Hmmm, I have this book, why I didn't notice that paragraph?
But as it seems the reason was not failure of M1 during tests, the US just didn't liked Pakistanis nucelar program, and cease the deal. Probably in case of emergency, if invasion would be needed to prevent some crasiness.
No not STEF, currently we know how T-72B armor looks like, T-90 use the same or very similiar type of armor. T-90A may use something different.
You know STEF is not nececary modern, nor it is dynamic protection, rather non metallic passive composite protection.
Actually Burlington and it's derivatives are not BDD but a much more advanced protection.
Could be that Kanchan is based on Burlington technology, however pure Burlington technology in late 1980's were not seens as modern any more, and further development was initiated.
Burlington upgraded derivatives are known as Dorchester (UK), Heavy Armor Package (USA) both use DU alloy (however it is uncertain if Dorchester use DU alloy, it might be also Tungsten alloy) in layers and there are also similiar developments in Germany and France that use Tungsten alloy. These heavy metal layers encased in steel and other materials are supporting these more dynamic layers.
Knowing that Germans supported Indias development on Arjun, it might be possible that they transferred that earlier technology without upgraes like heavy metal alloys.
Interesting, so no deep water fording kit for that tank, why? Even M1 have a deep water fording kit, yet snorkels lenght and lack of hatch snorkel prevent for going fully underwater. Seems that Americans never seen that as especially nececary, even if they had experiences with such equipment, the M60 series had long snorkel tubes giving full under water drive capabilities.
KMDB - 120 mm KBM2 tank gun
Maximum chamber pressure is 7200 kgf/cm² - this is 706 MPa i.e. about the same as the Rh 120 L/44 and M256, but the barrel is longer (L/50). Longer Western smoothbore guns always have a slightly higher max. chamber pressure. The Swiss CTG has a maximum chambe pressure of 740 MPa (L/50), MG253 a maximum chamber pressure of 715 MPa (L/48) and the German Rh 120 L/55 has a maximum chamber pressure of 760 MPa.
The gun barrels for the Al-Khalid were made in France until pretty recently.
Not necessarily, it depends on the FCS. An APFSDS through an helicopter will kill it very likely (the crew may be lucky and survive the hit, but not the engine - the fall will make the rest) - this is the way it is trained in Germany according to members of different German forums.
According to Jane's they only want to buy a tank for a rather short period of time. After that it was decided to produce them locally - KMW offered Leopard 2 licence (which still would require a decision from federal security council), while the South Koreans did more transfer of technology.
It was tested in Switzerland pre-1987. There was one accident because of the brakes which afaik lead to at least one casaulity.
Since when can the M1 snorkel? It is some of the things that was criticized a few times by the Germans and iirc. also from the Swiss.
That was a long time ago. He got more information and knows that the T-72B armour does not include any STEF. STEF is btw. glass-reinforced plastic and not NERA.
What explanation? I saw you run away from the HESH versus smoothbore question and Damian was struggling and turned red in rage, till Methos came and gave a cogent explanation. Yes, you guys know a lot of facts, but where's the explanation? And then you use those facts to inundate a discussion?
Just go back a few pages.
No more magic wand, please. Of course, it depends on a lot of things, you mention 'wet' i.e. irrelevant. Who cares whether the ground is wet or not? Seriously? What is the probability (since you brought in that word), that it will rain in the deserts of Rajasthan? Wind condition? It does not matter, especially if a tank column is moving fast. No matter which way the wind is blowing, it can be spotted.
Also, You are also forgetting the sat perspective.
Finally, dust may not be an issue in Punjab, but it is a big issue in the deserts of Rajasthan.
No, it does not matter which tank is heavier. Pressure is force per unit area, as simple as that, and by definition. This is high school stuff, and one doesn't need to be an expert to understand that.
A word on Punjab:
Indians flooded the Punjab plains to deter the Pakistani tanks. I think it was the 1965 conflict. Anyway, given a similar situation in future, when its flooded, it again will be an advantage for Arjun over T-90 or Pakistani tanks of similar design (don't know the exact numbers for Al-Khalid).
Pakistanis did what they felt best, but then, that is not the point.
