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

[Arjun Mk1A]

Somehow so called Tin 90 aka T 90 is still fighting. On the other hand western tanks are destroyed left right centre.

 

[binayak95]

Somehow so called Tin 90 aka T 90 is still fighting. On the other hand western tanks are destroyed left right centre.

wrongest hot take possible.

All tanks are getting wrecked left right center.
because both Russians and Ukrainians are fighting like morons

 

[Picard]

I am not hearing any news of these leopard 2s getting recovered if you sayng not all got blown up lol, dont seem to be serviceable either to move forward.

And? I am not denying they were destroyed. What matters here is crew survivability - crew is far more difficult to replace than a tank.

And even when it comes to tank itself, so long as the basic structure of the tank is intact - and in these images of Leopards you are showing, it is - the tank can still be recovered and repaired.

Compare that to this:

This is basically our conversation, you: the T-72 side armor is weak. Me: actually the side armor on the T-72 variations have better armour than the T-72M. You: lol, all side armors on tanks are weak........ T-72 urals had composite armour the T-72Ms lacked this for their light weight T-72As and T-72Bs along with later variations have been upgrading the side skirts the front and back of the tanks for more ERA protection and had composite armour. I can literally see the protection cases for these tanks but what I cant figure out is how good the variations of soviet block countries have in regards to their armor for their T-72s other than them giving them different names. 1st of all what wars are you even referencing your experiences from? I definetly know its not the ukrainian war because they are too busy bitching about the maintenance of leopards lol

Stop lying. I never said that T-72 armor is weak. What I said is this:

Yugoslav M-84s, which are far from the worst T-72 variants even today, showed themselves vulnerable even in 1990s. Specifically, carousel autoloader meant that they were particularly vulnerable to antitank mines (which hit from below) and flank attacks which could penetrate the thin side armor behind the road wheels. These flaws are common to all T-72 family tanks, monkey models or not.

Thin side armor behind the road wheels. It is a matter of fact that this armor is thin, not because it is M-84 but because it is behind the wheels. M1 Abrams also has thin side armor behind the wheels. Difference is that M1 does not have 22 rounds of ammunition right behind said thin armor.

Capisci?

There is no point in us having a discussion if you are going to not even read what I'm writing.

So just to be sure, I take it that you are completely ignoring my questions of does the Leopard 2 have a hardkill APS, what can it do to deal with 7km ATGMs and how it can deal with suicide drones is it lacks countermeasures for these threats therefore inferior to T-90s because of it? there are 132 T-14s and production of it based on the experiecnes of the operation zones will put it back in production for the 1st quarter of 2024 after the engines and new electronics will get replaced(from the looks of it 20km high resolution optics and GaN AESA radar from what I got on the ruselectronics.ru news from this august and september). I am not shitting on the Germans for not makiig a next generation tank but if they are giving the best leopard 2s to Ukraine than they should give a fuck about how to protect those ukrainians from suicide drone attacks, ATGMs, etc. the latest T-90s get these new sabot rounds that are skinnier versions of Vacuum-1 rounds, T-14 armour and atleast optical sights that are comparable to most 2nd gen optics of other western tanks but key difference is it has ATGMs that support the max range of their optics and got a hardkill and softkill APS.

T-90 also does not have countermeasures to either 8 km ATGMs or drones, suicide or not. T-90s have already been destroyed by 500 USD hobby drones. And the reason is simple. Majority of hardkill APS only protect +-45 degrees in elevation - in other words, sides of the tank. Top of the tank, which is precisely the area that is attacked by drones and top-attack ATGMs, is completely unprotected.

If there are 132 T-14s, where are they? We have seen none of them in the combat zone, instead T-55s are being refurbished from scrapyards. So for both T-90 and war in Ukraine, T-14 is irrelevant.

 

[blackjack]

And? I am not denying they were destroyed. What matters here is crew survivability - crew is far more difficult to replace than a tank.

And even when it comes to tank itself, so long as the basic structure of the tank is intact - and in these images of Leopards you are showing, it is - the tank can still be recovered and repaired.

Compare that to this:

What are you even trying to prove here? Some T-72s are intact, some are destroyed, etc. There are even turrets that come off the Leopard 2s.

This leopard 2 turret was not hit by an ATGM, RPG or a drone it literally came off by bumping into another tank lol. Even if you want to go make a case or arguement with backed up proof which I have yet to see that there are more leopards intact than T-72s not one of those leopard tanks intact were able to be recovered because no news of it exists. There was twitter media showing a Ukrainian armoured vehicles trying to tow back a leopard, but it got hit by a drone. This war just only advertises to buy more T-72s because not only do they get destroyed like leopards they have less maintenance and cost less to purchase than leopards that would give you the same battlefield results of a failed offensive.

Stop lying. I never said that T-72 armor is weak. What I said is this:
Thin side armor behind the road wheels. It is a matter of fact that this armor is thin, not because it is M-84 but because it is behind the wheels. M1 Abrams also has thin side armor behind the wheels. Difference is that M1 does not have 22 rounds of ammunition right behind said thin armor.

Capisci?

There is no point in us having a discussion if you are going to not even read what I'm writing.

How did you go from weak thin side to ohhhh all side thin armour on tanks is weak than right here you are backtracking back to the armour of the T-72 after I told you that other T-72s variants have reinforced side armour?

this pretty much where the ammunition of the T-90 is atleast stored and it doesnt seem to be placed by thin armor on the side but rather in the center of the tank.

T-90 also does not have countermeasures to either 8 km ATGMs or drones, suicide or not. T-90s have already been destroyed by 500 USD hobby drones. And the reason is simple. Majority of hardkill APS only protect +-45 degrees in elevation - in other words, sides of the tank. Top of the tank, which is precisely the area that is attacked by drones and top-attack ATGMs, is completely unprotected.

good ol piccard deflecting by just talking more about the T-90 and not about what features that the leopard 2 has that supposedly makes it better lol. I already showcased the T-90M having EW systems being tested on the tank, have not seen any 500 dollar drones you speak of just a few T-90s destroyed and one captured intact if you are talking about the switchblade drones i dont even think they have any confirmed hits on russian armoured vehicles because of their small range and dropping frag grenades doesnt really do the trick. Leopard 2s dont have 8km ATGMs to outsnipe the T-90s and the Arena-M offers top attack protection.

If there are 132 T-14s, where are they? We have seen none of them in the combat zone, instead T-55s are being refurbished from scrapyards. So for both T-90 and war in Ukraine, T-14 is irrelevant.

being tested with the T-90s outside of Ukraine's border, I am pretty sure you saw my post here awhile ago of the new EW systems being tested on both tanks not too long ago.

 

[Picard]

What are you even trying to prove here? Some T-72s are intact, some are destroyed, etc. There are even turrets that come off the Leopard 2s.

View attachment 224117
This leopard 2 turret was not hit by an ATGM, RPG or a drone it literally came off by bumping into another tank lol. Even if you want to go make a case or arguement with backed up proof which I have yet to see that there are more leopards intact than T-72s not one of those leopard tanks intact were able to be recovered because no news of it exists. There was twitter media showing a Ukrainian armoured vehicles trying to tow back a leopard, but it got hit by a drone. This war just only advertises to buy more T-72s because not only do they get destroyed like leopards they have less maintenance and cost less to purchase than leopards that would give you the same battlefield results of a failed offensive.

PRECISELY. It wasn't caused by ammo detonation, meaning that crew survived.

