Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Kunal Biswas]

guys can anyone give me links regarding the development of NERA for arjun it will be helpful?

DRDO readies hybrid armour for tanks

Dr A Subanandha Rao, HEMRL Director, said the hybrid armour would take care of tandem warheads and also kinetic energy projectiles aimed at tanks in the battlefield. It would increase the survivability rate of tanks. The hybrid armours are likely to be used on the latest Russian-origin T-90 tanks and the indigenous Arjun tanks, Rao said, adding that the Army had been involved at every stage of testing and developing.

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News



Hybrid Armour is mainly Nera and other material like fiber glass within sandwich between composite Armour plates which are between RHA plates..

 

[Godless-Kafir]

I can same ask about Arjun.

T-90S is good tank, but as in any normal country that is designing weapon systems, Russians want better and better weapon systems, this is normal. Look at US, they also have great tanks and they still upgrade them to even better versions.



Without complete redesign I doubt that all weaknesses problems will be solved.

What is the weakness you are talking about?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Without complete redesign I doubt that all weaknesses problems will be solved.

Lets see what we may see...

 

[sayareakd]

I am aware but I don't know the details, I will be thankfull for such details.

it is top secret, but it is General Staff Qualitative Requirement, which put down certain standards in this case for tank. BTW when first GSQR was made that time we had T72 tanks, therefore they made the GSQR for T80 type of tank, then after Pakistani was testing M1A1 tank from USA, IA panicked and issued new GSQR to counter such type of tank, thereafter no GSQR for MBT.

last year new GSQR for FMBT was issued after exit of DGMF, new DGMF is not again reformulating GSQR for FMBT.

This is in plain and simple terms. you can read this but again it does not tell complete story. History of Arjun Tank Development - Frontier India - News, Analysis, Opinion

 

[Damian]

What is the weakness you are talking about?

Placement of main sight in front armor "window", this makes main sight vurnabale to hits in front armor and is weakening front armor. Sight should be placed behind armor and go through turret top armor. Such configurations minimize danger of sight damage due to front armor hits and weak zone in front armor is absent completely.

Other weakness is lack of side turret armor protection over crew compartment, protection there is provided only by simple ~80mm RHA plate and storage boxes, NATO standard in same place is no less than 300mm thick composite armor.

Next weakness is huge gun mantle, gun mantle should be as small as possible.

Hull and turret also should be redesign that hull amunition storage should be minimal, all or almost all ammunition should be stored in isolated ammo magazine with blow off panels in turret bustle, rest of ammunition should be stored in similiar magazine in hull, bets position should be between turret and engine space.

Driver station should be relocated in hull center line, space on both sides of him can be used for storage.

This is in plain and simple terms. you can read this but again it does not tell complete story. History of Arjun Tank Development - Frontier India - News, Analysis, Opinion

No details about solving design problems and weaknesses like these I pointed out.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Placement of main sight in front armor "window", this makes main sight vurnabale to hits in front armor and is weakening front armor. Sight should be placed behind armor and go through turret top armor. Such configurations minimize danger of sight damage due to front armor hits and weak zone in front armor is absent completely.

Other weakness is lack of side turret armor protection over crew compartment, protection there is provided only by simple ~80mm RHA plate and storage boxes, NATO standard in same place is no less than 300mm thick composite armor.

Next weakness is huge gun mantle, gun mantle should be as small as possible.

Hull and turret also should be redesign that hull amunition storage should be minimal, all or almost all ammunition should be stored in isolated ammo magazine with blow off panels in turret bustle, rest of ammunition should be stored in similiar magazine in hull, bets position should be between turret and engine space.

Driver station should be relocated in hull center line, space on both sides of him can be used for storage.



No details about solving design problems and weaknesses like these I pointed out.

I am not going to waste my time trying to educate you, because you can educate a person who does not know but you cant educate a person out of bias and prejudice. Go read before you yap again.

 

[Damian]

And maybe some arguments? Please only one argument backed up by logic and evidence.

Kunal provided many photos that are good proofs to my arguments.

You don't want to accept reality, fine, thats Your problem.

Here I marked weak zones, this is reposting old arguments but if You don't understand, so I will do it again.



Red color marks side surfaces weak zones.

Side turret surface where crew sits is protected only by thin RHA armor and storage boxes (in NATO tanks this part of side turret surface is protected by no less than 300mm thick composite armor, this is important for turrets with such geometry).

Side hull have standard side skirts configuration (short ballistic skirts protecting front 1/3 of side hull and long non ballistic skirt over rest 2/3 of side hull lenght), however we can see exposed side hull surface where suspension is attached. Please compare this to other modern MBT's.

Such details are seen as unimportant but indeed, they are very important.



Here blue color marks side turret composite armor, red marks side turret RHA only armor.



Side turret storage boxes.



Red marks front turret weak zones, blue makrs side turret composite armor placement.



Hull ammunition storage. As different conflicts proofs that such storage of ammunition is not safe. Even if ammunition is stored in armored bins or containers.



Here ammunition propelant charges were stored in armored bins with extuingiushing liquids, ammunition below turret race ring.



Here ammunition is stored this way:



Ammunition below turret race ring, in hull rear space and in armored containers. As we see nothing helped to prevent explosion.

How ammunition should be stored? In isolated ammunition magazines both in turret bustle and in hull.

Ammunition magazines both in hull and turret bustle should be isolated by RHA bulkhead with ammunition port protected by small sliding blast cover or by big sliding blast doors. Both magazines, in turret and hull should have blow off panels to release gas and energy from firing ammunition outside, far from vehicle and crew.

Before someone say that I don't know what I'm talking about, such person should read more, watch carefully these photos and compare this to other MBT's over world and think 10 times before will answer.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

And maybe some arguments? Please only one argument backed up by logic and evidence.

Kunal provided many photos that are good proofs to my arguments.

You don't want to accept reality, fine, thats Your problem.

Last time you failed in all counts comparing Sights to German 80s technology, you did not know shit about anything. Discussions are based on facts and not educating you, just make sure you read by yourself before you enter a discussion.

 

[Damian]

Last time you failed in all counts comparing Sights to German 80s technology, you did not know shit about anything. Discussions are based on facts and not educating you, just make sure you read by yourself before you enter a discussion.

I agree, I was wrong about sights.

But read again what I posted above in my edited post.

And don't talk about my knwoledge about MBT's, my little knowledge at least exist compared to Your non existing knowledge.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Last time you failed in all counts comparing Sights to German 80s technology, you did not know shit about anything. Discussions are based on facts and not educating you, just make sure you read by yourself before you enter a discussion.

@GK,

He is right abt most things he mentioned:
1. Like Sight placement of Arjun from cousin LEOA4
2.Turret Side which is vulnerable in most tanks
3.Turret mantel is big coz IA wanted space inside Arjun for electronic
4.Arjun Ammo is not good as NATO rounds.
5.Chasis frontal Armour have a void zone..

Above all Arjun is India`s 1st tank and made with Army`s directions,Arjun is the most effective tank in IA than any other in IA..

Arjun MK2 is meant to be improved over MK1 and i hope for the best coz it will be the best..

 

[Damian]

I pointed out what should be improved and redesigned because all real conflicts shows us what design solutions are good and what are bad.

Look at photos of T-xx tanks, Challenger 2 photo, Merkava photo, all of them have ammunition stored in hull in simple rack or so called armored bins/containers, how ends ammo cook off? Turret is separated from hull, tank is completely destroyed.

And no search photos of M1 tanks from Iraq where these tanks were successfully attacked.

Thanks to all ammunition isolated and blow off panels there were no one single accident when ammo cook off ended with turret and hull separation, there were only 4 to 5 tanks with hull and turret separation when turret was lifted from hull by massive IED explosion, not internal ammo cook off.

Compare weak zones size in different tanks, Arjun have one of biggest weak zones.

Compare side turret protection of NATO tanks and Arjun, Arjun turret side protection is comparabale to T-90S, but much more exposed within safe manouvering angles.

 

[agentperry]

if arjun can prove itself in thar then no remorse...

 

[Godless-Kafir]

@Damian As i said its my non-existant knowledge that pawned you last time, first of all every Armour is unique, first of you dont know DIDDLE squat about the Kanchan composite Armour to talk about armor thickness. I wont waste my time in this because i already know its a fail.

 

[Damian]

As i said its my non-existant knowledge that pawned you last time, first of all every Armour is unique,

And? Ah I know, You think that composite armor is some sort of magic and weak zones are non existing? My god all tank designers all over the world should abandone their experience and knowledge and listen to You! Oh great master of (non existing) knowledge!

first of you dont know DIDDLE squat about the Kanchan composite Armour to talk about armor thickness.

Of course I don't know anything about its composition but I know something about it's placement, about it's thickness (that is important, very important... yeah why Americans would increase M1 tanks front turret armor thickness from 740mm to 960mm, Godless-Kafir knows better, thickness is not important, we all should use 50mm os Kanchan armor and voila!... umh, wait, no, even Kanchan armor is used in thickness larger than 200mm depending on placement).

I wont waste my time in this because i already know its a fail.

Yes it is a fail because You don't even try to use logic, evidence, nothing, You only want that everyone will belive Your words, even if there is not even one piece of logic backup and evidence!

 

[plugwater]

GK, Its time you give others some credit and stop branding them as idiots

Arjun 1 is not good enough to go to a war zone with all those weak points. Refer Damiens 1077th post.

Lets wait for better version of Arjun.

 

[bose]

When can we see the first pictures of Arjun - II ? I read somewhere that the turret & Hull are redesigned, eagerly waiting for that first picture.

 

[Damian]

Arjun 1 is not good enough to go to a war zone with all those weak points.

It can perfectly go in to war zone with these weak zones, there will be just higher probability that some crews will not back to their family's, simple as that.

Maybe someone some day will understand that tank crew life is depending not only on their skills, electronic components of their vehicle and armor composition but also on overall vehicle design, armor placement, and how vehicle is designed to minimize effects of possible armor perforation.

Good example and real story. In Iraq on one of patrols one M1A1 tank was hit in side hull, hit was made from RPG granade, shaped charge jet perforated side hull armor, go inside between TC and gunner, then under the gun breach and in to opposie hull side bulkhead. TC and gunner were only lightly wounded and tank besides minimal damage in perfect condition.

Nobody was dead thanks to ammo isolation, so hot spall did not ignite ammo. Now put there different tank with ammunition storage in hull without any isolation and blow off panels. I would not want to sit in such tank, probability of ammo cook off and crew death is in such situation much higher.

Different situation, front hit, we have here two tanks, one with very small gun mantle, and one with very big gun mantle, in case of what tank hit in less protected gun mantle is more probabale?

Different case, we have tank with side turret armor protected only by thin RHA plate and storage boxes and different tank where side turret armor is made from thick composite armor, in what tank probability of armor perforation and crew death is higher?

These are simple examples.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Maybe someone some day will understand that tank crew life is depending not only on their skills, electronic components of their vehicle and armor composition but also on overall vehicle design, armor placement, and how vehicle is designed to minimize effects of possible armor perforation.

Nobody was dead thanks to ammo isolation, so hot spall did not ignite ammo. Now put there different tank with ammunition storage in hull without any isolation and blow off panels. I would not want to sit in such tank, probability of ammo cook off and crew death is in such situation much higher.

These are simple examples.

we all should use 50mm os Kanchan armor and voila!... umh, wait, no, even Kanchan armor is used in thickness larger than 200mm depending on placement).

Kanchan Armour is more than enough on Turret frontal Armour without any question, The harder module is placed in weak sight zone, But i am not saying it not a weak zone, Turret sides are vulnerable depending Existing MK1 gets ERA over their..

Breaching Turret mantle is not butter in knife, And not that easy, But minimization is important..

If Arjun MK1 is to vulnerable than think abt all those T-72M1 we are using, T-90S is mordern and offer some protection thanks to its heavy ERA but its Composite Armour not good as T-90A of Russian Army..

Kanchan is tested in India and modified as per need, Russian Armour is not tailor made coz its a foreign tank..


Arjun MK1 is the best IA have now than T-90S And T-72M1 are good for others but not latest generation tanks of our rivals..

 

[Godless-Kafir]

GK, Its time you give others some credit and stop branding them as idiots

Arjun 1 is not good enough to go to a war zone with all those weak points. Refer Damiens 1077th post.

Lets wait for better version of Arjun.

Ya since when Damaia became an authority on Arjun? Look at his last argument, everything he said was wrong. He later accepted that the Thermal Sights are not from Germany, he spoke with such confidence and conviction to back a null point!

Manc wake up, Arjun is a great tank for Asian war zone.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

In 1980's the Kanchan composite had a composition of ceramic, alumina, fiber glass and some other such materials mixed. The RHA tried out had two thicknesses, i.e. a 350 mm plate and a 315 mm plate. However these two plates had the same weight as a 120mm RHA. Hence it is said that Kanchan armour is more volume at same weight. The anti-tank munitions have problems in penetrating denser mass.

Kanchan armour composition has undergone massive changes since 1980's. The volume of the RHA has been reduced to lesser mass because of better metallurgy. The composite has evolved too and it does not use the 1980s technology anymore.