The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Hari Nair wrote:Getting back to the issue of employing tanks at 15-17000 feet elevation.
- Aren't we missing the forest for the trees, so to speak?
- The three must have elements, as I understand are : Firepower, Mobility and Armour.
- The problem is given our present levels of tech, the mobility element at altitude depends on the power plant's power loss.
- As a rule-of-thumb, regular normally aspirated diesel loses about 3% power every thousand feet of elevation. A turbocharged version, the power loss is reduced to about 1.5 % per thou feet increase in elevation.
- So, even a turbo diesel will drop power by about 24% . An engine producing 780 bhp at sea level will go down below 600 bhp at those elevations.
This can be overcome by some clever engineering through using a combo of superchargers and multi-turbochargers. Its not exactly rocket science - piston engines on aircraft have been using such techniques since WW-II. The Rolls Royce Merlin engine on the Spitfire using a combo of superchargers and multi-stage turbos, if I recall correctly to maintain power outputs till a very high altitude.
There is no reason why even the venerable T-72's V-46-6 power plant cannot be similarly modded in-country to increase the power out put at altitude. Get the mobility nearly back on par to what's available at sea level and it could have a decisive edge, as it already has the other two elements of Firepower and Armour, especially against a lightweight Type-15.
Any thoughts by other members on this?
Hari sir, why modify the V-46-6 engine. Why not use the T90s engine which is also now produced in the country. At 1,000 HP, with superchargers, should be adequate for the T-72 for high altitude areas. I have asked the the question about why bother indigenizing the V46-6 engine at all, a couple of pages back.
Any T-72 being upgraded can get an engine change as well and all tanks deployed in the high altitude areas can get an engine with superchargers and multi-turbochargers.
I was suggesting an alternate powertrain arrangement to overcome the breathlessness but if the Army moves the Arjun there, I would lose my s***.
70 Tons of Rolling Thunder leading the charge, the Gandiva smothering the slit eyed enemy with absolute precision at ranges.
In a Dharmayudhdha, I could not wish for a better warrior on the vanguard than Arjuna himself.
MeshaVishwas wrote:I was suggesting an alternate powertrain arrangement to overcome the breathlessness but if the Army moves the Arjun there, I would lose my s***. 70 Tons of Rolling Thunder leading the charge, the Gandiva smothering the slit eyed enemy with absolute precision at ranges.
In a Dharmayudhdha, I could not wish for a better warrior on the vanguard than Arjuna himself.
There are places where you want a Bruce Lee and not an Arnold terminator !!
MeshaVishwas wrote:I was suggesting an alternate powertrain arrangement to overcome the breathlessness but if the Army moves the Arjun there, I would lose my s***.
70 Tons of Rolling Thunder leading the charge, the Gandiva smothering the slit eyed enemy with absolute precision at ranges.
In a Dharmayudhdha, I could not wish for a better warrior on the vanguard than Arjuna himself.
There are places where you want a Bruce Lee and not an Arnold terminator !!
Rs_singh wrote:Arjun the behemoth for manouver warfare in a confined battle space in high alti??
I'd love to understand the difference between Arjun and say a light tank for maneuver warfare in confined battle space in high altitude.
Srin, the cost to maintain a 70 ton vehicle of which some 200 no’s are available and to maintain a 40 ton vehicle of which some 1500 are available are starkly different. I can’t answer your question more technically because I don’t know what you mean by light tank.
If it were up to me, there would be some 100 odd LCH flying there right now. Armd clm are a good def opt but only the LCH packs an off punch in that alti,
.
I could have misunderstood you, do correct me if necessary,
In your OP, you didn't talk about the logistics of numbers, but you were referring to the operational aspects. Solely on the operational aspects, I'd like to understand the difference between Arjun and T90 in eastern Ladakh region. You indicated some sort of bemusement to the idea of Arjun in the current conflict area and i want to understand all the factors that went behind that thought.
Also, there is a slight exaggeration of difference in weights. Arjun Mk1 is 58t, Mk 1A with mine ploughs is 68t. T-90S is 48t.
And as for the LCH, that's a non sequitor, unless you mean to replace the tanks with the LCHs.
Ah! So you’re wanting a comparison between t90 and Arjun, is it? Two words. Mobility. Maintenance. I’ll leave it that. I’m not cav. Someone else can answer specifics beyond basics.
MeshaVishwas wrote:I was suggesting an alternate powertrain arrangement to overcome the breathlessness but if the Army moves the Arjun there, I would lose my s***.
70 Tons of Rolling Thunder leading the charge, the Gandiva smothering the slit eyed enemy with absolute precision at ranges.
