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.
ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Jul 2020 16:32

Rsatchi wrote:
srai wrote:^^^
It’s not just the thickness of armor that protects armored vehicles. There have been a great deal of advancements in countermeasures, such as thermal camouflage, laser detection and jamming, smoke screens against thermal/IR/laser. Other advancements include modular add-on armor, networked situational awareness, and stand-off and remote targeting and weapon systems.

Raiji thanks
https://youtu.be/flYE5VUTWd0
Found this alpha defence video on light gives some insight also about IA's endless testing of the DRDO light tank in late eighties :roll:
Why should only crisis bring 'Instant Gyan' for the policy makers :?: :?:
Why cant they foresee!!
Also IA should cop some of the blame if they now ask for a light tank don't you think

That gives no insight. Half baked video.
It only shows that it failed the tests are they supposed to pass the weapon if it fails.
Posters were talking of tankX as well. We now no the T72 chassis could not take the recoil.
So before you hold Armd Corps to blame in this instance find out the facts and more imp op doctrine.
Also where will you use this light tank?

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4038
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 06 Jul 2020 16:56

Tank-Ex was not a viable concept. Too many drawbacks. Heavier turret means T72 is no more a light tank. It requires a more powerful engine than the 750hp one.

A 25% increase in crew strength. Change in ammo logistics from 125MM to 120MM etc. There might have been issue with the number of ammo as well. What do you with the ammo that is stored under the crew in T72? It cannot be used.

Fundamentally a completely new tank.

It is probably cheaper to use the T90 turret on to T72..

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 06 Jul 2020 17:18

ks_sachin wrote:
Rsatchi wrote:Raiji thanks
https://youtu.be/flYE5VUTWd0
Found this alpha defence video on light gives some insight also about IA's endless testing of the DRDO light tank in late eighties :roll:
Why should only crisis bring 'Instant Gyan' for the policy makers :?: :?:
Why cant they foresee!!
Also IA should cop some of the blame if they now ask for a light tank don't you think

That gives no insight. Half baked video.
It only shows that it failed the tests are they supposed to pass the weapon if it fails.
Posters were talking of tankX as well. We now no the T72 chassis could not take the recoil.
So before you hold Armd Corps to blame in this instance find out the facts and more imp op doctrine.
Also where will you use this light tank?

Sachinji
It was about endless testing if they were indeed conducted by the Armd Corps.
Why would DRDO come up with light tank config if there was no requirement and why would the testing go for nearly a decade if there was no need for such a tank and op doctrine suggested otherwise!!!
If the army is indeed asking for such a tank now is it not a valid point then about those endless testing :shock:
what were they waiting for another 'Phoren item'
So before you distribute your 'Gyan' read what was implied in the post!!

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Jul 2020 17:26

Rsatchi wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:That gives no insight. Half baked video.
It only shows that it failed the tests are they supposed to pass the weapon if it fails.
Posters were talking of tankX as well. We now no the T72 chassis could not take the recoil.
So before you hold Armd Corps to blame in this instance find out the facts and more imp op doctrine.
Also where will you use this light tank?

Sachinji
It was about endless testing if they were indeed conducted by the Armd Corps.
Why would DRDO come up with light tank config if there was no requirement and why would the testing go for nearly a decade if three was no need for such a tank and op doctrine suggested otherwise!!!
If the army is indeed asking for such a tank is it not a valid point then about those endless testing :shock:
what were they waiting for another 'Phoren item'
So before you distribute your 'Gyan' read what was implied in the post!!

Endless testing...because it did not make the grade like the TankX.
What was implied...that testing is endless and the Armd Corps should induct something that does not work..
Understand the procurement process, perspective planning process before slamming the forces..
My prerogative to distribute Gyan yours to understand the gaps in your knowledge...

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 06 Jul 2020 17:37

ks_sachin wrote:
Rsatchi wrote:Sachinji
It was about endless testing if they were indeed conducted by the Armd Corps.
Why would DRDO come up with light tank config if there was no requirement and why would the testing go for nearly a decade if three was no need for such a tank and op doctrine suggested otherwise!!!
If the army is indeed asking for such a tank is it not a valid point then about those endless testing :shock:
what were they waiting for another 'Phoren item'
So before you distribute your 'Gyan' read what was implied in the post!!

Endless testing...because it did not make the grade like the TankX.
What was implied...that testing is endless and the Armd Corps should induct something that does not work..
Understand the procurement process, perspective planning process before slamming the forces..
My prerogative to distribute Gyan yours to understand the gaps in your knowledge...

