Arjun vs T90 MBT

[Neil]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

ABSENCE OF LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

The most significant setback to production of MBT Arjun was the change in requirements put forth by the Army in February 2007. The tanks produced by HVF, Avadi were to be issued to the Army after inspection at the factory site in the Joint Receipt Inspection by the representatives of HVF, DRDO and Army. The issued tanks were put through two trials - the Field Trial and the Accelerated usage-cum-reliability trials (AUCRT), by the Army. Joint Receipt Inspection was conducted (March 2005) for first five MBT Arjun manufactured (2003-04) in the pilot phase, one year after production. The inspection of the second lot of nine pilot MBT Arjun, took place in February 2007, two years after production. By 2007, 53 MBT had already been produced by HVF, Avadi. It was during this inspection in February 2007 that Army reported water ingress in the fighting compartment of tank while crossing shallow parts of a river and raised two additional requirements in the design of the MBT Arjun viz. zero level ingress of water in the fighting compartment and lead time for fording (time from tank's entry into water to exit from water) to be minimised to 30 minutes.

We noticed that the corresponding benchmark fixed by the Army for T-90 tank was more relaxed, allowing 2.5 litres of water ingress. The requirement of zero level water ingress for medium fording was not stipulated in the Army's requirements (GSQR of 1985) or in subsequent stages of development which had seen many changes in design. In fact, the Joint Action Plan (of Army and DRDO), in August 1999, had cleared the medium fording capability of MBT Arjun. This issue was also not raised in the Joint Receipt Inspection of the first batch of pilot MBT Arjun. The new requirements necessitated the DRDO to modify the design of the second lot of nine pilot MBT Arjun. The same got modified and were issued to Army by September 2007. The first lot of five pilot tanks was brought back from Army, got modified and issued to Army till October 2007. Balance 39 tanks of the bulk production were dismantled, reworked and issued to the Army in 2008-10. The whole task of dismantling and reassembly of 53 MBTs entailed an additional cost of Rs 84 lakh. The Ministry stated (May 2014) that modifications were considered essential to improve overall performance from user's perspective. The reply undermines the impact of the modifications in derailing the production and issue of MBT Arjun, which was a significant factor that led to an import of T-90 tanks that cost Rs 4,913 crore in November 2007 as discussed in Paragraph 8.3.4. The reply also does not address why the benchmarks on MBT Arjun regarding water ingress and fording, were more stringent than the corresponding requirements on T-90 tank.

Medium fording was one of the eight instances we noticed, where Army placed benchmark of parameters on MBT Arjun which were more stringent in comparison to those placed on T-90 tanks. These are detailed in Annexure XIX. We could not assess the impact of these benchmarks on the performance of the two tanks from our scrutiny of the Report on comparative trials of MBT Arjun and T-90 tank (February/ March 2010- referred to in Paragraph 8.3.2.8 ). While we appreciate the Army's quest for improving the quality of MBT Arjun, the imposition of more stringent parameters precluded a level playing field and more importantly, the inability to freeze the designs led to several changes in design, consequent delays in acceptance of MBT Arjun by the Army and in the overall, the production and issue of MBT Arjun.

___________________________

IMPACT OF 'EVOLVING' GSQRs
___________________________


Changes in design

Mention was made in Report No. 3 of 2006 of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India about the frequent changes in design leading to delay in development of MBT Arjun. The development of MBT prototype was to be completed by April 1982 but after going through several modifications in design, the prototype was cleared by the Army in 1998. Given this concern on several changes in design, the Scientific Advisor to the Raksha Mantri had confirmed (2004) in a note to the Ministry that the design for MBT stood frozen. This was, however, not the case. We found that 316 amendments to design of various assemblies were carried out even after freezing of the design and up to August 2010. The changes were mostly justified by the Ministry in its reply (May 2014) as necessitated for product improvement and modifications based on user's feedback on quality problems. The reply does not take cognizance of the fact that even after clearing the production after acceptance of the prototype (1998), the designs continued to be re-worked for 12 years thereafter and frozen only in 2010.

_________________________________

ARJUN - T-90 COMPARATIVE TRIALS
_________________________________


Comparative field trials of MBT Arjun with T-90 tanks took place in February/ March 2010. Till such time, the Army had been consistently reporting quality problems in MBT Arjun; this was also reported to the Standing Committee on Defence (2007-08). The comparative trials were on four parameters viz. fire power, survivability, reliability and miscellaneous issues of the tank with weightage of 40, 35, 15 and 10 respectively. As per the trial report, MBT Arjun performed marginally better than the T-90 tank in accuracy and consistency of firepower. However, T-90 tank performed better in lethality and missile firing capability. The Army concluded (April 2010) that "Arjun had performed creditably and it could be employed both for offensive and defensive tasks with same efficacy of T-90 tank." The Army also recommended upgrades to make the Arjun tank a superior weapon platform. We were informed (February 2014) that the Mark-II version of MBT Arjun was under trials by the Army and that it would include the upgrades recommended by the Army.

We found that the MBT Arjun and T-90 tank were not exactly comparable in missile firing ability; the higher score of T-90 tank was mainly due to missile firing ability which was not in the design of MBT Arjun. Barring missile firing ability, the scores of MBT Arjun and T-90 tank would be 25.77 and 24.50 respectively in firepower. In the overall comparative score, T-90 tank scored 75.01, marginally higher than MBT Arjun which scored 72.46, mainly because of higher score on missile firing ability of T-90 tank.

__________________

T-90 PRODUCTION
__________________


The Russian Firm, M/s Rosoboronexport (ROE) was expected to transfer the design details in the Transfer-of-Technology (ToT) documents by March 2003. The documents were in Russian; the Army/Ordnance Factories' efforts to get translated documents from ROE, failed. The documents were received between September 2001 and January 2003 following which HVF, Avadi concluded four contracts between September 2003 and September 2006 for translation of the documents. The translation was completed by July 2007 after the expiry of scheduled delivery period of first batch of 50 indigenous tanks by 2006-07. In all, the translation of ToT documents took almost six years.

The Ministry stated (May 2014) that translation of critical documents for indigenous manufacturing was carried out with available resource of Russian translators at HVF and there was no delay in production due to pending translation. The reply is not acceptable because delay in translation of ToT documents had certainly impacted on the indigenous production of T-90 tanks as production could not commence without the availability of translated documents.

Non-receipt of design documents for critical assemblies

We found that ToT documents in respect of some critical assemblies were not transferred by the Russian manufacturer, ROE, even after lapse of 12 years as of July 2013. An important component was the gun system (including barrel) for which the design had not been received as of May 2014. In fact, the Ministry cited this issue as the main reason for slippage in indigenous production of T-90 tank.

________________________________

QUALITY PROBLEMS WITH THE T-90
________________________________

During March 2010 to November 2013, HVF received 45 defect reports (DRs) from the Army relating to minor and major defects in the indigenous T-90 tanks. The defects mainly pertained to failure of gear box and defects in auto/electrical portion of the tanks. A Working Group was proposed (March 2012) to address these deficiencies which was not formed. The HVF, Avadi constituted (November 2004) a Failure Review Board (FRB) at factory level to investigate the reasons for defects at the users end. The FRB discussed (September 2013) the major failures and recommended remedial measures.

Accordingly, HVF implemented:

"¢ a process audit to eliminate non-conformances in assembling process;
"¢ introduction of 100 per cent pre-fitment and component level inspection and additional quality assurance checks at local supplier's premises;
"¢ extensive trials of samples supplied by the local firms after introducing improvements and before their induction into regular production; and
"¢ deputing of HVF's teams to field locations to ensure technical and maintenance support to the users.

Ministry told us that the FRB was a quality tool which facilitated timely action on defects. The delay in discussion of the FRB (September 2013), even when
the Army was raising quality concerns since March 2010, was not however, commented upon by the Ministry.

___________________

PRODUCTION RATE
___________________

Arjun:

The Public Accounts Committee had urged (December 2003) the Ministry to utilize the infrastructural facilities optimally so that the desired volume of production of MBT Arjun would enable increase of the indigenous content to 55 per cent. The Ministry assured the Committee that a production level, initially of 300 MBT Arjun to be raised to 500 tank later, would reduce the import content to under 30 per cent.

