Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Jun 2010 11:01

vic wrote:If you are admin then delete it and if not lump it!

since you can't be bothered to make on topic posts, the least you can do is be civil in your replies. members have every right to question someone if he/she starts posting OT material. consider this an unofficial warning.

@all, no more on this issue please.

alejandro_ · Post by **alejandro_** » 02 Jun 2010 18:13

what made the NATO tank designers shift from 105mm to 120mm?

Heavier protection in T-64/72/80, especially T-64/80 in the eyes of NATO officials.

what advantage does a 120mm give?

More power.

the muzzle velocity of a next-gen 105mm could
have been made same as the eventual 120mm.

Probably, but 120mm had mor development potential.

americans dont even carry a hesh round which
more explosive.

Most, if not all except UK, don't use HESH rounds anymore.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 02 Jun 2010 22:46

why they dont use that kind of round. Is there any reason? I think we are going to now with Arjun right?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Jun 2010 22:49

Narayana Rao wrote:why they dont use that kind of round. Is there any reason? I think we are going to now with Arjun right?

yes, because IA wanted to use HESH as bunker busters, a requirement NATO or russians didn't have of their tanks. hence they have no need to use HESH.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 03 Jun 2010 05:38

Army follows up on light tanks

alejandro_ · Post by **alejandro_** » 03 Jun 2010 16:04

why they dont use that kind of round. Is there any reason? I think we are going to now with Arjun right?

A few decades ago, HESH was quite flexible. It could be used against bunkers but also vehicles, even against tanks. British Army appreciated this. However, as tanks began to mount composite armour, its efficiency against them decreased. British Army initiated a program a few years ago to replace rifled gun with smooth NATO 120mm, as it would simplify logistics. At the end it was not done due to costs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jun 2010 16:32

I think Sprut-SD will be a good light tank , it offers standardization with existing 125 mm T-90 Gun plus has good overall capability.

SPRUT-SD

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 03 Jun 2010 16:46

it offers standardization with existing 125 mm T-90 Gun

The armour and tracks also come from the same country - so it is doubly suitable

vina · Post by **vina** » 03 Jun 2010 16:47

deleted

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jun 2010 16:50

And you too are so predictable , if the IA needs a light tank , there are quite a few options available around , but SPRUT-SD offers standardisation with the ~ 3000 odd T's . Not sure if they can integrate the T-90 gun with Sarath ICV

vic · Post by **vic** » 03 Jun 2010 20:22

I decade ago DRDO developed a light tank based on BMP + 105mm canon. It was rejected as the "requirement" was dropped. Now the imported maal is kosher!

So why not develop a wheeled 8x8 light tank on the chasis of tatra or tata 8x8 or leyland 8x8 plus 105mm L7 which India is making for long time?

Why not revive light tank developed by DRDO?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 03 Jun 2010 20:28

vic wrote:I decade ago DRDO developed a light tank based on BMP + 105mm canon. It was rejected as the "requirement" was dropped. Now the imported maal is kosher!

So why not develop a wheeled 8x8 light tank on the chasis of tatra or tata 8x8 or leyland 8x8 plus 105mm L7 which India is making for long time?

Why not revive light tank developed by DRDO?

The DRDO light tank is based on BMP chasis - it is featured in one of their monthly publication. let us wait and see what the international market offers and then judge where the DRDO Light Tank stands....

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 03 Jun 2010 20:38

Should develop our own... perhaps a development of DRDO's light tank, but with the Arjun's gun and the Nag ATGM if it can handle that. I think commonality with the Arjun is a better bet than with the T-90. And really cheeses me off, if the Army keeps doing this "Make this, no, make it better, no forget it, now we want it but we'll we'll buy foreign, no we'll buy foreign even if the one DRDO made is better" rubbish. I can understand a reevaluation of needs over time, but what with this and the INSAS-replacement idea and the Arjun shenanigans, I'm fast losing faith in the IA honchos. Stick with an idea, develop it, make it better, don't keep changing your plans every five minutes. Basic management principles are completely lacking. Would they keep changing fronts if they went on the offense, frittering away gains because another area seems better? With this sort of thought, I'm fairly sure they will, and we'll get nowhere.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Jun 2010 21:21

I've always advocated a common platform that would cater to various needs like ICV, APC, light tank, missile carrier, mortar carrier etc. weight around 20t, a 600hp engine and optional bolt-on armour. heaven knows what condition the abhay is in, it sure looked promising.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 05 Jun 2010 10:02

From LiveFist ...

