Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 16 Feb 2011 17:30

Rahul M wrote:fortunately we had some level headed men at the top back then and they chose the best design philosophy for IA next tank.

The Army asked for an upengined and upgunned Vijayanta 2.0 to be delivered by early/mid-1990s; I am still trying to understand whether they really thought out the philosophy behind it or not. The men above and parallel to them grew even more ambitious and tried to deliver a Leopard 2.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Feb 2011 18:27

^^^I think you're referring to the Project Chetak which iirc was about upgunned Vijayanta with 115mm main gun.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2011 18:29

after floundering for the better part of 2 decades, the thought process crystallized by late 80's and was vindicated (in their inner circle) by the events of gulf war. the current arjun is thought out through fully.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2011 18:35

manjgu wrote:Rahul... in principle I am all for Arjuns... but if there is a body of officers who think otherwise ( for whatever reasons and i do agree the reasons could range from fear of trying out something new to some genuine reason to some financial benefit ) ... then this body of people/officers ( whose opinion really matters) will have to won over for arjun to be a success. all i am saying is that if there is indeed a genuine reason as berwal seems to suggest then it needs to be addressed.

I agree with your post in general, about winning over those officers but it's also a fact that they get swayed by media and org propaganda as much as any layman. kind of, if the army general says it, it must be true. still there are many officers who are aware of the real facts and their tribe is growing by the day. I'm sure you have your own sources and can check this out.

as far as berwal sahab is concerned, he has a very deplorable habit of BS'ing about arjun (well proven in the past). I don't doubt he has sources but I would advice against accepting his chaiwala news on arjun (only) without a HUGE bag of salt.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 16 Feb 2011 18:37

ParGha wrote:
d_berwal wrote:How will you win a war if your equipment will not leave the garages.
d_berwal,

Genuine Question: How would you compare the maintenance requirment for T-55s vs Vijayanta/Vickers Regiments?

Vijayanta was maintenance hungry, it had engine issues, brake issues and what not. But the gun was awesome.
- if you can ask some chaiwalls what was the percentage of operational tanks per regt of vijayanta at any given point of time, this would get clarified. i wold put operational percentage to be around 60-70% and being very optimistic.
T-55 uses the same gun but is not at all maintenance hungry.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 16 Feb 2011 19:26

Vijayanta's were actually bad products. T-55 was very good for its time. So were Shermans.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Feb 2011 19:28

how was the Centurion in indian service?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 16 Feb 2011 19:47

rohitvats wrote:^^^I think you're referring to the Project Chetak which iirc was about upgunned Vijayanta with 115mm main gun.

Project Bison Upgrades.

Singha wrote:how was the Centurion in indian service?

Medal winners.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 16 Feb 2011 19:51

Check col Kaul's points reg T 55 and Vijayanta

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... arjun-.pdf

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 16 Feb 2011 21:07

And I thought that all the Criticizers of Arjun were back in their bunkers. There seems some are still there to cook up stories to engineer BRFite opinion. Despite Arjun defeating the Tin Can in all parameters still there are some fans of Tin Can, trying to cling on to straws. ( Natashas by the side. Huh !!)

But, if they argue in favor of Tin Can, why don’t they come up with some solid points to support their claims. Why is it that they are trying to high light niggling issues with a new product ? Every new product has niggling problem and they are duely Ironed out and CVRDE has full credit for that. And now we are going to have a Tank with SDRE engine. 90 % desi stuff. That’s a great achievement. How many countries in this world can do that? And we are still categorizes as 3 rd world ?

How much more Arjun has to prove itself?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2011 21:27

Rahul M wrote:
manjgu wrote:Rahul... in principle I am all for Arjuns... but if there is a body of officers who think otherwise ( for whatever reasons and i do agree the reasons could range from fear of trying out something new to some genuine reason to some financial benefit ) ... then this body of people/officers ( whose opinion really matters) will have to won over for arjun to be a success. all i am saying is that if there is indeed a genuine reason as berwal seems to suggest then it needs to be addressed.
I agree with your post in general, about winning over those officers but it's also a fact that they get swayed by media and org propaganda as much as any layman. kind of, if the army general says it, it must be true. still there are many officers who are aware of the real facts and their tribe is growing by the day. I'm sure you have your own sources and can check this out.

as far as berwal sahab is concerned, he has a very deplorable habit of BS'ing about arjun (well proven in the past). I don't doubt he has sources but I would advice against accepting his chaiwala news on arjun (only) without a HUGE bag of salt.

I dont know why so much controversy regarding d_brewal's post -- very unwittingly (I completely agree with Rahul's comment on his deplorable habit of BSing Arjun at every possible small opportunity) he has given the best recommendation to the Arjun..

So now.. the IA chaps dont have any performance issues, defects to pick with Arjun.. the only issues that they seem worth complaining are maintainence issues.. Which is sooper good - which platform doesnt have those in the early induction phase?

It is easier to maintian the T90 because IA has extensive experience with maintaining the T72 !!!

Also a point to ponder -- is the feedback from a maintainence guy or the guy who fights in the tank? What is the feedback of a guy who sat in one of the Arjun's during the trials - how does he think Arjun beatup the much-loved Bhishma so easily? And what does the same guy think about the performance of T90 in cooking tandoori in desert conditions? There was an official IA version everytime they noticed defects in the Arjun, why is there not a official IA version of the comparative trials? May be I need to pay some MP to ask a question in the parliament on the results of the comparative trials !!!

The maintainence issues can easily be sorted out if IA adopts a stakeholder & partnership attitude with CVRDE.. unfortunately that doesnot seem to come easily!!! In the early days it takes a bit of hardwork in partnership from both sides.. Take a typical example fo Dhruv -- IA was complaining incessantly on the maintainence issues with Dhruv & low availability (50-60% only) in the begining.. HAL embedded a small team at Leh with the Helo sqd to sort out the issues.. and in months all issues disappeared and availability imporved to 95+% or something.. there was a letter to HAL from the CO of the sqd praising the performance & availability of ALH..

Instead of CVRDE working from arms length (almost like an external consultant) whenever maintainence issues cropup, can IA request or CVRDE propose to emded a team at the regiments -- so that all maintainence issues can be fixed, slowly the SOP for maintainence issues, experience & knowledge built-up within the BRD's (or the equivalent of BRD"s in IA) and then things should be much more smooth..

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 16 Feb 2011 23:03

Subra,
Recently read The Yom Kippur War by Abraham Rabinovich. Rivetting account of how close the IDF came to disaster. Have you read it?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2011 23:19

Rupak boss, also try "the eve of destruction : the untold story of the yom kippur war". the problems IDF had with sharon were incredible.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Feb 2011 23:29

Do we have book reviews or pointers to those books?

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 17 Feb 2011 01:14

Ramana
See: http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/displ ... 0805211245

Rahul: "Eve of destruction" er ke author?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2011 01:25

howard blum.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 17 Feb 2011 04:14

Rahul M wrote:
manjgu wrote:Rahul... in principle I am all for Arjuns... but if there is a body of officers who think otherwise ( for whatever reasons and i do agree the reasons could range from fear of trying out something new to some genuine reason to some financial benefit ) ... then this body of people/officers ( whose opinion really matters) will have to won over for arjun to be a success. all i am saying is that if there is indeed a genuine reason as berwal seems to suggest then it needs to be addressed.
I agree with your post in general, about winning over those officers but it's also a fact that they get swayed by media and org propaganda as much as any layman. kind of, if the army general says it, it must be true. still there are many officers who are aware of the real facts and their tribe is growing by the day. I'm sure you have your own sources and can check this out.

as far as berwal sahab is concerned, he has a very deplorable habit of BS'ing about arjun (well proven in the past). I don't doubt he has sources but I would advice against accepting his chaiwala news on arjun (only) without a HUGE bag of salt.

- I have just stated the facts devoid of emotions.
- I haven't said its a bad tank but i don't agree with the general presumption that its the best tank in our inventory in its Mk1 avatar.
- If IA didnt want it one would have never seen it inducted, so this notion of IA sabotaging it is a myth and propaganda.
- As for notion of IA having double standards for evaluation is a propaganda, every equipment is tested with up-most sincerity.
- How these test reports are evaluated by MOD and politicians is a different thing.
- The notion of IA officers making money in phorien mall purchase is a propaganda. Money is made by people who clear the deal and negotiate it. People who make the product and people who sign the tenders for part/ component purchases in local manufacturing of the product.
- If you think people are not making money in indigenisation, then i disagree with your view point.
- I do not agree with arm-chair generals view point that T-90 was a bad purchase and it cant stand its own vs ARJUN.
- The general notion that we should induct more ARJUN's by killing T-90 production, i again disagree and thank "GOD" that these arm-chair generals never joined IA.

- I put my view in BR as its a good forum to read, learn and discuss on Indian defense matters.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Feb 2011 04:36

^^^ Berwal sahab, in all sincerity I thank you for showing the other side of the coin.

I don't believe the T-90 is a tin-can. I also don't believe everything is hunky dorey about the Arjun. Also, I completely understand that Arjun made a HUGE turnaround in 5 years and so blaming the the army to have not foreseen this and change all T-90 production and start Arjun production doesn't seem fair. Also what happens to the war doctrines and the logistics.These are very valuable too. Often as valuable if not more than a singular tank.

Having said that (all obvious things), now that Arjun has come to out all guns blazing, how does it change the equation? An extra order of just 124 is not justified either. I would love to know your opinion in what should IA do now when we seem to have a world-class tank in Arjun (You would agree that if T-90 is considered world class, Arjun should also be called one too).

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Feb 2011 04:48

There is nothing new

All positions and arguments have been hashed out

Lets not waste bandwidth - one can go back and read berwal or any other person's views etc.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2011 04:49

indranil, please do us a favour and read the last iteration of the thread.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... start=3520

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 17 Feb 2011 04:52

indranilroy wrote:^^^ Berwal sahab, in all sincerity I thank you for showing the other side of the coin.

I don't believe the T-90 is a tin-can and all. I also don't believe everything is hunky dorey about the Arjun.
Also, I completely understand that Arjun made a HUGE turnaround in 5 years and so blaming the the army to have not foreseen this and change all T-90 production and start Arjun production doesn't seem fair. Also what happens to the war doctrines and the logistics.These are very valuable too. Often as valuable if not more than a singular tank.

Having said that (all obvious things), now that Arjun has come to out all guns blazing, how does it change the equation? An extra order of just 124 is not justified either. I would love to know your opinion in what should IA do now when we seem to have a world-class tank in Arjun (You would agree that if T-90 is considered world class, Arjun should also be called one too).

Arjun MkI is in the process of being a world class tank.
- The driving and the gunnery solution is the real edge or main points of ARJUN.

Driving solution i mean:
- Providing a steering instead of sticks.
- Driver reaction time is faster.
- Driver training is easier.
- Less fatigue in driving it. (as lesser hand, leg and eye coordination)
- very forgiving for lesser trained crews.

Gunnery Solution:
- Giving a joy stick for turret control/ movement.
- Joystick based controls for laser and firing.
- This leads to better hand eye coordination and little forgiving for lesser trained crews.

from my point of view these two are the main plus point of ARJUN MkI

IA is doing what it should do:
- Inducted Arjun
- committed to upgrade path of Arjun.
- It cannot do anything else.

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Feb 2011 05:37

d_berwal wrote: IA is doing what it should do:
- Inducted Arjun
- committed to upgrade path of Arjun.
- It cannot do anything else.

Well until now what I have seen is mere lip service and clever political posturing, if Arjun is indeed a good platform then that should get translated into orders if there are kinks then those should be resolved however the initial commitment to numbers needs to be given first, just like with any phoren maal. Moreover if IA is serious about Arjun then FMBT should be a strictly a inhouse affair there shouldn't be any attempts to squeeze in a foreign player in the name of JV (we did not require one for Arjun WTF do we need one for FMBT ?).

IA better get its act together and start collaborating with the Indian MIC to get it's desired weapons/platforms in time for I don't think in future people would buy the lousy excuse i.e. 'We will fight with what we have'.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 17 Feb 2011 05:39

d_berwal wrote:IA is doing what it should do:
- Inducted Arjun
- committed to upgrade path of Arjun.
- It cannot do anything else.

Yes it can.

-Order sufficient numbers so that the supplying stakeholder can break-even on the set-up costs. So that any financial constraints do not plague this beginning and it can continue to update Arjun and increase indigenization content. No harm in replacing T72s at least with MK1s.

-Cancel or postpone FMBT until first of all, every trace of tincan in IA was replaced with Arjun whichever MK. That way we ensure that we are not perpetually kept on drawing board to testing cycle while tincans enjoy the fruits of mass production(and its license fees paid so far keeps increasing). Our efforts until now have to culminate in benefits from mass production.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Feb 2011 07:25

d_berwal wrote:T-55 uses the same gun but is not at all maintenance hungry.

That cannot be true. I don't believe that the Russian T-55 uses a Royal Ordnance 105mm gun! . It probably used a Russian rifled main gun.

The problem with the Vijayanta's engines were mainly due to too much British Baboos doing too much brouchuritis and asking a diesel engine to run on petrol, turpentine , low grade residues and what not, all in the name of "strategic flexibility"

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Feb 2011 07:27

Singha wrote:how was the Centurion in indian service?

Simply awesome. In Isreali and Indian service, it vanquished the hundreds of Russian armor the Arabs threw against the Isrealis in the 60s and early 70s and the Centurions in our service knocked out the M-48 pattons.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 17 Feb 2011 07:34

vina wrote:
d_berwal wrote:T-55 uses the same gun but is not at all maintenance hungry.
That cannot be true. I don't believe that the Russian T-55 uses a Royal Ordnance 105mm gun! . It probably used a Russian rifled main gun.

The problem with the Vijayanta's engines were mainly due to too much British Baboos doing too much brouchuritis and asking a diesel engine to run on petrol, turpentine , low grade residues and what not, all in the name of "strategic flexibility"

India upgraded/ up-gunned their T-55 to 105mm L7

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Feb 2011 07:50

d_berwal wrote: India upgraded/ up-gunned their T-55 to 105mm L7

~~That cannot be true. I don't believe that the Russian T-55 uses a Royal Ordnance 105mm gun! . It probably used a Russian rifled main gun.~~

Yes you are right. I correct myself here. The wiki link on the Royal Ordnance L7 says that the Indian T-55A were upgunned with the Royal Ordnance L7!

So back in the 60s /70s, the Indian Army could actually use the grey matter and do an MKI /customization of Russian stuff to suit it's requirements.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Feb 2011 08:22

d_berwal wrote:- As for notion of IA having double standards for evaluation is a propaganda, every equipment is tested with up-most sincerity.

C'on berwal, we do know what IA has done. No need not go for chaiwala info to prove this. IA in their own admission mentioned how they conducted T-90 evaluation - document posted by Surya here. Further there are other things done to Arjun during evaluation.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 17 Feb 2011 09:29

90+ defects after Armee has evaluated the tank since 1996. Wow! Shows on Armee's shoddy testing.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 17 Feb 2011 10:28

chackojoseph wrote:90+ defects after Armee has evaluated the tank since 1996. Wow! Shows on Armee's shoddy testing.

One can say its Armee's shoddy testing or one can say its Armee's commitment towards home-grown product that they accepted an equipment with that many number of documented defects, and are committed to work towards getting them removed.

Its because of shoddy testing ... they were able to find the defects.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 17 Feb 2011 10:47

Kanson wrote:
d_berwal wrote:- As for notion of IA having double standards for evaluation is a propaganda, every equipment is tested with up-most sincerity.
C'on berwal, we do know what IA has done. No need not go for chaiwala info to prove this. IA in their own admission mentioned how they conducted T-90 evaluation - document posted by Surya here. Further there are other things done to Arjun during evaluation.

How do we know what IA has done or not done?
were any of us ever present there?
IA has till date never released an official document of T-90 evaluation trials or Arjun AUCRT trials or has it?
IA does not allow this data to be even used by officers on courses for their thesis.
How do we know something was done to Arjun during evaluation? Because some DDM wrote it? What is his information source? Was he preview to the trials? was he give this info during press debrief at trials? or he let his creative juices flow?

IA is not an organization where, one can sabotage a equipment an get away with it. Officers careers will be sealed if even a remote hint of sabotage is true. An officer will never sabotage his own equipment.
There are so many different agencies and check and balance put in place that one cannot get away with it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Feb 2011 10:56

d_berwal good summary on Arjun , Can you summarize in points the pluses and minus of T-90 Bishma based on your interaction or experience with personal who man those tanks , it seems from your post that though T-90 is less of maintenance intensive , the driving and gunnery solution is not upto the mark ? Thanks

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 17 Feb 2011 10:56

Supposing the army orders more Arjuns, would it mean cancelling or reducing T-90 orders and subsequently paying a penalty?

Considering the Russians have hiked up prices and crossed delivery dates on various deals after the initial agreement, we should be able to explain a cancellation of the tin cans (provided IA puts its whole weight behind Arjun).

An officer will never sabotage his own equipment.

If IA considered Arjun as its own equipment, then this argument is true. If sabotage had occured it would not be act of an individual Jawan. As you rightly pointed out, he has little to gain and a lot to lose if found guilty.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 17 Feb 2011 11:35

on the centurions.. i think it was designed to be serviced with just 4 spanners or something like that... again the big focus was on maintenance ( maintainability).

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 17 Feb 2011 11:38

d_berwal wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:90+ defects after Armee has evaluated the tank since 1996. Wow! Shows on Armee's shoddy testing.
One can say its Armee's shoddy testing or one can say its Armee's commitment towards home-grown product that they accepted an equipment with that many number of documented defects, and are committed to work towards getting them removed.

Its because of shoddy testing ... they were able to find the defects.

AFIK, Armee was cribbing Arjun Failed, FCS failed, Gun Failed etc etc. It never complained about other things at all. Now Armee has found 90 + other defects.

Show me "other documented defects."

Hmmm.... makes me wonder.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 17 Feb 2011 11:49

Austin wrote:d_berwal good summary on Arjun , Can you summarize in points the pluses and minus of T-90 Bishma based on your interaction or experience with personal who man those tanks , it seems from your post that though T-90 is less of maintenance intensive , the driving and gunnery solution is not upto the mark ? Thanks

The gunnery solution and driving solution is 1 generation ahead for Arjun. vs T-90.
But this does not mean They are not up to mark in T-90 ( assuming driving and gunnery solution to be not upto the mark would be incorrect)
- TI has similar range and are of same generation.

Arjun Driving Points: 10
T-90 Driving Points: 8

Arjun Gunnery Solution: 10
T-90 Gunnery Solution: 8

Arjun TI: 10
T-90 TI: 10

Arjun Missile firing: 0
T-90 Missile Firing: 10

Arjun Protection Armour: 8
T-90 Protection Armour: 10

Arjun Crew Comfort: 8
T-90 Crew Comfort: 5

Arjun Maintainence: 6
T90 MAintainence: 10

Arjun APU(silent ops): 10
T-90 APU(silent ops): 0

Arjun Silhouette: 8
T-90 Silhouette:10

Arjun FCS: 10
T-90 FCS: 9

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 17 Feb 2011 11:52

chackojoseph wrote:
d_berwal wrote:
One can say its Armee's shoddy testing or one can say its Armee's commitment towards home-grown product that they accepted an equipment with that many number of documented defects, and are committed to work towards getting them removed.

Its because of shoddy testing ... they were able to find the defects.
AFIK, Armee was cribbing Arjun Failed, FCS failed, Gun Failed etc etc. It never complained about other things at all. Now Armee has found 90 + other defects.

Show me "other documented defects."

Hmmm.... makes me wonder.

Armee did complain but not in public.. they have no obligation to publish the defect list in public domain.
They didn't find them now.... they were there before the induction started.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 17 Feb 2011 11:59

The defect list is not public domain and has been conveyed to DRDO after the trials. What you have put up is not existing. The list of defects don't tally as per your claims.

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Feb 2011 11:59

Austin wrote:d_berwal good summary on Arjun , Can you summarize in points the pluses and minus of T-90 Bishma based on your interaction or experience with personal who man those tanks , it seems from your post that though T-90 is less of maintenance intensive , the driving and gunnery solution is not upto the mark ? Thanks

Less maintenance intensive ? How so, with close to half the fleet blind due to the Catherine the Great issues, some component in the T-90 engine goes down and the tank cannot be serviced in the field and needs serious down time , while a modular engine like the Arjun's can be field replaced in 45 mins and the tank is all set to go!

vina · Post by **vina** » 17 Feb 2011 12:04

d_berwal wrote:- TI has similar range and are of same generation.

Oh no, they aren't. They probably are when the TI in the T-90 works! The TI on the T-90 needs some cool temperate climate to work. In typical Indian summer conditions, it conks out and needs a cooling pack .. something the Army used as a ground to reject the earlier version of Arjun, but accepted on the T-90 (or rather, the Army was sold a nice lemon ,or the Armee's famed testing didnt do that particular kerfluffle), net result as of now the TI and FCS work on the Arjun in summer, while a significant portion of the T-90 fleet go blind!

Cant argue with something which works vs something that doesn't work can we, and claim that they are the same "generation" or whatever?