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.
Post Reply
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

What is the wheeled app in IA today ? Btr - 80 ? We see a lot these in UKR
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Hiten »

is it normal SOP to use OBM on the BMP-2 ICV?
During one such Amphibious Exercise, they tested it with a retrofitted pair of Outboard Motors mounted on it's hind quarters. Details surrounding this trial are sparse. It was carried out by a detachment from the Army Northern Commmand's [NC] 813 Combat Engineering Training Camp [813 CETC], based in Akhnoor. The Unit's primary role involves supporting Engineering Regiments during Humanitarian Assistance & Disaster Relief [HADR], training & Counter-Insurgency [CI] missions. This specially configured BMP-2 was fitted with 2 Nos. of 4-stroke Mariner-make engines, together outputting 180 HP.
via https://www.spansen.com/2022/03/outboar ... 2-icv.html
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/SpokespersonMoD/sta ... zBH2X3L-mw ---> Excellent consistency and accuracy, @DRDO_India developed fully indigenous 125mm Fin Stabilised Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot practice ammunition, which will help Indian Army in conserving and building up stocks of operational ammunition.

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/hukum2082/status/15 ... zBH2X3L-mw ---> There exists a book of learnings. The book is called 'Arjun'. Very few prints in circulation. Deemed too heavy for the Indian Army's school bag.

Indian Army to incorporate lessons from Russia-Ukraine armoured war in its battle tank design
https://www.aninews.in/news/national/ge ... 408134949/
08 April 2022
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The question I have is why did the Indian army not learn any lessons from the performance of Russian armour since 1991. It's the same lesson that users of Russian armour have been learning. Including the Russians themselves.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:The question I have is why did the Indian army not learn any lessons from the performance of Russian armour since 1991. It's the same lesson that users of Russian armour have been learning. Including the Russians themselves.
deleted
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

The rot is deep. If the PM & RM want to fix this, they need to bring a sledge-hammer, not a scalpel. That's the mistake they did with the civil service.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Prem Kumar wrote:The rot is deep. If the PM & RM want to fix this, they need to bring a sledge-hammer, not a scalpel. That's the mistake they did with the civil service.
How deep is it? And what kind of rot?
Is it corruption or a constipation of thought.
A lot of tankers across the length and breadth of the Armd corps will prefer the T series as they know it like the back of their hands. This includes the issue of protection.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

It's a constipation of thought. A lot of the things done by the armoured corps doesn't make much sense. Such as;

Insisting that Arjun mk2 have blowoff armour panels.But purchase 1600 t90 without any blow off armour panels. The Russian experience in Chechanya. Iraqi experience in 1991 should have been an eye opener about the T 72/90. But it wasn't.

The Russians with T90 MS solved the blow off turret issue. What do we do? Order 350 + such tanks in 2019. What happens to over 3600 T 72/90 still in service? We don't know. It's almost as if 2+2 should never be 4.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:
Snip....
A lot of tankers across the length and breadth of the Armd corps will prefer the T series as they know it like the back of their hands. This includes the issue of protection.
If this is correct in any way shape or form.

Then we have a bigger problem on our hands.

It shows that the Indian army is not able to take a long hard look at the issues they are facing and propose a reasonable solution for the problems they are facing.

I am disregarding the demand for Arjun mk2 as a solution to the problem. As it has too many mutually exclusive demands to be a serious proposal for the army.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
Snip....
A lot of tankers across the length and breadth of the Armd corps will prefer the T series as they know it like the back of their hands. This includes the issue of protection.
If this is correct in any way shape or form.

Then we have a bigger problem on our hands.

It shows that the Indian army is not able to take a long hard look at the issues they are facing and propose a reasonable solution for the problems they are facing.

I am disregarding the demand for Arjun mk2 as a solution to the problem. As it has too many mutually exclusive demands to be a serious proposal for the army.
I agree with you. But that is not only across armr. We see that across arty / infantry / spl forces etc.
This is where the impact of CI is felt. Not sure what ARTRAC does.
In a way the constant CI engagement has atrophied the higher level military thinking. There is a generation of IA offrs who have grown through the grind of CI. CI takes a high toll and I wonder how much it leaves in the tank for regular soldiering.
Last edited by ks_sachin on 11 Apr 2022 14:11, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ATAGS comes to mind.

