Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Bleh]

Two part answer...

so u want a 4 man tank like abram.

No. I was just addressing your two assumtions that (1) "T-14 style armour" is somehow better and...
(2) that Indian Army won't accept a tank whose armour is thick only in name. It already operates one, its called the T-90.

This is the frontal LOS armour thickness on T-90 more than 700mm (adequate protection).

As you see, other than those 3 thin strips, it's an open invitation.

Yeah.... The point is, user themselves want 500mm penetration. So talking about 900mm penetration is useless.

Exactly. Best approach would have been to meet their ridiculous RFI of 500mm penetration & 50ton 4-crew joke of a tank to secure orders.

It was never supposed to be DRDO's concern of the tank can outperform the enemy ones or not, especially when users themselves aren't much bothered.

 

[Bleh]

Chinese junk.........

Well, Intermat Defence products aren't junk though.

Most of our armour too is made up of T-90 that showed the world its capability to breakdown under pressure (Indian Army has been too ashamed to join tank-biathlon since 2017 ), can't hold a straight aim, & whose whole centre of turret (70% shell hits) is just a big weak spot.

Thankfully the opposing tanks have managed even inferior front LOS protection, as well as completely unprotected flanks.

In this junk vs junk, our multi-spectral camouflage paint was an advantage we had that may soon be gone.

Looks like DRDO wants its tank to look like Jordanian tank with falcon turret.

Highly unlikely. A turret which is basically a gun breech with sights & sections of carousel autoloader could be left semi-protected. Not only would it be as narrow as a gun mantle, there isn't much inside.

But the FMBT turret seems like that Jordanian one & more like Russian T-14's, wide & full of subsystems. Something like that gotta be protected, even if there crew isn't any crewmembers.

 

[aditya10r]

Sometimes i dont understand IA armoured doctrine.
The RFI for FRCV asks for a vehicle in the range of 42.5 tonne to 57.5 tonne.
How on earth can a tank with 42 tonne weight have similar level of protection as 57 tonne tank.

_________________________________________

Best would be to purchase some 300/400 odd Arjun tanks and close its production for good.If that's done then it will have completed its job of creating a base for local heavy armoured vehicles manufacturing.Later on develop a tank in 55-60 tonne category (our t-90s tip the scale a little over 50 tonnes).A smoothbore gun with APS and a solid 1500hp engine.Very much like the k-2 black panther

An unmanned turret seems to be a really bad idea,it increases the height of hull and inturn of the tank giving it a much bigger profile when firing from hull-down position.

 

[porky_kicker]

Sometimes i dont understand IA armoured doctrine.
The RFI for FRCV asks for a vehicle in the range of 42.5 tonne to 57.5 tonne.
How on earth can a tank with 42 tonne weight have similar level of protection as 57 tonne tank.

_________________________________________

The idiots who draft the RFI simply google the specs , extract and mix it up from various similar foreign RFIs and to show off their non existent smartness sometimes end up copy pasting DARPA specs for futuristic technology demonstrators.

I am willing to be rs 100 on it

 

[asianobserve]

The problem I see with M1 TTB-type tanks is that the turret gets thinner armor which is transferred to the hull. But this makes the turret easier to knock out. And a tank with a non-functioning turret has no purpose in battle.

 

[SRao]

Why would you out a tank crew out of tge tank when the tank is supposed to protect them through tank armor? Unless the vehicle thethered to thst tank is also a tank because the enemy will always try to knock out first the vehicle that contains the crew.

A more plausible solution is a semi-autonomous tank with AI. But you need a lot of bandwidth, satellites, backed up by INS and radio based guidance system if you want to operate these kind of tanks in maneuver warfare.

The US Army is now experimenting with robot tanks:

A tank when hit by a missile is more like a coffin, and dont think provides much defense, even with its armor. Instead of trying to provide armor all around a tank, provide more armor around a much smaller sized 2-3 man cabin located outside the tank, and make the main body of the tank lighter. I would expect the missile will only be able to target a larger tank body and not the smaller cabin attached to the tank. Think of a tractor-trailer, with the driver's cabin separate from the truck itself. I think everyone is following a standard tank design, but perhaps need to think radically different.

