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
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

We have the technology in house for the three main building blocks for any good Tank. An effective gun with the fire control software and ballistic computer, the armour for protection and now hopefully within a few months a good engine. Other things like a good hydro-pneumatic suspension is also available. Only the optics and some other sensors plus new technologies like a APS etc are to be developed. We are getting there as well.
Any other country would build on these fundamental building blocks to incrementally build newer and better tanks.
Even Chinese after building the license copies of the T-55 (type 59) and T-72 clone (type 95), developed their own incrementally improved tank.
Going from T-72 to T-90S is not a very big leap. Yet after building thousands under ToT and license we did not choose to go down this road.

Only in India, we choose the import route for everything.

Even for the T-72 engine, I don't understand why the import cutoff date is set in 2025. The T-90s 1,000HP engine has already been developed in house and can be produced in India.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

brar_w wrote:The US Army has no *real* plans to replace the Abrams and neither would the Pentagon would like to fund such an effort with the air and maritime focus around China. The latest variants of the Abrams (A4) have not even been fielded yet, and there is the MPF for airborne and light infantry that will be fielded in the 2025-2032 time-frame. Basically, no clean sheet Abrams replacement is likely to emerge before late 2030's. And that's really too far into the future to really see what sort of new tank they will need given the focus around the Pacific, and what attributes (performance, survivability, lethality/weapons) it should/could have. The Germans and the French will likely go first, but the US may just be the last western (major) power to field a clean sheet MBT owing largely to prioritization.
And we will be the wannabe power that will never field a clean sheet tied as we are to the import apron strings!!!!
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

It is zimble onlee - we want to be a third rate power that buys shiny import junk! I hope IA continues to invest in Tank recovery vehicles to support this junk it purchases.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Vivek K wrote:It is zimble onlee - we want to be a third rate power that buys shiny import junk! I hope IA continues to invest in Tank recovery vehicles to support this junk it purchases.
You are giving too much credit to the MOD.
RKumar

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by RKumar »

MoD have a role in this but IA can't escape from their responsibility. It was the IA - who kept performing the trials and submitting the letter of rejections n list improvement on Arjun due to one or another fake reason year after year.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

But no one in the MOD called out the army on it's schizophrenia. WRT, Arjun MK2.

It's on the MOD. IA ultimately answers to the MOD.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by srai »

^^^
Can’t blame everything on the MoD. By that logic, it’s on the GoI … as MoD ultimately answers to the GoI :-?
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

How does it matter - IA, MOD, GOI? There is a fault and for their holding on to high moral ground neither IA nor MOD nor GOI could help jobs staying in India. I blame them all for sending Indian jobs and brains overseas.

It is pathetic to see some play this game of IA or MOD or Charlie Chaplin! Laughable attempt to cast away fault from their favorite institution. Boss - a war with China is coming. And imports will not help us.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

Vivek K wrote:How does it matter - IA, MOD, GOI? There is a fault and for their holding on to high moral ground neither IA nor MOD nor GOI could help jobs staying in India. I blame them all for sending Indian jobs and brains overseas.

It is pathetic to see some play this game of IA or MOD or Charlie Chaplin! Laughable attempt to cast away fault from their favorite institution. Boss - a war with China is coming. And imports will not help us.
Well said. Petty ego's and nobody has power to say Yes is harming India.
Army officers ask impossible and contradictory requirements.
And DRDO never says can't design to that.
FM gives 1/10 of needed budget.
Then MoD sits and passes files back and forth. Not preparing the forces for war.

And idiot retirees constantly denigrate CDS out of jealousy.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

The reality of it is - our adversary is a gargantuan producer of everything - civil or military. And here we sit around pretending that we will be able to import our way through. Perhaps we could - but at what cost to the nation? Will that bankrupt it for generations to come? Or could we put our current tech prowess to use to put up a fight? The Arjun and its derivatives could put India on the map as a producer and exporter of tanks. With good news on the engine front, the time is ripe to implement swadeshi - keep good paying jobs for Indians and build national infrastructure to compete with China on equal footing.
Or listen to Philip and remain a poor nation with beggars littering potholed streets - a third rate power that we currently are and have been. Indians need to take pride in their country and throw away their lust for imports.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

Tell that to the DGMF and the MOD.

This is an army that feels fit to order Sig 716 instead of asking for a modification to the FNFAL or a 7.62 mm INSAS derived weapon. Because it would have to deal with OFB.

OFB has produced millions of FNFALs and INSAS rifles. Yet they can't be trusted to make a new rifles.

Then they say that we will fight with what we have.
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:^^^



OFB has produced millions of FNFALs and INSAS rifles. Yet they can't be trusted to make a new rifles.

