Arjun vs T90 MBT

[farhan_9909]

arjun had problem with GCS few years back now as per indians it can hit a suite case size target at 2km

krauss directly helped India in arjun case which means no tank is designed by India ever still they claim arjun being superior to Russian t90.when Russia alone has designed 50% of the world tanks developed so far

 

[Damian]

The problem with Arjun for India and Indian Army is that there is a lot of pseudo patriots, who do not allow any constructive criticism, neither they accept one, and they try to show Arjun as some wunderwaffe, without any flaws in design.

This is not how tanks are designed and how they evolve. In all countries, even Soviet Union, each tank design had been criticized, to make a discussion about the weak points and how to improve them. In India we have a strange situation, where there are reasonable people wanting discussion, and there are unreasonable people, these people are dangerous to country and it's security.

 

[p2prada]

arjun had problem with GCS few years back now as per indians it can hit a suite case size target at 2km

???

krauss directly helped India in arjun case which means no tank is designed by India ever still they claim arjun being superior to Russian t90.when Russia alone has designed 50% of the world tanks developed so far

Krauss has nothing to do with Arjun. Arjun is a completely Indian design.

 

[p2prada]

The problem with Arjun for India and Indian Army is that there is a lot of pseudo patriots, who do not allow any constructive criticism, neither they accept one, and they try to show Arjun as some wunderwaffe, without any flaws in design.

This is not how tanks are designed and how they evolve. In all countries, even Soviet Union, each tank design had been criticized, to make a discussion about the weak points and how to improve them. In India we have a strange situation, where there are reasonable people wanting discussion, and there are unreasonable people, these people are dangerous to country and it's security.

Yeah. They are assuming they are more patriotic if they support every little thing that seeps out of the toilet called DRDO. Forgetting the fact that they are supposed to be more loyal to their own military first, not some company.

 

[Damian]

@p2prada, the fact is however that Arjun is not a bad idea as a project. There is different problem, people do not understand that T-90 is not an obstacle for Arjun project, the real problem is that too much excitement instead of meritoric discussion will kill this project, because without merithoric discussion, there will be no evolution.

For example the Arjun Mk2 prototypes we seen. There are clearly visible weak points in the design, these needs to be discussed, and improved. First the ERA installation. There is too much gaps inbetween ERA cassettes, no ERA over gun mantle mask, ERA do not completely covers glacis plate. These things need to be solved.

Second thing that radar thing... who the hell even is responsible for such idiotic placement? I would understand somewhere in the resr with capability to retract antenna in to small armored box, but placing it in front just takes space where additional protection in form of ERA or something else could be mounted improving survivability.

Same goes for main sight placement? Ok I do not talk about complete relocation (even though it is currently possible with ease to change main sight position), but why not highten it, and the old window just weld with armor plate? Why designers do not learn from Germans who had exactly the same problem with Leopard 2 main sight placement and later they changed it.

So I ask, why nobody ask such questions and do not try to force redesigns?

And there is more, why nobody try to think about future, you think that tanks won't be used in urban battles? Or assymethric battles? This is shortsighting, so why nobody thinks about uparmoring kits for Indian tanks, so if needed at least some of them can be adopted for such conditions. Never say never, real life can be surprising.

Not to mention that bigger problem is procurement program, why the hell everybody sticks to the whole T-90 vs Arjun dillema? Why for example nobody thinked to, maybe not for competition for production, but to ask Americans, British or Germans, to come to India, with their tanks (for example single armor brigade), and to show what they learnd, and how they solved many problems, which are not very unlikely for Indian Army either.

Why? Because this is arrogant shortsighting, as we could seen here a silly arguments that Europeans do not have any ideas about mathematics, do we? Why not listen the second side, perhaps this second side have something valuable to say? But no, instead of cooperation, it seems that there are also in India nationalistic fools, who sooner say we are enemies and we should be destroyed, than improve relations and cooperation... perhaps it is a colonial sentiment, and I understand it but goddamnit, how long ago were colonial times? Why we should think about this, instead of improve cooperation?

