Army may scrap FMBT and focus on Arjun

[Austin]

The Russians designed a behemoth like Obj 195 and still kept it under 55 tonnes. That's something to think about. All the weight savings in the unmanned turret and new hull designs should solve a lot of problems.

Not sure if the weight part is true as Obj 195 is still classified and it does have unmanned turret but it also has 152 mm Gun which means its weight is boud to rise as such higher caliber guns also carry bigger ammo and then you need to carry those in numbers.

I suppose Arjun Mk2 prototype has more ERA bricks than T-90S.

Probably also because Arjun has a bigger turret and ERA has to cover a wider area then they would do on T-90 , I have yet to see the final ERA layout on Mk2 so we would know which areas are covered by heavy ERA and perhaps even the lighter types

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

Wrong, weight have nohing to do with protection.



Why, because it would be lighter?

DARPA made a concept document where they designed a 55 tons tank with a protection superior to anyother currently used design, there was also smaller 50 tons version with even grater protection. Weight have nothing to do with protection.





Completely unrealistic fantasy... but like they say, reality is one thing, and fantasy is another.



1) You have no proof. No to mention that you do not understand working mechanism principle of ERA and how it interacts with projectile.
2) If armor can protect against 105mm RCL, and acting like this is some kind of superior protection is just pathetic.



Well if poorly educated people do not even know what about the whole deal was.

American M1 tanks were hit by RPG-29's in the front armor, without any effect, but the side turret and hull hits close to 90 degrees angle, were able to perforate armor, simply because armor there is thinner, and have slightly different composition.

Challenger 2 was hit in the lower front hull plate which is made only from steel, it was protected then by simple ERA (ROMOR-A type), which does not offered protection against such threats, after the incident, ROMOR-A had been replaced with bolt on Dorchester armor module.

But if people talk about things they do not have even smalles idea, this what comes up, a tons of BS.



During 2nd Chechnya war, T-72B tanks were surprisingly survivable, but what you can know about this, eh?





Americans have 69 years of experience with composite armors, the armor protection of M1 was changed approx 4-6 times to improve, and then we have guys, that only recently developed such thing and they claim about superiority over people that are working with such things for a much longer time.

The first tank ever tested with composite armor was American M4A2 Sherman with HCR2 modular composite armor package.

I wonder what will be next, that we all are different, stupider spiecies?

BTW How do they know their creation is superior? Did they ever made a comparrision ballistic tests with other tanks used world wide? Of course no, so such claims are nothimg more than empty propaganda.



Yeah, you cinsider as ultramodern things, that are known to NATO and former Soviet Union from the cold war times, when countries like Germany or USA are starting to play with nanotechnology.

Well it seems that you like to delude yourself eh?

weight has a direct relation to protection though large size and area of the tank means more armour which means more weight.now let's say arjun armour is 900mm of armour(just consider) and it's weight is 67 tons.if in the next 10 years we focus our r&d efforts just on reducing the weight and nt for any improvement in armour thickness whereas the anti armour technology is rapidly advancing then it would be a wasted effort.
regarding m1 abrams and challenger hit by rpg29 there are several non american website that claims that it penetrated the tank.even the russian are marketing thier rpg-29 and rpg-30 claiming these facts in their defence show.now if
you go by the statements of these countries mod they would oviously try to hide it.

 

[Damian]

weight has a direct relation to protection though large size and area of the tank means more armour which means more weight.

It seems that knowledge about vehicles armor protection is allmost nonexisting in India. So let me explain you, the weight depends mainly on internal volume and overall size of vehicle, which in the end means, if you have too much internal volume, and vehicle is too big, you have heavier but less protected vehicle than a lighter vehicle that have smaller internal volume and overall size, of course there are limits in both ways.

I give you an example.

PzKpfw VI Ausf H1/E Tiger had armor thickness coming up to 110mm and weight of 56-57 metric tons. The IS-2 had maximum armor thickness of 160mm and weight of 46 metric tons, so it was lighter and better protected.

Why? Because IS-2 was overall smaller vehicle, with less internal volume.

So such primitive thinking about vehicles protection, only lead to misinterpretations of reality.

if in the next 10 years we focus our r&d efforts just on reducing the weight and nt for any improvement in armour thickness whereas the anti armour technology is rapidly advancing then it would be a wasted effort.

It is obvious that you have completely no idea about protection of vehicles, and there are different solutions.

