Indian Tank Ammunition Scenario

[Saber]

will ask for help soon ....thx

 

[Srinivas_K]

Armor: India Stocks Up On APFSDS

Armor: India Stocks Up On APFSDS
April 9, 2014: India has ordered 66,000 Russian 3VBM17 APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) shells for the 125mm guns on their T-90 tanks. Each of these shells will cost $6,556. The 3VBM17 entered service in 1986, weighs 20.4 kg (45 pounds) and employs a 4.85 kg (10.7 pound) tungsten penetrator that will go through 450mm of steel. The penetrator and its sabot leaves the gun at 1,700 meters (5,610 feet) a second. India wanted to buy an Israeli APFSDS shell but the supplier got tied up in an Indian anti-corruption investigation so, rather than wait for that to blow over, and because the army was running low on these shells, they went for the Russian supplier. The Israeli shell would have been more reliable and penetrate over 20 percent more armor, but considering the tanks likely opponents (China and Pakistan) have, the 3VBM17 is adequate and a little cheaper.

Most modern 120/125mm tank guns fire a shell that uses a smaller 25mm "penetrator." The 25mm rod of tungsten (or depleted uranium) is surrounded by a "sabot" that falls away once the shell clears the barrel. This gives the penetrator higher velocity and penetrating power. This is the most expensive type of 120/125mm shell and already comes in several variants. There is APDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot) and APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot, for smooth bore guns). The armor piercing element of discarding sabot rounds is less than half the diameter of the shell and made of very expensive, high density metal. Its smaller size enables it to hit the target at very high speeds, up to 1,900 meters (6,270 feet) a second. This is the most common type of anti-tank shell and is constantly being improved.

India uses other times of 125mm ammo as well. In 2013 India obtained a manufacturing license to build 15,000 Russian Invar anti-tank missiles for their T-90s. India has earlier purchased 10,000 of these missiles from Russia (that were built in Russia) and with the manufacturing license the average cost will be about $2,000 per missile. The Invar 9M119M1 (Invar-M) is fired from the 125mm gun, like a shell, but operates like a guided missile. The 17.2 kg (37.8 pound) missile is 680mm (26.7 inches) long and has pop-out fins (with a 250mm/9 inch span) that aid in guidance (laser beam riding, controlled by the tank gunner). The missile has a max range of 5,000 meters at a speed of 350 meters a second (14 seconds max flight time). The Invar enables the tank to hit targets at twice the range of the 125mm shells. The tandem warhead can penetrate up to 900mm of armor (35.4 inches), twice what the 3VBM17 can. Invar has been around for two decades and India is buying the latest version.

India expects to have about 1,400 T-90s by the end of the decade. The first T-90 entered service in 1993, and India is the largest user. The T-90 is basically an upgraded T-72, which India already builds under license. The T-90 weighs about 15 percent more than the 41 ton T-72. The T-90 has a better fire control system, night vision that is good out to about 1,500 meters, and electronic countermeasures against anti-tank missiles. The autoloader, which often failed in the T-72, is more reliable and that makes the three man crew (commander, gunner, driver) more effective. The T-90 has ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) in addition to its composite armor.

The T-90 is not as lively as the T-72 and is actually slower on the battlefield than the U.S. M-1 (which has a horsepower to weight ratio of 24:1, compared to only 18:1 for the T-90). The 125mm gun of the T-90 is basically the same as the T-72. However, if you use better ammo, you stand a chance against top rated tanks like the M-1. But that is not what India expects to face. The most likely opponent is Pakistan, which is largely equipped with 1950s era T-55s (actually the Chinese T-59 copy). The Pakistanis also have 700 or so older T-72 type tanks (Chinese T-69 and Ukrainian T-80), but these would be outclassed by the T-90. India plans to have 21 tank battalions ("regiments" in the Indian army) of T-90s (with 62 tanks each) by 2020. Actually, each battalion only has 45 tanks going into combat. The other 17 are for training and replacements.

Armor: India Stocks Up On APFSDS

India also needs to improve the oil reserves by building oil storage facilities.

 

[JBH22]

Re: Armor: India Stocks Up On APFSDS

Russia has really cash out on this deal.

By acquiring the T-90 you are more dependent on them for ammo, TOT etc its like a bank who finance your business in the hope of making more money from you.

