why hasnt india inducted a high quality apc/ifv

pack leader

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
626
Likes
513
all i said is you made misleading mistakes in the weight off present and future
American systems to try and prove your point
 

pack leader

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
626
Likes
513
i mean the battlefield version not the show room version
maybe we had a mutual misunderstanding
 

Rahul M

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
224
Likes
186
again, not all battlefield versions will field every piece of optional kit, in fact unless an army expects to fight in urban environment most of the additional armour is not required. I understand this might be difficult to understand for an israeli because nearly everything you do involves urban combat (unless the egyptians attack across the sinai)
in other words it is incorrect to characterize all baseline models as 'show room version'.

never mind the fact that a number of full blown versions (K-21, the italian IFV whatever it is called) weight under 30 t or the fact I had already mentioned about additional bolt-on armour in my first post on the topic.
 

Yatharth Singh

Knowledge is power.
Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
744
Likes
176
Country flag
no boss, no kanchan on BMP. pack leader is right that it is quite poorly protected for the modern battlefield.

russians had a requirement that all their personnel carriers had to be amphibious, i.e able to float. as you can understand this meant keeping overall density low and put huge restrictions on the amount of armour you can put on it. you can see that even the upgrade packages do not talk much about armour protection.

p.s. both the BMP-1 and BMP-2 have a feature where the rear doors also serve as fuel tanks, one of the stupidest designs imaginable. in afghanistan a lot of soviet army soldiers died from being burnt alive just because a single incendiary bullet had penetrated the rear doors.
He referred that to Abhay and not the BMP 2.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
it's a decent idea but there's no need to copy BTR-80, wheeled APC's are not very complex, a good industrial truck manufacturer (ashok leyland, tata, mahindra, L&T etc in India) can handle the vehicle aspect easily. the armour, sensors and weapons integration can be handled by DRDO labs like VRDE.
in fact a number of wheeled APC's have been developed from truck chasis and a large section of wheeled APC makers also make trucks !
all we need is a formal statement of requirement from IA.
Except for engine.
 

Rahul M

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
224
Likes
186
He referred that to Abhay and not the BMP 2.
my mistake then. apologies kunal.

Except for engine.
not necessarily, heavy duty commercial truck engines available in the civilian market would do quite well with minor modifications (if needed). the BEML made tatra engines or the ones used in Tata's daewoo division trucks are all good candidates.

the stryker for example uses a cummins truck engine.
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
Soviet campaign strategy NEVER involved Blietzkrieg. That word and concept is based on Nazi warfare and requires speed, good road access and superior technology. Soviets belived in slow buildups and overwhelming force. In Europe, by the end of WW-2, they had a 7:1 tank advantage over the other allied forces. Whether in Afghanistan or in Chechnya, the soviet/ Russian model has been of overwhelming force - not one of Blitzkrieg.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
It's not quite correct to say that BMP-2 is considered as APC (and not ICV) in IA just because it carries troops, fact is all ICV/IFV's carry troops. a key requirement is for ICV's to be able to sustain a speed and mobility enough to keep up with the MBT's, both on road and cross country. this is something most APC's don't have (and don't need)

The Idea between APC and ICV was outdated since BMP-1 fielded by soviets in 60s, BMP offers all the qualities in one

A APC is simple an armoud vehicle to ferry troops, It can be anything from tracked to wheel, Most APC now days are very capable in moving with main thrust, Look at NAMER and M-113 also MT-LBs..



also, I wanted to ask you, are you sure these are OFB MPV's and not casspir ? I thought the army uses the casspir and OFB MPV is used only by the central police organizations like CRPF ?
Both Vehicles..

But OFB is good..

