Indian Army wants futuristic vehicle for its Armoured corps

[Bhadra]

Standardizing on sarvantra 70 ton bridging equipment will solve most of the logistics.

As former IA chif gen shankar roy choudry said that in every battle between heavier western tanks and medium or light russian tanks , the heavies have always won.These heavies were all deployed in all type of third world counties that have even poorer infra than india.

India in the 1950 deployed 52 ton centurians in border areas, where was the logistics then?

Only after 1972 T-72s were imported.

Listen, my good friend. Now do not teach us military history in the name of Gen Shankar Roychaudhary!.

The only war where the Soviet equipment and Western equipment was pitted against each other was Arab Israeli War -1965. Egypt, Syria and Iraq used T-34/85, T-54, T-55, PT-76, and SU-100/152 World War II-vintage self-propelled guns. Jordan used M-47, M-48, and M-48A1 Patton tanks. Panzer IV (used by Syria). Israelis had M50 and M51 Shermans, M48A3 Patton, Centurion, AMX-13. The Centurion was upgraded with the British 105 mm L7 gun prior to the war. The Sherman also underwent extensive modifications including a larger 105mm medium velocity, French gun, redesigned turret, wider tracks, more armour, and upgraded engine and suspension.

Still the anti tank hunting team of Egypt destroyed hundreds of Israeli tanks in Sinai.

It was the superior air power, superior strategy, operational art and tactics that won and not western tanks.

Do not quote Iraq where the T-72 tanks were in fact Lions of Babylon .. indigenous product of Iraq... say like like Arjun... Now do not label me Import lobby because of that.. The Russians have their secrets to protect like Americans and they do not hand over every thing even for friendship.

Two campaigns in Iraq were modern technology experimental ground where superior air power and technologies were experimented and demonstrated against a third rate, third world Arab country with their arse pointing to the sky.

Do not justify Arjun on false grounds. we do not want Lions of Babylon amongst us..

 

[ersakthivel]

But that does not explain gsqr was different for T90s and Arjun? It was not a fair comparison then now is it?

Listen, my good friend. Now do not teach us military history in the name of Gen Shankar Roychaudhary!.

The only war where the Soviet equipment and Western equipment was pitted against each other was Arab Israeli War -1965. Egypt, Syria and Iraq used T-34/85, T-54, T-55, PT-76, and SU-100/152 World War II-vintage self-propelled guns. Jordan used M-47, M-48, and M-48A1 Patton tanks. Panzer IV (used by Syria). Israelis had M50 and M51 Shermans, M48A3 Patton, Centurion, AMX-13. The Centurion was upgraded with the British 105 mm L7 gun prior to the war. The Sherman also underwent extensive modifications including a larger 105mm medium velocity, French gun, redesigned turret, wider tracks, more armour, and upgraded engine and suspension.

Still the anti tank hunting team of Egypt destroyed hundreds of Israeli tanks in Sinai.

It was the superior air power, superior strategy, operational art and tactics that won and not western tanks.

Do not quote Iraq where the T-72 tanks were in fact Lions of Babylon .. indigenous product of Iraq... say like like Arjun... Now do not label me Import lobby because of that.. The Russians have their secrets to protect like Americans and they do not hand over every thing even for friendship.

Two campaigns in Iraq were modern technology experimental ground where superior air power and technologies were experimented and demonstrated against a third rate, third world Arab country with their arse pointing to the sky.

Do not justify Arjun on false grounds. we do not want Lions of Babylon amongst us..

Then how does the IA expect the global tank makers to bestow their best tech in FRCV?, if rjussians can't be trusted to do so?

You have omitted patons Vs centurion in indo-pak war, why?

"
97 tanks captured at Assal Uttar[edit]

The tanks displayed at Khemkaran
The Indian Army managed to capture 97 Pakistani tanks as a result of the botched assault by the 1 Armoured Division of the Pakistan Army at the Battle of Assal Uttar on 10 September 1965.[2] Six Pakistani Armoured Regiments took part in the battle, namely the 19th Lancers (Patton), 12th Cavalry (Chaffee), 24th Cavalry (Patton) 4th Cavalry (Patton), 5th Horse (Patton) and 6th Lancers (Patton).

