Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2011 14:09

south korea is also working on heavy armour - it has a real threat next door.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Feb 2011 14:21

Singha wrote:south korea is also working on heavy armour - it has a real threat next door.

Yes they certainly do but US provides security guarantees to them so its not a real problem , but they are working hard to build their own industry like us be it tanks , sam or aircraft.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Feb 2011 14:39

d_berwal wrote:
Kanson wrote:C'on berwal, we do know what IA has done. No need not go for chaiwala info to prove this. IA in their own admission mentioned how they conducted T-90 evaluation - document posted by Surya here. Further there are other things done to Arjun during evaluation.
How do we know what IA has done or not done?
were any of us ever present there?
IA has till date never released an official document of T-90 evaluation trials or Arjun AUCRT trials or has it?
IA does not allow this data to be even used by officers on courses for their thesis.
How do we know something was done to Arjun during evaluation? Because some DDM wrote it? What is his information source? Was he preview to the trials? was he give this info during press debrief at trials? or he let his creative juices flow?

IA is not an organization where, one can sabotage a equipment an get away with it. Officers careers will be sealed if even a remote hint of sabotage is true. An officer will never sabotage his own equipment.
There are so many different agencies and check and balance put in place that one cannot get away with it.

For your information, I'm not talking about Arjun AUCRT trials but T-90 trials. The document was from IA. It was posted by Surya and Brig. RayC took part in that discussion.

IA is not an organization where, one can sabotage a equipment an get away with it. Officers careers will be sealed if even a remote hint of sabotage is true. An officer will never sabotage his own equipment.

Pls, i'm not a mango indian to believe these political statements. Nowadays, even mango indian is much more intelligent with unveiling of Adarsh scam & other such things.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Feb 2011 14:42

Wah wah!!! we have the same nonsense being parroted around.....guess, this thread rises like phoenix every couple of months.

d_berwal, complaining about 90+ defects in Arjun, which could very well be QC issues, while forgetting about the TI on T-90 concking out is plain dishonest. ANd before you retort with what %age and where, please do educate me as to why we're looking at cooling power pack for the entire fleet? If the statistical number is low to be not of any significance, then why go for a/c units? It is not for the love of crew comfort for sure.

There are many other points; I can simply cut-copy-paste my posts from previous debates on the topic for every question you've raised. Lets us not hide behind semantics.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Feb 2011 14:46

Kanson, the document was from the website of College of Material Management, Jabalpur.

It very clearly mentioned that one T-90 engines seized during the AUCRT and was replaced -with much difficulty - and even the second one never reached peak power to attain the brochure PWR...the power was claimed to lower than the claims and this got further derated in the summer trials.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2011 14:49

Austin, I don't really need to run you through the design deficiencies that make the t-series philosophy very vulnerable and incapable of any more incremental advancement or do I ?

justifying the T-72/90 design with IA purchase is simply circular logic, it's the very efficacy of that deal that we are discussing here.

c'mon, it won't kill you to admit that the russians got this one thing wrong !

it's usually said that russian arms are designed for different requirements from their western counterparts and one is not necessarily better than the other.

in general it's very true but the russians ignored western advances in armour design post 70's and as a result have got stuck with an evolutionary dead end that they might or might not replace in the near future, depending on funding priorities.
______________________________
@ others
alongwith berwal sahab tomtoming the virtues of the kontakt-5 ERA please go through this http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2011 14:51

rohitvats wrote:Kanson, the document was from the website of College of Material Management, Jabalpur.

It very clearly mentioned that one T-90 engines seized during the AUCRT and was replaced -with much difficulty - and even the second one never reached peak power to attain the brochure PWR...the power was claimed to lower than the claims and this got further derated in the summer trials.

to put it in perspective arjun's powerpack can be replaced in under 30 minutes.
http://frontierindia.net/passion-of-the-arjun-tank

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Feb 2011 15:07

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:I don't think T-series has space for anything else internally. don't get me wrong, it was a winning design when it started but it started getting obsolete by mid 80's. the russians need to modify their design bigtime if they want to stay in the game.
Well I am not sure if its obsolete big time or just good enough to do the job , as long as they can sell it or export it its a good product , what ever sells is good in this consumer world thats the bottom line , for corporates or MIC.

Looking around there is hardly any one these days who is buying tanks big time( ( the T-90 deal by India is perhaps the biggest tank deal in sheer numbers by any nation in the past two decades if i am not wrong ) neither is some revolution in tank design happening all we see even from biggies is some incremental improvements and gets advertised as the next big thing , well if they can sell it its good for them but not many are buying tank these days.

