Indian Army T- 90 (Bhishma) and T- 72 (M-1) Tanks

[fire starter]

That's beside the point, my friend.

I am looking at overall perspective.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Assume what you will...
VT-4 has only one version with Norinco 1300hp engine & again, there's no way a round whose chamber pressure can sway a tank heavier than T-90 like that, would have same a penetration as Mango-M.

More possible is 6500-7000Mpa & 650-700mm. Otherwise it'd never have outcompeted Oplot.

Dude, the BM Oplot actually outperformed the VT4 in terms of sheer penetrative power and armor protection (the latter largely due to use of the Duplet ERA) but the VT 4 edged out in every other category including the price tag and the gun was more accurate as well owing to its more modern FCS.

 

[fire starter]

I hope drdo soon rolls out NGMBT and arjunmk2.

 

[ArgonPrime]

I hope drdo soon rolls out NGMBT and arjunmk2.

And the Army will find a hundred excuses to shitcan that project and then go for the Armata instead.

 

[Bleh]

So I found out a bit more about Chinese tank's armour layout.

While T-90's frontal armour is like an open invitation that is less than 500mm almost everywhere...

...Chinks concentrate their armour at turret front & upper glacis. Maximum bang for buck, atleast on paper.

Although of lesser thickness, hull armour is more sloped (thus larger lower glacis) & with smaller weakspot around gun-mantle (but less protection at angles).

We should had continued the development of Tank EX.

No, not old. 220 mm at 65 degrees impact angle, it's pretty formidable actually.

Motherfucker!.. Angled hit still reduces APFSDS that much, by 50+%?

Wouldn't that mean an armour layout like this would be significantly more effective? (For those who missed old posts, this is a Tank-Ex-2 concept art with FMBT 4-crew turret on T-XX hull);

 

[Haldilal]

So I found out a bit more about Chinese tank's armour layout.

While T-90's frontal armour is like an open invitation that is less than 500mm almost everywhere... View attachment 60249
...Chinks concentrate their armour at turret front & upper glacis. Maximum bang for buck, atleast on paper.

Although of lesser thickness, hull armour is more sloped (thus larger lower glacis) & with smaller weakspot around gun-mantle (but less protection at angles). View attachment 60258View attachment 60252


Motherfucker!.. Angled hit still reduces APFSDS that much, by 50+%?

Wouldn't that mean an armour layout like this would be significantly more effective? (For those who missed old posts, this is a Tank-Ex-2 concept art with FMBT 4-crew turret on T-XX hull);View attachment 60248

Ya'll Nibbiars FMBT is going to come or not or would induct the Armata.

 

[Akula]

Bleh, is there anything we have used from Arjun Mk1A by incorporating it in other tanks like T-72 and T-90 apart from ERA.

 

[Bleh]

Bleh, is there anything we have used from Arjun Mk1A by incorporating it in other tanks like T-72 and T-90 apart from ERA.

I don't know what's in the new Ajeya Mark 2... Other than that nothing in T-90.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Motherfucker!.. Angled hit still reduces APFSDS that much, by 50+%?

View attachment 60260

Umm.....no, that's not what I meant. In this case, 220 mm is the actual thickness of the armor plate but since the plate was inclined at an angle 65 degrees, the LOS penetration achieved by the round would be upwards of 500 mm easy. I hope I'm making sense.

Here, I made a crude diagram in MS Paint -

Here, the red line denotes the actual thickness of the plate which is 220 mm whereas the green one denotes the LOS thickness. I hope this clear things up.

Wouldn't that mean an armour layout like this would be significantly more effective?

Yeah but not because of what you might be thinking. That layout would be more effective because it will increase the LOS thickness of the frontal turret armor at 0 degrees from the gun centerline axis.

 

[Bleh]

Umm.....no, that's not what I meant. In this case, 220 mm is the actual thickness of the armor plate but since the plate was inclined at an angle 65 degrees, the LOS penetration achieved by the round would be upwards of 500 mm easy. I hope I'm making sense.

