Indian Army Armored Vehicles

[methos]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

I was responding to your post that says 600 is not enough for Pakistani and China Tanks ..one can also argue what Pakistani or Chinese APFSDS have are not enough to penetrate the Arjun , Bishma or Modified T-72 with ERA [...]

You are assuming a lot without proof. When fitted with Kontakt-5 ERA, Soviet MBTs were protected against NATO ammunition which had an armour penetration greater than 600 mm RHA (for example M829A1, DM43). So the T-80UD cannot be penetrated reliably with an APFSDS with 600 mm RHA armour penetration.
Given the fact that Pakistan has Kontakt-5 ERA, I think it is rather possible that the ERA used on Al-Khalid is based on it or based on the same working mechanism (which is exactly what India is doing with the ERA on Arjun Mk 2). The Chinese allegdly bought some Soviet era equipment during the 1990s; if this is true, their ERA might be similar to Kontakt-5 too.

The Arjun however was not tested against any APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration; at least no reliable source has claimed that. The Arjun was tested against the Isreali CL 3254 APFSDS which has ~540 mm RHA penetration, but that's not 600 mm. During Cold War, CIA estimated the probability to destroy a basic T-72 with the M735 APFSDS to be only 22% (which means hitting the weak points like the gun mantlet or the driver's place), while the M774 APFSDS - with only slightly better armour penetration into steel - was believed to have a probability of 50 -71% (depending on estimate) to destroy the basic T-72. So even a difference of 60 - 80 mm penetration is very important.

The Indian T-72 with ERA does not stand any chance against modern ammunition, because it is fitted with (first generation) appliqué ERA (thin steel plates in a small box), not with more modern integrated ERA. Bishma and Arjun are better protected, how much is unkown. I'd like too point out again, that the Arjun Mk.2 will be fitted with ERA: why should it be fitted with ERA when Kanchan is already enough to defeat any threat?

The currently best ammunition in South (East) Asia has China, but this might not be compatible with all types of tanks:

This round should penetrate more than 600 mm RHA at 2,000 m. Pakistan has 125 mm DU monoblock APFSDS, which can penetrate as much as CL 3254. Your government banned IMI from exporting military equipment/hardware to India after accusations of corruption... this means your T-90S can only use 3BM-42 Mango ammunition with 450 - 500 mm RHA penetration at 2,000 m. Arjun's ammunition can penetrate 300 mm RHA at the same range according to DRDO. Unless the new ammunition people here speak about enters service (with proof), I cannot say that the Arjun is better than the tanks from your neighbour countries, which is what @Keshav Murali wants to claim as he said in post #4642.

 

[Dejawolf]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

the real question is maintenance. ERA being an explosive has a shelf-life. it would require secure airtight storage during peacetime to last, and even then would detoriorate. if the pakistanis are not restocking their ERA every few years, their tanks will have to enter battle without working ERA tiles.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@methos, you are too assuming here..

I also noted somewhere people are assuming that closer the range bigger the penetration more than what it is certified to do at specific range, Which i too approved based on balletic results i see on small arms range..

You are assuming a lot without proof. When fitted with Kontakt-5 ERA, Soviet MBTs were protected against NATO ammunition which had an armour penetration greater than 600 mm RHA (for example M829A1, DM43). So the T-80UD cannot be penetrated reliably with an APFSDS with 600 mm RHA armour penetration.

Given the fact that Pakistan has Kontakt-5 ERA, I think it is rather possible that the ERA used on Al-Khalid is based on it or based on the same working mechanism (which is exactly what India is doing with the ERA on Arjun Mk 2). The Chinese allegdly bought some Soviet era equipment during the 1990s; if this is true, their ERA might be similar to Kontakt-5 too.

The Arjun however was not tested against any APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration; at least no reliable source has claimed that. The Arjun was tested against the Isreali CL 3254 APFSDS which has ~540 mm RHA penetration, but that's not 600 mm.

Indian T-72M1 are not using Russian Armour of 80s but Kanchan Armour also, How they use that inside it, Its unknown but it increase its protection compare to baisc Monkey Model T-72 which Russian gave back in 80s..

Arjun MK2 comes with ERA coz IA wanted more protection just like T-90S, India is working on similar Heavy ERA, Once done it would be no surprise to see those on Indian T-72M1 Ajaya, Hence Increasing its protection more than basic T-72M1..

The Indian T-72 with ERA does not stand any chance against modern ammunition, because it is fitted with (first generation) appliqué ERA (thin steel plates in a small box), not with more modern integrated ERA. Bishma and Arjun are better protected, how much is unkown. I'd like too point out again, that the Arjun Mk.2 will be fitted with ERA: why should it be fitted with ERA when Kanchan is already enough to defeat any threat?

It is a speculation, Not a hardcore fact we can relay on, We have seen variants of Polish version of CL 3254, Longer penetration does not mean greater penetration, It depends on composition..

The currently best ammunition in South (East) Asia has China, but this might not be compatible with all types of tanks:

I have specs and specially Photo of the Penetrator which is MK2 and has penetration of 500mm@2000ms..

]Unless the new ammunition people here speak about enters service (with proof), I cannot say that the Arjun is better than the tanks from your neighbour countries, which is what @Keshav Murali wants to claim as he said in post #4642.

 

[methos]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

methos, you are too assuming here..

I am following simple logicial deduction:
- Soviet tanks with Kontakt-5 managed to survive reliably APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration -> T-80U(D) as (best) Soviet tank with Kontakt-5 is protected against APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration
- T-80UD sold to Pakistan had Kontakt-5 -> the technology and working mechanism are available to Pakistan -> Pakistani ERA might follow similar construction (or is a simple copy)
- Chinese are said (as supported by various sources) to have bought small amounts of Soviet equipment (incl. Kontakt-5) after the collapse of the Soviet Union -> Chinese ERA might follow a similar construction (or is a simple copy)

What however cannot be explained with logic are claims like:
- Arjun survived point blank hit by T-72 -> Arjun is as good protected as other tanks

I also noted somewhere people are assuming that closer the range bigger the penetration more than what it is certified to do at specific range, Which i too approved based on balletic results i see on small arms range..