How did you go from weak thin side to ohhhh all side thin armour on tanks is weak than right here you are backtracking back to the armour of the T-72 after I told you that other T-72s variants have reinforced side armour?

this pretty much where the ammunition of the T-90 is atleast stored and it doesnt seem to be placed by thin armor on the side but rather in the center of the tank.
View attachment 224118

I am not backtracking, you just have no clue what I am talking about - or what you are talking about, for that matter.

To sum it up: hull behind road wheels is thin on all tanks. But only tanks with carousel autoloader place majority of ammunition right behind said thin hull.

Capisci?

Also, what you have shown here is backup ammo stored in the turret bustle. Yes, having a reserve ammunition in turret bustle instead of all over the tank is a massive improvement, no argument about that. But autoloader remained unchanged, meaning that the ready-to-fire ammunition is still positioned right behind the thin lower hull side armor:

good ol piccard deflecting by just talking more about the T-90 and not about what features that the leopard 2 has that supposedly makes it better lol. I already showcased the T-90M having EW systems being tested on the tank, have not seen any 500 dollar drones you speak of just a few T-90s destroyed and one captured intact if you are talking about the switchblade drones i dont even think they have any confirmed hits on russian armoured vehicles because of their small range and dropping frag grenades doesnt really do the trick. Leopard 2s dont have 8km ATGMs to outsnipe the T-90s and the Arena-M offers top attack protection.
View attachment 224119



being tested with the T-90s outside of Ukraine's border, I am pretty sure you saw my post here awhile ago of the new EW systems being tested on both tanks not too long ago.

OK, literally everything you wrote here is bullshit:
1) EW systems being tested = not in operation
2) I'm talking about FPV drones. Here.
3) Leopard 2 can fire LAHAT ATGM, which has range of up to 8 000 meters in newest variants (previously 6 000 meters). Whether either tank is using ATGMs in Ukraine is not clear.
4) Your image literally shows that Arena offers side protection only.

 

[blackjack]

PRECISELY. It wasn't caused by ammo detonation, meaning that crew survived.

dead men tell no tales, leopard, T-72 crews have survived and some havent. Although I dont think anything is more humiliating than having your turret come off from hitting another tank compared to the effort of needing to use explosives.

I am not backtracking, you just have no clue what I am talking about - or what you are talking about, for that matter.

To sum it up: hull behind road wheels is thin on all tanks. But only tanks with carousel autoloader place majority of ammunition right behind said thin hull.

Capisci?

Also, what you have shown here is backup ammo stored in the turret bustle. Yes, having a reserve ammunition in turret bustle instead of all over the tank is a massive improvement, no argument about that. But autoloader remained unchanged, meaning that the ready-to-fire ammunition is still positioned right behind the thin lower hull side armor:

I dont see anything thin other than your own imagination from the photos i got of the T-90 ammunitition placement. saying that the sides and hull is weak makes no sense since I have stated the armour of where you claim the T-72 was weak kept getting re-enforced on later variations of the T-72s You already made it blatently clear that you think armour protection for the T-72 variations dont matter regardless of what side of the tank is re-enforced

if the green section is the ammunition storage than I dont see the problem with it since a great deal of penetration is needed which would kill the crew before the ammunition detonates, but of course I am talking to someone that thinks armour was not added to the sides over and over again.

OK, literally everything you wrote here is bullshit:
1) EW systems being tested = not in operation
2) I'm talking about FPV drones. Here.
3) Leopard 2 can fire LAHAT ATGM, which has range of up to 8 000 meters in newest variants (previously 6 000 meters). Whether either tank is using ATGMs in Ukraine is not clear.
4) Your image literally shows that Arena offers side protection only.

1) you can cope with this all you want on what the leopard lacks but I am not seeing any EW systems being tested on leopards no matter what excuses you make.
2)Croatian to english translation must suck I said it doesnt matter which drone it is from kamikaze to ones dropping grenades.
3) no idea what the max range of the new ATGM is but they have showcased the optics hitting a target 7kms away and we know the refleks was limited at 5kms. bringing up israeli atgms for german tanks, 2 can play at that game such as a chinese 10km AFT-10 on a T-90. of course the Sprinter ATGM will have a far longer range. Kornet-EMs equipped on any armoured russian vehicle will have a 10km range or the option of using helicopters you get 16km ranges, I know hellfires are limited to 8kms. Lahat was developed in the 1990s and the refleks was in the 1980s with sligtly deeper penetration capabilities. The armata seems it will get the optics that would support their long ranges (2276) [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 11 (russiadefence.net)
4) still nothing about a hardkill APS unless you are going to make a case that leopards can use trophy? the arena system display also shows you were wrong about the 45 degree angle thing based on this conversation, it would make sense that you might be referring to an old APS system since your brain is still stuck in the past when you talked about some war with serbs and iraq. got more photos but here it states 360 degree protection Русские танки получили систему защиты «Арена-М»: что это такое (tsargrad.tv) afghanit offers the same but makes claims of using 105mm rockets to deal with sabot rounds as well

 

[Picard]

dead men tell no tales, leopard, T-72 crews have survived and some havent. Although I dont think anything is more humiliating than having your turret come off from hitting another tank compared to the effort of needing to use explosives.

Dead men tell no tales, and T-72 crews are far more likely to die.

I dont see anything thin other than your own imagination from the photos i got of the T-90 ammunitition placement. saying that the sides and hull is weak makes no sense since I have stated the armour of where you claim the T-72 was weak kept getting re-enforced on later variations of the T-72s You already made it blatently clear that you think armour protection for the T-72 variations dont matter regardless of what side of the tank is re-enforced

if the green section is the ammunition storage than I dont see the problem with it since a great deal of penetration is needed which would kill the crew before the ammunition detonates, but of course I am talking to someone that thinks armour was not added to the sides over and over again.

You have no clue what I am talking about, or what you are talking about, or anything really. From the beginning, I was talking about sides of the hull behind road wheels. You cannot reinforce that, because that is where suspension is. Doesn't matter if it is T-72, T-80, T-90, M1, Leopard 2... thickness there is some 20 mm RHA, for structural reasons. I think Leopard 2 may be up to 40 - 45 mm, but you can't really go thicker than that.

Best you can do to protect it is place armor on side skirts, but that is not something I am seeing done in Russian T-variants.

Great deal of penetration? Look at the image and turn on the brain, please. Tank can literally be destroyed by a 20 mm autocannon.