Here, I made a crude diagram in MS Paint -
View attachment 60262

Here, the red line denotes the actual thickness of the plate which is 220 mm whereas the green one denotes the LOS thickness. I hope this clear things up.

Yeah, elementary. Should have understood.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Yeah, elementary. Should have understood.

No problem dude, it happens to the best of us.

 

[ArgonPrime]

So I found out a bit more about Chinese tank's armour layout.

While T-90's frontal armour is like an open invitation that is less than 500mm almost everywhere... View attachment 60249

You might find these estimation schematics interesting -

T-72B 1985

T-90A 1997

...Chinks concentrate their armour at turret front & upper glacis. Maximum bang for buck, atleast on paper.

Although of lesser thickness, hull armour is more sloped (thus larger lower glacis) & with smaller weakspot around gun-mantle (but less protection at angles). View attachment 60258View attachment 60252

Not just the Chinese, but the South Koreans as well.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Ya'll Nibbiars FMBT is going to come or not or would induct the Armata.

hard to say at this point, really.

 

[Shashank Nayak]

@Bleh
Considerig penetration of APFSDS for T-72 / T-90

Mango round - 450 mm RHA ?
DRDO 125 mm Mark2 : 500 mm RHA

So, are we covered w.r.t all Pakistani tanks except VT4 ?

 

[Haldilal]

@Bleh
Considerig penetration of APFSDS for T-72 / T-90
Mango round - 450 mm RHA ?
DRDO 125 mm Mark2 : 500 mm RHA

So, are we covered w.r.t all Pakistani tanks except VT4 ?

One more question Does the VT 4 comes with AC that are going into the Pak service?

 

[ArgonPrime]

@Bleh
Considerig penetration of APFSDS for T-72 / T-90
Mango round - 450 mm RHA ?
DRDO 125 mm Mark2 : 500 mm RHA

So, are we covered w.r.t all Pakistani tanks except VT4 ?

Depends which part of the tanks you manage to land your hits upon, the engagement distance, and the impact angle. If it lands on the turret cheeks or the UGP, then not sure but if it hits the mantlet or the LFP, then it would go through.

 

[Bleh]

Not just the Chinese, but the South Koreans as well.

Koreans did it much better!.. Mantlet protection wise K-2 is the benchmark that world should copy.

@Bleh
So, are we covered w.r.t all Pakistani tanks except VT4 ?

Lol, no. Unless you can get their barely protected flank, or get a lucky hit at mantlet or lower glacis, no Indian APFSDS will penetrate Al Khalid, T-80 & VT-4 main armour at over 1km.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Koreans did it much better!.. Mantlet protection wise K-2 is the benchmark that world should copy. View attachment 60265

Indeed.

Lol, no. Unless you can get their flank or get a lucky hit at mantlet or lower glacis, Indian APFSDS won't penetrate Al Khalid, T-80 & VT-4 at over 1km.

View attachment 60264

True although, that 660 mm denotes the LOS thickness and not the effective thickness in terms of RHA equivalent. It could be lower than the LOS thickness but even then, I do agree with what you said.

I think, in light of how things stand right now, the Indian Army would be wise to focus a lot more on maneuvering warfare instead of its traditional set-piece way of warfighting.

Oh, and they should train the gunners to aim specifically for the LFP, whenever the situation permits. I know it's a tall order and can not be hoped to achieve in every engagement, nevertheless, if we do indeed manage to do this, it'll pay us rich dividents since a perforating hit in that portion will likely result in the Pakistani tanks getting ammo-racked, given their ammo stowage layout.

 

[WolfPack86]

Congt to #IndianArmy &
@ADTLOfficial
,T-72M1 with ELOP-TIFCS,enable T-72M1 to fire accurately at night & so does ATGM firing.

Some of the T-72 Ajeya of #IndianArmy have been upgraded . When rest of the fleet will be upgraded soon
1) DRDO ERA Mk. 2 2) new electronics and optics 3) new main gun 4) better ammo 5) new FCS 6) indigenized engine

 

[ArgonPrime]

Dosent the auto turret changes it all?

I'm afraid not.