Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 22 Apr 2013 11:11

^^ why would not the turbocharger setting help (probably with faster sparking and smaller compression in piston housing). The power availability may still be smaller, but not as drastic as just 58%.

..............

But air is also thinner ji, so less drag.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Apr 2013 17:15

May be fit a gas turbine in the tank. In order to maintain the power rating.

Oops did i just open the door for the GT powered T 80.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Apr 2013 09:21

GT is affected by the rarity of air too.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 23 Apr 2013 09:50

Arjun not tested in Ladakh???

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2013 12:56

Narayana Rao wrote:Arjun not tested in Ladakh???

AFAIK not so far. In fact getting Arjun to Ladakh as of now itself is uncertain (to me) -- there are no a/cs which can take it there, and the roads are barely being made ready to take T 72s/T 90s (there was an article on this development, not sure how much is done)

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 23 Apr 2013 13:05

If they can transport train engines and bogeys to Kashmir, taking Arjun to Laddakh shouldn't be impossible. I suppose that it may not be possible to transport it in one piece.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Apr 2013 13:14

jamwal wrote:If they can transport train engines and bogeys to Kashmir, taking Arjun to Laddakh shouldn't be impossible. I suppose that it may not be possible to transport it in one piece.

Yes, as of now that is what will be needed, but I do not think that has been done yet.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2013 15:54

Archival footage of 1995 released by NII STALI of T-72B with Contact-5 ERA was tested against HEAT rounds fired from T-90 tank in presence of Defence Minister P.Grachevu , Five HEAT/CE rounds were fired against T-72/K-5 at a distant of 100 m , The ERA got completely destroyed but the Tank was not penetrated and drove on its own.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Apr 2013 16:49

Very nice !! Proves that Contact-5 ERA does its job.

vic · Post by **vic** » 23 Apr 2013 20:08

Let's start by taking NAMICA to Laddakh first, nobody points out that Nag is super excellent for cold climate. No election funds from Nag-NAMICA??

member_23047 · Post by **member_23047** » 23 Apr 2013 21:21

AFAIK not so far. In fact getting Arjun to Ladakh as of now itself is uncertain (to me) -- there are no a/cs which can take it there, and the roads are barely being made ready to take T 72s/T 90s (there was an article on this development, not sure how much is done)

Well as of now, the highway to Sikkim is not capable of transporting an Arjun tank, and I doubt it can even take a battle ready T90. Though T 72 tanks have been successfully deployed at North Sikkim, the bridges along the way are not capable of transporting loads heavier than 45 tons. Not to mention the fact that certain section of the road gets washed away regularly during monsoons every year.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 24 Apr 2013 14:19

If the roads and bridges in certain border area cannot take a Arjun or even a T 90, the solution is not to make the tank lighter.

The solution is to STRENGTHEN THE ROAD N RAIL NETWORK.

For transportation tank may carry some limited ammo for emergency and limited fuel.

Let me shoot from the hip. The "tank" carried 40 shells each weighing say 50 kg. So the tank is lighter by 2000 kg. I am guessing that we can reduce the fuel by another 1000 - 2000 kg. This could be helpful in some cases

Just my humble views.

Experts e.g. Rohit Vats etc are invited to respond
Trollers and all others suffering from a diahorrea of words and a constipation of knowledge please excuse

K

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Apr 2013 16:52

Indian Railway's :: Rolling Stock - Weight Comparsion Tables

Rail bridges should be designed for higher weights than road ones.

And a forum, if you have any questions about IR wagons, etc.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 24 Apr 2013 21:44

rohitvats wrote:In the interview linked by amit, it clearly says that 43 and 75 AR have moved to Jaisalmer (180 Armd Bde of 12 RAPID).

Rohit, I think 43 AR and 75 AR are part of the 140 Armd Bde (under the 12th RAPID). can you confirm if it is 140 or 180?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 25 Apr 2013 20:06

NRao wrote:Indian Railway's :: Rolling Stock - Weight Comparsion Tables

Rail bridges should be designed for higher weights than road ones.

And a forum, if you have any questions about IR wagons, etc.

Thanks

I often visit irfca.org, Indian Railways is also my interest.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Apr 2013 23:01

Kersi D wrote:Let me shoot from the hip. The "tank" carried 40 shells each weighing say 50 kg.

More like 20 kg for the APFSDS. HESH rounds are marginally heavier. In either case, they're manually loaded - 50 kg would be far too heavy for the tank loader to manage.