2 points here, firstly, we won't be able to afford something as costly as ICV to mechanize the large number of infantry formations we have. neither is it needed, ICV's are made to a very high level of requirement regarding protection, mobility and firepower that are simply redundant in APC role. it's like using a sword to shave your beard !
secondly,
As i said before the concept of separate vehicle for different roles is obsolete since arrival of BMP, Indian Army is presently using BMPs in every role possiable for an Armoud Vehicle and will have a better one which gives more than the present platform in all aspects..

namer is again an israeli solution to very specific israeli needs, we have no need for such a heavy and costly vehicle. or even anything close to its weight category (which is 60 tonnes !) !
True enough, A Vehicle heavly armoud hull with Light weighted RCWS - 30 is best solution..

here's a caveat though, ideally we would like this vehicle to be transportable by the workhorse of the future transport fleet of IAF, not the C-17 but the MRTA which is expected to be much more numerous.
Regarding Armour transportion IL-76 & C-17 will be used, Lighter vehicles and commodities will be transported by MRTA just like AN-32 doing now..

The reason is MRTA full load is 20ton of ferry, While transporting a BMP one have to make sure its fueled also have ammo, It dont go empty, Their are many reasons, though agaisnt AN-32, MRTA will able to carry MPVs..

no boss, no kanchan on BMP. pack leader is right that it is quite poorly protected for the modern battlefield.
You have to read my posts, Nor i said BMP-2 is not ICV nor i was talking abt BMP.. :)
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
BTR is very bad for Urban warfare,
1. It takes 10-15m to rotate in one direction, Its large wheels are responsible!
2. Its Escape hatch located at sides not rear, Most ambush occur from sides and Front..

IA needs a better 8x8 MPV deign which can withstand IEDs, I don't think its available yet ?
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,479
Likes
17,799
BTR is very bad for Urban warfare,
1. It takes 10-15m to rotate in one direction, Its large wheels are responsible!
2. Its Escape hatch located at sides not rear, Most ambush occur from sides and Front..

IA needs a better 8x8 MPV deign which can withstand IEDs, I don't think its available yet ?
The BTR-90 address most of these "shortcomings" APCs or IFV note that while there is a sense that Western APC are superior I have my doubts because Russian Forces operated in conflict areas (Chechnya,Afghanistan) where there was powerful shot (RPG-22,RPG-18,Milan AT) while on the other hand US and its allies in their recent conflict had RPG-7 to counter them at best on and off their were shot from the RPG-29 and it kicked out Challenger and Abrams tank.

The BMP-2 was design keeping in mind Soviet doctrine of massive tank forces attacking with low silhouette etc not quite useful in COIN missions as it is MRAP are used for COIN not IFV
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
The BTR-90 address most of these "shortcomings" APCs or IFV
BTR-90 mobility and Armour is impressive, Except two things the escape hatches are on sides and Big Wheels..

note that while there is a sense that Western APC are superior I have my doubts because Russian Forces operated in conflict areas (Chechnya,Afghanistan) where there was powerful shot (RPG-22,RPG-18,Milan AT)
BTR-80/90 cannot survive RPG-7 or any other so does Western wheeled APC without ERA and RPG net/slat Armour..

LAV-25 and Stryker are no good, BTR-90 is ahead of them, But i like LAV-25 coz of its small wheel and its very maneuverable but lack thick armour as BTR-90..

The BMP-2 was design keeping in mind Soviet doctrine of massive tank forces attacking with low silhouette etc not quite useful in COIN missions as it is MRAP are used for COIN not IFV
BMP-2 is used by Indian army in coin in Jammu mostly, The problem is its lightly Armour at sides and crappy crew cabin with fuel tanks at doors..

Otherwise its a good APC/ICV..
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
Soviet campaign strategy NEVER involved Blietzkrieg. That word and concept is based on Nazi warfare and requires speed, good road access and superior technology. Soviets belived in slow buildups and overwhelming force. In Europe, by the end of WW-2, they had a 7:1 tank advantage over the other allied forces. Whether in Afghanistan or in Chechnya, the soviet/ Russian model has been of overwhelming force - not one of Blitzkrieg.
Soviets had build their tanks comparatively lighter than western simply because they wanted to cross trenches, rivers and marshy territories with ease, they were less dependent on good roads etc. They also had good number of CAS jets and attack helicopters assigned to strike core, an integral part of Bletzkrieg tactics. Their overwhelming numbers were to serve a back up force and was make up for huge looses. Besides, primary aim of Soviet tank divisions was to take control of half of Europe with lightening speed. Put all these together and you have Blitzkrieg. Only difference is see is that T tanks were comparatively low tech than western MBTs and intentional because Soviets paid little value to life of a soldier.
 
