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
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Philip wrote:Please ck. the operating costs for the A-1s. Anyway,the number of both A-1s and 1As are negligible considering the entire inventory compared to over 3000 T- series in service.

SNIP the rest.............

."
Total BS in the post without having any understanding of the issues at hand. Some of the issues of cost both upfront and cost of ownership.

1) 50 % Heavier tank compared to T-72 = cost of materials that go in the tank will be higher by 50 %. Or is this logic flawed??
2) Larger engine having higher displacement & power output = higher fuel consumption = higher cost of ownership for the vehicle, correct? ( Not the fault of the tank as the Army asked for this vehicle )
3) % of imports for the tank. do we know the cost of imported components for the T90?? would it be higher than the cost of imported items for Arjun?? I don't think so. As the fire control system and the thermal imagers are indigenous to India. Whereas, the TI and FCS for T 90 are all imported.

The engines and transmission of Arjun are a separate issue due to the low volume orders. If the orders were higher they could have been developed at home. But the army never committed to such numbers warranting the development of such an engine. This a foolish point to argue against the Arjun.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Larger heavier MBT that cannot be transported and fight effectively in other than desert terrain,what our generals have been saying for decades! I guess opinions on BRF differ too much and the IA is the best judge of the issue and the GOI listens to it.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Philip wrote:Larger heavier MBT that cannot be transported and fight effectively in other than desert terrain,what our generals have been saying for decades! I guess opinions on BRF differ too much and the IA is the best judge of the issue and the GOI listens to it.
Again total BS.

1) the generals when specifying the vehicle would not have understood the logistics of the vehicle? Damm man which world you are living in.

2) the suitability of the vehicle in different terrain conditions is defined by the exerted ground pressure by the vehicle. Arjun mk1 has lower ground pressure compared to the lighter and supposedly more suitable tin cans. The mk2 after adding an extra 10 tons reaches the ground pressure exerted by tin cans.
Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Ankit Desai »

Army explores procurement of 350 light tanks
RFI to vendors for the procurement of 350 new-generation light tanks, less than 25-tonne in weight, in a project under the “Make in India ethos” with requisite transfer of technology.
The RFI specifies that the combat weight of the light tank should not exceed 25-tonne and its “physical dimensions should not impede its transportability by rail, road, air and water”.

With a two to three-member crew and thermal night-fighting capabilities, the light tanks should have weapons for anti-aircraft and ground roles, including “smart munitions with gun tube-launched anti-tank guided missiles”.

“In the foreseeable operational scenario, the need for an agile and mobile light platform, with adequate firepower, protection, surveillance and communication capabilities is increasingly finding its operational relevance,” said the RFI.
-Ankit
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

same news from the print. krestel could be this platform.

Army wants around 350 light tanks to sharpen its mountain warfare edge amid Ladakh stalemate
https://theprint.in/defence/army-wants- ... te/644727/

Need for light tanks
Speaking about the need for light tanks, Major General Birender Dhanoa (Retd) told ThePrint these tanks would be purely for the mountains, primarily against China, but would be effective north or south of the Pir Panjal as well.

The former armoured corps officer explained that a light tank cannot carry troops inside so they will have to be grouped with Infantry Combat Vehicles and other combat support, especially air defence.

“Actually, based on the need, even a common platform that can become a tank or an ICV (infantry combat vehicle) and even a light self propelled howitzer could be a better bet for the mechanised forces,” he said.
AakashVeer
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 14:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by AakashVeer »

Last I checked, except Israel none of Heavy Tank manufacturer Nation is Desert.
Or we can Say except Russians none developed tank with TinCan specification, why?
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by rajsunder »

AakashVeer wrote:Last I checked, except Israel none of Heavy Tank manufacturer Nation is Desert.
Or we can Say except Russians none developed tank with TinCan specification, why?
because soviet armored strategy never cared about the people in that Tank. Its an Insult to Indian army soldiers that Indian army still uses these tin cans.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Prat,please watch the generals who have come on Rajya Sabha TV and explained how the infra on both sides of the border have major constraints on the deployability of Arjun.They've been heads of the armoured corps,not babus! To insult the IA who've for decades ordered " tin cans" is grossly unfair and insulting to successive chiefs and the general staff and successive govts. including this one which ordered an extra T-90MS tanks not too long ago!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Philip wrote:Prat,please watch the generals who have come on Rajya Sabha TV and explained how the infra on both sides of the border have major constraints on the deployability of Arjun.They've been heads of the armoured corps,not babus! To insult the IA who've for decades ordered " tin cans" is grossly unfair and insulting to successive chiefs and the general staff and successive govts. including this one which ordered an extra T-90MS tanks not too long ago!
You are incapable of understanding is the lack of integrity from the forces in disowning a product that has been designed to meet the GSQR specified by them.