As far as russia goes they are working on an all electric tanks at least that is what that tank designer chap said in that interview. T-95 was a good design with new concept and heavier design but the Army thinks its too much cold war centric design and doesnt fit in their new leaner meaner mobile force doctrine so its just dev/null.

Probably India along with Russia is the only nation in the world working on new FMBT concept and all indication from both sides are it will be 40 plus T tank fitting within their respective doctrine of mobility.

China is not far 'behind' there has been (rumors) of a new 152 caliber super tank.and the US is developing a new variant fitted with electromagnetic guns , a smaller variant of the navy's., though proceeding a bit slowly due to budget cuts and other priorities.

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Feb 2011 15:13

I think the IA has a plan to prevent the Bhishma s , the main stay of their armored force becoming target practice.As of now the 90 s have some proven very glaring vulnerabilities that would soon be evident if they go up against attack helicopters armed with state of the art ATGMs. The solutions are likely to come from the Arjuns weapon systems and the Israeli self defense support systems., but again too costly.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 17 Feb 2011 15:18

Thanks Rohit. Title of the document was escaping. Thanks for the help.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Feb 2011 15:47

Rahul M wrote:c'mon, it won't kill you to admit that the russians got this one thing wrong !
it's usually said that russian arms are designed for different requirements from their western counterparts and one is not necessarily better than the other.

The russian may be drastically wrong with T's design but there are many armies in the world including Indian,Russian and couple others who still buys the T's , may be just like MS Windoes things which are bad do sell as it does the job.

It just reminds me of Mig-21 design, a late 60's design but some how even after 50 years , it still flies in an updated variant in the IAF and it does the job well , as it competes with 3rd and 4th gen design ,but the IAF still thinks its good enough and safe enough to fly and do the job.

Some times I think a civi knowledge like mine and military operational use of weapons might just vary , civi knowledge is all based on I read this , this website says this , some unkil told me that, my IIT science knowledge tells me this , that credible forum and that credible guys said that and this credible report from this reporter has to say this ,Discover Channel superweapon with that American dude got it right . Military people is I know this weapon , I know how it works ,I know the environment , I know this has this problem , I know with this tactics I can get over it , I know the best may cost and I may not get , so let me make the best use of what I got and fight with what I have and develop tactics to over come deficiency and use the plus to its maximum.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 17 Feb 2011 15:58

And I thought Armed forces personnel are accused of reading up glossy brochures and articles by reputed journalists and analyst from Janes and likes.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2011 17:21

Austin, acquisitions can't be taken as proof of capability. the iraqis had lots of T-72, that didn't stop those from getting smacked to kingdom come by the bradleys. let alone the abrams.
russian forces never had a choice and many folk think IA made a mistake by continuing with t-series. what's left ? venezuela, algeria, frigging saudi arabia of all things ? when was the last time the saudis made one rational military decision ?

please don't insult the mig-21 by comparing it with the t-series. both are cheaper and simpler than their western counterparts, that's where the similarity ends. going on and on about "working around deficiencies with suitable tactics" only works so far.
you can't build skyscrapers with mud bricks. you can't have a modern armoured force with T-90.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 17 Feb 2011 17:50

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:c'mon, it won't kill you to admit that the russians got this one thing wrong !
it's usually said that russian arms are designed for different requirements from their western counterparts and one is not necessarily better than the other.
It just reminds me of Mig-21 design, a late 60's design but some how even after 50 years , it still flies in an updated variant in the IAF and it does the job well , as it competes with 3rd and 4th gen design ,but the IAF still thinks its good enough and safe enough to fly and do the job.

You are saying that the IAF actually had a choice in the matter of still using the MiG-21 series. Budgetary concerns and lack of other cost-effective suitable alternatives prevented them from flying other aircraft in the numbers that they wanted.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Feb 2011 18:30

even the east european armies still soldiering along with T-series would likely be keen on getting used leopards or abrams or challys if these were handed out like used but MLUed F-solahs which they have accepted with glee.

