Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

atleast wiki knows difference between torsion bar hydropneumatic.
.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
.
the reference you were talking about and visit wiki page of arjun for its information
.

now what p2prada says "Merely
more updated electronics.
Also the so called claim that
Arjun's crew was
inexperienced was valid
because in one instance the
driver made a silly mistake in
a 150Km run which stopped
one Arjun out of the 14.
Arjun's muzzle reference
system was also flawed which
resulted in one misfire which
was corrected later. T-90s
had no problems throughout
the exercise.
A repeat of the interview.
"
.
and still arjun defeated t90 easily
.
@methos , still you think result are misguided cause if IA want they would have given an expertise crew to arjun too

 

[Dazzler]

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.

there is patriotism and then there is reality.

 

[Dazzler]

atleast wiki knows difference between torsion bar hydropneumatic.
.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
.
the reference you were talking about and visit wiki page of arjun for its information
.

now what p2prada says "Merely
more updated electronics.
Also the so called claim that
Arjun's crew was
inexperienced was valid
because in one instance the
driver made a silly mistake in
a 150Km run which stopped
one Arjun out of the 14.
Arjun's muzzle reference
system was also flawed which
resulted in one misfire which
was corrected later. T-90s
had no problems throughout
the exercise.
A repeat of the interview.
"
.
and still arjun defeated t90 easily
.
@methos , still you think result are misguided cause if IA want they would have given an expertise crew to arjun too

wikipedia is not a reliable source. anyone can edit it as he pleases. a report, book, video or document etc so we may havesome insight.

 

[Apollyon]

There are morons. Then there are overconfident morons. Then there are overconfident morons entwined with ignorance. And then there are Pakis.

 

[Warhawk]

@Dazzler @shiphone
What ARV's are used by Pakistan army/PLA and whats the ratio of number of ARV to the total number of Tanks in PA/PLA.
Thanks in advance

 

[Dazzler]

@Dazzler @shiphone
What ARV's are used by Pakistan army/PLA and whats the ratio of number of ARV to the total number of Tanks in PA/PLA.
Thanks in advance

al hadeed (based on m-113) and ARV-654A, there is also modified version of type-59 locally build. numbers are not wellknown.

 

[Dazzler]

AK with Varta APS

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

@Dazzler

is the ground clearance is low compared to other tank i mean i feel it a bit low based on the pictures you posted

 

[Dazzler]

@Dazzler

is the ground clearance is low compared to other tank i mean i feel it a bit low based on the pictures you posted

compressed pics, look a bit squeezed, nothing wrong with ground pressure.

 

[pmaitra]

"Indian conditions" means "Indian politics".

No. If it reads "Indian conditions," it means Indian conditions, nothing else.

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.

Agree.

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.

I would be more interested in hard numbers.

Mean ground pressure and maximum ground pressure, weight distribution along the track, etc., should be compared with hard numbers, if you at all want to present that as an argument. Till then, you have no case.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

wikipedia is not a reliable source. anyone can edit it as he pleases. a report, book, video or document etc so we may havesome insight.

I know it bro, but most of data is correct and I first confirm the thing with many links and post the link of wikipedia

 

[cobra commando]

M1A2SEP Abrams Fire Control Panel

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Don`t twist around facts to pass your openion over others, If you don`t know about things you are talking about i suggest keep that quite and let others speak ..

Btw, MK2 has wider tracks which is posted here many times here with links, The ground pressure is same as MK1, Operating over thar and Punjab all its count ground pressure to operate, This goes back in days when Pattons were stuck in muddy fields of Punjab and Centurions were making meal out of them ..

This is a second informal warning for trolling ..

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.

 

[shiphone]

@Dazzler @shiphone
What ARV's are used by Pakistan army/PLA and whats the ratio of number of ARV to the total number of Tanks in PA/PLA.
Thanks in advance

we thought there are three types of Tank Recovery Vehicles(based on Tank chasis) in PLA Army tank units...and there are quite some light weight class ARVs(TRV is included in ARV concept of PLA Army) based on different Armored Fighting Vehicles(IFV,APC ,and Wheeled fighting Vehicles)

Type73 TRV--developed in late 1960s and early 1970s ...the base chasis is Type59 MBT(T-54's varient)...31 tons with a 550HP diesel. the self-defence weapon is a 12.7mm AA MG. the lifting frame is a simple device with a limited ability of 1000Kg...it remains in the Tank Units equipped with ZTZ59(type59) serial tanks.

