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

MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

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.
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby member_22539 » 20 Apr 2016 17:57

^What is the point of showing all this. What you bumpkins (as opposed to the suave and world wise DGMF) don't realize is that the DGMF is saving us pillions of dollas hanging on to the old rusted T-72 bridges and recovery vehicles (that will never wear out or reach end of life), which the T-72 upgrade T-90 generously deigns to use. Besides, we need to use paki bridges, which were built only for below 50 ton tanks. And when they sit twiddling their thumbs we can waltz over them and kick the sh!t out of them with the wundertnk tinty.

So, stop wasting everyone's time and give up.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3571
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 20 Apr 2016 18:09

:rotfl:

Amazing part is all these (except Arjun BLT) MLC-70 rated bridging systems have already been inducted into the IA. So DGMF (and DDMs) should be called out for their continual use of Arjun weight as an excuse for not ordering more. No more excuses!

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1001
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 21 Apr 2016 00:12

is that an Arjun I see crossing with trusted old Sarvatra Bridge.

@Arun Menon ... good one.
I give up :D
(Never)

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35361
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 21 Apr 2016 03:17

the beedies have acquired/acquiring chips mbt2000.

---

q: how vulnerable is that remotely controlled weapon station on the turret or the mantlet? any analysis/tests of a direct on it?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1001
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 21 Apr 2016 04:53

^^^

It will be quite suspectible to damage.
The electro optical sensors would be highly susceptible.

The Russians created the BMP-72. A Fighting IFV on the T-72 chasis.
This thing had two or four cannons firing HESH or MESH rounds (cant remember). They could not do anything to a MBT.
However, they proclaimed it had the capability to kill a tank without penetration.

How ?
By inflicting a large volume of fire directly at the tanks it created a large amount of splash damage, taking our the viewing optics, aerials, equipment, AA guns, firing ports etc that the Tank was effectively blind with a large gun and an engine.

However the weapons stations above should be engaging light troops instead of coming into play when being engaged by enemy armour.

If the enemy engages the weapons station above with their main gun instead of hoping to penetrate the armour, they are giving up first kill shot rights.
The same happens if you go for tracks or engine, you are going for non-lethal kill which then provides the receiver of the shot with the first kill shot advantage.

Hence in battles they often go for penetrative kill shot instead of mobility kills, when they ARE capable of rights.


Note: when the RCWS is engaging its opposition, I would hope the optics should help outrange whatever is being thrown at it.

Apologies if I have over explained.
Just went down the hole of a combat scenario when the RCWS would be engaged or hit.
:-)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3571
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 21 Apr 2016 05:58

SaiK wrote:...

q: how vulnerable is that remotely controlled weapon station on the turret or the mantlet? any analysis/tests of a direct on it?


Anything external would likely be damaged due to massive shock and high-speed debris. How much damage would depend on what ammo was used, where it hit the tank, etc.

Most devastating ammunition would be the (TB) round.

Arjun tank’s new powerful ammo developed by DRDO labs in Pune
...

THE new ammunition for India’s main battle tank Arjun was developed by two Pune-based research labs of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The new ammunition is even more destructive than before and was successfully test fired at Chandipur in Odisha on January 6. The new Penetration-Cum Blast (PCB) and Thermobaric (TB) Ammunition, specially designed for Arjun is the result of extensive research done by DRDO’s two labs located in Pashan — Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE) and High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL). The two labs have been involved in the research and development of almost all the indigenous weapon systems of India.

A press release from the Defence PRO said, “The trials were found to be very effective and the damage was devastating with the firing of ammunition successfully destroying the target tank and severely damaging its turret, barrel, tracks, ammunition bin, various sights and antennas.”

...