1) you can cope with this all you want on what the leopard lacks but I am not seeing any EW systems being tested on leopards no matter what excuses you make.
2)Croatian to english translation must suck I said it doesnt matter which drone it is from kamikaze to ones dropping grenades.
3) no idea what the max range of the new ATGM is but they have showcased the optics hitting a target 7kms away and we know the refleks was limited at 5kms. bringing up israeli atgms for german tanks, 2 can play at that game such as a chinese 10km AFT-10 on a T-90. of course the Sprinter ATGM will have a far longer range. Kornet-EMs equipped on any armoured russian vehicle will have a 10km range or the option of using helicopters you get 16km ranges, I know hellfires are limited to 8kms. Lahat was developed in the 1990s and the refleks was in the 1980s with sligtly deeper penetration capabilities. The armata seems it will get the optics that would support their long ranges (2276) [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 11 (russiadefence.net)
4) still nothing about a hardkill APS unless you are going to make a case that leopards can use trophy? the arena system display also shows you were wrong about the 45 degree angle thing based on this conversation, it would make sense that you might be referring to an old APS system since your brain is still stuck in the past when you talked about some war with serbs and iraq. got more photos but here it states 360 degree protection Русские танки получили систему защиты «Арена-М»: что это такое (tsargrad.tv) afghanit offers the same but makes claims of using 105mm rockets to deal with sabot rounds as well

1) And? You are acting as if simply EW system somehow makes all the other flaws irrelevant. Also, I see no evidence of EW systems being used on Russian tanks, so...
2) Your eyesight must suck. This is what you said:

have not seen any 500 dollar drones you speak of just a few T-90s destroyed and one captured intact if you are talking about the switchblade drones i dont even think they have any confirmed hits on russian armoured vehicles because of their small range and dropping frag grenades doesnt really do the trick

I tried to be polite and assume you had some clue about what you are talking about, because drones have been destroying tanks in this war already... but, it turns out, you don't.
3) As far as I am aware, Russia is not using AFT-10, it is Chinese-only. Russian ATGM has shorter range and far lower hit probability than LAHAT. Germany meanwhile is fielding LAHAT.
4) Leopard 2 can use Trophy, yes. It recently entered service with Norwegian Leopard 2s. Meanwhile, for all the bluster about Russian APS, I have seen no evidence of it being used in Ukraine. So either it is too expensive, doesn't work as advertised, or doesn't work at all.
And yes, I was wrong about Arena having 45 degree coverage. It is 65° instead at most - some sources give it a far lower number. Big difference, there. </sarcasm> 45 or 65 degrees, fact still remains that top-attack ATGMs such as Spike or Javelin will simply fly outside the APS coverage, making it wholly irrelevant.

Also, try thinking about the stuff you are posting for a change. This is what translation of your link says:

Русские танки получили систему защиты «Арена-М»: что это такое

Комплекс, придуманный специалистами из Коломны, задаст жару ПТУРам.

mo.tsargrad.tv

In a nutshell, special ammunition is fired towards the Arena-M anti-tank missile and does so automatically, providing protection at 360 degrees and from -6 to 20 degrees in altitude.

20 degrees coverage in altitude.

Link claims that it allows tank to intercept Javelin, but... even if we assume that it is +65 degrees in altitude instead of +20 degrees that your link states, Spike has impact angle of 70 degrees and Javelin of 80 degrees. Arena cannot intercept either unless it does so immediately upon the missile leaving the launcher.

"360 degrees" is horizontal protection: in other words, it protects from the front, sides and the rear. Your interpretation of it meaning that Arena provides spherical protection is entirely false. It is a donut, not a sphere.

 

[blackjack]

Dead men tell no tales, and T-72 crews are far more likely to die.

guess someone needs to pay attention more to war because there are alot of reports of leopards getting hit and destroyed than I do see T-72s. check Tams posts https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/the-war-in-the-ukraine.8948/page-1857 I think the leopard 2s Sweden provided to Ukraine are all gone now. But of course the difference for this war is T-72s you lose 500,000 to 1.2 million dollars leopards you lose 13-15 million dollars. Nothing magical happened with the leopards or T-72s they had in their possession.

You have no clue what I am talking about, or what you are talking about, or anything really. From the beginning, I was talking about sides of the hull behind road wheels. You cannot reinforce that, because that is where suspension is. Doesn't matter if it is T-72, T-80, T-90, M1, Leopard 2... thickness there is some 20 mm RHA, for structural reasons. I think Leopard 2 may be up to 40 - 45 mm, but you can't really go thicker than that.

you literally said sides the entire time from our last conversation which i repeatedly stated got re-enforced and than state this is the matter all tanks that suffer from it. I wasted my entire time with you because you cant clarify what you say.

Best you can do to protect it is place armor on side skirts, but that is not something I am seeing done in Russian T-variants.

yes I know, you based your experiences from the war with serbs and iraqis and treat all T-models the same way even if I was to repeatedly tell you 100 times that the T-72M is the weakest tank lacking composite armour and that T-72As and Bs re-enforced their sideskirts it will just be straight up ignored by you.

Great deal of penetration? Look at the image and turn on the brain, please. Tank can literally be destroyed by a 20 mm autocannon.

its literally in the center of the tank to get to the center you have to go pretty deep, this is why Croatians don't have people like Tesla.

1) And? You are acting as if simply EW system somehow makes all the other flaws irrelevant. Also, I see no evidence of EW systems being used on Russian tanks, so...

1)lets not play i am the mentally handicapped card when the images have showcased the EW systems and no one is doing the same shit for leopards. https://dzen.ru/a/ZPcuvPk0tTWATHfM if

2) Your eyesight must suck. This is what you said:
I tried to be polite and assume you had some clue about what you are talking about, because drones have been destroying tanks in this war already... but, it turns out, you don't.

2)no you talk like a gypsy you state 500 dollar drones but that can be anything, and i am assuming you have no idea what you are talking about which is why i offered both options for you to clarify back to me which drone you are talking about(no offense). We had this same problem about you talking about sides of tanks being weak than laughing it off that it was all tanks its things like this that make we wonder if you have a social life.

3) As far as I am aware, Russia is not using AFT-10, it is Chinese-only. Russian ATGM has shorter range and far lower hit probability than LAHAT. Germany meanwhile is fielding LAHAT.

Who gives a shit they can order from China if they want if they believe their ATGMs range is not far enough. Chinese have copied the 2A46 cannons from russia so what kind of special requirements you ask in which it can be fired from russians using the same kind of cannons?. The range tested on the T-90 showed 7km which is by far not a refleks model so I cant really determine what the max range of that new ATGM is but i would like to see footage of a LAHAT from a leopard and see how far it hits or if such footage exists.

4) Leopard 2 can use Trophy, yes. It recently entered service with Norwegian Leopard 2s. Meanwhile, for all the bluster about Russian APS, I have seen no evidence of it being used in Ukraine. So either it is too expensive, doesn't work as advertised, or doesn't work at all.
And yes, I was wrong about Arena having 45 degree coverage. It is 65° instead at most - some sources give it a far lower number. Big difference, there. </sarcasm> 45 or 65 degrees, fact still remains that top-attack ATGMs such as Spike or Javelin will simply fly outside the APS coverage, making it wholly irrelevant.

Also, try thinking about the stuff you are posting for a change. This is what translation of your link says:

Русские танки получили систему защиты «Арена-М»: что это такое

Комплекс, придуманный специалистами из Коломны, задаст жару ПТУРам.

mo.tsargrad.tv

20 degrees coverage in altitude.

Link claims that it allows tank to intercept Javelin, but... even if we assume that it is +65 degrees in altitude instead of +20 degrees that your link states, Spike has impact angle of 70 degrees and Javelin of 80 degrees. Arena cannot intercept either unless it does so immediately upon the missile leaving the launcher.

"360 degrees" is horizontal protection: in other words, it protects from the front, sides and the rear. Your interpretation of it meaning that Arena provides spherical protection is entirely false. It is a donut, not a sphere.

Projectile APS systems being used sound like they can kill nearby infantry. The elevation really doesnt matter if it works against top attack like spikes or javelins as advertised at a considerable distance from 20 to 50 meters of engagement but I am assuming the Trophy has shorter range of engagement which requires the higher elevation which is why the Russians made the RPG-30 to fire a dummy rocket followed by a dangerous rocket behind it so no idea if leopard 2s have trench coat systems to get protected by these RPGs.