If the generals who have come on TV and stated such issues in the induction of the Arjun, and they genuinely believe this to be an issue. Then I am compelled by the evidence in front of me to call into question the competence of such men.

Because when specifying the GSQR these men should have been aware of the infrastructure available at both sides of the border. How such a vehicle would be constrained by this infrastructure.

But they did not do so. Why??

Only after the vehicle has been completed and fully developed these issues cropped up. Why?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Prat,Arjun took time to develop,even improvements from A1 to 1A. I am sure that weight was an issue and,it's been said on BRF before,it was incumbent upon the DRDO to tell the IA,that weight would go up. These points have been discussed at length by the generals/ experts.If you read the history of the programme,it was a T-72 replacement initially.Even the top western tanks don't breach 60t,most of them in the mid-50t range. The root of the problem in my opinion was to copy the Leopard with a 4- man crew when the T-series has 3- man crews.

Anyway,we can go on debating the subject until the crows go home.The current dispensation has ordered just 118 A1As and 464 T-90 MS tanks. I am sure you will agree with me that the current dispensation is an honourable one and has taken these decisions after studying the issue v.carefully in the best interests of the IA and country.

The next req. and urgent too is the light tank.
The value of the erstwhile PT-76 in helping win the '71 war is well described in the latest VAYU and the battle for Kushtia. The failure of the IA to have found a replacement for the PT- 76 especially when we have major amphib. ops requirements defending our islands and defence agreements with IOR states like Mauritius,Seychelles,Maldives,etc., is now a glaring one in the light of the PRC adventurism in Ladakh and Tibet. Let's see how the MOD handles the issue.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Philip wrote:Prat,Arjun took time to develop,even improvements from A1 to 1A. I am sure that weight was an issue and,it's been said on BRF before,it was incumbent upon the DRDO to tell the IA,that weight would go up. These points have been discussed at length by the generals/ experts.If you read the history of the programme,it was a T-72 replacement initially.Even the top western tanks don't breach 60t,most of them in the mid-50t range. The root of the problem in my opinion was to copy the Leopard with a 4- man crew when the T-series has 3- man crew

Snip the rest as they are just empty words to support the lie posted in the above text.
Arjun was never meant to be a replacement for tin cans. The tin cans were supposed to be an interim purchase while Arjun was getting developed.

The Arjun took the form it took because the army knew that it did not have anything that could take on the M1A1. It's a lie to state that DRDO should have made informed the army about the statistics of the vehicle. As they would never have been finalized without taking the top brass in confidence.

The rest is just a case of mental gymnastics to justify the non induction of the tank. Because the threat it was designed to fight never materialized. Not the fault of the tank.

What should have been done was to close the project stating that the threat perception requiring such a vehicle no longer exists.

It would not have been a huge issue if the army had been honest about the facts. Like they were in the fy 91-92 period.

But subsequent to the induction of T90 they have compounded the issue by saying that mk2 is needed and specifying features many of which even the T90 doesn't have.

This obsessed with mk2 in india is a tool to make sure that domestic equipment never enters service in large numbers.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

Why is PM in L&T's plant inspecting Future Infantry Combat Vehicle?

Image
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

So the FICV is from LT? I thought it was from Tara based on the krestel.

Looks TAfta and love the communal swastika sign

Must be an old photo going by Modijis beard.
Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Bart S »

Atmavik wrote:So the FICV is from LT? I thought it was from Tara based on the krestel.

Looks TAfta and love the communal swastika sign

Must be an old photo going by Modijis beard.
FICV is a 'program name' and both L&T and Tata+DRDO have their own prototypes developed for it.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by John »

Atmavik wrote:So the FICV is from LT? I thought it was from Tara based on the krestel.

Looks TAfta and love the communal swastika sign

Must be an old photo going by Modijis beard.
It's from 2019
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

Arjun Mk1s storming thru the desert .. to kick butts of the people who came from the dejert.