It's too depressing to contemplate.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

Pratyush wrote:
The Russians with T90 MS solved the blow off turret issue. What do we do? Order 350 + such tanks in 2019.
We haven't ordered the MS variant.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Thakur_B wrote:
Pratyush wrote:
The Russians with T90 MS solved the blow off turret issue. What do we do? Order 350 + such tanks in 2019.
We haven't ordered the MS variant.
Also how does the MS solve the ammo cook off issue. If it has has the autoloader design changed?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Thakur_B wrote:
Pratyush wrote:
The Russians with T90 MS solved the blow off turret issue. What do we do? Order 350 + such tanks in 2019.
We haven't ordered the MS variant.
Interesting, as I was proceeding with the assumption that the order was placed.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/11/indias- ... tle-tanks/

Shows that the orders were placed in November 2019.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The T 90 MS moves the ammunition to the turret bustle with blow off armour panels.



Apparently the autoloader remains the same. While some reserved ammunition has loved to turret bustle with blowoff armour panels.
Last edited by Pratyush on 11 Apr 2022 14:40, edited 2 times in total.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:The T 90 MS moves the ammunition to the turret bustle with blow off armour panels and a different autoloader.
Pratyush can you point me to some literature on this new autoloader design please. For autoloader design to change the gun has to undergo some redesign - did it?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote: Pratyush can you point me to some literature on this new autoloader design please. For autoloader design to change the gun has to undergo some redesign - did it?
I am mistaken about the autoloader redesign on the tank. The t 90 Ms autoloader is unchanged.

I was so sure that this tank would have solved the issue of the blowing turret. That i started to believe that it actually had solved that problem.

It was and remains a pig.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/151 ... 2oqYIqAAAA

Tata Advanced Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) hands over first lot of KESTREL Infantry Protected Mobility Vehicles (IPMVs) to the Army for deployment at high altitude locations like Ladakh, major first for Indian private sector.

Image
jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jaysimha »

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tataadva ... esktop_web
en M M Naravane, Chief of Army Staff was handed over the first lot of Protected Mobility Vehicles based on Wheeled Armoured Platform (8x8) jointly developed with DRDO, by TASL MD & CEO Mr. Sukaran Singh. TASL thanks DRDO for extensive support in product development and trials.
Image
two vehicles shown above
TATA IPMV 8x8
TATA QRFV 4x4
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

^^^ Lack of turret, Amphibious pump and addition of firing ports suggests this could be for UN ops.
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4825
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by KLNMurthy »

Gurus:

Apologies if this has been discussed before. I came across this Popular Mechanics article claiming that Arjun and T-72 are among the worst 5 tanks in the world. Any comments would be appreciated.

Worst tanks

India’s first indigenous tank, the Arjun, had one of the longest development periods of any armored vehicle in recent history. The Arjun main battle tank was projected to enter service in 1985. Instead, the tank—named after one of India’s legendary warriors—blew deadline after deadline and entered service in 2009, a remarkable 37 years after the decision was first made to build it.
India’s defense establishment was not ready to build a modern main battle tank, and the Arjun was updated several times during the design process. The main gun was upgraded from a 105-millimeter to 120-millimeter gun, while the armor was increased to deal with advances in anti-tank weapons. Engineers also had to accommodate new technologies, including GPS navigation, laser warning receivers, and reactive armor. As a result of all these changes, Arjun’s weight ballooned from 40 tons to 62 tons, making what would have been a nimble tank one of the more sluggish tanks on the modern battlefield.
The Arjun Mk.1 entered service with the Indian Army in 2009, but the service was reluctant to buy what had become known as a mechanically-unreliable tank. The army was forced to buy 124 Arjun Mk. 1s, with the promise that future Mk.1A Arjuns would correct the original tank’s glaring flaws. The Arjun Mk.1 will probably serve for 20 years or less, considerably less time than it actually took to develop the tank.

In the late 1960s, the Soviet Union sought to develop a tank that would be superior to existing NATO tanks in every way. The tank, later known as the T-72, would mount the powerful 125-millimeter 2A46M main gun, incorporate superior armored protection, have a low profile, and prowl the battlefield at high speeds. Soviet factories and licensees churned out 17,700 T-72s, and the tank was a major threat to the armies of NATO. These tanks still serve today in the Russian Army as the T-72B and T-72B3 main battle tanks.
Although a powerful tank on paper, the T-72 has serious problems. The main gun is mediocre by today’s standards, and the tank suffers from a lack of modern ammunition. The T-72’s low profile, while useful in avoiding detection, means the main gun cannot be elevated to engage enemies in multi-story buildings. Tanks such as the T-72B and -B3 have not received major armor upgrades, instead settling for the addition of blocks of reactive armor. Even today, most of the Russian Army’s T-72 tanks lack third-generation night vision sighting systems.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that the tank stores its main gun ammunition among the crew. A penetration of the tank’s main armor will often detonate the ammo, killing the crew before they have the opportunity to escape. Not only does this destroy the tank, it also wipes out an entire trained tank crew.
The T-72’s problems first came to light in the 1991 Gulf War, as Iraqi tanks demonstrated a tendency to violently explode in combat. The 2022 invasion of Ukraine has seen Russia lose 471 tanks in just six weeks, including 264 T-72s. Images of T-72s, their turrets blown off their hulls by ammunition explosions, are a common sight. A major problem is the use of anti-tank weapons with top attack capabilities, including the United Kingdom’s NLAW rocket and the American Javelin missile, which can circumvent the T-72’s main armor by firing a shaped charge into the top of a tank.
jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jaysimha »