 

[Picard]

guess someone needs to pay attention more to war because there are alot of reports of leopards getting hit and destroyed than I do see T-72s. check Tams posts https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/the-war-in-the-ukraine.8948/page-1857 I think the leopard 2s Sweden provided to Ukraine are all gone now. But of course the difference for this war is T-72s you lose 500,000 to 1.2 million dollars leopards you lose 13-15 million dollars. Nothing magical happened with the leopards or T-72s they had in their possession.

Somebody has no clue how media works.

Russian media will focus on destruction of Leopard 2s for the propaganda value.
Western media will focus on destruction of Leopard 2s because they came from the West (for propaganda value, they focus on T-90).

That is just like Allied media called every destroyed German Panzer a "Tiger", or how some books said there were 2 000 Tigers at Kursk (total production run of Tiger I is some 1350 tanks).

Fact is, T-72 getting destroyed is expected. So media aren't going to report it... big news, yet another T-72 blown up... add it to the list. Leopard 2 getting destroyed however is news-worthy, because it is far more difficult to do, and also because Leopard 2s are far fewer.

Pravda reports that by the end of August, Ukraine lost only five out of 71 Leopard 2 tanks donated:

Ukraine only lost 5 out of 71 Leopard 2 tanks during summer in counteroffensive – Forbes

In 13 weeks after the start of the long-awaited Ukrainian counteroffensive on several fronts in the south and east of Ukraine, the Ukrainian army has only lost five out of 71 Leopard 2 tanks. At least 10 more of these tanks have been damaged and are currently being repaired.

www.pravda.com.ua

According to Oryx, some 6 Leopard 2s have been destroyed so far:

Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com

Further 10 were damaged.

How much is the cost of the crew that you also lose when you lose T-72?

you literally said sides the entire time from our last conversation which i repeatedly stated got re-enforced and than state this is the matter all tanks that suffer from it. I wasted my entire time with you because you cant clarify what you say.

Not only you are a liar, but quite shitty one as well. Either that, or you cannot read.

Let's see what I actually said, shall we?

https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...and-t-72-m-1-tanks.75606/page-71#post-2579730 - "flank attacks which could penetrate the thin side armor behind the road wheels "
https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...and-t-72-m-1-tanks.75606/page-72#post-2580883 - "hull behind road wheels"

The only time I mentioned side armor without clarification is here:

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

https://warinhistory.wordpress.com/2023/07/23/russian-t-90-main-battle-tank/ T-90/90S first appeared in 1993. It was not however a good time for Russian tanks. Iraqi T-72s badly underperformed in the Desert Storm, and even modern M-84 suffered badly in the Yugoslav wars. T-80BV was also blasted...

defenceforumindia.com

But I immediately clarified it in the follow-up post, so you really have no excuse.

yes I know, you based your experiences from the war with serbs and iraqis and treat all T-models the same way even if I was to repeatedly tell you 100 times that the T-72M is the weakest tank lacking composite armour and that T-72As and Bs re-enforced their sideskirts it will just be straight up ignored by you.

And I have already pointed out that M-84 is improved variant of T-72M. Even base M-84 was far ahead of T-72M in terms of fire control - it had meteorological sensors and ability to track and engage moving targets - though both tanks had homogenous steel armor. M-84 does have composite glacis plate, though; not sure about T-72. Compared to T-72M, M-84 also has stronger engine, new radio equipment and new NBC detector.

M-84A is equivalent to T-72A, with only major difference between the two being that M-84A has stronger engine. Compared to M-84, M-84A has composite armor in both hull and the turret (where M-84 and T-72M had cast steel turret), thicker glacis plate, improved fire control, stronger engine, and several other improvements I don't recall.

its literally in the center of the tank to get to the center you have to go pretty deep, this is why Croatians don't have people like Tesla.

I don't know if you are going for a dumbass or a clown here, but please, stop.

Yes, it is in the center of the tank. And? Do you really think some air will help so much as to compensate for the lack of armor?

Distance only helps if armor actually stops the projectile, thus allowing penetrative jet / fragments / whatever to disperse. But even that may or may not help, depending on where the tank is hit. During the war, when Croatian antitank teams engaged M-84 tanks, it was noted that any hit to commander's cupola resulted in destruction of the tank. While frontal armor, being composite and quite thick, was immune to antitank weapons of the time, tank could be destroyed by hits to:

• turret ring
• sides and rear of the turret
• roof of the turret
• engine compartment
• lower hull

Lower hull was in fact noted as a particular vulnerability as armor there was not thicker than 90 mm at most, area was quite large and relatively easy to hit, and of course there was ammunition and other critical stuff behind it.

1)lets not play i am the mentally handicapped card when the images have showcased the EW systems and no one is doing the same shit for leopards. https://dzen.ru/a/ZPcuvPk0tTWATHfM if

That is exhibition. We also saw T-14s on exhibitions... none in combat so far.

2)no you talk like a gypsy you state 500 dollar drones but that can be anything, and i am assuming you have no idea what you are talking about which is why i offered both options for you to clarify back to me which drone you are talking about(no offense). We had this same problem about you talking about sides of tanks being weak than laughing it off that it was all tanks its things like this that make we wonder if you have a social life.

Yes, it can be anything. And?

Who gives a shit they can order from China if they want if they believe their ATGMs range is not far enough. Chinese have copied the 2A46 cannons from russia so what kind of special requirements you ask in which it can be fired from russians using the same kind of cannons?. The range tested on the T-90 showed 7km which is by far not a refleks model so I cant really determine what the max range of that new ATGM is but i would like to see footage of a LAHAT from a leopard and see how far it hits or if such footage exists.

They can, but have they?


That footage is from 2005... congrats on finally leaving the cave.

Projectile APS systems being used sound like they can kill nearby infantry. The elevation really doesnt matter if it works against top attack like spikes or javelins as advertised at a considerable distance from 20 to 50 meters of engagement but I am assuming the Trophy has shorter range of engagement which requires the higher elevation which is why the Russians made the RPG-30 to fire a dummy rocket followed by a dangerous rocket behind it so no idea if leopard 2s have trench coat systems to get protected by these RPGs.

Elevation does matter precisely because elevation means that no, they do not work against top-attack missiles "as advertised".

 

[Blademaster]

I call BS on only 6 leopards destroyed. There were more than that.

 

[blackjack]

Somebody has no clue how media works.

Russian media will focus on destruction of Leopard 2s for the propaganda value.
Western media will focus on destruction of Leopard 2s because they came from the West (for propaganda value, they focus on T-90).

this is cope to the 1st degree lol, they are showcasing T-72s, challengers, leopards, T-64s, bmps, bradleys they do not descriminate, even the head of Pentagon is telling the Russians to fight fair against the Abrams for whatever reason that means lol.

Fact is, T-72 getting destroyed is expected. So media aren't going to report it... big news, yet another T-72 blown up... add it to the list. Leopard 2 getting destroyed however is news-worthy, because it is far more difficult to do, and also because Leopard 2s are far fewer.

Pravda reports that by the end of August, Ukraine lost only five out of 71 Leopard 2 tanks donated:

Ukraine only lost 5 out of 71 Leopard 2 tanks during summer in counteroffensive – Forbes

In 13 weeks after the start of the long-awaited Ukrainian counteroffensive on several fronts in the south and east of Ukraine, the Ukrainian army has only lost five out of 71 Leopard 2 tanks. At least 10 more of these tanks have been damaged and are currently being repaired.

www.pravda.com.ua

According to Oryx, some 6 Leopard 2s have been destroyed so far:

Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com

Further 10 were damaged.

