Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2567
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 07 Jan 2010 13:18

i was reading an article by some ex army officer was was responsible for deployment of AMX 13 in the spanggur gap during 1962... he talked about numerous problems faced during deployment and the improvisations that needed to be carried out both with the machine and its deployment.. thought it looks it was quite effective in repulsing the chinese. the essence of his article was the it was not easy to use tanks at high altitudes such as Ladhak....

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 08 Jan 2010 18:23

best things for the high altitude battlefields like ladakh is something like the NAMICA.. With the 30mm autocannon (don't know if the NAMICA carries the cannon b default)... This should enable them to counter tanks and infantry effectively, without straining our air lift infrastructure...

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17066
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 08 Jan 2010 18:40

manjgu wrote:i was reading an article by some ex army officer was was responsible for deployment of AMX 13 in the spanggur gap during 1962... he talked about numerous problems faced during deployment and the improvisations that needed to be carried out both with the machine and its deployment.. thought it looks it was quite effective in repulsing the chinese. the essence of his article was the it was not easy to use tanks at high altitudes such as Ladhak....

do you have a link for that article ?
TIA.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17066
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 08 Jan 2010 18:41

Bala Vignesh wrote:best things for the high altitude battlefields like ladakh is something like the NAMICA.. With the 30mm autocannon (don't know if the NAMICA carries the cannon b default)... This should enable them to counter tanks and infantry effectively, without straining our air lift infrastructure...

no 30 mm cannon on NAMICA. but it can be and probably will be embedded with normal BMP-2 with cannons.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 08 Jan 2010 18:50

Thanks for the Info dada...

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 08 Jan 2010 18:53

isnt the namica itself a BMP2 with turret removed and replaced by the Nag pack?

we have lots of BMP2 , all with 30mm cannon. I think the old low pressure 75mm gun model would be phased out now - saw some in early 1980s republic day parades.

chinese are threatening road construction parties - BMP2 and Zsu-23-4 units have to stand overwatch for the
construction crews.

we currently have around 1000 BMP2 in service. but...

the degree of mechanization of soviet army can be gauged by they had 24,000 bmp1 and bmp2 in service in 1985 !! (per wikipedia) :eek: they also probably had tens of thousands of medium tanks, BM21 grad launchers, towed guns, self propelled cannons from modern ranging back to vintage WW2 pieces , SP mortars, organic zsu cannons and SAMs on wheeled and tracked vehicle.

a strong soviet attack on scandinavia or low countries would have been a sight to behold .... :mrgreen: here was a superpower truly dedicated to the god of war, deploying its best and brightest to make things go boom, to burn, to dominate , to pillage.... :roll:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17066
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 08 Jan 2010 19:12

singha ji, the number would be closer to 2000 now I think. rohit can answer better.

if there's a situation/sector where PLA can deploy tanks and we can't, only then something like the NAMICA as a stand-alone option is a possibility. but newer tactics would be needed to exploit its shoot and scoot potential.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 08 Jan 2010 19:46

Rahul M wrote:singha ji, the number would be closer to 2000 now I think. rohit can answer better.

if there's a situation/sector where PLA can deploy tanks and we can't, only then something like the NAMICA as a stand-alone option is a possibility. but newer tactics would be needed to exploit its shoot and scoot potential.


I assume we could do with the age old guerrilla warfare tactics but need to train our units to employ these age old tactics effectively... Especially in the hilly areas..

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rajeshks » 08 Jan 2010 20:01

Rahul M wrote:singha ji, the number would be closer to 2000 now I think. rohit can answer better.

if there's a situation/sector where PLA can deploy tanks and we can't, only then something like the NAMICA as a stand-alone option is a possibility. but newer tactics would be needed to exploit its shoot and scoot potential.


Is it not a good idea to use LCH + nag missile in such a scenario. It may be difficult for us to move MBTs to Tibetan plateau, atleast in good numbers. On the other hand chinese can do that easily.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7743
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 08 Jan 2010 20:09

I do not have handle on the number of BMP-I/II in IA service...but I do remember reading a post (ParGha?) which spoke about the number of battalions in Mechanized Infantry Regiment and Brigade of Guards in the IA....