However, barring the initial indent of 124 tanks, the Board did not receive any further indents for MBT Arjun. Production has come to standstill since 2009-10 and to that extent, capacity created at a cost of Rs 87 crore for annual production of 30 MBT Arjun awaits utilization against Ministry's decision for fresh orders. Meanwhile, HVF, Avadi holds idle inventory of Rs 128 crore reflected as "Work-in-progress", which remains unutilised in the absence of fresh orders. The cost per MBT Arjun was Rs 21 crore (2009-10), against which the import content was Rs 13 crore. This brings the level of indigenisation in MBT Arjun to 38 per cent only. The initial development project on MBT Arjun had envisaged that barring the engine, all components/assemblies would be indigenously produced. Problems in sourcing major assemblies other than engines have been discussed in Paragraph 8.3.2.6.

T-90:

The production of T-90 tank at HVF, Avadi was short of the indent of November 2004 for 300 tanks, by 75 tanks as of March 2013. Even as the production was underway against the first indent, the Army placed a second indent for 236 T-90 tanks in December 2013. Meanwhile, the Ministry sanctioned (September 2011) Rs 971 crore for capacity augmentation of T-90 tank production by March 2014. This was expected to raise the capacity of Ordnance Factories from 100 per cent to 140 per cent of T-90 tanks.

It is noteworthy that Rs 96 crore was sanctioned (February 2004) for creating production capacity for 100 T-90 tanks, whereas augmentation of capacity from 100 to 140 tanks is slated for Rs 971 crore, a ten times increase in estimation over a period of seven years. Reasons for the extraordinary increase were not provided by the Ministry, in its response of May 2014. As of March 2014, only an amount of Rs 17 crore had been spent on the augmentation project and in the revised schedule, the project is expected to be completed in December 2016. The Board appears to have put the augmentation plan on a slow track as of now.



Report no-35 of 2014

I have copied for BR posted by Viv S

 

[Zebra]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

^^

The funny part here is govt is not taking any legal actions against the culprits here also.

 

[power_monger]

Source: Rajsunder of BRF (from Sanjay Jha's tweets about step brotherly treatment to the parametrs of testing for indigenous products)

 

[maomao]

Arjun is the need of the hour, but there are few bad apples in the IA who take bribes and kickbacks from various middlemen and companies to fudge and create false reports regarding the quality issues and change requirements all too often, more so when they change their requirements do they ever realize that are the foreign products meet their high requirements which they place in from of DRDO?

This nexus of corrupt IA officials, Bureaucrats, politicians and their family members who are more often middle men is creating a havoc for defense procurements!

 

[Pulkit]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

CAG blames Army for delay in Arjun tanks' induction | idrw.org

I hope people who were teling me that I am with out any reason targeting army and army has done nothing wrong in the induction of Arjun tank..Will take back there statements ....

Army is responsible for the delay....

 

[Pulkit]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@Kunal Biswas and @ersakthivel Thanks buddies its been more than a day and I have not got any response .I know U two have also stated similar statements and finally we have been proved correct.....


I really wanted to hear from @Ray sir as I am unaware of his take on this matter....
Ray sir will you provide some insight....

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Saurav Jha's Blog : A look at the Indian Army's Main Battle Tank programs

Even as the domestic production of the T-90S stabilizes there may be a move underway to procure some 354 T-90MS tanks from Russia directly to counter the Chinese at some points on the LAC.

Proposals for any more direct import from Russia however is a little strange given that the focus instead should be on producing sizeable numbers of Arjun Mk-2s and deploying them in the Punjab and Jammu sectors as well which would free up enough domestically built T-90Ss to be deployed against China.

With a power /weight ratio of 21.0, and the nominal ground pressure (NGP) of 0.95 kg/cm2 the Arjun Mk-2 is more than capable of being deployed in these areas. Moreover the .feasibility report by the railways has confirmed that the movement of Arjun loaded wagon anywhere is not a problem.

The Arjun Mk-2 is strategically mobile enough to be deployed to Punjab especially given that enough bridging equipment of maximum load class 70 is available anyway.

A larger production run for the Arjun Mk-2 say of the order of about 500 units will allow its developers to indigenize about 70 percent of its systems, from the current 40 percent. This is important because having domestic suppliers for these systems with stabilized quality will make it easier to productionize the proposed FMBT at a future date which will use sub-systems of this variety that have been refined and improved. It must be noted that while CIA induction is well and good many of the IA's T-72s will run out of their designed service lives by the early 2020s which would mean that new tanks would have to replace them given the IA's authorized tank strength of some 3717 units.

