Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

sunny y
BRFite
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 14:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunny y » 08 Oct 2009 16:46

You are right tanaji......I believe that's the most possible reason why strykers are coming to india in october....After the training the most possible response would be "We were very impressed by strykers & since we are also looking for 8x8, we should buy them." This economic growth is like blessing in disguise for middle men of IA.

All this goody goody talks by unkil is clearly to expand its business. They know that India is the only country that is going to spend huge sum of money on defence procurements in the coming decade & most importantly their presence was almost nil here till some years ago. So all this nuclear deal, ally thing is just an eyewash.

I bet if Americans were ready to sell IRBM's or ICBM's, our IA & IAF personnels would have been flocking at their doorsteps & our Prithvi's & Agni's would have been placed in museums.

Sometimes I think we were better off with sanctions....I seriously wish IA to take some lessons from IN.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1179
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 08 Oct 2009 17:46

Well at least in the case of wheeled tank-destroyers they can genuinely claim that no domestic alternative is available. of course CVRDE and the automotive industry can certainly come up with something. But then it depends on how soon India wants it.


India did have those nice wheeled APCs once upon a time like every other army in the world. Most are in storage now I guess.
On a different note, a tracked vehicle generally does better in harsh terrain. Or is that no longer true?

has wheel technology caught up?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66607
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 08 Oct 2009 18:05

any deal with US tends to be goi-2-gotus deal and middlemen and 'agents' are said to be excluded both from initial contract and later because no need to scour ex-soviet republics for spares and extinct factores - LM/GE/GDLS/boeing are very viable.

but I suspect higher officials of all hues in India do get some compensation for favouring the US.
we need not say more.

I think maybe 10% of our operating areas is where wheeled wont work/perform badly (soft sand)...there were reports of the PAC3 TELARs getting left behind by 3rd infantry div in Iraq due to getting stuck in soft sandy areas while the tracked and light wheeled types like hummers and HEMTTs managed to get moving.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 514
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 09 Oct 2009 12:58

TIME OF COMPARATIVE TRIALS
Its 9th of October now!
When is army going to put Arjun and T-90 face to face?
I hope they have trained regiment of Arjuns now... and hopefully have got air-conditioned their T-90s.
I hope army don't keep playing the delay tactics now.
Mr. Antony please ensure the trials and let us know the truth.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 09 Oct 2009 13:52

If the light tanks are to be used in defensive role, defence against what? Chinese MBTs?

If Chinese MBTs can come down our roads, then why can't our MBTs move up the same roads?

Or are these for the CI grid?

Or they for reaction against AB Forces given the latest Chinese exercise?

Who will man these light tanks? Milking the units or would the govt increase the manpower ceiling?

Anyone has any idea of the rationale?

I read the GSQR posted.

Any lights tanks meet those QR?

Sure would love to know from those who scan the Weapon Technology magazines and sites.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1061
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kailash » 09 Oct 2009 14:17

RayC wrote:I read the GSQR posted.

Any lights tanks meet those QR?


IF any of the light tanks should satisfy that GSQR, rest assured, they will give the Chinese MBTs a run for their money.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 09 Oct 2009 14:21

Kailash wrote:
RayC wrote:I read the GSQR posted.

Any lights tanks meet those QR?


IF any of the light tanks should satisfy that GSQR, rest assured, they will give the Chinese MBTs a run for their money.


The GSQR indicates so.

But then why have MBTs?

Let's have Light tanks!

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 437
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 09 Oct 2009 14:24

RayC wrote:If Chinese MBTs can come down our roads, then why can't our MBTs move up the same roads?


Prolly the difference between coming down and moving up :mrgreen:

Pics here. Research required.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16769
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 09 Oct 2009 19:29

apart from the mtn div requirements, the wheeled APCs/ICVs would be the best candidates for mechanizing the infantry divisions cheaply.

hope they give enough thought to this. a family of wheeled vehicles like what US has done with the stryker is what is needed. there's no reason why that can't be developed and manufactured in India by pvt co's with DRDO help.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 09 Oct 2009 20:06

Rahul M wrote:apart from the mtn div requirements, the wheeled APCs/ICVs would be the best candidates for mechanizing the infantry divisions cheaply.

hope they give enough thought to this. a family of wheeled vehicles like what US has done with the stryker is what is needed. there's no reason why that can't be developed and manufactured in India by pvt co's with DRDO help.


Armoured Corps is a manoeuvre arm.

Tanks combat prowess and safety is basically on its ability to manoeuvre and out manoeuvre the enemy tanks and destroy them using firepower.

In mountains, there is hardly any space available, except in the Plateaux and therefore, the rationale for tanks require to be explained. It is even difficult to find gun areas for artillery because of the constriction in space!

What is more perplexing is light tanks. To be light (unless there has been quantum jump in armour protection technology) the armour protection has to be light and hence becoming vulnerable.

Therefore, what is the employability in mountain divisions that is being envisaged?

India had the wheeled APC like the SKOTs. Then it converted to the BMPs.

What is the qualitative advantage of a light tank/ Stryker over the BMP that light tanks have to be purchased or produced indigenously?

A light tank has no chance of survival in a plains warfare.

It is a very intriguing development considering that the IA had discarded light tanks long back and even the Recce Regts were done away with.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16769
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 09 Oct 2009 20:30

Ray sir, I'm talking of a completely different thing.

rohit says sundarji plan was to mechanise all inf divisions and I vaguely remember reading that this was so.

for these divisions, which would be in the holding corps IMHO wheeled APCs would be a good choice, NOT as a replacement for the tracked vehicles in the armoured formations but for transporting troops with some degree of protection to the battlefield.

I guess it will replace the trucks in that role.

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rajeshks » 09 Oct 2009 21:01

RayC wrote:India had the wheeled APC like the SKOTs. Then it converted to the BMPs.

What is the qualitative advantage of a light tank/ Stryker over the BMP that light tanks have to be purchased or produced indigenously?


Stryker costs 1.4 mil$, So does it give any cost advantage over BMP2?

Also wiki says that "the higher cost of maintenance (when compared with the wheeled Bronetransportyor troop carriers) led many former Eastern Bloc satellite states to abandon the use of BMP fighting vehicles after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved."

This may be one of the reasons for considering Stryker.

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rajeshks » 09 Oct 2009 21:06

A comparable Russian product is BTR90 with better armament and armor. But its heavier at 20 Ton.
Carries a 30mm cannon and AT-5 Spandrel anti-tank missiles.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16769
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 09 Oct 2009 21:06

rajeshks wrote:
RayC wrote:India had the wheeled APC like the SKOTs. Then it converted to the BMPs.

What is the qualitative advantage of a light tank/ Stryker over the BMP that light tanks have to be purchased or produced indigenously?


Stryker costs 1.4 mil$, So does it give any cost advantage over BMP2?

Also wiki says that "the higher cost of maintenance (when compared with the wheeled Bronetransportyor troop carriers) led many former Eastern Bloc satellite states to abandon the use of BMP fighting vehicles after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved."

This may be one of the reasons for considering Stryker.

rajesh, I don't think anyone is even considering replacing tracked ICVs with wheeled ones.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 09 Oct 2009 21:11

rajeshks wrote:
RayC wrote:India had the wheeled APC like the SKOTs. Then it converted to the BMPs.

What is the qualitative advantage of a light tank/ Stryker over the BMP that light tanks have to be purchased or produced indigenously?


Stryker costs 1.4 mil$, So does it give any cost advantage over BMP2?

Also wiki says that "the higher cost of maintenance (when compared with the wheeled Bronetransportyor troop carriers) led many former Eastern Bloc satellite states to abandon the use of BMP fighting vehicles after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved."

This may be one of the reasons for considering Stryker.


OK what makes the Stryker better than the BMP and what makes both suitable for the mountains that have no manoeuvre space?

True it maybe cheap, but is the soldiers lives also cheap? The light tanks (unless there is something light and equally good as MBT protection) are dead meat in a plains warfare or the mountains environment and no matter what one says, they have no manoeuvre space in the mountains except on the Plateaux and would they not meet the Chinese MBT there?

Has Russia discarded BMPs, or in other words, the concept of Mechanised Infantry?

Do give a link so that I can study and learn.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66607
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 09 Oct 2009 22:27

while the terrain on our side of the cage may not be good, isnt aksai chin, the adjoining parts of tibet, north sikkim and the entire area south of lhasa fairly flat, dry and open , with good room for airland warfare? why are we always thinking of defence rather than breaking out into flat areas of tibet and unleashing hell? use the brazil method - concede 3 goals but score 7, rather than italian way enforcing a hard fought 1-0 win in extra time.

a good mix of MBT, light tanks/BMP, SP guns and wheeled IFV could lead a offensive in such regions I hope.

wrt Stryker thing of the total pkg including BMS that khan can provide not just the raw dabba alone. some could have 105mm guns, some command vehicles, some mortar launchers or Nag shooters, some pure troop carriers.
Last edited by Singha on 09 Oct 2009 22:30, edited 3 times in total.

