Source : thumkar.blogspot.in/2014/02/dac-clears-light-multipurpose-armored.html ====================== About time, Though its not for mountain region ..
They have a whole host of usage. You could use them for troop movements of Q.R.T. units in CI ops. You could, by attaching HMGs, use them to provide fire base in supporting troops engaged in encounters. But these are just for COIN ops, In a conventional war, these LAMs may be called upon to provide recce for the main force, in effect placing them at the tip of the spear. They may also be called upon to provide escort duty to supply convoys moving into and out of danger zones. And then there comes the domain of airborne forces: These LAMs could be air dropped by An-32, the MTA, C-130J, IL-76 and the C-17 into a combat zone, giving the paratroopers or air assault forces much needed mobile firepower once in the field. And it goes without saying that if these are deployable by Mi-17s or the Chinooks, even the heliborne troops can use them.
I do not understand, Why we are going for TATA beast.. I always liked Mahindra Marksman, Coz its small and move-able in small areas .. OFB MPV has issue moving in very compact areas, Where Men have to use un-armound jeeps .. As of now Mahindra Rakshak helps do get inside small areas .. =================== A PR vid of Marksman ..
Dada Atleast they are buying from an Indian company.. ===================== Btw which one of them offers better protection ?
From the picture it appears Tata's LAM to have higher ground clearance than Mahindra's which may be an added advantage in rough terrains
Found some additional info and pics in these below links -- TATA Motors LAMV (Light Armored Multipurpose Vehicle) - 4x4 Light Patrol Vehicle - - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Tanks, Vehicles and Artillery Driver assistance camera - Tata Motors unveils LAMV armoured light patrol vehicle | The Economic Times
AFAIK, Marksman is strictly for urban use only, no mine protection, and protection only against small arms fire. LAMV on the other hand, has off-roading capability, has "V" hull for mine protection, and can protect upto 12.7mm.
My concern was CT areas, I think personally that smaller vehicle has more usefulness in that environment ..
Even in CT areas the need for the additional protection from Mines/IEDs would be greater as with NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ISI would divert their specialists to India in near future.
Urgency of Soldiers as of now, Need protection from small arm fire, Mostly 7.62m43 in narrow parts of CT areas, That need to be address first ..
Don't you think hull shape and vehicle armor would be much more important? A few inches of clearance could not make that much difference in attenuation of explosive force, is my thinking.
The hull is V-shaped which is a proven shape for minimize damage in case of a mine-blast. Armour should be very good as to satisfy nitpicking IA people who wouldn't accept if not. Particularly as it is a 'Desi Maal' this has to be actually better than foreign goods, or IA would find a way to go for a foreign package!
