Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

[SaiK]

Sanku, since you have taken this personal, and have responded to my lower IQ post, concludes yours lower than mine. /OT/QED /real sad/admins may delete.

[abhik]

....
Apart from Shotra, we have the best protected T 90s, this version is one of the best protected MBTs anywhere in the world. (Even according to US sites) Even Shotra was on offer earlier and may still end up with T 90s, since it can be fitted retroactively.

May be this is not directly related to the discussion here but i have a noobee question: how does the Shotra jam a laser beam riding missile system, if it actually can? Also aren't most(all?) packi ATGM (Milan and TOW)wire guided? So exactly how is the Shotra of any use? IA not choosing it hardly comes as a surprise.

[Sanku]

Oh - please! Some arbitrary numbes posted by an anonymous person quoting an anonymous chaiwallah on a discussion forum !! All the data posted by chacko and (other analysts) is backed by their names and affiliations. Therefore they are putting their credibility in line. That risk is certainly not being taken by d_brewal. So such comparisons are odious

Thats a incorrect comparison, Chacko's data is compared with other similar (or better sources) on the web.

d_berwal's data was post test data. Chacko has no post test data his data is 2007 data.

er.. milage is not logistics and if you look at the table provided by KaranM - it could not have had a critical bearing because there is not enough difference.

Which is Chacko's data. Fine, I know that Chako has some data, I am only questioning whether there is anything other than his "credibility" which backs him up. Apparantly not, we are supposed to believe it because Chacko is "credible" Oh well.

Re 'knee jerk' - why kargil? did we use tanks there? What was the hurry? Why didn't we send RFI / RFP to DRDO - especially when we actually have a home grown product, unlike in other cases we know?

Old story long story, please do some homework to find the answers.

Er - why should only the stakeholders know - why not the tax payer?

Tax payers should know what? Detailed Results of comparative trials? Sure, like MoD has been putting out details of all the comparative trials in public space. As far as the overall picture is concerned, the information has been consistently been put out in front of Parl committe etc. Perhaps the next one will have details of the trials too. If you can find it please share.

[Sanku]

Point is 'logistics' are procured or arranged for a 'platform' it's not the other way round.

i

Negi the discussion is different, the question is "Does T 90 being a 46 T tank have a lighter logistical footprint than a 60 T tank, if it does what does that mean in operational/tactic space"

That is all.

[arnab]

Thats a incorrect comparison, Chacko's data is compared with other similar (or better sources) on the web.

d_berwal's data was post test data. Chacko has no post test data his data is 2007 data.

Tax payers should know what? Detailed Results of comparative trials? Sure, like MoD has been putting out details of all the comparative trials in public space. As far as the overall picture is concerned, the information has been consistently been put out in front of Parl committe etc. Perhaps the next one will have details of the trials too. If you can find it please share.

d_berwal's 'data' is no data - it is an arbitrary set of numbers on a 10 point scale attributed to some anonymous chai wallah. You find it 'credible' because it fits in nice with your (and his) narrative. All other data (including Chacko's) have been put in the public space.

MoD has been consistent. It did not leak out data on Arjun's so called failure either. IA did. So if the IA brass has no axe to grind, then for the sake of evenhandedness it should put out the data of the comparitive trials as well. Otherwise, it smells of a bias in favour of T-90.

[Sanku]

d_berwal's 'data' is no data - it is an arbitrary set of numbers on a 10 point scale attributed to some anonymous chai wallah. You find it 'credible' because it fits in nice with your (and his) narrative. All other data (including Chacko's) have been put in the public space.

Well I am not even comparing Chacko's data with d_berwals, only with other public data. (Third time I have repeated it)

But yes d_berwal does have a ear on the ground.

MoD has been consistent. It did not leak out data on Arjun's so called failure either. IA did. So if the IA brass has no axe to grind, then for the sake of evenhandedness it should put out the data of the comparitive trials as well. Otherwise, it smells of a bias in favour of T-90.