The Arjun MBT's Final Trial By Fire Detailed

Phase I: This was conducted at 180 Armoured Brigade, Bikaner. Acceleration, turning radius, stab performance, ergonomics, static fuel consumption, and serviceability and mean time to repair were checked for various subsystems of the tanks. Phase II: This was conducted at Hisar, Haryana. Check was made for medium fording capability. Phase III: This was conducted at Mahajan Ranges, Rajasthan. Bridge crossing, night driving, maximum speed on cross-country and on hard ground, tilt driving, firing of primary and secondary ammunition, firing at night with thermal imagers (TI), consistency, rate of fire, thermal signature, TI capability and firing of small arms and Air Defence (AD) Gun were compared. In this phase, approximately 100 rounds were fired and 150 km of mobility run was completed by each of the 14 MBT Arjun tanks. Phase IV:This was conducted at Ranjitpura, Rajasthan. Mobility in the desert and tactical cruising range were evaluated by running three tanks each for additional 150 km. MBT Arjun displayed its capabilities and successfully passed all the trials.

vic · Post by **vic** » 05 Jun 2010 10:34

OFB and DRDO has offered:-

Light tank 105mm + BMP chasis

Light SPG Artillery 105mm + tracked chassis

Light Wheeled Artillery 105mm + tatra chasis

Not to forget Abhay which is also being ignored

None of which has got any interest from Foreign maal obsessed ****

Note OFB has built and got orders from MHA for APC based on 4x4. If a similar APC is based on 8x8 or 6x6 then it will be equivalent to BTR or Striker but then why order desi when there is videsi

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Jun 2010 12:01

vic wrote:OFB and DRDO has offered:-

Light tank 105mm + BMP chasis

Light SPG Artillery 105mm + tracked chassis

Light Wheeled Artillery 105mm + tatra chasis

Not to forget Abhay which is also being ignored

None of which has got any interest from Foreign maal obsessed ****

Note OFB has built and got orders from MHA for APC based on 4x4. If a similar APC is based on 8x8 or 6x6 then it will be equivalent to BTR or Striker but then why order desi when there is videsi

While I'm all for local products, why put up things and argue for the sake it? What merits do the weapon systems (apart from Abhay) have which are being overlooked by the Indian Army?

a) Light tank 105mm + BMP chasis - Just because there is a domestic product means that it should be adopted? What are the parameters spelt-out by the latest RFI for Light Tanks and how does DRDO product meet the same? I'm personally not in favor of using BMP chassis as platform. IMO, they offer too less protection.

(b) Light SPG Artillery 105mm + tracked chassis - Has IA ever shown interest (desi or phoren) for 105mm SP Gun? Does any Mechanized formation of IA even use 105mm gun? IA is moving away from 105mm Caliber for it's Field Regiments - so where does 105mm SPG fit in? Which formations require 105mm SPG?

(c) Light Wheeled Artillery 105mm + tatra chasis - same as above.

(d) Abhay IFV - This is the only joker in the pack...till now IA has not shown interest in any new AFV and BMP-II is in production. Let us wait for the new AFV requirement to come out first.

As for the 4X4 APC for MHA thing - do you even know what an APC is? You're comparing an Armored 4x4 vehicle with an APC? And in the same vein you think that Tatra chassis can be used to develop a wheeled APC like BTR or Stryker?

Next time you go out dissing the Armed Forces, get your facts correct. And that is a genuine request.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jun 2010 12:04

rohit, wheeled APC's have been developed from trucks in the past. agree with the rest of your post.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Jun 2010 12:06

Rahul M wrote:rohit, wheeled APC's have been developed from trucks in the past. agree with the rest of your post.

Sirji, please to give an example or a link. Thanx.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2010 12:51

methinks 105mm on back of a smaller tatra or AL stallion could be a useful fire support vehicle in the mountains. it can negotiate roads much easier
than ponderous towed artillery, move faster where terrain permits. instead of chichi xm777 type cannons, I believe Ofb/tata mounted the IFG 105mm
on a truck in a crude manner - with refinements like better protection, automatic ammo handling system it can be a cheap and viable product.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jun 2010 12:56

off the cuff I can only remember a chinese one, WZ551 and a french one from ACMAT, both 6X6.
do note that virtually every wheeled APC manufacturer is primarily a manufacturer of heavy-duty trucks (and not MBTs for instance). so they might have used significant amount of subsystems from their truck lines without finding a need to advertise the fact. in fact it would be a waste of resources not to do so.

