Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Feb 2011 20:27

Sanku wrote:Look folks, not withstanding Chacko's claims, which are not documented anywhere -- all documented evidence (the basis of which we are constrained to discuss) shows a clear cut fuel efficiency figure for T 90 over Arjun, which is fairly logical considering that T 90 also as a fairly efficient diesel engine and is 10 T lighter to boot. So there is no wishing away the advantage.

All the other documented evidence from multiple sources also show that T 90 is a fairly robust machine which can take in a lot of punishment before needing repairs, which again are easy to carry out.

Thus it is ideally suited for blitz type tactics.

Show us the documented evidence on cross country figures of t-90.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 20:32

Gurneesh wrote:
How did you assume that T90 is better that Arjun on Blitz. Arjun is faster than T90, has lesser ground pressure and has higher PWR than T90. So, not only can it run faster than T90, it can run in areas which the t72 equipped IA had declared untankable (if ever there was such a word).

Clearly you have not been listening. Please go back and read exactly why -- in one word, logistics and more maintainable.

BMP2 has a very efficient diesel engine and is a full 30 T lighter why not use it then. Just put a tank turret (if if the weight goes to 25 T) according to your analysis that would be much better than T90 then.

Actually yes, BMPs would be integral part of such thrusts, they will carry the men, the T 90s would carry the heavy guns. So they will both be essentially complimentary in their roles.

However you cant modify them or anything like what you want, since they are tailored for a specific purpose that they will be tasked for in that dash.

Plus it is funny how T90 supporters seem to just ignore any and all points given to support Arjun.

Clearly you have not been paying attention at all, I am one of the biggest supporters of Arjun around, just that closing my eyes to a tradeoffs between a 45 Tonne tank and 58 Tonne tank is not a quality I need to develop to appreciate Arjun.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 24 Feb 2011 20:33

Tanaji wrote:Just like the Natashas that the T90 comes with

Are yous saying Arjun does not come with Natashas?

Do you have any evidence about your claim of natashas?

I would say people who wanna make money in defence procurement will make it irrespective its a foreign deal or indian!!!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Feb 2011 20:34

Gurinder P wrote:Would Pakistan have balls to blow a tac nuke on their own territory? with their own people in the blast zone? I do think the MKI's can provide beautiful cover against aircraft platform nukes and the ABM's do look promising.

They have both weapons and means to deliver them and on sly. MKI's are good only if we detect it. It seems a far away possibility. Unless Pakistan breaks up internally, we cannot hope of dislodging the leadership.

The blitzkrieg is dead. Now days the electronics are too powerful. They are getting AWACS and other means. There will be no surprise element.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 24 Feb 2011 20:35

Gurinder P wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:Thank Q for assured nuclear attack. Jihad Love - Pindi.
Would Pakistan have balls to blow a tac nuke on their own territory? with their own people in the blast zone? I do think the MKI's can provide beautiful cover against aircraft platform nukes and the ABM's do look promising.

In the military the maxim is: Hope for the Best, but Prepare for the Worst. Nobody, I repeat Nobody, can say with reasonable certainty what a nuclear power calculates in this moment of reckoning. The most dangerous decisions are made when they are most scared, not when they are confident and brave. You have to assume: Yes, they will use nuclear weapons; how do I deal with it?

India's best option now is to present numerous small military targets, rather than a few large ones. Instead of operating in a few easily-targeted divisions and corps, start thinking about operating in numerous independent brigades and battalions (battle-groups in British Army speak). Instead of seeking quick and deep solutions, start seeking persistent and broad solutions. Instead of attacking 100km deep and 20km wide, devastate 5km deep and 200km wide. This makes the threat of tactical nukes ridiculous, but allows for limited punishments to low/mid-sized terror attacks and other typically Pak infractions.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 Feb 2011 20:38

during the "blitz" how many of the tin cans will make it? How many of the Arjuns would make it? The saving of Indian lives seems not to be worth it? BTW didn't Arjun in fact fare better on the robustness front in the recent trials?
Added later - From Arya Sumantra's post:

And regarding agility, every tom dick and harry know that if you have to pull breaks to fire everytime your speed is destroyed and fuel efficiency lost. Guess who would be more agile and accurate.

Funny the trolls do not want to respond to this. So the blitz will be about a tank dashing into enemy territory without firing to take out threats? Also what about top speed of the "can" being less than Arjun?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 20:40

chackojoseph wrote: Show us the documented evidence on cross country figures of t-90.

Why dont you go first? After all you made the claim.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Feb 2011 20:42

Adding to Pargha....

If you would have noticed Pakis are content with the equipment that have to deter Indian thrust. If we manage to break through them, then they seem to be counting on going nuclear.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Feb 2011 20:43

Sanku wrote:Why dont you go first? After all you made the claim.

As I said in my last post, you seem not to have read, I have it on the website since 2007.

Now, its upto back up your claims.

I am also waiting for your "light" tank advantage claims too.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 21:39

chackojoseph wrote:
Sanku wrote:Why dont you go first? After all you made the claim.
As I said in my last post, you seem not to have read, I have it on the website since 2007.
.

Which proves what? That you have been saying the same thing since 2007?

The fuel consumption figures on road for the two tanks that I have quoted can be found in any official figure and/or are available on a variety of sites. Yes I know you will claim that those figures cant be believed since they come from the manufacturers

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Feb 2011 21:57

Sanku wrote:Which proves what? That you have been saying the same thing since 2007?

The fuel consumption figures on road for the two tanks that I have quoted can be found in any official figure. Yes I know you will claim that those figures cant be believed since they come from the manufacturers and/or are available on a variety of sites.

I think, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Make sure your next post is confirming to your claims. Otherwise, I will put you on ignore list like last time.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 21:59

chackojoseph wrote:
Sanku wrote:Which proves what? That you have been saying the same thing since 2007?

The fuel consumption figures on road for the two tanks that I have quoted can be found in any official figure. Yes I know you will claim that those figures cant be believed since they come from the manufacturers and/or are available on a variety of sites.
I think, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Make sure your next post is confirming to your claims. Otherwise, I will put you on ignore list like last time.

You hardly have a choice, I have been calling your bluff many times, what else can you do when some one asks you to show proof for your claims?

If you notice, I have for mine.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Feb 2011 22:01

Sanku wrote:
You hardly have a choice, I have been calling your bluff many times, what else can you do when some one asks you to show proof for your claims?

If you notice, I have for mine.

Ok, you asked for it. You are on ignore list. Happy posting.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 22:05

chackojoseph wrote: Ok, you asked for it. You are on ignore list. Happy posting.

Oh my, what a great loss.

but dont worry, I have no one on my ignore list, if I see claims being made which can not be shown by open source data, trust me I will ask for it.

Hopefully you will from next time, have data points which can be backed up by a little more something than your "word"

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 22:32

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/specs.html

Range
Paved road - 650km
Unpaved - 500km

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... per217.htm
Max cross-country Speed
45 km/h

===========

Arjun's range on road is 450 kilometres (280 mi)[3] Speed

Its speed is 40 km/h (25 mph) Cross country[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_%28tank%29

===================

I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be ignoring me. Just too inconvenient.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 24 Feb 2011 22:48

Sanku wrote: Light horse archer tactics, well suited to a fast moving tank with a light footprint.

T-90 for these tactics is not at all suited. Its not light and not fast as well.
nor does it have longer firing range than others,
not even good enough accuracy to fire from distance.

Only plus point it seem to have so far(due to lack of official data) is it can run 40-60km more without refueling

only if its survives that long

Sanku wrote: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/specs.html

Range
Paved road - 650km
Unpaved - 500km

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... per217.htm
Max cross-country Speed
45 km/h

Arjun's range on road is 450 kilometres (280 mi)[3] Speed

Its speed is 40 km/h (25 mph) Cross country[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_%28tank%29

lol,
Why did your "so fast so Light tank" then got beaten hands down in the comparative trials?
It should have covered up the distances in the trials faster than Arjun if it was faster any way:p

or was the terrain unfair for the trials? or do you want the trials to be carried out somewhere in russia ?:)
Any particular reasons saar that your official documents and links and analysis can provide for this under-performance?

I really believe that the ground realities are more important than what the manufacturers claim on paper.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 24 Feb 2011 22:48

chackojoseph wrote: Ok, you asked for it. You are on ignore list. Happy posting.

That's the best thing to do! A lot of us are willing to agree with IA's purchase of the first two batches of the "cans". But manufacturing them in the 1000s? Absolutely not! Especially when a capable domestic product with tremendous growth potential is available. On the other hand the IA seems unwilling to do much more than pay lip service to the Arjun and to deftly ask for the FMBT instead. What will happen when FMBT is ready? By then the IA may ask for the best offered by their next "phoren sugar daddy" and then direct DRDO to prepare the FFMBT

IA is not committed to domestic products therefore it will always end up throwing the taxpayers money to foreign vendors with kickbacks etc (that are by now standard to politicians, lobyists, etc..).

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 Feb 2011 22:54

Sanku wrote:Look folks, not withstanding Chacko's claims, which are not documented anywhere -- all documented evidence (the basis of which we are constrained to discuss) shows a clear cut fuel efficiency figure for T 90 over Arjun, which is fairly logical considering that T 90 also as a fairly efficient diesel engine and is 10 T lighter to boot. So there is no wishing away the advantage.

Fuel efficiency comes into play when the armored thrust is to begin in Kuwait and end at Baghdad. In the Indian scenario, where thrusts will be relatively shallow, a better fuel efficiency is far from critical, especially relative to better armor. RYK is 50km from the IB and about 250km from Bikaner. A range of 450km on internal fuel is more than adequate for all task that the Arjun may be required to perform in wartime.

All the other documented evidence from multiple sources also show that T 90 is a fairly robust machine which can take in a lot of punishment before needing repairs, which again are easy to carry out.

Thus it is ideally suited for blitz type tactics.

The Arjun is a robust machine and given its other superior attributes is much better suited to 'blitz type' tactics.

======================================

Now whether blitz type tactics are useful or not, is a different question altogether, although I am quite sure that some folks here have chosen to dislike (hate) T 90 so much that they will decry Blitz if T 90 appears better for it , the fact remains that Blitz is indeed a very potent weapon of war.

The T-90 does not appear better suited to Blitz vis-a-vis the Arjun.

In fact it is THE ONLY option that India has of a quick deep strike into Pakistan, to get to RYK and cut the axis. We will try it and Pakis will try and stop us, but short of a Nuke strike, nothing is going to stop a 1000 tank column supported by LCH et al. Nothing. That is what the Indians practice for consistently, since Brass tacks. So when they get to play that one ball, Pak goes for a six, no matter the line the length.

The IA's recent thinking envisions multiple shallow strikes across a broad frontage; a deep strike is not the ONLY option available to India.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Feb 2011 22:54

Sanku wrote:What bunkers? We are by passing bunkers, and Arjun CAN fire HESH, but doesnt, and wont for any foreseeable future (no ammo developed)

Can you kindly inform us how Arjun cant fire HESH because no ammo is developed?

Looks like somebody forgot to inform OFB:
http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/am ... /lc/22.htm

You really do tend to make things up as you go along...

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Feb 2011 23:00

sameer_shelavale,

Read carefully the wiki source. Check the [3] source. You will know the truth. So, its point less to react to people who argue for the sake of argument. The army technology link is the figure for Russian conditions.

Vivek K,

Now, its upto the MoD for purchases. Arjun has proved its worth.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 24 Feb 2011 23:02

Karan M wrote:
Sanku wrote:What bunkers? We are by passing bunkers, and Arjun CAN fire HESH, but doesnt, and wont for any foreseeable future (no ammo developed)
Can you kindly inform us how Arjun cant fire HESH because no ammo is developed?

Looks like somebody forgot to inform OFB:
http://ofbindia.nic.in/products/data/am ... /lc/22.htm

You really do tend to make things up as you go along...

Ugh now no HESH. Sanku yaar...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 23:04

sameer_shelavale wrote: T-90 for these tactics is not at all suited. Its not light and not fast as well.
nor does it have longer range than others, not even good enough accuracy to fire from distance.

This is quite painful, why delude yourself?

The data is quite clear, T 90 has higher cross country speed, lower fuel consumption etc as shown by authoritative sources above. That it is easier to maintain is also well know.

This is a simple corollary of the fact that it is a light(er) tank, designed in way to have minimum foot print.

OTOH Arjun would naturally be able to afford features like separate compartments for ammo that can not be made in a smaller tank.

Why did your "so fast so Light tank" then got beaten hands down in the comparative trials?

Hmm, was it, beaten "Hands down", certainly Arjun performed better on a variety of tests especially those which are not related to logistical chain (that is for AUCRT) -- but to use words like "hands down" is silly sensationalization.

Further, the question that Arjun is a good tank is not in question, but if T 90 is a bad tank and Arjun beats it, what does that make Arjun.

You actually seem to be saying,

T 90 is a horrible tank even Arjun could beat it.

Why dont you guys stop to think a bit?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Feb 2011 23:06

Sanku wrote:.......T 90 also as a fairly ~~efficient~~ underpowered diesel engine.......

corrected.

of course a moped consumes less fuel than a 4X4.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 23:08

Oops apparently my info about HESH is outdated, so they have a HESH round now. Thanks, now please correct the other points with other sources too.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 23:09

Rahul M wrote:
Sanku wrote:.......T 90 also as a fairly ~~efficient~~ underpowered diesel engine.......
corrected.

of course a moped consumes less fuel than a 4X4.

Of course it does, I am glad that you are not arguing against basic data at least.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Feb 2011 23:13

question is does the IA deserve a moped ?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 24 Feb 2011 23:14

Rahul M wrote:
Sanku wrote:.......T 90 also as a fairly ~~efficient~~ underpowered diesel engine.......
corrected.

of course a moped consumes less fuel than a 4X4.

cant wait for the 1500 power pack in Arjun mk II. Hopefully a bigger thappad to the T-72 variant will knock some sense into the Army. Probably wont though lol...

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 24 Feb 2011 23:17

chackojoseph wrote:sameer_shelavale,

Read carefully the wiki source. Check the [3] source. You will know the truth. So, its point less to react to people who argue for the sake of argument. The army technology link is the figure for Russian conditions.

But on which wiki link ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 23:18

Viv S wrote: Fuel efficiency comes into play when the armored thrust is to begin in Kuwait and end at Baghdad. In the Indian scenario, where thrusts will be relatively shallow, a better fuel efficiency is far from critical, especially relative to better armor. RYK is 50km from the IB and about 250km from Bikaner. A range of 450km on internal fuel is more than adequate for all task that the Arjun may be required to perform in wartime.

I don't get it, fuel efficiency is important for 550 Km (Kuwait to Baghdad) but not 450? Whats the magic number where the counter flips?

And why are you assuming that Indian forces will take a straight line path? Also Arjun can get from Bikaner to RYK purely buy road, its road op range is 450 Km. So by road, in a shortest distance route Arjun ends up at RYK without fuel.

Clearly not enough. In fact almost certainly even T 90 would need refueling.

The Arjun is a robust machine and given its other superior attributes is much better suited to 'blitz type' tactics.

Arjun needs more maintenance per km run as per all available information. Please note I dont say that Arjun CANT do it. The question is whether T 90 has a little more advantage in that area -- yes it does.

That is all.

======================================

The IA's recent thinking envisions multiple shallow strikes across a broad frontage; a deep strike is not the ONLY option available to India.

I am talking not of jhappad, but dismemberment. For that We will have to get to RYK. This has to be done.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Feb 2011 23:22

This

sameer_shelavale wrote:
Arjun's range on road is 450 kilometres (280 mi)[3] Speed

Its speed is 40 km/h (25 mph) Cross country[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_%28tank%29

See, the "Arjun's range on road is 450 kilometres (280 mi)[3] Speed"

On wiki page , the right hand side box has this data. Click [3] and then you will arrive at the source of the claim.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 23:26

Rahul M wrote:question is does the IA deserve a moped ?

In the sense of question asked, IA uses mules in places where even mopeds dont get to. So does IA deserve donkeys?

This is rhetoric and you know it.

You may prefer the biggest/highest armored tank, but the merit of various trade-off in a equipment design is a reality, and it does result in mil equipment with different characteristics. And each have their merit.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 23:33

Chacko; look another website is also wrong.

http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/1796 ... ort-23.pdf

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 23:35

RoyG wrote: cant wait for the 1500 power pack in Arjun mk II. Hopefully a bigger thappad to the T-72 variant will knock some sense into the Army. Probably wont though lol...

Which will also reduce the fuel efficiency further.

Just saying.

==========

PS> It is NOT a PROBLEM. Just highlighting how in real world design, tradeoffs work.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 24 Feb 2011 23:40

Sanku wrote:
Rahul M wrote:question is does the IA deserve a moped ?
In the sense of question asked, IA uses mules in places where even mopeds dont get to. So does IA deserve donkeys?

This is rhetoric and you know it.

You may prefer the biggest/highest armored tank, but the merit of various trade-off in a equipment design is a reality, and it does result in mil equipment with different characteristics. And each have their merit.

what merits sir?
Do this simple thing
search in google >> outruns, outguns
I hope you know what the word OUTRUNS mean.

these are not brochures from the manufacturers, they are field reports, based on ground reality

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Feb 2011 23:48

sameer_shelavale wrote: Do this simple thing
search in google >> outruns, outguns

Right!! Wow. That was perceptive.

But don't expect everyone else to have to necessarily not be able to do anything less simplistic.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 24 Feb 2011 23:58

Sanku wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote: Do this simple thing
search in google >> outruns, outguns
Right!! Wow. That was perceptive.

But don't expect everyone else to have to necessarily not be able to do anything less simplistic.

Sanku ji, I told the method exclusively for you, not for anyone else

I just want you not to ignore ground realities for the brochures that you are holding close to your heart

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2011 00:00

Sanku wrote:Oops apparently my info about HESH is outdated, so they have a HESH round now. Thanks, now please correct the other points with other sources too.

HESH round now?
The HESH round has been in production since 2002.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... /arjun.htm

So if this is how "outdated" your information is, lets see the rest.
http://frontierindia.net/dissimilar-com ... -90s-specs

On crosschecking with public data released at industry events etc, I know for a fact that the details mentioned in terms of FCS, the armor, even the minor stuff around fuel tank protection etc is right . This information is clearly accurate.

Note, on road range for the T-90 is just 50 km more & cross country, its barely 10 km more. Hardly of any relevance or even a note for superiority.

So Sanku - tell us, what figures do you want corrected? What arguments or claims do you have left?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2011 00:01

Sanku wrote:Chacko; look another website is also wrong.

http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/1796 ... ort-23.pdf

IPCS is junk.

Run by peacenik PR Chari, and that apart, even the article has several bloopers.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 25 Feb 2011 00:09

Sanku wrote:
Rahul M wrote:question is does the IA deserve a moped ?
In the sense of question asked, IA uses mules in places where even mopeds dont get to. So does IA deserve donkeys?

We already have a few of them at high levels. And MoD is probably full of them

K

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 25 Feb 2011 00:14

Sanku wrote:This is quite painful, why delude yourself?

The data is quite clear, T 90 has higher cross country speed, lower fuel consumption etc as shown by authoritative sources above. That it is easier to maintain is also well know.

Each of your claims is wrong, when seen in context. If you look around, you'll find bits & pieces of data for each of the points but let me summarize them. The T-90 or a Scorpion's higher cross country speed matters not a whit. What matters is the speed at which it can move yet engage targets accurately. That is what distinguishes most western tanks from Russian ones. Better fire control stabilization, suspension & FCS accuracy. At that note, the Arjun is designed to outperform the Russian tank. The stabilization is much better, and the suspension as well. Simply put, the Arjun is designed for a Pk of ~90 % while moving at around half its max speed, the usual test criteria used worldwide. Whereas the T-90 in trials has not even been able to achieve anywhere near that. Look at the figures previously, and they speak for themselves, when compared against similar targets.

Next, fuel consumption - the data previously shown again speaks for itself. Don't go by Army tech, IPCS etc - they are junk, best ever figures rarely if ever obtained operationally. Indian conditions are different & routinely end up with "worst of class" figures for land systems, when compared with performance shown by equipment elsewhere. For instance, many tracked vehicles flounder in the Thar, after havign performed ok elsewhere. Why, "soft sand". Examples such as these are many. In contrast, the Arjun was designed from day one to excel exactly in India specific terrain. Nor are the Russians exactly paragons of virtue when it comes to praising their land systems in Indian tests. They were praising Krasnopol rounds to the highest level. Later, results released publically showed the rounds flopped and problems were not solved.

Next, "easier to maintain" - hardly. The T series has severe issues in terms of maintenance hassles, engine changes take far more time & even its interior systems, thanks to TOT limitations & design constraints have been shown to have issues. Currently, the Army has dipped into discretionary funds to build up stocks of thermal imagers because the ones on T-90s, kept conking out. The Russians never bothered to design the T-90 for high performance, solid state electronics, the interior is cramped, it lacks a full electronic cooling and control system, and hence electronics overheat. Thats the problem with trying to upgrade legacy designs with newer equipment. The T-90s may work well in relatively cooler climes and at night, but during the day, they continue to have problems. Even today, they are still scouting for some sort of partial AirCon for the electronics, since even the full AirCon did not help during trials. The fact that it sucked up more HP only caused more problems.