MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Nov 2015 21:12

shiv wrote:Please watch. Doval gives reasons why MBTs not a priority
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5btV4a5Ie_g

Thanks!

THAT is a keeper.

AD should mediate in Syria.

BTW, just read a Russian article that claims IA is looking into the T-90SM.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 29 Nov 2015 08:19

We need 5000 T90SMs. Mogambo khush hua.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 29 Nov 2015 10:39

shiv wrote:Please watch. Doval gives reasons why MBTs not a priority
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5btV4a5Ie_g

Very nice talk by Doval saar. But, I didn't understand, why is MBTs not needed against China and particularly pak? I think the wars will still need ground forces and ground forces need the support of artillery and tanks. Missiles and air-force are important capabilities. But, they don't occupy the land.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 29 Nov 2015 11:23

Possibly he meant the Tank Vs Tank battles are over so planning and keeping equivalent number of tanks as the enemy is not required.

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 29 Nov 2015 14:38

Sir ...limited budget so we need more missiles instead for the same money, more bang for the buck and will keep the enemies from thinking about a tank battle!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Nov 2015 14:53

Doval does not understand these thing it better to leave such things to the professional service , They once said WW2 would be the last time tank battle would be fought , then when ATGM came they said this is end of tank era , then with Airpower same thing , But you still need tanks , you still need infantry to fight a war

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Nov 2015 15:42

^^^
MBTs will be around but not in quantities of the past era. Many more options available now.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 29 Nov 2015 15:54

Tanks are integral part of defense and forward moving columns. I cant imagine ground battles without tanks. Raids yes, but battles and holding ground without tanks, NO.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Nov 2015 16:10

I doubt if tanks are going anywhere anytime soon. But thinking like Doval - what type of power need we develop in the next decade. He says that the Chinese border will not feature tanks and the Pakis are unlikely to come in with a tank attack - so the priority will be to develop a formidable missile capacity with reach into Eastern China. Doval was responding to a specific Q about China and was not talking about all wars of future.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Nov 2015 16:24

His role is totally different than that of a military planner. So his thinking too is different.

He was very clear why the tank is low or no priority. Economics. If Pakistan can hit Indian economic assets and cause more damage than winning (or losing) a tank battle, then the tank becomes obsolete. Why invest in it?

The military planner has a much narrower role or task and also visibility. This person is never exposed to the ideas floated around that AD is exposed to either. So, he may still request tanks, but for a totally different reason/s.

Two totally different thoughts. Cannot be mixed. Both right in their own ways.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Nov 2015 16:33

abhijitm wrote:Tanks are integral part of defense and forward moving columns. I cant imagine ground battles without tanks. Raids yes, but battles and holding ground without tanks, NO.

There is a lot to discussed on this topic.

What is "holding ground", especially in modern terms. Is Dawood "holding ground" in Mumbai? Pakistan can play games through Dawood, so where does this start and end?

Is China "holding ground" with string of pearls?

While a military planner may be impacted by such questions, a person like AD has a totally different view and thus a response or solution.

But, he could be wrong, with associated impact.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 29 Nov 2015 17:32

Shivji, he did not say that Pakis will not come with tanks. What he said that against Pakistan we will not need tanks so mostly hinting at air power and missiles. May be there is a small misunderstanding in his part and not going ahead with tank research will be a big mistake. If not for ourself we can export it worldwide and not only that what about if we are fighting some other country other than Pakistan and China? Hope these also will be looked into and where there is a need for higher protection and firepower, tanks will always be needed to support the infantry/IFV. Priority..yes may not be needing more Russian tanks..but we must continue with the Arjun tanks..even if it means production of 100 tanks per year for the next 10 years or so. If there is some technology that's in our hands that can compensate for what tanks used to do, then well and good.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 29 Nov 2015 22:05

I think we are having difficulty in visualizing what the war of the future will look like how we will need to deter/win it. IMHO, from my armchair, the IA's plan of inducting x10,000s of new troops or the IAF's plan of adding 100's of ridiculously expensive fighters to counter China shows a very 'boxed-in' thinking.

