Indian T-90S a sub-standard tank ?

[ersakthivel]

T-55 and M48 again. all LOS thickness. this time side/rear protection:

T-55:
side turret: 130mm front, 60mm rear
rear turret: 60mm

side hull: 80mm upper, 20mm lower (around suspension arms)
rear hull: 60mm

M48:
side turret: 76mm
rear turret: 51mm

side hull: 76mm over crew compartment, 51mm over engine compartment
rear hull: 51mm

looks like the smaller lighter T-55 has thicker side and rear armour than the M48.
and thus your argument about more weight = more armour falls to pieces.

Nothing has fallen to pieces(it can happen only in your imagination). if you have cramped internal volume with tight space the crew will not be able to withstand soaring temp in summer desert condition.And in those soaring temp most of the electronics malfunction (without AC, but having ac is not a cure ,in tank skirmishes the AC will be the first system to stop functioning as it has exposed parts out side) .

Also there is no safe place to mount APU in T-90, if you mount in whatever place available outside of the tank it will be the first one to be hit in tank skirmishes and stop functioning. So network centric capacity is not available when it is needed most.
Also to avoid the typical crew squating on Ammo T-90 situation some arrangement for safe ammo storage is needed .It will add it's own bit to volume requirement and hence more weight is needed in the same LOS armor needed to cover the extra volume.

You are feigning ignorance about the above important tank efficiency enhancing and crew survival features and repeating the same old arguments that smaller russian tank has same or better LOS and armor protections .
Ofcourse they have a better LOS armor protection for no modern tank efficiency enhancing and crew survival features design requirements of T-90, but in battle this same LOS armor protection alone won't cover all the critical weakness of T-90 in these key areas.

To avoid this we need more internal volume and hence more weight on armor and all the supporting superstructure is my point of view.

 

[ersakthivel]

So why does tanks like ARJUN and other western MBTs hAVE BIGGER INTERNAL VOLUME?

1. ARJUN completed summer trials in rajasthan in baking heat with no serious issues to crew, why, the more internal volume means much better ventilation of heat and lesser level of temp inside than the T-90 in the same condition. Also because of better ventilation and lower temp due to higher internal volume the heat hardened electronics have much better chances of performing.

Compare that to the lesser internal volume T-90 which will fail in desert condition even if you put it on today.

As of today there is no satisfactory solution for the airconditioning issues and crew won't be able to stand the heat generated by cramped internal volume in dessert condition. Since it has no decent APU worth the name T-90 s has to run it's engine to power the electronics even in silent mode leading to higher crew compartment temp and a higher chance of detection due to engine exhaust.T

he less said the better about the state of electronics in these baking conditions.AC is good , but in the first skirmishes itself the unprotected externally mounted Ac will be blown off and the electronics will malfunction and crew willl suffocate in heat.SO while it is good to have AC , the tank and crew should be able to fuction in desert heat even in the absence of AC, this can never be had in cramped internal volume designs like T-90 which won't function in desert heat without Ac..

2. Also a separate ammo storage in ARJUN mk-1 enhances the chances of avoidance of ammo cook off in case of any seep through fire from even and IED explosion as ammo is not lying in a heap on the ground.mk-2 will have containerisation of ammo leading to much better chances of crew and tank survival which cannot be had in T-90.These features also add to internal volume.

3. In prolonged tank battles 4 man crew increases the morale of the crew and leads to better tank maintanence. So to provide this feature also we need some more internal volumes and hence need for the extra weight.

4. Tp give a lower ground pressure for this extra weight you need heavier suspension and wider tracks which also addd to weight requirement and volume requirements.

5. ALso a safer place for mounting the a much bigger and heavier APU has to be factored in for the volumetric increase of heavy MBTs. These bigger APUs ensure the tank runs all it's electronics in engine silent mode increasing the range and at the same time avoiding detection by engine exhaust emission.The higher power APU is vital for the network centric capability of heavy MBts like ARJUN so that it can have data links in live battle situation to recieve info from UAVs and choppers above and fire missiles at non line of sight targets.These features also add to the volume requirement and hence more weight for the same LOS armor thickness.

