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.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2624
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby chola » 13 Aug 2018 16:24

AdityaM wrote:you are pulling his leg...right?
he meant failure to bring our T90s back to russia


Sachin ji is suggestng that T-90s which broke down in Russia last year were left there :rotfl:

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2624
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby chola » 13 Aug 2018 16:24

Gyan wrote:
chola wrote:There are a lot of militaries involved and a lot more as observers. A massive marketing opportunity for exports so of course the chinis are there in force.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/01/asia/china-army-games-military-intl/index.html



This is why I wanted the Arjun there. Why not showcase the Arjun and see if we can get any interest?

We talk about the chinis and “face” but I don’t see any evidence they give a chit. Their wheel fall off their MBT in the Tank Biathlon and becomes internet joke? But do they care? They come back the next year in force and showcase their wares in even greater numbers.

We lose a couple of T-90s and we shy away from bringing any of our tanks. We have no confidence and are afraid of a few eggs on our face. If the chinis can showcase their chit that breaks down in front of the world then what do we have to fear with the Arjun? We need to develop thicker skin and toughen up. This bothers me more than the results.


The failure to bring back our T90s worries me more then the mistakes and failures
The inhibition in bringing back our own tanks might mean that there are some inherent deficiencies in our tanks
In fact we should send more tanks and more men to these competitions so that they get additional exposure to men and equipment of other Nations also


Yes, it scares me that we did not even bring the T-90 this year. It almost seems like we are hiding something. If the T-90s broke down last year then we should have made the appropriate changes and come back this year to see if they perform better. It should be a benefit to be able to do this.

It also irritates me to no end that we are not exposing more units to these wide ranging games which includes air force and naval competitions too. We were in only three events.

The Russians and Chinis were in 20 events each. If we see ourselves as a major power at the same level we must be confident enough to compete across the board against them.

And there is some very real intelligence opportunities here too, especially regarding the PRC. For example, according to the chini mil boards, in the 2017 Games the J-10B actually beat the SU-35 in the aerial maneuvering portion but lost overall on putting bombs on ground targets. The PLAAF operates both so why wouldn’t we want to see this?

We buy Russian ships so why wouldn’t we want to see how they perform against Cheen’s? In the 2017 Games, a chini Type 056 went up against a russki Steregushchiy class (the 056 won.) Competing in there with a Kamorta would have given us some insight on future purchases and also how we might design our own corvettes.

As a chini mil watcher, it bothers me to see them get a load of data back as the 2018 results filter in while we sit on the sidelines. There is already word that their JH-7A won against the SU-34 and SU-24 in the strike section of Aviadarts.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 534
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 13 Aug 2018 18:28

chola wrote:
AdityaM wrote:you are pulling his leg...right?
he meant failure to bring our T90s back to russia


Sachin ji is suggestng that T-90s which broke down in Russia last year were left there :rotfl:

I am suggesting no such thing. Just trying to figure out Gyan argument.
And no ji please it only serves to make me feel old!!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50197
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 13 Aug 2018 21:19

Folks too much bandwidth on a useless exercise. IA obviously doesn't think these are important games to go win.
I suggest we stop this discussion unless some thing huge comes up!!!

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 441
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Raveen » 13 Aug 2018 22:25

ramana wrote:Folks too much bandwidth on a useless exercise. IA obviously doesn't think these are important games to go win.
I suggest we stop this discussion unless some thing huge comes up!!!



Curious, why participate in that case...I mean if you think it isn't worth the effort to compete.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50197
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 13 Aug 2018 22:34

I don't know. But we are wasting bandwidth discussing things that don't matter.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1300
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 14 Aug 2018 02:22

Agreed lets move on from this Tank Exercise.
We should have inter division competition in India.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 300
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sohamn » 14 Aug 2018 02:58

BTW, the tank biathlon excerises are viewable via Amazon videos.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby rajsunder » 15 Aug 2018 06:33



just watched this video, a discussion on Arjun tank by rajyasabha TV. The ex tanker kept repeating the same lies about the pricing of T90 being lower than Arjun and the DRDO spokesman did not utter a single word against it.

And the same thing about spares not being available and weight being too much for bridges.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19527
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Aug 2018 07:29

RS, all open source info , plus official reports of the cost of the various tranches for T-90s are available.They do show that the 60t+ Arjun is more expensive than the 45+t T-90.I've given in the past extensive details of the same.
As to the spares issue, it is also reported that spares for the firang components in A-1( which were planned and sourced for a long time ago) are becoming hard to get because the industry has moved on with tech. advances.

With a huge inventory of smaller-crewed cheaper T-series MBTs, the IA maintains its numerical superiority vs Pak.
We have to leverage as much out of the Arjun programme.One suggestion I've given is mating the T-90 turret to the A chassis which gives a superior ride, etc.Prototypes can be built quickly as we're locally building/ assembling T-90s at Avadi.The IA will find it v.hard to reject it.

The DRDO should work on a 3-man crewed FMBT asap to prevent future full imports.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9730
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 15 Aug 2018 10:53

I think just like the airforce there must 600 tank heavy weight category tanks seperatly filled by Arjun. Lighter tanks should form most of the armoured regiments. Arjun type heavies can be kept mainly desert sectors

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2624
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby chola » 16 Aug 2018 00:06

Aditya_V wrote:I think just like the airforce there must 600 tank heavy weight category tanks seperatly filled by Arjun. Lighter tanks should form most of the armoured regiments. Arjun type heavies can be kept mainly desert sectors



Absolutely, there must be a role for heavies. All Western armies field even heavier vehicles than the Arjun as their main tanks!

The argument that the US, France, UK, Germany, etc. have different terrain and infrastructure that make their heavier tanks viable is true but can’t be all encompassing. There are many places, including the western desert, that the Arjun can work.

The US Army which is all heavy is looking for a light tank because one size doesn’t fit all.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50197
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 16 Aug 2018 00:54

Aditya_V wrote:I think just like the airforce there must 600 tank heavy weight category tanks separately filled by Arjun. Lighter tanks should form most of the armoured regiments. Arjun type heavies can be kept mainly desert sectors


Aditya_V, The 1965 ended the light tank. US M-48 Pattons being massacred by upgunned Shermans and AMX 15s (both had the same gun CVN-75/90 high velocity gun which was derived from the Panzer in WWII) not to mention Centurions led to the changes to M-1 Abrams tank which is a heavy tank. No more medium tanks in US inventory. They used to have Chaffee, Sheridan, Walker Bulldozer etc. All gone.

FSU doesnt have to march to the French coast anymore now that Cold War is over and EU is at mercy of energy supplies from Russia.

Indian Army is inspired by the British Cavalry idea of Light Horse and Heavy Dragoon regiments. So they still want light/medium tanks. Read my links to the challenges to adoption of Centurion by the British. All the reasons made by IA were made by RA!!!

The dialogue is not over in Indian Army.
All the complaints about Arjun have been addressed and new ones are made.

IA needs an armoured corps general to make the decision yes or no.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 534
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 16 Aug 2018 04:34

We should call a referendum.
Arjxit -- vote Yes or No!!!

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 534
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 16 Aug 2018 05:20

On a more serious note every post in this thread ls like grounghogs day. Especially WRT Arjun.
Admins should lock this till there is something new!!

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2907
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Kashi » 16 Aug 2018 06:22

I see no other way but for the political leadership to lean heavily on IA and HAVE them accept Arjun. No ifs, no buts. Left to their own devices I see few reasons to believe that IA will embrace Arjun anymore than they have and that too reluctantly.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1300
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 17 Aug 2018 10:12

rajsunder wrote:



Salient Points from the Video

The General
  1. It is now heavy but that impacts only the transportation of the tank from home base to the staging area.
  2. The tank has good protection
  3. The tank barrel has extensive wear and tear issues especially chipping of metal when firing main gun, mentioned twice.
  4. The tank Arjun Mk1 only fired 500 out of the 500 stipulated rounds for acceptance tests but should have fired double that amount to remove doubt.
  5. Casts great doubt on the ammo. Mentions HESH is sorted but issues remain for ASFDS.
  6. The entire regiment of Arjun came to a stop when German batteries came to age of life after 4 years. Supply chain issue called out rightly.
  7. The engine is from foreign lands
  8. Hopes the indigenous content has risen in Mk2.
  9. Almost calls it a foreign tank and raises genuine fears and problems that come with running a foreign tank. Forgets that T-series tanks are not designed and coming from Orissa but from Russia.
  10. Calls the Arjun tank foreign and not fit and designed for Indian conditions.
  11. Proposes standardisation such as the batteries but the T-series battery would not fit in the Arjuns.
  12. Then almost proposes a new tank which has all the same parts or similar parts to the Bhishma i.e an Arjun by name but T-series by make because we make the same tank again and again.


The DRDO Man
  1. Explained the GSQR for the tank changed many times over and only stabilised much later on.
  2. It is now heavy but great work has been done around transporters and railway transporters, mentions 20 tyre carrier.
  3. The tank has damned good protection, clears explains the triangle of lethality, mobility and protection.
  4. Explains how the army's requirements of 89 initial requirements tilted the weight in favour of protection demanding compensation from mobility.
  5. Explains the Mk2 has missile firing capability.
  6. Explains the time taken to test MK2 in 8 years is not really that long, these things take time.
  7. Explains the tank is desi except for many components which could not be indiginised because Army's reluctance to order more than 124 Tanks.
  8. Mentions aroun 1000 order would have been awesome, to indeginise everything including engines.
  9. Mentions Navy's strategy of float the boat with indigenous steel and compares with Arjun.
  10. Rebutts the Generals 500 round firing by saying Arjun fired 1000 many times over.
  11. Explains the fixes in ammo and mentions indigenisation of the ammo and other components involved.
  12. Explains in the comparative trials of T-90 vs A-Mk1 the army reported Arjun Mk1 as a good tank that ought to be inducted.
  13. Slightly counter attacked the general's teasing of the Arjun being the foreign tank by saying Arjun was designed by Desi's for Thar desert and not for the Siberian Desert
  14. Explains the flexibility of the supply chain system within INDIA.
  15. No rebuttal of the tank barrel chipping attack
  16. No Serious counter of the battery issue
  17. Mentions the ERA as desi and shows cross pollination of that to T-series.


The Reporter

  1. Great second moderator in the debate
  2. Brings great knowledge of Make in India and importanc eof Arjun to India and make in India
  3. great and subtle comparasion to Tejas
  4. great comparasion to the MMRCA 2.0
  5. Mentions no country ever produces 100 % of everything, maybe USA.
  6. Confirms both the regiments are relegated to the Thar desert
  7. Does not confirm offensive or defensive posturing of Arjun regiments.
  8. Brings gravitas to the conversation


Once again a worthwhile watch.

Summary from Khalsa

  1. Order 1 more regiment of Arjun Mk1
  2. Order 4 more regiments of Mk2 with the weight trimmings which is underway. Saurav Jha has confirmed this is underway.
  3. Bring the engine manufacturing to India
  4. Start planning on Arjunk Mk3 which should have unmanned turret and slightly elevated chassis. Retain engine and basics.
  5. Plan for Arjun Mk3 to constitute 50% of the Indian armoured formations.

Stop this bs of T-series being a desi tank. its not.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2624
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby chola » 17 Aug 2018 10:26

Great analysis, Khalsaji.

But please fix name of our tank on item 4 in your summary.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9730
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 17 Aug 2018 10:33

Option2

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ashish raval » 17 Aug 2018 11:02

message deleted
Last edited by suryag on 17 Aug 2018 19:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: please come up with more constructive suggestions rather than empty accusations

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1300
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 17 Aug 2018 12:33

Like Steve Balmer shouted developers developers developers developers
I shout

Mekrava Mekrava Mekrava Mekrava Mekrava Mekrava Mekrava Mekrava Mekrava
Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun Arjun

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ashish raval » 18 Aug 2018 01:47

All, guess it makes sense not to waste bandwidth if there is nothing constructive to be added.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1300
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 18 Aug 2018 06:10

Dear Ashish

its not like we have been appointed as joint advisory community to the PM and Minister of Defence.
The idea of BR has been to educate, discuss and sometimes just analyse at the grassroots level so that next time there is a shoot off a Banyan tree growing past us mere grassroots , we taint that soon to be a giant tree with our thoughts and thinking.

Keep talking my brother, keep spreading the word.

When I grew up there was no word called desi made or make at home or make in india
it was all Oh my god Made in UK and Made in USA and made in Soviet Union.

I want the next gen to feel that it bodes well to say .... made in India.


Actually thinking again
The only thing made in India in my younger years was the song by Alisha, Made in India..

anyway keep BR_ing my friend. Keep talking and Keep discussing.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 534
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 18 Aug 2018 10:05

Khalsa wrote:Dear Ashish

its not like we have been appointed as joint advisory community to the PM and Minister of Defence.
The idea of BR has been to educate, discuss and sometimes just analyse at the grassroots level so that next time there is a shoot off a Banyan tree growing past us mere grassroots , we taint that soon to be a giant tree with our thoughts and thinking.

Keep talking my brother, keep spreading the word.

When I grew up there was no word called desi made or make at home or make in india
it was all Oh my god Made in UK and Made in USA and made in Soviet Union.

I want the next gen to feel that it bodes well to say .... made in India.


Actually thinking again
The only thing made in India in my younger years was the song by Alisha, Made in India..

anyway keep BR_ing my friend. Keep talking and Keep discussing.

Educate, discuss analyse definitely..but more often than not half baked speculations. Many a posters need to understand quite a bit more before pontificating..
There is a reason we have lost our most knowledgeable posters..

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5388
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby niran » 20 Aug 2018 07:47

ramana wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:I think just like the airforce there must 600 tank heavy weight category tanks separately filled by Arjun. Lighter tanks should form most of the armoured regiments. Arjun type heavies can be kept mainly desert sectors


Aditya_V, The 1965 ended the light tank. US M-48 Pattons being massacred by upgunned Shermans and AMX 15s (both had the same gun CVN-75/90 high velocity gun which was derived from the Panzer in WWII) not to mention Centurions led to the changes to M-1 Abrams tank which is a heavy tank. No more medium tanks in US inventory. They used to have Chaffee, Sheridan, Walker Bulldozer etc. All gone.

FSU doesnt have to march to the French coast anymore now that Cold War is over and EU is at mercy of energy supplies from Russia.

Indian Army is inspired by the British Cavalry idea of Light Horse and Heavy Dragoon regiments. So they still want light/medium tanks. Read my links to the challenges to adoption of Centurion by the British. All the reasons made by IA were made by RA!!!

The dialogue is not over in Indian Army.
All the complaints about Arjun have been addressed and new ones are made.

IA needs an armoured corps general to make the decision yes or no.


IA wants tanks in their classical mode that is
Light Tanks(LT)
Medium Tanks (MT)
Heavy Tanks(HT)
all three have their roles in battle field in place of all in one role tank of merikan philosophy IA prefers specialised tanks.

IMVVHO it is IA to decide not holloi polloi

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19527
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 20 Aug 2018 08:11

Yep.The final take is the IA.Most important factor is the declining defence budget in real terms, the IA's share and what its top priorities are.Air defence systems replacing legacy Sov. era SAMs ( Akash, etc.), new AA arty, then the heavy arty req- probably the top item, LW howitzers for the mountains, SP arty, med. and heavy lift helos, a new standard assault rifle, ATGMs ( Nag entering production), ICVs and upgrading our large BMP inventory....the list appears endless. Even in the MBT stakes as I've kep repeating, what is the cost comparison of the A-2 vs the locally built T-90 ( more expensive than a total buy from UVZ)?

Nevertheless, as many of us have stated, there is a niche for A-2 in certain sectors and another batch must be ordered to keep alive our infigenous effort.I gave an idea for a prototype using the A chassis and T series turrret.Theoretically it would weigh even less and we would get a hybrid 3 crew Arjun. This could be a stepping stone to an Armata style Arjun-3/4 whatever for production when the first T-72s start getting pensioned off.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 20 Aug 2018 15:24

niran wrote:IA wants tanks in their classical mode that is
Light Tanks(LT)
Medium Tanks (MT)
Heavy Tanks(HT)
all three have their roles in battle field in place of all in one role tank of merikan philosophy IA prefers specialised tanks.

IMVVHO it is IA to decide not holloi polloi


I would say IA wants a tank than can survive in a battlefield, having the least weight possible.

If technology can allow M1A2/ Leo/ Merv type capability with weight range of T-90 or less, that is the tank IA wants. And ofcourse not budget bursting.

The requirement is nothing special. Every army on this planet would like to have such a tank.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2624
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby chola » 20 Aug 2018 16:25

nam wrote:
niran wrote:IA wants tanks in their classical mode that is
Light Tanks(LT)
Medium Tanks (MT)
Heavy Tanks(HT)
all three have their roles in battle field in place of all in one role tank of merikan philosophy IA prefers specialised tanks.

IMVVHO it is IA to decide not holloi polloi


I would say IA wants a tank than can survive in a battlefield, having the least weight possible.

If technology can allow M1A2/ Leo/ Merv type capability with weight range of T-90 or less, that is the tank IA wants. And ofcourse not budget bursting.

The requirement is nothing special. Every army on this planet would like to have such a tank.


For the Western armies, that ideal tank is in the same weight range as the Arjun — LeClerc at low end at around 56 tons, Abrams high at 68 tons and Leopard 2 and Challenger in between. If the West can’t get them lighter for the protection they value then we can’t either.

The Arjun is the proper weight if we have the same philosophy as western armies (which, by tradition, we have.) Using the T-90 as our main tank invariably makes us use a Russian approach of numbers over protection.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 20 Aug 2018 23:35

Aditya_V wrote:I think just like the airforce there must 600 tank heavy weight category tanks seperatly filled by Arjun. Lighter tanks should form most of the armoured regiments. Arjun type heavies can be kept mainly desert sectors

Heavy fighters offer advantages in terms of more powerful sensors, greater payload, increased range, and superior swing-role capability. What advantages do heavy tanks provide today? Heavies in WW-II (and shortly after) had superior armour and more powerful guns -- neither of which are issues with modern mediums.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9730
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 21 Aug 2018 07:12

Heavy Tanks generally have better Armour, protection all round and better protection to crew. They are useful in open areas like Deserts where they can knock out targets at longer range and survivability is a bit better. I feel there is a case for a combination of heavies to completement our T 90 fleet.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1436
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 21 Aug 2018 16:52

Mihir wrote:What advantages do heavy tanks provide today? Heavies in WW-II (and shortly after) had superior armour and more powerful guns -- neither of which are issues with modern mediums.


Genuine question - Isn't superior armor generally heavier, and more powerful guns usually mean heavier ammo and also need more recoil damping (meaning weight)?

Alternately if light is the way to go then why stop at a 'light' t-90.. why not proceed to a 'lighter' M1128 Stryker type Mobile Gun System?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 21 Aug 2018 21:28

Manish, superior armour could be heavier, but doesn't necessarily have to be. The T-64 and T-72 were better armoured than their NATO counterparts while still being lighter. They achieved this by eliminating one crew member and using composite armour. Now with ERA and APS going mainstream, raw armour thickness has ceased to matter as much as it did earlier.

As far as guns go, today's heavies and mediums don't differ much. The Type 10's gun is as powerful as that on the M1A2SEPwhatever. Beyond a point, mounting large guns doesn't do much good. It works better to switch to ATGMs if more penetrating power is needed.

PS: None of this is an indictment of the Arjun's design. I still think the Arjun should be inducted in bulk -- not because it is a better tank, but because it is an Indian tank.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1436
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 21 Aug 2018 22:23

Mihir wrote:They achieved this by eliminating one crew member and using composite armour. Now with ERA and APS going mainstream, raw armour thickness has ceased to matter as much as it did earlier.

As far as guns go, today's heavies and mediums don't differ much. The Type 10's gun is as powerful as that on the M1A2SEPwhatever. Beyond a point, mounting large guns doesn't do much good. It works better to switch to ATGMs if more penetrating power is needed.


And they are trying to eliminate the entire crew now, with drone/robot type tanks. Maybe we should start our own developments on the same right away.. rather than import them a decade or two ahead.

ERA and APS is fine to a good extent. Are they very effective against APFSDS and Precursor style missiles. Or fast enough to take on multiple, near simultaneous shots from different angles. Like they say for fighter aircraft combat, there are no counter-measures against the good old fashioned dumb gun.

Mihir wrote:PS: None of this is an indictment of the Arjun's design. I still think the Arjun should be inducted in bulk -- not because it is a better tank, but because it is an Indian tank.


Can't agree enough on this :)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15468
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 24 Aug 2018 20:10

https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/newsle ... ust_18.pdf

On page 22, you can see the new Kanchan armor blocks developed for the Arjun Mk-2. Significantly more compact. Looks like the armor modules right behind the gun.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2624
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby chola » 24 Aug 2018 21:01

Mihir wrote:Manish, superior armour could be heavier, but doesn't necessarily have to be.


No, no, no, no. Let’s be realistic here. If superior armor could be lighter then the world’s heaviest tanks would not all be in the West where technology levels are the highest.

EVERYONE wants the best armor on the lightest tank possible. But the world of physics dictates that greater volume of the same material will always protect better.

If you made a tank from the finest and lightest armor in the world then someone who uses the same material but 20 percent more of it will automatically have better protection.

The Abrams, Leopard, Challenger, LeClerc and Merkava are all around 60 tons and they are the main battle tanks of countries who put a premium on protecting their servicemen. The T-72/T-90 and Type 96 are around 42 tons are designed by countries who historically do not put that same premium on lives.

There is a reason why the Arjun is in the same weight class as the Western tanks.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15468
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 24 Aug 2018 21:12

Mihir wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:I think just like the airforce there must 600 tank heavy weight category tanks seperatly filled by Arjun. Lighter tanks should form most of the armoured regiments. Arjun type heavies can be kept mainly desert sectors

Heavy fighters offer advantages in terms of more powerful sensors, greater payload, increased range, and superior swing-role capability. What advantages do heavy tanks provide today? Heavies in WW-II (and shortly after) had superior armour and more powerful guns -- neither of which are issues with modern mediums.


Modern mediums compromise on survivability. You want blast off panels to protect the crew, then separated ammo comes with a space premium. Similarly, long rod penetrators + larger guns will again take up volume. An Abrams has hence more growth potential than a volume limited T-8XX.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15468
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 24 Aug 2018 21:15

Mihir wrote:As far as guns go, today's heavies and mediums don't differ much. The Type 10's gun is as powerful as that on the M1A2SEPwhatever. Beyond a point, mounting large guns doesn't do much good. It works better to switch to ATGMs if more penetrating power is needed.


ATGMs are slow flying and hence susceptible to interception. Modern APFSDS remain very hard targets to counter, besides with which being dumb, they are effectively immune to countermeasures. In terms of penetration, the jury is still out, because once new chem-guns or even rail guns become available, then they will again take precedence (compact power gen. + storage remains the issue for the latter).

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 24 Aug 2018 21:49

The Army will not accept the Arjun, it hasnt accepted it for 15+ years and wont do so in the future. Ultimately, the customer is right, especially this customer as he puts his life on the line, and the DRDO/ARDE better focus their energies on a new design rather than beating the same dead horse.

What is deeply concerning is, that there should have been a cross pollination of Eastern/Western ideas to produce a world beating tank, which has not happened. We are stuck with the flawed T90/T72 with huge risks to specialist manpower and the Arjun which has become a bespoke contraption rarer than hens teeth.

If DRDO/ARDE had displayed risk taking abilities more commonly found in private enterprises, they would have produced a smaller tank that the army wanted using the same base technologies that they had already developed for Arjun. Its sad, but its time to salvage what we can from the Arjun project: the fire control system, the great suspension, the Kanchan armor.. Get Baba Kalyani to tie up with rhinemetal to produce their latest tube, get an engine from the Koreans and get on with the design of a new tank. This endless whining from the DRDO/ARDE AND the Cavalry is tiresome and boring.

They shouldve named the tank Ashwathamma rather than Arjun. :-(

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nachiket » 24 Aug 2018 23:18

sudeepj wrote:The Army will not accept the Arjun, it hasnt accepted it for 15+ years and wont do so in the future. Ultimately, the customer is right, especially this customer as he puts his life on the line, and the DRDO/ARDE better focus their energies on a new design rather than beating the same dead horse.

So why can't they come out and say it? Let's stop this waste of DRDO's resources and taxpayer money once and for all no? Why do they keep sending the DRDO on wild-goose chases with a new set of "improvements" every time the DRDO finishes with the last set?

This has been my prime complaint against the IA in this entire saga. Their reluctance to be honest about their intentions. They willingly face enemy bullets but they won't come out and admit that they made a mistake with the GSQR? They wanted something back then which they don't do now for whatever reasons. They wasted the country's meagre resources and continue to do so because of their refusal to own up to it. Just once I'd like to see a General raise his hand up and say, "Yes, the DRDO built what we asked them for. But we can't use it because our philosophy/tactics/requirements have changed since then. It is not their fault, it is ours."

Then everyone can just move on from this fiasco.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 24 Aug 2018 23:35

chola wrote:No, no, no, no. Let’s be realistic here. If superior armor could be lighter then the world’s heaviest tanks would not all be in the West where technology levels are the highest.

What makes you think that technology levels were highest in the West? Until the M1A1 entered service, Soviet tanks were by-and-large more advanced than Western ones.

chola wrote:The Abrams, Leopard, Challenger, LeClerc and Merkava are all around 60 tons and they are the main battle tanks of countries who put a premium on protecting their servicemen. The T-72/T-90 and Type 96 are around 42 tons are designed by countries who historically do not put that same premium on lives.

The Leclerc, Type 10, and K2 are fielded by "countries who put a premium on protecting their servicemen". They all weigh-in at less than 60 tons.

Karan M wrote:Modern mediums compromise on survivability. You want blast off panels to protect the crew, then separated ammo comes with a space premium. Similarly, long rod penetrators + larger guns will again take up volume. An Abrams has hence more growth potential than a volume limited T-8XX.

That's only true for Russian mediums, though, isn't it? The Type 10 and Leclerc have decent armour, long-rod penetrators, and blast-off panels to protect the ammunition.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bala Vignesh and 25 guests