similar to the Israeli version.

It would meet the IA weight requirement and break the impasse. Plus a difficult target to hit to no turret.

Given that it will be less than 50 ton, could use T90 engine, smoothbore and auto-loader.. can break the barrier in to IA entry. We have the building blocks, need to be imaginative in putting them together.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50220
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Sep 2018 01:53

GD, I saw these quite close in Italy. Look very useful


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iveco_LMV

Wish Indian truck companies make a design similar to this.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19551
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Sep 2018 03:46

On the Q of weight, the "F" mag had a feature on Ru wares .The Sprut 18t amphib/LT (with extra external armour) is being touted for the IA both for the mountains and ANC.It is easily transportable with C-130s, etc.and in the amphib mode can fire even when in the water.Using the same gun as on the T-90 would make it compatible and reduce support, etc.

Armatas are going to be tested in the Arctic first.Ru has decided not to "melt" thousands of legacy T-72s, etc., but to upgrade them , perhaps taking their cue from the IA which is also upgrading around 1K+ legacy T-72s.A more cost-effective solution when pockets aren't full and other priorities are being accelerated, esp. in the strategic assets, aircraft, subs and missiles.

Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 145
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Kersi » 17 Sep 2018 17:56

A thought in my mind since a long time. If we can have a single (or maximum twin) seat aircraft can't we have single / twin manned tank with say automatic loader ? Why Not ?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2478
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 17 Sep 2018 18:58

Kersi wrote:A thought in my mind since a long time. If we can have a single (or maximum twin) seat aircraft can't we have single / twin manned tank with say automatic loader ? Why Not ?

That indeed is the way of the future. An armoured vehicle with a crew of 2-3 minus armour minus gun but with a 30-40 missile loadout of relatively cheap fire and forget guided missiles like MPATGMs with tandem warheads against tanks, thermobaric warheads against sangars and bunkers and HE rounds against helicopters and UAVs. Instead of armour it would have an Active Protection System. IA is already using INVAR missiles this way

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 17 Sep 2018 20:29

An aircraft flies in and out of the battlefield back to safe and clean hangars, so it can be loaded out with sensitive sensors; a tank is supposed to fight it out in the mud for days on end while getting peppered with small-arms and artillery shrapnel.

Too much dependency on fancy electronic sensors will leave the tanks vulnerable to a mission-kill, even if they aren’t physically killed.

IMHO, tanks will continue to take on new sensors and get networked with UAVs, but they will become like the Merkavas — with enough internal space to host sensor operators and a dismount stick of Mech Infantry. This 2-man tank is an engineer’s pet project completely disconnected from the reality of a combined arms battlefield.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 862
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 17 Sep 2018 20:34

Tsarkar-ji, if you take out the armor and the main gun, it is a missile carrier - no longer a tank. It too has an important role in th future, but it does not replace a tank.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2209
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Katare » 17 Sep 2018 21:11

tsarkar wrote:
Kersi wrote:A thought in my mind since a long time. If we can have a single (or maximum twin) seat aircraft can't we have single / twin manned tank with say automatic loader ? Why Not ?

That indeed is the way of the future. An armoured vehicle with a crew of 2-3 minus armour minus gun but with a 30-40 missile loadout of relatively cheap fire and forget guided missiles like MPATGMs with tandem warheads against tanks, thermobaric warheads against sangars and bunkers and HE rounds against helicopters and UAVs. Instead of armour it would have an Active Protection System. IA is already using INVAR missiles this way


Active protection system against tank rounds? That would be some technology! I thought the APS only works against slow flying missiles and RPGs. Reaction time available to track and stop a tank fired round is astonishingly short for any APS. If it is possible than we could even have an APS for stopping bullets that can replace body armors. At this point it's hard to believe that you can dump the armor altogether and still have the similar level of crew safety.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 17 Sep 2018 21:55

Counter( ATGM) for APS would be found quite quickly, if not already present. APS theoretically is ERA exploding outside the tank!

