Should Indian Army have its Own Stryker concept ?

[SPIEZ]

please have a look at this AMX 10 RC (AMX 10 RC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and the tracked version of the same AMX 10P (AMX-10P - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
they are
1) AMPHIBIOUS
2) ALL TERRAIN CAPABLE
3) RELIABLE

I feel this is a good option

 

[sandeepdg]

NO, it weighs only 13 tons. besides it can be air dropped, the shape and design of the armor gives it better protection against RPGs, shrapnel etc...
also it can carry additional weights, meaning we can have a gun system similar to the one used in BMP3

Weight is still an issue, what Kunal is saying is that we need something lighter than 10 tonnes. In that case, I don't think any armored car can come equipped with a cannon.

 

[sandeepdg]

MDI Type-606 "Moccasin" Reconnaissance Vehicle, Frag-6 Armored, 4x4:

Type-606 4x4's come equipped with:
- Force XXI Battle Command System (FBCB2)
- KVH TacNav II Fiber-Optic Gyro/GPS Navigation System
- KVH TracPhone V7 Satellite Comm/Tracking System
- 1 Zeiss Peri-R17 A2 Commander's Periscope
- USNVC ATAC360 Thermal HD Camera
- 4 Three-Barrelled Combination Chaff/Flare/81mm Smoke Grenade Launchers
- 8 KC POD Long Range 24v 70w HID Lights
- Polarion Night Reaper 50W HID Weapon Light
- Full NARescue Military Medical Aid Kit

This is not the original name of this vehicle. You must have posted it from this link: NationStates • View topic - Marquesan Arms.

These are all real stuff with fictional names for use within the nation states community. I need to know what is it originally called and which country it belongs to.

 

[Sancho]

Hi Kunal, a very interesting thread and I had some similar thoughts as well, but what I don't understand in your concept is, that you compare it with the Stryker IFV, but still want only a lighter protected 4x4? You also mentioned that it should be able to be used anywhere in India and, which makes it even more difficult for a 4x4, because if you want to go off road and in all terrains, the 4x4 has disadvantages compared to 6x6s or 8x8s like the Stryker.
The 4x4 vehicles you mentioned are mainly meant for police, security, or paramilitary forces/roles, while regular armies use these only in addition to bigger, more protected and real all terrain vehicles like these:


French army

VAB - Armored personnel carrier
VAB Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

VBCI - Infantry fighting vehicle
VBCI Infantry Fighting Vehicle | Military-Today.com


Russian army

BPM-97 - Armored personnel carrier
BPM-97 Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

BTR-90 - Armored personnel carrier
BTR-90 Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com


German army

http://images.zeit.de/politik/ausla...4/kundus-afghanistan-bundeswehr-4-540x304.jpg

Dingo 2 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle | Military-Today.com

Transportpanzer 1 Fuchs Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com


I completelly agree with you that IA should have a new baseline vehicle plattform, that is cheaper to operate, more mobile and versatile than all the tracked APC/IFV, or even heavier tanks and that it should be produced in high numbers. That's why wheeled APCs/IFVs in 6x6, or 8x8 are replacing many of the older tracked counterparts like BMP, or Bradley in many armies and I guess that's even why IA evaluated the Stryker IFV and shows interest in several hundreds wheeled IFV and tank destroyers (MGS versions), because even if 6x6, or 8x8 they are more mobile on road and cheaper to operate than our BMPs.
When you look at the urban warfare in Iraq, or Afghanistan, where the ground forces often have to face heavy explosives, or RPG fire and the potential enemy forces that IA has to face (PAK and Chinese army), lightly armored 4x4 seems not to be the right choice for such a big replacement, or requirment. As mentioned above, for police or paramilitary forces which fights insurgents for example, these vehicles in higher number might be more useful.


However, when IA indeed would be looking for an addition, or replacement to older BMPs or BTRs, with the above mentioned qualities my vote would go for (or at least for a similar concept like) the BAE SEP (Splitterskyddad enhetsplattform, Swedish for "Fragmentation Protected Standard Platform"):

Splitterskyddad EnhetsPlattform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SEP - BAE Systems


You might know it from the MP forum, but for those who don't know it, the SEP initially was developed by Swedish Hagglunds, which now is part of BAE Systems. The idea is to have many different modules for different roles like IFV (with a turret and enough space to carry 8 to 10 fully armed soldiers), MEDIVAC, mortar carrier..., which are interchangeable not only with eachother, but with 3 different baseline vehicles!

