Indian Army BMP 2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle Sarath

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
10,743
Likes
15,949
Country flag
Your POV is based on tank on tank battles. And this may be the case in a border war.

But if you are holding territory or you are in maneuver, then ATGM threat is far more important.

I said before and I repeat, light tanks having 35-40 ton weight may be ideal for India. But these tanks need active protection systems.
No it is not what I meant.

The history of Mechanised warfare is the history of fierce competition between two technologies - Tank technology Vs Missile technology - both gaining upper hand now and then. The primary tank technologies have remained directed to defeat missile attacks whereas the focus of Missile technologies had been to defeat any form of armour Developments in tank technologies like, spaced armour, reinforced armour, reactive armour, angeled armour, fibre coated plates, design of tank, turret thickness, shape, front arc etc have all but one aim - to defeat enemy Atk weapons attacks of which missile forms almost 80 per cent part.

Similarly, missiles have developed in their technologies of of missiles - warheads, propulsion, range,chemical used, guidance and ECM measures. The sole aim - how to defeat the armour.

That is what has dominated the Mechanise warfare though the best weapon to defeat a tank remains a tank only.
 

Advaidhya Tiwari

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
1,580
Likes
1,414
No it is not what I meant.

The history of Mechanised warfare is the history of fierce competition between two technologies - Tank technology Vs Missile technology - both gaining upper hand now and then. The primary tank technologies have remained directed to defeat missile attacks whereas the focus of Missile technologies had been to defeat any form of armour Developments in tank technologies like, spaced armour, reinforced armour, reactive armour, angeled armour, fibre coated plates, design of tank, turret thickness, shape, front arc etc have all but one aim - to defeat enemy Atk weapons attacks of which missile forms almost 80 per cent part.

Similarly, missiles have developed in their technologies of of missiles - warheads, propulsion, range,chemical used, guidance and ECM measures. The sole aim - how to defeat the armour.

That is what has dominated the Mechanise warfare though the best weapon to defeat a tank remains a tank only.
Can you tell me the difference between APC & a tank/ Why APC must be armed as heavily as a tank? How will logistics like fuel supply be maintained for such heavy armour?
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
10,743
Likes
15,949
Country flag
Missile may be more dangerous but guns are more easily carried while missiles are bulky and clumsy. There is no 100% guarantee in war. We just take probability and take calculated risk.

Which country has APC which can withstand ATGM? Give me an example? If you are not going to make a tank which can withstand ATGM, why make heavy tank at all? What is wrong with BMP as APC compared to say, M2 of USA?
So Tiwari Ji so you are neither a scientist nor a fighter !

Missiles are easy to carry anywhere as man portable. Guns used in Mechanised warfare means tank guns which are 76mm to 130mm caliber. How can it be easy to carry ?

A tank or APC can be attacked either chemically or kinetically. Chemical attack (high explosive warheads - basically missiles and gun fired shells) are being defeated by various armour technologies or other means as jamming missile sensors.

Kinetic attacks are firing of a high energy shot as a penetrator which used kinetic energy to kill / disable a tank / APC.

Kinetic attacks are more dangerous and difficult to defeat. Hence guns are more dangerous especially when they can use multiple ammunition types.

Tanks and APCs are used as a mixture of a system in which tanks basically is tasked to destroy A/Tk weapons specially enemy tanks and ICV are employed to tackle ground holding unprotected elements like Infantry or unprotected mobile elements like missile detachments.APC / ICV also provide potent A/Tk fire from their guns,missile launchers and rocket launchers thereby thickening up A/Tk fire, provide a potent fire base and mop up lightly held positions.

Keep the words used here with you and understand those.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
10,743
Likes
15,949
Country flag
Can you tell me the difference between APC & a tank/ Why APC must be armed as heavily as a tank? How will logistics like fuel supply be maintained for such heavy armour?
I never said APC must be as heavy as a tank. I merely said - adequately protected - which means protection against small arms including cannons and possibly against man fired RPGs or LAWs,

The APC and ICV are two different platforms meant and designed for two different doctrines of war fighting by the Infantry and tanks together.
APC is a personnel carrier which takes Infantry as near to objective as possible and infantry launch the attack / operations dismounted. APC remain away from objective and can be used to provide fire support. Tanks runs over the objective and Infantry captures / mops up.

ICV is also a carrier of Infantry troops which takes it right on to the objective along with tanks and troops remain mounted firing from inside and occasionally dismounting and then again mounting

Therefore ICV designs and protection levels are different and more demanding.
 

Advaidhya Tiwari

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
1,580
Likes
1,414
So Tiwari Ji so you are neither a scientist nor a fighter !

Missiles are easy to carry anywhere as man portable. Guns used in Mechanised warfare means tank guns which are 76mm to 130mm caliber. How can it be easy to carry ?
Man portable missiles also weigh 10kg or more. It is not something you can carry and run around easily. Even the 1st generation RPG weighs 10kg or more including the launcher. Soldiers also have to carry guns and ammuntion of 5-6kg for self protection in addition to water supply. So, carrying 20kg weight is simply too difficult a thing.

I am speaking of guns in mechanised warfare but guns with enemy soldiers. That can't exceed 12.7mm caliber. That is why protection from maximum 12.7mm is needed. This is the right balance between logistics and protection for APC.

A tank or APC can be attacked either chemically or kinetically. Chemical attack (high explosive warheads - basically missiles and gun fired shells) are being defeated by various armour technologies or other means as jamming missile sensors.

Kinetic attacks are firing of a high energy shot as a penetrator which used kinetic energy to kill / disable a tank / APC.

Kinetic attacks are more dangerous and difficult to defeat. Hence guns are more dangerous especially when they can use multiple ammunition types.

Tanks and APCs are used as a mixture of a system in which tanks basically is tasked to destroy A/Tk weapons specially enemy tanks and ICV are employed to tackle ground holding unprotected elements like Infantry or unprotected mobile elements like missile detachments. APC / ICV also provide potent A/Tk fire from their guns,missile launchers and rocket launchers thereby thickening up A/Tk fire, provide a potent fire base and mop up lightly held positions.

Keep the words used here with you and understand those.
APC provide with ATGM fire and gun fire. But they are mainly used to clear out remaining enemies after the big ones are wiped out with airpower, choppers and tanks. The remaining ones are likely to be only eemy infantry who might have slipped past. That is why gun fire protection is needed.

I never said APC must be as heavy as a tank. I merely said - adequately protected - which means protection against small arms including cannons and possibly against man fired RPGs or LAWs,
This is what makes it as heavy as tanks. The only way to make it lighter is to remove protection against heavier weapons like ATGM.
The APC and ICV are two different platforms meant and designed for two different doctrines of war fighting by the Infantry and tanks together.
APC is a personnel carrier which takes Infantry as near to objective as possible and infantry launch the attack / operations dismounted. APC remain away from objective and can be used to provide fire support. Tanks runs over the objective and Infantry captures / mops up.

ICV is also a carrier of Infantry troops which takes it right on to the objective along with tanks and troops remain mounted firing from inside and occasionally dismounting and then again mounting

Therefore ICV designs and protection levels are different and more demanding.
There are some points which you are taking for granted but is not the case. The most important part of war is logistics. Remember that India will have to fight any major wars using "coal liquefaction" as oil supply will be the first thing to be cut off.

Fuel supply is a big issue as production by coal liquefaction is not as abundant or quick as oil. 1 ton of Indian quality coal can give 1.1 barrel of oil. This means even if we extract 1 billion ton coal for liquefaction annually, we will get 1.1 billion barrel of oil which is about 3million barrel a day. Considering that oil has to be used for civilian economy too like farming, mining etc, we will have to ration oil as much as possible. It is important to consider this aspect first.

In today's war, the situation is much different than older ones. In older times, ground forces were the key to capture territory and dismantle enemy infrastructure. But with advent of missile and superior air power along with electronically guided munitions, it is now the work of air power and missiles to take out major threats, not tanks or ground forces

The first attack will always be missile strikes. This is then followed by aerial bombardment. Then heavy MBRL and artilelr fire is waged to get rid of remaining border and near border infrastructure.

Once most of the major enemy weapons like missile, radar, depots, factories are down, we send in tanks supported by helicopters and CAS planes to take out the remaining medium level threats like enemy tanks, bunkers etc. Some ICV like NAG carrier, mobile radar and resupply vehicles will follow behind the cover of tanks

Once the medium level threats of enemy is wiped out, we send in infantry via APC and ICV to clear the lower level threats and also to construct bunkers and installations to hold on to the gains. In addition several mobile installations like BFSR and other radar vehicles are also moved to set up a temporary installation and act as a base for further ingress.

Higher protection, though desirable and more safe, causes a severe strain on resources in fuel supply. So, we have to come to a compromise and get APC with lower armour. Since APC is sent when most of the bigger threats are gone, It is reasonable that lower armour will be sufficient

ICV is also a carrier of Infantry troops which takes it right on to the objective along with tanks and troops remain mounted firing from inside and occasionally dismounting and then again mounting
I agree that there will be some ICV going along with tanks for assistance, resupply, bridge laying etc But as I said above, if the enemy is right at that point, we refrain from sending APC and instead take the enemy out with tanks, helicopters, CAS planes before sending in infantry or APC comes to the scene.

Considering all these needs together, we have to understand that making heavy APC will be more challenging to war efforts. It is best to change tactics to ensure that the equipment is used in a tailor made manner for each circumstance to optimise for maximum benefit. The losses due to APC being hit by ATGM is much less than the problems caused by fuel supply. Having multiple APC design will cause problems in logistics and repair. Since APC will have to be used in tens of thousands in a major war, the fuel consumption and logistics will be a very big issue.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
10,743
Likes
15,949
Country flag
Man portable missiles also weigh 10kg or more. It is not something you can carry and run around easily. Even the 1st generation RPG weighs 10kg or more including the launcher. Soldiers also have to carry guns and ammuntion of 5-6kg for self protection in addition to water supply. So, carrying 20kg weight is simply too difficult a thing.

I am speaking of guns in mechanised warfare but guns with enemy soldiers. That can't exceed 12.7mm caliber. That is why protection from maximum 12.7mm is needed. This is the right balance between logistics and protection for APC.


APC provide with ATGM fire and gun fire. But they are mainly used to clear out remaining enemies after the big ones are wiped out with airpower, choppers and tanks. The remaining ones are likely to be only eemy infantry who might have slipped past. That is why gun fire protection is needed.


This is what makes it as heavy as tanks. The only way to make it lighter is to remove protection against heavier weapons like ATGM.

There are some points which you are taking for granted but is not the case. The most important part of war is logistics. Remember that India will have to fight any major wars using "coal liquefaction" as oil supply will be the first thing to be cut off.

Fuel supply is a big issue as production by coal liquefaction is not as abundant or quick as oil. 1 ton of Indian quality coal can give 1.1 barrel of oil. This means even if we extract 1 billion ton coal for liquefaction annually, we will get 1.1 billion barrel of oil which is about 3million barrel a day. Considering that oil has to be used for civilian economy too like farming, mining etc, we will have to ration oil as much as possible. It is important to consider this aspect first.

In today's war, the situation is much different than older ones. In older times, ground forces were the key to capture territory and dismantle enemy infrastructure. But with advent of missile and superior air power along with electronically guided munitions, it is now the work of air power and missiles to take out major threats, not tanks or ground forces

The first attack will always be missile strikes. This is then followed by aerial bombardment. Then heavy MBRL and artilelr fire is waged to get rid of remaining border and near border infrastructure.

Once most of the major enemy weapons like missile, radar, depots, factories are down, we send in tanks supported by helicopters and CAS planes to take out the remaining medium level threats like enemy tanks, bunkers etc. Some ICV like NAG carrier, mobile radar and resupply vehicles will follow behind the cover of tanks

Once the medium level threats of enemy is wiped out, we send in infantry via APC and ICV to clear the lower level threats and also to construct bunkers and installations to hold on to the gains. In addition several mobile installations like BFSR and other radar vehicles are also moved to set up a temporary installation and act as a base for further ingress.

Higher protection, though desirable and more safe, causes a severe strain on resources in fuel supply. So, we have to come to a compromise and get APC with lower armour. Since APC is sent when most of the bigger threats are gone, It is reasonable that lower armour will be sufficient



I agree that there will be some ICV going along with tanks for assistance, resupply, bridge laying etc But as I said above, if the enemy is right at that point, we refrain from sending APC and instead take the enemy out with tanks, helicopters, CAS planes before sending in infantry or APC comes to the scene.

Considering all these needs together, we have to understand that making heavy APC will be more challenging to war efforts. It is best to change tactics to ensure that the equipment is used in a tailor made manner for each circumstance to optimise for maximum benefit. The losses due to APC being hit by ATGM is much less than the problems caused by fuel supply. Having multiple APC design will cause problems in logistics and repair. Since APC will have to be used in tens of thousands in a major war, the fuel consumption and logistics will be a very big issue.
Useless discussion as you would never agree and start calling LMG also a "Gun".
End that here as the thread has got derailed.

Now tell me of any Indian operation in which BMPs were used...??
How were they used and what has been their efficacy ?
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
7,276
Likes
9,340
Country flag
Major Gaurav Arya with Infantry Combat Vehicle (BMP) manufactured at Ordnance Factory, Medak, Telangana. Latest version has a 30 mm gun, anti-tank missiles & a machine gun. It carries 10 soldiers , 600 kms without refueling. The average width of Pakistan is 400 kms... Salaam OFB
 

Yodha

India is my Identity
Professional
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
614
Likes
779
Country flag
Major Gaurav Arya with Infantry Combat Vehicle (BMP) manufactured at Ordnance Factory, Medak, Telangana. Latest version has a 30 mm gun, anti-tank missiles & a machine gun. It carries 10 soldiers , 600 kms without refueling. The average width of Pakistan is 400 kms... Salaam OFB
Lol... 600 Kms. Both, the imaginary mileage and 30 char restriction are funny
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
7,276
Likes
9,340
Country flag
The Himalaya is the biggest barrier against Chinese armoured invasion . If anything can pass that will be anhilated by Indian forces. But remember, time is changing. UAVs will be used by PLA in such operations, and Chinese military exercises have already hinted that
 

Akula

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
933
Likes
2,717
Country flag
The Himalaya is the biggest barrier against Chinese armoured invasion . If anything can pass that will be anhilated by Indian forces. But remember, time is changing. UAVs will be used by PLA in such operations, and Chinese military exercises have already hinted that
Have you read Prasun Sengupta's recent trishul blog related to mountain warfare?
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
7,276
Likes
9,340
Country flag
MoD approves procurement of 156 BMP vehicles from OFB
The Indian MoD has approved the procurement of the Infantry Combat Vehicle (BMP-2/Sarath) manufactured by the state-owned Ordnance Factory Medak (OFMK) which is Indian license-produced variant of the BMP-2 developed by the Soviet Union. BMP-2 Sarath is a second generation, amphibious infantry fighting vehicle introduced in the 1980s in the Soviet Union and license-produced in India from 1987 by OFMK. BMP-2 is still active with more than 30 operator countries and since 1987, OFMK has manufactured over 1250 BMP-2 for the Indian Army in various variants.
 

JBH22

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
3,831
Likes
3,038
MoD approves procurement of 156 BMP vehicles from OFB
The Indian MoD has approved the procurement of the Infantry Combat Vehicle (BMP-2/Sarath) manufactured by the state-owned Ordnance Factory Medak (OFMK) which is Indian license-produced variant of the BMP-2 developed by the Soviet Union. BMP-2 Sarath is a second generation, amphibious infantry fighting vehicle introduced in the 1980s in the Soviet Union and license-produced in India from 1987 by OFMK. BMP-2 is still active with more than 30 operator countries and since 1987, OFMK has manufactured over 1250 BMP-2 for the Indian Army in various variants.
I guess it's just to keep production line busy.
But it's a shame that they did not come with something better. Just imagine since 1990s just producing same product. They have the gumption to resist corporatization 😒
 

WolfPack86

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
7,276
Likes
9,340
Country flag
Make in India: BMP 2 vehicles for the Indian Army to be made at of Medak OF
With the Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) project being pushed to the backburner, the Ministry of Defence has cleared the proposal for procurement of 156 BMP 2 Infantry Vehicles for the Indian Army. The whole project of 156 BMP Vehicles is going to be roughly for Rs 1100 crore.

Confirming this to Financial Express Online, Dr Uddipan Mukherjee Joint Director and PRO, OFB, said, “These 156 BMP Vehicles are going to be manufactured by the Ordnance Factory Medak, which is under Ordnance Factory Board.”

In 2018, the plan was to involve the private sector companies in the upgrading of the fleet of infantry combat vehicles in which top companies including Tata and Mahindras were expected to participate in the bidding process.

The whole contract for modernizing around 1600 in service BMP2 armoured vehicles was to be done in two rounds and around 640 Soviet Origin Vehicles were to go to the private sector and depending on how the project moved the decision for the balance was expected to be taken. However, in the background, the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) was trying hard to get the balance of the BMP 2 vehicles.


What had the Indian Army proposed earlier?

A comprehensive up-gradation of BMP 2 armoured vehicles.

These vehicles are to be modernised with control systems.

To have Kornet E anti-tank missiles and third-generation night vision capability.

These vehicles have the capability to be deployed in various roles. Besides the offensive combat mission, they can be used as an armoured ambulance or an amphibious dozer.

These BMP 2 Vehicles have been renamed as ‘Sarath’ and are the mainstay of the mechanised infantry.

Over a period of time BMP platform has been used to develop a number of variants such as Armoured Engineer Recce Vehicles, Armoured Amphibious Dozers, Armoured Ambulance, Armoured Vehicle Tracked Light Repair, Missile and Mortar Carriers, NBC Recce Vehicles etc.

Expert View

“Infantry Combat Vehicle BMP2 is an extremely potent and formidable weapon platform that equips Indian Army’s Mechanised Infantry battalions,” says Brig N Bhatia, an Indian Army veteran.

Sharing a bit of the background of these vehicles, Bhatia says, “The Infantry was initially equipped with Armoured Personnel Carriers that were meant to transport it into the battlefield to keep the pace with fast-paced armoured formations. This was the birth of Battle Taxi concept where infantry was merely being moved in armoured carriers providing it limited protection from enemy weapons.”

However the concept of Battle Taxi underwent a complete change with the introduction of Russian made BMP 1 transforming it into an Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV) enabling Infantry to fight a mounted battle using its small arms from the safety of armoured protection with enhanced weapons mounted on the vehicle,” says the former officer who was first commissioned in the Mechanised Infantry.

This changed the entire concept of modern battlefield necessitating the creation of specialised Mechanised Infantry battalions in Indian Army.

“Originally sourced from erstwhile Soviet Union, an upgraded BMP went into indigenous production by setting up manufacturing facilities for BMP 2 series of ICV at Medak, now in Telangana with Russian collaboration. It is now produced with almost indigenously sourced material. It has been rechristened “Sarath” to give it an indigenous name.”

According to Bhatia, “Over last more than four decades the employment of Mechanised Infantry, equipped with BMP 2 has evolved due to its being a very versatile weapons platform. It’s light weight makes it suitable for high-speed manoeuvres, quick deployment through air transportation and its ability to float through rivers and canal networks.”

“A need is being felt to further modernise the BMP 2 under Modernised Infantry Combat Vehicle (MICV) project but this has met with little success. Overall BMP 2 will remain the mainstay of Mechanised Infantry units in the foreseeable future,” he opines.
 

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
18,312
Likes
53,558
Country flag
Make in India gets a big boost; MoD places indent for supply of 156 upgraded BMP Infantry Combat Vehicles of value Rs 1,094 Cr on OFB



In a major boost to ‘Make in India’ initiative of the Government, Acquisition Wing of Ministry of Defence (MoD) with the approval of Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh, has today placed an Indent on Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) for supply of 156 BMP 2/2k Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICV) with upgraded features for use of the Mechanised Forces of the Indian Army. Under this Indent, the ICVs will be manufactured by Ordnance Factory, Medak in Telangana at an approximate cost of Rs 1,094 crore.





The BMP-2/2K ICVs are going to be powered by 285 horse power engines and are lower in weight which will make them highly mobile to meet all tactical requirements of mobility in the battlefield. These ICVs will be able to reach a speed of 65 kilometres per hour (kmph) with easy steering ability in cross country terrain. They will have amphibious capabilities to travel at 07 kmph in water. These are designed to overcome slope of upto 35° cross obstacles of 0.7 metre and have lethal firepower capability.





With the induction of these 156 BMP 2/2K ICVs, planned to be completed by 2023, the existing deficiency in the Mechanised Infantry Battalions will be mitigated and the combat capability of the Army will be further enhanced.

 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top