USSR collapsed in 1991 and their tank design philsophy remained in a coma since then due to lack of a domestic threat, no funds and vast inventory of cold war tanks to use up. the India t90 deal was a great bonus for them at a time with Rus army was not buying tanks and nobody else was interested.

as mentioned, if they want to be a 'player' in the market they need to come up new ideas, and new tank and IFV designs.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 17 Feb 2011 19:23

In all this points scoring business, one interesting and important parameter left out was the superiority of the single piece APFSDS ammo fired from the Arjun's gun versus the shorter two-piece ammo which the T-90 is forced to fire because of the super-duper autoloader some people here wanted to fit into the Arjun. This was one reason western tanks usually do not have misslie firing capability. Their mango APFSDS ammo is just a lot more lethal than the one fired by russian tanks.
We are told a new auto-loader on the latest T-90 variant allows longer penetrators to be used. But this point is moot since Indian T-90s do not have the new auto-loader.

I think there was a pic posted on this thread many pages ago that clearly showed the difference in sizes of the Arjun and T-90 ammo.

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Feb 2011 19:59

That brings us to the situation of a quite vulnerable tank force and decades old artillery.Guys , do you think the IA is fit enough for a major war with PK., let alone China ? Sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.RM knows the 'state' of his army thanks to the powers that be, but it increasingly looks like those powers will use his vulnerability.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Feb 2011 20:14

do you think the IA is fit enough for a major war with PK., let alone China

Thats easy to answer - NO

We might still win because of the sheer guts and sacrifice of the IAs young officers and jawans like in Kargil

but crushing the enemy and losing the least on our side is not likely anytime soon.

IMHO and all that

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Feb 2011 20:18

Rahul M wrote:Austin, acquisitions can't be taken as proof of capability. the iraqis had lots of T-72, that didn't stop those from getting smacked to kingdom come by the bradleys. let alone the abrams.

Iraqi would have any way got smacked even if they have Abrams and Leo in their inventory or F-15 or F-22 , the fight was very much lopsided and favoured the coalition forces of some 40 nation.

russian forces never had a choice and many folk think IA made a mistake by continuing with t-series. what's left ? venezuela, algeria, frigging saudi arabia of all things ? when was the last time the saudis made one rational military decision ?

Sure there will be many who may think this was not right or it was a mistake , most certainly the GOI and IA did not think so , every nation decides based on the option it is available , the deep pockets they have and some political alignment. There are still who buy Tseries and its older model or upgraded derivative because they think it meets their needs. Chances are these nation will never face NATO or US to even every face a Chally or Abrams and if they ever did have the best tank will not save them , a nuclear weapon most certainly would.

please don't insult the mig-21 by comparing it with the t-series. both are cheaper and simpler than their western counterparts, that's where the similarity ends. going on and on about "working around deficiencies with suitable tactics" only works so far.

Well our nation has been defended by the same old Migs and rusty tanks for the the past 50 odd years , at the end of the day tactics ,training ,logistics play as much a role as the premium weapons system.

Considering great tank warfare in this continent is so limited to Indo-Pak scenario , the threat level has not changed and no one is buying a western heavy , I am not sure if there will be ever a great tank war in this nuclearised subcontinent or for that matter even a war.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2011 21:43

Austin, those tanks were for the most part state of the art back then and the mig were shiny new toys.

the russians had a considerable superiority in armour both in quality and doctrine till the 80's when they surrendered it and didn't even know that till 1991. something was good doesn't equal that thing is still good, or we would be playing kapil dev in the coming world cup.

Well our nation has been defended by the same old Migs and rusty tanks for the the past 50 odd years , at the end of the day tactics ,training ,logistics play as much a role as the premium weapons system.

yes yes and yes and it is a waste of time repeating this to us senile old men. point is, there is a minimum quality that your basic units need to have in order for all that tactics and training to be put to use.

would you recommend IA giving up the INSAS and adopting the .303 lee enfield once again ?
would tactics, logistics and all that jazz make it anything but a suicide force against a modern automatic rifle armed enemy ? it's the same with T-90, its days as an effective piece of armour are over.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Feb 2011 21:50

^^^The most funny part is the limited tank warfare theory (no large tank battles). Limited in what respect? Is Sqn vs. Sqn. large or Regiment vs. Regiment large? Or is Brigade on Brigade large? How does it even matter? The troops need the best tank - for a battalion of infantry fighting a desperate holding battle in Chhamb, the knowledge that they have a Squadron of tanks for support, and which can better the enemy, is as good as fighting any large duel in the deserts.

Oh! and btw, the TSPA is rumoured to working on adding extra armored division......guess, no one told them about tank battles being a passe...touche!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2011 22:09

that's not even counting the persistent rumours of the chinese moving the type-99 regiments into tibet.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 17 Feb 2011 22:53

rohitvats wrote:^^^The most funny part is the limited tank warfare theory (no large tank battles). Limited in what respect? Is Sqn vs. Sqn. large or Regiment vs. Regiment large? Or is Brigade on Brigade large? How does it even matter? The troops need the best tank - for a battalion of infantry fighting a desperate holding battle in Chhamb, the knowledge that they have a Squadron of tanks for support, and which can better the enemy, is as good as fighting any large duel in the deserts.

Well, it does matter what role the tanks are most likely to be used.

Like Austin I believe that formation-level (and even rgt-on-rgt level) armored battles are increasingly unlikely; unlike him, I believe that other forms of war are quite likely - and one is, in fact, going on in the shadows and it is only a matter of time before new weapons (tanks, for this discussion) are inducted.

Fifty years back MMGs and HMGs were detachment assets only, now it is organic asset. Other countries have already started making tank troops organic to Inf Coys, India won't be too far behind. And India is neck-deep in this kind of LIC warfare.

IMHO T-90s are better for the old-style larger-scale battles - IFF supported by Russian style artillery (which India doesn't have); and Arjuns are better for the newer-style LIC in support of infantry action (which India does in plenty). The threat perception does drive the acquisition cycles, but not symmetrically. If Paks are raising more armored divisions or the Chinese moving in T-99s, raise more Smerch and Pinaka regiments.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 Feb 2011 22:56

If Paks are raising more armored divisions or the Chinese moving in T-99s, raise more ~~Smerch and Pinaka regiments.~~ LCH/WSI dhruv squadrons

passive counter-measures are not going to do the trick. pinaka and smerch are still too inaccurate and inflexible to be effective anti-tank weapons at the tactical level.

kit · Post by **kit** » 17 Feb 2011 22:58

The IA might have its priorities correct if attack helos are inducted in real large numbers, but arty is still the god of war in the Indian scenario.The Arjun is a real Abrams style MBT and its successive versions will be proven in combat.Lets hope it would be inducted in thousands not the paltry hundreds. Never could understand why the t90s are inducted in thousands ! the 90s are a dead end and the Arjuns have scope for a lot of improvement in successive versions and that too tailored for Indian conditions.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 17 Feb 2011 23:10

kit wrote:The IA might have its priorities correct if attack helos are inducted in real large numbers, but arty is still the god of war in the Indian scenario.The Arjun is a real Abrams style MBT and its successive versions will be proven in combat.Lets hope it would be inducted in thousands not the paltry hundreds. Never could understand why the t90s are inducted in thousands ! the 90s are a dead end and the Arjuns have scope for a lot of improvement in successive versions and that too tailored for Indian conditions.

Simple.. 3 words !!

Kneejerk

Natasha

Vodka

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Feb 2011 23:24

The improved pinaka is quite effective. Add to that LCH with 8 Helinas will be another assualt breaker.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 18 Feb 2011 00:31

Austin wrote: Well our nation has been defended by the same old Migs and rusty tanks for the the past 50 odd years , at the end of the day tactics ,training ,logistics play as much a role as the premium weapons system.

Considering great tank warfare in this continent is so limited to Indo-Pak scenario , the threat level has not changed and no one is buying a western heavy , I am not sure if there will be ever a great tank war in this nuclearised subcontinent or for that matter even a war.

Tank battles that India fought were fought with western tanks (T55 was used in 71 but then there weren't too many tank battles then). In fact IA was very happy with Centurion and wanted their next tank to be based on western philosophy which is heavy tank with lots of protection and a crew of 4.

IIRC, IA was not too happy to get the t-72 (GOI gave it to them as an interim). So, I guess it is more of IA not liking a change in the type of it's equipment (which brings in a change in doctrines as well as mindset).

Even in Indo-Pak scenario, what India needs is a tank that can completely dominate the pakistani tanks. This is because any future Indo-Pak conflict will involve mainly blitzkrieg tactics by India as there will only be a short window in which a target has to be achieved (after which there will be stuff like enemy reinforcements and international pressure).

Now, I cannot see the t-90 doing any such thing as even if it is 1.2 times the tank compared to t-80 or al-khalid, it would not be able to defeat the enemy armor fast enough. For that you need something that can take some punishment and still run over the enemy.

This would be similar to WW2 wherein the vastly superior German Armor just ran over the mighty French.

Note: it was only due to lengthy war that the Nazis got into supply issues of their superior (but complex and costly tanks) while the allies had no such problems with their inferior (but simple and fast to make) ones. Something that India should not worry about.

