Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Okabe Rintarou]

The design is sexy.

No chance we can get it as Germany isn't a reliable defense supplier. They may have good people-to-people and trade links with us but defence partnership with them has been sketchy. Not to mention, if we use these for anything else other than averting an invasion, the supplies stop.

They have this stupid rule that they don't supply arms, spares etc if countries are using them in wars - yeah you heard that right; no spares or weapons even when both sides are fighting.

The FMBT contenders are either the new Nexter "Leclerc 2" concept.

Right. Another reason we shouldn't be trying to import this machine is its gun. I mean, a 130mm APFSDS? Our development of the 125mm hasn't peaked yet. And our adversaries don't have armour that would warrant that we use 130mm, other than perhaps Type 99 upgrades, and I think even those might be doable with 120/125mm if we can get our act together. So if we are to make a jump to 130mm, it can happen post-2050. Till then, 120/125 mm will serve us best.
.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take lessons from the Panther. Noteworthy is that controls are replicable on all stations. And then there is the 4 man crew. TBH, I always think its a bit risky for DRDO to go with a 2-man crew. I know they are doing it due to the unrealistic weight constraints Army is giving them, but even so. A 2 man crew will always be overworked. Especially when it comes to field maintenance and repairs on the tank, where a 2 man crew simply won't cut it. We should have some level of redundancy and margins in the crew, like in Panther. Or else what is to say that the Army won't simply reject the FMBT tomorrow citing "overworked crew" as a reason.
.
Also, is Leclerc 2 even a thing? Isn't France already collaborating with Germans on this new Panther tank?

 

[karn]

Right. Another reason we shouldn't be trying to import this machine is its gun. I mean, a 130mm APFSDS? Our development of the 125mm hasn't peaked yet. And our adversaries don't have armour that would warrant that we use 130mm, other than perhaps Type 99 upgrades, and I think even those might be doable with 120/125mm if we can get our act together. So if we are to make a jump to 130mm, it can happen post-2050. Till then, 120/125 mm will serve us best.
.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take lessons from the Panther. Noteworthy is that controls are replicable on all stations. And then there is the 4 man crew. TBH, I always think its a bit risky for DRDO to go with a 2-man crew. I know they are doing it due to the unrealistic weight constraints Army is giving them, but even so. A 2 man crew will always be overworked. Especially when it comes to field maintenance and repairs on the tank, where a 2 man crew simply won't cut it. We should have some level of redundancy and margins in the crew, like in Panther. Or else what is to say that the Army won't simply reject the FMBT tomorrow citing "overworked crew" as a reason.
.
Also, is Leclerc 2 even a thing? Isn't France already collaborating with Germans on this new Panther tank?

Yes agreed on the crew part .. but the IA gives alot more emphasis on infantry support than say the Russians . Their main point of reference is the yom Kippur war. Where IDF tanks took grievous losses to Egyptian infantry . For things like maintenance let it be organic to the tank squadron not at the tank itself .. every crew station has a flat cost to tank weight due to armour. How will we ever have unmanned vehicles if the concern is "extra crew for maintenance".
Tldr have the extra personnel for tank maintenance riding seperately from the tank.

On the gun .. a 140mm gun chucking HE would disable most modern tanks .. optics break, gun loses 0 , tracks break ,crew stunned etc etc .. saves on the effort of developing a super apfsds round .

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Yes agreed on the crew part .. but the IA gives alot more emphasis on infantry support than say the Russians . Their main point of reference is the yom Kippur war. Where IDF tanks took grievous losses to Egyptian infantry . For things like maintenance let it be organic to the tank squadron not at the tank itself .. every crew station has a flat cost to tank weight due to armour. How will we every have unmanned vehicles if the concern is "extra crew for maintenance".
Tldr have the extra personnel for tank maintenance riding seperately from the tank.

On the gun .. a 140mm gun chucking HE would disable most modern tanks .. optics break, gun loses 0 , tracks break ,crew stunned etc etc .. saves on the effort of developing a super apfsds round .

Some field maintenance are carried out by the crew themselves, despite there being Recovery and repair crews in the regiment, those handle higher order repairs, like engine replacement.
.
As for 130mm gun, its the easy way to ensure more penetration, without going deep into APFSDS tech, true. But it also means a major weight penalty and lesser rounds carried, due to heavier gun, rounds, autoloader and recoil. And like I said, our main adversaries in tank battles, the Pakistanis, have nothing (and don't plan to have anything) that would warrant the jump up in caliber. And against the Chinese, weight and mobility is the bigger concern due to nature of the battlefield.

 

[Marliii]

Some field maintenance are carried out by the crew themselves, despite there being Recovery and repair crews in the regiment, those handle higher order repairs, like engine replacement.
.
As for 130mm gun, its the easy way to ensure more penetration, without going deep into APFSDS tech, true. But it also means a major weight penalty and lesser rounds carried, due to heavier gun, rounds, autoloader and recoil. And like I said, our main adversaries in tank battles, the Pakistanis, have nothing (and don't plan to have anything) that would warrant the jump up in caliber. And against the Chinese, weight and mobility is the bigger concern due to nature of the battlefield.

According to some rumors for some time Chinese are working on a next generation MBT

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

According to some rumors for some time Chinese are working on a next generation MBT

True, but it will take them at least 15 years from now to field it in their plains, and since their armour is sufficient against us, I don't see them fielding that tank against us in the mountains for at least three decades.
The new gen Chinese MBT will likely be built to take on NATO tanks, meaning its weight won't allow its use against us, most likely.

 

[Marliii]

True, but it will take them at least 15 years from now to field it in their plains, and since their armour is sufficient against us, I don't see them fielding that tank against us in the mountains for at least three decades.
The new gen Chinese MBT will likely be built to take on NATO tanks, meaning its weight won't allow its use against us, most likely.

Pakistanis bought some vt4s from china sometime back and there were talks about it having gl15 APS system .but this is now confirmed not true.and their Al Khalid and zarrar also seems not of a bigthreat with our current inventory of ATGMs

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Pakistanis bought some vt4s from china sometime back and there were talks about it having gl15 APS system .but this is now confirmed not true.and their Al Khalid and zarrar also seems not of a bigthreat with our current inventory of ATGMs

True. No APS on VT-4 is good cause it means our HEAT and CLGM rounds would penetrate the VT-4 even if our current DRDO FSAPDS Mk II is insufficient. And even if they later install APS on their VT-4, we are already developing a new APFSDS for 600-650mm penetration, which likely will be enough to take out VT-4 frontal armour, APS or no APS.
EDIT: Also our current APFSDS can pen the frontal armour of Al Khalid and Zarar at 2 km while their Nazia DU APFSDS can't do the same to us, so no worries there.

 

[Fire and groove]

Some field maintenance are carried out by the crew themselves, despite there being Recovery and repair crews in the regiment, those handle higher order repairs, like engine replacement.
.
As for 130mm gun, its the easy way to ensure more penetration, without going deep into APFSDS tech, true. But it also means a major weight penalty and lesser rounds carried, due to heavier gun, rounds, autoloader and recoil. And like I said, our main adversaries in tank battles, the Pakistanis, have nothing (and don't plan to have anything) that would warrant the jump up in caliber. And against the Chinese, weight and mobility is the bigger concern due to nature of the battlefield.

I think it's better to stick to 120mm smoothbore while building in the modular option of upgrading to 130mm in the future. A bigger priority is the FCS, APS, sensors and systems to shorten the engagement cycle and improve situational awareness over organic firepower or armour. The Pakistanis aren't going to make any generational leaps anytime soon like you said, and most engagements are won by whoever shoots first i.e whoever had more information to work with.

 

[Hari Sud]

Right. Another reason we shouldn't be trying to import this machine is its gun. I mean, a 130mm APFSDS? Our development of the 125mm hasn't peaked yet. And our adversaries don't have armour that would warrant that we use 130mm, other than perhaps Type 99 upgrades, and I think even those might be doable with 120/125mm if we can get our act together. So if we are to make a jump to 130mm, it can happen post-2050. Till then, 120/125 mm will serve us best.
.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take lessons from the Panther. Noteworthy is that controls are replicable on all stations. And then there is the 4 man crew. TBH, I always think its a bit risky for DRDO to go with a 2-man crew. I know they are doing it due to the unrealistic weight constraints Army is giving them, but even so. A 2 man crew will always be overworked. Especially when it comes to field maintenance and repairs on the tank, where a 2 man crew simply won't cut it. We should have some level of redundancy and margins in the crew, like in Panther. Or else what is to say that the Army won't simply reject the FMBT tomorrow citing "overworked crew" as a reason.
.
Also, is Leclerc 2 even a thing? Isn't France already collaborating with Germans on this new Panther tank?

‘With the development of anti tank missiles so powerful that these can be fired by a soldier, loitering ammunition and drones carrying anti tank missiles, the tank has been rendered useless, rather a death trap. This has been amply proven in the Ukraine war. Prior to that the Azerbaijan used the drones to destroy Armenian tanks in the battle to force a surrender of Armenian troops only three years back. All tanks so far developed including Arjun, leclerc, T-90 and many more types cannot face top down ammunition. It is not long that tank will become a liability and soldiers will refuse to board it.

Hence effort should be redirected to develop much more smarter drones and hand held anti tank missiles instead of working on improving the tank including Arjun. A limited numbers will probably be still required to occupy an area but not to fight a battle.

 

[Marliii]

‘With the development of anti tank missiles so powerful that these can be fired by a soldier, loitering ammunition and drones carrying anti tank missiles, the tank has been rendered useless, rather a death trap. This has been amply proven in the Ukraine war. Prior to that the Azerbaijan used the drones to destroy Armenian tanks in the battle to force a surrender of Armenian troops only three years back. All tanks so far developed including Arjun, leclerc, T-90 and many more types cannot face top down ammunition. It is not long that tank will become a liability and soldiers will refuse to board it.

Hence effort should be redirected to develop much more smarter drones and hand held anti tank missiles instead of working on improving the tank including Arjun. A limited numbers will probably be still required to occupy an area but not to fight a battle.

What won the war in Azerbaijan ? It's not the drones as media shows drones just supported the offense the battle was finshed by armored and infantry forces advancing and pushing armenians out

 

[SKC]

What won the war in Azerbaijan ? It's not the drones as media shows drones just supported the offense the battle was finshed by armored and infantry forces advancing and pushing armenians out

Armenia simply has no chance against anyone. They don't have money for anything and they are not having any fans and friends in International community.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

‘With the development of anti tank missiles so powerful that these can be fired by a soldier, loitering ammunition and drones carrying anti tank missiles, the tank has been rendered useless, rather a death trap. This has been amply proven in the Ukraine war. Prior to that the Azerbaijan used the drones to destroy Armenian tanks in the battle to force a surrender of Armenian troops only three years back. All tanks so far developed including Arjun, leclerc, T-90 and many more types cannot face top down ammunition. It is not long that tank will become a liability and soldiers will refuse to board it.

Hence effort should be redirected to develop much more smarter drones and hand held anti tank missiles instead of working on improving the tank including Arjun. A limited numbers will probably be still required to occupy an area but not to fight a battle.

Tanks are far from obsolete. Once C-RAM or other types of drone defence systems become commonplace in the military, you'll be forced to retract your own words. Bullets didn't make the soldier obsolete. By your assessment, advent of air power should have made ammo dumps obsolete. And rocket artillery and Weapons Locating Radar should have made Artillery obsolete. Ukraine war should have taught you that as well? But did it actually happen? No. Leading nations are pouring more money into the tank, case in point, the new European tank being discussed.

Also, this is a thread about a tank. If you want to talk about "HoW drOnEs maKe TaNK obSOletE", kindly make another thread.

 

[karn]

Tanks are far from obsolete. Once C-RAM or other types of drone defence systems become commonplace in the military, you'll be forced to retract your own words. Bullets didn't make the soldier obsolete. By your assessment, advent of air power should have made ammo dumps obsolete. And rocket artillery and Weapons Locating Radar should have made Artillery obsolete. Ukraine war should have taught you that as well? But did it actually happen? No. Leading nations are pouring more money into the tank, case in point, the new European tank being discussed.

Also, this is a thread about a tank. If you want to talk about "HoW drOnEs maKe TaNK obSOletE", kindly make another thread.

Tanks have the energy and space for laser and radar as well as other kinetic options. Tanks can carry drones. Tanks can be drones . There will always be a need for a shooty thing on tracks that can take a hit /thread.

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Tanks have the energy and space for laser and radar as well as other kinetic options. Tanks can carry drones. Tanks can be drones . There will always be a need for a shooty thing on tracks that can take a hit /thread.

Forget lasers, on a tank, put a good quality radar and FCS and hook it to a KPVT (replace the NSVT with a KPVT) and you'll have a good enough anti-drone system on each tank for smaller drones that can't carry ATGMs. For larger drones that carry ATGM, upgrade the SPAAG and SAM units of your mechanized formation. This alone makes a world of difference.
.
Obviously in the medium term a C-RAM type system that can accompany the tank seems like the best bet. But it would be pretty ammo hungry. A system like Oerlikon Skyshield C-RAM with programmable ammo would be better for dealing with drone swarms.

 

[karn]

Forget lasers, on a tank, put a good quality radar and FCS and hook it to a KPVT (replace the NSVT with a KPVT) and you'll have a good enough anti-drone system on each tank for smaller drones that can't carry ATGMs. For larger drones that carry ATGM, upgrade the SPAAG and SAM units of your mechanized formation. This alone makes a world of difference.

Ammo storage will be a problem for those big honking 23mm rounds. An air search radar can make tanks more detectable as well as having a larger power requirement? Better an IR system ?

 

[Okabe Rintarou]

Ammo storage will be a problem for those big honking 23mm rounds. An air search radar can make tanks more detectable as well as having a larger power requirement? Better an IR system ?

True that. IIR is better than radar in this case.
But KPVT is not 23mm. Its 14.5mm

 

[Hari Sud]

Forget lasers, on a tank, put a good quality radar and FCS and hook it to a KPVT (replace the NSVT with a KPVT) and you'll have a good enough anti-drone system on each tank for smaller drones that can't carry ATGMs. For larger drones that carry ATGM, upgrade the SPAAG and SAM units of your mechanized formation. This alone makes a world of difference.
.
Obviously in the medium term a C-RAM type system that can accompany the tank seems like the best bet. But it would be pretty ammo hungry. A system like Oerlikon Skyshield C-RAM with programmable ammo would be better for dealing with drone swarms.

‘Are you a Chinese……… there are Chinese lettering at the bottom of your posts.

To answer your point; ……. Tanks are already 60 tons of more. Additional equipment useful or not will make it heavier. It should be discouraged.

 

[karn]

‘Are you a Chinese……… there are Chinese lettering at the bottom of your posts.

To answer your point; ……. Tanks are already 60 tons of more. Additional equipment useful or not will make it heavier. It should be discouraged.

Japanese my dude as is his username.

 

[Hari Sud]

Japanese my dude as is his username.

‘Your point well taken…

 

[Fire and groove]

‘With the development of anti tank missiles so powerful that these can be fired by a soldier, loitering ammunition and drones carrying anti tank missiles, the tank has been rendered useless, rather a death trap. This has been amply proven in the Ukraine war. Prior to that the Azerbaijan used the drones to destroy Armenian tanks in the battle to force a surrender of Armenian troops only three years back. All tanks so far developed including Arjun, leclerc, T-90 and many more types cannot face top down ammunition. It is not long that tank will become a liability and soldiers will refuse to board it.

Hence effort should be redirected to develop much more smarter drones and hand held anti tank missiles instead of working on improving the tank including Arjun. A limited numbers will probably be still required to occupy an area but not to fight a battle.

Tanks are far from dead, it's just that people's notion of the "invincible tank" gets shattered everytime there is an armoured engagement. Tanks exist and will very much continue to exist for the forseeable future unless you can point to another system capable of providing immediate, precise, long range, direct fire support to mechanized/motorized infantry or just plain infantry and contest with armoured platforms in turn. Also, ATGMs don't automatically make tanks obsolete and have been a known threat for decades; neither are loitering munitions which are dependent on degraded SHORAD A²/AD and a workable vector. There's nuances to be made here, and the best answer to a tank is still a tank.