Arjun vs T90 MBT

[Dejawolf]

Wait a second, this means serious and unacceptable weak zone! If this looks that way as it looks, I can't believe that someone allowed for such design drawback! :shocked:

This would mean that only left front of the turret is protected... I would really start to ask difficult questions if I would be the citizen of India.

yeah that's what i see. but i'm sure our indian friends will be here shortly to deny this, and tell us how fantastic the Arjun mk.2 is going to be..

 

[ersakthivel]

Oh this is just brilliant, OG-7V granades bouncing even from the rear armor... incredible that ammunition designed to defeat humans not vehicles is ineffective against tanks armor.



It is truth for anyone, even for India. The countries that are most interested in the full share of technology are the smaller ones, that don't have other option.



Now you get the point. Also Israelis will not share every aspect of their solutions, simply because nobody wish to make another country another possible competition on the market.



You do not understand.

There is experience from battlefield, that is important yes, but there is also experience from the designers perspective.

So you have battle use experiences comparable to others, the requirements are known, however completely different thing is to design vehicle per requirements, and even then, not every required point might be achieved.

Look how long it took more experienced nations to move from WWI designs to this day.

there is no question of competition with israel.They dont have rifled gun tech till now.So for them too it is a co development and new find ,because indians have been developing it from the begining.
Okay you answer some simple questions,
1.What is the purpose of Rifling in a gun barrel?
2.If the physics of smooth bore is so superior why was not installed on challenger in the first place?
3.If a superior FCS is designed with new smooth bored guns,that can out shoot an old rifled tech gun of challenger in trials don't you think the same newer FCs with much better ballistic calculations and wind speed factoring will make rifled guns much more accurate than the smooth bore implementation of the FCS?

 

[ersakthivel]

i noticed something...

what did you notice?

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes Sir I Know that. I just wanted to tell That an above 60 tonne Mammoth ie- Arjun with no supporting infrastructure cannot be used for mountainous warfare when There r Options available which r lighter, Modular more readily designed for air lift capability (extremely important) and have more or less same Firepower to hold the ground and win the day for the army...........

what is the weight of T-90S?
How do you suppose it can be used in himalayas?

 

[ersakthivel]

@Damian and @Dejawolf,

I would invite you to counter this post that explains this very well: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-push-through-t-90-purchase-6.html#post624490

[HR][/HR]

@Dejawolf, the propellant gases escaping throught the rifle-grooves is alos applicable in case of assault rifles, but that does not motivate people to switch to muskets. So your argument is poor.

[HR][/HR]

@Damian, I had conceded earlier that smoothbore has more longevity than rifle, but I would like to share this with you.

Types of Rifling:

So you see, people have developed rifles that are actually marginally less long lasting than a smoothbore. So that advantage of smoothbore, w.r.t. longevity, is no longer significant.

Edit: I am trying to find a picture of the Arjun's rifle. I think it is not polygonal. Not sure. If I find it, I will post here.

the new chromium coating developed by CVRDE has improved the barrel life in a significant way according to open source info.

 

[sayareakd]

what did you notice?

after watching unfinished tank in the factory he thinks that only one side of tank is protected.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Army scuttles Arjun trials to push through T-90 purchase

These are some complete bollocks. To give a velocity similiar to the smoothbore gun in rifled gun you need more pressure, you decrease gun service life, rifled guns are inferior in penetration capabilities to smoothbore guns. For example British L27A1 fired from L30A1/L55 have a penetration estimated to ~500mm RHA it was fielded in 1999, while DM53 fire from a shorter Rh-120/L44 also fielded in 1999 have a penetration estimated to ~750mm RHA.

And again, explain me where is bigger accuracy of rifled gun over modern smoothbore gun, when in all competitions, tanks armed with smoothbore guns were more accurate despite fact that British Challenger 2 uses fire control system with similiar performance to other modern tanks as well as a fact that L30A1 is the most modern and most capable rifled gun designed for a tank up to this day.

It starts to be hilarious, when the whole world move on and replaces obsolete rifled guns with modern smoothbore guns, it seems that in India there is permament fanclub of obsolete rifled guns.

But this is probably based on a fact that only smoothbore guns that are avaiable for India to trails are guns of 2A46 and 2A46M family that are less accurate than western guns like the Rh-120 and guns based on it's design, or French CN-120/26.

The smooth bore gun needs fins to stabilize.This will reduce the round's velocity when it approaches the target,much worse if there are strong gusts it will be less accurate as well,it is a physical fact no matter how modern your FCS is the shell has to travel in the atmosphere, not in outer space.

In rifled guns ,Do you know how far the length of rifling runs along the barrel to have significant reduction of muzzle velocity due to friction and escaping of propellent gas?IMHO the rifling need not run along the whole length of the barrel to impart a spin.or is it otherwise?

Is rifling present throughout the length of the barrel for the propelling gases to leak through the rifle grooves?

If you can present the answers it will give a basis to your claim of rifled guns having reduced muzzle velocity due to leakage of propellant gases?

If your claim of smooth bore being the better in accuracy is true ,then why do guns impart a spin to their bullets?

Polygonal rifling
Conventional rifling (left) and polygonal rifling (right). Both types of rifling use a spiraling pattern.
Main article: Polygonal rifling
The spiraling pattern (here with normal rifling) is shown.

The grooves most commonly used in modern rifling have fairly sharp edges. More recently, polygonal rifling, a throwback to the earliest types of rifling, has become popular, especially in handguns. Polygonal barrels tend to have longer service lives because the reduction of the sharp edges of the land (the grooves are the spaces that are cut out, and the resulting ridges are called lands) reduces erosion of the barrel. Supporters of polygonal rifling also claim higher velocities and greater accuracy. Polygonal rifling is currently seen on pistols from CZ, Heckler & Koch, Glock, Tanfoglio, and Kahr Arms, as well as the Desert Eagle.
Extended range, full bore concept

For tanks and artillery pieces, the extended range, full bore concept developed by Gerald Bull for the GC-45 howitzer reverses the normal rifling idea by using a shell with small fins that ride in the grooves, as opposed to using a slightly oversized projectile which is forced into the grooves. Such guns have achieved significant increases in muzzle velocity and range. Examples include the South African G5 and the German PzH 2000.
Gain-twist rifling

Gain-twist rifling begins with very little change in the projectile's angular momentum during the first few inches of bullet travel after ignition during the transition from chamber to throat. This enables the bullet to remain essentially undisturbed and trued to the case mouth. After engaging the rifling the bullet is progressively subjected to accelerated angular momentum as burning powder propels it down the barrel. By only gradually increasing the spin rate, torque is spread along a much longer section of barrel, rather than only at the throat where rifling is eroded through repeated rifling engagement.
Manufacture

versus

The cannon made the transition from smoothbore firing cannonballs to rifled firing shells in the 19th century. In more recent times anti-armour artillery, for example tank guns used for attacking tanks, is moving back to smoothbore.

To reliably penetrate the thick armor of modern armored vehicles, a very long, thin kinetic-energy projectile is required. The longer the projectile is in relation to its diameter, the higher the spin rate must be to provide stability. Practical rifling can only stabilize projectiles of a limited length-to-diameter ratio, and these modern rounds are simply too long. These rounds are instead formed into a dart shape, using fins for stabilization. With the fins for stability, rifling is no longer needed, and in fact the spin imparted by rifling would degrade the accuracy of a finned projectile. The first tank with a smoothbore gun was the Soviet T-62, introduced into service in 1961; today all main battle tanks except the British Challenger 2 and Indian Arjun MBT use smoothbore guns. The Russian navy conducted experiments with large-caliber smoothbore naval guns, which were halted by budget cuts.

The armour-piercing gun evolution has also shown up in small arms, particularly the now abandoned U.S. Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) program. The ACR "rifles" used smoothbore barrels to fire single or multiple flechettes (tiny darts), rather than bullets, per pull of the trigger, to provide long range, flat trajectory, and armor-piercing abilities. Just like kinetic-energy tank rounds, flechettes are too long and thin to be stabilized by rifling and perform best from a smoothbore barrel. The ACR program was abandoned due to reliability problems and poor terminal ballistics.

So by having rubber seals for APFSD rounds thus resulting in the elimination of spin and at the same time imparting spin on HESH rounds ARJUn gun has the best of the both world solutions.

If rifling causes leakage of gases resulting in lesser muzzle velocity leading to lesser speeds of shell while hitting the target,
the fin stabilizing in smooth bores too reduces leads to lesser speeds of shell while hitting the target due to the friction effect of fins.

But future arjun versions are transiting into smooth bore for the same operational convenience reason cited by NATO forces ,so that wide variety of ammo can be used by smooth bore guns since many MBTs are mostly smooth bore.

Lets see how the trend goes in future,

 

[ersakthivel]

But this is exactly what I said. Armor evolution was a process, I suspect that Kanchan might have the similiar evolution route like Burlington, from a low density armor mainly optimized against shaped charges, to a less weight efficent, but densier armor with more balanced protection against KE and CE ammunition types.



Active Protection System is a completely different matter that I am not discussing here.

See india developed fast breeder reactor and nuclear powered submarines which germans didnot,does that mean german tech is poor compared to india?
Tech progress in a particular program is a direst result of competency of the personnel involved ,time and effort put together to solve a particular problem.It is not dependent upon nationality of design team.

Also there is no need for india to advertise the actual performance of KANCHAN armor right now as india is not in a hurry to export it's tanks.sensitive specs like these are released only when commercial interests are involved.
Even in there is a commercial motive to these release of stats, manufacturers always use a bit different more advanced versions of the same armor for tanks of their home country.

So there is no point in saying because GOi hasn't released protection level of armor it has to be way inferior to ukrainian export armor,german export armor or russsian export armor.

What is suffice is the user indian army is quite satisfied with the protection level of kanchan armor ,that's all.

 

[ersakthivel]

Smoothbore - The energy released from the combustion of the rounds charge builds up behind the round as it travels down the main gun. Some of the energy escapes through the grooving of the rifling. Energy doesn't escape with a smoothbore, which requires a slightly higher level of muzzle velocity to try to stop the round from dropping off due to the lack of the spin from rifiling.

So the reason for the need of higher muzzle velocity of smooth bore is to try to stop the round from dropping off due to the lack of the spin from rifiling.
So not a virtue in itself.The higher muzzle velocity is needed for smooth bores to reach the same range of rifled bores taking into account the need of fins to stabilize the shell.

And this fin stabilization is inherently more prone to inaccuacy if there are strong gusts, no way a modern ballistic computer of any FCS can do away with this natural phenomenon.The spinning shell is inherently more stable in flight as it does not causes that much friction as fin stabilized shells.So leading to higher accuracy at longer ranges.

 

[ersakthivel]

smoothbore cannon has no "bite-lag" as is found in rifled barrels.
This is the phenomenon where the projectile starts moving, then suddenly decelerates when it "bites" into the grooves of the rifling and much of the impulse on the projectile from the expanding gasses is used to initiate the spin rather than just to propel it further along in the barrel. When the projectile suddenly decelerates so soon in the firing sequence, the chamber pressure spikes dramatically. This bite-lag has been a limiting factor in rifled gun average chamber pressures, and hence velocities, for some time.

In some of the more powerful hunting rifles, it became popular in the 1960s and 70s to have the rifling begin somewhat further up the barrel, rather than near the breech, so that in theory the round would get some opportunity to travel a bit before it hit the bite-lag, and so the chamber pressures would have a more rational rise time. IIRC Weatherby magnums were particularly known for this (?).

Smooth bore guns do not suffer from bite-lag. There is a relatively constant friction coefficient on the projectile for its entire time in the barrel. This allows for a much more stable pressure profile, which allows for a higher average chamber pressure. So more powerful propellant charges are possible, and higher velocities are achieved.

But a side-affect of higher average chamber pressures is faster barrel wear.

So it is true to say that rifling contributes to barrel wear. But it is not necessarily true to say that smoothbores last longer than rifled barrels in practice, since they are often loaded up to higher chamber pressures, which gives back much of the wear advantage.

So there is a way to reduce the leakage of propellant gas by having the grooves starting farther from the breach for rifled guns.

Note smooth bores need to have much higher chamber pressure to compensate for the friction caused by fins.

 

[ersakthivel]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...i6UvWU&sig=AHIEtbQr0YzzuEYYc9mKA4Bul6VKyWAHWw


click the quick view and read the above document.

M242 25mm Automatic Gun
Some reading for fake tank experts who say the rifled guns are oooobbbbbbbbbbsssssssooooooooolllllleeeeeeetttttttttteeeeeeeeee.

They will hear the names like slip-band nylon obturator for the first time in their life.

Same tech used by DRDO in the following PDF
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/oct1999/fin.htm

So because the lowly brown indians developed it it must be poor and obsolete must go out of window.
Even americans are developing technique for APFSD rounds for rifled guns using the same tech as ARDE.

There are two types of main guns used on tanks, rifled and smooth bore. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Rifling imparts a spin to the fired round which stabilizes its flight and prevents it from tumbling. This increases its range and accuracy compared to a smooth bore, which automatically starts to tumble as its left the muzzle.

The energy released from the combustion of the rounds charge builds up behind the round as it travels down the main gun. Some of the energy escapes through the grooving of the rifling. Energy doesn't escape with a smooth bore, which requires a higher level of muzzle velocity to stop the round from tumbling. A number of tanks using shorter smooth bores are swapping to cal Length 55 main guns to increase muzzle velocity, AKA the L55.

The increased length means that the round has further to travel down the barrel, which means the energy from the charge has longer to build up, pushing the round hard out of the muzzle, increasing its velocity. This then means the round takes longer to tumble and increases the range and accuracy as well as the punch to get through the enemies armor.

It was for this reason that a lot of people have mistakenly believed that the CR2 was swapping over to a L55 smooth bore. This is incorrect. The British do not name their main guns after their cal Length like the Germans, so people are unaware that the CR2 L30 main gun is a cal Length 55 and therefore already has a high muzzle velocity. The reason the British Army field tested the German L55 smooth bore was for a cost cutting exercise to purchase cheaper rounds.

It was found with previous generation rifled main guns, that as the round makes its way down the barrel it starts to wear down the rifling, shortening the main guns life, where as this wouldn't happen on smooth bores, therefore it was found to be more cost effective to use smooth bores when operating large tank fleets, like the USA's Abram and Germany's Leopard 2, which totaled ten thousand plus during the Cold War and why both vehicles were equipped with smooth bores. This means there are more smooth bores and as such, a higher demand for the number of smooth bore rounds, which in turn drives down their production costs and makes them cheaper to purchase.

The Challenger 2 will not be fitted with the German L55 smooth bore Main Gun!!

 

[Damian]

there is no question of competition with israel.They dont have rifled gun tech till now.So for them too it is a co development and new find ,because indians have been developing it from the begining.
Okay you answer some simple questions,
1.What is the purpose of Rifling in a gun barrel?
2.If the physics of smooth bore is so superior why was not installed on challenger in the first place?
3.If a superior FCS is designed with new smooth bored guns,that can out shoot an old rifled tech gun of challenger in trials don't you think the same newer FCs with much better ballistic calculations and wind speed factoring will make rifled guns much more accurate than the smooth bore implementation of the FCS?

1. To stabilize projectiles, but it only works with short projectiles, APFSDS are longer so these can be stabilized only with fins, HESH is then obsolete, not effective in reality, much more effective is programmable HE ammunition, and HEAT do not like spin stabilization, so nobody needs rifled guns.
2. Because British Army wanted HESH, they still believed it was usefull, but in the end it was fatal decision, that jeopardized any efforts for exporting Challenger 2, made it NATO and worldwide imcompatible etc.etc.etc. I know people that were in RAC or were and ar close to it, they admitt it was not the best decision. Besides this British Army as original replacement for Chieftain and Challenger 1 choose M1A1/M1A2 with smoothbore gun, the only reason why Challenger 2 was created was decision of prime minister Thatcher to give a chance to Vickers Defence Systems.
3. What superior FCS? Challenger 2 use FCS derived from M1A2 FCS, so their capabilities were similiar. M1A2's FCS is one of best in the world, so the difference in accuracy come from the gun.

As for rest... it is so difficult to respond on a mass produced babble talk by a troll.

Oh and one more thing, every newly designed gun around the world is a smoothbore. Americans have a new lightweight 120mm smoothbore gun XM360 for lightweight platforms and XM360E1 for tanks and heavier platforms of other types, with ammunition data link. As well as somewhere in APG/ARL there is still kept XM291 120/140mm smoothbore guns. Japanese have new smoothbore for their Type 10, UK also decided to go with smoothbores. Russians have 125mm 2A82 and 152mm 2A83 smoothbore guns, Ukrainians have new 125mm Vityaz and 140mm Bagira, even in my country without previous experiences, there is R&D to develop 120mm smoothbore gun.

So you think that militaries, scientists and engineers all over the world are just idiots?

 

[ersakthivel]

1. To stabilize projectiles, but it only works with short projectiles, APFSDS are longer so these can be stabilized only with fins, HESH is then obsolete, not effective in reality, much more effective is programmable HE ammunition, and HEAT do not like spin stabilization, so nobody needs rifled guns.
2. Because British Army wanted HESH, they still believed it was usefull, but in the end it was fatal decision, that jeopardized any efforts for exporting Challenger 2, made it NATO and worldwide imcompatible etc.etc.etc. I know people that were in RAC or were and ar close to it, they admitt it was not the best decision. Besides this British Army as original replacement for Chieftain and Challenger 1 choose M1A1/M1A2 with smoothbore gun, the only reason why Challenger 2 was created was decision of prime minister Thatcher to give a chance to Vickers Defence Systems.
3. What superior FCS? Challenger 2 use FCS derived from M1A2 FCS, so their capabilities were similiar. M1A2's FCS is one of best in the world, so the difference in accuracy come from the gun.

As for rest... it is so difficult to respond on a mass produced babble talk by a troll.

Oh and one more thing, every newly designed gun around the world is a smoothbore. Americans have a new lightweight 120mm smoothbore gun XM360 for lightweight platforms and XM360E1 for tanks and heavier platforms of other types, with ammunition data link. As well as somewhere in APG/ARL there is still kept XM291 120/140mm smoothbore guns. Japanese have new smoothbore for their Type 10, UK also decided to go with smoothbores. Russians have 125mm 2A82 and 152mm 2A83 smoothbore guns, Ukrainians have new 125mm Vityaz and 140mm Bagira, even in my country without previous experiences, there is R&D to develop 120mm smoothbore gun.

So you think that militaries, scientists and engineers all over the world are just idiots?

Read the post above to know some home truths about Rifled gun developed by ARDE for arjun.

Muzzle velocities as per the following source,
http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/feb02/arjun.htm
,


Arjun APFSDS is 1650 m/s and above.
So that is 1650* 3.28--------5413 meters per second

Rheinmentall-5,200 to 5,700 ft/s.

So despite being rifled the arjun's muzzle velocity for APFSD round is equal to the smooth bore Rheinmentall.

You can check this in any DRDO website. So your argument for the lower muzzle velocity of ARDE gun on arjun because propellant gases escaping through the grooves reducing the muzzle velocity goes out of the window.

But when it comes to other rounds leaving the arjun gun with 5413 meters per second with spin it will be simply more accurate, more range,and superior kinetic energy hit (for HESH and any other rounds which require spin).

For you HESH may be obsolete.But it's effectiveness against concrete structures and light armor is well documented.

The slip band obturator makes the firing of APFSD by ARJUN with same accuracy and muzzle velocity as Rheinmentall.

I have given PDFs in the above post.you can read it at leisure.

If ARDE switches to more higher caliber for ARJUn the results would be more effective as newer higher caliber Rheinmentall.

 

[Damian]

I read, and I laugh.

The Challenger 2 will not be fitted with the German L55 smooth bore Main Gun!!

Of course it will not but not because gun is not wanted but because stupid decision to use L30A1 that use 3 piece ammunition, made immposible to store a 1 piece ammunition used by smoothbore guns, without expensive redesign of vehicle, that was the real reason.

It was found with previous generation rifled main guns, that as the round makes its way down the barrel it starts to wear down the rifling, shortening the main guns life, where as this wouldn't happen on smooth bores, therefore it was found to be more cost effective to use smooth bores when operating large tank fleets, like the USA's Abram and Germany's Leopard 2, which totaled ten thousand plus during the Cold War and why both vehicles were equipped with smooth bores. This means there are more smooth bores and as such, a higher demand for the number of smooth bore rounds, which in turn drives down their production costs and makes them cheaper to purchase.

And in the same time, during tests in USA in 1980's, guns mounted on test rigs (means no FCS) where among many were 100mm,105mm, 110mm and 120mm Rifled and smoothbore guns, German Rh-120 had the best results in accuracy as well have the biggest potential for armor penetration. How will you explain this? Perhaps it was magic?!

 

[Damian]

Read the post above to know some home truths about Rifled gun developed by ARDE for arjun.

Muzzle velocities,


Arjun APFSDS is 1650 m/s and above.
So that is 1650* 3.28--------5413 meters per second

Rheinmentall-5,200 to 5,700 ft/s.

So despite being rifled the arjun's muzzle velocity for APFSD round is equal to the smooth bore Rheinmentall.

You can check this in any DRDO website. So your argument for the lower muzzle velocity of ARDE gun on arjun because propellant gases escaping through the grooves reducing the muzzle velocity goes out of the window.

But when it comes to other rounds leaving the arjun gun with 5413 meters per second with spin it will be simply more accurate, more range,and superior kinetic energy hit (for HESH and any other rounds which require spin).

For you HESH may be obsolete.But it's effectiveness against concrete structures and light armor is well documented.

The slip band obturator makes the firing of APFSD by ARJUN with same accuracy and muzzle velocity as Rheinmentall.

I have given PDFs in the above post.you can read it at leisure.

If ARDE switches to more higher caliber for ARJUn the results would be more effective as newer higher caliber Rheinmentall.

I never said that velocity in rifled guns is lower you moron, I said that to achieve similiar velocity, much higher pressure is needed.

Are you unable to read?

As for HESH, but who cares about that, when you fall in love with HESH, the world move on with much more effective against all types of targets, programmable HE munitions.

You are angry because India is still behind? Well maybe a fault is that love to everything that is obsolete?

 

[Damian]

It is obvious.

Lower service life, higher costs of production, nececity to generate higher pressure to achieve same velocity, use of obsolete HESH ammunition that is ineffective against simple spaced protection that can be applied to various platforms and structures, APFSDS ammunition does not need rifiling and does notuse it even in rifled guns as it is still fin stabilized round. There is also no proof that rifled gun is more accurate than a modern smoothbore gun at a typical for conventional ammunition engagement range that is max 4,000m, above that it is highly recommended to use guided ammunition or higher echelon fire support. And all tests, and trails proved that tanks armed with modern smoothbore guns are more accurate.

The good news is that ARDE gun probably can be converted in to smoothbore, or India can purchase Israeli MG253 that is based on German Rh-120. So there is solution to improve situation.

 

[Damian]

@ersakthivel I know you have mental problems, this is very obvious from your emotional posts... it is a very rare to human being to fell in love with a tank.

THE GREAT DUMB ASS TEEN+1 AGE FAKE TANK EXPERT SHOULD like you also try to learn what other rounds are have been developed by DRDO for arjun besides hesh and APFSD rounds.

Spinning will reduce efficency of HEAT ammunition.

The higher muzzle velocity is needed to offset the tumble effect in smooth bore guns in the absence of spinning stabilization imparted on shell by rifled gun is a draw back in smooth bore gun is some thing you THE GREAT DUMB ASS TEEN+1 AGE FAKE TANK EXPERT SHOULD try to learn.

Oh BTW I am not teen, kid.

Also you call me an fake expert, well I never claimed to be expert. But I suspect it is just your childish behaviour is because you are jealous that other people have greater knowledge than you, and were able to find weak spots in design of your love object, isn't it?

 

[sayareakd]

@Damian if the gun was that bad as you are saying then it would have been main issue in the T90S Vs Arjun tank trial.

 

[ersakthivel]

It is obvious.

Lower service life, higher costs of production, nececity to generate higher pressure to achieve same velocity, use of obsolete HESH ammunition that is ineffective against simple spaced protection that can be applied to various platforms and structures, APFSDS ammunition does not need rifiling and does notuse it even in rifled guns as it is still fin stabilized round. There is also no proof that rifled gun is more accurate than a modern smoothbore gun at a typical for conventional ammunition engagement range that is max 4,000m, above that it is highly recommended to use guided ammunition or higher echelon fire support. And all tests, and trails proved that tanks armed with modern smoothbore guns are more accurate.

The good news is that ARDE gun probably can be converted in to smoothbore, or India can purchase Israeli MG253 that is based on German Rh-120. So there is solution to improve situation.

What is this BLAH BLAH?



You don't know any physics principle behind rifling. All you can parrot is in latest trials chally with rifled gun is beaten by LEO and LECLRC.
When I submit proof the ADRE rifled gun on ARJUN has more muzzle velocity compared to chally's 5200 feet per second,So it equals leo when it comes to APFSD rounds.

and

it can shoot any other round farther and more accurate than leo because of this higher muzzle velocity than CHALLy's rifled gun with spin imparted by rifling you are simply writing some sooth saying stuff.

 

[Daredevil]

Request to members. don't indulge in personal attacks. the posts will be deleted