Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[The Last Stand]

Are the comparison stats correct?

Don't know about the costs. M1 weight is given in short tons while rest is given in tons. That's all I know. M1 doesn't use ".52 cal machine gun" The DRDO is gonna pay for insulting the legendary .50 M2 Browning.

 

[ersakthivel]

An interesting write up on Arjun and T-90 debate

The Arjun Saga

June 2012

Well it is a typical creative writing piece using polished journalistic statements to substitute the facts,


1. The author says that due to slippages the Army changed it's GSQR thrice, What the DRDO says is these revisions led to more slippages. Can you get a clarification from author that in any military program in the world , whether revision of GSQR will lead to speeding up or more slippages,



2. First thing is no advanced country in the world has built a 4 men crew tank with advanced protection and armor levels at 50 ton weight . Did the army know this or not?


3. So what was the weight classification given in the original GSQR, the revised GSQR, and the third time revised GSQR?Does the autheor intend to say from 1972 to 2012 the CVRDE made a tank with 58 ton weight , while the army asked for a tank with 40 ton tank?One must be seriously mad to make such an absurd allegation. Fact of the matter is the army knew the protection level, safe ammo storage, no auto loader, 4 men crew tank that has the ground pressure per square inch level for it to operate in all terrain will produce a 58 ton tank like ARJUn as it now stands. To say they were innocent maiden got pregnant by thieving CVRDE won't pass.


4. Next the author's claim that weight of ARJUN limits it mobility in different terrain is also wrong. It is the ground pressure per square inch which limits the mobility of the tank in loose soil. Not the total weight. If some one doesn't even know this means what?The ARJUN operated in many areas crossed out as non tankable by IA which operated seemingly lighter tank.

Because of it's lower ground pressure per square inch as shown in the above charts, which incidentally was a spec given by IA resulting in it's wider track design.And all the issues of it's transportation struggle in indian railway is ghost story, because you put a few wooden sleepers below thw ARJUn and it crossed all stations without messing with the platforms.


5.Most of the old bridges in India won't support more than 40 ton weight. So how will T-90 which was selected by IA cross those old british bridges, may be the T-72 can do, how will the T-90?And how are NATO forces operating successfully all over the world from vietnam to somalia to afganistan to iraq with those heavier than ARJUN tank? If the author knows that or not? Even a kid knows heavier tanks have the proper bridging equipment neede with them and go where ever they have to go .


6.What limits the mobility of the tank in the terrain is the ground pressure per square inch, not the bridges in the area. If a few cruise missile strikes destroy all the strategic bridges then what will the crew men of T-72 and T-90 do? Spend the war playing cards inside their tanks, perhaps!!!!!!!!!.


During world war time who put on bridges for the German and British 50 tonners to operate? Also if T-72s and t-90s spearhead an invading armored column into Pakistan , will the retreating Pakistanis leave all their 40 ton classification bridges intact? Sure they are going to destroy them before retreating , then what will the IA do?Wll it stop the war if there are no bridges?


7. If making 46 ton tanks with the same crew protection, safe ammo storage features are possible, why did the western tank makers haven't done that till now?



8.The army has quietly buried the 50 ton 4 men FMBT and admitted their unrealistic expectation that a 4 men futuristic high protection level tank can't be made at 50 tons and now with whatever weight reduction possible (no scope for much, lets see, I don't know if the CVRDE can do what anyone in western world couldn't do till today).


9. Harping that ARJUN's indigenization will be prohibitively expensive after giving a piecemeal 124 number order is a cruel joke.If you set up a series production line for just 124 tanks only costs will be prohibitively expensive, a larger order will result in higher private participation and lower cost with local engine production, which every one other than the author of the article knows.



10.The ARJUn is used in desert now, because the t-90 with heating problem is currently unfit to operate. The author as usual used his polish ways to twist this crucial truth , which is a plus point of ARJUN as a weakness of ARJUn!!!!!!!!!.


11. Coming to comparative trials the author finds it "reprehensible " to compare two different weight class tanks. Does he mean that two different weight class tanks won't face each other in battle field?Didn't he know gulf war? Which weight class tanks faced off in Vietnam ?