But given the current force strcuture (3*Armored Divisions+8 (I) Armored Bdes+2 (I) Mechanized Bdes+5 RAPIDS)...2000 is minimum number for operational duty....training and reserve will be extra....@58 IFV/Regiment..we need 34 Battalions minimum...and considering the planned conversion of ID to RAPID (from 4-->7)..this number will go up....

as for the tactic of using the NAMICA...please remember that Infantry personnel have been trained in past to use RCL, which is a LOS weapon and has big disdavantage in terms of back blast giving away position....so rest assured IA will surely develop tactics to propery leverage the abilities offered by NAMICA's optronics......

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9942
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 09 Jan 2010 13:40

We are now suddenly discussion now how China will have Armor and we will not have. Just earlier we were telling we have sufficient MBT’s. If we have then we can not we deploy. Surely both we and China face the same problems or there is something wrong with us.

One thing is sure. We will find it difficult to face China even now. We may be better than in 1960’s but we are not that comfortable. It is good that we are now taking about a two front war. Thinking should be staring point for acting.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 09 Jan 2010 14:06

We always catered for a two front war!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 09 Jan 2010 16:58

the open terrain of tibet (in areas where tanks and IFVs can work) would indicate some fast developing fights on the below lines could develop. seems to me air superiority and UAV support is essential to operate in a vast uninhabited terrain of tibet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KrishG » 11 Jan 2010 00:30

Russia to produce T-95 tanks, Mig-35 fighter jets

"The specifications of new main battle tank T-95, to be serially produced from 2010, are being tightly kept under the warps of secrecy," defence expert Igor Korotchenko told state-run Vesti FM radio.

"However, judging from the reports it would provide better survivability for the tank crew in the battle field, which will sit in an armoured capsule inside the T-95 MBT," Korotchenko said.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9942
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 11 Jan 2010 11:33

RayC wrote:We always catered for a two front war!



One paper may be but are we really prepared for it. Let us see the numbers in solders alone. Pak for 5plus Lacs. It can also have 2 Lac plus jihadis though their quality may not be very poor even in a direct war. In turn we can field almost same number if we have to place significant force to counter treat from North. Is it a ideal situation when we want to get some advantage in the war and Pak only like to drag the war.

We even hardly have any roads lot along other infrastructure to counter China. It is all good to say that we are prepared for Two wars but I doubt the present level of preparation is sufficient to give us significant let alone overwhelming advantage even in the western front in case of a two front war. .

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 11 Jan 2010 11:40

to seriously intimidate the chinese, while its good to have all the usual stuff like loads of artillery and sukhoi dpsa mode, I think we need to screw them deeper and only something the size and power of B-1b/Tu160 fleet armed to the gunwales with ALCMs will work.

we can spend a bazillion $$ for C17, why not invest in tu160? it comes under no treaty restricting its export.
sure Rus will not export the Kh55 and its derivatives but thats where hypersonic brahmos and nirbhay adapted
to its rotary launcher comes in.

it should be able to carry 12 brahmos or 24 nirbhay internally in the two bays -
matching that delivered by a entire squadron of sukhois and at a higher range and superb attack speed.

mind must be clear and free of conflict. the biggest hit we can do on the panda is strike far and wide and
attack his power stations and distribution yards in the hinterland from several directions. there will be massive
downstream impacts lasting for many months on the whole economy as power grid fails and industry grinds to a halt. they can use diesel gensets to some extent but big refineries along the coast may also be targeted to reduce this.

we must hit their underbelly and not just restrict any future war to the border.

or as per livefist the MCA spec work is ongoing. please atleast change it to a bigger su34 sized trapezoidal wing stealth shape with capability to carry 2x nirbhay interally and a very long combat radius using fuselage
and wet wing tanks of 3000km.

we need special solns to special problems.

funding the couple of incomplete OScars lying in state and getting them into the team is also good.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9942
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 12 Jan 2010 12:02

For china i think there is saparate line going on.

