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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

K Prasanna Pratyush I thought responded to my post where I mentioned having met a tanker who inducted the Arjun or was involved in.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:K Prasanna Pratyush I thought responded to my post where I mentioned having met a tanker who inducted the Arjun or was involved in.
This Maruti and Rolls Royce example is something that I have seen multiple times in relation to the 2 armoured vehicles.

I really get very angry any time I come accross it.

If we were paying Maruti prices for Maruti capacity. I could live with it. But I am nearly paying for the cost of Rolls-Royce and getting a Maruti. That is something that i cannot abide.

IOW, if I am going to pay the cost of a Rolls-Royce. Then I should have the Rolls-Royce. Not the Maruti.

But the men of the Indian army cannot seem to understand this basic point.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Don’t shoot the messenger and at that time the IA was more comfortable with the Maruti. Remember we are talking of 20 odd yrs ago.
The Rolls Royce at that time was not ready plus notwithstanding cost issues it did not and does not fit into our op philosophy.
Remember comparison is between t72 and Arjun.
You r right WRT t90.
Anyway Arjun is dead.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

ks_sachin wrote:

I hope any conversation about Arjun and why has not been inducted becomes a bannable offence!!!
Hmmmm IMPORT agenda comes shining through!
This periodic Rona dhona about the Arjun serves no purpose and is a :rotfl: serious waste of bandwidth.
Just go back and look who is wasting bandwidth. You will find its yourself who habitually quotes full post and writes couple of unintelligible sentences as comments.

.... You have not arrived if you have not spoken about Arjun etc.
This 'arriving mentality' is your own projection.... also shows how much Arjun sabotage exposure is seriously painful to IMPORT FAMILY....
"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.
Then it looks doubly bad on these people who created GSQR for Rolls royce, IMPORT FAMILY has to continously exposed.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Sachin, i am not angry at you. It's just an expression of my frustrations on the topic.

Isn't it amazing that after such a long time and dispite all efforts to kill it. Arjun has still going recieve orders.
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:Sachin, i am not angry at you. It's just an expression of my frustrations on the topic.

Isn't it amazing that after such a long time and dispite all efforts to kill it. Arjun has still going recieve orders.
I think it is wrong and we should have killed it or embraced it wholeheartedly.We talk of finances being dire and we place token orders which really will be expensive to run and logistically maintain.

If we decided on tin cans then we need to invest in combined arms warfare that really denies the enemy the space and time to deploy effective anti armour.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I agree with you 100%.
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

^^Manishji
I always felt that another 5-6 years of Late Shri MPji at the RM helm all and sundry would have accepted the desi maal!! :((
Look at the Three Legged Cheetah hunting the Gazelles and Springboks now!! :lol:
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Rsatchi wrote:^^Manishji
I always felt that another 5-6 years of Late Shri MPji at the RM helm all and sundry would have accepted the desi maal!! :((
Look at the Three Legged Cheetah hunting the Gazelles and Springboks now!! :lol:
They will still accept Desi maal. Kicking and screaming. But they will accept Desi maal.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

RSatchi I agree. But there was no one with the balls to tell the Army that boys you spent this much and made DRDo run through hoops so take what has been produced. So I say Arjun is dead as is INSAS as no one challenges Army’s step motherly treatment for domestic platforms till very recently.
Calling it as it is down not mean support for imports!
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Rsatchi wrote:^^Manishji
I always felt that another 5-6 years of Late Shri MPji at the RM helm all and sundry would have accepted the desi maal!! :((
Look at the Three Legged Cheetah hunting the Gazelles and Springboks now!! :lol:
Exactly!

Like salmon fish swimming against the IMPORT lobby current Parrikar ji managed 83 Tejas orders. He would have transformed imported army & imported Airforce into true Swadeshi forces.

No matter which side the argument goes Rsatchi ji, it's always used against Swadeshi and favors imports:

a.) To IMPORT tincans that poor pathetic officer gave argument of Why have Ferrari if Maruti suffices?

b.) To IMPORT Rafale/mrfa Airforce wants overwhelming advantage of 'asymmetric-warfare' and wants to pit Rafale against porki jf 17, f16/50, Mirage 3. Here Swadeshi Tejas isn't enough.