For example nanotechnology, the characteristics of carbon nano tubes or aggregated diamond nano rods make them relatively lightweight and incredibly strong. Americans are definetly experimenting with such armors, for example I seen document from MIT about R&D on nano explosive reactive armor. Germans are also playing with nanotechnology.

The Americans are also experimenting with new metal alloys, called amorphic metal alloys, which seems to have overall better characteristics than more conventional alloys.

There is plenty of example.

 

[Damian]

One more example, the IS-3, also developed at the ending period of WWII, it have a frontal armor 230mm max thick, and weight of 45-46 metric tons. A German PzKpfw VI Ausf B King Tiger, had a front armor 180mm max thick and weight of 68-69 metric tons.

But of course ignorants can allways say that Soviets were using "magical" armor!

Conclusion is simple, weight is not directly responsible for vehicle protection, there is way more in to this, than it is mostly explained in a ridiculously simplified way for most people.

And when it comes to composite armors it get's even more complex issue, and when composite armor is not passive, but also have build in non energetic reactive armor elements in it's structure, the thing starts to be more and more complex, depending on so many factors that overall weight of vehicle is irrelevant for most of the calculations.

And there are such protection solutions like "Knife" or "Dublet" where weight of the each specific ERA modules also have nothing to do with protection they offer. Same for their density etc. This is because their working mechanism.

Unfortunetely people expecting simplified explanations, will probably never accept good explanation that is not simplified untill they won't pen their mind and deny any dogmats which their were feeding from for all these years.

 

[ersakthivel]

It seems that knowledge about vehicles armor protection is allmost nonexisting in India. So let me explain you, the weight depends mainly on internal volume and overall size of vehicle, which in the end means, if you have too much internal volume, and vehicle is too big, you have heavier but less protected vehicle than a lighter vehicle that have smaller internal volume and overall size, of course there are limits in both ways.


PzKpfw VI Ausf H1/E Tiger had armor thickness coming up to 110mm and weight of 56-57 metric tons. The IS-2 had maximum armor thickness of 160mm and weight of 46 metric tons, so it was lighter and better protected.

Why? Because IS-2 was overall smaller vehicle, with less internal volume.

So such primitive thinking about vehicles protection, only lead to misinterpretations of reality.



It is obvious that you have completely no idea about protection of vehicles, and there are different solutions.

For example nanotechnology, the characteristics of carbon nano tubes or aggregated diamond nano rods make them relatively lightweight and incredibly strong. Americans are definetly experimenting with such armors, for example I seen document from MIT about R&D on nano explosive reactive armor. Germans are also playing with nanotechnology.

The Americans are also experimenting with new metal alloys, called amorphic metal alloys, which seems to have overall better characteristics than more conventional alloys.

There is plenty of example.

I give you an example.
Then why the three retired generals who commanded tank divisions told in NDTV interview that since ARJUN as a tank is a class apart from T-90 because it has so much weight and it can be compared to any other modern MBT in the world?
WHy no one there refuted it ?

See weight increases because we need more volume inside the hull.
why we need volumes ?
1.To store 50 plus tank rounds safely inside the hull in compartmentalized ammo storage,
2.To store 10 rounds in turret bustle to in compartmentalized arrangement,
3. T-series tanks, rely on dubious truncated turret geometry '
which will hide the 50 mm thickness back side of the turret ,
only when the gun is pointing straight ahead ,
and only when the tank moves in a straight line towards the enemy. So in this era of accurate FCS guns and lethal APFSD rounds,
if you want a totally protected turret you need to place composite armor all around,

That's why you cannot avoid weight if you want a completely well protected tank.
Using auto loaders and reducing a crew member alone won't free 17 tons of weight,The auto loader needs even more armor protection as well,

So yu must stop implying wasted internal space is the reason of weight gain intanks,

besides 4 men crew are very important for the good maintanence and high morale during lengthy combat periods is the result of the study.

 

[K Factor]

I give you an example.
Then why the three retired generals who commanded tank divisions told in NDTV interview that since ARJUN as a tank is a class apart from T-90 because it has so much weight and it can be compared to any other modern MBT in the world?
WHy no one there refuted it ?

See weight increases because we need more volume inside the hull.
why we need volumes ?
1.To store 50 plus tank rounds safely inside the hull in compartmentalized ammo storage,
2.To store 10 rounds in turret bustle to in compartmentalized arrangement,
3. T-series tanks, rely on dubious truncated turret geometry '
which will hide the 50 mm thickness back side of the turret ,
only when the gun is pointing straight ahead ,
and only when the tank moves in a straight line towards the enemy. So in this era of accurate FCS guns and lethal APFSD rounds,
if you want a totally protected turret you need to place composite armor all around,

That's why you cannot avoid weight if you want a completely well protected tank.
Using auto loaders and reducing a crew member alone won't free 17 tons of weight,The auto loader needs even more armor protection as well,

So yu must stop implying wasted internal space is the reason of weight gain intanks,

besides 4 men crew are very important for the good maintanence and high morale during lengthy combat periods is the result of the study.

Total BS. :bs:

 

[Damian]

I give you an example.
Then why the three retired generals who commanded tank divisions told in NDTV interview that since ARJUN as a tank is a class apart from T-90 because it has so much weight and it can be compared to any other modern MBT in the world?
WHy no one there refuted it ?

I hope you see the difference between propaganda and PR for internal, national use to make happy, people like you, and objective, critical knowledge.

Besides this you seems to still not understand, for countries in NATO or former Soviet Union, weight is not important to classify a vehicle, for us Arjun and T-90 are both MBT's - Main Battle Tanks.

See weight increases because we need more volume inside the hull.
why we need volumes ?
1.To store 50 plus tank rounds safely inside the hull in compartmentalized ammo storage,
2.To store 10 rounds in turret bustle to in compartmentalized arrangement,
3. T-series tanks, rely on dubious truncated turret geometry '
which will hide the 50 mm thickness back side of the turret ,
only when the gun is pointing straight ahead ,
and only when the tank moves in a straight line towards the enemy. So in this era of accurate FCS guns and lethal APFSD rounds,
if you want a totally protected turret you need to place composite armor all around,

The increase in volume is a reason of throwing everything you can inside, without any, deeper look inside the problem.

1) Ammunition storage - There are different methods for safe ammunition storage, I strongly recommend you to look at Object 640, where there is western like safe ammunition storage and tank still weight less than NATO MBT's. Or Ukrainian T-84-120 and T-84 Yatagan, still below 50 tons, despite western style bustle ammunition storage and improved protection.
2) Turret geometry is a well designed solution to a problem of good protection and low weight in tank vs tank warfare. It is however less universal than in case of NATO tanks. However Arjun does not have the same armor placement like NATO tanks, and as such, is more vurnable than T-90 and NATO tanks.
3) You do no understand that modern accurate FCS is not that accurate that you can hit a tin can from 3,500m, this is a typical TV BS.

That's why you cannot avoid weight if you want a completely well protected tank.
Using auto loaders and reducing a crew member alone won't free 17 tons of weight,The auto loader needs even more armor protection as well,

Then why Leclerc that have relatively good protection, have bustle mounted autoloader that is from sides protected by composite armor, still weights below 60 tons, it is a tank that weights inbetween 50 and 60 tons... magic trick again?

Of course not, this is just how tanks are properly designed per properly made requirements that take in to consideration, all up to day made improvements in tank designing as well as any solutions with perspectives for future.

Let's get back to T-84-120 and T-84 Yatagan, again both tanks were weighting below 50 tons.

Object 640 is even more interesting, I know that Russians were making attempts on idea to design autoloader module behind a turret like a rifle magazine, wich means if ammunition had been depleted completely, tank get back to maintnance units waitning in some safe place, and special maintnance vehicle replace turret autoloader module, which would be quicker than normal loading, interesting concept I must say.

This is DARPA FMBT, it have a low profile unmanned turret with autoloader under it, and crew in their own, isolated compartment. Front armor is 1,300mm thick composite block, and the thing weights only 55 tons per it's creators calculations. I am sure that weight could be further reduced by replacing 140mm gun and it's ammunition with 120mm analogs, reducing the size of unmanned turret and changing it's protection for something lighter.

Why the vehicle is lighter and still better protected? Because internal volume had been downsized to the hull only.

So yu must stop implying wasted internal space is the reason of weight gain intanks,

Why should I stop saying truth? To please you? No way. I will not lie so someone can be happy.

besides 4 men crew are very important for the good maintanence and high morale during lengthy combat periods is the result of the study.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. French were first in the west to break up the pattern, and other countries for a long time are working on tanks with 3 crew members, Americans and Germans were even working on tanks with 2 crew members only. The only problem is that all of their projects were cancelled in 1990's because all the sudden their enemy was not existing anymore, so for approx 10 years there was no point to design such monsters... but times are changing, older design starts to be older, in the end next generation will appear, and the catalyst will be new MBT based on platform "Armata" that is in development. And guess what, "Armata" will have exactly the same design scheme as DARPA FMBT on drawing I posted.