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rajeshks » 09 Oct 2009 22:27

RayC wrote:OK what makes the Stryker better than the BMP and what makes both suitable for the mountains that have no manoeuvre space?

True it maybe cheap, but is the soldiers lives also cheap? The light tanks (unless there is something light and equally good as MBT protection) are dead meat in a plains warfare environment and no matter what one says, they have no manoeuvre space in the mountains except on the Plateaux and would they not meet the Chinese MBT there?

Has Russia discarded BMPs, or in other words, the concept of Mechanised Infantry?

Do give a link so that I can study and learn.


Wheeled and Tracked vehicles will complement each other, there is no question of one replacing other.

Please see the below link

http://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1294
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KrishG » 09 Oct 2009 23:22

RayC wrote:OK what makes the Stryker better than the BMP and what makes both suitable for the mountains that have no manoeuvre space?

True it maybe cheap, but is the soldiers lives also cheap? The light tanks (unless there is something light and equally good as MBT protection) are dead meat in a plains warfare or the mountains environment and no matter what one says, they have no manoeuvre space in the mountains except on the Plateaux and would they not meet the Chinese MBT there?

Has Russia discarded BMPs, or in other words, the concept of Mechanised Infantry?

Do give a link so that I can study and learn.


Some points from the manufacture's point of view ---

http://www.army.com/news/item/1896

The system was developed to meet the infantry’s need for a highly mobile support vehicle to supply rapid, direct fire, specifically during close assaults, said Dave Rogers, a TSM-Stryker senior analyst. The Mobile Gun System will eventually be integrated into Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.


"People will assume it's a tank when they see it because it has a big gun," Rogers said, "but it's much lighter than a 70 ton tank, making it more mobile. Its primary role is to support the infantry, not to go head to head with tanks."


"When planning for the 10 variants of Strykers, the Army took into account everything a Soldier could need on the battlefield," Rogers said. "From that, they developed the other Stryker variants, like the Medical Evacuation Vehicle, the Antitank Guided Missile Vehicle and the Engineer Squad vehicles, which are all uniquely designed for their mission. The Mobile Gun System fills a hole, and gives the infantry another capability."


I'm not saying that Stryker is the ultimate choice but the advantages of such multi-purpose vehicles are numerous. It is not a tank replacement but as the manufacture says 'The Mobile Gun System fills a hole, and gives the infantry another capability.'

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16769
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 09 Oct 2009 23:31

such variants are there for other ICVs too, BMP-2 for example. DRDO has developed a number of variants over the years.

this is not something unique to the stryker.

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1294
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KrishG » 09 Oct 2009 23:35

Rahul M wrote:such variants are there for other ICVs too, BMP-2 for example. DRDO has developed a number of variants over the years.

this is not something unique to the stryker.


We slowly are moving into Tracked v/s Wheeled debate. Can a new thread be created specifically for this topic ie Tracked v/s Wheeled?

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1387
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 09 Oct 2009 23:42

sunny y wrote:You are right tanaji......

I bet if Americans were ready to sell IRBM's or ICBM's, our IA & IAF personnels would have been flocking at their doorsteps & our Prithvi's & Agni's would have been placed in museums.

Sometimes I think we were better off with sanctions....I seriously wish IA to take some lessons from IN.


YES

The only reason why IA and IAF has accepted the Prithvi and Agni and will accept Brahmos, Nirbhay, K 15/xx, Sagarika is that they cannot import.

All these missiles are "acceptable"

But Akash, Trishul, Nag etc and of course Tejas and Arjun do not meet the stringent requirements because there is an import option

K

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Raj Malhotra » 10 Oct 2009 00:46

RayC wrote:
Rahul M wrote:apart from the mtn div requirements, the wheeled APCs/ICVs would be the best candidates for mechanizing the infantry divisions cheaply.

hope they give enough thought to this. a family of wheeled vehicles like what US has done with the stryker is what is needed. there's no reason why that can't be developed and manufactured in India by pvt co's with DRDO help.


Armoured Corps is a manoeuvre arm.

Tanks combat prowess and safety is basically on its ability to manoeuvre and out manoeuvre the enemy tanks and destroy them using firepower.