The Indian forces in the field that day consisted of three Armoured regiments with tanks of varying quality, the Deccan Horse (Shermans),3rd Cavalry (Centurion) and the 8th Cavalry (AMX-13). The battle was so fierce and intense that at the end of the war, the Pakistani 1st Armored division had lost about 97 tanks in destroyed/damaged or intact condition.

This included 72 Patton tanks and 25 Chaffees and Shermans. 32 of the 97 tanks, including 28 Pattons, were in running condition. The Indian 4th division lost 32 tanks, mostly Sherman tanks, fifteen of which were captured by the Pakistan Army. But Kher Karan was captured in 1965 by the Pakistan's 6th Armoured Division along with the 10th and 11th Infantry Division.
"

How could IA deploy 52 ton centurians in khemkaran as early as 1965, if infra for heavier Arjun is still not read?

Paton was 46 tons and centurions were 52 tons.

 

[Mad Indian]

CAG report mentions tests were conducted in Feb/March 2010. I still do not understand, why two tanks with huge technical difference will be tested at the same time.

From the report:

Yeah but what we really need to know is if the bench marks for acquiring Arjun was the same as that of t90 when t90 was first acquired. If they were not, then army has to answer for why it don't set the bench marks on even footing. If yes and if the gsqr quoted in cag report is at different times, first we need links to confirm that. Second we need to know DRDO dint pursue this into GoI. The whole thing looks rotten.

And yes, you are right that Arjun should not be compared to t90 (being a decade late than t90) and it makes no sense to compare them but we should know if the lateness is actually caused by army and not DRDO .

 

[Rowdy]

Exactly thas what pointed out by CAG.

the first round of specs given for arjun was for 105 mm 40 ton tank.

While it was designed and prototyped, they changed the specs.
again,
.

While it was designed and prototyped, they changed the specs.
again,
.

While it was designed and prototyped, they changed the specs.
again,
.

While it was designed and prototyped, they changed the specs.
again.

This continued till 2010 and it i still continuing in 2015 in th form of arjun mk2.

this is what we call fraud!!!

It is akin to political command giving army instructions like , move ten miles east, ten miles west repeatedly for one month.

And then if they ask the commander why you are at the same place what will he do?

Do you remember how waterloo was lost?

A reserve faction of napolean army moved between two battlefields back and forth without contributing much to either of the battles.

And DGMF's pipe dream of being the sole custodian of IP rights of this wizard FRCV is a stupid scam being played on this country.

DO you really expect global tank majors to toil for ten years to produce a world beating tank , just for prize money ,and transfer all the crucial tech like,

1. Gun TOT,
2. State of the art Fire control computer systems,
3.Suspension,
4. new age armor
5. APS,
6.remote turet tech,

to DGMF? Which host country of the tank maker will allow this benevolence of such strategic tech ,to be showered on DGMF?

hell russians even refused to fit the AC on the God damned desert crap called t-90!!!

Last heard Dassault simply refused to transfer even non-engine, non radar, non-spectra , non avionics, just tyres and airframe tech to HAL!!!, that too for the world's biggest military deal worth 20 billions!!!!

In this kaliyuga which global tank maker will compete to run out of business after ten years?

SO who is playing rudali chor here, DGMF wet dreams fanboys or DRDO supporters?

But but but what about all the communication between DGMF and Tank maker

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

This whole thing looks so surreal. @ersakthivel claims that GSQR has been hitting the can down the road for Arjun since 1972 and kept doing it till at least 1999. So, according to him this office is corrupted since forever. I would wonder how is this possible that the situation has not changed even once during these years? And if it is true, how can DRDO take it lying down for all these years and GOI did not react?

Everything looks really screwed up if we agree that Arjun has been perfect but GSQR has scuttled it every now and then.

 

[Rowdy]

Here is how Arjun was sabotaged by DGMF
@Mad Indian @Bhadra @Sakal Gharelu Ustad
If Army wanted a proper tank they should give a spec sheet like this ... the fact that they write sci fi proves that they are bull$hitting.

 

[Mad Indian]

This whole thing looks so surreal. @ersakthivel claims that GSQR has been hitting the can down the road for Arjun since 1972 and kept doing it till at least 1999. So, according to him this office is corrupted since forever. I would wonder how is this possible that the situation has not changed even once during these years? And if it is true, how can DRDO take it lying down for all these years and GOI did not react?

Everything looks really screwed up if we agree that Arjun has been perfect but GSQR has scuttled it every now and then.

And you know the best part- DRDO has to actually agree to any gsqr revision army makes in its projects. So the gsqr cluld not have been revised without DRDO concent. So why didn't DRDO take this matter up or outright refuse the changes to gsqr?

 

[Bhadra]

Look Guys..

Tanks do not fight with each other like two wrestlers in a slug match or like two boxers... such situations seldom arise or arise in final countdown or unexpectedly ...

Tanks fight with each other by Fire and maneuver .... protection is important but not as important as Fire and Manoeuvre unless one wishes to put the arse up and head down..

Tank is supposed to be system to achieve superior manoeuvre with which it brings the opposing force to an inferior position / disadvantage and thereby destroys that force by superior position and superior fire power (fire power of all types including artillery, air and infantry firepower and engineer resources).

Mobility thus is an uncompromisable feature for a system called Tank. It is like an aircraft on the ground ..

What you say @ersakthivel .. no quote of Gen Shankar Roychaudhary please. Or I will be forced to quote other generals..

 

[Bhadra]

Here is how Arjun was sabotaged by DGMF
@Mad Indian @Bhadra @Sakal Gharelu Ustad
If Army wanted a proper tank they should give a spec sheet like this ... the fact that they write sci fi proves that they are bull$hitting.

Why only bullshitting.. ?
Why not cow shitting?
Why not buffalow shitting?
Why not goat shtting or camel shitting ?
Tell me you one liner !!

 

[Rowdy]

Mobility thus is an uncompromisable feature for a system called Tank. It is like an aircraft on the ground ..

All we want is for the DGMF to say
ok guys we need mobility so the weight<xx tons turning radius < x meters weight/power = zz tonns/hp. Acceleration y m/s^2 .
I mean a 200 yr old army MUST have some Idea. right?

 

[sob]

This is very funny in the case of Arjun the CAG report is perfect while in the case of the LCA the same CAG has brought out a flawed report.

The situation is not so black and white as we assume.

I would request @Bhadra to get some of his friends from the armoured corp to join us and put some perspective on this debate.

For us Arjun is the way forward and we need both Army and CVRDE to be on the same page on it.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

And you know the best part- DRDO has to actually agree to any gsqr revision army makes in its projects. So the gsqr cluld not have been revised without DRDO concent. So why didn't DRDO take this matter up or outright refuse the changes to gsqr?

On top of that, if DRDO knows the gsqr receives kick-backs by stalling Arjun project, it would ask for its pound of flesh and not be submissive as some members here are trying to show.

Either the vested interests have infiltrated both these organizations deeply or Arjun is not up to the mark. But I think it is time to go indigenous and DM should really set responsibilities.

 

[Bhadra]

All we want is for the DGMF to say
ok guys we need mobility so the weight<xx tons turning radius < x meters weight/power = zz tonns/hp. Acceleration y m/s^2 .
I mean a 200 yr old army MUST have some Idea. right?

Right .. then what is worth of a designer... the designer must tell you that he can make a 40 ton tank like this, a 45 ton tank like this and 50 ton tank like this... what will be awful, what will be gorgeous, with which design the buttocks will be prominent and with which design the cliffs will look exposed.. and what design he proposed so that my tools will be centre of attraction..
If you do not understand what design is all about then leave it.. it is Meduim Tank .. right..

How many times you will make me to explain the job of a designer !!

 

[Rowdy]

Right .. then what is worth of a designer... the designer must tell you that he can make a 40 ton tank like this, a 45 ton tank like this and 50 ton tank like this... what will be awful, what will be gorgeous, with which design the buttocks will be prominent and with which design the cliffs will look exposed.. and what design he proposed so that my tools will be centre of attraction..
If you do not understand what design is all about then leave it.. it is Meduim Tank .. right..