PS. I know that this might sound unpatriotic, but for the sake of Arjun I hope that Unkil gifts a regiment or two of M1A1's to Pakis. Then we might see some simultaneous pant crapping by the uber t-90's.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 18 Feb 2011 00:38

ramana

they will only account for a couple of parts tanks play

there are lot of other types of action where we would need the Arjun

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Feb 2011 01:06

I agree Arjun is a must for it out shoots and outguns anything the Pakis have.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Feb 2011 01:07

a tank thatcan hold its own is necessary for proactive action and supporting infantry. no amount of reactive ATGMs or rockets can replace it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Feb 2011 04:32

ramana wrote:The improved pinaka is quite effective. Add to that LCH with 8 Helinas will be another assualt breaker.

Also, add to this the NAMICA with 12 Nag ATGMs. With around 4 NAMICA, you could potentially destroy a whole armored regiment worth of MBTs.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 18 Feb 2011 04:38

so much talk about arjun. so little video of it in action
Please share

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 18 Feb 2011 04:43

srai wrote:
ramana wrote:The improved pinaka is quite effective. Add to that LCH with 8 Helinas will be another assualt breaker.
Also, add to this the NAMICA with 12 Nag ATGMs. With around 4 NAMICA, you could potentially destroy a whole armored regiment worth of MBTs.

All these are good defensively (and even for offensive support). But there is no substitute for a strong MBT when you want quick and effective offensive actions (which should be the case in Indo-pak conflicts).

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Feb 2011 07:39

ramana wrote:The improved pinaka is quite effective. Add to that LCH with 8 Helinas will be another assualt breaker.

Heck! Thats expensive, just put a barbed wire and Pakis won't cross it or circumvent it.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Feb 2011 07:57

A shock and awe LCH can carry 16 helinas as well (4x4 hard points), and it's radar should be able to independently track and lock 16 al-kalids in one opn. A LCH squadron should be able to destroy as many khalids as possible on a joint ops with ncw capability.

The point is quick finish.. and return to base., backed by other air borne assets./ot

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Feb 2011 12:11

ParGha wrote:
<SNIP>

IMHO T-90s are better for the old-style larger-scale battles - IFF supported by Russian style artillery (which India doesn't have); and Arjuns are better for the newer-style LIC in support of infantry action (which India does in plenty). The threat perception does drive the acquisition cycles, but not symmetrically. If Paks are raising more armored divisions or the Chinese moving in T-99s, raise more Smerch and Pinaka regiments.

Can you please explain why T-XX is better in the large scale tank battle scenario? As for the requirement of massed artillery like the Russians, T-XX was one of the cogs in the entire Russian offensive armory. OMGs preceeded by Spetznaz and followed by Shock and Gaurd Armies plus the vertical envelopment (paratroopers+air assault) were all part of the overall philosophy of war fighting.

The reason Russians went for their style of weapon design and development (mass production possible, easy to maintain and not too training intensive) are known. But to say that T-XX should be better in large scale battles in Indian context is incorrect - especially when we don't have the Russian -ves and not all of their positive (massive numbers of tanks+rocket and tube artillery)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Feb 2011 12:17

plus casualties were not deemed important since they only expected to be fighting WW-III flat out and not the complicated balancing act Indian wars will be.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 18 Feb 2011 19:46

Rohit, You have pretty much answered why T-90s would have been a good choice if India was likely to fight a large-scale conventional war (which it isn't likely to fight in foreseeable future) and had the same force composition as the army it was designed for (which India doesn't).

Singha, By mid-1960s the Soviets had actually become sensitive to casualties (especially after the Sino-Soviet split), and it has continued unabated. It sometimes manifested itself in changes to R&D, but more often it manifested itself in their change in strategic outlook and operational ROE. Witness how Russia has finally given up on its nuclear NFU doctrine since late 1990s. It is telling that only two nuclear powers stick to it - India and China. Demographics

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Feb 2011 20:32

ParGha wrote:Rohit, You have pretty much answered why T-90s would have been a good choice if India was likely to fight a large-scale conventional war (which it isn't likely to fight in foreseeable future) and had the same force composition as the army it was designed for (which India doesn't). <SNIP>

ParGha, large scale conventional war in Indian and Russian context is different.

Indian Army, equipped at optimum level - fully mechanized Strike Corps, Pivot Corps with good strike capability, tube and rocket artillery - still does not reach the levels of Russian Army. For this kind and level of force structure, IMO, there is no philosophy which drives requirement for T-90 type of tank. Also, neither the HR angle or the logistics would be a deciding factor.