Arjun vs T90 MBT

[hest]

As it is written in article most of T-90S were purchased in knocked down kits and assembled, now it is in part produced locally, license was not given for certain components which are still imported so this denies the rumour. About indigenous gun and armour, they may have been developed but unlikely to be implemented as it would go against contract agreement, modifications or production without permission.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Sure, it is a widely known fact, because India does not have any access to modern T-90 armour but still random Indian forum posters know the truth

That's what I have been saying all along. Whatever armour (+.tech) we received with T-90 from Russia was not up to mark, while Kanchan is way better than any armour we could received from a foreign source. There is a reason why Kanchan has it's well-deserved & widely acknowledged reputation. And, if you doubt that, please educate yourself about it.

You fail to understand. You are speaking about a difference of 1 to 2 seconds and pretend it to be a major factor in combat. No, it is not.
In NATO for example the minimal distance a tank will move in combat is estimated to be 400 m (or at least was in the 1970s, which is known as "combat jump", Kampfsprung in the German language). This is why the two MBT-70 versions, despite being fitted with two different engines (both had different acclerations) was believed to be equal. The same thing can be seen when the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams were joint-evaluated. It's the same difference between the Leclerc with hyperbar engine and the tropicalized Leclerc with diesel engine. Acceleration is non-linear, which also makes generalized jugdements about the acceleration of different engines very hard.

So, you are disagreeing with the fact that acceleration is more important than top-speed. Great. So much for your awareness & intellectual honesty. That settles it, then. Further, it is not a generalized statement that Arjun MKII retains its original acceleration. This has been ratified & results would soon be out in public domain.

What a surprise, Arjun tankers think it is better than a T-90? Every tanker will tell you that his tank is the best! Ask a group of T-90 tankers to ride in a Arjun and they will tell you the opposite. Ask a Russian tank crew to ride a M1 Abrams and they won't find it more comforable or better.
In the T-90 (like in the T-72 and the T-80) all crew members sit and have to focus on a very few items all located easily accessable from their seats. Have you ever been in a tank?

They were experienced tankers of Indian Armoured Corps, who have been in T-72 family tanks throughout their careers. They have considered Arjun's crew comfort.to be way more superior, which is pretty obvious, anyway. I have never been in an operational tank, except for commissioned out Vijyanta/T-55's & a T-72. Few of them still stand inside my campus. Anyway, that's not the point here. The fact is Indian Armoured Corps chaps know their stuff & what they are talking. I have reasons to believe them, rather than you. Especially, when you make dubious statements like acceleration is of little importance & belittle known advantages of Arjun.

Yes, because the Arjun's development started in the 1974 as "Chetak" and became the "Arjun" in 1985. That the decissions which were made then might not work out as being good in the 2000s is nothing suprising.

Yeah, it is not considered the better choice today, but it would do its job in an Indo-Pak conflict. It's a moot point. As shared by many posters on this thread, some limitations have already been overcome.

You should do some googling. The M908 HE-OR, a specialized anti-bunker round, was introduced into service in Korea in 1997 as XM908. This round was available during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Your public knowledge fails.
The 125 mm gun had HE ammunition from it's first days, the Leopard 2 has been firing pure HE ammunition first in 1994/1995, but at this time only the Swedish ones.

Oh, 2003 was first US operation in Iraq & US was never there before Iraqi freedom. You continue to impress me by your persistent obfuscation & half-truth's.

No, it doesn't. Have you ever seen the sights/sensors of a tank in person?

In recent times, no. Not for a modern MBT. But, I have ears to cavalry men of Indian Army (& other arms, as well) & am privy to relevant facts. That's where I get my facts from. So, it may be hard on you to realize the fact, that the primary reason why IA inducted Arjun in limited quantity is because it was late. Period. So called huge advantages of your super tank T-90 were no consideration & of no relevance to IA decision-makers.

If he did talk about that, then he would have lost the context of this discussion. This is not "what would happen if"-discussion, but a discussion about the real situation. Furthermore he posted 6 minutes before your post that this is not what he meant.

Have a look & find out for yourself instead of imagining things.

 

[militarysta]

Kanchan is way better than any armour we could received from a foreign source.

But it doesn't mean that Kanchan is on avarage world level now, or it's better then pak T-80UD armour.

There is a reason why Kanchan has it's well-deserved & widely acknowledged reputation.

