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.
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.