How much is the cost of the crew that you also lose when you lose T-72?

oh dear god your using ukrainian sources lol. Here I will use a russian source but atleast it references a high ranking NATO officer. funny thing is this news just came today.

Австрийский полковник раскрыл, сколько "Леопардов" осталось у ВСУ

Украинская армия потеряла до трети поставленных Западом танков Leopard, заявил dpa полковник австрийских Вооруженных сил Маркус Райснер, его слова приводит... РИА Новости, 01.10.2023

ria.ru

MOSCOW, October 1 - RIA Novosti. The Ukrainian army has lost up to a third of the Leopard tanks supplied by the West, Colonel of the Austrian Armed Forces Markus Reisner told dpa, his words are quoted by the publication Die Welt.
As the colonel noted, the effectiveness of the Leopard 2 tanks turned out to be "less significant" than expected. "Of the approximately 90 tanks of this type delivered, at least a third were destroyed or damaged," Die Welt quoted Reisner as saying.

Of course Ukraine is trying to save up its equipment. cost of crew is priceless in this war but if croatia bought 30 leopards and serbia bought 30 T-72s they will both all get destroyed but serbia is not paying an arm or a leg for a leopard.

Not only you are a liar, but quite shitty one as well. Either that, or you cannot read.

Let's see what I actually said, shall we?

https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...and-t-72-m-1-tanks.75606/page-71#post-2579730 - "flank attacks which could penetrate the thin side armor behind the road wheels "
https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...and-t-72-m-1-tanks.75606/page-72#post-2580883 - "hull behind road wheels"

The only time I mentioned side armor without clarification is here:

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

https://warinhistory.wordpress.com/2023/07/23/russian-t-90-main-battle-tank/ T-90/90S first appeared in 1993. It was not however a good time for Russian tanks. Iraqi T-72s badly underperformed in the Desert Storm, and even modern M-84 suffered badly in the Yugoslav wars. T-80BV was also blasted...

defenceforumindia.com

But I immediately clarified it in the follow-up post, so you really have no excuse.

you said it yourself in this quote you mentioned side armour before without clarification until you gave clarification later.

And I have already pointed out that M-84 is improved variant of T-72M. Even base M-84 was far ahead of T-72M in terms of fire control - it had meteorological sensors and ability to track and engage moving targets - though both tanks had homogenous steel armor. M-84 does have composite glacis plate, though; not sure about T-72. Compared to T-72M, M-84 also has stronger engine, new radio equipment and new NBC detector.

M-84A is equivalent to T-72A, with only major difference between the two being that M-84A has stronger engine. Compared to M-84, M-84A has composite armor in both hull and the turret (where M-84 and T-72M had cast steel turret), thicker glacis plate, improved fire control, stronger engine, and several other improvements I don't recall.

this is a professional response and also the long awaited answer i wanted before of what T-72 variant the mi-84 was compared to. And I hope you do have an agreement that the T-72B and later variations got reinforced with more armor, fire control, better sabot rounds etc.

I don't know if you are going for a dumbass or a clown here, but please, stop.

Yes, it is in the center of the tank. And? Do you really think some air will help so much as to compensate for the lack of armor?

Distance only helps if armor actually stops the projectile, thus allowing penetrative jet / fragments / whatever to disperse. But even that may or may not help, depending on where the tank is hit. During the war, when Croatian antitank teams engaged M-84 tanks, it was noted that any hit to commander's cupola resulted in destruction of the tank. While frontal armor, being composite and quite thick, was immune to antitank weapons of the time, tank could be destroyed by hits to:

• turret ring
• sides and rear of the turret
• roof of the turret
• engine compartment
• lower hull

Lower hull was in fact noted as a particular vulnerability as armor there was not thicker than 90 mm at most, area was quite large and relatively easy to hit, and of course there was ammunition and other critical stuff behind it.

I will believe you that the mi-84A is comparable to the T-72A from what you said earlier. What ATGMs or RPGs did the anti-tank croatian team possess? Did the Mi-84s possess any softkill APS for increased survivability? Would they have said anything different if the Serbs possess leopards? What year did the croatians possess leopards and what variations were they?

That is exhibition. We also saw T-14s on exhibitions... none in combat so far.

They said those systems were combat tested in the operation zone, not asking you if you believe them or not but we are still waiting for confirmation of western tanks getting EW systems against drones or even have plans.

They can, but have they?


That footage is from 2005... congrats on finally leaving the cave.

Well just like you accused me of not checking my own sources I will say the same for you. thats a nice "3.9km distance" you showed me but hey you atleast showed me something.

Elevation does matter precisely because elevation means that no, they do not work against top-attack missiles "as advertised".

yeah but size matters in distance if one tank has a 10 meter killzone and the other has a 50 meter kill zone. Tank with a 45 degree elevation might have a better chance than one with 22.5 degrees elevation at a 10 meter distance. but if the projectile or rocket is fired from 50 meters in an upward incline it would be 112.5 degrees if the increase of degrees is determined by every 10 meters in range. In layman's terms farther distance more height.

 

[blackjack]

https://t.me/milinfolive/107313

Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Oleg Salyukov reported on the pages of Krasnaya Zvezda that new Telnik shells have begun to be used in T-90M tanks.

The 3OF82 "Telnik" tank fragmentation-beam projectile is ammunition with ready-made submunitions, which is capable of being detonated at the required point when approaching the target, and you can choose the direction of expansion of the GGE - forward in a cone or a circular field.

Such shells make it very effective to hit infantry entrenched in trenches or lying in fields, which is extremely difficult to reach with a direct hit from a “classic” tank shell.

Similar ammunition with remote detonation has long been needed for our infantry fighting vehicles and air defense missile systems in 30-mm calibers, both for similar tasks of hitting hidden and lying infantry, and for more effective combat against UAVs.

@Picard think of the T-90 as something that adapts itself in the battlefield to make things easier.

 

[blackjack]

more info on it.

 

[bhramos]

 

[Picard]

oh dear god your using ukrainian sources lol. Here I will use a russian source but atleast it references a high ranking NATO officer. funny thing is this news just came today.

Considering Ukraine is the one using Leopard 2, they should have better idea of how many they were lost.

Russian claims remind me of US claims about MiG-15 shootdowns... 10:1 kill rate in favor of F-86 which turned out to be closer to 1:1. Or Kursk where Russians claimed facing 2 000 Tigers...

If you want to use Russian sources, find ones on losses of T-90 and similar.

Oryx is likely the best source seeing how they actually base claims on photographic evidence. Add some 50% on top of their claims, and you are likely close to real numbers. Relative numbers should be OK.

you said it yourself in this quote you mentioned side armour before without clarification until you gave clarification later.

Yes. Once, and I immediately clarified it in the follow-up post. Which means that this:

you literally said sides the entire time from our last conversation which i repeatedly stated got re-enforced

is still wrong.

this is a professional response and also the long awaited answer i wanted before of what T-72 variant the mi-84 was compared to. And I hope you do have an agreement that the T-72B and later variations got reinforced with more armor, fire control, better sabot rounds etc.

They did, though the biggest vulnerabilities of the series were never removed.

I will believe you that the mi-84A is comparable to the T-72A from what you said earlier. What ATGMs or RPGs did the anti-tank croatian team possess? Did the Mi-84s possess any softkill APS for increased survivability? Would they have said anything different if the Serbs possess leopards? What year did the croatians possess leopards and what variations were they?

1. It is impossible to know for certain, because they used literally whatever was available. Most significant numbers of anti-tank missiles however will have been unguided missiles, a.k.a. rockets: M79 Osa (penetration 400 mm RHA) and M80 Zolja (penetration 300 mm). Other widely used antitank rockets were Armbrust (penetration 600 mm for 2nd generation, 300 mm for 1st generation) and RPG-7 (penetration 600 mm RHA), both unguided as well. When it comes to guided missiles, these were 9M111 Fagot (penetration 400 mm RHA) and 9M14 Maljutka (penetration 200 mm RHA at 60 degrees, or 230 mm at 90 degrees). For reference, M-84 uses homogenous steel turret with maximum thickness of 410 mm at the front and minimum thickness of 65 mm at the aft sides and rear:

Hull armor is also thin at the sides: sides of the hull have homogenous steel plates that are 80 mm at the frontal part and 70 mm at the rear part. Lower hull, which is where suspension is, is some 20 mm of homogenous steel plate.

M-84A has added a composite segment at the frontal section of the turret; so while physical thickness remained the same, effective protection was increased to 700 mm RHA. This will have made frontal turret (and likely frontal hull which was also composite) immune to Croatian AT rockets; sides of the turret and the hull alike will however have been vulnerable to any and all antitank weapons available.

2. M-84 ("M" stands for "model"; "Mi" is a short for "Mikoyan", a Russian aircraft producer) possessed (at the time) infrared sensors for detecting enemy. For self-protection, it had twelve smoke grenades and a searchlight; that's it. But because Croatian army used almost exclusively dumbfire AT weapons, and both ATGMs available were wire-guided MCLOS, any soft-kill APS will have been largely useless anyway. At best, it could smoke up to make targeting more difficult, but that would have to be done before the attack - dumb rocket doesn't care for soft countermeasures once it is on its way.

3. What they would have said facing Leopards can only be guessed at.

4. Uh, we never had any Leopards. Tanks used in the war on both sides were predominantly T-55 variants, with some T-72s and M-84s. Croatian Army also used some World War 2 era T-34 tanks as well as M18 and M36 tank destroyers.

They said those systems were combat tested in the operation zone, not asking you if you believe them or not but we are still waiting for confirmation of western tanks getting EW systems against drones or even have plans.

Leopard 2, as far as I am aware, has no such systems. Krauss-Maffei did state that EW systems used to jam IEDs (which Leopard 2 does have) could be adapted for use against drones, but I have seen no evidence of that being put into practice:

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann: the ever-lasting Leopard 2 - EDR Magazine

By Paolo Valpolini Fully involved in the bi-national MGCS (Main Ground Combat System) together with Nexter and Rheinmetall, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann

www.edrmagazine.eu

yeah but size matters in distance if one tank has a 10 meter killzone and the other has a 50 meter kill zone. Tank with a 45 degree elevation might have a better chance than one with 22.5 degrees elevation at a 10 meter distance. but if the projectile or rocket is fired from 50 meters in an upward incline it would be 112.5 degrees if the increase of degrees is determined by every 10 meters in range. In layman's terms farther distance more height.

What matters is whether trajectory of the missile passes through the kill zone:

Basically, as can be seen from the above (very basic) drawing I threw together, it can almost certainly intercept RPG and NLAW type weapons; for Javelin, however, success of interception will depend on whether trajectory intersects the kill zone (Javelin red line) or not (Javelin green line); if it is the latter, then APS is useless.

 

[blackjack]

Considering Ukraine is the one using Leopard 2, they should have better idea of how many they were lost.

Russian claims remind me of US claims about MiG-15 shootdowns... 10:1 kill rate in favor of F-86 which turned out to be closer to 1:1. Or Kursk where Russians claimed facing 2 000 Tigers...

If you want to use Russian sources, find ones on losses of T-90 and similar.

Oryx is likely the best source seeing how they actually base claims on photographic evidence. Add some 50% on top of their claims, and you are likely close to real numbers. Relative numbers should be OK.

Bro...everyone and there grandma knows on this forum that NATO makes the strategic decisions even when the ukrainians got pissed at them and with their sources stated they got into an arguement with NATO of what their counteroffensive achieved in 3 months because the losses were that bad with the equipment and how far they go. of course they are aware how much equipment they gave and how much they lost before sending them more weapons because they are the ones making the decisions.. Oryx cant even give photographic evidence to back up their claims while i have enough telegram channels that showcase the losses.

Yes. Once, and I immediately clarified it in the follow-up post. Which means that this:
is still wrong.

again no clarification if it was sideskirts that you were still talking about or not when I brought that up myself until clarification was given later on describing what parts of the tank. I wont even bother quoting this shit anymore.

What matters is whether trajectory of the missile passes through the kill zone:

Basically, as can be seen from the above (very basic) drawing I threw together, it can almost certainly intercept RPG and NLAW type weapons; for Javelin, however, success of interception will depend on whether trajectory intersects the kill zone (Javelin red line) or not (Javelin green line); if it is the latter, then APS is useless.

the thing you need understand is the trophy is 10-30 meters engagement distance and the arena-m killzone is at 30-50 meters. I hear that the T-80UM had the regular arena that had a elevation of -85 degrees to +65 degrees but covered 260 degrees and it had the same engagement distance as the trophy https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/arena.htm so this is what I mean by distance, it seems they have of course captured javelins a top attack ATGM which is no surprise since we have seen videos with chechnyans showcasing them before and fired it at the Arena-Ms .https://ria.ru/20230405/arena-m-1863060251.html?ysclid=lnb40bamvc425326766 tanks are like 3 meters tall but I am assured the placements of the hardkill APS and elevation is enough to cover the 3 meter height the javelin has to jump on top of.

on a sidenote here is some news on shells.

Танки Т-90М применили новые снаряды "Тельник" в ходе спецоперации - Российская газета

Действующие в зоне специальной военной операции российские танки Т-90М получили современные боеприпасы, позволяющие выполнять все поставленные перед ними боевые задачи.

rg.ru

T-90M tanks used new Telnik shells during a special operation, by Alexey Moiseev for Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 10.02.2023.

Russian T-90M tanks operating in the special military operation zone have received modern ammunition, allowing them to carry out all combat missions assigned to them.

In his interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper , the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Army General Oleg Salyukov, mentioned the new Telnik high-explosive fragmentation shells. They have ready-made submunitions and are detonated in the air at specified trajectory points.

This weapon is very effective against enemy personnel, in particular operators of American-made FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank guided systems.

According to military experts, in the near future such equipment will become a mandatory attribute of all main battle tanks.

Back in the 90s, the T-90 and T-80UK began to be equipped with the Ainet complex, designed to perform similar tasks. However, "Telnik" is significantly superior to it in efficiency.

Army eyeing new airburst proximity round for 30mm chain guns (taskandpurpose.com)

Not solely content with its brand new counter-drone ‘proximity’ airburst round, the Army is set to fund the development of another do-it-all munition for use with the 30mm chain guns it’s slowly proliferating across its fleet of ground vehicles.

The service has requested $18.93 million in fiscal year 2024 for the new 30x113mm XM1223 Multi-Mode Proximity Airburst (MMPA) round designed to counter threats from incoming drones and ground troops behind cover, according to budget documents.


Designed to combat both aerial and ground-based threats in a single mission package, the MMPA will eventually replace both the 30×113mm XM1211 High Explosive Proximity (HEP) and XM1198 High Explosive Dual Purpose rounds currently fielded to U.S. troops to deal with the rise of adversary drones downrange

“The programmable fuze modes in the munition include proximity airburst to defeat personnel in the open and small Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) targets, proximity delay to defeat personnel in defilade, gated proximity airburst for cluttered environments, mechanical point detonate to defeat light materiel targets, and self destruct to minimize collateral damage,” according to budget documents.

 

[Picard]

Bro...everyone and there grandma knows on this forum that NATO makes the strategic decisions even when the ukrainians got pissed at them and with their sources stated they got into an arguement with NATO of what their counteroffensive achieved in 3 months because the losses were that bad with the equipment and how far they go. of course they are aware how much equipment they gave and how much they lost before sending them more weapons because they are the ones making the decisions.. Oryx cant even give photographic evidence to back up their claims while i have enough telegram channels that showcase the losses.

If NATO is making strategic decisions, why is NATO supply of weaponry so unstable? One would think they would want their puppets to succeed...

Show some of these channels...

again no clarification if it was sideskirts that you were still talking about or not when I brought that up myself until clarification was given later on describing what parts of the tank. I wont even bother quoting this shit anymore.

I was quite clear on what part of the tank:

lower hull

If you didn't understand that, well, ask.

the thing you need understand is the trophy is 10-30 meters engagement distance and the arena-m killzone is at 30-50 meters. I hear that the T-80UM had the regular arena that had a elevation of -85 degrees to +65 degrees but covered 260 degrees and it had the same engagement distance as the trophy https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/arena.htm so this is what I mean by distance, it seems they have of course captured javelins a top attack ATGM which is no surprise since we have seen videos with chechnyans showcasing them before and fired it at the Arena-Ms .https://ria.ru/20230405/arena-m-1863060251.html?ysclid=lnb40bamvc425326766 tanks are like 3 meters tall but I am assured the placements of the hardkill APS and elevation is enough to cover the 3 meter height the javelin has to jump on top of.

View attachment 224848
View attachment 224849

Your own links disagree:

Arena Active Protection System | MilitaryToday.com

The Arena is a Russian active protection system. It was designed to defeat incoming anti-tank rockets and missiles. This system increases survivability of the tank.

www.militarytoday.com

However it has the same limitations as the original Arena. It is not effective against top-attack munitions and anti-tank weapons fired from buildings and rooftops.

As a matter of fact, top-attack ATGMs such as Javelin were designed in large part precisely to defeat Arena itself. It is not a flaw of the system that it does not work against something specifically designed to defeat it.

Afganit does offer protection against top-attack missiles, but even there, protection is based on a soft-kill system, scrambling the missile's sensor as opposed to destroying the missile itself.

on a sidenote here is some news on shells.

Танки Т-90М применили новые снаряды "Тельник" в ходе спецоперации - Российская газета

Действующие в зоне специальной военной операции российские танки Т-90М получили современные боеприпасы, позволяющие выполнять все поставленные перед ними боевые задачи.

rg.ru

T-90M tanks used new Telnik shells during a special operation, by Alexey Moiseev for Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 10.02.2023.

Russian T-90M tanks operating in the special military operation zone have received modern ammunition, allowing them to carry out all combat missions assigned to them.

In his interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper , the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Army General Oleg Salyukov, mentioned the new Telnik high-explosive fragmentation shells. They have ready-made submunitions and are detonated in the air at specified trajectory points.

This weapon is very effective against enemy personnel, in particular operators of American-made FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank guided systems.

According to military experts, in the near future such equipment will become a mandatory attribute of all main battle tanks.

Back in the 90s, the T-90 and T-80UK began to be equipped with the Ainet complex, designed to perform similar tasks. However, "Telnik" is significantly superior to it in efficiency.

Army eyeing new airburst proximity round for 30mm chain guns (taskandpurpose.com)

Not solely content with its brand new counter-drone ‘proximity’ airburst round, the Army is set to fund the development of another do-it-all munition for use with the 30mm chain guns it’s slowly proliferating across its fleet of ground vehicles.

The service has requested $18.93 million in fiscal year 2024 for the new 30x113mm XM1223 Multi-Mode Proximity Airburst (MMPA) round designed to counter threats from incoming drones and ground troops behind cover, according to budget documents.


Designed to combat both aerial and ground-based threats in a single mission package, the MMPA will eventually replace both the 30×113mm XM1211 High Explosive Proximity (HEP) and XM1198 High Explosive Dual Purpose rounds currently fielded to U.S. troops to deal with the rise of adversary drones downrange

“The programmable fuze modes in the munition include proximity airburst to defeat personnel in the open and small Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) targets, proximity delay to defeat personnel in defilade, gated proximity airburst for cluttered environments, mechanical point detonate to defeat light materiel targets, and self destruct to minimize collateral damage,” according to budget documents.

Nice. That should really improve things.

 

[bhramos]

 

[WolfPack86]

ADSL Eyeing Growing Opportunities In Indian Defence Sector
Raj Kumar Pandey is CEO and Executive Director Airbornics Defence & Space (ADSL), a JCBL group company. He started his career with Mahindra and Mahindra, where he remained till 2004 and was later closely involved in the creation of Mahindra Defence Systems. During this time he also worked closely with multinational firms such as BAE Systems, Ricardo and FIAT. While part of Mahindra Defence Systems and working with BAE Systems, he was posted to Sweden, where he worked on the CV90 armoured vehicle programme. He left Mahindra Defence Systems in 2018 to setup ADSL as a joint venture with JCBL. He is a graduate of IIT Kharagpur.

What are the market sectors that ADSL is targeting?

ADSL is organised in four verticals. Our first vertical is aerospace, where we are into aerospace cargo solutions, and working on products such as cargo drop systems. This has been part of our evolution over the last three years and we have successfully tested our cargo drop systems. We also do work on ground support vehicles for the aerospace domain, such as manipulators and loaders, which are very sophisticated hydraulic equipment. We also do some work in aerostructures and associated subsystems.

Our second vertical is related to armoured vehicles, which is an old legacy capability of JCBL, where we are very strong in terms of vehicle armouring for wheeled platforms. We have taken this capability further and started working on mobility platforms.

A recent example of this is the work we have done for Mounted Gun System (MGS) programmes of Bharat Forge and Tata Advanced Systems (TASL) in partnership with Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (VRDE), Ahmednagar, which is a Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) lab. The MGS is a 155 mm truck mounted artillery system.

Our third vertical is related to combat vehicles, but here we are not doing full systems, like we do in armoured vehicles. Instead, we have organised ourselves to focus on the technologies. Working on a combat vehicle is a very, very complex Multiphysics area. We are working on the turret and Remote Controlled Weapon Systems (RWCS). We are not into weapons themselves but are into the control systems, mechatronics for RCWS.

ADSL is also involved in work related to the indigenisation of the Indian Army’s Russian origin T-72 and T-90 Main Battle Tanks (MBT). We are working to increase the capability of these MBTs by indigenising spares to reduce import dependency and improve the overall serviceability of the fleet.

Our last domain, which is an upcoming domain, is defence electronics, where we are focussing on unmanned systems. We have done work from the ground up on large birds – about 35-100 kg class Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). The work we are doing on Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) can also translate into Unmanned Ground Systems (UGS). We are also looking at building Optronics capability, which allow us to meet the surveillance needs of the armed forces. These are the four verticals that we have within ADSL.