What resons? That kanchan survive used in IA obsolate APFSDS and HESH ammo? And Single SC warhed? It's not funny now, becouse those ammo was on middle 1980s level.

IMHO whole talking about superior Arjun protection over T-90S it's taking from simple fact: if both tanks have the same armour (Indian prodcution) then thickness of this armour is bigger on Arjun -so it will be slighty better armoured. Arjun left turret side have circa 800mm LOS while in T-90A those valu is only for 0. degree. For 30. degree from longitudal turret axis it's only circa 630-670mm LOS. So it was anought to tested both tanks for sucht angle to achive better protection in Arjun. But for the other side - T-90S have mucht smaller weak spots.

 

[methos]

That's what I have been saying all along.

No, you didn't say anything like that. You may have meant it, but didn't write anything limiting the amount of T-90s you were talking about - you did quite the contrary, because you said some "Kanchan is the best"-gibberish, after I explicitly said that there are many different T-90 versions with different types of armour.

There is a reason why Kanchan has it's well-deserved & widely acknowledged reputation.

Tell me more about that well-deserved and widely acknowledged reputation. How is it well deserved, when the Indian government did not have modern T-90 armour to compare it with? How is it well-deserved, when it was tested only against outdated ammunition?
How is it "widely acknowledged", when there is no non-Indian source claiming so?

And, if you doubt that, please educate yourself about it.

You are the person here doing fundementally flaws in the discussion like claiming the U.S. Army fought in Iraq pre-2003...

So, you are disagreeing with the fact that acceleration is more important than top-speed.

No, I simply claim that you fail to see the actual difference in combat value of these two tanks. The difference in acceleration is very small, so small that by common NATO criteria it would be likely considered to be negligible.
Is a tank which is 5 cm smaller than another tank harder to hit? In theory it will be. But in reality it will remain unnoticed in actual combat, because the difference is too small.
Is a tank which is 100 kg lighter than another tank much more mobile? In theory it does have a better power to weight ratio and a lower ground pressure, but in practice it doesn't matter.
Or what is with ammunition? It won't be noticed if a round is 5 cm more accurate at 2 km than another.

The important thing is to actually look at the combat scenarios. 5 cm greater size of a tank don't matter, because it is only a negligible fraction of the overall size... unless the enemy can hit incredible small targets, it won't make the tank more survivable. Likewise the difference in acceleration does not matter as much as you suggest - under actual combat conditions it doesn't matter if the acceleration to a given speed happens in a second less or more, because in combat scenarios you do not move 20 meters and stop then - the minimum distance a tank will travel in combat is believed to be 400 m (a "combat jump") by NATO. Using values taken from the FrontierIndia.net, the difference in time for such a combat jump will be less than a second.

Great. So much for your awareness & intellectual honesty.

Stop acting like a little child - you should focus on the discussion instead of trying to insult me.

They were experienced tankers of Indian Armoured Corps, who have been in T-72 family tanks throughout their careers. They have considered Arjun's crew comfort.to be way more superior, which is pretty obvious, anyway.

In the same way it is from my point of view pretty obvious that the M1 Abrams or the Leopard 2 will have a better crew comfort than a T-90, still a lot of people don't think so. Not because they are some bunch of dumb idiots, not because they are some over-nationalistic people who cannot accept that their homemade products are worse in some aspects than they want to believe. They say so, because this is there actual opinion!

Your logic fails, you simply try to compare subjective impressions of different things. Is a big car more comfortable than a small one - e.g. a Ford Mondeo more comfortable than a Smart or a Mini?
Or what about handles of tank commanders? In the Leopard 2 the commander's periscope is moved via thumbstick, on the Challenger 2 the commander's periscope is moved via joystick - is the joystick more comfortable because it is bigger? Ask a German tank commander this question and he would disagree, while a Brish tank commander would say "yes".
In the T-90 the whole crew is seated and all controls they have to use in combat can easily be accessed from the seats. It doesn't matter that the tank is much smaller, because the space other is not needed - there is no rule saying "this is uncomfortable".

The fact is Indian Armoured Corps chaps know their stuff & what they are talking

And they know how the tanks available to them perform and decide so which tanks they are buying yet... not the Arjun as main tank, despite the T-90 "being definetly less comforable".

Oh, 2003 was first US operation in Iraq & US was never there before Iraqi freedom. You continue to impress me by your persistent obfuscation & half-truth's.

Yes, it was. If you had just a single clue about what you are talking, you'd know that the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Shield) did not take place on Iraqi ground, but in Kuwait (except on single battle which took place near the Iraqi-Kuwait border). There weren't any Iraqi made concrete fortifications in Kuwait.

That's where I get my facts from.

Then you should ask them how big the sensors and sights of modern tanks are and how much space they are taking away from the interior. This would make my life much easier.

So, it may be hard on you to realize the fact, that the primary reason why IA inducted Arjun in limited quantity is because it was late.

That's one reason. The primary reason for it being inducted is that the Indian government did not cancel it, despite the development taking 30 years and the costs of the programme increasing by more than 6 times, a result of the tank continuously failing to met the Army requirements.
The fact that the Arjun is being inducted is being explained with the T-90 alledgly being unsuitable for desert, while other countries do in fact use it in deserts...

So called huge advantages of your super tank T-90 were no consideration & of no relevance to IA decision-makers.

That's why they keep ordering the T-90...
The T-90 is far from perfect, the limited elevation and depression of the main gun, the still rather low power-to-weight ratio, etc. are examples of it's flaws. But it has much less and only less important flaws than the current Arjun and the Arjun Mk 2 based on the information available.

 

[p2prada]

So it is just some rumour.

If license for armour, gun, others was not given it normally means it is purchased in ready kit for assembly, indian T-90S was in fact until maybe recently mostly made from russian produced components.

No, it is confirmed officially. Indian T-90s have 130mm Kanchan inserts.

 

[p2prada]

About Kanchan.

As of today the only thing we know from official sources is that the armour is better than what's on the T-72M1. Apart from that we don't know anything about it. Heck we don't even know the official designation of the armour.

Comparing the armour to western equivalents is speculation at best.

 

[p2prada]

The fact that the Arjun is being inducted is being explained with the T-90 alledgly being unsuitable for desert, while other countries do in fact use it in deserts...

That would be incorrect. Pretty much all the exercises we had to date has been in deserts. There is nothing wrong with the T-90 functioning in deserts. Most of the fleet had completed more than half their engine life cycle due to exercises and training, mostly in the deserts.

There is only one sticking point about the negativity behind T-90, that 80 Catherines failed in the heat. However the Russians replaced the TIs through the warranty clause. This happened in 2004. The army's secrecy in all their internal matters is as strict as what you will find in Russia or China. This allowed the media to print and re-print the same old story again and again without any basis.

So, to stress on the point you made. It is only "alleged," not a fact. In the interview with the 4 Army commanders on TV, they never said anything about T-90s lack of capability in deserts. They actually said that Arjun matched T-90s capabilities in mobility in the desert.

Overall, it is already 2013 and the army's focus would be directed towards the FMBT that is meant to replace the T-72M1s in a decade. Any Arjun inductions will be piecemeal and inducted in holding and defensive corps of the army.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What you believe is not necessary the same rest would see..

===============

I would like to more about that T-90S import version 2001, Armour specs and some more links and details suggst it was inferior to later Armour used on latter T-90S ?

But it doesn't mean that Kanchan is on avarage world level now, or it's better then pak T-80UD armour.

Tell me more about that well-deserved and widely acknowledged reputation. How is it well deserved, when the Indian government did not have modern T-90 armour to compare it with? How is it well-deserved, when it was tested only against outdated ammunition?
How is it "widely acknowledged", when there is no non-Indian source claiming so?

 

[militarysta]

I would like to more about that T-90S import version 2001, Armour specs and some more links and details suggst it was inferior to later Armour used on latter T-90S ?

It's rather sure. I have source and details.
Source is polish article in military press:
Tomasz Szulc,Nowe czołgi naszych wschodnich sąsiadów: T-90MS i Opłot-M, Nowa Technika Wojskowa, 9/2012, s.13-14
Tomasz Szul, The new tanks our estern neighbors: T-90MS i Opłot-M, New Military Technology, 9/2012, p.13-14

BTW: Whole article is very interesting and compare Oplot-M and T-90MS.
Ad rem:
Previously there was no "T-90" tank but deeply modernisated T-72B model 1989 (Ob.184) whit well known armour. The lat T-72 version from Soviet Union was named T-72BU (Ob.188) -this T-72 modernisation first time in Soviet UVZ got normal quite advanced FCS taken from T-80U those FCS was "Irtysz" 1A45T. And this was the biggest difrence between T-72BU (Ob.188) and T-72B model 1989 (Ob.184). From propaganda and marketing resons they changed T-72BU name on T-90 in 5 october 1992. But it was still the same T-72B model 1989 whit cast turret and well known armour.
First foregin export was for India in 2001 while India got 42 redy tanks named T-90S (Ob.188S) whit cast steel turrets -so armour on T-72B model 1989 level.
The second batch in 2002 (82 tanks) got welded turret whit diffrent armour.

 

[JBH22]

Ammunition bursts in T-72 tanks barrels cause concern for Army

T-72 tanks are facing problems with its ammunition as it sometimes bursts in the barrel and 200 such cases have been reported making the Army wonder whether its troops will be "afraid" to fire even after seeing the enemy.

"It (the T-72 ammunition) used to burst in the barrel. If it bursts in the barrel, then the firer is afraid to fire his own gun, which is not a correct thing. If he is afraid to fire his own gun, then even if he sees the enemy he will not fire," the Army has told a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence.

The Army informed the Government and the Parliamentary Committee that over a period of time, there have been 200 such accidents involving the ammunition and "it brings down the confidence of the firer, especially, with regard to tank ammunition."

In terms of the numbers, the T-72 tanks are the backbone of the Indian armoured fleet and have undergone several upgrades since their induction to be able to fight effectively in the battlefield.

The Army is also "concerned" over the ammunition used by its artillery called Krashnapov, which has been imported from Russia, and has failed to hit targets in high altitude ranges such as Kargil.

"They were supposed to meet certain height and temperature requirement, and they said that it is not meant for such high altitude areas. Now, this ammunition has been shifted in the plain areas because it was not working there satisfactorily," it said.

The Army said several meetings have been held with the vendors to resolve the issue but progress in this direction has been relatively slow.

Last year, former Army Chief Gen V K Singh had written a letter to the Prime Minister explaining to him the shortages of tank ammunition being faced by the force.

Ammunition bursts in T-72 tanks barrels cause concern for Army | Business Standard

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Then you are saying that we have two different Russian armour in hand to evaluate ? i assume yes..

First foregin export was for India in 2001 while India got 42 redy tanks named T-90S (Ob.188S) whit cast steel turrets -so armour on T-72B model 1989 level.
The second batch in 2002 (82 tanks) got welded turret whit diffrent armour.

 

[militarysta]

Then you are saying that we have two different Russian armour in hand to evaluate ? i assume yes..

Well Im not sure here,but it's sure that india got:

1) 42 redy tanks in 2001 from Russia - named T-90S (Ob.188S) whit cast steel turrets and well known simple armour from Ob.184 (T-72B) (I had describe it dozens time)
2) second batch in 2002 (82 tanks) got welded turret whit diffrent armour -it's technology impossible that those 82 tanks have the same armour like previous cast turret tanks from 2001. So armour must be diffrent, but from the other hand - there is no way* that Russia sold it's "own" armour - it's some export armour version.

And after that we have contract form 2002 about licence prodyction 186 Bishma tanks - and those tank propably have Indian armour couse Russia doesn't sold armour technolgy to India. Af course Avadi factory was unable to produce those tank (quality and technolgy problems) so in 2007 India bought in Russia next 124 redy and produced only in Russia tanks (so whit export russian armour) and partial-redy kits to licented montage next 223 tanks - propably again whit pure Indian armour.


* I don't know any one example when Soviet/ Russia sold armour/weapons technolgy on it's "own" level. All export variants have "E" or "S" names and they are approved for export - they are just downgraded. Only exceptions are then when some weapons sytem is really outdated but still produced in Russia but the newest version is avaible soon. For exmaple:
Russia sold to India in 2001 those 42 T-90S whit cast turret and armour like in Russian erly T-90S (or T-72B model 1989) so on technology level on middle 1980s., but in the same time new welded turret whit new non-export armour was avaible in Russia and very soon was DOI.
Another example - Russia sold to India 3BM42 outaded rounds (1986) - and those rounds is still in service in Russia (and even produced). But in the same time newest 3BM42M (Lekalo) was avaible and newest- newest 3BM60(?) Sviniec-1 was ended both are not allowed for export still, becouse it's newest and top technology.
So it's sure that russia do the same like US and sold tanks whit export armour, or whit really outaded armour technology.

 

[ersakthivel]

the kanchan armor was good enough to be put on T-90 when the armor tech was out of the purview of TOT . So no question of it being not good enough.

 

[methos]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Such details can be clarified once only when we have photos from makers or from some members..