Given there are counter to ERA is form of tandem warhead.. it will not be difficult to build a counter for APS.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 17 Sep 2018 22:02

Having a two member tank crew is not ideal, as it will be overload of tasks that is needed to efficiently use the tank. If the intention is reduce casualties, then it is better to invest in un-manned/robotic tanks, which will give you a dump shooting platform devoid of the experience that a trained crew brings in( and lots of other issues). However there will be no human causalities.

Tanks & artillery will stay in one form or the other. They make war economically viable!

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby souravB » 17 Sep 2018 23:48

IA Light Strike/Support Vehicle contest
Light Support Vehicle
https://twitter.com/strategic_front/status/1040641583958446081

Ashok Leyland
This looks like modular armored transport vehicle
Image

TATA Motors
Image

Mahindra MBPV(Mahindra Bullet Proof Vehicle)
This one looks uber cool and hopefully gets selected as urban COIN operation vehicle.
Image

Light Strike Vehicle
https://twitter.com/strategic_front/status/1040642028923772930

Kalyani Group + General Motors HMMWV Chassis
This is an interesting concept. With proper armor it can be our desi HUMVEE
Image

Force Motors
already inducted in a small number.
Image

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2478
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 18 Sep 2018 00:34

Katare wrote:Active protection system against tank rounds? That would be some technology!

IBD Deisenroth Engineering has developed an APS with Dense Inert Metal Explosives to take out rod penetrators.

Apparently so does Iron Fist
https://www.wired.com/2009/01/mystery-weapon/
The Israeli "Iron Fist" interceptor unveiled in 2006 is a similar concept, with small radar-guided projectiles. "Iron Fist uses only the blast effect to defeat the threat, crushing the soft components of a shaped charge or deflecting and destabilizing the missile or kinetic rod in their flight," according to Defense Update. This suggests DIME technology.
Last edited by tsarkar on 18 Sep 2018 00:48, edited 1 time in total.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2478
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 18 Sep 2018 00:37

ParGha wrote:Tsarkar-ji, if you take out the armor and the main gun, it is a missile carrier - no longer a tank. It too has an important role in th future, but it does not replace a tank.

ParGha Ji, you have missile armed destroyers and frigates rather than gun and armoured Yamato and Iowa class battleships. The writing is on the wall.

The tank gun and armour is obsolete. As ships use missiles and CIWS, combat vehicles will use missiles and APS.

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 763
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 18 Sep 2018 00:39

JTull wrote:
Arjun Mk-II: 50T


Seems that one of chota-bhai's finance guys got hold of the press release. Always creative! :P


Trust the gujju guys to pare off weight . Nothing but pore commercials in this sir. Someone should check if they took out the engines onlee. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1690
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 18 Sep 2018 00:50

tsarkar wrote:
ParGha wrote:Tsarkar-ji, if you take out the armor and the main gun, it is a missile carrier - no longer a tank. It too has an important role in th future, but it does not replace a tank.

ParGha Ji, you have missile armed destroyers and frigates rather than gun and armoured Yamato and Iowa class battleships. The writing is on the wall.

The tank gun and armour is obsolete. As ships use missiles and CIWS, combat vehicles will use missiles and APS.


There is no melee in naval combat any more, the last one was attack of Karachi. No contested landing either for a long long time.

No concept of holding the ground as none stays on water, it is used only as a path of transportation.

Since none stays and only transport vessels roam on open ocean, it allows the military powers to create protective bubble using naval air power and long range shooting using missile. Or creation of mobile area denial zone using submarine.

Not sure all these conditions can be true or ported one is to one in land battle.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15485
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 18 Sep 2018 07:26

The cost of each missile is so much that a few loadouts will beggar any army. They have far more handling restrictions and its one thing for large platforms and bases to carefully manage them. Tanks which perforce have to be rugged and manage with minimal support..its easy to see why APFSDS remains so popular. Coming to APS deployment, in theory, claims have been made of APS capability against KE penetrators such as Iron Fist. Their deployment remains theoretical hence why IA is still evaluating APS systems.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Karthik S, ks_sachin, kvraghav and 41 guests