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
American systems to try and prove your point
He referred that to Abhay and not the BMP 2.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.
Except for engine.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.
my mistake then. apologies kunal.He referred that to Abhay and not the BMP 2.
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.Except for engine.
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)
Both Vehicles..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 ?
As i said before the concept of separate vehicle for different roles is obsolete since arrival of BMP, Indian Army is presently using BMPs in every role possiable for an Armoud Vehicle and will have a better one which gives more than the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..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,
True enough, A Vehicle heavly armoud hull with Light weighted RCWS - 30 is best solution..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 !) !
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..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.
You have to read my posts, Nor i said BMP-2 is not ICV nor i was talking abt BMP..no boss, no kanchan on BMP. pack leader is right that it is quite poorly protected for the modern battlefield.
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.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 ?
BTR-90 mobility and Armour is impressive, Except two things the escape hatches are on sides and Big Wheels..The BTR-90 address most of these "shortcomings" APCs or IFV
BTR-80/90 cannot survive RPG-7 or any other so does Western wheeled APC without ERA and RPG net/slat Armour..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)
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..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
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.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.
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-90 mobility and Armour is impressive, Except two things the escape hatches are on sides and Big Wheels..
The BTR-90 even if four of its wheel are blown it can still go on btw it can turn 360 degrees like a TankBTR-80/90 cannot survive RPG-7 or any other so does Western wheeled APC without ERA and RPG net/slat Armour..
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.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..
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.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..
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.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..
why would you want to transport vehicles loaded for bear ?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..
yeah sorry for that !You have to read my posts, Nor i said BMP-2 is not ICV nor i was talking abt BMP..
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.IA needs a better 8x8 MPV deign which can withstand IEDs, I don't think its available yet ?
You can say that again..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 !
It came after Soviets fielded first BMP, Otherwise M-113 were simple capable in keeping with Abrams or M-48s..and M113 certainly wasn't able to keep up with the abrams, a requirement that was put in bradley project definition.
Boss, I have seen BMP-2 supporting infantry in Jammu in CT environments..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.
Thats why Mech Inf exists, Where Pure Infantry brigades are attached with them or visa versa..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.
Some Palak would be gr8.. lolwhy would you want to transport vehicles loaded for bear ?
Their is not enough time to decide..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.
I have seen it doing on snow and Mud only..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
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 ..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
well, this is the second time !You can say that again..
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.As i have written before, BMP concept outdateds the differences of APC and ICV as separate..
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.The reason BTR used is coz of less maintenance and operational cost in Russian Forces..
precisely. and also to support the dismounted troops carried by the ICV's themselves.ICV purpose is mainly to fight Infantry and support MBTs..
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.It came after Soviets fielded first BMP, Otherwise M-113 were simple capable in keeping with Abrams or M-48s..
I am sure you have but people use all kinds of things in counter insurgency. the israelis even use an armoured tractor !Boss, I have seen BMP-2 supporting infantry in Jammu in CT environments..
kunal, you are not paying attention.Thats why Mech Inf exists, Where Pure Infantry brigades are attached with them or visa versa..
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.Some Palak would be gr8.. lol
We hate nuts..
On the topic, ammo and fuel..
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..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 !
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..precisely. and also to support the dismounted troops carried by the ICV's themselves.
M113 later versions are armed with 20mm cannons, Tow ATGM carriers and many more based on it including mobile AAA Vulcan..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.
Are u paying attention ?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.