If posting photographs from the Arjun was enough, then this discussion would have ended 5-6 months ago.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

True Said..

That is why you have to wait for better photos, Not fragments from random web which most members here running out for sake of argument winning..

If posting photographs from the Arjun was enough, then this discussion would have ended 5-6 months ago.

 

[methos]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

That is why you have to wait for better photos, Not fragments from random web which most members here running out for sake of argument winning..

I don't think so. The "fragments from random web" show everything clearly. The arguments in this thread will not end - but not because the lack of evidence, but rather because people are not interested in seeing them. If the photographs were ultra-HD panoramic photographs of the interior or close up photographs of the discussed parts of the tank, it wouldn't change anything, because photographic evidence is completely ignored by one side.
A few weeks ago, I had to provide a source that the hull length of a tank is not 10 m! That clearly shows that some people are trying to talk about stuff they have absolutely no clue. It shows also that some people never saw a tank IRL.

Some people here are extremely stubborn or like militarysta said: blind.
ersakthivel is one of these persons. When we were discussing the width of the Arjun turret, he came up with a dozen different ways to determine a dozen different values, but according to him all of these were correct. In one part of the discussion, he claimed that the hatch diameter was X mm and thus the turret would have a diameter of Y mm. When I told him that "X mm" was not a correct value, he simply used my value to come again to Y mm, despite that contradicting his previous "calculation". But hey, who needs logic when flaming with troll posts is also possible!

I think his way of ignoring logic and his long troll attacks are annoying, that's why I put him a few weeks ago were he belongs: in my Ignore List. Still he keeps replying to my posts, besides me not reading nor answering his posts. So unless the DFI staff takes any action or he adds all of the "stupid Westeners" to his ignore list, he will still continue to flame in numerous topics.

I once again request all members who are self styled experts of tanks and related tech to show me one single article in which IA the actual user has anything against this tank?

Show me a sinlge article from IA were they claim that Arjun is better than T-90 or the T-90 is a bad tank-. You won't find any of those, still you started the "Arjun vs T90 MBT" thread claiming that the Arjun is better. You also managed in your stubborness to ignore all arguments saying otherwise.

 

[Decklander]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@methos,
This article is well known 2 all.
Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90 | Business Standard

 

[p2prada]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@<a href="http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/member.php?u=10064" target="_blank">methos</a>,
This article is well known 2 all.
Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90 | Business Standard

I will repeat this again as I had done in 2010. This article was flawed and gave only one side of the story. It is very sensationalist.

The real story is in the interview that was posted here.

The Army commanders gave Arjun the thumbs up in terms of accuracy. They claimed mobility was the same and Arjun actually matched up to the T-90. But they also claimed that Arjun lacked in Firepower where T-90s APFSDS performance was better. The word used was "much less" compared to T-90. All 4 were unanimous in the belief that Arjun was not reliable. Meaning T-90 had spares and support depots all over the country while Arjun had one in Avadi. The interview ended with the view where all four claimed India needs a new tank.

In the end the discussion was merely comparing a 1998 rigged T-90 to a 2005/08 rigged Arjun with latest "imported" Israeli electronics and they found Arjun "favourably" compared to T-90. Hence why Arjun's gun was more accurate. Merely more updated electronics.

Also the so called claim that Arjun's crew was inexperienced was valid because in one instance the driver made a silly mistake in a 150Km run which stopped one Arjun out of the 14. Arjun's muzzle reference system was also flawed which resulted in one misfire which was corrected later. T-90s had no problems throughout the exercise.

A repeat of the interview.



Ajai Shukla's credibility isn't up to the mark with his one-sided articles claiming Arjun is made by the Gods. You can ask @Ray about it.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

what we know about Kanchan Armour :

We know now that Kanchan Employ titanium alloy in plates and boron carbide bricks, Its design is similar to Burlington armor

=============
=============

Regarding Nano tech :

BHU develops metal for revolutionising defence technology | India - Oneindia News

=============
=============

Regarding Hybrid Armour :

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Main News

IMI have its inputs here..

==================
==================
==================
==================

Post in this thread Only :

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-22.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Vids are posted not too long ago, Only here >>

These are the videos he is talking about

I saw/heard it. It is in the second video, @2:30.

No it doesn't change the fact that it was your responsibility to provide support for your claims.

They also nullified your earlier assertion that weight based classification of tanks is not done anymore. I think you should see the video once again - and ;learn something as well.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-59.html
Page 59..