BTR-- GAZ
Stryker/Piranha/LAV etc--MOWAG
VBCI--Renault trucks
Puma & centauro -- Iveco-fiat
etc

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Jun 2010 13:14

Singha wrote:methinks 105mm on back of a smaller tatra or AL stallion could be a useful fire support vehicle in the mountains. it can negotiate roads much easier than ponderous towed artillery, move faster where terrain permits. instead of chichi xm777 type cannons, I believe Ofb/tata mounted the IFG 105mm on a truck in a crude manner - with refinements like better protection, automatic ammo handling system it can be a cheap and viable product.

Sirji, the 105mm is Field Gun - with limited usage in mountains. The XM777 is not only a howitzer but also a 155mm caliber gun - mucho difference.

And "Cheap" and "refinements like better protection, automatic ammo handling system" are mutually exclusive.Another thing - the footprint required for a gun (105mm in this case) is smaller as compared to the whole truck. We've seen the Kargil pics of 105mm - try replacing the gun with truck for the same location.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jun 2010 13:16

singha ji, it would be better to make a knock-off of the 777 and mount it on a truck, no use adding to the complexity by using a second variety.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Jun 2010 13:19

Rahul M wrote:
<SNIP>

So they might have used significant amount of subsystems from their truck lines without finding a need to advertise the fact. in fact it would be a waste of resources not to do so.

BTR-- GAZ
Stryker/Piranha/LAV etc--MOWAG
VBCI--Renault trucks
Puma & centauro -- Iveco-fiat
etc

The above part is something I'm aware off and accept - but to say that since we make TATRA in India, hence, we can come up with a Wheeled APC like Stryker, is stretching the logic a bit.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Jun 2010 13:40

We can make Arihant in India but army wants to import everything from pistols to tanks from abroad. Did Army "ever" mandate DRDO to develop an APC? When? Did DRDO fail? Did army one nice day come up with idea of light tank, especially when sprut is not getting orders in home country? Did not Army "withdraw requirement of light tank" after BMP based tank was demonstrated? Did it ask DRDO to develop a de novo light tank? When? Did DRDO fail? Manufacturing ability of 8x8 trucks give a technological base on which APC can be made!

From VRDE site, for the benefit of parrots repeating HACK KNEED rhetoric from army leaks!

Light Armoured Wheeled Vehicle (LAWV) – Technology Demonstrator
Light Armoured Wheeled Vehicle (LAWV) a technology demonstrator has been developed as Armoured Personnel Carrier for reconnaissance and counter insurgency and riot control Operations.

Features

• Crew : 6

• Configuration : 4 x 4, rear engine

• Engine type : Four-stroke, water-cooled, Turbo charged

• Max. power : 160 hp @ 2400 rpm

• Max. torque : 52.5 kg.m @ 1800 rpm

• Gear-box : Manual, 5 forward & 1 reverse

• Dimensions (lxbxh): 5830 x2230 x2200 mm

• Wheel base : 3210 mm

• FAW/RAW/GVW : 3500 / 4200 / 7700 kg

• Payload : 1000 kg

• Maximum speed : 84 kmph

• Ground Clearance: 280 mm

• Protection : Against 7.62 mm AP

• Fire Power : 7.62 mm MG

Bullet proof wind shield glass for driver and commander.

wilson_th · Post by **wilson_th** » 07 Jun 2010 14:09

I saw some pics of truck mounted guns when googling by chance , if they are relevant for the discussion?, else plz delete it.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... tmos6.html

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Jun 2010 14:14

vic wrote:We can make Arihant in India but army wants to import everything from pistols to tanks from abroad. Did Army "ever" mandate DRDO to develop an APC? When? Did DRDO fail? Did army one nice day come up with idea of light tank, especially when sprut is not getting orders in home country? Did not Army "withdraw requirement of light tank" after BMP based tank was demonstrated? Did it ask DRDO to develop a de novo light tank? When? Did DRDO fail? Manufacturing ability of 8x8 trucks give a technological base on which APC can be made!

From VRDE site, for the benefit of parrots repeating HACK KNEED rhetoric from army leaks!

