Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Jun 2011 09:29

Note how relatively 'easy' it is to fit stuff like citv, atgm marker, AD gun, autotracker into Mk2 as we are the owner and lead system integrator. we can do N number of changes/mods/hacks/adds to tinker with it and satisfy late breaking user feedback too.

if we try doing that on the t-90, you know how much issues will crop up. as it is Rus dragged their feet on TOT we had paid for and expected to be txfered to Avadi.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Jun 2011 09:42

^^^

Singha,

The IA is not concerned with the ease of upgrades, they know that the Arjun lacks strategic mobility, they know that it is inferior to the T90.

Thats all that matters.

As an aside, while I was growing up, I learnt that quality means meeting desired criteria of the client. If that means for a given order the client expects that there will be 40 errors for every hundred items then giving 10 errors per 100 items is failure to meet quality. As is giving 50 errors per 100 items.

So having 40 errors per 100 samples will represent quality.

Having said so, the IA knows the T 72/90 inside out. They lack the same level of institutional comfort with the Arjun. They know what the Ts can do. To them that represents quality.

The Arjun does not.

MN Kumar · Post by **MN Kumar** » 01 Jun 2011 09:46

From the Hindu article posted by Karan above:

Missiles can be fired from the former to destroy long-range targets and bring down attack helicopters.

What kind of missile this can be? They are not talking about AD Gun.

vic · Post by **vic** » 01 Jun 2011 10:35

Re Chacko

MTU-838 and T-90 engines may not be suitable for desert climes but the MTU-883 was built just for / primarily for desert climes. Assuming it is still not suitable, there is nothing better out there

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 01 Jun 2011 10:53

vic wrote:Re Chacko

MTU-838 and T-90 engines may not be suitable for desert climes but the MTU-883 was built just for / primarily for desert climes. Assuming it is still not suitable, there is nothing better out there

As I said, CVRDE says.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 04 Jun 2011 07:14

DRDO Tech Focus on Armoured Vehicles

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 04 Jun 2011 07:26

So we are upgrading the T-72's and make it the Tank-Ex. Cool. Similarly I wish if we can convert all the T-90's into the Tank-Ex as well. Thereby we'll have a lightweight tank of 47 tons that's similar to the T-90 in terms of weight, but will have better firepower, protection and crew comfort. Really cool.
And we'll have Arjun's and Tank-Ex in service and no more Tincans.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 04 Jun 2011 07:37

A 2006 article from BR http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Rhino.html
The Dark Horse: Then there is DRDO's Tank-Ex. More of a de novo development, rather than an upgrade - this project sees the Arjun's firepower and protection coupled with the T-72M1's low profile and agility. The Arjun's turret is integrated with the T-72M1's hull. The armour is the Kanchan and a 1000 hp power plant (an up rated 780 hp engine) is standard. An APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) is also provided. The Tank-Ex will also benefit from the Arjun-LAHAT integration. Two prototypes have been built and are to be demonstrated to the Indian Army this year. Once the trials are successful, some 300 tanks could be ordered. It has been suggested that T-72M1 hulls will be imported from Russia instead of utilising the existing T-72M1s in the Indian inventory. In that case, the Tank-Ex would be more of a new acquisition rather than part of Project Rhino.

Now the question is, are we upgrading the T-90's to Tank-Ex standard. Since it's said that about 1000 T-90's to be build, so why not go for Tank-EX production instead of T-90. So we can avoid all T-72's and T-90's with Arjun's mark-II's and Tank-Ex. This will cut the types from three or four to just two. Arjun MK1's MkII's being the best tank and the other (Tank-Ex) the lighter tank but still better than any T-90's.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Jun 2011 09:27

The Tech Focus report says 710 Combat Improved Ajeya (CIA) has been delivered , so T-72 upgrade has been going on quietly.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 05 Jun 2011 23:29

pandyan wrote:
What is the story of Bhim...drdo completed, users accepted, unkil and aunty in the joint family are vetoing it because there is not much dowry?

The Bhim uses the Denel gun IIRC. Since Denel has been blacklisted, Bhim goes down the drain as well.

There are two ways out of this mess. Either we scrap all arty tenders and ask the DRDO to come up with an indigenous gun, which will take a lot of time.
or
The worthies at the MoD get their collective heads out of their musharrafs and realise just how serious the arty shortfall in the IA is, and hasten the acquisition processes.

Edit: Sorry for the OT, didn't realise I was in the Armour dhaaga.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 06 Jun 2011 00:29

Finally, A Glimpse Of MBT Arjun In Army Service

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 06 Jun 2011 10:41

The document posted by A Sharma does mention that Arjun FCS has HK capability, hence I stand corrected. I'm cross checking on what I was informed otherwise earlier by the spiffy cavalry chap. He's a damm decent boy and doesnt ever misrepresent.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jun 2011 11:23

IIRC they were issues with Bhims integration with T-72 chassis and hence they moved to Arjun chassis , since the OEM got blacklisted and the deal got cancelled , wonder if they are planning to move back to T-72 chassis as the recent DRDO pictures suggest.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Jun 2011 11:36

The 72 chasis will continue to have the same issues, unless they are planning to add stablising rigs to the vehicle. Like it has been done with the 152 MM MASTA SPH.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2011 11:40

you mean jacks which anchor the vehicle when firing and retract for driving? I saw a video of a KMW donar truck mounted thing....the recoil of these spiffy new 52cal cannons is truly scary. it rolls like a ship in crossing seas from side to side ...and its a big tracked vehicle used for MLRS system...not a small piece of kit like t72 chassis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAm9i_UHCak

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Jun 2011 13:30

Exactly, but mind you the 72 may visiblt look small compare to the bulk of the MLRS system. It is amy thing but small in reality.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jun 2011 14:09

KMW cannons are simply awesome , kind of beast you would want to keep.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2011 14:13

> It is any thing but small in reality.

well I have seen a T72 and a M60 side by side in uss growler museum in NYC. the 72 was *dwarfed* by the footprint and height of the M60. its a 40t vehicle most of whose weight comes from armour not size.

one could likely park a T72 *inside* a Namer IFV (merk4 based)

I stood where this photo was taken from: http://www.rdominis.net/newyork/intrepid08.jpg

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Jun 2011 14:35

^^^I don't forsee the T-72 chassis with any modern 155/52 Cal gun.....they tried with Denel turret and it seems, the chassis just could not handle the stress and had fractures. Arjun chassis was chosed after these trials.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jun 2011 14:45

Austin wrote:IIRC they were issues with Bhims integration with T-72 chassis and hence they moved to Arjun chassis , since the OEM got blacklisted and the deal got cancelled , wonder if they are planning to move back to T-72 chassis as the recent DRDO pictures suggest.

which ?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Jun 2011 14:46

Rohit,

Forgive me for my attitude. I dont give a damm what chasis is chosen as long as the 155 mm SHP. enters service, with the IA and in numbers to support all the planned IBG of the IA.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jun 2011 14:52

Rahul M wrote:
Austin wrote:IIRC they were issues with Bhims integration with T-72 chassis and hence they moved to Arjun chassis , since the OEM got blacklisted and the deal got cancelled , wonder if they are planning to move back to T-72 chassis as the recent DRDO pictures suggest.
which ?

The first pics looks like T-72 chasis
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/ji ... track.html

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 06 Jun 2011 14:53

^^^

They are all Arjun chasis.....

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Jun 2011 15:00

Pratyush wrote:Rohit,

Forgive me for my attitude. I dont give a damm what chasis is chosen as long as the 155 mm SHP. enters service, with the IA and in numbers to support all the planned IBG of the IA.

You're not alone.....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jun 2011 15:01

Austin, et tu ? count the wheels my friend.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 06 Jun 2011 15:31

Austin wrote:The first pics looks like T-72 chasis
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2011/06/ji ... track.html

Austin Garu, see 7 road wheels. DRDO Techfocus clearly says it is an Arjun Chassis.
The Turret weighs 18.5 tonns and probably would not be a good fit (with required mobility) on the puny T-72.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 06 Jun 2011 15:51

One of big Cribs I have heard about Arjun is that IT DOES NOT HAVE SLOPED ARMOUR. It sort of has a box like structure. funny thing I noticed in the T-90. It has a similar box liek structure, the armour plates are applied on it. Anyone has a hi-res picture of a T-90, see the turret corners, you can see thru the gap of the armour.

Yet another Natak IA Armoured Corps did to reject Arjun for decades... Gurus please weigh in?!

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 06 Jun 2011 15:56

This picture in High-Res show this clearly.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/magazine ... ion_01.jpg

Arjun's current size and weight is in answer to IA's GSQR, why the Thakleef?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jun 2011 17:41

Yeah some how it did looked 6 wheels but closer looks revels more details , the Turret of T-6 is so big that even makes a big chasis of Arjun look small.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jun 2011 18:01

cheenum wrote:One of big Cribs I have heard about Arjun is that IT DOES NOT HAVE SLOPED ARMOUR. It sort of has a box like structure. funny thing I noticed in the T-90. It has a similar box liek structure, the armour plates are applied on it. Anyone has a hi-res picture of a T-90, see the turret corners, you can see thru the gap of the armour.

Yet another Natak IA Armoured Corps did to reject Arjun for decades... Gurus please weigh in?!

Not a guru but I still think the Army could look towards upgrading the Arjun Mk1 with a similar bolt-on sloped ERA package in due course, just for the frontal section if nothing else. There is a weight penalty, but the Arjun has a power to weight ratio that's high enough to compensate for it. While composite armor may provide sufficiently high protection, unless I'm mistaken it cannot be replaced at short notice in the field, compromising the protection of that affected region after taking a hit. If the safety of infantry is an issue NERA is an alternative.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jun 2011 18:16

bolt on ERA or not, they should certainly look at using the much simpler but effective slat armour.

trushant · Post by **trushant** » 06 Jun 2011 19:46

Any details on this news item ?? Fording tests? which tank?

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/166 ... -tank.html

And for the Cummins connection with MBT Arjun....IIRC work on the application engineering of QSK 38 started smwhr in 2007 at Cummins India - Pune. Its a V12 with 38 L displacement and has been succesfully adopted for varied applications like Loco, Marine Propulsion (Cummins UK) etc

Cummins in India has a robust vendor base which can/does manufacture almost all of critical components like valves, pistons and piston rings....so there's high degree of indigenisation. Cost effective too.

I guess the real test lies in adopting a base engine for an application like tank..with all the uprating, repositioning of the components like aftercoolers, turbochargers, intake and exhaust manifolds, ruggedisation etc...its hell of a job...just a comparison between snaps of MTU 838 and basic QSK 38 should give an idea

Need to catch up with ex colleagues for the updates

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jun 2011 19:50

slat armour is maybe more suited to IFV/APC that intend to fight in urban areas, not tanks which should never be moving around in congested village and town roads rather it should let infantry, helicopters and 30mm cannon of IFVs clear out pockets of resistance...contributing standoff direct fire if needed for targets like towers and buildings.

the leopard2 also has a arjun shaped turret but additional t90 style wedge shaped plates were added to improve frontal arc protection. behind that wedge is still a solid flat wall. abrams has a larger turret and seems to be a case where the entire main plates itself are angled when welded.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Jun 2011 21:55

singha ji, slats weigh a couple of tons at most, are simple to design and provide protection from RPG's and possibly smaller ATGMs. no reason not to add them. pakis have a very large # of AT troops.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 07 Jun 2011 11:23

Singha wrote:slat armour is maybe more suited to IFV/APC that intend to fight in urban areas, not tanks which should never be moving around in congested village and town roads rather it should let infantry, helicopters and 30mm cannon of IFVs clear out pockets of resistance...contributing standoff direct fire if needed for targets like towers and buildings.

I thought the Abrams uses slat armor as part of its urban gearing kit in Iraq?

http://www.tankopoly.com/M1_Abrams_TUSK.htm

Doesn't seem to be the go-to option but the khans seem to use occasionally in urban/village areas.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2011 12:48

I doubt any big numbers of abrams were equipped with TUSK. most of these tanks are long withdrawn from iraq. the leopard2 also has a urban warfare upg.

its far cheaper to just let infantry, IFVs and helicopters do the job with tanks providing some backup on the edges if needed. baghdad was a special case with huge wide roads permitting easy movement of tanks, pakistani villages and towns will be far more congested and offer ideal spots for RPG shooters to fire down or at sides from point blank range. the IFVs these days have high elevation main cannon and a remotely controlled HMG with optronic kit that permits surveying the roofline and raking it with fire if needed....hard for a obese tank to be nimble in the gullies.

I think thats why IA armour corps shows no interest in these urban warfare gizmos...they do not envisage fighting in urban areas or doing anti insurgent patrols thereafter. we have ample manpower for COIN ops.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jun 2011 14:45

singha ji, it's a mistake to think rpg's can only be used inside villages. pakistan is crawling with folks who can and will use RPG's, both in and outside the army. there's no guarantee that IA tanks will never pass by a village or ambush points. the OPFOR we face in COIN does not have the heavy weapons that we will face if we ever move into pak. given the volume of AT weapons with pakistan, multiple hits on a single tank, even at the same spot is not impossible. slats will provide much needed protection to the vulnerable rear at relatively low cost.

we can either be prepared or think 'this is beneath us' and pay the price.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 07 Jun 2011 15:51

Singha wrote: I think thats why IA armour corps shows no interest in these urban warfare gizmos...they do not envisage fighting in urban areas or doing anti insurgent patrols thereafter. we have ample manpower for COIN ops.

IA armour corps have an interest in these gizmos, but one might never hear about it in open:

- All these gizmos are add-on attachments and will only be fitted when you require it.

The debate in IA is over who will hold these assets:
- 1) All armour units don't require these gizmos.
- 2) The ones who will require these are the ones who will end up doing area domination patrols in built up areas or fighting in urban areas.
- 3) Fighting in urban areas is what IA wants to avoid.
- 4) But still they may requires some of these gizmos:
---- Will these be held by Armour Eng or at unit level, or part of Div Stores.
---- How will the logistical chain link up

these are some questions, i think IA is still debating over before we these gizmos being shown ion some exercise.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Jun 2011 06:37

If someone comes across a picture of the German army Marder recently destroyed by the Taliban please post it here.

poor guys got hit with 100 kgs of explosives
Thanks

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 08 Jun 2011 08:08

Surya wrote:If someone comes across a picture of the German army Marder recently destroyed by the Taliban please post it here.

poor guys got hit with 100 kgs of explosives
Thanks

I hope below is the one your are looking for

Link

--Ankit