Re the role of the tank, I think it been decades since the quality of small arms decided the outcome of battles, May be tanks have also reached the same dead end.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Nov 2015 23:40

* The talk in that video took place in 2012-13 (1:35 min or so)
* First point in his talk: National Comprehensive Power of China is 3x of India and unless China falters India will not catch up for at least 50 years
* China is converting her eco to mil MUCH faster than "we had expected"
* The US being warned by China about sending USS Wash to SCS and the trip of a US Admiral to SK and then straight to India (again, the key is 2012-13)
* Then comes the missiles being able to hit deep within China as a deterrent to AP and what has Pakistan got for India to hit, but Pakistan has got plenty to hit within India. It is in this context he says that tanks have seen their better days.

BUT, this talk took place BEFORE he joined Modi's gov.

So, who knows what he thinks today.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Nov 2015 23:56

abhik wrote:I think we are having difficulty in visualizing what the war of the future will look like how we will need to deter/win it. IMHO, from my armchair, the IA's plan of inducting x10,000s of new troops or the IAF's plan of adding 100's of ridiculously expensive fighters to counter China shows a very 'boxed-in' thinking.

Re the role of the tank, I think it been decades since the quality of small arms decided the outcome of battles, May be tanks have also reached the same dead end.

Think of battleships. It's not that large warships such as destroyers or cruisers (Ticonderoga class for now) have disappeared but the battleships have. Somebody figured out that with cruise missiles, you can pack the same or greater firepower into small/different platforms.

Tanks may not have reached a dead end everywhere. But for the life of me, I can't figure out any reasonable scenario in the Indian context that they would be used en mass.

Elsewhere on BRF there was talk of heavy bombers (TU-22M3) and what they can do by delivering 5x the firepower of a SU30 with brahmos. The US might have use for NG bombers to subdue/pulverize Ethiopia but India has no such use for them. Again, the PRC AD will make mincemeat of them and we don't need them for Pakistan. I am assuming we have no intention of pulverizing Ethiopia. For us, heavy bombers are also a dead-end.

What we have not done yet is game the realistic conflict scenarios with PRC and Pakistan. It is only then we will get over this symmetry: light/medium/heavy; MBTs; bombers etc. Until then we will always be fighting WWII.

If the Pakis do another 1965 with Al Khalids, a few Jags with CBU-105s will obliterate them.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2015 01:06

more powerful, less weight MBT Arjun can't be ruled out. Though I'd keep open arms on A2G weapon systems, especially brimstones and extended range nags.. it is important to advance Arjun. Let us not lose focus.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 30 Nov 2015 07:05

^The invincible pigeon is the sort of former-intelligence fellow, who believes in the Sun-Tzu maxim of winning wars without fighting them. I see his mentioning of nuclear missiles in this context. But he himself mentions how such deterrents do not work well for porkistan (maybe he means to put pressure on China to restrain porkistan?).

As for the efficacy of tanks. They have been predicting its demise ever since the 1950s if not earlier. It is still here and it is here to stay. Basically, you need infantry on ground to take control of an area (as opposed to destroying enemy hardware and personnel). The only thing that can help the infantry, fighting side-by-side (as opposed to non-persistent visitors like CAS) is Armor. The recent actions in relatively low-intensity conflicts like in Iraq (after "Mission accomplished"), Afghanistan, Ukraine and currently in Syria has demonstrated how vital tanks are. Despite their increased vulnerability and decreased utility in an urban setting, they have been much in demand and have been used extensively, even by the terrorists (the so called 4th-gen warriors) when they could get their hands on them. Given how even those who should value mobility and a light footprint over firepower feels the need to use them, who are actually these mythical armed forces that will do without them?

Tank defenses and anti-tank weapons are always in a process of evolution. At this present time, after years of being dominated by the threat of anti-tank missiles, tanks are finally regaining their edge through active defenses. The story was that weapons were getting too powerful for traditional armor to cope with, resulting in the armor necessary being so thick that it would be impractical on anything mobile. But now the story has changed. With active defenses, the missiles and their warheads (with multiple tandem charges, decoy charges, etc.) will need to get bigger and bigger, rendering them too heavy to be used by infantry. In the end, the most effective missiles used against tanks might end up being fired by other tanks.

