Arjun vs T90 MBT

[sayareakd]

Recent video on T-90MS

Полигон. "Т-90 СМ "Прорыв" (28.11.2012) - YouTube

embedded


from the looks of it, they will put the price below Arjun tank.

BTW inside is not that sleek and stylish as shown to Putin.

 

[lcatejas]

If Indian army will go with arjun (Which is very proud for us ) than our babu's (Desh ke dalal) will go mad...

 

[p2prada]

@p2prada, no I meant T fifty five.

They were used in exercise IIRC last year.

Yeah, but we do not know the distribution of tanks in the army. The Army has used older tanks in tandem with the mechanized infantry since the tanks cannot keep up with a newer tank. So, it is not necessary it is part of the armoured strike force.

I am not even sure if the 3 strike corps will even have T-72s in it once enough T-90s are inducted.

 

[ersakthivel]

Overheating problems don't exist on the T-90. Like I said, media generated news to blow teething issues out of proportion. If you tell the French to tropicalize their systems, will they do it or not?

The Arjun you speak of didn't exist in 2000, when T-90s were purchased. It exists only today. Does the Navy purchase weapons systems based on promises?

Even Ajai Shukla claimed recently that the Arjun units are complaining about quality issues now.

So arjun didnot exist in 2000.Thats why indian army went for T-90 is the only consistent argument you make again and again.

Take the case of MMRCA tender.
It too started way back around 2000.The proposal for 126 fighters from IAF existed even before 2000 if open souurce news is correct.
What were the procedures followed? Did they simply order an upgraded version of Mig-29 or sukhoi?
They went for a multi patry open tender tender based contract based on stringent evaluation which stretched for years.
Take the procedure followed by IA for T-90.

IA has already given a GSQR with

1. 0.84 kg per square cm ground pressure(so that it can move in the slushy fields of punjab with almost the same ground pressure as T-72) ,
2. 4 men crew tank(less fatigued crew)
3. with better accurate gunfire on the move
4. night fighting capable
5.APU s for standby mode power
6.heat hardened electronics for the desert heat.
7.Better ventilation in desert summers(meaning more space inside, so that crew has bearable conditions and better ventilation)
8.Net centric warfare enabled
9.More power to weight ratio(24.5 hp per ton for arjun against 21 hp per ton for T-90,if I am correct

specs for ARJUN to CVRDE.
CVRDE was striving hard to achieve this.Remember this was CVRDE's first tank project.The specs are comparable to modern western MBTs of the time.
This GSQR for arjun is meant to produce a tank that can fight according to a certain tank warfare doctronie army had in mind.

Remember all these specs are very antithesis of russian design philosophy based on the T-72 the IA was using.
So the IA had at that time decided to junk the russian T-72 tank design philosophy and go in for a completely new tank design philosophy with arjun specs.

Then suddenly it did a somersault and inked a deal for 2000 T-90S tanks Which fail in all the above 9 mentioned design specs for the ARJUN.

Well you can say arjun is late.O.K. It was year 2000 why didn't IA go in for an international tender like the MMRCA contract?.

The T-90s that arrived here is nothing but an improved T-72 with even more ground pressure per sq cm and much lesser power to weight ratio than arjun and with no APUs and a very underpowered engine and unbearable operating conditions in desert heat.

Did the army put T-90 intoan AUCCRT type of trials in rajasthan desert and checked it's suitability in indian conditions like the IAF sent MMRCA contenders from LEH to hindon for trials all over india?

As a result of these flawed t-90 procurement process IA is now saddled with 2000 T-72s and brnd new 2000 T-90S(which should be provided with APUs and better electronics and ac with indian tax payers money. ground pressure issue can never be remedied meaning the tanks deployment area should be able to bear it's 0.94 kg per sq cm ground pressure) which have no relation to the doctrine behind the arjun specs.

Now the bizarre twist in the tale is the sudden emergence of T-90 MS which not so surprisingly has all the forgotten items on T-90S and takes it to the level of arjun mk-1(even in T-90 MS ground pressure issue and lesser power to weight ratio will be worse compared to even arjun mk-1 ).And now once again the indian army is jumping the gun with providing lame reasons like logistic similarity and orders are being rushed through undercover as if it is a a much improved version of already state of art T-90S.

