Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 19 Dec 2011 02:59

tsarkar wrote:
Khalsa wrote:won't get airlifted
AMX-13 tanks were airlifted by An-12 for Battle of Chusul in 1962
Khalsa wrote:roads are so narrow and weak over crucial passes
Stuart tanks were deployed to Zoji-La in 1948 over worse roads.

Agree Arjun is heavier, but the Indian warrior is innovative, and isnt specification driven. I believe NH-1A has been upgraded to handle T-72 and their transporters.

Hi TSarkar

You have taken my sentence out of context.
When I say won't I said due to our current capabilities and I also completed the sentence with an alternative example of an aircraft.
Another aircraft that I missed was the globemaster transporting the Aussie M1A1. How capable is that for landing in hot and high conditions ?
Landings are tricky as well you know, if you come in slow you risk falling out of the thin air at Leh, Chushul etc. If you come in too fast, well good luck with the landing.
You want dry air for good thrust but then its dry when its hot and when its hot your load carrying capacity decreases.
So what to do..... fly in at night time ? welll not something they want to do in the poorly equipped airfields at Chushul.

Anyways I am digressing.

And I agree that Stuart tanks went to Zoji-La, but that was on a war footing and I am discussing this under peacetime deployment.
When there is a war on..... well who cares about the roads. Just drive on.

And I cherish your attitude about the jawan not being specification driven, yes the Indian Jawan has always exceeded the manual. However life on tarmac sometimes involves the army liason officer and the Il-76 flight leader bitching about why the IL-76 can't take 12 more jawans on leave because the temperature went up 2 degrees at Leh Basin. We must know our limits with current equipement and practices. Once we have that and acknowledge that, We then need to find ways of negating that. Different tank ? A tank destroyer on wheels perhaps. C-17 vs AN-124 etc.

Currently the IL-76 and Arjun combo is not in our favour.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 19 Dec 2011 05:34

aditp wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-general-krishnaswami-sundarji-1069842.html
Sundarji also planned a covert, albeit cynical, winter offensive against Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in which he was willing to take an exceptionally high casualty rate in snowbound, inhospitable terrain at heights of over 14,000 feet to resolve the Kashmir dispute over which the nuclear-capable neighbours have fought two of their three wars since independence in 1947. He achieved the near impossible task of ferrying tanks to a height of nearly 13,000 feet for the bold operation but at the last minute was ordered to call it off by the perspicacious Rajiv Gandhi.
Noob Koshchun, pliss to indulge - Were the T-72s in Laddakh meant to wrest away PoK ??

As an aside what a horrible written article. The author seems to have some personal vendetta against him or something ?
He conveniently blames him for everything under the sun and twists everthing to make it look like SundarJee caused it.... what da !!!

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 19 Dec 2011 12:36

It is rediculous! He blames Sunderjee for IPKF intervention in SL as if the generals take decisions in this country. Come on, wake up! This is not a sham democracy like the country next door.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Dec 2011 23:35

As far as the IPKF ops go,it was an unmitigated disaster on all fronts,diplomatic,military and political.First of all,the "Bhandari" dioctrine after the demise of Mrs.G.,threw out the careful politically savvy peace plan of G.Parthasarathy,India's most experienced diplomat.Bhandari was after personal glory,styling himself as India's "Kissinger"! He was treated like a head of state by the canny Lankans,JRJ knowing the price of every man.While Mrs.G was alive,her antipathy towards Pres.JRJ was well known.Mrs.B. was her close friend with whom she had signed an accord too to boot.Their friendship was unbreakable.After her assassination,RG relied on different advisers,who instead of consolidating the best of Mrs.G's diplomatic advisers,dumped them.The arrogance of the Bhandari doctrine was also bound to fail..All that was needed was for India to "crack heads",both Sinhalese and Tamil,organise a few"flag marches" in Jaffna and presto ,the ethnic crisis would be over,and allegedly, RB would next travel to the Gulf and resolve the Iran-Iraq war (with the help of an olf chum,Kashoggi) and win himself the Nobel Peace Prize a la Kissinger! The psycholigical profile of psycopath Prabhakaran and mentality and extreme clannishness of the JTs was never considered at all.As a veteran diplomat of that era once told me,"the thinking in Delhi and Madras or Colombo are far apart".Just like the US State Dept. in Washington,which scarcely understands the people,culture,religions and values of the nations which they invade.

The force-fed signing of the Indo-Lankan accord by JRJ nd Rajiv,where India agreed to "keep the peace" in the north,dis-arm the LTTE and conduct elections in a conjoined Northern and Eastern provinces, angered the native Sinhalese enormously and Premier Premadasa actually organised riots against the accord and poor pro-India Fin. Min. Ronnie de Mel had his new house burnt down! The irony of it all was that the LTTE also rejected it,as they were not signatories to the accord,causing CM Karunananidhi to remark that this was a strange case where the "minister married the bride and not the groom!" On a visit shortly after the signing of the accord,I was besieged by some friends I knew well,moderates,part of the peace process,bitterly against the accord..Thus,the accord rejected by the majority of both Sinhalese and Tamils,was bound to fail politically.

Militarily,the IPKF never expected to fight the LTTE.here again was a diplomatic zero.Despite years off huge casualties suffered by the Lankan forces mainly due to land mines and ambushes,the IPKF were sent in without even maps of the terrain in which they had been airlifted! When under Mrs.G.training camps for Tamil militants were set up in india,the arms that they were given were rather basic from reports,mainly for self-defence.These were supposedly handed over in public "disarmiing" of the Tamil groups to convince the Sinhalese that the JTamils were following the accord's clauses to the letter.

It was a rude shock when the IPKF faced off with the LTTE and the amount of heavy weaponry used by the LTTE caused huge casualties.Betrayal of the LTTE was another miscalculation by the Bhandari doctrine,even though the IB warned against trusting the LTTE.When Premadasa took over as pres.,when VP Singh was PM,he actually sent weaponry to the LTTE using Lankan army lorries! VP Singh then brought the IPKF home,after they had "tamed the tiger",conducted elections and had installed our own man as CM of the province.Militarily,the IPKF manfully saw it ambushed,take very heavy casualties due to land mines,etc.coconut tree boles stuffed with explosives by roadsides to destroy tanks,and vehicles,just as the Lankan army had been suffering soopenly since he start of fh campaign.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 20 Dec 2011 01:50

I know sir.... I know .... my father was there. He lost two of his good friends there.
Good angle on the diplomatic side... i never knew much about that.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Dec 2011 03:19

well there was blame all around - the military also made lots of mistakes. the intervening years had left it pretty unprepared for these type of operations. Everything had to be relearnt.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 20 Dec 2011 03:46

DRDO plans 500-cr unmanned vehicle project for Indian Army

PUNE: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is working on an ambitious Rs 500-cr unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) programme that seeks to address the Army's requirement for various types of UGVs over the next 10 years.

The use of UGVs, which are state-of-the-art robots, has acquired a greater significance in counter-insurgency, urban- as well as jungle-warfare situations for varied tasks, including surveillance and reconnaissance operations and safe handling and disposal of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
:
:

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 21 Dec 2011 21:23

Singha, Remember sometime back I had mentioned that older Chinese officers really prefer attrition-oriented warfare over manoeuver-oriented warfare? (That is, they trust artillery over armor). Well, it seems that the newer generation of leadership has its own notions. According to China Watchers, the nine tank divisions are apparently being re-roled into combined-arms demi-divisions (1bde armor + 1 bde inf + more 122mm and 152mm SPA than before) and excess tanks being detached to lower-level infantry support in other formations. They are finally getting over their old mortal fear of the Rus and preparing according to their pro-active WZC doctrine. Lots of implications for the Paks, some implications for India too.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Dec 2011 21:52

> Lots of implications for the Paks, some implications for India too.

do you mean the pakis will follow their friend and reorg into these "brigade combat teams" too?

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 21 Dec 2011 22:07

At the very least the professionals in the PA will seriously rethink the idea of reorganizing the Pak Army into an attrition-based fighting force modeled on the Chinese doctrine and posture of the 1970s. The Paks have historically not liked the Chinese doctrine (preferring a Turkey-like doctrine), but they have been slowly adopting it since the mid-1980s and increasingly so over last 10 years because of geopolitical and economic compulsions. Now that the Chinese themselves seem to be abandoning it, the Paks will definitely have to rethink it (as they never had the strategic depth in land, men and materials that the Chinese had built their old doctrine on).

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 21 Dec 2011 23:00

At the very least the professionals in the PA will seriously rethink the idea of reorganizing the Pak Army into an attrition-based fighting force modeled on the Chinese doctrine and posture of the 1970s.

ParGha: I remember your earlier post on the doctrinal shift within PLA. Could you pls elaborate, in some detail, on how this is expected to pan out for the PLA and their implications for us and the Pakis? Also what do you imply by the Turkish doctrine?

Look forward to your views here...

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Dec 2011 23:16

Khalsa wrote:I know sir.... I know .... my father was there. He lost two of his good friends there.
Good angle on the diplomatic side... i never knew much about that.

The IA was betrayed and their efforts sabotaged by the very same GOI spooks who began to play a double game very soon after the IA started their operations.

The IA daily ops briefings were regularly leaked to the ltte until the IA soon figured out how and why the ltte always knew what was to happen in advance.

The IA began to hold a second briefing every day after the room was completely cleared of ALL non IA personnel where the days actual ops were discussed.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Dec 2011 23:17

Avik, retd US army Col dennis blasko has penned a number of articles on PLA. most are available via google.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Dec 2011 00:15

The IA was betrayed and their efforts sabotaged by the very same GOI spooks who began to play a double game very soon after the IA started their operations.

The IA daily ops briefings were regularly leaked to the ltte until the IA soon figured out how and why the ltte always knew what was to happen in advance

.

I don;t buy this with all due respect.

maybe the odd case happened (to let them slip away) but no way this was regular.
This is nonsense. The spooks had to keep a second line open for strategic reasons. and many of the spooks were Army guys on deputation. I have spoken to three of them. As Army men themselves they explained how many of the casualties were due to appaling tactics by the initial officers.

General Deva's book clearly indicates how our terrible ability to communicate helped the LTTE. There are many reasons.

these are two examples from the book
- we laid communication wires and the LTTE happily tapped into it and listened
- our folks had no clue on keeping communications cryptic and indulged in long detailed yakking - the LTTE listened and hammered us

Lo

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 22 Dec 2011 00:40

chetak wrote:
Khalsa wrote:I know sir.... I know .... my father was there. He lost two of his good friends there.
Good angle on the diplomatic side... i never knew much about that.
The IA was betrayed and their efforts sabotaged by the very same GOI spooks who began to play a double game very soon after the IA started their operations.

The IA daily ops briefings were regularly leaked to the ltte until the IA soon figured out how and why the ltte always knew what was to happen in advance.

The IA began to hold a second briefing every day after the room was completely cleared of ALL non IA personnel where the days actual ops were discussed.

I don't think so Chetak. It could have been a single incident but was't consistently all that.
It does not work like that... IA spooks handing over copies to LTTE people.

Our biggest mistake was we never expected LTTE to turn against us.
We should have prepared better.
Rest are all minor details.

Hang on isn't this Armoured Warfare thread ....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Dec 2011 09:00

A web search indicates turkish army doctrine:- from paki pov, if they adopt a offensive posture the only issue is will that leave open other points weak for india to exploit and do they have the staying power and logistics to sustain and protect deep offensives.....or do they just intent to use IBGs in a fast moving spoiler role to keep India off-balance and in reactive mode for the first 96 hrs?

----
However, in 1999, Turkey's doctrine said it should have links both
with the West and the East and has the following points:

1) Deterrence: preservation of such a force that can defy both external
and internal enemies,

2) Collective defense: collaboration with international coalition,
specially with NATO,

3) Forward defense: early recognition of foreign aggression and its
external prevention,

4) "Peacemaking": mediation in conflicts.

These points are also added by the view of the Turkish military
headquarters head Hussein Kivrikoghlu on forward engagement which
means that the military must be ready to prevent aggression against
Turkey before it crosses the border.

Kivrikoghlu's idea is explained in the doctrine:

"The overall operative concept of 2000's demands to control territories
of the aggressor and defeat him in the home front and on the porch of
the battlefield." Thus, even the official document expects to conduct
future wars outside Turkey.

Authoritative US military magazine Parameters comes to the same
conclusion: " Ankara has adopted a doctrine that will make the
military aspire to eliminate threats against Turkey out of its
borders. Turkish military are not only capable but also willing to
act out of the borders."

Summing up we should say that Turkish military thinking has undergone
a reformation that even by Turkish and American analysts speak about
establishment of "neo-Ottoman agenda." Thus Turkey has become more
dangerous for the neighbor and less predictable for allies.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Dec 2011 10:32

that would be awesome if pakis follow that and take on their internal enemies.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Dec 2011 21:03

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhmO4pZB ... creen&NR=1

a nice video of IDF exercise in the golan heights.

I dont understand hebrew but what seems to me:-
- a regiment of merkavas need to cross a combined minefield and a series of ditches (smallish ones, not wide canals)
- a bunch of them go hull down behind a berm as a overwatch protection force
- then a few Viper explosive filled cables are fired to clear lanes
- specialized dozers, and merkavas with ploughs move ahead to sanitize the lane
- then bridgelayer tanks move fwd to the ditch and lay bridges
- a red smoke signal is fired
- bunch of cobra gunships fly fwd to support
- the regiment of tanks moves forward and crosses

what strikes me even in this unopposed op is the degree of co-ordination needed among many types of vehicles , even to cross that simulated nullah...things could get much complex is enemy arty if pounding the area and the canal is 50m wide and 15 feet deep with swift water

in Iraq numerous M1s sank into soggy ground in the tigris-euphrates valley and had to be pulled out later or destroyed. some abrams fell into the river when attempting to use temp bridges and crews drowned.
http://www.google.co.in/url?source=imgl ... 5OMoPhQQRQ
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... xQX8Gf03Eg
http://www.google.co.in/imgres?q=iraq+a ... 7Dw&zoom=1

imo the preferred approach seems to be pound the enemy on far shore with everything and push them back so no direct fire and only some indirect fire can threaten a large crossing op and likely they want to conduct it during daylight hours if they can.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 24 Dec 2011 22:12

^^ Of course indirect fire would be used first but indirect fire does very little to dislodge an enemy that is dug in. You are still going to face direct fire, IEDs, ATGMs, RPGs, snipers etc.

The IDF learnt this the hard way in 2006 when the Hezies put up a good fight despite massive artillery and aerial bombardment before the armor moved in. Indirect fire caused a lot of collateral damage and created a big mess but by the time the IDF got boots into Lebanon, the story was completely different. Of course, the way the IDF operates it implies a lot of infantry back-up for the armor with the Cobra's providing over-watch and tactical support. But in Golan, Israel has the high ground, so the main aim would be to just hold the area picking off the Syrians in the distance while dodging Syrian artillery and indirect fire.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 24 Dec 2011 23:30

Singha wrote: http://www.google.co.in/imgres?q=iraq+a ... 7Dw&zoom=1

Is there a tank design that can have tracks above or some design to get moving if it flips like this one? or any such hydraulic mechanism to push itself out of such situations?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Dec 2011 23:51

Singha there are tank traps on the Golan thats what stopped the Syrians the last time around.

As they tried to get over the Centurions with better depression and range picked them off.

Here they are trying to plan the reverse.

the part that amazes me is how they see through the dust. We were in aHonda CRV near the Tapline when atroop of Merks swung past us. the CRV was covered by a quarter inch layer of fine dust.

all these Merks running around churn the ground up into fine dust.

For 15 minutes we were pretty much blinded and the wipers were so caked it was useless.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Dec 2011 09:55

can the kind of thermal imagers used in tanks (A1 quality) and those use in ATGMs like milan/javelin see through
[a] thick fine dust
the aerosol smoke screens laid with smoke grenades

I have seen IFV/tanks fire these smoke cansisters and beat a retreat in exercise...just wondering if tanks/ATGMs in range can still target them using thermals.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Dec 2011 12:44

on a lighter note, maybe the Merkavas cannot see - but they dont need to care much - anything that collides with them is likely to come off second best by a wide margin...lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU92QAudd_w

above is a really interesting us army-usaf joint exercise demo in fort bragg from the 70s era. the sheer number of helis they used even then is amazing....and the 4xFB-111 releasing 48 bombs in level flight alone is worth the price of admission.

I wish in next iaf firepower demo we increase the land contingent from a few token garuds and paras to a more 'cohesive' assault on enemy area by a couple batallions to establish firebase kind of thing as shown here.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 25 Dec 2011 19:06

Singha wrote:can the kind of thermal imagers used in tanks (A1 quality) and those use in ATGMs like milan/javelin see through
[a] thick fine dust

if its a sand storm it will play with the TI, it would effectively reduce the range of TI plus the quality of image

the aerosol smoke screens laid with smoke grenades

if its a anti-thermal smoke grenade it will distort the TI (....from DRDO literature ...81 mm caliber anti-thermal/anti-laser smoke grenade based on red phosphorus has been developed by DRDO. The grenade is mounted on either side of the turret of tank and electrically actuated from the MBT grenade launcher. The grenade forms a smoke screen within 4 to 5.4 s at about 90 m distance on bursting above the ground. A white dense smoke screen is formed from a single grenade, which is capable of providing obscuration in the visible and infrared range for a minimum of 20 s. The smoke screen is capable of defeating the thermal imagers and Nd-YAG laser range finder.)

I have seen IFV/tanks fire these smoke cansisters and beat a retreat in exercise...just wondering if tanks/ATGMs in range can still target them using thermals.

they would have to re-acquire the target to re-engage

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 25 Dec 2011 21:48

d_berwal wrote:
Singha wrote:I have seen IFV/tanks fire these smoke cansisters and beat a retreat in exercise...just wondering if tanks/ATGMs in range can still target them using thermals.
they would have to re-acquire the target to re-engage

Usually its almost impossible to re-engage. The time constraint being the main factor. If the tank detects the launch of Anti-tank missile, it will activate the defenses and the smoke canisters are fired. Then the reversal will take place with the smoke screen as the cover. Will keep launching more of the grenades while doing so. With one layer of smoke screen the chance of you getting hit exits, but if more are launched while retreating then yes, the survival rate increases and the missile is going to miss the tank for the first time. But if you somehow got out of the smoke screen and in a way become visible to the enemy, the missile will just keep coming towards you. It will all happen within a short period of time, may be around 10-15 seconds.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Dec 2011 22:43

Hmmm... guys will shortly discuss active defence of tanks.... Sitting with a popcorn.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Dec 2011 22:47

Pakistan shows Upgraded Al-Khalid , seems Ukraine is helping in upgrading their Al-Khalid tanks

Modernised Al-Khalid
Modernization of Al-Khalid Main Battle Tank (MBT)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Dec 2011 01:39

so ukarain helps them with the 125mm DU apfs.. rounds. couple of nag a khalid should be the strategy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2011 16:20

interesting to know main gun rds went from 39->49 and coax from 4000->7100. the bustle area must have been enlarged for this to happen.

the autoloader will need to be fed with these rounds though as I dont think the t-series permit manual loading - not that without a loader anyone can reload it without the tank coming to a stop and the gunner doing it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Dec 2011 16:55

I think in the upgraded AL-Khalid additional 10 rounds will most likely be the T-90MS type bolt on type on the rear turret.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-soV41tLYs5U/T ... 2%2529.jpg

The Additional Add on in the link is more interesting than the upgrade itself , BMS ,APU ,MRS ,AC and what not ..... I think that is the dream list for AL-Khalid

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2011 22:09

even with 39 rounds, it seems the 22 round autoloader in t-series/khalid means 17 rounds are stored in bins inside the turret somewhere. a true miracle of space management inside the tiny t-series turrets....kind of like a 1bhk 200sq ft mumbai flat...no wonder Shukla sir wasnt able to even put his finger between adjacent eqpt.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Dec 2011 22:45

may be they will replace one all ak barred mard with equivalent space occupied by shells.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Dec 2011 08:33

^yeah that would up the shell count to 150...the entire turret occupied by a multi tier autoloader...driver in front and the commander actually laying and firing the gun remotely using the BMS, while eating naan, nihari and haleem in the trailer.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 27 Dec 2011 12:46

VinodTK wrote:DRDO plans 500-cr unmanned vehicle project for Indian Army
PUNE: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is working on an ambitious Rs 500-cr unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) programme that seeks to address the Army's requirement for various types of UGVs over the next 10 years.

The use of UGVs, which are state-of-the-art robots, has acquired a greater significance in counter-insurgency, urban- as well as jungle-warfare situations for varied tasks, including surveillance and reconnaissance operations and safe handling and disposal of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
:
:

BR members who came to the recent Delhi meet will remember that I had some points about this very project.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2011 15:52

Research on to develop lighter battle tanks

CHENNAI: Research is underway at the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) to develop light weight tanks for the Indian Army, said S D Dimri, Director General, Ordnance Factories, here on Wednesday.

He was speaking at the golden jubilee celebrations of the Avadi Heavy Vehicles Factory (AHVF).

Addressing mediapersons on the upcoming developments, he said the technology to destroy anti-tank missiles had been bought from Russia and the same, to be introduced soon, would be upgraded to suit the needs of the Indian tanks.� “The present tanks weigh around 45-60 tonnes. Technological superiority is increasingly going to be the decisive factor in future battles. The prediction is that future tanks would weigh less than 30 tonnes, mak- ing them light enough to� fly in fleets of C-130 transports, land on dirt strips,� and roll off ready to fight,” Dimri said.

“The production of equipment at the Avadi Heavy Vehicles Factory works out to 25 per cent and this translates to production of� ` 2,600-crore worth equipment per year, whereas the total amount of equipment produced through all ordnance factories is `12,000 crore. Two more ordnance factories will come up in Nalanda (Bihar) and in Korba (Chattisgarh),” he added.

MC Bansal, Additional Director General, Indian Ordnance Factories, and MSN Rao, General Manager, AHVF, were also present.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Dec 2011 15:55

What kind of technology to destroy anti-tank missile have we bought from Russia ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Dec 2011 17:32

I guess it refers to the K5 ERA.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2011 19:00

all said and done.. they should focus on priorities - GTRE and bharat pack. Perhaps reorg to get a big umbrella of engine technology working for the defence needs, including test facilities etc. this one core dependency must be over come before 2020.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Dec 2011 19:44

SaiK wrote:all said and done.. they should focus on priorities - GTRE and bharat pack. Perhaps reorg to get a big umbrella of engine technology working for the defence needs, including test facilities etc. this one core dependency must be over come before 2020.

being done:

DRDO creates GATET project for advanced gas turbine engine research

DRDO works on National Mission for developing AFV engines

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Dec 2011 21:10

would it create a baby grumov test setup?