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/1385833583655362561
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

The L&T FICV looks v.interesting,but is the infantry hatch at the front or rear? The turret may be facing the rear for display purposes as it is safer for the infantry to disembark at the rear where the AVs hull gives them protection in battle. The engine in front also gives added protection to the crew from frontal hits.
If the desi majors can make FICVs,they can certainly make a light tank. When pvt. players can make 155mm arty, making a tank gun of smaller calibre shouldn't be a major problem. Perhaps the req. for the Light Tank like the C-295s light transports should be soley reserved for pvt. OEMs!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

jamwal wrote: Why is PM in L&T's plant inspecting Future Infantry Combat Vehicle?
Appears to be Hanwa AS 21 from the gun shroud. But the turret is different from the AS21.

Interestingly the KMW lynx also appears to have a similar gun shroud and turret structure.

So what is it??

Is it a clean sheet totally indigenous design concept?
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Philip wrote:The L&T FICV looks v.interesting,but is the infantry hatch at the front or rear?
It's from the rear angle. Those are the rear lights and turn signal indicators
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/GODOFPARADOXES/stat ... 63841?s=20 ---> Inside look of L&T FICV

Picture 1. Commanders station with HMI & controls for onboard sensors & weapon systems

Picture 2. Drivers station with various displays for enhanced local situational awareness

Picture 3. Passenger compartment with own set of displays for use by embarked soldiers

Image

Image

Image

Image
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

The K-21 tank from Hanwa based on Hanwa's FICV fitted with Jon Cockeril Turret with 105 MM Gun (option of 120 MM) is the favorite to win the 350 Light Tanks tender of the Army. With weight limitations set on 25 Tons there are only 2 Tanks that qualify - Russian Sprut and Korean K-21.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by John »

Vips wrote:The K-21 tank from Hanwa based on Hanwa's FICV fitted with Jon Cockeril Turret with 105 MM Gun (option of 120 MM) is the favorite to win the 350 Light Tanks tender of the Army. With weight limitations set on 25 Tons there are only 2 Tanks that qualify - Russian Sprut and Korean K-21.
Is Russia offering Sprut or Sprut SDM1 ? Sprut SDM1 uses the BMD-4M and russians are moving to use that.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

John wrote:
Vips wrote:The K-21 tank from Hanwa based on Hanwa's FICV fitted with Jon Cockeril Turret with 105 MM Gun (option of 120 MM) is the favorite to win the 350 Light Tanks tender of the Army. With weight limitations set on 25 Tons there are only 2 Tanks that qualify - Russian Sprut and Korean K-21.
Is Russia offering Sprut or Sprut SDM1 ? Sprut SDM1 uses the BMD-4M and russians are moving to use that.

I would like the K 21 just to have Field Marshall Filipov’s nose out of joint!!!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

No more Russians junk.

Personally I an in favour of no more imports.

But if the MOD is ok with imports. Then wherever we buy from. It should not be from Russians.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

is there ever a quick purchase by the Indian armed forces? It take decades to decide and deliveries take another few years. Time to build yours own industry instead of that of Russia Or France.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Pratyush wrote:No more Russians junk.
Personally I an in favour of no more imports.
Will not commonality of ammo and other components make the Sprut the front-runner?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

You are speaking logically. I am being emotional.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

John wrote:
Vips wrote:The K-21 tank from Hanwa based on Hanwa's FICV fitted with Jon Cockeril Turret with 105 MM Gun (option of 120 MM) is the favorite to win the 350 Light Tanks tender of the Army. With weight limitations set on 25 Tons there are only 2 Tanks that qualify - Russian Sprut and Korean K-21.
Is Russia offering Sprut or Sprut SDM1 ? Sprut SDM1 uses the BMD-4M and russians are moving to use that.
If the T series is a tin can then you know what a Sprut is :rotfl:
Minimal armour protection. I doubt it can withstand anything more then earlier generation RPG's.
Sprut is a flop program with even Russia so far only ordering 24 of them. Russia is waiting for a Guinea Pig to finance its further development.
Only Plus it has is its big gun but the option of 120 MM Gun on the K21 nullifies it.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Vips wrote:
John wrote: Is Russia offering Sprut or Sprut SDM1 ? Sprut SDM1 uses the BMD-4M and russians are moving to use that.
If the T series is a tin can then you know what a Sprut is :rotfl:
Minimal armour protection. I doubt it can withstand anything more then earlier generation RPG's.
Sprut is a flop program with even Russia so far only ordering 24 of them. Russia is waiting for a Guinea Pig to finance its further development.
Only Plus it has is its big gun but the option of 120 MM Gun on the K21 nullifies it.
The issue with so called light tanks is that the armor by definition cannot survive against medium arms fire. However, the strength such vehicles have is the ability to take of a MBT at full range. If employed as ambush weapons. In an open fight they will get slaughtered.

Still I say no to Russian AFV. I will take the K 21 with cockerel turret and 105/120MM gun any day and twice on Sundays.
Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 334
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Jaeger »

Jaeger wrote:If we do not use this opportunity to roll the K9 chassis into a CV family... light tank + ICV + APC + mortar carrier + SPAAG + command vehicle... sorry I meant to say let's order 36 Spruts for now then throw open an RFP for 64 'Make' category light tanks and then sit for 15 years... :roll: :evil:
Just re-upping my post from Sept 2020...
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

What is the reason behind this fascination with K9 chassis everywhere? Ever noticed the size, engine, armour and other factors?
Any new light tank has to be a clean sheet design to be successful, not a jugaad of some screwdrivergiri product. If modified products have to be used, then why not Arjun and BMP? India owns rights to Arjun and BMP-II. Latter already has a light tank prototype with 105mm gun. Arjun with addition of autoloader, smaller gun & engines, removal of extra armour and crap like mine ploughs and smaller size can be considered.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

jamwal wrote:What is the reason behind this fascination with K9 chassis everywhere? Ever noticed the size, engine, armour and other factors?
Any new light tank has to be a clean sheet design to be successful, not a jugaad of some screwdrivergiri product. If modified products have to be used, then why not Arjun and BMP? India owns rights to Arjun and BMP-II. Latter already has a light tank prototype with 105mm gun. Arjun with addition of autoloader, smaller gun & engines, removal of extra armour and crap like mine ploughs and smaller size can be considered.
K9 chassis is the basis for the K21 which is under consideration. So there is precedence.
BMP-2 - that would be underpowered and the chassis may not have the wherewithal to mount a 105 turret. Cannot do much with the chassis.
Arjun - again not feasible me thinks.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

K-21 is an IFV like L&T's vehicle posted by Rakesh ji above, not a tank.

BMP & Arjun, both are sub-optimal, just like K9 which will be lot more expensive and restrictive to us due to its screwdrivergiri and IP rights issue. Better to develop a clean sheet design with elements like targeting, suspension and others copied from local Arjun.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

jamwal wrote:K-21 is an IFV like L&T's vehicle posted by Rakesh ji above, not a tank.

BMP & Arjun, both are sub-optimal, just like K9 which will be lot more expensive and restrictive to us due to its screwdrivergiri and IP rights issue. Better to develop a clean sheet design with elements like targeting, suspension and others copied from local Arjun.
Given the fascination with imports and the Indian government babudom. The approach you have suggested will mean that we are waiting for a light tank for the next 30 years.

15 years to give approval to develop the vehicle. 2 years to design and take the vehicle to pre production prototype stage. Then years of endless summer, winter, high altitude, desert, submarine, lunar, Martian trials. Then they will place orders for 2 vehicles and ask for 150 modifications to the vehicle. That will take the vehicle from being a light tank to a 100 ton vehicle.

At which point they will say that it cannot be inducted into service and ask for the next light tank from the global market.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Guys,I am not a Feld-Marshal, I prefer naval rank!
I too have pointed out the lack of armour on the Sprut over 18 months ago when I postulated long before the Ladakh Chin gambit,the crying need for one for the mountains.

Sprut can have ERA/ applique tiles applied to improve armour,it'll add to weight by a few tons,but will still be around 20t.Its chief advantage is the 125mm gun that outranges and carries more kill factor than the PLA's LT which only has a 105mm gun.
However,a desi built LT is preferably reqd. to suit our needs.It should be a multi-use amphib. LT for our amphib ops too. The gun could be either 125mm or 120mm,as both types of ammo,guns , are in service with the T-series and Arjun. The K-21 ICV looks v. interesting,though from the pic it's not clear whether the infantry seats are hung,to reduce IED,land mine injuries. The K-21 could very well fill the ICV req. as all we're doing is upgrading legacy BMPs.

If at all the Sprut or any other LT is bought,it can only be an interim knee-jerk buy in modest numbers to meet the current Chin challenge. Our long- term need is for around 500+ amphib.LTs that can be used in any terrain. We never replaced the PT-76 which proved its worth in '71,one of the key weapon systems that aided victory.

PS: A Nov.2020 media report ,plus Oct. ET ,says that the Sprut SD M1 is the front-runner in the IA's quest for an LT,chiefly being its "interoperability" with other tanks in the IA's inventory. Same ammo,autoloader- 6/8 rounds per min., can fire missiles too apart from std. ammo in service. At 18t without ERA ,it is half the weight of the Chin LT. With the current CV tsunami I doubt if this req. is going to be met anytime soon,but a decision on the ICV at least can be taken,it's been pending for years.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by srin »

I wonder why they haven't gone for a wheeled platform. No need for tank transports - it can be driven directly to high altitude areas. Add a 105mm gun and some anti-tank missiles.
Look at the example of South African Rooikat. 76mm gun with 1600 m/s muzzle velocity - good enough against other light tanks.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

Beast mode

Image
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

https://theprint.in/opinion/light-tanks ... rm/647939/
Light tanks served well in ’62. But Ladakh needs a Stryker-like multipurpose combat platform
LT GEN H S PANAG (RETD)
Light tanks are required by mechanised forces for reconnaissance and in roles not suitable for medium tanks, like air transported/airborne/amphibious operations, operations in riverine and mountainous/high-altitude terrain, and counter-insurgency/built up areas.

Theoretically, 350 light tanks can be organised into seven regiments of 45 tanks each or 10 regiments of 31 tanks each. However, this would be an inelegant use of the light tanks for the roles specified. It would be more prudent to organise them in composite regiments, that is a mix of tanks and mechanised infantry. These could be based on one/two tank squadrons and one/two mechanised infantry companies. Goes without saying that the organisations should be role specific. Also, to make sub units more agile it would be better to organise light tanks into squadrons of 10 tanks each. Setting aside 30-40 tanks as reserves and for training establishments, we can create 20-25 composite regiments. This would meet all our requirements for reconnaissance, airborne, air transported, amphibious, riverine, island territory, mountains/high altitude and counter-insurgency roles.
Since light tanks will be no match for medium tanks in the broader valleys, in Depsang Plains and fighting on the Tibetan plateau, it is logical that mechanised forces deployed in Ladakh should be a judicious mix of medium and light tanks. The mix can be introduced at the armoured brigade level or more radically even at the unit level. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has done this at the Combined Arms Brigade level.
There is an urgent need to restructure the formations in Eastern Ladakh into Combined Arms Battle Groups (CABG). Organisation of the CABG must be tailor-made for specific sectors and flexible enough to permit regrouping. Each CABG can have three to six infantry battalions and one composite mechanised brigade of three to four composite armour heavy/mechanised infantry heavy/balanced units. These must be supported by tailor-made combat support/services units. All transport must be based on high mobility vehicles. The infantry of offensive units must be based on ICVs/APCs. We require minimum six CABG for defensive and limited offensive missions. For a major offensive, a reserve of six more CABGs would be required which can be inducted when required. This restructuring would be in tune with the overall restructuring/reorganisation plan of the Army evolved in 2018-19, the progress on which has been painfully slow.

Since the current crisis began, the PLA has deployed approximately six Combined Arms Brigades, each having minimum four or more combined arms battalions (mix of armour and mechanised infantry sub-units at unit level) supported by combat support/services units. An equal number of Combined Arms Brigades are available as reserve for escalation to a limited war. We have deployed a similar number but based on inefficient traditional divisions/brigades in vogue since World War 2.
The ‘Make in India’ project of 350 ‘stand-alone’ light tanks is likely to have a gestation period of five years. It will take the same amount of time for a ‘Make in India’ combat platform and its variants, including light tanks to fructify. The interim needs of the Army can be met by reviving the DRDO’s BMP 2 or Vajra chassis-based light tank project. Keeping in view the impending major restructuring of the Army in the near future, I will place my bet on a multi-purpose combat support platform.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

The general when he is letting his experience speak and not his political biases. Is a very knowledgeable person.

I must confess.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Atmavik wrote:Beast mode

Image
What a beauty - could have been exported to several countries and generated employment and helped the MIC - now remains a pipe dream!
Post Reply