 

[sgarg]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Saurav Jha's Blog : A look at the Indian Army's Main Battle Tank programs

The usage of tank is very low. The primary issue is - can we increase the protection of T-72. I think some sort of self protection suite - laser jammers, active protection system etc. should be installed on T-72. If this is done, T-72 can still be used for 15-20 years.

T-72 is NOT a throw-away tank. The logical thing is to build T-90 and upgrade T-72 at the same time.

I am all for increasing numbers of Arjun where there is a need for stable production every year. The line should be stable at 50-60 tanks per year.

 

[karn]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Well Mr. Know all,

Ammo in arjun is not kept under the armpit of the driver. it is kept in safe canisters so seep through explosions and fire from mines wont reach it like the way it did in T-72s operated by IPKF in Srilanka and blew them off in deadly ammo cook off.

With out even knowing this simple fact, you are calling that thread metal gymnastics!!!!

Those burnt out abrams were hit by RPGs, not by mine. SO this confirms you don't know that simple fact either!!!!

Entirely expected of some one from Prasson Sen guptha school of defence institute!!!

Please don't try to rebut me post for post, without even having the basic understanding of what is being discussed , and become the laughing stock of DFI.

The ammo layout of the Leo 2 that the arjun copies .

Yawn try harder ...there is no special protection for the ammo there the steel tubes just keep the ammo in place ..Lol Now that I see it again the ammo is close enough to the drivers armpit. If that ammo is hit the fire will instantly kill the driver and will vent into the turret ring where the rest of the crew is . The ammo is kept on the hull floor just above the torsion bars at the same level as that of the t72 . It offers no extra protection compared to the t72 and has the added benefit of being stored in the 2nd most likely part of the tank to be hit (the most likely being the turret face)

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

The ammo layout of the Leo 2 that the arjun copies .

Yawn try harder ...there is no special protection for the ammo there the steel tubes just keep the ammo in place ..Lol Now that I see it again the ammo is close enough to the drivers armpit. If that ammo is hit the fire will instantly kill the driver and will vent into the turret ring where the rest of the crew is . The ammo is kept on the hull floor just above the torsion bars at the same level as that of the t72 . It offers no extra protection compared to the t72 and has the added benefit of being stored in the 2nd most likely part of the tank to be hit (the most likely being the turret face)

Are you lying or pretending not to understand my counter?

Ammo on T-90 is littered on the tank floor waiting to cook off even from any seep through fire resulting from simple anti tank mine explosion.

but in Arjun it is stored in separate canisters behind the loader,(not driver as you are falsely claiming), so there is no chance of it happening.

The following is Arjun's ammo layout,

SO you don't even know who is the driver and who is the loader in Arjun!!!! Coming from prasson Sen guptha's school of defence studies that is no surprise at all. Just tell me how will the fire from seep through explosions from a land mine blast on the ground , bend, cross the protective caps that are placed on the tubes and ignite the ammo?
Direct hit on Amo chamber of Arjun mk1 is only possible from the top attack missile.

because no round is going to pierce itsfrontal and sideways composite cum ERA armor and hit it on ammo chamber .In mk2 even that possibility is taken care of by providing blow out panels that direct the explosive energy outside the crew compartment preventing ammo cook offinside the tank.

Will you understand it now at least?

And these pictures you posted here did not belong to Arjun mk1. Why are you posting fake pictures ?



In mk2 they went a step further and put in a blow out panel that will redirect the explosive energy away from crew chamber .

In the Arjun mk2 thread even pictures were posted. There are no mental gymnastics involved .

if you have further queries on Arjun vs T-90 ,the following thread is the right place,
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defence-strategic-issues/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-101.html
Don't discuss it here. this is the second time you are doing this. if you want to discuss Arjun vs T-90 we can do it there. not here.

 

[karn]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Are you lying or pretending not to understand my counter?

Ammo on T-90 is littered on the tank floor waiting to cook off even from any seep through fire resulting from simple anti tank mine explosion.

but in Arjun it is stored in separate canisters , so there is no chance of it happening.

Will you understand it now at least?

And these pictures you posted here did not belong to Arjun mk1. Why are you posting fake pictures ?



