Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

If Tanks have to evolve, which path they should follow?

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 25 7.3%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 57 16.7%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 198 58.1%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 61 17.9%

  • Total voters
    341

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Just at this moment I figured out something. Look at one of photographs I posted earlier, turret sides, where this mounting points for M32 cassettes are welded, seems that such configuration of turret side dynamic protection is a final variant.




Above initial M32 cassettes configuration on turret sides, as we can see then it was only protecting crew compartment, not the whole turret sides.
 

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
Above initial M32 cassettes configuration on turret sides, as we can see then it was only protecting crew compartment, not the whole turret sides.
Both them to be the same mounting configurations?

 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Yes this is the final configuration it seems, the older configuration was to a double row of ERA cassettes covering only crew compartment, currently there is a single row (but I think that capability to install double row was saved) protecting side turret on it's whole lenght.

Also ERA cassettes mounting frame was changed, from a normal frame to some sort of solid plate or screen, maybe to add more protection after shaped charge will be eroded by ERA, the jet remnants will be catched by a screen also acting as a mounting frame for ERA.
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202

Video from tests of XM1111 MRM-CE (Mid Range Munitions - Chemical Energy) GLATGM, fired from M1A2SEP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pankaj nema

New Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,308
Likes
38,743
Country flag
@ Damian

Arjun is like the Su30 MKI

It will blow up Paki Tin Cans and Clear the way for T 90 s

The place where it will be deployed has some very Juicy Paki targets like Multan ;Bahawalpur ;
Rahimyar Khan and Jacoa bad

All strategic centres of Pak army and airforce

T 90 and T 72s will go after GHQ Rawalpindi directly :lol:
 

pankaj nema

New Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,308
Likes
38,743
Country flag
@ Damian Please go and meet and talk with PAKISTAN's MILITARY ATTACHE in the Pakistan Embassy
in your country to get a real SENSE of Indian Army's Size and Strength

Till then Good bye
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Bro china is too smart they wont affect their economy growth by going to war
You never know.

It will blow up Paki Tin Cans and Clear the way for T 90 s


You call this a tin can? This is modified T-80UD (Object 478BE, standard have designation code 478B) with new welded turret that enhance it's protection. Firepower is enough to be dangerous for both T-90S and Arjun with 9M119 or Kombat GLATGM it have precise fire capability up to 5,000m. Very mobile, versatile, highly protected tank with good firepower.

As I said, less arrogance, more knowledge and realism.
 

Mr.Ryu

New Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
806
Likes
348
Country flag
You never know.





You call this a tin can? This is modified T-80UD (Object 478BE, standard have designation code 478B) with new welded turret that enhance it's protection. Firepower is enough to be dangerous for both T-90S and Arjun with 9M119 or Kombat GLATGM it have precise fire capability up to 5,000m. Very mobile, versatile, highly protected tank with good firepower.

As I said, less arrogance, more knowledge and realism.
I ask you in simple laymen term

If all that stuff which i dont understand are present in Puki tank as you are telling just tell me why they failed in each and every war and why we won every time ?
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Bro which war ??

They got it only by 1990's right ? ru talking about Kargil ?? if so did Puki army directly used Tanks to attack our soldiers ??
Older post,
If all that stuff which i dont understand are present in Puki tank as you are telling just tell me why they failed in each and every war and why we won every time ?
You were talking about our past wars.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
If so it's time we create diplomatic relation and rather stooping the supply to puki we must send them junk let RAW work it's hands :troll:

And on serious note do you really think Russia is inferior to Ukraine ?
When Soviet Union existed, the Ukraninans made their best stuff.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Yes, it is the Mark 2 that I meant. The Mark 1's, I hear, will also be upgraded. It all starts with 1 prototype, before things enter into serial production.
There are no plans to upgrade the Mk1 as of now. Too expensive. Perhaps as an MLU in a decade. Lahat is not entirely necessary anyway. Very expensive and only a few tanks may carry it within a regiment. 6 at most per tank, same like the T-90.

Anyway, if you have the latest info on the chart I posted (I believe there are errors), please correct them if you have the information. This is for everyone actually.
The whole table needs to be reworked. Global security has some relevant info, just google specs tankname globalsecurity. Quite accurate and useful for the most basic of information. Books are the best. Some authors make mistakes, but information can be checked with other sources for consistency. For eg: Steven Zaloga thought Obj 188A1 had STEF, which Vassily also quoted, both are wrong as mentioned by Methos and Damian. So, don't expect accurate information every time.

If you want decent information then, from the top of my head, I think the T-90 has a 950HP(V-92) engine to be upgraded to a 1130HP engine(V-96). But HP alone isn't enough to quantify it's capability. The Torque on Russian engines is at least 20-25% of power as compared to 10-15% on some western engines in operation(dunno about the new models). The gun is a 2A46M-5, 48 cal gun ( can be upgraded to the 2A86, 55 cal) and it fires almost everything including missiles. TI - Currently carries the Catherine-FC(basic specs are available from Thales website, FoV, video resolution, bandwidth etc), while the upgraded one has a Russian TI called Kalina(no info available). I remember Catherine being in the 8-12um band and with only 2X zoom. Quite obsolete if you compare to M1A2SEP, perhaps even the T-90 MS's Kalina. Acceleration and speed are governed on all tanks, they can go faster but fuel consumption is higher.

When you talk about Western and Russian tanks, you take it for granted that all the stuff mentioned in the table you posted are world class specs. There are other things that matter, like maintenance, costs, training etc. Other than that all tanks have some design advantage or disadvantage over another tank unless you bring in a fourth generation tank. For eg: Bring in the Obj 195 and it will chew through all the tanks mentioned in that table and still have room for more. Basically the F-22 of the ground forces.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
( can be upgraded to the 2A86, 55 cal)
AFAIK the new gun is designated 2A82 and will be used on Armata platform based tank, it's barrel lenght is unknown however. The 152mm smoothbore used in Object 195 prototype was designated 2A83. There were also some other projects like 2A66 used on some Object 187 prototypes.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
AFAIK the new gun is designated 2A82 and will be used on Armata platform based tank, it's barrel lenght is unknown however. The 152mm smoothbore used in Object 195 prototype was designated 2A83. There were also some other projects like 2A66 used on some Object 187 prototypes.
Ah! Yes. 2A82. Igor reported it to be 55 cal. Even 48/52 cal is good enough for the T-90 though. No harm there.

I don't think we can have a 152mm on the T-90. If we get one, heck, the Paki tanks will have turrets flying even before a shot is fired.



Difficult to believe this beast is just 55 tons and we can't even see the entire length of the gun.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
No, 152mm is not very likely to be installed on T-90, on the other hand 152mm rifled gun was installed on modified T-80 designated Object 292.



And 140mm XM291 smoothbore gun was installed in modified M1A1 with new turret.



Difficult to believe this beast is just 55 tons and we can't even see the entire length of the gun.
Some day maybe not only we will see clear photo of Object 195, but also Object 477. ;)
 

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
The gun is a 2A46M-5, 48 cal gun [...]
Depends on the exact way of measuring, it can be seen as everything from L/48 to L/51 (different meassuring techniques of barrel length and bore length). Western literature and also some NATO/CIA sources seem to use the L/51 nomenclature.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Some day maybe not only we will see clear photo of Object 195, but also Object 477. ;)
Yeah. There is a gestation period of 5 to 10 years before the latest thing is shown to the public.

All of these were prototypes anyway. Also wasn't there a Leo as well with a 130mm or 140mm.

Depends on the exact way of measuring, it can be seen as everything from L/48 to L/51 (different meassuring techniques of barrel length and bore length). Western literature and also some NATO/CIA sources seem to use the L/51 nomenclature.
Yeah. Vassily gives it as 6000mm and I have read the bore to be 123mm in some places with 6300mm in some places.

Are there any latest western works on Obj 188A1 available?
 

Articles

Top