Arjun vs Type 99 MBT

[Shirman]

Er... this thread wasn't a comparison between the Arjun and the Type 99, it was an analysis of what battlefield roles the Arjun is designed to excel at. But since it's so easy for India to push a 58-ton tank up 5000m Himalayan mountains without roads or even dirt paths, I guess it's realistic to assume that the Type 99 and the Arjun could conceivably meet on the battlefield...

Thats why India is looking for either Polish Anders Light tank OR T-90 MS to fit exactly for the scenario U have mentioned here. And @ Militarysta Sir thanks for that wonderful Information. I was looking for that for centuries....:thumb:. I know what r the specifics of the Ukrainian 1200Hp engine r but U Sir Hit the nail.......

 

[Damian]

I wonder how long it take you, to understand that both Arjun and ZTZ-99 are MBT's, and as I said, MBT is universal tank concept, which means it is designed to fight in any conditions.

The weight of tanks is mostly based on it's internal volume, and the overall size, and have nothing to do with protection.

In fact ZTZ-99 is awfull design. I still can't understand why they used a basic T-72 layout, and then get idea to put there bigger engine, which in the end means unnececary bigger internal volume, bigger size of hull, bigger weight and no increase in protection.

In fact compared to many newer T-72 variants, like T-72B, ZTZ-99 is less protected.

Especially interesting is a fact that Chinese designers never bothered to provide sufficent protection for hull sides. These silly thin sheet metal/rubber side skirts, does not offer any significant protection, and the side hull armor is as like in most designs, max 80mm thick, which in the end means that in possible conflict with India, the Indian infantry teams, might be very dangerous in ambushes with Carl Gustav 84mm RCR's. The best tactic would be to aim in the side hull directly beneth the turret and side hull sponson and slightly above road wheels, to hit ammunition storage and autoloader.

Also the turret sides of ZTZ-99 are weakly protected, and due to turret geometry are not that well hidden behind front turret armor, so hitting them will be easy.

Another hint is the exposed edge where ZTZ-99 front turret armor meet side armor, this is also exposed weak zone. And there are many, many more.

The newest ZTZ-99A2 is also not that better.

 

[militarysta]

And @ Militarysta Sir thanks for that wonderful Information. I was looking for that for centuries....:thumb:. I know what r the specifics of the Ukrainian 1200Hp engine r but U Sir Hit the nail.......

Well -but take attencion that is was writting about T-80U, pakistani T-80UD have sligty improved special armour, so whole armour protection will be better so, not 490-630mm RHA but rather ~520-660mm RHA vs KE whit Kontakt-5

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the diffrent story is T-72B (Ob.184) and erly T-90 (Ob.188) armour:



So we have here (for 30. degree)
120mm LOS cast steel (act like ~104mm RHA)
simple NERA modules (or rather reflecking plates)
45mm RHA plate (act like 45mm RHA plate)
80mm LOS cast steel (act like ~70mm RHA plate)
So we have ~220mm RHA plates and those simple NERA modules.

For 0. degree we have
150mm LOS cast steel (act like ~127mm RHA)
simple NERA modules (or rather reflecking plates)
55mm RHA plate (act like ~55mm RHA plate)
~98mm LOS cast steel (act like 83mm RHA)
So we have 265mm RHA plates and those simple NERA modules.

Now the good question is - how good was those simple NERA modules?
Germans claim that T-80U whas the best armoured Soviet tank, so T-72B and T-72B model 1989 should be under that level IMHO.

 

[Snuggy321]

Arjun II upgraded with artillery?!
The Indian Army uses T-70 tanks?! Whats a T 70 tank?!

LoL who is writing this crap?

 

[militarysta]

Ah, it's that Polish reservist who put up pictures of a partially disassembled Leopard 2 in violation of his military confidentiality clause, then started trying to hypothetically measure armor thickness from tv footage, then got himself banned from two different defense forums.

Propably it is about my person
But, It was when I had mesured propper LOS thickness of the Leopard-2A4 in opposite to bullshit present on btvt and other russian sites.
And I was banned on russianmilitary (or smthing simmilar) becouse those idiots make me sick -when one idiot claim that this is true:
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/l21.jpg
and when I posted my photos:

[
those idiots is still claming that it must be wrong and impossile becouse "bla bla bla" and those pohots must be fake
So I wrote what I think about that person. Simple.

And second forum whas "Tank Nuts Dave" -I was banned ther for British Media Officer reson, becouse I posted ther more or less propper CR2 LOS thickness, and other photos. So I was banned due to OPSPEC resons.
Well I don't care. Now Im posting here ond on otvaga. Two good forum (DFI and otvaga2000) and it's enought.

Any questions more?

 

[Snuggy321]

Propably it is about my person
But, It was when I had mesured propper LOS thickness of the Leopard-2A4 in opposite to bullshit present on btvt and other russian sites.
And I was banned on russianmilitary (or smthing simmilar) becouse those idiots make me sick -when one idiot claim that this is true:
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/l21.jpg
and when I posted my photos:

those idiots is still claming that it must be wrong and impossile becouse "bla bla bla" and those pohots must be fake
So I wrote what I think about that person. Simple.

And second forum whas "Tank Nuts Dave" -I was banned ther for British Media Officer reson, becouse I posted ther more or less propper CR2 LOS thickness, and other photos. So I was banned due to OPSPEC resons.
Well I don't care. Now Im posting here ond on otvaga. Two good forum (DFI and otvaga2000) and it's enought.

Any questions more?

Good to have members who dont learn everything from the internet, games and movies (like me)

 

[militarysta]

Good to have members who dont learn everything from the internet, games and movies (like me)

Well both of us - Damian and I don't use internet and TV as a sources. And today tank fight is far away from the internet or PC games. It's more complicated then propably most person here are thinking. And it's never like in PC games - mm RHA protection vs mm RHA perforation (AT weapons) whole is more difficult and more..interesting.

 

[sasi]

Arjun II upgraded with artillery?!

What artillery?

The Indian Army uses T-70 tanks?! Whats a T 70 tank?!

The same one.

LoL who is writing this crap?

That i don't know. Some err in the report.

 

[Snuggy321]

What artillery?

The same one.

That i don't know. Some err in the report.

1. Read the top right part (regarding the artillery upgrade)
2 IA does not use the T-70, infact no one uses a T-70. The T-70 was a Russian light tank during WW2. They are referring to the T-72

 

[Akim]

Not to be confused
T-80

and...T-80

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

How does the Arjun compare against tanks of the other great powers?

Tanks

Russian T-90--47-ton, small, 3-man tanks with autoloaders. Below-average armor protection. 20-26 hp/ton; superb reliability and unrefueled combat range (700km). Low ground pressure; armament is average at best and not really equipped to fight a tank duel on a one-on-one basis against other modern tanks. Cheap ($2.5-$4.5M per).

Russia uses its tanks to take ground. It makes 3-man tanks because it needs a lot of tanks for a shrinking manpower base. It has average engines in terms of horsepower, because a) their tanks are comparatively light and b) squeezing out another 10km/h on a tank that can already go 50-60km/h is not really worth it in terms of how much ground it can cover. Reliability and unrefueled range are a must because in their doctrine armor will be fighting operational exploitation battles far away from from friendly repair and resupply. One-on-one duelling is not important because their doctrine calls for groups of enemy armor to be either "swarmed and surprised" with superior numbers of faster tanks or ignored altogether, exploiting again, their tank's superior mobility.

What is it suited for? Fighting chaotic cavalry-style battles on the wide-open plains of Eastern Europe, Siberia, or Mongolia, either before, during, or after a nuclear holocaust.

US M1A2--61-ton, large, 4-man tanks. Superb armor protection, including against urban warfare threats such as RPGs fired from rooftops. 24 hp/ton; average reliability (gas turbines are difficult to maintain); below-average operating range (426km). Somewhat higher ground pressure. Superb fire control, reload speed, and main gun to engage large numbers of enemy tanks at once. Extremely expensive ($8M per).