With all this in mind and given the lessons being taught by wars raging on today, it would be highly unwise to predict the demise of the tank on the current battlefield.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Nov 2015 08:15

for ground troops tanks and bmps are vital. but then, I like the diversionary tactics (political) [just me] if we have to get focus on Arjun, we have to take the focus away from tanks and onto Airborne solutions temporarily and strengthen that.. while at it, get the Arjun packs robust and get IA back on track with complete sanity that 'made in india' tag is fantastic and better than firang walas.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Nov 2015 08:40

Tanks are like the toolkit kit one might keep in one's car. You may never use it but in case it is needed it can be a life saver. They won't go away.

But it is risky to take the words of a strategic thinker like Doval and extrapolate them too far. Pakistan is afraid of a tank attack to occupy territory in Pakistan - so they have promised to use nukes. If Doval says we are not likely to use tanks the Pakis will start wondering what we might use. (So might we but that is a different issue) - it just takes the wind out of Pakis Tac Nuke sails.

The other point to recall is that Punjab and Pakjab are separated by waterways and bunds that are designed to impede tank attacks. Kashmir terrain is mostly mountainous that that more or less precludes massed tank attacks. Looking at two wars - 1965 and 71 - tank battles occurred in the Chhamb region in both instances. This is where Pakis have tried to break through and cut off Jammu. Further south of that we have the Chawinda area where India fought its tank battles inside Pakistan.

Asal Uttar in Punjab was a disaster for Pakis as tanks got bogged down in slush and trapped in a turkey shoot. They did not try a repeat in 1971

So the main tank country is Rajasthan - where Longewala occurred in 1971. Would India try a tank attack in Rajastha - going into Sindh. Possibly. This option remains open. But if terrorism is coming from Pakjab and PoK India may want to hit something in that region and breaking into Sindh would IMO be a secondary option. I may be wrong here

Further South Pakis have in 1965 intruded into the Rann of Kutch in Gujarat using tanks. I doubt if their logistics lines wil allow that, besides in 1965 India did not have nearby air bases. We do now.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Nov 2015 09:21

I think you also need tanks to protect your infantry along with APC etc to provide mobile fire power and to occupy the land , these days tanks are also designed for urban combat etc , Atleast in Indo-Pak context tanks are here to stay for many decades to come and would spearhead any attack or counter-attack

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Nov 2015 09:37

So the main tank country is Rajasthan - where Longewala occurred in 1971. Would India try a tank attack in Rajastha - going into Sindh. Possibly. This option remains open. But if terrorism is coming from Pakjab and PoK India may want to hit something in that region and breaking into Sindh would IMO be a secondary option. I may be wrong here

Just look at the map of Rajasthan, especially the Jaisalmer bulge going deep into Pakistan and you know that the IA holds all the offensive cards for a strike in that along multiple axis lines, either towards northwest from there, or straight west or southwest.

Parkland knows that in Punjab and Kashmir it will be slogging war on fixed defensive lines. If an IA tank division is loaded on flat cars and headed out to Rajasthan, expect alarm bells to ring in all major world capitals, including of course in Duplee City.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 30 Nov 2015 11:09

One more point to support Doval: Tanks are deployed in Rajasthan/Punjab for the most part. The border here is IB hence land captured has to be returned to Paklland sometime. This is what happened in 1971.