.
Cannot compare the production of the 2. One was screwdrivergiri of a great design and mature manufacturing. INSAS anything but. OFB cannot be trusted with a new rifle because their previous effort on a new rifle prod were not nice.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

May be PSUs should be privatized retaining capable employees. Others should be moved to some civilian manufacturing production like dolls, etc. I think Russia did a similar thing after USSR broke up.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

basant wrote:May be PSUs should be privatized retaining capable employees. Others should be moved to some civilian manufacturing production like dolls, etc. I think Russia did a similar thing after USSR broke up.
One thing that I cannot understand. That a PSU is expected to have no issues with Imported designs. Yet is expected to have issues with producing domestic designs.

Or I am missing the point entirely?
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

^^^
I think the difference is in assembling OEM's imported kits vs manufacturing kits maintaining QR. Generally the issues most reported, IMHO, include ammunition that explodes within the (artillery) gun and INSAS. We don't import and assemble equivalent items. IIRC, Arjun MBT was also blamed for sloppy quality until DRDO blamed sabotage and asked for its own personnel to man during the testing phase! Once they installed instruments to identify the same, the tanks faced no more problems!
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Let me tell you a story about one of the "popular" auto manufacturing companies in India. I had a friend that was trying to sell headlamps to the company. He did not know about the purchase mafia of the firm. So when he would send a product for trials, they would leave it out in the open and let it rain upon and be hammered by the elements. Then they would provide a report of poor quality, terrible packaging etc. and reject it. He wizened up ..

Any product can be made to look bad! The Arjun had torsion bar issues (in its hydro-pneumatic suspension) and Renk gearbox failures, remember? There are traitors everywhere in the pay of enemies of Indian growth that work against the Arjuns, LCAs, INSAS and others blowing out of proportion every small issue into a failure.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

There was some specific area in which Israel's help was the turning point. Probably the FCS. It was never the same again.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Basant - i hope you caught the pun- Arjun's hydro pneumatic suspension did not have torsion bars and the Renk gearbox was found as having been sabotaged. The torsion bar failure probably occurred on a T-90.

So by fake news, the Arjun was made to look bad when in fact it did better than the T-90 in every respect.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

^^^
Hehe, I didn't! Would have said hilarious, except that it was terrible.

I remember how Army was too embarrassed to keep repeating that the two tanks were from different classes after comparative trails. To its discredit, the system successfully sabotaged the tank, at least so far. It is not at all funny that they make specs and won't build infrastructure to accommodate it. In any dictatorship, it would have resulted in dismissals and court martials. Every time I think of Arjun, it breaks my heart.
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ArjunPandit »

Vivek K wrote:Basant - i hope you caught the pun- Arjun's hydro pneumatic suspension did not have torsion bars and the Renk gearbox was found as having been sabotaged. The torsion bar failure probably occurred on a T-90.

So by fake news, the Arjun was made to look bad when in fact it did better than the T-90 in every respect.
vivek this question was posted to BS Dhanoa by someone on twitter around an year back. He mentioned that with T90 a tank commander can run circles.

With all due regards to Army for their services, and your experience, Army top brass/DGMF cant be convinced otherwise. They seem to prefer waiting or arjunizing T72/90 as a stopgap rather than taking an arjun or working towards an arjun based new solution for FICV. IAF could also be pushed for Tejas simply coz IAF was short of no.s desperately with GOI having little funds for rafale all that with magnifying glass eyes of manohar parrikar. Rajnath ji lacks techinical expertise is more like old timer that would not question the status quo.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Arjun - we seems to be getting over confident about our matchup with China! I’ll leave it there - but we ignore domestic industry to be relegated to the forgotten pages of history! My biggest regret in life remains that we wear the largest importer badge with pride instead of shame. We jail our industrialist calling them thieves while the rest of the world makes their thieves Presidents.
Our army prefers a tank that cannot penetrate the Arjun’s armor. Well, what can I say! It’s our funeral! Enjoy!
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by rajsunder »

ArjunPandit wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Basant - i hope you caught the pun- Arjun's hydro pneumatic suspension did not have torsion bars and the Renk gearbox was found as having been sabotaged. The torsion bar failure probably occurred on a T-90.

So by fake news, the Arjun was made to look bad when in fact it did better than the T-90 in every respect.
vivek this question was posted to BS Dhanoa by someone on twitter around an year back. He mentioned that with T90 a tank commander can run circles.

