Indian Army Armored Vehicles

[Bhadra]

I prefer calling a pile of shit being presented as logic for exactly what it is...

No matter how many arrows you draw on a bunch of maps, they amount for nothing other than taking up space. Both these remain true;


No matter how many arrows you draw on a bunch of maps, the fact remains that the heaviest tank Indian had operated until Arjun came along, has been most successful in tank-battles. The 52.5 ton Centurion Mk7... & also it mostly saw action in Lahore, Sialkot, Khemkaran, Shakargarh bulge etc

So you have come down to mother earth. The Arjun agent.
No matter whatever you say ... Arjun tank is a big cheating. more than 80% foreign mal.
No matter what you say - Arjun will not / is not being bought by IA. A few of them which were bought are allrady facing junk yards.
Gali do ya apani.....

 

[Bleh]

So you have come down to mother earth. The Arjun agent.

Well... if one's gonna pimp for phoren maal using misinformation, someone's gotta counter those!

No matter whatever you say ... Arjun tank is a big cheating. more than 80% foreign mal.
No matter what you say - Arjun will not / is not being bought by IA. A few of them which were bought are allrady facing junk yards.

Mask off... but the lies continue.

 

[Bhadra]

Having presented the facts on realities of terrain as it exists on our side of the border and as it is across the border, let us now examine how India or Pakistan would plan to achieve their respective object of war by application of military resources.

So what are going to be the likely military objective both sides would seek ?

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Having presented the facts on realities of terrain as it exists on our side of the border and as it is across the border, let us now examine how India or Pakistan would plan to achieve their respective object of war by application of military resources.

So what are going to be the likely military objective both sides would seek ?

There can be only 1 objective of war - victory. The war is won when no enemy is left. So, objective of all war is to ensure that no enemy is left. If it is a minor skirmish, then it does not matter as the relevance is minimal

 

[aarav]

 

[binayak95]

In honesty, anyone who thinks the Arjun program is dead has another thing coming.

Arjun Mk1A program is on track and likely to supplement the Russian tanks in bigger numbers a few years down the line. (more than the 124 Mk1s and the 119 Mk1As ordered certainly)

Why? The Russian tanks are weak armored and unsuitable for urban combat or facing NLOS ATGMs and long rod APFSDS rounds.

And we can not afford to sustain heavy losses or outfit every tank with APS (whose saturation rate is pretty low anyway)
Arjun's problems are not unfixable. Large orders and private partnership (as is happening) will iron out issues.

Every major tank design in the world from the European MBTs (Chally II, Leo2A5+, LeClerc) the Abrams, the Type 10, the SoKorean tank, all push 60 tonnes and more.

None of their armies complain of bridges because no bridge will survive a war.

That's the first target for any defensive enemy. He will ensure that no bridge survives.

You have to build your own or airdrop your tanks. And since we are not the US of A, we will have to settle with building our own. And we very well have that ability.

 

[Bhadra]

There can be only 1 objective of war - victory. The war is won when no enemy is left. So, objective of all war is to ensure that no enemy is left. If it is a minor skirmish, then it does not matter as the relevance is minimal

My God ! Since the inception of Society (organised / group living), human have been engaged in billions of War or "organised use of violence" against each other Destruction of the other has not always been the aim / end of the Wars. Total destruction or total wars have always not been the objective of war.

The aims of war always is to achieve an intended objective. Application of military means is just to inflict a degree of violence on the opponent thereby making the enemy or opposite side yield to an "end state" as desired such as accepting slavery, suzeirnity, subordinate status, enter into an alliance, surrender a lady (helena or Sita or Draupadi or Padmavati). give in to an intended order (WWI and WWII), control of resources, overcoming / supression of economic activities, hegemony or end of an activity - Jihad, Conversion, terrorism, infiltration, insurgency etc. The aim always is to achieve an "end state" - some say to establish peace and many say to break down enemy's will to fight.

There can be numerous aims of war

Objectives of warfare are those threatening which the cores of enemies existence or continuance gets threatened therefore forcing him to agree to an end state. those could be :

Enemy military force (and his ability to wage a war.)
Enemy population to annihilate, subjugate, enslave or transport or be used as a resource.
Enemy leadership - political, military, religious or ideological.
Enemy territory.
Enemy resources.
Enemy vital centers of communications, water, ports etc.
Enemy's means and resources of well being.

Therefore, War is an extension of state policy intended to be achieved by application of "coercion", "force - mainly military force to inflict violence" and other means to achieve intended aims.

Can the Pundits tell me what Indian traditional thinking on the subject of War is ? What does Indian wisdom say on the aims and objectives of war - beside capturing milking cows to be gifted to ones Guru ! To avenge and restore honour of Draupadi or Sita ? What if Ravana had agreed to return Sita with honour ? Would there be a war? Perhaps no, but it is safe to assume that it would have not been possible with the deployment of "Ram Sena" and a "Threat of War".

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

My God ! Since the inception of Society (organised / group living), human have been engaged in billions of War or "organised use of violence" against each other Destruction of the other has not always been the aim / end of the Wars. Total destruction or total wars have always not been the objective of war.

The aims of war always is to achieve an intended objective. Application of military means is just to inflict a degree of violence on the opponent thereby making the enemy or opposite side yield to an "end state" as desired such as accepting slavery, suzeirnity, subordinate status, enter into an alliance, surrender a lady (helena or Sita or Draupadi or Padmavati). give in to an intended order (WWI and WWII), control of resources, overcoming / supression of economic activities, hegemony or end of an activity - Jihad, Conversion, terrorism, infiltration, insurgency etc. The aim always is to achieve an "end state" - some say to establish peace and many say to break down enemy's will to fight.

There can be numerous aims of war

Objectives of warfare are those threatening which the cores of enemies existence or continuance gets threatened therefore forcing him to agree to an end state. those could be :

Enemy military force (and his ability to wage a war.)
Enemy population to annihilate, subjugate, enslave or transport or be used as a resource.
Enemy leadership - political, military, religious or ideological.
Enemy territory.
Enemy resources.
Enemy vital centers of communications, water, ports etc.
Enemy's means and resources of well being.

Therefore, War is an extension of state policy intended to be achieved by application of "coercion", "force - mainly military force to inflict violence" and other means to achieve intended aims.

Can the Pundits tell me what Indian traditional thinking on the subject of War is ? What does Indian wisdom say on the aims and objectives of war - beside capturing milking cows to be gifted to ones Guru ! To avenge and restore honour of Draupadi or Sita ? What if Ravana had agreed to return Sita with honour ? Would there be a war? Perhaps no, but it is safe to assume that it would have not been possible with the deployment of "Ram Sena" and a "Threat of War".

It is not necessary that people are killed en-masse but it is necessary that the required objective is achieved and all those who are against it don't exist. The definition of enemy is one who has hostile intention towards you or your objective.

The very definition of not having an enemy is to ensure that enemy either wholesale submits permanently or is dead. That is why I said "no enemy left", not "no enemy alive". The most important aspect of war is "intention", There can be 2 state of war - Cold war and Hot war depending on whether battles are going on or there is mere hostility in intent without direct confrontation.

The war goes on till the end state is met. So, things like Kargil war, Bangladesh war etc are actually battles in the grander war which did not yet yield a permanent "result" or "end state". War can go on for centuries in alternating cold or hot manner till that particular problem at hand is permanently solved.

In the past, it was advised that first an attempt at negotiations is made and when the party in non-negotiable or difference is too large, then war must be waged. However, in case of Rakshasas, they were considered as being beyond reason and hence had to be dealt with the sword.

The only war which Vedas recommends is war against Rakshasas. Here Rig Veda explicitly states that genocide (killing of rakshasas, their children and entire community) is the way to go.

When the war was against kingdoms or kings within civilisation, then it is a form of "civil war" and hence the practice of "Dharma Yuddha" or an older form of "Geneva Convention" must be followed. In this war, the objective is only to secure dominance of one king over the other and no civilian or non-combat population must be harmed, not cattle or wealth of commoners must be looted. This was the form of war seen in Mahabharatha in the battlefield of Kurukshetra. In Mahabharatha, had Duryodhana not did "Vastra-Arohana" of Draupadi, there would have been no war. The Pandavas were ready to give up territory. But Vastra-Arohana made situation unacceptable. In case of Ramayana, if Sita was given back with full honours, there would have been no war.

 

[ram singh तोपची]

where does tata kestrel (WhAP) fits in indian armys equation

 

[Bhadra]

In honesty, anyone who thinks the Arjun program is dead has another thing coming.

Arjun Mk1A program is on track and likely to supplement the Russian tanks in bigger numbers a few years down the line. (more than the 124 Mk1s and the 119 Mk1As ordered certainly)

Firstly, thanks for some positive and meaningful comment.
Like you and I am optimist. Everyone like honest efforts. Mistakes can be committed anywhere any time but those needs to be acknowledged and rectified. Crookery, skullduggery, playing smart and making fool of others - not even Army likes that.

Why? The Russian tanks are weak armored and unsuitable for urban combat or facing NLOS ATGMs and long rod APFSDS rounds.

And we can not afford to sustain heavy losses or outfit every tank with APS (whose saturation rate is pretty low anyway)

They simply do not want to get involved in Urban operations. Their philosophy and doctrine is a "Swift Race" through the rolling plain of Western Europe. Maneuver Warfare, deep battles and Airland Battles. They do not intend to bang their heads on the walls. Accordingly they have made a tank which suits their needs and not for Indian Army. Russians will primarily depend on speed and numbers.

Arjun's problems are not unfixable.

Yes fix those.
people here from DRDO / ARVD etc should get down to fixing the problems and improvements rather than foul mouthing Indian Army. That is not doing to lead anywhere.

Large orders and private partnership (as is happening) will iron out issues.

That amounts to laying down conditions for work putting a gun on their heads. Indian Army burnt their fingers in many instances and I hope has learnt their lessons painfully.

Every major tank design in the world from the European MBTs (Chally II, Leo2A5+, LeClerc) the Abrams, the Type 10, the So Korean tank, all push 60 tonnes and more.

None of their armies complain of bridges because no bridge will survive a war.

Russia, China, South Korea, Pakistan not included ?
Which Country amongst stated ones plans to fight battles on their borders except Russia?
Which country has such an extensive network of permanent obstacles to cross - first own side of the border then on enemy side of the border.
Which country in the world where these forces are likely to be employed have such terrain friction ?
The saga of trench warfare for them is over as also there are no more maginot lines in Europe.

That's the first target for any defensive enemy. He will ensure that no bridge survives.

Ok but that reinforces the argument for the tanks to be lighter so that those are able to cross obstacles on their own or with existing bridging equipment.
Flooding the argument with pictures of bridging equipment is Ok till it is to be provided free of cost by supplier. Otherwise add cost of new bridge to the tanks, make it 9 million from existing 7.6 million.

You have to build your own or airdrop your tanks. And since we are not the US of A, we will have to settle with building our own. And we very well have that ability.

yes very much, we have to make our tanks as per our requirements and not for Russian or US battles. That is the whole argument.

 

[aarav]

where does tata kestrel (WhAP) fits in indian armys equation

High Mobility ,more troops ,ATGMs even there is plan to integrate 105mm gun ,to make it a wheeled tank ,it can be very good in urban environment as well as plains of Punjab who have many water obstacles it is Amphibious, It would also have a role in navy LPD whenever that deal goes through
,Turret won't remain BMP2 30mm ones only there is also a plan for Elbit Turret

Elbit Turret

 

[Enquirer]

where does tata kestrel (WhAP) fits in indian armys equation

It doesn't!
Tata/VRDE Kestrel WhAP is specifically made for UN peacekeeping roles (in international territories). So far there's no indication that Indian Army would be interested in it.

 

[Bhadra]

Urban Scenario
​

What are the realities of Urban clusters on our border with Pakistan particularly inside Pakistani Punjab?

That is going to be a bitter reality facing Indian Military planners.

 

[Bhadra]

Look at this imagery, the intensity anf alignment of Urban Clusters

 

[Bhadra]

Density of Urban and built up clusters :

 

[Bhadra]

So to progress any further we must analyse why woud India and Pakistan go to War with each others, then only will we be able to fix aims and objectives of War. Tanks and guns are still far away. So far -

1947-48 - Annexation of Kashmir and Saving Kashmir.
1965 - Annexation of Kashmir and Saving Kashmir
1971 - Repression of Bengali Revolt and Liberation of Bangladesh.
1999 - Threaten NH1 in order to cut Line of Communication to Siachen thereby force India to withdraw from Siachen, Internationalise Kashmir issue anf force India to negotiate on the issue. India's aim was to restore status quo ante.

 

[bhramos]

How does Ceramic Armor work for our BMP-2 !!!

 

[rkhanna]

How does Ceramic Armor work for our BMP-2 !!!

Don't think they are ours. What's the weight liability ? Engine get uprated?

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

They are definately not ours. The pics seems some upgradation programme of BMP -2 from Russia.

 

[Bleh]

How does Ceramic Armor work for our BMP-2 !!!

Russian vehicles, probably for better urban survival.

Even if they install uprated engines, these BMP-2 definitely won't float... I doubted they'd be of much use to us.