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.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7287
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 08 Nov 2016 16:31

Khalsa wrote:
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.



I am some one who is absolutely rabid on the issue of domestic equipment. For the reasons that you have listed above.

But I have given up on the induction of the armored vehicle.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1788
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 19:17

It has been a while since an Armoured Corps man became chief, isn't it? :-) This focus on Artillery and other alternatives is actually good. But a 40 ton tank is regressive thought considering all tanks have moved to a heavier platform.
PS: I know the Arjun was done in, but the heart yearns for a fair deal. We're never again going to produce a meaningful tank. No chance.

kit
BRFite
Posts: 1947
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby kit » 08 Nov 2016 19:23

Remember the super duper Abrams the Americans sold to to KSA .. millions each one ..and busted up by Houthi RPGs :mrgreen:

Whatever India exports ..will be a different version .. Brahmos , Arjuns , ships

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 08 Nov 2016 19:29

Pratyush wrote:
Khalsa wrote:
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.



I am some one who is absolutely rabid on the issue of domestic equipment. For the reasons that you have listed above.

But I have given up on the induction of the armored vehicle.


+1. For all the talks of setting up domestic industry by inviting more screwdrivergiri, we forgot to leverage the Auto industry (and some other bright spots like Bharat Forge) expertise we have for lower end of defense equipment. If Arjun was given to Auto companies' consortium we would have had a lean and light (50ton) MK2 by now. And Army would have loved it.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 564
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby vaibhav.n » 08 Nov 2016 19:59

Marten wrote:It has been a while since an Armoured Corps man became chief, isn't it? :-)


The next COAS is from the armoured corps.

Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi would take over from the current chief in January. He is from 1st Lancers (Skinner's Horse)

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 564
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby vaibhav.n » 08 Nov 2016 20:35

The armoured corps is dead against a expensive heavy tank.

The Rajasthan canal was conceived in 1947 but work on it could start only in 1957 after the Indus waters treaty was signed with Pakistan. In 1983 an year before the first prototype of the Arjun was made, Indira Gandhi canal completed its Stage I. It comprised a 204-km feeder canal taking off from the headworks at the Harike barrage in Punjab, a 189-km-long feeder canal, and also construction of a distributary canal system of about 2,950 km in length.

The deserts where tanks could have unrestrained mobility started becoming restricted. Under stage 2, a latticework of canals snaked all over especially parallel to the border at Anupgarh and are planned to go upto Gadra Road in Barmer district. With increased requirements, the total length of main, feeder and distribution canals was about 9,245 km. An area which was classic tank country has gradually changed into a populated area with restricted employability especially for heavy tanks. A majority of the numerous canals that exist there don’t have bridges/culverts to take over 60-ton behemoths.


Image

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 08 Nov 2016 20:45

So Vaibhav, the T-90 is more expensive than the Arjun (if you include all components/systems ordered separately). As for heavy - please clarify because "ground pressure" of the Arjun is good for the sands in the areas of operation. So let us stop spreading misinformation about the Arjun. The simplest answer seems to be that IA is using a medieval doctrine - overwhelm the enemy, don't care about losses. The Arjun provides superior mobility, superior protection, better accuracy etc.

We all know how corrupt we are. DRDO does not have business development funding i.e. bribe paying power. Therefore the Arjun will not be bought.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 804
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Mihir » 08 Nov 2016 21:35

Vivek, have you read Hitesh's post on the ancillary costs of introducing a heavy tank fleet? The Arjun might be cheaper per unit, but the overall costs of upgrading road and rail infrastructure to support it would have been huge.

You're right about the low ground pressure being an advantage in the soft sands of Rajasthan and the mud of Punjab. But ground pressure is just one part of the equation. Tank transporters and bridges care only about overall weight, not ground pressure.

Marten
BRFite
Posts: 1788
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 » 09 Nov 2016 00:20

vaibhav.n wrote:
Marten wrote:It has been a while since an Armoured Corps man became chief, isn't it? :-)


The next COAS is from the armoured corps.

Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi would take over from the current chief in January. He is from 1st Lancers (Skinner's Horse)

OT: Yes of course, there was a discussion about Gen Bakshi being moved to Kolkota instead of taking over as VCOAS and formally being brought in! I think the infantry vs. armoured vs. artillery tussle has taken a real bad turn over the past three tenures. The next one will be a bloodbath. Especially we end up fighting a war with Pak over the next year or so. In my uneducated opinion, we will be seeing a large-scale skirmish soon. Whether it escalates into war is dependent on our current ammo and war reserves.

All said, Mihir saar, yes, not all infra including rail on our side can carry up to 70 tons. I'm sure you are aware there are bridge standards that specify the tonnage and upgrading these over the next twenty off years is already a given. Let us not use these piffling excuses to muddle the waters. It is what it is. The DGMF had everyone around run on a wild goose chase. There should have been repurcussions to the learned Generals who pushed hard for the Tincans and ensured all the while (remember they had THIRTY years to upgrade the infra or request the civilian administration to do so). We as a mature nation must be prepared to take on corruption headlong. Be it within the civilian populace or the armed forces. Treating specific units as beyond the purview of law is not going to help us. Whip every team in Avadi for neglecting or slowing down development. But also treat the issue with an even and balanced view and identify the reason behind our native capabilities being pushed backwards by 30 years.

The Arjun is a prime example of how this nation's resources are being perverted while we import below par tanks on the 30 year old pretexts and excuses. Just like we would like HAL to pay the price, one would like to see the IA make the officers who lead us down the path pay the price.
PS: I realize this is committing sacrilege or harakiri on BRF, but we need to open our eyes to this mess and be brutally honest with ourselves. Without that, I do not see local capabilities ever developing.

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5769
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 09 Nov 2016 00:30

If the IA is so dead set against buying more Arjun's, pray tell me why the eff did they ask for the Mk2? They even made a list of all the "improvements" they wanted. If they are never going to buy it why are they wasting taxpayer money and CVRDE/DRDO's time by not coming out and saying so?

We could have shelved the Arjun project entirely and moved resources to other stuff, if only the IA admitted they made a huge blunder when creating the GSQR and were sorry for wasting the country's money and time, but would not be able to buy the Arjun ever.

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 213
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Shankk » 09 Nov 2016 01:02

Mihir wrote:Vivek, have you read Hitesh's post on the ancillary costs of introducing a heavy tank fleet? The Arjun might be cheaper per unit, but the overall costs of upgrading road and rail infrastructure to support it would have been huge...


Arjun was developed as per army's own requirements. Did they not understand this? Were they idiots or malicious?

RohitAM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 21:28

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby RohitAM » 09 Nov 2016 01:48

Honestly, I would rather that the GOI told the DGMF to shove off and accept the Arjun in large numbers, while the infrastructure and support equipment is being put into place for the concerned tank regiments. They should've also forced the Army to buy the support equipment for the Arjun from their own budget, while the government worked to improve the infrastructure constraints raised by the Army for the Arjun, especially since they asked for the Mk.II, which is a progressively heavier unit compared to the Mk.I. The Army officers concerned with the Arjun saga should hang their heads in shame for being utterly incompetent, as well as, dare I say, absolutely corrupt - knowing that they would never accept the upgraded tank while opting for the Tin-cans. If they didn't want the Arjun, they should've simply said, "We want a lighter tank fleet, with a weight of around 50 tons. The Arjun will not do - can you develop a lighter version of it?"

But no, they want a bloody Merkava/M1A1 capability built on a T-34 chassis - physically, and even theoretically, that is impossible to achieve, unless you build a quantum tank whose physical characteristics can be varied based on the operating environment, and that's not gonna happen for another hundred or so years. In short, the DGMF gave the GSQR for the Arjun, and when the tank was built accordingly, it wasn't to the DGMF's liking, so they rejected it in favour of a tank which did not even come close to that brochure-inspired GSQR, but one which allowed the buyers to get kickbacks and Natashas, so they purchased it in the 1000's. I do not know about anybody else, but in my opinion, that's plain and simple treason.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3068
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2016 05:21

Marten wrote:PS: I realize this is committing sacrilege or harakiri on BRF, but we need to open our eyes to this mess and be brutally honest with ourselves. Without that, I do not see local capabilities ever developing.