We are retiring t55 and t65 right? Vijayantha is in stores. So all these thing are not going to be there. Any details what is teh schedule of retirement. Any efforts to convert them into IFV's etc.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 519
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 12 Jan 2010 14:36

Singha wrote:to seriously intimidate the chinese, while its good to have all the usual stuff like loads of artillery and sukhoi dpsa mode, I think we need to screw them deeper and only something the size and power of B-1b/Tu160 fleet armed to the gunwales with ALCMs will work.

we can spend a bazillion $$ for C17, why not invest in tu160? it comes under no treaty restricting its export.
sure Rus will not export the Kh55 and its derivatives but thats where hypersonic brahmos and nirbhay adapted
to its rotary launcher comes in.

it should be able to carry 12 brahmos or 24 nirbhay internally in the two bays -
matching that delivered by a entire squadron of sukhois and at a higher range and superb attack speed.

mind must be clear and free of conflict. the biggest hit we can do on the panda is strike far and wide and
attack his power stations and distribution yards in the hinterland from several directions. there will be massive


in such case enemy SAMs and interceptors will have a single(or few), big, slow and IDEAL target.
The bombers are sitting ducks without escorts!
and for long air-escorts refueling tankers seem to be a necessity.

Amit J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 27 Dec 2009 18:16
Location: CLASSIFIED

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Amit J » 13 Jan 2010 00:29

rohitvats wrote:I do not have handle on the number of BMP-I/II in IA service...but I do remember reading a post (ParGha?) which spoke about the number of battalions in Mechanized Infantry Regiment and Brigade of Guards in the IA....

But given the current force strcuture (3*Armored Divisions+8 (I) Armored Bdes+2 (I) Mechanized Bdes+5 RAPIDS)...2000 is minimum number for operational duty....training and reserve will be extra....@58 IFV/Regiment..we need 34 Battalions minimum...and considering the planned conversion of ID to RAPID (from 4-->7)..this number will go up....

as for the tactic of using the NAMICA...please remember that Infantry personnel have been trained in past to use RCL, which is a LOS weapon and has big disdavantage in terms of back blast giving away position....so rest assured IA will surely develop tactics to propery leverage the abilities offered by NAMICA's optronics......


Really do we have 2000 BMP IIs, i was assuming it was more like 900-1000 with the annual production rate at 125-150 only being able to replace the realy old ones. But 2000 is better than 1000 any day. In current context what would the ideal total number be ?

Also would appreciate to understand the time line for the Abhay IFV to come online and also if there are plans to acquire any APCs/IFVs

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 14 Jan 2010 11:26

sameer_shelavale wrote:
Singha wrote:to seriously intimidate the chinese, while its good to have all the usual stuff like loads of artillery and sukhoi dpsa mode, I think we need to screw them deeper and only something the size and power of B-1b/Tu160 fleet armed to the gunwales with ALCMs will work.

we can spend a bazillion $$ for C17, why not invest in tu160? it comes under no treaty restricting its export.
sure Rus will not export the Kh55 and its derivatives but thats where hypersonic brahmos and nirbhay adapted
to its rotary launcher comes in.

it should be able to carry 12 brahmos or 24 nirbhay internally in the two bays -
matching that delivered by a entire squadron of sukhois and at a higher range and superb attack speed.

mind must be clear and free of conflict. the biggest hit we can do on the panda is strike far and wide and
attack his power stations and distribution yards in the hinterland from several directions. there will be massive


in such case enemy SAMs and interceptors will have a single(or few), big, slow and IDEAL target.
The bombers are sitting ducks without escorts!
and for long air-escorts refueling tankers seem to be a necessity.


its the Tupolev Tu160 Blackjack.. Its the fastest Bomber in the world, significantly faster than even the B1-B lancer... It can cross the borders at supersonic speeds.. I am not saying that there is not need for escorts but even without escorts the interceptor units will have a tough time tackling this bad boy...

Added later- Sorry about the OT...

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 14 Jan 2010 13:45

KrishG wrote:Russia to produce T-95 tanks, Mig-35 fighter jets

"The specifications of new main battle tank T-95, to be serially produced from 2010, are being tightly kept under the warps of secrecy," defence expert Igor Korotchenko told state-run Vesti FM radio.

"However, judging from the reports it would provide better survivability for the tank crew in the battle field, which will sit in an armoured capsule inside the T-95 MBT," Korotchenko said.



So now IA will scream for T 95 to support the T 90

vishnu.nv
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 22 Aug 2007 19:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vishnu.nv » 14 Jan 2010 14:12

Lets wait and see how different is the T-95 will be from Arjun specs. :?:

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 14 Jan 2010 15:19

vishnu.nv wrote:Lets wait and see how different is the T-95 will be from Arjun specs. :?:


Going by the wikipedia article on the tank it'll be mighty different from the arjun... The likely USP of the tank is the complete isolation of the crew from the rest of the tank.. And if the army wants it, it would be for the role of the primary MBT in the arsenal not to support the T90...

Added Later: No matter what the tank promises, we should go ahead with the induction of Arjun and other such equipments...
Last edited by Bala Vignesh on 14 Jan 2010 20:34, edited 1 time in total.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1313
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 14 Jan 2010 17:11

vishnu.nv wrote:Lets wait and see how different is the T-95 will be from Arjun specs. :?:


Which version of arjun Mk1 or Mk2??? Russian's can do improvement becuase there systems are introduce in large numbers. Until unless Arjun is introduce in large numbers, it has little future and even lesser chances of being a better and improved MBT and forget of any MK3 FMBT.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1313
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 14 Jan 2010 17:21

Bala Vignesh wrote:Going by the wikipedia article on the tank it'll be mighty different from the arjun... The likely USP of the tank is the complete isolation of the crew from the rest of the tank.. And if the army wants it, it would be for the role of the primary MBT in the arsenal not to support the T90...


Like any US, Russian's too, delayed the technology till either they have a better/newer version or home country is about to develop their own system. It is a loop that will go on forever. Somewhere we have to stop otherwise (T90, T95, T100 ...).

Do not run behind a carrot, which is in front of your eyes ooOO(it is there with the help of a rod sticking on your very own helmet).

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9942
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 16 Jan 2010 15:27

We need to move our own way and T 90 shall be the last of the non indian tank. No army and country which like to become a globle player can not do it by depending on non local systems as we are. Arjun and MCA and other projects are the right way in long run.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24391
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chetak » 16 Jan 2010 22:25

Bala Vignesh wrote:its the Tupolev Tu160 Blackjack.. Its the fastest Bomber in the world, significantly faster than even the B1-B lancer... It can cross the borders at supersonic speeds.. I am not saying that there is not need for escorts but even without escorts the interceptor units will have a tough time tackling this bad boy...

Added later- Sorry about the OT...



More like a one way suicide mission.

May well be worth it if we can cripple the b@#^&.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17066
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 16 Jan 2010 22:28


Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 16 Jan 2010 22:49

Arjun tanks to be tested against Russian T-90s before May

With the first Arjun tank regiment completing its conversion trials, the Army is readying to test the indigenous MBT's mettle against the proven Russian T-90s in the early half of the year.

"Army is preparing for comparative trials against the Russian T-90s in the early half of this year ... before May," a senior Army officer said on Saturday.

The Army had completed its first regiment's fleet of 40 Arjun MBTs last May when 16 of the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment-built tanks were handed over to it by the Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi near Chennai.


However, the Army has placed orders for only 124 Arjuns in all as yet and there have been enough indications that further orders may not come through, as the Army was now looking at a futuristic MBT that could be operational beyond 2020.

It was also felt by the Army's Mechanised Forces circles that Arjuns could serve the Army only for about a decade as the technology and design of the tanks were on the verge of obsolescence already.

Having taken nearly 37 years to have a regiment of the indigenous tanks since the project was approved, the tanks have changed designs from a 40-tonne class vehicle with a 105-mm gun at the conception stage to 50-tonne vehicle with a 201-mm gun during production.

"For such a delay and design changes, Arjun tanks have proved to be a worthy combat vehicle for Indian deserts during the conversion trials and a third-party audit," the officer said.