Nobody had heard of reasons for the failure of this light tank??Except for the 'Gyanvaddi' :eek:
Just like the endless testing of the Arjun!!
Great will use the prerogative thanks!!!

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Jul 2020 17:53

Rsatchi wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Endless testing...because it did not make the grade like the TankX.
What was implied...that testing is endless and the Armd Corps should induct something that does not work..
Understand the procurement process, perspective planning process before slamming the forces..
My prerogative to distribute Gyan yours to understand the gaps in your knowledge...

Nobody had heard of reasons for the failure of this light tank??Except for the 'Gyanvaddi' :eek:
Just like the endless testing of the Arjun!!
Great will use the prerogative thanks!!!

Please don't parade your ignorance...If you don’t know why it was in trials for ever why cast aspersions,,,,
If you use the Arjun as an example of an unjustified effort by IA I will use the TankX Or the Abbot SPG as nothing to crow about by the DRDO.......

Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Hari Nair » 15 Jul 2020 11:00

Some news coming in that the Army is planning for purchase of light tanks for use at high altitude.
I was under the impression that the Cavalry was not exactly in favour of the concept of using light tanks at altitude - so what exactly is this? A review / reversal of concepts?
The T-15 being used by China in the Depsang area has a weight of 33-36 tonnes with a 1000 bhp engine - I wasn't able to get more info on the powerplant - its power recovery at 18000 feet depends on how well the superchargers and / or turbochargers are integrated.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2020 12:04

Hari Nair I too saw a report on Twitter for this search for lighter tank. I thought T72s are deployed in the high desert. Maybe the engine at 750bhp is not doing well.

Is it plain diesel without turbocharger?

I too will check.

----
The engine is V46-6 developing 840 kw.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 15 Jul 2020 12:10

Army wants to import light tanks

The decision to go ahead with a new light tank is part of a series of major emergency procurements cleared by the government at a critical meeting last week. This includes new loitering munitions from Israel, more Heron unmanned aerial vehicles, additional Sig Sauer assault rifles, man-portable surface-to-air defence missiles, Spike anti-tank guided missiles and a range of ammunition.

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... aign=cppst


Meanwhile, the WHAP and NAMICA undergo endless trials...

vimal
BRFite
Posts: 630
Joined: 27 Jul 2017 10:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby vimal » 15 Jul 2020 12:30

^^ :(( :(( :(( :(( :((

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby RKumar » 15 Jul 2020 13:52

^ Let's OFB guys first have strike ... we can't have emergency local orders if no one is there to deliver. A sorry state of affairs and Corona is not really helping us either.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 967
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kvraghav » 15 Jul 2020 13:57

^^^
I think high time we stop blaming OFB for everything and approach this rationally. Army procurement should be analysed rationally else we will be no different from Pakistani citizens. There are 14 positive cases in HAL bangalore but the work is going on but that did not get the LCA MK1 order, did it?

Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Hari Nair » 15 Jul 2020 14:11

ramana wrote: I thought T72s are deployed in the high desert. Maybe the engine at 750bhp is not doing well.

Is it plain diesel without turbocharger?

I too will check.

----
The engine is V46-6 developing 840 kw.


We have a few regiments of 72's up there (and of course the 90's were recently inducted). Some info indicates that the base variant 72's engine has a supercharger. Not much info available on the upgraded versions.

The Bat Eaters of Sugarland were bragging that the T-15 is designed for operations on the "plateau" and has demonstrated good agility during exercises at Tibet. Gives us an indication that if that propaganda is true, they have designed that power-plant for minimum losses for 15-18000 feet altitude. That is usually done with a combination of superchargers and / or turbochargers. It would obviously appear that they have gone in for optimisation of agility/ mobility and fire-power and reduced their emphasis on armour protection, as a design compromise for ops at that altitude.

ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 361
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ManuJ » 16 Jul 2020 02:01

The news article on light tanks mentioned multiple times that the Chinese deployment of its T-15 light tank was an "eye-opener" for IA. Seriously? The tank has officially been in service for over 2 years in PLA and rumors of its existence have been floating around for much longer.

If light tanks in Ladakh are such a good idea, why did IA wait for the Chinese to deploy them before wanting some of their own? And if they're not such a hot idea, why would you want to emulate your enemy's mistake?

Rampy
BRFite
Posts: 286
Joined: 25 Mar 2003 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rampy » 16 Jul 2020 02:08

This light wt tank my feeling is yet another lifafa article, we thought natasha crew was dead may be not...now they are infiltrating good magazines as well like Swaraj. I remember RohitVats etc. doing gaming with 72s and 90s few years back and there was no talk about light wt. tank. If they seriously need it take t-50 they are sitting in 1000s

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 451
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Anoop » 16 Jul 2020 02:12

I find this news report difficult to believe. Given that T-72 have been deployed in Ladakh for nearly 2 decades and IA knows the difficulty of straightaway introducing a new piece of equipment into battle (recall that we benefited from PA's rush to use the Patton tanks without adequate training either on tactics or on equipment in 1965), I can't imagine that we would repeat the same thing.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 16 Jul 2020 02:54

Logistically, this tank makes the greatest sense. Its not really a tank though. Not even comparable to the PRC one in terms of protection. But it can take the PRC tank out. More like a Sheridan, armament apart.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sdm1.htm
https://www.armyrecognition.com/june_20 ... -sdm1.html

kirpalbasra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Jun 2020 23:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kirpalbasra » 16 Jul 2020 03:00

Christ not another import ...what is wrong with India .Need to build minimum basis defense equipment.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 16 Jul 2020 03:05

Wait a minute!
Did we not let the DRDO loose on a wild goose chase earlier in the calendar?
Image

Edit: Found this piece by Lt. Gen. Shivane from a fortnight back(gave me a perspective)
REINTRODUCTION OF LIGHT TANKS FOR NORTHERN BORDERS
https://www.cenjows.in/article-detail?id=312

Edit 2:
For BRFites in doubt about the need, from 2012:
SP's: Has a final view emerged on the requirement of a light tank for the Eastern Theatre as also for some sectors of our mountainous regions? What is the current status in this regard?

DGMF: The operational requirement of light tanks exists in our country in the Eastern Theatre, certain high-altitude areas as well as for amphibious operations. Can one armoured vehicle perform both roles is the challenge. However, for it to be viable, there need to be adequate numbers. This is being currently debated.

http://www.spslandforces.com/interviews ... ndian-Army

Edit3:
2009 RFI
Indian Army Looks For 300 Advanced Light Tanks
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/10 ... anced.html

The comments section is just :lol:

Wokay, final edit from me:
With roads being upgraded, the T-72 tank and the BMP-2 are currently deployed in Ladakh and the
North East. To meet the need for a light tank, the DRDO is developing a prototype based on the Sarath
chassis and the BAE system Combat Vehicle 90.

https://drdo.gov.in/sites/default/files ... 05_Feb.pdf
(The link to Business Std is dead, BTW)

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 842
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby csaurabh » 16 Jul 2020 09:22

kvraghav wrote:^^^
I think high time we stop blaming OFB for everything and approach this rationally. Army procurement should be analysed rationally else we will be no different from Pakistani citizens. There are 14 positive cases in HAL bangalore but the work is going on but that did not get the LCA MK1 order, did it?


I think its time to point out the blatantly obvious- Import lobby of Babus/MoD/Armed forces is incredibly strong. They are not going anywhere and will actively sabotage any indigenization effort. Because their entire gravy train of Commissions, kick-back, foreign trips, wine and prostitutes are at stake.
To break this requires active political will, similar to how the Lutyens media and eminent historians of JNU were taken to task. Just talking about engineering, business, private sector, etc. will not help.

I personally know many defense entrepreneurs and businessmen suffering from lack of funds because the approvals move at a snails pace. On the other hand, import approvals fly faster than mach3 and there is never any fund crunch for them. The result is pretty obvious.. the fledgeling defense startups and businesses will either sell out to foreign OEMs or drop it entirely and focus purely on civilian industry.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 16 Jul 2020 09:47

csaurabh wrote:
kvraghav wrote:^^^
I think high time we stop blaming OFB for everything and approach this rationally. Army procurement should be analysed rationally else we will be no different from Pakistani citizens. There are 14 positive cases in HAL bangalore but the work is going on but that did not get the LCA MK1 order, did it?


I think its time to point out the blatantly obvious- Import lobby of Babus/MoD/Armed forces is incredibly strong. They are not going anywhere and will actively sabotage any indigenization effort. Because their entire gravy train of Commissions, kick-back, foreign trips, wine and prostitutes are at stake.
To break this requires active political will, similar to how the Lutyens media and eminent historians of JNU were taken to task. Just talking about engineering, business, private sector, etc. will not help.

