Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Feb 2009 11:32

Okay the thread has moved on so especially picking and quoting questions directed at me is difficult and I think pointless -- so let me make some general answers to what is raised here

1) IMVHO discussing a "tank" by itself is pointless -- what you discuss is a "tank" with the rest of Mil Infra around it -- which included the doctrine and yes very much the assembly lines. The nature of Tank deployment by Allies in WW II CAN NOT be considered without considering the production rates etc. So when any of you guys say that it was not the Sherman which was a great tank but a Mil-Ind complex which was great and yet produced the Sherman for its use -- I think I have made my point and I rest my case there. (Man even a great car does not sell if it does not have a good network -- ask me I own one of those rare German cars in India

)

2) Should Germans have focused on Panther or rather built Shermans? No of course not --> what they should have done (and what they were forced to do anyway to a great extent) was focus more heavily on Panzer Mark IV --> built more of these, kept a single line of tanks with interchangeable parts etc; tried up gunning those for the critical application and tried different tactics other than simple massed tank breakout concept (yes it worked -- but once every one knows the trick -- dont try and pull it again)

3) Did Shermans do a great job in the war? Hell Yeah as did T-34; they are essentially the same class tank compared to Shermans. The Shermans fought in nearly all theaters of war including North Africa; did it stay on after the war --> yes it did and gave a good performance against the T-34s in the Korean war. And even in the Mainland Europe --> It had a attacking role and gave not too bad losses against much heavier tanks fighting from prepared positions. So overall yes the tank was pretty effective.

4) Arjun is great for India because its a Indian tank -- I would ask IA to take Arjun even if it was a scout car --> IMVHO actually what DRDO should have tried for in the first shot was mountain tanks or something like that than Arjun actually. The question is not whether Arjun vs T. The question is what should be the next Indian tank be like --> this is background discussion for the same.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Feb 2009 22:17

http://www.polskieradio.pl/thenews/business/?id=102204

Poland Aero India 2009
Created: 12.02.2009 11:15

Poland is among 70 countries participating in the Aero India Show 2009, taking place in Bangalore, south India.
Aero India, an annual trade fair organized since 1996, offers the possibility to observe and promote the latest products and technologies of the aviation industry to an international professional audience.
One of the Polish stands presented at Aero India Show 2009 belongs to Cenzin and Bumar, leading suppliers and exporters of armaments and military equipment, both present on the Indian market for some long time.
Last year Bumar announced 1.2-billion-dollar sale to India of 200 WZT-3 armored cars, 80 Kroton de-mining vehicles, 100 Loara mobile anti-aircraft units and 110 self-propelled cannons1,000 tank engines (is)

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 13 Feb 2009 09:38

I think sengupta was right about Armys aquisition of countermeasures for T-90. It was reported by indian express too.
url

The Israel Military Industries (IMI) booth was promoting the IRON FIST for India's T-90 main battle tanks. The IRON FIST is a new product that neutralizes anti-tank threats with a two layered active defense system. The first is a soft kill system that uses a directional electronic jammer mounted on the launcher. The second is a hard kill system that uses a "blast interceptor" that destroys the incoming round.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 18 Feb 2009 23:08

RFI for Thermal Imager Based Night Sight for Commaders in T-72/90

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 19 Feb 2009 11:33

Finally, Arjun getting much-needed appreciation by Army's top brass. I'm sure RM Antony's support for indigenous flagship defence programs like Arjun and LCA has been a major factor for the turnaround. Just hope the DGMF General would now come on board and conduct fair comparative trials. For now, celebrate !

P.S: just graduated to a BRFite!!

Arjun tank gets a vote of support from the Army Chief

In a reversal of the Indian Army's stand on the indigenous main battle tank (MBT) Arjun, which has been 37 years in the making, army chief General Deepak Kapoor has written to the defence ministry appreciating the tank's performance.

The army chief's letter has come months before the MBT Arjun, which India has been trying to manufacture indigenously for more than three decades, is headed for head-to-head 'comparative trials' with the Russian T-90 tanks that the army currently operates.