The Arjun project was approved in 1972 and the first prototype of the tanks was readied in 1982 and publicly displayed in 1995.

However, during its development stages, several structural and design flaws were identified by the DRDO and the Army that were later rectified.

Now that the Army had got delivery of the first 40 tanks to complete its first of the three regiments that would operate Arjuns, the indigenous MBT is likely to be put through comparative summer trials against the 45-tonne T-90s between March and May this year.

Meant to come as replacements for the aging T-72 MBTs of Russian origin, the mainstay of Indian combat vehicle fleet since the 1980s, the delay in Arjun's production made India go in for T-90s from Russia.

First, an order for 310 T-90s was placed with Russia and it was followed up with 330-tank order in 2006. Again, in 2007, another order for 1,000 tanks was placed.

While the first 310 were bought directly from Russia, the rest of the orders were for licensed production of the tanks within India.

The licensing issues were only sorted as recently as last year, with Russia agreeing to provide all technical knowhow to India for indigenous production of the tank.

In all, India would have about 35 regiments of T-90s in its armoured fleet by 2020.

PTI


http://www.zeenews.com/news596492.html

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 16 Jan 2010 22:52

In final test, Arjun tank to take on Russian T-90
http://www.littleabout.com/news/58528,i ... -t-90.html

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 16 Jan 2010 23:47

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
Arjun tanks to be tested against Russian T-90s before May

With the first Arjun tank regiment completing its conversion trials, the Army is readying to test the indigenous MBT's mettle against the proven Russian T-90s in the early half of the year.

"Army is preparing for comparative trials against the Russian T-90s in the early half of this year ... before May," a senior Army officer said on Saturday.

The Army had completed its first regiment's fleet of 40 Arjun MBTs last May when 16 of the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment-built tanks were handed over to it by the Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi near Chennai.


However, the Army has placed orders for only 124 Arjuns in all as yet and there have been enough indications that further orders may not come through, as the Army was now looking at a futuristic MBT that could be operational beyond 2020.

It was also felt by the Army's Mechanised Forces circles that Arjuns could serve the Army only for about a decade as the technology and design of the tanks were on the verge of obsolescence already.

Having taken nearly 37 years to have a regiment of the indigenous tanks since the project was approved, the tanks have changed designs from a 40-tonne class vehicle with a 105-mm gun at the conception stage to 50-tonne vehicle with a 201-mm gun during production.

"For such a delay and design changes, Arjun tanks have proved to be a worthy combat vehicle for Indian deserts during the conversion trials and a third-party audit," the officer said.

The Arjun project was approved in 1972 and the first prototype of the tanks was readied in 1982 and publicly displayed in 1995.

However, during its development stages, several structural and design flaws were identified by the DRDO and the Army that were later rectified.

Now that the Army had got delivery of the first 40 tanks to complete its first of the three regiments that would operate Arjuns, the indigenous MBT is likely to be put through comparative summer trials against the 45-tonne T-90s between March and May this year.

Meant to come as replacements for the aging T-72 MBTs of Russian origin, the mainstay of Indian combat vehicle fleet since the 1980s, the delay in Arjun's production made India go in for T-90s from Russia.

First, an order for 310 T-90s was placed with Russia and it was followed up with 330-tank order in 2006. Again, in 2007, another order for 1,000 tanks was placed.

While the first 310 were bought directly from Russia, the rest of the orders were for licensed production of the tanks within India.

The licensing issues were only sorted as recently as last year, with Russia agreeing to provide all technical knowhow to India for indigenous production of the tank.

In all, India would have about 35 regiments of T-90s in its armoured fleet by 2020.

PTI


http://www.zeenews.com/news596492.html



201mm :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 16 Jan 2010 23:54

^^^^ Its in the 60 tonne category i would assume since it weighs 58.5 tonnes...
And 201 mm tank guns!!! never heard of them... do any operational tanks have them???

Nirmal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 81
Joined: 05 Jul 2005 15:51
Location: London, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Nirmal » 17 Jan 2010 00:23

There seems to be a typo in that report which says the size of Gun is 201mm when it should say 120mm gun which what it is 'de facto'.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby tejas » 17 Jan 2010 01:18

^^^^ The "proven" T90. :rotfl: Has the T90 been tested 1/100th as much as Arjun by the army? The Arjun is state of the art in every aspect. The T90 has no muzzle reference sysytem, no auto-tracker and no battlefield management system for net centric warfare. I can think of no legitimate reason it is favored over Arjun.

"Our aim is not to determine a winner in these trials, but to test the core strength of the tanks," a senior official of the Indian Army said, wishing anonymity.
Do we really have people this stupid in the army? If the Arjun is better than the T90, why pray tell are we buying the T90?


Note how conveniently once comparative trials were forced down the army's throat, the trials were postponed past summer :eek: One guess as to why. When, not if, Arjun destroys the T90 in a one on one comparison, army heads need to roll. This is far more serious than some land scam. Once economies of scale are established MTU will be more than happy to collaborate on an Indian made engine for Arjun. Work is already on for an indigenous transmission. The final piece of the puzzle is a digital FCS. All these issues can be settled with Arjun mkII.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanjay » 17 Jan 2010 04:55

Can anyone tell me if any BRDM-2 recce vehicles are still in service and if so on what scale ?

I am given to understand the President's Bodyguards use the BTR-60 at present. Are any of these or the SKOT still in service ?

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 17 Jan 2010 09:20

Sanjay wrote:Can anyone tell me if any BRDM-2 recce vehicles are still in service and if so on what scale ?

I am given to understand the President's Bodyguards use the BTR-60 at present. Are any of these or the SKOT still in service ?


If the President's Bodyguards use the BTR-60 at present, how will they keep pace with the president's S600 Mercedes Benz and BMW 760Li in a scoot scenario :?:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2010 10:29

I have never seen any armoured car accompanying the presidential motorcade in dilli? has anyone? its always just a bunch of safari/sumo.

maybe its just to defend the ramparts of rashtrapati bhavan?

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Virupaksha » 17 Jan 2010 10:34

Singha wrote:I have never seen any armoured car accompanying the presidential motorcade in dilli? has anyone? its always just a bunch of safari/sumo.

maybe its just to defend the ramparts of rashtrapati bhavan?

armoured cars need space to maneuver. If you want armour in static context, you are better off with concrete.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3518
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Aditya G » 17 Jan 2010 10:35

BRDM is still seen in R-Day parades.

PBG has a war time role and they operate BTR-60 per last report.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17066
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 17 Jan 2010 11:11

aditp wrote:
Sanjay wrote:Can anyone tell me if any BRDM-2 recce vehicles are still in service and if so on what scale ?

I am given to understand the President's Bodyguards use the BTR-60 at present. Are any of these or the SKOT still in service ?


If the President's Bodyguards use the BTR-60 at present, how will they keep pace with the president's S600 Mercedes Benz and BMW 760Li in a scoot scenario :?:

President's Bodyguards is the name of a cavalry regiment of the IA. their duties include but is not limited to guarding the prez.

http://presidentofindia.nic.in/presiden ... uards.html

After Independence, in keeping with its high traditions, the PBG rendered yeoman service in 1947 and around the Capital in the upheaval during the aftermath of partition. The Regiment saw action in 1965, when it participated in "Operation ABLAZE" in the Western theatre. In 1988 and 1989, detachments of the Unit served with the Indian forces in Sri Lanka. The PBG has also served on the world's highest battlefield in Siachen, where it continues to do so till today, and with the Indian contingents forming part of the United Nations Force in Somalia Sierra Leone and Angola.

The PBG today is a small body of men comprising of four officers,14 JCOs and 161 Bodyguards-men backed up by administrative support personnel, an establishment which has not changed much in the last century. Equipped with armoured cars, its men are trained for operational duties, both as tankmen and airborne troops in addition to their ceremonial role.


their insignia would give you some idea of their wartime role.
Image

guarding the prez is more of a ceremonial duty and they don't use armoured cars for that role.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests