India's Future Main Battle Tank, NGMBT

aditya10r

Mera Bharat mahan
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
5,615
Likes
11,036
Country flag
Paki tanks as of just as shitty, but Chinkys are plugging the gap very well. Their 3man crew tanks weigh 57tons and increasing.
In case of a tank battle in Ladakh at 2030, be mentally prepared to handle a lot of beef roast memes all over internet.
If thats the case then i would simply prefer army to stick to T-90MS and Upgraded Arjun mk1a and Mk2(whenever it comes out).

For light tank duties,get Kestrel and slap the L7 105mm gun.Or get a turret on top of it with ATGMs.

________________________________________

In Sri lanka these Tin-72s were blown up like diwali patakha and Gulf war is of whole different magnitude.

_________________________________________

Their logic of arjun cant be transported is pure bullshit.We already have bridge layers for it and army has used 55tonne plus smerch to cross bridges.Plus what makes them think that pakis wouldnt blow up the bridges once hostilities start.Why would they leave infrastructure intact for an overwhelmingly strong enemy.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,393
Likes
6,313
Country flag
...and Upgraded Arjun mk1a and Mk2(whenever it comes out).
Yeah that one is dead... Army has been "placeing orders of upgraded Arjuns" for atleast 5-7 years now. Never gonna happen, especially after the economic crisis due to Corona.

And frankly slapping on more armour sampling of the solution anymore... You can suffocate the crew inside by a thermobaric or cook them alive by incendiary (tagged as high-explosive ofcourse) with zero armour penetration.

In today's time you want;
  • Soft & hard kill APS
  • Jamm-prooof comms and sensors
  • Ground penetrative radars
  • Electromagnetic countermeasures for mine or IED
  • Scouting/assisting drones and drone-jammers
  • Fire-suppression system and fire-protective suits
  • Mobile Camouflage System hiding visual, thermal signature
  • Integrated BMS
  • IRNSS based IFF showing all friendly tanks (& enemy contact)
  • 360° X-Ray vision
  • LGB guidance laser
  • Top-attack and guided munition
  • Maybe EMP to fry electronics
  • Drone tanks, or AI driven unmanned-wingman tanks etc.
 
Last edited:

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,393
Likes
6,313
Country flag
  • Oh, and HMS operated RCWS-cum-PanoramicSight like attack helicopters.
  • DE Lasers that can blind sights (& crew too if looking directly or by periscope). Chinks may be operating this already.
 
Last edited:

Bajirao

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
110
Likes
150
Country flag
As the size decreases and quick reaction mobility increases the chances of getting hited by kinetic projectiles from enemy tank decreases drastically...and for atgm there are aps so,we dont need heavy armour all over the tank body..drdo also devoloping a new gen era.
..
In the case of t-72 in iraq war,it was not about t-72 vs abram..it was t-72 vs apache(hellfire) plus a-10 plus abram,let's not talk about quality difference of tank crews from both side
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,393
Likes
6,313
Country flag
As the size decreases and quick reaction mobility increases the chances of getting hited by kinetic projectiles from enemy tank decreases.
Unkess your tank has the size & speed of a F1 racecar, then no.

That fallacy is getting less true everyday, even upgraded T-XX can hit moving-static or viceversa 2m×2m targets with near 100% accuracy at penetrable range... Even frontal armour too got 50:50 chance of getting hit at weakspot.
Today in the era of first-hit-kill, situational wareness and detection capabilities matter the most.
 
Last edited:

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,393
Likes
6,313
Country flag
On closer look.;
IMG_20180326_165722_833.jpg

This latest official iteration of NG-MBT it actually shows decent hull armour design. They changed its armour distribution from being concentrated on upper-glacis like Arjun/Challenger, to hull-front like in Abrams/Leopard2... more efficient and covers the centre of silhoutte.

Also the crew hatches on the turret-top indicate that they wont sit on both sides of driver like T-14, but below turret like in cancelled T-95 Black Eagle. (Better if there be a thin 2nd layer between hull-turret) they can safely reduce weight by highly slanting turret-front and clearly^^ plan on totally removing its side armour.

Modified drawing to fit their render (possible best case):
IMG_20200504_140422.jpg
 
Last edited:

Bajirao

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
110
Likes
150
Country flag
On closer look.;
IMG_20180326_165722_833.jpg

This latest official iteration of NG-MBT it actually shows decent hull armour design. They changed its armour distribution from being concentrated on upper-glacis like Arjun/Challenger, to hull-front like in Abrams/Leopard2... more efficient and covers the centre of silhoutte.