Why dont IA cut some orders for T-90s and change it into T-90MS orders instead of ordering extra T-90 MS for eastern sector. That will atleast make india's western sector tank force to have more ARJUNS whose specs were meant for that area.That is not fair.Do a through trial based evaluation regarding the T-90MS's performance in the plains and deserts of INDo-PAK border compare to arjun mk-2 .If mk-2 is found to be good then cut the orders for T-90S and convert them into T-90MS orders for easter front(provided the statement that arjun is unsuitable fo deployment in eastern sector is true,Which I suspect will also be false as usual)

Atleast now the army has relaized it's folly and shot down the trial ballon called FMBT and decided to put down it's head for ARJUN development into FMBT.

Atleast from now on we should expect the IA to follow the international best practices before buying a tank.



Considering the shells targetted on arjun's lesser turret side armour have to penetrate a higher thickness due to the angle as shown by PMAITRA it is not such a debilitating defect.

Also another interesting question is where will the shells aimed on the sides of the T-90 hit ? Since T-90 has a truncated turret they will hit the backside of the T-90 if they follow a parobolic curve path as is normal with the arty shells. So T-90's backside top armour surely doesnot have a matching thickness compared to frontal armour I think.

The lesser thicness armour plate protection on the side turret of ARJUn can easily be remedied by placin ERA on the sides and this should not be made as a big issue comparing so many short commings for T-90S over the arjun.Also since the mk-2 ammunition with higher RHA penetation thickness can suitably modified to be used in arjun mk-1.So these 2 issues are not such a back breaking defect for ARJUN

 

[Damian]

Considering the shells targetted on arjun's lesser turret side armour have to penetrate a higher thickness due to the angle as shown by PMAITRA it is not such a debilitating defect.

It is, you do not understand. At 30 degrees the "virtual" increase in thickness of such thin armor is insufficent today, it might be in 1939-1944 period, but not today. Simple RPG-7 can penetrate much more armor.

Also another interesting question is where will the shells aimed on the sides of the T-90 hit ? Since T-90 has a truncated turret they will hit the backside of the T-90 if they follow a parobolic curve path as is normal with the arty shells. So T-90's backside top armour surely doesnot have a matching thickness compared to frontal armour I think.

It depends on inclination. If we are talking about 60 degrees frontal arc, then +/- 30 degrees for left or right side of vehicle, means that turret side armor is immposible to hit, you will hit or frontal armor, or projectile will fly... somewhere over there not even hitting a tank.

If you talk about purely side hits closer to 90 degrees for left or right, then both Arjun and T-90S are vurnable and this means someone made something wrong... or this is battle in urban terrain or assymetric warfare, then both tanks are not ready for such scenarios.

The lesser thicness armour plate protection on the side turret of ARJUn can easily be remedied by placin ERA on the sides

Currently neither Arjun Mk1 neither photos of supposed Mk2 shows such configuration. However T-90MS have such configuration already, and there are proposals for T-90S both from Russia and Ukraine to have such vehicle configuration.

 

[ersakthivel]

It is, you do not understand. At 30 degrees the "virtual" increase in thickness of such thin armor is insufficent today, it might be in 1939-1944 period, but not today. Simple RPG-7 can penetrate much more armor.

It is not 30 degree. It will be way less than that due to the protruding frontal armour of arjun as decklander said, So the angle is lesser from the front and the penetration thickness will be higher.

You don't need to teach me anything.with combination of extra ERA tiles and the virtual increase which almost doubles the armour thickness this is not such a big week point as you make it out to be with big pictures.Also the frontal armour of arjun protrudes outwards ggiving cover to this area.

So it has protection against RPG penetration.And if the IA thinks it is such a big issue the CVRDE can even provide some extra armour for arjun mk-1 turret sides in upgrades along with ERA tiles.

There is no point in repeating this non existent weakness again and again.which is common to all tanks.In urban combat the inclined sides of T-90 too are vulnerable as it too wont know where the enemy is located.

It depends on inclination. If we are talking about 60 degrees frontal arc, then +/- 30 degrees for left or right side of vehicle, means that turret side armor is immposible to hit, you will hit or frontal armor, or projectile will fly... somewhere over there not even hitting a tank.

The frontal armour of arjun does protrude outwards to cover this area as well.

If you talk about purely side hits closer to 90 degrees for left or right, then both Arjun and T-90S are vurnable and this means someone made something wrong... or this is battle in urban terrain or assymetric warfare, then both tanks are not ready for such scenarios.



Currently neither Arjun Mk1 neither photos of supposed Mk2 shows such configuration. However T-90MS have such configuration already, and there are proposals for T-90S both from Russia and Ukraine to have such vehicle configuration.

And considering the parabolic path of shells the the shells aimed at T-90s inclined side turret will definitely hit the exposed back top portion of the tank which is very visible to the naked eye to this truncated turret. So this inclined side turret is not such a genius of a armour solution.

 

[ersakthivel]

it clearly shows the less than 10 degree angle available from the front to hit the sides. And if the IA desires these box type accessories can be replaced with ERA tiles and armour plates .It is not as wide as it you have shown in the drawing.

The side turret is well protected and hitting it is not so easy even if hit the angle will be so small and era tiles will negate it.

 

[pmaitra]

@ersakthivel,

You are from TN, right?

I somehow get the feeling that you know a lot about Avadi, where these tanks are made. Tell me, you have friends who work there, right?

 

[ersakthivel]

it clearly shows the less than 10 degree angle available from the front to hit the sides. And if the IA desires these box type accessories can be replaced with ERA tiles and armour plates .It is not as wide as it you have shown in the drawing. And the bigger arjun turret also covers the back top portion of the hull from being hit.But the truncated inclined side turret of T-90 exposes the back top portion of the hull for shells and RPGs

from the above picture you can notice that arjuns frontal thick armour plate is protruding into the path of the side turret. So arjuns side turret arrangement is far better than T-90 in anyway you look at it.

 

[ersakthivel]

@damian
I look forward to your clarification on this matter of T-90s exposed back top portion of the hull as you repeatedly quizzed us on the supposed vulnerablity of arjun side turret.

 

[ersakthivel]

@ersakthivel,

You are from TN, right?

I somehow get the feeling that you know a lot about Avadi, where these tanks are made. Tell me, you have friends who work there, right?

I am from TN but I don't have any friends in AVADI. All the news about arjun I posted is from open source only.

 

[pmaitra]

I am from TN but I don't have any friends in AVADI. All the news about arjun I posted is from open source only.

Ok, thanks. I like the way you debate. Keep it up. :thumb:

 

[Decklander]

it clearly shows the less than 10 degree angle available from the front to hit the sides. And if the IA desires these box type accessories can be replaced with ERA tiles and armour plates .It is not as wide as it you have shown in the drawing. And the bigger arjun turret also covers the back top portion of the hull from being hit.But the truncated inclined side turret of T-90 exposes the back top portion of the hull for shells and RPGs

from the above picture you can notice that arjuns frontal thick armour plate is protruding into the path of the side turret. So arjuns side turret arrangement is far better than T-90 in anyway you look at it.

That is what I wrote in the beggining of this article. The T-90 lobby has been making a fool of Indians as we Indians have very limited exposure to these kind of tech. I have known these features for a long long time as my own coursemates have operated these machines.
Infact T-90 has less side protection compared to Arjun but it has been sold to indian public in a diff manner.
I have seen comments of members here accepting lack of side protection of turret till I pointed out these proud shoulders on the turret which provide far batter protection to turret than T-90.
Lets see what Damian has to say now?

 

[methos]

from the above picture you can notice that arjuns frontal thick armour plate is protruding into the path of the side turret. So arjuns side turret arrangement is far better than T-90 in anyway you look at it.

You apparently have no idea of modern tank design. Damian has posted the explanation mulitple times on this forum.
The Arjun uses a hybrid design based on Western and Eastern concepts. E.g. the vehicle has a very "Western" turret shape (e.g. box shaped turret), but the armour is placed much in the Soviet manner (only at the front). These design decisions are the reason why the Arjun turret is bad designed - from any angle greater than +/- 17° from the turret centerline the crew comparment can be hit. Since on early Arjun there seems to be no isolation of the turret bustle, the vulnerability is even greater (angles greater than ~ +/- 6°). It is very important that the frontal 60° (-30° to +30° from the turret centerline) are heavily armoured, because analysis form various wars (including the Gulf War, the Yom-Kippur War and much more) has shown that this area is most likely hit.
Both Western tanks and Eastern tanks are designed keeping this in mind. Western tanks carry heavy composite armour to protect the turret flanks for these angles, while Soviet-legacy tanks use have turret cheeks covering the rest of the turret for the frontal 60°.
Storage boxes will not protect against any modern type of ammunition. And even if the Indian army would have ERA for covering the flanks - which never has been used or shown by Indian army till now - then the turret flanks are still easily penetrated by kinetic ammunition, while the T-90's turret sides cannot be penetrated by such, given that they cannot be hit from the frontal sector.

In an assymertical conflict the Arjun is not less protected at the sides than the basic T-90, but the T-90's turret is simply shorter and so less likely of being hit.

To use your statement in a modified form: The T-90's turret layout is far better than that of the Arjun in any way you look at it.

