Design your own tank

[Singha]

Please justify the following:
[1] what is its role and operational philosophy
[2] Specs & weapons
[3] new ideas you want introduced on it (apart from the usual like a gun, hmg, thermal etc)
[4] weight
[5] whether you think it should be totally desi or help/building blocks obtained from abroad. if so, from where.

[Singha]

you can also speak of new tracked IFV design here, to replace the aeging BMP2 family
Also we need a wheeled recce/IFV vehicle to replace the limited nos of BTR and build up recce batallions
same points as above apply

[sohamn]

[1] what is its role and operational philosophy
Spearheading the armoured formation with hard hitting capability. Need not be a lot in numbers but should be sophisticated enought to deal and win a 1-5 ratio battle wrt the enemy. Should not only be capable in a tank vs tank battle but also in urban combat scenario. Should have network centric operational capability.

[2] Specs & weapons
Offensive Armament:
Main Gun:
150 mm, smoothbore with ability to launch rockets and anti tank/anti aircraft missiles.
Additional Weapons:
1 remotely controlled, based on a secondary turret(on top of the primary turrent), twin .50 cal machine gun. This should help in urban env where the machine gunner remains exposed and vurnerable.
1 coaxial 30 mm cannon to deal with lightly armoured vehilces and soft targets.

Defensive Capability
Smoke Grenade Launchers.
Flare and chaff launchers to confuse radar/heat seeking missiles
Active Jammers
Active Protection Systems like Trophy, Iron Fist that can deflect/Destroy RPGs and Anti Tank Rockets.

Armour
Composite Kanchan Armour.
Backed by Depleted Uranium armour in the front glacis and turret.
Cage Armour/slat armor at the rear where the main engine is housed.
Sloped Glacis to atleast 30 deg.
Turret and side skirts should be <> shaped like T-90 to deflect RPGs.
Partial V Shaped Hull to provide some protection against Anti Tank Mines.

Engine
Primary Engine: Gas Turbine generating atleast 1800 horse power. Only drives the electrical generator. Not connected to the main drive.
Auxiliary Engine: 200 bhp 2 stroke compact IC engine. Connected to the electrical generator.
Electrical Drive: 1 1800 bhp electric motor giving it a 26 bhp/ton.
Batteries: Light weight Lithium batteries that can power the electric motor at full power for 15 minutes.

Additional Features
Should have a air con system which will ensure a moderate temperature even in hot areas like a desert. Crew comfort is important.
Weapons storage should be in a safe compartment.
Operators should have a escape hatch in the rear incase of emergency.
IR signature management system, mix cold air with exhaust and blow it all around the skirt.
Should be able to link up with satelittes and drone aircrafts to create a complete battle management picture for the tactical commander.

[3] new ideas you want introduced on it (apart from the usual like a gun, hmg, thermal etc)
Dynamic Threat Management System.
It should be a combination of Radar, Thermal Cameras, Video cameras and powerful computers that would enable the tank to manage the threat effectively and deploy the best countermeasure.

Electro-Mechanical Transmission: Hybrid Propulsion
The main transmission should be a diesel/turbine electrical one.
In pressing scenario the tank should be able to drive itself only on electric power alone for a distance as well as operate all its system without running the main gas turbine. This would give substancial stealth because heat seeking missiles and thermal cameras would not be able to track the tank. moreover the tank would be completely silent.
The drive shaft should be normally connected to the electric motor, but in case of emergency it can be connected to the turbine through a gear.

Partial V- shaped Hull (sloped 150 Degrees )

Quick Replace Tracks[/u ]:
Should have a pair of high strength rubber&Steel tacks that can replace the steel tracks in battlefield and help move the tank away from a dangerous situation to a safer place in case the main track is damaged. Such tracks should be easy to fit (< 5mins) and should be able to withstand atleast 100 kms travel.

[4] weight
65 Tons

[5] whether you think it should be totally desi or help/building blocks obtained from abroad. if so, from where.Combination of Indian and foreign tech. Private Indian D&E companies like L&T/Tatas/Punj Loyd etc should be roped in. We should either make Israel or Russia technology partners. Should not be a 100% DRDO project.

[Pratyush]

My post got eaten up

Any here's another go at the design

[1] what is its role and operational philosophy

Seek and destroy any forces through a combination of superior firepower speed and stealth. Act as a spear head for the Indian forces in diverse terain.

[2] Specs & weapons

50 tons of all up weight.
140 mm low recoil smooth bore gun housed in a remote control low profile turret like the falcon . No gun launched missiles unless they are of the fire & forget kind. (Reason, the missile/ round onse fired will occupy the attention of the tank fire control system till it reached the intended target. taking away the tanks ability to engag other targets.)

1800 Hp hybrid powerplant. 1500 HP IC and 300 Hp electric motor. The electic motor sould have a range of 80 Kms and be sielent enough that the tank can tap the sholders of a man walking in the field without the man suspecting that a 50 ton beast is sneaking up on him.

Low profile not taller then 5 feet

Low signature, accoustic, thermal and visual.

[3] new ideas you want introduced on it (apart from the usual like a gun, hmg, thermal etc)

Active protection with hard kill measure for in comming guided rounds and RPGs and the protection system tied to the FCS to kill the detected threats.

[4] weight

50 ton all up weight.

[5] whether you think it should be totally desi or help/building blocks obtained from abroad. if so, from where.

Don't know. The prefrence is to have a desi consortium of firms guided by the DRDO.

JMTs onlee

[shiv]

Let me go "radical". No time now to think so will post with minimal thinking.

Make a "tank" or an armored vehicle transportable by the MTA - i.e not more than 20 tone all up weight. Will post more thoughts later. Should be mobile on mountain roads, snow, slush and swamps.

[Pratyush]

Sihv,

Will look forward to the completion of your idea. But i think that such a vehicle already exists. in the form of the MGS.

[Samay]

A lightweight , modular design,remote controlled tank is the future tank

[SaiK]

All composite tank including the turret [perhaps metal woven composite as in the CFM turbofan engine]. Multi layered protection system. Make it smaller for the mountains, perhaps single or two seat. Make it a mad max kind small high speed tank, that has special gears /locks for high inclinations. Modular construction for growth. Re-configurable and optimum LRUs. Anti munition/missile high speed projectile guns. 360* aware protection system.

Separate role based variants - dedicated ATGM tank, with guns. 1-10 kill ratio. Special version for urban warfare. High speed version for the deserts. Anti aircraft versions, etc.

All have detachable/ejectable logistics and weapons store that gets automatically loaded and on SoS/blast trigger gets separated for safety. Highly integrated with federated C&C and controlled - logistics supply monitoring system automatically engages return or refill requests.

Integrated with sat communications, AWACs/helo integration etc.

[abhischekcc]

What, Singha?

Why are starting this thread?

You want to see whether BRF members have imagination as good as you son or not?

[ArmenT]

sohamn & pratyush: Not sure about using a gas turbine engine.

Pros:
====
1. Works with variety of fuel types.
2. Start up is quicker than diesels, since you don't need to wait for engine to warm up first. Newer diesel tech reduces the start-up time of diesel engines though, so not much of an advantage any more.
3. More power to weight ratio.

Cons:
====
1. Massive fuel hog.
2. Huge IR signature. Gas turbine engines run hot. So even if they engage the electric motor for quiet running, the hot gas turbine engine is still emitting heat for a long time afterwards.
3. Way more expensive to build and needs more maintenance.

[abhischekcc]

Rola and operational philosophy:

Since in the coming decades, most of humanity will live in urban areas, the tank should have the ability to operat in urban sprawls. This means it has to be able to:
1. Survive hits from small arms (RPG, etc) which will become increasingly powerful and render most armour useless.
2. Be highly manoueverable, as cities will have narrow lanes.

As you can see, these two conditions are mutually contradictory, as:
Point #1 follows the 'Hit survival' philosophy of big tanks. (Arjun tanks)
Point #2 follows the 'Hit avoidance of small, lightweight and highly mobile tanks. (T-90)

Armament (my favourite):
1. 205 mm main gun. This would be necessary because the tank would need to knock down buidlings and walls to flush out enemy combatants. For smaller calibre we can always use missiles or rockets.
2. Rocket pod, mounted coaxially on the turret, to one side and a little above.
3. 30 mm gattlin gun, mounted as above, but on the other side.
4. Two flame throwers, mounted to each side to the front of the turrent to deter any enemy combatants from getting too close.
5. Laser blinders on theroof of the turret.
6. Coaxially mounted machine gun in the main body, to the front.
7. Grenade launchers.
8. Sheets of electric conductors on the surface of the tank, which can give lethal/non-lethal doses of joy to any individual who comes too close to the tank.


That's it. I have designed the armaments. The MBA's work is done. Now, I will leave the over worked but under appreciated engineers to fill in the rest.

[sohamn]

sohamn & pratyush: Not sure about using a gas turbine engine.

Pros:
====
1. Works with variety of fuel types.
2. Start up is quicker than diesels, since you don't need to wait for engine to warm up first. Newer diesel tech reduces the start-up time of diesel engines though, so not much of an advantage any more.
3. More power to weight ratio.

Cons:
====
1. Massive fuel hog.
2. Huge IR signature. Gas turbine engines run hot. So even if they engage the electric motor for quiet running, the hot gas turbine engine is still emitting heat for a long time afterwards.
3. Way more expensive to build and needs more maintenance.

Need Gas Turbine to
1) Reduce size of the main engine
2) Generate a huge power to weight ratio.
3) Use multi fuels

To address your concern of IR signature we should have an efficeint exhaust system in which cool air would be pumped in the exhaust and the exhaust would be emitted all around the skirt. i.e. we need a good thermal signature reduction system.
We could also have a sudden temperature reduction system, simple but cool
- spray water all around the engine and radiator.
- blow cool external air all around and dispense the vapour efficently.
Then drive away using electric power only. I bet this sharp reduction in temp will confuse most missile

[shiv]

We have enough good tank models to fight in the plains. What we need is a mountain tank. 20 tons max. IMHO.

Of course "tank" means mobile fortress and making it lightweight means less armor, making it less survivable against other heavy opposition. What should the armor be able to survive? What will the Chinese be able to bring in? I am hitting a brick wall of ignorance here because I am not sure what tanks or heavy armor can be practically used by say the Chinese. Maybe I need to ask my unkal googal before I say anything more stupid.

At 20 tons, it will need an engine that can be maintained easily - ie a turbo-diesel engine such as those used on trucks. Apart from heavy caliber machine gun armament (maybe 12.7 mm) - a main gun of maybe 105 mm that can fire LAHAT or LAHAT type missiles that can fly in through the window of a building or hit a bunker. The tank should be able to obtain targeting information from other troops and from UAVs or an AWACS

[nachiket]

Shiv, have you read Ahuja ji's last (I believe unfinished) Indo-China war scenario? Specifically the part about the fighting in Ladakh? If you haven't please do. You might have second thoughts about the 20 ton tank.

[shiv]

Shiv, have you read Ahuja ji's last (I believe unfinished) Indo-China war scenario? Specifically the part about the fighting in Ladakh? If you haven't please do. You might have second thoughts about the 20 ton tank.

Do you mind saying why? Or at least point me to where this scenario is posted. I haven't actually read.

[sohamn]

We have enough good tank models to fight in the plains. What we need is a mountain tank. 20 tons max. IMHO.

Of course "tank" means mobile fortress and making it lightweight means less armor, making it less survivable against other heavy opposition. What should the armor be able to survive? What will the Chinese be able to bring in? I am hitting a brick wall of ignorance here because I am not sure what tanks or heavy armor can be practically used by say the Chinese. Maybe I need to ask my unkal googal before I say anything more stupid.

At 20 tons, it will need an engine that can be maintained easily - ie a turbo-diesel engine such as those used on trucks. Apart from heavy caliber machine gun armament (maybe 12.7 mm) - a main gun of maybe 105 mm that can fire LAHAT or LAHAT type missiles that can fly in through the window of a building or hit a bunker. The tank should be able to obtain targeting information from other troops and from UAVs or an AWACS

Shiv,
The reservations that I have about a 20 ton mountain tank is
- insufficient armour to defeat RPGs
- May not be able to defeat 20mm/30mm cannon.
- no protection against mines and IEDs.
- can't survive a heli attack.
moreover with a truck engine I don't think it can provide enought power to mount sophisticated defence systems.

Maybe we can have a 20 ton ICV, but not a tank. Because a tank needs to spearhead an armoured formation. It has to be the backbone the infantry needs to rely upon. It can't be a asset which needs protection from infantry itsef.

If you have ideas that can counter the above please explain. Would like to hear more about your thoughts.

[Bala Vignesh]

^^^ Shiv sir,
the possible military scenario thread in the mil history forum.
There we are fighting an entire Chinese armored division in the DBO front..

[Singha]

btw if you can post hand drawn line drawings of your vehicle identifying the parts or special features, would be better than just text descriptions.

[shiv]

The reservations that I have about a 20 ton mountain tank is
- insufficient armour to defeat RPGs
- May not be able to defeat 20mm/30mm cannon.
- no protection against mines and IEDs.
- can't survive a heli attack.
moreover with a truck engine I don't think it can provide enought power to mount sophisticated defence systems.

Maybe we can have a 20 ton ICV, but not a tank. Because a tank needs to spearhead an armoured formation. It has to be the backbone the infantry needs to rely upon. It can't be a asset which needs protection from infantry itsef.

If you have ideas that can counter the above please explain. Would like to hear more about your thoughts.

No No absolutely no ideas to counter all this - all valid observations. But I must say I am approaching this issue from the back door. I am making an assumption of "What we can carry using MCA?" first and then thinking about what is achievable with that weight and then wondering (from sheer ignorance and blindness) about what the Chinese can throw against such a vehicle.

Without going through all the theoretical groundwork I had/have in my mind's eye a vehicle (not necessarily a formal "tank") that falls somewhere in between a 15 ton Indian Army BMP and a 35 ton Tungushka. I am throwing some questions up in the air here. Any infantry force in the mountains can have RPGs and ATGMs. They will have mortar/artillery as well. But what will the Chinese bring on with 20 or 30 mm cannon? I am ignorant here. And if the terrain is suitable for full size battle tanks - then yes there is no point having anything less. But I am assuming mountain terrain and the need to traverse passes and roads that are just passable by 20-30 ton trucks where the main heavy opposition (if any) is from the air and fire from mountain vantage points some kilometers away. I may be completely off the mark (apart from being off my rocker and out of my depth) but am willing to learn.

The idea is to have a mobile vehicle that doubles up to provide anti-aircraft and anti-armored vehicle power and a multi-barrel heavy caliber machine gun armament that can rain a high volume of firepower against concentrations of troops and light fortifications. A road-mobile A-10 Warthog-lite.

[Singha]

your idea has merit. but we also need a full-up MBT because the ongoing road & rail developments, plus the flat dry terrain of many parts of tibet (apart from the brahmaputra valley all along its W-E axis) mean chinese heavy armour can and will be deployed to strike at ladakh, bhutan and north sikkim. either we meet steel with same weight of steel or find some other chankian means to counteract that (yours is one proposal).

they can even try the back door approach by violating Nepal neutrality and just driving down the highway to kathmandu for 50km and sitting down to have green tea. though they may not intend to take kathmandu, India will have to account for all possibilities and seal off the Nepal channel wasting vital resources.

the ZSU-23-4 with some upgrade like a better radar & thermals can be what you described. or make it a ZSU-30-2 for heavier cannon shells. APDS ammo is available for 30mm - the CV90 uses it...that would be a warthog alright.

[niran]

A-10 is a plane, it uses its flying ability to fly in fire and shew.... fly away,
a land vechical cannot shew away, so IMO it needs proctection which translate into heavy weight
so a proper MBT with bigger guns maybe a rapid firing one around 3 sec/round will be nice.

[shiv]

The entire question of designing a tank is being muddled and confused by me because of my insistence on designing an armored vehicle with (what I believe to be) certain logistical advantages in the mountainous terrain.

If there is any question of the Chinese or anyone using heavy battle tanks - there is no alternative to one or more of the following
1) Opposing the tank force with similar tanks in tank country
2) using air power directly against tanks - helos or Jingofighter-1
3) using light vehicles/men with great mobility and good cover to take out tanks
4) Cutting the logistics lines that supply the tanks by taking out bridges and blocking mountain passes (Air interdiction)

However even this post is muddying the issue. The thread is to design a tank. Please post suggestions without being thrown off track by some of the stuff I write.

[Singha]

it is ok to design wheeled vehicles too or smaller tracked vehicles for specialized roles like namica/recce.....the scope of the thread should not be restricted to the title only.

[jamwal]

Can a small and light tank carry 140, 150 or 200mm guns, leave alone fire them ? I saw a video of Stryker firing it's main canon sideways while stationary. It seemed like it'd roll over due to the recoil. I wonder what happens when it fires while on the move. IMHO, anything bigger than 120mm on a tank weighing less than 40 tonnes seems kind of awkward.

[shiv]

Can a small and light tank carry 140, 150 or 200mm guns, leave alone fire them ? I saw a video of Stryker firing it's main canon sideways while stationary. It seemed like it'd roll over due to the recoil. I wonder what happens when it fires while on the move. IMHO, anything bigger than 120mm on a tank weighing less than 40 tonnes seems kind of awkward.

Yes if you add hydraulic legs that dig in and fix it to the ground so it does not topple over. For example this earth mover has two hydraulic jacks just aft of the big wheels to jack up the wheel and prevent the machine from toppling.
http://www.google.co.in/url?source=imgr ... jNCBOyYdDQ

or
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/sqbac ... 630443.jpg

[jamwal]

Shiv jee
You are far too senior to indulge in such useless baiting and obscure sarcasm

[shiv]

My question is as follows. 155 or 200 mm guns have a range of 30 plus km and the parabolic path of the projectile is used to shell positions across mountains in areas that are shielded by mountains. Only yaks tend to use the "direct fire mode" and Kargil was a special case in which artillery was used in "diirect fire mode" to shell visible positions that were close by. If you need guns of that caliber you can use artillery. We are talking tanks and direct fire here.

Now here is a photo of the road from Tawang to Bomdila. This is hardly tank country.



A Google image search for "Sumodorung Chu" gives me this image of what appears to be Chinese hardware
http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/attac ... 1264468917

[shiv]

Shiv jee
You are far too senior to indulge in such useless baiting and obscure sarcasm

Stop talking rubbish. You seem unable to recognise sarcasm when it actually appears. That was a serious post. Have you actually looked at photos of how artillery pieces such as Bofors guns are stabilised? You get an answer to a question an you think it is sarcasm. Did you think that artillery pieces would not topple if they are not fixed? A tank is moving artillery. If the tank is too light for a huge gun it will topple unless fixed.

Here is an image of an anti-aircraft gun fixed in pretty much the same way as the earth mover
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_elcjG9vVTEY/S ... Bofors.jpg

And ths Paki image is a good illustration
http://i48.tinypic.com/10n6n9z.jpg

If you have a huge gun and light chassis you need to fix it or it will topple or move

[jamwal]

Fine. Have it your way. Spending too much time at Deff&Dumb it seems.

[vivek_ahuja]

Now here is a photo of the road from Tawang to Bomdila. This is hardly tank country.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fxal-iH1FiI/S ... -tawan.gif

A Google image search for "Sumodorung Chu" gives me this image of what appears to be Chinese hardware
http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/attac ... 1264468917

Shiv,

Check the google maps software to look up the region around Daulat Beg Oldi. You can even see the airstrip and Indian Army Camp there because of the mark: "Himveers ITBF DBO" around the paradrop LZ

Look east from there.

This is significant tank territory. I have attached a couple of images:



http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11512383

There are ample areas in Laddakh that would fall under such category. The Chinese are known to have deployed tanks along the Aksai Chin with lateral routes capable of surging these units to the LAC on very short notice. We, on the other hand, have no lateral roads etc and have to bring in any and all armored ground units from Leh, Shyok, Saser and hence to DBO.

All in all, every tank we bring into the region needs to be able to carry its own weight and more against the Chinese tanks who can reinforce faster than we can in terms of armor.

-Vivek

[shiv]

Fine. Have it your way. Spending too much time at Deff&Dumb it seems.

There is no need for such a comment actually. Where I spend my time is neither your business nor relevant to this thread. Foaming at the mouth is no substitute for common sense.

[shiv]

Vivek Ahuja - Aksai Chin is a huge flat plain and a Chinese tank thrust would rapidly be able to occupy all remaining flat areas within India.

My only question in this regard is - do we have to match this tank for tank? Aksai Chin is also ideal A-10 type country provided you have the right performance and munitions. But you need air superiority and aircraft/helos that are tank busters.

The point I would like to ask/make is as follows. If the Chinese move tanks in large numbers to say 5 separate areas in Aksai chin with a plan to make a thrust only in one area, the rest being decoys/feints - are we going to have to build up an equivalent number of tanks in all five areas? Or are we going to have to keep the response flexible - using surveillance and air power, being ready to hit whatever they bring whenever and wherever with a combination of air power and light, mobile anti-tank forces?

If the tanks break through it will be curtains. They must not break though. But are an equivalent force of heavy tanks the answer as a 'defensive solution? I would have thought that Indian tanks should be used to occupy huge areas of Aksai Chin while maintaining air superiority.

I get the sense that the tank is a super offensive weapon. it must be used for offence into enemy territory. but defence against a tank attack is not necessarily best done by tanks. I may be wrong..

[vivek_ahuja]

The point I would like to ask/make is as follows. If the Chinese move tanks in large numbers to say 5 separate areas in Aksai chin with a plan to make a thrust only in one area, the rest being decoys/feints - are we going to have to build up an equivalent number of tanks in all five areas? Or are we going to have to keep the response flexible - using surveillance and air power, being ready to hit whatever they bring whenever and wherever with a combination of air power and light, mobile anti-tank forces?

If the tanks break through it will be curtains. They must not break though. But are an equivalent force of heavy tanks the answer as a 'defensive solution? I would have thought that Indian tanks should be used to occupy huge areas of Aksai Chin while maintaining air superiority.

IMHO,

the underlined portion of your comment hits the nail. There cannot be an if and or kind of argument for air superiority and tank strength. That being said, let us perhaps move specifically into the Indian problem in terms of terrain: whether you maintain either light and mobile forces or smaller number of less mobile, but heavy tanks, it has to be based on the specific terrain India has. If we had large swathes of desert up there in the mountains with ample ability to wage mobile warfare, then by all means, light mobile armor+air support would hold the key. Unfortunately we do not have such territory. What we have is crucial areas involving passes and so forth that are like a sink, flat enough to fight with armor on but with few access routes (read Main Supply Routes or MSRs) into or out of those basins. So, mobility lasts as long as travelling to the basin is concerned along the MSRs. Then its all about a slugging fest at relatively close ranges and only tactical maneuvering. Light armor would IMVHO be at a disadvantage in Laddakh areas only. Also, in terms of MSRs into those flat areas, the Chinese have much more than us because of the natural terrain advantage. So they can easily bring in a LOT more tank units for every single unit we push on a hundred kilometer route along narrow routes to fight in that basin.

Now, tank territory comes down to single tanks supporting advancing infantry for the case of the Indian NE and perhaps even inside Sikkim, although inside the Chumbi Valley, all bets are off again and it becomes like the Laddakh sector.

Air support will naturally be extremely important in the Indian context. However, it will have to be vastly superior to the Chinese anti-air units to ensure immediate effects. Otherwise, by the time the initiative is wrenched from them, the ground war would have taken a nasty turn. This is of course another topic best discussed in some other thread.

On the issue of offensive potential of the tank: I agree. But in terms of defending against a tank, static defenses involving infantry with ATGMs or light armor does not fare well in simulations that I know of. The first because its static and hence can be flanked by maneuver whereas the second because unless the light armor has terrain to use its mobility to advantage (i.e. by keeping outside the range of tank guns in terms of LOS) then its at a disadvantage.

General LOS within those flat areas in Laddakh preclude effective long range ATGM defenses. So I am not sure what other options exist...

-Vivek

[Pratyush]

Shiv,

What you are looking at is a design approach from the pure Jacki Fisher school of thought. At least from where I am looking at it. No nonsense pure killing power. At an expense of protection.

Very good for hit and run and keeping the enemy off balance. Add to your vehicle hard kill active protection and the survivability goes up many fold.

Nice approach.

Dont for a minute think that I am sucking up to you

[Pratyush]

sohamn & pratyush: Not sure about using a gas turbine engine.

Pros:
====
1. Works with variety of fuel types.
2. Start up is quicker than diesels, since you don't need to wait for engine to warm up first. Newer diesel tech reduces the start-up time of diesel engines though, so not much of an advantage any more.
3. More power to weight ratio.

Cons:
====
1. Massive fuel hog.
2. Huge IR signature. Gas turbine engines run hot. So even if they engage the electric motor for quiet running, the hot gas turbine engine is still emitting heat for a long time afterwards.
3. Way more expensive to build and needs more maintenance.

I did not have GT in mind due to thermal signature related Issues other wise they do every thing I want my gegine to do. I was thinking a CRDI Engine with 1500 HP s + a 300 hp electric motor.

[Bala Vignesh]

Vivek sir,
I am not pointing fingers here but you have yourself used an example of a light, mobile AT defence in the form NAMICA platoon. I accept that they took a bloody beating but they were effective.
Why not build something based on that?? I mean based upon open source data, the weight of a BMP2 is about 15t. Why not add another layer of armor, active or passive, and suitable raise the power to the required levels and use them???
JMO.

[Pratyush]

Shiv,

You might be interested in this along with your vehicle.

[shiv]

Vivek, good post

This is how I see it:

India does not have the terrain to build up huge forces of light or heavy eqpt and if a battle is to be fought in that terrain, heavy is better than light. I agree with your contention here.

China OTOH can build up huge tank forces ready to roll in. Correct again.

If we know these facts beforehand it means that any Chinese build up of lagre tank forces within 500 km of Aksai Chin can be construed as a threat of invasion. So how do we respond

1) Ideally I would like to see a defeat of Chinese tank forces in Aksai Chin itself.
2) I would like to see an Indian invasion of Aksai Chin

1) The "defeat of Chinese tank forces in Aksai Chin" would have to be by air power and by "some other means". What could this "some other means" be? One possibility would be heavy tanks - but India is at a logistical disadvantage here in terms of stockpiling and supplying our tanks because of the nature of Indian MSR (Main Supply Routes). We could airlift in tanks and supplies if we had the capability. This is where light mobile anti tank forces introduced into Aksai chin might be able to neutralise the LOS advantage of heavy armor within a saddle. Another possibly "light" offensive item is to bring down scorching fire on tank conentrations in ksai China using MBRLs. The thought I has is that given our logistical disadvantages the fight needs to be taken into enemy territory and fight in his ground rather than get into attrition in our terrain. Forces that are light enough to be mobilised and delivered by air may give us an advantage as our air supply routes are shorter and are taking of from sea level.

2) Indian invasion of Aksai Chin. The same logistical disadvantage that India has in bringing up tanks into those high plains exist. Forces that can be supplied by air may just tip the logistical advantageour way.

[vivek_ahuja]

Vivek sir,
I am not pointing fingers here but you have yourself used an example of a light, mobile AT defence in the form NAMICA platoon. I accept that they took a bloody beating but they were effective.
Why not build something based on that?? I mean based upon open source data, the weight of a BMP2 is about 15t. Why not add another layer of armor, active or passive, and suitable raise the power to the required levels and use them???
JMO.

Yeah it works. In fact, NAMICA vehicles are something I personally look greatly forward to in terms of superior defensive capabilities for the IA. Something of the kind of a specialized NAMICA type vehicle would work. But in Numbers. They are single purpose only, are they not? What happens if you want infantry support like an assault gun direct LOS fire? You would have to have a BMP-2 for that. A heavy tank, however, offers that blend of killing power and flexibility in one vehicle. Also, those NAMICA vehicles cannot be used for offensives by themselves: they are support vehicles only. They are extremely defensive oriented vehicles. So you would have to have tanks anyway.

In any case, multiple options exist. NAMICA +BMP-2 in larger numbers, Heavier tanks in fewer numbers, Air support all around.
Cannot see a mix and match of that where we get advantages of all.

[shiv]

Shiv,

You might be interested in this along with your vehicle.

Nice. Check the hydraulically operated "feet" to stabilise the vehicle.