In mountains, there is hardly any space available, except in the Plateaux and therefore, the rationale for tanks require to be explained. It is even difficult to find gun areas for artillery because of the constriction in space!

What is more perplexing is light tanks. To be light (unless there has been quantum jump in armour protection technology) the armour protection has to be light and hence becoming vulnerable.

Therefore, what is the employability in mountain divisions that is being envisaged?

India had the wheeled APC like the SKOTs. Then it converted to the BMPs.

What is the qualitative advantage of a light tank/ Stryker over the BMP that light tanks have to be purchased or produced indigenously?

A light tank has no chance of survival in a plains warfare.

It is a very intriguing development considering that the IA had discarded light tanks long back and even the Recce Regts were done away with.



Q6. Does the light tank have multi-role weapon systems, to include gun and
missile system, surveillance and communication capability, high manoeuvrability and
amphibious capability as the standard design features?


If the "amphibious capability" refers to capacity to floating in water then per-force the law of physics the protection of light tank would be roughly equal to BMP-2/Abhay

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 10 Oct 2009 13:37

Amph capabilities in mountains?

PT 76 was decommissioned after 1971!

rahulm
BRFite
Posts: 1124
Joined: 19 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rahulm » 10 Oct 2009 16:25

For the Strykers, the US will want to impose the pesky and intrusive EUM clauses which will restrict their use to delivering cotton, grain & chicken to the markets and conveying dignitaries around.

Further, we will have to prove that the cotton, grain & chicken are not being consumed by the military, para-military, NCC, scouts and girl guides.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16769
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 10 Oct 2009 16:31

KrishG wrote:We slowly are moving into Tracked v/s Wheeled debate. Can a new thread be created specifically for this topic ie Tracked v/s Wheeled?

krish, any particular reason why you think this thread is not enough ?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9467
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 10 Oct 2009 17:15

Guru's will remember that there was some talk of requirement for a light tank for expid forces our people want to rise. Before that Arjun is too heavy and now we need a light one for china is there some method behind this madness ??? Any Guru is there to educate us

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KiranM » 12 Oct 2009 17:42

Kinda out of topic, but thought pertinent to discussion of Armour, the modern version of Cavalry. If folks think it should not be here, I will delete it.

If a layman wants to have an idea of apt usage and effect of a cavalry charge, watch Lord of The Rings - the Return of King movie. There is this scene towards the end where Riders of Rohan charge the Orc army.

IMVVHO, that scene captures in a nutshell the troika of protection, firepower and mobility needed.

Regards,
Kiran

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16769
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 12 Oct 2009 18:22

a fellow LOTR fan I see. good ! :mrgreen:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66607
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 12 Oct 2009 18:39

iirc on the open ukraine steppe prior to stalingrad, the wehrmacht also used 'the tactics of the wedge' wherein a wedge shaped attack formation was formed with a variety of light and heavy tanks.

a pro like Ray sir might find this familiar http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt0 ... mpany.html

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7633
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 12 Oct 2009 22:38

We've seemed to lost the focus in the debate for the requirement of Light Tanks.

Lets begin with this;the roles as envisaged in the RFI document:

A. Is the Light tank capable of undertaking battlefield reconnaissance and surveillance in the desert, semi-developed and developed terrain?

B. Is the light tank capable of being deployed as part of a mechanized force in High Altitude Area (above 3000 m) as also in mountainous / semi mountainous terrain?


So to start with:

a. The Light Tanks are for a very specific purpose which cannot be served by MBT;even the T-XX series. A dedicated Recce vehicle is a different beast and comes with its unique set of equipments and gadgets (at least in rich armies). The number to be imported/manufactured in first slot suggests that they will be part of the Recce Regiments of the Mechanized Formations and it's time we had a dedicated setup.

So, the Light Tank will not be required to slug it out with an MBT, at least as part of the deployment doctrine. The key word is Recce and Support.

The Armored Regiments TOE clearly mentions 9 Light Tanks in Recce Troop which are not held. The job is done using Jongas/Mahindras, not an ideal scenario IMHO. But the numbers are not sufficient, at least now, to see percolation to the indivisual regiments.

b. Stryker is not a Light Tank. Its an APC with some offensive capability. So it is not a candidate for the above mentioned requirement.And IA is not about to replace the BMP-X with Stryker or anything else. In fact, couple of weeks back I had posted news of new Mechanized Regiments being raised. Even in the US Army, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) concept does not involve replacing the M2/M3 Bradley with Stryker. SBCT were created using troops which earlier had no APC capability. The Stryker APC question and the SBCT debate is not relevant to the Light Tank debate in the IA. We do not have similar formations as SBCT.

c. The Mobile Gun System(MGS) is an example of Light Tank. It is issued@3 per company of a Stryker Battalion. So, there is no confusion here. It is a support function. A Stryker company with 3 MGS is any day better served than without the MGS System.

d. Are we going to see deployment of Light Tanks in dedicated Light Armored/Cavalry Regiments like the normal Armored Regiments?Or will we see Recce Regiments with mix of MBT/Light Tanks/APC? The jury is still out on these questions.

e. IA will fight Armor with Armor. They have taken the pain the deploy armor where they can and if need be can do more.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 12 Oct 2009 22:53

Did the IA have Recce Regts?

Were the tanks similar to the tanks of the regular armoured Regt?

Why were they discarded? Or were they not?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 12 Oct 2009 23:21

Where does absolute need for tracked vehicles for recce come from???


I do not see others requiring tracked vehicles??

Wheeled seems to be doing just fine. Just spoke to my friend who is a Major with the IDF and leads a recce unit.

Uses Humvees - more so he discards them at the first instance (hides it as best as he can) and moves a good kilometer away (with his grumbling men :) )because sooner or later its going to get shot up.





The only justification for light tracked vehicles would be soggy, marshy areas (maybe some sandy) - and thats a small part of our operational areas

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KiranM » 13 Oct 2009 14:46

Rahul M wrote:a fellow LOTR fan I see. good ! :mrgreen:


:) A very big fan of LOTR. But liked the book better than the movies.

Folks, any thoughts on my earlier post?

KiranM wrote:For the sake of a debate, how difficult is it have an ICV class vehicle (Abhay since it is in development stage) with configurable tracks or wheels? The change being carried out at Army base depots or say even in field (most optimistic scenario).

Regards,
Kiran



From the little I know, there is a difference in the transmission system between wheeled and tracked vehicles. So that can pose a challenge. Any other factors that need to be accounted for?
Last edited by KiranM on 13 Oct 2009 17:00, edited 1 time in total.

Shyam_K
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 76
Joined: 28 Sep 2004 21:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Shyam_K » 13 Oct 2009 16:51


sunny y
BRFite
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 14:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunny y » 13 Oct 2009 19:54

^^^That's Mahindra Marksman and yes that belongs to Bombay Police....It was inducted recently I think around a month ago.

Thanks

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66607
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 13 Oct 2009 20:08

potentially a retractable LORROS mast on Stryker could give a look out to 20km in ideal conditions in day and night. as of now its mounted on 4x4 in IA service.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 13 Oct 2009 23:09

Surya wrote:Where does absolute need for tracked vehicles for recce come from???


I do not see others requiring tracked vehicles??

Wheeled seems to be doing just fine. Just spoke to my friend who is a Major with the IDF and leads a recce unit.

Uses Humvees - more so he discards them at the first instance (hides it as best as he can) and moves a good kilometer away (with his grumbling men :) )because sooner or later its going to get shot up.





The only justification for light tracked vehicles would be soggy, marshy areas (maybe some sandy) - and thats a small part of our operational areas


Have you analysed the requirement for the IA in terms of strategy, tactics and terrain?

What is the answer?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 14 Oct 2009 02:16

Terrain - Yes

And I said there is only a certain amount of area where tracked is absolutely essential.

Everywhere else wheeled technology works and many who choose wheeled did comparitve trials.

Did the Army do that?? What was its plans for these areas all these years when it did not have them??

I am all ears for tactics and strategy (assuming terrain is not an issue) where a wheeled vehicle cannot do what the Army needs.

And then when it comes to areas where it needs tracked - I want to see why a BMP derivative cannot do the job??

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13102
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 14 Oct 2009 02:48

Apart from the terrain itself the other major positive aspect of a tracked vehicle is it provides a stable firing platform both when idle and even on the move specially when firing medium to large caliber rounds (100mm or so).

And I am curious to know as to how would the wheeled vehicles fair in 'Rann of Kachh' specially during the summer vis a vis a tracked vehicle.

ssmitra
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 24 Mar 2004 12:31
Location: Punjab
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ssmitra » 14 Oct 2009 03:41

India Signs Up For JLTV
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/06/india ... -for-jltv/

sorry if this a repost.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests