Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Locked
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

alexis wrote: Sanku, i agree with your point that bad state of mil-ind complex is the main issue; but nobody - MOD or army could absolve responsibility for that. They are both responsible.
As I said before Alexis, that is patently incorrect. Its MoDs responsibility, ascribing those decisions to IA is purely lack of understanding of how MoD is structured.
The main issue i feel (as also voiced by many others) is why the order for T-90 in such large numbers when it has suffered almost all the issues faced by Arjun? .
It has not. Not by a long chalk, yes there have been issues, but of a completely different nature than those seen in Arjun (compare the two at the same point of time)

The main and the only issue is that the Mil-Ind complex is in bad shape and those responsible for it do not care.
ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by ASPuar »

Apologies if reposting. I think I saw someone trashing the author of this column, so Im sure there are several readymade responses to this article. But it is interesting in of itself. On the one hand, the difference in class between the two tanks means nothing in the real world. It is a non sequitur to say that it is unfair advantage that Arjun is heavier and better armoured, so it has certain unfair advantages. After all, if it has those advantages, then that is sufficient reason to suspect that it is, in fact, a better tank!

The trouble is, that the DRDO is not taking the army into confidence at any turn, and I think that that is the army's main beef with them. Theyre taking the attitude of "We're making this, and you have to use it". Like so many things in India's arcane governmental mentalities, I think at the root of all this is just a gigantic ego clash. For which both parties are to blame.

On the one hand, the DRDO is a bureaucratic organisation, and its attitude to work is often very "chalta hai". Even the greatest DRDO booster cannot claim that it doesnt have its shortfalls. The attitudes of several of the "Secretary, Defence Research" in the past, have shown scant regard for the opinions and requirements of the armed forces. So in a manner of speaking, this Arjun project fight is also "teaching the brass a lesson", because they can, because the government of the day puts less stock in the words of soldiers than it does in those of bureaucrats. And it is no fiction that the first lot of Arjuns needed to be refurbished, and that there are severe build quality issues (though this is not necessarily DRDOs fault. OFB is not under their ambit).

On the other hand, the tank has on occasion been praised by its trial operators. So if the brass is letting ego hassles get in the way of objectivity, and nitpicking over things, thats also bad.

The whole atmosphere is vitiated, and IMO, MoD needs a complete restructuring, to change the way that our armed forces, and our mil-industrial complex operate. But thats a seperate issue. Anyway. article appended below.



http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arjun ... h/585683/1


Arjun vs T 90: Tank trials to kick off next month
After immense pressure from the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) the Army has decided to go ahead with comparative trials between the Arjun tank and the T 90 Main Battle Tank (MBT) next month. While it will be interesting to see how the ‘indigenous’ tank holds up to the Russian origin mainstay of the Indian Army, the unfairness of comparing two totally different tanks has rankled experts both within and outside the military establishment.

On the face of it, both DRDO and the Army say that the comparative trials are not actually a competition between the tanks but are aimed at defining and finding a role for the Arjun in India’s armoured fleet. However, the Army is feeling the heat from DRDO which is aggressively marketing the trials as a testing point that could pave the way for more orders for the Arjun from the present cap of 124 units.

This, after the Army has virtually ruled out the Arjun for further orders and instead wants DRDO to use it as a base for a new tank that would find a place in its war plans. For the Army, the last nail in the Arjun coffin came after the accelerated user trials in 2008 that resulted in a massive setback after the power pack failed four times during just 1,000 km of running.

However, after the embarrassment two years agno, DRDO came up with a new theory of comparative trials to ‘prove’ the capability of the Arjun. While the Army has been forced to schedule the tests after intense lobbying by DRDO, the huge difference in the class of the two tanks has irked experts who do not see any scope for comparison between the two weapon systems.

For one, at 58.5 tons, the Arjun is more than 10 tons heavier than the T 90. The added weight and size gives the tank several advantages over the Russian machine in terms of more armour, greater capability to carry ammunition as well as extra sensors. The plan to compare a 58.5 ton machine with a 46 ton tank has been described as ‘absurd’.