Light Armoured Wheeled Vehicle (LAWV) – Technology Demonstrator
Light Armoured Wheeled Vehicle (LAWV) a technology demonstrator has been developed as Armoured Personnel Carrier for reconnaissance and counter insurgency and riot control Operations.

<SNIP>

Not only are you ignorant and don't know what you're talking about, but rude and impolite to the boot. You don't know what you're saying but must satisfy some urge to bash the IA because it did not order some piece of equipment which VRDE/XYZ has developed. Never mind the fact that there might be no requirement for such a vehicle in the Indian Army. Mind you, I'm saying such a vehicle and not an APC - because the term APC (wheeled or tracked) is generally used to mean something like a Stryker or Pirahna.

Now, what was the thing you copy pasted from VRDE website? This -

Light Armoured Wheeled Vehicle (LAWV) a technology demonstrator has been developed as Armoured Personnel Carrier for reconnaissance and counter insurgency and riot control Operations.

Here is the link for benefit of aam-junta -http://www.drdo.gov.in/labs/vrde/achieve.htm

So, the only thing IA can use this vehicle is for Recce role. Now please use google (for I know you won't know this) and search of Recconnaisance vehicle used by the Indian Army. And once you're done doing that, compare this with the one used by IA. And then, show me requirement floated by IA for Recce Vehicles?

BTW, you've very conviniently overlooked the fact that the same VRDE Website list 17 items in all and of these, 15 are in service with Indian Army or CPO. So, why the whining? So much for videshi maal loving IA.

And as for the IFV and mandate from IA - Has IA come out with requirement at all for IFV - phoren or desi? Is Abhay's case similar to Arjun? So, why the nonsense?

And why should have IA asked for de novo development of Light Tank to DRDO? What is the lead time for induction of Light Tank and what is time frame required for development? And as for the Light Tank requirement being withdrawn - where has the IA withdrawn the RFI? Last I checked, IA was to go full steam ahead with the Light Tank.

I see that you've quitely dropped the crusade about 105mm SP gun - give yourself more time and you'll get over the urge to post nonsense for the sake of it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2010 14:19

> knock off XM777

you know each XM777 will come with monitoring devices and hidden kill switches to ensure it aint use to pound the Munna's red bottom....

we *should* have managed to knock off FH77 which was delivered 20+ yrs ago if we had any seriousness about it.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Jun 2010 14:26

wilson_th wrote:I saw some pics of truck mounted guns when googling by chance , if they are relevant for the discussion?, else plz delete it.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... tmos6.html

The said system is actually a contended for the Wheeled SP Arty Gun for the IA. These are the big 155/52 Caliber Weapons and IMO will be used with Mechanized Formation in the plains of Western India - though nothing stops their usage on the LAC with China.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jun 2010 14:27

>> you know each XM777 will come with monitoring devices and hidden kill switches to ensure it aint use to pound the Munna's red bottom....
well, I surely hope we lose a couple in 'accidents'.

I never had the impression that we gave two hoots about what others thought if we felt like it.

rohitvats wrote:
Rahul M wrote:
<SNIP>

So they might have used significant amount of subsystems from their truck lines without finding a need to advertise the fact. in fact it would be a waste of resources not to do so.

BTR-- GAZ
Stryker/Piranha/LAV etc--MOWAG
VBCI--Renault trucks
Puma & centauro -- Iveco-fiat
etc
The above part is something I'm aware off and accept - but to say that since we make TATRA in India, hence, we can come up with a Wheeled APC like Stryker, is stretching the logic a bit.

admitted, but you got to acknowledge that the stryker, contrary to perceptions is not a very ultra-tech piece of equipment. most of the wheeled APC's are made by consortiums, with the truck manufacturer looking after the chasis and an weapon manufacturer making the turret. MOWAG being a specialised mil OEM is an exception.
there is really no reason why BEML can't make a wheeled APC with assistance from VRDE et al when countries with far lesser industrial capacity are making wheeled APC's.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 07 Jun 2010 14:38

Rahul M wrote: Admitted, but you got to acknowledge that the stryker, contrary to perceptions is not a very ultra-tech piece of equipment. most of the wheeled APC's are made by consortiums, with the truck manufacturer looking after the chasis and an weapon manufacturer making the turret. MOWAG being a specialised mil OEM is an exception.
there is really no reason why BEML can't make a wheeled APC with assistance from VRDE et al when countries with far lesser industrial capacity are making wheeled APC's.