6. Also heavier MBts rely more on composite armors and treat the one hit panel approach of ERA as an add on.This approach also adds to the weight of the armor. But lighter tanks make ERA a center piece of their LOS thickness, which is questionable approach as after a few well aimed hits most of these catridges will be pealed off. The situation will be more piquant if some ERA denuding special rounds which spread their energy allover the surface of ERA is developed to counter this tactic.

7. To support all these extra weight you need a more powerful engine which also adds to weight and volume requirement.So overall the higher internal volume is the result of better crew survivability features and need of the modern combat theater .

 

[ersakthivel]

I asked a to the point question, and it was Dejawolf (and now you), who are patronizing others.

He was answering an imaginary question, certainly not my question.

Already did. Cannot make it any simpler.

So he wasn't answering my question.

Damian claimed Dejawolf was talking about M1 and T-90 (read his post again), which is not true.

I know that. I also replied to that post, did you see it?

If you have made up your mind you are going to defend those who are beating around the bush, then nothing can make you less annoying than those you are defending.

I have a question: Why would one continue to beat around the bush? Is it because he has no to the point answer but doesn't want to come across as he doesn't really have the answer? What's wrong is saying, "I don't know?"

People beat around the bush because a deeper debate will bring clarity on the issues, which they don't want. that's all.

Bigger internal volumes are there for a purpose. Bigger internal volume is vital to the battle aims of these heavier MBts. Because this bigger internal volume is a result of many vital systems that goes toward satisfying stiffer GSQR requirements as I stated in the above two posts no-421 and 422.

These are my views only and any reasonable debate on these views are welcome , but not rants of the retards as it is so typical in this forum if someone starts pointing out some real issues bolstering his claim.people try to mire the guy in countless silly replies and force him to quit.

 

[collegeboy16]

So why does tanks like ARJUN and other western MBTs hAVE BIGGER INTERNAL VOLUME?

1. ARJUN completed summer trials in rajasthan in baking heat with no serious issues to crew, why, the more internal volume means much better ventilation of heat and lesser level of temp inside than the T-90 in the same condition. Also because of better ventilation and lower temp due to higher internal volume the heat hardened electronics have much better chances of performing.

Compare that to the lesser internal volume T-90 which will fail in desert condition even if you put it on today.

As of today there is no satisfactory solution for the airconditioning issues and crew won't be able to stand the heat generated by cramped internal volume in dessert condition. Since it has no decent APU worth the name T-90 s has to run it's engine to power the electronics even in silent mode leading to higher crew compartment temp and a higher chance of detection due to engine exhaust.T

he less said the better about the state of electronics in these baking conditions.AC is good , but in the first skirmishes itself the unprotected externally mounted Ac will be blown off and the electronics will malfunction and crew willl suffocate in heat.SO while it is good to have AC , the tank and crew should be able to fuction in desert heat even in the absence of AC, this can never be had in cramped internal volume designs like T-90 which won't function in desert heat without Ac..

Actually T-90 has space for internal AC. Remember the loose ammo storage? Shifting those ammo to a bustle storage like in T-90MS wont be that hard. Since they are seperate locations, you can split AC components or use many smaller AC units. Also having a smaller internal volume would make AC more efficient.

