Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Cruise missile]

What other reason do you see "your highness" for the ridiculously small orders from the Army?

It's simple Army needs a medium category tank with much better design.

 

[WarriorIndian]

It's simple Army needs a medium category tank with much better design.

Isn't that exactly what I elaborated in my previous post? This machine is simply too heavy by weight and dimensions.

 

[ArgonPrime]

What other reason do you see "your highness" for the ridiculously small orders from the Army?

That's not the point, it's all the other stuff you wrote that's complete bs. Oh and as far as reasons are concerned, I'll give you one, a rather big one at that - the MBT Arjun is fraught with way too many design flaws to the point that in its present form, it doesn't belong anywhere near a modern battlefield.

 

[ArgonPrime]

It's simple Army needs a medium category tank with much better design.

Heavy, medium, and light tanks - these classifications went out of military jargon the day the first MBT entered service. Arjun, T-90S, Armata, Abrams, Merkava - these are all MBTs, there are no heavy or medium tanks anymore.

 

[Bleh]

What other reason do you see "your highness" for the ridiculously small orders from the Army?

To be fair I didn't reply does the same reason. The points you made were all flawed & have been discussed before. 1 example...

You said "It is unable to effectively traverse terrain filled with natural and/or artificial obstacles. Or areas crisscrossed with rivers and canals"... Yeah, no tank can. That's why IA never managed to go beyond 50 kilometres within Paki territory in Punjab sector.


If the rivers are more than 2m deep, then T-90 needs 30mins of prepping (that renders it unable to fight) & Arjun needs a bridge. With a built-in snorkel that could be zero for Arjun. Otherwise Mark1A can deploy in Pakistan very well, with similar ground pressure as T-90. We've deployed Centurions before.

 

[WarriorIndian]

That's not the point, it's all the other stuff you wrote that's complete bs. Oh and as far as reasons are concerned, I'll give you one, a rather big one at that - the MBT Arjun is fraught with way too many design flaws to the point that in its present form, it doesn't belong anywhere near a modern battlefield.

Got it. Thanks

 

[WarriorIndian]

To be fair I didn't reply does the same reason. The points you made were all flawed & have been discussed before. 1 example...

You said "It is unable to effectively traverse terrain filled with natural and/or artificial obstacles. Or areas crisscrossed with rivers and canals"... Yeah, no tank can. That's why IA never managed to go beyond 50 kilometres within Paki territory in Punjab sector.


If the rivers are more than 2m deep, then T-90 needs 30mins of prepping (that renders it unable to fight) & Arjun needs a bridge. With a built-in snorkel that could be zero for Arjun. Otherwise Mark1A can deploy in Pakistan very well, with similar ground pressure as T-90. We've deployed Centurions before.

Got it. Thanks

 

[ArgonPrime]

Could you please elaborate on this? We are slightly short of the ideal number of armoured regiments we need. So if we don't replace T-72 on a one to one basis, do you suggest we do away with some armoured regiments? Or else should we reduce the size of an armoured regiment and get rid of the reserve tanks?

The former, do away with a certain number of armored formations. I mean, ideally, we would want the IA to replace the T-72M1s with a topnotch MBT like Armata or I don't know, M1A2 export variants perhaps but the fact remains that we simply can not afford to buy/manufacture ~2400 such vehicles, but the increase in capability should balance out the reduced numbers.

Or are you suggesting that we replace 1000 T-72 with Armata and the rest with T-90?

Nah, reduce the overall size of the Armored forces to about 3500 tanks is what I'm suggesting but make sure they are state-of-the-art, each and every one of them.
I mean, think about it, would you want our guys to go into war with 2400 T-72M1s which are obsolete death traps even by late 90s standards or you would want a thousand of Abrams/Armatas (or even the T-90MS) instead??

 

[Bleh]

Got it. Thanks

Neither are the gun&armor flaws compared to T-90 or Armata as much a problem as ArgonPrime is making it to be. Especially when itself has compartmentalised wet ammo stowage & blow off panels below hull (now this last part is a claim I read, not totally sure, but I don't see why not). While any lower glacis penetration is 100% crew death for both T-90 & Armata.

Now the opponents & killing each other.

Whoever (read: Arjun) has better FCS & integraded BMS as well as individual hunter-killer, WILL locate-acquire-engage first... If it hits the armoured area then even a 750mm penetration FSAPDS won't go through, but if it hit a weak point then the old 300mm will do the job (yes, even Armata's lower glacis). Plus it's impossible to ambush it, the laser-rangefinders will trigger the APS which automatically lobbs smoke at the shooter's line of sight.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Neither are the armor flaws as much a problem as ArgonPrime is making it to be, especially when it has compartmentalised wet ammo stowage & blow off panels below hull (now this player part is a claim I read, not 100% sure, but I don't see why not).
View attachment 77994

Come on man, we had this discussion already before, you remember the time when I said Arjun MkIA has got arguably the best ammo stowage arrangements among all the MBTs presently in service except for the Abrams, don't you?? And I stand by that statement even to this day.
The protection angle becomes more relevant for the MkI, which doesn't have isolated ammo stowage and weaker armor as well, it's as much of a deathtrap as is the T-72M1/T-90S if not more.
Then there is also the issue with that damn engine deck which puts severely limits the size of the ready rack. Somehow they got it right with the Tank Ex but why couldn't they do the same with MkIA at least is just beyond me.

And it's not just the armor, the gun and the ammo - both are plain atrocious by modern standards. Heck, they are atrocious even by late 80s standards!!

If it has good FCS & integraded BMS as well as individual hunter-killer it'll locate-acquire-engage first... If it hits the armoured area then even a 750mm penetration FSAPDS won't go through, but if it hit a weak point then the old 300mm will do the job.

Agreed. The problem is, the unarmored/less armored areas in the Arjun (both variants), namely the gun-mantlet and LFP are just too big and too obvious, at least for my liking that is. At least, in the MkIA, a hit that penetrates the LFP likely won't cause crew fatalities but it will disable the tank for good, that's a given.

Plus it's impossible to ambush it, the laser-rangefinders will trigger the APS which automatically lobbs smoke at the shooter's line of sight.

That's true.

 

[Bleh]

@ArgonPrime I was elaborating for others.

The tech & technical knowhow mean more, I'd rather wait for Mark2 to come out now. Most designs other than Leo2A7 & Abrams (turret only) are like that. I've studied, LeClerc to Challenger2 to K2 to Merkava4... If you shout from the front there's 50% chance you'll hit somewhere with guaranteed penetration.

 

[ArgonPrime]

@ArgonPrime I was elaborating for others.

The tech & technical knowhow mean more, I'd rather wait for Mark2 to come out now. Most designs other than Leo2A7 & Abrams (turret only) are like that. I've studied, LeClerc to Challenger2 to K2 to Merkava4... If you shout from the front there's 50% chance you'll hit somewhere with guaranteed penetration.

50% would be a bit too much to expect in my opinion, at least when we are talking about NATO standard MBTs. And the K2, I do not like that thing. While it's got excellent frontal protection, the sides are plain atrocious.

 

[ArgonPrime]

By the way, @Bleh , what's the ultimate verdict on the hull armor layout of Al-Khalid and the rest of the Chinese MBTs - are they following the Leopard 2 or the same old T-72??
Oh, and I would argue that it'd be quite difficult to pen the lower glacis of the Armata, to say the least. On the other hand, you're spot on with the T-90 with its automated turret ejection system for the lack of a better term, lolzz.

 

[WarriorIndian]

View attachment 77994
Neither are the gun&armor flaws compared to T-90 or Armata as much a problem as ArgonPrime is making it to be. Especially when itself has compartmentalised wet ammo stowage & blow off panels below hull (now this last part is a claim I read, not totally sure, but I don't see why not). While any lower glacis penetration is 100% crew death for both T-90 & Armata.

Now the opponents & killing each other.
View attachment 77995
Whoever (read: Arjun) has better FCS & integraded BMS as well as individual hunter-killer, WILL locate-acquire-engage first... If it hits the armoured area then even a 750mm penetration FSAPDS won't go through, but if it hit a weak point then the old 300mm will do the job (yes, even Armata's lower glacis). Plus it's impossible to ambush it, the laser-rangefinders will trigger the APS which automatically lobbs smoke at the shooter's line of sight.

It all makes better sense now !!

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

The former, do away with a certain number of armored formations. I mean, ideally, we would want the IA to replace the T-72M1s with a topnotch MBT like Armata or I don't know, M1A2 export variants perhaps but the fact remains that we simply can not afford to buy/manufacture ~2400 such vehicles, but the increase in capability should balance out the reduced numbers.

Nah, reduce the overall size of the Armored forces to about 3500 tanks is what I'm suggesting but make sure they are state-of-the-art, each and every one of them.
I mean, think about it, would you want our guys to go into war with 2400 T-72M1s which are obsolete death traps even by late 90s standards or you would want a thousand of Abrams/Armatas (or even the T-90MS) instead??

If you do away with existing Armoured formations, who is going to perform their role? Each formation has a tasking assigned to it. We've already dismantled one Strike Corps. We can't weaken our Western posture any more. I say we replace as many T-72 as we can afford to by Armata/FRCV/FMBT/GNMBT. But we should let the T-72 we can't replace right now serve upto 2040 at least. Its not like Pakistan has the best of weapons. Their low end tanks are even more pitiful than the T-72.

• We already have about 30 T-90 Regiments. There was a new order placed for 8 more T-90 Regiments.
• 2 Regiments of Arjun Mk1 in service with 2 more of Mk1A on order.
• Remaining are about 44 regiments of T-72.
• This comes to a total of 76 Armoured Regiments. Ideal strength was 80, but whatever....
• Now out of these 44 T-72 Regiments, 8 will be replaced by T-90 and 2 by Arjun Mk1A.
• That leaves us with around 34 T-72 Regiments.
• Cost of replacing them with a Futuristic MBT, assuming a cost of $10 Million per tank, is $ 17.68 Billion.
• This cost is double that of the FICV program.
• But considering that this replacement will start only after 2028 and will continue for about 10 years, Army will only need to shell out $1.7 Billion per year. Add to that a generous $1 Billion yearly for 10 years for the FICV program and we'll be looking at an annual CAPEX of $2.7 Billion going towards revitalization of the Armoured Fist of India.
• Compare that to
  • $ 3.6 Billion total CAPEX of Army in 2020-21.
  • $ 4 Billion total CAPEX of Army in 2021-22 (Assuming a 12% increase).
• Also consider that by 2028, this budget would at least have doubled and in the next 10 years upto 2038, it would quadruple at least (especially considering the measures being taken to arrest growth of revenue expenditure and pensions).
• So in 2028, out of an $8 Billion CAPEX, Indian Army shouldn't find it particularly hard to shell out $ 2.7 Billion. I would say funding is not the issue here.

 

[Bleh]

50% would be a bit too much to expect in my opinion, at least when we are talking about NATO standard MBTs. And the K2, I do not like that thing. While it's got excellent frontal protection, the sides are plain atrocious.

So thought I... BUT THEN I STARTED STUDYING THEIR ARMOUR LAYOUTS.

Forget Merkava or Challenger, it's mostly bugger-all weak spots (if gunner knows what to aim for) even the more famously protected ones. Their superiority is in tech of situational awareness & crew friendlyness & FCS etc.

I'm being very generous here. Let's consider the engine as protection.

By the way, @Bleh , what's the ultimate verdict on the hull armor layout of Al-Khalid and the rest of the Chinese MBTs - are they following the Leopard 2 or the same old T-72??
Oh, and I would argue that it'd be quite difficult to pen the lower glacis of the Armata, to say the least. On the other hand, you're spot on with the T-90 with its automated turret ejection system for the lack of a better term, lolzz.

Surprisingly good either way... Yes, you don't want to be prancing apple in it. You want to be

 

[Bleh]

@ArgonPrime contd...

This applies for both AK-1 & VT-4. You want to be waiting, dug-in or atleast hull-down to face advancing Indians in those. And THEN they hold a tremendous advantage! Chance of a killshot from the front is 15% max...

Yes they can be very vulnerable when flanked, but deployed properly flanking is very difficult.


I like that Pakis know what they want from the tank & have acquired accordingly... While our Army's ASQR is just few pages of ORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORAORA

 

[ArgonPrime]

So thought I... BUT THEN I STARTED STUDYING THEIR ARMOUR LAYOUTS.

Forget Merkava or Challenger, it's mostly bugger-all weak spots for even the more famously protected ones.

Their superiority is in tech of situational awareness & crew friendlyness & FCS etc.

View attachment 78000View attachment 77997
[/QUOTE]
As I said earlier, K2 is overhyped.

I'm being very generous here. Let's consider the engine as protection.
View attachment 78001

Let's not. The engine block is mostly made of mild steel, so it will provide virtually zero protection against modern anti-tank rounds. It's a widely accepted fact that Merkava has a very weak hull.
But your depiction of its turret weak spots isn't on point.

View attachment 77998

Nah, it's more like this

First of all, the turret is rather very low by NATO standards, at least the sections housing the crew are, only the section atop the main gun is raised high, so a shot that pens that section likely won't cause crew fatality as the interior is covered spall liners. Here, check this out -

As for the Challenger 2, nothing new there. Every Warthunder player knows that, lolzz.

 

[Bleh]

Nah, it's more like this
View attachment 78002

First of all, the turret is rather very low by NATO standards, at least the sections housing the crew are, only the section atop the main gun is raised high, so a shot that pens that section likely won't cause crew fatality as the interior is covered spall liners. Here, check this out -

View attachment 78006

As for the Challenger 2, nothing new there. Every Warthunder player knows that, lolzz.

Not if this is correct:

Almost all of its hull is a weak spot frontally... Much of the turret too beside the mantle. I seemed to have overlooked that.

I've very carefully done the turrets (yeah the lines are a bit crude, did on mob). Point out a few examples of inaccuracy, I'll fix or explain myself like the above.

 

[BlackViking]

@Bleh @ArgonPrime what are the ways to improve the protection of turret weakspots?