 

[ladder]

Re: Armor: India Stocks Up On APFSDS

Some day there is a report that Indian Army is low on ammunition. Below critical level that too.

But, when India takes step in that direction, some body comes-out with such headlines, 'Armor: India Stocks Up On APFSDS'.

So, according to the author what should have been the size of purchase? So that there is no shortages and there is no overstock.

Author then must convey the optimum number to the Army to acquire the same.

 

[Santu]

Re: Armor: India Stocks Up On APFSDS

@Kunal Biswas sir , 66000 thousand shells are more than sufficient or it's temporary measure?? what is the best number indian army need in current situation? and desi shells are not available for use??

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Read this thread for more information to your asked questions ..

 

[DivineHeretic]

Re: Armor: India Stocks Up On APFSDS

@Kunal Biswas sir , 66000 thousand shells are more than sufficient or it's temporary measure?? what is the best number indian army need in current situation? and desi shells are not available for use??

What number is barely sufficient, what number is adequate, and what number is excess are extremely difficult to find out, unless one relies on statistical methods, which would in any case be classified to us civilians.

But for everyone's ease of clarity: am using simple number crunching and available statistics to examine the number of tank rounds needed.

The IA has around 800-900 T-90S at present, and about 1500 T-72s which use the 125mm smoothbore rounds. Now each of these tanks have a capacity of around 40 rounds of various types. Thus, to put all of them into battle on day 1 of war with a full armament, we would need 92,000 rounds, which by all means is a pretty large number.

So we have 92,000 as the base number to build on.

Now comes the next phase: war consumption. Noting the lack of data about Indian army, I am using the statistics from the US army/Marine Corps, Operation Desert Storm. To be noted is also the fact that India will fight (or try to fight) a similar campaign.

[/url] print screen windows xp[/IMG]

Assuming a 60% offensive and 40% defensive firing on day one, we get a average of 25 rounds being fired per tank on day 1. That translates to 57,500 tank rounds being consumed on day 1 itself, or 62.5% of the 92,000 rounds the army went into battle with.

Onto day 2, and using a 50-50 offensive-defensive manuevre, we get a consumption of 16 rounds per tank, or 36800 rounds for the entire tank formation.

Now, assuming what the IA expects, i.e. a short intense war of around 2 weeks, the IA will burn through 57,500+13*36,800=535,900 tank rounds of various types during the war.

So, under all circumstances, this would be the minimum number of rounds the IA must keep to be battle capable for 2 weeks.

But again, over and above this, about 10% of the tank round holdings reach the end of their service life every year, which means an additional cushion of 10% is needed.

Combined, all these numbers add up to some 590,000 rounds required for a 2 week war.

Just for the sake of comparison, The IA in 2003 had a holding of some 500,000 rounds of A.F.S.P.D.S. ammunition alone, with missiles and HEAT rounds adding over and above this number.

So make your guess as to whether 66,000 rounds is sufficient

 

[Kunal Biswas]

As always, Quality post ..

Gud post, @DivineHeretic !

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Improved 120mm MK1 FSAPDS Penetrator.. ?

300mm at 60 degree from 2000ms

@ersakthivel, Long back some got stuck at the idea 300mm RHA from 2000m at 90 degree, Now it is proved such claims are wrong, Also look at the new penetrator ..

 

[t_co]

Re: Armor: India Stocks Up On APFSDS

What number is barely sufficient, what number is adequate, and what number is excess are extremely difficult to find out, unless one relies on statistical methods, which would in any case be classified to us civilians.

But for everyone's ease of clarity: am using simple number crunching and available statistics to examine the number of tank rounds needed.

The IA has around 800-900 T-90S at present, and about 1500 T-72s which use the 125mm smoothbore rounds. Now each of these tanks have a capacity of around 40 rounds of various types. Thus, to put all of them into battle on day 1 of war with a full armament, we would need 92,000 rounds, which by all means is a pretty large number.

So we have 92,000 as the base number to build on.

Now comes the next phase: war consumption. Noting the lack of data about Indian army, I am using the statistics from the US army/Marine Corps, Operation Desert Storm. To be noted is also the fact that India will fight (or try to fight) a similar campaign.

[/url] print screen windows xp[/IMG]

Assuming a 60% offensive and 40% defensive firing on day one, we get a average of 25 rounds being fired per tank on day 1. That translates to 57,500 tank rounds being consumed on day 1 itself, or 62.5% of the 92,000 rounds the army went into battle with.

Onto day 2, and using a 50-50 offensive-defensive manuevre, we get a consumption of 16 rounds per tank, or 36800 rounds for the entire tank formation.

Now, assuming what the IA expects, i.e. a short intense war of around 2 weeks, the IA will burn through 57,500+13*36,800=535,900 tank rounds of various types during the war.

So, under all circumstances, this would be the minimum number of rounds the IA must keep to be battle capable for 2 weeks.

But again, over and above this, about 10% of the tank round holdings reach the end of their service life every year, which means an additional cushion of 10% is needed.

Combined, all these numbers add up to some 590,000 rounds required for a 2 week war.

Just for the sake of comparison, The IA in 2003 had a holding of some 500,000 rounds of A.F.S.P.D.S. ammunition alone, with missiles and HEAT rounds adding over and above this number.

So make your guess as to whether 66,000 rounds is sufficient

Fairly certain the IA wouldn't throw all of its tanks against Pakistan - leaves India too open for a two-front conflict, plus results in ludicrously jammed roads given that each tank will require 3-4 logistics trucks to sustain it

 

[Indx TechStyle]

India Tests Newly Developed Thermobaric Ammunition

NAG Anti Tank Buster - and below right representational image of a Thermobaric Ammo
India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) has successfully conducted ‘mote firing’ of its newly developed ammunition from a tank targeting another tank.

DRDO carried out two firings of the ammunition from indigenously developed main Battle tank Arjun Wednesday at a defense test facility off Odisha coast, Indian Express news daily reported.

“High explosive ammunitions were fired from the indigenously developed main battle tank (MBT) Arjun against the decommissioned Russian T55 tank. The T55 tank was instrumented for the purpose and the ammunition successfully hit the tank,” the news daily quoted an unnamed defense official as saying.

New ammunitions like thermobaric and high explosives (HE) were fired against the T55. The Russian tank has been replaced by the Arjun main battle in the Indian Army. As tanks like T55 are with other countries, the trials were aimed at ascertaining the effect of the new ammunitions on such tanks.

“The test was conducted for that first time. Similar trials have also been planned on Thursday. Earlier, no instrumented tank was targeted by another tank during such trials though several tests of open firing from Arjun tank have been conducted in the Pokhran range of Rajasthan,” the official informed.

Arjun is a third generation main battle tank (MBT) developed by DRDO. It features a 120 mm main rifled gun with indigenously developed armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding-sabot ammunition, one PKT 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun, and an NSVT 12.7 mm machine gun.

It is powered by a single MTU multi-fuel diesel engine rated at 1,400 hp, and can achieve a maximum speed of 67 km/h and a cross-country speed of 40 km/h.

Source>>

 

[Indx TechStyle]

@rock127 @Bornubus @Srinivas_K @pmaitra @Scarface @aditya g

 

[Chinmoy]

I wonder whether it is a HEAT or KAPP round with which this Thermobaric ammo has been incorporated. As in itself a thermobaric round would be ineffective against a tank armour. Its true devastation would be when it would go off inside a tank. In that scenario a mere 2 kg projectile could blast off a tank to kingdom.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

I wonder whether it is a HEAT or KAPP round with which this Thermobaric ammo has been incorporated. As in itself a thermobaric round would be ineffective against a tank armour. Its true devastation would be when it would go off inside a tank. In that scenario a mere 2 kg projectile could blast off a tank to kingdom.

Well, for me, successful development of thermobaric ammo is a big deal.
They successfully blasted that target, may be with high velocity small projectile or low velocity large projectile.
I heard that thermobaric weapons are lethal against tanks.
Plus our dear Red neighbor is selling such weapons to our stupid green neighbor.
So, we need it.

 

[guru-dutt]

as i searched on web thermobatic ammo is basically 100% feul while conventional ammo is 25% feul with 75% oxidisers meaning it uses/sucks oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere and genrates a very high temprature on impact but what i fail to understand is that it looks good for bunkers and militarry instalations or against caves like what soviets used it for in afghanistan how does it fairs against a tank ?can someone help me with it ?