Last edited:

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
6,479
Likes
17,799
BTR-90 mobility and Armour is impressive, Except two things the escape hatches are on sides and Big Wheels..
You mentioned it that ambushes occur on side mostly if attack is on right side the passengers get out on the left vice versa while the APC covers them.


BTR-80/90 cannot survive RPG-7 or any other so does Western wheeled APC without ERA and RPG net/slat Armour..
The BTR-90 even if four of its wheel are blown it can still go on btw it can turn 360 degrees like a Tank


LAV-25 and Stryker are no good, BTR-90 is ahead of them, But i like LAV-25 coz of its small wheel and its very maneuverable but lack thick armour as BTR-90..

BMP-2 is used by Indian army in coin in Jammu mostly, The problem is its lightly Armour at sides and crappy crew cabin with fuel tanks at doors..

Otherwise its a good APC/ICV..
LAV-25 and BTR-80 are amphibious none of them have thick armour at best they can withstand 12.7mm rounds but inspite of all this its no longer valid that if Indian army is to truly modernise its unacceptable that troops have to march to combat or ride in trucks.

Personally I like the B1 Centauro don't know its reliability but it can be offered with a 120mm gun or 25mm automatic cannon
 

Rahul M

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
224
Likes
186
The Idea between APC and ICV was outdated since BMP-1 fielded by soviets in 60s, BMP offers all the qualities in one

A APC is simple an armoud vehicle to ferry troops, It can be anything from tracked to wheel, Most APC now days are very capable in moving with main thrust, Look at NAMER and M-113 also MT-LBs..
I am not sure why you say that, the soviets pioneered the concept of ICV with the BMP-1 but they continued using the BTR's as APC. I am a little surprised that you think carrying troops mean ICV's are APC's. there's a big difference between the two. and ICV's were always meant to carry troops, that doesn't make them APC's.

as I said ICV's are meant to provide infantry support to tank formations, while APC's are simply for transporting troops to battle under some protection. namer is a rather special case (it is more of a ICV because IDF has a very high proportion of tanks and its infantry units almost exclusively act as tank support. IDF is not nearly as infantry heavy as IA.) and M113 certainly wasn't able to keep up with the abrams, a requirement that was put in bradley project definition.

As i said before the concept of separate vehicle for different roles is obsolete since arrival of BMP, Indian Army is presently using BMPs in every role possiable for an Armoud Vehicle and will have a better one which gives more than the present platform in all aspects..
boss, Indian Army is NOT using BMP for every role possible, EACH AND EVERY BMP battalion is part of an armoured brigade, which is a classic ICV role.

you can say BMP is being used as APC only when the pure infantry brigades start getting BMP's for troop movement. AFAIK they still move in trucks.

The reason is MRTA full load is 20ton of ferry, While transporting a BMP one have to make sure its fueled also have ammo, It dont go empty, Their are many reasons, though agaisnt AN-32, MRTA will able to carry MPVs..
why would you want to transport vehicles loaded for bear ?
You have to read my posts, Nor i said BMP-2 is not ICV nor i was talking abt BMP..
yeah sorry for that ! :)
___________________________

IA needs a better 8x8 MPV deign which can withstand IEDs, I don't think its available yet ?
well, IA has to show interest first. if they show interest our desi manufacturers can easily whip up something decent around the tatra chasis or similar vehicles.
use a 30 mm cannon, a remotely operated MG, V-shaped underside to deflect IED, use the networking tools from the ICV for commonality and have options for adding ATGMs, grenade launchers and additional armour.
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
I am not sure why you say that, the soviets pioneered the concept of ICV with the BMP-1 but they continued using the BTR's as APC. I am a little surprised that you think carrying troops mean ICV's are APC's. there's a big difference between the two. and ICV's were always meant to carry troops, that doesn't make them APC's.

yeah sorry for that ! :)
You can say that again.. :)

As i have written before, BMP concept outdateds the differences of APC and ICV as separate..