Image

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1460
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby vasu raya » 21 Apr 2016 07:20

so we have a situation where the LCA has external interest but the production capacity is nowhere in sight while Arjun has prod capacity in Avadi but no export interest. If IA thinks that 60% of the tank is imported it shouldn't have any qualms if the same tank is exported assuming somebody has worked out the configuration of an export version. Probably in the near future they might be developing unmanned ground vehicles which means developing fail safe control systems which is atleast two different sets of control software with sensor fusion. So there is scope for isolating even the control system on the export version.

every time a terrorist attack happens, few of these can be rolled out for Afghanistan in tranches at the least
And put it as a competitor where ever Chinese are making there presence felt.
if it competes with the T-90 export version, it might irk the Russians enough to stop spares for IA's T-90s and DGMF might need more options then :)

Does Avadi have a plan other than sending Dossiers to DGMF?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35361
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 21 Apr 2016 08:08

khalsa saab, no you did not. perfecto! thanku.

they could go thermobaric on nag/air version and /brimstones/equivalents.

--
related:
I see trophy on merkava costing $300k. why wouldn't we build our own trophy?

BharadwajV
BRFite
Posts: 116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby BharadwajV » 21 Apr 2016 11:31

^^
Karan M mentioned that the Arjun Mark2 has a more cost effective solution towards the ATGM problem.

Plus tanks seem to be the last on the list for GoI's cash pie.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17637
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 21 Apr 2016 12:03

VR, Arjun being a 4-crew MBT,larger and heavier than the most commonly used MBTs abroad,the T-series, would on the cost factor find lesser export interest. Only the very well-heeled nations like ME monarchies buy large Western MBTs,US,Brit,French and German.Secondly,unless Arjun is inducted in large number in the IA,like Dhruv with the IAF ,there would be a Q mark in the interested nation about after-sales support,etc. I would want the CVRDE/pvt Indian entities to design a new 3-man crewed MBT or ICV on the lines of the LCA/Gnat.Sturdy,capable,reliable and cheap. Easy to operate,manufacture in large qty.History has shown that you can't fail with that mantra.Look at the Panzers,T-34s,etc.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5748
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 21 Apr 2016 20:56

^^^ Why are you being the naysayer on behalf of potential importers?!!!

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14472
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 21 Apr 2016 23:57

That's what he does... and then says nyet, I am not an import shill. Yup, sure.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1986
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Prem Kumar » 22 Apr 2016 04:45



This is like casting pearls before a swine (or if we prefer the Tamil version, Burning camphor in front of a donkey). The DGMF will rub their chins & say:

Hmmm, excellent ammunition! But we aren't buying Arjuns. So, can you please make some for the Tin-Cans & T-72s so that we can extend their pathetic lives for a few more Yugas?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35361
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Apr 2016 16:40

The Russian influence has deep space networks within the evil empire setup. They are the same folks who resist India move closer to USA. They are losing a big mediation market share. None other than few rakshaks are deeply connected to building home-grown solutions to throw both the cold-war heavy weights outta mainline weapons use for the forces. They will infiltrate to trash anything and everything DRDO produces. There will be enough clout to challenge and create a market for imports.

shaking the 70% share is not an easy joke! it requires massively parallel computing power with million nodes to process to tackle just the evil aspects alone. I am not talking about the seller alone.

DPP must think big. [I am not talking about being left or right. I am talking being right at the center to think for the nation's defence - check out all strat fora discussions, it is either russkie clout or khan specific discussions, and only a handful of well wishers].

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10672
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 22 Apr 2016 19:25

Khalsa wrote:Arjun Mk2 Testing Images.
Image

Okay someone tell me what is going on here.
Is that Fire plume from a missile launch. That can't be right.
It can't be ammo cook off since there is not much ammo carried in tests.
Is that plume of fire coming from the Turret or from behind ?
is that a blow off panel test ?