Sir, humbly accepted. But the point is - why start bad mouthing the Army when we don't even know wether the requirement exists? Another point - lead time, requirement numbers and tech-level. Is it worth the effort to have a domestic wheeled APC R&D? Can't we simply license manufacture the basic Stryker or XYZ and then kit it out as per our specifications?

There was some talk of Stryker making it to IA. What were the numbers required? If IA is not wanting to turn it's ID with Wheeled APC, the numbers will be less. Do these numbers warrant a fresh R&D effort? What would be more cost effective option?

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Jun 2010 17:28

Corruption in army is nowdays making even Political class look good.

While I'm all for local products, why put up things and argue for the sake it? What merits do the weapon systems (apart from Abhay) have which are being overlooked by the Indian Army? So accept Abhay should be ordered?

a) Light tank 105mm + BMP chasis - Just because there is a domestic product means that it should be adopted? What are the parameters spelt-out by the latest RFI for Light Tanks and how does DRDO product meet the same? I'm personally not in favor of using BMP chassis as platform. IMO, they offer too less protection. Parameters are fixed to promote foreign maal.

(b) Light SPG Artillery 105mm + tracked chassis - Has IA ever shown interest (desi or phoren) for 105mm SP Gun? Does any Mechanized formation of IA even use 105mm gun? IA is moving away from 105mm Caliber for it's Field Regiments - so where does 105mm SPG fit in? Which formations require 105mm SPG? 105mm SPG would be cheap solution at 1/10th the cost like 81mm mortar mounted on BMP. But army always wants the best like US$ 10 million Bhim

(c) Light Wheeled Artillery 105mm + tatra chasis - same as above.105mm SPG would be cheap solution at 1/10th the cost like 81mm mortar mounted on BMP. But army always wants the best like US$ 10 million Bhim

(d) Abhay IFV - This is the only joker in the pack...till now IA has not shown interest in any new AFV and BMP-II is in production. Let us wait for the new AFV requirement to come out first. The required will ask for Bradley or BMP-3 roled into CV-90

As for the 4X4 APC for MHA thing - do you even know what an APC is? You're comparing an Armored 4x4 vehicle with an APC? And in the same vein you think that Tatra chassis can be used to develop a wheeled APC like BTR or Stryker? 4x4 APC is light so can be used only for CT but if 4x4 can be developed then so can 8x8, but then army will do a Arjun on it.

Next time you go out dissing the Armed Forces, get your facts correct. And that is a genuine request. I have got my facts right but you need to get your loyalties right. We have to look for the benfit of India and not go down the Pakistan or any banana republic route where nation is for footing the bills of the army.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Jun 2010 17:32

Rahul M wrote: You got to acknowledge that the stryker, contrary to perceptions is not a very ultra-tech piece of equipment. most of the wheeled APC's are made by consortiums, with the truck manufacturer looking after the chasis and an weapon manufacturer making the turret. MOWAG being a specialised mil OEM is an exception.there is really no reason why BEML can't make a wheeled APC with assistance from VRDE et al when countries with far lesser industrial capacity are making wheeled APC's.

Not to mention for light vehicles we have joined JLTV led by USA, so for making heavy jeeps/suv also we need help of USA

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2010 17:33

to some extent your first statement about corruption is true. but maybe it was always there in the era when internet and TV media were not so effective in ferreting out secrets. favouritism, procurement corruption , natasha lobby, stealing and diverting truckloads of supplies, land scams....hardly a day goes by without some jarnails name in the news....almost at par with the IFS/IPS warlords.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Jun 2010 17:43

rohitvats wrote:
Never mind the fact that there might be no requirement for such a vehicle in the Indian Army. There was no requirment of Light tank till Sput SD was pushed. Remember comments of RayC on use of tanks and APCs on mountaineous terrain. The term APC (wheeled or tracked) is generally used to mean something like a Stryker or Pirahna. For army any imported maal is good. Am sure your defination that APC=Striker is correct in Army Brass manuals and VRDE are bunch of jokers for calling their vehicle as an APC

Now, what was the thing you copy pasted from VRDE website? This -
Light Armoured Wheeled Vehicle (LAWV) a technology demonstrator has been developed as Armoured Personnel Carrier for reconnaissance and counter insurgency and riot control Operations.
Army love is blind

And why should have IA asked for de novo development of Light Tank to DRDO? Bang Right on nail head, why should army ask DRDO when it can import. correct johnny boy! hulla dance!

What is the lead time for induction of Light Tank and what is time frame required for development? And as for the Light Tank requirement being withdrawn - where has the IA withdrawn the RFI? Last I checked, IA was to go full steam ahead with the Light Tank. Army cancelled the requirement of light tank around 2000 after DRDO developed it with ten year effort. Army did not cancel RFI for imported maal, they are full speed ahead for imports

I see that you've quitely dropped the crusade about 105mm SP gun - give yourself more time In long run all of us are dead anyway. India inspite of being the biggest world economy from 1000 to 1800s was enslaved and no imports could help it.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jun 2010 18:23

rohit, my point was not at all about abusing the army on which I mostly agree with you.

regarding wheeled APC, the long term plan of IA calls for widespread mechanisation, it's impossible that we will be able to do it with tracked vehicles alone, even the red army couldn't afford it. so the need is definitely there, I would estimate a few thousands easily, all versions considered.
isn't it strange that in IA tanks outnumber APC/IFV's 2:1 ?? in most armies it is the other way around !

technology-wise, APC is a low hanging fruit that can be completed in 3-4 years of sustained effort, leveraging the experience we already have in manufacturing and customising BMP's for the last couple of decades, even engines which are the achilles heel of any Indian endeavour is not a pressing problem, the engines used in the heavy duty trucks can be used without much of a problem.

the problem with stryker itself is cost and the fact that we will have to go through this again 20-30 years down the line when we want to make a replacement. stryker costs almost as much as a MBT, add the profits, infrastructure costs, licensing fee, it will probably cross the price of an arjun !!
if we do further mods then add those costs as well. of course assuming we are allowed to touch the insides in the first place !
how many would the GOI be ready to buy in that case, and even if they do, should we splurge on yet another foreign item unnecessarily ? the stryker as it stands now is a over-complex machine that has had its costs pushed up due the various variations called for by its european and american users, many of these variations have little use for us but we will have to pay for them anyway.
shouldn't we simply go for a simpler robust option made for ourselves and make it in numbers ?
in fact, we can probably even ask the major truck makers for a competition and select the best design.

skher · Post by **skher** » 07 Jun 2010 20:35

Rahul M wrote: regarding wheeled APC, the long term plan of IA calls for widespread mechanisation, it's impossible that we will be able to do it with tracked vehicles alone, even the red army couldn't afford it. so the need is definitely there, I would estimate a few thousands easily, all versions considered.
isn't it strange that in IA tanks outnumber APC/IFV's 2:1 ?? in most armies it is the other way around !

Saar, is it possible for IA commanders to make a disruptive jump to armored helos rather than APCs? And use up-armored civvy jeeps to make up for the balance in need of emergencies.

I say so because the present admin(esp. the hon'ble HM) seems determined to make wheeled APCs a priority for paramils against Naxals more than for any other force/objective.

skher · Post by **skher** » 07 Jun 2010 20:42

Rahul M wrote:
technology-wise, APC is a low hanging fruit that can be completed in 3-4 years of sustained effort, leveraging the experience we already have in manufacturing and customising BMP's for the last couple of decades, even engines which are the achilles heel of any Indian endeavour is not a pressing problem, the engines used in the heavy duty trucks can be used without much of a problem.

shouldn't we simply go for a simpler robust option made for ourselves and make it in numbers ?
in fact, we can probably even ask the major truck makers for a competition and select the best design.

Agreed saar, that vehicles driven not screwdriven. Then why are we stuck?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jun 2010 20:51

skher, I don't see anything about armoured helos in that link. nothing I've come across so far suggests that such a 'jump' is realistic or even considered.
vivek rahguvanshi is anyway not very reliable, consider :
"The Ambala-based Kharga Corps, a rapid-action force of 15,000, is equipped to operate behind enemy lines and to carry out a proactive strategic role."

a division alone might have close to that number of men.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jun 2010 20:53

because the IA seems either resigned or happy to use trucks for infantry rather than IFV....WW2 style. I guess its because trucks are cheaper to buy and operate compared to any wheeled or tracked IFV.

this is where a economical locally designed and fabricated product from tata/mm/Al can turn the tide on mechaniszation. the sensors could be borrowed from the arjun, Nag is already available and the 20-30mm cannon in remotely operated turret could be a purchase or JV with israel or russia. engines of 400hp are available now and uprating them a little bit should not be an issue.