Indian Army Armored Vehicles

[Nutcracker]

Everyone ignored this message as if it's a smoothbore gun on an Arjun.
Anyways, with heavy heart a different question this time

1. Is this cutaway of Zorawar LT legit?
View attachment 10796
2. And if yes, then are those freaking ammunition stowed besides the driver in the hull!?

The scenario is countering Chinese tanks in high altitude battlefields.

Convince me how a single Zorawar LT is better than having four Mahindra ALSV, each armed with 16 long range ATGMs.

Can Mahindra ASLV swim. Also it's armour protection is too low for such combat scenarios where one can face 105-155 shells or 20-30mm etc equipped IFV.

 

[Binayak95]

The scenario is countering Chinese tanks in high altitude battlefields.

Convince me how a single Zorawar LT is better than having four Mahindra ALSV, each armed with 16 long range ATGMs.

Your argument devolves into whats better at anti tank - a gun or missiles.

I would say the following points:
1. tanks do not operate alone, so when youre saying 1 tank or 4 ATGM carrying ASLVs, it doesnt compute.
At the minimum its a platoon of 4 tanks, but 99% of the time, the smallest unit of tanks to be deployed is a company of 16 tanks.

2. Gun armed tanks are better at anti tank duties - APFSDS rounds are cheaper than missiles, are faster and harded to beat than ATGMs, and tanks carry far more rounds.

3. The armour, survivability of a light tank platoon fighting from a prepared keyhole position surpasses ATGM carrying ASLVs by leagues.

4. The Zorawar carries 2 Loitering Munitions with reloads just in case it has to deal with a non LOS or an aerial threat.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Can Mahindra ASLV swim.

Fair point.

But I guess bolting two props and adding few O-rings in the rear won't be that big of an issue if we seriously pursue this.

Also it's armour protection is too low for such combat scenarios where one can face 105-155 shells or 20-30mm etc equipped IFV.

Exactly, that's what my point was

The doomed military onion...

The Zorawar would surpass ALSV only the last "Don't be killed". Because in both "Don't be acquired" and "Don't be hit" an ALSV can easily use its smaller size and high speed to beat Zorawar.

Now coming to "Don't be penetrated" or as you said, low armour protection.
> 105mm APFSDS; more than 200mm. So K-Kill on both.
> 30mm APFSDS; almost 50mm. So K-Kill for ALSV and M-Kill for Zorawar.
BUT...if those are really hull ammo storage then can also end up being K-Kill for the Zorawar too.

You can't add "proper MBT" armour. And if you can't add that then whatever you add will just change the degree to which the crew is seriously injured. That's it.

This is very much the same as an EOD technician who wears multiple layers of bomb suit while dealing with a 5kg IED but prefers just t-shirt if it's a 500kg UXO.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Your argument devolves into whats better at anti tank - a gun or missiles.

Yes Sir.

In my opinion it's better to have a small but very fast platform to deal with tanks and a slower IFV for everything other than it; instead of a single tank that's supposed to be jack of all trades.

Also in my hypothetical you get 8 troops in the same attack package in case you wanna consolidate your gains.

1. tanks do not operate alone, so when youre saying 1 tank or 4 ATGM carrying ASLVs, it doesnt compute.
At the minimum its a platoon of 4 tanks, but 99% of the time, the smallest unit of tanks to be deployed is a company of 16 tanks.

But what if now the platoon is 2x ALSVs and 2x WhAPs instead of 4x Zorawars?

As a con, you'll lose the guns and slightly on the armours.
But as pro, you'll now have speed, longer range, 16x infantrymen and perhaps most important...limited anti-air capabilities with those WhAP's auto-cannon.

2. Gun armed tanks are better at anti tank duties - APFSDS rounds are cheaper than missiles, are faster and harded to beat than ATGMs, and tanks carry far more rounds.

So first the magazine depth issue.
In current configuration the Cockerill 3105 would be having 16 rounds in auto-loader. Which is exactly the same as my ATGM totting ALSVs.

As for the cost issue, yup, I totally agree with you.

But as for faster and harder to beat...you also have a flip side. Main gun is slower and harder to shoot because no matter how good the stabilization system is you'll still need to come out of cover, aim for a vital part and shoot. As opposed to an ATGM that you can just blindly lob from cover in LOAL mode

3. The armour, survivability of a light tank platoon fighting from a prepared keyhole position surpasses ATGM carrying ASLVs by leagues.

I've already mentioned about armour in my previous post.

As for offensive capabilities; even a small Javelin would surpass the range and armour penetration of a 105mm APFSDS from a fixed position.

But perhaps most importantly, as soon as you bring in prepared position in the equation the adversary would bring in FPV drones. And I'm not talking about dedicated NLOS missiles that PLA has in abundance, just COTS drones.

4. The Zorawar carries 2 Loitering Munitions with reloads just in case it has to deal with a non LOS or an aerial threat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of now I've not seen any source about space for reloads in both Cockerill 3105 and Zorawar.

Also if it's there then it won't be an under-armour reload.

PS. I'm not talking about replacing Zorawars with ALSVs; I'm talking about completely changing our war fighting doctrine in that specific sector. Something like US did with Strykers Brigade Combat Teams.

 

[Nutcracker]

Fair point.

But I guess bolting two props and adding few O-rings in the rear won't be that big of an issue if we seriously pursue this.

Exactly, that's what my point was

The doomed military onion...
View attachment 10799
The Zorawar would surpass ALSV only the last "Don't be killed". Because in both "Don't be acquired" and "Don't be hit" an ALSV can easily use its smaller size and high speed to beat Zorawar.

Now coming to "Don't be penetrated" or as you said, low armour protection.
> 105mm APFSDS; more than 200mm. So K-Kill on both.
> 30mm APFSDS; almost 50mm. So K-Kill for ALSV and M-Kill for Zorawar.
BUT...if those are really hull ammo storage then can also end up being K-Kill for the Zorawar too.

You can't add "proper MBT" armour. And if you can't add that then whatever you add will just change the degree to which the crew is seriously injured. That's it.

This is very much the same as an EOD technician who wears multiple layers of bomb suit while dealing with a 5kg IED but prefers just t-shirt if it's a 500kg UXO.

Zorawar will get ERA, wouldn't it. I'm sure no matter how incompetent we believe army thinktanks are, there might be some essential case for Zorawar LT.

 

[Binayak95]

Yes Sir.

In my opinion it's better to have a small but very fast platform to deal with tanks and a slower IFV for everything other than it; instead of a single tank that's supposed to be jack of all trades.

Also in my hypothetical you get 8 troops in the same attack package in case you wanna consolidate your gains.

But what if now the platoon is 2x ALSVs and 2x WhAPs instead of 4x Zorawars?

As a con, you'll lose the guns and slightly on the armours.
But as pro, you'll now have speed, longer range, 16x infantrymen and perhaps most important...limited anti-air capabilities with those WhAP's auto-cannon.

So first the magazine depth issue.
In current configuration the Cockerill 3105 would be having 16 rounds in auto-loader. Which is exactly the same as my ATGM totting ALSVs.

As for the cost issue, yup, I totally agree with you.

But as for faster and harder to beat...you also have a flip side. Main gun is slower and harder to shoot because no matter how good the stabilization system is you'll still need to come out of cover, aim for a vital part and shoot. As opposed to an ATGM that you can just blindly lob from cover in LOAL mode

I've already mentioned about armour in my previous post.

As for offensive capabilities; even a small Javelin would surpass the range and armour penetration of a 105mm APFSDS from a fixed position.

But perhaps most importantly, as soon as you bring in prepared position in the equation the adversary would bring in FPV drones. And I'm not talking about dedicated NLOS missiles that PLA has in abundance, just COTS drones.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of now I've not seen any source about space for reloads in both Cockerill 3105 and Zorawar.

Also if it's there then it won't be an under-armour reload.

PS. I'm not talking about replacing Zorawars with ALSVs; I'm talking about completely changing our war fighting doctrine in that specific sector. Something like US did with Strykers Brigade Combat Teams.

I agree with your premise and its an interesting conundrum - think of this - in a combined armoured brigade along the lines of the Stryker BCT - where and how do you place your ATGM carriers doctrinally?


Say you have 30mm autocannon equipped IFVs - whether wheeled or tracked, a 105mm gun platform, infantry and ATGMs.

You have effective combat ranges from 300m all the way out to 10+ km - so where do you place what ?

ATGMs behind light tanks, IFVs up front for close infantry support - but then that puts a penalty on the time it takes for a typical F&F missile to reach the target .

 

[Unknowncommando]

DRC