Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Depends whish M1A1.

*Which... damn typos.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Few of here saying kanchan as a waste and armour of m1a1 and challenger as ideal! This was the reason I was trolling. a troll should be answered by troll
.
Kanchan armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
kanchan uses the same principle that chobham (used in m1a1 and challenge) uses
.
though it doesn't tested with quality of western ammunation but it doesn't means it will be defeated by that ammunation, who knows kanchan can stand against it.
.
again ,we construed tank to fight with our enemies not to make the best tank in the world and as far I know china and pakistan uses same or lesser quality ammunation than that of india
.
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
1980
.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

this was 7 years ago i think it was further improved now

Kanchan armor is a composite armor also called sandwich armor. During the initial days, India had approached the British to co-develop a composite armor. British armor research was based in British tank research centre on Chobham Common, the reason the generic name Chobham armor for all such type of composite armor. The British were not favorable to the Indian proposal.

Development of a composite armor was earnestly taken up at Armour Design & Development Division at the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad. Like the British name Chobham, Kanchan Armor got its name from Kanchan Bagh.

Kanchan Armor uses the same principle as the Chobham armor, but the composition is different. It has Rolled Homogenous Armor (RHA) and composites. RHA is a type of steel sheet used as protection for the armored vehicles since World War II. Kanchan Armor has a composite panel sandwiched between RHA. The number of layers is decided based on the user requirement.

When a projectile is fired, the armor stops it via compression and de-compression method. As the projectile hits the armor, it faces compression because of the RHA, and then it faces decompression because of the composite. When the projectile passes through several such sandwiched layers, it breaks up the APFDS or HEAT shot. A HESH shot is ineffective against a spaced armor. It definitely will not go through a layered armor.

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 m plate. However these two plates had the same weight as a 120mm RHA. Hence it is said that Kanchan armor is more volume at same weight. The anti-tank munitions have problems in penetrating denser mass.

This is the time when the Russian Tank T-72 imported by Indian Army could not penetrate the Kanchan Armor protected Arjun Tank , with APFDS at point blank range. Subsequently, the debate took place if the Russians had supplied us with training rounds rather than the actual ammunition. As a side note, in January 2000 at Proof & Experimental Establishment (PXE), Balasore, Arjun tank armor defeated all available HESH and FSAPDS rounds including Israeli FSAPDS rounds.

Back to 1980's, after the T-72 incident, a 106 mm RCL gun was tried on the Arjun Tank. 106 RCL's were effective anti-tank weapons those days. It played havoc on enemy tanks in 1971 war. The Kanchan armor defeated that too.

Kanchan armor 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 1980's technology anymore.

The Kanchan Armor | Frontier India

 

[bose]

Stuart tanks. Hardly comparable with Arjun or even T-90. We even lifted AMX light tanks to Ladakh during Sino-India war. Light tanks will do. We already have BMPs deployed in Ladakh.

Yes Thimayya's tactical move was brilliant to put light Tanks at 12,000 ft.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

read page 243 of this thread have posted the link

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-243.html

 

[methos]

As I have said before I will say this again, your gazi Paki tank is nothing but a cheap copycat which has been developed by the Chinese. It can never compete with Arjun.

China has been making tanks since the 1950s, they have developed and manufactured 100 mm, 105 mm, 120 mm and 125 mm guns. China has been producing their own composite armour and their own APFSDS ammunition since at least the same time as India.
Your logic is flawed.

Arjun is better than T-90 for Indian conditions. Hashed, re-hashed, re-re-hashed, many times over.

"Indian conditions" means "Indian politics".

There has been no proper evaluation to compare whose armour is better, so all those claims are merely speculation. A counter claim would also be speculation.

It is not the quality of the armour that has been criticized in this discussion multiple times, but the distribution of the armour. The Arjun Mk. 1 does not have isolated ammunition storage and it has barely any side armour. It has only a very limited armour at the gunner's primary sight location and a very large gun mantlet.
This is not merely speculation, it has been proven by many different persons posting here and at other forums.

Coming to operating in mud, let's compare ground pressure of the two tanks.
The best ground pressure for M1A1 variant is 13.8 Psi = 0.97 kgf/cm[SUP]2[/SUP].
Arjun Mark I has a round pressure of 0.84 kgf/cm[SUP]2[/SUP].
So, that claim is correct, and you have no point.