In mk2 they went a step further and put in a blow out panel that will redirect the explosive energy away from crew chamber .

In the Arjun mk2 thread even pictures were posted. There are no mental gymnastics involved .

You are the one incapable of understanding it seems . Only the ammo stored in the turret bustle that is compartmentalized with blow off panels . The ammo held in the hull is kept just like this . If you wish to use "advertisement terminology " T 90 ammo is held is armoured carousal that keeps the ammo safe.
I repeat there are no blow off panels in the hull only in the turret bustle.. It truely is amusing to watch your mental gymnastics .. I have shown you how hull ammo is stored in the arjun how totally exposed it is the crew literally sits next to it.
The americans realised the danger of having ammo in the hull and they now keep it empty . It is not so bad as they can carry 34 rounds in the turret bustle .. The problem is Arjun only holds 16 rounds in the turret bustle
PS we are talking of Arjun Mk 2 Arjun Mk1 has no safe storage to begin with . Even the ready ammo is stored in metal tubes behind the back of the crew

Taken from the arjun thread.
Edit: Mods please move last few posts to arjun thread

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

You are the one incapable of understanding it seems . Only the ammo stored in the turret bustle that is compartmentalized with blow off panels . The ammo held in the hull is kept just like this . If you wish to use "advertisement terminology " T 90 ammo is held is armoured carousal that keeps the ammo safe.
I repeat there are no blow off panels in the hull only in the turret bustle.. It truely is amusing to watch your mental gymnastics .. I have shown you how hull ammo is stored in the arjun how totally exposed it is the crew literally sits next to it.
The americans realised the danger of having ammo in the hull and they now keep it empty . It is not so bad as they can carry 34 rounds in the turret bustle .. The problem is Arjun only holds 16 rounds in the turret bustle
PS we are talking of Arjun Mk 2 Arjun Mk1 has no safe storage to begin with . Even the ready ammo is stored in metal tubes behind the back of the crew

Taken from the arjun thread.
Edit: Mods please move last few posts to arjun thread

It was you who first said that Ammo in arjun mk1 is stored under driver's arm pit. i corrected it to behind the loader on the back of the crew compartment. Do you know where the driver sits in Arjun?

Don't dodge. No explosion from land mine can get through those storage panels in hull because ammo is not heaped on the ground , like they do it in T-90.

And those ammo storage in the hull also has thick enough walls to stop it, even though there are no blow out panels.

to do that the flame and explosion also has to do gymnastics.

And it is impossible for any anti tank round to reach the ammo stored in the hull!!!

I only claimed that blow out panels were there for bustle ammo in arjun mk2 . not in arjun mk1.

Also ammo stored in t-90 auto loader is not as safe and insulated as the ammo stored in securely in Arjun hull ammo storage.

At least arjun can carry 16 rounds in a safe ammo compartment. but T-90 can carry none. All its ammo stored in auto loader is dangerous for the crew.


the reason the Arjun tank weighs more and is bigger is exactly due to these safe ammo plus 4 men crew requirements.

no need to ask mods. You can quote me in Arjun thread and discussion will automatically shift there.

 

[karn]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Don't dodge. No explosion from land mine can get through those storage panels.
to do that the flame and explosion also has to do gymnastics.

Are you incapable of reading ? The picture I posted

shows the turret ammo o the arjun 1 which shows that it offers no protection to the crew. I mearly wanted to point out to you that only the Arjun MK 2 has safe TURRET ammo.

And thank you giving us a picture of the HULL ammo of the Arjun MK 2 and as I have showed in my previous post is identical to that of the Leo2.
And in case you are incapable of understanding the driver sits ahead of the man sitting on the blue paint can you can see his hatch at the corner of the picture. This ammo has NO blow off panels the only thing protecting the crew are the steel caps that are used to keep the shells from falling out.
Once again we are talking about the HULL ammo .. Now don't try to dodge.
PS: About land mines the 2 men are sitting on the floor of the arjun the only thing between the ammo rack they are working on and and any Mine/IED is the floor of the tank .... You know just like the t 72 you hate so much. Please atleast understand the difference between hull ammo and turret ammo (ready rack)

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Are you incapable of reading ? The picture I posted

shows the turret ammo o the arjun 1 which shows that it offers no protection to the crew. I mearly wanted to point out to you that only the Arjun MK 2 has safe TURRET ammo.