I agree. Are you suggesting that we use BMP-2 instead of the T-90?
Sorry, that was rhetorical, but you do get my point, I hope.
Bigger tank, so more support needed, but bigger tank also offers its advantages, that you yourself have listed.
Yes, but upgrading the gun isn't a big issue.
Moreover, I am still waiting for an explanation why a certain smoothbore gun outperformed a rifled gun. Notice, I am not denying that the smoothbore did a better job, I am asking why. In other words, did it outperform because of smoothbore or was it something else?
Frankly, I don't know, but unless anyone gives a good explanation, nobody knows.
Shall we call it slight difference? T-90 with STEF might be good (I am saying that because I don't know about this development), but STEF in T-80 has a significant proportion of cast metal, which does not make it any superior to Arjun's Kanchan armour, if you compare the properties of ceramic and cast metal. Sure, T-90 might be better, but then it's probably different from T-80.
Will give that to the T-90. India has dedicated tanks (older T series) for that purpose. Arjun needn't do that. Also, mine-plough is usually in the front - I haven't heard of mine plough being pulled (you probably didn't mean that).
Thanks for mentioning the advantages of Arjun as well, rather reluctantly. Still doesn't convince me that T-90 is superior to Arjun in all respects, unless, I started denying the advantages Arjun has. Thank you for taking the time though.
Seems that it was not added in basic M1, but in M1A1. Howerver snorkels are mostly used by USMC during beach assaults, Army do not use them often, even during training and these snorkels are preatty short + there is no hatch snorkel, so fording depth is limited, however making snorkels longer and add snorkel on loader or TC hatch should be preatty easy and cheap adaptation.
I have some photos of M1A1 with snorkels.
And here movie:
As I said, adding longer snorkels and snorkel for one of turret hatch should not be a big problem.
IMHO BS, M1's engine was tested both in arctic and desert conditions before tank was fielded. Also no problems were reported by US forces during ODS in 1990/1991 and OIF in 2003 to 2011 period. Nor Egyptians, Saudis, Kuwaitis and Iraqis are complaining for engines overheating. Besides this Gas Turbine is designed to work in extremely hight temperatures, and is not even specially cooled (it use only air that goes through airfilters in to engine combustion chamber, only transmission have dedicated cooling system).
Your completely wrong, the turbine blades sucked in dust and had major issues in Iraq desert sands. The iraq desert is diffrent as in it has powdery sand and not grains like we see in the beach. The blades where damaged and the engines failed.
Last edited by Godless-Kafir; 31-03-12 at 11:26 PM.
Actually I did. But there are many answers to one question. We never know what is the reader expecting. An excellent reason on why essay type answers should be banned from technical courses. My teachers used to say the same.
We are sorry that we don't come up to your standards of explanation.
This does not matter anymore.
Your point being? Are you saying Arjun does not kick up dust. Then you haven't seen the Arjun. You are actually the first guy saying Arjun does not kick up more dust than other tanks. Even a one ton jaguar kicks up dust in the desert. Haven't you seen movies?
Weight matters. You are not looking at it in a complex way, you are being simplistic. If a bridge can hold 10 tons, you cannot run a truck weighing 20 tons over it even if the pressure per unit area is less than a one ton car's.
Tiger tank had lesser ground pressure than Panzers, it did not stop it from getting bogged down.
There are certain cases where tanks are useless. So, a BMP-2 is a better option there. That's because a BMP-2 complements the T-90. The Arjun can never complement another Arjun in roles.
The advantage that the bigger tank offers is nothing compared to what the T-90 offers to IA. That was my whole point. The reason I posted the advantage of Arjun is to let you know that the points I made were the actual advantages. Kicking up less dust and slightly lesser ground pressure aren't advantages.
There are two big reasons why Rifled guns are deemed necessary by people who support rifled guns, namely Indians and the British who like to see Arjun and Challenger the way they are today. The reasons are Rifling provides high accuracy and allows the use of HESH. These are actually the only two reasons. Rifling's disadvantages are that they are difficult to maintain, difficult to manufacture and have a short life. In this thread, Damian and I are saying that HESH is useless in today's world. I think you got our point regarding this. And Damian already pointed out that Smoothbores outperformed the Rifled gun when it came to accuracy. So, the point was accuracy can be achieved by other means like stabilization and modern FCS instead of rifling. So, by cutting down on a Rifled barrel and going for smoothbore, we automatically get a gun which is easy to manufacture, easy to maintain, have longer life and can use ammunition which has greater advantages than HESH, like HE, HEF, HEOR etc.
Hence the need for a rifled gun and the ammunition called HESH is no longer necessary. Thus Arjun's gun system is obsolete.
The reason Rifled gun came up in the discussion relating to HESH is because Arjun has the rifled gun and only a rifled gun can fire HESH.
I was wrong regarding STEF. Damian and Methos pointed it out.
There is no cast metal in our T-90 versions. We have welded turrets.
Yeah. I meant what you said. Pulled, pushed, who cares as long as the point gets across. I did not know what word to use there. Big posts need fast typing speeds and sometimes you lose out to grammar in the process. There is a very bad habit in our science culture in India. We don't care about grammar and correct sentence structure as long as the key points are put across.
Anyway you can't use old tanks for that. When you are charging into the enemy's vanguard, you can't wait for some old tank to show up and clear obstacles. You need your MBT to do everything. That's why it is called MBT.
Both tanks are in the same class. It is just that the T-90 is more mature. So, when push comes to shove, the Army can rely on it's past performance as a good tank. Arjun, we cannot say the same. Considering Arjun keeps croping up with new problems and that DRDO takes years to fix those problems, we can't take such major risks.
We are a third world nation, with a third world industry, building a first world army.
Compared to Arjun, T-90 is indeed unfit for the deserts of Rajasthan, and this reason can always get one branded as blind to reason - still, it doesn't change the reality.
The Russians are also coming up with a tank support vehicle (I think there is a thread on that), because, they have seen how vulnerable their tanks were in Chechnya. T-90, being a close relative of the T-72 (being subtle here), needs them to overcome the deficiencies, and in urban combat, Arjun will surely have an advantage.
T-90 is also at the end of it's life-cycle while Arjun still has a lot of room for improvement.
The most important reason why IA got T-90 was because DRDO couldn't deliver on time, as simple as that, and not because it is inferior to T-90. that is not even true.
I'am not wrong. It seems You not understand the nautre of problem. Engine itself is reliable in dusty conditions, if maintained properly and if air filters are cleaned from time to time.
If crew ---- up this and this is not fault of an engine, and if You think that Diesel is more reliable read about British Challenger 2 tanks and problems with their engines in desert. When Americans were using M1's without any modifications without any big problems, Brits needed to add special dust skirts to their tanks so dust would be keep far from air filters that were not protecting engine to jam caused by dust.
God, how many times I will need to explain why 1st Chechenya war was a failure and 2nd Chechenya war was incredible success for Russian tanks?
T-72 and T-90 tanks have highest survivability in case of armor perforation from all Soviet designed tanks if:
Additional ammunition will be not taken and ammunition will be stored only in autoloader. In 1st Chechenya War this additional ammunition was cause of losses in case of T-72 tanks.
T-64, T-80 and T-84 tanks have different type of autoloader that is more exposed and vurnable, so no matters if You have additional ammunition stored in crew compartment or not, effect will be same. Dead crew.
In 2nd Chechenya War T-72B tanks survived multiple RPG and ATGM's hits.
(T-72 and T-90 series autoloader)
(T-64, T-80 and T-84 series autoloader)
No it will not. Side hull is made from RHA only, max 80mm thick, protected by thin non ballistic skirt. No advantage here against T-90. Side turret protection in Arjun is also only max 80mm thick RHA plate, similiar to T-90, so no advantage over here.
Arjun is tank with western design and Soviet style armor placement on tank, without any composite armor over turret sides, making crew vurnable to any side hits within or beyond safe manouvering angles.
It was explained many times, side turret in Arjun is only partially protected by composite armor, most of turret side is protected by thin RHA armor.
In case of T-90, situation is similiar however, front armor covers weakly protected side armor up to 30-35 degrees.
Neither tank have advantage here in case of assymetric conflict, T-90 have advantage over Arjun is tank vs tank combat where it's weak side armor will be covered by front armor if turret faced towards enemy.
How the hell T-90 is in the end of life cycle when T-90MS just recently was presented? And T-90MS is far more deep modernization than Arjun Mk2 compated to Mk1.
Another BS from someone that even do not have proper knowledge about tanks design or their history.
False. In the Saudi Arabia trials. During validation all competing tanks had to change engines at least twice while T-90 came to the exercise with the one engine it already had on and finished the endurance trials with just that engine.
The T-90 is brilliant in deserts. It is just our media who are making up stories.
Don't forget the brigadier was in active service when Arjun and T-90 were being validated in India.
Edit: Arjun is very special in deserts. In a 1000Km march the Arjun had to change engines 4 times. In 2005, the electronics melted and the gun failed to fire. It leaks fluids even today.
Latest news from Ajai Shukla: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/0...ents-says.html Funny right? Everything is perfect when DRDO is in control but all goes haywire when Army takes control. HVF which has been making tanks for decades is suddenly slapped with quality control issues when they are making T-90s side by side. DRDO/ADA blamed HAL for LCA's delays too. Somehow HAL and HVF aren't capable at all while DRDO is the champion of justice.
Oh, so now it is media making up stories, when it shows T-90 is bad light, isn't it?
T-90 is excellent for the kind of combat Russia expects to see. No, it does not beat the Arjun in the deserts of Rajashtan.
There is dochotomy in the army as well. So that is a non-sequitur.
Hmm, how about I use your excuse and say the media made up stories?
You have to say that to those who are biased in favour of DRDO. Your bias against DRDO is quite obvious. So if you are arguing with someone with a DRDO bias, it will be an even match. I am not interested.
There is only one answer to my question, and Methos gave the right answer.
Don't be sorry. Just answer to the point.
Since yesterday, this HESH-vs-smoothbore discussion got me guessing that either you and Damian didn't know how a HESH functions or you guys were deliberately not answering.
Perhaps not, but then, explain why.
I'm too lazy to go back and read what I had written, but I don't recall saying Arjun doesn't kick up dust. I'm sure it will as well, but that depends upon (1) speed and (2) how much the tracks sink into the sand. T-90 will surely kick up more dust.
Yes, that is a valid point when it comes to bridges.
Again, you are factually correct, but that doesn't change the reality that T-90 has more ground pressure than Arjun, and if the plains of Punjab are flooded again, Arjuns will outrun the T-90s and T-90s will get stuck first.
True, and as I said, T-90 and Arjun complement each other.
That's fine by me if you think ground pressure does not matter. No point haggling on this. I have already provided a chart why ground pressure matters.
No, rifling provides one and only one advantage, and that is spinning the projectile. You can even spin a projectile using fins and thus shoot it from a smoothbore.
"Rifling allows use of HESH" is total BS. You have no idea what you are talking about, even after so many pages of discussion.
Think of HESH as a flat-bread that explodes. A spinning projectile helps spread out the plastic explosives on the surface, but even if it were not spinning, you would still have a flat-bread on impact, but the spin of the projectile will simply assist this. Do you get this or not?
I have never countered any of the things you have mentioned here and again, I highlight, this is the problem with you and Damian. You guys bring in a lot of information that are totally unrelated and just because they are correct, you think you are making a point. Stand corrected, you are not making any point, because I have not countered any of these things you have mentioned here. I hope I am making sense.
I have not countered that point either, have I?
See what Methos says. Anyway, I get your point.
Got it. that's what I thought, but Indian T-90s don't have STEF either (I am guessing here).
That's fine. I thought you knew about ploughs.
No, they are not going to show up, but I will post a picture later on exercises to prove my point.
Ok, I found it. No, minesweepers don't just 'show up' and you are using rhetoric to mislead.
They are not the same class by weight, but since you don't want that classification, even by role, they are different. Sure, if you call both of them MBT, they pehaps become the 'same class' (I don't buy that and that wasn't what I meant anyways).