Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Damian]

Methos, I still do not see a reason why M1 turret can not have longer guns, and they put in that turret gun longer than L55. Seriously I doubt that even Rolf Hilmes have access to test results.

Besides this, there is no need to change breach assembly, just change barrel from L44 to L55.

I see different reasons why they never changed to L55.

First, why change, they got one of the best APFSDS ammunition in the world, that gives old L44 enough penetration capabilities to still be dangerous for all MBT's.

L55 is longer thus making manouvering more difficult, so back to the point one, if You have ammunition capable to give shorter gun similiar performance, why change armament itself?

L55 is also heavier than L44.

If XM360E1 is L48 or L50, in simple words shorter than L55 it might be just a logical compromise, AMericans still have high performance APFSDS ammunition, what they need is a gun that still permitt's easier manouvering also in urban terrain, gun that is also light enough, so weight can be saved or used somewhere else, for example to improve armor protection.

The opinion that they were just unable to mount L55 or just redesign it to fit in to turret is very naive... and not impartial, IMHO it is as I said, typical for European countries black PR to discredit potential competitor on tanks market.

 

[methos]

Methos, I still do not see a reason why M1 turret can not have longer guns, and they put in that turret gun longer than L55. Seriously I doubt that even Rolf Hilmes have access to test results.

Besides this, there is no need to change breach assembly, just change barrel from L44 to L55.

Hilmes might not get any US test results from ATAS, but Rheinmetall taking part might have given information to Hilmes (they gave him some information about other topics at least).
There are a lot more changes than just the barrel, when you replace the L/44 with the L/55. One of the parts changed in the Leopard 2A6 is the electro-hydraulic sighting compensation and the US does use a different system for compensating system. This are two facts. It does not proof the claims made by the author(s) are correct, but these facts support their theory (if it is a theory and not a test result).

I see different reasons why they never changed to L55.

First, why change, they got one of the best APFSDS ammunition in the world, that gives old L44 enough penetration capabilities to still be dangerous for all MBT's.

For countering future threats. At some points the L/44 barrel will come to it's maximum capacities, pressurewise DM53 and M829A2/A3 are very close to it. If required the longer barrel can use higher pressures; together with the longer barrel this will result in better firepower.
But currently there are no super-threats for NATO MBTs, that's why the 140 mm gun was not adopted by any of the four participating countries. The Swiss people also developed a 140 mm gun, but they didn't adopt it as there is no standarized 140 mm round (their two part ammo used smaller rounds).

L55 is longer thus making manouvering more difficult, so back to the point one, if You have ammunition capable to give shorter gun similiar performance, why change armament itself?
If XM360E1 is L48 or L50, in simple words shorter than L55 it might be just a logical compromise, AMericans still have high performance APFSDS ammunition, what they need is a gun that still permitt's easier manouvering also in urban terrain, gun that is also light enough, so weight can be saved or used somewhere else, for example to improve armor protection.

Yes, the L/55 does affect manouvering negatively, as the weight distributation in the turret changed too much. But as written above: the M256/Rh 120 is at it's limits.

The opinion that they were just unable to mount L55 or just redesign it to fit in to turret is very naive... and not impartial, IMHO it is as I said, typical for European countries black PR to discredit potential competitor on tanks market.

In my opinion there is no reason to doubt this claims from literature. First of all we than could start saying "Don't believe xyz it is PR". And more important: They wrote that the gun was tested, which is also backed up by US sources. They wrote that it can be mounted in the turret, but then the turret does not compensate vibration effects enough and they gave reasons why. I haven't seen any US source claiming otherwise, but all "future" American projects (Thumper, Block 3, CATTB) use a different turret layout. Yes, this might be because of the use of an autoloader, but autoloaders can also be fitted in older turrets. Why is there no M1 with a large gun and the same turret?

 

[Damian]

Hilmes might not get any US test results from ATAS, but Rheinmetall taking part might have given information to Hilmes (they gave him some information about other topics at least).
There are a lot more changes than just the barrel, when you replace the L/44 with the L/55. One of the parts changed in the Leopard 2A6 is the electro-hydraulic sighting compensation and the US does use a different system for compensating system. This are two facts. It does not proof the claims made by the author(s) are correct, but these facts support their theory (if it is a theory and not a test result).

And of course Hilmes "theory" is based on what, on what Rhinemetall officials said to him and "holy" faith that Americans are unable even for tests to make proper modifications?

Non of above arguments are saying that the fault could lay in turret design. If there is a problem then it lies in subsystem that can be replaced.

For countering future threats. At some points the L/44 barrel will come to it's maximum capacities, pressurewise DM53 and M829A2/A3 are very close to it. If required the longer barrel can use higher pressures; together with the longer barrel this will result in better firepower.

If there are indeed problem with barrel, AMericans could change much more than breach in their gun, also materials from which gun barrel is made.

Yes, the L/55 does affect manouvering negatively, as the weight distributation in the turret changed too much. But as written above: the M256/Rh 120 is at it's limits.

Not only weight distribution is a problem, but also barrel lenght, try to manouver that thing in a city, and battles in urban terrain are normal these days.

In my opinion there is no reason to doubt this claims from literature. First of all we than could start saying "Don't believe xyz it is PR". And more important: They wrote that the gun was tested, which is also backed up by US sources. They wrote that it can be mounted in the turret, but then the turret does not compensate vibration effects enough and they gave reasons why. I haven't seen any US source claiming otherwise, but all "future" American projects (Thumper, Block 3, CATTB) use a different turret layout. Yes, this might be because of the use of an autoloader, but autoloaders can also be fitted in older turrets. Why is there no M1 with a large gun and the same turret?

Please explain me, because I do not understand, why the hell mount 140mm gun and autoloader in a 4 man crew turret? It is a waste of internal space and weight. It was normal for Americans to develop new turrets that will better use new design solutions. This doesen't mean that old turret is not capable to use longer gun.



This is definetly not a short gun, and hey it is mounted on older M1 or M1IP not even M1A1.

 

[methos]

And of course Hilmes "theory" is based on what, on what Rhinemetall officials said to him and "holy" faith that Americans are unable even for tests to make proper modifications?

Non of above arguments are saying that the fault could lay in turret design. If there is a problem then it lies in subsystem that can be replaced.

To make this sure: He doesn't say it is a theory, he says it like it would be a fact. Actually he said that the Americans did make modifications, but they were very costly and only made to a prototype. So without redesign the turret (the interior) significantly, the M1 can not mount the L/55 and very likely not the GIAT or RUAG guns. The Leopard 2 was able to mount this gun, because the gun was designed to easily fit in and changes were made (minor changes compared to what the US did).

Not only weight distribution is a problem, but also barrel lenght, try to manouver that thing in a city, and battles in urban terrain are normal these days.

In the city the mobility will be the same than the of the Challenger I/II or the T-Xy tanks.

This is definetly not a short gun, and hey it is mounted on older M1 or M1IP not even M1A1.

I don't know what you want to proof with a tank armed with a XM291 tank gun. See: The German Leopard 2 pre-KWS could also mount a NPzK-140, but would be unable to fire it accurately, at least when moving.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Today i meet some lower level workers from the Avadi HVF in chennai who where sitting next to the T-90 Bishma which was parked for the R-day parade. The stuff they told me about the Arjun was some what depressing. I rather not say that here and start a flame war, they totally demolished the vehicle.

I guess we wont see any Arjuns in the future, only modified versions of the t-90.

 

[agentperry]

Today i meet some lower level workers from the Avadi HVF in chennai who where sitting next to the T-90 Bishma which was parked for the R-day parade. The stuff they told me about the Arjun was some what depressing. I rather not say that here and start a flame war, they totally demolished the vehicle.

I guess we wont see any Arjuns in the future, only modified versions of the t-90.

i second you gk sir

 

[plugwater]

Today i meet some lower level workers from the Avadi HVF in chennai who where sitting next to the T-90 Bishma which was parked for the R-day parade. The stuff they told me about the Arjun was some what depressing. I rather not say that here and start a flame war, they totally demolished the vehicle.

I guess we wont see any Arjuns in the future, only modified versions of the t-90.

Come on GK, say it

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Come on GK, say it

self-edit...

PW PW errrr...why do ever push me to say stuff like that...

 

[agentperry]

He said Arjun will drill a hole up Jesus christs but hole even on its worst day.

rephrase...

 

[Godless-Kafir]

self deleted.

 

[sayareakd]

Today i meet some lower level workers from the Avadi HVF in chennai who where sitting next to the T-90 Bishma which was parked for the R-day parade. The stuff they told me about the Arjun was some what depressing. I rather not say that here and start a flame war, they totally demolished the vehicle.

I guess we wont see any Arjuns in the future, only modified versions of the t-90.

how much he know about tank armor and the its ammo ???

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Today i meet some lower level workers from the Avadi HVF in chennai who where sitting next to the T-90 Bishma which was parked for the R-day parade. The stuff they told me about the Arjun was some what depressing. I rather not say that here and start a flame war, they totally demolished the vehicle.

I guess we wont see any Arjuns in the future, only modified versions of the t-90.

PM me about the story..

 

[methos]

how much he know about tank armor and the its ammo ???

Someone has to insert the armour. As some sources claim that the T-90 uses the same armour type as the T-72B, i.e. several sandwiches of steel, rubber and a light metal (Aluminium in T-72B, Titanium in T-90?), it could be that he bases his statement on the relative low thickness of the insert plates.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

how much he know about tank armor and the its ammo ???

Not one guy all those guys who came with the tank laughed when i brought up the arjun. LMAO..

 

[sayareakd]

Not one guy all those guys who came with the tank laughed when i brought up the arjun. LMAO..

come to chat box.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

come to chat box.

I am there, where ru?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Someone has to insert the armour..

There are separate workers for separate work..

He is not talking abt those, They are not allowed to talk such..

 

[nitesh]

Arjun MK-3 might be a reality now | idrw.org

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Arjun mk-2 with latest improvements might be ready for Army trials in June this year, but there has been some encouraging development in countries Main battle Tank's saga. Delays in putting down requirements for the FMBT, countries next generation tank which Indian army hopes to field by 2020 might see rise of Arjun MK-3.

Arjun MK-3 if sources are to be believed will have some dozen improvements over Arjun MK-2 in terms of features in battlefield communication and engine refinement. DRDO is already working on a 1500 BHP engine for Arjun MBT and a further improved variant of it will also power FMBT in Future.

Army after lengthy trails for years refused to purchase Arjun MBT due to technical issues with the Tank, which DRDO took several years to remove all the flaws of the tank to make it acceptable to the Indian army, but Army had placed orders for only 126 tanks in first batch of Arjun MK-1 and later placed further orders for 126 tanks in Arjun MK-2 configuration which required some major and minor improvements in the tanks fire power and Armor.

Arjun MK-3 orders might come has a positive response from the Indian army , since DRDO time and again had maintained that orders less then 500 will the make the project development cost unrecoverable

Interesting..

 

[Damian]

IMHO You can now say bye bye to FMBT, it seems that more cost-effective solution is further evolution of Arjun.