Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Dec 2010 18:14

Austin wrote:Widely believed to be the canceled T-95 program.

Wasnt the turret supposed to be unmanned, or podded?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Dec 2010 19:50

Karan M wrote:Wasnt the turret supposed to be unmanned, or podded?

Yep that why it has a far bigger turret compared to other T's this pic should give a better view link

I had the same doubt and this is what I was told .

We know that bigger hull needed for "isolated armored crew capsule", (situated in the front part of the hull between the front armor and combat compartment) from which the tankers can easily control the unmanned turret through advanced electronics - and they happen to be shielded with thickest armor, because the front hull armor now becomes the main armor area, not separated in turret and hull armor, and of course they completely isolated from any ammunition. And now the look at this strange shaped turret -from what we know its unmanned. But it`s also huge. Why? The answer is that monster of gun that protrudes from the turret. A 152mm smoothbore tank cannon...

But Object 195 stands cancelled and the chief designer mentions in a recent interview of a new tank project called "Armata" with GT 1500 HP engine ,new unified platform electric tank interview link

Since mobility is the corner stone of the new doctorine they would probably land up within 40T class and not in 50T class as Obj T-95 is.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 15 Dec 2010 08:59

People clamoring for light and mobile tanks should take a look at the specs of the Type-99A2 and then consider what will happen to the crews of our super mobile T-90s when they face that thing in Ladakh.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 15 Dec 2010 09:09

I think a TOS-1 type of arrangement with Pinaka (i.e. Pinaka launchers on T-72 hulls) should be ideal for ladakh. It will have the ability of firing from behind a mountain while matching the tin cans in the mobility department. This will also provide some much needed help to the tin cans of 90 type when the chinkis come knocking with their 99 types..

Plus we are beginning to phase out the older t-72's i guess

which could be used here or even the abhay (oh wait army doesnot want abhay). DRDO should not have too many problems mating the two.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Dec 2010 17:02

Look, we simply aren't going to have classic tank battles in the High Himalayas,but the firepower and mobility that tanks bring to the battle have their attributes.Operating lighter tanks which have a heavy gun-as on an MBT would be an ideal solution,especially in transporting such AVs.Perhaps where terrain permits,larger MBTs could also be used,but the key requirement is going to be artillery,which can fire at long range,over and across mountainous terrain as we saw at Kargil. The ability to lift these light-weight pieces requires a large number of heavy helos.The loss of an MI-26 yesterday,that too from a small fleet which badly needs larger numbers,was most unfortunate.

PS:Is anyone thinking of "storming" the Tibetan plateau in any counter-attack?! That would require 160 C-17s,not just 16!

Here is a link to details/pic of the Russian Sprut light tank which has a125mm smoothbore gun that can even fire anti-helo SAMs.Though lightly armoured in this avatar,it can be refitted with heavier/better armour including ERA.Since it is based upon a modified BMP-3 chassis,transporting it would be easy using our exsiting IL-76s as well as C-17s.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd.htm

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Dec 2010 17:17

^^^Why can't one have classic tank battle in Ladakh? What prevents that?

The terrain is flat and Indus Valley on our side and its extension on another side. The issue is with getting tanks upto these regions - even if one airlifts MBTs to Leh, the route to Chusul and Demchok needs to pass over another set of passes. Having said that - the Chinese have no such issues and if they can bring in their heavy armor, we better be able to do that.

And which we did in case of T-72. The Sprut tank details that you posted has frontal armor protection against 12.7mm AP bullets - even with armor upgrade it will not provide any meaningful protection. It will be toast against any half decent tank or PLA AFVs - forget the ATGM and heavy armor. Why buy for the heck of it and because the Russkies made it? And last I checked, the Sprut got halaaled in the same exercise which killed the T-95 project.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Dec 2010 17:22

Why not the MGS. Also why not 160 C 17s or 240 IL 76s.

On a serious note. Considering the post made by Rohit.

If the IA was to seriously build up the inventory of tanks in Ladhak and develop the logistics to support the force. This force will act as a caution and a stabilising influence as well. By maintaining and preserving the balance of terror.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 15 Dec 2010 18:00

Pratyush wrote:

<SNIP>

If the IA was to seriously build up the inventory of tanks in Ladhak and develop the logistics to support the force. This force will act as a caution and a stabilising influence as well. By maintaining and preserving the balance of terror.

In the latest round of approvals by CCS, an (I) Armored Brigade has been sanctioned for the Ladakh Sector (as per news report).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Dec 2010 16:42

One armoured Brigade over how many sq km?

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 16 Dec 2010 17:08

nice read....

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/t ... 69.article

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Dec 2010 17:10

Philip wrote:One armoured Brigade over how many sq km?

We are not looking at creating a maginot line are we.

Once the IA learns to support one AB in that region. Rest assured that they can induct more armour as per the prevailing threat perception.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Dec 2010 19:12

Philip wrote:One armoured Brigade over how many sq km?

While I'm not privy to IAs deployment plans, one can deduce the probable locations. For after all, there are that many places where one can deploy armored forces. The area opposite Spanggur gap in Chushul sector or the area north and south of Dhemchok. The Indus enters India from Tibet along a flat plain and the Indus Valley in Ladakh can support a Division level attack from the PLA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Dec 2010 21:01

how about nubra valley - I do not know how is the border there, but its a greenish valley , and some sand dunes area. anything going to nubra valley and beyond to siachen base camp has to cross over the khardung la pass which should be doable in good weather...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Dec 2010 03:49

Thanks Austin. 152 mm gun, that puts paid to all the talk of logistical commonality and what not. So while US, Europe have been working on more and more advanced rounds, Russia took the "simpler" path of just going to the next caliber and deciding that it'd blow up everything in its way. Typically Russian! I can imagine the faces of many think-tank types if this thing had gone into production.

One good thing is hopefully Army will now not ask DRDO to develop a 152mm armed super tank and will hopefully be a bit more realistic when it comes to requirements. Still dont see why we need a FMBT when we have the perfectly capable Arjun to build on. Germany just sold a bunch of Leopard tanks to Canada, is upgrading earlier ones for Singapore & other countries, and US is still upgrading and selling its M1A1/A2 tanks.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Dec 2010 06:49

rohitvats wrote: The Sprut tank details that you posted has frontal armor protection against 12.7mm AP bullets - even with armor upgrade it will not provide any meaningful protection. It will be toast against any half decent tank or PLA AFVs - forget the ATGM and heavy armor. Why buy for the heck of it and because the Russkies made it? And last I checked, the Sprut got halaaled in the same exercise which killed the T-95 project.

You mean that isn't enough?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Dec 2010 11:59

nachiket wrote:
rohitvats wrote: The Sprut tank details that you posted has frontal armor protection against 12.7mm AP bullets - even with armor upgrade it will not provide any meaningful protection. It will be toast against any half decent tank or PLA AFVs - forget the ATGM and heavy armor. Why buy for the heck of it and because the Russkies made it? And last I checked, the Sprut got halaaled in the same exercise which killed the T-95 project.
You mean that isn't enough?

I know....my bad

. Please to forgive this ignorant abdul.....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Dec 2010 14:47

the recoil of a 152-155mm cannon is horrendous esp on a small vehicle . I recall seeing some wheeled kit made by general dynamics(spain) and krauss maffei called DONAR 155mm as a sdre version of Pzh2000. the spanish army has apparently purchased it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAm9i_UHCak

at every shot looks like the vehicle will turn turtle (!) but since the spanish took it , probably still works.

@31.5t this is the kind of non-linear soln you guys want for the himalayan problem in mountain strike brigades. IA will likely still crib the gun cannot depress to -ve angle for direct fire work

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Dec 2010 15:01

Well,

The other solution could be to design 155 MM RCL.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Dec 2010 15:59

at the expense of range we can always mounted a 39cal barrel on the DONAR. the 'charge' being less (those white cylinders) for less range, the recoil will be less brown pant stuff. but up in mountains the shells fly longer anyway, so maybe the 15km we lose out in max range will be partially compensated by the thin air.

a 30km range would still be quite respectable and deadly.

for our SP gun thing - this *is* a tracked soln (if you want to insist on tracked, is available today, has a user and features the same turret and gun system as the 'feared' Pzh2000. should be a good weapon imo.

DONAR + Archer imo with 52cal barrels would have made an excellent combo for SP + truck gun. for towed gun either the bofors52cal of archer or the XM777 would be decent enough....this would be a near about bleeding edge combo.

but first we need to withdraw our heads from where darkness reigns

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Dec 2010 16:47

One additional point.Reg. mountainous terrain ops,the road infrastructure will be rife with bridges and culverts given the prolific streams,etc. encountered.Have/has the existing and ongoing infrastructure being built designed to be able to handle heavy MBTs? This is one reason why I recommend apart from MBTs,the induction of light tanks with a large calibre gun.These will be more easily transportable,mobile and available in larger numbers too.Mixing ops using both light and heavy tanks could be an interesting tactic that can be developed for mountain ops to obtain the best from both systems.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 18 Dec 2010 00:21

Philip wrote:Look, we simply aren't going to have classic tank battles in the High Himalayas,but the firepower and mobility that tanks bring to the battle have their attributes.Operating lighter tanks which have a heavy gun-as on an MBT would be an ideal solution,especially in transporting such AVs.Perhaps where terrain permits,larger MBTs could also be used,but the key requirement is going to be artillery,which can fire at long range,over and across mountainous terrain as we saw at Kargil. The ability to lift these light-weight pieces requires a large number of heavy helos.The loss of an MI-26 yesterday,that too from a small fleet which badly needs larger numbers,was most unfortunate.

PS:Is anyone thinking of "storming" the Tibetan plateau in any counter-attack?! That would require 160 C-17s,not just 16!

Here is a link to details/pic of the Russian Sprut light tank which has a125mm smoothbore gun that can even fire anti-helo SAMs.Though lightly armoured in this avatar,it can be refitted with heavier/better armour including ERA.Since it is based upon a modified BMP-3 chassis,transporting it would be easy using our exsiting IL-76s as well as C-17s.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd.htm

Hi Philip

I totally agree with you that the aim is for lighter, more mobile and air transportable vehicles, that are meant mainly for fire support, than for real tank battles. The confusing point imo is the term "light tank", because everybody directly thinks about a lighter MBT and that might be the case in WW2, but not todays asymmetric warfare anymore. Light tanks today are IFV with mounted guns, be it 105mm, or even 120mm MBT guns, that offers the firepower, but the heavy amor of real tanks, which is why they are also called tank destroyer!

Indian Army to procure 300 light tanks

Even as the Indian Army continues to rectify problems that cropped up with its recently inducted T-90 main battle tanks, it has drawn up plans to procure about 300 light tanks.

A request for information issued to prospective vendors has pegged the requirement at about 200 wheeled light tanks (armoured cars) and about 100 tracked light tanks....

...Military experts say that light tanks would primarily be used for reconnaissance, where speed and stealth are preferred over firepower. Wheeled tanks have a much lower audio signature and are more manoeuverable than tracked tanks.

Maj Gen Raj Mehta, a cavalry officer, said light tanks are more effective in areas like paddy field, water-logged terrain, sand and marshy ground, where the ground pressure is very low.

Then there is the issue of logistics and cross-country transportation. A light tank weighs up to 14 tonnes while the T-90 or the Arjun weigh 45 and 58 tonnes, respectively. This makes it easier to transport them to the high-altitude areas in Ladakh or North-East by road or air.

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

So IA is not looking at smaller MBTs, but at wheeled and tracked IFV with added guns, that's why the Stryker MGS is under evaluation with an weight between 18 and 20t and why your choice the Sprut would be a possible tracked alternative (although one have to ask why not simply the Abhay with a 105mm gun that DRDO offered, designwise the difference to sprut is not that big right?).

Personally I am for for something in between these and a real MBT, with better amor and more fire power in the 30 - 35t class. Something like the Patria AMV and the CV90-120, both are proven, air transportable, can be added with 105, or even 120mm guns and are available in several other versions, like, 120mm mortar, recon, IFV, or anti air. IA has the requirement to replace older mortar and AA vehicle too and these 2 could even use common turrets and other systems.

http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/24/56 ... 987512.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:7gOP ... z3.jpg&t=1

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x266 ... 90-120.jpg

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 18 Dec 2010 00:57

Sancho wrote:
The confusing point imo is the term "light tank", because everybody directly thinks about a lighter MBT and that might be the case in WW2, but not todays asymmetric warfare anymore. Light tanks today are IFV with mounted guns, be it 105mm, or even 120mm MBT guns, that offers the firepower, but the heavy amor of real tanks, which is why they are also called tank destroyer!

What do you mean?

The Tank Destroyer concept which you are talking about was very much in vogue during WW2. Smaller lightly armoured vehicles with large caliber guns capable of taking out enemy tanks. The Germans used plenty of these. Most were turretless.

jai · Post by **jai** » 18 Dec 2010 01:24

Philip wrote:One additional point.Reg. mountainous terrain ops,the road infrastructure will be rife with bridges and culverts given the prolific streams,etc. encountered.Have/has the existing and ongoing infrastructure being built designed to be able to handle heavy MBTs? This is one reason why I recommend apart from MBTs,the induction of light tanks with a large calibre gun.These will be more easily transportable,mobile and available in larger numbers too.Mixing ops using both light and heavy tanks could be an interesting tactic that can be developed for mountain ops to obtain the best from both systems.

One dedicated Armoured solution would not work - given our current realities; hence the crazed and slightly OT post...mods please pardon.

Murphy's law rules supreme, if the Chinese can use MBT's in Laddakh, they will - that too in winters, when they can maintain supply lines far more easily than we can - given their terrain and Infrastructure, and their need for all weather road connectivity to Pakistan via Kashmir and hunger for all things Laddakh / Tibet. . Therefore, defence or offence, clearly there is no alternative to MBT's when facing Chinese Type 99's in Laddakh or Sikkim. Army therefore needs to move now and permanently base multiple Armoured brigades of T90's and Arjuns in Laddakh and some regiments in Sikkim. Point is, troops need to be acclimatized for battles in these HA areas, and enough and more time is needed to build the required supplies - given our dismal infrastructure. Additionally, suppliment the armour with heavy arty - Smerch, Pinakas, Brahmos regts, PZH 2000/Bhim/ Koalitsija-SV's, Archers/T5 - 52's, and Anti tank systems like Khrizantema's and Namica's. Add in suitable nos of Akash and S 400s to keep enemy missiles and aircraft at bay. Give the Inf. a couple of 000 Javelin's.

MMS in the meanwhile needs to wakeup to the sorry state of Infrastructure in border areas, and needs to take some urgent steps - a) Order fast track construction of 4/6 lane highways to Laddakh and Sikkim and where ever else is needed at whatever costs - dig tunnels under each of the passes, build new bridges, blow up the whole mountains if needed.
b) Order MOEF / Jairam Ramesh to stand down and stay out of all defence related projects.
c) Move tunnel boring machines and heavy construction equipment to Laddakh - tunnel the hills and use for troop accomodation and equipment storage to beat the weather/ build permanent garrisons all over Laddakh.
d) Create power stations where ever possible to support permanent troop stationing.
e) Move more civilian population across all of laddakh - bring in Tibbetians from inland India - give them free land and dole if required to beat Chinese claims on the land.

Adverse climate and geography can no longer be reasons for not defending these borders like any other borders - not if the Chinese have done the needful on their side.

It would be a disaster if MMS / Monia fall for the latest avtar of Hindi - Chini businessmen bhai bhai. High time the govt realizes that the time of short cuts for the Defence of the country is long gone......and moves quickly now to prevent another 1962 like slap/humiliation.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 18 Dec 2010 22:39

nachiket wrote: What do you mean? The Tank Destroyer concept which you are talking about was very much in vogue during WW2. Smaller lightly armoured vehicles with large caliber guns capable of taking out enemy tanks. The Germans used plenty of these. Most were turretless.

That we don't have to confuse it with just smaller but similary heavy amored and tracked MBTs in the 40t class or something, which was needed in older times. The Germans used them alongside MBTs and ground troops, today it's about beeing more mobile, air transportable, with less armor, but similar fire power and in independet groups, without MBTs. The requirements of older wars and today have changed and even if our main opponents have big numbers of MBT, we won't see real tank wars like in the World Wars, because today they will be countered by helicopters, or fighters in first place.
IA is even looking for twice as much wheeled tank destroyers than tracked, which also shows that they aim to use them more in regions with roads and not neccesarily in the open field.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Dec 2010 23:18

Sancho wrote:
<SNIP>

The requirements of older wars and today have changed and even if our main opponents have big numbers of MBT, we won't see real tank wars like in the World Wars, because today they will be countered by helicopters, or fighters in first place. IA is even looking for twice as much wheeled tank destroyers than tracked, which also shows that they aim to use them more in regions with roads and not neccesarily in the open field.

Well, the fact that we maintain such a large (relatively speaking - imo, we need more armored divisions) MBT force and so does our freind across the western border is a testimony to the fact that tank battles and armored/mechanized thrusts - and by extension tank battles - will play crucial and critical role. These armored formations are the iron fists which will knock the wind out of TSPA sails.

Neither India, nor TSPA has enough attack helos to become a big and game changing factor in a shooting match.....the light tanks (wheeled and otherwise) have their own role - recce being one of the most obvious and for which vacancy exists from atleast last 25+years.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 18 Dec 2010 23:31

rohitvats wrote:
Well, the fact that we maintain such a large (relatively speaking - imo, we need more armored divisions) MBT force and so does our freind across the western border is a testimony to the fact that tank battles and armored/mechanized thrusts - and by extension tank battles - will play crucial and critical role. These armored formations are the iron fists which will knock the wind out of TSPA sails.
Neither India, nor TSPA has enough attack helos to become a big and game changing factor in a shooting match.....

Of course, they will still play a role, but not like in older wars with huge tank vs tank battles, today even a jeep with ATGMs can take out an MBT at long distances right?

rohitvats wrote:the light tanks (wheeled and otherwise) have their own role - recce being one of the most obvious and for which vacancy exists from atleast last 25+years.

That's what I meant.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Dec 2010 18:04

I think that the designation already exists,"LAVs" (light armoured vehicles),meant to describe the lighter armoured "scouts" or recce AVs,which have enough firepower to take on an MBT too.When we speak of "light tanks",one's mind goes back to that great little pal of ours the PT-76,which was used superbly in the Bangladesh War.The IA's requirement echoes our earlier stand for more of these AVs for difficult terrain where MBT ops are either v. dificult or impossible.It is also not that easy for us to build overnight the ideal 4 lane highway all round the N-Eastern boundaries or in the Aksai Chin area.The diufficulties being experienced by the BRO has been spelt out in earlier reports.

This was an excellent point brought out in an above post,that we should've developed such an AV ourselves.For decades now we've been assembling/building BMPs of Soviet origin,plus developing our own Tank-X,which the IA does not want at all.With so much of experience at hand,that too with the development of Arjun and the technology mastered,why didn't we develop as a parallel project a "light tank"/LAV too?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Dec 2010 20:38

I do think people tend to overestimate the ability of jeeps mounted ATGM/man portable ATGM to stop a massed tank attack supported by artillery and some helicopter/UAV support - the entire hostile area ahead of the tanks is going to be observed carefully and raked with HE-frag shells and HMG fire if any sign of activity is noticed. humans and jeeps have no protection against arty fragments - a 155mm airburst shell has a lethal radius of around 75m on exposed anything. in the teeth of this managing to hide ones position, fire even a F&F ATGM (many are actually wire guided or laser guided needing operator to maintain visual lock) and then relocate to another hide is a tough call.

jeeps/SF atgm teams are ok for sneak one-off attacks on logistical tail targets/soft targets and then relocating before getting into a serious messy fight...or to supplement heavier forces in a defensive position and shut the gaps down.

one really needs heavy artillery, helicopter gunships, atleast some form of Namica and preferably tanks to deal with a heavy armour attack - imho.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 20 Dec 2010 23:03

Facing the MBTs(bigger in numbers as well as firepower) with Light tanks and current weaponry is very less likely to work. Something that will be very effective is "Non Line of sight" version of Nag ATGM with about 4 to 20km range.
It should work in "Fire, Observe, update & Lock" mode like Spike ATGM or the operator should be able to use UAV feeds for locking on the missiles .
The extra range will give our Light armored units good advantage against the incoming hoards of Tanks/Vehicles.
Due to the range it can provide firepower to units over quiet a big area without directly engaging in face to face battle with enemy tanks or infantry.