With all due regards to Army for their services, and your experience, Army top brass/DGMF cant be convinced otherwise. They seem to prefer waiting or arjunizing T72/90 as a stopgap rather than taking an arjun or working towards an arjun based new solution for FICV. IAF could also be pushed for Tejas simply coz IAF was short of no.s desperately with GOI having little funds for rafale all that with magnifying glass eyes of manohar parrikar. Rajnath ji lacks techinical expertise is more like old timer that would not question the status quo.
The max speed of ARJUN is more than T-90. Even if we consider for a moment that T-90 moves faster than ARJUN, it should not move more than 10KMPH for shooting ARJUN (Read the CAG report) where as ARJUN can shoot T-90 while moving at 20KMPH with the target T-90 moving at 20KMPH. Someone should have pointed this to BS Dhanoa. That one single page of CAG report proved what army thinks about T-90, that it is a piece of human manure.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The Arjun MK2 after adding 10 tons of weight has the same top speed and ground pressure as the T90. That alone should tell people about the quality of the T90.
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ArjunPandit »

Vivek K wrote:Arjun - we seems to be getting over confident about our matchup with China! I’ll leave it there - but we ignore domestic industry to be relegated to the forgotten pages of history! My biggest regret in life remains that we wear the largest importer badge with pride instead of shame. We jail our industrialist calling them thieves while the rest of the world makes their thieves Presidents.
Our army prefers a tank that cannot penetrate the Arjun’s armor. Well, what can I say! It’s our funeral! Enjoy!
i am with you on this sir...but you cant show truth to people who choose to be blind.there were postings of screenshots of the conversation with BSD, he just refused to ignore or say like arguments like have you ever been inside a tank..when someone uses these arguments then little can be done..i still believe that there is a space of 1000+arjuns on western theater in desert..even if army prefers T series, they can use it up on eastern or northern sector..in fact a prposition of desi ibgs equipped with Arjun, LCH, LUH, ATAGS/Dhanush(if one still considers it desi) backed by tejas and defended by akash would be anyone's nightmare
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by srai »

DRDO upgraded T-72M1
Image

https://twitter.com/Kunal_Biswas707/sta ... 83875?s=20


KUNAL BISWAS
@Kunal_Biswas707

The upgrade got 1000hp engine & ERA MK2 much like T-90's Kontakt-5 ERA

Many Indian T-72M1 already got new TIFCS & Commander Night vision on their periscope, if combined with this upgrade with up-rated engines & ERA MK2, It may prove better than T-90 in many fields..

Each T-72M1 upgrade will cost Rs 14 crore :

1. Each up-rated engine: Rs 3 crore.
2. Each TIFCS will cost Rs 1.4 crore.
3. Each TI sight for commander costs Rs 0.4 crore.
4. Each APU will cost Rs 0.16 crore.

Without ERA MK2 package..
Retrofitting systems will cost additional.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The upgraded tank doesn't have a commanders independent thermal sight for hunter killer capacity?

Because the device doesn't appear to be visible on the tank.

Though it appears that the tank is equipped with a search light.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

srai wrote:DRDO upgraded T-72M1

Each T-72M1 upgrade will cost Rs 14 crore :

1. Each up-rated engine: Rs 3 crore.
2. Each TIFCS will cost Rs 1.4 crore.
3. Each TI sight for commander costs Rs 0.4 crore.
4. Each APU will cost Rs 0.16 crore.

Without ERA MK2 package..
Retrofitting systems will cost additional.

My conversion is probably off.. is that almost 2 million USD per tank?
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

Pratyush wrote:The Arjun MK2 after adding 10 tons of weight has the same top speed and ground pressure as the T90. That alone should tell people about the quality of the T90.
Is the mine plough permanent, I think it can be detached for most operational engagements and will save a few tons
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by srai »

^^^
Detachable

Weights 1.5 tonnes
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Why is the Arjun weighed with mine ploughs? Is it standard for every IA tank to go to war with a mine plough?
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by srai »

^^^
:((
Only a few “path finders” would require a mine plough. Rest of the company/squadron would follow behind the first.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Vivek K wrote:Why is the Arjun weighed with mine ploughs? Is it standard for every IA tank to go to war with a mine plough?

This used to be a specific requirement for Arjun MK2.

But it seems that the IA is thinking in terms of making a mine plough a standard equipment for all tanks.


MoD signs contract with BEML for 1,512 mine plough for T-90 tanks
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by srai »

^^^
Another use of mine plough is for self digging in the MBT for defensive positioning.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

It seems that this requirement is being mandated to cast the final nail in the Arjun's coffin.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by srai »

^^^
The IA had asked DRDO to reduce weight of Arjun Mk2 by 1.5 tonnes!
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by srai »

Damning Report from last year
Army reluctant to buy India-made Arjun tank, prefers Russian T-90S
By Ajai Shukla | New Delhi | Last Updated at February 09 2020 00:54 IST

Although “Make in India” has been the central motif of the on-going Defexpo 2020 in Lucknow, the army continues to block further purchases of the indigenous Arjun main battle tank (MBT), years after it met all the army’s ever-increasing demands.

