Arjun vs Type 99 MBT

[t_co]

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.

 

[ersakthivel]

arjun has lower ground pressure than the so called lighter tanks , same goes for leo.You are starting off on the wrong foot here.please clarify this fact.
To start with there are no great power tanks and small power tanks in today's world.Only MBTs that have the best armor protection and accurate firing ability on the move and taking out distant targets with the help of other resources in the battlezone with network centric warfare ability ,and highly sophisticated active protection systems which all needs heavy APU and space and protection for crew and separate storage of ammunition.So arjun was designed according to that.

This analysis is irrelevant in this age of armor piercing AFSPDS rounds. There are only two type of tanks . Tanks that can take punishment and and accurately fire and kill the lesser armored tank and other pieces at longer range .

In this information warfare age cheap and less sophisticated tanks with no heavy APU supported network centric warfare abiltiy and no armor protection are just sitting ducks.And extra 10 km per hour speeds mattered in World world war two era.Now the most potent enemy of the tank is attack helicopter so extra 10 km per hour ground covering ability wont get you anywhere.

If covering ground and extra 10 km per hour speed is so important today why does the T-90 weighs more than the T-72?

Now with highly accurate FCS of today , it is a laughable info to dish out a tank with extra 10 km per hour speed has an advantage because of it.

With lesser ground pressure ARJUN is the best option across the whole of india's western setor of desserts in rajasthan and slushy fields of punjab.

Indian army realized it and that's why they shelved a fantasy called 55 ton FMBT and quietly accepted that ARJUN mk-2 ,mk-3 will be the main MBTs of the future.

 

[Damian]

Seriously, if You do not have any knowledge about tanks, do not write about them.

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.

Wrong!

Basic M1A2 weight's ~62,5 metric tons, and is not any longer used by US Armed Forces. All M1A2's had been upgraded to M1A2SEP v1 and v2 which weight 63,1 metric tons.

Reliability is not avarage, neither gas turbines are difficult to maintain. Maintainability of M1's is good, and readiness is allways around 90% of tanks in units.

And M1 was designed and is used as a Main Battle Tank, which means it is a universal weapon, usefull in offensive and deffensive operations as well as on assymetric battlefield to provide support for infantry. Simple as that.

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.

This is even more idiotic. Leopard 2A7 will be used in very small quantities by Heer. In fact it is mainly upgrade for assymetric warfare for Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A6. It's armor is not thicker than in M1 Block II series. In fact the front turret and hull armor thickness is comparable, just that turret and in some version hull, have attached additional NERA modules that due to their working mechanism can't be added to the basic armor structure thickness.

And Leopard 2, just like M1 was designed as Main Battle Tank, a universal weapon system.

My advise, just stop with these silly "Chinese" theories of yours.

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.

Oh this is even better. A Chinese who thinks that Chinese tank that is inspired by T-72 is designed to hunt wheeled APC's. I think that further comentary is redundant.



BTW ZTZ-99 was also designed as Main Battle Tank, just like T-72, or any other tank that is classified as Main Battle Tank.

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.

No, it only shows that you have absolutely no knowledge about MBT's, their designs and purpose... MBT's have different designs due to different requirements and priorities in designing.

For example Russians have a requirement to have tanks below 50 tons weight limit, this why their tanks are small, their composite armor and ERA are focused on front and turret sides are hidden within vehicle 60 degrees frontal arc behind frontal armor. While NATO do not have such strict weight requirements and limits, and have bigger tanks, with composite armor and eventuall addon ERA or other armor type, place not only on front but also sides, which is also connected to the vehicle internal volume, crew comfort etc.

And there are tanks from Asia region, which are sort of concept hybrids between ex Soviet and NATO tank designing schools... which does not mean a hybrid is better.

Simple as that.

Now the most potent enemy of the tank is attack helicopter so extra 10 km per hour ground covering ability wont get you anywhere.

I do not agree, more recent American analisis says that attack helicopters and multirole fighter jets or bombers did not had high kill ratio against tanks in all conflicts where US participated. In fact more tanks were killed by American ground forces (here mainly US MBT's and IFV's) than air forces.

However air forces are incredibly usefull asset when it comes to attacking infrastructure logistics and command assets of enemy. As well as it's economic assets if possible.

Now with highly accurate FCS of today , it is a laughable info to dish out a tank with extra 10 km per hour speed has an advantage because of it.