How many times you will make me to explain the job of a designer !!

Not really.... a designer needs tech specs ... what you are saying must be specified by the army.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

Not really.... a designer needs tech specs ... what you are saying must be specified by the army.

Ofcourse, IA depends totally on designers and that is why they bought T-90 for Thar desert!!

 

[Rowdy]

Ofcourse, IA depends totally on designers and that is why they bought T-90 for Thar desert!!

I mean if after operating T90 and T72 they cant even say if they want a tank with 3/4 people than the DGMF needs to be fired. I mean he wants to induct by 2027 ... and say he needs 3000 tanks so if he has his manpower projection right then that is a difference of 3000 trained men b/w 3 or 4 man tank. (and we know how much time it takes to train them good) . Does he have an estimate.
They don't even say if they want a lighter or heavier or shorter turn radius etc.

 

[Rowdy]

I would request @Bhadra to get some of his friends from the armoured corp to join us and put some perspective on this debate.

Yes I too want to know their research into the mechanized forces of Pak and China .... let us see what their tank philosophy is.

 

[pmaitra]

@ersakthivel

Producing one page of CAG report selectively and exclusively without other aspects of the report shows your ill intention, fraudulent behaviour and deliberate misrepresentation.

Do not do it or I will paste thread with the entire report.

A small portion for you :

8.3 Indigenous production of MBT Arjun and T-90 Bhisma Tanks

8.3.1 Introduction.

8.3.1.1 In order to achieve self-reliance in manufacture of Armoured Fighting
Vehicles, Ministry of Defence (Ministry) sanctioned a project in May 1974 for
design and development of first indigenous tank of India i.e. Main Battle Tank
– Arjun by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) at a
cost of ` 16 crore. The scope of the project was to manufacture 12 prototypes
by April 1982. The DRDO completed its work on the design of MBT Arjun in
March 1995 at a cost of ` 306 crore; the Ordnance Factory Board (Board) was
tasked (1999) to establish the facilities for its manufacture.

1974
1982
1995
1999

The only year that is missing in your post is 2010. Yes, that is what your post is doing, selectively and exclusively.

You might as well tell us a bit about 1857.

As @Kunal Biswas correctly observed long ago, you have a habit of posting outdated information.

What a farce you all are !!

The only farce here is you. I will explain why.

You take 21 years to complete a design then how can you respond to DGMF RFI by 30 Jul 2015. I understand DRDO predicaments !!

"a" is an article, which means ONE.

DRDO had to develop several tanks because the Army continued to change its specs.

So, when you claim that it took DRDO 21 years to develop ONE tank in, then that is a farce. Perhaps that is the same case with those generals that you are so vehemently defending?

Don't ask me why. I have laid out the entire timeline of Arjun's development already, and I am not going to waste my effort repeating what I have already said, unless I have free time. When I am tied of time, I will simply respond with a laconic "NO."

I understand why there is a "Rudali Brigade" here.

Would you prefer a free pass for name-calling to everyone in this thread? You might not like it.

I also understand why there is "Hadkamp" in DODO Camp on DFI.

DODO is a bird.

Let us talk about peacocks then. How about penguins?

Listen, my good friend. Now do not teach us military history in the name of Gen Shankar Roychaudhary!.

Why not?

Look Guys..

Tanks do not fight with each other like two wrestlers in a slug match or like two boxers... such situations seldom arise or arise in final countdown or unexpectedly ...

Regarding the portion highlighted in red, I suggest you read up on the Soviet counterattack against the Nazis. Tanks have been used to ram into the opponents tanks, quite similar to a boxing match.

Tanks fight with each other by Fire and maneuver .... protection is important but not as important as Fire and Manoeuvre unless one wishes to put the arse up and head down..

Tank is supposed to be system to achieve superior manoeuvre with which it brings the opposing force to an inferior position / disadvantage and thereby destroys that force by superior position and superior fire power (fire power of all types including artillery, air and infantry firepower and engineer resources).

Mobility thus is an uncompromisable feature for a system called Tank. It is like an aircraft on the ground ..

What you say @ersakthivel .. no quote of Gen Shankar Roychaudhary please. Or I will be forced to quote other generals..

Quote whichever general you want. Battle doctrines do not have to be consistent across all the generals. Different doctrines work differently, and can succeed or fail. Every doctrine has its merits and demerits.

Regarding manoeuvrability, we have nothing to debate, and you have no case. Arjun outran T-90 in the comparative trials of 2010, and later, even forded a river hitherto marked as untankable in the Army maps.

You have omitted patons Vs centurion in indo-pak war, why?

Because it doesn't help his argument that protection is less important than manoeuvrability.

Now, as I said, one can pick protection over manoeuvrability, or vice versa. The point is, it is the Army that saw the western tank trends and wanted a well protected tank. So, debating historical tank battles does not absolve the Army of its responsibility. It asked for a well protected tank, therefore, it needs to take responsibility. "Responsibility" is the key-word here.

That's what I said too. There has been no official statement against this RFI from anyone actually involved in it.

We shall wait till the end of July, 2015.

Only the fanboys have been making noises and they have so far not given a single evidence/logic for their noice, even after 20 pages of useless discussion. But then again fanboys will be fanboys.

Not "a single evidence/logic?"

@Khagesh has already posted two other RFIs with far more technical details for comparison. The problem is not with others not presenting evidence, as you erroneously allege. The problem is with you not reading the thread. Thank you for acknowledging that you have stopped reading defence threads. It was evident from the beginning of this thread anyway.

This is the reason I stopped following defence threads. Not enough people with actual knowledge on defence matters are posting anymore and the very few who were present have already left. Now defence threads are overrun by fanboys .

Prior to the 2010 comparative trials, the term fanboy would apply to anyone blindly defending the Arjun.
After the 2010 comparative trials, the term fanboy applies to anyone blindly opposing the Arjun.

 

[Bhadra]

Totally Mixing Up Issues to Falsify
​

1974 - Arjun Project Sanctioned for 16 Crores ( basically to replace T-55, T-59 and Vijayant etc)
1982 - DRDO was to manufacture 12 prototypes by this time (nothing happens)
1995 - DRDO Completes "Work On Design" at the cost of 306 crores !!!
1999 - OFV Asked to establish manufacturing facilities
2000 - Army reports 38 % deficiency in tank holding ( 38 per cent is too high !! What was DRDO doing from 1974 to 2000 - increasing deficiency of Army - Is not it?)

In 2000

In 2000, the Army reported a 38 per cent shortage of tanks against its
authorised holding of 3,717 tanks. The steps taken by the Ministry during
2000-2004 to fill this need were:

• Import of 124 fully formed T-90 tanks (February 2001) from a Russian
firm M/s Rosoboronexport (ROE) at a total cost of ` 1,774 crore;

• Import of 186T-90 tanks (February 2001) as 86 Semi-knock down
(SKD) and 100 Complete Knock-Down (CKD) at a cost of ` 2,312
crore with transfer of technology (TOT) for manufacture of T-90 tanks
by the Board and training of Indian personnel;

• Phased production and issue of 124 Main Battle Tank – Arjun (MBT
Arjun) by the Board over the period 2002-07. The Board was
sanctioned ` 100 crore (May 2002) to set up the facilities for
manufacture of 30 MBT Arjun per annum; and

• Indigenous production of 300T-90 Bhisma tanks (T-90 tanks) with
ToT from M/s ROE over the period 2006-10. The Ministry sanctioned
` 96 crore (December 2003/ February 2004) for developing
infrastructure for indigenous manufacture of 100 T-90 tanks per
annum.

 

[pmaitra]

@Bhadra, I cannot read. Can you make the fonts larger?



As I said, you are the one who is falsifying by claiming DRDO took 21 years to build one tank.

Please speak the truth, for a change.

I love it when all of your posts abruptly end just prior to 2010.

2000 - Army reports 38 % deficiency in tank holding ( 38 per cent is too high !! What was DRDO doing from 1974 to 2000 - increasing deficiency of Army - Is not it?)

What was DRDO doing? Accommodating changes by the Army.
What are you doing? Not reading the thread.