"The army chief for the first time has appreciated Arjun tank for performing well. In a letter written earlier this year he said that the tank was subjected to the most strenuous of tests and it performed 'admirably well'," a defence ministry official told IANS on the condition of anonymity.

The letter from the army chief came after last year's winter trials of the tank, which has already cost the exchequer Rs.3.5 billion ($71.7 million). The stand is a complete u-turn as the army had made it clear that it would buy no more than the 124 Arjuns it has contracted for because it is unhappy with the tank on various counts.

The Defence Research & Development Organisation's (DRDO) demand for the comparative trials of the two tanks is being seen as a desperate bid to save the Arjun as it would need to manufacture at least 500 tanks to make the project feasible.

"The defence ministry had been pushing for the joint trials for the past one-and-a-half-years but people in the military set up were not too keen," the official added.

A reluctant army had also said that the Arjun can at best remain in service for five to 10 years while it is looking 20 years ahead and needs a futuristic MBT.

However, the defence ministry, which has been putting thrust on the indigenisation of the defence industry, wanted to see the project through.

On Feb 11, Defence Minister A.K. Antony had expressed his happiness on the Arjun tank becoming "a reality". "We have seen light at the end of the tunnel," Antony had said speaking of the project.

The tank has been mired in controversy with the army last year having told a key parliamentary panel that the Arjun failed to deliver at the winter trials conducted in the Rajasthan desert in 2007. The army said that many improvements would have to be carried out before it was satisfied with the tank.

Adding fuel to the proverbial fire, Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh hinted at the possibility of "sabotage" during the 2007 winter trials.

The Indian Army laid down its qualitative requirement (QR) for the Arjun in 1972. In 1982, it was announced that the prototype was ready for field trials. However, the tank was publicly unveiled for the first time only in 1995.

Arjun was originally meant to be a 40-tonne tank with a 105 mm gun. It has now grown to a 50-tonne tank with a 120 mm gun. The tank was meant to supplement and eventually replace the Soviet-era T-72 MBT that was first inducted in the early 1980s.

However, delays in the Arjun project and Pakistan's decision to purchase the T-80 from Ukraine prompted India to order 310 T-90s, an upgraded version of the T-72, in 2001.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 19 Feb 2009 11:35

^^^^^ u bet me by seconds for posting this piece

Gawd.....what happened to the Chief?......and where is that notorious DGMF

Gurus : Can we now expect atleast 500 Arjun Mk 1s?

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 19 Feb 2009 11:37

Nikhil T wrote:Finally, Arjun getting much-needed appreciation by Army's top brass. I'm sure RM Antony's support for indigenous flagship defence programs like Arjun and LCA has been a major factor for the turnaround.

Is this a "true" turnaround ? The cynic in me suggests that it is an exercise to save H&D to prepare for the eventuality of Arjun kicking T90's musharraf during comparative trials. June is not all that far away you know...

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 19 Feb 2009 11:38

@Aditp Probably the difference between a 'trainee' and a 'BRFite'...lol...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Feb 2009 11:41

Can we now expect atleast 500 Arjun Mk 1s?

which is what I was told by a knowledgeable gent, long back.(couple of years back, reported it on BR too)

guess it will happen.

vina · Post by **vina** » 19 Feb 2009 11:43

Nah.. All this is because the stupid Natashas shot themselves in the foot via the sabotage (yeah, I am very very certain it was sabotage, I have no "broof" of course and it is all my speculation) and everyone in the know, knows it it I would assume.

In such a situation, it becomes untenable to put head in the sand and ass in the air like an ostrich and keep repeating "T-90- T-90 , T-90" and "Arjun Dabba, Arjun Dabba" onree without a complete lack of credibility and coming across as a blooming idiot, not to mention massive loss of H&D. Any half baked moron sitting anywhere (like us arm chair jarnails and 'anal' ysts) can call the Emperors nakedness.

If anything , the uniformed types are extremely careful about H&D, and hence a quick "tactical retreat"

Yusuf · Post by **Yusuf** » 19 Feb 2009 11:47

First the Army did not want trials. Now when trials are imminent, they want to avoid it by saying they have no problems with the Arjun.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 19 Feb 2009 11:55

Nikhil T wrote:Finally, Arjun getting much-needed appreciation by Army's top brass. I'm sure RM Antony's support for indigenous flagship defence programs like Arjun and LCA has been a major factor for the turnaround. Just hope the DGMF General would now come on board and conduct fair comparative trials. For now, celebrate !

P.S: just graduated to a BRFite!!

Arjun tank gets a vote of support from the Army Chief
In a reversal of the Indian Army's stand on the indigenous main battle tank (MBT) Arjun, which has been 37 years in the making, army chief General Deepak Kapoor has written to the defence ministry appreciating the tank's performance.

The army chief's letter has come months before the MBT Arjun, which India has been trying to manufacture indigenously for more than three decades, is headed for head-to-head 'comparative trials' with the Russian T-90 tanks that the army currently operates.

"The army chief for the first time has appreciated Arjun tank for performing well. In a letter written earlier this year he said that the tank was subjected to the most strenuous of tests and it performed 'admirably well'," a defence ministry official told IANS on the condition of anonymity.
.......

This U-turn from the IA raises serious questions about it's intent and procedures. I hope we do not have another Bofors in our hand.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 19 Feb 2009 12:00

Yusuf wrote:First the Army did not want trials. Now when trials are imminent, they want to avoid it by saying they have no problems with the Arjun.

Despite the positive letter from the Chief, MoD must make sure that the trials take place and the superiority (to be verified ofcourse) of the Arjun is place on record - OBJECTIVELY. Also, DRDO must be given a free hand in selecting which Arjun Tanks will take part in the trial to allay any apprehensions of sabotage (recall 2000kms overhaul limit being exceeded in AUCRT).

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 12:16

i've always wondered why we don't do what the chinese do, and reverse engineer successful products (think j-11)...

yes, i know...they are immoral, the chinese. but morality won't requisition columns of tanks...

learn the technology, THEN indigenize it. there really is no point to flailing about blindly. granted, with the sanctions, the fact that DRDO has come up with the complex weapons systems it has is remarkable. but they are shooting themselves in the foot by releasing a flawed product, and then irrationally supporting it, despite its main customer refusing to order any. i'm sure the indian army would be absolutely thrilled to be able to induct an indigenous product like the arjun. the fact that they have so candidly stated that the arjun is not good should've given DRDO a hint as to how far they've pushed to TRY to accept it...

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 19 Feb 2009 12:41

Rajat wrote:i've always wondered why we don't do what the chinese do, and reverse engineer successful products (think j-11)...

yes, i know...they are immoral, the chinese. but morality won't requisition columns of tanks...

learn the technology, THEN indigenize it. there really is no point to flailing about blindly. granted, with the sanctions, the fact that DRDO has come up with the complex weapons systems it has is remarkable. but they are shooting themselves in the foot by releasing a flawed product, and then irrationally supporting it, despite its main customer refusing to order any. i'm sure the indian army would be absolutely thrilled to be able to induct an indigenous product like the arjun. the fact that they have so candidly stated that the arjun is not good should've given DRDO a hint as to how far they've pushed to TRY to accept it...

....and what gives you the confidence to come up with such a judgement of the Arjun. Tell me have you ever come across any point by point analysis of the Arjun tank's performance? "No-gooder" type subjective remarks dont mean anything. The T series tanks are also designed for the cold russian climes and are bound to suffer from pretty much same performance penalties that the Arjun once suffered (and ahve been rectified ever since).

That is why, to put things in the right perspective we need comparitive trials.

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 12:59

i apologize if that's what you gleaned from my comment. i wasn't passing judgement on the arjun, per se. i meant that DRDO seems to suffer from selective denial. they don't accept their faults (a la brahmos test), but they are quick to celebrate their successes. and as far as the sabotage thing goes...well...

sure, i cheer when they do something right. but there is always a thought in the back of my mind : were they REALLY successful? NOT something the country's sole defence R&D company should inspire in unabashed jingos like myself...

maybe if DRDO set themselves more realistic targets, we wouldn't be riding them so hard...