Yes, penetration is larger at shorter distances because the rounds decelerate at range. But this doesn't make any difference to what has been said. If an APFSDS from type X penetrates 500 mm RHA at 2 km and 560 mm RHA at 0 km, then an APFSDS type Y with the same deceleration but 560 mm RHA penetration at 2 km will penetrate above 600 mm RHA at 0 km.

Indian T-72M1 are not using Russian Armour of 80s but Kanchan Armour also, How they use that inside it, Its unknown but it increase its protection compare to baisc Monkey Model T-72 which Russian gave back in 80s..

This claim is extremely hard to believe, given what other countries have experience with the T-72M1. But even if this claim was true, it still wouldn't change much about the armour protection, because the T-72M1 turret is thinner (max. ~600 mm) than the turret of modern tanks and most of the thickness (if I remember correctly more than 400 mm) is cast steel (which according to Soviet/Russian sources offers 5 to 15% less protection than RHA).

Arjun MK2 comes with ERA coz IA wanted more protection just like T-90S, India is working on similar Heavy ERA,

And why does India wants better protection, if the Arjun is protected against everything in existence as proclaimed by many people here?

It is a speculation, Not a hardcore fact we can relay on, We have seen variants of Polish version of CL 3254, Longer penetration does not mean greater penetration, It depends on composition..

Given all circumstance remain the same, greater length of the penetrator has to result in greater armour penetration (if this is what you mean with "longer penetration" and "greater penetration"). According to Jane's NORINCO has developed several types of 125 mm APFSDS, including some of DU. DU alone means 8% - 10% more penetration compared to conventional (non-shearing) WHA.
Maybe the picture doesn't show a DU penetrator, but a Russian website labelled it as such.

I have specs and specially Photo of the Penetrator which is MK2 and has penetration of 500mm@2000ms..

Has it entered service yet? Also India has bought huge amounts of 3BM-42, which probably means that not all units will receive MK2 very soon.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

i think the 650mm penetration(@ 2km) is in developement for both 125mm and 120mm version.also arjun mk1 frontal armour protection against ke ammo is about 800-850mm rha and arjun mk2 is expected to be around 900-950mm rha.both of which will be enhanced with heavy era under developement by drdo which will add another 250-300mm.i think drdo should develop 750-800mm(@2kmn) penetration warheads because paki tanks(like t-84 or al khalid) will feature frontal era protection(chinese/ukrainian versions).

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

indian army's vijayanta tank's pics.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

 

[bhramos]

[video=youtube_share;KZIvaCfuvRc]http://youtu.be/KZIvaCfuvRc[/video]

 

[Bhadra]

Where is tank for DBO ???

 

[Somreet Bhattacharya]

The Vijayantas look better protected than many modern tanks...some ERAs here and there might have made it ultra-modern..

 

[militarysta]

should help

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Assuming facts are not hard facts..

Please provide evidence for this " Soviet tanks with Kontakt-5 managed to survive reliably APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration -> "

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

In that case your logic is applied in wrong sense with-respect to the sentence..

I am following simple logicial deduction:

- Soviet tanks with Kontakt-5 managed to survive reliably APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration -> T-80U(D) as (best) Soviet tank with Kontakt-5 is protected against APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration

- T-80UD sold to Pakistan had Kontakt-5 -> the technology and working mechanism are available to Pakistan -> Pakistani ERA might follow similar construction (or is a simple copy)

- Chinese are said (as supported by various sources) to have bought small amounts of Soviet equipment (incl. Kontakt-5) after the collapse of the Soviet Union -> Chinese ERA might follow a similar construction (or is a simple copy)

What however cannot be explained with logic are claims like:
- Arjun survived point blank hit by T-72 -> Arjun is as good protected as other tanks

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


That is highly debatable about X penetrator metallurgy composition compare to Y penetrator metallurgy composition and there penetration from different ranges..

Yes, shorter distance cause higher penetration of Armour..

Yes, penetration is larger at shorter distances because the rounds decelerate at range. But this doesn't make any difference to what has been said. If an APFSDS from type X penetrates 500 mm RHA at 2 km and 560 mm RHA at 0 km, then an APFSDS type Y with the same deceleration but 560 mm RHA penetration at 2 km will penetrate above 600 mm RHA at 0 km.

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

In this case your research should be incomplete as it is specified about the use of such Armour in T-72M1, Also the protection level increase with addition of heavy metal in sandwich configuration with other material such as boron carbide bricks compare to T-72M1`s 70s Armour configuration..

Material and the configuration matters most than just material..

This claim is extremely hard to believe, given what other countries have experience with the T-72M1. But even if this claim was true, it still wouldn't change much about the armour protection, because the T-72M1 turret is thinner (max. ~600 mm) than the turret of modern tanks and most of the thickness (if I remember correctly more than 400 mm) is cast steel (which according to Soviet/Russian sources offers 5 to 15% less protection than RHA).

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

Why does other tanks goes for ERA and NERA so does APS, Obviously addition protection wont do ' Harm ' .. :/

And why does India wants better protection, if the Arjun is protected against everything in existence as proclaimed by many people here?

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

Metallurgy and composition matter most not just length, Chinese pentrator penetration is highly debatable matter and not a fact..

Besides there are no mention of its penetration in Chinese media nor pamphlet in foreign expos..

Given all circumstance remain the same, greater length of the penetrator has to result in greater armour penetration (if this is what you mean with "longer penetration" and "greater penetration"). According to Jane's NORINCO has developed several types of 125 mm APFSDS, including some of DU. DU alone means 8% - 10% more penetration compared to conventional (non-shearing) WHA. Maybe the picture doesn't show a DU penetrator, but a Russian website labelled it as such.

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

There is little information about it regrading its in service, But it is under test for Arjun series tanks..

The round is meant for Indian T-90S also, This will fill the place of 3BM-42 in future..

Has it entered service yet? Also India has bought huge amounts of 3BM-42, which probably means that not all units will receive MK2 very soon.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Please provide evidence for this " Soviet tanks with Kontakt-5 managed to survive reliably APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration -> "

1. Known T-80U and T-80UD armour composition -easly to calculate in UD version. I gave this values here.
2. Known Kontalt-5 performances - offcial from NI Stalii (as 130mm RHA vs M829) and estimatous values (20% better then main armour = main armour x 1.3)

both values give in case T-80UD necessery value for APFSDS more then 600mm RHA perforation

Oh...Pakistan have T-80UD exatly....

In this case your research should be incomplete as it is specified about the use of such Armour in T-72M1, Also the protection level increase with addition of heavy metal in sandwich configuration with other material such as boron carbide bricks compare to T-72M1`s 70s Armour configuration..

T-71M have limited LOS thickenss and vell known and unchangable cast turret thicknes, sand bars could be replecad by boron caride but it not change a lot protection. In polish PT-91 (teh same problem whit cast turret) changing layers to heavier incarase protection vs KE was in thickes LOS place only 500mm RHA vs KE.

 

[methos]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Please provide evidence for this " Soviet tanks with Kontakt-5 managed to survive reliably APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration -> "

What, now you start questioning the most obvious claims?
Maybe reading something about the T-80U would help you. Rolf Hilmes writes that the T-80U expected by NATO to have armour equivalent to over 600 mm RHA and that the Russians officially claim a reduction of 30% in penetration power by Kontakt-5.
For being penetratable with an APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration the base armour would need to be worse than that of the T-64B from 1976. The T-80U entered service in 1985.
Steven Zaloga writes that according to Russian claims the T-80U's turret with Kontakt-5 provides protection equivalent to 780 mm RHA.

In that case your logic is applied in wrong sense with-respect to the sentence..

I guess it is wrong because it speaks against what you claim? It has been claimed by Pakistani websites and Chinese websites that their ERA does provide protection against APFSDS. Maybe it is not as good as Kontakt-5, which is very unlikely because both of these countries have/had access to it, but unless the base armour of their tanks is only as good as that of the T-72A, despite them having access to much better protected tanks like the T-80UD, they shouldn't be penetratable by APFSDS ammunition with a penetration capability of 600 mm RHA.

That is highly debatable about X penetrator metallurgy composition compare to Y penetrator metallurgy composition and there penetration from different ranges..

Metallurgy is not one of the main factors when it comes to penetration, shape (length, diameter) and velocity are much more important.

In this case your research should be incomplete as it is specified about the use of such Armour in T-72M1, Also the protection level increase with addition of heavy metal in sandwich configuration with other material such as boron carbide bricks compare to T-72M1`s 70s Armour configuration..

No. The T-72M1 has only very small space available for composite armour, most of the thickness is already being occupied by the cast steel housing. This means regardless how the armour looks, it won't provide enough protection. It is theoretically possible to imagine some sort of "armour array" and claim that it would be used, but there are many other factors too consider. If you e.g. claim that the armour would be made of boron carbide and heavy metal or some sort of layered steel armour, this could theoretically (based on Lakowski's Basics boron carbide + heavy metal would not) provide enough protection to survive being hit by some APFSDS with 550 - 600 mm RHA penetration, but at the same time weight and price would increase, while the protection against shaped charges wouldn't (or it would decrease).
A heavy metal layer (made of tungsten with ~17.2 - 18.4 g/cm³ or dU with ~18.6 or tantalum with 16.7 g/cm³) and boron carbide (2.5 g/cm³) together weigh more than steel of the same thickness (depending on the ceramic/heavy metal ratio, but it will in the applications, where the protection increase is biggest). At the same time the original "glass-rods"/silica armour of the T-72M1 weighed about a third of what a steel layer of the same thickness weighed. Using simple steel layers (+ceramics) would be more weight effective, but still it would weigh much more than steel. The NATO countries haven't been using Boron carbide because of it's costs, but India should?
The protection against shaped charges would in all these cases still not be enough to resist any modern missile, a RPG-29 would penetrate right through the armour.

Also, in DRDO TechFocus 04/2011 they mention that the Textolite of the T-72M1 armour (which is the glacis armour) is replaced with Kanchan, not a single claim about the turret is made.

Material and the configuration matters most than just material..

Neither armour composition nor armour thickness alone are enough to make a very detailed estimate about the protection capabilities of such armour. However there are cases when this is possible. If there was a 100 mm thick armour array, would it be possible to say it could stop an APFSDS with 400 mm RHA penetration?
No, because even the best imaginable armour array wouldn't manage to provide such protection while only being 100 mm thick.
In the same way we can look at the T-72M1's armour cavity and say that it won't be enough to provide together with the cast turret shell protection against an APFSDS with 600+ mm RHA penetration.

Why does other tanks goes for ERA and NERA so does APS

Because other tanks needed this protection to be protected against newer threats. There wasn't a single time where tank designer's thought "hey let's make the armour thicker and heavier for no reason".
APS? Which tanks are using active protection systems right now? The Merkava IV after the base armour was penetrated by a Kornet ATGM once. The T-90 uses Shtora, after NATO had developed tandem warheads to counter ERA. The M1 and the Leopard 2 were upgraded with more armour, which increased the combat weight by several tonnes, after NATO intelligence found out that a new Soviet tank with improved firepower was in development.

Metallurgy and composition matter most not just length, Chinese pentrator penetration is highly debatable matter and not a fact..

Metallurgy and composition doesn't matter most. China and Paksitan have been making tungsten and DU alloys for penetrators since years and their characteristics can be accessed in the internet. Metallurgy is not even half as important as you claim, once the penetrator doesn't break.
It is a highly debatable matter? Why? Because laws of physics suddenly stop to work when it comes to Chinese technology?

Besides there are no mention of its penetration in Chinese media nor pamphlet in foreign expos..

Oh, so we should say it can't penetrate armour at all, shouldn't we? Guess what, there is also not a single mention about the penetration of M829A3 in media or pamphlets, so it also cannot penetrate armour!

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

What, now you start questioning the most obvious claims?
Maybe reading something about the T-80U would help you. Rolf Hilmes writes that the T-80U expected by NATO to have armour equivalent to over 600 mm RHA and that the Russians officially claim a reduction of 30% in penetration power by Kontakt-5.
For being penetratable with an APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration the base armour would need to be worse than that of the T-64B from 1976. The T-80U entered service in 1985.
Steven Zaloga writes that according to Russian claims the T-80U's turret with Kontakt-5 provides protection equivalent to 780 mm RHA.




I guess it is wrong because it speaks against what you claim? It has been claimed by Pakistani websites and Chinese websites that their ERA does provide protection against APFSDS. Maybe it is not as good as Kontakt-5, which is very unlikely because both of these countries have/had access to it, but unless the base armour of their tanks is only as good as that of the T-72A, despite them having access to much better protected tanks like the T-80UD, they shouldn't be penetratable by APFSDS ammunition with a penetration capability of 600 mm RHA.