I think Karan M said - on a totally different topic - don't be cowed down into NOT posting. Don't feel that you are committing sacrilege or harakiri by your comments. As long as you are not insulting or verbally abusing someone, feel free to forcefully, but respectfully, disagree. And you have not done anything to the contrary. So keep posting, because the import lobby on BRF is going great guns :) The excuses I am reading are amazing. These folks will do really well as politicians.

And for folks who are NOT posting because they feel a certain group or organization is getting a raw deal, well this is a forum. We cannot live like Buddha and be immune to critique/criticism. That is nonsense. If there is something wrong I am saying - I expect and have heard it (quite well!) from BRFites - that I am speaking bullsh!t. If I am wrong, I am wrong. I ain't the Almighty and I have a lot to learn. But remember, that is a two way street.

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

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rishi Verma » 09 Nov 2016 05:39

There is a lot of BS going on here in the name of terrain, bridges, railways etc to make a case against Arjun, no one is believing it.

Army requirement is huge. Ordering 500 Arjuns won't make a huge dent in the coffers. Nor it will "kill" T-90 cash cow for the import lobby.

By manufacturing more Arjuns the gov could instill confidence in local products, develop long term skills, generate high quality employment, learn valuable lessons for next gen tank, allow Arjuns a fair chance to prove its merit.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Nov 2016 06:12

Rakesh wrote:
Marten wrote:PS: I realize this is committing sacrilege or harakiri on BRF, but we need to open our eyes to this mess and be brutally honest with ourselves. Without that, I do not see local capabilities ever developing.

I think Karan M said - on a totally different topic - don't be cowed down into NOT posting. Don't feel that you are committing sacrilege or harakiri by your comments. As long as you are not insulting or verbally abusing someone, feel free to forcefully, but respectfully, disagree. And you have not done anything to the contrary. So keep posting, because the import lobby on BRF is going great guns :) The excuses I am reading are amazing. These folks will do really well as politicians.

And for folks who are NOT posting because they feel a certain group or organization is getting a raw deal, well this is a forum. We cannot live like Buddha and be immune to critique/criticism. That is nonsense. If there is something wrong I am saying - I expect and have heard it (quite well!) from BRFites - that I am speaking bullsh!t. If I am wrong, I am wrong. I ain't the Almighty and I have a lot to learn. But remember, that is a two way street.


I totally concur on the first point.

On the second point
- criticise definitely but sometime the language used is OTT (hashish etc etc!!!). Also sweeping generalisations without doing the required legwork...

- the level of being devalued is extremely palpable and men in uniform - both serving and retired - are extremely sensitive so we have to strive to get our point across but also at the same time not tar all of them with the same brush. I have not served but having lived in the services ethos when a poster says army is corrupt I get upset because to me it demeans all - and army is one part of the issue and cannot be looked at in isolation.

ultimately it is for members to decide whether they are willing to live some folks with actual experience but a bit of a thin skin - by tempering how we put our point across or burn them and live like frogs in a well.
I refer back to your first point - " As long as you are not insulting or verbally abusing someone, feel free to forcefully, but respectfully, disagree"
- would you agree that this is more honoured in the breach that its observance...

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3068
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2016 06:39

ks_sachin wrote:I totally concur on the first point.

On the second point
- criticise definitely but sometime the language used is OTT (hashish etc etc!!!). Also sweeping generalisations without doing the required legwork...

