Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 01 Mar 2011 14:20

Sri wrote:I generally do not post hairsay information on BR. But the problem with the width of the tank was told to me by another EME officer many moons ago. Am not sure whether this is a major issue. But it does seem to be an issue which comes to the minds of the officer. First thing they will tell you is the width problem and how Southern railway expressed inability to move the tanks from Avadi.

If so, then how did the Arjuns move to the desert for trials? By road?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 01 Mar 2011 14:21

schowdhuri wrote:With regard to Rahul's discussion with Armd Corps Officer, I have also dicussed it with many Armd Corps Officer's from t-72 & t-90 regiments. Never heard anyone speak well of Arjun.

Reasons have been the same ones discussed here - logistics, very good firing on the move, cannot fire at all when stationary, jsut a hotch-potch assembled thing etc.

How can it be that all Armd Corps Officer's are such idiots, or so brainwashed, that they prefer not to care for their own safety? It does not takelong to see they are fairly intelligint people. It is very difficult to understand or belive.

Arjun cannot fire at all when stationary? Which Armoured Corps officer said that?

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 01 Mar 2011 14:33

^^ More to the point, are we to believe that IA placed an order for a tank that does not fire from stationary which is probably one of the key requirements? This, after, making a song and dance about the slightest perceived "defect" in the Arjun?

The hits just keep on coming.

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 01 Mar 2011 14:36

merlin wrote:If so, then how did the Arjuns move to the desert for trials? By road?

I am not sure Sir. May be they moved them by road may be by train or may be by air. All that I am saying is that this particular point of not being able to tranport the tanks via IR network keeps cropping up again and again. And may be this is a bigger issue then what we can contemplate here.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Mar 2011 14:40

Tanaji wrote:^^ More to the point, are we to believe that IA placed an order for a tank that does not fire from stationary which is probably one of the key requirements? This, after, making a song and dance about the slightest perceived "defect" in the Arjun?

The hits just keep on coming.

This indeed does not make sense at all.

Rail thing, maybe even possible, but cant fire at all while stationary? While it can do so when moving? Huh!!

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 01 Mar 2011 14:54

Sanku wrote:So despite, reports and reports like the following

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uJSo2eSyKE

in exercise after exercise

we are supposed to believe that all the IA armored corps, down to captains and lt-cols lie merrily on camera and the tank is plagued with issues?

remember you said

Sanku wrote: - Most of it is propaganda against T-90 by DDM who have new found love for ARJUN and are trying to make it a ARJUN Vs T-90 issues. As it makes it easier to get headlines and get more hits on their blogs, Most of them just recycle the previous reports and lack the credibility.

so it is propoganda only when the media reports bad things about T-90,
and the same media and same news channel becomes reliable at the very moment they release something good about t-90 ?

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 01 Mar 2011 15:19

Rahul M... maybe the extra few inches make the loading of arjun on existing wagons a wee more difficult... not being able to centre them well enough ?? no idea really. I need to check this out...

That "Extra few inches" is only 2 inches...let us not make a mountain out of a molehill like the quoted Lt.Col did.

My ancestral home is near the rail track and I grew beside it, literally. I can vouch those extra 2 inches would hit nothing on the side of the rail in the open. If that was the case, half the Mumbai population travelling in the suburban trains would have been dead by now.

The issue may have been one odd bridge (of British era) or a tunnel through which it would have had to scrape through. This phucking controversy is more than a couple of decades old - I can't remember the exact issue with the breath of the tank -I mean where exactly it would have had a problem in crossing.

The controversy started something like this : "Oh boy! can you believe it!! India has built a tank which it cannot move around anywhere!!! you know why? The tank is 2 inches wider than the widest rail rake that the Railways can put it on"

I am surprised that this controversy is still being debated rigourously

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Mar 2011 15:38

sameer_shelavale wrote: so it is propoganda only when the media reports bad things about T-90,
and the same media and same news channel becomes reliable at the very moment they release something good about t-90 ?

Those two statements are from very different posts

On one hand we are talking of GoI quasi-GoI sources

On other hand we are talking of people who have developed a sudden love for Arjun and dislike of T-90 (I am sure that they have started writing for papers which have their mil sections under massive Boeing header is purely incidental)

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 01 Mar 2011 16:01

http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/upload ... a.htm#12.4

SECTION T - LOCATION OF SIGNALS

12.51 Signals shall be so located that they do not infringe the Schedule of Dimensions {already referenced in a previous post}. Deviations shall be sanctioned by the competent authority.

12.52 Signal posts shall normally be on the left side and adjacent to the line to which they refer, and signals shall be located so that they are normally on the left of, or above the line to which they apply, unless authorised by special instructions.