The T 90’s weight is crucial to the Army’s war plans along the long Indo-Pak border, especially in the plains of Punjab. The T 90 as well as the older T 72 were ordered because they weighed below 50 ton — the load carrying capacity of thousands of canal and river crossings all along the border.At close to 60 tons, the Army would find it impossible to deploy the Arjun in the Punjab sector as well as parts of the Jammu region. The Arjun’s weight is the biggest nemesis to further orders. The cost of upgrading all bridge heads to a capacity of 60 tons, experts point out, would be considerably more than the cost price of the entire tank fleet.

The comparative trials are also being billed as a trial between indigenous and imported, with opponents of the Arjun being labeled as ‘foreign agents’. However, a point that the Army rightfully makes is that the T 90 being produced in India right now is perhaps more ‘indigenous’ that the Arjun that has 60 percent of its parts imported. The engine, tracks, transmissions and gunners sight —- that together account for 60 percent of its cost —- are all imported.

Several officers including former Army Chief Gen VP Malik have reservations over the foreign content of the tank. “I am all for self-reliance. We have to make the Arjun more indigenous than it is today,” Malik had said after the tanks had performed miserably in accelerated trials held in Rajasthan.

While they will be ‘indigenised’ in the future, tank building technology is already flowing into the country through the transfer of technology agreement for the T 90 fleet. India also has the past experience of mass producing the T 72 tanks. This also brings out the Army’s worry about the production quality of the Arjun as it goes into mass production.

Already, the first squadron of Arjun tanks that had rolled out of the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi faced massive quality issues and had to be sent back for refurbishing. However, the biggest worry that the Army has is not the technology of the Arjun but the reliability factor given its past performance in trials as well the lack of continued testing in harsh terrain and climatic conditions unique to India. The outcome of the 2008 Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT) (crucial to clear it for bulk production), where the German engine failed four times, is still fresh in the Army’s mind.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

ASPuar wrote: The trouble is, that the DRDO is not taking the army into confidence at any turn, and I think that that is the army's main beef with them. Theyre taking the attitude of "We're making this, and you have to use it". Like so many things in India's arcane governmental mentalities, I think at the root of all this is just a gigantic ego clash. For which both parties are to blame.

On the one hand, the DRDO is a bureaucratic organisation, and its attitude to work is often very "chalta hai". Even the greatest DRDO booster cannot claim that it doesnt have its shortfalls. The attitudes of several of the "Secretary, Defence Research" in the past, have shown scant regard for the opinions and requirements of the armed forces. So in a manner of speaking, this Arjun project fight is also "teaching the brass a lesson", because they can, because the government of the day puts less stock in the words of soldiers than it does in those of bureaucrats. And it is no fiction that the first lot of Arjuns needed to be refurbished, and that there are severe build quality issues (though this is not necessarily DRDOs fault. OFB is not under their ambit).

On the other hand, the tank has on occasion been praised by its trial operators. So if the brass is letting ego hassles get in the way of objectivity, and nitpicking over things, thats also bad.

The whole atmosphere is vitiated, and IMO, MoD needs a complete restructuring, to change the way that our armed forces, and our mil-industrial complex operate. But thats a seperate issue. Anyway. article appended below.
This is 2010. The tank was overseen by VCOS every year. GSQR's have been changed. The final requirement was laid in 1994.
ASPuar
BRFite
Posts: 1538
Joined: 07 Feb 2001 12:31
Location: Republic of India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by ASPuar »

^^
Im afraid I didnt understand your point.

Anyway, I hope that all teething problems with the Arjun are sorted out, and that the Army comes to love it, and we go on to an Arjun II, which is better, bigger, and tougher than anything else on the block.

More importantly, I hope that our various government agencies learn to work with each other, instead of against each other. That has been our weakness for centuries.

Lt Gen Thakur Nathu Singh, one of the early sandhurst graduates, a most outspoken man, and a strongly anti British nationalist, once said that whatever else one may say of the British, to a man, they will never let any cause take precedence over their own national cause. And alas, the very opposite can be said of our own people.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

^^^^^ Arjun Tank is a Army product. There is no question "we are making, you take it."
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

I concede it is a mess. Let those who are to use it decide and then face their fate, if it was a foolish decision!

