Arjun vs T90 MBT

[ersakthivel]

I don't think there is anybody here who will disagree with the advantages of APUs on tanks.

Anyway there are two APUs available for T-90s, DGU5 and DGU7, if we go by Igor's report.
Defunct Humanity: New information & pics of modernized T-90

Whose job is to fit the tank with the APU? Russians or DRDO's? When every new requirement is shoved on arjun why didn't indian army insist on APU from russians during the time of purchase?

Apart from that there were reports of DRDO developing an APU for the T-90. Just that we don't have more recent information about the T-90s today. I think the last known information is still right after import in 2002, with some media reports here and there.

Why didnt the army include APU in the first place for t-90?

 

[ersakthivel]

No it not.





Ok it was during tests, and later, problems were solved out or not? Besides that, testing only one single vehicle is not very smart. There should be at least several vehicles.

You were consistently maintaining that you haven't seen any army manuals for the ground pressure of arjun .Kunal has already posted it in this thread.Please verify yourself.
arjun --0.84 kg/sq cm
T-90---0.94 kg/ sq cm.
got the clarification?

According to open source info available mk-2 has side armour plate protection for the turrret sides.

 

[ersakthivel]

@Decklander

Can we be a little more realistic on your comments on the T-90. It looks like you have been reading the media a little too much. The news about T-90s failure in the desert was a one off situation and was rectified very early, the issue of the Catherine failing. T-90 is capable of night time duties and isn't a white elephant. As a matter of fact, I would like to know where you got this information from.

So people should read too much only about the failures of arjun and not about that of T-90.You said so convincingly in your posts in arjun thread that that the T-90 was purchased when ARJUN was not ready in 2005.


Now it seems that the T-90S that arrived in 2005 was not ready and only a prototype with worser design parameter(that can never be changed) in every spec compared to arjun like worser ground pressure per square cm, less accurate on the move firing, less power to weight ratio than arjun, no APUs Whose electronics packed up in the desert heat ,Whose already underpowered engine was unfit for desert with another 100 or 200 HP power loss due to desert heat making it's already worser power to weight ratio compared to ARJUN even worser.Now you are calling the T-90 a desert ferrari.

And crewmen fainting with no proper ventilation in the desert. For that DAMIAN's suggestion was use the NBC suite!!!!!!!

When does a bullock cart whose electronics pack up in heat and crew men suffering heat strokes become a ferrari?

When arrived T-90 had no APUs while even mk-1 arjun had APUs which makes the range of T-90 a bullock cart in desert battle with quick usage of diesel due to the non availability of APU.

Btw, I had compiled information from an interview given by some of the Army commanders in a news channel and here it is:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-204.html#post537890


If you focus on the red, I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the T-90s have no night capability when in fact it was the Arjun that failed the first time.

Also, there is nothing wrong with T-90s capability in the desert. In fact, it was one of the best performing tank out of all eastern and western tanks during the trials in Saudi Arabia. If the manufacturer is to be believed, it was the best during the trials with no engine changes required during a 1500Km run in a freak sandstorm compared to engine changes required on all other tanks.

Anyway, the videos for reference.
Defence Line Army's Battle With Arjun 23 June 2012 Part 1 - YouTube

Defence Line Army's Battle With Arjun 23 June 2012 Part 2 - YouTube

The above comments are more authentic than the MOD's report to parliamentary standing committee which said the arjun mk-1 has much higher firing accuracy than the two tanks in Indain army for you it seems!!!!!!

 

[ersakthivel]

No matter what you post on T-90 S
when it arrived after eating billions of dollars of indian taxpayers money

1.it had no functioning electronics in indian summer conditions
2.It had no APus gulping diesel in standby mode
3.It had 10 percent more ground pressure per sq inch than ARJUN,which can never be remedied.
4.It had worse power to weight ration which can nevr be remedie
5.It had much lower firing accuracy and range which is so important for hunter killer mode specified for cold start doctrine.
6.It had much worser power to weight ratio than arjun with even it's original 800 hp specs, when 100 to 200 hp power loss due to summer condition is added up the situation is a disaster and you are calling it a desert ferrari.

 

[Decklander]

? What this have to do with discussion? As for battle ranges, it is a well estabilished that as current technology permitts, conventional ammunition is meant to be used only up to 4,000m, while any longer range should be govered by guided munitions.



It depends on ammunition and weapon used. For coaxial machine gun in all MBT's it is still mostly spray the bullets, more precise than in past but still it is spraying.

As for firing ammunition from main gun in to small targets. HESH is not accurate, and neither is good HE round due to it's working mechanism. Standard HE is better, and programmable is even better.

For firing APFSDS and HEAT in to armoured targets, everything depends on stabilization, suspension and FCS, here Arjun should be slightly better.

Since you have chosen to remain silent on my questions, let me answer.
During WW2 the average distance for tank battles was less than one kilometer. It has gone upto 3kms in gulf war due to better survellence capabilities. we are now in an era of UAVs/AWACs. Close range tank battles are thing of the past. Infact we may only have short duration long range tank battles before attack helos or fighters arrive on seen to take out enemy tanks. this is what happened in Gulf war.
So now we have a tank with 120mm rifled gun with outstanding accuracy upto 5 kms and we also have another tank with 125mm gun which can't shoot anything beyond 1800 meters.
So which tank is better placed to fight modern battles?
I wait for your answer.

 

[Ray]

not worse than glorified existence in a hole while facing the truth bluffs are repeatedly called.Btw you have not even disproved one of my claims convincingly to date. ANd rest assured you never will .Each and every single claim you made in the LCA thread ha d been proved wrong. And I will prove each and every bluff you post in mk-2 as wrong.

No matter what you post on T-90 S
when it arrived after eating billions of dollars of indian taxpayers money

1.it had no functioning electronics in indian summer conditions
2.It had no APus gulping diesel in standby mode
3.It had 10 percent more ground pressure per sq inch than ARJUN,which can never be remedied.
4.It had worse power to weight ration which can nevr be remedie
5.It had much lower firing accuracy and range which is so important for hunter killer mode specified for cold start doctrine.
6.It had much worser power to weight ratio than arjun with even it's original 800 hp specs, when 100 to 200 hp power loss due to summer condition is added up the situation is a disaster and you are calling it a desert ferrari.

Therefore, it should be rejected!

So, why are they buying it?

Time one should file a PIL.

Why is it not being done since the issue has been boiling for ages.

 

[Ray]

coaxial machine gun

The term coaxial is a misnomer as the arrangement is actually paraxial (i.e., parallel axes, as opposed to the same axis).

Nearly all main battle tanks and most infantry fighting vehicles have a coaxial machine gun mounted to fire along a parallel axis to the main gun. Coaxial weapons are usually aimed by use of the main gun control. It is usually used to engage infantry or other "soft" targets when the main gun collateral damage would be excessive, or to conserve main gun ammunition.

Wiki

All automatic weapons have a Beaten Zone which some feel is a spray.

The Beaten Zone is an elliptical ground area struck by the fire of automatic weapons.

 

[sayareakd]

@Decklander

Can we be a little more realistic on your comments on the T-90. It looks like you have been reading the media a little too much. The news about T-90s failure in the desert was a one off situation and was rectified very early, the issue of the Catherine failing. T-90 is capable of night time duties and isn't a white elephant. As a matter of fact, I would like to know where you got this information from.

interesting if is the case, then why the hell IA is putting our (tax payers) money on AC and APU, surely we are not suppose to provide for AC if problems with electronics in desert are not their.

 

[Damian]

Since you have chosen to remain silent on my questions, let me answer.
During WW2 the average distance for tank battles was less than one kilometer. It has gone upto 3kms in gulf war due to better survellence capabilities. we are now in an era of UAVs/AWACs. Close range tank battles are thing of the past. Infact we may only have short duration long range tank battles before attack helos or fighters arrive on seen to take out enemy tanks. this is what happened in Gulf war.
So now we have a tank with 120mm rifled gun with outstanding accuracy upto 5 kms and we also have another tank with 125mm gun which can't shoot anything beyond 1800 meters.
So which tank is better placed to fight modern battles?
I wait for your answer.

T-90S as it have more modern main gun, firing more powerfull ammunition, as well as firing guided ammunition to the distance of 5,000m, guided ammunition will be more accurate at 5,000m than any conventional ammunition. Simple as that. Americans were working on guided munition with range of 12,000m for their tanks, and prefered to use conventional ammunition up to the 4,000m.

This is because APFSDS beyond range of 2,000m is ineffective, and other types of ammunition will also be mostly ineffective. What you want to fire a HESH to a tank with composite armor? Do you even know how HESH works and how ineffective it is these days?

 

[Damian]

Thats what i am saying, modifications come in progressive models, now we have ERA on the front which actually not necessary but still nothing on the side, since India is not active in tank conflict like NATO evolution may be slower and reality to accept mistakes can be less in higher command.

Still massive scope for improvement and armor can be added in those areas easily as improvement.

This fails to show how T-90 is better than Arjun leaving out this point.

T-90MS already have side armor upgraded by ERA, the same upgrade without problems can be installed on T-90S. Ukrainians offer even better ERA upgrade "Duplet".

As for TUSK upgrades, these are not aimed by US Army as a long term solution, because these are only addons. The next deep armor modernization is in development phase under ECP modernization.

You were consistently maintaining that you haven't seen any army manuals for the ground pressure of arjun .Kunal has already posted it in this thread.Please verify yourself.
arjun --0.84 kg/sq cm
T-90---0.94 kg/ sq cm.
got the clarification?

What Kunal posted is not, I repeat because you do not understand what sentient species understand, is not an army manual, neither from army documentation.

According to open source info available mk-2 has side armour plate protection for the turrret sides.

Show me then, there is definetly a photo showing armor module, or ERA cassettes instead of storage boxes.

 

[Decklander]

T-90S as it have more modern main gun, firing more powerfull ammunition, as well as firing guided ammunition to the distance of 5,000m, guided ammunition will be more accurate at 5,000m than any conventional ammunition. Simple as that. Americans were working on guided munition with range of 12,000m for their tanks, and prefered to use conventional ammunition up to the 4,000m.

This is because APFSDS beyond range of 2,000m is ineffective, and other types of ammunition will also be mostly ineffective. What you want to fire a HESH to a tank with composite armor? Do you even know how HESH works and how ineffective it is these days?

I know about explosives more than you and also about tank ammunitions as all ships have very very thick armour plates on its sides and it is breached in the same manner as a tank armour. Besides you must know that every Executive branch officer of IN gets specifically trained in handling and laying explosives and is a crtified demolition expert capable of making shaped charges.
Now lets come to the point. So you have agreed that T-90S/SM has a gun which inspite of its larger bore and better metal is less accurate than Arjun. The accuracy of Arjun on the move being better than T-90 has never been challenged by anyone till date.
Till now in our debate, we have concluded that Arjun has better mobility, longer range, more accurate gun, no over heating problems, fit for ops in plains of Thar & Punjab and T-90S/SM can easily match all these parameters of Arjun with minor modifications.
AM I CORRECT?

 

[Damian]

I know about explosives more than you and also about tank ammunitions as all ships have very very thick armour plates on its sides and it is breached in the same manner as a tank armour. Besides you must know that every Executive branch officer of IN gets specifically trained in handling and laying explosives and is a crtified demolition expert capable of making shaped charges.

Ships do not have thick armor plates, not the modern ships. In fact armor protection of modern ships is primitive compared to protection of modern tanks.

Ships do not use composite armor protection, and especially do not use reactive armors, be it composite NERA arrays, NxRA or ERA.

Now lets come to the point. So you have agreed that T-90S/SM has a gun which inspite of its larger bore and better metal is less accurate than Arjun. The accuracy of Arjun on the move being better than T-90 has never been challenged by anyone till date.

Up to date, in all tests in NATO, smoothbore guns were superior in firepower and accuracy compared to rifled guns. For example when USA tested a new gun for M1 series to replace 105mm M68A1, they tested wide range of rifled and smoothbore guns, in the end the most accurate and powerfull was smoothbore Rh-120/L44.

During trails in Greece Challenger 2 armed with L30A1 rifled gun was less accurate despite having comparable FCS, than M1A2, Leopard 2A5 and Leclerc, all armed with smoothbore guns.

In NATO there are some standards, like not firing conventional ammunition further than 4,000m, because more than 4,000m conventional ammunition is ineffective, not matters if it is APFSDS, HEAT, HEP/HESH or HE. Range beyond 4,000m is for guided munitions.

In Iraq in 1991 indeed Challenger 1 hit a T-55 at range of 5,000m, but this tank was not commanded by normal tank commander, it was high ranking officer who could waste ammunition trying to hit a single tank beyond normal combat range.

I talked with people from Royal Armor Corps, they said that definetly it was not a single shot, but it was fired several times, they know that Challenger 1 IFCS was primitive and it was not possible to hit once a target at such distance, because even at shorter ranges there were problems.

It is not even certain what ammunition finally destroyed that T-55, if it was APFSDS or HESH.

Besides this, British Army finaly decided that rifled gun is obsolete and want to replace it with smoothbore, in Callenger 2 it is immposible, but in any future project, it will be a smoothbore gun.

Till now in our debate, we have concluded that Arjun has better mobility, longer range, more accurate gun, no over heating problems, fit for ops in plains of Thar & Punjab and T-90S/SM can easily match all these parameters of Arjun with minor modifications.

I never saw a T-90MS (or T-90SM as you call it) tested in India, so do not bring here a more modern tank than Arjun and T-90S, that was not tested mr. specialist.

T-90S can be easy modified to solve out all problems, if these were not solved out already.

 

[Decklander]

Ships do not have thick armor plates, not the modern ships. In fact armor protection of modern ships is primitive compared to protection of modern tanks.

Ships do not use composite armor protection, and especially do not use reactive armors, be it composite NERA arrays, NxRA or ERA.



Up to date, in all tests in NATO, smoothbore guns were superior in firepower and accuracy compared to rifled guns. For example when USA tested a new gun for M1 series to replace 105mm M68A1, they tested wide range of rifled and smoothbore guns, in the end the most accurate and powerfull was smoothbore Rh-120/L44.

During trails in Greece Challenger 2 armed with L30A1 rifled gun was less accurate despite having comparable FCS, than M1A2, Leopard 2A5 and Leclerc, all armed with smoothbore guns.

In NATO there are some standards, like not firing conventional ammunition further than 4,000m, because more than 4,000m conventional ammunition is ineffective, not matters if it is APFSDS, HEAT, HEP/HESH or HE. Range beyond 4,000m is for guided munitions.

In Iraq in 1991 indeed Challenger 1 hit a T-55 at range of 5,000m, but this tank was not commanded by normal tank commander, it was high ranking officer who could waste ammunition trying to hit a single tank beyond normal combat range.

I talked with people from Royal Armor Corps, they said that definetly it was not a single shot, but it was fired several times, they know that Challenger 1 IFCS was primitive and it was not possible to hit once a target at such distance, because even at shorter ranges there were problems.

It is not even certain what ammunition finally destroyed that T-55, if it was APFSDS or HESH.

Besides this, British Army finaly decided that rifled gun is obsolete and want to replace it with smoothbore, in Callenger 2 it is immposible, but in any future project, it will be a smoothbore gun.



I never saw a T-90MS (or T-90SM as you call it) tested in India, so do not bring here a more modern tank than Arjun and T-90S, that was not tested mr. specialist.

T-90S can be easy modified to solve out all problems, if these were not solved out already.

First, Ships have armour plating as much as 18" thick of special steel FYI. yes we do not have reactive armour.
I stated that in gulf war the engagement range was upto 3kms.
here is the link for T-90SM and FYI it is this version which has been ordered for the new mountain strike corps.
T-90S Modernized Main Battle Tank - IDP Sentinel

Now, if you notice. T-90SM has improvements which are direct copy of those which are already available on Arjun. So Russians are learning from us and than selling their third rate inferior stuff to us.
If we need to upgrade, lets do it in Arjun why T-90?

 

[Damian]

First, Ships have armour plating as much as 18" thick of special steel FYI. yes we do not have reactive armour.

18'' thick = 457mm, this is similiar to some modern tanks side armor. But frontal armor of modern tanks is ~800-900mm thick = 31-35'', and in modern tanks it is composite made from RHA, SHS, HHS, DHS, THS and ESR types of steel alloys, heavy metal alloys, and non metallic materials, all formed in to non energetic reactive array. Ships armor is primitive and pathetic, this is a fact.

I stated that in gulf war the engagement range was upto 3kms.

Only because optics in 1991 limited it to such distance.

here is the link for T-90SM and FYI it is this version which has been ordered for the new mountain strike corps.
T-90S Modernized Main Battle Tank - IDP Sentinel

Now, if you notice. T-90SM has improvements which are direct copy of those which are already available on Arjun. So Russians are learning from us and than selling their third rate inferior stuff to us.
If we need to upgrade, lets do it in Arjun why T-90?

Why do you think that solution in T-90MS/SM is a copy of something? Maybe then solutions in Arjun are copy of NATO solutions, because they were designed earlier?

Any talk with you is pointless because you are biased ignorant.

 

[Decklander]

Very surprising, You call me ignorant while in post #113 you have accepted that T-90 needs modifications to come upto the standard of Arjun.
Are you not the same guy who was trashing Arjun just two days back and here you are now converted and married to Arjun by having accepted that T-90 needs improvements.
Buddy next time never ever debate with a fighter pilot. We know how to target at supersonic speeds targets flying at supersonic speeds unlike pongoes.

 

[methos]

Care to share some examples for T-90S not MS..

M88, M04 (Unis-Pretis), TAPNA, CL3254/CL3579, 125-1 and 125-2, aswell as prototypes of Polish WITU. Then there are various DU rounds capable of penetrating more armour (even though they are not for export and thus India would need to make an own) like 3BM-32 Vant, 3BM-46 Svinets or Naiza.

The T-90S has the same turret shape (also regarding exact size) as the T-90A, which means that it can use longer APFSDS like 3BM-42M Lekalo, BM-44U1 and more modern rounds. They could also use NATO ammunition like 120 mm DM 43/KEW-A1 packed in 125 mm porpellant cases then.
I don't really know if or why the Indian T-90S have the older T-72 autoloader, but it is possible to use the T-90A autoloader in the T-90S (if they don't have it from factory).

btw: Horn length of tracks refers to what part? I did not manage to find any information about which dimension of a track is the horn length.

When we were doing 425 or 400 and production was on, the Army decided that we should go for a higher penetration capability, 600 mm, and they wanted to do it urgently because this was a post-Kargil requirement. So they went for import. And that import has unfortunately not fructified due to various reasons. Now because we realise that there is going to be a gap, we have already upgraded this (FSAPDS) to 500.

This doesn't change much about the original point. The rifled gun is a thing of the past and simply cannot be as good as a smoothbore gun. If the Indian army would adopt the same round capable of penetrating 500 mm RHA on the T-90, then it would be capable to penetrate 500+ mm RHA.

No matter what you post on T-90 S
when it arrived after eating billions of dollars of indian taxpayers money

1.it had no functioning electronics in indian summer conditions
2.It had no APus gulping diesel in standby mode
3.It had 10 percent more ground pressure per sq inch than ARJUN,which can never be remedied.
4.It had worse power to weight ration which can nevr be remedie
5.It had much lower firing accuracy and range which is so important for hunter killer mode specified for cold start doctrine.
6.It had much worser power to weight ratio than arjun with even it's original 800 hp specs, when 100 to 200 hp power loss due to summer condition is added up the situation is a disaster and you are calling it a desert ferrari.

Nothing of this is unchangable. T-90S can be (and partially was) modified to overcome this shortcomings easily.

Since you have chosen to remain silent on my questions, let me answer.
During WW2 the average distance for tank battles was less than one kilometer.

No. The average distance in World War 2 variied pretty much by location. In France and the Ardennes the average combat distance was below 850 meters - but that was not only a result of the bad optics but also of the terrain. In Northern Africa and in the Soviet Union the average combat distance was much greater. There are various reports from witnesses that combat often happened at ranges up to 2,000 m. For fighting in Russian steppes, the Third Reich specially developed optical rangefinders for the Tiger Ausf. B and Panther Ausf. F.

It has gone upto 3kms in gulf war due to better survellence capabilities.

No. The main reason why fighting could be done at ranges up to 4,000 m in Gulf War was the terrain. Flat open desert was the main reason why fighting at such distances was possible. In Middle Europe the average line-of-sight will be less than 2,000 m, because of the terrain (houses, forests, hills, mountains etc. blocking the view) - India's terrain is also not a single flat desert, which means that most combat will happen at closer ranges. The average combat distance in the Gulf War was btw. less than 3,000 m.

So now we have a tank with 120mm rifled gun with outstanding accuracy upto 5 kms and we also have another tank with 125mm gun which can't shoot anything beyond 1800 meters.

T-90S can easily shot targets at ranges exceeding 2,000 m. The T-72 and the T-80 also can. You just are pretty clueless. Rifled guns are not more accurate than smoothbore ones.

 

[Damian]

Very surprising, You call me ignorant while in post #113 you have accepted that T-90 needs modifications to come upto the standard of Arjun.

And you think that Arjun do not requires modifications? It have main sight placed in such a way that it creates weak zone in frontal armor. It does not have properly protected sides of turret for proper frontal 60 degrees arc protection. It have a rifled gun which is not a good choice in XXI century.

Every design needs improvements, just look on M1 or Leopard 2, how many modifications, modernization and improvements they had to become what they are today.

Are you not the same guy who was trashing Arjun just two days back and here you are now converted and married to Arjun by having accepted that T-90 needs improvements.

What is this babble talk? Only because you have simplified understanding of the world and complete lack of understanding for tanks design, does not mean I am just like you.

Buddy next time never ever debate with a fighter pilot. We know how to target at supersonic speeds targets flying at supersonic speeds unlike pongoes.

? :shocked:

 

[methos]

I know about explosives more than you and also about tank ammunitions as all ships have very very thick armour plates on its sides and it is breached in the same manner as a tank armour.

Not really. No ship has protection comparable to MBTs and noone is going to fight a ship with HESH or APFSDS.

Ships do not use composite armor protection, and especially do not use reactive armors, be it composite NERA arrays, NxRA or ERA.

Ships can use (and afaik do use) composite armour but only limited on some places. AMAP for example was presented 1 or 2 years ago by Rheinmetall and IBD as "the solution" for increasing protection of important parts of ships.

In NATO there are some standards, like not firing conventional ammunition further than 4,000m, because more than 4,000m conventional ammunition is ineffective, not matters if it is APFSDS, HEAT, HEP/HESH or HE. Range beyond 4,000m is for guided munitions.

I disagree, 120 mm DM 11 has an effective firing range of 5,000 m. HEAT also would be very useful for such ranges, if it would be accurate enough (but it is only accurate to ~2,300 m with the L44/M256).

 

[Damian]

Ships can use (and afaik do use) composite armour but only limited on some places. AMAP for example was presented 1 or 2 years ago by Rheinmetall and IBD as "the solution" for increasing protection of important parts of ships.

Of course they can, still it is a very primitive protection when compared to MBT's protection. Ships composite armors I would compare to some earlier and simpler composites from 1960's, maybe even older ones. But they are not such advanced and complex arrays like in case of MBT's.

I disagree, 120 mm DM 11 has an effective firing range of 5,000 m. HEAT also would be very useful for such ranges, if it would be accurate enough (but it is only accurate to ~2,300 m with the L44/M256).

Well in theory you can fire to even greater distance, but there are limitations in optics and the accuracy as well. I suspect that DM11 might have greater effective range in airburst mode, when there is no ned to directly hit a target.

 

[Immanuel]

I think these endless debates of which tank is better is useless, both have pros and cons. That said Mk-1 did out do the T-90S but the MS would be a far better tank and ordering it would be ok, the next local builds of the T-90 should also be MS variant. Since the original order of 1600+ is no where near half way of completion. Older T-90S can be upgraded during MLU as well to MS standards. I also think Arjun Mk-2 with its proposed weapons and improvements is certainly among the best in the world and IA should order 2000 of them in order to support it. IA should stand by this very potent machine.