Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

nam · Post by **nam** » 17 Oct 2019 00:47

It brought the same issues which Arjun faced, to T72 upgrade. The heavy turret would made T72 heavier. with a really under powered engine, 4 men instead of 3, 120MM rounds instead of 125MM, new training to the crew etc.. Equal to inducting a new tank.

IA just took the safest option. Upgrade with ERA and optics!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 17 Oct 2019 05:38

Aditya_V wrote:So now we are back to medium and heavy tank concept. I feel IA should do the same keep 600 Arjuns and heavily indeginised T series

IA should buy 1500 Arjuns! Roosi-rakshas notwithstanding!

nam · Post by **nam** » 17 Oct 2019 14:23

IA will not buy lot of Arjun's in the current form. What it will definitely buy is a 3 man crewed, with autoloader and T90 engined version of Arjun.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Oct 2019 22:22

nam wrote:IA will not buy lot of Arjun's in the current form. What it will definitely buy is a 3 man crewed, with autoloader and T90 engined version of Arjun.

So.....a T-90 then?

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 17 Oct 2019 22:36

this seems like a foregone conclusion for Army...
T90 vs Arjun has been debated in the BRF "tank wars" with some folks like sanku earning permanban for this..and some earning their mod status

nam · Post by **nam** » 17 Oct 2019 23:12

nachiket wrote:
nam wrote:IA will not buy lot of Arjun's in the current form. What it will definitely buy is a 3 man crewed, with autoloader and T90 engined version of Arjun.
So.....a T-90 then?

Yes and no. If Arjun with autoloader, single piece ammo, 3 man(so smaller turret, smaller hull & smaller engine) and T90 engine is brought out, then

It is T90, becoz the major part the engine will be common, logistics simplified, no need of extra man compared to T90. And we produce T90 engine locally 100%, so it is Indian in a way.

It will not be T90, becoz single piece ammo, so no restriction like T90 due to 2 piece ammo; better fire on the move due to hydropnuematics; would resolve all other issues T-series are infamous for.

With such a design, as it will be similar to T90 in weight, it will fulfill IA's weight bugbear.

There cannot be a 4 man crewed under 50 ton tank. Period. What IA wants is Indian T90 without the problems of T90...oh well.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Oct 2019 00:37

nam wrote: Yes and no. If Arjun with autoloader, single piece ammo, 3 man(so smaller turret, smaller hull & smaller engine) and T90 engine is brought out, then

New turret, autoloader, new hull and engine means an entirely new tank. Not an Arjun anymore.

hgupta · Post by **hgupta** » 18 Oct 2019 00:58

Avinandan wrote:
ramana wrote: I think DRDO had come up with a Arjun turret on a T 72 chassis
Sadly "Tank-Ex" was rejected by IA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_EX.
It looked good on paper, perhaps the chassis could not bear the overall load.

The chassis shook when the gun fired. After a couple shots, all signs pointed to that the chassis would be close to stress failure. Not a good sign.

nam · Post by **nam** » 18 Oct 2019 01:05

nachiket wrote:
nam wrote: Yes and no. If Arjun with autoloader, single piece ammo, 3 man(so smaller turret, smaller hull & smaller engine) and T90 engine is brought out, then
New turret, autoloader, new hull and engine means an entirely new tank. Not an Arjun anymore.

Yes it is. Which is why Arjun in the current form is fundamentally a wild goose chase. The only silver lining is IA's insistence on weight is driving innovation in DRDO for composites and weight reduced parts for land systems!

We should either move towards a 3 crew (maned or unmanned turret) Indian FRCV or rectify T90 of it's issues & make it more Indian.

To be frank, T90 has Indian ERA, armor, barrel, locally produced engine and most of the parts are locally produced. Other than Russian design & faults, it is actually more Indian than AK is Pakistani!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 18 Oct 2019 01:25

nam wrote:IA will not buy lot of Arjun's in the current form. What it will definitely buy is a 3 man crewed, with autoloader and T90 engined version of Arjun.

Really! So why is this coming out after 30 years of development?

hgupta · Post by **hgupta** » 18 Oct 2019 05:28

I never understood the need for a three man crew. There’s too much workload under combat conditions and maintenance to effectively function as a three man crew. A four man crew is considered ideal in most situations combat and non-combat.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Oct 2019 07:28

The 4th man is a loader, don't see how that reduces workload of the other 3 or when it's an autoloader doing the job of the fourth man.
I would rather CVRDE propose a tank with a completely unmanned turret and a 3 man crew. IMHO even a 2 man crew with duplicated controls is doable but other factors like field repairs etc mean that a larger crew still makes sense.

nam · Post by **nam** » 18 Oct 2019 16:38

Vivek K wrote:
nam wrote:IA will not buy lot of Arjun's in the current form. What it will definitely buy is a 3 man crewed, with autoloader and T90 engined version of Arjun.
Really! So why is this coming out after 30 years of development?

It did not come out now, anyone following the Arjun & T90 saga would understand what IA wanted. Nobody wanted to change Arjun's design, given the effort we put in. As I said, it is not possible to built a 4 man tank to be under 50 tonne.

Let's consider the situation in 90s. Arjun was designed as Leo2, because Pak was planning M1A1. It did not happen.

T90 was bought becoz Pak had T80. There was no other option. T80 had composite armor, which none of our T72 had. It was the least risk option, because of the commonality with T72. Training, logistics, number of crew etc.

Would we have got T90, if Pak did not buy T80? There are some theory on the internet, that Russia podded Ukraine to sell T80 to Pak, to force us to go for T90..

Arjun's design got stuck b/w the M1A1 & T80 saga. It lost priority in IA after T90 became a less riskier option.

nam · Post by **nam** » 18 Oct 2019 16:40

It is not the end of the world for our tank design. We just need to evolve much faster and DRDO needs to offer new designs. DRDO now knows what IA wants and knows how to build a tank.

Need some rapid prototyping and new design to show the way forward for IA.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 18 Oct 2019 16:41

Does the IA know what armoured vehicles it wants?

nam · Post by **nam** » 18 Oct 2019 17:10

Depends on what sort of answer you are looking for. From IA Command perspective, they would like under 50 tonne, cheaper logistics, training, easy and cheaper to produce(as armor formation are very expensive kit). I doubt it cares if it is Indian made or Russian design & Indian made.

In those criteria, T90 fits the bill. In fact of all the arms, the armor with 1400 T90 now have overwhelming superiority over Pak armor. The Armor arm has meet it's objectives with T90, which is why it is so hard to push through Arjun.

If DRDO offers 3 crew un-maned turret(under 50 tonne) with hydropneumatic, 125/130MM barrel, single piece very long perpetrator, APS etc would IA say no?

But then tanks are not the priority at this moment.. attack heli & artillery is..

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Oct 2019 18:04

I dont think by adding a auto loader and making Arjun a 3 man tank the wt would come down. You cannot reduce the armor just because you have a 1 less crew. the armor is there to stop penetration, if you want protection the you cannot reduce the armor & without reduction in armor wt wont reduce. T series is light because it has less armor & not because it has auto loader and 3 man crew. You can reduce wt significantly only by making the turret unmanned and reducing the armor

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2019 18:05

The internal volume reduces, so the amount of armor required to protect the volume is also lesser.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Oct 2019 18:32

The internal volume doesn't actually reduce, the space of the crew is taken by the auto loader

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Oct 2019 18:48

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/948618584829321216 --> Things are becoming interesting now. Here's a rendition of a 'revolutionary configuration' study for a potential next generation main battle tank by DRDO's CVRDE that could weigh in at just 41 tons. Source: DRDO's DSJ.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Oct 2019 21:03

The related paper:

A Design of Experiments Methodology for Evaluating Configuration for a Generation Next Main Battle Tank

nam · Post by **nam** » 18 Oct 2019 21:41

As i said, DRDO knows, what IA wants, there is paper as well. Having been hoping since the paper came out, DRDO would get approval to create at least a tech demo/prototype with such a design.

It cannot be done with existing, MTU engine. Need a compact engine. If it is 45 tonne, then even the T90 engine should do.

Note in the paper, DRDO considers electric gun as well..

souravB · Post by **souravB** » 19 Oct 2019 03:44

For DRDO to truly hit that weight target, it needs to think of some out of the box solutions too, like

1. Hybrid electric transmission system

2. Composite Rubber tracks coupled with lightweight aluminium/alloy wheels

hgupta · Post by **hgupta** » 19 Oct 2019 05:09

Rahul M wrote:The 4th man is a loader, don't see how that reduces workload of the other 3 or when it's an autoloader doing the job of the fourth man.
I would rather CVRDE propose a tank with a completely unmanned turret and a 3 man crew. IMHO even a 2 man crew with duplicated controls is doable but other factors like field repairs etc mean that a larger crew still makes sense.

The loader does other stuff besides loading. He can function as a second set of eyes scanning for threat or man the MGS position. He also tends to the other 3 crewmen's other needs so that they are not distracted from their core duties. An autoloader only does one job and that is loading stuff - that's it. The term loader is a misnomer because it doesn't adequately describe the complete set of tasks and duties that a loader does besides loading ammo and stuff. Besides, an autoloader can only load the ammo from the storage. You still need to load the ammo into the tank ammo storage and that is a very physical demanding job especially when you have to load 50 pieces of ammo carefully in quick order.

hgupta · Post by **hgupta** » 19 Oct 2019 05:14

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/948618584829321216 --> Things are becoming interesting now. Here's a rendition of a 'revolutionary configuration' study for a potential next generation main battle tank by DRDO's CVRDE that could weigh in at just 41 tons. Source: DRDO's DSJ.

Rakesh,

If they do not adjust the interior volume in the crew cabin of the hull, things would be so cramped. There is a reason why most tankers like the turrets. It allow crewman to get up and move around a bit and stretch their legs and not feel cramped or claustrophobia. If you want a crewless turret, well that hull is gonna have to get higher and at the same time the turret to get slimmer. The gains may not be there when you have an overriding need of keeping that tank's profile low as possible to avoid being a bigger target. IIRC, in the 90s, the US Army did consider a crewless turret and rejected it out of hand for the aforementioned reasons above. They wanted to keep the tank profile as low as possible while giving the crew as much interior volume to move around a bit and not feel cramped. It allowed for greater stamina and efficiency of the crew.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 19 Oct 2019 06:33

Valid points. However that tweet is not mine, but rather from Saurav Jha. I just did cut and paste

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2019 15:28

Kakarat wrote:The internal volume doesn't actually reduce, the space of the crew is taken by the auto loader

Take a look at the T-90 and T-72 as versus the Arjun, and you'll see the difference. A significant part of the mechanism of the autoloader is below the turret ring. Three seats in a turret, ammo rounds in the bustle, versus a carousel below the turret and mechanism split between both. Of course, by doing so, and not implementing canisterization, you hugely increase the risk of 2ndary explosion. Russians were ok with that, so as to pile on ERA, armor.

srin · Post by **srin** » 19 Oct 2019 21:47

Video on torsion bar vs Hydro-pneumatic suspension. Found it extremely insightful. Huge difference in philosophies.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2019 22:47

Interestingly enough, just check out the number of periscopes in the Arjun commanders cupola ring vs that of the T-90. He just has much greater FOV and vision.

Great video Srin.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Oct 2019 05:26

This medium vs heavy tanks comes from the old British ideas.

In the end they finished WWII with American Sherman Tanks.

Maybe unless some Armored Corps general renames the regiments and gets rid of Cavalry we will have this endless debate.

Did you all know tat before 1965 war the IA wanted more of those AMX-13* light tanks like the charge of the light brigade and had to cancel those imports in 1966 and thanks to relying on Vickers for the Vijayanta it was delayed for ever and T-55 had o be imported.
* AMX-13 was more like a truck with a turret and a powerful German gun.
A heavy machine gun bullet could penetrate its armor.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 22 Oct 2019 11:25

General Choudhary's brainchild....thankfully 1965 happened and was put to rest. AMX13s performed well at Chushul in 1962

nam · Post by **nam** » 26 Oct 2019 02:39

Germany's MBT demonstrator. Notice, where the main sight is..

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 27 Oct 2019 02:32

Atmavik · Post by **Atmavik** » 27 Oct 2019 04:53

^^^ every thing is good but there is a Big BUT. its been 5+ years of a so called right wing govt but all we hear are buts and buts. time to place orders and start building now. if we dont have an MIC by 2024 then we many never have one.

amid all this auto sector slow down we need to build our MIC but one of the CEO/chairman is more interested in tweeting and appearing on NDTV.

sorry for the rant

nam · Post by **nam** » 27 Oct 2019 15:09

A thought on effect of M1A1's induction by Pak on Arjun.

Given the weight related issue raised by IA, it is obvious IA would have been aware of it, quite early. The same weight issue would have effected M1A1, if it was inducted in PA.

So M1A1 cannot go where Arjun cannot. Looks like Arjun was always a niche solution of the M1A1 problem, rather than for mass induction. I don't think IA expected PA induct M1A1 in large numbers, given the cost. So fundamentally M1A1 had the same issue as Arjun: cost & weight.

M1A1 went away, so did interest in Arjun. Despite our wishes, I don't think IA intended to induct Arjun in large numbers.

srin · Post by **srin** » 27 Oct 2019 19:30

Vips wrote:

I'm a little confused by this discussion. Is Whap a wheeled APC (BTR type) or a wheeled IFV (Stryker type) ?

My understanding was that it was latter, but it looks to be an APC.

Oh and to clarify the terminology ...
APC: Battle taxi to take infantry to battle.
IFV: Carry troops to battle, but also provide fire support to dismounted infantry.

niran · Post by **niran** » 28 Oct 2019 18:33

Rahul M wrote:The 4th man is a loader, don't see how that reduces workload of the other 3 or when it's an autoloader doing the job of the fourth man.
I would rather CVRDE propose a tank with a completely unmanned turret and a 3 man crew. IMHO even a 2 man crew with duplicated controls is doable but other factors like field repairs etc mean that a larger crew still makes sense.

IA had AMX 105 which is a 3 man crew 6 round clip autoloader, guess why french and IA not persued?
British had 2 man crew tanks (forgot their names) non made it beyond wooden prototypes. why?
coz anything less than 4 sucks.

nam · Post by **nam** » 28 Oct 2019 19:27

The current French leclerc tank has a autoloader and a 3 man crew!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2019 20:31

Didn't they experiment with a new turret on a diff. chassis?
Imagine a T-90MS turret on a superior more powerful Arjun chassis. It could be quite an interesting beast.Apart from Tank- X, we don't seem to bd doing much out-of-the-box experimentation for all 3 services.No experimentsl subs even after we developed an UW B'mos launcher.At least ond of our 9 Kilos with all going un for long refits coild've
had a B'mos plug added.

There's been precious little on the ICV front too.We need a new amphib platform for a variety of types, ICV, light tank for the mountains, ATGM AV, scout AV, etc. Tata'sard supposedly coming out with a wheeled AV but whether it will spawn z family of light AVs is open to Q.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 29 Oct 2019 04:35