Oh, so the ability of being able to perform well in muddy terrain is solely based on the ground pressure? Just like the speed of a tank is solely based on the size of the engine?
No, it is not that easy. Saying "the Arjun does better because of it's low ground pressure" is a superficial and likely faulty approach. The T-72 has a lower ground pressure than the Arjun, M1 Abrams or the Leopard 2. Still the T-72 did not do better in muddy terrain than the latter two.
The actual ground pressure does matter very little, because of this literature distinguishes between MMG (mean medium ground pressure) and the MMP (mean maximum pressure. The "ground pressure" values one can find on Jane's or the posters at exponations are often a simple function i.e. divinding the combat weight by the track area, the actual pressure under the roadwheels is always higher than this value, because it is not evenly spread along the tracks.
Factors like the size and placement of the roadwheels, torque, the traction of the tracks and rotation speed of the drivewheel are extremly important factors for determining the automotive performance of a tracked combat vehicle on cross-country travels.

So much about the claim being correct...

BTW: With 68 tons the Arjun Mk 2 will have one of the highest ground pressure values.

Finally, if anyone said that Arjun is better than Pakistani tanks or Chinese tanks, it is again, speculation, and I might add, jingoism.

Exactly.

During trials, the Arjun
showcased its fording capability, by
driving under 1.8 metres of water for
20 minutes.[again source is wikipedia, ]

First of all, Wikipedia is a crappy source and very often contains wrong information. Secondly every tank has deep-fording capabilities and most modern tanks can even drive completely submergered when fitted with a snorkel.
The Leopard 1 for example can drive through 4 meter deep rivers without any troubles.

 

[Warhawk]

Well, guess who's ARV design Indian Army uses, yup, our WZT-3M based on PT-91 hull.

India purchased 556 WZT-3M.

India also purchased 196 older WZT-2.

We also offer even more modern WZT-4:

Those WZT-2 are obselete, complete junk, and probably the IA prefers using Slovakian VT-72B for servicing their T-72s.

And the WZT-3, based on T-72M1, were too purchased in a hurry to service the T-90s that IA purchased to counter PA tanks.

The newer WZT-3M based on PT-91 that were purchased last year were probably for the newer T-90MS purchase.

The fact is you guys just got lucky that IA purchased large numbers of T-90s and that DRDO did not develop an ARV for T-90s and T-72s.
But even the WZT are built locally in India by BEML and have some Indian components too.

 

[Damian]

But even the WZT are built locally in India by BEML and have some Indian components too.

Assembled, not completely builded.

kanchan uses the same principle that chobham (used in m1a1 and challenge) uses

First thing is, that such armor as "Chobham" does not existed, it is creation fo some journalists. The real and only codename for the development program, not even armor itself is "Burlington".

"Burlington" program resulted in several different special armor designs, the USA part of the program was codenamed "Starflower" and resulted in two experimental designs codenamed BRL-1 and BRL-2. It is speculated that BRL-1 was a basis for the armor of original basic M1 tank, while BRL-2 was basis for armor used on M1IP and basic M1A1.

"Kanchan" from all it's descriptions is very different from special armors developed under "Burlington" program.

"Kanchan" is described as passive armor containing steel and ceramic elements, "Burlington" armors from declassified descriptions are multilayered, multimaterial Non Energetic Reactive Armors with multi hit capability. What is also important, currently we know, that "Burlington" armors do not contain ceramics, or ceramics % used in armor is very small.

@AVARAGE INDIAN, the above is also to your post, which wrongly describe NATO special armor development. We know today that previous descriptions of NATO 3rd generation MBT's armor as layers of steel and ceramics in honeycomb structure was pure disinformation. So "Kanchan" have nothing in common with NATO special armors.

 

[Damian]

Actually "Kanchan" armor in it's design in avaiable descriptions, is similiar to Polish CAWA-2 composite armor, which also have layers of steel and ceramics that are passive. But both are not NERA type armor, at least as far as their descriptions say.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

again I proved many times with confusion and one more time I am doing so
.
arjun easily beated T90
.
Business Standard
.
why army never criticised its armour or said its armour is vulnerable to protect the crew ?
.
may be the placement of the armour is according to the wish of army or may be they did so cause it quits battle of india condition
.
@methos

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

again I proved many times with confusion and one more time I am doing so
.
arjun easily beated T90
.
Business Standard
.
why army never criticised its armour or said its armour is vulnerable to protect the crew ?
.
may be the placement of the armour is according to the wish of army or may be they did so cause it quits battle of india condition
.
@methos
.
no chinese product is even near to t90 and arjun defeated it .
.
MOD was too happy with performance of arjun and army official were in shock when it defeated T90

 

[Damian]

why army never criticised its armour or said its armour is vulnerable to protect the crew ?
.
may be the placement of the armour is according to the wish of army or may be they did so cause it quits battle of india condition

Or maybe due to lack of experience in vehicle design, they don't have smallest idea about this issue? Most officers in most armies don't have smallest idea about engineering or even theoretical side of vehicle designing.

Not to mention that Arjun did not saw any real combat, and it seems that ballistc tests were done only from vehicle front, and not within vehicle 60-70 degrees frontal arc.

Neither you have any knowledge about theory standing behind vehicle development.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Titanium alloy plates are consider steel ? , Ceramic elements shall be boron carbide bricks and you are right there ..

Though Kanchan is a heavy Armour, Mostly alloy based not so Ceramic, A classic example can be Heavier Indian T-90 compare to those Russian made ..

"Kanchan" is described as passive armor containing steel and ceramic elements, "Burlington" armors from declassified descriptions are multilayered, multimaterial Non Energetic Reactive Armors with multi hit capability. What is also important, currently we know, that "Burlington" armors do not contain ceramics, or ceramics % used in armor is very small.

 

[Damian]

Titanium alloy plates are consider steel ?

Considered as metal elements of armor. However don't be too excited about titanium, it's light, but also very expensive, and other nations also use such materials, or replace them with new nanomaterials like nanometric steel used for example by IBD in their AMAP armor packages.

Though Kanchan is a heavy Armour, Mostly alloy based not so Ceramic, A classic example can be Heavier Indian T-90 compare to those Russian made ..

If it is mostly alloy based passive armor, then it's performance against modern ammunition will be worse than other modern armor types, and even titanium won't help here.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

1980's the Kanchan composite had a
composition of ceramic, alumina,
fibreglass and some other such
materials mixed.
.
and as every link says , kanchan is modernized time to time and doesn't have anything of 80' technology ( at least read my reference clearly , will you)
.
right now the components of kanchan are clear secret and as far I know it contains titanium and boron carbide
.
again ERA is also added
.
and I won't gonna believe a flat talk without reference , there are thousand of reference which talks about chobham. And even wikipedia too
.
so don't compare kanchan with some polish obsolete @Damian

 

[Damian]

and I won't gonna believe a flat talk without reference , there are thousand of reference which talks about chobham. And even wikipedia too

Wikipedia is a shity source for idiots.

http://speedy.sh/dAw9w/PHW-4.pdf

Here, download, page 106 in Acrobat Reader PDF, article written by Polish historian Paweł Przeździecki, you have there full bibliography with english litwrature about special armor development in UK. "Chobham" is a false name, that nobody knows by who was invented, the only true name for development program only was "Burlington", and different armors designed within this program, never had any codename.

If you can't read in Polish, use a translator.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

what is in the name. A rose by any name will smell as sweet

 

[Damian]

so don't compare kanchan with some polish obsolete @Damian

Really? Obsolete? And what do you know about vehicles armor developed in Poland? Nothing?

Ok so perhaps I should explain you something. During tests, model of CAWA-2 armor for T-72 class tank front hull armor, proved that at such thickness and inclination angle, can provide protection against APFSDS projectile, capable to penetrate approx 500-550mm RHA at 2000m. it is hardly obsolete armor.

CAWA-2 in different configuration for different vehicle can provide even higher protection levels, also protection will be different depending on used materials.

Also we developed ERA armors in Poland, for example during tests ERAWA-2 ERA, was capable to protect simple steel armor against PzF-3IT600 tandem warhead, that is said to be capable to penetrate approx 900mm of RHA.

 

[Damian]

This is also a book written by col. prof. dr. hab. Adam Wiśniewski, a chief engineer in WITU (Military Institute of Technology and Armament) responsible with his team for development of different armor types. I have this book, however I doubt it is avaiable in english and outside of Poland.

Col. Wiśniewski team developed several different armor types:

ERA - ERAWA-1, ERAWA-2.
ERA with Ceramic Tiles - CERAWA-1.
Composite Armor - CAWA-1, CAWA-1NA, CAWA-2, CAWA-3 and CAWA-4.
Passive anti RPG armor for Helicopters - PAWA-1.

And a lot of other things that are most likely classified.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Self delete