And thank you giving us a picture of the HULL ammo of the Arjun MK 2 and as I have showed in my previous post is identical to that of the Leo2.
And in case you are incapable of understanding the driver sits ahead of the man sitting on the blue paint can you can see his hatch at the corner of the picture. This ammo has NO blow off panels the only thing protecting the crew are the steel caps that are used to keep the shells from falling out.
Once again we are talking about the HULL ammo .. Now don't try to dodge.

Where is the driver's seat in Arjun?
Does the driver "the driver sits ahead of the man sitting on the blue paint can"?
Are you joking?
Where is the driver sitting?

where is " his hatch at the corner of the picture"?
You don't even know where the driver is sitting in Arjun and claiming shells stored under his armpit will explode!!!

All I was talking about was seep through explosions and fires from land mines. They can not go beyond those steel tubes and round covers. They are thick enough for them.

As far as direct hit is concerned, these hull ammo compartment is so far away from tank front that it is next to impossible for it to be hit .Even from sideways it is

very far away from external hull with so many components like tank wheels , inner and outer wall separating it.

Even top attack missiles can only hit bustle ammo only.

they can't penetrate beyond that and reach hull ammo. thats why there are blow out panels for bustle ammo only.

Thats why Arjun weighs all of 60 plus tons. not for nothing.

but the auto loader is always known to have safety issues in T series of tanks.

you better stop visiting gupthaji's blog and read some thing useful here to know where the driver of a tank sits.

 

[Khagesh]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

You are the one incapable of understanding it seems . Only the ammo stored in the turret bustle that is compartmentalized with blow off panels . The ammo held in the hull is kept just like this . If you wish to use "advertisement terminology " T 90 ammo is held is armoured carousal that keeps the ammo safe.
I repeat there are no blow off panels in the hull only in the turret bustle.. It truely is amusing to watch your mental gymnastics .. I have shown you how hull ammo is stored in the arjun how totally exposed it is the crew literally sits next to it.
The americans realised the danger of having ammo in the hull and they now keep it empty . It is not so bad as they can carry 34 rounds in the turret bustle .. The problem is Arjun only holds 16 rounds in the turret bustle
PS we are talking of Arjun Mk 2 Arjun Mk1 has no safe storage to begin with . Even the ready ammo is stored in metal tubes behind the back of the crew

This has already been asserted (blow off penals) by the other poster you are trying to refute.

Besides if they are confident of Mk-1 hull storage then I guess they do not need to change it by much for Mk-2 and they would rather limit themselves to providing blow off penals where they think the risk is (turret).

And now it is settled where the storage is behind the loader. Right? This was new for me too.
What the Americans think is entirely pointless for us.

 

[karn]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Where is the driver's seat in Arjun?
Does the driver "the driver sits ahead of the man sitting on the blue paint can"?
Are you joking?
Where is the driver sitting?

where is " his hatch at the corner of the picture"?
You don't even know where the driver is sitting in Arjun and claiming shells stored under his armpit will explode!!!

All I was talking about was seep through explosions and fires from land mines.

Even top attack missiles can only hit bustle ammo only.

they can't penetrate beyond that and reach hull ammo. thats why there are blow out panels for bustle ammo only.

Thats why Arjun weighs all of 60 plus tons. not for nothing.

but the auto loader is always known to have safety issues in T series of tanks.

you better stop visiting gupthaji's blog and read some thing useful here to know where the driver of a tank sits.

Wait ..... You don't you even know the basic layout of the tank .. And you are trying to pick an argument Ok I will explain it to with colours and arrows so that even you will understand .

The red arrows are pointing to the drivers hatch .
Which correspond to this

The green arrows correspond to the ammo

Which corresponds to

In that picture the turret has been removed and the picture is taken from above into the turret ring .

They can not go beyond those steel tubes and round covers. They are thick enough for them.

As far as direct hit is concerned, these hull ammo compartment is so far away from tank front that it is next to impossible for it to be hit .Even from sideways it is

very far away from external hull with so many components like tank wheels , inner and outer wall separating it.

If mines cannot go through steel tubes and covers then the armoured carousel of the T90 is practically invulnerable ..
The turret bustle can very easily be hit if the turret is turned or did you forget that . Let us not forget how utterly vulnerable the front ammo rack is from direct hits by Shells and other AT weapons.

 

[karn]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

This has already been asserted (blow off penals) by the other poster you are trying to refute.

Besides if they are confident of Mk-1 hull storage then I guess they do not need to change it by much for Mk-2 and they would rather limit themselves to providing blow off penals where they think the risk is (turret).

And now it is settled where the storage is behind the loader. Right? This was new for me too.
What the Americans think is entirely pointless for us.

Safe storage was one of the major update of the arjun 2 over the arjun 1 . You can see tests of safe storage only on arjun2 . The picture does not lie the white tubes serve only to prevent the ammo from rolling around .
What is held behind the loader is only the "Ready rack" which has only 16 rounds . The rest of the ammo is kept next to the driver.

 

[sgarg]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Safe storage was one of the major update of the arjun 2 over the arjun 1 . You can see tests of safe storage only on arjun2 . The picture does not lie the white tubes serve only to prevent the ammo from rolling around .
What is held behind the loader is only the "Ready rack" which has only 16 rounds . The rest of the ammo is kept next to the driver.

Neither Arjun nor T-90 come with "indestructible" certificate. Both are good tanks, but based on different design philosophies.

The Army likes T-90 more. The question why it is so must be answered by the Army. The bulk of T-72 replacement is T-90 tank.

As I understand, Arjun is planned only for desert terrain.

 

[karn]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

Neither Arjun nor T-90 come with "indestructible" certificate. Both are good tanks, but based on different design philosophies.

The Army likes T-90 more. The question why it is so must be answered by the Army. The bulk of T-72 replacement is T-90 tank.

As I understand, Arjun is planned only for desert terrain.

Hmm ... maybe you quoted the different post but what I was responding to the comment that a mine explosion "cannot " go through the sheet metal that merely serves to hold the ammo in place on the arjun . The arjun is not inherently more safe than the t 90 a point that gets repeated ad nauseam on this forum . Who knows why the army like the t 90 more .. remember the first t 90 was ordered almost 10 years before the arjun passed trials in response to the Pakistan buying t 80s . In would not be surprising that the army took the decision to standardise the tank fleet around the t90 way back then and did not want to support the cost of having two separate tank fleets (4 tank fleets if you count T 72s and old T55s still with infantry divisions) . When the arjun proved itself it was ordered in limited numbers but the army spent no money on its logistics trail .. I read on this forum that all spares and support are sourced directly from avadi and that the army has no inhouse ability to service them . Another factor could be the higher fuel consumption of the 1400 HP engine vs a 1000 HP engine on the T90.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: ADA LCA Tejas - IV

The storage of Arjun is far more safer than Russian tank in service of Army ..

Arjun MK1, Ammunition storage >>

10 ready to fire Ammunition in turret bin with individual fireproof storage bin

Ammunition in the chassis with individual fireproof storage bin

Schematics of Arjun MK1

As similar as Leopard 2, The Red indicates the ammo storage, Similar to Arjun, Leopard too has very little signature from frontal hit, Of course the ammunition is kept behind the composite Armour of the chassis ..

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

T-Tanks, Ammunition storage >>

Ammunition is kept exposed on the floor to fire / sparks and flash, This is due to the auto loader design..

Their is a shield provided above the ammunition but it provide no protection from flash or sparks, Their is no solution to provide ammunition, 100% fire proof protection.

The Red indicates the ammo storage, Of course the ammunition is kept behind the composite Armour of the chassis, But compare to western design, The area prone to enemy fire is larger in such tanks ..

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

For Arjun or Leopard unless the hit occur right over the containers their is no imminent danger, But the same cannot be said about T-Tanks as the flash create temp with combination of hot shrapnel ignites the exposed ammunition ..

-----

@karn, It is a suggestion to keep information you post accurate, This debate was talked before, Don`t post pictures of older prototype which suits your claim, Be clean and Right ..

Source : http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defence-strategic-issues/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-119.html

Neither Arjun nor T-90 come with "indestructible" certificate. Both are good tanks, but based on different design philosophies.

The Army likes T-90 more. The question why it is so must be answered by the Army. The bulk of T-72 replacement is T-90 tank.

As I understand, Arjun is planned only for desert terrain.

The ammo layout of the Leo 2 that the arjun copies .