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/defencem ... esktop_web
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1816086
The COAS Gen MM Naravane inducts indigenously developed specialist vehicles into the service at a function organised at the Bombay Engineer Group and Centre, today. Gen Naravane accompanied by VCOAS Lt Gen Manoj Pande is on a two-day visit to Pune.
Image
Image
Image
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

@SJha1618 :

During the 2010 comparative trials,Arjun Mk-I (score 25.77) beat T-90S (score 24.50) in the firepower category if the T-90S's missile firing capability were kept aside.
https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/151 ... RyJqw&s=19
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The difference in firepower is marginal.

It will help if we learn more about protection, mobility and ease of maintenance of the vehicle as compared to the T 90.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:The difference in firepower is marginal.

It will help if we learn more about protection, mobility and ease of maintenance of the vehicle as compared to the T 90.
Plus IA’s threat perception
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Been reading old Armour threads from 10 years ago when the GREAT TANK WAR OF BRF took place, here'sa postexposing certain sections of army sabotaging Arjun tank :

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5530&start=3800

Kanson wrote:
Usually, as exemplified by the above para, Arjun trials are marked by DRDO team claiming, Arjun did well and at the same time Army official report claiming Arjun done poorly in those trials. This led to a scientist of DRDO Team openly criticizing Army's step motherly treatment to Arjun and how the same Army accepted products from Foreign Vendors without any strict evaluations as applied to Arjun in a Magazine. Don't we heard so many cases of CAG pulling Armed forces of accepting products not meeting its own GSQR or twisted GSQR?

Normally, when such discrepancy appeared between two versions, usually it is assumed being the user of the product Army has more say in telling exactly what is wants, until Army indulged in Sabotaging Renk sub system in Arjun. Renk officials who examined the tank mentioned their systems were tampered and that's why it failed in the trials. This leads to the installation of tamper proof systems. Since it was Renk product, no way Army can term it as failure of DRDO and since Renk products are 'proven', Army caught itself in a cookie-jar. Then MoS (Defence) called it as sabotage and later everything was pushed under carpet and nothing ever came about the incident after that. It cast a shadow on past such 'failures', becoz many times things that failed in those trials actually worked at other times.

For outsiders it may be a surprise, to hear if Army could do such thing. For those who are tempered with scandals after scandals and frauds that happened in Army, one question that comes to mind is Why?



Only possible reason is to postpone Arjun acceptance so that they can go for further orders for T-90 from the initial ~300. Acceptance of Arjun leads to inducting Arjun in numbers which negates any further T-90 purchase as it was initially stated to be only stop-gap purchase. Army finally relented to DRDO pressure for comparative trials only after all its orders for T-90 were placed, just like the way with T-72 as mentioned by Chacko.

Army's game plan is to perpetually postpone Arjun induction stating one reason or other or at worst induct Arjun in min. quantity only for training. Here, years back, i cited as many open quotes and documents to present that Army has no plans for Arjun at all. T-90 purchase is one of the biggest scam & scandal in recent days.

On the price of T-90 tank, SAAG paper and Broadsword exposes how it was manipulated to show the audience/public that the price quoted for tank was low and acceptable.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by putnanja »

From twitter - small MBT Arjun video

https://twitter.com/i/status/1518968267146432514
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Manish_Sharma wrote:Been reading old Armour threads from 10 years ago when the GREAT TANK WAR OF BRF took place, here'sa postexposing certain sections of army sabotaging Arjun tank :

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5530&start=3800
Water under the bridge. Arjun is dead unless the IA starts thinking for itself and not reactively.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Actually it is not possible to build a modern tank under 60 tons with excellent passive protection.

The absence of M1 in service with RATS. Made Arjun immaterial in Indian service. There's really no other way to look at it.

What most members including myself don't accept is that the Indian army chose the T90 well after the experience of exploding T72 was available after desert storm. The T90 didn't really address the fundamental weaknesses of the T72.

