Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 14 Oct 2009 09:49

US Pitches the Stryker to India
The Rediff News Bureau

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 14 Oct 2009 09:50

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

sorry if this a repost.

Stratpost: http://www.stratpost.com/us-india-deal- ... cle-report

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Oct 2009 11:34

is there a huge diff in ground pressure between a (heavier BMP + its thin tracks) and a (lighter wheeled IFV and its 8 tyres deflated appropriately for soft terrain) ?

rajeshks · Post by **rajeshks** » 14 Oct 2009 14:10

Singha wrote:is there a huge diff in ground pressure between a (heavier BMP + its thin tracks) and a (lighter wheeled IFV and its 8 tyres deflated appropriately for soft terrain) ?

Singhaji, Please go thru the link i posted in prev page.
http://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html

Relevant to off-road mobility, wheeled vehicles tend to have a ground pressure considerably higher than that of their tracked counterparts. The Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP), which is the average peak pressure under the tires of wheeled vehicles or under the road wheels of tracked vehicles, varies between 200 to 270 kN/m2 for the latter and 300 to 450 kN/m2 for the former. This implies inferior performance for wheeled vehicles on soft ground. There is at least one notable exception, however. The French Panhard VBL M-11 (a 4 x 4 vehicle weighing 3.55 t) has an MMP of only 220 kN/m2. In this case, a very light wheeled armored vehicle achieves an MMP in the range of tracked vehicles.

Generally speaking, the ground pressure of wheeled vehicles rises significantly with the platform's weight. In the case of tracked vehicles this correlation is not as evident. In light of this, the renowned British tank expert Ogorkiewicz has argued to abandon concepts of wheeled combat vehicles weighing significantly over 22 - 23 t. Even a multi-wheeled configuration (8 x 8 -- that is, eight powered wheels) with variable tire pressure can not solve the problem -- resulting only in a very complex, hence expensive, design.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 14 Oct 2009 14:21

rajeshks wrote:
Singha wrote:is there a huge diff in ground pressure between a (heavier BMP + its thin tracks) and a (lighter wheeled IFV and its 8 tyres deflated appropriately for soft terrain) ?
Singhaji, Please go thru the link i posted in prev page.
http://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html

Relevant to off-road mobility, wheeled vehicles tend to have a ground pressure considerably higher than that of their tracked counterparts. The Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP), which is the average peak pressure under the tires of wheeled vehicles or under the road wheels of tracked vehicles, varies between 200 to 270 kN/m2 for the latter and 300 to 450 kN/m2 for the former. This implies inferior performance for wheeled vehicles on soft ground. There is at least one notable exception, however. The French Panhard VBL M-11 (a 4 x 4 vehicle weighing 3.55 t) has an MMP of only 220 kN/m2. In this case, a very light wheeled armored vehicle achieves an MMP in the range of tracked vehicles.

Generally speaking, the ground pressure of wheeled vehicles rises significantly with the platform's weight. In the case of tracked vehicles this correlation is not as evident. In light of this, the renowned British tank expert Ogorkiewicz has argued to abandon concepts of wheeled combat vehicles weighing significantly over 22 - 23 t. Even a multi-wheeled configuration (8 x 8 -- that is, eight powered wheels) with variable tire pressure can not solve the problem -- resulting only in a very complex, hence expensive, design.

Great. Good info.

How does it help India?

