Quote from: flamingpig0 on 27 August 2026, 06:18:23 PMThis one  https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o98dxb3fconzbbfuulehn/2025IndoPakistanIndian1965-71.pdf?rlkey=xsazjgvgwm51kfnowf2t4r124&st=ud04yr1o&e=1&dl=0

I will check it out.
I thought any reference to the Vijayanyta had been removed from these lists, as there are no historical references to it seeing active service in any if the Indo-Pakistan wars.
Thanks

Comparing data to the stats of other tanks, I would have the Vijayanyta at move = 25, hits = 4 saves = 4. It's armour is comparable to a Sherman but weighs more than a T-55, and speed comparable to a Stuart.

" thought any reference to the Vijayanyta had been removed from these lists," It has been put in as a what-if in the notes, and is not in the main stats section.

All of which sounds good Mark

QuoteComparing data to the stats of other tanks, I would have the Vijayanyta at move = 25, hits = 4 saves = 4. It's armour is comparable to a Sherman but weighs more than a T-55, and speed comparable to a Stuart.

" thought any reference to the Vijayanyta had been removed from these lists," It has been put in as a what-if in the notes, and is not in the main stats section.

That seems more reasonable than its present stats although I might suggest hits=5 saves= 5

As to its use the info the AI found is:

Burj–Fatehpur, Punjab, 6–9 December 1971: The 66th Armoured Regiment had converted to Vijayantas in 1969. A squadron supported 15 Maratha Light Infantry against Pakistan's 43 Baluch. At Burj, a Vijayanta troop fired on bunkers and crossed the Dhussi Bund while under artillery, rocket-launcher and anti-tank fire. A veterans' account records one Indian tank destroyed and another mine-damaged during the subsequent fighting; in context, these appear to have been Vijayantas. Veterans' account in In Quest of Freedom

An Indian Army Postal Service regimental history specifically states that 66 Armoured received Vijayantas in 1969 and deployed them operationally at Burj and Fatehpur, earning the theatre honour "Punjab 1971." Reproduction of the Army Postal Service history

The official Ministry of Defence citation for Sepoy Pandurang Salunkhe confirms that Pakistani rocket-launcher fire was damaging the Indian tanks during this assault, prompting him to charge and eliminate the position. Indian Ministry of Defence gallantry citation

Nawan Pind, Sialkot sector, 5 December 1971: The US National Defense University's order of battle identifies 8th Light Cavalry as Vijayanta-equipped. The official Indian Gazette records Dafadar Prithi Singh advancing his tank under artillery and anti-tank fire and destroying the enemy post. 1972 Gazette of India citation

As to its lack of use evidence points mainly to strategic caution and formation assignments, rather than dissatisfaction with the Vijayanta.

The Vijayanta-heavy 1st Armoured Division was retained as Army Headquarters' reserve. Its principal purpose was to counter Pakistan's expected strategic offensive by II Corps and 1st Armoured Division—possibly towards Ganganagar or Ferozepur. Pakistan never launched that offensive, so India never released its principal armoured reserve for battle. Indian Gunners at War

India deliberately fought a limited, predominantly defensive campaign in the west. The decisive objective was Bangladesh; India wanted to prevent major losses in the west while finishing the eastern campaign quickly.
The order that no Indian territory should be lost encouraged commanders to hold substantial reserves. India's official history later criticized this requirement because it dispersed formations, discouraged concentration and inhibited aggressive mobile operations. Official History, Chapter 19
Indian intelligence could not reliably locate Pakistan's strategic armoured reserve. The possibility of a Pakistani "ghost division" or major armoured thrust continued to tie down Indian formations until well into the war.
The war was extremely short. Full-scale hostilities began on 3 December and the ceasefire followed on 16–17 December. By the time the Pakistani strategic offensive had failed to materialise, there was little time to redeploy and launch a major Vijayanta operation.
Existing unit assignments mattered. Centurion and T-55 regiments were already attached to formations fighting at places such as Basantar and Chhamb. Vijayantas could not simply be substituted without moving entire regiments, support vehicles, recovery equipment and supply organizations.

So for 1971 I think it should be part of the main body of the army list.

Oh, and definitely deserves a model!

"Oh, and definitely deserves a model!"
I thought one had been made?
Indeed, and that would allow the creation of the Kuwaiti force committed to the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

I think I referenced the A Sqn 66th Armoured Regiment in previous discussions, so concluded that 3 models would be it for the entire war, which is one determinant in what goes in a list. Would every December 1944 German army list have 3 Sturmtigers for an equivalent example?

Anyways, at least it was in the list as a what-if. So it can be added if you are doing an historical formation.

H-4 S-4 versus H-5 S-5
The reason I chose 4 hits and 4 to save (which makes it on a par with a T-55, which on first inspection sounds wrong). is because a tank platoon's surviveability is not just it's armour thickness, but size and to some extent acceleration. We see the Centurion is h-6 S-4, so it is a valid argument that the Vickers MBT should definitely be less than that.

The Vickers MBT armour is sh*te, 80mm turret, and including slope 110mm for the hull. That's half that of a T-55 or Centurion. Like I said, on a par with a Sherman, which implies  H-4 S-5. But like the Tiger and the Centurion before it, it is a tank with a high weight relative to it's armour thickness. We know that Tigers and Centurions were incredibly difficult to knock out, they had an inherent toughness that is not necessarily recognised by their armour thicknesses. Call it over engineering, or just large size*. I can't work out the percentages just now, but I think H-4 and S-4 is much better probability than H-5 S-5.
It's one of them where it should be 4.3 hits at 4.5 to save or something like that
Add in the 56kmh road speed which makes the Vickers MBT quite nippy, and it's Vickers quality engineering, and you get to a save of 4 rather than 5, to me anyway.


*If you have two armour plates the same thickness, % alloy, and angle, but one is larger than the other, hit by exactly the same shells multiple times, the larger plate will resist penetration longer, ie will fail later, ie is tougher. Hence the Centurion is one of the best steel-armoured tanks ever built, because it is quite large. It's to do with the physics of the way the atoms spread the energy of an impact across their structure. In simple terms, if the weld joins are further away from the impact point, the more 'space' the plate has to spread the energy of an impact. In addition, a larger tank has a slightly higher chance that if a shell penetrates, it passes through hitting nothing of value. So even if that % higher chance is only 5%, in tank combat terms that is a big advantage.

So a T-55 or T-72 is quite well armoured, but it's small, and very densely packed with stuff.

As a comparison, in my own rules a Vickers MBT has the same probability of being KO as a T-55 once theoretical penetration is achieved. A 100mm gun hitting a Vickers MBT or T-55 requires 10+ on a D20 to KO, compared to 14+ for a Centurion or 8+ for a Sherman.
 

Quote from: sultanbev on 28 August 2026, 09:46:08 AMIndeed, and that would allow the creation of the Kuwaiti force committed to the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Which is precisely why I want a model

The issue with the verified use of the Vijayantas in actual combat in these campaigns has been extensively (& heatedly) debated in another thread (or maybe earlier in this one).
NB: In my mind it's a bit like having a Falkland Island campaign British list and allowing players to field Chieftain tanks, just because they were potentially available.

For clarification, the scope of this particular list is to cover the actual historical fighting units/vehicles. It is not a general Indian list*, but one specific to these particular campaigns/wars. On that basis the Vijayantas has not been included in the main body of the list (as the evidence for its use in actual combat is not confirmed or ratified), but as 'sultanbev' states it was included, as an optional choice, for those players insistent upon using it (& because I had lost the will to continue that particular argument. Life is just too short!).
Much of the 'evidence' that was previously supplied, by the vocal advocates for including the Vijayantas in this list, just didn't stand up to extensive scrutiny. The most damning being the lack of any unit citations from the Indian Army to the formations fielding the Vijayantas at that time. And as anybody familiar with the Indian military will vouch, public recognition of service is almost a sacred aspect in military circles.

*At some point, when all the other lists on my list, and new supplements and new rules projects have been exhausted I may well get around to creating a comprehensive stand-alone Indian Army list (1946-1990). But I'd not hold your breath on that one    ... but you are very welcome to have a go and submit a draft, that is always welcomed.
BR
Mark

NB: I'll leave it up to Leon to comment on whether a Vijayantas model has been sculpted or not. I have a vague memory of it being discussed but I can see a use for it in a Kuwait force.

 

We now seem to have citations as to their deployment from such an august body as the Indian Army Postal Service

QuoteWe now seem to have citations as to their deployment from such an august body as the Indian Army Postal Service

Well, that would be an escalation in "Going postal!"

I have discovered this completely plausible contemporary  picture on the Indian Army Postal Service site

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 28 August 2026, 11:23:33 AMWe now seem to have citations as to their deployment from such an august body as the Indian Army Postal Service

    

Still very 'odd' that no units with Vijayantas have official battle honours associated with either war 

But I rest my case ......

Quote from: Big Insect on 28 August 2026, 12:51:39 PM   

Still very 'odd' that no units with Vijayantas have official battle honours associated with either war 

But I rest my case ......

Apparently the 66th Armoured  regiment has the Theatre Honour "Punjab 1971" and at the time it was equipped with Vijayanta's having transitioned from Shermans in 1969.

QuoteApparently the 66th Armoured  regiment has the Theatre Honour "Punjab 1971" and at the time it was equipped with Vijayanta's having transitioned from Shermans in 1969.

Hi ... yes ... this is a much repeated statement but unfortunately it is the standard AI answer which is based on 'internet echo's' (e.g. websites and authors quoting each other in a loop).

The 66th does have the Theatre Honour "Punjab 1971" but here I am cautious. Theatre Honours do not necessarily mean combat. There is still no hard authenticated official evidence to prove that the Vijayanta fought at Burj-Fatehpur (which is the often quoted combat). Where it was supposed to have provided supporting fire to the attacking Indian infantry.

There is a PBI 'official' photograph titled as showing a Vijayanta "in action on the western front" but it appears that this label has been attached to what is clearly a staged official publicity photo, by the author (Palit) of the book, it appears in.

We also have 2 contemporary Indian press articles, both dated on the 10th December, which state clearly that the Vijayanta had not yet seen combat, when the battle it was supposed to have fought in allegedly took place on the 6th December. In fact, one of the paper states that the outcome of the debut of the Vijayanta against the Pakistani Pattons is "widely anticipated". But there are no later Indian press articles announcing its debut, at all.

Likewise, we have no official or unofficial or press Pakistani references to the Vijayanta in action during the war, at all. Which is odd when official Pakistani histories clearly and very specifically identify which Indian units were equipped with which different types of tanks (including the Vijayanta).

Also neither the Indian or the Pakistani records and histories of the major tank battles of the war record the Vijayanta in action, when they specifically mention Shermans and Centurions, and Soviet armour on the Indian side. And with c.300 Vijayantas in service at the time, this seems very odd, unless it was a deliberate policy by the Indian army/government to keep this iconic new tank out of combat, for some reason.

All of which has led me to put the Vijayanta into this list as a purely speculative option    The 66th, equipped with Vijayantas might have provided an over-watch or infantry support function to the 15 Maratha LI at Burj/Fatehpur on the 6th December, but if they did it appears to be their only engagement of the war.

Cheers
Mark

QuoteThe 66th, equipped with Vijayantas might have provided an over-watch or infantry support function to the 15 Maratha LI at Burj/Fatehpur on the 6th December, but if they did it appears to be their only engagement of the war.

Cheers
Mark

Which would still make it more active than the IS3 that appears in the Soviet lists or, for that matter, the entire BAOR. Joking aside, it is all a bit moot anyway as we don't presently have a model in our favourite scale.

Some of the Soviet/Warsaw pact lists allow the  allocation  up to 3 Off-Table Artillery units of up to 122mm to each HQ.


Does that  include 122mm Rockets?

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 28 August 2026, 10:00:06 PMking aside, it is all a bit moot anyway as we don't presently have a model in our favourite scale.

Someone on Red3 facebook page has suggested they make a model of it, so I messaged Red3 from their website and seconded the recommendation. If all 2000 of you who want a model do the same, apart from breaking their server, they might go ahead and do it

Quote from: sultanbev on 10 September 2026, 10:40:50 PMSomeone on Red3 facebook page has suggested they make a model of it, so I messaged Red3 from their website and seconded the recommendation. If all 2000 of you who want a model do the same, apart from breaking their server, they might go ahead and do it

I wonder who that could have been?

In the Soviet list it gives an ability:

 "May allocate up to 3 Off-Table Artillery units of upto 122mm to each HQ - use CV of HQ when making requests"

There are no 122mm off table artillery options listed other than rocket artillery.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 12 September 2026, 04:47:03 AMIn the Soviet list it gives an ability:

 "May allocate up to 3 Off-Table Artillery units of upto 122mm to each HQ - use CV of HQ when making requests"

There are no 122mm off table artillery options listed other than rocket artillery.

The same issue  appears in the Grade 1 Warsaw pact list

That must be an transcription error (on my part) as both should have:
2SI/SAU-122 Gvozdika ("Carnation") SPART 0-12

Thanks
Mark