Also the crew hatches on the turret-top indicate that they wont sit on both sides of driver like T-14, but below turret like in cancelled T-95 Black Eagle. (Better if there be a thin 2nd layer between hull-turret) they can safely reduce weight by highly slanting turret-front and clearly^^ plan on totally removing its side armour.

Modified drawing to fit their render (possibl best case):
View attachment 47055
Is this a new design study or, the older one which done in 2010-11
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,393
Likes
6,313
Country flag
Is this a new design study or, the older one which done in 2010-11
The 3D render is the latest official stuff... GNMBT concept in DRDO publication from January 2018, page 6:
http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/view/12182/6087

This design I made to match that one, by modifying these older ones;
img-20170723-011330-924_orig.jpg

The version everybody said was a rejected concept... Expecting they have favoured this Armata-like arrangement of crew.
IMG_20200504_143233.jpg
 
Last edited:

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,260
Likes
5,223
Country flag
This latest official iteration of NG-MBT it actually shows decent hull armour design. They changed its armour distribution from being concentrated on upper-glacis like Arjun/Challenger, to hull-front like in Abrams/Leopard2... more efficient and covers the centre of silhoutte.
This thing has been doing rounds for a few years now. You will most likely find it in this very thread.

Don't know who made this and why it refuses to die but for the love of all that is sane in this world why does this "CREWLESS" turret has two crew hatches?

This reminded me another one of these gems. The one which was a 50 ton and had a 4 man crew and an autoloader. Why, I don't know. Fourth guy was probably to repair the tyres if they ever got punctured.

*Edit: Found it.
 
Last edited:

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,393
Likes
6,313
Country flag
Don't know who made this and why it refuses to die but for the love of all that is sane in this world why does this "CREWLESS" turret has two crew hatches?
You remain incorrect about both cases.

The old FMBT concept was a 4-crew one with no autoloader (you could notice if you would have looked closely, that gunners sight is before commanders hatch). The 4th guy was to be the loader. Rejected because the couldn't bring that below 50 ton.

The new one is possibly inspired from the experimental T-95 Black Eagle. Despite what you think unmanned turrets should look like, tank designers may disagree.
b6-1.jpg

Imagine an Arjun whose crews enter via hatch but drop straight down at turret basket within hull to sit like the driver.
Lot of space can now be reduced up there, which means smaller and lighter turret, allowing armour concentration on hull... With sights and shit moved below, meaning whatever room left upwards can be for new gen tank techs (LINK).
IMG_20200505_170137.png

IMG_20200505_122304.jpg

Differences with the T-14 like design:
  • Much less drastic change from conventional layout, manufacturing & maintenance advantage.
  • Ability of tank's gun crew to rotate with their gun with be compatible with past experience, possibly they may prefer.
  • Ability of tank's gun crew to access the autoloader in case of snag.
  • Possible ability of tank's gun crew to manually reload without getting out the autoloader or the gun-breech itself.
  • Ability of tank's gun crew to look out in every direction from turret hatch or periscopes. Both CPS and 360° outer cams (in case of commander's X-ray vision HMD) are quite destrible.
  • Ability of tank's crew to survive hull penetration, from lower glacis or sides, as they are not seated together.
  • No chance of whole turret blowing away like T-14, as hull ammo-stowage get blowoff panels below, also on turret bustle.
 

sthf

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,260
Likes
5,223
Country flag
The old FMBT concept was a 4-crew one with no autoloader (you could notice if you would have looked closely, that gunners sight is before commanders hatch).
[-- Redacted --] If yes, try 8th from top under "Main features". What does the gunner's sight has to do with it?

Rejected because the couldn't bring that below 50 ton.
Surely you must have a source for this.

The new one is possibly inspired from the experimental T-95 Black Eagle. Despite what you think unmanned turrets should look like, tank designers may disagree.
It is so much inspired by an experimental design and yet looks nothing like it. Which is weird because it looks a lot closer to other unmanned turrets than that of the Black Eagle itself. Also can you cite the source for the Black Eagle picture?

M1 TTB



The Falcon turret



Armata



So its very bold of you to proclaim that designers disagree with me when the only operational design by the same country looks nothing like T-95.


Imagine an Arjun whose crews enter via hatch but drop straight down at turret basket within hull to sit like the driver.
Lot of space can now be reduced up there, which means smaller and lighter turret, allowing armour concentration on hull... With sights and shit moved below, meaning whatever room left upwards can be for new gen tank techs (LINK).
So we are playing the "what if" game, okay but why? That has nothing to with my post. Feels that you wanted to plug in your own post about a long list of mumbo jumbo.