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 14 Oct 2009 21:37

Interesting read

The Wheel Versus Track Dilemma By Paul Hornback

saptarishi · Post by **saptarishi** » 17 Oct 2009 13:56

aditp wrote:Interesting read

The Wheel Versus Track Dilemma By Paul Hornback

nice one

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 21 Oct 2009 07:39

October is almost over. No news of Arjun vs Bhishma mahabharat. Have all paanwallahs gone back to UP / Bihar?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 21 Oct 2009 19:48

Can we really expect the so called comparitive trials to take place??? Army is predetarmined to make Arjun a failure. So even if some sort of trial takes place it will be manupulated for sure.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Oct 2009 20:13

I wonder what is the logic behind having the trials in pleasant Indian winter ; I was under the impression that Army usually evaluates tanks during summer in Rajasthan .

jai · Post by **jai** » 21 Oct 2009 20:40

Drdo needs to bring in natashas

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 22 Oct 2009 14:22

is there any news on Arjun ? Have not heard anything for a long time. How is the Arjun mark II going on ? Any news from Panwalas or mulla ?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Oct 2009 20:12

DRDO has to engage some natashas for any news to come out on Arjun

On the serious note some one has to write to Anthony He is not that bad person.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 27 Oct 2009 07:11

Army to get 124 Arjun tanks in six months

These 124 tanks are in various stages of production. All of them will get inducted into the armed forces in March and April,

Selvamurthy said,

adding that a few tanks have already been handed over. "Other organisations are also giving us orders."

Ankit

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 27 Oct 2009 18:29

Is this 124 are in addition to what was already delivered or to be delivered. My understanding was 124 was already kept ready and only to be delivered. So why 6 months are needed for that.

What about the prodection line and other systems developed for Arjun are they going to be kept dorment so that our Army top brass can dance with Natashas

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 27 Oct 2009 18:52

It is pitty.. that IA is ready to buy 1000 T90 so that they can use it until 2020 but not Arjun. If they induct arjun, they can easy upgrades and so on....

I dont understand why the hell they order when they know that is Arjun is going to production line in 1-2 yrs.... I fear LCA is also going on the same lines (20-40 planes end of the story) As people are already discussing MRCA, 5th gen russian plane but not LCA/MCA. And the story continues ....

Anyways it is OT

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Oct 2009 19:13

The 124 Arjuns were first ordered in 2000 and supposed to delivered over next 5 years.

This data point (and many more can be furnished) alone is enough testimony to the saga of Arjun specifically and many Indigenous efforts generally.

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 27 Oct 2009 19:26

Narayana Rao wrote:Is this 124 are in addition to what was already delivered or to be delivered. My understanding was 124 was already kept ready and only to be delivered. So why 6 months are needed for that.

This figure of 124 indicates the total number of Arjun tanks ordered by the Army (There is no additional order). As on 25th May, 2009 - 45 of these 124 had been delivered to the army. The remaining shall be delivered within the next 5-6 months from now.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 27 Oct 2009 23:43

Hey I know this may seem nuts but still... Does BSF have any effective Armour or Anti Armour capabilities...

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Oct 2009 23:51

BSF is Border Security Force.

They are to defend.

Tanks are for offensive action.

Hence, tanks should not be required by them.

Anti armour weapons maybe required in case the enemy attacks without notice. But then, it would be a failure of the Intelligence!

jai · Post by **jai** » 27 Oct 2009 23:54

No I think this is a good idea. BSF, ITBP, AR etc should be equiped with excellent anti armour capability....nags, jevelins, a good number of NAMICA's, fast attack boats, even Cheetah's and Chetaks's armed with machine guns..this will certainly make our borders better secured.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 27 Oct 2009 23:56

jai wrote:No I think this is a good idea. BSF, ITBP, AR etc should be equiped with excellent anti armour capability....nags, jevelins, a good number of NAMICA's, fast attack boats, even Cheetah's and Chetaks's armed with machine guns..this will certainly make our borders better secured.

Then make them a part of the Army or let the Army become a part of them.

Why have different forces with different command to add to the confusion?

When there is war or impending war, tactics and deployment change and the BSF on the border takes a different role with the Army.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Oct 2009 00:05

I understand the fact that the BSF is a defensive unit in nature.. so all i am saying is they can make use of some old tanks/ IFV ( I am thinking T72 for now ) with AT missiles mounted on them at least for posturing and deterrence.. This way they free up the army to take up newer tanks early on.. and in war they could be used to provide security along the rear and flanks of the advancing tank columns... Just a possibility....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Oct 2009 00:14

old tanks are better held by the army itself as reserve than giving them up to the BSF which has no experience in operating or maintaining those.

nash · Post by **nash** » 28 Oct 2009 10:17

anybody have any information regarding Arjun V/s T-90

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 28 Oct 2009 10:30

Looks like the Arjun has put Bhishma to rest again, and a news blackout is in place. Otherwise somebody would be crowing bout the Arjun's failure from the roof top

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 28 Oct 2009 11:35

The Pakistanis use old tanks that have lived their life as pill boxes on the DCBs.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Oct 2009 12:48

RayC wrote:The Pakistanis use old tanks that have lived their life as pill boxes on the DCBs.

Ray Sir, could you please expand DCB's???

jai · Post by **jai** » 28 Oct 2009 13:12

This may ease induction of Indian made equipment along with good foreign ones - Arjun / Abhay etc if DRDO now opens up for technology transfers and partnerships with local co's -

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Reposito ... kin-custom

"Under the revised defence procurement procedure, which will be effective from November 1, Indian firms will be allowed to bid for tenders to supply weapon systems and platforms to the armed forces by joining hands with foreign manufacturers to co-produce them domestically. DPP-2009 will have some new measures to promote private sector participation in the defence sector — largely the preserve of DRDO, defence PSUs and ordnance factories till now — as well as ensure “integrity and transparency” in all acquisitions, A K Antony said. "

This may even open the possibility of private firms aquiring DRDO tech and further improving it using international help....how much happens and how much remains wishful thinking needs to be seen...

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 28 Oct 2009 15:18

Bala Vignesh wrote:
RayC wrote:The Pakistanis use old tanks that have lived their life as pill boxes on the DCBs.
Ray Sir, could you please expand DCB's???

Ditch Cum Bundh defences. The Indo Pak border is supposedly dotted with them on both sides as a defence to impediment massive armoured strikes from either side.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Oct 2009 15:21

Tanaji wrote: Ditch Cum Bundh defences. The Indo Pak border is supposedly dotted with them on both sides as a defence to impediment massive armoured strikes from either side.

Tanaji Sir, Thanks...

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 28 Oct 2009 19:21

Sorry to ask but did some one (Patton ???) not said that Fixed fortifications are monuments to humon stupidity ?

We read about this defences time and again.

Can any guru say how these thing are so formidable even in today and age ? Is it our weakness or something speacil about them which can not be over come even today?

I think it may be our weakness. Pak has no statigic Depth and one deep thrust will creat some serious problems to them. I feel only because of our weakness (even in 1971 in the western sector) we could not make that thrust. Is even current armor is not capable to do it ?
Any one to educate kids here

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 28 Oct 2009 21:39

Bala Vignesh wrote:
RayC wrote:The Pakistanis use old tanks that have lived their life as pill boxes on the DCBs.
Ray Sir, could you please expand DCB's???

Ditch cum Bund are ditches that carry water for irrigation, but have high bunds, the walls of the ditch are steep and difficult to climb. The bunds have the bunkers. The water level is controlled by the headworks.

To cross them is difficult.

I will leave it at that!

The tanks are at the other side of the minefield and can be taken on by the derelict tanks on the bunds which are being used as pillboxes!

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 29 Oct 2009 12:04

Narayana Rao wrote:Sorry to ask but did some one (Patton ???) not said that Fixed fortifications are monuments to humon stupidity ?

We read about this defences time and again.

Can any guru say how these thing are so formidable even in today and age ? Is it our weakness or something speacil about them which can not be over come even today?

Yes it was Patton who said that and he was referring specifically to the Maginot line. There was a method to the madness for the French when they built it though. In WW-I, a lot of the fighting was done in the trenches and territory was not lost or gained easily. The French also suffered heavy losses in WW-I fighting and their population hadn't recovered yet. In fact, when the line was proposed, they had a shortage of manpower available to serve in their military. The maginot line was intended to provide positions that could easily be defended by a smaller group of soldiers.