6x6

8x8

Tracked

All these vehicles have the same size, to use the same modules, weapons or systems and depending on role, you can add additional armor kits to get higher portection as well. Hagglunds is also the developer of the well proven CV90 IFV, which gives the advantage that many turrets, or systems can be used on the SEP too and are already available and proven. This and the interchangable modules will reduce the operational costs dramatically compared to our BMP fleet for example, because any BMP, or BTR can be used in a single role only, be it as an IFV with a turret, or as a MEDIVAC with the necessary changes, while the SEP concept simply changes the modules according to the current needs and that on up to 3 different vehicle plattforms. A tracked IFV can change to a mortar carrier, while an wheeled 8x8 can take it's module and will be an IFV.

Another main advantage of the SEP is the design, which takes maximum advantage of internal volume, while the external size an weight is very small, which makes it very mobile and air transportable!

BMP2 / SEP / Strker IFV / Simba:

Weight: 14,3 t / 13,5 t / 16.47 t / 11.2 t
Length: 6.72 m / 5.9 m / 6.95 m / 6.1 m
Width: 3.15 m / 2.9 m / 2.72 m / 2.8 m
Height: 2.45 m / 2.0 m / 2.64 m / 2.2 m

As you can see, it fits to your multi role requirements and is close to the Simba APC that you prefer in size and weight, while offereing better protection, all road capability, more versatility and can repalce way more vehicles at once.

The SEP is still under development only, because no customer could be found to fund the project yet, since there are already many different IFV version on the market and the requirements are rather low at the moment. IA on the other side has a big requirement for all 3 varients and the final development / production in India could make it much cheaper as well. That's why I suggested in my introduction the procurment of BAE's CV 90-120T light tanks (IA has a reported requirement of 200 tracked and 100 wheeled, while the latter could be added later with SEP with 105mm guns for example) + the SEP as a co-developement.

My thoughts goes even one step further, but we can discuss that later too. Now tell me, did i get you concept right and what do you think about the SEP for IA? Would they be interested in such a more advanced vehicle in high numbers? Because the infos I got from DRDOs developments with Abhay IFV based on the BMP, or even the "newer" FICV that imo has nothing futuristic at all ( Livefist: India's Future Infantry Combat Vehicle ).

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Hi Kunal, a very interesting thread and I had some similar thoughts as well, but what I don't understand in your concept is, that you compare it with the Stryker IFV, but still want only a lighter protected 4x4? You also mentioned that it should be able to be used anywhere in India and, which makes it even more difficult for a 4x4, because if you want to go off road and in all terrains, the 4x4 has disadvantages compared to 6x6s or 8x8s like the Stryker.

1. Because Stryker Brigade is considered best example of a organized Mech force, IN Indian Army Mech Force..

BMP2 = IFV
BMP2 = APC
BMP2 = Mortar carrier
BMP2 = Ambulance
BMP2 = ARV
BMP2 = Command & Control Vehicle


The same way we can issue better organized Light Mech force based on Stryker Force..

4X4 = MGS/IFV ( BMP3 Turret )
4X4 = Mortar Carrier ( 120mm Auto/Manual )
4X4 = APC
4X4 = Ambulance
4X4 = ARV
4X4 = command & Control Vehicle



2. Its Lighter but regradless of its weight the basic reqirment is able to witstand 7.62mm and grande under wheels, To increase armour protections one can have addon upgrades on field conditions...

3.4X4 force needed to go anywhere in India, I have been in many places where stalion trucks cannot go but 2.5 tata trucks can move, Our most major front lines have narrow roads where anything but a jeep or a small truck can move..

4. Its not a problem in India, We use many kinds of 4X4 in desert, Mud, Jungle, and Mountain for petrols, It works fine and if got stuck its easy to pull up, The tricks with air pressure 4X4 wheel drive..

French army

VAB - Armored personnel carrier
VAB Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

VBCI - Infantry fighting vehicle
VBCI Infantry Fighting Vehicle | Military-Today.com


Russian army

BPM-97 - Armored personnel carrier
BPM-97 Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

BTR-90 - Armored personnel carrier
BTR-90 Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com


German army

http://images.zeit.de/politik/ausla...4/kundus-afghanistan-bundeswehr-4-540x304.jpg

Dingo 2 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle | Military-Today.com

Transportpanzer 1 Fuchs Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

I like the 4X4 but as specified it must have ability to mount and modify in different varients and most importantly it should swim ..