Speed is usefull tough in terms of tactical mobility, maybe not even speed per se but acceleration.

Overall even a World War II tin can that will be used properly, will be dangerous, even for a modern AFV.

 

[ersakthivel]

Welcome DAMIAN.I am sure t_co is gonna have the time of his life.

 

[Snuggy321]

next thread: Who has the longest ****

 

[Damian]

next thread: Who has the longest ****

Rumor say that negroes, everyone vote negroes!!!

 

[t_co]

Rumor say that negroes, everyone vote negroes!!!

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.

Anyhow, Damian, you are knowledgeable--by your belief, there has to be a universal combat tank which is the ideal in most situations. Which tank would it be, and why?

 

[Damian]

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.

I am not reservist as I never served in our military. Conscription was banned and I was too young for it. Neither I posted any photos of partially disassembled Leopard 2 neither such photos are classified, and neither I was banned from two different forums.

Anyhow, Damian, you are knowledgeable--by your belief, there has to be a universal combat tank which is the ideal in most situations. Which tank would it be, and why?

There is no ideal design, neither any used today tank will be ideal, as the most modern tanks used today represent IIIrd generation. IVth generation will be closer to the ideal, with crew in isolated compartment placed in hull and small, light unmanned turret.

Why?

The biggest problem with vehicle weight and protection is internal volume, by using unmanned turret, placing crew in one single compartment, we can reduce internal volume and more efficently use weight for amor protection.

Also vehicle and crew survivability will be improved due to several reasons. First, crew will be protected by heaviest armor, and will be placed low. Second reason is that ammunition not only will also be placed low in hull, but also isolated in a compartment under turret with autoloader and blow off panels (currently the only design with full ammunition combat load stored in isolated compartments with blow off panels is M1 FoV). Also installation of bigger calliber armament will be easier (of course if designers will predict increase in main weapon calliber.

Unmanned turret being smaller and lighter will have other benefits. Faster travers due to lower weight of turret, less stress for servomechanisms. Also such turret miht be a removable module, and for example MBT turret module can be replaced with SPH turret module, which in the end will give a commonality between two types of vehicles.

There is many reasons. So close to ideal design would look like this:





Crew -3, weight - ~55metric tons, main armament - probably 140mm smoothbore, front armor thickness - ~1,300mm.

 

[mikhail]

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.

Anyhow, Damian, you are knowledgeable--by your belief, there has to be a universal combat tank which is the ideal in most situations. Which tank would it be, and why?

so according to you T-99 is virtually better than Arjun!jeez stop trolling and get a life man!

 

[sayareakd]

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.

:clobber:

 

[Shirman]

I for one somewhat do agree with t_co that tanks are mainly designed when keeping your enemy in mind. In fact t_co's post reminded me of an conversation of an IDF Tank commander i met recently saying that Israelis r designing merkava mk.5 and a light tank with superior firepower under 50 tonnes, keeping Egyptian, Saudi, Kuwaiti and perhaps even Iraqi M1A1, M1A2s in mind.For Syrian, Egyptian T-80s Merkava mk.4 r enough. Then you have Turkish Altay and their Leo-2T upgraded tank to counter Leo-2a6 Hel of Greek army. Singaporeans upgraded their Leo-2 keeping Malaysian PT-91M pendakers in mind. Even we Indians did the same thing in 1990s when Pakis bought T-80UDs. So yes to keep the balance in check perhaps even some countries may design their tanks......

 

[ersakthivel]

next thread: Who has the longest ****

even that has some implication somewhere.

 

[sasi]

 

[Akim]

@sasi
I like Arjun-Мк2 in such execution. In such kind will excel and T-90A(S) and ZTZ-99. Here are just cannon need smoothbore. Rifled more precisely, but has less power.

 

[sasi]

@sasi
I like Arjun-Мк2 in such execution. In such kind will excel and T-90A(S) and ZTZ-99. Here are just cannon need smoothbore. Rifled more precisely, but has less power.

Agree with you. Others are thinking abt 140-145mm smoothbore.If we are going for smoothbore,it is better to go for 140 or 145mm. Instead of 120-125mm.

 

[Akim]

Agree with you. Others are thinking abt 140-145mm smoothbore.If we are going for smoothbore,it is better to go for 140 or 145mm. Instead of 120-125mm.

For this caliber needs AL. So, four crew members absent

 

[sasi]

For this caliber needs AL. So, four crew members absent

We can go with a present 4 crew model with 2 piece ammo semi automatic without to much change. 65tn wt will easily handle the recoil.

 

[militarysta]

Superb armor protection,

Yes, it's true.

even thicker armor than the M1A2 in front glacis and turret.

Front hull special armour cavity is thinner in Leopard-2 (~60cm) then in M1 (65-68cm), the only avantage on Leopard-2 are NERA pannels on front hull and upper glastic plate in some variant (Strv.122, 2A5DK, 2A6E, HEL, Ex, 2A7 etc).
Front turret armour when we included NERA pannels is indeed thicker then in M1, but for the other hand - main armour is defintly thicker in M1 (~840-960mm LOS) then in Leopard-2 (740-840mm LOS). NERA pannels in 2A5-2A7 are to deal whit Kornets, Metis-M, and Chriznatiema ATGM's. And those NERA panels cant deal even against double SC warhed.

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).

It's to simple to wrote in that way.
BTW: range is taken from space. In Leparard-2 it is about 280-340km in terrein.

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.

This "long-range" in west germany means 700-1300m range
Medium fire range on Fulda gap was abut 600yards. In fact about 70%combat will be done on 800m fire range. 1300m fire range is possible in max 96% of case. So this "long-range" means indeed max 1300m.
And accually Leopard-2 FCS is made to find and quick shoot to many fast targets on midlle fire range.

What is it suited for? Killing Russian tanks.

It's partial true, in fact leopard-2 was "the sting" in one huge anti-tank complex called "Bundeshwer", but all tank can be very very offensive tool of mass destruction

 

[militarysta]

And special for Indian friends - whit what acually Arjun shoud deal?

From whole indian neibers the most danger are Pak. T-80UD.
What is funny their's armour is quite known, per analogy to the T-80U.


According to to the Jefremov T-80U have ~620mm RHA including Kontakt-5 on front of the turret. According to NII Stali page Kontakt-5 adds 130 mm of RHA against APFSDS in general.

So we have 620mm RHA -130mm RHA = 490mm RHA which is for the main armor:
T-80U main armour:


Of course whole main armour LOS is depend on angle - for 0. degree from longitiudal axis it is 740mm LOS, for 30. degree from longitiudal axis it is only 540mm LOS. And it's make diffrense in armour protection:

Those 740mm LOS for 0. degree is is spread over 490mm RHA vs KE. (lets sey 500mm for some error argin and better counting) and those value is spread over some layers:
-120mm LOS cast steel
-340mm LOS "special armour cavity"
-280mm LOS cast steel .
So we have (for 0 degree.) 400mm LOS cast steel and 340mm LOS special armour cavity.
Cast steel is in mm RHA like 0.85 (example - 1000mm good quality cast steel is like about typical 850mm RHA plate), so we have:
400mm LOS cast steel is like 340mm RHA. so last 340mm LOS special armour cavity is like only 160mm RHA vs KE (500-340mm RHA = 160mm RHA ).

So generally we have (in armour protection) for 0. from longitiudal axis:
1. Kontak-5 ( act like 130mm RHA)
2. 120mm cast steel ( act like102mm RHA)
3. 340mm "special armour" (act like 160mm RHA)
4. 280mm cast steel (act like 238mm RHA)
T-80U vs KE for 0. degree:
~500mm RHA main armour + 130mm RHA Kontakt-5 protection.
whole: ~630mm RHA


But, as I said - it;s for the biggest LOS for 0. degree. For 30. degree situation is diffrent:
1. Kontak-5 ( act like 130mm RHA)
2. 90mm cast steel (act like 76mm RHA)
3. 260mm special armour (act like 122mm RHA)
4. 190mm cast steel (act like 161mm RHA)
T-80U vs KE for 30. degree:
~360mm RHA main armour + 130mm RHA Kontakt-5 protection
whole: 490mm RHA.

So in fact main turret T-80U armour is depend on angle (degree) for 0. to 30. degree armour LOS is between 740 and 540mm LOS.
Main armour protection is between 500 and 360mm RHA ( for 0. and 30. degree). Whit Kontakt-5 it's give (depend on LOS and angle):
630-490mm RHA vs KE. turret protection for T-80U.


Pak. T-80UD have slighty improved amrour - polymer cast cells (special armour) where replecaed by some kiind of cermics and NERA layers. In fact protectio will be about ~15-20% better then in T-80U case.

 

[t_co]

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...