Metallurgy is not one of the main factors when it comes to penetration, shape (length, diameter) and velocity are much more important.




No. The T-72M1 has only very small space available for composite armour, most of the thickness is already being occupied by the cast steel housing. This means regardless how the armour looks, it won't provide enough protection. It is theoretically possible to imagine some sort of "armour array" and claim that it would be used, but there are many other factors too consider. If you e.g. claim that the armour would be made of boron carbide and heavy metal or some sort of layered steel armour, this could theoretically (based on Lakowski's Basics boron carbide + heavy metal would not) provide enough protection to survive being hit by some APFSDS with 550 - 600 mm RHA penetration, but at the same time weight and price would increase, while the protection against shaped charges wouldn't (or it would decrease).
A heavy metal layer (made of tungsten with ~17.2 - 18.4 g/cm³ or dU with ~18.6 or tantalum with 16.7 g/cm³) and boron carbide (2.5 g/cm³) together weigh more than steel of the same thickness (depending on the ceramic/heavy metal ratio, but it will in the applications, where the protection increase is biggest). At the same time the original "glass-rods"/silica armour of the T-72M1 weighed about a third of what a steel layer of the same thickness weighed. Using simple steel layers (+ceramics) would be more weight effective, but still it would weigh much more than steel. The NATO countries haven't been using Boron carbide because of it's costs, but India should?
The protection against shaped charges would in all these cases still not be enough to resist any modern missile, a RPG-29 would penetrate right through the armour.

Also, in DRDO TechFocus 04/2011 they mention that the Textolite of the T-72M1 armour (which is the glacis armour) is replaced with Kanchan, not a single claim about the turret is made.




Neither armour composition nor armour thickness alone are enough to make a very detailed estimate about the protection capabilities of such armour. However there are cases when this is possible. If there was a 100 mm thick armour array, would it be possible to say it could stop an APFSDS with 400 mm RHA penetration?
No, because even the best imaginable armour array wouldn't manage to provide such protection while only being 100 mm thick.
In the same way we can look at the T-72M1's armour cavity and say that it won't be enough to provide together with the cast turret shell protection against an APFSDS with 600+ mm RHA penetration.



Because other tanks needed this protection to be protected against newer threats. There wasn't a single time where tank designer's thought "hey let's make the armour thicker and heavier for no reason".
APS? Which tanks are using active protection systems right now? The Merkava IV after the base armour was penetrated by a Kornet ATGM once. The T-90 uses Shtora, after NATO had developed tandem warheads to counter ERA. The M1 and the Leopard 2 were upgraded with more armour, which increased the combat weight by several tonnes, after NATO intelligence found out that a new Soviet tank with improved firepower was in development.




Metallurgy and composition doesn't matter most. China and Paksitan have been making tungsten and DU alloys for penetrators since years and their characteristics can be accessed in the internet. Metallurgy is not even half as important as you claim, once the penetrator doesn't break.
It is a highly debatable matter? Why? Because laws of physics suddenly stop to work when it comes to Chinese technology?




Oh, so we should say it can't penetrate armour at all, shouldn't we? Guess what, there is also not a single mention about the penetration of M829A3 in media or pamphlets, so it also cannot penetrate armour!

Maybe reading something about the T-80U would help you.

Rolf Hilmes writes that the T-80U expected by NATO to have armour equivalent to over 600 mm RHA and that the Russians officially claim a reduction of 30% in penetration power by Kontakt-5.

For being penetratable with an APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration the base armour would need to be worse than that of the T-64B from 1976. The T-80U entered service in 1985.


Steven Zaloga writes that according to Russian claims the T-80U's turret with Kontakt-5 provides protection equivalent to 780 mm RHA.

So if someone claims something in some article citing russian officials it is a truth beyond disputable.

Or do you have any PDF citing experiments with photographs , which proves this is true. if so please post.

Since you won't accept any claim on kanchan armor without such experimental results, the same standard applies to your above statement also

Given all circumstance remain the same, greater length of the penetrator has to result in greater armour penetration (if this is what you mean with "longer penetration" and "greater penetration"). According to Jane's NORINCO has developed several types of 125 mm APFSDS, including some of DU. DU alone means 8% - 10% more penetration compared to conventional (non-shearing) WHA. Maybe the picture doesn't show a DU penetrator, but a Russian website labelled it as such.

greater lrngth of penetrator must result in greater penetration in NORNICO rounds. irrespective of the composition of the opposing armor and technology behind the penetator is your claim.

But all through out the ARJUn thread you have been claiming that 60 ton of weight is distributed at all the wrong places and not in the armor section. And Kanchan composite armor cannot be in a class of other armors regardless of the composition and evolution of the armor. .

You have been arguing all along that there is no proof that lesser weight T-90 has lesser armor protection than ARJUN regardless of the thickness of composite armor and composition.

Now when it comes to NORNICO rounds you are dead sure that regardless of the tech behind the penetrator and the composition of the opposing armor , higher length of penetrator simply means higher penetration levels.Any PDf evidence supported by photographs for your claim?

Why different standards are applied in different situations?

You are assuming a lot without proof. When fitted with Kontakt-5 ERA, Soviet MBTs were protected against NATO ammunition which had an armour penetration greater than 600 mm RHA (for example M829A1, DM43). So the T-80UD cannot be penetrated reliably with an APFSDS with 600 mm RHA armour penetration.
Given the fact that Pakistan has Kontakt-5 ERA, I think it is rather possible that the ERA used on Al-Khalid is based on it or based on the same working mechanism (which is exactly what India is doing with the ERA on Arjun Mk 2). The Chinese allegdly bought some Soviet era equipment during the 1990s; if this is true, their ERA might be similar to Kontakt-5 too.

The Arjun however was not tested against any APFSDS with 600 mm RHA penetration; at least no reliable source has claimed that. The Arjun was tested against the Isreali CL 3254 APFSDS which has ~540 mm RHA penetration, but that's not 600 mm. During Cold War, CIA estimated the probability to destroy a basic T-72 with the M735 APFSDS to be only 22% (which means hitting the weak points like the gun mantlet or the driver's place), while the M774 APFSDS - with only slightly better armour penetration into steel - was believed to have a probability of 50 -71% (depending on estimate) to destroy the basic T-72. So even a difference of 60 - 80 mm penetration is very important.