Nonsense frankly, these allegations are just that, pointless allegations. IA/MoD have been both consistent, and I am sure a overall report of comparison would be seen through Parilament (the authorative source through which we have been tracking Arjun's progress)

[arnab]

Nonsense frankly, these allegations are just that, pointless allegations. IA/MoD have been both consistent, and I am sure a overall report of comparison would be seen through Parilament (the authorative source through which we have been tracking Arjun's progress)

This is what the DGMF said about the Arjun:

"Army will no more place orders for Arjun beyond 124 that was already contracted. That is because Army is now looking 20 years ahead and wants a futuristic MBT," Lt Gen Dalip Bharadwaj, Army Director General (Mechanised Infantry), said here.

Though Bharadwaj discounted suggestions that it would mean the end of DRDO's Arjun project that began in 1972, he did point out induction of more 'Arjun' MBTs at this stage would only mean India lagging behind in the technological race in armoured fighting vehicles.
"Arjun is a contemporary tank and may be used in the next decade or so, but not for a technologically advanced, next generation warfare some two decades hence," Bhardwaj said on the sidelines of an interactive session with defence private industry at CII.

Think about it, the DGMF says - Arjun is a contemporary tank that is not technologically advanced (as compared to what T-90?). If this not goal post shifting - what is? You call this consistency?

[Sanku]

I dont get it;

How is

Arjun is a contemporary tank and may be used in the next decade or so, but not for a technologically advanced, next generation warfare some two decades hence

==

he did point out induction of more 'Arjun' MBTs at this stage would only mean India lagging behind in the technological race in armoured fighting vehicles.

Let alone

Think about it, the DGMF says - Arjun is a contemporary tank that is not technologically advanced (as compared to what T-90?). If this not goal post shifting - what is? You call this consistency?

??

[abhik]

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.

As other replies to this post have pointed out increasing power dose not reduce efficiency, even a cursory look at automotive history esp. in the last two decades will show that every new generation of engine has produced more power even while reducing consumption. And the Arjun mk 2's engine will be much more modern, it will be a 27 liter engine replacing the 40 liter one. Also because it will be smaller(and not to forget lighter) there is a good possibility of the the space saved to be utilized for additional fuel.

[pralay]

Considering the above, I find it slightly odd that the forum is behaving in a somewhat childish fashion; sure Arjun is a good tank, and nobody denies that. But T 90 does not have to be a bad tank for Arjun to be a good tank, quite the opposite actually.

Sir,
It was started over the Shoot and Scoot role for our tanks.
You are saying that T-90 fits in better for that.
And we are saying Arjun is better for that role as well.

I see a strong streak in some posters here to continue as a stuck record, irrespective what the other poster says or any real world data.
That really is sad.

Sanku ji,
You are interested only in advertised data and not willing to accept the ground realities that Arjun has outran t-90 in the trials which is a more widely accepted fact.

We are not saying that t-90 is bad tank,
we are saying that there is no role in real war that t-90 can do and Arjun can't.
So t-90 is actually a waste of taxpayers money(our money).

do you doubt the results of comparative trials ? or will yo believe them only when they are published in some russian newspaper or journal?

[rohitvats]

Hmmm.....so a 46T tank will have lower logistic footprint that a 60T Arjun? And why so?

Can someone pl ease educate me what has weight got to do with logistic footprint here? Does a lighter 46T have lesser number of something which a 60T tank has and hence, the lower logistic footprint? Last I checked, both tanks are MBT - Main Battle Tank - and will have common requirement to be called so.

The weight differential is due to armor, right? So, what gives when people talk about lower logistic footprint?

[Sanku]

Hmmm.....so a 46T tank will have lower logistic footprint that a 60T Arjun? And why so?

Well some point have been made here. Please look at them and respond on exact issues.

As other replies to this post have pointed out increasing power dose not reduce efficiency, even a cursory look at automotive history esp. in the last two decades will show that every new generation of engine has produced more power even while reducing consumption.

And as a cursory look at my post will show you that I am making a cetrius paribus comparison, which is assumption that the generation level of the two engines in not too far apart. If indeed at 27 lit engine can be achieved it will be more fuel efficient. Can you please share a link saying that the new engine will be 27 liters?