 

[Bleh]

However, we have some better snaps

.................................................

More photos of Arjuns from 43rd armoured regiment by Vishnu Som's twitter account.

 

[Shashank Nayak]

More photos of Arjuns from 43rd armoured regiment by Vishnu Som's twitter account. View attachment 42291 View attachment 42292 View attachment 42293 View attachment 42294

Nice... any idea whether any bulk order for the 120 mm APFSDS MARK II with 500 mm penetration, is placed by IA...

 

[Bleh]

Nice... any idea whether any bulk order for the 120 mm APFSDS MARK II with 500 mm penetration, is placed by IA...

No idea... Let them order the tank in bulk first.

Also this is the full coverage of Vishu Som, but video can't be hotlinked;
Cut Hard, Cut Deep: Arjun Tanks In Action

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

BAE systems is going to showcase it's L28A1 APFSDS round at the upcoming Defence Expo 2020 for the Arjun series of tanks. It is capable of penetrating 630mm of RHA for a target at a distance of 2km.

 

[armyofhind]

A tank when hit by a missile is more like a coffin, and dont think provides much defense, even with its armor. Instead of trying to provide armor all around a tank, provide more armor around a much smaller sized 2-3 man cabin located outside the tank, and make the main body of the tank lighter. I would expect the missile will only be able to target a larger tank body and not the smaller cabin attached to the tank. Think of a tractor-trailer, with the driver's cabin separate from the truck itself. I think everyone is following a standard tank design, but perhaps need to think radically different.

And make the said "tractor trailer" even more conspicuous by having outside the tank and attracting more attention than the main tank itself.

Moreover, since it would be a smaller body, won't be as heavily armoured and vulnerable to larger calibre weapons fire upwards of 12.7mm?

Do you really think these concepts haven't been thought through in the entire century since the tank first appeared on the battlefield?

 

[SRao]

And make the said "tractor trailer" even more conspicuous by having outside the tank and attracting more attention than the main tank itself.

Moreover, since it would be a smaller body, won't be as heavily armoured and vulnerable to larger calibre weapons fire upwards of 12.7mm?

Do you really think these concepts haven't been thought through in the entire century since the tank first appeared on the battlefield?

Maybe these ideas have been discussed for an entire century, and perhaps they are a regurgitation for you, not so for me. I am just thinking aloud what I think are "novel", fwiw.

The smaller outside cabin can be fortified with as much armor as needed, but keep the main body light. Lot of "dead" weight of the tank can be reduced. And no, I dont think a missile will try to aim for a smaller cabin 5 feet away from a much larger main body- doubt it can be so precise. Besides, have "dummy" cabins all around the main body- which one will the missile aim for, even if it wants to hit the smaller cabins? So yes, the outside cabin will definitely provide more protection to the men. If you are sitting inside the main tank, and a missile hits the tank, you are toast. Period. But if you are in an outside, well-armored smaller cabin?

Yep, maybe completely goofy, out-of-the-box thoughts.

 

[Kharavela]

Maybe these ideas have been discussed for an entire century, and perhaps they are a regurgitation for you, not so for me. I am just thinking aloud what I think are "novel", fwiw.

The smaller outside cabin can be fortified with as much armor as needed, but keep the main body light. Lot of "dead" weight of the tank can be reduced. And no, I dont think a missile will try to aim for a smaller cabin 5 feet away from a much larger main body- doubt it can be so precise. Besides, have "dummy" cabins all around the main body- which one will the missile aim for, even if it wants to hit the smaller cabins? So yes, the outside cabin will definitely provide more protection to the men. If you are sitting inside the main tank, and a missile hits the tank, you are toast. Period. But if you are in an outside, well-armored smaller cabin?

Yep, maybe completely goofy, out-of-the-box thoughts.

Allow me to put your ideas into practical perspective.
Instead of having smaller cabins 5 ft away from Tanks, IA should seriously think to convert it's fleet of T-72s & BMPs to Remotely Operated Tanks like the Russians are doing with their BMPs & T-90s. As we are license manufacturing all Russian Tanks & BMPs, I think that would be more economical & practical to convert T-72s & BMPs as remotely operated from a safe distance of say 10 kms.
Russians have converted BMP to Vikhr.

 

[fire starter]

Allow me to put your ideas into practical perspective.
Instead of having smaller cabins 5 ft away from Tanks, IA should seriously think to convert it's fleet of T-72s & BMPs to Remotely Operated Tanks like the Russians are doing with their BMPs & T-90s. As we are license manufacturing all Russian Tanks & BMPs, I think that would be more economical & practical to convert T-72s & BMPs as remotely operated from a safe distance of say 10 kms.
Russians have converted BMP to Vikhr.

we already converted BMP into muntra.

 

[armyofhind]

The smaller outside cabin can be fortified with as much armor as needed

so you will put another engine and gearbox to propel the smaller cabin?

Besides, have "dummy" cabins all around the main body- which one will the missile aim for, even if it wants to hit the smaller cabins?

and increase weight and reduce maneuverability.

If you are sitting inside the main tank, and a missile hits the tank, you are toast. Period.

This isnt true in today's age. there are methods to protect against missiles by interfering with their targeting - aerosol screens, warhead efficacy - cage armour, and hardkill measures like an APS which destroys the missile itself.

 

[Bleh]

The smaller outside cabin can be fortified with as much armor as needed, but keep the main body light. Lot of "dead" weight of the tank can be reduced. And no, I dont think a missile will try to aim for a smaller cabin 5 feet away from a much larger main body- doubt it can be so precise. Besides, have "dummy" cabins all around the main body- which one will the missile aim for, even if it wants to hit the smaller cabins? So yes, the outside cabin will definitely provide more protection to the men. If you are sitting inside the main tank, and But if you are in an outside, well-armored smaller cabin?

Firstly unmanned tanks aren't being taken seriously because of the same reason drones aren't big in conventional warfare yet, they can be easily jammed. Until they can be made fully autonomous, they're not going to be feasible.

Lightly armoured unmanned main tank can be toasted very easily (like T-14 turret, which has your "well armoured cabin" in its hull) then enemy can take their time... Also you CANNOT have full 360° protected cabin, especially against APFSDS & IED.

Multiple crews following several Unmanned Mobile Guns in a superheavy APC is the closest we may get someday.

...a missile hits the tank, you are toast. Period.

Not on the frontal armour it won't.

And it's much less costly & complicated to make sure the missile doesn't hit. Hard & soft kill APS, sensors, multispectral camouflage, aerosol grenades exist for that reason. Also several measures can ensure crew-survivability in case of ATGM hit, like spaced armour & blow off panels. Arjun even has the hull ammo stowage vault full of diesel to douse HEAT stream. Now if only they can manage to put a blow off panel below it...

And this is the Arjun MBT thread, stop off topic spamming.

 

[aditya10r]

Firstly unmanned tanks aren't being taken seriously because of the same reason drones aren't big in conventional warfare yet, they can be easily jammed. Until they can be made fully autonomous, they're not going to be feasible.

Plus putting the entire crew in front of Hull is a setup for disaster.
That isnt the best layout for a tank.

_________________________________________________________

 

[Bleh]

Plus putting the entire crew in front of Hull is a setup for disaster.
That isnt the best layout for a tank.

_________________________________________________________

Actually you want to crew as close to the main armour as possible, because putting crew further away below the turret wouldn't make them any safer from whatever penetrates frontal armour. But would make them vulnerable to flanking shots, as side-armour cannot be more than 100mm.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

.......................

 

[Bleh]

Arjun Mark1A at the center stage of Defexpo-2020 public demonstration.