As opposed to this most land accretion to India happened in Kargil sector where few companies of local militias captured the heights. The benefits for India were max ROI in this area. Hence India would be advised to invest more on Helicopters and raise a air assault divison to go towards Skardu and capture more territory in the Northern areas. These units if deployed in Ladakh area can be used to keep China off balance in Aksai Chin or Shaksgam valley etc

I believe this was the objective of Op Brasstacks in 87, Karnad has asked for Disbandment of some Armoured units and raise air mobile assets...and looks like Doval does not want Tanks either.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 30 Nov 2015 11:11

I think we should invest in tanks as much as possible to capture as much land as we can. We should aim at capturing and holding Lahore atleast. Is Arjun not effective in Punjab?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Nov 2015 11:30

My mango view is that we need to induct some 50 plus Arjuns a year just to replace the retiring Tanks of old T versions. That will ensure that our edge in armour is maintained. We may have to hold a significant area of paki land to ensure we have a big bargaining chip.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Nov 2015 13:49

NRao wrote:* The talk in that video took place in 2012-13 (1:35 min or so)
* First point in his talk: National Comprehensive Power of China is 3x of India and unless China falters India will not catch up for at least 50 years
* China is converting her eco to mil MUCH faster than "we had expected"
* The US being warned by China about sending USS Wash to SCS and the trip of a US Admiral to SK and then straight to India (again, the key is 2012-13)
* Then comes the missiles being able to hit deep within China as a deterrent to AP and what has Pakistan got for India to hit, but Pakistan has got plenty to hit within India. It is in this context he says that tanks have seen their better days.

BUT, this talk took place BEFORE he joined Modi's gov.

So, who knows what he thinks today.

As DIB he gives accurate information on the thought process of GOI on Pak-US , China and other issues.

Probably the best NSA we have since JN Dixit.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 30 Nov 2015 21:33

The reason we need tanks is to apply firepower at a point of maximum enemy weakness. Only a vehicle with tracks can go to such places and continue without any existing roads or similar infrastructure. There is a second reason we need tanks in the Indian scenario and that is survivability against tactical nukes. A tank brigade might be able to absorb a couple of tactical nukes, a lorry brigade will be wiped out if in the open and combat ineffective if dug in. The third reason is to set up combat positions inside the nearest Pak cities/towns. The Paks will hesitate to nuke their own cities.

The safest place to be in an Indo-Pak war scenario is inside a tank that is parked in Anarkali bazar in Lahore.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 30 Nov 2015 21:50

^^^ Best way to hit enemy weakness in places without roads is by air using standoff weapons. Same goes for using tanks as safe havens in case of tactical nukes. You're better off using cruise missiles.

Tanks need infantry to protect them which need BMPs to carry them which need.....

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 30 Nov 2015 21:59

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^ Best way to hit enemy weakness in places without roads is by air using standoff weapons. Same goes for using tanks as safe havens in case of tactical nukes. You're better off using cruise missiles.

Tanks need infantry to protect them which need BMPs to carry them which need.....

If you don't have infantry or tanks or armored vehicles, then you are just going to hit the other guy with missiles and jets and destroy him(at the most). But, you are not going to 'win' anything. You are not going to hold anything in your control even if you win the war. And if you don't win the war, then the enemy is going to get hold of the land, people, and other resources to hold or negotiate. This is a very defensive mindset of creating a deterrent for the enemy at the most. But, as Doval has said a desperate enemy could not care for any loses on their side.

Therefore, you need good enough infantry and proper logistics to support and supply it so that they can hold the land. Its best not to lose focus of the fundamentals.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 30 Nov 2015 22:03

So since tanks are obsolete , we will not be buying additional tincans??

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Dec 2015 04:27

^^^

Tincans are not "tanks" ... so it's ok to continue to buy more

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Dec 2015 05:18

Sept 15, 2015:

http://idrw.org/why-t-90ms-tagil-is-not ... dian-army/

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Dec 2015 16:14

Tanks are not going to go the way of the dinosaurs,but they have to change in character. Smaller 3/2 man crews,more automation,lesser weight,newer guns,missiles and defensive suites,plus armour. The cost of a modern MBT has to also be affordable. Armour,infantry,arty,MBRLs, and attack helos have to act in conjunction ,with their own integral gun/missile anti-air systems. That's leaving aside call on close-air support from the air force.It's going to be the effective delivery of the "sum of all parts" and the human factor that will win the day.Great individual heroism won the day as we saw in '65. In the era of ISR,long-loiter UCAVs and PGMs, IT on the battlefield is becoming a game-changer. However,as we're seeing in the ME/Levant,ultimately it is who holds the ground that matters. You can't do without grunts.This is where India and China score over the rest of the world.China is increasing its UN peacekeeping numbers esp. in Africa.

In the light of these rapid changes,Arjun too has to evolve.While there is definitely room for a decent run of several hundreds of A-2s,post 2020,we will definitely see changes in armour design as we've seen with the Ru Armata series,families of AVs with greater commonality of chassis systems,weaponry,etc.,to be cost-effective as prices of key eqpt. skyrocket.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 02 Dec 2015 16:41

One area that can improve a lot may be active defense systems. We may see a serious chanllenge to man portable anti tank missiles and also to RPGs. It would be better we start developing one asap. Of course we can always import it from Russia along with Armata.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 02 Dec 2015 16:56

Philip wrote:......lesser weight....... The cost of a modern MBT has to also be affordable.

Just like the new Russian tank eh? All lighter and cheaper?

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 04 Dec 2015 07:23

Arun Menon wrote:
Philip wrote:......lesser weight....... The cost of a modern MBT has to also be affordable.
Just like the new Russian tank eh? All lighter and cheaper?

That is because they're cylindrical structures made of tin, to keep them light and cheap.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 04 Dec 2015 08:01

^Hmm, that makes sense.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Dec 2015 16:00

Guys,the real tincans are being used by the Soothi army in the Yemen. 30+ have reportedly been recently knocked out by the Houthis. The Soothi's MBTs seem to be taking a hammering from some pretty legacy Soviet era ATGMs licence built by the Iranians!

Seriously,it appears that both the Yanquis and Soviets have been exporting an inferior version of their MBTs both in the past and present.I doubt whether our T-90s built at home are of inferior stock as usually,India has always been given a superior std. of milware from Russia than what was supplied to most other nations. One is sure that we've tested the same.Some reports say that the depleted uranium armour was not on the Soothi M=1s.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/houthi ... 1726478735

Houthi Rebels Destroy M1 Abrams Tanks With Basic Iranian Guided Missiles
Tyler Rogoway
Houthi Rebels Destroy M1 Abrams Tanks With Basic Iranian Guided Missiles

The video below shows what are said to be Houthi rebels in Yemen using anti-tank guided missiles to destroy American-made, Saudi Arabian-owned and operated Abrams M1 main battle tanks. The M1 is world renowned as one of, if not the finest main battle tanks in service, yet this video is clear reminder of how vulnerable even they can be to rudimentary anti-tank guided missiles.

This video is graphic in nature and shows a real-world battlefield engagement that could have resulted in loss of life. Viewer discretion is advised.

The missile system being used in the video appears to be a Tosun anti-tank guided missile (ATGM), which is an indigenously produced Iranian version of the prevalent Russian-built 9M113 Konkurs ATGM. These missiles are of a semi-automatic command line of sight variety, with flight-path information being updated in real time via a thin trailing wire attached to the launcher.

The 32 pound missile has a range of about two and a half miles and has a high-explosive anti-tank warhead weighing in at six pounds. Generally speaking, the Konkurs ATGM and its clones are considered the little cousin to the also popular Kornet ATGM.

The Abrams is an amazing machine, but it cannot bend the laws of physics, and if hit in the right area, it can be destroyed even by these relatively primitive and light ATGMs. New passive defensive upgrades to the Abrams, including reactive armor, could help with its suvivability against ATGMs, but still even these upgrades are not 360 degree total protection. Only active defensive systems, such as Israel’s Trophy system offer a high-degree of protection against incoming missiles and rockets from virtually all vectors of attack. Currently, this system, or one like it, is not installed on the Abrams family of tanks but could be in the future.

It is unclear exactly what version of the Abrams tank the two shown in the video are. By now the entire Saudi Abrams force, equaling about 440 units, are thought to have been upgraded to M1A2 standard. Further upgrades to the M1A2S configuration, similar to the American SEP (system enhancement package), which includes enhanced depleted uranium armor and updated displays and optics, continue to this day, although it is unclear how much of Saudi’s Abrams fleet have been brought up to this elite standard. Additionally, it is never perfectly clear exactly what level of armor is installed when it comes export versions of the Abrams, with many countries receiving versions without depleted uranium panels on the front of the turret.
*(So do the Yanquis have "tincan export versions for their allies?)

There has been some debate as to Saudi Arabia’s extremely well-equipped forces’ abilities on the battlefield during the recent war in Yemen, and even in these videos, the tanks are sitting out in the open with their more vulnerable sides oriented towards the threat. A tank’s armor is strongest in the front and traditionally they will sit oriented looking out when idle on hills or ridge-lines, and will do so usually in groups so that some units can be constantly scanning for potential threats in every direction. Then again, this Houthi ATGM crew may just have been highly skilled or lucky when it comes to sneaking within range of such a deadly and capable weapon system.

Maybe some of our tanker readers will chime in and comment on what they see in these videos when it comes to tactics and standard practices.

While we have plenty of reports of Soothi M-1 losses,here are a few more reports about Iraqi M-1 losses too.
Iraqi Abrams losses revealed
Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraq ... s-revealed
20 June 2014

The armour on five of Iraq's M1A1 Abrams tanks was penetrated by anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and six helicopters were shot down between 1 January and the end of May, The New York Times quoted an unnamed US official as saying on 13 June.

The official said 28 Iraqi Army Abrams had been damaged in fighting with militants, five of them suffering full armour penetration when hit by ATGMs. The United States supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq between 2010 and 2012. While they have new equipment to improve situational awareness, they do not have the depleted uranium amour package that increases protection over the tank's frontal arc.

The penetration of a tank's armour by a shaped-charge warhead increases the likelihood of crew casualties, but does not necessarily result in the destruction of the vehicle, especially if it has a dedicated ammunition compartment, as in the case of the Abrams.

However, the US official said the Iraqi Army has problems maintaining its Abrams, suggesting it will struggle to get damaged tanks back into service.

At least one video has emerged showing an Abrams 'brew up' after being hit by an ATGM during fighting this year in the western province of Al-Anbar. Militants operating in Al-Anbar have also released images of numerous attacks on other Abrams tanks, including ones involving a 9K11 Kornet ATGM, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and a M70 Osa rocket launcher. The latter is a Yugoslavian weapon that has been widely used by insurgents in neighbouring Syria, but is rarely seen in Iraq.

The damage inflicted on the tanks has been difficult to assess from the images. These mostly seem to be stills from unreleased videos and tend to show spectacular explosions, but not the state of the vehicles after the attacks.

Only one sequence of images posted on a pro-Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) Twitter account on 6 June appears to show an Abrams actually being destroyed. A militant is seen placing a charge on the tank and an object is also thrown into an open turret hatch. Flames are then seen coming out of the hatches. The fate of the crew is unclear.

Another sequence posted on 28 May purportedly shows the same militant placing a charge on or in the turret of another Abrams in a hull-down position. While the extent of the damage caused by the resulting explosion is unclear, the fact that militants are repeatedly getting close to the tanks suggests the vehicles lack adequate infantry support.

Other types of armoured vehicle in service with the Iraqi Army appear to have suffered higher attrition rates than the Abrams. Militants have released many images showing destroyed or captured Humvees, M113 armoured personnel carriers (APCs), and mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 08 Dec 2015 03:42

Phillip

This is official declared policy.
M1 exports will not have Uranium depleted armour.

Buyers are aware from day 1

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 08 Dec 2015 05:47

Arun Menon wrote:
Philip wrote:......lesser weight....... The cost of a modern MBT has to also be affordable.
Just like the new Russian tank eh? All lighter and cheaper?
That is because they're cylindrical structures made of tin, to keep them light and cheap.

And also so that they can be towed both into and away from the battle. Saves from the cost of having an engine!! Makes the tin can light and cheap!!

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 08 Dec 2015 07:36

Vivek K wrote:And also so that they can be towed both into and away from the battle. Saves from the cost of having an engine!! Makes the tin can light and cheap!!

Why duplicate mobility options that already exist? Recovery vehicles are anyway needed and available. This way they can swap out their engines in mere minutes instead of the day or more they usually take.