Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[India22]

Both Arjun MK 1 and MK 2 are failures. They are damn costly, overweight, cant build all parts of them in country. We have to import parts from abroad. That's why ditch Arjun tank project. MK 2 is even more heavier and it still depends largely on imported parts.

 

[airtel]

Both Arjun MK 1 and MK 2 are failures. They are damn costly, overweight, cant build all parts of them in country. We have to import parts from abroad. That's why ditch Arjun tank project. MK 2 is even more heavier and it still depends largely on imported parts.

when You produce any product in large no. then it's unit cost will reduce .

subsystems , sights & electronic equipment developed for Arjun are now used in Indian version of T90 .

T-90 (Indian version) use Armor which was developed by DRDO .

T-90 (Indian version ) use 125 mm Gun which is developed by DRDO .

these Subsystems will be used in the developments Future product like TATA kestrel , FICV & FMBT etc .

we could not develop a 1500 hp water cooled diesel Engine & transmission system etc for our Tanks (even China could not develop 1500 hp liquid cooled diesel Engine this is why they will not be able to efficiently use their heavy Tanks in Ladakh etc )

it is heavy because of it has heavy strong armor , compare it's weight to Merkava IV & M1A2 Abrams

 

[India22]

when You produce any product in large no. then it's unit cost will reduce .

subsystems , sights & electronic equipment developed for Arjun are now used in Indian version of T90 .

T-90 (Indian version) use Armor which was developed by DRDO .

T-90 (Indian version ) use 125 mm Gun which is developed by DRDO .

these Subsystems will be used in the developments Future product like TATA kestrel , FICV & FMBT etc .

we could not develop a 1500 hp liquid cooled diesel Engine & transmission system etc for our Tanks (even China could not develop 1500 hp liquid cooled diesel Engine this is why they will not be able to efficiently use their heavy Tanks in Ladakh etc )

Does not mean Arjun tanks are good. Most of them are grounded due to lack of spare parts. We dont need 1500 hp liquid cooled engines. Stop adding overweight armour. Problem solved.

 

[airtel]

We dont need 1500 hp liquid cooled engines. Stop adding overweight armour. Problem solved.

 

[India22]

what is your age ?

Do you think a 68 ton tank is what we need? With 1400 hp engine?

 

[airtel]

Do you think a 68 ton tank is what we need? With 1400 hp engine?

please check the specifications of FMBT .

this time we will get support from USA & we will be able to develop a Good Tank (hopefully ).

 

[airtel]

India22
look at the latest technologies >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptiv

 

[India22]

please check the specifications of FMBT .

this time we will get support from USA & we will be able to develop a Good Tank (hopefully ).

India needs turret less tank, with APS system. Swedish Strv 103 won against Leopard 1, M 60, Chieftain tanks. Indian military thinking is as usual flawed. Most important part of tank is engine and we went to build a tank before producing a modern engine.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-...in-the-world/answer/Vincent-Godenir?srid=CkBb

 

[India22]

India22
look at the latest technologies >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptiv

I know about it. It is still in testing. I dont think it will be used that much.

 

[airtel]

India needs turret less tank, with APS system. Swedish Strv 103 won against Leopard 1, M 60, Chieftain tanks. Indian military thinking is as usual flawed. Most important part of tank is engine and we went to build a tank before producing a modern engine.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-...in-the-world/answer/Vincent-Godenir?srid=CkBb

propaganda ..........

if turretless tanks are so good then why most countries dont use them ?

even now check the design of future American or European tanks .


yes we could not make Engine ......

 

[India22]

propaganda ..........

if turretless tanks are so good then why most countries dont use them ?

even now check the desig of future American or European tanks .

It is not propaganda. Arjun tank has some serious problems. No supply of foreign parts and Arjun tanks are grounded. Now turret less tanks are not used because they do not offer much elevation and depression. But they offer good camouflage. Turret rotating is very important in warfare. Turret less in best can be used for defence.

 

[India22]

Whether you agree or not, Indian army has junked Arjun MK 2

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...vice-not-operational/articleshow/47103764.cms I think Arjun MK 2 may face similar issue.

http://idrw.org/indian-army-issues-rfi-for-new-main-battle-tank-design/ New tank order in RFI.

 

[Adioz]

India needs turret less tank, with APS system. Swedish Strv 103 won against Leopard 1, M 60, Chieftain tanks. Indian military thinking is as usual flawed. Most important part of tank is engine and we went to build a tank before producing a modern engine.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-...in-the-world/answer/Vincent-Godenir?srid=CkBb

Turret-less tank?
The only good turret-less tank is a turret-less Porki tank after the Indian Army is done with it:-

A destroyed Porki Patton from 1965 (Turret-less)​

The tanks that this Swedish tank "won" against are all outdated. And how exactly (in what measure) did it "win"?

Rather than a turret-less tank, we need a FMBT with an unmanned turret and a two-man crew. DRDO is already working on this concept.

 

[India22]

Turret-less tank?
The only good turret-less tank is a turret-less Porki tank after the Indian Army is done with it:-

A destroyed Porki Patton from 1965 (Turret-less)​

The tanks that this Swedish tank "won" against are all outdated. And how exactly (in what measure) did it "win"?

Rather than a turret-less tank, we need a FMBT with an unmanned turret and a two-man crew. DRDO is already working on this concept.

That turret blew off. The S tank and the tanks I mentioned were of same era. Anyway turret less tank has some disadvantages.

Link http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/28/strv-103-the-s-tank/ As you see turret less tank has excellent low profile. The tests showed STRV 103 had better accuracy but was 0.5 seconds slower than M60 Patton tanks.

 

[Adioz]

That turret blew off. The S tank and the tanks I mentioned were of same era. Anyway turret less tank has some disadvantages.

Link http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/28/strv-103-the-s-tank/ As you see turret less tank has excellent low profile. The tests showed STRV 103 had better accuracy but was 0.5 seconds slower than M60 Patton tanks.

You can do without a very low profile. You cannot do without a 360 degree weapon traverse.

Imagine if your tank's track gets blown to hell. You are a sitting duck for even enemy light infantry without dedicated anti-tank weapons can approach you and you got no turret to target them with. And that is just one of the many shortfalls of this turret-less design approach. Turret-less design is not a new approach, its an old one. The first tanks ever made were turret-less. After WW-I, they fell out of service in favour of turret tanks.

The FMBT design that i last heard the DRDO was considering was of an unmanned turret. So even if you loose the turret, all you loose is your weapons, auto-loader, munitions and weapon's sights. The hull (containing the powerplant and a 2-man crew) are intact. You can then withdraw from the lines and get your tank a new turret from the rear echelons. Not such a bad idea at all. Lets just hope they get this to work.

 

[India22]

I have thought of an idea of a turret less tank. The main problem of turret less tank is it cant go though wall without damaging its cannon, as it cant rotate its gun. To solve this problem we may use hydraulic recoil mechanism.

link http://nigelef.tripod.com/gunchars.htm

This system can be used. If the tank chassis is 8 meter in length, and if the barrel is 6 meter in length with 3 meter rail which is completely over chassis, like as the picture I gave, if the barrel can be pulled back(as it does during fire to absorb recoil), it means then the barrel's first 3 meter is completely within 3 meter of rail. By using this, a turret less tank can go through walls.

 

[India22]

Completely agree. In WW2 tank destroyers were best in defence. However one thing should be noted since turret less tanks dont have turret so therefore they can use bigger gun, and add heavier armour. The hull is most protected part of any tank. Turret less tanks boast up their hull armour.

 

[wuzetian]

I have thought of an idea of a turret less tank. The main problem of turret less tank is it cant go though wall without damaging its cannon, as it cant rotate its gun. To solve this problem we may use hydraulic recoil mechanism.

link http://nigelef.tripod.com/gunchars.htm

This system can be used. If the tank chassis is 8 meter in length, and if the barrel is 6 meter in length with 3 meter rail which is completely over chassis, like as the picture I gave, if the barrel can be pulled back(as it does during fire to absorb recoil), it means then the barrel's first 3 meter is completely within 3 meter of rail. By using this, a turret less tank can go through walls.

Nice concepts, we need innovative people like you in DRDO instead of copy cats

 

[SilentKiller]

India needs turret less tank, with APS system. Swedish Strv 103 won against Leopard 1, M 60, Chieftain tanks. Indian military thinking is as usual flawed. Most important part of tank is engine and we went to build a tank before producing a modern engine.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-...in-the-world/answer/Vincent-Godenir?srid=CkBb

No - reason Turrent less tank i.e. Tank's gun barrel length has to be small, if barrel length is small i.e. round remains less in barrel and this causes less accuracy, less range and less speed for round, all this is less KE.
U go for smooth gun u lose HESH round.
2nd, Swedish Strv won on swedish turf not on thar.
Such tanks are used for ambush roles, do u know why this tanks was never sold outside Sweden?
turrent less tanks are old time anti-tank tanks used in WW2, they didn't fared good against newer tanks..they has guns much larger i.e. longer, reason for success against older tanks.

next thing is movement, as no turret, tank needs to be moved to constantly keep target in sight, even tank needed to lifted to make gun up or down.

true engine is important, all planners have some concept which others lack..
Israel - tank need not deployed oversea, so weight not a concern, protection is most importtant thing, tank needs to carry few personals too
russian - Before T-14, hell with crew protection, easy, cheap fast moving smaller tanks (visual as well as weight)..more for a tactical full thrust battle than a holding one..
USA - Crew protection - priority 1, long range
India - not exactly defined, changes based on mindset change..still not decided if crew protection is no 1 or easy/fast/low profile is prefernce. T-14 changes this tactic

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Not a technical problem, Its the same story with T-72M1 and T-90 Bhishma in IA ..

It is not propaganda. Arjun tank has some serious problems. No supply of foreign parts and Arjun tanks are grounded.