So why did get bought by the army?

Because it was good enough to win against anything the Pakistanis could throw at it.

As Indians i guess we should be happy with it.

Regardless of the numbers of ulcers we have gotten in our pining for Arjun. :|
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:Actually it is not possible to build a modern tank under 60 tons with excellent passive protection.

The absence of M1 in service with RATS. Made Arjun immaterial in Indian service. There's really no other way to look at it.

What most members including myself don't accept is that the Indian army chose the T90 well after the experience of exploding T72 was available after desert storm. The T90 didn't really address the fundamental weaknesses of the T72.

So why did get bought by the army?

Because it was good enough to win against anything the Pakistanis could throw at it.

As Indians i guess we should be happy with it.

Regardless of the numbers of ulcers we have gotten in our pining for Arjun. :|
Sir, you should get the Pulitzer for saying so very clearly what the real issue is and with such clarity.
I hope any conversation about Arjun and why has not been inducted becomes a bannable offence!!!
This periodic Rona dhona about the Arjun serves no purpose and is a serious waste of bandwidth. We may not agree with the IA and we have criticised the decision and the process but after a point of time, it seems like a right of passage on BRF. You have not arrived if you have not spoken about Arjun etc.
The first Armd Regt to get the Arjun was the 43rd. I was introduced to the Bde Cdr of the Armd Bde which had 43 under it and to paraphrase him
"why do I need to take a Rolls Royce to a fight when a Maruti Suzuki will do". This really speaks to one of your points.
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1638
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nandakumar »

A naive question: At what point in time, did the Pakistan Army go from a Armoured Corps heavy fighting unit to one of ragtag unit of khaki clad infantry rich army, equipped with 303 rifles that preference for Rolls Royce was discarded in favour of Maruti Suzuki? Pakistan army and its fighting ability has always been what it was. Yet the GSQR for a MBT was frequently modified to make Arjun go through multiple rounds of redesign.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by bala »

why do I need to take a Rolls Royce to a fight when a Maruti Suzuki will do
This is sounding like the phrase 1 Paki is 10 x yindu, send the idiots to fight them yindus. Seriously a better tank even if it is overkill would do a better job than the tank of old. I don't get the analogy. I am open to understanding the nuance if someone can explain it better.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

nandakumar wrote:A naive question: At what point in time, did the Pakistan Army go from a Armoured Corps heavy fighting unit to one of ragtag unit of khaki clad infantry rich army, equipped with 303 rifles that preference for Rolls Royce was discarded in favour of Maruti Suzuki? Pakistan army and its fighting ability has always been what it was. Yet the GSQR for a MBT was frequently modified to make Arjun go through multiple rounds of redesign.
nandakumar not a naive question at all. Again put it down to my immaturity in asking the right questions but this was when I had less grey hair. The Rolls Royce Vs Maruti analogy was purely from a armr engagement perspective but also keeping in mind our own troops at that point in time. The T72 was the volume player / it was easy to maintain and the Armd Crops knew it like the back of their hand.
The Pak Army was always a armd unit but we were confident in our Armr to tackle that threat (i.e. the T72).
Once the threat of the Abrams has receded then the Arjun was doomed. Now this is an indictment of our reactive planning and the repeated trials were a combination of no father for the Arjun in the Armd Corps / the slow pace of development for a number of reasons (GSQR/ Tech availability etc) and intellectual lethargy which is a wider problem than just the Arjun saga. Once the threat of a heavy tank from the Pak side received then were were no longer prepared to jump through the hoops of inducting a system that means a fundamental change in our Armd Corps - logistics / caliber / support equipment etc.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

bala wrote:
why do I need to take a Rolls Royce to a fight when a Maruti Suzuki will do
This is sounding like the phrase 1 Paki is 10 x yindu, send the idiots to fight them yindus. Seriously a better tank even if it is overkill would do a better job than the tank of old. I don't get the analogy. I am open to understanding the nuance if someone can explain it better.
Bala analogy was basically to drive home the point that at that point in time the t72 was sufficient to face the threat posed by the PA. IF the Arjun was the Rolls Royce then the T72 was the Maruti.

Over the years I have evolved my thinking to see that I did not agree with this statement/sentiment but I was not likely to get into an argument with a Senior Armd Corps officer.

This is going back a number of years and then officer is long departed this earth.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by k prasad »

Pratyush wrote:Actually it is not possible to build a modern tank under 60 tons with excellent passive protection.

The absence of M1 in service with RATS. Made Arjun immaterial in Indian service. There's really no other way to look at it.

What most members including myself don't accept is that the Indian army chose the T90 well after the experience of exploding T72 was available after desert storm. The T90 didn't really address the fundamental weaknesses of the T72.

So why did get bought by the army?

Because it was good enough to win against anything the Pakistanis could throw at it.
Excellent points, Pratyush. But that raises significant questions about the IA's outlook for any conflict...

The Maruti vs Rolls Royce comment makes me wonder if IA leadership at Brigadier and above levels have lost their offensive mindset, and are looking only at incremental gains in any conflict, rather than a decisive strike, a la 1971. Momentum is crucial to the success of armoured operations. Most successful uses of tanks in offensive operations have involved either significant comparative platform strength (e.g. M1 vs T55/72 in Iraq '91) and/or significant advantage in numbers.

We should WANT to be able to steamroll the Pakistani defenses with nigh-unbreakable juggernauts. Its scary to think the Army doesn't think it necessary. As Ukraine proves, the T-90s aren't significantly better platforms against even relatively-light defenses of the modern age. Even in tank vs tank engagements, I'm not sure they're a big upgrade on what the Pak Army has, since both the T-80 and T-90 use the same 2A46 gun, and I'd imagine the Al-Khalid's main gun has similar performance.

At an asymmetric-warfare level, as the Ukraine war clearly shows, even with a weak opponent, tank losses can be significant thanks to the new generations of Anti-tank weapons, and the corresponding loss of momentum can be fatal to a campaign.

So either the IA thinks we don't need the overmatch capability because our plans don't require the momentum boost they provide, or they think that boost can be made up in numbers, at the cost of many more lives lost. Both are concerning:

If IA leadership isn't keen on Arjun because they're not planning strategies for a 15-30 day decisive capture of large portions of Pakistani territory like we did in '71, that makes me wonder if all their plans revolve around incremental gains, or just holding operations in sectors that might actually be favourable for armoured operations.

And if they're not keen because they think they can use numbers to make up for capability, that means they're ready to risk unnecessary deaths of Jawans. Now, as horrifying as this might sound, such pragmatic decisions are made every day by military planners, but this one feels quite short-sighted.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Perhaps, we are not accounting for the defensive capacity of the DCB and the canal network inside TSP.

Or they have considered the TSP nuke redlines and decided that Delhi or Mumbai are not worth it.

Or we have a bigger problem in the mindset of the Indian army.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

K Prasad that conversation was close to 25 years ago and before the first gulf war.

However I would urge you to see the youtube video I have posted in the Russia / Ukranian COmbat tactics thread. It will give you some insight into the weakness of armr.


-
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by k prasad »

Pratyush wrote:Perhaps, we are not accounting for the defensive capacity of the DCB and the canal network inside TSP.

Or they have considered the TSP nuke redlines and decided that Delhi or Mumbai are not worth it.

Or we have a bigger problem in the mindset of the Indian army.
Wouldn't Option 1 (DCB) be equally problematic for both the T-90 and Arjun? Of course, lower weight might mean easier bridging in case of T-90, ba ut lower survivability might mean that any tanks that get through will be more easily neutralized, thereby making that advance futile. The same number of Arjuns that break through the bridging ops could arguably survive longer and give more time for reinforcements. Of course, I'm not knowledgeable on tactics, so I might be utterly wrong.

As for Option 2, that sounds like IA and GOI have preemptively closed off their options even before the war has begun.
ks_sachin wrote:K Prasad that conversation was close to 25 years ago and before the first gulf war.
Which conversation, specifically, Sachinji?
ks_sachin wrote:However I would urge you to see the youtube video I have posted in the Russia / Ukranian COmbat tactics thread. It will give you some insight into the weakness of armr.
Good video sir. Thanks for the share! I totally agree with you and Nick Moran's opinion that reports of the demise of tanks are greatly exaggerated. He however does make some very interesting points on another video, where he stresses the need for upgraded protective capability in light of better ATGMs. This is essentially the situation we are in right now. It will be interesting to see what the true Russian tank performances have been when the fog of war around Ukraine lifts, but if there are serious survivability questions about the T-90, IA will need to have a serious rethink on hitching its war wagon to the T-90 engine.

There's another benefit to improved armour (or improved anything really)... it'll force the Pakistani armed forces to spend money to upgrade their capabilities, and god knows they don't have enough to go around as it is. Our strategy should be to bankrupt them into peace. And this can play a small part in that.
Last edited by k prasad on 28 Apr 2022 13:21, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Prasad, your conclusion about 1&2 are correct.
Post Reply