Vorschlaghammer
New Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2017
- Messages
- 337
- Likes
- 589
![India Country flag](https://defenceforumindia.com/misc/flags/shiny/32/India.png)
Used in all T series tank coax mgs also. PKT specifically refers to the coax version of PKEh? These are for the soon to be made obsolete Dragunov rifles, right???
Used in all T series tank coax mgs also. PKT specifically refers to the coax version of PKEh? These are for the soon to be made obsolete Dragunov rifles, right???
That's a bit too specialized way of thinking. For example the soviets expected to start WW3 via the fulda gap, initiating the offensive, and maintaining the momentum till the english channel. Massed armored spearheads were supposed to penetrate enemy defenses and the lead elements were even supposed to ignore and bypass enemy formations just so they could extend penetrations upto strategic depth.None of that precludes them for deploying for 24-48 hour period to get a tactical advantage over the enemy!
If a unmanned tank breaks down, there's not need to rush to fix it as no human lives are at risk!
Again none of that is any reason for not putting 'de-inducted' tanks (when it happens) to few additional decades of work (being the tip of the spear) with a little input in making them unmanned!That's a bit too specialized way of thinking. For example the soviets expected to start WW3 via the fulda gap, initiating the offensive, and maintaining the momentum till the english channel. Massed armored spearheads were supposed to penetrate enemy defenses and the lead elements were even supposed to ignore and bypass enemy formations just so they could extend penetrations upto strategic depth.
To that purpose, they needed numerous afvs, focused towards assault, and designed to be expendable on a nuclear battlefield. That philosophy created the T-6x, 7x and 8x series designs, where the bulk of the armor is concentrated on a frontal 60 degree arc, lightweight, low height, minimal crew with autoloaders, and generic fire control and optics. These designs were well suited for a european theatre, under the soviet deep battle doctrine, but post 1991, these vehicles haven't proven to be well rounded designs. Iraq, Syria and Ukraine hasn't proved them to be well suited in defensive or urban combat, and advancements in modern battlefield technology has further exposed their weaknesses. The russians are fully aware of the problem, yet they can't drop it all and start with a clean slate, cause they can't afford it and they have huge inventories of these vehicles. They have no choice other than continuing to upgrade the T72 to the B3 standard, and also recently the T80 even was announced to be getting upgrades. Armata will probably enter service in small numbers, and most likely won't be a decisive factor until atleast 2030.
Compare and contrast this with the situation of IA, they have limited funding, limited political support, limited indigenous sources, and internal issues. It shouldn't surprise anyone if IA wants to make the best out of their situation and want generic and modular gear and materiel.
It may be so In an ideal world, but we live in a practical one. I don't know anything about the internal workings of IA, but taking an educated guess I do see some practical barriersAgain none of that is any reason for not putting 'de-inducted' tanks (when it happens) to few additional decades of work (being the tip of the spear) with a little input in making them unmanned!
Why do you want tanks at all if it is unmanned? What is the point of heavy armour if it does not have anyone inside to protect? Won't that be unnecessarily fuel expensive? T90 consumes 2 litre fuel per kilometer. This can be reduced by making the vehicle much lighterAgain none of that is any reason for not putting 'de-inducted' tanks (when it happens) to few additional decades of work (being the tip of the spear) with a little input in making them unmanned!
The problem on this forum (and probably in the IA circles too) is that it's impossible to appreciate a creative idea that might actually become a force multiplier (based on existing indigenous technology).....but it's easy to orgasm at some hackneyed work done by 'other' countries!It may be so In an ideal world, but we live in a practical one. I don't know anything about the internal workings of IA, but taking an educated guess I do see some practical barriers
Fund crunch: The R&D work, implementation, testing all of these take time and money, which may not be readily available. If a Armored Corps commander brings the topic up at a meeting, another Infantry general might say the funding is needed for buying AKs or 716s for troops in Kashmir.
Bureaucratic inertia: The Indian government bureaucracy is famous for being exceptionally slow, IA is a subordinate to the civilian govt. and may need to wait years for a review from MoD for projects like these. Within the army brass itself there might be an aversion to being on the cutting edge of technology.
Traditional mindedness of Armed forces: All over the world armed forces are known to follow the philosophy of "if it's not broken don't fix it". Generic idioms like "the army fights the next war by preparing for the last one" are applicable everywhere. Historically this lack of reluctance of adopting and embracing new information is very prevalent, be it US ordnance with M14, or European armies with machine guns at 1914.
For whatever reason, while a fully autonomous tank might be too radical of an idea for the army, a more acceptable approach could be in designing a new turret and autoloader with the existing hull. I believe they tried that with tank-ex, but the russians objected, and the project went nowhere.
The idea is not to build something brand new (at a huge expense) but to re-purpose an old-soon-to-be-deinducted machinery into a force multiplier.Why do you want tanks at all if it is unmanned? What is the point of heavy armour if it does not have anyone inside to protect? Won't that be unnecessarily fuel expensive? T90 consumes 2 litre fuel per kilometer. This can be reduced by making the vehicle much lighter
Also, why not simply get the job done by UCAV since drones can see everything on the ground?
I believe he's thinking of ways to recycle retired T-72s and make them combat effective again. That's not technically impossible, USAF has had QF16s for a while, Russians are developing small UGVs, Chinese are researching Full size autonomous tanks, but IA has many other things on it's plate that need attention first.Why do you want tanks at all if it is unmanned? What is the point of heavy armour if it does not have anyone inside to protect? Won't that be unnecessarily fuel expensive? T90 consumes 2 litre fuel per kilometer. This can be reduced by making the vehicle much lighter
Also, why not simply get the job done by UCAV since drones can see everything on the ground?
Well thought exercises and academic discussions are always fun and thought provoking, but we do need to look at the ground reality as well. There are absolute facts, and then there are contextual facts. I would very much want free electricity produced from a working fusion reactor, the physics is already established and well understood, but we just haven't been able to implement it in a practical and reasonable way. Concepts and ideas can't live in a vacuum if they are to be made usable, they have to be synergistic with the surroundings.The problem on this forum (and probably in the IA circles too) is that it's impossible to appreciate a creative idea that might actually become a force multiplier (based on existing indigenous technology).....but it's easy to orgasm at some hackneyed work done by 'other' countries!
At this point I am beginning to see why I had to start every previous response beginning with the word 'again'.Well thought exercises and academic discussions are always fun and thought provoking, but we do need to look at the ground reality as well. There are absolute facts, and then there are contextual facts. I would very much want free electricity produced from a working fusion reactor, the physics is already established and well understood, but we just haven't been able to implement it in a practical and reasonable way. Concepts and ideas can't live in a vacuum if they are to be made usable, they have to be synergistic with the surroundings.
"again", possibility and feasibility are 2 different things. Try to understand the underlying point, without getting fixated on the surface metaphors. Tech demo =/= production system.At this point I am beginning to see why I had to start every previous response beginning with the word 'again'.
Remote controlled vehicle/tank/dozer has already been proven by DRDO...comparing it to and brushing it off as fusion reactor is simply STUPID.
I rest.
I can't drag you from under the rock of 'denial'....if you're so comfortable under it."again", possibility and feasibility are 2 different things. Try to understand the underlying point, without getting fixated on the surface metaphors. Tech demo =/= production system.
The idea is not to build something brand new (at a huge expense) but to re-purpose an old-soon-to-be-deinducted machinery into a force multiplier.
Existing armor will protect (even) the unmanned tank from anything less than next gen ATGM!!
I understand the concept of reusing. But the problem is that the tan weighs so much and consumes so much fuel, the fuel expense will outweigh cost benefits of reusing. As I said, mileage of 0.5km per litre for is too low and light armoured vehicle with mileage of 2-3km per litre will reduce fuel cost by 4-6 times.I believe he's thinking of ways to recycle retired T-72s and make them combat effective again. That's not technically impossible, USAF has had QF16s for a while, Russians are developing small UGVs, Chinese are researching Full size autonomous tanks, but IA has many other things on it's plate that need attention first.
Arjun looks like a raised pillbox as compared to T-90MS low silhouette .Relax, gentlemen.
We are buying technology. Nothing more, nothing less. We also, as a bonus to the technology, get 464 tanks to replace the old T72s.
What technology? The high velocity Armata gun. The Vacuum 2 round. The new ERA.
In due course, derivatives will find their way into the Arjun program.
The main problem with the Arjun program is a lack of spares and ammunition.
Spares will get sorted out. With the new orders; ammo is a problem. No one else manufactures 120 mm rifled ammo. Perhaps a swap of the 120mm rifled barrels with 125mm Russian smoothbore is on the cards?
Although there is also talk of Israeli help with the 120mm ammo. ![]()
Hah ! you have a Schinders List ?I'll be adding you to the list of those who says stupid things and argue till death to defend it.
The inverse of Schindler's List! People on this list are beyond saving....so just ignore.Hah ! you have a Schinders List ?
This is the only valid point against unmanned tanks...Tanks are big heavy complex vehicles. They need maintenance. Tankers/Tankies make their vehicle their home when deployed. Doctrinally speaking, having a human loader is partially justified as an extra pair of hands to maintain the tank.
T-72/90 Coaxial machine-guns.Eh? These are for the soon to be made obsolete Dragunov rifles, right???
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.I can't drag you from under the rock of 'denial'....if you're so comfortable under it.
At least for the sake of the forum standards, stop lying just to stroke your own ego!
Muntra is not just a 'possibility' it has been proven as 'feasible'! That tech is already being 'exported' to other platforms!
I'll be adding you to the list of those who says stupid things and argue till death to defend it.
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.Missile firing is not a requirement for the arjun mk1a version of which 124 is ordered.
Whereas it will be a requirement for arjun mk2 which is under development.