The dark side of Humanity is weapon and wars, but who says the war is worse than humiliation?
Absolutely authentic for tanks I think.
hey igor, the original source of this image is BHARAT RAKSHAK. site - www.bharat-rakshak.comforum - http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=870522#p870522
when you read the comments in bharat rakhak then you realize how much delusions Inedians are in ! first many of indians -so caled hard liners are traitors and agent of us kuk. secondly even before india tests something missile or something-suusllauy with Russian help-they jump saying that target at bejing is reachable now and that chinese will be shivering with fear from Indian might!1 such is the delusion of indians you read in that bharat rahak form. very laughable really and uselss mental masterbation of such inferiority complexed indains.
This camouflage makes good sense in Northern Indian regions such as Punjab and in corresponding regions across the border.ThanksH.D.
To Avatar SinghYou can also express yourself in a civil way, maybe you can add something positive. I have read a few of your comments and you are a bit embarrassing, really. ThanksH.D.
Kunal Biswas is the source of this image, This is first posted in MP.net in Indian Armed forces thread.
Igor can you confirm if the T-90M specs for IA mentioned by Sengupta is correct http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/01/indias-born-again-t-90m-mbt.html
to Austin:I can say some details in that article make it very doubtful . For example: there is no chance for Kaktus on T-90M since 1) it is still clasified 2) it would mean a totally new turret, not compatible with T-90S hull, the problem of such installation is yet overcomed.In additional there is clear that Kanchan cannot be on the hull together with Kaktus, since Kaktus - is not just ERA but the ERA with combination with specially designed laminated armor. The idea to hibridize Kaktus with Kanchan would look very bizarre... So I've little trust to the article.
Recently the Russian Army chief made some disparaging comments about the T-90, in particular about its armour and crew survivability. What plans are being considered for upgrading the T-90's protection? And will they be available as an upgrade to the Indian T-90s?
There is a general feeling in Russia that the MBT is no longer the central force within an armoured unit.Remember that both the T-34 and the Sherman were fitted with guns that were chosen for their HE power rather than their armour penetration capability, unlike the German tanks of WWII.Experience showed them that the tank was first and foremost a mobile gun platform.With BMP-3s carrying a heavy calibre gun able to fire in direct and indirect modes at targets out to 7km and big heavy tanks lacking the mobility needed sometime the MBT is necessary but will likely be present in much reduced numbers in the future Russian Army.Most of the problems with the T-90 seem to be addressed in the Burlak upgrade (details of which can be found on this blog) and the T-95.I have read that the Russian Army is planning for a change into three types of force structures with heavy (tracked), medium (wheeled and tracked), and light (wheeled only) forces. The rejection of the Sprut seems to be based on it being in the light category yet it uses tracked configuration. Perhaps the Sprut will be replaced with an 8-10 wheeled variant for the light forces with the vodnik as the APC and the T-90 with the Burlak upgrade as the tank in the medium force with the BTR-82/A as the APC, while the T-95 is the tank in the heavy force with presumably the BMP-3/4, or maybe the BTR-T as the APC, with the BMP-3/4 as the medium APC, and the BTR-82/A for the light forces APC.These are just my guesses.
to GarryB:Sprut - is a different bird, this is a droppable vehicle like BMD-1\2\3\4 for the Russian rapid reaction airborn forces. Light, medium and heavy brigades will be different by armored part: heavy - with dominating tanks, medium - the mixed between tanks and BMPs, light - on the wheeled vehicles only.
to anon June 22, 2010 10:28 PM:It was no the Army chief but one of the top army generals. Anyway, the last information is that the Army refused T-90A in current configuration after 2011, they will supply a new modification of T-90 (Burlak program). The specs can be changed till that time however.
So what you are saying is that the light units wont have tanks at all?Currently as far as I understand they have tank units and motor rifle units where the tank units are tank heavy and the motor rifle units are APC heavy but both units have tanks and APCs.Further there is a difference in quality/cost for the units so a top unit will have T-90s and BMPs and lower units will have T-62s and BTRs.I thought that the idea of the light medium and heavy brigades was because some situations make wheeled vehicles more suitable (ie good road system and low intensity conflict), while in other situations where the firepower of the BMP is just necessary and the terrain requires tracked vehicles the BMP would be better.The very heavy brigade might be used in Urban combat and include a BMP-T type vehicle as well as T-95 and heavy APCs etc.I would think transfering the Sprut turret to a BTR chassis or an extended 10 wheeled BTR chassis shouldn't be too hard.It is my understanding that the BTR-82/A models are a stopgap for a fully redesigned wheeled APC with a ramp rear door. Such a vehicle might not be amphibious with the engine and turret up front making frontal armour either being light and keeping amphibious capability or heavy front armour and being too nose heavy to float properly. I guess a mid engine design with extra large cavity spaced armour in the nose might be possible.