We have a wide range of technologies also available to us within the broader JCBL Group. Our group company MSL is into fabrication and we make use of their facilities, for composite. They are a leading company for glass reinforced plastics and we are using this capability to develop airframes. We are also growing our capabilities with regards to carbon structures, which will help our future products.

Developing an aircraft cargo drop system is a complex endeavour. What are some of the challenges?

We had two major challenges; one was related to metallurgy and other was skills for niche aerospace programmes. As a country, we are very weak in metallurgy. If one needs to source specialised material, we normally don’t have the sources here, we have to depend on other countries that are very good at metallurgy. As a result, we had to develop some of these things ourselves.

When you look at an airborne cargo drop system, it has to be very low weight, yet very strong. Any increase in weight penalises the drop payload. So if we need to drop a 20 tonne payload, we need the cargo drop system to have a good payload to weight ratio. We had difficulties sourcing the specialised high strength steel, and there was no capability to machine, forge and heat treat such high strength steel in India. We have now developed sources in India.

The other issue we faced was related to the skills available for undertaking niche aerospace programmes. For developing a product like a cargo drop system, it was hard to find skilled personnel and as a result we had to take personnel with good potential and then develop their capabilities to address our requirements. When one has access to such skilled personnel, development becomes easier, as here in India, we are very good in the design aspect.

We are working with DRDO on the cargo drop system and have already delivered five systems, which are undergoing trials. We have already completed a lower weight trial at 12 tonnes payload. We are hopeful that trials will be completed by 2024 and we can start production.

What are the market prospects for your aircraft cargo drop system?

It is a little difficult to talk about the actual mission profile for such a system as it is a product for the military. However, if you look at it in a broad sense, there are 4-5 areas where such a system can be deployed and typically, this is in peacetime. So, when we require to deploy troops and material to various locations, the potential for such cargo drop systems is huge.

They are used for positioning of material prior to a conflict, when the armed forces are mobilised. I am talking about strategic mobility, which involves transport of material over long distances and not tactical mobility, which involves transport of smaller payloads over shorter distances. We cannot name the aircraft that we are developing the cargo drop system for, but, whichever foreign country uses this aircraft will also be a potential export opportunity for us.

The Indian Government is now very supportive for export endeavours with good support from our embassies abroad as well. Cargo drop systems also have applications in humanitarian and disaster relief operations. This is a very promising area for us and I think in the coming times, we will be flush with orders.

Please provide an insight into some of your other products at ADSL?

We are also working on a 20 tonne cargo loader. While loading heavy cargo onto an aircraft looks simple, it is not. An aircraft which is parked on tarmac has its own degrees of freedom and when you want to load a 20 tonne payload, you have to align it to the rollers on the tail doors for alignment. So, the loader not only needs to be able to lift the payload and place it inside the aircraft, it also needs to be able to manipulate the payload in terms of yaw, roll and pitch. This allows the payload to be placed precisely inside the aircraft.

This system is now under trials and when completed, will give us access to new markets. The product can be modified for various other applications. We are also working on a Ground Power Unit (GPU), which supplies power to the aircraft, when it is on ground. Aircraft when they are on the ground, do not use their engines for power but use external power. We are also working with glass reinforced plastics with JCBL and have developed a carbon layup systems where we will be able to develop aerospace structures.

We are very strong in vehicle armouring. In the past, I was involved in the development of various medium bulletproof vehicles, which were inducted successfully in some markets. At JCBL, we do vehicle armouring for Toyota and Mercedes Benz vehicles and have a good presence here. We not only look at the vehicle survivability but also on aspects such as ballistics and blast protection.

An important milestone for us is the work we have done to completely refurbish a T-72 MBT, which we have delivered to the Army for evaluation. Once selected, we expect to undertake this work on at least a few hundred T-72 MBTs. We are also working on manufacturing the complete hull of the T-72 and have already bagged an order for two hulls.

Lastly, we have started maiden trials of our UAS products as well.

Do you believe there are export prospects for the work ADSL is doing on T-72 and T-90 MBTs?

This is a definitely a good opportunity for any Indian company like us, not only for the Indian market. But if you look at other countries, and with the current scenario of Ukraine versus Russia, these countries are not getting support for their platforms, especially with regards to spares. We are in a very strong position to provide this support capability to Southeast Asia, in countries like Vietnam and Malaysia. Egypt also has a large Russian fleet.

At ADSL, we are looking very seriously at this and that is why we started working on T-72. We have developed the capability to refurbish a T-72 hull and make it operational in the past year. These are still very complex and heavy machines. For example, the T-72 hull is made using a technique that is not used in India and this is something that we had to learn and adapt to.

If we have to get into this, metallurgy is again going to be very challenging. The hull is 60-70% metal and if we depend on outside sources for the metal, then typically 30-40% of the value is controlled from abroad. The biggest challenge we are facing right now is metallurgy and the process. It is also difficult to handle the complexities of the powertrain and needs to be handled in a different way. The other areas are manageable and Indian companies should grab this opportunity.

ADSL Eyeing Growing Opportunities In Indian Defence Sector - Mobility Outlook

Raj Kumar Pandey, CEO and Executive Director, Airbornics Defence & Space (ADSL) is bullish on the company’s prospects across the four verticals of its Aerospace & Defence businesses.

www.mobilityoutlook.com

 

[Picard]

Private Site

T-90/90S first appeared in 1993. It was not however a good time for Russian tanks. Iraqi T-72s badly underperformed in the Desert Storm, and even modern M-84 suffered badly in the Yugoslav wars. T-80BV was also blasted for its performance in Chechenya. Because of this, large export orders for modernized T-72 and T-80U MBTs failed to materialize.

T-90 tank itself is a further development of the T-72B Main Battle Tank. It was developed at the Kartsev/Venediktov Bureau, “Vagonka” at Nizhnyi Tagil. Tank was officially adopted by the Russian Government in 1992 and the initial production began in the same year. In 1993 tank was adopted by the Russian MoD, and low-rate series production began in 1994.

Tank was shown outside Russia for the first time in March 1997, when it was demonstrated at Abu Dhabi. By September 1997, some 107 T-90 tanks had been produced, located in the Siberian Military District. By mid-1996 some 107 T-90s had gone into service in the Far Eastern Military District. In 2007, there were about 334 T-90 tanks serving in the Russian Ground Forces’ 5th Guards Tank Division, stationed in the Siberian Military District, and seven T-90 tanks in the Navy.

The tank is the last mass-produced Russian MBT, and was considered to be among the ten best tanks in the world. T-90 is the most successful export tank on the market, being operated by Algeria (572), Azerbaijan (200 delivered, some were lost), Iraq (75), Syria (40), Turkmenistan (40), Uganda (44), and Venezuela (50~100). India is the largest export operator, having ordered 1 657 T-90S tanks. Indian order included 248 tanks delivered from Russia, 409 tanks assembled locally from knock-down kits and another 1 000 tanks license-produced in India. Some T-90s have been lost in Ukraine, with a number captured and pressed into service against their former owners.

New link:

Russian T-90 Main Battle Tank

History T-90/90S first appeared in 1993. It was not however a good time for Russian tanks. Iraqi T-72s badly underperformed in the Desert Storm, and even modern M-84 suffered badly in the Yugoslav …

defenseissues.wordpress.com