Differences with the T-14 like design:
  • Much less drastic change from conventional layout, manufacturing & maintenance advantage.
  • Ability of tank's gun crew to rotate with their gun with be compatible with past experience, possibly they may prefer.
  • Ability of tank's gun crew to access the autoloader in case of snag.
  • Possible ability of tank's gun crew to manually reload without getting out the autoloader or the gun-breech itself.
  • Ability of tank's gun crew to look out in every direction from turret hatch or periscopes. Both CPS and 360° outer cams (in case of commander's X-ray vision HMD) are quite destrible.
  • Ability of tank's crew to survive hull penetration, from lower glacis or sides, as they are not seated together.
  • No chance of whole turret blowing away like T-14, as hull ammo-stowage get blowoff panels below, also on turret bustle.
More stuff that has nothing to do with my post.

[-- Redacted --]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,393
Likes
6,313
Country flag
You can read right? If yes, try 8th from top under "Main features". What does the gunner's sight has to do with it?

Surely you must have a source for this.
Yep, that definitely looks inconsistent. They probably mixed up data for old with new FMBT design (they are quite infamous for doing stuff like that). Also it is very old stuff, I could find a source on it 5 years ago probably. Not anymore.
The original FMBT concept having 4-crew 50-ton requirement is somewhat of a common knowledge by now.

But that design was clearly a quite simple hybrid between a downsized Arjun hull & a modified turret (possibly from LeClerc) with T-90's frontal armour.

It is so much inspired by an experimental design and yet looks nothing like it. Which is weird because it looks a lot closer to other unmanned turrets than that of the Black Eagle itself. Also can you cite the source for the Black Eagle picture?

M1 TTB


The Falcon turret


Armata

So its very bold of you to proclaim that designers disagree with me when the only operational design by the same country looks nothing like T-95.
You'll note T-14 is not field proven and rest of those unmanned turrets are practically experimentals too!

I am not sure why Russia opted for T-14 over T-95 (based on T-80 platform). Maybe they decided it is time for some revolutionary changes, after 4 decades of evolutionary designs... Cant say.
Nor am I sure India will opt for that turret design. It was from 2 years ago. So, I jotted down what advantages of the NG-MBT turret I could think of as possible reasons we would prefer if over the other.

Lastly, don't feel any need for convincing you. Keep your opinion. Maybe you are right and we will choose the other design with crew at front. I have said what I had to say for my reasoning.

Also now that mods are active again I don't need to tolerate any trolling.
 
Last edited:

Bajirao

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
110
Likes
150
Country flag
You remain incorrect about both cases.

The old FMBT concept was a 4-crew one with no autoloader (you could notice if you would have looked closely, that gunners sight is before commanders hatch). The 4th guy was to be the loader. Rejected because the couldn't bring that below 50 ton.

The new one is possibly inspired from the experimental T-95 Black Eagle. Despite what you think unmanned turrets should look like, tank designers may disagree.
View attachment 47109
Imagine an Arjun whose crews enter via hatch but drop straight down at turret basket within hull to sit like the driver.
Lot of space can now be reduced up there, which means smaller and lighter turret, allowing armour concentration on hull... With sights and shit moved below, meaning whatever room left upwards can be for new gen tank techs (LINK).
View attachment 47121
View attachment 47120
Differences with the T-14 like design:
  • Much less drastic change from conventional layout, manufacturing & maintenance advantage.
  • Ability of tank's gun crew to rotate with their gun with be compatible with past experience, possibly they may prefer.
  • Ability of tank's gun crew to access the autoloader in case of snag.
  • Possible ability of tank's gun crew to manually reload without getting out the autoloader or the gun-breech itself.
  • Ability of tank's gun crew to look out in every direction from turret hatch or periscopes. Both CPS and 360° outer cams (in case of commander's X-ray vision HMD) are quite destrible.
  • Ability of tank's crew to survive hull penetration, from lower glacis or sides, as they are not seated together.
  • No chance of whole turret blowing away like T-14, as hull ammo-stowage get blowoff panels below, also on turret bustle.
In the new design concept,beside the driver is that engine or, ammo storage? and is there another ammo storage at the rear of turret?
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
2,393
Likes
6,313
Country flag
In the new design concept,beside the driver is that engine or, ammo storage? and is there another ammo storage at the rear of turret?
Its an hull ammo-cum-fuel stowage with downward blowoff panels. I think the diesel breaks up HEAT stream.
w6jTjMS.png

Yes, there's another turret ammo rack of 20-25 shells. You can see it in the design.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top