So with no proof it is "reliably learnt with just a few of your own statements" that,

1. Despite being 15 tons in extra weight that Kanchan armor has no better protection than Al KHALID and T-80,because there is no demonstrated experiments.

2. Hits by ARJUN which went through the T-72 ,pierced the tank and went through the other side and made a crater in the sand , will not even enter the T-80 and Al KHALID,with no need for any experimental proof.

3.
2.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@Austin and other users.

I posted this here, but mode romove post to the other topic.
I sugesst use just "Ockham's razor" rule. So if Ukriana sold to Pakistan T-80UD whit some armour then it's almoust sure that those armour was tested in Pakistan and it's higly possible that it was copied. I just suggest to not take Pak. engeneers as idiots - that had very good in 1990s armour fro Ukraina and obvious option was just copy it. No mirracle here, just "Ockham's razor".
I have got two factory draw both T-80U composition from late 1980s. I describe it here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-tanks-armour-technology-366.html#post720098
Ib both cases Al Chalid will have circa 600mm RHA vs KE for turret front. + some ERA
Answer yourselfs guys what APFSDS have India and how mucht left to echive (by indian ammo) those value (not even taking ERA).
Of course it's not equal to wrote bullshit about super-duper pak tanks and impotnet indian tnaks. It's newver work in that wey becouse we have tactis -and all is depend on that.
But fact that Al-Chalid front armour is above indian APFSDS penetration level consist some tactisc problem.

So pakistani engineers are smart that they copied the T-80UD armor and now the Al Khalid cannot be penetrated by indian APFSD rounds.
But the 15 ton extra weight ARJUn tank with decades of evolution Kanchan armor will be well below the level of 600 RHA as per methos's claim , because there is no proof to the contrary by the indian side.

Do you have any proof why decade long evolution of kanchan composite armor will be well below the 1985 obsolete T-80UD armor,

or,

The 1990s standard T-90 armor,

So according to both of you with some no proof posts , you want us all to believe,

1. the Al khalid will have more than 680 RHA, it cannot be disputed. because the smart pakistani engineers have copied it from the state of the art 1985 t-80UD armor.

2. But even if experiments show that the ARJUN round went in and out of T-72 in firing trials , it still has not been proved to be good enough to go through AL KHALID,

3. Even if the T-72 round bounces away from ARJUN there is no way we can trust ARJUN has more than 540 mm RHA of frontal armor,

hell with the "dumb indian engineers who even after decades of R& D, and even while having 15 ton extra weight in ARJUN will produce the Kanchan armor with a penetration level less than that of the 1985 era state of the art T-80UD armor,"

4.While regardless of the tech and metallurgy of NORNICO round and the opposing composite armor, extra length of penetrator will result in exta penetration,

5.But regardless of the extra 15 ton weight and decades of R&D and the composition of the Kanchan armor, the ARJUN has no certified penetration level beyond 540 mm RHA (which was the penetration level of the t-72 round which"bounced off ARJUN" " during trials).

I feel like reading the UPA's defence of coalgate and 2G loot put together.

 

[ersakthivel]

Metallurgy is not one of the main factors when it comes to penetration, shape (length, diameter) and velocity are much more important.

Composition of the composite armor, along with the metallurgy of steel , is the main factor which decides the penetration of rounds. To say otherwise and just penetrator thickness alone determines penetration level is obviously false.

To say whatever new composite armor placed in T-72 by indians , it does not count more than 540 mm RHA is also highly questionable as per the same logic.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

So pakistani engineers are smart that they copied the T-80UD armor and now the Al Khalid cannot be penetrated by indian APFSD rounds.

Propably yes. They had T-80UD from Ukriana whit very good in 1990s. armour + acess to quite good ERA, and really effective way to overcome ERA went to service in end of the 1990s.
India haven't good APFSDS, and from frontal +/-20-30 degree Al Chalid shoud be almoust immune against them.
But it's metter of tactis.

But the 15 ton extra weight ARJUn tank with decades of evolution Kanchan armor will be well below the level of 600 RHA as per methos's claim , because there is no proof to the contrary by the indian side.
Do you have any proof why decade long evolution of kanchan composite armor will be well below the 1985 obsolete T-80UD armor,

Weight have nothing common whit protections - learn it. The key is relatio between internal volumen (m3) and armour mass (not whole tank weight!). So what that Arjun have 15 ton extra weight? Arjun is huge tank whit huge internal volumen - most armour is wested to protect sucht big voulmen. And it's not coincidence that Arjun have weak protected turret sides.
When You have 24t of armour and two tanks: one 13m2 and second 19m3 wchich one will be better protected whit simmilar quality of the armour?

It's first - second problem - Pakistan have big technology transfer from Ukrainia and China -let's forgot about China - but Ukriana had top tank technology in terms protection in 1990s!. T-80U and UD where the best Sowiet tanks -mucht better then T-72 family, and layter T-90S whit cast turret. Pak. engeeners had acces to whole tank and armour. It's almoust impossible that they didn't copy armour from T-80UD.
And what have India? Eny acces to hig-tech tank in 1990s? in 2000s? No? So Indiand engeneers must developed whole Kanchan by their own hand. It's less comfortable situation.

What more - T-80U test proofs what Methos clame -> APFSDS whit circa 600mm RHA where to weak to perforate T-80U whit Kontakt-5, first two sure western APFSDS where propably M829A2 (it's not sure) and DM53 (it's sure).
Indian Army made test Arjun and Kanchan whit obsolate ammo. Ok, Kanchan witstand ammo on circa half 1980s level. But we don't known about more modern ammo test.
So T-80U + Konkat-5 (and it's pak clones) are able to windstand modern ammo. Arjun+Kanchan can widstnad middle 1980s. ammo, but we don't know if it's better or not. Thats the diffrens.

or,
The 1990s standard T-90 armor,

It's the same NERA concept as in Ob.184 (T-72B) from 1985. Those armour where selld to India whit first T-90S. It's whors then T-80UD armour.
About that there are no doubts.

1. the Al khalid will have more than 680 RHA, it cannot be disputed. because the smart pakistani engineers have copied it from the state of the art 1985 t-80UD armor.

T-80UD armour is known, Konkat-5 perforamces are known (vs standard APFSDS). If Pakistani copied them then Al Chalid have circa 600mm RHA main armour + some ERA protection

2. But even if experiments show that the ARJUN round went in and out of T-72 in firing trials , it still has not been proved to be good enough to go through AL KHALID,

Definetly not.
first: "went in" in what places -hull sides? Maybe. Meybe in gun mantled mask, maybe in lower hull plate, In other way this storry is faire tails.
second: "monkey model " Indian T-72 have nothing common whit other tanks. It's the same bullshit like talking that " round went in and out of T-72 in firing trials so it can perforate M1A1HA armour".
BTW: Im talking about front armour. Hull sides and turret sides ar ussaly able to perforate by 1980s ammo.

3. Even if the T-72 round bounces away from ARJUN there is no way we can trust ARJUN has more than 540 mm RHA of frontal armor,

And what ammo IA used in that test? Obsolate ammo. Really obsolate+ old 3BM42 + not modern israeli CL Mk.II. All of them are on middle 1980s. level. Of course maybe Arjun have better armour, but those test proof nothing couse using to weak ammo.

decades of R&D and the composition of the Kanchan armor,

And North Korea have "decades of R&D" about space program -and what? Time not alwyas is equal to the results.

the ARJUN has no certified penetration level beyond 540 mm RHA (which was the penetration level of the t-72 round which

Oh, so Israeli CL Mk.2
It has guaranteed 500mm RHA on 2000m and achivable 540mm RHA on 2000m. On point blanck this round will have circa 530-570mm RHA. And it's all.

"bounced off ARJUN" " during trials).

Oh, so greate argument :"bounced off" -I can show you photos M829A1 bounced off T-72m1, and DM33-A1 photo bounced off polish T-72M1, and test long rods photos bounced offsimple RHA plates.
For some degree rebound or your bouncing off is natural.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Propably yes. They had T-80UD from Ukriana whit very good in 1990s. armour + acess to quite good ERA, and really effective way to overcome ERA went to service in end of the 1990s.
India haven't good APFSDS, and from frontal +/-20-30 degree Al Chalid shoud be almoust immune against them.
But it's metter of tactis.

An armor that is very good in the 1990s is not so cutting edge today in 2013.And you don't know for sure what kind of new APFSDS rounds under development in India, for ARJUN.

You can give some credit to the indian armor engineers that they won't have slept tight from 1990 to 2013 unable to better the 1980s state of the art T-80 UD armor. You don't have proof that they haven't and I don't have proof that that they had.

SO when you say that KANCAN armor in 2013 is well below the level of 1980s T-80 UD , there is no way you have proof for it.Also the israeli NATO rounds used on ARJUN had no more than 540 mm RHA penetration capacity as per your claim.

And you have been saying that the success of ARJUN armor against them is proof that Kanchan armor can withstand only 540 mm of Israeli round.But what this experiment proves is while Kanchan can resist 540 mm, israeli rounds , by NO MEANS THAT THIS IS THE UPPER LIMIT OF WITHSTANDING CAPACITY OF KANCHAN ARMOR.We have no proof to say that kanchan armor can withstand just 540 mm and if a round has a penetration level of 600 mm kanchan armor will fail.

Weight have nothing common whit protections - learn it. The key is relatio between internal volumen (m3) and armour mass (not whole tank weight!). So what that Arjun have 15 ton extra weight? Arjun is huge tank whit huge internal volumen - most armour is wested to protect sucht big voulmen. And it's not coincidence that Arjun have weak protected turret sides.
When You have 24t of armour and two tanks: one 13m2 and second 19m3 wchich one will be better protected whit simmilar quality of the armour?

The reason people put more weight and volume in tank is to increase the protection level and crew safety . learn it.

Most of ARJUN's kanchan armor is composite meaning it occupies more space and less weight. SO the huge volume occupied by Kanchan armor may in effect provide better protection without having massive weight.

it has been conclusively proved in ARJUn vs T-90 in this forum thread that, it is your mistaken claim that ARJUN has weak side armor protection.

Army recognition site pointedly says that ARJUN has composite armor all AROUND, not just in front as you and your company of friends claimed and latter disproved by me with various drawings and measurement.

Who told you that all the T-90, ARJUN , T-80 UD have exact 24 ton of armor? Any proof. Having volume gives space for safe ammo storage and place for inserting composite armor. Not wasting it with weight.

It's first - second problem - Pakistan have big technology transfer from Ukrainia and China -let's forgot about China - but Ukriana had top tank technology in terms protection in 1990s!. T-80U and UD where the best Sowiet tanks -mucht better then T-72 family, and layter T-90S whit cast turret. Pak. engeeners had acces to whole tank and armour. It's almoust impossible that they didn't copy armour from T-80UD.
And what have India? Eny acces to hig-tech tank in 1990s? in 2000s? No? So Indiand engeneers must developed whole Kanchan by their own hand. It's less comfortable situation.

it is childish of you to repetedly say that Pakistan which had the 1980s T-80UD ha big tech transfer, while India which has big tech co operation with Israel has no comparitive armor despite two decades of R&D.

What more - T-80U test proofs what Methos clame -> APFSDS whit circa 600mm RHA where to weak to perforate T-80U whit Kontakt-5, first two sure western APFSDS where propably M829A2 (it's not sure) and DM53 (it's sure).
Indian Army made test Arjun and Kanchan whit obsolate ammo. Ok, Kanchan witstand ammo on circa half 1980s level. But we don't known about more modern ammo test.
So T-80U + Konkat-5 (and it's pak clones) are able to windstand modern ammo. Arjun+Kanchan can widstnad middle 1980s. ammo, but we don't know if it's better or not. Thats the diffrens.

That was methos claim, I am askind for any credible proof for that. if you have any please give link. But the protection level of T-80 UD armor has nothing to do with the protection level of Kanchan armor.. As per your claim the Kanchan withstood isreali rounds with 540 mmRHA penetration a decade before.So you guys are saying that it is the upper limit of protection , and Kanchan cannot withstand 600 mm RHA penetration round with no proof whatsoever.
What I am saying is the 540 mm RHA penetration withstanding ability of the Kanchan armor a decade before does not essentially mean it will be penetrated by 560 mm RHA round. We need proof to say that Kanchan cannot withstand anything more than 540 mm RHA.