Experts please

1. This is the Mark 1
2. The gun is facing the camera.

Smoke grenade launch from the back of the tank? There are no blow off panels in the back - only on the front and sides.
The smoke grenade launchers OTOH can now swivel on their own and launch

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby sivab » 29 May 2016 19:12

[youtube]pvqC4cbTgkk?t=959[/youtube]

See from 16:00 mark on the criminal neglect of Arjun MK-I by UPA. No ammo, spares and were rotting in field. MP made efforts to get it back to its feet with about 70% of 2 regiments operational now. Good news is he is confident Mark-2 will be manufactured after some changes and see service. Great news is he is looking to export Arjun. 8)

member_29341
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby member_29341 » 30 May 2016 07:49

This is one success story that needs to be pushed forward. Arjun II is an excellent tank and comparing it to the T series is like comparing apples and oranges. More power to MP if he advocates to manufacture more of these

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17637
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 30 May 2016 11:01

Guys,"if you can't beat 'em join 'em",is an old saying. What the CVRDE should've done was to have developed simultaneously a 3-man MBT with an auto-loader (why, even taken the ones on the T-series and shoved them in,as haven't we got some MBT TOT?!).Kanchan armour,HP suspension, sensors,ATGMs,etc,technology what we've developed for Arjun. This way the IA will not be able to talk about excessive weight,cost,etc. of desi products. This should've been done instead of developing the "Tank-X" which got nowhere. This can still be done for the FMBT.

Naturally,the Russians will want to protect their decades old relationship,and they have almost a century of experience in designing,developing and building armour,liker no one else. Therefore,the technological advantage will always be with them (and the West),as we're seeing on the Armata series of AVs. We will catch up no doubt given time,but given the huge numbers required by the IA ,we will always have enough share of the AV pie for indigenous products if we go about it the right way. Hiving off ICV requirements to pvt. industry (Tata,whoever) is a good first step.It opens up more lines for indigenous production of higher value MBTs/Arjuns,etc.
I am sure-if one has read my many posts ,that there is enough space for Arjun complementing the thousands of T-series MBTs which are already a done deal. We can't turn back the clock. The increased amount of automation in AVs today-seen on the Armata series and the development of robotic tanks is where the desi designers have to concentrate future development on. Fewer crew members reduces MBT size allowing for greater armour.mobility,weapons and defences to be installed against both land and air threats.

vonkabra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 52
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby vonkabra » 31 May 2016 10:32

Philip wrote:Fewer crew members reduces MBT size allowing for greater armour.mobility,weapons and defences to be installed against both land and air threats.


No doubt that's why the Armata is about 1.5 times the size/ weight of the T-90.

On another note, in the video all 4 crew members of the Arjun Mk2 seem to be from different regiments (look at their beret badges). Any theories for that?

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 896
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 31 May 2016 12:52

Saar the large size of the Armata is to accomodate crew comforts... like a toilet

It will be required for all those deep penetration missions into the land of the dlagon :mrgreen:


Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9161
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 04 Jun 2016 10:38

Have they not yet started production of Mk2? I thought it was already done.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3571
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 04 Jun 2016 13:05

^^^

After the last round of trials the IA wanted 1.5 tons weight reduction. So it's back to drawing boards followed by another round of winter/summer trials before production green light ... that is if there are no more change request yet again after those trials. Production lines have been sitting idle since 2012.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35361
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2016 10:33

https://twitter.com/Bete_N0ire/status/7 ... 2299070466
NirmOhi ‏@Bete_N0ire Aug 14
Have a first look of the power of desi Thermobaric shell destroying military-grade Reinforced Cement Concrete Wall.

Image

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1001
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 08 Nov 2016 05:21

Even in 2016, no orders for Arjun Tank.
Sigh... what a loss of momentum for the fledgling Indian Armoured Tech Industry.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rishi Verma » 08 Nov 2016 05:43

It's very much necessary to find out why Army does not order Arjun Mk2.

Were the requirements for T-90 put forth few years before Arjun improvements were carried out?

The army has no faith in Indian designed Indian manufactured tanks?