Our forces are coming across as mere copycats with no originality, when DRDO offered Light-Tank army brushed it aside contemptuously. But the moment china brings light tank to the front army wants to IMPORT light tank from France or Russia.
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

^^Exactly sir
I always felt Shri RSji is a good Cabinet minister but not for Raksha Mantralay
A man of Science and a Physics teacher but lacks the strong Left-Foot!! needed for the free kicks
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Manish, I have issued a warning to you and a ban. Please cool off and think logically. Rest assured, ks_sachin is not import pasand.

Sachin, next time only please report the post. Please don't do back and forth. Cleaned up the thread.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Manish_Sharma wrote:Like salmon fish swimming against the IMPORT lobby current Parrikar ji managed 83 Tejas orders. He would have transformed imported army & imported Airforce into true Swadeshi forces.
Which is why I have my suspicions on Shri MP's death. Too many well-heeled Governments with extensive bio & chemical warfare expertise, could have slipped something into his system, which increased the likelihood of him contracting cancer. Make it look natural. Such targeted assassination weapons are very much possible and am willing to bet are actively researched upon with stockpiles built up.
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1638
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nandakumar »

ks_sachin wrote:
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.
Thank you for responding to my rather naive question. You were kind enough to decree it as not naive at all. But what I know is this. A relative of mine who was a senior scientist at DRDO at the time of development of Arjun told me this. Somewhere along the line the army wanted the engine to be upgraded to 1500 hp. Whether they said 'oh we like a 1500 hp engine' or that the performance characteristics that the army demanded necessitated a higher capacity is immaterial. What he said was that if the army requirement meant a 1500 hp engine then the transmission and a whole lot of other aggregates of the vehicle meant a redesign. In short we were looking at a new vehicle or rather a new tank. It was developed and then they said it can't cross most of the bridges so we can't use it. However since you took so much trouble we will place some orders. That In a nutshell was the story of Arjun.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Nandakumar that was the other problem with the project. Shifting goal posts.
But in reality the army had lost interest and remember initially the DRDO was also not really capable of delivering.
We forget that the successes of the recent past are built on the back of some pretty ordinary work work and very ordinary manufacturing by OFB/PSUs.
Please Read Rakesh’ summary of IAF leadership in the IAF thread. Army officers even today will talk very poorly of DRDO. /OFB.
S_Madhukar
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 27 Mar 2019 18:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by S_Madhukar »

Gurus don't be too harsh on IA ... imagine saluting Saint Anthony and the famiglia all the time, it's a miracle we had any tanks anyway... hopefully with MAD a change in mindset and proper ambition will follow...
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/DefenceDecode/statu ... H0vesOUa7A ---> DRDO has started the fabrication work for a 24 element RADAR unit of an active protection system(APS) for MBTs.

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... H0vesOUa7A ---> Arguably the biggest need of the hour for the IAs MBT fleet, given lessons learnt from the Ukrainian, Syrian and countless other MBT vs infantry contests in the past several years. An APS would automatically negate the Pakistanis deploying the Kombat ATGM from their T-80s too.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

This is different from trophy?

Because some 6 months ago it was reported that the Indian army was looking to equip 3000 vehicles with it.
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/Varun55484761/statu ... llWobY_aNw ---> CVRDE 1500 HP Engine and it's cooling system.

Image

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/VinodDX9/status/152 ... llWobY_aNw ---> A tale of two platforms.

* The top one is Abhay, was developed in 1990s, work of fabrication was going on in 2001. 40 mm gun - 25T. Remains as tech demonstrator.

* The bottom one is K21, developed in 2000s, deployed in 2012. 40 mm gun - 25T. Wins an order of around 600.

Image
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by MeshaVishwas »

Shook Law's hot take:
India’s frontline tank is the Russian T-90, which has performed woefully, taking heavy casualties from Ukrainian missiles launched from unmanned aerial vehicles. New Delhi would also have noted that the Pakistan Army operates 320 Ukrainian T-80UD tanks, which have done better than the T-90s.
:rotfl:
Somehow we get to see Hamerica Lumber 1 types getting self exposed despite desi shirt and slacks
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

MeshaVishwas wrote::rotfl:
Somehow we get to see Hamerica Lumber 1 types getting self exposed despite desi shirt and slacks
Tell me about it. See this...

https://www.ajaishukla.com/p/about-me.html
Before taking up journalism, Ajai served in the military, in a combat arm, for over two decades before opting for voluntary retirement at the rank of colonel. His last assignment was in command of one of India’s most storied tank regiments, Hodson’s Horse. During his military career from 1979-2001, Ajai served on India’s conflicted borders with China and Pakistan, including in the states of Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab and Rajasthan. He also served for a year with the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission in Mozambique.

Ajai Shukla did his schooling in The Lawrence School, Sanawar near Shimla, in north India. He did his military training in the National Defence Academy, Khadakvasla (55th Course, 1976-1978) and the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun (65th Course, 1979), from where he was commissioned as an officer into the armoured corps.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

But in his defence, he did support the induction of Arjun in the army.

Or i am thinking of some other defense reporter?
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

He also supported giving away Siachin to TSP, was in fact in the committee as a def expert to provide his cover. What is your view on that? Please at least I am interested. (And very disappointed, where we have whole Mahabharata, yet we do not have an idea of Dharama, right or wrong. Drona, Bhism, Karna, all had great qualities, this man is not even a shadow of them, yet we were taught how these are wrong...yet the Macaulay education has done what)
How about his rejoicing death of CDS General Rawat Ji? What are your views on that?

Btw on the war side, T80UD has done horrible compared to T-72. Yes some T-90s have been engaged, and destroyed. One that is close to what we operate, T-90M, there is one example - still debated, if it was abandoned or ambushed?

Now no Tank has done good of late in war against Ati Tank weapon, including the most protected Merkava. Please see Rohit's tweet, read May 1 to have a more nuanced view -https://twitter.com/KesariDhwaj/status/ ... 6547185667
Last edited by fanne on 16 May 2022 23:26, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Excuse me.

I am only concerned about the defense of Arjun. If he has spoken about it. Then it's one positive point in his favour. If he has not, I don't care.

As for the rest of your points. The moment he became DDM, being stupid became his birth right.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

And Pratyush ji, I am not demanding an answer from you. Please do not take it otherwise. To me, it is a really open and shut case. I am trying to fault in my reasoning. You are not the only person defending or quoting him. Either it is lack of knowledge of people's part (which is understandable, maybe they did not read what I have read) or I am an idiot and have a very faulty yardstick of right or wrong. I am trying to figure that out.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

fanne wrote:
Now no Tank has done good of late in war against Ati Tank weapon, including the most protected Merkava. Please see Rohit's tweet, read May 1 to have a more nuanced view -https://twitter.com/KesariDhwaj/status/ ... 6547185667
Fanne what insight did you get out of Rohit's tweet?
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/152 ... llWobY_aNw ---> A tale of two platforms.

* The top one is Abhay, was developed in 1990s, work of fabrication was going on in 2001. 40 mm gun - 25T. Remains as tech demonstrator.

* The bottom one is K21, developed in 2000s, deployed in 2012. 40 mm gun - 25T. Wins an order of around 600.
Admiral, the underlying platform for the BMP has been past its use-by date for a while. You cannot do much with it because bringing it to the levels of something more survivable in the battlefield would add weight and complexity which I think would have necessitated a whole lot more. Plus the Abhay was meant to be a tech demonstrator. This is just my reading of the situation although the more I have read about the Abhay I think there is merit in pursuing it to its logical conclusion which is proving the technologies developed.

However, we are neither here nor there.

Plus I think there was another issue. Remember the Brigade of the Guards
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

ks_sachin wrote: what insight did you get out of Rohit's tweet?

In the end, it would be suffice to say that ATGMs increase the cost of doing business when employing tanks.
- 3rd Gen ATGMs bring addition lethality but these are expensive and we're unlikely to see 1-to-1 replacement of 2nd Gen ATGMs with 3rd Gen ATGMs.
- But the tank remains the king of battlefield.
- With most armies now looking at Combined Arms structure, some right down to battalion level, it becomes part of the whole.
- There is still no better instrument to implement shock-and-awe in the battlefield than a tank.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

In Indian context (and that might answer why Army is not buying more of Arjun vis a vis T-90)

1. It needs to stop TSP armor thrust or even infantry thrust using tanks (and other means like ATGM, geography - bunds etc.). Almost all land below Jammu is tank territory till we reach the Kutch
2. Attack and grab Paki territory with help of armor - I doubt that is part of our strategy except for shallow thrusts to gain some advantageous positions.
3. Need to stop Chinese armor thrust - Limited area are tank country
4. Attack and grab Tibet territory with help of armor - I doubt that is part of our strategy. The MSC may have limited capability (in future) for shallow land grab

In all of the above scenarios, Infantry would be moving ahead of armor (or surrounding it) - except few cases where we are going for land grab (that would be very low probability). The situation that Russians find themselves in, or Israel or US found in ME, it is not our use case. For our case, Armor is still very legit. Of course we need APS and lots of Anti-tank and assorted weapons on our side. On both fronts, we aspire for a stalemate. Not counting PoK into it. I think that would be bloodless.
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/aniltalwar2/status/ ... bCVTfDGMdg ---> ‘The entire purpose of the tank is to carry the main gun into battle. The armour is provided to ensure that the crew is protected from shrapnel (the main cause of battlefield casualties) and small arms fire. The crew exists solely to serve the main gun.’

Image
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

The purpose of a Tank is to able to penetrate enemy defenses while keeping the crew safe. I.e its mobile artillery with various functions, fire support to infantry taking out enemy machine guns, nests and knocking out enemy infantry positions etc.

This main gun business is to defend T series weakness.

The Red army during its victories in 1944 used to lots of tube, rocket artillery and mortars during its advances
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Aditya_V wrote:
This main gun business is to defend T series weakness.

The Red army during its victories in 1944 used to lots of tube, rocket artillery and mortars during its advances
Don’t bring in extraneous arguments. Whether it is a T series or a Abrams the gun is important yes?
We can talk about tanks without it becoming a diatribe against the T series yes?
Tube arty or heavy mortars need a mechanised component to keep up with armour and mech inf. Mech inf in turns supports mechanised formations.

All components I.e combined arms ops, are important hence the reference back to Rohit’s tweet.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

ks_sachin wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
This main gun business is to defend T series weakness.

The Red army during its victories in 1944 used to lots of tube, rocket artillery and mortars during its advances
Don’t bring in extraneous arguments. Whether it is a T series or a Abrams the gun is important yes?
We can talk about tanks without it becoming a diatribe against the T series yes?
Tube arty or heavy mortars need a mechanised component (SP) to keep up with armour and mech inf. Mech inf in turns supports tanks / SP arty.

All components I.e combined arms ops, are important hence the reference back to Rohit’s tweet.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Fanne
My comments
In the end, it would be suffice to say that ATGMs increase the cost of doing business when employing tanks. - hence armr tactics have to evolve
- 3rd Gen ATGMs bring addition lethality but these are expensive and we're unlikely to see 1-to-1 replacement of 2nd Gen ATGMs with 3rd Gen ATGMs.
- But the tank remains the king of battlefield.
- With most armies now looking at Combined Arms structure, some right down to battalion level, it becomes part of the whole.
- There is still no better instrument to implement shock-and-awe in the battlefield than a tank. I agree with the above points and your words "when used as part of a whole" hit the nail on the head.

In Indian context (and that might answer why Army is not buying more of Arjun vis a vis T-90) - I don't know. I would think have less tanks but more lethal i.e. but more Arjun's

1. It needs to stop TSP armor thrust or even infantry thrust using tanks (and other means like ATGM, geography - bunds etc.). Almost all land below Jammu is tank territory till we reach the Kutch - Refer Pakistan use of canals as a defence
2. Attack and grab Paki territory with help of armor - I doubt that is part of our strategy except for shallow thrusts to gain some advantageous positions.I believe the IBG concept is for just that. Any future war will gives a limited window of opportunity to get into a bargaining position before every man and his dog puts pressure on us to go easy on the Pakis
3. Need to stop Chinese armor thrust - Limited area are tank country
4. Attack and grab Tibet territory with help of armor - I doubt that is part of our strategy. The MSC may have limited capability (in future) for shallow land grab Interdiction of the main highway would be a goal but I cannot see armr playing a part. In Ladakh I see armr as being purely defensive
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

ks_sachin wrote:Fanne
My comments
In the end, it would be suffice to say that ATGMs increase the cost of doing business when employing tanks. - hence armr tactics have to evolve
- 3rd Gen ATGMs bring addition lethality but these are expensive and we're unlikely to see 1-to-1 replacement of 2nd Gen ATGMs with 3rd Gen ATGMs.
- But the tank remains the king of battlefield.
- With most armies now looking at Combined Arms structure, some right down to battalion level, it becomes part of the whole.
- There is still no better instrument to implement shock-and-awe in the battlefield than a tank. I agree with the above points and your words "when used as part of a whole" hit the nail on the head.

In Indian context (and that might answer why Army is not buying more of Arjun vis a vis T-90) - I don't know. I would think have less tanks but more lethal i.e. but more Arjun's

1. It needs to stop TSP armor thrust or even infantry thrust using tanks (and other means like ATGM, geography - bunds etc.). Almost all land below Jammu is tank territory till we reach the Kutch - Refer Pakistan use of canals as a defence
2. Attack and grab Paki territory with help of armor - I doubt that is part of our strategy except for shallow thrusts to gain some advantageous positions.I believe the IBG concept is for just that. Any future war will gives a limited window of opportunity to get into a bargaining position before every man and his dog puts pressure on us to go easy on the Pakis
3. Need to stop Chinese armor thrust - Limited area are tank country
4. Attack and grab Tibet territory with help of armor - I doubt that is part of our strategy. The MSC may have limited capability (in future) for shallow land grab Interdiction of the main highway would be a goal but I cannot see armr playing a part. In Ladakh I see armr as being purely defensive
Sir, I vehemently disagree with your last clause, respectfully. The Chinese have demonstrated that they are able to place armour on the plateau consistently and where there is armour placement from the enemy, there is a opportunity for armour placement from the Blue side as well. In any event where the balloon goes up, the IBGs have to back-up their shallow thrusts with deeper trusts to interdict major arterial positions, eventually. I see a big potential of armour wreaking havoc on enemy logistics nodes (air cover with SEAD is a must here, no one can ignore the threat of the PLAAF's mud movers and attack hepter fleet).

Also, I disagree that the Arjun would no role in the heights. Have we tested the Arjun in Ladakh ever?
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/aniltalwar2/status/ ... bCVTfDGMdg ---> ‘The entire purpose of the tank is to carry the main gun into battle. The armour is provided to ensure that the crew is protected from shrapnel (the main cause of battlefield casualties) and small arms fire. The crew exists solely to serve the main gun.’
I rather view armour as mobile battlements of a fort, providing cover to infantry who would fixate on a specific mission based territory. Whether armour here has an auto-cannon, gun or ATGMs is a moot secondary profile pertaining to the mission.

During Stalingrad, the Soviets were forced to churn out tanks without aiming systems and yet they had the requisite effect on Nazi infantry.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Maria

WRT the Arjun I don’t know about it’s utilisation in High Altitudes but that is a non starter when we don’t even buy enough for the plains.

You talked about Armr in Ladakh yes we could use Armr in an offensive role but I believe it will remain defensive as Chinese intrusion through Depsang threatens DBO and indirectly the glacier. Again I am open to correction.

Also we we want to interdict the highway why would we chose a patch of turf where the Chinese already have armr presence and have defences in place if the objective of an IBG is a short tactical battle. Also mountain IBGs may have a slightly different TOE.
Last edited by ks_sachin on 17 May 2022 16:00, edited 1 time 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 »

Maria wrote:
Whether armour here has an auto-cannon, gun or ATGMs is a moot secondary profile pertaining to the mission.

During Stalingrad, the Soviets were forced to churn out tanks without aiming systems and yet they had the requisite effect on Nazi infantry.
Why would you have a tank without a main gun which with its multiple types of ammo is most versatile.

A main gun is Omni role in a way.

This is not WW2 and using the Soviet example does not serve any purpose. We are debating the role / employment of tanks given engagements in UKR and all of us here engaged in this debate appreciate the power projection and offensive capability a tank brings - if employed correctly.
Post Reply