 

[Decklander]

have used

You apparently have no idea of modern tank design. Damian has posted the explanation mulitple times on this forum.
The Arjun uses a hybrid design based on Western and Eastern concepts. E.g. the vehicle has a very "Western" turret shape (e.g. box shaped turret), but the armour is placed much in the Soviet manner (only at the front). These design decisions are the reason why the Arjun turret is bad designed - from any angle greater than +/- 17° from the turret centerline the crew comparment can be hit. Since on early Arjun there seems to be no isolation of the turret bustle, the vulnerability is even greater (angles greater than ~ +/- 6°). It is very important that the frontal 60° (-30° to +30° from the turret centerline) are heavily armoured, because analysis form various wars (including the Gulf War, the Yom-Kippur War and much more) has shown that this area is most likely hit.
Both Western tanks and Eastern tanks are designed keeping this in mind. Western tanks carry heavy composite armour to protect the turret flanks for these angles, while Soviet-legacy tanks use have turret cheeks covering the rest of the turret for the frontal 60°.
Storage boxes will not protect against any modern type of ammunition. And even if the Indian army would have ERA for covering the flanks - which never has been used or shown by Indian army till now - then the turret flanks are still easily penetrated by kinetic ammunition, while the T-90's turret sides cannot be penetrated by such, given that they cannot be hit from the frontal sector.

In an assymertical conflict the Arjun is not less protected at the sides than the basic T-90, but the T-90's turret is simply shorter and so less likely of being hit.

To use your statement in a modified form: The T-90's turret layout is far better than that of the Arjun in any way you look at it.

How do you calculate these angles and what is the datum?
Pls have a relook at T-90 turret and the datum from which you claim to have +30,-30 protection. You have used barrel as the datum, now pls do the same for Afjun and you will find much heavier protection than T-90. just bcoz the fron t of Arjun is Flat and box like, it does not change the datum for calculating frontal arc.

 

[methos]

Just look at the pictures which have been posted about a dozen times in this forum. Arjun is in the frontal sector (+/-30° from turret centerline) less protected than the T-90. You can find pictures about this a few pages ago in this thread, in the Arjun thread and in the Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology thread.

 

[ersakthivel]

You apparently have no idea of modern tank design. Damian has posted the explanation mulitple times on this forum.
The Arjun uses a hybrid design based on Western and Eastern concepts. E.g. the vehicle has a very "Western" turret shape (e.g. box shaped turret), but the armour is placed much in the Soviet manner (only at the front). These design decisions are the reason why the Arjun turret is bad designed - from any angle greater than +/- 17° from the turret centerline the crew comparment can be hit. Since on early Arjun there seems to be no isolation of the turret bustle, the vulnerability is even greater (angles greater than ~ +/- 6°). It is very important that the frontal 60° (-30° to +30° from the turret centerline) are heavily armoured, because analysis form various wars (including the Gulf War, the Yom-Kippur War and much more) has shown that this area is most likely hit.
Both Western tanks and Eastern tanks are designed keeping this in mind. Western tanks carry heavy composite armour to protect the turret flanks for these angles, while Soviet-legacy tanks use have turret cheeks covering the rest of the turret for the frontal 60°.
Storage boxes will not protect against any modern type of ammunition. And even if the Indian army would have ERA for covering the flanks - which never has been used or shown by Indian army till now - then the turret flanks are still easily penetrated by kinetic ammunition, while the T-90's turret sides cannot be penetrated by such, given that they cannot be hit from the frontal sector.

In an assymertical conflict the Arjun is not less protected at the sides than the basic T-90, but the T-90's turret is simply shorter and so less likely of being hit.

To use your statement in a modified form: The T-90's turret layout is far better than that of the Arjun in any way you look at it.

1.Then please explain the reason for protrusion of the heavy frontal turret armour and how much will it protrude into the line of fire of the side.

Note the protruding frontal armour 's length is more than the third of the entire turret length.So instead of drawing a weakness zone with 30 degree vulnerability as wide as river of moscow you should ask damian to answer this post.So the issue is settled once for all. As he is the one who kept on repeating that side armour of arjun turret is vulnerable from 30 degrees at front with repated posting of drawing.

And no one from IA has ever made these kind of accusation on arjun's armor protections till recently. Only you and damian are repeating this again and again. So please post a relevant drawing regarding how much this protrusion will shield the turret side from the front.

2.The protrusion of frontal armour plate has a pupose,you should keep in mind. It is not an absent minded design feature. The reason for this protrusion and and reduction in width of the turret behind the protruding heavily armoured protruding turret front is to protect the thinner armoured turret side as per the indian army's protection requirement. There can be no other reason behind it.