The team that did comparative trials has moved on / retired? And the new team has no knowledge of Arjun performance?

Did some past corrupt and genius army officer create requiments for Arjun in such a way that when Arjun was designed to meet those specs, will automatically fail today's requiments? (highly improbable)

Did the army make a mistake in laying out their original requiments for Arjun?

Is there some manufacturing issue with Arjuns?

Is there some quality issue with Arjuns?

Is it a procedural screw up?

Is it a deep-state corruption issue?

This saga is not over yet, it's time to get to the truth.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7516
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 08 Nov 2016 08:11

The army wants tanks that can use Pakistani bridge infrastructure when they go invading into paki land. Arjun is too heavy for it.

On a serious note, Arjun is expensive to operate in the Indian context, in the absence of complete overhaul of the support arms of the Armored corps.

Things such as tank transporters,fuel tankers, engineering support, and the battlefield bridges.

You can ask why these issues were not considered when the last GSQR of the late 1980s was issued. But this was before the bad economic days of the early 90s. Now, the T 90 is in place, it can use all the physical infrastructure of the T 72. Its a bonus.

Please note, I am not supporting the T 90 in any shape over the Arjun. I am only exploring the reasons why the IA loves the 90.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Marten » 08 Nov 2016 08:36

Pratyush, that infra argument is limited to Punjab. Where in Sindh or the rest of that country is this infra issue present? And other than bridging equipment, what specific infra is required for tanks? I presume we are not relying Pak Railways to transport our tanks.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2117
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby kit » 08 Nov 2016 08:57

Why not sell the Arjun to Afghanistan ?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7516
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 08 Nov 2016 09:02

Marten wrote:Pratyush, that infra argument is limited to Punjab. Where in Sindh or the rest of that country is this infra issue present? And other than bridging equipment, what specific infra is required for tanks? I presume we are not relying Pak Railways to transport our tanks.



:(( :(( Man those are not my arguments. Those are IAs. :(( :((

On a serious note, the lower ground pressure of the vehicle when contrasted with the tin can, should solve the issue no. :P

But we all know how the story goes, so why raise our BP.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1001
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 08 Nov 2016 10:02

Pratyush

Expect the Pakistan Engineers to blow up every bridge as they retreat.
Battle planning cannot be based on expected behaviour on part of the enemy.

Sorry my friend but your logic is flawed.
We created marshlands for their Pattons to sink after KhemKaran.

Why would they not do the same ?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3969
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 08 Nov 2016 10:19

Khalsa Saar...read Pratyush's post again. He was kidding about the bridges.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7516
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 08 Nov 2016 10:20

Khalsa in that case it makes no difference between T 90 and the Arjun. Does it!

What matters is the holding of bridging equipment for the armored crops. Or the ability of the armored force to handle difficult terrain. Which is in turn dependent on the quantity of engineering support equipment.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rishi Verma » 08 Nov 2016 10:22

Pratyush wrote:The army wants tanks that can use Pakistani bridge infrastructure when they go invading into paki land. Arjun is too heavy for it.

On a serious note, Arjun is expensive to operate in the Indian context, in the absence of complete overhaul of the support arms of the Armored corps.

Things such as tank transporters,fuel tankers, engineering support, and the battlefield bridges.

You can ask why these issues were not considered when the last GSQR of the late 1980s was issued. But this was before the bad economic days of the early 90s. Now, the T 90 is in place, it can use all the physical infrastructure of the T 72. Its a bonus.

Please note, I am not supporting the T 90 in any shape over the Arjun. I am only exploring the reasons why the IA loves the 90.


Arjun is too heavy, Arjun is too expensive to operate? Never heard of this before.

So when Army asked Avadi to carry out 108 improvements for Mk2, why these two were not in the list. Something is very fishy in the T-90 / Arjun tale.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 838
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Mihir » 08 Nov 2016 11:10

Marten wrote:Pratyush, that infra argument is limited to Punjab. Where in Sindh or the rest of that country is this infra issue present? And other than bridging equipment, what specific infra is required for tanks? I presume we are not relying Pak Railways to transport our tanks.