 

[indiandefencefan]

as i searched on web thermobatic ammo is basically 100% feul while conventional ammo is 25% feul with 75% oxidisers meaning it uses/sucks oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere and genrates a very high temprature on impact but what i fail to understand is that it looks good for bunkers and militarry instalations or against caves like what soviets used it for in afghanistan how does it fairs against a tank ?can someone help me with it ?

@guru-dutt, assume terrorists are hiding inside a building and need to be eliminated.
A thermobaric warhead strikes the exterior of the building and produces a fire blast that sucks out all the oxygen from the nearby surroundings.
The lack of oxygen will then cause the terrorists inside the building to suffocate and die.
Thus the terrorists have been killed without causing too much structural damage to building itself because there was no significant explosion when the warhead detonated just a fireball.

Hope it helps

 

[Chinmoy]

as i searched on web thermobatic ammo is basically 100% feul while conventional ammo is 25% feul with 75% oxidisers meaning it uses/sucks oxygen from the surrounding atmosphere and genrates a very high temprature on impact but what i fail to understand is that it looks good for bunkers and militarry instalations or against caves like what soviets used it for in afghanistan how does it fairs against a tank ?can someone help me with it ?

Well...... in this case, you could take into count the RPG's. They are thermobaric weapons in themselves. But they are effective against tank as they does penetrate the armour before exploding. So if you could penetrate the armour and then blast it, well there would not be any one standing there. So I wonder where they incorporated them, with HEAT or KAPP rounds. Because a thermobaric blast outside the tank would not be of such great impact.

 

[Chinmoy]

@guru-dutt, assume terrorists are hiding inside a building and need to be eliminated.
A thermobaric warhead strikes the exterior of the building and produces a fire blast that sucks out all the oxygen from the nearby surroundings.
The lack of oxygen will then cause the terrorists inside the building to suffocate and die.
Thus the terrorists have been killed without causing too much structural damage to building itself because there was no significant explosion when the warhead detonated just a fireball.

Hope it helps

I'd like to defer a bit here. A thermobaric weapon does suck in surrounding oxygen to feed itself, its true. But the scene which you are describing, it would require and enormous sized ammo to do that. Moreover the primary devastation because of such an ammo is due to its initial massive blast radius. So it is a weapon which would inflict a massive structural damage. Take for instance the MOAB or the FOAB. Those are thermobaric weapons. Even the Daisy Cutter of vietnam era was/is an thermobaric weapon. Suffocating out the oxygen is the last of its effect. The secondary effect would be to burn the victims from inside as they would be inhaling the inflamed fuel laced air for few seconds. In short, a thermobaric explosion would be bigger then a conventional one.

Please dont try this at home, but you could try this simple explosion for yourself. Fire up a simple cracker in a confined space, and fire up a petrol filled small bottle of same size in that same space. First one is a conventional blast whereas the petrol bomb would be a thermobaric blast.

 

[navkapu]

Thermobaric weapons cause death of tank crew as burning air enters the lungs of the tank crew killing them instantly or even bad case would be very slow death.

What good is a tank without the crew.

 

[indiandefencefan]

I'd like to defer a bit here. A thermobaric weapon does suck in surrounding oxygen to feed itself, its true. But the scene which you are describing, it would require and enormous sized ammo to do that. Moreover the primary devastation because of such an ammo is due to its initial massive blast radius. So it is a weapon which would inflict a massive structural damage. Take for instance the MOAB or the FOAB. Those are thermobaric weapons. Even the Daisy Cutter of vietnam era was/is an thermobaric weapon. Suffocating out the oxygen is the last of its effect. The secondary effect would be to burn the victims from inside as they would be inhaling the inflamed fuel laced air for few seconds. In short, a thermobaric explosion would be bigger then a conventional one.

Please dont try this at home, but you could try this simple explosion for yourself. Fire up a simple cracker in a confined space, and fire up a petrol filled small bottle of same size in that same space. First one is a conventional blast whereas the petrol bomb would be a thermobaric blast.

Perhaps my use of the word "building" was a bit over the top.
I was trying to reference a small enclosed structure and the use a small sized warhead with reliable accuracy.

But then you too are absolutely correct in the scale of your analysis.