- the level of being devalued is extremely palpable and men in uniform - both serving and retired - are extremely sensitive so we have to strive to get our point across but also at the same time not tar all of them with the same brush. I have not served but having lived in the services ethos when a poster says army is corrupt I get upset because to me it demeans all - and army is one part of the issue and cannot be looked at in isolation.

ultimately it is for members to decide whether they are willing to live some folks with actual experience but a bit of a thin skin - by tempering how we put our point across or burn them and live like frogs in a well.
I refer back to your first point - " As long as you are not insulting or verbally abusing someone, feel free to forcefully, but respectfully, disagree"
- would you agree that this is more honoured in the breach that its observance...

Sachin Saar, we need to stop being wusses and cry hoarse for every little thing that we feel hurts our sensitivities. I fully agree that terms like hashish and sweeping generalizations are made - I will be the first to admit that I am guilty of that. But the amazing thing about BRF is that folks will call each other out when they know people are peddling nonsense. That is the way it should be. No one should be allowed to get away with speaking nonsense - me included. And we have some SUPER smart people on BRF. I am not going to list names, but it is a long list.

On the issue of the forces and men in uniform. I do not see - I am willing to be corrected on this - how what someone says on an internet forum bears any effect on his / her duties as a military professional or on his / her psyche. The current opposition in India says far worse! Military personnel have bullets whizzing past them, but they are more hurt by what I say on a forum? If my assessment is incorrect, then may Allah help my country. Because it is surely doomed. However, if someone is maliciously maligning a serving or retired personnel's integrity, then by all means that person should be tarred and feathered. The current crop of admins we have now are all par excellence and they do their job without malice or vendetta.

But I do not see anything wrong in a BRFite criticizing the Armoured Corps for dropping the ball on the Arjun tank or the Air Force for not inducting the HAL Tejas in larger numbers. The Armed Forces are a public institution and thus they are and should be open to criticism. Otherwise, we will end up like Pakistan and start believing fantasy tales like one Pakistani soldier is equal to 10 Indians. Is that what we want? Barring a few bad apples, no is criticizing the soldier on the ground but rather his Boss. I am sorry, but the Army has to answer for the Arjun fiasco. We cannot be accused of being insensitive or (even worse) being anti-national just because we dare to question the Boss.

We need to separate the wheat from the chaff. So if someone says the army is curropt, the poster surely does not mean every army man / woman is corrupt. I am sorry, but I will not buy that logic. I believe the poster intends to say certain elements in the army are corrupt, but that is not what came out. So that is where someone like you should correct him. Now if he continues to believe that and continues to post like that, then he is trolling. So then he needs to go.

And by valued members NOT posting, they are performing a dis-service by allowing nonsense to be peddled without any rebuttal.

P.S. I say this without sarcasm and shame, but please translate this into SIMBLE engleesh for me...- would you agree that this is more honoured in the breach that its observance... :mrgreen:

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Nov 2016 06:57

Rakesh wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:I totally concur on the first point.

On the second point
- criticise definitely but sometime the language used is OTT (hashish etc etc!!!). Also sweeping generalisations without doing the required legwork...

- the level of being devalued is extremely palpable and men in uniform - both serving and retired - are extremely sensitive so we have to strive to get our point across but also at the same time not tar all of them with the same brush. I have not served but having lived in the services ethos when a poster says army is corrupt I get upset because to me it demeans all - and army is one part of the issue and cannot be looked at in isolation.

ultimately it is for members to decide whether they are willing to live some folks with actual experience but a bit of a thin skin - by tempering how we put our point across or burn them and live like frogs in a well.
I refer back to your first point - " As long as you are not insulting or verbally abusing someone, feel free to forcefully, but respectfully, disagree"
- would you agree that this is more honoured in the breach that its observance...

Sachin Saar, we need to stop being wusses and cry hoarse for every little thing that we feel hurts our sensitivities. I fully agree that terms like hashish and sweeping generalizations are made - I will be the first to admit that I am guilty of that. But the amazing thing about BRF is that folks will call each other out when they know people are peddling nonsense. That is the way it should be. No one should be allowed to get away with speaking nonsense - me included. And we have some SUPER smart people on BRF. I am not going to list names, but it is a long list.

On the issue of the forces and men in uniform. I do not see - I am willing to be corrected on this - how what someone says on an internet forum bears any effect on his / her duties as a military professional or on his / her psyche. The current opposition in India says far worse! If my assessment is incorrect, then may Allah help my country. Because it is surely doomed. However, if someone is maliciously maligning a serving or retired personnel's integrity, then by all means that person should be tarred and feathered. The current crop of admins we have now are all par excellence and they do their job without malice or vendetta.

But I do not see anything wrong in a BRFite criticizing the Armoured Corps for dropping the ball on the Arjun tank or the Air Force for not inducting the HAL Tejas in larger numbers. The Armed Forces are a public institution and thus they are & should be open to criticism. Otherwise, we will end up like Pakistan and start believing fantasy tales like one Pakistani is equal to 10 Indians. Is that what we want? Barring a few bad apples, no is criticizing the soldier on the ground but rather his Boss. I am sorry, but the Army has to answer for the Arjun fiasco. We cannot be accused of being insensitive or (even worse) being anti-national just because we dare to question them.

We need to separate the wheat from the chaff. So if someone says the army is curropt, the poster surely does not mean every army man / woman is corrupt. I am sorry, but I will not buy that logic. I believe the poster intends to say certain elements in the army are corrupt, but that is not what came out. So that is where someone like you should correct him. Now if he continues to believe that and continues to post like that, then he is trolling. So then he needs to go.


Agree and disagree and Rakesh where did I say do not criticise? I would be the last person to say do not criticise nor the person in OG...But they get annoyed by stupid generalisation as all of us do. And while unintentional these and other snide comments happen and I have seen BRF better than this ( am going back a while now!!)

Anyhow I don't want to miss the woods for the trees - as you yourself said we have some super knowledgeable people on BR and may their tribe increase on the Mil Forums at least - I dont frequent anything else.

On another note since you are mod - We are publishing a book on my grandfather and his life and as part of that discovered a treasure trove of old photographs - pre WW2 and WW2. How do I go about getting them on BRF...
Last edited by ks_sachin on 09 Nov 2016 07:20, edited 1 time in total.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3068
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2016 06:58

Sachin Saar, I added a few lines at the end of my post. Please reply when you have a second.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 911
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 09 Nov 2016 07:06

Agreed Rakesh.
I have been merely pointing that Arjun Mk2 will be a lost opp.

I think they have issues because the T series is proven and an effective tank family.
The rest is all crap. Change .... Change Management is the big issue internally and vested interests in the political pipelines leading upto the army.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Nov 2016 07:27

P.S. I say this without sarcasm and shame, but please translate this into SIMBLE engleesh for me...- would you agree that this is more honoured in the breach that its observance... :mrgreen:


RAkesh Saar

Hahaha. Hamlet..Although I use it differently to how Hamlet uses it.

more often disregarded than adhered to

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3068
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 09 Nov 2016 07:38

ks_sachin wrote:On another note since you are mod - We are publishing a book on my grandfather and his life and as part of that discovered a treasure trove of old photographs - pre WW2 and WW2. How do I go about getting them on BRF...

Aiyoo!!! Why did you have to mention that I am a mod? I am not brother. I just a BRFite now. That title was applicable way back, when I was a webmaster. I am not that either. We have a new crop of admins/mods, but the old team of Jagan and Seetal Patel are still there. I am more of an Admiral Emeritus...i.e. I have no power (and thankfully so!). I just never got around to changing the title on BRF. I will do that soon. To answer your question, you would have to email them. PM one of the admins...they will know. We would all love to see those images. Looking forward to them.

P.S. I will reply to the rest of your post, when SHQ is not around. I come on BRF when she is not looking :)

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ArmenT » 09 Nov 2016 10:01

ks_sachin wrote:On another note since you are mod - We are publishing a book on my grandfather and his life and as part of that discovered a treasure trove of old photographs - pre WW2 and WW2. How do I go about getting them on BRF...

Not a mod, but I can publish pics on the main site. Please to email brfcompendium at the rate of gmale.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 184
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ks_sachin » 10 Nov 2016 12:26

Rakesh wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:On another note since you are mod - We are publishing a book on my grandfather and his life and as part of that discovered a treasure trove of old photographs - pre WW2 and WW2. How do I go about getting them on BRF...

Aiyoo!!! Why did you have to mention that I am a mod? I am not brother. I just a BRFite now. That title was applicable way back, when I was a webmaster. I am not that either. We have a new crop of admins/mods, but the old team of Jagan and Seetal Patel are still there. I am more of an Admiral Emeritus...i.e. I have no power (and thankfully so!). I just never got around to changing the title on BRF. I will do that soon. To answer your question, you would have to email them. PM one of the admins...they will know. We would all love to see those images. Looking forward to them.

P.S. I will reply to the rest of your post, when SHQ is not around. I come on BRF when she is not looking :)


I had corresponded with Jagan I think in the past when BR published some our Bangladesh photos.

all good...

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 10 Nov 2016 15:07

Cross Post

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6844&start=1960#p2071353

India drops Israeli missile for Arjun Tank
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.hindustan ... M_amp.html


The homemade Arjun Mk-2 tank has suffered a major setback, with a critical Israeli anti-tank missile to be fitted on it failing to meet the army’s requirements.


The failure of the laser homing anti-tank (LAHAT) missile, manufactured by the Israeli Aerospace Industries, will seriously hinder the ongoing project as the DRDO will now have to work on an indigenous missile that can be fired from the tank.


In an exclusive interview to HT, DRDO chief Avinash Chander said, “The LAHAT missile doesn’t figure in our plans anymore. We are dropping it. We have been working on a tube-launched anti-tank missile, which hopefully can be configured for the tank’s cannon.”

Chander said the LAHAT missile did not meet the army’s requirements of engaging targets at ranges of less than 1,200 metres. It has an effective range of 6,000 metres.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 10 Nov 2016 15:42

Noob (genuine) question - what are the circumstances under which a tank would require to engage an enemy target at ranges of less than 1,200 metres with an Anti-tank missile... instead of using the regular AT rounds ?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7287
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 10 Nov 2016 16:07

Why use a missile at target that close.

On a separate but related note, I am surprised that the Indian army has deployed armored vehicles on the laddakh region. But has not asked long range gun fired atgm for the tanks to deal with PRC armor. From long ranges. Such as sought to be developed by the US army in terms of mid range guided munition. That had a range of 12 km.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 994
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Kakarat » 11 Nov 2016 01:28

Because Arjun cannot fire a HEAT round because of its rifled gun

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4843
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 11 Nov 2016 01:43

Kakarat wrote:Because Arjun cannot fire a HEAT round because of its rifled gun

Not much use for a HEAT round in the modern world with even the PA's mostly obsolete armor upgraded with ERA.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 911
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 11 Nov 2016 01:55

@Manish @Pratyush
Wow that news is from 2014 but your question is still valid.

The only scenario i can imagine is when both parties (us and the opposition) are facing each other at a range of 1200 mts and yet are separated from each other by a small rise / cresh / hill which negates line of sight.

1. So the first party to rush towards the other will crest and expose its bottom/ belly to the other which can be fired upon by the opposition.
Belly or bottom armour is weak and provides easy crew kill and can cause critical malfunction of systems.

2. Again the first party to rush towards the other will be cresting and the moment line of sight is achieved, the party on the crest will be unable to fire on the other since they will be unable to depress their barrel below a certain angle and not be able to kill the tanks sitting below a certain angle.

So the one waiting for the other party to crest can FIRE and is the only that can FIRE.
the cresting party is exposting its weakest bit and also cannot FIRE.

Your options are either to call in Arty Strike, Air Strike or Use Top attack missiles.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1643
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 11 Nov 2016 08:32

So the army kept looking for an excuse to reject the Arjun. Disgusting. No wonder they are facing shortfall in recruiting officers.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7287
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 11 Nov 2016 17:01

Khalsa if you are in this situation, your rece has not been up to the mark. As if it was you would never be in a race for the hill/crest with the enemy.

Moreover, if you find yourself in this situation you are as it is stuck as the Lahat will need to be illuminated and you need to be on the higher ground or have a UAV provide guidance. If a UAV is present on the scene you are by default in a a superior position in terms o engagement envelope as you can kill the enemy at full range of the missile and not at under 1200 meter range. Which is a knife fight when it comes to tanks.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 564
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby vaibhav.n » 11 Nov 2016 21:15

Khalsa,

Russian tanks in general suffer from very poor gun elevation and depression. They placed a premium on a smaller silhouette to gain advantage on the vast steppes. Arjun like western designs has the gun elevation and depression of around -10 to +20 degrees.

Globally, armoured corps folks have very very through lessons on how to effectively use dead ground.

Typical soviet tactics call for out-flanking an enemy rather than cresting and potentially exhibit your lower plate to enemy gunners with the elevation to take you apart.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 12 Nov 2016 17:22

:oops:

Khalsa Ji... it was a cross post. But yes my mistake on missing the date

Khalsa wrote:@Manish @Pratyush
Wow that news is from 2014 but your question is still valid.


I agree that not all tank battles will happen over extended flat country. Also deserts would have crests and troughs (dunes).

And good recce (ground, air or space) might not always be available.

The problem was considered important enough by other militaries who gave it some thought... and came up with some unique (in some cases bizzare looking) concepts

Sample these 'elevated' ATGW solutions

1) Yugoslavian M-95 on a T-72 platform - http://www.t-72.de/alt/html/m-95.html

2) German Jagdpanzer Elevated TOW system - http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Elevating-ATGW.jpg

3) :eek: German Panzerwagen 2000 Concept - https://eshelon.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pzkpfwg2000_c5bcyrafowe-czoc582gi.jpg
It seems one major problem was recoil, leading to platform instability, and hence this remained a concept

4) EPLA Elevated TOW truck system - http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/EPLA-and-HOT-Missile-on-elevating-platform.jpg

5) US VelociRaptor EWS - http://www.willburt.com/wp-content/uploads/velociraptor1-159x300.jpg

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 911
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 14 Nov 2016 01:53

Interesting concepts up above. ^^
The gun recoil as explained by you should bring down the life time of these things.

Patyush and Manish

Well you would be surprised , sometimes the enemy will allow you to complete your recee and lull you into driving your main force into this area.
This is a counter recee tactic used by the forces to let an enemy recee let a area be receed for no presence or weak strength reporting.

The enemy rushes in and wham they are butchered or boxed in.

Okay that was just one scenario.
Then there is the basic element of surprise and chance in war.

American Recee elements walked right into an Iraqi Armoured formation. The freking Brigade HQ equivalent.
The armoured arm rushed into to support and extract their recee elements.

Again a Knife fight ensued and if I remember correctly the iraqis were in a depression and therefore had advantage of firing up the American's underwear but they were routed by superior rushing tactic, ability of the Abrams to still fire while cresting and generally ineffecient actions on part of the Iraqis.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 14 Nov 2016 13:41

On this missile fired from the tank main gun - do bear in mind that Russian tank design suffers from a limitation. The compact design of the T-XX series forces the Russians tanks to use two piece ammunition. So, you've the main Sabot round and then you've the charge.

Because of dimension issues, the Russian Sabot rounds cannot exceed a certain length. The main anti-tank round - Armor Piercing Fin Discarding Sabot (APFDS) - is a pure kinetic energy weapon. Where Length/Diameter ratio is a determinant of the penetrating power.

To quote ramana from the dedicated thread on APFSDS - All things equal the depth of penetration is proportional to the L/D ratio. A long rod penetrator will penetrate more than the a shorter one. It boils down to kinetic energy per frontal area.

American/western long rod ammunition (their term for APFSDS) has steadily increased in length. Along with employment of as dense a material as possible. Tungsten and then Depleted Uranium. The Russian ammunition suffers from the design limitation of tank design and auto-loader. It simply CANNOT be extended in length beyond a point or ammunition won't fit the gun!

One of the ways in which to overcome this limitations is the use of main gun fired ATGM missiles. They offer range and tandem warhead. Tandem warhead comes handy in being able to defeat the ERA blocks on most tanks now.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3286
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: India/US

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby hnair » 14 Nov 2016 14:06

Love the way other countries just go ahead and experiment, however goofy the ideas seem! We do seem to be reticent that way :(

Manish_P wrote::oops:

Sample these 'elevated' ATGW solutions

1) Yugoslavian M-95 on a T-72 platform - http://www.t-72.de/alt/html/m-95.html

2) German Jagdpanzer Elevated TOW system - http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Elevating-ATGW.jpg

3) :eek: German Panzerwagen 2000 Concept - https://eshelon.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pzkpfwg2000_c5bcyrafowe-czoc582gi.jpg
It seems one major problem was recoil, leading to platform instability, and hence this remained a concept

4) EPLA Elevated TOW truck system - http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/EPLA-and-HOT-Missile-on-elevating-platform.jpg

5) US VelociRaptor EWS - http://www.willburt.com/wp-content/uploads/velociraptor1-159x300.jpg


Except for 3) and 5), which involves guns, cant the ATGMs be made vertical launched and slewed off in all directions in a burst mode, like EFOGM? I mean, there is only so much height you can forecast your ordinance need to be hoisted.

These long articulated crane-hands of Germans/khan better be taller than our coconut trees. I mean a-o-a, if the war reaches Trivandrum and the Maldivians mass their armour at their current logisitcs hub of Kumarapuram, we all will have to shimmy up the trees in camo-lungis with Spikes tucked into our arses... These arms wont reach the top

(check the video of a 747 takeoff to get the height of the coconut trees. You can barely see the tip of its 20 meter high tail)


Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7287
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 14 Nov 2016 14:56

I hope that responding to a post from the moderator is not an invitation for a ban. :P

Having said so, it is certainly possible for what you are thinking off. The Israelis have a missile called jumper. The US army tries to develop the NLOS and failed. So it is certainly possible to do what you want.

But the IA has to ask for it as well. Especially in a situation where we are still struggling to order NAG.

PS: this is OT to the thread.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 14 Nov 2016 16:23

The Russian ammunition suffers from the design limitation of tank design and auto-loader. It simply CANNOT be extended in length beyond a point or ammunition won't fit the gun!


Rohit Ji, Thanks!

For explaining the limitation of the dimensions of the auto-loader, the ammunition and the compartment of the Russian tanks w.r.t the APFDS.

But aren't the dimensions of these components in MBT Arjun different so as not to have this kind of limitations and be forced to use guided missiles from the main gun ?

The other point of maximum elevation and depression of the main gun is also critical and perhaps it would have been more flexible to have the missile launchers atop and outside the main turret for crew safety. But i guess it would be a disadvantage as they would be exposed to the elements and vulnerable to small arms fire

What a devil of a choice to deal with - Design a tank around the gun or design a gun for a tank (built keeping the infrastructure in mind)

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 804
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Mihir » 14 Nov 2016 22:06

The Russians have deployed gun-launched ATGMs since the sixties, when their 125mm gun was the most powerful tank gun in the world. It is not intended to overcome the shortcomings of the two-piece ammo (they've understood that nothing short of a new design will resolve the deficiency), but to give the gun greater range.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 01 Mar 2017 12:57

Cross Post from the DRDO thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6866&start=2320#p2121914

A Sharma wrote:Apologies if posted before
Interview | Dr S. Christopher

The Indian Army is likely to accept 68-ton Arjun Mark II tank for two more regiments.
Of Arjun Mark I, 91 out of 124 tanks are in operational condition. We have resolved all the maintenance issues. Ammunition was an issue, and we resolved that also.We are going for the penetration beyond what have achieved so for.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arijitkm, sommuk and 48 guests