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Apr 2013 01:12

Back in 2006 when I called out the farce about T-90 I was given sermons about logistics i.e. bridges, railway wagons etc . Who built most of them ? The British , so IA is to acquire/build weapons in the 21st century around old nallahs/canals/bridges dating back to the British period ? Ye sala hum Indians ka kuch nahin ho sakta ; they cry and whine about LCA being too small/light and Arjun being too big/heavy; back in the day when Unkil embarked upon it's MBT programme which culminated in the M1A Abrams, if they would have thought on the similar lines as some of our elite class then they would have ended up going ahead with financing the German Leopard 2 for at the begining the German programme looked more promising and viable from both technology as well as financial aspect , yet Unkil decided to go full steam ahead with the Chrysler design despite the setback to the MBT-70 programme. Arjun is our first ever tank and it's already in class of Leo 4s or even M1A Abrams feature wise yet we somehow cannot build a consensus on whether it can serve as our MBT .

IA takes great pride in fighting with what it has, I say let them fight with the Arjun in their ranks. As it is with likes of MMS at the helm it might not even matter.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 26 Apr 2013 02:03

if weight is a concern - the IA should start thinking of modular approach for mk 4 like the Japanese

Plan for a travel weight and a combat weight

instead of BSing about FMBT etc

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Apr 2013 06:13

On bridges: it is relegated to Punjab (Indian) and specifically over canals, right? (Or are there other bridges that are problems?)

IF it is only bridges over canals, then there should not be any issues.

Canals there are all man-made. I bring it up because it is my understanding that they are all standardized in width - they range from some 2/3 meters to some 30 meterish. I am not too sure, but there could be others that are greater.

IF that simple analysis is true, then rebuilding the bridges with prefabs should not be an issue (IMHO). India has a ton of civil engs and there is really no state in India that is better than the Punjab for dealing with concrete structure - simply because of the world capital of exposed concrete - Chandigarh. I am told that the code in Chandigarh is no longer as stringent as it used to be, yet there should be enough concrete companies in the region to help out rebuilding these bridges over the canals.

In the worst case, as proposed by Saraswat, they can be bridged with metal bridges.

It is far more important to get the indigenous industry moving that to make silly excuses, even if it means taking risks.

If we can expect to replace DSPUs overnight, then we can certainly expect dumping the T series - now. And the funds saved can be used to subsidize these bridges if needed.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 26 Apr 2013 07:10

But for all the concern wrt, the weight of the Arjun. The one thing that has been forgotten is that it was the IA which asked for the Arjunto be what it became. Dit the IA not consider the logistics issues.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 27 Apr 2013 14:21

Shrinivasan wrote:
rohitvats wrote:In the interview linked by amit, it clearly says that 43 and 75 AR have moved to Jaisalmer (180 Armd Bde of 12 RAPID).
Rohit, I think 43 AR and 75 AR are part of the 140 Armd Bde (under the 12th RAPID). can you confirm if it is 140 or 180?

My bad...it is 140 Armd Bde.

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Apr 2013 19:37

If weight is such a concern Army should mandate a two men or three men crew tanks, especially for Chinese / Mountainous areas. Army is insisting that DRDO makes 2+2=5 while ready to accept when foreign parties do 2+2 is zero.

member_26535 · Post by **member_26535** » 01 May 2013 07:19

Can gurus id this ? I clicked this near the Krishnagiri Checkpost on NH 7.
No escort , just the truck trailer

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 01 May 2013 08:13

^^^ Looks like the samsung K9 thunder. Atleast the wheel and sprocket design matches exactly with the K9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K9_Thunder

Edit: It is being offered through the JV with L&T

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 May 2013 08:20

my first thought was abott 105mm SP. but that had 5 road wheels and this thing has 6. plus the abott is long retired.
the turret of this is huge and the caliber looks like 155mm.

to me it looks like the Soko K9 thunder, probably in India for trials
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/k9_thunder.htm

where does L&T defence have a setup? I know they do some sw development in electronic city blr
tata power div is also in elec city
BEML is in blr
Ashok leyland huge plant in hosur

so all players at the table barring M&M(pune) and Telco(pune) are around blr.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 01 May 2013 12:52

A frame suggests K-9 all right so do wheels and track types.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/south_ko ... ata_u.html

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 May 2013 14:44

Beautiful beast -- I some how really dig the SPHs. Just the looks makes me feel that they are "adequate" for the task, that is of turning the few bits of Pakistan not in stone age same as the remaining landscape.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 May 2013 13:02