12. let's see who produces the 55 ton no auto loader-4 men crew FMBT with protection levels to withstand 1000 mm plus penetration rounds of the future and the compartmentalized ammo storage of specified rounds wanted by the Indian Army. First of all to draft a GSQR a lot of technical skills are required. The army guys who paraded the now junked FMBT GSQR for 50 ton no auto loader-four men crew super tank of the future have admitted to their lack of technical knowledge openly by stating that at present such a tank doesnot exist and it won't be built in any time soon.

Whether Afganistan had 70 ton weight class bridges to support heavier western tanks?If the ARJUN did well the trials are not needed. Every one knows that if bridging equipment and bridge layere tanks which are already developed for ARJUn and will from a part of normal armored columns are inducted The ARJUN will go wherever the T-90 can go and fight with better crew protection features and longer range more accurate guns, which was proved in the comparative trials.

 

[ersakthivel]

Don't know about the costs. M1 weight is given in short tons while rest is given in tons. That's all I know. M1 doesn't use ".52 cal machine gun" The DRDO is gonna pay for insulting the legendary .50 M2 Browning.

That was not a DRDO poster, I think, it was posted on some other website.

 

[Dejawolf]

The distance between the seat of the Tc and redline like sripes holding the yellow box is 4.5 times the head size of the man sitting in the photo.

Back of the head should be taken as the end point of 2500 mm space because that's where the center of the seat lies.If we take back of the seat there will be errors as the seat is swiveled towards the photographer at an angle.

If you give 250 mm as the width of his head,

The 4.5 x 250 mm,it comes to 1125 mm.

SO 2500 mm- (700 mm+1125 mm) = 675 mm is the LOS thickness space available for composite armor behind the maim sight.
.

No, the formula is 2500-(700+50+(5*200)+390) = 360.
you conveniently forgot to subtract the distance between the back of the cupola and the vision blocks, and the small ledge on the front turret. and for some reason you used head widths instead of vision block widths.

 

[ersakthivel]

No, the formula is 2500-(700+50+(5*200)+390) = 360.
you conveniently forgot to subtract the distance between the back of the cupola and the vision blocks, and the small ledge on the front turret. and for some reason you used head widths instead of vision block widths.

The crew hatch cover and the Tc's seat lie on the same point as per the picture above which is marked as 2500 mm from the gun front mantel plate (from 4 meters to 6.5 meters on the scale )in the line drawing below.

When the head of the Tc whose dimensions can be checked by anyone is easily available on the picture , why are you taking pains to deny it.

How do you suppose the Tc just cannot touch the red stripes just by extending his hands.So the distance is surely around 1000mm, not 1400mm as you posted.

where the back of the cupola is irrelevant here.Estimates are taken from what every one can see in the picture.What was wrong was all your assumptions on the gun sketch and gunner placement in your 3D models based on which you did the calculations.

 

[ersakthivel]

The armored regiments of Indian Army, equipped with the much-talked about 'Arjun' tank, will have to carry large iron bridges during their deployment in Punjab as the bridges over canals in the state won't withstand the tank's weight.

According to Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO), during trials the heavyweight Arjun tank was found unsuitable for Punjab as there are chances that the bridges over canals in the state may collapse with the tank's weight.

Due to lower ground pressure per square inch the ARJUN can operate in punjab terrain, the only problems is the 40 ton classification idges over canals there. Incidentally T-90 too will need the same 70 ton class sarvntra bridging equipment to cross those old 40 ton classification bridges, Only T-72 which weighs 40 ton can operate there.

It was revealed by director general, DRDO, V K Saraswat on Friday during his visit to DRDO's Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL) near Chandigarh. In reply to a question related to shortcomings of Arjun tank, Saraswat said that during trials the tank was found better in mobility and accuracy in comparison to Army's mainstay T-90 tanks. "During the trials it was found that canal bridges in Punjab were incapable of carrying its weight," he said.

Saraswat who is also the secretary, department of defence, R&D, added that the problem in Punjab can be tackled with the use of large iron bridges developed by DRDO for smooth transportation of troops in hostile terrain.

He, however, added that the tank was found to be most suitable for deployment in the Thar deserts of Rajasthan. Importantly, Rajasthan and Punjab are strategically very important for the Army as both the states share major portion of boundaries with neighboring Pakistan.


Source: http://www.------------------/forum...un-mbt-news-discussions-17.html#ixzz2TjCUCpmT

 

[ersakthivel]

yeah well 2500mm you're not measuring from the crew hatch, you're measuring from the back of the cupola ring to the front of the turret.
measuring from the crew hatch opening, you have ~2150-2200mm.

As per the above pic from the back of the Tc's seat which is right below the vertical crew hatch cover over the Tc's seat is 2500 mm from the front gun mantel of the ARJUN tank. There is no need to include cupola ring to the front of turret measurement here.

 

[Dejawolf]

The crew hatch cover and the Tc's seat lie on the same point as per the picture above which is marked as 2500 mm from the gun front mantel plate (from 4 meters to 6.5 meters on the scale )in the line drawing below.

i measured it on the official line drawing and it's~2150-2200mm, from front of turret to the back of the TC hatch opening.

 

[ersakthivel]

i measured it on the official line drawing and it's~2150-2200mm, from front of turret to the back of the TC hatch opening.

In the picture above the Tc's seat is directly below the vertical crew hatch cover.

This is the official line drawing you mentioned.It clearly shows 2500 mm.No one can dispute , and there is no need for any measurement. It simply shows on the scale,

The vertical crew hatch cover is located at 4 meters on the scale. The front edge of the gun mantel is located at 6. 5meters on the scale. So the distance is clearly 2500mm. This can not be refuted.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Well it is a typical creative writing piece using polished journalistic statements to substitute the facts,


1. The author says that due to slippages the Army changed it's GSQR thrice, What the DRDO says is these revisions led to more slippages. Can you get a clarification from author that in any military program in the world , whether revision of GSQR will lead to speeding up or more slippages,



2. First thing is no advanced country in the world has built a 4 men crew tank with advanced protection and armor levels at 50 ton weight . Did the army know this or not?


3. So what was the weight classification given in the original GSQR, the revised GSQR, and the third time revised GSQR?Does the autheor intend to say from 1972 to 2012 the CVRDE made a tank with 58 ton weight , while the army asked for a tank with 40 ton tank?One must be seriously mad to make such an absurd allegation. Fact of the matter is the army knew the protection level, safe ammo storage, no auto loader, 4 men crew tank that has the ground pressure per square inch level for it to operate in all terrain will produce a 58 ton tank like ARJUn as it now stands. To say they were innocent maiden got pregnant by thieving CVRDE won't pass.


4. Next the author's claim that weight of ARJUN limits it mobility in different terrain is also wrong. It is the ground pressure per square inch which limits the mobility of the tank in loose soil. Not the total weight. If some one doesn't even know this means what?The ARJUN operated in many areas crossed out as non tankable by IA which operated seemingly lighter tank.

Because of it's lower ground pressure per square inch as shown in the above charts, which incidentally was a spec given by IA resulting in it's wider track design.And all the issues of it's transportation struggle in indian railway is ghost story, because you put a few wooden sleepers below thw ARJUn and it crossed all stations without messing with the platforms.


5.Most of the old bridges in India won't support more than 40 ton weight. So how will T-90 which was selected by IA cross those old british bridges, may be the T-72 can do, how will the T-90?And how are NATO forces operating successfully all over the world from vietnam to somalia to afganistan to iraq with those heavier than ARJUN tank? If the author knows that or not? Even a kid knows heavier tanks have the proper bridging equipment neede with them and go where ever they have to go .


6.What limits the mobility of the tank in the terrain is the ground pressure per square inch, not the bridges in the area. If a few cruise missile strikes destroy all the strategic bridges then what will the crew men of T-72 and T-90 do? Spend the war playing cards inside their tanks, perhaps!!!!!!!!!.


During world war time who put on bridges for the German and British 50 tonners to operate? Also if T-72s and t-90s spearhead an invading armored column into Pakistan , will the retreating Pakistanis leave all their 40 ton classification bridges intact? Sure they are going to destroy them before retreating , then what will the IA do?Wll it stop the war if there are no bridges?


7. If making 46 ton tanks with the same crew protection, safe ammo storage features are possible, why did the western tank makers haven't done that till now?



8.The army has quietly buried the 50 ton 4 men FMBT and admitted their unrealistic expectation that a 4 men futuristic high protection level tank can't be made at 50 tons and now with whatever weight reduction possible (no scope for much, lets see, I don't know if the CVRDE can do what anyone in western world couldn't do till today).


9. Harping that ARJUN's indigenization will be prohibitively expensive after giving a piecemeal 124 number order is a cruel joke.If you set up a series production line for just 124 tanks only costs will be prohibitively expensive, a larger order will result in higher private participation and lower cost with local engine production, which every one other than the author of the article knows.



10.The ARJUn is used in desert now, because the t-90 with heating problem is currently unfit to operate. The author as usual used his polish ways to twist this crucial truth , which is a plus point of ARJUN as a weakness of ARJUn!!!!!!!!!.


11. Coming to comparative trials the author finds it "reprehensible " to compare two different weight class tanks. Does he mean that two different weight class tanks won't face each other in battle field?Didn't he know gulf war? Which weight class tanks faced off in Vietnam ?


12. let's see who produces the 55 ton no auto loader-4 men crew FMBT with protection levels to withstand 1000 mm plus penetration rounds of the future and the compartmentalized ammo storage of specified rounds wanted by the Indian Army. First of all to draft a GSQR a lot of technical skills are required. The army guys who paraded the now junked FMBT GSQR for 50 ton no auto loader-four men crew super tank of the future have admitted to their lack of technical knowledge openly by stating that at present such a tank doesnot exist and it won't be built in any time soon.

Whether Afganistan had 70 ton weight class bridges to support heavier western tanks?If the ARJUN did well the trials are not needed. Every one knows that if bridging equipment and bridge layere tanks which are already developed for ARJUn and will from a part of normal armored columns are inducted The ARJUN will go wherever the T-90 can go and fight with better crew protection features and longer range more accurate guns, which was proved in the comparative trials.

Just to qualify your statement.....

The next gen prototype of the MBT/APC for the US weighs 84 tons. Of course its a prototype, so the weight will come down a notch or two, but still will be atleast as heavy as the modern Abrahams.

The most modern Army in the world admitted defeat in attempting to cut down the weight of its Armored vehicles, first with the Stryker and then with the tank, while maintaining acceptable crew safety. But the IA generals, in thier infinite wisdom, wants a tank with superior protection, under 50 tons. As a bonus, they want a full four man crew.

Somebody forgot to tell them the fad of lightweight vehicles is over.

Other than that, the way the AT rounds/ATGMs are evolving, in a decade even 2000mm RHA protection might not be enough. (hey, the Hellfire ATGM is quoted by some as capable of penetrating 1200mm RHA even now). Will the generals of the IA continuevto push for a lightweight FMBT, and suddenly in 2020, receive enlightenment that protection envisaged is not enough. Maybe then they'll again change the GSQR of the FMBT, and then blame the DRDO for the delay.

 

[The Last Stand]

Just to qualify your statement.....

The next gen prototype of the MBT/APC for the US weighs 84 tons. Of course its a prototype, so the weight will come down a notch or two, but still will be atleast as heavy as the modern Abrahams.

:bs: at all we know. You believed that reporter bs? I saw that site too. It's false. The reporter must have doubled the weight of the GCV to magically arrive at 84. Heavier than the JagdTiger? It will sink in the White house floor itself.

The MBT with the unmanned turret @Damian states as designed by DARPA engineers is supposed to have 55 ton weight, NPzK and 1200 mm composite protection of frontal aspect. Expect a tank superior to the M1A2 with lesser weight - That's the future of tank design - Lean, Mean 1500-1800 HP Unmanned Turret tanks with 3 man crew, 140 mm NPzK, 125 mm 2A82 or 152 mm 2A83, combined with a modified long-rod autoloader with huge ammunition bunkers thanks to freed space with upto 60-75 rounds and fantastic range since internal space can be used for fuel tank.

NOTHING LESS.

P.S - Current ATGM using Hollow charges are rapidly becoming obsolete in the face of composite armour. Ramjet based penetrating ATGM is the future. KE all the way.

 

[Damian]

at all we know. You believed that reporter bs? I saw that site too. It's false. The reporter must have doubled the weight of the GCV to magically arrive at 84. Heavier than the JagdTiger? It will sink in the White house floor itself.

The problem is that Americans use short tons, which means 84 short tons = 76 metric tons or 76,000 kilograms, and this weight is only for vehicle with maximum acceptable weight for suspension. Both GDLS and BAE says that weight will be reduced during development but this current calculated weight, not the real weight, because as far as we know, BAE just started to test first prototype, GDLS is curiously silent about their development tough.

Also nowhere is said that GCV IFV will be a direct base for new MBT planned for late 2020's to 2030's period, but new MBT is definetely planned as one of the next increment upgrades for GCV program and can share common components with IFV and SPH also planned as increment for GCV program.

So we will see how future will work.

 

[ersakthivel]

:bs: at all we know. You believed that reporter bs? I saw that site too. It's false. The reporter must have doubled the weight of the GCV to magically arrive at 84. Heavier than the JagdTiger? It will sink in the White house floor itself.

The MBT with the unmanned turret @Damian states as designed by DARPA engineers is supposed to have 55 ton weight, NPzK and 1200 mm composite protection of frontal aspect. Expect a tank superior to the M1A2 with lesser weight - That's the future of tank design - Lean, Mean 1500-1800 HP Unmanned Turret tanks with 3 man crew, 140 mm NPzK, 125 mm 2A82 or 152 mm 2A83, combined with a modified long-rod autoloader with huge ammunition bunkers thanks to freed space with upto 60-75 rounds and fantastic range since internal space can be used for fuel tank.

NOTHING LESS.

P.S - Current ATGM using Hollow charges are rapidly becoming obsolete in the face of composite armour. Ramjet based penetrating ATGM is the future. KE all the way.

For your information sinking is not related to the tank's total weight. It is the ground pressure per square inch that determines whether the tank sinks or float.

Unmanned turret is not a space age tech that could not be mastered by the americans in the past 3 decades. In fact for a country that built the F-22, do you think unmanned turret tank presents such challenges that it cannot be built?
The reason they are not building a 3 men crew auto loader light weight tank is ---------there is no safety in it.Nothing more , nothing less.

if you have an auto loader with many rounds in it. The crew will not survive the cook off from any seep through explosive energy.
And even if you build an unmanned turret , You need space and weight for stowing away all the things that need to be stowed in a tank.Russians are building a an unmanned turret tank,because it is a auto loader, three men crew. SO no great tech breakthrough in tech is needed for russians.

No auto loader based three men crew tank will give the protection level equal to ammo. This 1200 mm protection level you mentioned for the so called unmanned tank is already an obsolete spec considering the way APFSDS rounds are evolving.So I see no western country is going to follow the russian bandwagon of 55 ton tank.

That is why our Nepoleans in Indian army who kept harping on 55 ton FMBT(See how closely the weight spec matches the ARMATA,!!!!!!!.... A great coincidence perhaps) have climbed down from their high hobbt horse with lot of egg in their face saying ,Hi, Hi, Hi,, it is not possible to build a 55 ton- no auto loader-safe ammo storage super protection tank in 55 ton weight spec.

. Americans are not doing it because, they want 4 men crew no autoloader , better all round protection, safer ammo storage tank. that's all.

 

[The Last Stand]

For your information sinking is not related to the vehicle's weight. It is the ground pressure per square inch that determines whether the tank sinks or float.

I know that. But for 84 tons tank must be made ridiculously wide and tracks will be extremely expensive to maintain due to wear and tear. Seriously want a track twice as wide as their railway cars?

 

[DivineHeretic]

I know that. But for 84 tons tank must be made ridiculously wide and tracks will be extremely expensive to maintain due to wear and tear. Seriously want a track twice as wide as their railway cars?

The first and foremost thing a Tank or for that matter any platform needs to be able to do is perform its primary mandate efficiently.

For a tank, it is to be able to provide superior firepower and reasonable protection against the wide variety of threats facing the tank. In a battle where the average penetrator of the opposition has 2000-25000mm RHA penetration, what do you think will happen to a '55 ton unmanned turret tank with 1200mm RHA protection'?
The soldiers and tank crew will have better odds of survival fighting on feet.
Will the unmanned turret matter or will the lighter highly mobile tank evade all rounds and emerge unscathed?

The US learned this the hard way with the Stryker. Despite the light-weight and superior mobility and other advantages it presented, it failed its basic duty, it couldn't protect its crew and passenger from cheap RPGs, which the older, heavier Bradley could. The US up-armoured the stryker, but then realised that the very reasong of the Stryker had been defeated. It was no longer light and mobile

A high tech, light MBT which cannot do survive the average round the opponent throws at you is less than useless in combat, even as a pillbox.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

A vehicle weight should be as per available transportation and its surrounding terrain ..

Arjun MBT can be transported via Rail as well as Roads, So it is ok..

 

[ersakthivel]

I know that. But for 84 tons tank must be made ridiculously wide and tracks will be extremely expensive to maintain due to wear and tear. Seriously want a track twice as wide as their railway cars?

84 may be short tons. As a member has clarified here. And you never know what will be the requirements in future tank warfare, what kind of threats the tanks are going to face. Just compare the weight of the first series of tanks produced by US, Uk, germany, Russia to the weight of the latest series of tanks under development.

Have they grown in weight or lost weight?

For 60 years the trend is increase in weight. The reason is simple.
1.The need for better heavier armor on the front as well as the sides,
2. Need for better safer ammo storage,
3.Need to avoid the risks and complexities imposed by auto loader,
4.Need to carry heavier weight higher powered engines to give higher and higher power to weight ratio,
5. Higher powered APUs, higher powered batteries for net centric capability, to keep all the vital systems of the tank running even when engine is turned off.

I don't know if all of a sudden the trends will reverse towards a lighter tank when the penetration level of APFSDS rounds are increasing and newer threats like missiles are emerging.

 

[Dejawolf]

The vertical crew hatch cover is located at 4 meters on the scale. The front edge of the gun mantel is located at 6. 5meters on the scale. So the distance is clearly 2500mm. This can not be refuted.

refuted:

 

[Dejawolf]

The first and foremost thing a Tank or for that matter any platform needs to be able to do is perform its primary mandate efficiently.

For a tank, it is to be able to provide superior firepower and reasonable protection against the wide variety of threats facing the tank. In a battle where the average penetrator of the opposition has 2000-25000mm RHA penetration, what do you think will happen to a '55 ton unmanned turret tank with 1200mm RHA protection'?
The soldiers and tank crew will have better odds of survival fighting on feet.
Will the unmanned turret matter or will the lighter highly mobile tank evade all rounds and emerge unscathed?

The US learned this the hard way with the Stryker. Despite the light-weight and superior mobility and other advantages it presented, it failed its basic duty, it couldn't protect its crew and passenger from cheap RPGs, which the older, heavier Bradley could. The US up-armoured the stryker, but then realised that the very reasong of the Stryker had been defeated. It was no longer light and mobile

A high tech, light MBT which cannot do survive the average round the opponent throws at you is less than useless in combat, even as a pillbox.

the heavier bradley is just as vulnerable as the stryker without the Rafael ERA tiles.
here's what happened to a bradley hit by an RPG-7:

the spall liners reduced the spall cone, but someone inevitably died in there.

stryker was designed for a maximum of 14.5mm allround protection (40mm RHAe). M2A2 bradley is allround 30mm apds protection (60mm RHAe)

 

[militarysta]

Dejawolf have right whit his Arjun LOS mesurment