Indian T-90S a sub-standard tank ?

[W.G.Ewald]

I wonder if he ever read any proffesional book about different weapon systems from aroudn the world. Ehm not, probably not, book is a way above his level of understanding.

I think fewer people read books today because of the enormous amount of information on the internet, whatever its quality. Good technical books are expensive and many people do not have access to libraries with expensive holdings on technical military subjects. On a forum like DFI, copyrights are also a barrier. However, perhaps you can recommend and give examples of military publishers and their book titles.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Military Publishers

Military Publishers : The AcqWeb Directory

Entries on this list have links on page.

Air University Press Air Force publications
Ancre French naval archaeology research publications
Army Times Publishing Co. Publications related to defense, military, and space industry
Articles of War, Ltd. New and antiquarian military history titles, worldwide, from ancient to modern
Aviation Week / AviationNow Information for the global aviation and aerospace community
The Battery Press, Inc. Aviation, military, and naval titles for collectors and veterans
Brassey's Military publisher
Bygone Books (UK) Antiquarian bookshop, specializing in military, children's, sci-fi and travel, with booksearch service available
Centre for the History of Defence Electronics (CHiDE) Publications on the technical history of electronics in both a social and military context
Combined Publishing
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
Conway Maritime Press
Q.M. Dabney & Co. - Antiquarian Booksellers Books on the military, history, aeronautics, music and law
Fortress Books
Greenhill Books
Hellgate Press U.S. publisher of non-fiction military history, biography and memoirs covering WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War
Hugh Lauter Levin Associates, Inc. Publisher of illustrated books, covering art, nature, Judaica, crafts, rubber stamping kits, and military history
Jane's Information Group Defense, weaponry, civil aviation & transportation
Jane's Information Group (2nd address)
Jean Boudriot
Naval Institute Press United States Naval Institute; military and naval history, ship and aircraft guides, boating and navigation titles and novels
NOVA Publications Military history and defense studies
Osprey Publishing Ltd. Publisher of illustrated military history books.
Pacifica Military History Military history and other nonfiction topics
Polish Military History Books
Presidio Press U.S. military history
Savas Publishing Company Publisher of Civil War, military and general U.S. history titles
The Scholar's Bookshelf Military history books & videos
Schull Books Booksellers and reprint publisher of Irish regimental histories and books relating to WWI Irish military history
Site O
Spellmount Publishers UK publisher specializing in original and reprint military history of all eras
Stackpole Books Books on nature, outdoor sports, fly fishing, Civil War, history, crafts & hobbies, and military reference
Stone & Stone Second World War books
Surplus Al Supplier of military technical manuals

 

[Damian]

I think fewer people read books today because of the enormous amount of information on the internet, whatever its quality. Good technical books are expensive and many people do not have access to libraries with expensive holdings on technical military subjects. On a forum like DFI, copyrights are also a barrier. However, perhaps you can recommend and give examples of military publishers and their book titles.

To be honest, if someone really want, he can obtain nececary literature.

As for recomendations.

About USA armored fighting vehicles history, the absolute number one are books written by Richard P. Hunnicutt, these books are like bible for anyone interested in history of american AFV's. Here are titles:

Armored Car - A History Of The American Wheeled Combat Vehicles
Half-Track - A History Of The American Semi-Tracked Vehicles
Bradley - A History Of The American Fighting And Support Vehicles
Stuart - A History Of The American Light Tank Vol.1
Sheridan - A History Of The American Light Tank vol.2
Sherman - A History Of The American Medium Tank
Pershing - A History Of The Medium Tank T20 Series
Firepower - A History Of The American Heavy Tank
Patton - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Vol.1
Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Vol.2

Other books as examples:

Военные машины Уральвагонзавода T-54/T-55
Танк Т-64 - author is Sergiei Suvorov
Бронэкольлектсиыа - Танк Т-84 Оплoт
Iraq Insurgency - US Army Armored Vehicles in Action Part 1 & 2 (publisher is Concord)
Marines on The Ground - Operation Iraqi Freedom Part 1 & 2 (again from Concord)

To be honest I have so much literature it would take several days to make a full bibliography, not to mention additional documents in PDF's I have, articles, military magazines etc.

I think I have a headache when I look at how many of this stuff I have.

 

[militarysta]

About M1A2 weight this should help:

 

[Damian]

More or less correct.

M1A2 = 61,9 metric tons
M1A2SEP = 63,1 metric tons

So the latter is 1,2 metric ton heavier.

 

[average american]

Common sense tells me when I have seen Israel and USA go thru Russian tanks for 50 years like a can opener with a bad attitude that no matter what any one says or writes Russian and USSR tanks were inferior in a major way to western tanks.

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[21]

Six other M1A1s were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.

In many cases the Iraqi tanks were dug in with only their turrents showing.

Now heres where some one will try to convince every one that the USSR and Russia sells its allies monkey inferior equipment and the Iraqis and Arabs were not motivated. Thats the same as telling me the USSR as actually selling their allies and customers inferior equipment and training so they would lose wars to the west. TRY SOME COMMON SENSE.

They say experience is the best teacher, that may be true but it seems to very hard on Russian allies. If the USSR and Russia have not got it right after 50 years, its really hard for me to believe any thing has suddenly changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4x7yA67XJc&feature=player_detailpage

 

[average american]

US tanks are being upgraded to have a UAV view of a battle field including the GPS locations of enemy vehicles and artillery in order to use indirect tank fire.

 

[pmaitra]

US tanks are being upgraded to have a UAV view of a battle field including the GPS locations of enemy vehicles and artillery in order to use indirect tank fire.

That would be a major advantage. Battlefield situational awareness gets a whole new dimension with it. I would like to see this aspect explored for future augmentative iterations of the Arjun series.

 

[Dejawolf]

Common sense tells me when I have seen Israel and USA go thru Russian tanks for 50 years like a can opener with a bad attitude that no matter what any one says or writes Russian and USSR tanks were inferior in a major way to western tanks.

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[21]

Six other M1A1s were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.

In many cases the Iraqi tanks were dug in with only their turrents showing.

Now heres where some one will try to convince every one that the USSR and Russia sells its allies monkey inferior equipment and the Iraqis and Arabs were not motivated. Thats the same as telling me the USSR as actually selling their allies and customers inferior equipment and training so they would lose wars to the west. TRY SOME COMMON SENSE.

They say experience is the best teacher, that may be true but it seems to very hard on Russian allies. If the USSR and Russia have not got it right after 50 years, its really hard for me to believe any thing has suddenly changed.

the report about ammunition sticking in the front of the turret: this is because the iraqis used training ammunition. they'd exhausted their ammunition supply during the
iran-iraq war just a few years earlier.
it's estimated the iraqi army consisted of ~3400 tanks.
however, less than 1000 of these tanks were T-72s, the rest was T-62s T-55s and knockoff variants.
comparatively the US army deployed 1848 Abrams tanks to the gulf, so the abrams outnumbered the T-72 2 to 1.
US army also had complete Air superiority.

as for 50 years of getting it wrong.. the 1973 yom kippur war was almost won by the arab side. all that had to happend was for the syrians to cross a bridge, and they would have defeated israel. the only reason they didn't was because of a heroic israeli tank commander jumping from tank to tank firing at the syrians to give the impression that there was still resistance left on the israeli side. the syrians stalled, and israel was able to reinforce their positions, and push back the syrian army.

 

[average american]

Training ammunition, and all the excuses in the world does not change the fact that not one single american was ever killed in a Abrams tank in two wars by an Iraqi tanks while having thousands of Iraqi tanks destroyed in combat.

 

[ersakthivel]

no technical engineering education background are just trying to hide behind list of books to conceal their lack of basic engineering knowledge.

If a tank has X ton heavier armor on the turret , then to support it it's hull , suspension and tracks also must weigh heavier.

And to support this cumulative extra weight the engine needs to be powerful and it will add it's own weight , with more structural weight to support the mounting of the engines.

To give a reasonable range to these heavy tanks more fuel needs to be carried and like that there is a cycle of weight increase, which is needed to support a certain amount of weight on the turret.

So saying all the extra 20 ton weight is not going to the armor so these weight additions are wasteful design aspects is a stupid stuff .But some fools keep repeating it over again and again .

hiding all these crucial facts and saying a larger percentage of weight of tank is armor in T-90 and it is distributed over non armored parts in ARJUN is just a juvenile argument.

A few extra tons of armor on the turret is there for a purpose. It was not as if heavy tank designers don't know the space age armor and turret design principles of T-90. THEY REJECTED IT AND GONE FOR A HIGHER WEIGHT ARMOR HEAVIER TANK FOR A PURPOSE.

But no amount of drilling these facts down won't do any good in any juvenile arguments with them. unable to comprehend or respond to these points they will say you read this book that book, the net is bollock and all the silly stuff.The reason is these so called book readers have remotest relations with any basic mechanical principle of machine design.

A tank too is after all a machine. So it will have to abide by all these machine design principle for excess weight in support systems to support a specified x ton extra weight on the turret.

But these guys will continue to rant on that heavy tank builders are wasteful designers putting more weight into non armored parts like Suspension, tracks, engines, and hull .

 

[Dejawolf]

Training ammunition, and all the excuses in the world does not change the fact that not one single american was ever killed in a Abrams tank in two wars by an Iraqi tanks while having thousands of Iraqi tanks destroyed in combat.

it's like bragging about beating up a retarded kid.
the majority of the iraqi army as i said was T-62 and T-55, tanks that were modern back in the early 60s. in 1982 Gadaffi invaded Chad with T-62s and were soundly beaten back by toyota pickup trucks armed with Milan missiles.

between 1974 and 1991 the T-72 was upgraded 3 times.
first in 1979 with heavier front turret armour,
then 1985 with "BDD" composite armour and ability to fire missiles, and improved night sight
and finally 1988 with reactive armour.
in the same period, russian ammuntion was upgraded 6 times, nearly doubling penetration power.

the ammunition the iraqis fielded, was the 3BM-9, designed to defeat the M-60, and leopard 1 tanks.

 

[Dejawolf]

with no technical engineering education background are just trying to hide behind list of books to conceal their lack of basic engineering knowledge.

o rly.
T-55: 36 tonnes.
turret armour: 205mm LOS
hull armour: 200mm LOS (100mm@60°)

M-48A1: 47.1 tonnes
turret armour: 178mm LOS
hull armour: 220mm LOS (110mm@60°)

armour is identical, weight is massively different. explain.

 

[ersakthivel]

o rly.
T-55: 36 tonnes.
turret armour: 205mm LOS
hull armour: 200mm LOS (100mm@60°)

M-48A1: 47.1 tonnes
turret armour: 178mm LOS
hull armour: 220mm LOS (110mm@60°)

armour is identical, weight is massively different. explain.

LOS armor thickness in the front does not explain the size and the design principle and crew survivability of the tank in all aspects of the tank warfare

For example T-90 is has cramped interior with crew fainting due to heat, no safer place to fit AC,
malfunctioning night vision devices and electronics due to the heat generated in cramped interior,
ammo lying on the floor ready to blast in a cook off ,
with piss poor APU that makes the main engine run all the time to work the tank's electronics, leading to easy detection,
not worth the name APU netcentric capability,
with no armor protection on side.
these obsolete features enable it to have a compact volume and lesser weight.

But heavy MBTs are very antithesis of the same.
They have more interior space,
safer ammo storage,functioning heat hardened electronics due to lower heat,
a bit of armor protection on sides.
bigger APUs with silent standby operation mode,
and world class netcentric capability that allows them to fire a missile without line of sight requirements on targets,
fatigue free four man crew,
These features dictate a larger volume and more armor to protect the volume and hence more weight.
But the LOS may be same from the front. That reveals nothing about the pros and cons of the tank.Isn't it?

There is no bar between the smaller T-90 and heavier MBts having the same line of sight protection from the front.

That does not mean they are equally well protected in all aspects.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

.. in 1982 Gadaffi invaded Chad with T-62s and were soundly beaten back by toyota pickup trucks armed with Milan missiles.

.

 

[Dejawolf]

LOS armor thickness in the front does not explain the size and the design principle and crew survivability of the tank in all aspects of the tank warfare

There is no bar between the smaller T-90 and heavier MBts having the same line of sight protection from the front.

That does not mean they are equally well protected in all aspects.

T-55 and M48 again. all LOS thickness. this time side/rear protection:

T-55:
side turret: 130mm front, 60mm rear
rear turret: 60mm

side hull: 80mm upper, 20mm lower (around suspension arms)
rear hull: 60mm

M48:
side turret: 76mm
rear turret: 51mm

side hull: 76mm over crew compartment, 51mm over engine compartment
rear hull: 51mm

looks like the smaller lighter T-55 has thicker side and rear armour than the M48.
and thus your argument about more weight = more armour falls to pieces.

 

[Damian]

 

[pmaitra]

looks like the smaller lighter T-55 has thicker side and rear armour than the M48.
and thus your argument about more weight = more armour falls to pieces.

The argument was not between T-55 and M48. This is just one anecdote you are presenting to suit your argument. The argument was what causes the M1 to be about 20 tons heavier than T-90. Please give us your views.

 

[Dejawolf]

The argument was not between T-55 and M48. This is just one anecdote you are presenting to suit your argument. The argument was what causes the M1 to be about 20 tons heavier than T-90. Please give us your views.

i can give you another anectode if you want. how about T-62 vs M60, T-64 vs M60, or perhaps T-72 vs M60.
the results are the same. lighter russian tank with more armour than it's heavier western counterpart. hell we can even compare T-64 and T-62.
the reason i picked M-48 and T-55 is because both tanks are pretty much pure steel, no composites, it perfectly demonstrates how much of an impact internal volume has on weight.

 

[pmaitra]

i can give you another anectode if you want. how about T-62 vs M60, T-64 vs M60, or perhaps T-72 vs M60.
the results are the same. lighter russian tank with more armour than it's heavier western counterpart. hell we can even compare T-64 and T-62.
the reason i picked M-48 and T-55 is because both tanks are pretty much pure steel, no composites, it perfectly demonstrates how much of an impact internal volume has on weight.

I am interested in knowing what causes M1 to be about 20 tons heavier than T-90.