This is correct, but the claim is that they can't switch formations between sectors because of this issue. Also, they apparently cannot reuse other infra like tank transporters, AERVs, and mechanical tools from the T-72/90 for the Arjun, which complicates the logistical issue. According to one gent, the Army would have made the investment to support a heavier, more complicated tank across all sectors if the vehicle had evolutionary potential. It doesn't. The Army wants 40-something ton tanks in its future fleet, and the Arjun, even if inducted in numbers, will remain a one-off exception. So why, the thinking goes, upgrade all the infrastructure for what is an evolutionary dead end?

I don't quite agree, but that's the thought process in the Army...

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 243
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ks_sachin » 08 Nov 2016 11:17

Mihir wrote:
Marten wrote:Pratyush, that infra argument is limited to Punjab. Where in Sindh or the rest of that country is this infra issue present? And other than bridging equipment, what specific infra is required for tanks? I presume we are not relying Pak Railways to transport our tanks.

This is correct, but the claim is that they can't switch formations between sectors because of this issue. Also, they apparently cannot reuse other infra like tank transporters, AERVs, and mechanical tools from the T-72/90 for the Arjun, which complicates the logistical issue. According to one gent, the Army would have made the investment to support a heavier, more complicated tank across all sectors if the vehicle had evolutionary potential. It doesn't. The Army wants 40-something ton tanks in its future fleet, and the Arjun, even if inducted in numbers, will remain a one-off exception. So why, the thinking goes, upgrade all the infrastructure for what is an evolutionary dead end?

I don't quite agree, but that's the thought process in the Army...


This is an interesting point and has come up more than once in my conversations...

Key questions being raised are:
-what is the nature of warfare of the future
-do we need such a large Armd corps / armr holdings
-we cannot rely on a armd thrust as Pak defences are quite extensive
-invest more in arty etc at expence of armr...


And before anyone bites my head off - these are musings from senior officers...

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15856
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby chetak » 08 Nov 2016 11:47

kit wrote:Why not sell the Arjun to Afghanistan ?


so the pakis can get a good look at it?? :)

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1001
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 08 Nov 2016 14:52

Rakesh wrote:Khalsa Saar...read Pratyush's post again. He was kidding about the bridges.


Apologies Pratyush.
:-)

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1001
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 08 Nov 2016 14:58

Pratyush wrote:Khalsa in that case it makes no difference between T 90 and the Arjun. Does it!

What matters is the holding of bridging equipment for the armored crops. Or the ability of the armored force to handle difficult terrain. Which is in turn dependent on the quantity of engineering support equipment.


Yes sir you are right except for one major critical difference.

One drives the employment for thousands of my countrymen and the other drives $$$ into Russia.
While I love and appreciate the strategic partnership between us and Russia, this cannot exist at the same level if we continue to be the illeterate junior partner.
We are no Pakistan.

However that does not mean that we give eqpmnt that is unsuitable or inferior or not upto the job.
The Mk2 and improvements and comparative trials and all..

WHY ?

in regards to holding bridges and all.
Engr and others support arms will continue to move with the formation often leapfrogging behind the armoured thrust.
The idea for any cavalry man is to get to the nerve centre and drive down the main thrust there.

I will settle for nothing less than 500 Arjun Mk2 tanks before 2020 as a sign of us upping our game.
Nothing like mastering what you have created.

vinod
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby vinod » 08 Nov 2016 15:58

chetak wrote:
kit wrote:Why not sell the Arjun to Afghanistan ?


so the pakis can get a good look at it?? :)


So what? anyway IA is not using it much... so how does it matter if Pak gets a look or not?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dumal, Karan M, Rakesh, ranjbe and 74 guests