Type84 TRV-- developed based on the Type69II/79 MBT chasis(still belonging to the homemade 1st Gen MBT)..the combat weight was increased to 38 tons class with 580HP engine...the crane's ability was greatly increased to 10 tons as well...this is the main strength of TRV in PLA tank force. it also worked with the 2nd MBT in PLA ---ZTZ88 and 96 serial tanks. we didn't find any TRV based on ZTZ88/96 MBT's chasis coz Type84's ability could support and recovery a little heavier chasis.(42-46 ton class MBT Vs Type84's 38 tons)

ZTZ99 serial is a over 50 tons class vehicle, so a new TRV is needed ...this TRV is said based on the new varient of ZTZ99--ZTZ99A chasis. coz MBT99A is just commissioned years ago. so we haven't got any published info yet. but we might be able to know what it might looks like via a Export project ---the 90-II ARV(TRV) for the MBT2000 export tanks. the 48 ton Chasis has a 1200HP engine with a 118KW APU to work without the main engine to save the fuel. the crane's is a 25 tons class one..

1,2: 90-II ARV's component introduction( hydraulic shovel, crane, winch... etc.)
3. Draging a 42 ton ZTZ96
4. Lifting a 48 ton MBT2000

======================
the ratio (of number of ARV to the total number of Tanks) is a complex one...as I known, the formation of Armoured units varies and is changing in recent years...the TRV(ARV) belongs to the different units in different formations. but the number in these units is unknown to me...I may ask some other members for help and try to dig out something.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Ground pressure is the pressure
exerted on the ground by the tires or
tracks of a motorized vehicle, and is
one measure of its potential mobility,
[1] especially over soft ground. It also
applies to the feet of a walking person
or machine. Ground pressure is
measured in pascals (Pa) which
corresponds to the EES unit of pounds
per square inch (psi). Average ground
pressure can be calculated using the
standard formula for average
.

@methos
.
Ground pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
.
ground pressure is one of most important factor while running in mud cause the tank will apply low pressure on ground (which will be soft cause of mud) resulting in lag .
.
so as @pmaitra sir said , arjun will be out of mud faster .

 

[Damian]

Isn't for this tank too the turret is too exposed in front as with the case of arjun mk2?
I know its a medium tank but medium and MBT are classified as same weight class i guess.
Gunner FCS or sight is at same location.
If its a Auto Turret, its good for crew but considering the calculations shared on armor beyond such placed sights by few experts, armor is quite less behind them. So why are polish still continuing with such a design and not going with front design of say M1A1 or T90??

This is still only a model of turret, real turret is not ready and it's design still might change. Besides this, it is completely unmanned turret, which means there is no crew inside it. Thus we can reduce the size, weight and protection of turret, and place more armor on hull, where whole crew is placed. However our engineers try to design unmanned turret that's autoloader can be reloaded from vehicle interior. Idea that I do not fully support, but I will wait for final variant presentation to make my full conclusion.

 

[Sovngard]

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".

The term Chobham is cited several times (see page XI, 10 according to Scribd ) in the FV4030/4 Challenger's technical manual (which dates from June 1983).

Tank, Combat, 120mm Challenger - Part 1 Automotive System

 

[Damian]

The term Chobham is cited several times (see page XI) in the FV4030/4 Challenger's technical manual (which dates from June 1983).

Tank, Combat, 120mm Challenger - Part 1 Automotive System

And is still improper.

As I said, the only official codenames were "Burlington" (UK/US) and "Starflower" (US), and these codenames were not even for developed armors, but for development programs.

In documents talking about these armors, each designs is mostly named as "Special Armor No.X" for example, or "Beascuit No.X", or "FVRDE Special Armor No.X", there are no codenames for armors designs, only for R&D programs.

The same is in USA, Americans mostly use term "Special Armor" and that's all regarding vehicle protection developed within "Burlington" program. Later armors developed to replace "Burlington" designs, have codenames such as HAP - Heavy Armor Package, EAP - Export Armor Package or NGAP - Next Generation Armor Package.

 

[Damian]

IMHO term "Chobham Armor" could had been developed or by a journalist and later picked up by some military folks, or was created by military folks that needed some kind of name for new armor, that was easy to remember, and because R&D facility where armor was developed was placed in Chobham, they use it for new name for armor, which literally means "Armor from Chobham".

 

[Sovngard]

IMHO term "Chobham Armor" could had been developed or by a journalist and later picked up by some military folks, or was created by military folks that needed some kind of name for new armor, that was easy to remember, and because R&D facility where armor was developed was placed in Chobham, they use it for new name for armor, which literally means "Armor from Chobham".

I'm leaning towards the second hypothesis.