The 23t Mastiff armoured vehicle ,meant to protect British soldiers from IEDs has apparently failed its Afghan test in this latest attack,killing 3 soldiers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 98370.html

MoD names three soldiers killed in Afghanistan IED blast as Government says it will ask questions about Mastiff armoured vehicle in Helmand

Troops are first to die in vehicle brought in to protect against IEDs in Afghanistan

Military officials are investigating whether insurgents are designing bigger bombs aimed at piercing the 23-tonne Mastiff's armour. They will not only look at how the bomb was made, but also into checks used by Afghan and British troops on patrol. “If you build a big enough bomb it will overcome a Mastiff. It's just never been done before,” a military source said.

The convoy was on Route 611, a new road that had been used to show the reconstruction taking place in the province. Increasingly, the Afghan army and police are carrying out searches for IEDs as they take over security duties.

The last time so many British soldiers were killed in one incident was last March when six died after their Warrior vehicle was blown up by an IED about 25 miles north of Bashkir Gash.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 May 2013 13:10

SPGs and MLRS are the sasta and tikau type items through which Khan shapes the battle in his favour LONG before munnas like abrams and bradleys make first contact.
if you look at khan expeditionary divs they add a humongous amt of SPG and MLRS to the orbat to sit there and pound the crap out of anything....MLRS with radars used to target enemy artillery and soft targets while SPGs target anything and everything...the M109A5 may not be state-of-art but gets the job done when used enmasse like khan does. add to that towed artillery.

wilson_th · Post by **wilson_th** » 02 May 2013 19:42

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=95278

The Government has assessed the requirement of Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) that would be required for defence preparedness.The requirement for Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) for defence preparedness has been assessed and laid down in the Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP) document for the period 2012- 2027. Disclosure of further information on the subject is not in the national interest.

The Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) ARJUN Mark I have been manufactured indigenously and ARJUN Mark II is under development. The T-90 tanks are manufactured indigenously by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) under licensed production from Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). The Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) is under indigenous design and development.

Is Arjun the main battle tanks and DRDO developing the FMBT?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 02 May 2013 19:54

Sanku wrote:Beautiful beast -- I some how really dig the SPHs. Just the looks makes me feel that they are "adequate" for the task, that is of turning the few bits of Pakistan not in stone age same as the remaining landscape.

We should be going for the g6 gun or bofors. They are both superior in range and MRSI capability.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 02 May 2013 20:15

^^^

As has the K 9, it is amongst the most advanced 155 sph in the world. Only the PzH 2000 can match it.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 02 May 2013 21:01

I do nto want to be anywhere near the Pzh loading system

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 02 May 2013 21:01

^^^
Its quite a bit "Badass-er" than the PzH. Carries over 100 shells, compared to 40-60(?) for the PzH 2000.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 May 2013 05:12

There is a five min film on youtube. The k9 seems to be based around the crusader concept

Completely automated shell and charge storing and loading system
Highly automated reload vehicle that uses a same chassis and transfers using a loading belt instead of a gun in front

Full marks to korea. Overall it looks more unified system than pzh which needs manual charge loading and manual reload using a small tray in the back.

jai · Post by **jai** » 03 May 2013 05:34

Singha wrote:There is a five min film on youtube. The k9 seems to be based around the crusader concept

Completely automated shell and charge storing and loading system
Highly automated reload vehicle that uses a same chassis and transfers using a loading belt instead of a gun in front

Full marks to korea. Overall it looks more unified system than pzh which needs manual charge loading and manual reload using a small tray in the back.

+1. Wish this would get quickly inducted in large numbers.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 May 2013 14:05

Turkish MBT Altay @ IDEF-2013

http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 8740_n.jpg
http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 1107_n.jpg
http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 2911_n.jpg
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9893/2 ... 122822.jpg
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/6888 ... 122950.jpg
http://uppix.net/4/5/0/ff26d9424bb15427 ... 7da56f.jpg

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 May 2013 20:43

The Arjun Saga

http://www.geopolitics.in/june2012.aspx

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 19 May 2013 01:04

Austin wrote:The Arjun Saga

http://www.geopolitics.in/june2012.aspx

Another paid article by lifafa loving ex-military folks. Did they not already bust the myth that T-90 costs only 16 crore Rs, why is it that the author keeps on pushing that argument to favour the tin cans???

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 May 2013 09:46

PZH2000 Afghanistan Erika
What kind of shell it fired at 2.11?