Yawn try harder ...there is no special protection for the ammo there the steel tubes just keep the ammo in place ..Lol Now that I see it again the ammo is close enough to the drivers armpit. If that ammo is hit the fire will instantly kill the driver and will vent into the turret ring where the rest of the crew is . The ammo is kept on the hull floor just above the torsion bars at the same level as that of the t72 . It offers no extra protection compared to the t72 and has the added benefit of being stored in the 2nd most likely part of the tank to be hit (the most likely being the turret face)

Are you lying or pretending not to understand my counter?

Ammo on T-90 is littered on the tank floor waiting to cook off even from any seep through fire resulting from simple anti tank mine explosion.

but in Arjun it is stored in separate canisters behind the loader,(not driver as you are falsely claiming), so there is no chance of it happening.

The following is Arjun's ammo layout,

SO you don't even know who is the driver and who is the loader in Arjun!!!! Coming from prasson Sen guptha's school of defence studies that is no surprise at all. Just tell me how will the fire from seep through explosions from a land mine blast on the ground , bend, cross the protective caps that are placed on the tubes and ignite the ammo?
Direct hit on Amo chamber of Arjun mk1 is only possible from the top attack missile.

because no round is going to pierce itsfrontal and sideways composite cum ERA armor and hit it on ammo chamber .In mk2 even that possibility is taken care of by providing blow out panels that direct the explosive energy outside the crew compartment preventing ammo cook offinside the tank.

Will you understand it now at least?

And these pictures you posted here did not belong to Arjun mk1. Why are you posting fake pictures ?


In mk2 they went a step further and put in a blow out panel that will redirect the explosive energy away from crew chamber .

In the Arjun mk2 thread even pictures were posted. There are no mental gymnastics involved .

if you have further queries on Arjun vs T-90 ,the following thread is the right place,
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defence-strategic-issues/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-101.html
Don't discuss it here. this is the second time you are doing this. if you want to discuss Arjun vs T-90 we can do it there. not here.

You are the one incapable of understanding it seems . Only the ammo stored in the turret bustle that is compartmentalized with blow off panels . The ammo held in the hull is kept just like this . If you wish to use "advertisement terminology " T 90 ammo is held is armoured carousal that keeps the ammo safe.
I repeat there are no blow off panels in the hull only in the turret bustle.. It truely is amusing to watch your mental gymnastics .. I have shown you how hull ammo is stored in the arjun how totally exposed it is the crew literally sits next to it.
The americans realised the danger of having ammo in the hull and they now keep it empty . It is not so bad as they can carry 34 rounds in the turret bustle .. The problem is Arjun only holds 16 rounds in the turret bustle
PS we are talking of Arjun Mk 2 Arjun Mk1 has no safe storage to begin with . Even the ready ammo is stored in metal tubes behind the back of the crew
Taken from the arjun thread.
Edit: Mods please move last few posts to arjun thread

It was you who first said that Ammo in arjun mk1 is stored under driver's arm pit. i corrected it to behind the loader on the back of the crew compartment. Do you know where the driver sits in Arjun?

Don't dodge. No explosion from land mine can get through those storage panels in hull because ammo is not heaped on the ground , like they do it in T-90.

And those ammo storage in the hull also has thick enough walls to stop it, even though there are no blow out panels.

to do that the flame and explosion also has to do gymnastics.

And it is impossible for any anti tank round to reach the ammo stored in the hull!!!

I only claimed that blow out panels were there for bustle ammo in arjun mk2 . not in arjun mk1.

Also ammo stored in t-90 auto loader is not as safe and insulated as the ammo stored in securely in Arjun hull ammo storage.

At least arjun can carry 16 rounds in a safe ammo compartment. but T-90 can carry none. All its ammo stored in auto loader is dangerous for the crew.


the reason the Arjun tank weighs more and is bigger is exactly due to these safe ammo plus 4 men crew requirements.

no need to ask mods. You can quote me in Arjun thread and discussion will automatically shift there.

Safe storage was one of the major update of the arjun 2 over the arjun 1 . You can see tests of safe storage only on arjun2 . The picture does not lie the white tubes serve only to prevent the ammo from rolling around .
What is held behind the loader is only the "Ready rack" which has only 16 rounds . The rest of the ammo is kept next to the driver.