Discussion in 'Indian Army' started by Antimony, Aug 29, 2009.
check the new parallel tracks used by Indian T-90S & not by Indian T-72
I will post more pics of them from up close
are you from Chennai?
if in Chennai, you can look lots of Tanks moving around.....
A preserved Vijayanta tank at Jaisalmer War Museum ..
A preserved Vijayanta tank at Jodhpur ..
Copyright Tim Neate
Source : http://www.neatescale.co.uk/vijayanta.html#
How does vijayanta compares to t-72? In other words these the option in front of army in the 80s were amx-13 from France , t72 from USSR, and upgraded vijayanta from DRDO. Can someone do a comparative analysis between them?
The options army had were
1) AMX-40 from France
2) T-72 M (M1) from USSR
3) Chieftain 800/900 from UK
4) Upgraded Vijayanta
Each and everyone from the list would be far better.
AMX-40 was still a prototype. But had better armour, engine, protection and possibly fire power too . It had L44 gun , and had 460 mm RHAe protection in the front , comparing to just 335 mm of T-72M and 400 mm of T-72M1.
Chieftain 800/900 had Cobham armour and almost equivalent to Challenger 1. Definately better firepower and far better protection. Being a western design , and using Cobham , it could help Arjun project much better.
Either of them, now, with some needed modifications in electronic and FCS, and little add on armour / ERA would be much better than combat improved T-72 M and M1 which were intentional downgraded version
DRDO claimed with Kanchan Armour they can compensate only draw back of Vijayanta. Later some were upgraded too. With 105 mm rifled gun , better new FCS, engine etc and also having option of adding new main gun , far better crew comfort it would be a really good option.And it would be the cheapest of all.
So, All of three options ,according to me, would be much better than procuring downgraded T-72s.
Infact when it was procured many asked why T-80s weren't procured (that would be worse though). T-72s were manufactured in India in late 80s. And as soon as 1991 Gulf War showed horrific catastrophic performances of Iraqi T-72s , Indian Army wanted to overhaul all of the T-72s from Yugoslavia (Note: T-72 didn't come to India before mid 80s and in less than 10 years of it, we wanted to overhaul , however it was never overhauled )
I guess T-72 , Mig-23 etc were procured only for the sake of diplomacy.
Otherwise , in both cases we had far better alternatives.
call me a conspiracy theorist but wasn't the Chieftain 800/900 selected already and the T-72 was conveniently brought back to competition after the return of a certain Female PM I am sure that if properly investigated the whole of the Army staff at the time (whoever is alive) and the Congress party will be in a twist and it will be an even bigger scam then Bofors
Taking all the aspects of making a compact AFV diesel engine, work has started on the development of a new 700 hp engine (Fig. 10). The chosen design parameters are,
• 8 cylinder V90 with cross-plane crankshaft with tungsten inserts
• Bore x Stroke 114 x 112 mm
• 3600 rpm, OHV
• Waste-gated Turbocharger, Charge Cooler, CRDI
• Dry-sump lubrication
• Mean piston speed ~ 13.4 m/s
• BMEP ~ 23 bar
For future AFV, CVRDE has is developing Self Cleaning Air Filtration System (SCAFS) (for desert operation) and cooling systems and waste gated turbochargersfor high altitude operations.
SOURCE : https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4083/71c64b9d394874a1cf4233c38e3b6486bf1e.pdf
I have no idea that Chieftain 800/900 was selected but T-72 was brought instead. If really it was so, it's a "shock and awe" for me
i heard some Soviet offered 20 years soft loan for T-72 with License Manufacturing & assistance free .......
same discussion happened few days ago on same thread go back & check for more details....
This is something is common with all T-90 models since 2001 ..
17 years afaik ,yes, true......
bhai i meant, that our T-72 still dont use these parallel tracks...
No other T-72M1 use similar tracks as well globally, Standardization is important aspect in Indian context ..
These "parallel" tracks are dual pin, in that each segment has 2 pins. Advantage is you can put rubber shoes on these tracks so you don't dig up paved roads. And they're not limited to T-90, even the T-72B3 upgrade has them.
Chinese VN 18....
Can have 105 mm main gun, 30 mm auto cannon , two 12.7 mg, one 7.62 mg, HJ-8 missiles...can carry 12 soldiers total , can "run" on water by 45 km/hr and all this in 26 T!
It will be used as Light Tank, APC, IFV and Amphibious armoured platform, with customized weapon package
Our Kestrel too has great potential for multi platform usage
But even WHAP is not been inducted yet
And now different RFI for Light Tank and FICV ....
Frankly speaking IA has only itself to blame as far as light tank is concerned. DRDO had a light tank project way back in 90s and even came out with a prototype featuring a 105 mm main gun. But IA never showed any interest. Again in the late 2000s ABHAY ICV was ready again IA never showed any interest and started a project called FICV. Now that Kestrel is ready army is not showing any interest and trials are going on for years. The FICV project is in limbo as of now. We all know about the Arjun mk1 and Mk2 and its criminal neglect in favour of a sub-standard T-90S and now this clamour for FRCV with foreign companies. The import fetish and deep rooted corruption has prevented modernization of armoured corps and not the imcompetence of DRDO which is a favourite punching bag as far as IA is concerned.
China on the other hand rigourously pursued indigenization and today they have top of the line MBTs, light tanks, ICVs, SPHs etc.
It would be logical for both DRDO as well as IA to induct three kinds of tanks in the future:
1. Light tank: 105 mm gun on tracked Kestrel platform weighing 22-25 Tons.
2. Medium tank : 45-57 tons with autoloader and 3 man crew. Options are: FMBT based on evolutionary design, Modernized Vijayanta chassis with Tank ex turret.
3. Heavy tank : 4 man crew , 62-70 tons weight : Arjun mk 2 and Arjun mk3
All this tanks will find a place depending on terrain and doctrinal requirement of IA which does not match with the western requirement of a MBT.
Separate names with a comma.