So the code provides for exceptions. Question: On a vast network like IR, are there any exceptions?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Mar 2011 16:01

Marten wrote:Sankuji Maharaj, you'd never see an anti-Tin can post from me. All I'm trying to establish is that folks are attempting to deny this splendid work of engineering any further chances on very flimsy grounds.

The Rail logistics thing was the worst. I'll leave comments on IR capabilities to Gurus such as Sachin.

Marten-ji; I am not averse to accepting that T-90 is not perfect, no system is. It is the pointless one-liner IA bash-fest is the only thing that gets my goat.

Arjun appears to be now, a great tank, having overcome all the prior issues, it should be produced in numbers and and I am sure it will be. At the same time, I will not put it past our Govt in all its glory to have fine eng systems stuck up because of trivial issues.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 01 Mar 2011 16:51

Looks like the armoured corps chaps are in a comfort zone with the Txx series and don’t want to get out of it for a desi product. All rumblings about past failures, logistics are but the manifestation of just that. Fact that Arjun had issues earlier and received colossal amount of bad publicity didn’t help either.

Any new piece weapon (unless it is a follow on version of an older one) will require its own logistics chain; isn’t it quiet logical? This is a weapon based on army’s GSQR and now they don’t want it when it is finally being delivered.

Arjun that is just over 8 cm wider than the t90 has problems being transported on rail - someone please enlighten me.

Coming to the FMBT targeted at 50T, will it have protection less than that of Arjun with armour being sacrificed for weight?

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 01 Mar 2011 17:11

My apologies if this has been posted earlier. 178 BFATs produced for the IA, to primarily transport Arjun tanks.

http://mod.nic.in/samachar/july1-06/h5.htm

At a modest but impressive ceremony, Chief of the Army Staff, Gen JJ Singh flagged off 29 newly manufactured Bogie Flat Arjun Tank (bfat) wagons of Military Rail at Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) in Bangalore. These indigenously developed state-of-the-art carriage wagons manufactured by BEML are out of the 178, ordered by Army. The remaining wagons are expected to roll out in near future. The induction of these wagons would enable Army transport its heavy equipment and tanks to the destined place within a short time, thereby increasing the combat preparedness of the nation.

The BFAT wagon’s under-frame is flat with dimensions of 14,500 mm and 3,550 mm. It can carry a load of 61 tonnes. The wagon is fitted with tri-axle fabricated bogie, specially designed to carry heavier loads. It is provided with an air-brake system and a thorough vacuum pipe. It is primarily used for transportation of Arjun tanks.

So, does the Arjun still kill poles?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Mar 2011 17:24

sanku ji, you only posted yet another fluff piece on yet another exercise. what is the CO of a T-90 regiment on exercise supposed to say ? "my tank's TI doesn't work !

" ??
oh, did you note that the TI image was from the night when the temp is, ahem, more manageable ?

I'm still waiting for the 3 reports that say 'all is well' about catherine TI.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 01 Mar 2011 18:05

Sanku wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote: so it is propoganda only when the media reports bad things about T-90,
and the same media and same news channel becomes reliable at the very moment they release something good about t-90 ?

Those two statements are from very different posts

On one hand we are talking of GoI quasi-GoI sources

so NDTV is GOI or quasi-GoI source when is reports good about t-90 otherwise it is not ?

Sanku wrote: On other hand we are talking of people who have developed a sudden love for Arjun and dislike of T-90 (I am sure that they have started writing for papers which have their mil sections under massive Boeing header is purely incidental)

What is bad in loving equipment which is better and Indian?

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 01 Mar 2011 18:48

i just checked with a senior railway official on the arjun story...

well it seems that some of the existing wagons were used to transport the Arjuns... the tanks were not driven/parked properly ( in his opinion it was not easy for the tank to get on the wagon) on the wagons or a lashing got loose which caused light damage to some signalling equipment. the movement was to happen around 4 pm in daylight but the loading process got delayed due to some reasons and instead of postponing the departure , it was carried out at dusk and there was some oversight.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 01 Mar 2011 18:57

The BEML brochure limits the speed of the BFAT wagons to a maximum of 40 kmph, possibly to manage the added stress on the rails due to increased weight.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Mar 2011 19:11

I don't think any goods train crosses that limit. with critical items like MBTs you would be naturally more careful.

manjgu ji, that makes some sense at least.

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 01 Mar 2011 20:29

Sanku wrote:So despite, reports and reports like the following

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uJSo2eSyKE

in exercise after exercise

we are supposed to believe that all the IA armored corps, down to captains and lt-cols lie merrily on camera and the tank is plagued with issues?

anirban_aim wrote:Rajan Mahan Report on NDTV about performance of T-90s

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/i ... ank/187856

I'm finding this a very very suspicious conduct... Call it SDRE Dhoti Shivers if you will, but I'm mighty worried.

Why the sudden need to stress on the capability to fire on the move, NV capabilities and ATM firing capabilities of T - 90???

The video almost looks like a fan boy work. (holding back the insinuation of being a planted one) . Its almost like the Empire strikes back after lying low for quite some time post the comparative trials.

My over excited paranoid conspiracy smelling Yindoo brain is thinking that this wind is not blowing in the right direction for the future of Arjun.

I hope I'm just imagining things.... Hope I'm wrong

Sankuji, quoting my earlier post that I made, the exact same day this report quoted by you materialized.

Secondly, now I see the arguements have now taken a turn towards railway logistics.

I find it funny as being a member of BRF for some time now, I'm seeing this line of argument coming up second time with in a year.

Last time it was on the lines that the existing raliway rakes are not broad enough and we will need wider rakes which will involve cost and that at some stations, they might scrape against the platforms, so platforms need to be modified so more cost and the like..... I found them funny then and riduculous now. (Infact some of the pics used are also the same)

Like somebody had already mentioned, that logistics need to follow platforms and not the other way round in the long run. I guess this was self evident.

But on the other hand, since the next 2 India matches are with Ireland and Netherlands, pray continue the sparring..... helps keep things intresting.

I wish you had more nos on your side, because right now your can looks out gunned, out run and out shot.

But who know probably we are not playing by the right rules as per the set test guidelines and hence disqualified

I'm sure this will warm your heart:

[youtube]PcFVGhqeVrY&feature=related[/youtube]

T - 90 in full flow.

BTW do read the description given in the video.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 01 Mar 2011 20:51

-nitpick

IR runs some freighters at 100 kmph

palash_kol · Post by **palash_kol** » 01 Mar 2011 21:00

sorry, this is on the same lines as stuff posted by a 'supposed' israeli guy circa 2005 and earlier which was debunked thoroughly (especially his claims of levels of israeli tech in arjun). we don't need made up stuff to rate the arjun (unlike the tin can

) reality is good enough for us.

satyameva jayate,

Rahul.

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 01 Mar 2011 22:32

With regards to the railways schedule of dimensions and the problems faced with transporting tanks (T-90 or Arjun), I wish to bring forth some points for the consideration by the junta here.

1. The standard clearance for the permanent way (railway term for the tracks and ballast) is 2.13m (min) from track centreline. No post (signalling or otherwise) is permitted within this envelope. Any deviations to this dimension is signed off by some very senior technical people (Chief Engr and above) and it is meticulously marked on their layout maps. When a train has to be moved along this route, the clearances will be checked before the green signal is given.
2. T-90 width is 3.78m incl skirts, but width over tracks alone is 3.4m. The width of Arjun is 3.85m w/ skirts and 3.5m over tracks. The standard bogie flat carrier wagon is 3.25m wide making the T-90 fit better over the wagon than the Arjun. This is what causes problems with regard to loading and transportation of the Arjun tanks, not that T-90 is easy.
3. Tank transportation over railways is not as easy as one might think. The process of loading a tank onto the flatbed is very time consuming and full of trial and error to get the alignment and placement of the tank correctly on the wagon.
4. It is due to this cumbersome process that the order for BFATs were placed. These were conceptually developed with RITES with approval from RDSO before BEML started manufacturing them. The BFAT has a flat bed of 3.55m which completely covers the Arjun tracks as well. Hence the tank width will not be an issue anymore for any tank.

PS: All the above is based on gyan received during my madarasa days about railways, viewing some programmes on DD about tank loading and transportation many moons ago and some google search about BFATs. So take it for what it's worth!

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 01 Mar 2011 22:35

^^palash kol,

Those claims have been presented and refuted many times on BR itself when JCage was around. The Arjun is a good tank and can do a lot of damage to opponents. But it's not the silver bullet that it is being portrayed as in the above post.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Mar 2011 23:38

Chalo, the railway nonsense has also been debunked........let's see, what else comes up!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Mar 2011 02:27

rohitvats wrote:Chalo, the railway nonsense has also been debunked........let's see, what else comes up!

It does not sound like T90?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 02 Mar 2011 02:39

What about the paint scheme and camouflage options?

Is the camouflage from the video above from SAAB?

http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... em-to.html

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 02 Mar 2011 03:24

If after all this kushti, you want to buy a scale model of the Arjun Tank (or other IA vehicles), please go here:
http://www.modelsmaker.co.in/defense-model.html

It is a Bangalore, Kerala outfit.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 02 Mar 2011 06:24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcFVGhqeVrY
What happens to tank crew when a tank flies like at time=3min 8 sec

When a car goes over delhi potholes, everyone is shaken. What happens to the crew when the tank hits ground, doesnt their spine hurt with the impact?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2011 06:53

I believe unless they are holding tight could get knocked up quite bad? maybe seatbelts and padding on the roof is there?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 02 Mar 2011 07:08

What happens to tank crew when a tank flies like at time=3min 8 sec

When a car goes over delhi potholes, everyone is shaken. What happens to the crew when the tank hits ground, doesnt their spine hurt with the impact?

you are getting slammed into iron and steel -
at minimum u get bruised - at worse broken bones.

These stupid promotional clips have tanks flying at high speed are useless in real life.

My friend a Merkava tanker broke his arm in a much slower run through the hard Golan when a jolt caught him a hard place.
When he sees these sort of clips including Merkava - he says its all promotional bullcrap

S_Prasad · Post by **S_Prasad** » 02 Mar 2011 07:10

The website says its arjun....But Can some one id the tank?

A newbie question .....how is the tank protected from water and mud from entering critical systems?

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 02 Mar 2011 07:35

S_Prasad wrote: The website says its arjun....But Can some one id the tank?

A newbie question .....how is the tank protected from water and mud from entering critical systems?

I think it is not an Arjun, even not a tank at all. I think it is APC/MPVs.

Ankit

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Mar 2011 08:05

S_Prasad wrote: The website says its arjun....But Can some one id the tank?

A newbie question .....how is the tank protected from water and mud from entering critical systems?

It is not Arjun tank. Its anAERV

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 Mar 2011 08:15

RoyG wrote:What about the paint scheme and camouflage options?

Is the camouflage from the video above from SAAB?

http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... em-to.html

Yes its barracuda from SAAB. I have covered it in an article (SAAB’s approach to Armour in Indian desert)

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 02 Mar 2011 08:24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcFVGhqe ... r_embedded
At 1.14, do I notice a flaw, the gun being close to the hull leading to this issue?

The camo seem that from Baraccuda.
http://www.stratpost.com/camouflage-sys ... ndian-army

And about flying tanks. And what was that Arjun cannot do that the T-90 can. Oh fly. But Arjun also flies.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Mar 2011 09:17

Here is some nice info on Sokol-1 ATGM that can be fired from 125 mm Tank , note its F&F for visible/LOS target (5 km) and semi-active laser for enclosed position ,non-los target ( 12 km ) makes this very versatile missile on the type and range of target it can hit at ( via Garry )

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 02 Mar 2011 10:32

uddu wrote: And about flying tanks. And what was that Arjun cannot do that the T-90 can. Oh fly. But Arjun also flies.

Well that has to be DDM at it's best.

"Arjun mein char 120 mm gun aur T90 mein 3 125 mm gun"

Lahat firing capability is explained as "Yeh missile pe bhi hit kar sakta hai"

NBC protection explanation is good too.

Hats off for their creativity.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2011 10:45

I feel passive F&F using IIR seeker / or mmw radar is the way to go even for man portable ATGMs and indeed Javelin has gone that route already. the Sokol-1 clearly is not following that trend and is more a legacy idea like Milan2T albeit this type is a lot cheaper due to no costly seeker.

we could use a scaled down version of Nag rather than buy javelin in too huge numbers.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 02 Mar 2011 11:05

Who is going to debunk an earlier post which mentioned "Arjun cannot fire when stationary?"!!!!!!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 02 Mar 2011 11:06

Austin wrote:Here is some nice info on Sokol-1 ATGM that can be fired from 125 mm Tank , note its F&F for visible/LOS target (5 km) and semi-active laser for enclosed position ,non-los target ( 12 km ) makes this very versatile missile on the type and range of target it can hit at ( via Garry )

Can you explain how it is a fire and forget missile(if that is what you meant).

Also lets not forget the tank barrel launched missile being developed by the DRDO, which should be ready along with Mk 2.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 02 Mar 2011 11:35

abhik wrote:Can you explain how it is a fire and forget missile(if that is what you meant).

It has a combined guidance passive ( probably IR channel ) and semi-active that hits a lased spot for indirect firing , as to how it would work , i would think once the commander finds the target in the main TI sight it would designate it to the gunner , they would find the range to the target by lasing it and would fire at it either on a flat trajectory or a parabolic one , Sokol-1 is claim to have top attack capability but I am trying to find out more , the missile itself is self guiding after that and need not lase the target or Tank just move out from there and designate another target.
In non LOS mode I would think it would work the same way as krasnopol round would work.

Much similar to the way a Nag ATGM or Igla-S would work , I had a first hand look at Igla-S at AeroIndia , it really have a small guidance nose with 2 IR channel ( its analog system not digital so no reprogramming on field is not-possible ) {sorry i should have written not possible , compared to latest stinger which is all digital and can be reprogrammed against new threats , but there are some advantage/disadvantage in analog versus digital system that I was explained but this is not the thread}

Nice , Which is that missile ?