Some of the younger officers such as DeGaulle wanted to invest in tanks and aircraft, but they were overridden by the minister for defence, Andre Maginot, who was also a veteran of trench warfare in Verdun in WW-I. Maginot had seen how effective fixed fortifications were in his trench warfare days.

In a way, the Maginot line did serve its intended purpose because the Germans knew that if they came through there, they would find the fighting much harder. So instead, the Germans figured out a way to bypass the line and go around it! Unfortunately the French had put their hopes on the Maginot line and were not prepared for other possibilities, which is why General Patton called it a monument to human stupidity.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 29 Oct 2009 12:36

Hi

I have query related to the use of the latest technologically advanced products like LCD's, touchscreen etc. in indian weapons. I mean when we look at the US weapons like armoured vehicles, strykers etc it seems like they make extensive use of LCD's, touchscreens etc. as is clear from some photos of strykers from YA-09 or from what we see in Future Weapons.

What is the percentage of these products in our Tanks, armoured vehicles etc ??
If possible, can anybody please post some interior pics of Arjun, T-90 etc ??

Thanks

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 29 Oct 2009 14:29

sunny y wrote:Hi
If possible, can anybody please post some interior pics of Arjun, T-90 etc ??

Boss, you seem to be interested in interior pics of lot of things....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Oct 2009 15:08

Rao sir, to make armour thrusts really effective one needs a strong mechnized infantry component in support and lots of helicopters plus airborne brigades if not divisions. all this costs money -vs- a infantry heavy truck mobile army.

compare the 1st airborne div deployed to iraqi desert in support of 3rd division - they apparently came with 25k people and 400 helicopters.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 29 Oct 2009 17:25

sunny y wrote:I have query related to the use of the latest technologically advanced products like LCD's, touchscreen etc. in indian weapons. I mean when we look at the US weapons like armoured vehicles, strykers etc it seems like they make extensive use of LCD's, touchscreens etc.

Sunny, LCD, touchscreen and other gizmos sure do signify advancement of technology but may not be appropriate all the time.

Although a bit out of context, read about the hi-tech thermal imaging systems we use in T-90s and T-72s and how suscpetible they are to rough weather. We don't want to depend on such delicate stuff in war, do we?

JMT.

Gurus will be able to explain better. But the little child in me too yearns to see our defence equipment decorated with gizmos.

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 29 Oct 2009 19:23

milindc wrote: Boss, you seem to be interested in interior pics of lot of things....

I am sorry but I didn't quite understand it. Well, anyways I am actually not related to defence sector. I am just a defence enthusiast. So you can very well imagine my situation, not being able to get into all these things that I wish I could. That's why I was asking for inside pics of our tanks, armoured vehicles.

Sometimes I wonder how easy it is to get a picture of cockpit on internet (I am sure the people who had actually put them there must have gone through many difficulties) but not tanks.

Dmurphy wrote:Gurus will be able to explain better. But the little child in me too yearns to see our defence equipment decorated with gizmos.

Couldn't have agreed more. Well as far as problem in thermal imaging systems is concerned I wasn't aware of it. But I don't think it would be much of a problem. I mean when Americans can put them & use them in places as varied as Iraq, Afghanistan & their own country then Why can't we ??

Although a bit out of context, I think much of the reason why we have these doubts is because of DRDO. I think they should release promotional videos of their developed products on youtube or any other good video sharing site (In this case Americans are doing pretty good through Future Weapons on Discovery). It will definitely motivate youngsters to join DRDO & to learn more about our capabilities & may also put a tight slap on all those people who simply love to bash DRDO.

Thanks

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 29 Oct 2009 22:20

RFI put out for 200 wheeled and 100 tracked advanced light armoured combat vehicles.
Livefist Link