Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

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.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7531
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby rohitvats » 08 Jan 2017 15:23

Karan M wrote:<SNIP>stop trolling

that animation is top notch


True. Finally we have the glossy brochure for our an Indian product.

This is the first level of marketing a product - something like a pic on a matrimony website. If the pic is attractive, the interested party starts looking at other details! :P

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2835
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 09 Jan 2017 02:05

The FICV Saga – Another Hiccup or Are We Serious?
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/the-ficv-saga-another-hiccup-or-are-we-serious/#.WHBds17DoUU.twitter

By Lt Gen Prakash Katoch
- a former Lt Gen Special Forces, Indian Army
Image

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2835
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 09 Jan 2017 04:59

This is Kestrel's 8x8 amphibious armoured vehicle platform concept...from Def Exp 2014....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPK3wGdG7Dw

Actual video of the Kestrel 8x8 amphibious armoured vehicle platform concept

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

the above video....from 2:33 onwards....

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16383
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 09 Jan 2017 13:41

Seriously,what manner of beast is that TATA ICV? It appears to resemble a WW2 half-track! One should contrast it with other pics of current ICVs being produced both east and west,with a new secret light tank by China also in the news. I think that the chief designer of Tata's has a fetish about the Sherman tank and German half-tracks in the desert campaign,'cept that there appears to be no turret?

Anyway,for missed opportunities,you can't beat the Brits,after us! If the British govt. of the day is so afeared of their own press,when they also buy firang stuff like US F-35s,etc.,Trident ICBMs,etc.,etc.,why from the Germans? Is Basil Fawlty now working at the Foreign Office?! :rotfl:

NewsUKHome News
Ministry of Defence 'turns down German tank deal for fear of negative press’
'They made that offer to us and we should have taken it but there was an arrogance: we invented the tank, we have to have a British tank'

Lucy Pasha-Robinson @lucypasha Thursday 5 January 2017227 comments

German offer would have equipped the UK with tanks for a further three decades for roughly the same price as an upgrade to the Challenger 2 Reuters
Britain declined the opportunity to buy a fleet of German tanks due to “worry about negative press headlines,” a defence source has claimed.


German manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegmann offered to sell between 100 and 400 second-hand Leopard 2 tanks to the Ministry of Defence in 2015, but despite it being allegedly the best deal, the offer was turned down.

The German proposal was one of several being considered for a £700 million contract to upgrade Britain’s Challenger 2 battle tank fleet.

“They made that offer to us and we should have taken it but there was an arrogance: we invented the tank, we have to have a British tank,” a defence industry source told The Times.

“There was a worry about negative press headlines.”

Hesitation around the deal also came from a reluctance to retrain British tank operators to use a new model, and the potential impact on the support chain, which is built around the Challenger 2.

The German offer would have equipped the UK with tanks for a further three decades for roughly the same price as an upgrade to the Challenger 2 fleet, which would have extended its life by 20 years.

However, one defence source told The Times the idea had not been ruled out entirely, despite the Government selecting two other companies, BAE Systems and Germany’s Rheinmetall, to complete the Challenger 2 upgrade.

“If it turns out that buying second-hand would work out cheaper overall then finance is king,” the source said. “If it is cheaper they will go that way.”

One offer that still stands would involve a deal of 200 second-hand models of the Leopard 2 for roughly £2 million each.


US sends tanks to Europe amid rising Russian aggression
A further £500,000 per tank could then be paid to upgrade the vehicles to a common standard, and then up to a further £1 million to be upgraded to an A7V variant with increased firepower.

However, one industry source said it would be unlikely for the MoD to retrofit the Challenger 2 with new technology, and that it would be more likely they would buy the second-hand tanks.

Another senior military source disagreed telling The Times he did not believe buying second-hand would be the way forward: “I don’t think that is in the race at the moment.”

The Independent has contacted the MoD for comment.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 561
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 09 Jan 2017 20:00

Philip wrote:Seriously,what manner of beast is that TATA ICV? It appears to resemble a WW2 half-track!


That is not the Tata FICV but a german Wiesel 2, its a 5 ton Infantry support vehicle with recce and ATGM variants among others.

Tata Motors-General Dynamics FICV

Image

Image


To be developed under the ‘Make category’, the FICV is a high mobility armoured battle vehicle, for infantry men to keep pace with new advancements in weaponry system. The FICV needs to be compact, tracked and amphibious, no heavier than 18-20 tonnes, so that it can be air-portable and transportable by other means, onto combat zones. The vehicle must fire anti-tank guided missiles, to ranges beyond four kilometers, with a capability to carry a crew of three and eight combat-kitted infantrymen. The FICV will replace the Indian army's fleet of 2610 Russian-designed BMP (Sarath BMP-II) series armed vehicles, that are in operation since 1980.

The FICV is mobility oriented and is established by the fact that 3 of the 5 core technologies and 19 of the 34 critical technologies are mobility related, such as engines, transmission and running gear, which are core to Tata Motors, which as a lead of this consortium, has demonstrated years of experience of integrating key technologies needed in the armoured mobility segment. With around 14 Tata companies engaged in providing cutting edge solutions in the defence and aerospace sector, the group has the capability and ability to deliver on the FICV programme.



This is in addition to Tata Motors Kestrel APC for UN operations. They carry a full 10 man infantry section as dismounts. Seen here with a BMP-2 turret.

Image

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2835
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 11 Jan 2017 22:54

An old post (six+ months) from another forum....but some interesting stuff...

DRDO ERA MK2 & Anti thermal, anti laser smoke grenade
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/drdo-era-mk2-anti-thermal-anti-laser-smoke-grenade.76702/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ranjan.rao » 12 Jan 2017 03:31

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/grounded-arjun-tanks-to-be-operationalised-soon/articleshow/56463651.cms
The grounded fleet of indigenously made Arjun Mark-I tanks is soon to be operationalised as the Army has found the required imported components and addressed snags in the tanks.
About 75% of the 124 tanks with the Army were grounded one-and-a-half-year ago.{Seriously!!!, is it that bureaucratic to get items}
Major General P Dixit, Commandant of Armoured Corps Centre and School (ACC&S), an institute which carries out various courses for Armoured Corps officers, said: "The snags in the tanks were identified thoroughly. The fleet was grounded as we were not getting imported components for the tanks. Now we are getting the components and the fleet will be operationalised in the coming months."
The Army has inducted around 125 Arjun tanks developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation and manufactured by state owned Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi in Chennai.
A senior official from HVF, Avadi, said: "The entire fleet of the tanks was grounded for more than a year which was a major setback for the Army. However, the ministry of defence had set up a special committee comprising experts from DRDO, HVF and senior Army officers to find foreign manufacturers who could supply the spare parts." The parts are coming from various countries, including Germany. Because of the tedious procurement process, it is getting delayed eventually affecting repairs of the tanks, the official added.
Speaking on the progress of Arjun Mark-II, Maj Gen Dixit clarified that the prototype of the tank has been developed. "But it is yet to come to a formidable stage."
Interestingly, two months ago, the government had hinted at buying advanced T-90 tanks from Russia, sidelining DRDO's Arjun Mark-IIs.
Sources in Armoured Corps said the Arjun Mark-I was affected by a range of snags in its transmission system, thermal imaging sights and accuracy, among others. "As a result, the Army is not showing much interest in Arjun Mark-II. The Army has already suggested over 70 improvements in the tank," they added.
When asked on the induction of advanced T-90 tanks, Maj Gen Dixit welcomed the development and said, "As our roles are expanding so any induction of new equipment as per government policy is beneficial for us. And, T-90 is the state-of-the-art tank".

No comments on army but would have loved had they had gone for a tranche based approach to keep the Arjun alive evolve into a beast that we all want it to be

Srutayus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 05:53

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Srutayus » 12 Jan 2017 03:50

About 75% of the 124 tanks with the Army were grounded one-and-a-half-year ago

affected by a range of snags in its transmission system, thermal imaging sights and accuracy, among others.

When you order a complex system in penny packets, it is tailor made for a situation where the economy of scale for support would not exist, and troubles with maintenance and upkeep will persist.
Nor is there any incentive for your component suppliers to invest in support and upgrades.
The Arjun should have been ordered in large numbers. It is very difficult to indigenize subsystems and threrefore keep up serviceability otherwise.
With only 124 tanks, this is the smallest production run for any modern battle tank.

The Arjun saga is a sad tale how promising indigenous capability in a crucial area was systematically dismantled keeping our dependence on expensive and undependable imports as well as shackling our strategic freedom of action at the same time.

The rot in the system is deep indeed and it will take more than Modi and Parrikar to sort it out, as driven and as well intentioned as these gentlemen are.

I feel sorry for all those at CVRDE who put in all this effort to build a world class MBT in a country whose private sector was struggling to build a decent automobile while shunning more lucrative careers.
Alas it was all for nothing. Your work was wasted, your efforts not recognized, barring in some obscure forums such as this, and you are cursed in the popular media.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 456
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ranjan.rao » 12 Jan 2017 04:41

I would not say the system is deeply rotten, would trust the army to take the right call in light of their war fighting philosophy and available information, even after multiple gurus have posted against this statement. While they are fighting for their something bigger than themselves, but they have chosen their favorite. Given time this favorite will be changed. Right now govt is busy dealing with bigger issues e.g. Chippanda, CPEC, OROP, CDS etc. They made a great stride in LCA MK1a. Arjun will come in time too. Any wagers for Arjun being ordered in large no.s in NDA2?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 938
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 12 Jan 2017 08:55

Seeing the snorkel equipment on an Indian T90 for the first time. Watch from time stamp 38:00



https://youtu.be/qgq29QAjhfw?t=2280

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32079
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2017 09:10

sudeepj wrote:Seeing the snorkel equipment on an Indian T90 for the first time. Watch from time stamp 38:00



https://youtu.be/qgq29QAjhfw?t=2280

Thanks for posting. I enjoyed that

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5018
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Surya » 12 Jan 2017 09:23

agree thanks that was nice

darn they cut off without showing the Dhru WSIs firing :((

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16383
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 12 Jan 2017 17:36

India's worst enemy? Not China.not Pak but MOD babus! Another report recently about Russia changing its laws to perrmit direct export of spares,etc. by its OEM for eqpt. sold to India and setting up of support JVs here is v.welcome.If the Russians can amend their laws,surely the MOD could do with a spring clean,amending its red tapism which is throttling acquisition of anything military for the nation.

Here is anintersting Nov 2016 battlefield report on western/Ru MBTs in action in Iraq/Syria against ISIS.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201611 ... -us-tanks/
Inefficiency of US Tanks Used in Mosul Leaves German Magazine Uneasy © AP Photo/ Hadi Mizban

German Journalist Gernot Kramper compared two videos showing the US-made M1 Abrams tank and the Russian-made T-90 being hit by anti-tank missiles. He found that the Russian-made military vehicles demonstrated much better resistance and a higher level of armor protection than the American one. The recent military operation in Mosul shows that the US-led coalition is superior in the air, but its land operations leave much to be desired, Kramper wrote for German magazine Stern. One of the videos released by Daesh fighters shows how an anti-tank missile hit an American M1 Abrams tank and turned it into a "ball of fire." "The tank, weighing more than 60 tons, was supposed to protect its crew from something like that. The M1 Abrams is a combat armor tank of the US forces that is still in use. It was introduced for the first time in 1979, and since then it has been modernized several times. The Iraqis, however, have only reclaimed older versions available. The main problem is that the tanks have obviously not been reequipped with modern defense features," the journalist wrote. ©

Apparently, a rocket hit the most vulnerable part of the tank — the compartment with ammunition. However, the 60-ton tank was still supposed to provide protection for the crew. Obviously, the tank in question did not possess active defense systems. There was also no reactive armor on the vehicle that could have reduced the damage, Kramper stated. The author also noted that in contrast to Iraqi troops equipped with the old US military vehicles, the Syrian Army was provided by Moscow with the new efficient tanks. To prove his opinion, Kramper published a video depicting the US-produced TOW missile hitting the Russian-made T-90 tank in Syria. The machine turned out to have an active protection system that didn't let the missile to penetrate the armor and enabled the crew to get out of the cab.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201611 ... -us-tanks/


PS:ABsence of an APS system is crucial from this report,why the T-90s being acquired must have their APS.Here again babudom is doing its best to harm the IA,as from earlier posts about T-90s not coming with any APS ,reason babudom's procurement protocol.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 938
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 12 Jan 2017 23:31

That Abrams likely drove away after the ammunition brew up. The crew is protected from the ammunition storage by an armored door. This has been discussed any number of times. A Russian T series tank on the other hand, gives its crew no chance of survival if any penetration happens. The crew are literally sitting on top of propellant. :-(

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 799
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 14 Jan 2017 08:48

I wouldn't put it past an ill-trained crew to keep that door propped open for convenience. Operating it with the knee switch and extracting a round at the same time is known to be a very awkward procedure.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18756
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 14 Jan 2017 12:03

Yemini/Iraqi war has show that crew could not escape Abrams once hit and there are videos of crew managed to run from a burning T-55 tank. Boils down to where it hit and circumstances like did the hit result in immediate secondary explosion giving no time for crew to escape

Like here after Abrams getting hit by Russian Fagot http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... field.html
Or here M1A2 hitting again by Fagot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePvNlfrxfw

Where the crew of T-55 looked lucky to escape the tank before secondary explosion after being hit by Tow https://www.funker530.com/tow-missile-l ... by-rebels/

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16383
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 16 Jan 2017 18:53

Watching an old documentary about the Warsaw uprising just before the war in Europe ended,and which was mercilessly punished by the Nazis,in which the greatest ever slaughter of civivies in living memory took place,had a number of clips featuring German ICVs and tanks.What impressed one was their very low silhouette ,extremely modern by today's stds.,in fact superior to many.The sharply sloped glacis would also have assisted in deflecting direct hits.

It is a well known fact that both the Soviets and the West used to sell inferior spec armour to client states,barring their most favoured friends,why Soviet and now western armour is being found vulnerable to modern ATGMs and tandem warhead RPGs.A nice German innovation is the use of "corrugated" skirt armour to deflect TW RPG rounds.This does not appear to be ERA though,which features on the newer Ru Armata series.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 16 Jan 2017 20:06

^^^^ There we go, apologizing for failures of the tin-cans and comparing it vs the Abrams. Why Abrams? Is India buying or interested in buying the Abrams? No. So what should be the comparison here is the Arjun - cheaper, better protected, and...... Made in India (and hated by pimps of foreign maal).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16383
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 17 Jan 2017 18:17

The aim is to learn from current conflicts as to how supposed frontline eqpt. from both east and west have fared with the advent of v.potent RPG rounds and man-portable ATGMs. The report that most of the 124 MK-1 Arjuns were in an inoperable state due to deficiencies,spare shortages,etc., was a shocker. There is something amiss at the CVRDE,(enough material available n open source info) which has a large backlog of prod./upgrades of sev. types of tanks (T-72s,T-90s).,including Arjun, which is why sev. hundred T-90s meant to be built at Avadi will now be bought outright. Since we have a dedicated DM in the saddle,seized of the issue,one supposes that whatever decisions that will be made will be based upon the ebst interests of both IA requirements,plus increasing indigenous production both in desi designed eqpt. and % of material content.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2835
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 18 Jan 2017 23:49


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16383
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 20 Jan 2017 13:50

I can't fathom why the "second competitor" wan't chosen! If there were two competitors in the first place,how could the deal/award be to a "single vendor"? This is typical MOD babudom at play,deliberately delaying the issue for their own vested interests. Why cannot the GOI/MOD always have a multi-tender approach unless it is so sensitive,special and specific that a G-to-G deal is required,as in the case of Akula leases.If the Israeli system meets performance stds. we should buy it asap,as developing an indigenous system is unpredictable results-wise,may even require imports of some components too,a process which could take years before success and ....obsolescence!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18756
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 20 Jan 2017 15:28

India to deploy newly ordered T-90MS tanks along border with Pakistan
Rahul Bedi, New Delhi - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

http://www.janes.com/article/67082/indi ... h-pakistan
The Indian Army (IA) plans to deploy about 464 newly ordered T-90MS main battle tanks (MBTs) along India's western and northern borders with Pakistan, military officials told IHS Jane's on 19 January.

The T-90MS MBTs, which are being acquired in kit form from Russia for INR134.80 billion (USD2 billion), will in the coming years supplement around 850-900 Bhishma MBTs currently deployed in the Indian states of Rajasthan and Punjab, both of which border Pakistan.

Bhishma is the designation for the Indian variant of the T-90S MBT, the export model of the T-90 MBT in use with the Russian Ground Forces.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 21 Jan 2017 01:40

Sad that our corrupt core allows the purchase of inferior weaponry. Every Indian (not the Roosi Rakshaks) should hang their head in shame. Parrikar or Antony, the political bosses cannot make the forces play ball.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 2835
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 21 Jan 2017 01:44

Roosi Rakshaks :mrgreen: :D

maxratul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby maxratul » 21 Jan 2017 01:58

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:<SNIP>stop trolling

that animation is top notch


True. Finally we have the glossy brochure for our an Indian product.

This is the first level of marketing a product - something like a pic on a matrimony website. If the pic is attractive, the interested party starts looking at other details! :P


As someone who is at a leadership role in the India studio of one of the world's largest video game companies, I have to regretfully say that this animation is woefully subpar. Infact, in India itself there are multiple production houses capable of infinitely better quality of both animation and storyboarding.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13940
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 21 Jan 2017 02:31

It matches most of the similar class of animations available for these sort of systems. This is basic PR not some H-wood flick. It gets the basics across well. Quibble about the design, eg elevated vision ports. But quibbling about the animation which to the average person is fairly ok.. pointless.

maxratul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby maxratul » 21 Jan 2017 03:11

see if we want to do brochure-giri, then we need to have a certain quality. Basic PR will give less than basic result when the natasha comes dressed like this



Trust me, the expectations of the average person with regards to the quality of multimedia content is quite high. The Kestrel video was shockingly bad for a 2016 production - completely unacceptable for a serious company.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5265
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 21 Jan 2017 04:51

Was surfing through Tata's website yesterday. Came across another light armourmed vehicle that they are producing called the Light Support Utility Vehicle or LSUV.

Image

Image

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7231
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 21 Jan 2017 14:00

Well the ms is sure bringing logistics commonality with rest if the fleet. Does it come with blow off armored panels.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 837
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nits » 21 Jan 2017 14:12

~~~Deleted~~~
Last edited by nits on 22 Jan 2017 08:23, edited 1 time in total.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 937
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Kakarat » 21 Jan 2017 15:02

nits wrote:
Indranil wrote:Was surfing through Tata's website yesterday. Came across another light armourmed vehicle that they are producing called the Light Support Utility Vehicle or LSUV.

http://corp-content.tatamotors.com.s3-a ... ery-01.jpg

http://corp-content.tatamotors.com.s3-a ... ery-02.jpg


Expect more better animation from Tata; Marketing is a important Key to ensure your products stands out or may be i am expecting too much


This is not animation but a CAD model

nits
BRFite
Posts: 837
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nits » 21 Jan 2017 15:12

~~~Deleted~~~
Last edited by nits on 22 Jan 2017 08:23, edited 1 time in total.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1047
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Zynda » 21 Jan 2017 19:24

OT: Most of the CAD packages include a scene rendering option where superb photo-realistic textures can be applied and a beautiful image can be captured, precisely for presentation purposes. I don't think the above images were meant to be for PR purposes...but still a scene rendering operation could have been applied. Here is a piston & flywheel assy with just material textures applied. A scene rendering would include a background scenery and can include lighting effects as well.

Image
Last edited by Zynda on 21 Jan 2017 19:45, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32079
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 21 Jan 2017 19:31

And BANG! An Indian product gets hit for not being good looking enough even in its conceptual stage. Typical. Add this to scooter helmet, chappal, nimboo, paint and melting tyres

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 13940
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 21 Jan 2017 21:36

maxratul, that is a Tank not an IFV and brochure giri that is done will not compensate for the actual product. have you seen the basic IAI website etc? how many of their items were purchased by india? the tata IFV prsentation was ok. nothing great but perfectly serviceable and a damn sight better than ninety percent of the b-wood gfx. seeing it we got a clear idea of the design, what it has, what its layout is. we didnt need some super storyboard from HALO either.
what you want is some super slick effort that will go nowhere since the IA will go by the actual prototype. let that happen. tata if its serious will focus on the actual product first and foremost.

maxratul
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby maxratul » 22 Jan 2017 05:08

And this is the mistake that we do - thinking that a product will sell itself merely by being good, despite much evidence to the contrary. Really dont want to go OT here, but bad, sub-par animation is bad, sub-par animation, intended/required or not, and as such damages the perception and brand value of whatever it is associated with. It has got nothing to do with actual capabilities of the product, but has a lot to do with how the public/viewer makes a mental judgement about it. Unfair, yes - but that is how human beings in the real world are. When we talk about shiny brochures this is what we are talking about - anyways this is my final post on this issue here.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 22 Jan 2017 06:28

^^^^^ What a waste of bandwidth! Let's move on.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32079
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 22 Jan 2017 06:40

maxratul wrote:And this is the mistake that we do - thinking that a product will sell itself merely by being good, despite much evidence to the contrary. Really dont want to go OT here, but bad, sub-par animation is bad, sub-par animation, intended/required or not, and as such damages the perception and brand value of whatever it is associated with. It has got nothing to do with actual capabilities of the product, but has a lot to do with how the public/viewer makes a mental judgement about it. Unfair, yes - but that is how human beings in the real world are. When we talk about shiny brochures this is what we are talking about - anyways this is my final post on this issue here.

Let me have my say. Perceptions at first glance, and remarks made off the cuff that say something is beautiful or not beautiful are like racism - black is ugly, blue eyes are beautiful, slanteye is bad. Perceptions matter, but so do attitudes. Looking at something and judging that it is ugly is everybody's prerogative, but not necessarily the right thing to do. People will disagree with you and tell you so. That's the way the world works too.

A "free press" and "freedom of expression" that allows a paid article to diss the product of another company can also do a lot of damage to perceptions and that is how the world works. Indian products are dissed from the word go by anyone who sees a threat - but they need not do that when Indians are themselves ready to make unfavourable comparisons with other products indicating a great general awareness of the market and how the world works

I thought that image was fine looking myself - I recognized the shape of an existing Tata vehicle and saw the modifications that had been done. There can be more than one opinion on an issue and more than one person can give a lecture about his opinions. Just sayin..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32079
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 22 Jan 2017 07:36

Indranil wrote:Was surfing through Tata's website yesterday. Came across another light armourmed vehicle that they are producing called the Light Support Utility Vehicle or LSUV.

Image


I could not figure out what the racks at the back are for - they look like racks to carry cylinders of some sort .I found a pdf at the site below that gives the features but no explanation of the racks
http://www.tatamotors.com/product/defen ... icle-lsuv/

nits
BRFite
Posts: 837
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nits » 22 Jan 2017 08:22

nits wrote:Sorry Sir; what i meant is overall a more better finishing \ quality. Unless its not possible in CAD


didn't thought a normal casual remark without any bias towards Indian products ( i am one of the biggest supporter of Desi stuff) will create so much discussion... I am not trying to be racist or looking bad on them. Apologies if my remark came badly - Deleting them


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya G, brar_w, Kakarat, Prasobh, ukumar and 38 guests