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
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by John »

What exact purpose does a 125 mm cannon for light tank fill? No matter what it won’t be able to out range any modern tank with their superior optics. Not to mention carrying all the rounds is a liability if it gets penetrated.

Won’t it be more versatile for a light vehicle to be fitted with autocannon and anti tank missiles?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

What a beautiful sight. And the reason why it is beautiful is this is an Indian company with an Indian made vehicle. What is even more beautiful (and equally ironic) is that large orders can result in scaling up production. A photo that should be sent to the MoD and decision makers. Need large orders of Tejas Mk1A, Tejas Mk2, LCH, HTT-40, HJT-36, etc like YESTERDAY!!! Come on MoD!!!

Kudos to Baba Kalyani and his Team for lighting the path forward. Thank You Baba-ji :)

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... QKsR3cHczw ---> Kalyani M4 production line.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

The Defenders - Bharat Forge: Making Arms for India | 09 July, 2022

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

John wrote:What exact purpose does a 125 mm cannon for light tank fill? No matter what it won’t be able to out range any modern tank with their superior optics. Not to mention carrying all the rounds is a liability if it gets penetrated.

Won’t it be more versatile for a light vehicle to be fitted with autocannon and anti tank missiles?
This is what I don't understand as well. A case could be made for a light tank with APS. But then it will still face pretty much the same issues that you have raised.
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1638
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nandakumar »

Though I am not doubting Bharat Forge's technical capability, I am curious nevertheless. The only connection to defence production that I could recall was that way back in the mid 70s during my first job at Walchandnagar Industries' Pune, BF would supply the 105 mm gun barrels because they were a steel forging company. The precision machining of the barrel and the sleeve was done at the Pune plant of Walchandnagar Industries before being supplied to one of the OFB units. Even Tatas who had decades of experience in heavy duty vehicle manufacturing haven't ventured into this field until now. Usually companies leverage their current technical capability to venture into seemingly unrelated product manufacture. A case in point is again Walchandnagar Industries. They were already into making sugar and cement machinery which involved heavy plate welding knowhow. They leveraged that to bid for atomic energy projects and succeeded handsomely. Tatas too wanted to get into it as Homi Baba wanted JRD Tata to get involved. Tatas realised that they must master the knowhow for heavy plate welding before they got into fabricating reactor vessels. So they chose the paper machinery route which requires rollers made of heavy steel plates. But unfortunately Birlas who had a stranglehold on the paper industry and whose rivalry with Tatas was legendary prevailed upon other paper mill owners not to place orders on the Tatas. Historically businesses haven't ventured into completely unrelated areas (not in a product sense but in a technical capability sense).
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Kalyani has a JV with Paramount group of South Africa. The experience and expertise is coming from them.

Kalyani I am sure is learning and building competency to stand alone. Given their own history.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

^^or doing screwdriver giri!!

Why will paramount supply the know why?
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:What exact purpose does a 125 mm cannon for light tank fill? No matter what it won’t be able to out range any modern tank with their superior optics. Not to mention carrying all the rounds is a liability if it gets penetrated.

Won’t it be more versatile for a light vehicle to be fitted with autocannon and anti tank missiles?
John,

What part do you have exception to? The gun or the chassis. The optics are inconsequential as they can be mated to a small vehicle as well.

Plus optics and range are two separate things. Range in a tank gun is dependent on the chamber pressure the barrel can bear.
Optics allow you to see clearer further and quicker.
But while you may be able to see 5k a T90 125mm will not lob a shell that distance.

A light vehicle with ATGMs also has to carry additional rounds and will be more susceptible to small arms fire plus cost and logistics

Nothing fights in a vacuum.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:^^or doing screwdriver giri!!

Why will paramount supply the know why?

My point was about the JV which gives kalyani a leg up to enter a previously un chartered territory for the company.

Second point was about the DNA of the company which will allow for the following:

Kalyani by understanding what the vehicle is supposed to be doing. Figures out how it's going to do it.

Such as, figuring out the physics of how the suspension of the vehicle is supposed to function asks some domestic fabricator to build an all wheel independent suspension. Or any other solution that does what it needs to do in order to preserve mobility in broker terrain.


The armour comes from understanding what different standards of armour protection are, and developing those in cooperation with Midhani or someone else. This capacity exists within the country as it was shared by the DRDO with multiple Pvt players.

This is not rocket science.

The engine comes from either Ashok Leyland or Tata or the new 600 hp cvrde power pack development for the FICV.

Turret can be either be Namica turret. Or the new crew less turret whose design with 4 nag Mk2 was shown recently.

This will not be major challenge for a company that has shown the willingness to put in the efforts required to build capacity.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush I will believe it when I see it. Let’s talk when they develop something an-initio.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:Pratyush I will believe it when I see it. Let’s talk when they develop something an-initio.
Is a clean sheet design required in the presence of TATA product?

Just because the potential exists in the company to do something. Doesn't mean a business case exists for doing so.
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/AVANI_PR/status/154 ... qHoGxHa6Cw ---> Towards #AatmanirbharBharat, AVNL unit OF Medak successfully indigenizes Decontamination Set (TDP Set) used in BMP-II in association with M/s HMI Gwalior. 1st lot of 60 indigenously manufactured sets recieved on 26.03.21. This will result in savings to the tune of ₹ 1.05Cr/annually.

Image
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:^^or doing screwdriver giri!!

Why will paramount supply the know why?

My point was about the JV which gives kalyani a leg up to enter a previously un chartered territory for the company.

....
Sachin sir, that criticism is invalid. BF has been always an innovative company. The first to get into auto component export, still one of the largest, and then many other Indian firms followed. He and his company has been single-handedly responsible for putting India in auto part export market.

Another example is in house development of complete gun (ATAGS came later). He also made ATAGS then. If you want to see his forward-looking policy - He has gone into composites (very different from metal forging) and small engines (because the country needs it).

A little self-information never hurts.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by bala »

India has to learn to live with "Good enough" and not let the Best to be the enemy of Good. This is the only way to evolve and make the next step in the journey to Atmanirbhar.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by John »

ks_sachin wrote:
John,

What part do you have exception to? The gun or the chassis. The optics are inconsequential as they can be mated to a small vehicle as well.

Plus optics and range are two separate things. Range in a tank gun is dependent on the chamber pressure the barrel can bear.
Optics allow you to see clearer further and quicker.
But while you may be able to see 5k a T90 125mm will not lob a shell that distance.

A light vehicle with ATGMs also has to carry additional rounds and will be more susceptible to small arms fire plus cost and logistics

Nothing fights in a vacuum.
I have the issue with mounting a large gun on a small chassis which will sacrifice both mobility and armor. Not to mention exposing the crew to potential ammo cook off from carrying all this 120 mm shells without much armor.

I would rather have auto cannon and ATGM mounted on small chassis with better armor. My argument is to use a large gun effectively for light tank in anti tank encounter it needs to have superior gun and optics to enemy tanks it will face. At max range it can easily get knocked out by an enemy tank due to its lack of armor, where as the enemy tanks can survive such hits. So you can say it needs to be superior to enemy tanks to be viable. IMO it’s much better to fit ATGM which can easily out range tank guns and superior option for pure anti tank purpose.

I think 4-8 anti tank missiles ( and be able to also mount Manpads instead to deal with UAVs if they need to ) mounted on the turret are sufficient for platform like this, it is not meant to have heavy firepower. It’s mainly to support infantry and deal with any encounters that slip thru.
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ashishvikas »

TASL successfully delivers the QRFV (Quick Reaction Fighting Vehicle- Medium) to the Indian Army.

https://twitter.com/tataadvanced/status ... KDHJQ&s=19

https://twitter.com/tataadvanced/status ... zt5-8Grq1A
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

https://idrw.org/whap-based-anti-tank-g ... t-tracked/

Finally the logical steps are being taken.
isubodh
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 03 Oct 2008 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by isubodh »

ashishvikas wrote:TASL successfully delivers the QRFV (Quick Reaction Fighting Vehicle- Medium) to the Indian Army.

https://twitter.com/tataadvanced/status ... KDHJQ&s=19

https://twitter.com/tataadvanced/status ... zt5-8Grq1A
How large was the order ?
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

Pratyush wrote:https://idrw.org/whap-based-anti-tank-g ... t-tracked/

Finally the logical steps are being taken.
How will Whap acquire the target while being comfortably out of range of a tank? I'm assuming that WHAP will operate at some distance like 5-3 Kms away form tanks, acquire target and fire their anti-tank missile.

Should WHAP also not be equipped with a (maybe 2) short range drone that autoconnect with the target acquisition system of the WHAP.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The system has 2 seperate sights. So it's perfectly capable of identifying enemy thanks and engaging them at the ranges of the missiles.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

And who is to say Atgm have to be used only against tanks, why not against thin skinned vehicles (meaning anything on track and wheel other than tanks), bunkers, machine gun nests, buildings…,,
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

In war, it will be used against any and all targets in range.

Remember the operation in which the US army killed the son's of Saddam Hussein. They fired TOW missiles in the hide out.
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

Pratyush wrote:The system has 2 seperate sights. So it's perfectly capable of identifying enemy thanks and engaging them at the ranges of the missiles.
These sights are non line of sight systems ?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The nag is line of sight weapon. So why have non line of sights for it. It's sights are sufficient for the intended application.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

The launcher has the optics and sensors. The missile is then fed these - LOBL.

Is that not the case
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Yes.
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 »

Laser-guided anti-tank missiles successfully test-fired from Arjun tank
Defence sources said the indigenously developed laser-guided ATGMs were successfully flight tested by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Indian Army with the support of Armoured Corps Centre and School (ACC&S), Ahmednagar.

The missiles hit with precision and successfully destroyed the targets at both minimum and maximum ranges. Telemetry systems deployed for the mission have recorded the satisfactory flight performance of the missiles.
...
The all-indigenous laser guided ATGMs employ a tandem high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead to defeat explosive reactive armour (ERA) protected armoured vehicles in ranges from 1.5 km to 5 km.

Secretary of Department of Defence R&D and chairman of DRDO Dr G Satheesh Reddy congratulated the teams associated with the test firing of laser guided ATGMs. He said the consistency of ATGM’s capability to engage targets from minimum to maximum range has been established successfully during the trials.
...
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Hope it gets inducted and spawns a family of cheap, small missiles that can be stuffed into UAVs, LCH, Rudra, mounted on tripods, trucks etc
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The minimum range stated for the missile is 1500 meters. That is more than the specified minimum range for such missile.

Lahat was rejected for Arjun due to the same reasons.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

That is a good point! Lahat was rejected for not meeting 1200m min range. You are giving good ideas to DGMF
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Why do you even need to shoot a missile this close to kill a target. Why not kill with main gun round.

Use case makes no sense.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Not to mention that the ATGM will be 3-4X slower in the air, which makes it a bit of an iffy affair in such close range tank-on-tank battles.

Strange are the ways of IA Armored thinking.

Btw, DRDO needs to get on a mission mode to develop the lost edge in FSAPDS development. They can think of collaborating with academia like IITs, like how Lt Gen Shankar is doing with IITM for the rocket powered artillery. Of course, this should not be an isolated program - the IA needs to be brought into the planning. The last thing we want is to have built a 125mm round but the IA insists on 130mm gun for their future tank!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I have studied and reflected on the FRCV RFI. It gives an excellent opportunity for the DRDO to develop a clean sheet vehicle with a larger gun.

Alternatively, India should join the Franco -German vehicles program.

Both the nation's industries are coming up with remarkable designs and approaches to executing solutions.

The French with cased telescope 140 mm round along with the 140 mm gun, which should complete development by 2025.

The Germans have already demonstrated the 130 mm on both the challanger and the leopard.

The medium calibre remotely operated weapons station asked for the FRCV by the Indian army is already executed on the German KF 51 Panther. It's second implementation will be the next evolution of the Abrams platform.

All the pieces are in place for India to join the Franco -German program. We should bite the bullet and get on with it.
sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 461
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by sohamn »

ks_sachin wrote:
John wrote:What exact purpose does a 125 mm cannon for light tank fill? No matter what it won’t be able to out range any modern tank with their superior optics. Not to mention carrying all the rounds is a liability if it gets penetrated.

Won’t it be more versatile for a light vehicle to be fitted with autocannon and anti tank missiles?
John,

What part do you have exception to? The gun or the chassis. The optics are inconsequential as they can be mated to a small vehicle as well.

Plus optics and range are two separate things. Range in a tank gun is dependent on the chamber pressure the barrel can bear.
Optics allow you to see clearer further and quicker.
But while you may be able to see 5k a T90 125mm will not lob a shell that distance.

A light vehicle with ATGMs also has to carry additional rounds and will be more susceptible to small arms fire plus cost and logistics

Nothing fights in a vacuum.

Do you remember the WW1 days where battlecruiser’s were supposed to rule the roost? Lighter than battleships, few extra knts and same gun. So can run a little fast but can’t outgun or outrage a battleship nor can it defend against a battleship. Poor hood didn’t even stand a chance against bismark.

We are developing the battle cruiser of the land which can’t outgun or outrange a mbt. Nor can’t it actively defend itself.
Without active protection a light tank can utmost be a scout vehicle.

If IA wants a light tank that can go into battle then the following is necessary
A) bigger gun than Chinese mbt’s having atleast 1-2 km better range and atleast 800mm armor penetration capability.
B) active protection with both jamming and shoot down capabilities
C) ability to fire atgm rounds from the barrel
D) a very powerful engine than can provide all the power necessary for 360 awareness, jamming and protection.
AdityaM
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by AdityaM »

ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

sohamn wrote:

Do you remember the WW1 days where battlecruiser’s were supposed to rule the roost? Lighter than battleships, few extra knts and same gun. So can run a little fast but can’t outgun or outrage a battleship nor can it defend against a battleship. Poor hood didn’t even stand a chance against bismark.

We are developing the battle cruiser of the land which can’t outgun or outrange a mbt. Nor can’t it actively defend itself.
Without active protection a light tank can utmost be a scout vehicle.

If IA wants a light tank that can go into battle then the following is necessary
A) bigger gun than Chinese mbt’s having atleast 1-2 km better range and atleast 800mm armor penetration capability.
B) active protection with both jamming and shoot down capabilities
C) ability to fire atgm rounds from the barrel
D) a very powerful engine than can provide all the power necessary for 360 awareness, jamming and protection.
The Chinese have deployed the Type 15 in Ladakh as far as I can tell. It has a 105mm gun. Their main MBTs are not deployed at that altitude.
We have a tank with a 125mm main gun.
So we have a bigger gun.
The t90 has active protection.
The t90 can shoot atgm's from the barrel
The engine derates at that altitude.

You comments are sans any commentary on how the IA employs/ or will employ tanks at those altitudes. And also predicated on a belief that engagements will still be how they were.

Remember our posture up there is primarily defensive in nature and that being the case a 1:1 tank battle will happen once the Chinese have run through the gauntlet of our defences (static and mobile). Plus based on the premise that a light tank means that we will completely deinduct the t-90.

Now if we were looking for offensive ops again how are we going to employ armr?

So the question that I would ask is where does the light tank fit in the mix of capabilities that are required in offensive / defensive ops. And then what trade-offs are you prepared to make? Afterall we have mech forces with even less protected BMPs there!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I suspect that the Indian army light tank and the US army MPFV are following similar thought process.

A vehicle light on logistical footprint but be capable of handling most light threats minus main gun of MBT. When equipped with APS.

If that is indeed the case?

Then the Indian army is thinking in terms of rapid and shallow penetrations in Tibet before the PLA has had the opportunity to fully comit to the theatre.

This is based on the assumption that Indian army will have the element of surprise on it's side.

But this is pre Galwan clashes.

Post Galwan, with the PLA fully deployed and alert. A lot will depend on how tactical initiative is gained by the Indian army.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Once we have a modular APS developed, we should install it on our APCs, NAMICAs, MPVs & IFVs as well. Will protect them against ATGM-carrying infantry, UCAVs, Helicopter-launched ATGMs etc. We can induct mechanized forces into an area, dominate it and be reasonably safe from ATGMs. The equation will only tilt if the enemy brings in their tanks.

Same with mini-UAV launchers. Should be back-ported to other mechanized infantry vehicles. Will truly make our large holdings very potent.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Very nice! A range of IDDM systems handed over to the IA: Future Infantry Soldier, new generation anti-personnel mine Nipun, hand-held thermal imager (uncooled), upgraded sights system for tanks, high mobility Infantry Protected Vehicles (TASL), Quick Reaction Fighting Vehicle (Medium - TASL), Mini Remotely Piloted Aerial System (RPAS - not sure if they mean mini/micro-drones for Infantry) & Assault Boats

Read the press release in full. Lots of details!

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1852259
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »



As the tank itself has not been unveiled the vehicle shown as representative image.
Post Reply