,
You are interested only in advertised data and not willing to accept the ground realities that Arjun has outran t-90 in the trials which is a more widely accepted fact.

I am willing to accept that, however it has to be more than empty phrase. What does that term means in the numbers, and yes from official figures please or quasi official. Such as IDSA (like I posted) or even IPCS, or some such reputable institute.

Free lancing, sensation/lifafa seeking journo on Boeing payroll (not Chacko) are not what I consider proof.

If that causes pain. Hard luck.

[krishnan]

IS light weight better than heavy weight and why is arjun heavier than t-90?

[abhik]

Point is 'logistics' are procured or arranged for a 'platform' it's not the other way round.

i

Negi the discussion is different, the question is "Does T 90 being a 46 T tank have a lighter logistical footprint than a 60 T tank, if it does what does that mean in operational/tactic space"

That is all.

That is in deed the real question, But I see no reason to accept the simplistic argument that simply because the weight of your logistics needs is slightly lower you will have some great advantage. You needing just a TATA Ace to resupply your super frugal light tank will not make you any faster than the other guy who needs a Tatra 8x8. Militaries that have heavy (and gas guzzling) tanks like the US Army also have well sorted out, high capacity and highly mechanized logistic and supply infrastructure (in the form of thousands upon thousands of HEMTT/LSV , HETS trucks etc.) that will fulfill all the logistics need required. Also a small tit-bit, I realized recently that the M1 Abrams actually carries spare road wheels with it!
As far as the more direct effects on operational and tactical field go what will be the outcome of going to war with a less armored tank? Will a tank crew engage enemy tanks faster, more vigorously if they know that the enemy tank can penetrate his armor from say 2000m away rather than say only 500m?

[Abhisham]

T-90 fits our current logistical footprint better mainly due to our transportation and existing engineering vehicles being configured for T-72's. However this can be remedied provided there are sufficient orders for Arjun.

[Austin]

Well most of the logistical support was made during the purchase of T's over a period of 2-3 decade so well subsidised by SU , subsidy would be an understatement in many cases it was just virtually free or very attractive credit terms.

So yes in an ideal scenario you may want to replace every T with Arjun just today , not because T's are bad bad tank but as a goal you would want to have indigenous equipment for Heavy Tank and logistics in place , but you would end up spending a huge sum to get it done in short span of say a decade, something that is not absolutely critical because the T can beat the best our enemies have.

Probably we will get there in the next 3 decade where we would replace most T's with the 40 plus Ton indigenous FMBT , I certainly dont see Arjun doing that in the numbers but most likely the FMBT.

I certainly dont see Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 going over more then 248 that they have ordered , as long as they can come with a FMBT in the next decade then it would be very good and would gel well with existing T's logistics , till such times T-90 will be the back bone and Arjun will play its crucial part.

Sanku jee , can I have your email id please , some interesting stuff on T-90's if you could make some sense out of it

[Sanku]

IS light weight better than heavy weight and why is arjun heavier than t-90?

Negi the discussion is different, the question is "Does T 90 being a 46 T tank have a lighter logistical footprint than a 60 T tank, if it does what does that mean in operational/tactic space"

That is all.

That is in deed the real question, But I see no reason to accept the simplistic argument that simply because the weight of your logistics needs is slightly lower you will have some great advantage.

I suspect many of us are falling into a better or worse comparison inadvertently. It is not better or worse tanks, it is understanding how these impact different aspects of design trade-off

So far we have seen the following advantages with Arjun

1) More protection from basic armor and different compartments
2) APU
3) More space for electronics?
4) Crew comfort.
5) etc etc etc...

For T 90 the advantages seen so far are
1) Lesser fuel consumption (both on and off roads) -- as per IDSA and IPCS articles along with websites
2) Reports of lower maintenance needs, less MTBF for engines etc.
3) Less support train needed (reports say, a T 90 needs 2-3 trucks, Arjun needs 4)

The impacts could be, a self sustained battle group going longer before needing to stop for replenishment.

Quick turn around of breakdowns/losses. Simpler to repair systems.

Lesser cost == more numbers.

[Sanku]

I certainly dont see Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 going over more then 248 that they have ordered , as long as they can come with a FMBT in the next decade then its would be good , till such times T-90 will be the back bone and Arjun will play its crucial part.

I think IA wants best of both worlds, ease of T 90 to run and maintain and features of Arjun.

Will they get it?

[Austin]

I think IA wants best of both worlds, ease of T 90 to run and maintain and features of Arjun.

Will they get it?

Well you want a Rafale in Gripen package , you wont get that .

Since IA is moving to FMBT ,If I have to crystal gaze it , they would get most from existing T logistics and fire power that would exceed Arjun and mobility ,maintainability that would atleast equal to T or could exceed.

It would be a compromise between mobility firepower and protection with emphasis on the former two quality and depending on latter not just on sheer heavy Armour but smart ways like Active Protection and IIR/ARH jammers, Sankujee Email IED please ?

[abhik]

Well most of the logistical support was made during the purchase of T's over a period of 2-3 decade so well subsidised by SU , subsidy would be an understatement in many cases it was just virtually free or very attractive credit terms.

So yes in an ideal scenario you may want to replace every T with Arjun just today , not because T's are bad bad tank but as a goal you would want to have indigenous equipment for Heavy Tank and logistics in place , but you would end up spending a huge sum to get it done in short span of say a decade, .
)...

Saar, As far as I see that is a bogus argument. You buy new tanks to replace old ones every 30 years or so because of obsolesce, end of shelf life etc. Its the same with support equipment, they don't last for ever and ever, they too need to be constantly replaced. And the glacial speed at which we induct equipment like the Arjun (or T-90 for that matter), I don't see how the rate at which we need to induct heavy tank logistics/support equipment will be more than the replacement rate of existing equipment. i.e. simply buy heavy tank logistics/support equipment instead of buying logistics/support equipment fit only for the legacy tank. As far as money goes if you have 25 crores to buy a new tank then I cant see how you couldn't spare 1 crore for the truck.

something that is not absolutely critical because the T can beat the best our enemies have

And I'm not convinced about that.

[Austin]

Well they are inducting Arjun and T's concurrently , but they would need to build the logistics for Arjun from scratch and for T's that would not be the case , they have T's and its logistics equipment for atleast 2-3 decades and they would any way keep replacing the old support equipment for T's with newer ones , just outright purchase from Poland or Russia or just build it here.

I think it just boils down to money , how much they are willing to spend and how much they would need to spend to replace the entire T series , I do not think we would replace Arjun with T's but I certainly do believe a lighter 40 plus Ton FMBT will be something that T's would get replaced over next 2-3 decade , till such time T's and Arjun will co-exist and will have their role to play , atleast thats the way i see it.

[abhik]

As other replies to this post have pointed out increasing power dose not reduce efficiency, even a cursory look at automotive history esp. in the last two decades will show that every new generation of engine has produced more power even while reducing consumption.

And as a cursory look at my post will show you that I am making a cetrius paribus comparison, which is assumption that the generation level of the two engines in not too far apart. If indeed at 27 lit engine can be achieved it will be more fuel efficient. Can you please share a link saying that the new engine will be 27 liters?

This was widely reported and posted in this thread, most recently a few weeks ago I think, that the specs. would be similar to the MTU 880 series "euro pack" engine.

[Sanku]

Well then, lets wait and see.

[pragnya]

while some members here battle it out supporting the T-90S at the expense of a superior Arjun, let's take a look at how the russians themselves look at it.

Experts think that in many respects it is manufacturers' fault that this situation exists. Doctor of Science Mikhail Rastopshin published in the mass media a range of articles where he showed that engineers of Soviet tanks deluded the government by actually falsifying the test results. Namely, manufacturers claimed that the vulnerable range of a T-72 armor (on the basis of which T-90 later on was created) is more than 1,500 meters. However, as the Expert says, even back in 1983 range practice showed that an Israeli tank M48A5 drills a hole in a tank's front armor with a 105 mm shell from the distance of 2,000 meters. Ural engineers were able to persuade everybody in the alleged vulnerable range only because during acceptance trials for T-72, a shell was used that was not similar to the foreign armor-piercers.

Tricks used in Soviet time, fail today. The Ministry of Defense avows that T-90 is an old tank and it is useless to even try to upgrade it. However years of work in the Soviet economy prevent SPC Uralvagonzavod OJSC from promoting advanced technologies. In particular, there was no call from the military for a Tank Support Fighting Vehicle (BMPT) created in competitive market environment. In opinion of the Head of Analytical Department of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, Alexander Khramchikhin, UVZ managers could not have lobbied this rather promising product through the ministerial chairs. It is obvious that all new machines make the military ponder on where and how they will use it. The plant management could not explain what purposes the new product was created for.

http://www.rusbiznews.com/news/n936.htm ... k=79247124

and -

Russia refuses to purchase the obsolete armament including the T-90!!!

New State Program of arms will be presented for approval by the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev in June 2010. According to Popovkin, in respect of military equipment for the Army is now being discussed refusal from the purchase of BTR-80 BMP-3 and T-90 tanks. In this case, the contracts signed in 2009 - early 2010, will be fully implemented. In particular, in 2010, will be procured 150 BTR-80, 50 BMP-3 and 63 T-90.

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=ru&tl=en

let's also take a look at the status of Russia's light armour and armoured vehicles. here -

Russia to produce armor for the German technology

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=ru&tl=en

Russia to assemble Italian armored vehicles for its military - paper

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100806/160091652.html

all self explanatory links.

[chackojoseph]

^^^ You are right. Russians bought token amount of T-90's in past few budgets. I always considered the purchases as a "display" as Indian Army and some foreign armies were looking to buy more of them. Russians are more skewed towards T-80 and +.

[Vivek K]

And our fanboys jump up in joy at the sight of a T-90!!

[Surya]

oh boy the fanboys will move to another target

red herring specialists they are

we have gone through
1. logistics and commonality
2. 125 mm gun to arjun
3. auto loader
4. ERA
5. range
6. size
7. weight

add any more as u see fit

[rohitvats]

It is the usual nonsense that prevails...........the fan-boys hang on to what ever straws there are!!!

[Cybaru]

oh boy the fanboys will move to another target

red herring specialists they are

we have gone through
1. logistics and commonality
2. 125 mm gun to arjun
3. auto loader
4. ERA
5. range
6. size
7. weight

add any more as u see fit

8. Fuel
9. Fire Hazard.
10. Because its being used by jawans in IA, IA must absolutely love it...

[negi]

Well most of the logistical support was made during the purchase of T's over a period of 2-3 decade so well subsidised by SU , subsidy would be an understatement in many cases it was just virtually free or very attractive credit terms.

Wait wait this is a typical 'haajmola' comment, I have asked precisely the same question on last page in my first post i.e. what are these items purchased during SU era that qualify as logistics for the T-90 ? No one is questioning the procurement policy of the 70s and early 80s when there were no alternatives however after the disintegration of USSR the same Soviet era MIC has in fact become a huge liability for us for the OEMs are now scattered across different countries; also post SU era the purchases from Russia are no longer subsidized.

[Rahul M]

thanks for that pragnya.

as chacko says, russia always intended the T-80 to be its primary tank and the inferior T-90 T-72upg was meant to make up numbers and be sold to 3rd world armies.

[RoyG]

Found this awesome picture of two Arjuns!

http://www.frontline.in/stories/20110311280509400.htm

[Austin]

Russia is not purchasing T-9O for the next 2 years is because of the surplus that is there , they are rather buying other equipment that needs more priority right now.
Infact they cancelled the T-95 and working on the T-90M model , so much for inferior tank claim , height of ignorance

[nachiket]

Russia is not purchasing T-9O for the next 2 years is because of the surplus that is there , they are rather buying other equipment that needs more priority right now.
Infact they cancelled the T-95 and working on the T-90M model , so much for inferior tank claim , height of ignorance

The T-90M model is irrelevant here. It actually fixes several shortomings of the T-90S with a more powerful engine and a new autoloader which can take longer APFSDS ammo. But the IA is not buying the T-90M is it? And the Russians don't seem to be too keen on the T-90S (Russian army version) which is infact superior to the Indian version that comes without the Shtora system which has been tom-tommed on this by ignorant tin-can lovers.

[Rahul M]

Austin, you know as well as I do what the original drivers were behind the T-80 and T-90 T-72B projects.
it is also well known that army, especially armoured forces is far from being a priority for russia. they are inducting the T-90 as a stop-gap simply because it has been updated for the Indian deal, not because it is inherently superior to the T-80.

it's the same with the mig-29K, they are buying it because it has been updated for IN although the su-33 is potentially a much superior platform.

so let's cut out the ad hominem comments about ignorance.

[Sanku]

so let's cut out the ad hominem comments about ignorance.

Apparently only one type of ad hominem attack is being allowed, eh?

[chackojoseph]

BS, Russia ain't buying T-90 or its varients in large numbers because they don't find it significant. The tank was first purchased by Russian Army in 1992. Today its estimated that Russian Army has around 200 - 300 T-90's. Compared to that Russians purchased T-80 back in 1997 and have some 4000 + of them.

Russia is deliberately going slow on T-90. T-90, as mentioned in Rusian MoD website 2 years back are "intereme" purchases.

[Austin]

Rahul I follow their development closely and there is no development on T-80 , I am sure you do as well.
There are two active development happening one is T-90M and other is FMBT.

Russia will buy the T-90M and have cancelled T-95 over further T-90M development.

The problem is they have excessive number of tank since SU went on massive rearmament in 80's at the same time there are other priorities which I do not want to discuss here as its not relavent.

It completely false to say that T-90 is inferior to T-80

[Sanku]

Russia is not buying ANY tanks. Let alone T 90s. They will leapfrog directly to the next generation, since they have a surplus tank fleet right now.

We unfortunately do not have that luxury. Given that our T 72s themselves need upgrade, not to talk of the remaining fleet of even older tanks.

I dont know why people have such low opinion of Arjun that they feel that only by finding imaginary faults with T 90 can a case for Arjun be built.

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

BTW Austin is indeed correct about massive ignorance (driven by a misguided love)

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

Russian Armor: Today and Tomorrow

The today of Russian Armoured Forces, as well as that of the entire Russian Army, is dark. The financing that is allocated is not even enough to keep the existing equipment in good shape. There are definitely not enough funds to maintain a technological edge AND equip the forces with up-to-date military hardware.

Acquisition of new military materiel is at a critically low level. T-80U MBTs are being phased out due to inability to maintain them properly and effective loss of T-80U production capabilities, and the force modernization needs are being fulfilled entirely by T-90 MBTs. These, despite 15 years of production, still account for just 1 percent of the force, and are trickling into the army at a rate of 1 battallion (31 tanks) in the recent years. This rate is expected to continue at least until 2010.

[Sanku]

It completely false to say that T-90 is inferior to T-80

In fact the other way around is true.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-90S.htm

T 90s were selected OVER T 80s

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... a/t-90.htm

The Russian Defense Ministry made a selection of a single MBT in 1995. The fighting in Grozny had been shown around the world and the reputation of Russian tanks was sullied. Although many casualities were due to bad tactics and many T-72s were also lost, it was the knocked-out T-80s which made an impression. More had been expected of the "quality" M-80 MBT. This is alleged to have tipped the balance against the T-80 in the selection. The T-80 was already more expensive and its delicate, fuel-hungry turbine engine was still giving problems. In January 1996, Col.-Gen. Aleksandr Galkin, Chief of the Main Armor Directorate of the Ministry of Defense, announced that the T-90 had been selected as the sole Russian MBT.

The T-90 went into low-level production in 1993, based on a prototype designated as the T-88. The T-90 was developed by the Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau at the Vagonka Works in Nizhniy Tagil. Initially thought by Western observers to be an entirely new design, the production model is in fact based on the T-72BM, with some added features from the T-80 series. The T-90 features a new generation of armor on its hull and turret. Two variants, the T-90S and T-90E, have been identified as possible export models. Plans called for all earlier models to be replaced with T-90s by the end of 1997, subject to funding availability. By mid-1996 some 107 T-90s had gone into service in the Far Eastern Military District.