Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 13 Mar 2016 08:33

reminds me of a chalak munna with managerial backing who rises high in org, vs the hard working apolitical individual contributor who has no backing from the whos-who.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 13 Mar 2016 20:14

Khalsa wrote:

Now to counter myself I do know the school has a squadron of Arjun and they were so reluctant to pick it up.


Once an equipment is inducted, the ACC&S has a mandate to start training Officers and Men on the new equipment. (this is for all the regts. who have that equipment type). Such a training can only be provided once they have the equipment with them self.

- If Men and Officers come for training, they are provided that on the equipment they operate.
- 1st set of Instructors & SOP's come from the regts. who got converted initially.

ACC&S is a training establishment and by mandate they need to cater to active equipment profile, irrelevant of quantities.

Men and Officers doing higher courses at ACC&S get exposed to R&D initiatives of DRDO quite handsomely. VRDE is near to ACC&S and regular visits, demos & lectures are conducted for guess every training batch. Higher the course more exposer one gets.

Arjuns were available to ACC&S even before induction.

IA supports the weapons it operates/ are -given and when asked for gives factual and accurate feedback. Their mandate is not to vote in favor or not-in-favor of any particular equipment.

Lots of us here dont even understand that, once an equipment is inducted and it becomes us-serviceable the accountability is with the CO of that regt. and not with anyone else. (dont take too many meanings out of this statement)

Decisions to induct a new weapon are made at MOD level, and not at squarden -> Regt ->Brigade -> Division -> Corps ->Army Command (99.9999% of active army)

Its the 0.0001% of people who actually decide. (And most of them are politicians and babus)

Well the IAF wants 126 Rafale from more that couple of yrs and we know the story!!!

Its the one who pays for the equipment/ goods/ services decides!!!

The decision making in India is Babu heavy IA/IAF/IN have negligible say in the process.

my personal thought - we need parrikar kind of people to serve like 10 yrs of DM tenure to turn things around.
Last edited by d_berwal on 13 Mar 2016 20:50, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 13 Mar 2016 20:41

There was a media report today of official stats on how little the % of "indigenous" weapon systems really are.The list of big tkt items was given.Tejas for ex. radar,engine,weaponry,MB ejection seat,etc., firang.Only the composite shell and some avionics.BMos missile.65% firang. And so on and so forth with other systems including Arjun,LRSAM,etc.Claims of development of "indigenous" systems are in fact in many cases dubious with so much of the system imported.

The decision for the FICV to be "Indian" is v.laudable,but 6 years before it enters production says Tatas? Depressing.If you go by current "IST" (Indian Strategic Time) schedules,at that rate it will take the tenure of at least 3-4 chiefs to formulate a requirement,shortlist contenders,evaluate the competing systems,negotiate with OEMs,take a final decision and finally induct the system after at least 10+ years! So what does the chief in the seat do with his mounting requirements,ancient weaponry,low ammo stocks,do?

Some interesting info on Ru MBTs in the Syrian conflict.

Main threats to Russia’s T-90 in Syria
8 March 2016 Viktor Murakhovsky, Gazeta.ru
Viktor Murakhovsky, Editor-in-chief of the Arsenal Otechestva magazine, weapons expert and former tank driver discloses what is being fired at tanks in Syria, who is supplying these weapons and what the new Russian tanks' strengths and weaknesses are.

In general, it is the 1992 T-90 tanks that are fighting in Syria, but the 2004 T-90A tanks are also present. Source:EPA / Vostock-photo

A video posted by Syrian militants showing a TOW missile hitting a Russian-made T-90 tank without destroying it has been gaining popularity on the internet. So how are Russian-made tanks on the field in Syria coping with the threat posed by militant groups?

Judging by the videos posted online, the impression one gets is that anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) are being used against the Syrian government army’s tanks, as well as the militants' tanks. The militants do not have many tanks, but nevertheless they appear on the battlefield.

Many of the tanks in operation in Syria are being destroyed in urban battles by regular rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

Syrian anti-tank weapons

The variety of ATGMs and RPGs used in Syria is huge. There are the Soviet-produced Fagot and Konkurs models and the more modern Kornet units that are used by government forces. The American TOW-2As, which have been supplied to the “moderate” opposition, are also given by Turkey and even Qatar to the Islamic groups they control.

