Stupidity. They should get anti tank equipments. Things like drones, anti tank missiles. For laddakh, these baby tanks are not a good purchase. I remember @hellfire also commenting the same.
Zorawar: Light tank for Indian army
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
It depends on the requirements.
Wheeled MGS are not tracked, carry passengers and generally have weaker guns. Wheeled MGS has many options to choose from, not just the Stryker. Like the Centauro II with a 120mm gun vs the Stryker's 105mm.
The SDM1 is a proper tank, without heavy armour, and actually has more firepower than our T-90s, with the ability to carry long rods. Any potential amphibious requirement may add to that. A very important quality is it has a hydropneumatic suspension which helps in increasing the elevation of the gun in mountain terrain. And the fact that it can be air dropped, this could be a pretty important feature for us. This could allow us to cut the bigger tanks off from their logistics chains.
Anyway, this requirement seems to be for a very specific purpose and we need a regiment's worth. So that's 44 to 52 tanks.
The requirement doesn't make much sense anyway, whether it's the Sprut or the wheeled MGS. Both have insufficient protection for a tank vs tank battle. And the Sprut in particular can become a maintenance nightmare.
What makes more sense is the DRDO's plan to mate the K9 Vajra hull with the T-90 turret to get a 35-ton tank for the overall 350 tank requirement. So it's fine if the Sprut ends with 1 regiment. Maybe they plan to use it around the lakes, where its ability to float and its gigantic gun can be used for some innovtive tactics and the logistics chain will not be unnecessarily stressed.
Then there's the Korean K21-105 with 42deg gun elevation. The Sprut has only STANAG Level 2 protection while the K21 has Level 4 at the sides and Level 5 from the front while weighing just 25T. It only lacks the air drop capability.
In case our only option is to import all 350 tanks, then the Korean option makes far more sense than the Sprut. But we may be looking to develop our own tank with the help of a foreign partner, and all IP will belong to the Indian partner.
Someone on twitter said the gun on the K21 does not feature a high pressure gun unlike, Type 15 and Sprut. Have you considered that?
The K21 and Type 15 have pretty much the same gun. Both are 105mm rifled and the K21's gun is actually advertised to be good up to 4Km, roughly the same as the Type 15, although the VT5 is advertised to have an effective range of 3Km, but that's for export. The advantage with the K21's gun is it can fire a number of different NATO rounds. The Sprut stands out with a 125mm smoothbore gun, it's derived from the T-90's gun. But if the Sprut's gun fires only the Mango shell, then the 105mm guns will match it easily.
In a tank vs tank battle, amongst these three, it's not going to make a big difference since the firepower is roughly equal to what our T-90S can currently manage today. The 105mm with its faster firing rate and other advantages would be the better option. Plus it's more than enough for pretty much every other target out there except the ZTZ-99. And in areas where the ZTZ-99 operates, we will have the T-90 anyway. Some questions remain about the Sprut's integration with the gun, we have to wait and watch.
The only question is if the IA want the airdrop capability, which means you get only a STANAG Level 2 armour with the Sprut, or not, which in turn will get you either STANAG Level 5 (K-21/105) or even full tank armour (Vajra with T-90 turret). The Vajra/T-90 combo won't get you both the amphibious capability and the airdrop.
There's also the question of how well the airdrop capability will actually work at high altitude. Especially their plan to drop it with the crew still inside.
I get the feeling the Spruts are for the Paras. If each battalion gets 5 tanks each, then we can equip atleast 9 battalions. That's all our 9 SF battalions of Paras.
These tanks will be operated jointly with T-90 and Arjun. They will be assigned in small numbers to these regiments. In addtion, they will form the Para Brigade based IBG. Imagine these tanks being dropped at the rear of the enemy lines where they do not have any tank available for 100s of kilometer. Places like Rutog etc. They can dramatically change the battle picture due to their air drop capability.
I think you're referring to the overall 350 tank requirement. But the army is not looking to airdrop these tanks as per the RFI. So these could end up in mixed formations.
The Sprut requirement for just 45 or so seems to be for something else entirely, which is why I assumed they are all for the Paras specifically.
Do they have proper armour protection to call it as a tank?
Tank | Facts, History, & Pictures | Britannica
Tank, any heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on two endless metal chains called tracks. Tanks are essentially weapons platforms that make the weapons mounted in them more effective by their cross-country mobility and by the protection they provide for their crews.
www.britannica.com
Ladakh intrusions highlight India’s need for a light tank
If you want a vehicle which can atleast survive a 120mm HEAT/HESH in the frontal arc, that vehicle weight will be 40+ tons.
Modern IFVs in Europe with a capability to withstand Armour Piercing rounds from 30mm Russian canon weighs 30+ tons. Just for the frontal arc.
If we are looking to counter Chinese light tank, then a light tank is the most idiotic solution.
L&T ready to partner with Hanwha Defense on light tank offer to India
India's Larsen & Toubro (L&T) has said it is prepared to produce light tanks with South Korea's Hanwha Defense for the Indian Army.
www.janes.com
The idea is the firepower delivered by a tank gun is very necessary even against regular infantry, it's something even the Russians found out in Donbas. Artillery couldn't kill protected infantry, but HEAT rounds could.
In our case, since it's gonna be used in mountains where MBT presence is low, APS based ARGM defences along with anti-drone, anti-IED/mine systems will be adequate. Wherever the enemy uses MBTs, we will too.
Another thing the Russians found out in Ukraine is ERA has been plenty enough to defeat the tank gun to a certain extent. Multiple hits were needed to get through to the main armour.
Of course, if the light tank is equipped with APS capable of defeating both APFSDS and ATGMs, then this is just a renewal of the American FCS concept. The Americans experimented with the concept that APS can reduce the need for armour, so future tanks could be very light. Of course their experiment failed due to the technology of the time. Perhaps it's possible now. The IA has even asked for protection from PGMs.