operating sequence will be
1. forward infantry/spotters just tell azimuth location of targets.
2. the atgm launcher receives the location and fires a missile in that direction
3. the missile once launched pass back video of the terrain to the operator.
4. operator picks up the targets from video and sets lock on them
5. missile now gets in F&F mode and home on the target automatically.

use of UAV feed for target acquisition is also a possibility.
one more possibility is forward spotter controlling the missile with his own targeting device, in this arrangement, there can be multiple forward spotters per launcher. So the spotters will use the launcher as a central repository of missile instead of carrying it with them like Man Portable ATGMs this will highly improve their mobility .

@singha sar:
The spotters will be safe in this system as they don't really need to expose themselves a lot.

Sancho · Post by **Sancho** » 20 Dec 2010 23:58

Philip wrote: This was an excellent point brought out in an above post,that we should've developed such an AV ourselves.For decades now we've been assembling/building BMPs of Soviet origin,plus developing our own Tank-X,which the IA does not want at all.With so much of experience at hand,that too with the development of Arjun and the technology mastered,why didn't we develop as a parallel project a "light tank"/LAV too?

Although I agree that IA, should have gone with Tank Ex upgrade and Abhay IFV, I don't think an LCV development alongside Arjun had made sense, because they are meant for different aims. The one a heavy MBT with focus on heavy armor and desert warfare, while these light armored vehicles benefit from add on armor mainly and especially the wheeled versions are meant for urban areas, the LAV simply had not benefited from the Arjun development to combine both.
Abhay would have given the chance for a cost-effective short, or midterm solution and to gain more experience in developing such vehicles, but if the aim now is something more capable, I think neither the Sprut, nor the Stryker would be good enough.

Singha wrote:I do think people tend to overestimate the ability of jeeps mounted ATGM/man portable ATGM to stop a massed tank attack supported by artillery and some helicopter/UAV support...

See, that's the difference I meant to older tank wars, where big MBT groups was send as the first line of attack, while they today just follow the way that fighters and helicopters paved for them.
With the same support, in urban areas, you use lighter armored vehicles more effective than heavy MBTs, while still heavy the advantage of 120mm guns.
Regarding jeeps with ATGMs, even NAG has a range of 8 Km and a smaller jeep is harder to detect than bigger MBTs, which often comes in groups right? An armored vehicle, or jeep fitted with Spike NLOS offers even ranges up to 25Km, let alone small ground forces with ATGMs as seen in Lebanon war.

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_S ... 6/1026.pdf

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2010 07:48

the iraqis tried defending towns in tigris-euphrates valley with light forces and kornet atgms. once their positions were localized, ah1 gunships rakes the buildings and fighters and artillery pounded the areas, followed by columns of tanks and bradleys shooting up the place.

stalingrad type things will be more exception than rule imo. modern sensors and armour are just too good and fast.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Dec 2010 08:37

^^^ The CIA bribed most of top generals and field commanders of Iraq , so rather then fighting the urban warfare battle they simply did not fight except in some pockets. Saddam said the same thing during his last days that his commanders had betrayed him.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Dec 2010 13:27

No one is suggesting that more mobile light tanks should bear the brunt of an enemy MBT onslaught.What has happened in recent times,with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,that light armoured vehicles lack sufficient firepower even when dealing with inferior forces.This is a trend being seen across the board.MICVs which earlier had only 30mm guns,were upgraded with 76mm guns and now even with MBT sized guns as in the case of the Sprut Russian light tank mentioned earlier.In urban warfare,dealing with a hidden enemy,a heavier gun would be able to demolish urban structures concedaling enemy fighters better than a lightly armoured "scout" vehicle.In addition,these vehicles have also required better armour to fend off IEDs and tandem-warhead equipped RPGs and ATGWs.Bar/slat armour is one method,even ERA tiles if need be can be added.The usefulness of such a tank/LAV is a requirement today and in inhospitable terrain which cannot support regular sized MBTs,these LAVs can make a huge difference.Both tracked and wheeled versions are required.

Even in terrain where classic tank actions are possible,as scouts for recce. ops as mentioned in a post,these fast mobile LAVs which can in a clinch fire back at an enemy MBT at equal range,defending itself better.If able to also fire as in the Sprut,anti-tank missiles from its main gun,so much the better.There is a requirement by the IA for such LAVs and it should choose wisely.I still don't see why we can't design/build inder licence such a tank as we have done so with a large number of Soviet era BMPs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2010 13:30

Austin, the battles I am referring to were uday/saddam fidayeen who bravely tried to hold off massed us army forces with only light vehicles, mines, RPGs and ATGMs since bigger assets like field arty and tanks were not in their hands or C3 net had ceased to function. one reads of 'fidayeen' in pickup trucks firing Kornets charging like cavalry at lines of american armour on the outskirts of some towns...no doubt they fired off a few missiles and hit a few targets but mostly must have got cut down...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Dec 2010 14:07

^^^ Well a stand alone ATGM crew in the absence of proper C2 and natural cover will be cut down before it achieved any results. The greatest asset of the the ATGM crew is stealth and the ability to rapidly relocate and engage the enemy. The tactic desribed above is not playing to the strength of the ATGMs.

In 65 utilising the natural cover available to them Indian RCLs killed off a lot of TSPA tanks. If the same RCLS with the same crews were out in the open engaging the TSPA Tanks. They would have died without having achieved any result.

The devil has taken me or I have gone PAKI

. Am unable to recall the name of the PVC winner who killed 7 TSPA Tanks

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Dec 2010 14:20

company quarter master havildar abdul hamid.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Dec 2010 14:28

Thanks Rahul,

Yes thats the name.

May his brave soul rest in peace.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 21 Dec 2010 15:01

Why are you all trying to play it only the traditional way?
Besides having a temporary solution we also need a solution for near future.

To me, Procurement of Light tanks and/or today's ATGMs seems only a short time solution which may not even work.

As a permanent cure we should
1. improve roads logistics on chinese front
2. most importantly, invent and induct new unit type/s which will provide a lethal advantage in such scenarios.

Its time to start thinking of new weapons and unit types.
We should not just look in market and purchase whatever available and make our strategy based on them.

Pratyush wrote:The devil has taken me or I have gone PAKI . Am unable to recall the name of the PVC winner who killed 7 TSPA Tanks

He was Company Quarter Master Havildar Abdul Hamid.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 21 Dec 2010 16:33

I think we should first understand that there are two distinct requirements at hand vis-a-vis dealing with enemy armour is concerned.
1. When we are fighting in the flat plains and desert on our western border.
2. When we are fighting in the mountains and hills on our eastern border.

No one is doubting that light forces trying to deal alone with enemy armour on the western front would be mincemeat. They can play a supporting role on this front, with the main MBT's taking on the enemy armour.

However, "Alls not quite (the same ) on the eastern front". Because of the terraint, heavy vehicles would be limited to good roads and flat river valleys. Also the terrain provides ample cover and not LOS is limited to the hills around. It is here the main the light forces and man portable ATGM can be used greatly I think. A small ATGM team on a high ridge is difficult to spot and can easily relocate once firing. More so as the IA is procuring the Javelin ATGM, which is fire and forget. Thus fire the missile, get out. Find a new spot and repeat. Also 10 such ATGM teams can play havoc i think, using the natural cover and lack of line of sight. Of course this does not mean that MBT should not be used here. Use MBTs definitely, but the light forces can use the more hazardous terrain sections and multiply the enemies headache.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 21 Dec 2010 21:17

Indian Army receives 4 more NBC recce vehicles

The Indian Army on December 21 received four nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) recce vehicles. These home-grown vehicles were manufactured at Ordnance Factory, Medak and NBC instruments were integrated by Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL), Pune. The Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) are the design and developers of these vehicles, while Ordinance Factory and BEL executed the mass-scale productions under transfer of technology. DRDO has already delivered more than 35 state-of-the-art products and systems for NBC defence to the armed forces. The total production value of the entire project is around Rs 500 crore ($111 m).