The US uses its tanks to punch holes. The US is a purely offensive and expeditionary force; the Abrams is essentially the tip of the US offensive spear. It doesn't need to worry about refuelling because usually it operates in the context of brigades and regiments already bathed in the best logistics network possible. However, since it expects to perform infantry support in the context of spearhead operations, it needs a thick hide and the ability to pump out a lot of accurate tank fire at once.

What is it suited for? Breaching (or killing) an opponent pinned down by the US Air Force into static defensive lines.

German Leopard 2A7--62-ton, large, 4-man tanks. Superb armor protection, but not necessarily against urban warfare threats--even thicker armor than the M1A2 in front glacis and turret. 24hp/ton; superb reliability; average operating range (550km). Somewhat higher ground pressure. Superb fire control, reload speed, and main gun--same as M1A2. Slightly expensive ($5.5M per).

Germany uses its tanks to defend against and hunt down other tanks. The Leopard is a superb tank-on-tank duellist and a long-range killing machine versus enemy armor. It is reliable, reasonably mobile, and has good range. The downside? A Leopard is a "tanker's tank", which means it should avoid being drawn into city fights. Also, it, like the Abrams, is heavy, which means in a situation where a lot of larger bridges have been knocked out, the Leopard suffers severe limitations on tactical mobility.

What is it suited for? Killing Russian tanks.

Chinese Type 99--57-ton, average-sized, 3-man tanks. Above-average armor protection. 28 hp/ton with 80km/h top speed; superb reliability; above-average operating range (600km) -- uses essentially the same engine as the Leopard 2A7. Average ground pressure. Superb fire control but not necessarily good reload speed. Decent main gun. Cheap ($2M per).

China uses its tanks to hunt non-tank targets and ambush enemy armor. For example, China would use its tanks to kill enemy "soft" divisions, like US Stryker brigades, for instance. The Type 99 has the speed to chase down wheeled and tracked IFVs, and great accuracy and firing range but not the sustained fire rate necessary for tank duelling. The high hp/weight ratio also lets the Type 99 climb steeper slopes than other tanks can, dramatically improving its capabilities in mountain combat.

What is it suited for? Counterattacking and ambushing American formations in mountainous North Korea, or hunting down insurgents in Central Asia.

Indian Arjun Mk II--58 ton, average-sized, 4-man tanks. Above-average armor protection. 24 hp/ton with 72km/h top speed; average reliability; below-average operating range (450km). Heavy ground pressure. Superb fire control and reload speed. Above-average main gun. Relatively cheap ($3M per).

India uses Arjuns as cheaper versions of the Abrams--to punch holes. India's tanks are not designed to operate in extended tank duels or cover ground; they are built to rapidly dismantle fixed defensive lines and open gaps for other units to cross. Indian tanks are given limited operating range not because the Indian Army has great logistics but because Pakistan is a small country. Also, they are heavy, but since their main job is crossing a desert between India and Pakistan, collapsing a bridge or two is not really a problem.

What is it suited for? Invading Pakistan in a short, swift campaign. It outguns all Pakistani armor, but lacks the range to invade any country larger than Pakistan without lots of refuelling capacity; capacity which the Indian Army currently lacks.

--

This, incidentally, is why, even though modern tank technologies have converged in the major powers to some degree, all major powers have radically different tank designs. This is also why direct tank on tank comparisons are relatively useless, as all modern tanks are designed with somewhat different battles in mind.

With this in mind, the Arjun is a wonderful tank for the central purpose of the Indian Army--repelling or mounting offensive operations against Pakistan. Its thick armor and excellent fire control do the job. But in other roles, however, its high ground pressure and fuel-inefficiency will work against it. India would be wise to retain one or two regiments of T-90s or lighter tanks to give the Army some degree of additional flexibility.

i think m1a2 is 67 tons and arjun mk2 is also about 66 tones even though its transmission is designed for 70 tons max.arjun mk2 is comparable to leopard abrams,challenger,merkava in terms of weight,armour protection,main gun and mobility and can outrun,outgun,and blow into pieces alll the tanks in russian,pakistani,chinese armour.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

arjun and type 99mbt will never face each other but it can face each other if the chinese decide to sell type-99mbt to the pakis.

 

[sasi]

1. Read the top right part (regarding the artillery upgrade)
2 IA does not use the T-70, infact no one uses a T-70. The T-70 was a Russian light tank during WW2. They are referring to the T-72

Error in report- tank pic,artillery, T-70,2016 comment.

 

[t_co]

Thats why India is looking for either Polish Anders Light tank OR T-90 MS to fit exactly for the scenario U have mentioned here. And @ Militarysta Sir thanks for that wonderful Information. I was looking for that for centuries....:thumb:. I know what r the specifics of the Ukrainian 1200Hp engine r but U Sir Hit the nail.......

Not sure why India would want tanks at all for mountain combat. India would be much better off spending that cash on helos with high-powered engines instead, or better yet, cheap close-air-support aircraft (surplus A-10s, maybe) or attack drones.

In an engagement at high-altitude and in rugged terrain, tanks would hinder, rather than enhance, the mobility of any tactical unit equipped with them. In many instances, a unit will have to choose between abandoning its tanks, or being unable to move over a mountain or across a valley. Much more than just being an annoyance, this makes units with tanks/IFVs predictable in that an enemy can easily figure out which mountain passes and bridges that unit will be forced to use.

Also, due to the fact that they can't elevate their main guns past 15 or 20 degrees, they can't shoot up from valleys onto mountaintops, as the USSR learned the hard way in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, unlike helos or jets, tanks can't go back to a lowland base to rearm and refuel. They have to be resupplied where they sit, which means they'd drastically increase the logistical load of a unit equipped with them. I'm sure you and many other Indian posters on this forum know exactly how hard it was for both India and Pakistan to keep their units supplied in the mountains of Kashmir--now imagine, on top of having to ship all that ammunition up 4000m of elevation, the army has to ship tons of diesel fuel as well.

Tanks have their role, and that's in fighting on terrain where they can maneuver, and close to good roads or railroads for resupply (like the deserts between Pakistan and India). The Himalayas offer neither of those attributes. Hence, units there should be outfitted with combat vehicles more suited to the terrain.

 

[Damian]

Well it seems that in China it is unknown fact how NATO successfully use tanks in Afghanistan... but what to expect from people who still classify tanks in WWII classes by their weight.

Also, due to the fact that they can't elevate their main guns past 15 or 20 degrees, they can't shoot up from valleys onto mountaintops, as the USSR learned the hard way in Afghanistan.

Wrong, I seen analisis from US Army, Soviets had inefficent tactics, it was not fault of tanks. And the problem with elevation of main armament was in case of BMP-1 and BMD-1 IFV's, not tanks.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562878.pdf

Here is that document, worth to read. As it seems the experiences from all conflicts, even where terrain seems to be against use of tanks, proves that tanks are usefull there (Vietnam jungles), and then some geniuses come in and say "no tanks are useless there", and thanks to such idiots, each army needs then to learn again the same lessons.

 

[t_co]

Well it seems that in China it is unknown fact how NATO successfully use tanks in Afghanistan... but what to expect from people who still classify tanks in WWII classes by their weight.

The Himalayan foothills are not Afghanistan, friend. Substantial parts of Afghanistan are flat altiplano where tanks can be used to good effect.

Wrong, I seen analisis from US Army, Soviets had inefficent tactics, it was not fault of tanks. And the problem with elevation of main armament was in case of BMP-1 and BMD-1 IFV's, not tanks.

Please explain in greater detail.

 

[Damian]

The Himalayan foothills are not Afghanistan, friend. Substantial parts of Afghanistan are flat altiplano where tanks can be used to good effect.

You seems to not understand, the problem is not vehicle but tactic. Different will be tactic using big tank formations on flatter terrain, and different using smaller tank units for infantry fire support.

Please explain in greater detail.

It is simple. Soviets used tank ineffectively. Instead of using firepower and manouver to fight insurgents in Afghanistan, they used tanks as moving pillboxes only. Thus insurgents had free field of manouver and could quickly engage and disengage soviet forces. Candaians which were one of the first ones to use tanks in Afghanistan during ISAF, done that differently, using tanks firepower with their manouverability and protection.

What is more important, NATO have even greater successes with tanks than Soviets. Soviets send to Afghanistan obsolete T-54, T-55 and T-62 tanks, and had significant casualties both in vehicles and crews. In case of NATO only one Danish crew member (driver) died when mine exploded under Leopard 2A5DK, and not even a single tank was lost, despite many attacks with RPG's and IED's... this success was partially achievable because NATO send mostly modern MBT's, and partially because earlier experiences from Iraq, as well as shared experience data with Israel after IDF operations.

Besides this I posted document.

 

[t_co]

You seems to not understand, the problem is not vehicle but tactic. Different will be tactic using big tank formations on flatter terrain, and different using smaller tank units for infantry fire support.

Altiplano does not mean flat terrain; it simply means highlands--it includes hills and valleys, etc. What I'm saying is that most of the Himalayas is simply not traversable for any sort of armor, period, because it is too steep and the roads (if any) don't exist. You can't maneuver tanks when the valley is angled at 30-40 degrees and the valley floor is barely 2m wide...

It is simple. Soviets used tank ineffectively. Instead of using firepower and manouver to fight insurgents in Afghanistan, they used tanks as moving pillboxes only. Thus insurgents had free field of manouver and could quickly engage and disengage soviet forces. Candaians which were one of the first ones to use tanks in Afghanistan during ISAF, done that differently, using tanks firepower with their manouverability and protection.

What is more important, NATO have even greater successes with tanks than Soviets. Soviets send to Afghanistan obsolete T-54, T-55 and T-62 tanks, and had significant casualties both in vehicles and crews. In case of NATO only one Danish crew member (driver) died when mine exploded under Leopard 2A5DK, and not even a single tank was lost, despite many attacks with RPG's and IED's... this success was partially achievable because NATO send mostly modern MBT's, and partially because earlier experiences from Iraq, as well as shared experience data with Israel after IDF operations.

Besides this I posted document.

Tactical flexibility does not wholly solve geography, and what's more, each of those contingents which you said used tanks effectively could have applied their tactical expertise to even greater effect with other tools better suited for mountain warfare. To claim that the choice of using tanks for firepower and mobility in a mountainous region is somehow decisive in obtaining success there is a classic Type II fallacy.

 

[Damian]

Altiplano does not mean flat terrain; it simply means highlands--it includes hills and valleys, etc. What I'm saying is that most of the Himalayas is simply not traversable for any sort of armor, period, because it is too steep and the roads (if any) don't exist. You can't maneuver tanks when the valley is angled at 30-40 degrees and the valley floor is barely 2m wide...

There are places where tanks can be used, and there are places where any sort of vehicles can't be used.

Tactical flexibility does not wholly solve geography, and what's more, each of those contingents which you said used tanks effectively could have applied their tactical expertise to even greater effect with other tools better suited for mountain warfare. To claim that the choice of using tanks for firepower and mobility in a mountainous region is somehow decisive in obtaining success there is a classic Type II fallacy.

Said a person from a country that do not have any recent real battle experiences with use of armored vehicles. Seriously, read the damn document.

 

[t_co]

There are places where tanks can be used, and there are places where any sort of vehicles can't be used.

Actually, there are places where many sorts of vehicles can be used, as long as they can fly.

Said a person from a country that do not have any recent real battle experiences with use of armored vehicles. Seriously, read the damn document.

I didn't see an attachment. Could you resend, please?