It's the same NERA concept as in Ob.184 (T-72B) from 1985. Those armour where selld to India whit first T-90S. It's whors then T-80UD armour.
About that there are no doubts.

the Indian T-90s are using kanchan armor , becaause the deal for T-90 didnot involve TOT for armor. So you have no proof to say that Indian T-90s sporting Kancahn armor and found to offer satisfactory level of protection by the Indian army,are same as the russian T-90S with worse than T-80UD armor.

T-80UD armour is known, Konkat-5 perforamces are known (vs standard APFSDS). If Pakistani copied them then Al Chalid have circa 600mm RHA main armour + some ERA protection

Also the kanchan armor is known to withstand 540 mm RHA penetration israeli rounds in tests and , by no means it is the upper limit of protection for kanchan armor.The test are an indiacation that Kanchan can easily withstand 540 mm RHA with ease. Not a proof for your claims that beyond 540 mmRHA Kanchan cannot offer protection. You are erroneously making repeating this false claim that Kanchan can not withstand shells with more than 540 mmRHA penetration level. Such data of the upper limit of protection has never been released by CVRDE.

Definetly not.
first: "went in" in what places -hull sides? Maybe. Meybe in gun mantled mask, maybe in lower hull plate, In other way this storry is faire tails.
second: "monkey model " Indian T-72 have nothing common whit other tanks. It's the same bullshit like talking that " round went in and out of T-72 in firing trials so it can perforate M1A1HA armour".
BTW: Im talking about front armour. Hull sides and turret sides ar ussaly able to perforate by 1980s ammo.

Where you there at the testing sight , so that you are saying that may be it went in the side, mantle etc, etc,

Those tests where to show to the Indian army the effective penetration level of Arjun rounds,

Not a PR exercise to fool the people.Who will shoot the round through the unarmored sides of the T-72 , when the objective of the test is to ascertain the penetration level of ARJUN rounds. Think with your brain , not some other body part.

As you say "monkey model Indian T-72 have nothing common whit other tanks" i can alo say the 1980s vintage T-80UD has no cutting edge sate of the art armor as of today in 2013, so that Indian army has to shiver in the pants facing AL-Khalids.Arjun with Kanchan armor has enough protection for IA to confidently take on Al- Khalid with 80s armor tech.

Only you ar talking BS by saying that ARJUN round can go through M1A1HA armor . not me. It is strange convoluted argument you advance.

You won't accept that ARJUN has better rounds with evidence of it shooting through the T-72. But you will put a fictional upper limit on Kanchan penetration withstanding capacity at the same level of the NATO-Isralei 540 mm RHA penetration round, just because it failed to get through Kanchan armor.

And what ammo IA used in that test? Obsolate ammo. Really obsolate+ old 3BM42 + not modern israeli CL Mk.II. All of them are on middle 1980s. level. Of course maybe Arjun have better armour, but those test proof nothing couse using to weak ammo.

those tests were proof that a certain level of RHA penetrating round can not get through Kanchan armor. that's all. The tests did not prove beyond that level of RHA penetration Kanchan armor will fail.So correct your misconception.

And North Korea have "decades of R&D" about space program -and what? Time not alwyas is equal to the results.

Indian Space Research organization has completed 100 successful space flights and India has indigenous 600 km MIRV missile capacity and recently fielded a ballistic missile launching Nuclear submarine in the navy.It is pathetic that for guys like you who come from some obscure corner of Eastern europe to compare the time taken by India in R&D to north Korea. It just shows your level of prejudice..

Oh, so Israeli CL Mk.2
It has guaranteed 500mm RHA on 2000m and achivable 540mm RHA on 2000m. On point blanck this round will have circa 530-570mm RHA. And it's all.

But just get it into your head that tests with Israeli CL Mk2 does not indicate the upper protection level of kanchan armor. it merely proved that 540mm RHA penetration rounds cannot go through kanchan armor.That too without extra ERA protection .

It has not proved that any rounds greater than 540 mmRHA penetration can penetrate the Kanchan armor.

With slip ring obdurator tech, DRDO has the ability to adapt any modern higher RHA penetration APFSDS western round of a smooth bore gun to the rifled gun of the ARJUN. SO don't worry that ARJUN won't have a round that can't go through Al khalid.

Oh, so greate argument :"bounced off" -I can show you photos M829A1 bounced off T-72m1, and DM33-A1 photo bounced off polish T-72M1, and test long rods photos bounced offsimple RHA plates.
For some degree rebound or your bouncing off is natural.

Show proof or link that kanchan armor can be penetrated by 550 mm RHA penetration rounds. Nothing else matters.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

An armor that is very good in the 1990s is not so cutting edge today in 2013

All is depend on contex. On India-Pakistani border it can be very good, and effective. T-80UD is still vell-protected tank.

And you don't know for sure what kind of new APFSDS rounds under development in India, for ARJUN.

I not suspect mirracle here:
a) lack of technology like in Russia, USA, Germany
b) low quality previous produced licenced ammo and tanks
I suppoose that India will buy licence for some western APFSDS and will try to chang it to rifted gun. We will see, but as I said - I not suspected mirracle here. Achive circa 600mm RHA will be greate result when we look on now existing Indian tank ammo.

You can give some credit to the indian armor engineers that they won't have slept tight from 1990 to 2013 unable to better the 1980s state of the art T-80 UD armor. You don't have proof that they haven't and I don't have proof that that they had.

Obvious, and what?

SO when you say that KANCAN armor in 2013 is well below the level of 1980s T-80 UD , there is no way you have proof for it.

Show me when I told this Just show.
I said that Indian engeneers have more difficult way to achive the same level as Pak. engeneers - they just copy very good in 1990s armour. And in India engeeners must almoust all did alone -there is no comfirm info about armour technology transfer to India.

And you have been saying that the success of ARJUN armor against them is proof that Kanchan armor can withstand only 540 mm of Israeli round.

Are you stupid or what?

But what this experiment proves is while Kanchan can resist 540 mm, israeli rounds , by NO MEANS THAT THIS IS THE UPPER LIMIT OF WITHSTANDING CAPACITY OF KANCHAN ARMOR.We have no proof to say that kanchan armor can withstand just 540 mm and if a round has a penetration level of 600 mm kanchan armor will fail.

Greate - CAPITAN OBVIOUS TO THE RESCUE!
Again - are you stupid? Are you able to read whit understand what I had wrote in my previous post?
I know -my english is far from perfect but just read this post again -you just wrote what I had written previous in my post.
u mad?

The reason people put more weight and volume in tank is to increase the protection level and crew safety . learn it.

BUAHAHAHAHA "volumen"
Bigger volumen means bigger m3 needed to protect, means heavier tank, means bigger HP and engine needed.
bigger Volumen hav nothing common whit bigger protection

Most of ARJUN's kanchan armor is composite meaning it occupies more space and less weight. SO the huge volume occupied by Kanchan armor may in effect provide better protection without having massive weight.

And You mixed two diffrent things. Arjun have huge volumen in m3 but space occuped by special armour is smaller then in western tanks. Smaller LOS thickness, biger frontal surface, bigger wak spots, etc.

it has been conclusively proved in ARJUn vs T-90 in this forum thread that, it is your mistaken claim that ARJUN has weak side armor protection.

No, it was not. Arjun have very poor turret sides protection and this is obvious until tohose storage boxes will not be replaced by armour modules. And have huge gun mantled mask, and small LOS after main sight. More or les it's weaker armour integrity then in most tanks -including T-90A whit welded turret. Or T-80UD.

Army recognition site pointedly says that ARJUN has composite armor all AROUN

Army recognition is teh same source as wikipedia. It's poor and full mistakes. There is no place to put "all AROUN" Arjun turrret composite armour, and there is no single photo whit even small proof about this.

Who told you that all the T-90, ARJUN , T-80 UD have exact 24 ton of armor? Any proof. Having volume gives space for safe ammo storage and place for inserting composite armor. Not wasting it with weight.

It was example given to you, becouse you are disabled in tank thema.
And where wyou have "safe ammo storage"now in Arjun?! WTF?

it is childish of you to repetedly say that Pakistan which had the 1980s T-80UD ha big tech transfer, while India which has big tech co operation with Israel has no comparitive armor despite two decades of R&D.

And what ammo have IA after those two decades? Phatetic rifted ammo on erly 1980s level, and 3BM42 from 1986. So those " two decades of R&D" whit Israel are not moving to have better ammo in India. How about tank engines - again - two decades of R&D and what? Uuu shitty W84MS clones, and old clone of export version MB.
You shoud understand that "two decades of R&D" do not mean "we have smth on today level".

As per your claim the Kanchan withstood isreali rounds with 540 mmRHA penetration a decade before.So you guys are saying that it is the upper limit of protection , and Kanchan cannot withstand 600 mm RHA penetration round with no proof whatsoever.
What I am saying is the 540 mm RHA penetration withstanding ability of the Kanchan armor a decade before does not essentially mean it will be penetrated by 560 mm RHA round. We need proof to say that Kanchan cannot withstand anything more than 540 mm RHA.

Greate - CAPITAN OBVIOUS TO THE RESCUE AGAIN ! -yes I agree with You it so obvious that I haven't even anlogy now. Its O-B-V-I-O-U-S
so don't supporting me thesis if Im not doing them

But the protection level of T-80 UD armor has nothing to do with the protection level of Kanchan armor

I don't think soo.
Modern composite western armour in 1980s have the same lavel of protection (or slighty inferior) in compare to the T-80U/UD

the Indian T-90s are using kanchan armor , becaause the deal for T-90 didnot involve TOT for armor. So you have no proof to say that Indian T-90s sporting Kancahn armor and found to offer satisfactory level of protection by the Indian army,are same as the russian T-90S with worse than T-80UD armor.

Two first bathes T-90S as I know have orginally Russian armour.
BTW: if it's true:

deal for T-90 didnot involve TOT for armour

Then it's funny becouse Indian even haven't option to copy some armour and improve it. So agains - whorst situation than in pakistan or china.

Also the kanchan armor is known to withstand 540 mm RHA penetration israeli rounds in tests and , by no means it is the upper limit of protection for kanchan armor.The test are an indiacation that Kanchan can easily withstand 540 mm RHA with ease.

CAPITAN OBVIOUS TO THE RESCUE AGAIN no.2 ! -yes I agree with You

Not a proof for your claims that beyond 540 mmRHA Kanchan cannot offer protection. You are erroneously making repeating this false claim that Kanchan can not withstand shells with more than 540 mmRHA penetration leve

And show me one single post when I told this. C'mon show me this post. You just unable to read whit understand one single post.

Those tests where to show to the Indian army the effective penetration level of Arjun rounds,

those "LOL" APFSDS rounds? If you are talkin about them then those rounds will have problem to overpas frontal hull armour or even turret in T-72M1. Meybe under 1000m distance they have chanse.

As you say "monkey model Indian T-72
have nothing common whit other tanks" i can alo say the 1980s vintage T-80UD has no cutting edge sate of the art armor as of today in 2013,

No You can't.
T-72M1 and Aleya are export monkey model made in Soviet Union for export puporse and for WarPac members. And they have nothing common whit protection pure Soviet tanks - like T-80UD.
T-80UD even in 1995 was still "top", T-72M1 in 1995 was crap.

You won't accept that ARJUN has better rounds with evidence of it shooting through the T-72.

becouse it have not. No single evidence better then know APFSDS round for Arjun. Maybe industry will developed smth. new.
And thesis about " shooting through the T-72" is PR bullshit. Meybe DM53 or M829A3 or Sniviets-2 can do that.

But just get it into your head that tests with Israeli CL Mk2 does not indicate the upper protection level of kanchan armor. it merely proved that 540mm RHA penetration rounds cannot go through kanchan armor.That too without extra ERA protection .

It has not proved that any rounds greater than 540 mmRHA penetration can penetrate the Kanchan armor.

Again -when Im write this? You just unable to read whit understand one single post.
ps. CAPITAN OBVIOUS TO THE RESCUE AGAIN no.3 !

With slip ring obdurator tech, DRDO has the ability to adapt any modern higher RHA penetration APFSDS western round of a smooth bore gun to the rifled gun of the ARJUN. SO don't worry that ARJUN won't have a round that can't go through Al khalid.

1) But now IA haven't APFSDS able to penetrate frontal Al-Chalid armour it's sure.
2) Those "western round" must be first avaible for India. Who will sell You it? It will be like in tank engine thema -so mucht option but Indian TOT demands were too high and any western firm said - "sorry finally we are not interested". And IA left whit cummins engine...