Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Singha

Merks did fight in the Lebanon battles with Syrian armor.

Also Iran Iraq had a few Chieftain vs T series engagement


I would still feel confident of Leo 2

even though it has not seen the combat usage of the others. the tank is well conceptualised


I like SoKo products - really wish we team up with them -
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

so how did the merkava (must have been mk1) fare in 1982 against syrian armour and 'sagger'? ATGMs
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by jamwal »

What are Japanese going to do with their tanks ?
Their tanks even in world war 2 were too small and weak.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

Hope some one can answer some of my queries. Thanks.

1 ) What does that number on the Glacis of Chassis indicate ( 04X009385W ) , I have seen all tanks diferent number any significance of those numbers ?

http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/00110.jpg

2 ) What does CL-1 and AUTO on the front chassis indicate ?

http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/00710.jpg

3 ) What does that number 224 and 50 on the track guard indicates ?

http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/00710.jpg
http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/00110.jpg
Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 692
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Ankit Desai »

Austin wrote:1 ) What does that number on the Glacis of Chassis indicate ( 04X009385W ) , I have seen all tanks diferent number any significance of those numbers ?

http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/00110.jpg
Any two digit number after upper arrow (like north indicator) in our case ( 04X009385W ) "04" indicates year of induction in army. I am not aware or sure about other alpha numeric after initial two digits.

-Ankit
Leo.Davidson
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 09 Aug 2011 05:34
Location: Boston, USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Leo.Davidson »

What will happen if all the numbers gets obliterated in battle? How will the army account for that tank or vehicle?

In the US, all vehicle number plates are embossed, so even if the vehicle is charred beyond recognition, the number plate is still visible.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Austin wrote:Hope some one can answer some of my queries. Thanks.<SNIP>
- Like Ankit has said, 04 means year of induction while X denotes a Tracked Vehicle (jeeps, trucks, two-vehicles all have class of their own) and balance is registration number of vehicle.

- 224 - that is Tac (Tactical number). Each unit with-in a brigade has such a number assigned which is carried by all the vehicles of the particular unit. And super-set from which numbers are assigned is fixed. For example, one of the armored bdes in a division may have 220/221/222 for three units with-in it. IIRC, this super-set is different for infantry/armor/arty/support arms.

- CL-1 - not sure but likely to mean Class 1. Vehicles, based on kms/years of induction/damage/present state have a different class attached to them. For example, those to be shunted out are called Class-5.

- 50 - Not sure but could be serial number.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Singha

Acig has an account which probably will give a decent idea of the Merk's perf and probably the most neutral

Igor had also posted a pdf which showed the T 72 doing well

General consensus is that the t 62s were slaughtered as usual.

The T 72s seemed to have done Ok at closer ranges but at longer range the Merk seemed to have the advantage. The terrain in lebanon did not always favor these long distance engagements. Note: The Syrians fought very well inspite of being outnumbered and outgunned.

Most Merks even though hit by hunter killer teams did not lose crews and were recovered quickly. net net they went on to produce more versions of Merk - so it was the best tank from their side

IIRC estimates vary between 2 and 7 for the total number fully destroyed - probably 30 odd got hit overall

There was one situation where an Israeli unit ran too far ahead and got smacked. I thinkthey lost a Merk whihc was carted away y the Syrians - need to find the book by an Israeli journalist which detailed that.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

I have a very-very detailed article, something of an inquiry report and very detailed, on the Merkava in the last Israel-Hizbollah round. Will post summary.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Rohit do you have the pdf book Igor had posted on the tank battles in Bekaa.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

Not a PDF. But saved a web-page. It has accounts from a participant in the last Israel-Hizbollah round.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

no this was a diff book - this was from the 82 war.

Its an additional reference to keep.
Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 325
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Rupak »

rohitvats wrote:
Austin wrote:Hope some one can answer some of my queries. Thanks.<SNIP>
- 50 - Not sure but could be serial number.
"50" enclosed within a yellow roundrel denotes weight class. All vehicles carry this prominently so that in times of deployment a quick determination can be made by MP or traffic marshal whether a vehicle may can safely traverse bridges based on their permissible loading.

For more examples see:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 6.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 9.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 1.jpg.html
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4994/d ... 713564.jpg
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7715/10012010208.jpg
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Rupak

Do you remember that book by the Israeli journalist from Haaretz??