There are also Chinese and Iranian ATGMs and RPGs, which are used by militants and government forces, as well as by the Kurds. During the civil war, each side seized the weapons of the enemy, including anti-tank artillery.

The American TOWs have certainly become the most dangerous counter for Syrian tanks. The modern TOW-2A modification, supplied to many countries, is almost always used.

It was a TOW-2A that destroyed a damaged Russian Mi-8 helicopter as it was on the ground rescuing the pilot of the Su-24 plane shot down by the Turkish air force on November 24. The missile can be fired at any target moving at a low lateral speed, including low-flying helicopters and any ground equipment.

The result of being hit on the side or in the rear by such a missile is inevitable: No tank in the world can withstand the force of a modern ATGM.

How was the Russian T-90 in the video damaged?

What is actually seen on the online video of the T-90 being hit? We see a 1992 T-90 tank with a cast tower. Its production year is apparent because it has the Shtora opto-electronic suppression system (projectors visible on both sides of the cannon) and by the shape of the gunner's hatch. The tank is equipped with the Contact-5 dynamic defence system and is covered with composite armour protection with reflecting plates. We see that as the left "jaw" was hit by the TOW-2A missile the dynamic defence was activated and it appears that the main armour was not penetrated.

The tank crew was neglectful of responsibilities during battle: The hatches were open and the Shtora system was turned off. As a result of the explosion of the 6 kg warhead, it was natural that the shock wave leaked into the open hatch and the shell-shocked gunner jumped out of the tank.

Soviet and Russian tanks were constructed to withstand most anti-tank weapons from any azimuth, more or less 30 degrees from the machine's axis.

A lone tank is an easy target for a missile

The tactics of the crew leave much to be desired. Tanks must be used as part of a subdivision and in close interaction with the infantry. A lone tank, especially one that is not moving, is an easy target for a missile.

The action took place in the Sheikh-Akil settlement northwest of Aleppo, where the "Mountain Falcons of Zawiya" group, part of the 5th corps of the Free Syrian Army, is fighting. It was a reconnaissance battle conducted by the Hazaras and Afghan Shiites, who tried to occupy Sheikh-Akil but were forced to retreat.

The videos taken of the settlement on that day do not show the damaged T-90 tank. There is footage, however, of militants retreating with their equipment, which means that either the tank had left on its own or was abandoned. I believe that the tank maintained its mobility and the crew survived.

Perhaps the tank's sights were damaged. In general, it is the 1992 T-90 tanks that are fighting in Syria, but the 2004 T-90A tanks are also present.

There will be no breakthrough in the war because of the new technology, such as the T-90 or the Su-35. But the effectiveness of ground combat operations can significantly increase if the tanks are used correctly: in close interaction with the infantry, artillery and aviation, and directed towards the concentration of the main efforts, not alone but en masse.

First published in Russian in Gazeta.ru
Last edited by Philip on 13 Mar 2016 20:51, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 13 Mar 2016 20:46

What an amazing amount of BS in the above. Apart from a handful of big ticket items which are limited by low orders, or are JVs most local programs have a creditable amount of indigenous content. Yet we have disinformation like the above. Pathetic.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 13 Mar 2016 20:58

Karan,pl read media reports,supposedly given to parliament.If you have contra info concerning the systems mentioned pl. post them .Yes,if true it is pathetic!

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 13 Mar 2016 20:59

Karan M wrote:What an amazing amount of BS in the above. Apart from a handful of big ticket items which are limited by low orders, or are JVs most local programs have a creditable amount of indigenous content. Yet we have disinformation like the above. Pathetic.


I agree that its disinformation but as a citizen i dont want the actual numbers to be out. Only my enemy's are interested in actual nos.

% of "indigenous" weapon systems compared to what is not given.

e.g ( one equipment is made up of 10 parts and 7 are made in India, so 70% indigenous or the 3 parts imported are 70% of cost so 30% indigenous or 3 parts imported are 10% of cost so 90% indigenous or 3 parts imported are 50% of cost so 50% indigenous or we make 10 parts in india but raw material is imported ???) the statistics can be played around with like crazy!!!