3.No hybrid design design philosophy its higher power to weight ratio, lesser ground pressure per square inch,accurate fire on the move, acccuracy lasting over longer ranges with rifled guns(however you and damian argue rifled guns are obsolete you cannot deny the fact of it's superior accuracy over T-90 smoothbore gun ,as it is certified by by MOD to parliamentary standing committee report) are all as per IA specs only.

4.Read my post carefully I never said these storage boxes were strategically placed to protect the turret side.People are mistaking these storage boxes as turret side and posting that arjun's turret side is exposed at a larger angle from frontal 60 plus degree arc.

5.What I said was if the IA felt more turret side protection is needed these storage boxes can be replaced with era tiles are replaced with upgraded higher thickness armour plate.

6.Meanwhile the truncated T-90 side turret doesnot protect anything. It save on armour weight and exposes the lesser protected hull backside top ,but arjun's larger turret protects this hull backside top .So there is no advantage anywhere for T-90 in this point as shells follow parabolic path the truncated side turret of T-90 exposes hull backside top to the line of fire .

 

[ersakthivel]

Just look at the pictures which have been posted about a dozen times in this forum. Arjun is in the frontal sector (+/-30° from turret centerline) less protected than the T-90. You can find pictures about this a few pages ago in this thread, in the Arjun thread and in the Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology thread.

Post a new picture with the protruding armour's obstruction of the turret side. Considering the the protruding frontal armour 's length is more than the third of the entire turret length the portion of the exposed turret side is very minimal.

Note the protruding frontal armour 's length is more than the third of the entire turret length.So there is no way that crew or tank is in danger from a hit on the back corner of the ARJUN's turret.But in urban combat T-90s exposed hull backside top (due to the truncation of turret side ) is even bigger liability as it will be a juicy target for close range shit from RPG as in urban combat the combatants are often perched on tall buildings it will be a tell tale weakness.

 

[methos]

Note the protruding frontal armour 's length is more than the third of the entire turret length.So instead of drawing a weakness zone with 30 degree vulnerability as wide as river of moscow you should ask damian to answer this post.So the issue is settled once for all. As he is the one who kept on repeating that side armour of arjun turret is vulnerable from 30 degrees at front with repated posting of drawing.

Do you even read what I wrote? Do you even once looked at the images? The "protruding fronal armour" covers far less than +/- 30° - as I wrote about +/- 17° (if you don't include the turret basket, else only ~ +/- 6°). Not more. Any shot from the frontal sector from 18 to 30° will have no problem of piercing through the thin side.

The reason for this protrusion and and reduction in width of the turret behind the protruding heavily armoured protruding turret front is to protect the thinner armoured turret side as per the indian army's protection requirement.

Bullshit. It increases turret width.

3.No hybrid design design philosophy its higher power to weight ratio, lesser ground pressure per square inch,accurate fire on the move, acccuracy lasting over longer ranges with rifled guns(however you and damian argue rifled guns are obsolete you cannot deny the fact of it's superior accuracy over T-90 smoothbore gun ,as it is certified by by MOD to parliamentary standing committee report) are all as per IA specs only.

Again, read and understand what I wrote. Read what has been written over a dozen times here about rifled and smoothbore guns. You are clueless when it comes to technical aspects, instead you prefer some self-published articles on blogs and forums.

6.Meanwhile the truncated T-90 side turret doesnot protect anything. It save on armour weight and exposes the lesser protected hull backside top ,but arjun's larger turret protects this hull backside top

Hull backside top? You mean the engine comparment? If so, then you fail to understand the modern tank armour design once again.

 

[Decklander]

Do you even read what I wrote? Do you even once looked at the images? The "protruding fronal armour" covers far less than +/- 30° - as I wrote about +/- 17° (if you don't include the turret basket, else only ~ +/- 6°). Not more. Any shot from the frontal sector from 18 to 30° will have no problem of piercing through the thin side.



Bullshit. It increases turret width.



Again, read and understand what I wrote. Read what has been written over a dozen times here about rifled and smoothbore guns. You are clueless when it comes to technical aspects, instead you prefer some self-published articles on blogs and forums.



Hull backside top? You mean the engine comparment? If so, then you fail to understand the modern tank armour design once again.

What do you mean by modern Tank design? Is it some kind of a bible which can't be changed? or anyone who deviates from them will be hanged on the orders of the church? What is it?
You have a fixed mentality and you are unable to understand new ways of overcoming complex problems with simple solutions.
Arjun turret is far better protected compared to T-90 turret.
I request members here to draw out 30 degree arc taking barrel as datum towards the rear. That will show these guys what Arjun has or superimpose the two turrets over eachother for comparision.