Even if it was a foolish decision, the Indian pride in the Armed Forces will salvage us as they did in Kargil, while people here lamented of body bags using US standards!

Not that easy. There are other repercussions too. We cannot let another Marut or Submarine debacle where all the skill set built up is all lost.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

chackojoseph wrote:^^^^^ Arjun Tank is a Army product. "
Huh? Since when did army get into either design or production?
RKumar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RKumar »

Sanku wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:^^^^^ Arjun Tank is a Army product. "
Huh? Since when did army get into either design or production?
That is the whole problem ... Army should have involved in design as well as development. Production is over kill, know how of non-critical stuff and final assembly should be give to private sector.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

RKumar wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Huh? Since when did army get into either design or production?
That is the whole problem ... Army should have involved in design as well as development.
Which is what Navy does, but a lot of Babu's in MoD will have a heart stroke (not to mention Babu's in general) if the above was attempted for IA (loss of power) not to mention the DRDO top staff would be very upset at loss of control :lol:. The navy got around to it since no one cared about it anyway so the little service was allowed its space without babu interference.

However in my opinion; yes assigning these tasks to Army would probably work to immediate benefits in the short term (note the context though -- for projects short term can be pretty long) -- however in the long term it is a disaster, we dont want IA to turn into a behemoth with all manners of extraneous issues diluting its basic focus.

The IA as an institution should just continue the way it is.

The right solution is to actually build up the other part the Mil-Ind complex. While doing that it may be very desirable to send IA officers to those organizations -- in large numbers. Also the overall head may be a IA officer (on deputation or transfer) -- however it MUST remain a separate organization with distinct and clear cut focus.

It also ensures that the manpower and other resources of IA which is already stretched is focused on its current deliverables.
Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Bheem »

Express article is soo one sided that it is hatchet job and somebody has been paid to write and or publish this junk. No attempt even to take the other side view. which is against all known journalistic so called standards.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Bheem wrote:Express article is soo one sided that it is hatchet job and somebody has been paid to write and or publish this junk. No attempt even to take the other side view. which is against all known journalistic so called standards.
It is a piece of BS..nothing more, nothing less.A hit job aimed at the domestic MIL-IND Complex.....but as "Guru bhai" says in movie guru, "Agar log tumhare baare mein bura bolne lagein, to sumjho tarraqi kar rahe ho..."
Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Jagan »

Ray and Rahul,

I know with one of you being a Mod, it is not possible to put either on ignore by either of you. but please please please do the following-

1. stop reading each others posts.
2. stop addressing each other - even indirectly
3. (For Ray) use report post for any complaints.
4. (For Ray) No offtopic posts - Stick to the topic
5. (For Rahul) Report the offtopic posts for other mods to take action.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

ASPuar wrote:.......<SNIP>
The trouble is, that the DRDO is not taking the army into confidence at any turn, and I think that that is the army's main beef with them. Theyre taking the attitude of "We're making this, and you have to use it". Like so many things in India's arcane governmental mentalities, I think at the root of all this is just a gigantic ego clash. For which both parties are to blame. .....
ASPuar Sahab, you're mistaken in your assumption here. The tank has been build as per IA requirement and specifications and there are no two ways about it. This product has not been developed in isolation of the end user; they are in know of it completely.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Anyway, I hope that all teething problems with the Arjun are sorted out, and that the Army comes to love it, and we go on to an Arjun II, which is better, bigger, and tougher than anything else on the block.
I think ASP is intentionally setting bad specs to sabotage Arjun 2 :((
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

Surya wrote:
Anyway, I hope that all teething problems with the Arjun are sorted out, and that the Army comes to love it, and we go on to an Arjun II, which is better, bigger, and tougher than anything else on the block.
I think ASP is intentionally setting bad specs to sabotage Arjun 2 :((
:rotfl:
Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Ashutosh Malik »

IMHO

1) There will always be journalists with not much time to spend on research and probably not much motivation as well - so we will keep on seeing articles on anything related to defence getting all goofed up. This will not stop and therefore it may just be necessary for serious folks to develop a very thick skin w.r.t articles that are typical of what goes for defence publishing in our nation

2) Probably we need to just let go of this discussion because we are now repeating our arguments. I am sure both the Army and DRDO may have at least some thoughtful people within them who would carry some learning from the Arjun saga. As has, seemingly been the case between IAF and DRDO et al w.r.t LCA.

3) No system is really static. I think HF 24 and LCA have taught some lessons to the decision makers of all the relevant folks. So, hopefully, is the case with Arjun. No user, ala Army, can really have a stand-offish attitude with respect to development of complex systems and no developer, ala DRDO, can really have the holier than thou attitude, if we have really progress.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

RKumar wrote:That is the whole problem ... Army should have involved in design as well as development. Production is over kill, know how of non-critical stuff and final assembly should be give to private sector.
2 very prominent Army personnel, the VCOA's etc were very much involved. It is wrong to say that Army did not design it.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Well DRDO has learned its side - Read the Saraswat interview

http://tinyurl.com/y8wh8wy
Q. There has been criticism of the DRDO-military relationship.
A. Look, as I said, DRDO’s technology development plan is now dovetailed to the military’s LTIPP. Two, there is now increasing coordination between the services and DRDO. The military is now involved at every stage in our projects. Also, what we do now is, if a development project is estimated to take five years but the military wants the capability sooner, we say, go ahead and buy it from outside. So, the potential for conflict between DRDO and military does not arise.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

Surya wrote:Well DRDO has learned its side - Read the Saraswat interview

http://tinyurl.com/y8wh8wy
Q. There has been criticism of the DRDO-military relationship.
A. Look, as I said, DRDO’s technology development plan is now dovetailed to the military’s LTIPP. Two, there is now increasing coordination between the services and DRDO. The military is now involved at every stage in our projects. Also, what we do now is, if a development project is estimated to take five years but the military wants the capability sooner, we say, go ahead and buy it from outside. So, the potential for conflict between DRDO and military does not arise.
Also, this time, Army has to put its own money into the project. It cannot act as a referee now. This will make Army more accountable. DRDO has learn't that from the Arjun project.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

chackojoseph wrote:
RKumar wrote:That is the whole problem ... Army should have involved in design as well as development. Production is over kill, know how of non-critical stuff and final assembly should be give to private sector.
2 very prominent Army personnel, the VCOA's etc were very much involved. It is wrong to say that Army did not design it.
Involvement of Army for user specification and design of product are two very different things.

The concept of design in engineering terms is not at all what you seem to suggest it is.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Sanku »

chackojoseph wrote:
Also, this time, Army has to put its own money into the project. It cannot act as a referee now. This will make Army more accountable. DRDO has learn't that from the Arjun project.
Army's money? What is that? Is there any part of budget allocated to Army for "R&D" activities? Should there be? What is the extent of money available to IA say chief that he can spend under his signature?

Can you care to tell us which department of MoD (of the 4 main divisions) should it be budgeted under?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by SaiK »

Schedule planning is one major learning, but requirements engineering is another aspect, that both sides must agree before or at the begin of any project. Changing requirements that crosses a predetermined scope can screw up any project and at the same time, over ambitious and over engineered projects may shoot off the scope of requirements and budget as well.

What is required not just forces (that drives the money) participation in investment alone..and voila some magic product is produced.. 'cause, the kind of firangi influence we are seeing could make these investments on wee scale while the large important contracts goes to the influenced.

We need much more on this DRDO-Forces from a charter level.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17169
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

Sanku wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:
Also, this time, Army has to put its own money into the project. It cannot act as a referee now. This will make Army more accountable. DRDO has learn't that from the Arjun project.
Army's money? What is that? Is there any part of budget allocated to Army for "R&D" activities? Should there be? What is the extent of money available to IA say chief that he can spend under his signature?
is this very unheard of ? and undesirable ?
armed forces of all important nations routinely fund projects and in many cases even pure academic projects that have no direct bearing on deployable systems. in our own country we have had the IAF allocate certain amount of funds for the LCH project, even when it was in the drawing board stage.
without this we will continue to have the "we are customers" syndrome.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

Rahul M wrote:is this very unheard of ? and undesirable ?
armed forces of all important nations routinely fund projects and in many cases even pure academic projects that have no direct bearing on deployable systems. in our own country we have had the IAF allocate certain amount of funds for the LCH project, even when it was in the drawing board stage.
without this we will continue to have the "we are customers" syndrome.
Navy already does it. AF has started it.
Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Bheem »

chackojoseph wrote:
Rahul M wrote:is this very unheard of ? and undesirable ?
armed forces of all important nations routinely fund projects and in many cases even pure academic projects that have no direct bearing on deployable systems. in our own country we have had the IAF allocate certain amount of funds for the LCH project, even when it was in the drawing board stage.
without this we will continue to have the "we are customers" syndrome.
Navy already does it. AF has started it.

Once very senior officer of IAF attended a BR meet and said that he put up a proposal for high tech sensitive project to IAF chief and told him that if we want it then we must fund it. So I think this message slowly going down to IAF that if they fund it then they own and control it.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

I don't know if it is OT, but the since the debate is hot and thick, this link will give some insight to issues that happen.

I am sure it will go a long way for those who wish to know how things work in defence procurement and development so that a correct perspective can be taken without accusations of corruption and conspiracies flying thick and fast.

CASE STUDY: PLIGHT PATH
College of Defence Management

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

Bheem wrote:[


Once very senior officer of IAF attended a BR meet and said that he put up a proposal for high tech sensitive project to IAF chief and told him that if we want it then we must fund it. So I think this message slowly going down to IAF that if they fund it then they own and control it.
Defence projects are expensive.

From where are they to get the funds is the issue.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Oh drat - :mrgreen:

Sanky, berwal - where art thou

here you go my friends

http://cdm.ap.nic.in/casestudies/casevo ... 20T90s.pdf

1000Hp engine - cough cough not really 1000 HP

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

I don't know if this OT or not. I comment since it has been debated so far.

I have a few issues for consideration:

1. I saw a post that indicated various tanks the world over and how in a short time, they developed from prototypes to operational. We could compare the same with our product. I will also give way to indicate that this is the first step to tank designing in India. It naturally would take time, but 35 years?
2. If one reads what I posted above, one would realise what makes one buy foreign eqpt and not wait years for indigenous eqpt to fill the void.
CASE STUDY: PLIGHT PATH
College of Defence Management
http://cdm.ap.nic.in/casestudies/casevo ... 20Path.pdf

Therefore, what were the options to fill the void for the ageing tank fleet given that the operational scenario was changing? One sure would be interested to know, more so, when cost is the criteria for defence procurement. I am sure that it is not the problem of the Defence Forces, but that of the govt, which is the final authority as would be indicated in the link given. One should also note the DRDO interaction in that link. This case study is true to reality since such cases are alone allowed in the CDM, though I am sure the names are changed.

3. I have given an example of M1 Abram tanks burning and casualties caused. Of course, the report states some of the casualties were due to ‘friendly fire’. Now, if it were so, it means that there are weapons that can take on the best of the tanks in the world. Therefore, as I look at it, all tanks are burning infernos, given the right anti tank weapon! I personally think a low silhouette is a great saving grace in a hull down position and taking enemy by surprise. In a gung ho situation, it is different is what I would feel. Tactics is a very important factor be it for a tank battle or even a mundane ambush!
As AS Puar says, every Indian wants his own equipment. It gives one a sense of pride. However, to feel that one should accept less the modern equipment to face the challenges of the modern world, I think that nationalistic pride cannot override pragmatism.

Lastly, an ex COAS, an Armoured Corps officer, who I met at an Army gathering, was asked a ponted question by me since this debate was on. What is his opinion about T 90 vs Arjun. He said that T 90 is a good tank and Arjun was a Mark I. Whatever that means!
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

all tanks are burning infernos, given the right anti tank weapon!
not the same

The T series will cook off and without blow off panels, ammo inside - it is all over

The M1 and others have blow off panel, with ammo seperated by heavy steel so even if penetration occurs it will blow out -
thats reason for low fatalities on Merkavas, M1s


Check Merkavas in Lebanon

in once case even when penetrated and hitting ammo, the fire suppression system managed to prevent a disaster.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

http://theasiandefence.blogspot.com/200 ... pment.html

Arjun Tank Disaster Part II: Development years and Arjun’s first fight
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

There are pictures of the Georgia war and Russian tank burning.

To put the balance tight, may I append these pictures?


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

There is many more at:

http://rense.com/general61/loses.htm

Now, why are we not presenting this to have a fair view of how dangerous life is in a tank?

War is dangerous.

But in these picture (I don't know) did the damage occur because of a war or a motley bunch of terrorists with rudimentary weapons?

This link may also be interesting. It is a conservative US link

WAB

So, as I look at it, we must not look at issues in isolation!

It might be OT, but I raidse it since it has been repeatedly mentioned that T 90 is a burning hunk!

Just to clarify issues.

Get a shot at the right place and things go boom!
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

Surya wrote:
all tanks are burning infernos, given the right anti tank weapon!
not the same

The T series will cook off and without blow off panels, ammo inside - it is all over

The M1 and others have blow off panel, with ammo seperated by heavy steel so even if penetration occurs it will blow out -
thats reason for low fatalities on Merkavas, M1s


Check Merkavas in Lebanon

in once case even when penetrated and hitting ammo, the fire suppression system managed to prevent a disaster.
I would not know since I have not seen the tank or in action, but here is something from M1 Abram.
However, on October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine, which was combined with other explosives (500 kg, including several 155 mm rounds) to increase its effect. The massive explosion beneath the tank knocked off the turret. This marked the first time deaths resulted from a hostile-fire assault on the M1 tank from enemy forces.
Casualty

No Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but there is at least one account, reported in the Gulf War's US Official Assessment, of an Abrams being damaged by three conventional kinetic energy penetrators from a T-72. The damage was enough to send the tank to a maintenance depot (see the article about the Iraqi T-72s for photos and details). Also during Operation Desert Storm, four Abrams were disabled in a suspected friendly fire incident by Hellfire missiles fired from AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. A number of them were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. Another one was put out of action when heavy machine gun rounds struck fuel stowed in an external rack, starting a fire that spread to the engine.
Nothing is Perfect

Last edited by RayC on 10 Mar 2010 11:01, edited 2 times in total.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by chackojoseph »

RayC wrote:Lastly, an ex COAS, an Armoured Corps officer, who I met at an Army gathering, was asked a ponted question by me since this debate was on. What is his opinion about T 90 vs Arjun. He said that T 90 is a good tank and Arjun was a Mark I. Whatever that means!
I think, you should have really asked him what he meant by it. IIRC, I sat in a Ka-31 cockpit. One of the crew told me that the Indian IFF is a failure. So, I asked him to explain, he said "oh we do not use it, the equipment is ok"
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by negi »

^ The link to the forum you posted only re confirms what we have been saying for all this while , Abrams provides a level of crew protection which ensures high chances of survival against enemy tanks (T-72 family ) and other infantry anti tank munitions , the losses in IRAQ were due to huge IED mines and friendly fire (The DU round like silver bullet which A 1 Abrams use is in entirely different league than the shorter sabots fired by T-72 family ).
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

chackojoseph wrote:
RayC wrote:Lastly, an ex COAS, an Armoured Corps officer, who I met at an Army gathering, was asked a ponted question by me since this debate was on. What is his opinion about T 90 vs Arjun. He said that T 90 is a good tank and Arjun was a Mark I. Whatever that means!
I think, you should have really asked him what he meant by it. IIRC, I sat in a Ka-31 cockpit. One of the crew told me that the Indian IFF is a failure. So, I asked him to explain, he said "oh we do not use it, the equipment is ok"
You are right, but at a Raising Day, one cannot hold up a guest and I did not want to needle him on the issue.