We were discussing the chapter which mentioned the Merkavas running ahead (thanks to Sharons aggro) and getting caught ??

think I found it

Singha - if you can get this book

Israels lebanon war Zeev Schiff

http://tinyurl.com/c4wyofo
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9204
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by nachiket »

^^Surya ji, there is an article about Syrian Tank Hunters during the 1982 war on ACIG here: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml

An excerpt from it
On the evening of 10 June, Ben Gal once again rushed his troops forward. To the north of them was an area known as well-fortified by the Syrians. Nevertheless, the Israelis considered their opposition as weak: only two commando battalions of 250 men each, and few tanks was what – at least in theory – was standing between them and the Beirut-Damascus road in this part of Lebanon. “In theory”, then the Israelis were already informed about deployment of a strong Syrian mechanized force along the strategic highway, from east towards West. Obviously, the IDF HQs concluded that the Syrians were rather preparing for a “last-ditch” counterattack, then bringing serious reinforcements to the frontlines.

The task of leading this final advance fell on 90 Ugda; a unit that was previously successful in fighting the Syrian 91st Armoured Brigade, and destroying no less but 35 Syrian tanks in exchange for five own losses. Commander of the 90 Ugda, Brig.Gen. Giora Leo, received the corresponding order around 19:00hrs. Several hours later, its 362 Battalion, equipped with M48A-3 Magach-3 tanks, drove through the village of as-Sultan Yac'ub at Tanta – only to receive strong fire of all calibres and have its leading element cut off deep inside the Syrian positions.

By 01:30hrs in the morning of 11 June the trapped Israeli battalion was in a state of chaos, blocked in a narrow valley on the end of which was another village, drawing heavy direct- and artillery-fire from several sides. It was not until 04:00hrs that the situation slowly improved, although during the permanent contact with Syrians around it the unit lost several tanks and a number of crewmembers. Several Syrian Army anti-tank teams participated in this battle, attacking from very short ranges with RPGs, as well as Milan ATGMs. Early in the morning the Israelis were also strafed by two MiG-21s, but these dropped no bombs due to close proximity of their own troops. Eventually, the IDF was unable to mount a large-scale operation in time to recover the embattled battalion; the 90 and the nearby 880 Ugdas - deployed to Lebanon only a day earlier - were busy attempting to prevent the 3rd Syrian Armoured Division's attempt to advance towards the south, and preven the 1st Armoured Division from deploying along the Beirut-Damascus road towards west.
Is this the incident which you are referring to?
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

nachiket

I am not sure

I will check up later this week
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Austin »

Thanks Rohit , Ankit , Rupak much appreciated
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

japan had to fight americans in philipines and commonwealth in malaya and myanmar. perhaps the nature of thickly forested terrain and narrow jungle tracks through which they advanced drove them to light tank designs and soldiers who comandeered cycles.

unsuitable ofcourse for open terrain armoured war in machuria/mongolia and siberia as the russians proved in khalkin gol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
it was the first major victory for one georgi zhukov and earned him a medal and transfer to kiev..we see early signs of his planning and decisive force concentration in this battle.

--wiki quote--
A year after flinging the Germans back from Moscow, Zhukov planned and executed the Red Army's offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad, using a technique very similar to Khalkhin Gol, in which the Soviet forces held the enemy fixed in the center, built up a mass of force in the area undetected, and launched a pincer attack on the wings to trap the enemy army.

The Japanese, however, made no major strategic changes. They continued to underestimate their adversaries, deploying piecemeal units instead of mass units, emphasizing the courage and determination of the individual soldier to make up for the lack of firepower, protection, or overwhelming numbers. The problems that faced them at Khalkhin Gol, most importantly their deployment of only two light infantry divisions, and two tank regiments, would plague them again when the Americans and British recovered from their defeats of late 1941 and early 1942 and turned to the conquest of the Japanese Empire.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

From the above link:
For now, let me tell you what 21 Corps commander Lt Gen Sanjiv Langer said when I asked him if the regiment under his formation was happy with the Arjun: "It is not our job to be happy. We have objectives, and we have to make do. Nothing is everything you want it to be. I can say that the Arjun has matured. It has gone beyond the point of being in incessant trials. It is inducted and operational now, as you saw in the exercise. But what we are really waiting for is the Arjun Mk.2."
That has to be the best praise I've heard from the army on Arjun. This is a sign of good things to come. :D

But there is something that does not makes sense - Arjun Regiment is with 12 Division (RAPID) which is under XII Corps. So, what is Mr. Shiv Aroor taking about here? Or, may be, just may be, there has been switch of formations between 12 and 21 Corps? Hmmm...interesting if the above is true or, Shiv Aroor is being DDM onleee. :mrgreen:
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by merlin »

rohitvats wrote:
Austin wrote:Hope some one can answer some of my queries. Thanks.<SNIP>
- Like Ankit has said, 04 means year of induction while X denotes a Tracked Vehicle (jeeps, trucks, two-vehicles all have class of their own) and balance is registration number of vehicle.

- 224 - that is Tac (Tactical number). Each unit with-in a brigade has such a number assigned which is carried by all the vehicles of the particular unit. And super-set from which numbers are assigned is fixed. For example, one of the armored bdes in a division may have 220/221/222 for three units with-in it. IIRC, this super-set is different for infantry/armor/arty/support arms.

- CL-1 - not sure but likely to mean Class 1. Vehicles, based on kms/years of induction/damage/present state have a different class attached to them. For example, those to be shunted out are called Class-5.

- 50 - Not sure but could be serial number.
That up arrow and numbers after it is called BA number (for Board Arrow).

And TAC numbers change every few years. Its fun looking at TAC numbers to get a rough idea of who/what is deployed in a certain area since vehicles also have formation signs on them along with TAC numbers. In a peace station you see them rarely.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2198
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Shrinivasan »

rohitvats wrote:
From the above link:
For now, let me tell you what 21 Corps commander Lt Gen Sanjiv Langer said when I asked him if the regiment under his formation was happy with the Arjun: "It is not our job to be happy. We have objectives, and we have to make do. Nothing is everything you want it to be. I can say that the Arjun has matured. It has gone beyond the point of being in incessant trials. It is inducted and operational now, as you saw in the exercise. But what we are really waiting for is the Arjun Mk.2."
That has to be the best praise I've heard from the army on Arjun. This is a sign of good things to come. :D

But there is something that does not makes sense - Arjun Regiment is with 12 Division (RAPID) which is under XII Corps. So, what is Mr. Shiv Aroor taking about here? Or, may be, just may be, there has been switch of formations between 12 and 21 Corps? Hmmm...interesting if the above is true or, Shiv Aroor is being DDM onleee. :mrgreen:
XII corps and XXI corps are playing together in this exercise, hence the Arjuns from XII Corps are participating, from thhe perspective of this exercise as well as the new theater doctrine, the COrps Commander of the strike corps may be heading the combined formation. My 2 paisa, BTB Shiv is not a regular DDM.
manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by manum »

What are the chances of India gifting away T55 fleet to Afghanistan in coming years and make way for MK2...
prabhug
BRFite
Posts: 177
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by prabhug »

Rohitvats
Looks like arjun is going to be employed in terrains so far not classified as tank territory.My hard guess
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

What is not a tank territory? Entire sector south of Foxtrot sector or Fazilka is a tank terriroty. Yes, Thar is not exactly same a North Africa (sand is soft unlike the hard surface obtained in North Africa), but this is where the big boys of the army are going to play. So, rest assured, Arjuns are going to be in thick of it.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1821
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Khalsa »

manum wrote:What are the chances of India gifting away T55 fleet to Afghanistan in coming years and make way for MK2...
Our T55s if not being replaced are in the process of mothballed and placed in reserve storage just like the PT-76s were when their time came. Good to keep them in the reserve for some time. So what you wish for end will end up happening anyway. The T-55s are not to be kept and or upgraded. Project Gulmohar to upgrade these was shelved some time ago.

These regts are being given the Arjun.

Also note some T-55s are being equipped as Engineering Tanks and used for Mine clearing.
Personally I would like to see something like this being done out of the T-55s for the Engineering Regts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIU-55_Munja but not sure the cost of maintenace of these babies vs compared to their current engineering machines.

Following are some other good examples for the reuse of the T-55 hull.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT - for fighting infantry. Excellent for Jammu and Punjab Region where Battle fields are sudden, small and punishing
or a heavy APC like the Russian Resign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-T or the Israeli design which are good for transportation. But I am not sure whether these align with the strategic direction of the mechanised corps.

Now about Afghanistan, so far our policy has been to build their non-fighting capabilities such as trucks, ambulances, logistics training and above all training their officer corps instead of combat training their fighting men. The idea being to teach them how to fish rather than fish.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

converting any MBT to a infantry carrier is tough imo because the engine occupies the entire back and has to be relocated and a smaller engine put in so that troops may dismount safely under cover and sit in the former engine bay. to that extent converting them to a new turret with cannons or mortars sounds easier.

Merkava uniquely among current MBT has the engine on front-right, so conversion into the Nemer troop carrier was possible without radical surgery. it also has a high profile of the hull, which is more comfortable for troops inside.

what the BMP-T does our BMP2+Namica can do better
BTR-T is a bad design as the 5 troops need to use a roof hatch to enter and leave - engine is still in the back.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Rahul M »

use the T-55 and T-72 chasis to create self propelled AD and SAM systems.
P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by P Chitkara »

From the comment of GOC 21 corps looks like the army is willing (hopefully more than willing :?: ) to take mk2 even with the increased weight.

If that may be the case, is anyone willing to speculate the numbers they will go for? I vaguely recall someone (maybe chacko) mentioning a production run of approx a 1000 tanks, mk1 and mk2 combined.

Also, isnt it a little curious that the Arjun is part of the red force? At least that is what one would infer from the red flag on it.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1821
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Khalsa »

Rahul, I believe that is already being adopted for the Akash SAM Chasis.

Singha, I agree however something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT for the semi rural areas around Punjab, Jammu Tawi area could be a good idea, but once again I am interested in the reuse of those T-55 chasis and not manufacturing new T-72 chasis. Adding one of these to a squad of four BMPs would really turn the fighting odds in the favour for them. Almost an organic armoured arm of the Mechanised Regt should they wish to invade a sector when heavy armour is not available to work with them.


I am big fan of this one for the corps of Engineeers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIU-55_Munja
Hell I am sure you could add other mine ploughs or pressure wheels to it if required.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Would have liked a more ringing endorsement of the Arjun but i guess there is still Natasha people around so one has to be careful of how they word so tomorrow it does not come back to bite them
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Kanson »

^ Considering there is expectation on Arjun Mk2 despite all the projected canonical prowess of T-90S and its descendants, kindle some hope!
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

canonical prowess of T-90S
and rohit calls me evil!!! :mrgreen:
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

Singha

you forgot the Achzarit - It is a beast. and has rear exit (although narrow) I have clambered over it and it somehow feels larger than the original T 55.

With the Israelis and their subsidies there is no way of knowing whether it was a cost effective soln.

But the soldiers in our office do not like - its a big slow lumbering beast.

Its ok for running into West bank lanes but no one wants in it on open ground.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by SaiK »

why didn't Ms. Patil chose Arjun?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

what kind of ratio do we want among 'proper' ICV and 'armoured troop carriers'?

by 'proper' ICV I mean one with a turret and a cannon or small gun, with some ATGM tubes - BMP2/CV90/Bradley types
by 'troops carriers' one can go the spectrum from mobile but thin cans like M113 upto the rhino hide azcharit and Nemer types...these would have a HMG and a MG usually, and maybe a remote weapons stn in the new age types.

we dont seem to have any at all of the 2nd type and the Stallion trucks are filling that role. Paki HIT taxila iirc makes the M113 locally so they probably have a lot of them in various roles from pure transport, to anti-tank TOW launchers to mobile 81mm and 120mm mortars.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by rohitvats »

^^^PA is working towards mechanizing the infantry divisions which are running mates of their amored division using the latter approach. So, in theory, ARS/ARN is fully mechanized as compared to our Strike Corps. Now, one can argue on the merit of mechanization using M113 clones but the fact remains that the troops can keep pace with the tank coloumns.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Singha »

can the stallion 4x4 type do the same in the western sectors...mostly they can, but not in I think on soft marshy terrain or really bad mud where the low ground pressure of a proper tracked vehicle comes into its own. on +ve side I think the stallion holds twice the payload of a M113 and would be cheaper to buy and maintain, so we can keep more of them.

so far IA shows no interest in the 'people mover' M113 types.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Post by Surya »

ok my forum seach skills are not working

Igor where are you - can you please repost the link to the book about the armor battles in Lebanon

unless someone else can find it in this thread
Last edited by Surya on 07 Dec 2011 04:22, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply