Indian T-90S a sub-standard tank ?

[JBH22]

Instead of criticising the T-90 remember that Indian army won its war fighting the same enemy in same desertic conditions with even far worse tank the T-55.

While increasing crew comfort is good one should not forget old school teaching so that soldiers can still fight in any condition and not become weaklings without AC.
Hence the need to focus on giving troops decent water supplies,training to fight heat strokes in desertic conditions something like Israelis do with their troops.

 

[sayareakd]

Instead of criticising the T-90 remember that Indian army won its war fighting the same enemy in same desertic conditions with even far worse tank the T-55.

While increasing crew comfort is good one should not forget old school teaching so that soldiers can still fight in any condition and not become weaklings without AC.
Hence the need to focus on giving troops decent water supplies,training to fight heat strokes in desertic conditions something like Israelis do with their troops.

without AC T90S electronics will be fried in Rajasthan, so it will be useless tank without electronics to fire tank ammo.

Our tank crew dont need AC, AC is needed for electronics

 

[p2prada]

For modifying any russian equipment the russians charge money and DRDO has no say in that. They clear the modifications or threaten to revoke guarantee on the product supplied by them. They have used it very often and have not allowed far superior Indian ballastic computers to be installed on T-90 as that will stop import of russian ammo for these tanks.

Interestingly, a new ECS system is on RFP today, if we go by what Sayare posted in this thread. That would mean we are making changes as we deem fit.

Depends on the contract. The first batch of 350 tanks may not be installed with Indian computers. But with the follow on contract of 1000 tanks, the same rules won't apply as long as our negotiators have dealt with it.

Then again, we ourselves have stopped import of Israeli ammo due to corruption charges, so Russian ammo is the only option today. That is if DRDO is not able to design an Indian equivalent if not superior round.

Threats of withdrawal of support is used by every single company in the world. It is not Russsia specific. They make tall promises before the order is signed and start blackmailing after it is delivered. Even DRDO would do that and even BEML did that with the faulty trucks. They tried bribing the Army Chief, and when spurned, the middleman said the Army has no choice in it.

Arjun computer can fire nearly anything under the sun.

Arjun is a rifled gun. Nobody makes ammo for it today, only India does.

A smoothbore shell that is rifle friendly will be quite expensive too.

 

[Decklander]

The GSQRs were revised for Arjun with passage of time and no such thing was done for T-90. The same Col Shukla has also stated that Arjun trials were sabotaged by IA and so DRDO installed a monitoring device in it. That did the trick and the game being played by IA was caught. Has anyone ever been hung for treason in India. take the case of publishing the letter of Gen VK Singh, both houses of Parliament called it high treason and entrusted IB to find the culprit. Do you know that the lady who released this letter has threatened to name congress directly and so that probe in high treason has reached nowhere and noone has been named till date. That letter was used by congress to put order for more russian junk at high prices pls read it as high bribes, to ensure combat worthiness of IA.

 

[p2prada]

if FCS then why they need AC, first you said it was not needed then when shown you the RFI you admitted your mistake still you have not given the reason for AC.

Why AC is needed for tank in first place ? care to explain.

The same reason as to why even Arjun will have an AC in Mk2. Crew comfort.

 

[DivineHeretic]

For modifying any russian equipment the russians charge money and DRDO has no say in that. They clear the modifications or threaten to revoke guarantee on the product supplied by them. They have used it very often and have not allowed far superior Indian ballastic computers to be installed on T-90 as that will stop import of russian ammo for these tanks. Arjun computer can fire nearly anything under the sun.

The problem with Arjun is that there is not a lot of available munition for the 120mm rifled barrel. The only other user of Rifled barrels are the Brits, and OFB hasn't exactly impressed the Army with its munitions. Hell, tank commanders are known to make elaborate arrangements to fire the tank rounds while staying away from the tank, lest the munition go off.

And lastly the AFSPDS round penetration made for Arjun is as pathetic as it gets. The only saving grace is the presence of LaHAT AT missiles.

 

[sayareakd]

The same reason as to why even Arjun will have an AC in Mk2. Crew comfort.

again you imagination is playing tricks on your mind.

 

[p2prada]

The GSQRs were revised for Arjun with passage of time and no such thing was done for T-90.

GSQR revisions happened due to the delays. IA moved for Arjun to be canceled in 1991. DRDO did not allow it.

However I am pretty sure the IA knew what they were doing when they opted for the T-90.

The same Col Shukla has also stated that Arjun trials were sabotaged by IA and so DRDO installed a monitoring device in it.

Right after he became a journalist. It is funny isn't it. I am pretty sure if DRDO had made an actual accusation instead of simply making media claims, a Court of Inquiry would have been authorized by the then chief, if not MoD. What's more interesting is that after a few months DRDO claimed that the transmission system was faulty since the OEM had failed to inform DRDO about new ball bearings used in the system. Also what were DRDO personnel doing when the tank was sabotaged. There would be so many people involved in such a large test. Heck, even ATMs have security guards.

You should see the kind of U-turn Shukla did between the time he was just out of service to the time he picked up defence journalism.

take the case of publishing the letter of Gen VK Singh, both houses of Parliament called it high treason and entrusted IB to find the culprit. Do you know that the lady who released this letter has threatened to name congress directly and so that probe in high treason has reached nowhere and noone has been named till date. That letter was used by congress to put order for more russian junk at high prices pls read it as high bribes, to ensure combat worthiness of IA.

Interestingly, that was the only way for IA to ensure it is combat capable. Bribes or no bribes, either way how else do you think IA can retain any kind of relevant edge if it is denied weapons.

Also please note that this was a direct aftereffect after the Army had to destroy 1.5 Lakh (IIRC) "Indian" tank shells after it started leaking propellant. The AMK-340A, IIRC. The price of indigenization was always about being forced to buy what could be very faulty equipment. Had the indigenous shells performed as well as the 3BM-42, there would have been no need for IA to take such dangerous measures.

Also I am aware of how IN reduced specs by 50% just to buy Derbys from Israel for the Sea Harriers, when at the same time they had ordered 40 R-77s for the Mig-29Ks. Extending the contract to 20 more R-77s would have been a far better option rather than reduce specs.

 

[p2prada]

again you imagination is playing tricks on your mind.

Right.

Hell, tank commanders are known to make elaborate arrangements to fire the tank rounds while staying away from the tank, lest the munition go off.

That wasn't for Arjun. That was for T-72 when firing DRDO made rounds called the AMK-340A. It killed a tank crew during a test.

All the shells were subsequently destroyed.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That is pretty much same for all tanks in IA except new purchase of BM42 rounds from Russia only for T-90S..

India will have its most lethal round, And it will be fielded on Arjun first..

And lastly the AFSPDS round penetration made for Arjun is as pathetic as it gets. The only saving grace is the presence of LaHAT AT missiles.

 

[average american]

T90 was originally designed as a whole different beast. T90 is a medium tank, while the Abrams is a heavy... and that difference in HUGE, especially when it comes to protection, Abrams is around 20 tons(!!) heavier, and most of that weight is armor. And yes, anybody who is first hand familiar with the current Russian military will tell you, while the hardware is good it's VERY VERY old. They are still using tanks that were produced in the 70s and 80s, and there is only so much you can do with models that old. The T90 has a major security flaw, the spare ammo is actually inside with the crew, and obviously if it starts cooking for whatever reason... unidentifiable chunks of meat is the result. Although I'm not sure if I'd call the Russian defense budget tight, especially lately. One of their problems is the lack of industrial capacity(don't confuse today's Russia with USSR.) They don't have any factories capable of making hardware of this type, and setting up initial production is always the most expensive bit.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

the t-90 is a different design philosophy altogether.originally it was designed for an armour blitzkreigh through western europe in case ussr decided to go to war and supplement tanks like t-84 and t72 in the russian arsenal.t-90 design is an extension of t72.the t-90 has a comparable frontal armour profile when compared to western tanks and arjun against ke,heat warheads but it side armour is not very thick and is vulnerable to rpg7,29 as was witnessed during the chechyen wars in the 90s.the t90 design also lay very less emphasis on crew protection and any penetration of the ammunition bunker will result into an ammunition cook-off which will be directed to the crew compartment resulting to the death of the members unlike western tanks.indian t90s also has a problem with its ir optics and it has great difficulty in shooting accurately while in moving position.

 

[average american]

M1 Armor

The M1 is mainly composed of sturdy rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) steel plates, sandwiched around thicker protective material.

The core armor is a variation on the British Chobham armor -- an arrangement of metal plates, ceramic blocks and open space. HEAT and Sabot rounds may make it through the outer layer of the armor, but they won't make it all the way into the crew compartment. The ceramic material can absorb a lot of heat, as well as heavy physical blows. The rest of the hot gases or metal pieces spread out in the empty air pockets.

Updated M1 tanks have extra layers of steel and depleted uranium that supplement the Chobham-style armor. This combination will hold up to any tank round and most missiles
HowStuffWorks "M1 Tank Armor"

 

[pmaitra]

T90 was originally designed as a whole different beast. T90 is a medium tank, while the Abrams is a heavy... and that difference in HUGE, especially when it comes to protection, Abrams is around 20 tons(!!) heavier, and most of that weight is armor.

I have debated this many times over. Some esteemed members see no difference between heavy, medium, and light tanks.

 

[Damian]

And how do you know that most of M1's weight is armor?

It seems that avarage american also do not know that M1's do not use Chobham armor, and never used Chobham armor as such armor do not exist, it is just popular name given to some armor types by media, these armors also never had names in reality, they were just developed within programs that had codenames. So in fact all NATO composite armors have common ancestor (or rather ancestors as there were many different armor types developed, actually from avaiable sources it is hard to tell how many) developed within program codenamed "Burlington" and the americanized variant used in M1's was developed under codename "Starflower".

This is when people with absolutely no knowledge start to write about things more complicated than manual for microwave oven.

The core armor is a variation on the British Chobham armor -- an arrangement of metal plates, ceramic blocks and open space.

And who said you that there are any ceramics at all? Another fairy tale of yours? Obviously you do not understand what "Chobham" or properly "Burlington" was/is.

Not to mention that from 1988 M1 Abrams tanks do not use "Burlington" at all, but US developed so called Heavy Armor Package.

I have debated this many times over. Some esteemed members see no difference between heavy, medium, and light tanks.

Oh they see the difference, just some people do not understand that some time after world war II, medium and heavy tanks were replaced by main battle tanks that have mobility, protection and firepower superior to medium and heavy tanks, thus making them obsolete, so both of these classes were replaced by main battle tanks supplemented by light tanks. Simple as that.

Also some people do not understand that when composite armors were introduced as well as other means of vehicle protection, weight is no longer indicator of vehicle protection, in fact it never was a vehicle protection indicator.

A simple example, compare the weight of IS-2, IS-3, PzKpfw.VI Ausf.E and PzKpfw.VI Ausf.B and their protection by pure armor thickness. You all might be surprised that lighter IS series had actually thicker armor... how if weight is armor protection indicator?! It must be magic!

And I strongly recommend to avoid all these silly internet sources that are easy to access.

 

[average american]

I know enought about the US military if they make a tank nearly 30 tons heavier, and use Depleted Uranium and upgrade the engines to give the tank more power the tank is going to have enough increase in strength to make it worth it. I have heard its is equivelent to more then 2 feet of solid steel.

 

[Damian]

I know enought about the US military if they make a tank nearly 30 tons heavier, and use Depleted Uranium and upgrade the engines to give the tank more power the tank is going to have enough increase in strength to make it worth it. I have heard its is equivelent to more then 2 feet of solid steel.

You know nothing about your own's country military to be honest. And by knowledge I mean knowledge, not "knowledge" from trash like Wikipedia, Discovery Channel etc.

Not to mention that you do not understand such a simple fact, that most of vehicle weight comes from it's size, internal volume as well as from the size and weight of it's internal components like suspension, engine, transmission, turret servomechanisms etc.

Armor itself is relatively lightweight, unfortunetely data for M1 is still classified, however for Leopard 2 that is comparable vehicle, turret armor weight's approx 8 metric tons, 8 metric tons for a turret weighting 16 tons, so from where is the rest of 8 tons, for a vehicle weighting from 55 to 62,5 tons depending on variant (improved variants have turret weighting 18-19 tons)?

Consider that for hull armor will weight less (because there is less composite armor), although still weighting approx 30+ tons.

And the same situation for any other modern main battle tank. Afterall one of reasons to use composite armor is to reduce it's weight without sacrificing high levels of protection.

People seems to forget that other vehicle components also have some significant weight, and think that if tank is big and heavy, this weight comes mostly from armor, which is not nececary truth.

There is plenty of examples, for example German Tiger tanks, these design could be lighter if different, simpler suspension type would be choosen, a same for Merkava tanks, I know from Marsh Galbert who actually knew general Israel Tal (creator of Merkava) in person, that general asked what he would change in Merkava design, he said that Horstmann suspension system, for something significantly lighter, for example hydrogas suspension.

This should give a lot of you, a lot to think about reasons behind different vehicles weight, and that not nececary armor makes them heavy or light.

 

[pmaitra]

And how do you know that most of M1's weight is armor?

It seems that avarage american also do not know that M1's do not use Chobham armor, and never used Chobham armor as such armor do not exist, it is just popular name given to some armor types by media, these armors also never had names in reality, they were just developed within programs that had codenames. So in fact all NATO composite armors have common ancestor (or rather ancestors as there were many different armor types developed, actually from avaiable sources it is hard to tell how many) developed within program codenamed "Burlington" and the americanized variant used in M1's was developed under codename "Starflower".

Chobham armour is used in M1. What exactly it is, is a secret. Any information available is sketchy and there is a lot of speculation. If I were you, I wouldn't put down the other person like that, because, even I don't know any better, and I am sure you don't know any better either.

This is when people with absolutely no knowledge start to write about things more complicated than manual for microwave oven.

I, you, and @average american, none of us have any detailed knowledge about Chobham armour, but does that stop any one of us from talking about things more complicated than a microwave oven?

The rest of your post is not even relevant to this discussion.

 

[Damian]

Chobham armour is used in M1. What exactly it is, is a secret. Any information available is sketchy and there is a lot of speculation. If I were you, I wouldn't put down the other person like that, because, even I don't know any better, and I am sure you don't know any better either.

There are avaiable documents that are declassified, and nowhere in them, there is such term as "Chobham" armor, as I said, the proper codename is "Burlington", and remember this instead of this mass media trash.

Of course you are right that we do not know the exact composition, the big problem is also fact there was not single but several subtypes tested by the British engineers and nobody knows what variant was used, and if different countries this means USA, UK and FRG used the same variant, or choose different variants.

I, you, and @average american, none of us have any detailed knowledge about Chobham armour, but does that stop any one of us from talking about things more complicated than a microwave oven?

I actually have more detailed knowledge based on historical work of Paweł Przeździecki who made his own research by using declassified British documents.

From the known declassified descriptions, "Burlington" seems to be not a steel-ceramic armor purely, but rather a sort of non energetic reactive armor of a rather complex design.

You can read more in Przeździecki work.

http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf
Page 106 in Acrobat Reader, use a translator, and note that this is serious scientific work, not some Wikipedia trash. In article you have whole bibliography provided by the author, so you can check yourself his sources in British archieve and other sources.

 

[pmaitra]

You know nothing about your own's country military to be honest. And by knowledge I mean knowledge, not "knowledge" from trash like Wikipedia, Discovery Channel etc.

To even suggest that he got his knowledge from Discovery Channel, you have to have watched plenty of Discover Channel yourself, no? Otherwise, how did you come to that conclusion?

Not to mention that you do not understand such a simple fact, that most of vehicle weight comes from it's size, internal volume as well as from the size and weight of it's internal components like suspension, engine, transmission, turret servomechanisms etc.

Right, if armour is increased, the suspension, drive train, etc., will have to strengthened and that will also contribute to the weight. Please read the post by @average american, where he did say not all of the 20 extra tons comes from the armour. Read first, before responding.

T90 was originally designed as a whole different beast. T90 is a medium tank, while the Abrams is a heavy... and that difference in HUGE, especially when it comes to protection, Abrams is around 20 tons(!!) heavier, and most of that weight is armor. And yes, anybody who is first hand familiar with the current Russian military will tell you, while the hardware is good it's VERY VERY old. They are still using tanks that were produced in the 70s and 80s, and there is only so much you can do with models that old. The T90 has a major security flaw, the spare ammo is actually inside with the crew, and obviously if it starts cooking for whatever reason... unidentifiable chunks of meat is the result. Although I'm not sure if I'd call the Russian defense budget tight, especially lately. One of their problems is the lack of industrial capacity(don't confuse today's Russia with USSR.) They don't have any factories capable of making hardware of this type, and setting up initial production is always the most expensive bit.