I personally know many defense entrepreneurs and businessmen suffering from lack of funds because the approvals move at a snails pace. On the other hand, import approvals fly faster than mach3 and there is never any fund crunch for them. The result is pretty obvious.. the fledgeling defense startups and businesses will either sell out to foreign OEMs or drop it entirely and focus purely on civilian industry.

I am getting so depressed. I think I will take a break from BR which is my source of defence news...

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 16 Jul 2020 10:16

I learnt this today. Apologies if already known..

Expression of Interest letters issued to 10 companies for India's Future ICV

EoIs were issued by Indian MoD on 16 July 2015...for the second time. The first time was in 2010. And the project was scrapped in 2012. The reason is that EoI did not include the evaluation criteria!

Take it for what it is worth...

Regards

S

Hari Nair
BRFite
Posts: 282
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 17:37
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Hari Nair » 16 Jul 2020 11:23

Getting back to the issue of employing tanks at 15-17000 feet elevation.
- Aren't we missing the forest for the trees, so to speak?
- The three must have elements, as I understand are : Firepower, Mobility and Armour.
- The problem is given our present levels of tech, the mobility element at altitude depends on the power plant's power loss.
- As a rule-of-thumb, regular normally aspirated diesel loses about 3% power every thousand feet of elevation. A turbocharged version, the power loss is reduced to about 1.5 % per thou feet increase in elevation.
- So, even a turbo diesel will drop power by about 24% . An engine producing 780 bhp at sea level will go down below 600 bhp at those elevations.

This can be overcome by some clever engineering through using a combo of superchargers and multi-turbochargers. Its not exactly rocket science - piston engines on aircraft have been using such techniques since WW-II. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine on the Spitfire using a combo of superchargers and multi-stage turbos, if I recall correctly to maintain power outputs till a very high altitude.

There is no reason why even the venerable T-72's V-46-6 power plant cannot be similarly modded in-country to increase the power out put at altitude. Get the mobility nearly back on par to what's available at sea level and it could have a decisive edge, as it already has the other two elements of Firepower and Armour, especially against a lightweight Type-15.

Any thoughts by other members on this?

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 16 Jul 2020 13:20

kirpalbasra wrote:Christ not another import ...what is wrong with India .Need to build minimum basis defense equipment.

https://youtu.be/rcBwYFn1e2c
here you go sir
Import lobby's latest offering! 'Nastya' (double pun intended) :lol: :lol:

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 16 Jul 2020 14:13

Rsatchi wrote:
kirpalbasra wrote:Christ not another import ...what is wrong with India .Need to build minimum basis defense equipment.

https://youtu.be/rcBwYFn1e2c
here you go sir
Import lobby's latest offering! 'Nastya' (double pun intended) :lol: :lol:

Rsatchi I take back anything I may have said to u. I am now going through the various stages of grief...

kirpalbasra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Jun 2020 23:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kirpalbasra » 16 Jul 2020 14:40

ks_sachin wrote:
Rsatchi wrote:https://youtu.be/rcBwYFn1e2c
here you go sir
Import lobby's latest offering! 'Nastya' (double pun intended) :lol: :lol:

Rsatchi I take back anything I may have said to u. I am now going through the various stages of grief...


The chin tank might have smaller gun but is better protected it seems and the engine is more powerful then the Russian just what is needed in high mountain areas.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srin » 16 Jul 2020 14:52

What can a 105mm gun do ? Can it, say, take out T-72s at say 2km in the frontal arc ?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8307
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 16 Jul 2020 16:55

I am not really following the need to buy a light tank to deal with PRC light tank.

Why not take a jeep with modern ATGM. Not very expensive, is commercially available and can easily be replaced and spares are readily available.

If we need to get a gun armed system. I am quite sure that the TATA & DRDO Krestal can easily be modified to accept a 105 gun. Or the Italian 120 of the Centaro 2.

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 16 Jul 2020 17:00

Pratyush wrote:I am not really following the need to buy a light tank to deal with PRC light tank.

Why not take a jeep with modern ATGM. Not very expensive, is commercially available and can easily be replaced and spares are readily available.

If we need to get a gun armed system. I am quite sure that the TATA & DRDO Krestal can easily be modified to accept a 105 gun. Or the Italian 120 of the Centaro 2.

Exactly sir (a la Late Abdul Hamid PVC)
Unless of course the doctrine calls for an all out assault in the high altitude desert to liberate Tibet :roll: or double pincer move on G-B (if that is feasible/possible/doable and Rouble agreeable :lol: )

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 16 Jul 2020 17:05

ks_sachin wrote:
Rsatchi wrote:https://youtu.be/rcBwYFn1e2c
here you go sir
Import lobby's latest offering! 'Nastya' (double pun intended) :lol: :lol:

Rsatchi I take back anything I may have said to u. I am now going through the various stages of grief...

Sachin,
I thing I have learnt on this forum : as long as you can keep personal feeling away and do all for the collective thinking then there should not be a place for personal comments.
We are all (Hopefully why we are talking to one another) for the sake of 'Mathrubhumi' regardless of where are living at the present moment in time.
Jai Hind.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 16 Jul 2020 17:25

Hari Nair wrote:Getting back to the issue of employing tanks at 15-17000 feet elevation.
- Aren't we missing the forest for the trees, so to speak?
- The three must have elements, as I understand are : Firepower, Mobility and Armour.
- The problem is given our present levels of tech, the mobility element at altitude depends on the power plant's power loss.
- As a rule-of-thumb, regular normally aspirated diesel loses about 3% power every thousand feet of elevation. A turbocharged version, the power loss is reduced to about 1.5 % per thou feet increase in elevation.
- So, even a turbo diesel will drop power by about 24% . An engine producing 780 bhp at sea level will go down below 600 bhp at those elevations.

This can be overcome by some clever engineering through using a combo of superchargers and multi-turbochargers. Its not exactly rocket science - piston engines on aircraft have been using such techniques since WW-II. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine on the Spitfire using a combo of superchargers and multi-stage turbos, if I recall correctly to maintain power outputs till a very high altitude.

There is no reason why even the venerable T-72's V-46-6 power plant cannot be similarly modded in-country to increase the power out put at altitude. Get the mobility nearly back on par to what's available at sea level and it could have a decisive edge, as it already has the other two elements of Firepower and Armour, especially against a lightweight Type-15.

Any thoughts by other members on this?

Sir,

I was reading up on the Merlin engine and the use of the supercharger for power at higher altitudes.

What an engine!
What an engineering marvel!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 16 Jul 2020 17:33

Hari Nair wrote:Getting back to the issue of employing tanks at 15-17000 feet elevation.
- Aren't we missing the forest for the trees, so to speak?
- The three must have elements, as I understand are : Firepower, Mobility and Armour.
- The problem is given our present levels of tech, the mobility element at altitude depends on the power plant's power loss.
- As a rule-of-thumb, regular normally aspirated diesel loses about 3% power every thousand feet of elevation. A turbocharged version, the power loss is reduced to about 1.5 % per thou feet increase in elevation.
- So, even a turbo diesel will drop power by about 24% . An engine producing 780 bhp at sea level will go down below 600 bhp at those elevations.

This can be overcome by some clever engineering through using a combo of superchargers and multi-turbochargers. Its not exactly rocket science - piston engines on aircraft have been using such techniques since WW-II. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine on the Spitfire using a combo of superchargers and multi-stage turbos, if I recall correctly to maintain power outputs till a very high altitude.

There is no reason why even the venerable T-72's V-46-6 power plant cannot be similarly modded in-country to increase the power out put at altitude. Get the mobility nearly back on par to what's available at sea level and it could have a decisive edge, as it already has the other two elements of Firepower and Armour, especially against a lightweight Type-15.

Any thoughts by other members on this?


The DRDO/CVRDE have done exactly what you suggest and have a supercharged version of the T-72 powerpack in trials.
https://www.drdo.gov.in/uprated-1000-hp ... t-72-tanks

The Army is yet to decide whether to use this engine, or the T-90s 1000 hp engine manufactured at OFB (with claimed full/high-degree of indigenization) for their T-72s as an upgrade.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 943
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 16 Jul 2020 19:12

Pratyush wrote:Why not take a jeep with modern ATGM.


100% agree that light tanks are an obsolete concept, with neither the versatility of an IFV nor the fighting power of an MBT. The Chinese probably developed it as an export tank for poor Third World countries, but they ended up with an up-engined model when they didn't get enough export customers.

A light vehicle mounted ATGM system will be super useful to establish a blocking position in a valley or flank enemy movement in a parallel valley, but they need to be helo-mobile. I'll defer to Hari Nair on what a Mi-17 can lift at this altitude. It may end up being a 2-man ATV/dune-buggy rather than a jeep if there is a weight limit, but a 4-man jeep is definitely preferable for an extended ambush.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2432
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 16 Jul 2020 19:47

Hari Nair wrote:..
- The three must have elements, as I understand are : Firepower, Mobility and Armour.
..


Sir, Pls. add Logistics to it as the 4th element. Especially true for us, with our varied and challenging terrains.

And the solution to the Chinese tank need not be a single product, but a system of combination of Man portable ATGMs, Jeep mounted ATGMs, Light tanks... perhaps smart mortars too (like the swedish STRIX system)

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 16 Jul 2020 20:19

Tanks are not just used in Tank vs Tank battle, they are very good targeting enemy bunkers and machine gun nests with HEAT rounds. They are also a form of direct fire artillery, the wheels of a tank travel much faster

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2432
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 16 Jul 2020 20:40

Right sir. What i was trying to say was that the solution to a enemy light tank will not only be limited to a better light tank of our own.... just like the counter to chinese 5th gen aircraft will not be limited to our own 5th gen fighters but will also include better Radars, AAD components etc along the locate-identify-track-engage kill chain

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3543
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 16 Jul 2020 23:21

Are there engine engineers here? Very important question - For T-72, the normal engine will perhaps produce about 600 BHP reducing speed etc in Ladhakh, But if same is fitted with 1000 hp (which CVRDE produces) - and has been extensively field tested - forever awaiting final clearance, that will solve our problem. At 1000 BHP, with 24% reduction, it will produce 760BHP, same as T-72 with old engine at sea level. We can quickly modify 200-300 of our T-72 and be done with this light weight business. But someone who knows anything about it has to opine.

Hari Nair wrote:Getting back to the issue of employing tanks at 15-17000 feet elevation.
- Aren't we missing the forest for the trees, so to speak?
- The three must have elements, as I understand are : Firepower, Mobility and Armour.
- The problem is given our present levels of tech, the mobility element at altitude depends on the power plant's power loss.
- As a rule-of-thumb, regular normally aspirated diesel loses about 3% power every thousand feet of elevation. A turbocharged version, the power loss is reduced to about 1.5 % per thou feet increase in elevation.
- So, even a turbo diesel will drop power by about 24% . An engine producing 780 bhp at sea level will go down below 600 bhp at those elevations.

This can be overcome by some clever engineering through using a combo of superchargers and multi-turbochargers. Its not exactly rocket science - piston engines on aircraft have been using such techniques since WW-II. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine on the Spitfire using a combo of superchargers and multi-stage turbos, if I recall correctly to maintain power outputs till a very high altitude.

There is no reason why even the venerable T-72's V-46-6 power plant cannot be similarly modded in-country to increase the power out put at altitude. Get the mobility nearly back on par to what's available at sea level and it could have a decisive edge, as it already has the other two elements of Firepower and Armour, especially against a lightweight Type-15.

Any thoughts by other members on this?

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3543
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 16 Jul 2020 23:25

Also is cross country mobility that important is depsang plane? (It is not bigger than 200-250 km), The battle will happen in some 50-100 km stretch, as long as the Tank is not very sluggish, it should be fine.
please look at this video - the speed looks adequate -

https://twitter.com/i/status/1278028609534308353

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3543
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 16 Jul 2020 23:30

you can see because of weight and to increase mobility ERA tiles have been removed from the rear half of the turret. There is a penalty, but way better than a light tank

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4059
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Jul 2020 23:44

Rsatchi wrote:
Pratyush wrote:I am not really following the need to buy a light tank to deal with PRC light tank.

Why not take a jeep with modern ATGM. Not very expensive, is commercially available and can easily be replaced and spares are readily available.

If we need to get a gun armed system. I am quite sure that the TATA & DRDO Krestal can easily be modified to accept a 105 gun. Or the Italian 120 of the Centaro 2.

Exactly sir (a la Late Abdul Hamid PVC)
Unless of course the doctrine calls for an all out assault in the high altitude desert to liberate Tibet :roll: or double pincer move on G-B (if that is feasible/possible/doable and Rouble agreeable :lol: )



Kalyani did have a vehicle with a recoilless gun mounted., don't remember the caliber


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, kvraghav, Lisa, Majestic-12 [Bot], Merril, Rakesh, Vamsee, VickyAvinash and 110 guests