2. Also a separate ammo storage in ARJUN mk-1 enhances the chances of avoidance of ammo cook off in case of any seep through fire from even and IED explosion as ammo is not lying in a heap on the ground.mk-2 will have containerisation of ammo leading to much better chances of crew and tank survival which cannot be had in T-90.These features also add to internal volume.
Remove loose ammo from T-90 and you now have compartmentalized ammo that is much,much harder to hit than Arjun's.
3. In prolonged tank battles 4 man crew increases the morale of the crew and leads to better tank maintanence. So to provide this feature also we need some more internal volumes and hence need for the extra weight.
How does the loader increase morale? Maintenance can come from guys at the back, you can have as much of mechanics as you like from there.
4. Tp give a lower ground pressure for this extra weight you need heavier suspension and wider tracks which also addd to weight requirement and volume requirements.
Having the lowest ground pressure would not really help you if the ground itself can't support your weight.
5. ALso a safer place for mounting the a much bigger and heavier APU has to be factored in for the volumetric increase of heavy MBTs. These bigger APUs ensure the tank runs all it's electronics in engine silent mode increasing the range and at the same time avoiding detection by engine exhaust emission.The higher power APU is vital for the network centric capability of heavy MBts like ARJUN so that it can have data links in live battle situation to recieve info from UAVs and choppers above and fire missiles at non line of sight targets.These features also add to the volume requirement and hence more weight for the same LOS armor thickness.
Why does it have to be a bigger and heavier APU? You can have GT APU that would be very compact for the same output. Also lighter and more efficient electronics would be good too. AFAIK M1A2 has 2 ton of wires, how much weight would be saved if fiber optics would be used.
6. Also heavier MBts rely more on composite armors and treat the one hit panel approach of ERA as an add on.This approach also adds to the weight of the armor. But lighter tanks make ERA a center piece of their LOS thickness, which is questionable approach as after a few well aimed hits most of these catridges will be pealed off. The situation will be more piquant if some ERA denuding special rounds which spread their energy allover the surface of ERA is developed to counter this tacticHighly unlikely, ERA like Relikt are integrated into armor, not bolt-on. Also highly unlikely, hitting the same spot twice. Also, you shoot to kill, not to weaken(strip of ERA), if you do, you deserve to get hit by Grifel.

7. To support all these extra weight you need a more powerful engine which also adds to weight and volume requirement.So overall the higher internal volume is the result of better crew survivability features and need of the modern combat theater .[/QUOTE]
AFAIK the only "heavy" tank with better crew survivability after hit than a T-90 without loose ammo is M1-series with turret bustle ammo storage.

 

[collegeboy16]

People beat around the bush because a deeper debate will bring clarity on the issues, which they don't want. that's all.

Bigger internal volumes are there for a purpose. Bigger internal volume is vital to the battle aims of these heavier MBts. Because this bigger internal volume is a result of many vital systems that goes toward satisfying stiffer GSQR requirements as I stated in the above two posts no-421 and 422.

These are my views only and any reasonable debate on these views are welcome , but not rants of the retards as it is so typical in this forum if someone starts pointing out some real issues bolstering his claim.people try to mire the guy in countless silly replies and force him to quit.

AFAIK even M1 and Leo designers didn't wish their tanks to be that "heavy". They just did so to eliminate risks, not because bigger and heavier is better.

 

[pmaitra]

People beat around the bush because a deeper debate will bring clarity on the issues, which they don't want. that's all.

Bigger internal volumes are there for a purpose. Bigger internal volume is vital to the battle aims of these heavier MBts. Because this bigger internal volume is a result of many vital systems that goes toward satisfying stiffer GSQR requirements as I stated in the above two posts no-421 and 422.

These are my views only and any reasonable debate on these views are welcome , but not rants of the retards as it is so typical in this forum if someone starts pointing out some real issues bolstering his claim.people try to mire the guy in countless silly replies and force him to quit.

That should be the idea of a debate - to bring clarity to an issue. I have had this a few times with these certain "gentlemen," where I ask one question, and they respond with 15 different things but not the subject in the question, and then pretend as if the other person cannot understand. When devoid of an answer, obfuscate the debate by flooding it with unrelated drivel.

I will list some of such debates:

• Smoothbore vs Rifle
• Flame temperature of RDX
• Why M1 is 20 tons heavier than T-90

In all the above debates, I had to deal with all the dross being hurled at me in a vain attempt to get me to forget the issue.

It beats me why these people, on top of not answering the question, have the nerve to lose temper.

Anyway, here is something you might find interesting:

Low, sneaky ways that some people use to win arguments:
. . .
Distract. Throw in diversions which deflect the other person from their main point.
. . .

Source: How to win Arguments - Dos, Don'ts and Sneaky Tactics - Lifehack

 

[Kunal Biswas]

There are certain things need to be pointed out, Storage tanks mounted on a tank is very important, When a tank goes in battle crew need >

1.Tent
2.Water
3.Food
4.Sleeping Bags
5.Repellents
6.Ammo & Vest
7.Repairing tools
8.Electronic equipments

Etc..

You cannot change that, So those storage box are very needed, If you notice Arjun have many storage box for that purpose only, Where one cannot find so much space in T-90S or even over it, Adding a AC is a challenge on T-90S where as not on Arjun..

====================================================

Lower ground pressure is important in Indian terrain as we have to operate in mud and sand where it is important to keep up mobility, In 1971 war Pakistani tanks were stuck on mud where centurions were hunting them without having any problems in mud, M48/47 were +40 ton tanks where Centurions were +50 tons tanks, the difference was in ground pressure of both tanks..

Actually T-90 has space for internal AC. Remember the loose ammo storage? Shifting those ammo to a bustle storage like in T-90MS wont be that hard. Since they are seperate locations, you can split AC components or use many smaller AC units. Also having a smaller internal volume would make AC more efficient.

Having the lowest ground pressure would not really help you if the ground itself can't support your weight.

 

[collegeboy16]

Storage racks can still be mounted outside, the AC is inside the turret, the components(compressor pumps, cooling pipes, etc.) are split to fit where the loose ammo used to be stored.
As for ground pressure, it was poor choice of word on my part, but what I meant to say is that not all of that ground pressure would be transferred on flat ground. Esp. if they are really wide, some gaps and folds in the ground and it won't be able to "hug" along the shape of the ground. Also, bridges wouldn't be able to support "heavy" tanks no matter how good ground pressure is if it is over what the bridge can handle.

 

[average american]

The reason the M1A3 is so much heavier then the T90 is not only more armor but the fact that DU is more then twice as heavy as steel. Theres really not that much differance in size between a Abrams and a T90 tank. Russians seldom ever build anything new, T90 is just a pimped up version of older tanks with some bells and whisles to sell it, same as T50 is pimped up verison of the SU 27 with some new bells and whilses of the SU27. Russian cant very well go around and say Hey buy some more of our stuff so you can end up like Saddam and the Arabs. The USSR and Russia are rather famous for their lack of inovation.

"It's not by chance that I came here," Medvedev admitted to an audience at Stanford University. "I wanted to see with my own eyes the origin of success." And it's no wonder: Can you think of a significant Russian technological invention of recent times?

Why innovation will elude Russia

Joel Brinkley
Published 4:00 am, Friday, June 25, 2010

The problem isn't the Russian people. Thousands of them are at work across Silicon Valley creating the very products and services Medvedev came to emulate.

No, the problem is the Russian government, still a brutal, capricious bureaucracy guilty of "contract-style killings," the State Department says, "continuing centralization of power in the executive branch, along with corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law" and "continuing media restrictions" that "result in an erosion of the accountability of government leaders to the population."


Read more: Why innovation will elude Russia - SFGate

What was the last innovation by Russia that swept the world, if theres a lack of innovaton in the civilian sector its going to translate to the military.

http://www.ebrd.com/pages/news/press/2012/121213.shtml

 

[collegeboy16]

The reason the M1A3 is so much heavier then the T90 is not only more armor but the fact that DU is more then twice as heavy as steel. Theres really not that much differance in size between a Abrams and a T90 tank. Russians seldom ever build anything new, T90 is just a pimped up version of older tanks with some bells and whisles to sell it, same as T50 is pimped up verison of the SU 27 with some new bells and whilses of the SU27. Russian cant very well go around and say Hey buy some more of our stuff so you can end up like Saddam and the Arabs. The USSR and Russia are rather famous for their lack of inovation.

"It's not by chance that I came here," Medvedev admitted to an audience at Stanford University. "I wanted to see with my own eyes the origin of success." And it's no wonder: Can you think of a significant Russian technological invention of recent times?

Why innovation will elude Russia

Joel Brinkley
Published 4:00 am, Friday, June 25, 2010

The problem isn't the Russian people. Thousands of them are at work across Silicon Valley creating the very products and services Medvedev came to emulate.

No, the problem is the Russian government, still a brutal, capricious bureaucracy guilty of "contract-style killings," the State Department says, "continuing centralization of power in the executive branch, along with corruption and selectivity in enforcement of the law" and "continuing media restrictions" that "result in an erosion of the accountability of government leaders to the population."


Read more: Why innovation will elude Russia - SFGate

What was the last innovation by Russia that swept the world, if theres a lack of innovaton in the civilian sector its going to translate to the military.

For innovation to succeed in Russia, state must cede control [EBRD - News and events]

Tetris, hehe. Jokes aside the only reason why you have lots of "innovation" is because of H1-B. There is also no M1A3 yet.

 

[ersakthivel]

Storage racks can still be mounted outside, the AC is inside the turret, the components(compressor pumps, cooling pipes, etc.) are split to fit where the loose ammo used to be stored.
As for ground pressure, it was poor choice of word on my part, but what I meant to say is that not all of that ground pressure would be transferred on flat ground. Esp. if they are really wide, some gaps and folds in the ground and it won't be able to "hug" along the shape of the ground. Also, bridges wouldn't be able to support "heavy" tanks no matter how good ground pressure is if it is over what the bridge can handle.

The solution you pointed out for Ac may be good enough for a civilian vehicle. cooling fans and condensers must be located outside. And if this point is not thought out during design phase there won't be a safe place to mount them.Placing them where ever space is available is not a combat worthy solution. But when a country like India shells out billions of dollars and ends up with a lemon which cannot handle summer desert temp it points to some serious scandals in procurement.

Even if Ac elements get hit and stop functioning in a battle the tank crew should be able to survive the heat and it's electronics should function without Ac. The T-90 obviously fails this test. That is the reason IA is juggling with the which Ac to fit where and which Night vision device to replace the original faulty ones and how to integrate them with the FCS. This is the job of the T-90 design team. Not that of the IA.IA failed miserably in not having the T-90 put through rigorous trials in Indian summer to ascertain the suitability of the tank.

For your information most of the bridges in india can support at the most 40 tons . So T-72 may be alright for them. T-90 which weighs significantly more will break these bridges. So T-90 like ARJUN will need bridging equipment when it comes to 90 percent of the Indian bridges(including the defence oriented ones in the canals and bridges scheme in Punjab border). When it comes to bridges on national highway they can support both the T-90 and ARJUNSO this reason cannot be used as a point in favor of T-90.

Add another fact that the much heavier ARJUN will exert lesser ground pressure and will go where the T-90 won't go in marshlands during monsoon.

 

[JBH22]

The solution you pointed out for Ac may be good enough for a civilian vehicle. cooling fans and condensers must be located outside. And if this point is not thought out during design phase there won't be a safe place to mount them.Placing them where ever space is available is not a combat worthy solution. But when a country like India shells out billions of dollars and ends up with a lemon which cannot handle summer desert temp it points to some serious scandals in procurement.

Even if Ac elements get hit and stop functioning in a battle the tank crew should be able to survive the heat and it's electronics should function without Ac. The T-90 obviously fails this test. That is the reason IA is juggling with the which Ac to fit where and which Night vision device to replace the original faulty ones and how to integrate them with the FCS. This is the job of the T-90 design team. Not that of the IA.IA failed miserably in not having the T-90 put through rigorous trials in Indian summer to ascertain the suitability of the tank.

For your information most of the bridges in india can support at the most 40 tons . So T-72 may be alright for them. T-90 which weighs significantly more will break these bridges. SO this reason cannot be used as a point in favor of T-90.

The highlighted portion is unrealistic imo consider that the average weight of T-72 is around 45 Tonnes and given the fact that tanks are moved on tank transporters it should easily reach 50tonnes.

Food for thoughts

 

[ersakthivel]

That should be the idea of a debate - to bring clarity to an issue. I have had this a few times with these certain "gentlemen," where I ask one question, and they respond with 15 different things but not the subject in the question, and then pretend as if the other person cannot understand. When devoid of an answer, obfuscate the debate by flooding it with unrelated drivel.

I will list some of such debates:

• Smoothbore vs Rifle
• Flame temperature of RDX
• Why M1 is 20 tons heavier than T-90

In all the above debates, I had to deal with all the dross being hurled at me in a vain attempt to get me to forget the issue.

It beats me why these people, on top of not answering the question, have the nerve to lose temper.

Anyway, here is something you might find interesting:

Source: How to win Arguments - Dos, Don'ts and Sneaky Tactics - Lifehack

Because MODs here are very liberal . That is the problem There are many forums where such repeated bad behavior aimed at derailing the thread with personal abuse will lead to permanent ban. Here people get away lightly with few post getting deleted.

The same mud slinging can be found whenever a indian defence product is debated in this forum.

people will say LCA is draggin on for 40 years repeatedly starting from 1983.But the funding for the TDs were released only in 1993. You may try 100 times to correct these guys by posting actual time line of LCA and compare them to similar programs like TYPHOON and RAFALE.

But they will keep a stony silence and say the same thing a few pages later.I went through a torrid debate in the now closed ADA Tejas -III thread.Guys will mindlessly insist that LCA was stuck at 16 deg AOA and 1.a Mach top speed. If you rebut it with authentic source they will keep a stony silence. aAnd a few pages later they will do the same again.

The pugnacious debate on LCA lasted literally for hundreds of pages starting around this page and it hasn't ended till to date.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-178.html#post563779
and Kunal intervening in the following page to ask the members to take back the argumnets that were proven wrong. but nothing happened and the same old saga continues.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/18521-ada-tejas-lca-iii-208.html

To avoid this kind of behaviour MODs here must insist that a poster shoul either accept what he or she has posted as wrong or right if it is proved with authentic source by the other guy. If they dodge the issue they must be banned.

 

[ersakthivel]

The highlighted portion is unrealistic imo consider that the average weight of T-72 is around 45 Tonnes and given the fact that tanks are moved on tank transporters it should easily reach 50tonnes.

Food for thoughts

What I said was about the thousands of old bridges built by british during their rule which still dot India(not the new bridges on National highways which can support both the ARJUN and the T-90) . they were never designed with the T-90 weight in mind. this point was posted by KUNAL BISWAS as well.

 

[militarysta]

Russians seldom ever build anything new, T90 is just a pimped up version of older tanks with some bells and whisles to sell it,

Of course you can't see difrences between
Ob.188-1 (known as erly T-90)
Ob.188A1 (T-90A whit completly new turret)
Ob.188A2 -
Ob.188M (known as T-90MS)


You have not any bigger idea what was changed between ob.188-1 and Ob.188A2. Onlu hull and engine is the same. Whole rest is changed. In T-90MS thery are even bigger changes.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The larger part of the AC has to be hung outside, There was a AC typicaly designed for India >>

====================================

Later Model, Which is compact one is at side turret >>

Storage racks can still be mounted outside, the AC is inside the turret, the components(compressor pumps, cooling pipes, etc.) are split to fit where the loose ammo used to be stored.

 

[ersakthivel]

Actually T-90 has space for internal AC. Remember the loose ammo storage? Shifting those ammo to a bustle storage like in T-90MS wont be that hard. Since they are seperate locations, you can split AC components or use many smaller AC units. Also having a smaller internal volume would make AC more efficient.

If it is so easy then why is the IA still floating tenders for fixing this Ac issue?

2. Also a separate ammo storage in ARJUN mk-1 enhances the chances of avoidance of ammo cook off in case of any seep through fire from even and IED explosion as ammo is not lying in a heap on the ground.mk-2 will have containerisation of ammo leading to much better chances of crew and tank survival which cannot be had in T-90.These features also add to internal volume.
Remove loose ammo from T-90 and you now have compartmentalized ammo that is much,much harder to hit than Arjun's.

After removing this loose ammo , how many rounds can be stored inside the crew compartment T-90 in compartmentalized storage?The ammo in auto loader is horribily vulnerable for ammo cook off in case of any seep through fire or explosion. So it is overall a bad safety technique to rely on auto loader by removing the loader to save some weight.

if you still have any doubts you can clarify them in the following link.
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/59049-t-90-ms/

3. In prolonged tank battles 4 man crew increases the morale of the crew and leads to better tank maintanence. So to provide this feature also we need some more internal volumes and hence need for the extra weight.
How does the loader increase morale? Maintenance can come from guys at the back, you can have as much of mechanics as you like from there.

This was the result of a study done by a team of researchers, not my personal opinion

4. Tp give a lower ground pressure for this extra weight you need heavier suspension and wider tracks which also addd to weight requirement and volume requirements.

Having the lowest ground pressure would not really help you if the ground itself can't support your weight.

Lower ground pressure per square inch means the tank will traverse loose soil much more easily than the higer ground pressure T-90S.

This was demonstated by ARJUn. ARJUn crossed the riverine marshy areas Punjab with wider tracks giving lesser ground pressure. this area was marked non tankable in Indian Army map previously with T series tank.

5. ALso a safer place for mounting the a much bigger and heavier APU has to be factored in for the volumetric increase of heavy MBTs. These bigger APUs ensure the tank runs all it's electronics in engine silent mode increasing the range and at the same time avoiding detection by engine exhaust emission.The higher power APU is vital for the network centric capability of heavy MBts like ARJUN so that it can have data links in live battle situation to recieve info from UAVs and choppers above and fire missiles at non line of sight targets.These features also add to the volume requirement and hence more weight for the same LOS armor thickness.

Why does it have to be a bigger and heavier APU? You can have GT APU that would be very compact for the same output. Also lighter and more efficient electronics would be good too. AFAIK M1A2 has 2 ton of wires, how much weight would be saved if fiber optics would be used.

6. Also heavier MBts rely more on composite armors and treat the one hit panel approach of ERA as an add on.This approach also adds to the weight of the armor. But lighter tanks make ERA a center piece of their LOS thickness, which is questionable approach as after a few well aimed hits most of these catridges will be pealed off. The situation will be more piquant if some ERA denuding special rounds which spread their energy allover the surface of ERA is developed to counter this tacticHighly unlikely, ERA like Relikt are integrated into armor, not bolt-on. Also highly unlikely, hitting the same spot twice. Also, you shoot to kill, not to weaken(strip of ERA), if you do, you deserve to get hit by Grifel.

7. To support all these extra weight you need a more powerful engine which also adds to weight and volume requirement.So overall the higher internal volume is the result of better crew survivability features and need of the modern combat theater .

AFAIK the only "heavy" tank with better crew survivability after hit than a T-90 without loose ammo is M1-series with turret bustle ammo storage.[/QUOTE]

There are no guaranties that the same spot won't be hit twice.SO having a stronger composite armor is always a more dependable option.

T-90 can blow itself with ammo cook off even by any seep through explosion from IED.

 

[ersakthivel]

Arjun MBT weight implications - Frontier India
More detailed info regarding the weight and ground pressure per sq inch of ARJUN.

 

[ersakthivel]

The larger part of the AC has to be hung outside, There was a AC typicaly designed for India >>

====================================

Later Model, Which is compact one is at side turret >>

Kunal as per the info supplied by SAYEREKH the army has floated a new RFI for T-90 AC, which means the russian AC has failed to do the job.Do you have any info on this?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Indian Army never fielded any AC on any tank till date..

It seems as the AC was not purchased with the tank in the main deals the & the Govt wont allow now to purchase it from single tender so RFI ..

Kunal as per the info supplied by SAYEREKH the army has floated a new RFI for T-90 AC, which means the russian AC has failed to do the job.Do you have any info on this?