And hey, you do not like Russian equipment? Why not cooperate with NATO? With big tank manufacturers like GDLS, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, NEXTER or BAe?

And there seems to be another problem, corruption in India is a problem but, the corruption fighting system is inefficent, what will be next, ban for every possible cooperant because of corruption possibility? Why ban foreing companies instead of just making more efficent law that will punish these who were corrupt. Big companies will be there, allways finding their clients, but Indian Army will lost every cooperant that can provide their own lessons learned, and improve India's scientific base for military industrial complex.

So there are many problems. Some citizens of India can say, but what you Poles know about this, well we know, because we had, or still have very similiar problems, but do we shut down all cooperation projects? Hell no! For example the Krab (Crab) SPH project, this is nothing more than British turret, with French gun and Polish designed hull, a successfull effect of cooperation. What is funny and well known in Poland, the Krab was in the big interest of Indian Army, however due to some misunderstandings, the ideas to produce Krab in India were jeopardized.

Or the Leopard 2 modernization, in fact the goverment allowed two teams to compete for modernization proposals, KMW with Bumar, and Rhinemetall with WZM, and we will see who's modernization proposal will be choosen, but as we can see with have a cooperation between German companies and Polish ones, a projects benefiting both sides.

So the answer is, do not bash with mud T-90, it is not a perfect tank, I do not even like it, but it is not a piece of junk either... in the same time, do not close Arjun program, why should you? The program will benefit India, although only, when Indians will realize that first tank project is not perfect, that many things need to be learnd and many things in Arjun redesigned or designed a new.

The common misconception is I think that, some Indians think, "hey those pesky Europeans, they only criticize us", but no, I think that India will be more and more important ally to the NATO, why then not discuss, Indians have obvious interesting and usefull experiences in CT operations, the NATO have much greater experience and knowledge in AFV designing, so if for example US forces can have training in India for CT operations, why for example Indian goverment do not sign a memorandum of understanding to provide a tour with lessons in KMW and GDLS, or even NEXTER and BAe, or all of them?

World change constantly, and while in the past the relationship between India and west was not good, the future might need a different approach, and it is worth to think about it, instead of talking about how much west is evil, we are superb and such bollocks that are good for kids and is very similiar to talk of people like neonazis in europe or north america which are, in the end... bollocks.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What i missed..

From last where i left to this, there is not much progressed..

@Kunal Biswas
Did you post any images for the placement of composite armor on arjuns?

Kanchan Armour is placed on frontal Armour of turret and Chassis both..


------------------------------
------------------------------

The T-90S does have a lot of more option, India is just not willing to go for them. Export ammunition for the T-90S can easily penetrate much more than 500 mm steel armour at 2,000 m.

M88, M04 (Unis-Pretis), TAPNA, CL3254/CL3579, 125-1 and 125-2, aswell as prototypes of Polish WITU. Then there are various DU rounds capable of penetrating more armour (even though they are not for export and thus India would need to make an own) like 3BM-32 Vant, 3BM-46 Svinets.

You Should note, you are contradicting your own point, Prototype dont count & IMI is ban..

This doesn't change much about the original point. The rifled gun is a thing of the past and simply cannot be as good as a smoothbore gun. If the Indian army would adopt the same round capable of penetrating 500 mm RHA on the T-90, then it would be capable to penetrate 500+ mm RHA.

When we were doing 425 or 400 and production was on, the Army decided that we should go for a higher penetration capability, 600 mm, and they wanted to do it urgently because this was a post-Kargil requirement. So they went for import. And that import has unfortunately not fructified due to various reasons. Now because we realise that there is going to be a gap, we have already upgraded this (FSAPDS) to 500.

Your previous comment is above explained, Point is we are developing 600 or +600mm RHA from 2000m round on our own, there are none available to us more than +550mm RHA from 2000 meter, Give a look again at the link i provided and what it says..

Nothing of this is unchangable. T-90S can be (and partially was) modified to overcome this shortcomings easily.

Lets be realistic, Its not there yet but will be in Upgrade..

 

[Decklander]

But this have nothing to do with safe manouvering angles principle. Do you even understand the principle of safe manouvering angles? You are derailing the thread with some completely not related posts.

Since you do not seem to know the answer, let me reply.
Their is no anguler diff between to parallel lines even at at a distance of light years. What I have been trying to tell you is that you guys have been fooled by visual perception and failed to notice that even though both tanks have diff turret design but the 60* arcs for both tanks are equally protected. It is for just this reason that these arcs are paralell to eachother and not diverging or contracting to eachother.
Had these arcs been diverging or contracting than we wud have an argument as to which is better. But we have no argument here as both are same.
I wrote in my earlier posts that this rule of 60* arc is known to Indians also and if DRDO had not protected the tank turret at these angles, IA wud have told them to do it or created a ruckus but they did not do it. Or even russians wud have done it. Or even Israelies wud have pointed out this shortcoming. But not even one of them has made it a point of discussion while we have people here like you and Methos who consider themselves to be superior in intellect and knowledge of tanks to even Russians, Israelies and IA.
I think you must agree that after failing to answer my questions about mobility and firing range accuracy, you created and unneccessary debate for a non issue.

Let us now move to next point of debate which many members have been waiting for. What are the tactics employed to counter modern tanks in battle?

 

[Austin]

@Austin, from merithoric point of view this video is silly, propaganda and typical TV show... but images are worth more than a thousand words, and say a lot about vehicle.

Damian , All videos or pictures shown serve just one purpose PR and Advert for the product .this video is no different then rest of defence videos we see.

 

[p2prada]

IA wud have told them to do it or created a ruckus but they did not do it. Or even russians wud have done it. Or even Israelies wud have pointed out this shortcoming. But not even one of them has made it a point of discussion while we have people here like you and Methos who consider themselves to be superior in intellect and knowledge of tanks to even Russians, Israelies and IA.

Only one word, weight. Both the Russians and the Israelis have taken care of this on their respective tanks. You have already seen the Russian tanks. So, they already have the fix.

This is for the Merkava. The Israelis have taken care of it too.

As for IA making a ruckus, who knows, maybe they did. Why would the Russians point out deficiencies, they are not even involved with Arjun? As for the Israelis, maybe they did point it out and maybe the final Mk2 turret will come with a fix, perhaps with ERA and slat armour, if not composite armour. Too early to tell since you are also obviously depending on open source information.

 

[Decklander]

@p2prada,
Arjun turret is very well defended in the 60* arc. That is the point I have been trying to make. The original 2005 model did not have side protrusions on the turret, they were added after input from IA & Israelies. I wish I can post the twp pix of this tank with & without side protrusions to explain my point.

 

[Decklander]

finally I have found a pix of 2004 model Arjun which shows that side protrusions were not present in it than.
No Bang For The Buck | Saikat Datta
I hope this will put to rest all this debate.

 

[Decklander]

Is this really Arjun MK2?
File:Arjun Mk II graphic courtesy Ajai Shukla.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kunal Biswas]

There are 3 prototypes of this tank, 2 are already fielded, 3rd one will be the product of refinement of earlier 2 prototypes.

Is this really Arjun MK2?
File:Arjun Mk II graphic courtesy Ajai Shukla.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ersakthivel]

this picture is totally unfit for any analysis for arjun's side turret because the frontal armor protrudes more than one third of the entire length of the ARJUN turret.

It does not pass for any technical analysis.As the red

As you can see from the following picture no one can make any assumption about the thickness of armor on the arjun turret side by just seeing the picture
@damian
and
@methos.
are making the assumption by looking at the outer storage box and concluded the arjun turret side has no thick armor.
Confirmation is needed regarding the thickness of the side turret armor to make any sound judgement.
Arjun weighs close to 60 tons.main weight of the armor must have been distributed along the turret. So we need some confirmation regarding this.


So the lack of protection from the of arjun side turret is merely a guesswork depending on METHOS's assumption that the turret side has no thick armor.

Can we rule out armor arangement like the following diagram on arjun side by just looking at the picture alone?

 

[ersakthivel]

We need to know the side thickness of the turret to make any meaningful judgement.Not just the storage box wall thickness.

While it may look such a thin space on the drawing there is actually more than a feet if you see the above picture.

And we need to know whether any variable thickness side turret approach like the one shown below in the picture is there or not to make any meaningful comparision.

 

[ersakthivel]

@methos
@Damian
The arjun turret is very long .it extends far beyond the crew compartment.
The long over hang of the turret is visible when the gun swivels

the T-90 turret is very short and small.It is fully fitted on the crew compartment.
So it is misleading to end the black angular attack lines at the end of turret for each of the tank.

if theblack attack angle lines are drawn in such a way so that they end at the same point (the point where crew compartment ends, not where the turret ends)

and the original side protrusion length (it extends close to 1/3rd of the turret length but in the drawing it barely covers 1/5th)of the frontal armor plate is correctly represented ,

The arjun side turret arrangement has far better protection for crew compartment.

The hits on the back end corner of the arjun side turret has no implication for the crew compartment.
And I am sure variable thickness armor would have been employed at the sides of the ammo compartment .
There was already a debate on arjun thread that the bolted service hatch on the top of the tank serving both as service hatch and blow off panel
@Kunal Biswas can provide more info on this service hatch or blow off panel issue.

 

[ersakthivel]

We can see the huge space between the man standing and the side turret wall in these pictures. the point to clarify is whether any variable thickness plate is there on the side or not?

 

[sayareakd]

this will clarify things. Crew is well protected.

 

[ersakthivel]

I have a life beyond the internet.



Your pathetic attempt at sarcasm is lost on me since you are merely quoting facts here.

These were posted repeatedly by many others, "greater mortals" only need to keep posting the same thing over and over again for simpletons to understand. So, here goes.

T-90

T-72B
You can apply this to the T-90

Arjun facts,

Now compare to a tank like Leo2. Look at what's been marked in green for Arjun and check what's there on Leo 2 at the same place.
This is what Arjun should have been in order to be equivalent to the T-90.

Now look at the pic of the Abrams (green). This is what Arjun should have been for it to be better than the T-90. But looking at the above, it isn't even equivalent to the T-90, let alone better.

Let's even forget the fact that the T-90 comes with ERA equipped over the armour while Arjun only has it in prototype form.

It doesn't get any simpler that this.

Your angle of attack red lines are ending at the back of the turret (not at the end of crew compartment) for arjun.

But for T-90 the red angle of attack lines always end on the back of crew compartment(it is convenient t for you because the T-90 has a shorter round turret entirely sitting on the crew compartment).If you notice these red attack lines are always well in front for T-90 and well behind for the arjun under the false pretext of using the turrret end as a common datum.

this is a clever ploy aimed at creating illusion of weakness on the frontal arc of arjun.

If the red attack line angles are calculated at the same point of the hull for both the tanks(i.e at the end of the crew compartment and not the turret) your mistake will be uncovered.




So this is a misrepresentation of facts with a faulty angle of attack lines.

the drawing you posted below the words that arjun facts is actually a lie about arjun.

You have purposefully reduced the side protrusion of frontal armor to less than a third of its original length.

And your marking that storage boxes covering thin side RHA on the arjun side view drawing also conceals another important point.Do you have any idea what is this RHA thickness or what kind of armor plate is there?

What is between the man standing in the picture and side turret walls of the arjun?

The side protrusion of the frontal armor actualy comes close to the drawing of leo 2 you posted below.

The length of the side protrusion of arjun''s frontal armor plate in your drawing is less than half of its original length.infact it is more close to the leo 2 drawing above.

 

[sayareakd]

There are 3 prototypes of this tank, 2 are already fielded, 3rd one will be the product of refinement of earlier 2 prototypes.

Kunal sir this Arjun MK-II made in 2008 you can see the new sight and if you zoom in on right side of tank, you will see frame of what is suppose to be radar.