The reason BTR used is coz of less maintenance and operational cost in Russian Forces..

ICV purpose is mainly to fight Infantry and support MBTs..

and M113 certainly wasn't able to keep up with the abrams, a requirement that was put in bradley project definition.
It came after Soviets fielded first BMP, Otherwise M-113 were simple capable in keeping with Abrams or M-48s..

boss, Indian Army is NOT using BMP for every role possible, EACH AND EVERY BMP battalion is part of an armoured brigade, which is a classic ICV role.
Boss, I have seen BMP-2 supporting infantry in Jammu in CT environments..

you can say BMP is being used as APC only when the pure infantry brigades start getting BMP's for troop movement. AFAIK they still move in trucks.
Thats why Mech Inf exists, Where Pure Infantry brigades are attached with them or visa versa..


why would you want to transport vehicles loaded for bear ?
Some Palak would be gr8.. lol

We hate nuts..

On the topic, ammo and fuel..
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
You mentioned it that ambushes occur on side mostly if attack is on right side the passengers get out on the left vice versa while the APC covers them.
Their is not enough time to decide..



The BTR-90 even if four of its wheel are blown it can still go on btw it can turn 360 degrees like a Tank
I have seen it doing on snow and Mud only..




LAV-25 and BTR-80 are amphibious none of them have thick armour at best they can withstand 12.7mm rounds but inspite of all this its no longer valid that if Indian army is to truly modernise its unacceptable that troops have to march to combat or ride in trucks.

Personally I like the B1 Centauro don't know its reliability but it can be offered with a 120mm gun or 25mm automatic cannon
You have to understand no Armored vehicle can take around 30-40 men in one, And transport them over mountain at 50km/h at cheap operational costs, But to give some sort of protection 4X4 OFB MPVs must be introduce, At least 4 in each unit of 800 men ..
 
Last edited:

Rahul M

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
224
Likes
186
You can say that again.. :)
well, this is the second time ! :p

As i have written before, BMP concept outdateds the differences of APC and ICV as separate..
dude, how so ? I don't get it. the ICV concept originated with the BMP and the soviets continued to use btr (APC) and bmp(ICV) simultaneously.

The reason BTR used is coz of less maintenance and operational cost in Russian Forces..
that is the reason of using APC's in every army, not just in soviet army. it will be the same reason if IA adopts it.
I mean everyone wants a ferrari, the reason why the small car concept exists is because of cost !

ICV purpose is mainly to fight Infantry and support MBTs..
precisely. and also to support the dismounted troops carried by the ICV's themselves.

It came after Soviets fielded first BMP, Otherwise M-113 were simple capable in keeping with Abrams or M-48s..
M113 had no offensive weapons, only a MG for self-defence. and no it was not able to keep up with M48 or abrams cross country, nor was it designed to. the M113 was designed to transport troops to frontline, in what is called 'battle taxi' mode. nothing more nothing less. it had no tank support role. the south vietnamese army did use it for that role however because they didn't have anything better but it was far from ideal.
that is why the US developed the bradley ICV. and of course the emergence of the BMP played its part in moulding US thinking.

anyway, we are going round and round with the same arguments, so I will stop here.
Boss, I have seen BMP-2 supporting infantry in Jammu in CT environments..
I am sure you have but people use all kinds of things in counter insurgency. the israelis even use an armoured tractor !
all these have little bearing on how an weapon is used in conventional warfare.
oh and go and ask which brigade that BMP belongs to. ;)

tell me this, if tomorrow there's a war with pakistan, would you expect the battalions of 16th infantry division (or any other infantry division for that matter) to go to war in BMP's ? the answer is no, all those will ride in stallion trucks and similar vehicles.

or look at it in another way, IA has 18 infantry divisions, @ 3 brigades/division that's 54 infantry brigades (let's ignore the independent infantry brigades, RAPIDs and mountain divisions for this) and @ 3 battalions/brigade that's 162 infantry battalions.
even considering combat troops alone, a battalion has ~ 700 men. so all in all, that's 113,400 troops.
and how many BMP's do we have ? 2600+/- 50 with the ability to carry 18,000 men (and all those men are from the mech inf regiment and brigade of guards, none from the infantry regiments).

Thats why Mech Inf exists, Where Pure Infantry brigades are attached with them or visa versa..
kunal, you are not paying attention.
mech inf battalions include the infantry that ride in those BMP's, it's not as if the BMP's are a fleet of taxis and the infantry formations ride in them when they feel like.

even if they are attached to infantry formations (which they are not, they are ALL part of armoured brigades) that would be operating in support of infantry, not as APC.

Some Palak would be gr8.. lol

We hate nuts..

On the topic, ammo and fuel..
no one transports tanks and similar vehicles fully loaded, it's risky both to the tank and the transporter not to mention inefficient as well.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
dude, how so ? I don't get it. the ICV concept originated with the BMP and the soviets continued to use btr (APC) and bmp(ICV) simultaneously.that is the reason of using APC's in every army, not just in soviet army. it will be the same reason if IA adopts it.
I mean everyone wants a ferrari, the reason why the small car concept exists is because of cost !
ICV concept originated from Halftrucks in WW2, What BMP gave is a multimission platform, It was a Light tank, A APC combining both also amphibious, thus its arrival outdated the concept of separate APC and ICV, Though as i said maintenance very expensive so does operational cost, BUT Army wants no wheeled APC !, Army interest is in Tracked vehicles, And it want better APC/ICV than BMP-2 without much increase in weight..

precisely. and also to support the dismounted troops carried by the ICV's themselves.
You are going back again, what i said BMP is a universal platform it is a multi task vehicle, Not only ICV, Dedicated ICV are different..

M113 had no offensive weapons, only a MG for self-defense. and no it was not able to keep up with M48 or abrams cross country, nor was it designed to. it had no tank support role. that is why the US developed the bradley ICV. and of course the emergence of the BMP played its part in moulding US thinking.
M113 later versions are armed with 20mm cannons, Tow ATGM carriers and many more based on it including mobile AAA Vulcan..
M113 was disliked coz of its flammable engines, Before arival of BMP it was used for various operation but it had different version for different tasks..

I am sure you have but people use all kinds of things in counter insurgency. the israelis even use an armoured tractor !
all these have little bearing on how an weapon is used in conventional warfare.oh and go and ask which brigade that BMP belongs to.

if tomorrow there's a war with pakistan, would you expect the battalions of 16th infantry division (or any other infantry division for that matter) to go to war in BMP's ? all those will ride in stallion trucks and similar vehicles.mech inf battalions include the infantry that ride in those BMP's, it's not as if the BMP's are a fleet of taxis and the infantry formations ride in them when they feel like. even if they are attached to infantry formations (which they are not, they are ALL part of armoured brigades) that would be operating in support of infantry, not as APC.no one transports tanks and similar vehicles fully loaded, it's risky both to the tank and the transporter not to mention inefficient as well.
Are u paying attention ? ;)
My earlier post to #97 says the same..

Besides, Regular Infantry need Trucks transport coz trucks suit their operation where Mech Inf used differently, all the arms works together called combine arm operation..

Also the BMP belong to Armour but is supporting and carrying Regular Infantries, I.e, RR and others..

Regarding BMP on plane, With Every BMP its fuel also goes, So does the ammo, No one rearm and refuel vehicle as they landed or dropped..
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top