Indian Army Armored Vehicles

[Vorschlaghammer]

You're the insecure 'follower' who's seeking to know what other's are doing or not doing! I didn't bring up Russians at all. My suggestion/idea stands vindicated on the legs of technology, economics & combatForceMultiplication!!
Weird is that Russians actually are pursuing that avenue by putting money into it.....yet you continue to chew both your feet not even realizing how idiotic you look

Can't argue with that. Ideas from such a visionary person as you can't be wrong ever. After all you are the gatekeeper of science and technology.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

Forgiven!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Srsly though, Excellent trolling skills I must say.

 

[Bhadra]

And you didn't reveal anything that I didn't know already! Talk of attention seekers greed for false credit and false sense of grandiosity! Darn!

I've myself made all those points years ago, on this very forum!

That said, pointing out the value of the 4th member in a discussion on 'unmanned' tanks is ridiculous!

So you had done it before.
Congratulation on your achievement.
Must be wanting a raise for that !!

 

[Kay]

Arjun looks like a raised pillbox as compared to T-90MS low silhouette .
If your tank is made out from 80% imported item why call it indigenous ?
India is paying dollars for those parts and items.
Arjun's so called missile has disappeared even from talks. Other variety of ammunition is not even talked of. Thinking of changing the gun ? Why not change the tank.

Arjun is under the curse of Apsara (nymph) called DRDO. In old times Arjun could come out the effect of the curse in one year but this Arjuna's curse seems to never ending . It has become another INSAS....

While I cant disagree - the ammo scenario is horrible across all tanks - Arjun suffers even more because of the 120mm rifled gun.

And while the T90, in keeping with lessons drawn after Kursk, has a low silhouette (as with all tanks since the T44) its armor is suspect, as is the autoloader.

The Arjun, for all its faults, has better armor, equal if not better mobility (lower ground pressure) and is far more survivable. Crew comfort is much better than the T90s as well.

Fix the ammo scenario and get spares inventory and stockpiling and we have got ourselves a fine tank.

The T90 is good, the Arjun Mk1A is excellent.

Tank design is evolutionary. Arjun is an excellent tank with excellent features - a 120-millimeter gun, advanced composite armor, a 1,400-horsepower turbocharged engine, and advanced fire control and thermal sights. But many things can be improved.

The rifled gun is the easiest thing to change as it needs minimum modification, but will allow a much better range of ammo to be used. The Challenger tank also switched to a smoothbore quite recently. Since APFSDS will remain the dominant tank ammo against armour in the future, that is the direction to go. Once 130 mm guns enter production and becomes accepted, we may need to upgun Arjun as well.

Arjun has better armour than T90. But for a four man tank, this higher protection increases weight. Since better armour is always welcome, the only logical next step is a redesigned turret for a 3 man crewed tank with Lecrec like bustle mounted autoloader. The Ukrainians proposed a similar upgrade for Arjun sometime back. Germany and France had also proposed building such a tank with Lecrec turret on Leopard chassis. Eliminating manual loader will help in reducing tank height too.

T-90 has a significantly lower silhouette than Western tanks. Arjun has similar height to Abrams, Leopard and Challenger tanks. While lower silhouette provided significant advantage in past battles, it may not be that important in modern battles. No one is expecting mass tank battles today where tank destroying aircrafts, missiles and helos have proliferated. Instead, crew comfort is more important today - which leads to greater internal volume and tank height. Interestingly, Armatas are almost the same height as western tanks. So, it seems that is the direction to go.

While unmanned turret is the future, it is yet to prove itself in battle. Arjun hull is spacious and can be redesigned to accommodate the crew in a hull capsule. The turret can be further redesigned into an unmanned one once the technology is proven. Evolutionary design ensures that we can reuse the engine, transmission and other subsystems without rebuilding for each platform.

With Arjun, Abhay and recently showcased wheeled APC, we now have three base platforms and chassis to build a variety of vehicles for our armoured fleet.

 

[binayak95]

Tank design is evolutionary. Arjun is an excellent tank with excellent features - a 120-millimeter gun, advanced composite armor, a 1,400-horsepower turbocharged engine, and advanced fire control and thermal sights. But many things can be improved.

The rifled gun is the easiest thing to change as it needs minimum modification, but will allow a much better range of ammo to be used. The Challenger tank also switched to a smoothbore quite recently. Since APFSDS will remain the dominant tank ammo against armour in the future, that is the direction to go. Once 130 mm guns enter production and becomes accepted, we may need to upgun Arjun as well.

Arjun has better armour than T90. But for a four man tank, this higher protection increases weight. Since better armour is always welcome, the only logical next step is a redesigned turret for a 3 man crewed tank with Lecrec like bustle mounted autoloader. The Ukrainians proposed a similar upgrade for Arjun sometime back. Germany and France had also proposed building such a tank with Lecrec turret on Leopard chassis. Eliminating manual loader will help in reducing tank height too.

T-90 has a significantly lower silhouette than Western tanks. Arjun has similar height to Abrams, Leopard and Challenger tanks. While lower silhouette provided significant advantage in past battles, it may not be that important in modern battles. No one is expecting mass tank battles today where tank destroying aircrafts, missiles and helos have proliferated. Instead, crew comfort is more important today - which leads to greater internal volume and tank height. Interestingly, Armatas are almost the same height as western tanks. So, it seems that is the direction to go.

While unmanned turret is the future, it is yet to prove itself in battle. Arjun hull is spacious and can be redesigned to accommodate the crew in a hull capsule. The turret can be further redesigned into an unmanned one once the technology is proven. Evolutionary design ensures that we can reuse the engine, transmission and other subsystems without rebuilding for each platform.

With Arjun, Abhay and recently showcased wheeled APC, we now have three base platforms and chassis to build a variety of vehicles for our armoured fleet.

Some quibbles with otherwise an excellent comment.

The proposed Black Knight tank is the LeClerc turret on Challenger II hull. I think.

The unmanned turret is STUPID. A commander who can't use the turret top periscopes to see 360 degrees is foolishness. You are compromising on opsec, visibility and tactical awareness too much.

Look at our tank battles, they were won by Centurions and Vijayantas - tanks with thinner armor than the foes they faced but better guns and superior crew comfort - the result? We know what happened at Assal Uttar and Chamb.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

Army is not even sure what it wants in its FRCV programme and has asked leading tank manufacturers to come with with their own ideas. DRDO which was working on a 3 man FMBT with an autoloader for the last few years seems now have changed tracks and started working on a unmanned turret based tank anticipating that the FRCV programme is initiated to make a case for purchase of T-14 armata from Russia as we retire older T-72 tanks.

 

[Bhadra]

Tank design is evolutionary. Arjun is an excellent tank with excellent features - a 120-millimeter gun, advanced composite armor, a 1,400-horsepower turbocharged engine, and advanced fire control and thermal sights. But many things can be improved.

The rifled gun is the easiest thing to change as it needs minimum modification, but will allow a much better range of ammo to be used. The Challenger tank also switched to a smoothbore quite recently. Since APFSDS will remain the dominant tank ammo against armour in the future, that is the direction to go. Once 130 mm guns enter production and becomes accepted, we may need to upgun Arjun as well.

Arjun has better armour than T90. But for a four man tank, this higher protection increases weight. Since better armour is always welcome, the only logical next step is a redesigned turret for a 3 man crewed tank with Lecrec like bustle mounted autoloader. The Ukrainians proposed a similar upgrade for Arjun sometime back. Germany and France had also proposed building such a tank with Lecrec turret on Leopard chassis. Eliminating manual loader will help in reducing tank height too.

T-90 has a significantly lower silhouette than Western tanks. Arjun has similar height to Abrams, Leopard and Challenger tanks. While lower silhouette provided significant advantage in past battles, it may not be that important in modern battles. No one is expecting mass tank battles today where tank destroying aircrafts, missiles and helos have proliferated. Instead, crew comfort is more important today - which leads to greater internal volume and tank height. Interestingly, Armatas are almost the same height as western tanks. So, it seems that is the direction to go.

While unmanned turret is the future, it is yet to prove itself in battle. Arjun hull is spacious and can be redesigned to accommodate the crew in a hull capsule. The turret can be further redesigned into an unmanned one once the technology is proven. Evolutionary design ensures that we can reuse the engine, transmission and other subsystems without rebuilding for each platform.

With Arjun, Abhay and recently showcased wheeled APC, we now have three base platforms and chassis to build a variety of vehicles for our armoured fleet.

That is all theory without having co relation with India and Indian requirements.
A weapon system has a context within which it is required to be utilised. The framework of employment include;
1. Terrain over which it will operate.
2. Doctrinal framework under which it will be required to be employed.
3. Enemy - his tactics, terrain and equipment profile.

Put Arjun under any one of the above to judge if it fits the bill. Do not talk of Leopard or Leclerc or Markava or Abrahams ... tanks which have been designed to met someones elses conditions and requirements.

 

[Bhadra]

Let Us begin with the big picture of the area where this elephant called Arjun will fight the enemy forces. It shows first the canal network on own side of the border which will be required to be nagotiated before any one thinks of Pakistan.

 

[Bhadra]

This the Macro picture of Pakistani side where Tanks are intended to be used :

 

[aarav]

This the Macro picture of Pakistani side where Tanks are intended to be used :

DRDO Sarvatra MLC70 Load capacity ,so can handle Arjun mk1a

 

[Bhadra]

Thamba Thamba .... do not bring in the bridges before knowing that those bridges will collapse under Arjun..

First try and understand where and how these bridges would be required.. before I tell you that instead of tank battle it becomes a bridge battle...

 

[aarav]

................................

 

[aarav]

.......................................

 

[Kay]

That is all theory without having co relation with India and Indian requirements.
A weapon system has a context within which it is required to be utilised. The framework of employment include;
1. Terrain over which it will operate.
2. Doctrinal framework under which it will be required to be employed.
3. Enemy - his tactics, terrain and equipment profile.

Put Arjun under any one of the above to judge if it fits the bill. Do not talk of Leopard or Leclerc or Markava or Abrahams ... tanks which have been designed to met someones elses conditions and requirements.

Doctrine should not be dogma. Doctrine and tactics should always be adaptable to take best use of available assets. Instead we are trying to achieve the opposite - procure assets which will fit into the existing doctrine of war.

Modern battlefield has changed a lot since the last war and it is important to evolve and have a clear understanding of contemporary battlefield and role of every asset in it including MBT.

Tanks will no longer act as the tip of the spear. Used that way today, they will be disastrous. Instead, their role is now infantry support in combined arms operations. Modern battlefield will have to network intensive with all assets connected and combined picture of available assets available to all Commander's and regional picture available to individual assets. Anti-tank missiles, missile tanks, drone tanks, combat drones, command vehicles,a helicopters, etc. have to co-ordinate together. Arjun has capabilities that can be perfectly fitted into this mesh.

As regards canals and bridges, we cannot expect to win future wars with outdated infrastructure. Better roads,bridges and shelters are a must.

It seems army is looking at only one end of the spectrum. FRCV RFI mentions futuristic technologies which have not yet proven in any battlefield. Unmanned turret, electric drive engine, even active protection systems to some extent are not battle tested against near peer adversaries. While it is important to invest in these in these technologies, it is unwise to bet on them.

Victory will come with improved infrastructure, logistics, combined-arms networked-warfare and of course an economy to make all this happen.

 

[Bleh]

And while the T90, in keeping with lessons drawn after Kursk, has a low silhouette (as with all tanks since the T44) its armor is suspect, as is the autoloader.

The Arjun, for all its faults, has better armor, equal if not better mobility (lower ground pressure) and is far more survivable. Crew comfort is much better than the T90s as well.

Fix the ammo scenario and get spares inventory and stockpiling and we have got ourselves a fine tank.

The T90 is good, the Arjun Mk1A is excellent.

Both the T-90s representing India in last Tank Biathlon, which were probably ones in best condition chosen for the competition, broke down on a flat run on dirt track.
And there was no talk of any issues or sabotage... so maybe this is pretty normal for them to do that!!!
Although the narrator is trying to sound as cool as possible but you can literally see its gun moving away from the target & readjusting back every second... it's so cringy pathetic!

As the Iraqis found out, low silhouette doesn't mean squat anymore... it's relevant for the likes of T-90, but not proper tanks with proper gun-stabilisation.
They could however tackle Arjun's turret armour holes issue by mounting the earlier FMBT turret on Arjun hull, don't you think?... should be lighter too.
It's for 4man crew & already designed, just turret-ring would need some adjustments.

Present GNMBT would place crew down in the hull like its driver, but with the turret hatch & periscopes. (Or they could just put cameras in their places)

 

[Bhadra]

Doctrine should not be dogma. Doctrine and tactics should always be adaptable to take best use of available assets. Instead we are trying to achieve the opposite - procure assets which will fit into the existing doctrine of war.

A man should get sick according to the medicine available.
The design of the car should be according to the tools.
DRDO which makes weapons and equipment should write doctrines for Indian forces as per equipment made by them
What illogical and cococted arguments.

Modern battlefield has changed a lot since the last war and it is important to evolve and have a clear understanding of contemporary battlefield and role of every asset in it including MBT.

Right but its is still "Johny's Head in the Air".
We need to specify those changes and deal with those.
For example there has been a revolution in mobility due to which wars have become multidimensional to be fought at many levels in time and space simultaneously. Another areas for example are mobility, fire power, cyber warfare etc.etc. Those are the realities which the doctrine must squirly deal with.

Tanks will no longer act as the tip of the spear. Used that way today, they will be disastrous.

Then do not have a 7.6 million worth of pill box.

Instead, their role is now infantry support in combined arms operations.

Oh God ! Some one is going a serious headache with that. Infantry operations are very destructive, deliberate, final and slow. Then why have tanks with a gun that can fire at 2 km, an engine of 1600 HP and a mammoth elephant. In order to support infantry operation steel pill boxes which are man pushed will suffice. Close Arjun assembly unit.

Modern battlefield will have to network intensive with all assets connected and combined picture of available assets available to all Commander's and regional picture available to individual assets. Anti-tank missiles, missile tanks, drone tanks, combat drones, command vehicles,a helicopters, etc. have to co-ordinate together. Arjun has capabilities that can be perfectly fitted into this mesh.

You mean T-90 does not have those capabilities.

As regards canals and bridges, we cannot expect to win future wars with outdated infrastructure. Better roads,bridges and shelters are a must.

How many bridges to be reconstructed ? What will be the cost ? How much time will it take ? What is other civil utility of such infrastructure ?

It seems army is looking at only one end of the spectrum.

I do not think so. On the contrary your view is tunneled and one sided - hi Arjun.. hi...Arjun

FRCV RFI mentions futuristic technologies which have not yet proven in any battlefield. Unmanned turret, electric drive engine, even active protection systems to some extent are not battle tested against near peer adversaries. While it is important to invest in these in these technologies, it is unwise to bet on them.

It is the job of the user to specify his design requirements. If DRDO can meet those requirement they should say so or get aside. It is absolutely madness to say that the user is a fool and does not know how to write RFI and what to write in that. That is plain nonsense which no one should accept. Be in line or get out.

Victory will come with improved infrastructure, logistics, combined-arms networked-warfare and of course an economy to make all this happen.

And, of course with a tank that meets those requirements.

 

[Bhadra]

Rechna Doab (Chenab Ravi Corridor)
(North - Shakargarh Oppo Pathankot)

​

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

It is the job of the user to specify his design requirements. If DRDO can meet those requirement they should say so or get aside. It is absolutely madness to say that the user is a fool and does not know how to write RFI and what to write in that. That is plain nonsense which no one should accept. Be in line or get out.

When this is a possibility, then one must accept it.

A man should get sick according to the medicine available.
The design of the car should be according to the tools.
DRDO which makes weapons and equipment should write doctrines for Indian forces as per equipment made by them
What illogical and cococted arguments.

Actually, the reality is that yo must adapt to the world and not other way around. Otherwise, it is like complaining that you don't have wings or superman powers and getting mad at it.

 

[Bhadra]

Broadly the Areas of Mechanised Ingress into Pakistan​

Jaiye Aap Kahan Jayenge, Ye Canal Lot ke Phir Ayegi

 

[Bhadra]

Northern Areas of Ingress Into Pakistani Punjab - Tracts between Two Rivers (Doabs)

​