Btw, good post..

 

[Sancho]

The same way we can issue better organized Light Mech force based on Stryker Force..

4X4 = MGS/IFV ( BMP3 Turret )
4X4 = Mortar Carrier ( 120mm Auto/Manual )
4X4 = APC
4X4 = Ambulance
4X4 = ARV
4X4 = command & Control Vehicle

So you don't compare it with the Stryker IFV directly, but with the fact that it is available in different versions, but that's not special and mainly available with all wheeled, or trached IFV.

2. Its Lighter but regradless of its weight the basic reqirment is able to witstand 7.62mm and grande under wheels, To increase armour protections one can have addon upgrades on field conditions...

That's by far too less for todays standards even for Indian requirments, because these vehicles have to deal with RPGs, mines, or hidden explosives of several Kgs. I am not talking about the use against regular enemy armies, but even insurgents and terrorists today use heavier weapons than a granade and add on armor is not useful against explosives or mines, that's why the base vehicle must have credible armor and protection too.

3.4X4 force needed to go anywhere in India, I have been in many places where stalion trucks cannot go but 2.5 tata trucks can move, Our most major front lines have narrow roads where anything but a jeep or a small truck can move..

I answered to this point by making a size comparison in the last post and as you can see, the 4x4 Simba that you prefered has nearly the same width like the the bigger 8x8 Stryker, or the SEP versions, so that's not an argument for a light 4x4.

Btw, good post..

Thanks, but you didn't comment on the SEP, what do you think about the modular concept and do you think IA, or any Indian manufacturer like Tata, or Mahindra would show interest to co-develop it with BAE systems? It's way ahed of anything that DRDO proposes and should great especially for the northern borders, since they could be even air transported by the new C130Js, not to mention the C17s.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

So you don't compare it with the Stryker IFV directly, but with the fact that it is available in different versions, but that's not special and mainly available with all wheeled, or trached IFV.

My point is Light Mech Inf, Stryker is not considered as Light Mech Inf, But Stryker force is the example how a mech force should be, The work of Stryker force is more or less same as Light Mech Inf, But in India the force i vision is bit more, Like its uses in very organize way in CT operations where heavy Armour is absent

Wheel is because of the easy maintenance and less logistical burden, Cheap to use and good economy, Yet heavy firepower..

That's by far too less for todays standards even for Indian requirments, because these vehicles have to deal with RPGs, mines, or hidden explosives of several Kgs. I am not talking about the use against regular enemy armies, but even insurgents and terrorists today use heavier weapons than a granade and add on armor is not useful against explosives or mines, that's why the base vehicle must have credible armor and protection too.

Regarding RPG i have mentioned abt Anti-RPG fiber net/Slat Armour..
I have said the basic requirements which we face most, Today`s most Wheeled APC not MPV are vulnerable to 10-11KG blast under hull, Of the category i mentioned..
Its the Job of Mine cleaning units to clean the mines..

I answered to this point by making a size comparison in the last post and as you can see, the 4x4 Simba that you prefered has nearly the same width like the the bigger 8x8 Stryker, or the SEP versions, so that's not an argument for a light 4x4.

Simba is a good example of 4x4 multi platform armoud vehicle, The vehicle needed in IA light mech Inf is as per Indian Environment, Which is what i posted..

One more thing is turning radius..

Thanks, but you didn't comment on the SEP, what do you think about the modular concept and do you think IA, or any Indian manufacturer like Tata, or Mahindra would show interest to co-develop it with BAE systems? It's way ahed of anything that DRDO proposes and should great especially for the northern borders, since they could be even air transported by the new C130Js, not to mention the C17s.

I think ARDE already developed one and given Army for testing on BMPs..
IL-76 is good too..

 

[Sancho]

My point is Light Mech Inf, Stryker is not considered as Light Mech Inf, But Stryker force is the example how a mech force should be, The work of Stryker force is more or less same as Light Mech Inf, But in India the force i vision is bit more, Like its uses in very organize way in CT operations where heavy Armour is absent

Wheel is because of the easy maintenance and less logistical burden, Cheap to use and good economy, Yet heavy firepower..