 

[Austin]

T-90MS is a good example of tank that weighs just 1.5 Ton heavier compared to T-90S has a western style turret yet offer comparable protection as any NATO tank out there , protection is a measure of volume to armour ratio and also some measure designed from ground up to take keep weight lower like integral Composite Armour/ERA layout.
@Damian , I doubt Armata would end up looking like the DARPA layout exactly as you have posted considering we have seen some interesting Turret Design we have seen with Omsk Tank Support Vehical Design.

But I agree if you need an unmanned Turret then you dont have much design choice and ever one who designs a vehical based on those requirement will enevtually end up looking like the DARPA layout specially in terms of Tank Crew placement and Turret /Ammunation Layout.

 

[Damian]

@Damian , I doubt Armata would end up looking like the DARPA layout exactly as you have posted considering we have seen some interesting Turret Design we have seen with Omsk Tank Support Vehical Design.

Perhaps I was not precise, I mean design scheme, not that it will look exactly the same.

T-90MS is a good example of tank that weighs just 1.5 Ton heavier compared to T-90S has a western style turret yet offer comparable protection as any NATO tank out there , protection is a measure of volume to armour ratio and also some measure designed from ground up to take keep weight lower like integral Composite Armour/ERA layout.

Khem khem, T-90MS does not have western style turret, it is just slightly redesigned T-90A/S turret with armored box bolted to it's rear that stores ammunition previously stored inside hull but outside autoloader. So it is a bit different kind of animal.

 

[ersakthivel]

I hope you see the difference between propaganda and PR for internal, national use to make happy, people like you, and objective, critical knowledge.

Besides this you seems to still not understand, for countries in NATO or former Soviet Union, weight is not important to classify a vehicle, for us Arjun and T-90 are both MBT's - Main Battle Tanks.



The increase in volume is a reason of throwing everything you can inside, without any, deeper look inside the problem.

1) Ammunition storage - There are different methods for safe ammunition storage, I strongly recommend you to look at Object 640, where there is western like safe ammunition storage and tank still weight less than NATO MBT's. Or Ukrainian T-84-120 and T-84 Yatagan, still below 50 tons, despite western style bustle ammunition storage and improved protection.
2) Turret geometry is a well designed solution to a problem of good protection and low weight in tank vs tank warfare. It is however less universal than in case of NATO tanks. However Arjun does not have the same armor placement like NATO tanks, and as such, is more vurnable than T-90 and NATO tanks.
3) You do no understand that modern accurate FCS is not that accurate that you can hit a tin can from 3,500m, this is a typical TV BS.



Then why Leclerc that have relatively good protection, have bustle mounted autoloader that is from sides protected by composite armor, still weights below 60 tons, it is a tank that weights inbetween 50 and 60 tons... magic trick again?

Of course not, this is just how tanks are properly designed per properly made requirements that take in to consideration, all up to day made improvements in tank designing as well as any solutions with perspectives for future.

Let's get back to T-84-120 and T-84 Yatagan, again both tanks were weighting below 50 tons.

Object 640 is even more interesting, I know that Russians were making attempts on idea to design autoloader module behind a turret like a rifle magazine, wich means if ammunition had been depleted completely, tank get back to maintnance units waitning in some safe place, and special maintnance vehicle replace turret autoloader module, which would be quicker than normal loading, interesting concept I must say.

This is DARPA FMBT, it have a low profile unmanned turret with autoloader under it, and crew in their own, isolated compartment. Front armor is 1,300mm thick composite block, and the thing weights only 55 tons per it's creators calculations. I am sure that weight could be further reduced by replacing 140mm gun and it's ammunition with 120mm analogs, reducing the size of unmanned turret and changing it's protection for something lighter.

Why the vehicle is lighter and still better protected? Because internal volume had been downsized to the hull only.



Why should I stop saying truth? To please you? No way. I will not lie so someone can be happy.



Perhaps, or perhaps not. French were first in the west to break up the pattern, and other countries for a long time are working on tanks with 3 crew members, Americans and Germans were even working on tanks with 2 crew members only. The only problem is that all of their projects were cancelled in 1990's because all the sudden their enemy was not existing anymore, so for approx 10 years there was no point to design such monsters... but times are changing, older design starts to be older, in the end next generation will appear, and the catalyst will be new MBT based on platform "Armata" that is in development. And guess what, "Armata" will have exactly the same design scheme as DARPA FMBT on drawing I posted.

this unmanned turret concept is no space age tech.All tech for this type of tank is available for decades,
then why no one else designed it till now?

Who will protect the maintanence unit waiting in some safe place in the heat of the battle?

With every armored regiment having UAVs scanning the whole area there is no such safe place,Any one who faces these so called un manned turret tanks will know the first job to do is to shoot down the defenseless vehicles waiting in some safe place.
these are only PDF tanks till now.

No single western tank relies on turret geometry to protect itself .WHY?

Like leclerc arjun mk-2 will have a reduced weight of 55 ton according to DRDO chief V.K.SARASWATH.

You do no understand that modern accurate FCS is not that accurate that you can hit a tin can from 3,500m, this is a typical TV BS.

Can you give any accuracy figures for the latest tank guns from different distances.

 

[Damian]

Who will protect the maintanence unit waiting in some safe place in the heat of the battle?

The same guys who protect them now? Hello welcome to the real world, all tanks needs maintnance units that follow tanks.

these are only PDF tanks till now.

Yeah right -

These are "definetely PDF tanks".

I know you have absolutely no knowledge about tanks development around the world, but you really need to proove this in you every post? It starts to be boring.

 

[Damian]

this unmanned turret concept is no space age tech.All tech for this type of tank is available for decades,
then why no one else designed it till now?

Oh you are very wrong, there are significant problems that needs to be solve before unmanned turrets for tanks, will be mature enough for military. This is why nobody is using these solution right now + whole development had been postponed after the end of Cold War.

With every armored regiment having UAVs scanning the whole area there is no such safe place,Any one who faces these so called un manned turret tanks will know the first job to do is to shoot down the defenseless vehicles waiting in some safe place.

All currently used tanks, also need maintnance forces behind them, as I said. Only people like you, living in a fantasy world, think that maintnance is not needed.

No single western tank relies on turret geometry to protect itself .WHY?

Oh but they rely on turret geometry, once again you proove you have not even smallest idea about whole subject.

Like leclerc arjun mk-2 will have a reduced weight of 55 ton according to DRDO chief V.K.SARASWATH.

And do you know how it will be reduced? Or you will just base your opinion on general statement that does not explain anything... perhaps slogans are good for you, not for me.

Can you give any accuracy figures for the latest tank guns from different distances.

Such data is classified, but just like in small arms, tank guns also have such thing like dispersion of projectiles. However exact data seems to be classified for obvious reasons. Although accuracy like in sniper rifle is not nececary to hit a target, after all you will not perform headshots from a tank gun eh?

 

[ersakthivel]

The statement of DRDO chief V.K.Saraswath is 10 times more credible than people who are enlightening other people all over the NET.

And the statements on NDTV defence time by the three retired generals who commanded tank divisions is100 times more credible than useless rants if we want to discuss anything regarding ARJUN.

Any tank that doesn't carry it's full compliment of shells around 50 shells ,
and runs to refilling vehicles like a baby running to Nanny is a liability in battlefield not an asset.
then people will target those refilling vehicles at the rear first from long range air to air platforms as no one can hide in safe place in today's battle field , especially while motoring along with moving armored columns consisting of TANKs.


For tanks that rely on world war two philosophy of truncated geometry alone for protection without any meaning full armor ,
this classified gun accuracy data is the real nemesis. in the battle field,

with more and more accurate newer tech FCS guns once a truncated turret tank turns it turret it is going to attract a sure hit on it's weak spot.

 

[Damian]

The statement of DRDO chief V.K.Saraswath is 10 times more credible than people who are enlightening other people all over the NET.

But again you have problems with understanding what other people say.

I do not doubt in what Chief Designer said, I doubt in your capability to understand his statement, you believe probably that weight reduction will be some magical process, when in reality it might mean a completely new, 2 man turret with autoloader, and other changes, like different more compact powerpack etc.

And the statements on NDTV defence time by the three retired generals who commanded tank divisions is100 times more credible than useless rants if we want to discuss anything regarding ARJUN.

Generals are not engineers, neither they are obligated to say truth, especially in a TV show.

Any tank that doesn't carry it's full compliment of shells around 50 shells ,
and runs to refilling vehicles like a baby running to Nanny is a liability in battlefield not an asset.

Arjun stores only 39 rounds for main gun, and like any other tank, needs to back or wait for maintnance to refuel, rearm and eventually do other maintnance procedures if nececary.

You have absolutely no idea about fighting in a tank, and how such vehicles are used on battlefield. But I completely understand that facing with reality might be problematic for someone who live in fantasy world.

then people will target those refilling vehicles at the rear first from long range air to air platforms as no one can hide in safe place in today's battle field , especially while motoring along with moving armored columns consisting of TANKs.

Capabilities of air forces to attack ground forces are greatly overestimated. Militarysta had access to American sources where there was real analisis of air forces effecitveness against ground forces... in short their effectiveness allways was pathethic, and bulk of enemy ground vehicles was allways destroyed by US ground forces.

Good example are Balkan Wars, where in one episode, from approx 200 enemy tanks, NATO air forces were able to destroy only... 14, despite the use of guided weapons and munitions.

Air forces are usefull in attacking other targets, like air ports, factories, goverment buildings etc.

For tanks that rely on world war two philosophy of truncated geometry alone for protection without any meaning full armor ,
this classified gun accuracy data is the real nemesis. in the battle field,

with more and more accurate newer tech FCS guns once a truncated turret tank turns it turret it is going to attract a sure hit on it's weak spot.

You completely do not understand do you? And you claim to be educated... it is another of your fantasies?

Please explain me, how you would want to hit a spot on a turret, that is not visible to you, because it is covered by frontal armor at the specific angle? You think that projectile will slow down, change it course, then change it again towards weak spot and accelarate to perforate armor?

You like to put a lot of BS in these ridicoulusly chaotic posts, and claim to know something, but what I can see here is only some teenager pretending to be smart, and hiding lack of knowledge with turning discussion in to a complete absurd, only to prove that object of his love is some sort of super weapon... good that India does not have such leaders.

 

[ersakthivel]

But again you have problems with understanding what other people say.

I do not doubt in what Chief Designer said, I doubt in your capability to understand his statement, you believe probably that weight reduction will be some magical process, when in reality it might mean a completely new, 2 man turret with autoloader, and other changes, like different more compact powerpack etc.

You have this magical ability to put any type of spin on any type of statement,Now you want DRDO to go on a wild goose chase of unmanned turret FMBT
laying waste all the efforts put on ARJUN.There would be delays if DRDO follows this route. And then presto another foreign product will be picked up for FMBT.And INDIA has to live with the ignonimity of not being able to design a MBT event hough it is a nuclear missile power.

Don't worry there are enough sane people in indian MOD to see things through, however corrupt it may be.

Whatever mk-2 with auto loadr or not that emerges will have all it's tech based on ARJUn mk-1 development.It is like saying the LCA-mk-1 is a grand failure after 20 years, and TEJAS mk-2 is suddenly a success within a few years.

Once FCS, netcentric electronics and armor are mastered re engineering a tank is a less complex job than reengineering tejas from mk-1 and mk-2,
Since the change of mass and shape in tanks won't need complex wind tunnel model validations there won't be any big difficulties.

Generals are not engineers, neither they are obligated to say truth, especially in a TV show.

You too are not an engineer working on any tank project is my determination.

Arjun stores only 39 rounds for main gun, and like any other tank, needs to back or wait for maintnance to refuel, rearm and eventually do other maintnance procedures if nececary.

Much better than 10 0r 19 rounds in so called unmanned turret autoloader tanks that exist nowhere in the world.

You have absolutely no idea about fighting in a tank, and how such vehicles are used on battlefield. But I completely understand that facing with reality might be problematic for someone who live in fantasy world.

If you have any idea about any concept of tank design you would have checked my calculations for side armor from the photo of ARJUn top turret in my post no-1265 in ARJUN vs T-90 thread in this same forum.

After saying DEJAWOLF's fauty 3D model is correct , you are keeping quiet on my estimation of side armor thickness of arjun is proof who is living in a fantasy world ad who is living in a real world

Capabilities of air forces to attack ground forces are greatly overestimated. Militarysta had access to American sources where there was real analisis of air forces effecitveness against ground forces... in short their effectiveness allways was pathethic, and bulk of enemy ground vehicles was allways destroyed by US ground forces.

Capabilities of helos like APACHE with hellfire missiles along with moving tank armored columns are proven beyond doubt

Good example are Balkan Wars, where in one episode, from approx 200 enemy tanks, NATO air forces were able to destroy only... 14, despite the use of guided weapons and munitions.

Most of the serb tanks were not fighting with nato armored columns in world war -two type armored columns battle, so how can you compare it here?

Air forces are usefull in attacking other targets, like air ports, factories, goverment buildings etc.

Even heard of RAFALE deploying long range stand-off ground attack munition against moving tanks in libiya?
Quite like your truncated turret geometry lessons this statement belongs to world war-two era

You completely do not understand do you? And you claim to be educated... it is another of your fantasies?

Please explain me, how you would want to hit a spot on a turret, that is not visible to you, because it is covered by frontal armor at the specific angle? You think that projectile will slow down, change it course, then change it again towards weak spot and accelarate to perforate armor?

The spot is visible to the whole world once these much vaunted turret geometry tanks swivel their turret for any one who has two eyes sitting behind his main sight in enemy formation is my humble opinion.


With deadly accurate FCS it will be hit accurately.

If truncated turret tank wants to avoid it , it should always move in a straight line right opposite to the enemy tank,
and always fire only at targets directly ahead(no use because they will be heavily armored in front) without turning it's turret.

And it should jump for laterally for any sideways movement instead of motoring, because any angular movement will reveal it weakspot to the enemy

You like to put a lot of BS in these ridicoulusly chaotic posts, and claim to know something, but what I can see here is only some teenager pretending to be smart, and hiding lack of knowledge with turning discussion in to a complete absurd, only to prove that object of his love is some sort of super weapon... good that India does not have such leaders.

counter my post no-1265 in arjun VS t-90 thread in this same forum before determining who is writing BS.

So which unmanned turret FMBT of a world's leading tank manufacturer is in prototype stage?
What are the technical issues that are so great , that cannot be resolved ,
that is stopping the deployment of these tanks?

of course there are plans and PDFs and drawings,But what is stopping these unmanned turret tank development is their lack of credibility to main tank making nations .
Thats all.Not any complex engineering problems as there were none .

because all the tech FCS, sgun , auto loader , armor all are available to main tank producers of the world for decades,
Then why didn't they engineer an unmanned turret tank if it is so light weight and so better than the manned turret MBTs?

I find it hard to believe the integeration of autoloaders, armors and unmanned turret gun is such a difficult space age challenge that could not be done with last decade's tech level.

 

[Damian]

You have this magical ability to put any type of spin on any type of statement,Now you want DRDO to go on a wild goose chase of unmanned turret FMBT
laying waste all the efforts put on ARJUN.There would be delays if DRDO follows this route. And then presto another foreign product will be picked up for FMBT.And INDIA has to live with the ignonimity of not being able to design a MBT event hough it is a nuclear missile power.

Arjun represents the 3rd generation of MBT's, so it's design concept is from 1970's. Other nations were working through 1980's and 1990's on MBT's with unmanned turrets, so the next generation of MBT's that will eventually replace some day M1, Leo2, Leclerc and Challenger 2, will look like these prototypes on drawings and photos. This is the only way to progress, and we would seen such tanks allready like Object 195 that from mechanical point of view was ready for production, but Russians had problems with it's electronics, it's fire control system was just too ambitious design for their capabilities.

You too are not an engineer working on any tank project is my determination.

?

Much better than 10 0r 19 rounds in so called unmanned turret autoloader tanks that exist nowhere in the world.

But where did you saw a 10 or 19 rounds in unmanned turrets?

This one for example had 44 rounds ready to use in autoloader carousel under the turret, see the difference? 44 rounds instead of 10 ready rounds in Arjun, that need to stop, rotate a turret and reload ready rack from storage in the hull?

And here other project of USA FMBT.

If you have any idea about any concept of tank design you would have checked my calculations for side armor from the photo of ARJUn top turret in my post no-1265 in ARJUN vs T-90 thread in this same forum.

After saying DEJAWOLF's fauty 3D model is correct , you are keeping quiet on my estimation of side armor thickness of arjun is proof who is living in a fantasy world ad who is living in a real world

Why should I comment a completely idiotic calculations made by you? You are making mistake after mistake. So I do not see nececity to comment something such useless like you.

Capabilities of helos like APACHE with hellfire missiles along with moving tank armored columns are proven beyond doubt

Yeah, right, like when AH-64's were shoot like ducks by Polish AA systems during excercises in Poland.

And we were using old Soviet made systems.

Even heard of RAFALE deploying long range stand-off ground attack munition against moving tanks in libiya?
Quite like your truncated turret geometry lessons this statement belongs to world war-two era

Yea I wonder why, then in 2003 in Iraq, there were still relatively big tank vs tank battles, despite coalition air forces superiority.

But this is not the first time you believe in fairy tales.

So which unmanned turret FMBT of a world's leading tank manufacturer is in prototype stage?

Russia the UKBTM/UVZ "Armata", it is however uncertain what USA and Germany have in their test facilities, we know that at least USA have slowly started concept works on next generation MBT.

What are the technical issues that are so great , that cannot be resolved ,
that is stopping the deployment of these tanks?

of course there are plans and PDFs and drawings,But what is stopping these unmanned turret tank development is their lack of credibility to main tank making nations .
Thats all.Not any complex engineering problems as there were none .

because all the tech FCS, sgun , auto loader , armor all are available to main tank producers of the world for decades,
Then why didn't they engineer an unmanned turret tank if it is so light weight and so better than the manned turret MBTs?

I find it hard to believe the integeration of autoloaders, armors and unmanned turret gun is such a difficult space age challenge that could not be done with last decade's tech level.

Problems are electronics and FCS, to provide sufficent situational awareness and to solve other issues like quality of image projected from sights to the crew compartment, and such things.

For ignorants it might sounds funny, but problems of such type were even in case of manned turrets.

 

[ersakthivel]

Arjun represents the 3rd generation of MBT's, so it's design concept is from 1970's. Other nations were working through 1980's and 1990's on MBT's with unmanned turrets, so the next generation of MBT's that will eventually replace some day M1, Leo2, Leclerc and Challenger 2, will look like these prototypes on drawings and photos. This is the only way to progress, and we would seen such tanks allready like Object 195 that from mechanical point of view was ready for production, but Russians had problems with it's electronics, it's fire control system was just too ambitious design for their capabilities.

You are just 20 years old.that is the problem.

?



But where did you saw a 10 or 19 rounds in unmanned turrets?

This one for example had 44 rounds ready to use in autoloader carousel under the turret, see the difference? 44 rounds instead of 10 ready rounds in Arjun, that need to stop, rotate a turret and reload ready rack from storage in the hull?

And here other project of USA FMBT.

Why should I comment a completely idiotic calculations made by you? You are making mistake after mistake. So I do not see nececity to comment something such useless like you.

You could not comment on it, because it will expose the BS you posted for 100s of post on arjun in this forum.

Yeah, right, like when AH-64's were shoot like ducks by Polish AA systems during excercises in Poland.

So the million dollar APACHE is a dud.Soviet attack helicopters are also duds by the same comparision.

And we were using old Soviet made systems.



Yea I wonder why, then in 2003 in Iraq, there were still relatively big tank vs tank battles, despite coalition air forces superiority.

But this is not the first time you believe in fairy tales.



Russia the UKBTM/UVZ "Armata", it is however uncertain what USA and Germany have in their test facilities, we know that at least USA have slowly started concept works on next generation MBT.

As I suspected this is the main reason for you to post PDf tanks when we discuss indian FMBT.

Problems are electronics and FCS, to provide sufficent situational awareness and to solve other issues like quality of image projected from sights to the crew compartment, and such things.

The above statement shows your technical inability to write about tanks other than general statements.
FCS and situational awareness and electronics is not dependent upon the position of crew men.

What weight you save on turret armor has to be used on the visible hull top to even higher level.
Because these tanks will have clearly lower profile than manned turret tanks,
And their uncovered vacant hull top area will be visible for targetting.
I

For ignorants it might sounds funny, but problems of such type were even in case of manned turrets.

So you can not claim to be an expert if you write BS about nowhere near prototype version and call other guys ignorant.

 

[Damian]

The above statement shows your technical inability to write about tanks other than general statements.
FCS and situational awareness and electronics is not dependent upon the position of crew men.

What weight you save on turret armor has to be used on the visible hull top to even higher level.
Because these tanks will have clearly lower profile than manned turret tanks,
And their uncovered vacant hull top area will be visible for targetting.
I

FCS and situational awareness depends on crew positions. TC have smaller field of view when placed in hull than in manned turret.

[MOD: Provocative content removed. Repeated violation will invite infraction.]

So you can not claim to be an expert if you write BS about nowhere near prototype version and call other guys ignorant.

What nowhere near prototype? These were prototypes, prototypes are there to check if everything is ok, and this very sophisticated prototypes were created faster, and where ready to tests in much shorter time than DRDO was capable to finally give IA Arjun in mature variant ready for mass production.

[MOD: Provocative content removed. Repeated violation will invite infraction.]

 

[pmaitra]

@ersakthivel, situational awareness does depend on crew position, and I agree with @Damian.

 

[Damian]

There are some attempts to solve this problem by mounting several small cameras with wide field of view, but it seems to still not be mature enough.

We will see with what solutions Russians will come up with "Armata".