In a Dharmayudhdha, I could not wish for a better warrior on the vanguard than Arjuna himself.
Vishwasji https://youtu.be/QoIxTEhBpNI
Kestrel platform proposed for Light tank/ATGM etc??
How far plausible and useful is it??
Rs_singh wrote:Ah! So you’re wanting a comparison between t90 and Arjun, is it? Two words. Mobility. Maintenance. I’ll leave it that. I’m not cav. Someone else can answer specifics beyond basics.
Sir please see some of the videos of T90s operating on the slopes in Ladakh. Seem to be lumbering and gasping for breath in the high altitude. The Arjun with the more powerful engine, could fare better. Also, its not simply the horse power of the engine. The paki Al-Khalid has a 1,200 HP engine. The more relevant figure is the torque. The Arjun engine, has a lot of torque. The paki Al-Khalid engine has relatively low torque for the size and rating of the engine and hence suffers.
"Centurion was better protected. Poona Horse tanks were hit repeatedly without penetration, they continued to fight. Connect this with Arjun MBT Issues.
3. Centurion fires superior anti tank ammunition penetrating Patton at 2000m. Patton 90 mm AP could not penetrate Above 1000m"
What do you think how the Arjun MBT would fare in a similar battle today
"In my assessment it is a potent tank. Any tank man would be privileged to crew."
"Centurion was better protected. Poona Horse tanks were hit repeatedly without penetration, they continued to fight. Connect this with Arjun MBT Issues.
3. Centurion fires superior anti tank ammunition penetrating Patton at 2000m. Patton 90 mm AP could not penetrate Above 1000m"
What do you think how the Arjun MBT would fare in a similar battle today
"In my assessment it is a potent tank. Any tank man would be privileged to crew."
Rs_singh wrote:Ah! So you’re wanting a comparison between t90 and Arjun, is it? Two words. Mobility. Maintenance. I’ll leave it that. I’m not cav. Someone else can answer specifics beyond basics.
Well Arjun is superior in both criteria. The army trials of the tank in comparison to the T90 established that quite clearly. Yet Arjun was disqualified in that trial.
Why was it disqualified?
Because it's crew killed a target while the tank was moving. When the rules said it had to be engaged when the tank had come to a stop.
CAG has also put out a side by side comparison of the two tanks in one of its reports.
Also the top speed of mk 1 is 72 kph. While for the T90 it is 60.
The mk2 with a 10 ton weight gain has 60 kph top speed and an equal ground pressure as a T90.
Rest you should read the previous iterations of the thread.
Rs_singh wrote:Ah! So you’re wanting a comparison between t90 and Arjun, is it? Two words. Mobility. Maintenance. I’ll leave it that. I’m not cav. Someone else can answer specifics beyond basics.
Well Arjun is superior in both criteria. The army trials of the tank in comparison to the T90 established that quite clearly. Yet Arjun was disqualified in that trial.
Why was it disqualified?
Because it's crew killed a target while the tank was moving. When the rules said it had to be engaged when the tank had come to a stop.
CAG has also put out a side by side comparison of the two tanks in one of its reports.
Also the top speed of mk 1 is 72 kph. While for the T90 it is 60.
The mk2 with a 10 ton weight gain has 60 kph top speed and an equal ground pressure as a T90.
Rest you should read the previous iterations of the thread.
Exactly,
This saga reminds me of the Avro Arrow. A superior in-house made jet for Canada being shuttered by outside forces. This is dangerous because the Canadian Aerospace industry went to shit afterwards.
If Arjun is defeated by outside lobbies, the idea of an indigenous Indian arms industry could be at risk.
Rs_singh wrote:Ah! So you’re wanting a comparison between t90 and Arjun, is it? Two words. Mobility. Maintenance. I’ll leave it that. I’m not cav. Someone else can answer specifics beyond basics.
Well Arjun is superior in both criteria. The army trials of the tank in comparison to the T90 established that quite clearly. Yet Arjun was disqualified in that trial.
There may be something to the criticism - it's well known that Arjun's torsion bar suspension is inferior to that of T-90
Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh, Acquisition Wing of Ministry of Defence (MoD), has today signed a contract with BEML for procurement of 1,512 Mine Plough 4 Tank T-90 S/SK at an approximate cost of Rs 557cr.
Under ‘Make in India’ policy the contract has Buy and Make (Indian) categorization with a minimum of 50 % indigenous content in make portion of the contract. The system will be manufactured at BEML facilities with the help of M/s. Pearson Engineering, UK.
^^^ https://twitter.com/livefist/status/128 ... 85090?s=20 ----> An astonishing SEVEN years given to state-owned Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML) to supply 1,512 mine ploughs for the Indian Army's T-90 tank fleet. Not discounting work, but wondering how much (less) time it would take for Indian private sector firms to churn these out.
Why over 1500 mine ploughs. What is the thought process of the Indian Army. It like 75% fleet getting the attachment.
Is the IA thinking that combat engineering units will not be able to clear a path for the armour.
Or they are thinking that the next war will be nuke and they want to smash through the enemy minefields without giving the enemy the time to line up a tactical nuke shot.
Also what was the holding of mine ploughs for the T72?
Under ‘Make in India’ policy the contract has Buy and Make (Indian) categorization with a minimum of 50 % indigenous content in make portion of the contract. The system will be manufactured at BEML facilities with the help of M/s. Pearson Engineering, UK.
Utterly frustrating that for a low tech item like this we need foreign help. What an disappointing situation we are in. Give this to Bharat Forge and they will deliver a lot sooner with 100% indian content.
Rakesh wrote:^^^ https://twitter.com/livefist/status/128 ... 85090?s=20 ----> An astonishing SEVEN years given to state-owned Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML) to supply 1,512 mine ploughs for the Indian Army's T-90 tank fleet. Not discounting work, but wondering how much (less) time it would take for Indian private sector firms to churn these out.
2 weeks for any decent company for eg Kalyani or L&T. One month if you consider transportation time period. Both the Army as well as BEML are joking here. The one significant consequence of this decision will be reflected in the inflated costs of an individual plough. Somewhere I read that this plough's weight will be approximately 2.5 tons. If this plough is made of some standard steel, then the cost of one such plough inclusive of both procurement and fabrication will be around Rs 1 lakh per tonne or approx Rs 2-3 lakh per plough. You can add some profit margin and raise the figure to Rs 4 lakh. Now someone can file a RTI and find out the total deal cost. You will be derive the per unit price that army is paying to BEML. I will not be surprised if the prices would have been jacked up manifold by BEML in this case.
Edited later: I managed to go through the pdf report given above. The price is mentioned to be 557 crores. Which means that an individual plough is costing almost Rs 36 Lakhs. A new JCB hydraulic excavator costs less by the way. Can someone tell me exactly what else there is in this deal apart from mine plough itself for eg. some electronic component or something about metallaurgy. 'cause Rs 36 lakh is too much for this device in my opinion.
Another important point to note is that BEML is executing this deal in a JV with some UK based group ostensibly for technology transfer. Although I am unable to understand what exactly is esoteric about this technology that a specialized group like BEML is unable to execute by itself.
So it takes a war like situation for the Indian Army to finally order the much needed anti-mine ploughs for its tanks. When was it otherwise planning to buy/install it?
Only in India do we have such comedy happening....
have we examined the possibility that the IA had actually placed the orders way back,and its been sanctioned only now because BEML's order book is light, and the DPSU needs to be fed orders?
Rs_singh wrote:Ah! So you’re wanting a comparison between t90 and Arjun, is it? Two words. Mobility....
Arjun is more nimble in movement and maneuvering as it exerts much less ground pressure compared to t-90, also there was a match between t-90 vs Arjun; where Arjun hit all 6 targets while moving and t-90 missed all its targets. It's engine is also much more powerful.
Arjun could easily turn the tables if given a chance against Bat eaters
Rs_singh wrote:Ah! So you’re wanting a comparison between t90 and Arjun, is it? Two words. Mobility....
Arjun is more nimble in movement and maneuvering as it exerts much less ground pressure compared to t-90, also there was a match between t-90 vs Arjun; where Arjun hit all 6 targets while moving and t-90 missed all its targets. It's engine is also much more powerful.
Arjun could easily turn the tables if given a chance against Bat eaters
What needs to be considered for the Arjun to kill the "bat eater mobile" i.e. deployment in 3 Div and 17 Mtn div AOR?
Manish_Sharma wrote:
Arjun is more nimble in movement and maneuvering as it exerts much less ground pressure compared to t-90, also there was a match between t-90 vs Arjun; where Arjun hit all 6 targets while moving and t-90 missed all its targets. It's engine is also much more powerful.
Arjun could easily turn the tables if given a chance against Bat eaters
What needs to be considered for the Arjun to kill the "bat eater mobile" i.e. deployment in 3 Div and 17 Mtn div AOR?
All I can say is if there is 'Jhadap' only then the true strength of Arjun will come to fore. Remember the little 'Gant' and later the sobriquet the 'Sabre Slayer'!
India’s home-built Arjun tank has emerged a conclusive winner from its showdown with the Russian T-90. A week of comparative trials, conducted by the army at the Mahajan Ranges, near Bikaner in Rajasthan, has ended; the results are still officially secret. But Business Standard has learned from multiple sources who were involved in the trials that the Arjun tank has outperformed the T-90 on every crucial parameter.
The trial pitted one squadron (14 tanks) of Arjuns against an equal number of T-90s. Each squadron was given three tactical tasks; each involved driving across 50 kilometers of desert terrain and then shooting at a set of targets. Each tank had to fire at least ten rounds, stationary and on the move, with each hit being carefully logged. In total, each tank drove 150 kilometres and fired between 30-50 rounds. The trials also checked the tanks’ ability to drive through a water channel 5-6 feet deep.
The Arjun tanks, the observers all agreed, performed superbly. Whether driving cross-country over rugged sand-dunes; detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets; or accurately hitting targets, both stationery and moving, with pinpoint gunnery; the Arjun demonstrated a clear superiority over the vaunted T-90.
“The Arjun could have performed even better, had it been operated by experienced crewmen”, says an officer who has worked on the Arjun. “As the army’s tank regiments gather experience on the Arjun, they will learn to exploit its capabilities.”
With the trial report still being compiled --- it is expected to reach Army Headquarters after a fortnight --- neither the army, nor the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO), which developed the Arjun tank in Chennai at the Central Vehicles R&D Establishment (CVRDE), are willing to comment officially about the trials.
The importance of this comparative trial can be gauged from a list of those who attended. Witnessing the Arjun in action were most of the army’s senior tank generals, including the Director General of Mechanised Forces, Lt Gen D Bhardwaj; strike corps commander, Lt Gen Anil Chait; Army Commander South, Lt Gen Pradeep Khanna; and Deputy Chief of the Army Staff, Lt Gen JP Singh. The Director General of Military Operations, Lt Gen AS Sekhon also attended the trials.
Over the last four months, the army had systematically signalled that it did not want to buy more Arjuns. The message from senior officers was: 124 Arjun tanks have been bought already; no more would be ordered for the army’s fleet of 4000 tanks. The comparative trial, or so went the message, was merely to evaluate what operational role could be given to the army’s handful of Arjuns.
“The senior officers who attended the trials were taken aback by the Arjun’s strong performance”, an army officer who was present through the trials frankly stated. “But they were also pleased that the Arjun had finally come of age.”
The army’s Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which has bitterly opposed buying more Arjuns, will now find it difficult to sustain that opposition. In keeping out the Arjun, the DGMF has opted to retain the already obsolescent T-72 tank in service for another two decades, spending thousands of crores in upgrading its vintage systems.
Now, confronted with the Arjun’s demonstrated capability, the army will face growing pressure to order more Arjuns.
The current order of 124 Arjuns is equipping the army’s 140 Armoured Brigade in Jaisalmer. With that order almost completed, the Arjun production line at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi, near Chennai, needs more orders urgently. The Rs 50 crore facility can churn out 50 Arjuns annually. That would allow for the addition of close to one Arjun regiment each year (a regiment is authorised 62 tanks).
Tank experts point out that conducting trials only in Mahajan does not square with the army’s assertion that they are evaluating a role for the Arjun. Says Major General HM Singh, who oversaw the Arjun’s development for decades, “If they were evaluating where the Arjun should be deployed, they should have conducted the trials in different types of terrain: desert, semi-desert, plains and riverine. It seems as if the army has already decided to employ the Arjun in the desert.”
The Arjun’s sterling performance in the desert raises another far-reaching question: should the Arjun --- with its proven mobility, firepower and armour protection --- be restricted to a defensive role or should it equip the army’s strike corps for performing a tank’s most devastating (and glamorous) role: attacking deep into enemy territory during war? Each strike corps has 8-9 tank regiments. If the army recommends the Arjun for a strike role, that would mean an additional order of about 500 Arjuns.
But Business Standard has learned that senior officers are hesitant to induct the Arjun into strike corps. Sources say that the Arjun will be kept out of strike formations on the grounds that it is incompatible with other strike corps equipment, e.g. assault bridges that cannot bear the 60-tonne weight of the Arjun.
ks_sachin wrote:
What needs to be considered for the Arjun to kill the "bat eater mobile" i.e. deployment in 3 Div and 17 Mtn div AOR?
All I can say is if there is 'Jhadap' only then the true strength of Arjun will come to fore. Remember the little 'Gant' and later the sobriquet the 'Sabre Slayer'!
That does not answer my question..
Are you are saying that the performance of the Arjun in the plains will be the same as in the High Altitudes or you are saying that you like me do not know the answer to that question?
Last edited by ks_sachin on 22 Jul 2020 15:07, edited 1 time in total.
