Indian Army Armored Vehicles

[Bhadra]

when Tanks celebrate Fireworks with flares !!!

Why are they firing flares ?
Is it to increase the ambient temperature surrounding the tanks so that missile mm wave, IR and thermal seekers are unable to differentiate between the tanks and the surroundings and fail to lock on?

You certainly do not mean that they have learnt something from the failures of NAG missile seekers !!

 

[binayak95]

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.

 

[Enquirer]

Dude, from where I'm standing you look like the egomaniac here, resorting to name calling without elaborating your point. If you don't have patience for a discussion, just say so in a civil manner, don't be all pretentious and holier than thou on a high horse.
Muntra is for all purposes a project in development, the vehicle roles being explored are meant for surveillance, combat engineering and nbc protected transportation. You seriously think that is the same as a offensive role undertaken by a tank ?

You're obviously not a person of science or engineering!
The fact that Muntra does recon and not offensive ops is immaterial to the fundamental technology focus - which is remotely controlling an armored vehicle....with two-way data links for real time communications that results in remote electro-mechanical actuation!
The firing of the gun is just one other command - in fact the simplest of all (for tanks like T72 which already have an autoloader!)

You cannot expect me to hold onto my patience when you repeatedly claim Muntra is like Fusion reactor - unfeasible and vaporware tech!

Also, Muntra project is not 'under-development'....the project is COMPLETE!!

 

[Enquirer]

This is the only valid point against unmanned tanks...

Not really! What you're referring to is battlefield maintenance....which is only significant because of human occupants, who need to get out of harms way ASAP and join their regiment. If it were an unmanned tank, then it could be safely ignored for a little while until recovery tanks can get to them.

 

[Bhadra]

It should be... Arjun's APFSDS is sub-par & unless they can modify the new TB ammo into a taboo killer that can turn the whole metal vehicle into a pressure-cooker, a F&F CLGM is necessary.

Woh ! if APFSDS is sub power then it is squash head man !!

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

You're obviously not a person of science or engineering!
The fact that Muntra does recon and not offensive ops is immaterial to the fundamental technology focus - which is remotely controlling an armored vehicle....with two-way data links for real time communications that results in remote electro-mechanical actuation!
The firing of the gun is just one other command - in fact the simplest of all (for tanks like T72 which already have an autoloader!)

You cannot expect me to hold onto my patience when you repeatedly claim Muntra is like Fusion reactor - unfeasible and vaporware tech!

Also, Muntra project is not 'under-development'....the project is COMPLETE!!

That's a bit better in terms of productive discussion. But don't put words in my mouth, I never said Muntra is vaporware, and unfeasible. I said Muntra has a specific purpose, which doesn't seem to be readily transferable into a combat role. I also never said that the concept is impossible, i just have been saying the technology and it's implementation is not fully mature yet.

I haven't ever been in armored combat, but In my best effort imaginary scenario involving a unmanned tank, what happens if

1. A shrapnel cracks the main gunner's sight, or commander's sight prism ?
2. The enemy employs a powerful satcom/radio jammer, the control signal is blocked or degraded ?
3. Enemy atgm team isn't detected in optics blind zone.
4. Buildings and debris in an urban battlefield block signal ?
4. Any kind of equipment failure ?

Russian UGVs like the Uran haven't performed well in Syria, if reports like these are to be believed.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...russias-tank-drone-performed-poorly-in-syria/

I'd very much like to see a somewhat credible report of unmanned tanks performing in real combat scenario.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

You're obviously not a person of science or engineering!
The fact that Muntra does recon and not offensive ops is immaterial to the fundamental technology focus - which is remotely controlling an armored vehicle....with two-way data links for real time communications that results in remote electro-mechanical actuation!
The firing of the gun is just one other command - in fact the simplest of all (for tanks like T72 which already have an autoloader!)

You cannot expect me to hold onto my patience when you repeatedly claim Muntra is like Fusion reactor - unfeasible and vaporware tech!

Also, Muntra project is not 'under-development'....the project is COMPLETE!!

Some time ago there was news of the Army being interested in S

That's a bit better in terms of productive discussion. But don't put words in my mount, I never said Muntra is vaporware, and unfeasible. I said Muntra has a specific purpose, which doesn't seem to be readily transferable into a combat role. I also never said that the concept is impossible, i just have been saying the technology and it's implementation is not fully mature yet.

I haven't ever been in armored combat, but In my best effort imaginary scenario involving a unmanned tank, what happens if

1. A shrapnel cracks the main gunner's sight, or commander's sight prism ?
2. The enemy employs a powerful satcom/radio jammer, the control signal is blocked or degraded ?
3. Enemy atgm team isn't detected in optics blind zone.
4. Buildings and debris in an urban battlefield block signal ?
4. Any kind of equipment failure ?

Russian UGVs like the Uran haven't performed well in Syria, if reports like these are to be believed.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...russias-tank-drone-performed-poorly-in-syria/

I'd very much like to see a somewhat credible report of unmanned tanks performing in real combat scenario.

Indian Army doesn't have $ 600 billion defence budget like the US, hence it doesn't have the luxury of committing to and researching emerging trends involving latest and greatest technologies. That's all what I've been saying. In a idealistic power fantasy where IA Armored corps has the freedom to spend billions of dollars and has a fully developed national military industrial complex, it can justify investing in unmanned tanks that are expendable and worth leaving behind in case of breakdowns. But the reality is something else entirely.

 

[Bhadra]

Not really! What you're referring to is battlefield maintenance....which is only significant because of human occupants, who need to get out of harms way ASAP and join their regiment. If it were an unmanned tank, then it could be safely ignored for a little while until recovery tanks can get to them.

you remember in our discussion I had outlined advantages of four men crew :

1. Distribution of duties, watch sentry, radio operation, rest - recoup and recce.
2. Maintenance and repair
3. Track replacement in operational areas
4. Fourth man can be used as terrain guide and for communication with other troops like infantry.

 

[Enquirer]

I never said Muntra is vaporware, and unfeasible.

You actually did, by trying to educate me that tech demo doesn't mean it's feasible & by comparing Muntra to Fusion reactors!

I said Muntra has a specific purpose, which doesn't seem to be readily transferable into a combat role. I also never said that the concept is impossible, i just have been saying the technology and it's implementation is not fully mature yet.

And that's where I've tried to educate you that there's no 'custom building' there. The tech is for remotely maneuvering a combat vehicle and also remotely view video/thermal/radar data (BMP or T72 makes very little difference)

1. A shrapnel cracks the main gunner's sight, or commander's sight prism ?

The effect would be same as a MANNED tank having it's sights broken!
(Also the unmanned T72/BMP could have multiple cameras for regular visibility)!

2. The enemy employs a powerful satcom/radio jammer, the control signal is blocked or degraded ?

Effort would be for jam proof communications. But even with manned tanks who work in formation (communicating between each other) the jamming effect would be disorienting.
As I've been repeating innumerable times already....a broken/jammed unmanned tank is not a big concern..as no lives are at risk. If it works it works splendidly, it it doesn't then no harm.

Did you ever ask your questions to UAVs? What good are surveillance drones if they're jammed? So get rid of all of them? Why does poor Indian army invest in so many?

3. Enemy atgm team isn't detected in optics blind zone.

There will be no more blind zone than they would be in a manned tank!!

4. Buildings and debris in an urban battlefield block signal ?

Communications are not directly to ground stations, but to a high flying (and far remote) UAVs (or even better sats). Also, even manned tanks are not suitable to action in urban conditions (unless you're Nazis mowing down towns and cities).
Also, don't give this idiotic BS that if something works great is certain set of situations, then it is expected to work in ALL situations.
Smart folks employ things in areas where it offers force multiplication!
Ever heard of 'Wingman' concept for fighter jets? You can ask all the shitty questions you want but one cannot negate that they offer force multiplication in the scenarios employed.

4. Any kind of equipment failure ?

Who cares? Let it sit still until recovery team reaches it. No lives are in danger!

Russian UGVs like the Uran haven't performed well in Syria, if reports like these are to be believed.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...russias-tank-drone-performed-poorly-in-syria/

I'd very much like to see a somewhat credible report of unmanned tanks performing in real combat scenario.

Your take is complete BS!
The report clearly says that the major issues were with suspension and gun - this seemed like a custom-built new-design that didn't work well in all dimensions! The issue with gun is also that it didn't perform well 'on the move' (the beauty of unmanned tanks is that they could afford to even stop to shoot - as the risk is only to tank and not humans)!
Also, the unmanned tank was 'put to test'; & the issues to be fixed. The report concludes that the concept is very promising!!


I've patiently answered your questions, with the hope that you might better educate yourself. Yet, I feel that you might persist with an inane obsession to be the contrarian.

 

[Enquirer]

you remember in our discussion I had outlined advantages of four men crew :

1. Distribution of duties, watch sentry, radio operation, rest - recoup and recce.
2. Maintenance and repair
3. Track replacement in operational areas
4. Fourth man can be used as terrain guide and for communication with other troops like infantry.

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!

 

[Enquirer]

Indian Army doesn't have $ 600 billion defence budget like the US, hence it doesn't have the luxury of committing to and researching emerging trends involving latest and greatest technologies. That's all what I've been saying. In a idealistic power fantasy where IA Armored corps has the freedom to spend billions of dollars and has a fully developed national military industrial complex, it can justify investing in unmanned tanks that are expendable and worth leaving behind in case of breakdowns. But the reality is something else entirely.

Could you please stop BSing?
Firstly India does have a DRDO that does R&D for future products!
Secondly, the tech is already developed (at a pittance of a cost, if I may add)
Lastly, the idea of turning OLD T-72 into unmanned tanks is precisely because India doesn't have a huge budget that it shouldn't let go of a reasonably good vehicle to scrap in 15-20 years. As you yourself pointed through a link to an article, Russia is building unmanned tanks ground up from a new design (which India probably couldn't afford)

Despite your protestations, I am inclined to regard you as low intellect stubborn egomaniac who doesn't want to admit weakness in his own argument but is willing to distort other persons statements. The idea of TURNING old T72 into usable unmanned tanks is precisely to SAVE money and not throw away money!

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

You actually did, by trying to educate me that tech demo doesn't mean it's feasible & by comparing Muntra to Fusion reactors!

Do you understand the concept of metaphors and analogies ? The fusion reactor analogy was meant to convey the point that just because some concept is sound in theory, it doesn't always work because of practical limitations. And these are my exact words regarding tech demo,

"Tech demo =/= production system".

Please provide an example report of Muntra easing the tasks or helping frontline units. Su-47 performed impressive maneuvers in air shows, but didn't help with CAP flights in Syria.

And that's where I've tried to educate you that there's no 'custom building' there. The tech is for remotely maneuvering a combat vehicle and also remotely view video/thermal/radar data (BMP or T72 makes very little difference)

Noone is arguing that it's not possible. The crux of the discussion is whether they will be combat effective or not. Facing the enemy is one thing, providing support from rear or side is another thing.

The effect would be same as a MANNED tank having it's sights broken!
(Also the unmanned T72/BMP could have multiple cameras for regular visibility)!

In a manned tank the sight prisms can be replaced by the crew themselves, where you have to wait for arrival of maintenance personnel with an unmanned tank, meaning extra overhead.

Effort would be for jam proof communications. But even with manned tanks who work in formation (communicating between each other) the jamming effect would be disorienting.
As I've been repeating innumerable times already....a broken/jammed unmanned tank is not a big concern..as no lives are at risk. If it works it works splendidly, it it doesn't then no harm.

Manned tanks can look around and shoot with a broken radio, and can drive to new positions based upon the judgement of the TC. Unmanned tanks with disrupted control signal are dead weight. Equipment and materiel cost money. If it doesn't work then you've lost money which could have been spent on perhaps an APS on crewed tanks.

Did you ever ask your questions to UAVs? What good are surveillance drones if they're jammed? So get rid of all of them? Why does poor Indian army invest in so many?

At present UAVs work support roles. I have no complaints against LORROS and BFSR mounted Muntras attached with Armored formations. CAPs aren't done by unmanned SU-30s.

There will be no more blind zone than they would be in a manned tank!!

In a manned tank the commander can unbutton and look around with field glasses and assess the situation. Unmanned tanks are limited to theirs cameras.

Communications are not directly to ground stations, but to a high flying (and far remote) UAVs (or even better sats).

More points of failure

Also, don't give this idiotic BS that if something works great is certain set of situations, then it is expected to work in ALL situations.
Smart folks employ things in areas where it offers force multiplication!
Ever heard of 'Wingman' concept for fighter jets? You can ask all the shitty questions you want but one cannot negate that they offer force multiplication in the scenarios employed.

Strawman again. Never did I say anything about overall tank effectiveness in urban combat. All i said was unmanned tanks have more problem than a comparable manned ones in cities.

Who cares? Let it sit still until recovery team reaches it. No lives are in danger!

Would you go hunting with 10 blind and crippled dogs or 5 well trained ones ? Especially when there's no proof if the blind dogs can actually help with greater numbers ?

Your take is complete BS!
The report clearly says that the major issues were with suspension and gun - this seemed like a custom-built new-design that didn't work well in all dimensions! The issue with gun is also that it didn't perform well 'on the move' (the beauty of unmanned tanks is that they could afford to even stop to shoot - as the risk is only to tank and not humans)!
Also, the unmanned tank was 'put to test'; & the issues to be fixed. The report concludes that the concept is very promising!!

And what did I say before about the tech not being mature enough ? What makes you think converting T72s to unmanned with current level of understanding will immediately be 100% effective and without any flaws ? You haven't posted any study with positive results yet.

I've patiently answered your questions, with the hope that you might better educate yourself. Yet, I feel that you might persist with an inane obsession to be the contrarian.

All I see are opinions and conjectures. Please provide citations to back them up.

 

[Enquirer]

Do you understand the concept of metaphors and analogies ? The fusion reactor analogy was meant to convey the point that just because some concept is sound in theory, it doesn't always work because of practical limitations. And these are my exact words regarding tech demo,

Please provide an example report of Muntra easing the tasks or helping frontline units. Su-47 performed impressive maneuvers in air shows, but didn't help with CAP flights in Syria.


Noone is arguing that it's not possible. The crux of the discussion is whether they will be combat effective or not. Facing the enemy is one thing, providing support from rear or side is another thing.


In a manned tank the sight prisms can be replaced by the crew themselves, where you have to wait for arrival of maintenance personnel with an unmanned tank, meaning extra overhead.


Manned tanks can look around and shoot with a broken radio, and can drive to new positions based upon the judgement of the TC. Unmanned tanks with disrupted control signal are dead weight. Equipment and materiel cost money. If it doesn't work then you've lost money which could have been spent on perhaps an APS on crewed tanks.


At present UAVs work support roles. I have no complaints against LORROS and BFSR mounted Muntras attached with Armored formations. CAPs aren't done by unmanned SU-30s.


In a manned tank the commander can unbutton and look around with field glasses and assess the situation. Unmanned tanks are limited to theirs cameras.


More points of failure

Strawman again. Never did I say anything about overall tank effectiveness in urban combat. All i said was unmanned tanks have more problem than a comparable manned ones in cities.


Would you go hunting with 10 blind and crippled dogs or 5 well trained ones ? Especially when there's no proof if the blind dogs can actually help with greater numbers ?


And what did I say before about the tech not being mature enough ? What makes you think converting T72s to unmanned with current level of understanding will immediately be 100% effective and without any flaws ? You haven't posted any study with positive results yet.

All I see are opinions and conjectures. Please provide citations to back them up.

You're a pathetic piece of shit who has no shame is lying. You spoke like an imbecile to start with, and when your lack of knowledge was exposed, you're equivocating to salvage your shattered pride!

Also, I am not abusing you by using the words shit, imbecile etc. It's just a metaphor to convey that your words don't have much meaning.

No one said that unmanned tanks will completely replace manned tanks (just like UCAVs won't replace manned fighters), there's just an opportunity to salvage a would-be-scrapped piece into something formidable in certain scenarios.

Can't indulge a scumbag like you for too long (exquisite metaphor again). It's a complete waste of my time to educate morons who refuse to learn! You're obviously a lowly 'follower', who'll wag tail and become bitch to a known name; you've never created anything in your life; never had an original idea. You equivocate to justify your pitiful existence (do you see a striking metaphor?)

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

Could you please stop BSing?
Firstly India does have a DRDO that does R&D for future products!
Secondly, the tech is already developed (at a pittance of a cost, if I may add)
Lastly, the idea of turning OLD T-72 into unmanned tanks is precisely because India doesn't have a huge budget that it shouldn't let go of a reasonably good vehicle to scrap in 15-20 years. As you yourself pointed through a link to an article, Russia is building unmanned tanks ground up from a new design (which India probably couldn't afford)

Despite your protestations, I am inclined to regard you as low intellect stubborn egomaniac who doesn't want to admit weakness in his own argument but is willing to distort other persons statements. The idea of TURNING old T72 into usable unmanned tanks is precisely to SAVE money and not throw away money!

And could you provide a shred of data to back up all your claims ? I'm the skeptic here, so give me some DRDO whitepaper on how they've found converting old autoloader tanks into unmanned ones are a good idea, without asking to take your words at face value. What proof you have that this avenue of research is not a dead end ?

If you honestly think posting snide entitled opinion based comments makes you a superior "intellectual", then with all due respect you can take your gold plated words and shove it. Take care not to drop off of that high horse of yours.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

You're a pathetic piece of shit who has no shame is lying. You spoke like an imbecile to start with, and when your lack of knowledge was exposed, you're equivocating to salvage your shattered pride!

Also, I am not abusing you by using the words shit, imbecile etc. It's just a metaphor to convey that your words don't have much meaning.

No one said that unmanned tanks will completely replace manned tanks (just like UCAVs won't replace manned fighters), there's just an opportunity to salvage a would-be-scrapped piece into something formidable in certain scenarios.

Can't indulge a scumbag like you for too long (exquisite metaphor again). It's a complete waste of my time to educate morons who refuse to learn!

There it is !! Thanks for showing the real you.
Let me reiterate, show proof that the idea has been found to be workable by actual experts like DRDO, or don't peddle your ideas as fact. Why should research money be thrown down a black hole ?

 

[Enquirer]

And could you provide a shred of data to back up all your claims ? I'm the skeptic here, so give me some DRDO whitepaper on how they've found converting old autoloader tanks into unmanned ones are a good idea, without asking to take your words at face value. What proof you have that this avenue of research is not a dead end ?

If you honestly think posting snide entitled opinion based comments makes you a superior "intellectual", then with all due respect you can take your gold plated words and shove it. Take care not to drop off of that high horse of yours.

I am clearly a superior intellect because I can have an original idea that's backed by science & technology.
While you've lived a life being someone's bitch....a follower all your life! An idea can/should stand on its own. Why would you take some lowly scientist in DRDO writing a concept paper to be credible just as is?

That said, isn't a Russian company building an unmanned tank ground up evidence enough that its a concept that people are putting their money in? Unlike you who's good for nothing but putting your own dirty foot in your mouth.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

I am clearly a superior intellect because I can have an original idea that's backed by science & technology.
While you've lived a life being someone's bitch....a follower all your life! An idea can/should stand on its own. Why would you take some lowly scientist in DRDO writing a concept paper to be credible just as is?

That said, isn't a Russian company building an unmanned tank ground up evidence enough that its a concept that people are putting their money in? Unlike you who's good for nothing but putting your own dirty foot in your mouth.

Russians also employed anti tank dogs. Maybe you should start a kennel business.

 

[Vorschlaghammer]

I am clearly a superior intellect because I can have an original idea that's backed by science & technology.
While you've lived a life being someone's bitch....a follower all your life! An idea can/should stand on its own. Why would you take some lowly scientist in DRDO writing a concept paper to be credible just as is?

That said, isn't a Russian company building an unmanned tank ground up evidence enough that its a concept that people are putting their money in? Unlike you who's good for nothing but putting your own dirty foot in your mouth.

I'm totally in awe at your large glowing brain and how science-ey it is !! I feel an urgent need to petition the UN into appointing you as the God Emperor of mankind. Please glance upon a mere mortal like me and forgive me for my eternal sins o great one.

 

[Enquirer]

Russians also employed anti tank dogs. Maybe you should start a kennel business.

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

 

[Enquirer]

I'm totally in awe at your large glowing brain and how science-ey it is !! I feel an urgent need to petition the UN into appointing you as the God Emperor of mankind. Please glance upon a mere mortal like me and forgive me for my eternal sins o great one.

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