Indian Army General News And Updates

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,126
6,751
India
No 22-25 ton is gonna resist any hit from any vehicle armed even with a 40mm canon with armour piercing rounds.

The most modern IFVs in Europe has all round protection against 14.5mm Russian HMG fire, and frontal arc protection of 20mm-30mm Armour piercing rounds. And that itself makes all of them heavy above the weight of 32tons. Even with ERA at STANAG level 5 protection those European IFVs weighing upto 42 Tons provide frontal arc protection from older generation tank ammo only.

If we have WhAPs today with a Bofors or even Russian 57mm with armour piercing ammo, they would be alone taking out those Chinese light tanks.


See the term light tank is a misnomer. It is at the end of the day just an APC/IFV with a larger caliber main gun. And the problem doesn't stop here, even that main gun gets restrictions as it cannot be too heavy. So even those guns aren't utilised to their full potential.

Pretty much. The Sprut is dead. Even the Russians don't want it. The paratroopers are instead going for the BDM-4M upgraded with the T-90MS main gun. It also carries some troops, so this is the only good tracked option available.

The alternatives with a big gun are Stryker MGS, Centauro or the upcoming French Jaguar. But they are wheeled and will need an APS with the ability to stop tank shells. None of them are survivable against the Chinese Type 15. They don't have the firepower of the T-90MS's gun either, or have to be modified with one. Of course, an Indian option like the WhAP can also become a contender then.

The MBTs are to prevent the Chinese from coming deep inside India. The light tanks are needed in places where the MBTs cannot operate, especially when on the offensive. We need something that can take out their tanks, and you need tanks for that. Take Pangong Tso for example. The only alternative is to either send the tanks over by boats, which is not possible, or air drop them. So we are choosing the latter. And for that we need lighter tanks with a simpler logistics chain. Same case with a lot of other areas. Hence the need for an air-dropped tank.

Neither the BDM-4M nor the WhAP can survive against the Type 15, although the BDM has the ability to shred the Type 15 with its massive gun. And then, the Type 15 is set to get an APS, so defeating it with missiles is going to be extremely hard. Hence the need for a tank with a big gun. And whatever we buy right now from the market is going to be outclassed by the Type 15 anyway because of the APS advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ankit Kumar

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
654
511
Delhi
No 22-25 ton is gonna resist any hit from any vehicle armed even with a 40mm canon with armour piercing rounds.

The most modern IFVs in Europe has all round protection against 14.5mm Russian HMG fire, and frontal arc protection of 20mm-30mm Armour piercing rounds. And that itself makes all of them heavy above the weight of 32tons. Even with ERA at STANAG level 5 protection those European IFVs weighing upto 42 Tons provide frontal arc protection from older generation tank ammo only.

If we have WhAPs today with a Bofors or even Russian 57mm with armour piercing ammo, they would be alone taking out those Chinese light tanks.


See the term light tank is a misnomer. It is at the end of the day just an APC/IFV with a larger caliber main gun. And the problem doesn't stop here, even that main gun gets restrictions as it cannot be too heavy. So even those guns aren't utilised to their full potential.
T90 with the newer V96 engines and T72 with V92S2 is all we need.
Do we have any idea about the approx armour distribution on the type 15? I doubt that even the 57mm Russian cannon can penetrate , I have doubts regarding the 125 mm too. The armour distribution seems above average for a light tank, and I doubt mango apfsds could actually penetrate it. Plus it has advantage on the FCS and first shot capability compared to our t72's. I doubt our armour will survive against the type 15 if our t72 still use kontakt 1...
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,126
6,751
India
Do we have any idea about the approx armour distribution on the type 15? I doubt that even the 57mm Russian cannon can penetrate , I have doubts regarding the 125 mm too. The armour distribution seems above average for a light tank, and I doubt mango apfsds could actually penetrate it. Plus it has advantage on the FCS and first shot capability compared to our t72's. I doubt our armour will survive against the type 15 if our t72 still use kontakt 1...

I had already pointed that out earlier.

This is the export model called VT5.


Look at the size of the frontal armour, right up to the bolts. That's as much as 0.5m, the same size as the crew holes. The two Xs are the blast panel, protecting the crew from any sort of ammo cook-off, which is a huge advantage over the T-72. The turret side armour should protect the tank from ATGMs. The hull armour is pretty big as well, and should easily protect the driver from the Mango.

So the above is the export model, whereas this could be the one we will be facing.


The actual version is definitely more beefy than the VT5.

The gun is 105mm, but it apparently fires shells with the same or more DoP as the Mango, so it's a match for the T-72 and T-90's guns.

They will eventually make a Type 15B or C etc, add APS, perhaps even a 120mm gun.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Lolwa

Sathya

Senior member
Dec 2, 2017
1,950
1,083
India
We are already making T90 tanks..

Why can't we design mordern medium tank fast..?

Like merging wht ever learnt in T90 & Arjun?

Why are we stuck up with only Arjun.
 

Ankit Kumar

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,305
2,089
Bangalore
We are already making T90 tanks..

Why can't we design mordern medium tank fast..?

Like merging wht ever learnt in T90 & Arjun?

Why are we stuck up with only Arjun.
Our total R&D budget for Nirbhay was less than the cost of procurement of few Harpoons for Type209 subs.

If we are not willing to invest, then obviously how do we expect results.

Second problem is that in our system there is a huge understanding gap between what the Armed Forces want and the development agencies. Without a workable relationship, it's not going to help.

You see if our budget for Tejas development was a bit more, where we could have provided for 3-4 more test pilots and support crew, the whole timeline could have accelerated by atleast 12-18 months in the worst case scenario.

Even now if only say we had few extra test pilots and support crew, we would have been working on certification of twin seater LCA, getting the canon certified and testing and integration of technologies required for MK1A.

But with the limited resources, all we are as of now managing to do is to iron out the teething issues in FOC aircrafts and thinking about starting work on AESA integration and testing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bali78 and Sathya

Ankit Kumar

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,305
2,089
Bangalore
Do we have any idea about the approx armour distribution on the type 15? I doubt that even the 57mm Russian cannon can penetrate , I have doubts regarding the 125 mm too. The armour distribution seems above average for a light tank, and I doubt mango apfsds could actually penetrate it. Plus it has advantage on the FCS and first shot capability compared to our t72's. I doubt our armour will survive against the type 15 if our t72 still use kontakt 1...
I had already pointed that out earlier.

This is the export model called VT5.


Look at the size of the frontal armour, right up to the bolts. That's as much as 0.5m, the same size as the crew holes. The two Xs are the blast panel, protecting the crew from any sort of ammo cook-off, which is a huge advantage over the T-72. The turret side armour should protect the tank from ATGMs. The hull armour is pretty big as well, and should easily protect the driver from the Mango.

So the above is the export model, whereas this could be the one we will be facing.


The actual version is definitely more beefy than the VT5.

The gun is 105mm, but it apparently fires shells with the same or more DoP as the Mango, so it's a match for the T-72 and T-90's guns.

They will eventually make a Type 15B or C etc, add APS, perhaps even a 120mm gun.


The ZTQ holds advantage over our T72CIA in 3 things. It's ERA is of 2nd generation compared to 1st generation DRDO ERA MK1. It has a 1000hp engine reportedly (although I belive it's 730hp engine , not 1000hp one) and it has better awareness for the commander.

But.... A big but. It is still just a 32 ton tank with a 105mm rifled gun.

Our T72CIA has enough armour protection to take multiple hits from it. There are no second questions on it.

And at 32 tons , all it has a frontal layer of 2nd gen ERA and then it's thin armour. Our T72 even with its present ammo is capable enough of taking them out at ranges where this tank will not be able to fire at us.

Sheridan and Scorpion were the greatest light tank designs, if we really want a light tank, we need to take lessons from those two tanks.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,126
6,751
India
But.... A big but. It is still just a 32 ton tank with a 105mm rifled gun.

Our T72CIA has enough armour protection to take multiple hits from it. There are no second questions on it.

The Type 15 should be able to survive more hits than the T-72 can though.

And at 32 tons , all it has a frontal layer of 2nd gen ERA and then it's thin armour. Our T72 even with its present ammo is capable enough of taking them out at ranges where this tank will not be able to fire at us.

Not really. This is what I'm getting at. The Type 15's armour LOS is bigger than the T-72's by at least 20%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lolwa

Lolwa

Well-Known member
Feb 6, 2020
654
511
Delhi
We really need a project to upgun our t72 and t90 to 2a46m5. The situation might get worse if the Cheenis use the type 96/99 and somehow field it in ladakh .
 

Chain Smoker

Active member
Mar 2, 2020
235
207
india
Pretty much. The Sprut is dead. Even the Russians don't want it. The paratroopers are instead going for the BDM-4M upgraded with the T-90MS main gun. It also carries some troops, so this is the only good tracked option available.

The alternatives with a big gun are Stryker MGS, Centauro or the upcoming French Jaguar. But they are wheeled and will need an APS with the ability to stop tank shells. None of them are survivable against the Chinese Type 15. They don't have the firepower of the T-90MS's gun either, or have to be modified with one. Of course, an Indian option like the WhAP can also become a contender then.

The MBTs are to prevent the Chinese from coming deep inside India. The light tanks are needed in places where the MBTs cannot operate, especially when on the offensive. We need something that can take out their tanks, and you need tanks for that. Take Pangong Tso for example. The only alternative is to either send the tanks over by boats, which is not possible, or air drop them. So we are choosing the latter. And for that we need lighter tanks with a simpler logistics chain. Same case with a lot of other areas. Hence the need for an air-dropped tank.

Neither the BDM-4M nor the WhAP can survive against the Type 15, although the BDM has the ability to shred the Type 15 with its massive gun. And then, the Type 15 is set to get an APS, so defeating it with missiles is going to be extremely hard. Hence the need for a tank with a big gun. And whatever we buy right now from the market is going to be outclassed by the Type 15 anyway because of the APS advantage.
u r hoping too much on APS. It can't stop the salvo of CLGM and APFSPDS. And moreover biggest threat to tank is enemy artillery .
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,126
6,751
India
u r hoping too much on APS. It can't stop the salvo of CLGM and APFSPDS. And moreover biggest threat to tank is enemy artillery .

Can't help it. It's either get APS and have some protection or don't get APS and have zero protection. The options we have available today do not have the armour necessary to handle a tank gun. When it comes to salvos, it depends on how many hardkill countermeasures you have deployed from the angle of the incoming attack.

As for artillery, it's not really an anti-tank system, since the shells cannot be individually guided. So you just pray you don't get hit. And you are such a tiny target that all shells are more likely to not achieve a direct hit. You need counter battery fire support when it comes to dealing with artillery.
 

Ginvincible

Well-Known member
Dec 5, 2017
373
410
Ohio
Pretty much. The Sprut is dead. Even the Russians don't want it. The paratroopers are instead going for the BDM-4M upgraded with the T-90MS main gun. It also carries some troops, so this is the only good tracked option available.

The alternatives with a big gun are Stryker MGS, Centauro or the upcoming French Jaguar. But they are wheeled and will need an APS with the ability to stop tank shells. None of them are survivable against the Chinese Type 15. They don't have the firepower of the T-90MS's gun either, or have to be modified with one. Of course, an Indian option like the WhAP can also become a contender then.

The MBTs are to prevent the Chinese from coming deep inside India. The light tanks are needed in places where the MBTs cannot operate, especially when on the offensive. We need something that can take out their tanks, and you need tanks for that. Take Pangong Tso for example. The only alternative is to either send the tanks over by boats, which is not possible, or air drop them. So we are choosing the latter. And for that we need lighter tanks with a simpler logistics chain. Same case with a lot of other areas. Hence the need for an air-dropped tank.

Neither the BDM-4M nor the WhAP can survive against the Type 15, although the BDM has the ability to shred the Type 15 with its massive gun. And then, the Type 15 is set to get an APS, so defeating it with missiles is going to be extremely hard. Hence the need for a tank with a big gun. And whatever we buy right now from the market is going to be outclassed by the Type 15 anyway because of the APS advantage.

There is also the Swedish CV-90, which is technically classified as a infantry fighting vehicle, but has light tank variants with 105mm rifled and 120mm smooth-bore guns. It was designed to fight in the Scandinavian mountains and subarctic northern regions, but I have no idea how it well it would perform in Himalayan conditions. Then again, its only combat service thus far has been in Afghanistan so....🤷‍♂️

swedishCV-90.PNG

Though I'm unsure if its a viable option due to its weak armor, but then again none of the other light tank options you mentioned can survive against the Type-15 so its a moot point. It is also quite underpowered, and I'm guessing very expensive (it cost 4-5 million Euros in the mid-2000s!).

I personally think it would be better to develop an in-house light tank/tank destroyer while assuming a defense posture with heavier tanks til it is ready. Or at the very least, induct something with some commonality with existing platforms to reduce logistical strain which will be a huge issue with any expeditionary force.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,126
6,751
India
There is also the Swedish CV-90, which is technically classified as a infantry fighting vehicle, but has light tank variants with 105mm rifled and 120mm smooth-bore guns. It was designed to fight in the Scandinavian mountains and subarctic northern regions, but I have no idea how it well it would perform in Himalayan conditions. Then again, its only combat service thus far has been in Afghanistan so....🤷‍♂️


Though I'm unsure if its a viable option due to its weak armor, but then again none of the other light tank options you mentioned can survive against the Type-15 so its a moot point. It is also quite underpowered, and I'm guessing very expensive (it cost 4-5 million Euros in the mid-2000s!).

I personally think it would be better to develop an in-house light tank/tank destroyer while assuming a defense posture with heavier tanks til it is ready. Or at the very least, induct something with some commonality with existing platforms to reduce logistical strain which will be a huge issue with any expeditionary force.

CV-90 is 30T plus. So goes back to the same problem of whether it can be air dropped or not. There's also the question of how many roads and bridges are available that can handle no more than 25T or so, in order to prevent the Chinese crossing over with heavier tanks. Possibly why the IA wants a limit of 22T. The Polish PL-01 concept was built around the CV-90. At 35T, all it can do is protect itself against 25mm cannons. Any attempt to up-armour it will take it to 40T. The Chinese Type 15 is built similar to the Polish tank, but is up-armoured with an additional 4T of armour when necessary. There's also the Kurganets-25 coming up in a similar class.

The FRCV is supposed to give us a light tank. So we have some sort of a plan for the future. But we've got nothing right now.
 

Ginvincible

Well-Known member
Dec 5, 2017
373
410
Ohio
CV-90 is 30T plus. So goes back to the same problem of whether it can be air dropped or not. There's also the question of how many roads and bridges are available that can handle no more than 25T or so, in order to prevent the Chinese crossing over with heavier tanks. Possibly why the IA wants a limit of 22T....

I was meaning to ask about that. Why would India elect for airborne forces over beefier and more capable ground forces and infrastructure?

I get it, airborne forces are wonderful. They let you deploy fully functional shock troopers anywhere at a moment's notice. But they are expensive to raise and maintain, require a lot of training and are logistically complex. Russia has the largest airborne forces in the world, but they sort of need to have them because of how vast their territory is. They simply cannot build and maintain enough infrastructure to move troops to the Russian Far East in a timely manner and so rely on airborne forces to hold the line until the main ground army can mobilize. The US uses them for overseas interventions, the Soviets used them to this end too. India doesn't really face any of these challenges as it currently has no interest in foreign intervention and stations troops close to conflict zones along the border and in its hinterlands.

While I think airborne forces with armored vehicles and artillery are great, I think it would be foolish to prioritize that over a rapid strike capability over land (or over a lake for instance). I think the costs of getting airborne forces outweigh the value having better equipped ground forces provide. The current paratroopers used by the IA should be sufficient for blowing up bridges, sabotage behind enemy lines, opening new fronts to create pressure, etc. until India's economy and ability to spend more grows.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,126
6,751
India
I was meaning to ask about that. Why would India elect for airborne forces over beefier and more capable ground forces and infrastructure?

I get it, airborne forces are wonderful. They let you deploy fully functional shock troopers anywhere at a moment's notice. But they are expensive to raise and maintain, require a lot of training and are logistically complex. Russia has the largest airborne forces in the world, but they sort of need to have them because of how vast their territory is. They simply cannot build and maintain enough infrastructure to move troops to the Russian Far East in a timely manner and so rely on airborne forces to hold the line until the main ground army can mobilize. The US uses them for overseas interventions, the Soviets used them to this end too. India doesn't really face any of these challenges as it currently has no interest in foreign intervention and stations troops close to conflict zones along the border and in its hinterlands.

While I think airborne forces with armored vehicles and artillery are great, I think it would be foolish to prioritize that over a rapid strike capability over land (or over a lake for instance). I think the costs of getting airborne forces outweigh the value having better equipped ground forces provide. The current paratroopers used by the IA should be sufficient for blowing up bridges, sabotage behind enemy lines, opening new fronts to create pressure, etc. until India's economy and ability to spend more grows.

Dedicated airborne equipment are easy to supply during war because they are designed to use as little supplies as possible and are easily transportable.

It's not like there's a plan to actually drop literally all them from the air. But some of it will definitely be air dropped, and then it doesn't make sense to have two different supply chains for equipment meant to do the same thing.

Then there's terrain as well. Airborne equipment is made amphibious, so all the water bodies in Tibet can become easily traversable. Take Pangong Tso for example. There is no road connecting the Fingers on our side. So tanks will have to swim across, which is an advantage for us if we procure amphibious tanks. The Chinese only have the choice of an air drop, which can be countered by air defence.
 

Ginvincible

Well-Known member
Dec 5, 2017
373
410
Ohio
Dedicated airborne equipment are easy to supply during war because they are designed to use as little supplies as possible and are easily transportable.

It's not like there's a plan to actually drop literally all them from the air. But some of it will definitely be air dropped, and then it doesn't make sense to have two different supply chains for equipment meant to do the same thing.

Then there's terrain as well. Airborne equipment is made amphibious, so all the water bodies in Tibet can become easily traversable. Take Pangong Tso for example. There is no road connecting the Fingers on our side. So tanks will have to swim across, which is an advantage for us if we procure amphibious tanks. The Chinese only have the choice of an air drop, which can be countered by air defence.

Followup question, why was the BMP-2 based light tank discarded? It was amphibious, built upon a platform India has a lot of experience with, and had a (admittedly underpowered) 105mm gun.

Additionally, could BMP-2 units complemented by NAMICA be a workable solution? I have no idea if the BMP-2 chassis can operate effectively at those altitudes (engine output would likely suffer a lot eh?), and I know the NAG missile has relatively short legs... but that seems like something India could pull off in a pinch. Although, again, both of these aren't air dropped.

Its a shame India sat on acquiring LCH and ULH platforms for so long, it only adds fuel to the fire for lacking a light tank to operate in the Himalayan theater as well.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,126
6,751
India
Followup question, why was the BMP-2 based light tank discarded? It was amphibious, built upon a platform India has a lot of experience with, and had a (admittedly underpowered) 105mm gun.

No clue. I bet there were 101 problems and more.

Additionally, could BMP-2 units complemented by NAMICA be a workable solution? I have no idea if the BMP-2 chassis can operate effectively at those altitudes (engine output would likely suffer a lot eh?), and I know the NAG missile has relatively short legs... but that seems like something India could pull off in a pinch. Although, again, both of these aren't air dropped.

BMP-2 is operated in Ladakh. But it's unlikely to be inducted in the SPG form. The new BMD-4 with the T-90MS's gun is entering state trials in Russia, so there's no point going after the BMP when 100 BMD-4s can be bought instead. It's called Sprut SDM-1. The numbers required are too small for our own development program. But the new Sprut could also take time.

The Nag's 4Km range is pretty good. Don't think the terrain is good enough for longer range than that. The new T-90 gun should give us accurate firepower up to 6Km, max range goes up to 8Km with the more advanced thermal sights. The new CLGM for the T-90 is also capable of 6Km.

Its a shame India sat on acquiring LCH and ULH platforms for so long, it only adds fuel to the fire for lacking a light tank to operate in the Himalayan theater as well.

DRDO vetoed attempts by IA/IAF and HAL to equip the LCH with Hellfire or any other foreign ATGM. So there's that delay. LUH is still WIP. It received IOC this year, so a small order should come in soon. But both are critical requirements and it's unfortunate that politics has delayed them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ginvincible

janme

Active member
Apr 17, 2020
160
102
India
Our total R&D budget for Nirbhay was less than the cost of procurement of few Harpoons for Type209 subs.

If we are not willing to invest, then obviously how do we expect results.
This is not the problem of government but DRDO's fault, its not the government which decides the budget but DRDO forwards its requirement and then government allots the money. Typically they will allot around 83 to 85% of money required( MOD annual report), DRDO's problem is that it tries to bite more than it can chew and sets unrealistic expectations. Rustom and Nirbhay are prime examples of disasters done by DRDO.
 

sid4587

Active member
Jan 10, 2018
373
184
India
It's not like there's a plan to actually drop literally all them from the air. But some of it will definitely be air dropped, and then it doesn't make sense to have two different supply chains for equipment meant to do the same thing.

Then there's terrain as well. Airborne equipment is made amphibious, so all the water bodies in Tibet can become easily traversable. Take Pangong Tso for example. There is no road connecting the Fingers on our side. So tanks will have to swim across, which is an advantage for us if we procure amphibious tanks. The Chinese only have the choice of an air drop, which can be countered by air defence.
what is the plan to take them back? i mean for deploying we can air drop but at some point they will be taken back right or will they all die there? just curious to know
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
9,126
6,751
India
what is the plan to take them back? i mean for deploying we can air drop but at some point they will be taken back right or will they all die there? just curious to know

Paratroopers have to either win/survive or die. If they win, they will be relieved by other ground forces once they link up with the paratroopers. If they don't succeed in their mission, then they are either killed or captured. Or they have to be rescued by other ground forces, if possible, which means they have to survive as long as possible.

Paratroopers and ground troops have to work in tandem. Which means you can't just take a division and then fly off to Mongolia and drop them in the desert if there's no chance of a link up happening with ground troops.