I agree with that, but not with the limitation to 4x4, or low armor, because both are important requirements for a regular army. As I mentioned in my first post, such light 4x4 would be a good addition, but not in high numbers and as a main workhorse.

Today`s most Wheeled APC not MPV are vulnerable to 10-11KG blast under hull, Of the category i mentioned..

Modern APC/IFV are and there is a huge difference of beeing prtected against mines and several Kgs of explosives, or a granade, that's why I said, for the modern warefare you need a good basic protection, that can be increased later if more is needed.

Take the Patria AMV for example, it offers all the requirments you wanted in terms of beeing wheeled, cheaper to operate, amphibious, available in different versions (mortar carrier, medivac...), width similar to Stryker and Simba, but as an 8x8 it is way more flexible for IA to use it all around the country in different environments and with a basic protection against explosions of up to 10 kilograms. When you look at Iraq, or Afghanistan wars, you will see that especially the lower end of an armies vehicle fleet is vulnerable against attacks like these and therefor the protection levels are raising as well.

I think ARDE already developed one and given Army for testing on BMPs..
IL-76 is good too..

What did they tested?


The IL 76 is a good transport aircraft, but not for the northern areas, since it requires real air strips for take off an landings and can't take bigger vehicles and MBTs. The C130s and C17s on the other hand can take off and land on unpaved air strips, while the latter could even transport an Arjun MBT, in case that would be needed.
That leads me to the question I wanted to ask you. Don't you think with this new transport capability of IAF, IA should look for an air transportable, quick reaction force? I don't mean just troops, but IFV (tracked, or wheeled), light tanks, mortar carriers, self propelled howitzers, or even MBTs, that can provide a lot of fire power, but are highly mobile at the same time!
The idea is somewhat similar to yours, but instead of upgrading every division all around the country, with numbers of new vehicles, I am talking about some special quick reaction divisions, that can be moved to those areas where they are needed.

That's why I would like to see a co-development with BAE (and Mahindra for example) for the SEP, but also for a licence production of the CV90-120 light tank!
It just weighs 35t (because it's based on the CV90 IFV), but offers the firepower of a dedicated MBT and each C17 could carry 2 of them, instead of a single T90, or Arjun. Combine it with the SEP in different version, as well a self propelled howitzer like the KMW AGM/Donar, several troops and the C130/C17 fleet and you have a heavy power, but highly mobile force, that can be deployed all around India and neighboring countries within a few hours.

 

[Ray]

IA has the Recce Regt and that was abandoned.

Why should we have a Lt Mech concept?

What is the rationale/

That should be the starter.

How does it fit into our Threat Perspective?

How does it fit into our current Doctrines?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I agree with that, but not with the limitation to 4x4, or low armor, because both are important requirements for a regular army. As I mentioned in my first post, such light 4x4 would be a good addition, but not in high numbers and as a main workhorse.Modern APC/IFV are and there is a huge difference of beeing prtected against mines and several Kgs of explosives, or a granade, that's why I said, for the modern warefare you need a good basic protection, that can be increased later if more is needed. Take the Patria AMV for example, it offers all the requirments you wanted in terms of beeing wheeled, cheaper to operate, amphibious, available in different versions (mortar carrier, medivac...), width similar to Stryker and Simba, but as an 8x8 it is way more flexible for IA to use it all around the country in different environments and with a basic protection against explosions of up to 10 kilograms. When you look at Iraq, or Afghanistan wars, you will see that especially the lower end of an armies vehicle fleet is vulnerable against attacks like these and therefor the protection levels are raising as well.

What is basic is to sustain the criteria i mentioned, Also i have told 8x8 dont fit into our infrastructure, J&k, N.E even places inside India, These 8x8 cannot fit in the roads..

What did they tested?


The IL 76 is a good transport aircraft, but not for the northern areas, since it requires real air strips for take off an landings and can't take bigger vehicles and MBTs. The C130s and C17s on the other hand can take off and land on unpaved air strips, while the latter could even transport an Arjun MBT, in case that would be needed.That leads me to the question I wanted to ask you. Don't you think with this new transport capability of IAF, IA should look for an air transportable, quick reaction force? I don't mean just troops, but IFV (tracked, or wheeled), light tanks, mortar carriers, self propelled howitzers, or even MBTs, that can provide a lot of fire power, but are highly mobile at the same time!,The idea is somewhat similar to yours, but instead of upgrading every division all around the country, with numbers of new vehicles, I am talking about some special quick reaction divisions, that can be moved to those areas where they are needed.That's why I would like to see a co-development with BAE (and Mahindra for example) for the SEP, but also for a licence production of the CV90-120 light tank!,It just weighs 35t (because it's based on the CV90 IFV), but offers the firepower of a dedicated MBT and each C17 could carry 2 of them, instead of a single T90, or Arjun. Combine it with the SEP in different version, as well a self propelled howitzer like the KMW AGM/Donar, several troops and the C130/C17 fleet and you have a heavy power, but highly mobile force, that can be deployed all around India and neighboring countries within a few hours

Tests are going..



Indian Army Para regiments will be something like Russian VDV in future, Their are plans, Presently PARA use 105mm & 23mm Guns with FAVs, IL-76 can land in most parts though C-17 are good addition..

Regarding Light tanks we know, And RFI is out..

IA has the Recce Regt and that was abandoned.

Why should we have a Lt Mech concept?

What is the rationale/

That should be the starter.

How does it fit into our Threat Perspective?

How does it fit into our current Doctrines?

@Sir,

Lt Mech concept provide us fast moving armored force with Infantry almost anywhere in India, these vehicles are light yet protected against common threads and may provide necessary fire-support in both defensive and offensive roles..

In Our Structure, Mech forces consist of heavy / Medium vehicles are supporting mostly in western region, Where as in CT we are now felling the need for armored vehicle, These vehicles are in small number hence they are less available to all Units, Same for other mountain regions like in N.E, Here i propose Light Mech force which have variants for specific role, These Vehicle are for Infantry support, The force will enhance the effectiveness of the given units on the ground, Also the Lt Mech Force in open war will act same for Infantry support but will be protected by Air and Heavy Armour, The Lt Mech force is cheap and cheaper to operate its deign is small and simple to common 2.5 ton truck, Such Concept will insure speedy advance and Enhance protection to common Infentry units..




The concept is immune to small fire and provide protection and mass firepower for speedy advacne or strong defence..

The MGS varient which may feature a medium pressure gun can act as mobile assult gun agaisnt enemy fortifictions over hill, Bunker, Infeantry in open, Enemy infrstrucher, Also have Anti-tank capanility via Anti-tank missles..

The mobile mortar varient can be used with other assets on the ground, It act as a mobile motar and can be deployed in short time over long distances, As the Vehicle is armoud it provide protection from enemy and sharpnals..

The APC will provide armourd protection in tence firefight zones, And Field Ambulance based on such armoud vehicle insure fast recovery of wounded in a firezone..

In short its for Infentry support anywhere, In short notice always there when needed..




Sir, Infentry without Armour is slow, A mech force is much effective with infentry in most conditions, Alone infentry might suceed but Armour will ensure its speed in archiving Objectives, Here In our Country In many senerio we dont have such luxury, But this Concept might change that, We can think abt using Armour in those places where it was impossiable before..

The Light Mech Force, Should be in every corp to support infentry on ground where heavy armour will insure mostly protection from enemy armour units where its needed, Besides force will have its own AT varients, The Light Mech force emplyed mainly to enhance Infentry defence and Advance, The coordiantion between Men and Machines will be always maintained as both are made for each other just like Granadiers and their Beloved Stugs in WW2..

The use of such forces can be in Counter terror opertion also in Regular Proxy wars, This force can be used in almost all types of Wars, In Nuclear or Chemical warfare, These Vehicle can be useful to carry Men and material same as NBC BMP-2s, Further these Vehicles are interconnected with each other and the ground force, The concept feature a Command and Control vehicle which is mobile and connected with other accets on the ground, The force will be avaliable for need to serve basis as other theater level, On tactical level this offers great fire and manuver tactics, Armour also boost high moral, As long as these machines are with them, Enemy willing to fight agaisnt superior forces is less, better surveillance capabilities, enhanced mobility of forces in the tactical battle area, longer ranges of weapon systems, state-of-art communication systems, information technology enabling effective of forces over vastly extended areas have enlarged the battle-space. The ability to conduct simultaneous operations at greater depths ( Book Words )

 

[Ray]

Then it would mean that the ICV is redundant.

The ICV is better armed.

And if need be can also be used in COIN.

It is just that in India as a policy we do not use armour, mech inf or arty or air to suppress terrorists.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Then it would mean that the ICV is redundant.

The ICV is better armed.

And if need be can also be used in COIN.

It is just that in India as a policy we do not use armour, mech inf or arty or air to suppress terrorists.

@Sir,
BMP-2s are not redundant just like US have bradley fighting vehicle, BMP-2 have its use in certain places where its needed, But cannot be used in such quantity and many places coz of its size and weight also its high operational cost and maintenance, BMP-2 were used in Jammu in CT operations, We use 80mm Mortars in CT too..

 

[Payeng]

Then it would mean that the ICV is redundant.

The ICV is better armed.

And if need be can also be used in COIN.

It is just that in India as a policy we do not use armour, mech inf or arty or air to suppress terrorists.

But Sir, I believe Mine Protection Vehicle and bulletproof Gypsy are still a bit of armour used against naxalite and terrorist ops.

 

[Ray]

I would be interested in knowing where we used BMP 2s and 81mm Mors.

 

[Ray]

Yes Mine Protection Vehicles are used to ferry troops.

I was an eyewitness to one being IEDed with the tandem variety.

One cannot afford to have a huge inventory since that causes stocking and maintenance issues and also a huge repair signature. It means that all workshop echs (repair and recovery is in echs) will have to have stocks of spares and mechanics capable of repair at the Workshop level at each ech. Likewise, the Ordnance facilities will have to have stocks to issue for repair at each ech.

It will only make things cumbersome and not efficient.to support a huge inventory and weapon systems and platforms. That is why the emphasis on knock in and knock off weapons and platforms and platforms capable of accommodating interchanging parts.

The aim is to minimise inventory and have commonality. Helps in minimum stocks and interoperable repairs.

That is why one does not have weapons systems of varied origin and instead have it from one origin.

Imagine having a western origin weapon and also Russian origin. The spares are different and so heavier demand for the larger stocking requiring larger depots and varied repair capability and thus more men and increase the tail and having less of the teeth in so as to fit the manpower ceiling.

I have been in the CI grid in various ranks, but I have not heard of Mors (in fact they were mothballed) being used or BMPs and so I am interested as to how I missed this!

Further, I feel where a ICV can go, other clones like an ICV can also go, since the ground pressure is not a criteria in J&K or in most places in the NE.

In COIN or CT the biggest worry is 'collateral damage'. One just cannot use weapon systems that have an area damage effect.

If one is trying to equate with the Stryker Brigades of the US, one has to understand what is their constraints that make them adopted that configuration.

I have just done a tour of J&K and I daresay I found or was told that there was any requirement of Mors or BMPs or its clones.

In conventional wars, if the infantry has to move mounted, it can move on TATRAs. They are cheaper. And when they close in to the enemy, they will have to dismount in any case.

No ICV or clones can give protection from artillery; at best, only against shrapnel.

Direct medium artillery shells have stopped tanks!

 

[Ray]

However, if for academic reasons one wants to carry on with this thread, no harm done.

 

[Payeng]

An armoured platform which can be converted into multiple role from missile carrier to troop carrier, ambulance, logistic support and command post can see multiple role ad use of Indian origin defence production for both domestic and export market, it can also prove to bring commonality in parts used in vehicles of different uses for various defence force, maybe it can also be benefited to improve diplomatic relation with neighbours and nations by offering a platform that can be used for multiple use as per the customers need, some kind of standardization of military hardware is a needed for the Indian forces as for now I can see military trucks from Ashok Leyland and trucks from Jabalpur Vehicle factory which have a Tata axle.

 

[SPIEZ]

BRDM-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't know how, but this lightning struck me so late.

We can tweek up the existing BRDM2 with up-armor, MGS etc etc..

Or we canuse a very similar APC or MPV( mine protected and multipurpose vehicle), most sane idea I feel, espically since the BRDM 2 is combat proven.

Pls give your views and suggestion.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

BRDM are still operational but lack few things, But a home made modify variants can be a solution..

 

[SPIEZ]

BRDM are still operational but lack few things, But a home made modify variants can be a solution..

WOW! I can't believe I have thought up of a solution. The engine could be changed and brought up to the front (heard when the engines is in the front it adds to the protection), extra armor and room in the aft!

But on a practical scale this will never happen, right ?