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_24684 » 14 Mar 2016 07:35

.
aww.. M 113 APC in IA 63rd Calvary

Image

DPR ‏@SpokespersonMoD
Vintage tanks and armoured cars paraded at 63 Cavalry Diamond Jubilee. 2/2

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 14 Mar 2016 07:47

d_berwal wrote:
Karan M wrote:What an amazing amount of BS in the above. Apart from a handful of big ticket items which are limited by low orders, or are JVs most local programs have a creditable amount of indigenous content. Yet we have disinformation like the above. Pathetic.


I agree that its disinformation but as a citizen i dont want the actual numbers to be out. Only my enemy's are interested in actual nos.

% of "indigenous" weapon systems compared to what is not given.

e.g ( one equipment is made up of 10 parts and 7 are made in India, so 70% indigenous or the 3 parts imported are 70% of cost so 30% indigenous or 3 parts imported are 10% of cost so 90% indigenous or 3 parts imported are 50% of cost so 50% indigenous or we make 10 parts in india but raw material is imported ???) the statistics can be played around with like crazy!!!


True.

The whole % import in indigenous products needs to be broken out into the following seven for better clarity:
  1. % import by parts count
  2. % import by cost
  3. % import by value-added (this one will be subjective)
  4. % import targeted for indigenization (what will continue to remain as import vs what's the end goal % of indigenization)
  5. % import in comparable international products (i.e. LCA-Gripen or Arjun-Markava etc)
  6. % import by raw materials
  7. % import by Tier-1, Tier-2, Tier-3 level manufacturer parts/components

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 14 Mar 2016 22:38

hang on how did we get hold of a M113 APC ?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17051
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rahul M » 14 Mar 2016 22:49

65, 71 ??

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3478
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya G » 14 Mar 2016 23:30

Congo? It has "ONU" markings

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2016 00:01

Philip wrote:Karan,pl read media reports,supposedly given to parliament.If you have contra info concerning the systems mentioned pl. post them .


The information is posted in the R&D thread, and clearly shows that bar a handful of Jvs and a couple of very complex platforms, the indigenous content in most systems is a high amount. Your bias is not just stark, its idiotic.


Yes,if true it is pathetic!


It is your interpretation which is pathetic.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 15 Mar 2016 00:04

d_berwal wrote:I agree that its disinformation but as a citizen i dont want the actual numbers to be out. Only my enemy's are interested in actual nos.


There is a strategic cost of declaring indigenization achievements as the opponent can clearly target it. But if one doesn't, then jokers will appear to attack local programs whilst touting imports.

% of "indigenous" weapon systems compared to what is not given.

e.g ( one equipment is made up of 10 parts and 7 are made in India, so 70% indigenous or the 3 parts imported are 70% of cost so 30% indigenous or 3 parts imported are 10% of cost so 90% indigenous or 3 parts imported are 50% of cost so 50% indigenous or we make 10 parts in india but raw material is imported ???) the statistics can be played around with like crazy!!!


Which is why it bears merit on analyzing program by program. Imported parts and LRUs are often more expensive than local ones so even a handful of imported parts skews the import by cost metric and hence DRDO et al track indigenization by LRU, which takes into account local design.

member_24684
BRFite
Posts: 197
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_24684 » 15 Mar 2016 07:20

Rahul M wrote:65, 71 ??


must be captured from east Pakistan, 63 cavalry played big role

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 15 Mar 2016 07:24

Aditya, Rahul

saw the same post on facebook (post by Tarmak 007).
And the post is bloody confusing....

But the showstopper of the event was the American M-113 Bradley which caught every eye as this equipment steered across the parade ground being first of its kind to do so on the Indian soil. Astonishingly the regiment was also the first to use this equipment before the Americans inducted it in their inventory of armour.

1.Being the first of its kind to do it on Indian Soil...ummmm okay where the hell was it before today ?
2. Astonishingly the regiment was also the first to use this equipment before the Americans inducted it in their inventory of armour -- ummm again what de hell
use it before induct it tells me there is a story in here.

Did this regiment use as part of the United Nation Deployment ... if so how can united Nations source it before the Amreekans inducted it because Amreekans made it.

Someone help me out...
the only explanation i can come up with is... they get some left overs from UN missions or captured it in 71 or so.

This one is my little riddle of the day

[url]https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.887213944709265.1073742197.362679130496085&type=3
[/url]

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Mar 2016 10:35

That is what the DM himself gave! I have the press reports elsewhere ,will post shortly.So if anything is ludicrous,it is your ludicrous attempts to personalise the report and info. given by the govt. itself.Sad.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 15 Mar 2016 10:38

Image

From the same series of pics about 63rd Armored Regiment. Interesting, no?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 15 Mar 2016 11:36

Philip wrote:That is what the DM himself gave! I have the press reports elsewhere ,will post shortly.So if anything is ludicrous,it is your ludicrous attempts to personalise the report and info. given by the govt. itself.Sad.



lol

oh stop it. :D
Time for you to be sad. Putin is pulling out of Syria.
ha ha

Hey phillip what does DM and DDM stand for ? I never got versed with these acros.
Thanks P

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Mar 2016 11:54

DM-Defence Minister.Putin is smart. :rotfl: He's brought the parties to the talking table,especially the US now working to an extent with Russia,eased the conflict on the ground and shored up Assad demonstrating Russia standing by its allies and Russia's mil prowess.Cashing in some of his chips. It will also be welcomed at home as no one wants along costly war both in roubles and lives.
Read more in the Levant td.

malushahi
BRFite
Posts: 351
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 03:08
Location: South of Berkshires

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby malushahi » 15 Mar 2016 18:29

rohitvats wrote:From the same series of pics about 63rd Armored Regiment. Interesting, no?

+1

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8309
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 16 Mar 2016 06:29

Looks like they are geared towards fighting in snow.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby tsarkar » 16 Mar 2016 13:26

^^

63rd Cavalry provided the armoured component for IA contingent in Congo. The ONU refers to Organisation des Nations Unies in French widely used in the former Belgian colony.

The regiment has the unique distinction of being re-armed on foreign shores. It was equipped with Daimler cars there.

The M113 too came from there, and its correct that it saw action in 1961 before US M113 saw action in South Vietnam in 1962.

Only the Indian and Irish armies fought against the Belgian colonists & mercenaries allied with Katangese rebels. Captain Gurbachan Singh Salaria won PVC there.

How they acquired the M113 is a mystery, though Congo was a mess with heavy US & USSR involvement.

Added Later - I got the following information. These M113 UN assets in Congo used by Sweden, Ireland and India. None of the 3 countries were M113 users.

I cross checked and got the following in Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113_armo ... el_carrier
United Nations: 6 (used in the Congo 1963–1964)


Following are Irish reference to using the M113 in Congo http://homepage.tinet.ie/~benhalligan/pic_M113.htm There are references to the Irish operating the 6 M113s.

Surprising we bought one (or more?) back. Those were UN assets rotated among deployed members. Unless India paid when UN acquired them.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vipul » 16 Mar 2016 15:43

Army invites Indian, global players for mobility and weapons upgrade of 1500 armoured vehicles.

The Indian army has invited Indian and global players for two major projects to improve the mobility and weapons package of 1500 of its BMP 2 armoured vehicles, reversing an earlier decision to nominate the government owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) for the project.

As first reported by ET, the plan to open up the project to the private sector has opened up a chance for top players like Tata and Mahindra to get a significant chunk of the work in collaboration with a foreign partner.

The Army has come out with two new Request for Information (RFI) for 1500 units of the BMP 2 fleet, one is for mobility upgrade - a new engine - and the other is for a new Anti Tank Guided Missile System (ATGM). In both cases, foreign companies participating would need to transfer technology and meet 'Make in India' requirements.

For the ATGM, the army has an initial requirement of `approximately 10,000 - 15000 ATGMs followed by annual requirement of 1500 - 3000 ATMGs'. For the mobility upgrade, the army has made it clear that global vendors responding 'should be willing to transfer critical technologies and produce the upgraded components in India'.

ET reported in December that in a major boost for the private industry, the Army reversed a decision to hand over a mega Rs 12,700 crore upgrade of its fleet of infantry combat vehicles to the public sector. The army has earlier proposed that the comprehensive up gradation of its BMP 2 armoured vehicles - 969 units are to be modernized with new fire control systems, Kornet E anti-tank missiles and third generation night vision capability - be handed over the Medhak Ordnance Factory.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 16 Mar 2016 23:46

tsarkar
Thank you Saar.
Wonderful investigative work.
Yes very cool to see they brought one back.

Wonderful regimental history and wonderfully done.
Looking at the Album.

Jai Hind

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 18 Mar 2016 14:19

Philip wrote:That is what the DM himself gave! I have the press reports elsewhere ,will post shortly.So if anything is ludicrous,it is your ludicrous attempts to personalise the report and info. given by the govt. itself.Sad.


Reports have already been posted in the R&D thread and anyone can see the reality that bar a few JVs and a few highly complex platforms, most programs have significant local components. If there is anything ludicrous, it is your non stop shilling for Russia whilst running down all Indian efforts. Yes, it is sad we have individuals like you with such pathetic attempts to constantly inject propaganda and misinformation into everything positive.

viewtopic.php?p=1990672#p1990672

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 21 Mar 2016 16:02

Border's Guardian - Bhishma Tank


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 23 Mar 2016 13:28

Picture of T-90A tank hit by Tow-2A in Syria has emerged

http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/wars_and_c ... y_v_sirii/

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 23 Mar 2016 23:28

How do they know it was TOW 2A?
Also, Shtora was not on or did not defelct missile

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28756 » 24 Mar 2016 13:28

Karan M wrote:How do they know it was TOW 2A?
Also, Shtora was not on or did not defelct missile

Lots of T 90 don't have Shtora, I don't believe the Bhisma is equipped with it.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 24 Mar 2016 15:07

Karan M wrote:How do they know it was TOW 2A?
Also, Shtora was not on or did not defelct missile


There is a video of Tow-2A fired at it . Shtora was not on else you would see something like the image

https://b-a.d-cd.net/e9e139u-960.jpg
http://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbseg/ ... mbnail.jpg

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12415
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 24 Mar 2016 15:11

You can see in the Video Shtora is definitely there but did not light up, it was either switched off or shutdown due to Malfunction,

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 24 Mar 2016 15:39

Aditya_V wrote:You can see in the Video Shtora is definitely there but did not light up, it was either switched off or shutdown due to Malfunction,


Its just a bolt from blue strike not anticipated like we see in other jihadi video , The commander and gunner copula was also open

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 28 Mar 2016 15:16


member_28911
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28911 » 28 Mar 2016 15:37

Image

Arjun Mk.1 & Mk.2 tanks at the demo track at #DefExpo.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 28 Mar 2016 15:55

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:How do they know it was TOW 2A?
Also, Shtora was not on or did not defelct missile


There is a video of Tow-2A fired at it . Shtora was not on else you would see something like the image

https://b-a.d-cd.net/e9e139u-960.jpg
http://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbseg/ ... mbnail.jpg


I am saying how do we know it was TOW2A?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 28 Mar 2016 16:32

Karan M wrote:I am saying how do we know it was TOW2A?


Most analysis mentions it is Tow-2A also the presense of 2A in Syria is known

TOW-2A vs. T-90: Detailed Analysis
https://southfront.org/tow-2a-vs-t-90-d ... -analysis/

Captured TOW 2A missiles employed in Syria
http://armamentresearch.com/captured-to ... -in-syria/

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1617
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby andy B » 29 Mar 2016 04:58



Cross posting footage of MKI and MKII Arjuns, Kestrel as well others from Def expo 2016

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 29 Mar 2016 13:02

Bloody Brilliant
I just saw and drooled over such crispy clear images of the A1 and A2.

MIGHTY MIGHTY MIGHTY

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 29 Mar 2016 14:32

Did anyone observe how smooth the hydropneumatic suspension is compared to the jerky torsion bar on the tin cans. Even the Kestrel has much better suspension than the wheeled junk from the tin can land.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Surya » 29 Mar 2016 18:12

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/excl ... 29489.html

I don't what to say anymore

The amry wanting all these things to be added but weight nto to increase?

Or DRDO expecting the army to go along with it

what the eff happens in these meetings? :eek:


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests