Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Oct 2008 17:19

I had presented a single sheet paper during the BRF bangalore meet on the same topic - the reason for the popularity of the 100 gun concept over the NATO 60-gun concept is the 'suction effect' - very effectively kills all oxygen breathing life in a given radius - best way to destroy enemies in holed up defensive positions.

Soviets had an aggresive posture in western Europe, hence needed an offensive artillery strategy. India has adopted the same strategy vis-a-vis pakistan now, which is good. We were going to use the G6s in an offensive thrust against pakistan - that's why the britishers sabotaged the deal.

more later.

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 03 Oct 2008 17:41

abhischekcc wrote: We were going to use the G6s in an offensive thrust against pakistan - that's why the britishers sabotaged the deal.

more later.

I like to know about the above. How did we (british) sabotage the Indian Denel deal? This is new to me.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 03 Oct 2008 17:57

India had signed a contract for anti-material rifles with Denel before the G6 deal.

After the G6 deal, a sh!t storm was raised about bribery in the anti-material rifles deal. This stroy first broke in a British newsagency (Guardian, I think). This was used as a pretence by the Indian bureaucracy for blacklisting the firm, and cancelling the G6 deal.

It was necessary to cancel the G6 deal, otherwise India would finally have the ability to split pakistan into two. And this is not desired by Whitehall. They need pakistan to keep India in check.

It was not just the Anglo-Americans involved in the sabotage. It couldn;t have been done without inside help.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Oct 2008 18:07

current woman affairs minister renuka chowdhury was instrumental in raising the hue and cry that led to cancellation of the denel deal.
Renuka lobbied for babus, Army officers against Denel

she had reportedly also lobbied for russian guns before this incident.

Mark Schwartzbard · Post by **Mark Schwartzbard** » 03 Oct 2008 18:25

abhischekcc wrote:India had signed a contract for anti-material rifles with Denel before the G6 deal.

After the G6 deal, a sh!t storm was raised about bribery in the anti-material rifles deal. This stroy first broke in a British newsagency (Guardian, I think). This was used as a pretence by the Indian bureaucracy for blacklisting the firm, and cancelling the G6 deal.

It was necessary to cancel the G6 deal, otherwise India would finally have the ability to split pakistan into two. And this is not desired by Whitehall. They need pakistan to keep India in check.

It was not just the Anglo-Americans involved in the sabotage. It couldn;t have been done without inside help.

I sincerely doubt you conclusion/perception that a single platform inventory could help splitting another nation ( pakistan ) aremd forces which simply undermines the ability of Indian soldier ( and to some extent the whole army ). You have done (split pak ) in the past ( 1972-4 ) without any much help from western artillery guns or antimaterial rifles. Please brush up your literature on how warefare works. You can bring down a regime simply by propagande.

The amount of corruption that emanates from Indian bureaucracy ( happens in britain as well and any other developed nation ), political parties and heavy handedness of russians in the defence procurement since the cold war, begs me to differ on this point. Guardian ( or for that matter any news paper ) writes a lot of articles to sell newsprint. We even have panorama and few other programs on BBC, which have more quality content in them then the combined British news paper industry. Then it would take just a lame escuse for an Indian govt to value it's investigation based on a newspaper article.
It would require Britain media to have much control over Indian politicians. Heck India even refused to accept the aid that Britain would donate in the guise of development aid ( now all know what that aid package is meant for, let me spell it out, to further british interest ). Given the way the Hawk deal was pushed through, it would take more than a news paper article and cannon fodder to bring that deal down.

Please refer to the original Indian army requirements, regarding tracked and wheeled artillery etc.

Why hasn't the bofors gun ( after much test ) been bought as it has met army requirements.?

astal · Post by **astal** » 04 Oct 2008 00:24

Rahul M and Abhischekcc et al,

Regarding the deal with Denel, I was of the opinion that something very sinister was going on in the background. Though the Indian government canceled all dealings with Denel using the fig leaf of bribery in anti material rifles, something recently has come up that might put the matter in a better perspective.

Iirc it was pointed out in one of the strategic threads, by Ramana, that the South African government started defense co-operation with Pakistan including technology transfer. If this was the case, our foreign ministry may have been 'shocked' and canceled the Denel deal out of spite.

IMHO this was a grave mistake similar to the cancellation of the Bofors deal on allegations of corruption. We should have let the Denel deal though and then went slow on dealing with South Africa until they overcame their Pakistan obsession. In the end, it is the army and the countries' defense preparedness that is suffering. The Denel deal would also have been a shot in the arm for the Arjun as they used a common engine and other parts (iirc the whole chassis).

Reading the tea leaves for future artillery purchases, the current UPA govt cannot buy from Bofors for historical reasons. Additionally, since they are the only vendor approved by the army, they will charge a very high price and babus hate one vendor situations. Either we will have to wait for Soltam to fix their problems, absolve Denel and restart co-operation with SA, buy whatever Russia offers or have a change in governing party.

Playing politics with weapons has cost the country dearly. Luckily the Government seems to have woken up lately and not let allegations of corruption derail the Scorpene and Barak-2 deals.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Oct 2008 05:50

denel affair is almost proof of the clout of the russian lobby in Indian establishment.

the bhim would have been an excellent step forward for both army and desi RnD, not to mention it used the arjun chasis. perhaps that was also a factor.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 04 Oct 2008 10:28

Here are my views:

1. G6 deal was for 280 guns. Given that IA has "re-adopted" the 100-gun concept, and that s tandard military doctrine calls for 40% of the strike force to be kept as reserve, it means that a force for 140 guns (100+40) would be sufficient for one assault front. So 280 is good for 2 fronts.

2. If you look at the histroy of Indo-Pak armour maneuver, you will see that neither country was able to dominate 2 fronts (Punjab, J&K or Rajasthan) at the same time. So, an assault by one country on one front was easily countered by the other country by threatening to open a second front.

3. A 100-gun pinpoint assault on one front removes oxygen from a given area, in effect killing all soldiers in that area. This is highly effective in destroying entrenched defensive positions. The 100-gun assault gives a gauranteed destruction of enemy forces. This is what makes it such an effective replacement for mini-nukes.

4. Given the fact that G6 is completely mobile (unlike Bofors, which is partially mobile), they can travel along with a tank thrust into pakistan without slowing down the speed of the invasion. THIS IS WHAT SCARES THE PAKIS AND THEIR MASTERS IN WHITEHALL AND FOGGY BOTTOM.

Now, combine the elements. G6 is an assault system that gaurantees the destruction of pakistani defences, not only near the border, but several hundred kilometers deep, and on two fronts. It would have enabled India to chop Pakistan into tqo WITHOUT GOING NUCLEAR.

And that's the reason the G6 deal was a threat to the national security of US and UK.

-------------
Iam,
I came to the conclusion that the deal was zapped by Anglo-Americans because of their interest in maintaining a parity between India and Pak. I had not considered the Russian interest, yet.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 04 Oct 2008 11:17

Will uncle push abrams on to us after the n-deal? If so this may cause more trouble for the long term future for Arjun but will at least break the Russian monopoly.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 04 Oct 2008 12:59

Bharadwaj,

The MRCA deal is next in line. I hope to god that the Congress loses the next elections or we will be tied to American empire for the next generation.

I have been crying hoarse since several years that the Indian resource US is most interested in are the India Armed Forces - they need them to fight against the Chinese and the Muslim world.

Why the hell should we fight other people's wars?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Oct 2008 13:05

Abc,that was a good point,the ability to strike,penetrate and surge into enemy territory rapidly,without resort to nukes of any kind.The key Q now is where is the IA going to get its firepower from.I really do not see why we cannot obtain more Bofors guns,as the co. is now a BAe asset.That should stop the critics.It also makes sense to obtain more of the same (providing the new guns fit the bill),rather than buy a new system and the other key factor of ammo and ammo production locally.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 04 Oct 2008 13:25

Philip, IIRC, IA is planning to purchase 2300 guns - 800 semi-SP and 1500 towed.

But they will not make up for the loss of the G6s.

India is just too full of Mir Jafars these days. One of them is the one who was 'honored' in Washington recently.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 04 Oct 2008 13:41

abhischekcc wrote:Bharadwaj,

The MRCA deal is next in line. I hope to god that the Congress loses the next elections or we will be tied to American empire for the next generation.

One does get the scary feeling that MRCA is just the start of this show with hercules/poseidon being something of a teaser. Tanks,guns etc will be a natural progression.

Mihir.D · Post by **Mihir.D** » 04 Oct 2008 13:47

Does anybody know why the PzH 2000 was not in the race ?

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 04 Oct 2008 21:22

Mihir.D wrote:Does anybody know why the PzH 2000 was not in the race ?

Because Germans have become the beacon of humanity--they can't shake off their Nazi past that is still lingering in their Psyche. Their naivette has blinded the pragmatism. Germans think Pakistanis are struggling for survival against big bad India. There was a politician who once said, Kinder instat Inder (kids before Indians)--it was for denying visas to Indian Software Engineers but the message is loud and clear.

satya · Post by **satya** » 05 Oct 2008 00:42

Seem like we are in some sort of competition with our western neighbour in conspiracy theories . A few more very naive observations :

1. 100 Gun concept was used by Russians from a defensive position ie to lure the german offensive thrust inside the killing zone and was not used in pre-emptive offensive attack initially and 'sucessfully' . IA used the 100 gun concept again from a defensive position in Kargil not in offensive oriented doctrine . Not sure how this fits in Cold start doctrine iirc based on multiple incursions ( if not reading wrong multiple surely doesnt mean only 2 broad fronts but rather 5-6 incursions by offensive IBGs inside enemy territories , so if those 280 guns are suppose to be used in 100 gun per front , all PA has to do is to scatter its assets wide enough not to come under the oxygen -sucking 100 gun barrage as per my very naive understanding of defensive ops )

2. Another issue , if IA wanted to use denel G6 in 100 gun concept only , couldnt it be done much better by Smerch and Pinaka batteries more effectively ? Or only G6 has some special shell used tht cant be found anywhere else ?

3. If going by TSP-India equal equal strategy only then it means , any future SPH tht IA will acquire will be of inferior technology and will come so late tht by then TSP will be the same old TFTA again . Again only time can tell but going by RFIs being sent for 105mm howitzers , it doesnt seem IA is looking for outdated technology.

4. Germans never said no to selling arms to India , all India need to do is approach them . Pls do remember , a major chunk of German economy is export based . IIRC, there were media reports of Rhinemetal in preliminary talks or offered some sort of joint venture for R&D and production for a host of armoured vehicles.
OT, Germans are not tht sentimental types , they are just greedy as any other nation , show them the money , they will follow you atleast the old generation. Young ( whtever left if at all other than Turks ) is good for nothing .

5. When originally Gen. Sunderji validated his doctrine , i dont think he had G6 in mind or he made a doctrin bifurcating TSP after 15 yrs or so , when first doctrine was accepted . Also , IA knows how our Neta-Babu nexus works and when they make a doctrine , they do so keeping in mind such issues .

There was an article in SAAG , where it was stated tht ' Cold Doctrine' was validated and 'fine tuned' , again pls note it was done in complete absence of all these new SPHs and other equipments .
SO b4 losing your sleep over IA's incompetence and 'everything wrong' with our Babus ( cant understand going by the sheer competition to clear the civil service examination ) , pls do remember they have lot more information about actual TSPA strength and their own , pls do give them some credit if not all.

Just my rambles , but pls dont make statements purely from your fears and conspiracy theory making brain working overtime.

bart · Post by **bart** » 05 Oct 2008 02:32

Baljeet wrote:
Mihir.D wrote:Does anybody know why the PzH 2000 was not in the race ?
Because Germans have become the beacon of humanity--they can't shake off their Nazi past that is still lingering in their Psyche. Their naivette has blinded the pragmatism. Germans think Pakistanis are struggling for survival against big bad India. There was a politician who once said, Kinder instat Inder (kids before Indians)--it was for denying visas to Indian Software Engineers but the message is loud and clear.

More likely it was too expensive or the Army and the MOD wanted to stick to the tried and tested Bofors.

bart · Post by **bart** » 05 Oct 2008 03:01

abhischekcc wrote:
4. Given the fact that G6 is completely mobile (unlike Bofors, which is partially mobile), they can travel along with a tank thrust into pakistan without slowing down the speed of the invasion. THIS IS WHAT SCARES THE PAKIS AND THEIR MASTERS IN WHITEHALL AND FOGGY BOTTOM.

G6 is just a gun. It so happens that the SA army has preferred to use a wheeled variant of it. Google for any of the top artillery systems, you will find that they come with options to be mounted on various platforms, including wheeled (like the G6), tracked and towed. This is available for Bofors, GIAT, Israeli, Russian etc guns. You even have ultra-light guns that can be moved quickly by helicopter. Any of those systems would have worked fine. The problem does not lie with the MOD not selecting G6 but with it not selecting/buying ANY new artillery.

And going by your fanciful logic of 100s of G6 traveling into Pakistan with a Tank charge, will they all be going on the highway that the difference between the tracked tank and the wheeled G6 will not be felt? Would the wheeled G6 be capable of climbing sand dunes or fording an irrigation canal like the tanks? Or would the PZH-2000 or any number of tracked artillery not be even better than the G6?

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 18 Oct 2008 13:38

Peaceniks damage Bofors weapons meant for export to India
18 Oct 2008, 1215 hrs IST, IANS

KARLSKOGA/STOCKHOLM: Four Swedish peace activists penetrated the fortress-like security at two facilities of ordnance company Bofors in southern Sweden and sought to sabotage the piled up supplies destined for export to India.

The activists entered the Karlskoga and Eskilstuna facilities of Bofors on Thursday night and claimed to have damaged grenade launchers of the Carl Gustaf brand meant for supply to India.
"The activists got into our workshop where Carl Gustaf grenade-launchers as well as the spare parts that make up Bofors-UAE's continuous ongoing refurbishment of the Indian armed forces' requirements are manufactured," Christer Heneback, information chief for BAE Systems Bofors, told in Karlskoga.

"However," continued Heneback, "I must confess that the damage done was more to our pride than our goods. That, despite the most ultra-sophisticated alarms systems that Bofors has in place, four civilians could effect entry right into our innermost work and storage places with such relative ease. But this will in no way detrimentally influence our Indian order."

"All the four activists were apprehended within a very short period by the company's own security guards and arrested by the police. They were charged with unlawful entry, extensive material damage and crime against the law," said Svante Melin, criminal commissioner with the county police criminal branch in Eskilstuna.

"There has been considerable damage inside the factories but its extent has not yet been estimated."

Police were informed after midnight about a break-in at the Saab Bofors Dynamics weapons factory.

"A 26-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man entered the factory area by cutting a hole in the steel fences," said Svante Melin.

Maja Backlund, spokesperson for OFOG - the group that assumed responsibility for the action told: "Civil disobedience and action are most vital parts of democratic development. Our colleagues who breached the Saab Bofors Dynamics factory managed to damage 25 grenade launchers of the Carl Gustaf brand that are in extensive use in Kashmir and other war zones in India."

Lasse Jonsson, spokesperson for Saab AB, said: "They have scrapped a quantity of weapons' spare parts that awaited export. Only after the police investigation has been completed will we be able to calculate the exact extent of the damage caused."

According to OFOG: "In Karlskoga our other two activists, a 24-year-old woman and a 37-year-old man went straight for the Indian order's jugular. Before they could be neutralised, they had succeeded in inflicting visible damage on several field howitzers 77B."

Before being apprehended by security, the duo had managed to roll out and fix a poster on a door, with the message: "In this factory are manufactured weapons that are used to wage wars - disarmament is underway."

India has emerged as the biggest ever single client for Bofors products: "The Indian army, thus far this year, has ordered spare parts worth over 800 million Swedish Kronor from BAE Systems Bofors," said Heneback.

"The order is a factor in the maintenance of the 100 howitzers that India purchased from Bofors in 1986. Before the year is out we confidently expect the worth of the order to cross a billion SEK. That is really good for us," he added.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... stry-1.cms

sum · Post by **sum** » 18 Oct 2008 14:03

Peaceniks damage Bofors weapons meant for export to India
18 Oct 2008, 1215 hrs IST, IANS

Might be having Paki or Chini funding?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Oct 2008 14:56

not necessarily, oiropeans have enough nuts of their own.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 19 Oct 2008 14:02

Lets give them a tour of duty

Bring them to valley of bullet fire by Terrorists then asked them now they can counter with there anti war flag

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 22 Oct 2008 15:04

Manufacture of T-90 tanks

15:14 IST
Rajya Sabha

Transfer of Technology documents for indigenous production of T-90 tanks have been received. Some more technical data relating to manufacture of gun barrel and armour plates are yet to be received.

The matter was discussed during the meeting of Indo-Russian Working group on ship building, aviation and land system in August, 2008. The Russian side agreed to deliver the specification of T-90 gun barrels by December 2008. As regards armour plates, they have been developed indigenously.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to Shri Amar Singh and Shri Abu Asim Azmi in Rajya Sabha today.

Samir/RAJ

sum · Post by **sum** » 22 Oct 2008 15:23

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to Shri Amar Singh and Shri Abu Asim Azmi in Rajya Sabha today.

Two suspicious characters asking for info on T-90!!!

asbchakri · Post by **asbchakri** » 22 Oct 2008 15:26

Rahul M wrote:not necessarily, oiropeans have enough nuts of their own.

Tell the Sweeds to hand those 'Nuts' to our Artillery boys in the border, the can have them 'Cracking' in no time

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 22 Oct 2008 15:43

Arjun winter trials successful, 124 tanks to be inducted: Govt

The winter trials of Arjun battle tanks were not a failure and 124 of these would be inducted into the Army by the end of the current fiscal, Government informed the Rajya Sabha today.

Replying to supplementaries during Question Hour, Defence Minister A K Antony admitted that there has been a delay in the project development of the main battle tank (MBT) as it was first taken up in August 1972.

However, "there is no question of any sabotage behind its delay and the winter (December 2007) trials were successful," the Minister said.

He said the project "was approved by Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA) in March 1974... The project was successfully completed as MBT Arjun and closed in March 1995 at the end of 10 years with delivery of 12 prototypes and 15 pre-production series tanks".

These tanks have covered 70,000 km of automotive trials and fired 7,000 rounds of ammunition cumulatively with an average of 4,600 km and 460 rounds per tank, he said. "Only after successful trials, Army placed an indent for 124 MBT Arjun (tanks) to Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) in March 2000."

He told the Upper House that 14 tanks have been handed over to Army and 85 tanks are under various stages of production. Out of 14 tanks delivered to Army, two tanks have undergone Accelerated User Cum Reliability Trials in five phases from December 2007 onwards.

"Certain defects were observed ... Which have been analysed and rectified," he said.

Replying to another supplementary, the Defence Minister said though T-90 tanks are cheaper than Arjun, but India is focussing towards increasing the usage of indigenous tanks.

"Arjun tanks have better power to weight ratio, but we need both types of tanks for the Army. We are trying to have more and more Indian-made components in Arjun tanks ... And rely less on imports," Antony said.

On concerns about the delay in various projects of DRDO, Antony said some projects have got delayed due to various reasons, but at the same time, there have been success stories too.

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 22 Oct 2008 20:24

Rupesh wrote: Bofors-UAE's continuous ongoing refurbishment of the Indian armed forces' http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... stry-1.cms

What is Bofors-UAE ?

malushahi · Post by **malushahi** » 23 Oct 2008 00:11

soutikghosh wrote:
Rupesh wrote: Bofors-UAE's continuous ongoing refurbishment of the Indian armed forces' http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... stry-1.cms

What is Bofors-UAE ?

I'm guessing he meant to say Bofors-BAE.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 24 Oct 2008 08:58

Can we Modify Namica to carry Akash or spyder and add a Air Defence gun like Kashtan to it and make it a Desi Tunguska

,sorry if the idea looks insane.

rocky · Post by **rocky** » 30 Oct 2008 05:08

Here's one of the latest photos of the Canadian Army Leopard-2A6M in Afghanistan: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/_photos/or ... 8-9164.jpg
The cloth-like tarp covering the entire tank - does anybody know the functions? Is it just for camouflage or does it help in reducing signature, like the Barracuda? Also, can anybody identify what's marked on all those boxes being carried in the back of the bins at the rear of the turret?

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 30 Oct 2008 08:52

Yes looks like Barracuda MCS on the tank. It's intresting to see the Cage/Slat armour all around the Leo. Quite logical since the RPG threat is greatest in Afhanistan. This cage around the tank is a good idea, in addittion to providing protection with least weight it also provides lots of space to store rations and personal gear which should further add to the armour.

http://www.casr.ca/101-army-armour-leopard-2a6m.htm

Cheers....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Oct 2008 09:04

looking at the arabic markings on the cartons , probably just tins of
food and water bottles sourced from suppliers in gulf.

sarang · Post by **sarang** » 30 Oct 2008 09:26

Unable to open the link. Is it possible to provide another or the picture may be?

rocky wrote:Here's one of the latest photos of the Canadian Army Leopard-2A6M in Afghanistan: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/_photos/or ... 8-9164.jpg
The cloth-like tarp covering the entire tank - does anybody know the functions? Is it just for camouflage or does it help in reducing signature, like the Barracuda? Also, can anybody identify what's marked on all those boxes being carried in the back of the bins at the rear of the turret?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 30 Oct 2008 09:38

The parakuda from non-pelivers.
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=VORdv0HRUek
[youtube]http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=VORdv0HRUek[/youtube]

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 30 Oct 2008 09:41

http://www.defense-update.com/products/ ... racuda.htm

Mobile Camouflage System (MCS)
(Saab Barracuda)

MCS is designed to protect armored vehicles during movement and in combat. The system utilizes different materials, for camouflage in the visual/near Infrared, thermal, and radar wavebands. Further enhancement of the system includes the application of heat transfer reduction materials, to conceal the heating of the vehicle by solar radiation.

The general approach of the MCS is to hide glossy or flat surfaces into non-glossy 3 dimensional surface structures, with color and near infrared values similar to the environmental condition of the region. Significantly recognizable parts of the vehicle, such as turret shapes and gun will also be concealed with contour disrupters. An ideal camouflage will also obstruct laser reflections to affect the enemy's range measurement accuracy.

The thermal and radar camouflage contributes to the elimination thermal or radar locking of heat seeking missiles and obstruct and disrupt target detection and tracking by ground or aerial weapons. Radar camouflage will also eliminate the detection by synthetic aperture radar.

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 30 Oct 2008 12:41

Bharadwaj,

The MRCA deal is next in line. I hope to god that the Congress loses the next elections or we will be tied to American empire for the next generation.

I have been crying hoarse since several years that the Indian resource US is most interested in are the India Armed Forces - they need them to fight against the Chinese and the Muslim world.

Why the hell should we fight other people's wars?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes you think the BJP and NDA wont go the same way? The BJP is closer to the US then the congress ever was. If they had signed the nuclear deal they would have been tom toming it and hailing themselves as the saviours of the nation. Just a case of sour grapes.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Oct 2008 13:00

narayana wrote:Can we Modify Namica to carry Akash or spyder and add a Air Defence gun like Kashtan to it and make it a Desi Tunguska ,sorry if the idea looks insane.

haven't you seen the akash carrier based on t-72 ? why should we do it on a bmp ?

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 31 Oct 2008 02:23

Indian Army's newest prototype TAMOUR APC based on T-55 chassis

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/4079 ... a03dg5.jpg

Data for Tarmour AFV family:
Specifications :Optimal Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) system solutions for the mechanized formations for the most demanding operational environments.

The Tarmour family of AFVs is based on the conversion of old T55 inventories into top class AFVs with protection similar to MBTs coupled with outstanding mobility and maneuverability.

The Tarmour gives the mechanised units overwhelming capabilities- a combination of MBT’s mobility and survivability coupled with adequate firepower and first rate human engineering.

OFB offers a wide range of customized possibilities and solutions which can be tailored to suit the specific operational and technical requirements such as
•APCs •Ambulances •Combat Engineer's AFVs - Earth Remover
- Mine Plough
- Mine Roller Characteristics : Weight 41.5 tonne Crew 3 Overall length 9.530 metres Overall height 2.190 metres Overall width 3.590 metres Maximum road speed 60 kmph Engine power 780 hp Power to weight ratio 19 hp/tonne Shallow fording 5 M (with snorkel) Vertical obstacle 0.85 M Trench crossing 2.8 M Gradient 30 degrees Gun 125 mm Rate of fire 8 rds/min Ammunition 44 FSAPDS/HEAT/HE Co-axial machine gun 7.62 mm Anti aircraft machine gun 12.7 mm

link: Tarmour AFV family:

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 31 Oct 2008 03:27

Where is the 125mm gun on that thing?

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 31 Oct 2008 09:58

vavinash wrote:Where is the 125mm gun on that thing?

The whole turrent,turrent bustle, ammo holding space was taken out to make space for carrying troops for which it was intended. It's role is now that of a heavy APC intended for urban combat scenarios.