I understood what he meant, having a wee bit of experience in the Army and so having got the gist, it was OK by me.

Mk I means a lot!

To be frank, what ever is OK by the IA, is OK by me!
Last edited by RayC on 10 Mar 2010 11:21, edited 1 time in total.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4678
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by putnanja »

Surya wrote: 1000Hp engine - cough cough not really 1000 HP

engine failed too
One engine failed and one seized out of three tanks participating in AUCRT trials. I wonder how long it took to replace/repair the two engines, and how it compares with Arjun. If it was a problem with T-90 and still accepted, why is similar failure in Arjun being made such a big deal and killing the induction?
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

negi wrote:^ The link to the forum you posted only re confirms what we have been saying for all this while , Abrams provides a level of crew protection which ensures high chances of survival against enemy tanks (T-72 family ) and other infantry anti tank munitions , the losses in IRAQ were due to huge IED mines and friendly fire (The DU round like silver bullet which A 1 Abrams use is in entirely different league than the shorter sabots fired by T-72 family ).

The issue is the loss of life, be it by IED or a nuke!

My contention (with offence meant) the tank blown up by whatever in the Georgian picture (as appended), could it not be in a similar manner as the Abram going up in smoke? So, if were so, then aren't we giving a wrong picture and stating what we want to astound others who have no time to Google?

I have IIRC asked how did that Tank get destroyed?

I am not in this nitpicking game. Too tired of it. I seek the truth and it should not be done to prove a case that one is espousing!

I am all for Arjun, but it should be good! Is that asking for too much?

I find the INSAS a great weapon, some here find it as junk. So, be it. I had to use it to save my life and kill the enemy, but if there are Mary Poppins so be it!

I don't care for T 90 or T 109!

I want something that is OK for the IA and a base for DRDO to improve upon, wherein other countries buy from us! If China can do reverse engineering and succeed, so can we. My experience with the DRDO is that they are bureaucratic and waste the money. Check my link from CDM.

If a small country like Singapore can do it, so can we!

Sadly, we are just doing one-upmanship and cutting the branch on which we sit like Kalidasa!
Last edited by RayC on 10 Mar 2010 11:46, edited 1 time in total.
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by RayC »

negi wrote:^ The link to the forum you posted only re confirms what we have been saying for all this while , Abrams provides a level of crew protection which ensures high chances of survival against enemy tanks (T-72 family ) and other infantry anti tank munitions , the losses in IRAQ were due to huge IED mines and friendly fire (The DU round like silver bullet which A 1 Abrams use is in entirely different league than the shorter sabots fired by T-72 family ).
So, what is perfect?

Any designs you have in mind that make everything perfect?

As far as the league is concerned, I want the best.

Any suggestions that the DRDO may benefit from?


Am I to understand that the US is giving correct statistics of armour kills and you vouch for it with links?
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7794
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Prasad »

Sir,
the question is not about which is perfect but as you yourself say, which is better. Our primary aim to ensure safety of our soldiers under attack and enough firepower at their hands that they can attack enemy mbts from farther away and with a greater accuracy that they can safely pick them off (in an ideal situation say). With such criteria which is the better choice for the IA tank corps.

However, the choice isn't as simple as pitting the two tanks against each other and find out which one outlasts the other. We do have to take into account several things such as uptime, mtbf of various items on board, frequency of servicing, ability to procure spares and ability to make-do when denied spares and importantly avenues for future development and incremental betterment of the platform and upgrades. We have seen examples of the Arjun facing point blank rounds with nary a scratch so to speak which the T-90 just cannot face. Has such a trial been done? I am not aware but is it a definite possibility? Yes. The fact that there are enough examples of the T-90s offering lesser protection to the crew compared to the Abrams or the Merkava makes them a better choice in that respect, does it not? Given that the Arjun is borne out of a similar thought process and is arguably a similar product in this particular area, makes it a better choice. Where is the debate here?

Is the US giving a true account of the hits and damage sustained to the Abrams? Maybe, maybe not. We can take it account but we have our own tests to see for ourselves to compare the two tanks in contest.
Locked