With the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) awaiting a long-cleared order for 118 Arjun MBTs, the ministry of defence (MoD) instead asked the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) last November to build 464 Russian-origin T-90S tanks at the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi (HVF).

With each T-90 costing about Rs 28 crore, the order is worth an estimated Rs 13,000 crore.

The army continues to block the indigenous Arjun tank even though, in a comparative trial, conducted in the Rajasthan desert in March 2010, the Arjun proved itself equal to, or better than, the Russian T-90.

In the trial, one squadron (14 tanks) of Arjuns was pitted against an equal number of T-90s. Top army generals, who witnessed the trial, admitted the Arjun performed superbly. Whether driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes; or accurately hitting targets with its powerful main gun; the Arjun established that it was a tank to reckon with.

Yet, the army refused to order more Arjun tanks, beyond the 124 it had already inducted into service. Army insiders say there is an ingrained belief that Russian tanks are better than Indian ones.

However, it was officially stated that the 62.5-tonne Arjun was too heavy for roads and bridges along the Pakistan border, and too wide to be transported by train.

Under pressure from the MoD to order another 118 Arjuns, the army then demanded several capability enhancements in the tank to make it more effective. At a meeting of the MoD-led Arjun Steering Committee in 2010, the army demanded an improved version of the tank, which would be called the Arjun Mark 2.

The Arjun Mark 2 was required to have 83 capability enhancements, including 15 major and 68 minor changes. Incredibly, given the army’s complaint that the tank was too heavy, the new enhancements would make the tank heavier by another 6 tonnes.

These included the fitment on the tank of mine ploughs (1.6 tonnes extra), explosive reactive armour (1.5 tonnes), suspension improvements (one tonne) and another two tonnes in other areas. Having complained earlier that a 62.5 tonne Arjun tank was too heavy, the army signed off on a six-tonne weight increase to 68.5 tonnes.

In August 2011, the MoD announced it had “cleared the proposal for placement of indent for 124 MBT Arjun Mark 2”.

It said each enhanced Arjun would cost Rs 37 crore and the first batch would roll out by 2015.

By June 2012, the DRDO offered the Arjun for trials with all the enhancements, except one: a cannon-launched guided missile (CLGM) the army wanted to fire through the Arjun’s main gun.

The DRDO had sourced the Lahat CLGM from Israel, but that could strike targets between 2 and 5 kilometres (km) away. The army insisted on being able to strike targets as close as 1.2 km.

It pointed out that the Arjun’s powerful main gun had already proved its ability to destroy targets at ranges up to 2 km. But the army insisted the CLGM should be usable against targets 1.2 km away. So, the DRDO began work on an indigenous CLGM to meet those specifications.
By 2015, a series of trials had validated the improvements the army demanded. Even the CLGM’s laser designator was tested and validated with Lahat missiles. The DRDO asked for production order, promising to develop and supply the indigenous missile on priority.

However, the army dilly-dallied for three years, until March 2018, when it was agreed that the next batch of Arjuns would be supplied without missile firing capability, which would follow up separately. This version would be designated Arjun Mark 1A.

After several months of delay, Arjun Mark 1A trials were held in December 2018 and the tank was found fit in all respects. The army’s trial team recommended that the Arjun Mark 1A be inducted into service.

Incredibly, more than a year later, the army has not yet placed an indent for 118 Arjun Mark 1A. It has raised numerous issues – including ammunition availability, non-availability of spares and low indigenous content – to successfully avoid placing an order.

Were an indent to be placed today, it would still take HVF about 36 months to start delivering completed Arjun tanks. The DRDO is confident it would develop the CLGM by then, so those 118 tanks will actually be Arjun Mark 2, with full CLGM capability.

Asked whether there was frustration over the lack of orders, DRDO chairman Satheesh Reddy told Business Standard: “No, we cannot get frustrated. We are very positive. The user trials for the Mark 1A have been completed in December 2018 and we have even developed the ammunition now. I am sure that the Indian Army will soon be inducting the Arjun Mark 1A.”
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 285_1.html
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Is HVF ready with the design of a light tank? That it can compete in the light tank tender?
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Pratyush wrote:Is HVF ready with the design of a light tank? That it can compete in the light tank tender?
Is there any point in wasting tax payer funds when the IA will want to import junk and call it Super deeDooper?
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

unless someone comes up with a BMP 2 chassis mated to a T72 gun and slap on armour panels and call it a light MBT !
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

srai wrote:^^^
The IA had asked DRDO to reduce weight of Arjun Mk2 by 1.5 tonnes!
Arjun MK 1A with mine plough and Mk2 without mine plugs must be used for this comparison
Post Reply