Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Commercial Vehicles (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/)

-   -   Battle Tanks used by the Indian Army (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/239446-battle-tanks-used-indian-army-3.html)

AFAIK the 3BM32, 42 series 125mm smooth bores are DU capable.

Cracks knuckles...I mean military tactics is not a subject that comes up frequently here now.

An MBT means Main Battle Tank and would pre 1957 have been classified as Medium or Heavy tanks.

Leaving aside the classification that emerged in WW1 (As they aren't relevant to us), in WW2 a distinct pattern emerged.

Tanks are typically used in many roles.

1 - Infantry Support. This is when tanks advance with an infantry unit, providing both fire support, fire suppression and cover.

2 - Recon. These are the ultra light armoured tanks that move very fast and used to scout enemy positions or enemy armour

3 - Amphibious assaults

The above 2 roles were covered by light tanks.

At the start of the war though, all tanks were pretty much light. The German Panzer Mk 1 & 2, the American M2 Stuarts, the Japanese type 95 Ha Go (don't laugh, it literally was the Hago rl:)

Then an arms race began, with countries slapping more armour and powerful guns, to counter it the Russians very cleverly adopted a sloped armour (this deflects most of the kinetic energy of a shell) but the others who lacked this technology simply kept slapping armour.

Distinct roles began to emerge.

Already covered the role of light tanks

Medium tanks were your "MBT's", the Panthers, the Panzer Mk4's, the Shermans and THE ABSOLUTE war winner, the T34. These were your workhorse tanks. They were a combination of fast, heavily armoured and had a solid punch.

Heavy tanks were the defensive backbone (or in rare cases like in the Battle of Kursk, used as an offensive weapon). These were super heavy, not very mobile (and in the case of the German Tiger and Konigstiger, prone to breakdowns - over engineering was a big problem) but rock solid. In many cases they were sent to a portion of the front under attack, dug in (till the hull) and then became a rock solid defensive point.

Tanks were classified basis weight, and still are. The weight comes from the armour and gun but mostly the armour. So a thinly armoured tank would trade safety for mobility while a heavy tank would trade mobility for well...being a literal tank.

However post 1957, these classifications became redundant. You had one master of all trades called the MBT (which was the WW2 equivalent of a medium + heavy tank). You still had and have specialist tanks like a flame thrower tank, bridge laying tank, mine sweeper and the light tank.

The need for a fast moving recon, arty observing, infantry supporting light tank remains.

Now why do we need this in the Himalayas?

2 reasons,

A lot of bridges have to be crossed and many of these do not have the ability to bear the 45 tonnes that our T90's weigh.

The mountain passes with snow drifts, gradients etc are not conducive to these beasts of war also.

India though has been obsessed by our western neighbour, and the desert is an ideal environment to operate MBT's (heavy + medium), so we never had a light tank doctrine (armies have doctrines according to which equipment is purchased and used). Though we used light tanks in the 47 war brilliantly. Gen Thimaya surprised Pakistani raiders by airlifting light tanks and then setting them loose where they never expected it.

We used light tanks to brilliant effect again in 1962 (French AMX's), but since then the IA has been obsessed like the German army of WW2, with heavy tanks.

But the latest border issue has woken up our command to the need for a light (15 tonnes) tank to patrol the high Himalayas.

The M1 Abrams is famous for not having a traditional ICE powerplant, instead it relies on a gas turbine. While immensely thirsty, one of the benefits to it, is that really it can run on any combustible fuel in theory (I believe there is a running joke in the armoured command that they could get it to run it on used fry oil if push came to shove).

During the Vietnam War the Americans developed the M551 Sheridan, a light tank specifically designed to be airdropped into the country by parachute. Interestingly it's stubby little main gun was geared to fire both conventional ammunition and guided missiles.

Anyway, coming back to the whole categorisation of armoured vehicles, all I need to add is MISSION CREEP. And what better way to demonstrate the perils of mission creep *******ising a platform from it's original clip than the ever salient and painfully real Pentagon Wars. I highly recommend watching the clip because it's the perfect encapsulation of how so many military programmes have been waylaid by overambitious mission planners and end users not staying focused..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

Merkava in Hebrew means chariot as far as I'm aware. Fittingly enough the engine is mounted at the front of the chassis, where the horses would've been as IDF personnel tend to joke. The Merkava is very much unique in the MBT world because it reflects its rather unique circumstances. The IDF set out from the outset to build a tank that was uniquely tailored to their own needs (feeling the tanks it had operated till then were not adaptable enough for their requirements), operating in the deserts of the Sinai; the mountainous Golan Heights; and not to mention the crowded urban environments. As such a lot of the features on the Merkava were a result of those end use scenarios, and much like Windows 10 was originally set out to be the final, continually updated version of Windows, the Merkava has been endlessly updated through the years. I think the Israelis were one of the first to jerry rig the weighted chains hanging off the edges of the turret to protect the vulnerable join between it and the main chassis.

I've often wondered how come the Merkava hasn't seen much export success and it comes down to it's origins. That tailor made design to IDF requirements has meant it hasn't appealed to the more typical usage scenarios your armoured command leaders would be looking at.

In closing I'll share some photos I've managed to take of tanks I've spotted in recent years:


A tan T-55 you'll encounter if you were to visit the Imperial War Museum North in Salford (I really need to get around to posting some of the other photos from my trip there..)


If anyone finds themselves wandering around the suburbs of Manchester (Didsbury if you're really keen) you'll come across this APC belonging to rather an eccentric gent. It has a road certificate and is just one amongst the many in his collection. I also happen to know he used to go on a night out in town with it for birthdays!

Yes, they may be DU capable but from what I read earlier, and based on publicly available knowledge, India uses Tungsten alloy penetrators and not DU for the APFSDS shells, which are being license made here now.

There are a few Russian shells (3BM46/3BM59/3BM69) that use DU, but AFAIK India does not use/have them.

Quoting from another Link

Arjun uses domestically designed and produced 120mm APFSDS shells, and as per DRDO, this also uses Tungsten alloy penetrator.

Insane footage of a Russian T-72 going over two different anti-tank mines. After a couple of seconds, it took a hit from an Ukrainian anti-tank guided missile. The tank was toast (as expected) but the crew survived (apparently).
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1531689763215921163



Ukraine War: Footage Shows Russian Tank Taking Landmine, Missile Hit
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/ukra...le-hit-3029719

This tank took a lot of beating to say the least. And if indeed the crew survived is testimony to this tank's design and the crews nimbleness.

Wow, that really is insane as quoted. Hats off to this particular T72. A video that can single handedly take a fight to the "MBTs are dead relics of past" argument.

What stumped me further was the way the tank crew has reacted after the tank got incapacitated. They are standing atop the tank - literally like targets for anyone with a rifle. Even after the missile hit the survivors are rather slow in reaction. I understand that they are definitely stunned by the blast. But then - later, after the tank starts to flame from inside (potential ammo cook-off) - they take refuge right there instead of trying to get away into some other safety area! I mean unless out of ammo - that tank is a time-bomb in itself by now. Is that just some one off, or the general training level of the crews out there I wonder!

It definitely looks like they were Shell Shocked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_shock

Quick question:

Was just watching the Republic Day parade highlights. Noticed the Arjun leading the contingent in terms of domestically derived/built arms. However the slab sided turret tells me it's just the Mk1 iteration, not the A spec with the sloped sides. Do they leave the Mk1's for parade duty and such like? Imagine the Army would rather have the 1A's for frontline service.

Found this on Twitter so I thought I would share. For those people doubting the effectiveness of Tanks (especially Russian Tanks):

Real life Russian Rambo, one Russian tank(probably a T-72 or T-90) goes on a Kamikaze mission against 8 Ukrainian armoured vehicles including tanks at point blank range and knocks them all out.



https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/statu...162678785?s=20

(you have to login to Twitter to view)

Wow, reminds me the battle tank game of 90s in God mode. T-34 incarnation? :D

Here is more of a armchair analysis of someone who has no connection to anything blowing off for miles.

Seems like the lone wolf tank was used to draw out the Ukrainian cavalry to open and there seems to be other support like artillery and machine guns and SU-24 were deployed to tackle the Ukrainian. But as it span out the lone wolf was enough. The speed and fire power (Ukrainian tanks' turret flew off) points to T90 though.

I am more interested in the equipment deployed by Ukrainian though (leopard and Bradley?). A convoy of 2 tanks and 6 armored came in to tackle one tank which is way out of its line and being roasted toasted to crisp by themselves within 3 minutes speak more of the quality of men than the machine though.

Again, detachment of turret were ideally attributed to Russian tanks than western. Interesting to know which western tank got that tag to itself here.

Side note: someone give that UAV handler a cricket commentary job (sans the language) ;).

I'm equally amazed at the camera & power of UAV looking at the clarity of the video footage.

OT: M10 Booker light tank

Some news that flew under the radar and surprised me, I thought worth sharing. Seems the US Army has quietly launched a new armoured vehicle, the M10 Booker, a light tank for all intents and purposes.

It's an intriguing platform, and I'm curious how it's basically been announced with little to no fanfare. The timing of the launch is also incredibly interesting given the revival of the existential discourse on the role of heavy armour (ie tanks) in the aftermath of the Russian invasion.

What strikes me is that despite the myriad threats to armour now (from basically all vectors), any military armour officer is still sticking with their wish list for expeditionary armour, ie light tanks or mobile armour, that won't have the protection and heft of a full MBT but with the ability to still bring a big gun to the infantry companies they'll accompany. When you think again about the way Ukraine has used their non MBT assets in the past few months but more specifically the looming prospect of a great power showdown in the Pacific, expeditionary warfare is back in vogue in a big way. And it's not just the US Army needing light armour to surge out in a ground war across the First Island Chain with the PLA, if you think about the sort of remote frontier battlefields in an Indian context, you run into a whole host of infrastructural and access related bottlenecks to fielding MBTs for any side. Indian Army personnel have at times made their desire for a light tank clear (correct me if I'm wrong but the PLA already have their own light tank or equivalent that they're hoping to use in those high altitude frontiers?).

'Tanks' aren't looking to go anywhere yet but to me at least it seems we might see some variance away from the increasingly portly MBTs that have characterised the space for the last 3 decades.

Coming back to the M10 Booker, it's a fascinating design. The Americans look to have taken a page from the Israeli's and adopted a front engined layout similar to the Merkava. They've also wisely gone with a (relatively speaking) fuel efficient plain old diesel powerplant instead of the M1A2's thirsty and exotic turbine. Again, pragmatic choices that hint at the fact that they expect the Booker to operate away from the security of defended fuel supply lines.

Here's the video that brought it to my attention:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LfgYd6ZN8

The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) has cleared the purchase of so called "future-ready combat vehicles (FRCVs)" to replace the T-72s operated by the Indian Army.

A total of 1,770 tanks will be purchased in phases at a rate of 590 tanks per phase. Not much details exist but the approval states that the tank should weigh less than 60 tonnes - smaller than the beleaguered Arjun tank program. The Army will now issue an Expression of Interest (EoI) detailing the exact specification and technology it wants and will shortlist two private companies (thankfully!). Both companies will produce prototypes and the tank will also be produced by multiple companies.

The tank will carry a crew of 4, so they probably won't have auto-loaders like Russian tanks and will have a design more similar to Arjun or Western tanks.

If the Zorawar program is anything to go by (which was developed only after the India-China clashes in 2020), this should be developed fairly quickly.

This is one cool potential rendering of the FRCV (source: defence.in):

Is this FRCV the same as FMBT?

As per this idrw article, the Indian Army is yet to issue a General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR) document for the FMBT. It's been 15 years since this project was proposed.
idrw | 15 year wait for FMBT's GSQR

Looks like Arjun 2.0 in the making
_

The renders look pretty good though



Like an Armata but home grown.

That article itself seem to indicate seem to indicate that these are different programs with the FRCV apparently being meant to be developed with a foreign partner while the FMBT would be locally developed by DRDO. But then the earlier article seem to indicate that the FRCV contract would be awarded to private vendors but nothing about foreign partners, they’d even be required to make prototypes according to the earlier article on the FRCV.

Our private players (with DRDO support offcourse) have shown their capability of developing a tank on their own with the Zorawar, so I guess we can have some faith that this can lead somewhere.