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 19 Feb 2009 13:17

I would not comment on this specific case, but the DRDO scientists, technicians etc are present at the trails and before it is tried out actually, they check the systems and the equipment.

Therefore, I am surprised if they feel that it was a sabotage.

In fact, the Minister should be specific and if it was sabotaged, then people must be taken to task and likewise if it was someone with a gripe that their machine failed!

These Ministers shoot their mouth only to regret. Like good old Renuka, the verbal diseased woman who is now in the dock with a court case!

Being a Minister is not about sound bites alone, there has to responsible statements after verification.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 19 Feb 2009 13:37

Rahul M wrote:
Can we now expect atleast 500 Arjun Mk 1s?
which is what I was told by a knowledgeable gent, long back.(couple of years back, reported it on BR too)

guess it will happen.

A "rare" positive news from ToI..

A "rare" positive for Arjun from IA.

and if Rahul's assertion of 500 Arjun's is indeed true..

that makes it a hat-trick worthy of celebration..

vina · Post by **vina** » 19 Feb 2009 13:47

No minister, esp in the defense ministry, will come out and "confirm" sabotage. After all, the Army's H&D is the ministry's H&D as well, and come hell or high water, they will cover for the Army.

All that "Taking to task" will be done hush,hush, under covers and never come public and it will be papered over with a flimsy cover like "Renk did software changes after the test to rectify" kind of thing. And I think that is the way it should be.No need to be public and open about it. Let the Army handle it internally and quietly and clean it's stables.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 19 Feb 2009 14:01

vina wrote:No minister, esp in the defense ministry, will come out and "confirm" sabotage. After all, the Army's H&D is the ministry's H&D as well, and come hell or high water, they will cover for the Army.

All that "Taking to task" will be done hush,hush, under covers and never come public and it will be papered over with a flimsy cover like "Renk did software changes after the test to rectify" kind of thing. And I think that is the way it should be.No need to be public and open about it. Let the Army handle it internally and quietly and clean it's stables.

It is a sensitive issue and needs to be handled in correct manner. But this shroud of secrecy can also be used to hide the facts from the public and guilty let go scot free. Hopefully whatever measures that are taken will prevent such incidents in future.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 19 Feb 2009 14:02

vina wrote:No minister, esp in the defense ministry, will come out and "confirm" sabotage. After all, the Army's H&D is the ministry's H&D as well, and come hell or high water, they will cover for the Army.

All that "Taking to task" will be done hush,hush, under covers and never come public and it will be papered over with a flimsy cover like "Renk did software changes after the test to rectify" kind of thing. And I think that is the way it should be.No need to be public and open about it. Let the Army handle it internally and quietly and clean it's stables.

The defence ministry on Thursday said a conspiracy could be in play to “sabotage” the main battle tank (MBT) Arjun project, even as Indian Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor visited the production unit to inspect the tanks after they failed the just-concluded winter trials.

“The possibility of sabotage needs to be examined,” Minister of State for Defence (Production) Rao Inderjit Singh told reporters here.

“The engines fitted in the tanks were German and were performing well for the past 15 years. I wonder what has happened to them overnight,” Singh said, talking about the reported failures of the tank.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/arjun-tanks- ... 894-3.html

If the Minister can confirm, it is better than he shut up!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 19 Feb 2009 14:05

The Indian Army Monday refuted allegations of “sabotage” in the trials of the indigenously developed main battle tank (MBT) Arjun saying any speculation on this score was “misconceived.” “During the winter trials of the Arjun tank, the DRDO’s (Defence Research and Development Organisation) involvement was complete and of the same extent as the user’s (Indian Army). Hence, any speculation of sabotage in the conduct of the trials is totally uncalled for, misconceived and baseless,” an army official told IANS.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 42963.html

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Feb 2009 14:06

When the Arjun meets the GSQR (as it is slowly getting there) there is a 3000 tank order for it over time.. It will be filled with its various variants. That has been the consistent stand of GoI and nothing seems to have changed that stand anyway.

Yes the process of both getting the tank up to scratch and inducting it will also take time -- given the current state of affairs of all bodies there is no getting away from it either.

It does not behoove anyone to start flying off the handle and start making unsubstantiated allegation that they later have to regret (except that politicos can say any nonsense and not be held accountable these days)

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 14:15

the 3000 tank order, i fear will never materialize...

MBTs are outmoded. the best thing would be for DRDO to think beyond the arjun, and focus on something new. maybe something like this :

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

MBTs seem to be too lumbering to be of use in future, split second, make or break combat situations. too, MBTs are hardly of much use where the army is currently most active (J&K, NE)...

at best, the 3000 tanks should be kept as an assured reserve for possible battles in the border with pakistan in the western states. artillery should be their focus. just my opinion onlee...

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 19 Feb 2009 14:25

Rajat wrote:the 3000 tank order, i fear will never materialize...

MBTs are outmoded. the best thing would be for DRDO to think beyond the arjun, and focus on something new. maybe something like this :

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

MBTs seem to be too lumbering to be of use in future, split second, make or break combat situations. too, MBTs are hardly of much use where the army is currently most active (J&K, NE)...

at best, the 3000 tanks should be kept as an assured reserve for possible battles in the border with pakistan in the western states. artillery should be their focus. just my opinion onlee...

There will surely be upgrades to meet the threat perception vs the equipment. Therefore, if indeed the Arjun is upto the mark, it should be encouraged.

CI maybe what is engaging the IA i.e. Kashmir and NE, but CI is not the sole raison détre for the army. The western borders require tanks and so tanks have to be inducted.

The Army has to be a homogeneous and the mix must be right since all Arms and Services are complementary to win a war. So, one cannot sacrifice the requirement of tanks and instead go for Artillery. While importance to the Artillery cannot be overlooked, neither can it be for Armoured or Infantry.

Just a thought!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Feb 2009 14:28

Rajat wrote:the 3000 tank order, i fear will never materialize....

If 3000 MBTs dont come, IAs MBT strength drops by half -- and I dont think the MBTs are going away anywhere just right now, unlike what you mention. Yes some MBTs will be "different" but they will be around me thinks.

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 14:36

correct me if i'm wrong, but couldn't these lighter gun systems replace tanks even in the battlefields in the plains? i completely agree that it is WAY too soon to completely retire tanks from the army. order more T-90s (a proven product) to make up force numbers.

it would be better if DRDO started thinking beyond the arjun. if it IS inducted, making the 500 tanks would take quite a while...this might stretch to the time when other armies start retiring their tanks. we might just have the whole mig-21 situation all over again : making do with obsolete technology...

the advantage with artillery is that the enemy can't hit you (assuming the army is conventional), but you can hit it. perhaps tanks will be the artillery escorts of the future? solid walls of ERA screening the much more vulnerable artillery.

tell me how this sounds : nag-firing artillery! the nag could be a two stage missile. the first phase is the motor that takes it to long ranges (guided by the artillery's own radar systems or gps), before the second stage kicks in, guiding the nag to the target. maybe they can just increase the range of the nag itself, and forgo the need for a primary stage...

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 14:37

by 3000 MBTs, sanku, i meant 3000 arjuns. THAT might not happen. of course, having a grand total of 3000 MBTs is the bare minimum...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Feb 2009 14:48

no rajat, these are for making ICVs more potent, not replacing MBTs.
everything else remaining the same, any decent MBT would still wipe the floor with such vehicles.

we had some nice discussions in the last 2-3 pages. (I still haven't answered sanku's last post in that discussion, will do so)

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 14:54

your point about the MBTs wiping the floor with IFVs is, of course, sound...

in my scenario, i'm thinking of light, mobile gun platforms supporting infantry. the heavy armor can be taken out by the artillery.

these lighter gun platforms are faster, cheaper, and have similar guns to the MBTs (much smaller, yes...but shells can be made more potent, right?)...they would also be much more maneuverable, and thus would be less vulnerable to massed fire...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 19 Feb 2009 15:24

Rajat: Can you please elaborate how did the below mentioned wisdom strike you? And did you read the link about the MGS that you provided and what is it supposed to do?

MBTs are outmoded. the best thing would be for DRDO to think beyond the arjun, and focus on something new. maybe something like this :
MBTs seem to be too lumbering to be of use in future, split second, make or break combat situations. too, MBTs are hardly of much use where the army is currently most active (J&K, NE)...
at best, the 3000 tanks should be kept as an assured reserve for possible battles in the border with pakistan in the western states. artillery should be their focus. just my opinion onlee..

.

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 15:32

it was a thought, rohit. MBTs are huge and slow. lighter vehicles are smaller and faster.

and yes i did read the article. and again, i reiterate : it was a thought. take that idea, and apply it to our needs. i didn't say use those vehicles. i said, think of something similar.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 19 Feb 2009 15:57

Rajat seriously though, when and how do u envision artillery taking out MBT's. Now i think by artillery u mean ATGM, Well ATGM serve their own purpose but can never take over the job of MBT's. Also remember that MBT;s have their own turret fired missiles, so a thinly skinned ATGM carrier can be taken care of from a greater range by these MBT's.

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 15:59

why can't artillery take out MBTs? a cluster bomb rocket with HE warheads could work. maybe not destroy the tank completely, but it can most certainly destroy the tank's tracks.

and ATGMs, if they can have extended ranges, and come in rocket pods, can be the answer, yes...

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 16:02

read what i wrote a couple of posts before. i'm not saying we should get rid of the tanks. i'm saying we should cut our losses.

tank v tank battles are going to be rare in the future. mostly, both sides are going to focus on getting rid of the other's armor by either bombing runs or artillery.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 19 Feb 2009 16:03

But pray tell me why tank's will stay still for artillery barrage. Take example of gun fired LAHAT vs Namica or IFV/AFV with ATGM, according to wiki its range is 6-8 km, whereas Nag's range is 4km. So the range of NAG is same or lesser than range of LAHAT. Now with range being same what vehicle would you prefer to be in more, a think skinned IFV/AFV or a MBT.

BTW NAG and LAHAT are just an example and i might be wrong bout their ranges, since iam just a lowely abdul and not a guru

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 19 Feb 2009 16:11

Rajat,

I have not understood what you are stating.

Are you stating that the Artillery can replace tanks?

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 16:20

the advantage of cluster bombs, srivastav, is that they can saturate a large area with explosives. consider that our very own pinaka MBRL system can neutralize something like 4 sq km with a salvo of 12 rockets. and these aren't even cluster bombs, just HE warheads. plenty of time for it to fire at the moving tanks.

and yes, i know the range of the nag is small. which is why i said that either :

1. the range can be increased.
2. the nag warhead can be paired with a longer range rocket. more range, same function.

and no, RayC, i am not saying that artillery can replace tanks. i'm saying that artillery will have a much higher importance than MBTs in the future.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 19 Feb 2009 16:29

The tank is primarily an offensive weapon.It is designed for mobility.It is used to go into battle zones and hold ground.How would you counter an ADVANCING armoured column with artillery..By withdrawing??Once it gets to a striking range,then it will take down the artillery.Also the tanks can be spread across a LARGE area while advancing.To saturate such a huge area,you will need large number of artillery peices

Rajat · Post by **Rajat** » 19 Feb 2009 16:35

why not? what, other than ego, is hit by a tactical withdrawal? if you're about to say that we would lose ground, well that is where the artillery is best. keep it near the border, out of range of the opponent's battery, but close enough to track and fire upon any advancing armored column. and no, like i said, the tanks are there to be the shield to the artillery's sword. the armored light guns are useful as an offensive weapon to counter any infantry advances, and they have the added advantage of being versatile enough to be operated in many theaters. say, a city sweep. or, like i said, in the areas where the IA is most active - J&K and the NE.

the point about the tanks spreading out is true. which is why i'm saying we should have more artillery.