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.
Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 760
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 07 May 2020 00:48

Philip wrote:A few minths ago before lockdown,I spoke to a v.sr.exec of a pvt. co.with a defence division,asking him about a certain product which they had developed ,displayed,etc. He said that the govt. was v.happy for them to spend their own money on developing such badly needed weapon sysyems but could not guarantee any orders! Whatever orders eventually come ,go....almost all to the DPSUs,the only recent exceptions being in the arty with Kalyani,Tatas,and L&T.V.laudable.
ICVs of various types can easily be made with our existing auto majors who've developed prototypes.While modernising and upgrading existing legacy Sov.- era BMPs,etc., can remain with their original desi DPSU manufacturers,other requirements must go to thf pvt. sector to strengthen our defence tech. foundation,especially if we want to bdcome exporters of def. eqpt. as the PM often says.Pandering to babudom and lacklustre DPSUs won't achieve the desired results and 120+ A-2s are mere crumbs from the cake. At least the Arjun chassis could be used for a variety of specialised AVs,SPs,SP SAM systems, etc.The tech andddxperienced gained must be put to good use.

One urgent req. is a light tank,amphib. too,for the mountains to counter the light tank China has introduced into Tibet. The Ru Sprut light tank with a superior 125mm guncould be the basis for a desi light tank,of which we would need several hundreds fot the mountains as well as amphib ops.Remember the great success of the PT-76 in '71?



Difference between commie dictators and us - we value our soldiers and don't treat them like cannon fodder. There is a reason why everyone who lived there despises the erstwhile USSR.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3492
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 07 May 2020 06:30

Vivek K wrote:"4. T72/90 has shown its worth to IA in tank biathlons"
Were you being sarcastic?

yes of course sir, you may debate that IA didnt get their own T90 ..but if we have to finish where we did (or rather did not)

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20710
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 May 2020 14:01

Commie dictators? I don't understand the connection.The PT-76 served us superbly in the '71 war when we by-passed road networks in E.Pak moving through the riverine terrain.It was one of the key factors in the success of the ground forces.
We have not replaced it decades on with a new light tank.The requirement has been acknowledged,esp. as China has introduced into Tibet its own light tank,easily air transportable.

Secondly in today's Russia,communism is dead! Openly acknowledged and the commie political remnants have little support. My post pointed out the fact that we're unduly delaying with our ICV/ AV requirements where the pvt. sector has produced prototypes but are not getting orders.So much for " design and make in India".

PS: China is building up the Paki armed forces v.rapidly anticipating a spat with India being inevitable as Pak ramps up its terror campaign after its diplomatic and military success in Afghanistan- due to the planned US pullout,to India's detriment. The transfer of jihadis from that theatre to Kashmir will severely tax the forces there.The situation is deteriorating daily,as the Pakis think that they can take advantage at this CV crisis where the govt. and PM are fully engaged in fighting another unseen enemy that originated in China.

Apart from the latest news of the new Chinese MBT being given to Pak,another 8 subs are planned apart from the 8 under construction.Along with its Agosta 90Bs in service,Pak will have in the future,16 new AIP subs ,a few hundred JF-17s,hundreds of new MBTs too. We cannot slacken our defence preparedness at this crucial time.Pak is planning for another insurgency in the Valley.If you saw yesterdey's rioters in their hundreds left alone by the forces to do their mayhem,you will know how serious the situ is.

We are on the brink of fighting a two-front war.A biological war with China and a hot war with Pak,perhaps supported with pressure on the ground in Ar.P from China too.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 07 May 2020 20:08

Philip wrote:Commie dictators? I don't understand the connection.The PT-76 served us superbly in the '71 war when we by-passed road networks in E.Pak moving through the riverine terrain.It was one of the key factors in the success of the ground forces.
We have not replaced it decades on with a new light tank.The requirement has been acknowledged,esp. as China has introduced into Tibet its own light tank,easily air transportable.

Secondly in today's Russia,communism is dead! Openly acknowledged and the commie political remnants have little support. My post pointed out the fact that we're unduly delaying with our ICV/ AV requirements where the pvt. sector has produced prototypes but are not getting orders.So much for " design and make in India".

PS: China is building up the Paki armed forces v.rapidly anticipating a spat with India being inevitable as Pak ramps up its terror campaign after its diplomatic and military success in Afghanistan- due to the planned US pullout,to India's detriment. The transfer of jihadis from that theatre to Kashmir will severely tax the forces there.The situation is deteriorating daily,as the Pakis think that they can take advantage at this CV crisis where the govt. and PM are fully engaged in fighting another unseen enemy that originated in China.

Apart from the latest news of the new Chinese MBT being given to Pak,another 8 subs are planned apart from the 8 under construction.Along with its Agosta 90Bs in service,Pak will have in the future,16 new AIP subs ,a few hundred JF-17s,hundreds of new MBTs too. We cannot slacken our defence preparedness at this crucial time.Pak is planning for another insurgency in the Valley.If you saw yesterdey's rioters in their hundreds left alone by the forces to do their mayhem,you will know how serious the situ is.

We are on the brink of fighting a two-front war.A biological war with China and a hot war with Pak,perhaps supported with pressure on the ground in Ar.P from China too.



Army has to decide on what ICV configuration they want first !! ..Pvt sector is not going to spend money unless and until that happens and the Def min needs to support them recover the costs., its still a matter of egg and chicken

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 760
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 07 May 2020 20:54

Philip wrote:Commie dictators? I don't understand the connection.The PT-76 served us superbly in the '71 war when we by-passed road networks in E.Pak moving through the riverine terrain.It was one of the key factors in the success of the ground forces.
We have not replaced it decades on with a new light tank.The requirement has been acknowledged,esp. as China has introduced into Tibet its own light tank,easily air transportable.

Secondly in today's Russia,communism is dead! Openly acknowledged and the commie political remnants have little support. My post pointed out the fact that we're unduly delaying with our ICV/ AV requirements where the pvt. sector has produced prototypes but are not getting orders.So much for " design and make in India".

PS: China is building up the Paki armed forces v.rapidly anticipating a spat with India being inevitable as Pak ramps up its terror campaign after its diplomatic and military success in Afghanistan- due to the planned US pullout,to India's detriment. The transfer of jihadis from that theatre to Kashmir will severely tax the forces there.The situation is deteriorating daily,as the Pakis think that they can take advantage at this CV crisis where the govt. and PM are fully engaged in fighting another unseen enemy that originated in China.

Apart from the latest news of the new Chinese MBT being given to Pak,another 8 subs are planned apart from the 8 under construction.Along with its Agosta 90Bs in service,Pak will have in the future,16 new AIP subs ,a few hundred JF-17s,hundreds of new MBTs too. We cannot slacken our defence preparedness at this crucial time.Pak is planning for another insurgency in the Valley.If you saw yesterdey's rioters in their hundreds left alone by the forces to do their mayhem,you will know how serious the situ is.

We are on the brink of fighting a two-front war.A biological war with China and a hot war with Pak,perhaps supported with pressure on the ground in Ar.P from China too.



Quoted the incorrect post from you - my response was meant for your post about Soviet vs German tanks in WWII.

hgupta
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby hgupta » 07 May 2020 23:16

Vivek K wrote:Given that the T-90s (best of the best) sent to the Tank biathlon couldn't even complete the course, leave alone compete for top 3 positions, 25% is a small price to pay. And the more important weight parameter is ground pressure. Gross weight is used for crossing bridges - bridges don't fail the first time they are overloaded. Every civil engineering structure is designed with a factor of safety of at lease 2.0. Therefore, the gross weight would not cause problems in battle, it would be the savior for the crew inside (unlike the T-90). With its superior armor and ERA its amazing suspension and the ability to fire on the move, built in crew comfort, the Arjun would destroy a T-90 (like it did in trials).


And bridges are the weakest point in the chain. Study up on Pakistan's buildup defences and you will see why crossing bridges is still a very important criteria of IA's offensive doctrine. It's all about the speed and the Cold Start doctrine (whether it's dead or has morphed into something else, speed still applies). There are serious time considerations to constructing a bridge that can hold a 50 ton weight vehicle versus a bridge that can hold a 70 ton weight vehicle. It is much faster to erect a bridge that a 48 ton vehicle can cross easily than a bridge that can hold a 70 ton vehicle. Not only that you have to take into consideration the logistics of transporting a 50 ton bridge versus a 70 ton bridge. It can be the difference between victory and defeat if you can construct a bridge one day faster and cross chasms faster. The time difference can literally mean life or death.

It is not just the price of the tanks itself. It is the logistics chain that comes with the tank and the doctrine that comes with it. The three Strike Corps that IA has are built around speed, speed, and speed for any thrust into Pakistani territory and crossing bridges in the fastest manner possible is a vital criteria of that speed doctrine.

Raveen, your flippant posts about Soviets vs Germans and how soviet use soldiers as cannon fodder shows how little you know about Soviet operations in general post WWII. After the death of Stalin, there were serious reforms undertaken in the soviet military establishment and among them was the abandonment of human wave tactics or tactics that basically used soldiers as cannon fodder. I would urge you to study Soviet operations in Afghanistan. They have far less deaths and wounded than what the US suffered in Vietnam and showed lessons learned from WWII and applied.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 08 May 2020 00:37

hgupta wrote:And bridges are the weakest point in the chain. Study up on Pakistan's buildup defences and you will see why crossing bridges is still a very important criteria of IA's offensive doctrine. It's all about the speed and the Cold Start doctrine (whether it's dead or has morphed into something else, speed still applies). There are serious time considerations to constructing a bridge that can hold a 50 ton weight vehicle versus a bridge that can hold a 70 ton weight vehicle. It is much faster to erect a bridge that a 48 ton vehicle can cross easily than a bridge that can hold a 70 ton vehicle. Not only that you have to take into consideration the logistics of transporting a 50 ton bridge versus a 70 ton bridge. It can be the difference between victory and defeat if you can construct a bridge one day faster and cross chasms faster. The time difference can literally mean life or death.

1. Where did you get the figure of 70 ton? MK1 1 - 58.5 ton, Mk1A & Mk 2 - 68 tons; reasons for weight increase - adding ERA and mine plows to a tank with an armor that would already defeat most projectiles.
2. Can you help us understand why the 2 T-90s in the tank biathlon broke down? I mean these would have been the IA's finest and not random selections. If these could not complete the course in simulated conditions, what do you think will happen in warfare in Rajasthan in the summer?
3. Bridges - you've chosen to ignore a key points and exaggerated the weight. But let us say you're right. From your posts, the Pakistani bridges are adequate for the T-90s only. So these can at least carry 48 tons. Are you a Civil Engineer? I am. All civil engineering design is performed with a minimum factor of safety of 2-3. Find me a bridge or a foundation or a building designed for a factor of safety of 1.0 - you will not find it anywhere. So a bridge rated for 48 ton can carry up to 96 tons, typically. And another thing, the tank is not designed as a point load but as a distributed load. With its larger footprint, and lower ground pressure, the factor of safety will go up a bit more.
I would think that the maintenance intensive T-90 (designed for European conditions) would need a larger logistics chain - i think all the TI equipment was replaced recently - it isn't ruggedized like the standard Arjun MK1. And what happens if it breaks down in battle? You need to get spares to it or to move it back loaded on a Tank Recovery vehicle. Do you think Pakistanis were kind enough to allow for the weight of the recovery vehicle in their design? Or did they limit to 48 ton so that a broken down T-90 may not be able to return home for repairs?

Arjun is designed and tested for Indian conditions. Just like not buying additional Netras by IAF, this decision will go down in history as foolhardy and criticized roundly by future generations. Instead of spawning an industry locally, IA is helping develop industries abroad. It is clear the T-90 purchase will lead to the T-14 which has similar characteristics i.e. needing to be towed from parades.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 760
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 08 May 2020 00:37

hgupta wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Given that the T-90s (best of the best) sent to the Tank biathlon couldn't even complete the course, leave alone compete for top 3 positions, 25% is a small price to pay. And the more important weight parameter is ground pressure. Gross weight is used for crossing bridges - bridges don't fail the first time they are overloaded. Every civil engineering structure is designed with a factor of safety of at lease 2.0. Therefore, the gross weight would not cause problems in battle, it would be the savior for the crew inside (unlike the T-90). With its superior armor and ERA its amazing suspension and the ability to fire on the move, built in crew comfort, the Arjun would destroy a T-90 (like it did in trials).


And bridges are the weakest point in the chain. Study up on Pakistan's buildup defences and you will see why crossing bridges is still a very important criteria of IA's offensive doctrine. It's all about the speed and the Cold Start doctrine (whether it's dead or has morphed into something else, speed still applies). There are serious time considerations to constructing a bridge that can hold a 50 ton weight vehicle versus a bridge that can hold a 70 ton weight vehicle. It is much faster to erect a bridge that a 48 ton vehicle can cross easily than a bridge that can hold a 70 ton vehicle. Not only that you have to take into consideration the logistics of transporting a 50 ton bridge versus a 70 ton bridge. It can be the difference between victory and defeat if you can construct a bridge one day faster and cross chasms faster. The time difference can literally mean life or death.

It is not just the price of the tanks itself. It is the logistics chain that comes with the tank and the doctrine that comes with it. The three Strike Corps that IA has are built around speed, speed, and speed for any thrust into Pakistani territory and crossing bridges in the fastest manner possible is a vital criteria of that speed doctrine.

Raveen, your flippant posts about Soviets vs Germans and how soviet use soldiers as cannon fodder shows how little you know about Soviet operations in general post WWII. After the death of Stalin, there were serious reforms undertaken in the soviet military establishment and among them was the abandonment of human wave tactics or tactics that basically used soldiers as cannon fodder. I would urge you to study Soviet operations in Afghanistan. They have far less deaths and wounded than what the US suffered in Vietnam and showed lessons learned from WWII and applied.



hgupta, your post about post WWII USSR shows how little you read before you post when my post was clearly in response to a post about - guess what - WWII Soviet tanks vs German WWII tanks by our resident....I'll just leave it there.

For your reference:

Post by Philip » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:42 pm
Why did the Russians defeat the Germans in WW2? The battle of Kursk epitomises the different concepts in the MBTs of both sides.The Germans kept on improving the panzers,tigers,etc. while on production runs leading to delays and lesser numbers in comparison with the Russians.Their T-34 was tested,certified and then produced in bulk. Consequently they had more numbers,ignored casualties ( an occupational hazard in wartime!), and prevailed.


Next time, read before you jump in.
Last edited by Raveen on 08 May 2020 00:45, edited 2 times in total.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 760
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 08 May 2020 00:40

Vivek K wrote:
hgupta wrote:And bridges are the weakest point in the chain. Study up on Pakistan's buildup defences and you will see why crossing bridges is still a very important criteria of IA's offensive doctrine. It's all about the speed and the Cold Start doctrine (whether it's dead or has morphed into something else, speed still applies). There are serious time considerations to constructing a bridge that can hold a 50 ton weight vehicle versus a bridge that can hold a 70 ton weight vehicle. It is much faster to erect a bridge that a 48 ton vehicle can cross easily than a bridge that can hold a 70 ton vehicle. Not only that you have to take into consideration the logistics of transporting a 50 ton bridge versus a 70 ton bridge. It can be the difference between victory and defeat if you can construct a bridge one day faster and cross chasms faster. The time difference can literally mean life or death.

1. Where did you get the figure of 70 ton? MK1 1 - 58.5 ton, Mk1A & Mk 2 - 68 tons; reasons for weight increase - adding ERA and mine plows to a tank with an armor that would already defeat most projectiles.
2. Can you help us understand why the 2 T-90s in the tank biathlon broke down? I mean these would have been the IA's finest and not random selections. If these could not complete the course in simulated conditions, what do you think will happen in warfare in Rajasthan in the summer?
3. Bridges - you've chosen to ignore a key points and exaggerated the weight. But let us say you're right. From your posts, the Pakistani bridges are adequate for the T-90s only. So these can at least carry 48 tons. Are you a Civil Engineer? I am. All civil engineering design is performed with a minimum factor of safety of 2-3. Find me a bridge or a foundation or a building designed for a factor of safety of 1.0 - you will not find it anywhere. So a bridge rated for 48 ton can carry up to 96 tons, typically. And another thing, the tank is not designed as a point load but as a distributed load. With its larger footprint, and lower ground pressure, the factor of safety will go up a bit more.
I would think that the maintenance intensive T-90 (designed for European conditions) would need a larger logistics chain - i think all the TI equipment was replaced recently - it isn't ruggedized like the standard Arjun MK1. And what happens if it breaks down in battle? You need to get spares to it or to move it back loaded on a Tank Recovery vehicle. Do you think Pakistanis were kind enough to allow for the weight of the recovery vehicle in their design? Or did they limit to 48 ton so that a broken down T-90 may not be able to return home for repairs?

Arjun is designed and tested for Indian conditions. Just like not buying additional Netras by IAF, this decision will go down in history as foolhardy and criticized roundly by future generations. Instead of spawning an industry locally, IA is helping develop industries abroad. It is clear the T-90 purchase will lead to the T-14 which has similar characteristics i.e. needing to be towed from parades.



According to some posters Pakistan specifically knows the T-90s are tin cans and Arjuns are the real threats therefore they design all bridges to only bear the weight of the ineffective breakdown prone T-90s but weak enough to not bear the weight of ever so slightly heavier but far more lethal Arjuns.

For those who didn't catch it - this was a sarcastic post in response to quoted post
Last edited by Raveen on 08 May 2020 22:45, edited 1 time in total.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 581
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby VKumar » 08 May 2020 01:03

Raveen wrote:
Vivek K wrote:1. Where did you get the figure of 70 ton? MK1 1 - 58.5 ton, Mk1A & Mk 2 - 68 tons; reasons for weight increase - adding ERA and mine plows to a tank with an armor that would already defeat most projectiles.
2. Can you help us understand why the 2 T-90s in the tank biathlon broke down? I mean these would have been the IA's finest and not random selections. If these could not complete the course in simulated conditions, what do you think will happen in warfare in Rajasthan in the summer?
3. Bridges - you've chosen to ignore a key points and exaggerated the weight. But let us say you're right. From your posts, the Pakistani bridges are adequate for the T-90s only. So these can at least carry 48 tons. Are you a Civil Engineer? I am. All civil engineering design is performed with a minimum factor of safety of 2-3. Find me a bridge or a foundation or a building designed for a factor of safety of 1.0 - you will not find it anywhere. So a bridge rated for 48 ton can carry up to 96 tons, typically. And another thing, the tank is not designed as a point load but as a distributed load. With its larger footprint, and lower ground pressure, the factor of safety will go up a bit more.


According to some posters Pakistan specifically knows the T-90s are tin cans and Arjuns are the real threats therefore they design all bridges to only bear the weight of the ineffective breakdown prone T-90s but weak enough to not bear the weight of ever so slightly heavier but far more lethal Arjuns.



I think that pressure is more important than weight whilst crossing a bridge or using a road.

hgupta
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby hgupta » 08 May 2020 01:30

Raveen wrote:
According to some posters Pakistan specifically knows the T-90s are tin cans and Arjuns are the real threats therefore they design all bridges to only bear the weight of the ineffective breakdown prone T-90s but weak enough to not bear the weight of ever so slightly heavier but far more lethal Arjuns.


Reread the IA's offensive doctrine and its ORBAT. They bring and build their own bridges. They do not rely on the enemy's bridges to cross the chasms especially when the enemy can blow the bridges before they arrive.

Raveen wrote:hgupta, your post about post WWII USSR shows how little you read before you post when my post was clearly in response to a post about - guess what - WWII Soviet tanks vs German WWII tanks by our resident....I'll just leave it there.


Really? then what about this post?
Raveen wrote:Difference between commie dictators and us - we value our soldiers and don't treat them like cannon fodder. There is a reason why everyone who lived there despises the erstwhile USSR.


You should have been more clearer. You made it sound like USSR would continue to treat its soldiers as cannon fodder. So that's on you, not me.

VivekK
1. Where did you get the figure of 70 ton? MK1 1 - 58.5 ton, Mk1A & Mk 2 - 68 tons; reasons for weight increase - adding ERA and mine plows to a tank with an armor that would already defeat most projectiles.
You just answered your own question.
2. Can you help us understand why the 2 T-90s in the tank biathlon broke down? I mean these would have been the IA's finest and not random selections. If these could not complete the course in simulated conditions, what do you think will happen in warfare in Rajasthan in the summer?
What is the point of your question? It seems like you are going off a tangent. My response to your post was about the gross weight versus the ground pressure as you so referenced in your post.
3. Bridges - you've chosen to ignore a key points and exaggerated the weight. But let us say you're right. From your posts, the Pakistani bridges are adequate for the T-90s only. So these can at least carry 48 tons.


As I stated above, IA will not depend on Pakistan's bridges but bring their own. They cannot afford to rely on the Pakistan bridges because they are known locations to Pakistani Army and therefore subject to great defense planning. IA needs to choose their own routes and paths and leave the PA guessing as to where they might strike and that means building your own bridges so you can dictate your own path & route, therefore forcing the PA to disperse wide and leave no concentration of forces to mass against any IA threat.

Are you a Civil Engineer? I am. All civil engineering design is performed with a minimum factor of safety of 2-3. Find me a bridge or a foundation or a building designed for a factor of safety of 1.0 - you will not find it anywhere. So a bridge rated for 48 ton can carry up to 96 tons, typically. And another thing, the tank is not designed as a point load but as a distributed load. With its larger footprint, and lower ground pressure, the factor of safety will go up a bit more.


A key word in your post - civil. This is not civil warfare but military warfare. In the interest of speed and meeting timetables, safety factors are reduced so the army needs to construct a bridge up very quickly and cross the chasms faster. It is still acceptable engineering because you know the risk factors and plan accordingly. But not for civil use bridges which must accommodate for a wider variety of uses and vehicles and needs much higher tolerances. They can afford to because they are not restricted by the need for speed of constructing and meeting very rigorous timetables often measured in the span of hours which the military has to do.

Even at distributed load, you still need to support the weight when you got hundreds of tanks crossing in a given span of time. Think about it. Once the IA construct those bridges, those bridges have suddenly become high value targets and ripe for PAF bombing and missile attacks. So the IA needs to cross very quickly and move most of their forces before the PA & PAF can stop them. That means bridges that can hold up the gross weight of vehicles and therefore your point re distributed load takes a backburner to point load.


I would think that the maintenance intensive T-90 (designed for European conditions) would need a larger logistics chain - i think all the TI equipment was replaced recently - it isn't ruggedized like the standard Arjun MK1. And what happens if it breaks down in battle? You need to get spares to it or to move it back loaded on a Tank Recovery vehicle. Do you think Pakistanis were kind enough to allow for the weight of the recovery vehicle in their design? Or did they limit to 48 ton so that a broken down T-90 may not be able to return home for repairs?


Your points regarding T-90s shortcomings and Arjun's strengths are valid. I am not advocating one tank over the other. I am just pointing out the picture and the circumstances that made the IA stick with the T-90s not with the Arjun tank. In this situation, when PA was planning to get some Abrams and the IA got spooked and started demanded an indian equivalent since the Soviets didn't have one. By the time the Arjun tank was ready, PA moved from the Abrams tank to something else and the need to match Abrams' performance specs lessened when IA realized the logistical issues that comes with the Arjun tank. The IA likes the Arjun tank but the main problem is that the logistic chain required to go with the Arjun tank necessitated a whole new process of approval from the Finance Ministry. Look at what happened to the IA's plan for a Mountain Strike Corp a couple years ago. It was a great plan but guess what? The Finance ministry nixed it because it was deemed too expensive. A more applicable example would be the Jaguars upgraded program. The Finance Ministry laid down so many restrictions on which could be upgraded and what cannot be upgraded. The IAF was being hamstrung and micromanaged by the Finance Ministry on its upgrade programmes. It took IAF a long time to get their Mirage 2000s upgrade program approved. By that time, costs have escalated. Based on this, what makes you think that the IA has absolute confidence in the Finance Ministry to sanction the upgrade of T-72s tanks to Arjun Tanks which not only include the costs of the tanks themselves, but the cost of everything that comes with the Arjun tank to make it a successful tank. A tank does not operate on its own. It needs its supporting cast. That's why the IA decided to go for the T-90s. Sure the T-90 tank had some deficiency versus the Arjun tank but at least it was an upgrade and could be upgraded with the existing logistic chain and it didn't mean that the IA had to ask the Finance Ministry for more money. Not only that, the IA felt that the T-90s shortcomings could be managed and was nothing that could not be overcome. And besides, the threat vector and scenarios that IA will likely face shows that the priority for a heavy tank is way lower than the needs to smart combat gear, communications & networking gear, upgraded artillery, better mine protection vehicles, etc. Besides they are only buying Arjuns in numbers to ensure that they would have something in case Pakistan decides to go for such a tank. However you can rest assure that PA will not be able to afford such vehicles in large numbers. So basically IA got the Arjuns as a contingency measure


Arjun is designed and tested for Indian conditions. Just like not buying additional Netras by IAF, this decision will go down in history as foolhardy and criticized roundly by future generations. Instead of spawning an industry locally, IA is helping develop industries abroad. It is clear the T-90 purchase will lead to the T-14 which has similar characteristics i.e. needing to be towed from parades.


Look the Arjun program by all accounts is a successful program. I personally think that the Arjun is a great tank with great features and that the IA should incorporate it as its main MBT in thousands of tanks. I know people in the IA that would love to get Arjuns in greater number but unfortunately, our wishes are just that, wishes. If you are look for someone to blame, i think you should be looking at the Finance Ministry for its steadfast refusal to upgrade the supporting infastructure to support the Arjun tank.

It is the same thing with the IN and its desire to have 3 VLC aircraft carriers with catapult technology since having those would make highly effective carriers because due to the catapult technology, our combat planes would be able to take off with full combat load and some fuel reserves and be able to pack a powerful offensive punch while at the same time get more nuke subs, more sophisticated frigates & destroyers, basically a mini US navy. However the Finance Ministry shot down those planes and forced the IN to work with what it has and with the limited amount of money they have. Look at our own Delhi & Brahmaputra destroyer programmes & Shivalk frigate programmes. By all accounts these are very successful naval platforms but why are we not incorporating these platforms in larger numbers? I blame it on the lack of foresight and lack of understanding on how successful weapon platforms are nurtured by the Finance Ministry. There is a big reason why the Indian defense establishment favors imported weapons a lot and it is not because of bribes. It is because they can present a final number and the cost of per unit & life cycle to the Finance Ministry and go through one approval process whereas indigeneous programmes have to go through multiple processes at each stage and in order to be successful, they need to be supported on a continual and consistent basis and keep justifying the continual support of that program. Look at the US & western weapon programmes just as the F-15, f-16, Abrams, Aegis destroyers, nuke subs, Rafales, even the Russian counterparts and how they are supported and nurtured. They do not allow their own finance ministry as we do in this country to dictate or micromanage the needs and weapons of the military.

Yes we have some successful indigenous weapon programs but only when we could bring the Finance Ministry on board.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 760
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 08 May 2020 01:57

hgupta wrote:
You should have been more clearer. You made it sound like USSR would continue to treat its soldiers as cannon fodder. So that's on you, not me.



The post was clearly about WWII.

If you can't be bothered to read or comprehend before posting, then maybe at least w.r.t. to my posts, speak only when you are spoken to.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 08 May 2020 02:02

hgupta wrote:As I stated above, IA will not depend on Pakistan's bridges but bring their own. They cannot afford to rely on the Pakistan bridges because they are known locations to Pakistani Army and therefore subject to great defense planning. IA needs to choose their own routes and paths and leave the PA guessing as to where they might strike and that means building your own bridges so you can dictate your own path & route, therefore forcing the PA to disperse wide and leave no concentration of forces to mass against any IA threat.

I have not studied army orbats but this doesn't sound logical. If the enemy is in retreat and you're chasing with armor you would want to capture bridges intact. The retreating enemy would destroy the bridges to slow the advance. In those situations yes you bring your own 70 ton bridge. But sometimes things don't work as per plan - like advancing forces send paratroopers/special forces to capture and hold bridges and other times the retreat is so quick that destruction cannot be carried out.

Has IA placed the Arjun on its "so called 48 MT bridge" and seen the results? Care to share if there is any? Steel is a ductile material - not brittle. So when it fails, there will be some amount of plastic flow leading to a factor of safety between initiation of plastic conditions and final failure. So it is never as simple as you're making it out. And - surprise, surprise - a 48 ton bridge does not fail when you place a 49 ton load on it.

And not knowing the IA's bridge design, I don't know what its capabilities are. But you're making assumptions that because this is military warfare, IA Engineers will throw caution to the winds and under-design the bridge so that it would fail at 49 tons.When 100s of tanks (with priceless troops) are to use the bridge, and victory is the prize, do you think they will lower or increase the factor of safety? And strengthening the design to carry 68 tons instead of 48 tons does not require adding 20 tons of steel to the bridge. I think the problem here is that you started out with "IA and I like T-90, how do I make the Arjun look bad".

As far as PAF bombing IA, remember what the PAF chief told the PN in 71 - "the navy must learn to fight its own battles". With IAF's stated superiority over the PAF, this scenario, is a PA commander's wet dream.

Your points regarding T-90s shortcomings and Arjun's strengths are valid. I am not advocating one tank over the other. I am just pointing out the picture and the circumstances that made the IA stick with the T-90s not with the Arjun tank.

You're using flawed logic to support a historical blunder by IA.

In this situation, when PA was planning to get some Abrams and the IA got spooked and started demanded an indian equivalent since the Soviets didn't have one.

run to Mama, eh!
By the time the Arjun tank was ready, PA moved from the Abrams tank to something else and the need to match Abrams' performance specs lessened when IA realized the logistical issues that comes with the Arjun tank.

I wish Nitin was around to educate you. Calling JCage!

The IA sent the Arjun for 70,000 miles of testing - committed sabotage of the Renk transmission, and then claimed torsion bar failure and among other things delaying comparative trials for 3 years. Doesn't sound like "like" to me. We've had visits by the likes of Ajai Shula complaining BRF was Boys with Toys and Arjun was a dabba. Please read some more , you sound like a person that likes to read.

A more applicable example would be the Jaguars upgraded program. The Finance Ministry laid down so many restrictions on which could be upgraded and what cannot be upgraded. The IAF was being hamstrung and micromanaged by the Finance Ministry on its upgrade programmes. It took IAF a long time to get their Mirage 2000s upgrade program approved. By that time, costs have escalated.

Flawed logic again. Look at how many strike missions IAF has flown using Jags- Sri Lanka: M2ks, Pakistan - M2Ks during Kargil and during Balakot. The Jags have reached end of life because they need a new more powerful engine and their is only one vendor who raised prices at the last minute killing the upgrade. M2K upgrades - IAF was taken to the cleaners by the French for an upgrade without upgrading the engine. The time taken was in deciding between spending more than an LCA on the upgrade or buying new build Rafales.

Based on this, what makes you think that the IA has absolute confidence in the Finance Ministry to sanction the upgrade of T-72s tanks to Arjun Tanks which not only include the costs of the tanks themselves, but the cost of everything that comes with the Arjun tank to make it a successful tank. A tank does not operate on its own. It needs its supporting cast. That's why the IA decided to go for the T-90s. Sure the T-90 tank had some deficiency versus the Arjun tank but at least it was an upgrade and could be upgraded with the existing logistic chain and it didn't mean that the IA had to ask the Finance Ministry for more money.

Bhai - did you read what you've written? You admit that the Indian system is superior but army went in for the inferior product so that they could get the FM to sanction it? And that too a tank whose price was concealed (order split into different components) to make it look cheaper than the Arjun? Sounds like treason to me.

I'm sorry, but did not read the rest of your long paragraphs.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Jay » 08 May 2020 09:11

Raveen wrote:According to some posters Pakistan specifically knows the T-90s are tin cans and Arjuns are the real threats therefore they design all bridges to only bear the weight of the ineffective breakdown prone T-90s but weak enough to not bear the weight of ever so slightly heavier but far more lethal Arjuns.


Ustaad ji, if I believe every Paki poster I would have known by now that they are the superior race and deserve all the desi wimmen on a platter... :rotfl:

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12023
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 08 May 2020 10:46

How do really know the Bridge weight ratings for Pakistani bridges, some are railway bridges which can carry heavier weight, they need to move thier artillery, Tank carriers, Ammo, even Missile launchers with missiles, Oil Tankers etc. For all we know this was just a fig leaf.

The really is not weight but the fact with torsion Bar suspension etc while Technologically inferior the T-Series tanks might much more cheaper to produce and maintain, so IA must be reasoning they want numbers and every else is an excuse, Arjun type tanks the IA is determined will be limited to the heavy tank role and T-Series will make the numbers.

Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 287
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Larry Walker » 08 May 2020 12:10

PA also has its equivalent of strike corps. Arjun will be very effective in hull-down situations or in tank-battles defending built-up positions where IA can control the infrastructure and logistics. Plus it's superiority in deserts. IA will need T-90's in higher numbers because they are suppose to spread it in Pak territory to hold captured ground.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 760
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 08 May 2020 22:46

Jay wrote:
Raveen wrote:According to some posters Pakistan specifically knows the T-90s are tin cans and Arjuns are the real threats therefore they design all bridges to only bear the weight of the ineffective breakdown prone T-90s but weak enough to not bear the weight of ever so slightly heavier but far more lethal Arjuns.


Ustaad ji, if I believe every Paki poster I would have known by now that they are the superior race and deserve all the desi wimmen on a platter... :rotfl:



Jay sir, I was only being sarcastic...the quoted post was worth the sarcasm

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Jay » 10 May 2020 03:06

Raveen wrote:Jay sir, I was only being sarcastic...the quoted post was worth the sarcasm


Indeed it was, Raveen ji

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 16 May 2020 19:18

Army to outsource tank repairs to private parties

Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, May 16

Indian Army is set to outsource repair and maintenance of its Russian-origin tank fleet of T-72 and T-90 tanks to private companies.

This is part of the government’s plan to rationalise Army manpower and reduce the “tail” as recommended by the Lt Gen DB Shekatkar committee in 2016.


https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ ... ties-85636

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3578
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 16 May 2020 19:30

Finally some good moves been made.

As I expected, GoI was forcing the services to cut down the wasteful expenditure, while everyone was looking for the easy way out of increase defense budget.

Lot of peace time work and logistics could be outsourced to private companies. It will be efficient and cheaper. And create lot of jobs.

Now GoI needs to bring out US style Security Clearance process for employees of these vendors.

hgupta
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 14:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby hgupta » 16 May 2020 21:08

Vivek,

I think we are talking past each other. You are simply not getting my point. Please understand that I am a very big fan of Arjun tank and do not need an education in why the IA should go for the Arjun tank. I am trying to explain why the IA remained committed to the T-72s and T-90s. That is why I brought the other weapon programmes example to see where I am going with it.

Try to understand how the weapons acquisition process & budgetary process works in the Indian military and within the MoD to understand how big of a factor it plays into IA's final decisions on weapon procurement and why the IA remains committed to the T-72s & T-90s despite the proven technical and operational superiority of the Arjun tank. And no one is committing treason by going with the T-72s & T-90s. In IA's infinite wisdom, the T-72s and T-90s are good enough to meet IA's needs without stressing the budget and allows IA to meet its other critical objectives without running into headwinds by the Finance Ministry. You nor I do not like it but it is not up to you or me. If you really wanted the IA to procure more Arjun tanks, then we have to tell our MPs to find the money to pay for the Arjun procurement in large numbers. Good luck with that.

Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 287
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Larry Walker » 16 May 2020 21:49

How much is the commonality between T-72 and T-90 ? So when IA had a choice of committing between Arjun and T-90 and IA commits to T-90, then Arjun will become costlier simply by virtue of program costs and ecosystem investment spread in much smaller base of number of units. Not to the exact, but similar to equivalence between F-35 and Rafale.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 16 May 2020 22:17

IA is being unwise in committing to the T90 in such numbers in place of the Arjuns. First, does the T-72 even belong in the 2020s and beyond? What are the electronics of the T-72 like? What I hear is that the T-72 fleet is plagued by depot queens (non working tanks), obsolescence and lack of upgrade path. The CI Ajeya upgrade was for just a small percent IIRC. How long would the T-72 last against the Arjun? Is it wise to throw good money after bad in maintaining the entire T-72 fleet?
I think I understood your post very clearly - you argued that the army took a proposal that was easier to pass by the FM. I don't think that is the way to build a fighting force. With so many T-72s in a bad shape, what is the point in buying modified T-72s (T-90)? The IA never performed the range of trials on the T-90 as on the Arjun.
If you're a supporter of Arjun then please take exception to the IA's large orders for a tincan - it impacts national security and will lead to heavier loss of lives of tank crewmen. The Arjun MK1 (58 tons) was already possessing armor that afforded superior protection to the T-72 or the modified T72 (T-90). But to make the Arjun look worse, ERA was required by the IA in addition to the mine ploughs. Do you weigh the T90/72 with mine ploughs?
You raised the part of the bridge - that a 70 ton bridge was more difficult to bring out compared to the 50 ton. I countered that by saying the structural load bearing capacity difference does not require additional 20 ton of steel in the bridge - it requires a modified design which may end up weighing 5 tons more. So is that any reason to deny the Arjun? The Arjun has lower ground pressure so it is better suited to fight in the sands. Its fire on the move ability and accuracy, crew comfort and protection make it the obvious choice - even if it was imported.

You say it is not up to you or me - actually it is. Indians choose to be apologists for their forces. National security is supreme - not the Generals. A force that replace the Marut with an underpowered Jaguar, a T-72 with T90 instead of the Arjun, a force placing billions of dollars worth of orders for Apache, Rafale and not ordering additional LCAs or LCHs or Rudras cannot escape questioning. Especially since this effects national security.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8422
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Mort Walker » 16 May 2020 22:29

Vivek K wrote:You say it is not up to you or me - actually it is. Indians choose to be apologists for their forces. National security is supreme - not the Generals. A force that replace the Marut with an underpowered Jaguar, a T-72 with T90 instead of the Arjun, a force placing billions of dollars worth of orders for Apache, Rafale and not ordering additional LCAs or LCHs or Rudras cannot escape questioning. Especially since this effects national security.


Absolutely.

In addition to this a domestic MIC will add huge employment and a very large technical base. Going to war with reliance on imported weapon systems is a recipe for disaster.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 16 May 2020 22:36

IA should order 2500 Arjuns and ask for this to be delivered in 8-10 years and stop wasting money on the T-72s.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 16 May 2020 22:53

Thanks Mort. Totally agree. How long can you fight with imported weapons. What size of inventories do you need to maintain for say supporting 50% of your tank fleet in week 3 of a war? Would it be cheaper to build your own using that kind of money. To India's shame - a country with so much unemployment and poverty but with all ingredients for industrialization available at hand, remains the 3rd largest importer of weapons.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2342
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 16 May 2020 23:15

Since India has a large number of T72's; maybe they can use them in the mountains (North and East) against the new Chines Type 15. If Indian army can reduce the weight by removing components which might not be useful in mountain warfare and add thermal imaging the old horses can still play ball

--------------T72---------------Type 15
Weight-------- 41.5 Tons----------33 Tons
Length-------- 31 ft.------------- 30 ft
Width--------- 11.9 ft.----------- 11 ft
Height-------- 7.4 ft.------------ 8.2 feet
Egine---------780 hp------------ 1,000 hp
Gun----------125 MM----------- 105 MM
Machine gun-- 7.62+12.7MM------- 12.7 MM
Range---------460 KM's----------450 KM's
Speed--------60 Km's/hr----------70 km's/Hr

Back fill the T 72's with Arjuns

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 16 May 2020 23:32

Also remember - the Arjun is developed to fight in Thar desert and so its electronics have been ruggedized and have been tested and tested and tested and teated - so they work. T90 is designed to fight in Europe so has not been ruggedized for the Thar desert. Crew comfort comparisons in the Tanks also point to Arjuns.

DRDO should look at using T72 in mountain warfare - take out some obsolete components and make it lighter and suited for mountain warfare.

But let me ask a silly question - what is the need for lighter tanks in mountains - mobility at heights? facilitate easy delivery or movement at higher altitudes?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12023
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 17 May 2020 13:24

In July 2018 we ordered a thousand 1,000 hp engines for T-72s which were to be made in India. I believe some of these will be moved to high altitudes.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 434
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 17 May 2020 13:53

Came across this gem of a documentary on the lovely Casspir
Watch till the end to learn about the Indian Army's punishing tests on the MPV as well.


Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 720
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 17 May 2020 14:07

Vivek K wrote:Also remember - the Arjun is developed to fight in Thar desert and so its electronics have been ruggedized and have been tested and tested and tested and teated - so they work. T90 is designed to fight in Europe so has not been ruggedized for the Thar desert. Crew comfort comparisons in the Tanks also point to Arjuns.

DRDO should look at using T72 in mountain warfare - take out some obsolete components and make it lighter and suited for mountain warfare.

But let me ask a silly question - what is the need for lighter tanks in mountains - mobility at heights? facilitate easy delivery or movement at higher altitudes?

Vivekji
In high altitude plateau areas and we have Tibetan plateau as a potential conflict zone!! :-?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 18 May 2020 00:50

Did you read my question - what parameter of a tank makes us want to have light and not heavy tanks in the mountains? Is it the physical dimension that poses difficulty in moving heavy (bigger tanks in). Mountains are built of rock and therefore weight is not a problem. Light or heavy, tanks cannot drive up 20,000 feet on a cliff.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2697
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 18 May 2020 00:59

Indian Army has isssed an RFP to buy 36 heavy transport vehicles (8X8 Trucks) that will be capable to transport Tanks with weight of 70 Tonnes.

Last edited by Vips on 18 May 2020 01:02, edited 1 time in total.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2697
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 18 May 2020 01:01

BEML has already developed and also started manufacturing flat bed Railway wagons capable of carrying weight of 70 Tonnes.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1265
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 18 May 2020 03:35

Vivek K wrote:Did you read my question - what parameter of a tank makes us want to have light and not heavy tanks in the mountains? Is it the physical dimension that poses difficulty in moving heavy (bigger tanks in). Mountains are built of rock and therefore weight is not a problem. Light or heavy, tanks cannot drive up 20,000 feet on a cliff.


Weight and dimensions acquire a value of their own in the mountains.
Please also think about how the tanks will be transported to their op areas.
There is a write up somewhere on how the t-72s were taken up to the "mountain plains"

Regards

S

Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 287
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Larry Walker » 18 May 2020 03:41

Weight and dimensions should absolutely fit into parameters if tanks are to be airlifted. For PLA, our tanks can be "driven" to the conflict zones once the current infra projects are completed.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2342
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 18 May 2020 04:19

Vivek K wrote:Did you read my question - what parameter of a tank makes us want to have light and not heavy tanks in the mountains? Is it the physical dimension that poses difficulty in moving heavy (bigger tanks in). Mountains are built of rock and therefore weight is not a problem. Light or heavy, tanks cannot drive up 20,000 feet on a cliff.

Size mattress because of logistics

If the tanks are light and pack a punch, they can be dismantled loaded into cargo planes and taken to forward places like Ladakh. Dismantle them into various components like the turret, tracks, and body then take them to places like ODB landing strip and reassemble them there. If the army can do this it will give a good punching power in case the PLA wants use their rocket forces first followed by PLA forces backed by helicopter gunships. The old T72 has 2 Machine guns on it the 12.7 MM is an anti aircraft gun. I feel the T72's should perform well in the cold because they were developed to fight in the cold central European condetions.

Some of the challenges are logistics (transport, forward maintenance infrastructure, fuel, last but not least they are never coming back). If the Indian army can move the T 72's to as many forward staging areas as possible it will send a strong messages (we mean business and we are backing it up)

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1265
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 18 May 2020 05:15

Larry Walker wrote:Weight and dimensions should absolutely fit into parameters if tanks are to be airlifted. For PLA, our tanks can be "driven" to the conflict zones once the current infra projects are completed.


Have you been to the Tibetan plateau?

Is the Siliguri to Gangtok and further to the AoR of Black Cat div being upgraded?

I ask because driving a LPT itself was a pain so a tank transporter is no go..

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 720
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 18 May 2020 11:20

ks_sachin wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Did you read my question - what parameter of a tank makes us want to have light and not heavy tanks in the mountains? Is it the physical dimension that poses difficulty in moving heavy (bigger tanks in). Mountains are built of rock and therefore weight is not a problem. Light or heavy, tanks cannot drive up 20,000 feet on a cliff.


Weight and dimensions acquire a value of their own in the mountains.
Please also think about how the tanks will be transported to their op areas.
There is a write up somewhere on how the t-72s were taken up to the "mountain plains"

Regards

S

Sachinji as early as '48 Gen Thimmaiah used Stuart tanks in Zojila Pass I think it was the first Kargil War!

Prithwiraj
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 21 Dec 2016 18:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prithwiraj » 18 May 2020 11:55

Can de assemble and reassemble be an option?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amar_p, chiru, greatde, Hari Nair, Raveen, Roop, schinnas, VickyAvinash, VipinM and 84 guests