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

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
New Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
You should not forget the technical aspect. Not all Indian tanks are T-90s or Arjuns (and even they aren't the best). Just a short time ago India has bought new ammunition for their T-72s and T-90s from Russia.
Current Russian export APFSDS has a total length below 60 cm (probably 57 cm) and a muzzle velocity of ~1,700 m/s... how do you compare this to modern ammunition from France, Germany and the U.S.?
Germany has APFSDS with a total length of 75 cm and a muzzle velocity of 1,750 m/s, French tanks use 69 cm long APFSDS with a muzzle velocity of 1,790 m/s and the U.S. Army has 89 cm long APFSDS with a muzzle velocity of only 1,555 m/s. The Arjun has an APFSDS with a length of only 48-49 cm and a muzzle velocity of only 1,650 m/s...
In WW2 better armour and ammunition were the reasons why some heavy tank units exceeded a 10:1 kill-death-ratio in Russia.

Do you think that the potency of the armies can easily be compared on sole number with already such huge differences in ammunition technology only?
India, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, North Korea etc. are on the top places, even though they only have a small number of up-to-date weapon systems (or sometimes even not a single one), but because they have much.

Indian anti-tank weapons include 84 mm and 106 mm recoilless weapons with single shaped charge warhead (penetration ~400 mm) and RPG-7s with single charge warhead (penetration ~300 mm)... is this comparable to the PzF-3IT (penetration ~900 mm + ERA) or the ERYX missile (penetration ~900 mm + ERA)? I doubt so.
I agree GFP only looks at numbers and i was not talking of power here, i was only wonder how we had so many and even more than US!! That was the only surprise but since you bring in the argument of nations vs nation their over all catogrisiation in their home page puts India at number 4 and that is not because of numbers but takeing into account all the other factors.

To compare India with North Korea or Egypt is silly, they have no technology and are stagnant while India is growing rapidly and evolving. India has 5000MBTs and 1000 of them are new T-90s and will have new Arjuns variants and 4000 T-72s will be upgraded with modern warfare suits compared to just 420 from France or UK even with a 3 hit probability they can not make it. This cant be put in the game box as North Korea or Egypt whose stuff are Vintage and have not been upgraded.

As for rounds even then the numbers are totally against UK or France and UK till recently had rifiled bores so bring in American rounds is not fare against UK or France. Russian HE rounds are adapted for armor piercing and in a short battle 5000 tanks will finish 450 tanks any day. Your argument is vain in this issue and even with Air support IAF has 200 new Su-30MKIs, 60 upgraded Mig-29upg, 55 Mirage-2000 with 400 more Soviet models with Israeli radars on them for shear number dominance and in the coming years will have 200 Rafale and 200 LCA.
 
Last edited:

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
RPG-7 is not used by Indian Army. Other anti tank armaments include some 30,000 MILAN, 15,000 konkurs and few more. In addition to this, $1 billion dollar tender is out there for the acquisition of more than 8,000 Spike or Javelin missiles. This will make India, the largest user of Spike or second largest user of Javelin. This is multiple times more than the combined European inventory of 3rd gen manportable ATGM.
The Indian Ordnance Factory advertises a 73 mm RPG warhead - if they use it or not, it is on a technical level decades behind their competitiors from Russia or Europe. How many launchers will they order for their ATGMs? 8,000 missiles is not 8,000 launchers. And no: The European forces have combined more third generation ATGMs (and if you were talking about Javelin/Spike, they are fourth generation). The number of Spikes in Europe is believed to increase due to licence manufacture by EuroSpike. India will also order new Spikes or Javelins, but it will take some more years probably til they have decided which missile they will introduce. Also 30,000 Milans is not unreached... France and Germany probably did have more Milan missiles prior downsizing their forces. Just taking a look at their armies' structures will help. These 30,000 missiles are also mostly older models, with less than half being the equipped with tandem charges...
Konkurs is inferior to the NATO missiles HOT and TOW, which both carry heavier warheads in their later versions and are also superior in other aspects. Late HOT-3 penetrates 60% more armour and has a better way to deal with ERA than Konkurs, late TOW models have top-attack mode.

To compare India with North Korea or Egypt is silly, they have no technology and are stagnant while India is growing rapidly and evolving. India has 5000MBTs and 1000 of them are new T-90s and will have new Arjuns variants and 4000 T-72s will be upgraded with modern warfare suits compared to just 420 from France or UK even with a 3 hit probability they can not make it. This cant be put in the game box as North Korea or Egypt whose stuff are Vintage and have not been upgraded.
Both North Korea and Egypt have a pretty dynamic tank development, with Egypt developing a number of composite armour upgrades for their older tanks and North Korea having developed nearly a dozen different tank versions in the last two decades.
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Do you think that the potency of the armies can easily be compared on sole number with already such huge differences in ammunition technology only?
According to OOE, India currently has superior command and control as compared to NATO.

I am not bothered about the GFP website, but we don't have any RPG series weapons. Only 2nd gen ATGMs and orders for 3rd gen in the process.

30000 MILANs(manufactured in India), around 20000 Kornets and Konkurs.We have 4100 Milan 2Ts on order. Apart from that orders have been placed for 8000 odd Spike. 25000 Invar to be made in India. We are placing orders for Javelin and may buy over 60000, almost all to be made in India.
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
New Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
The Indian Ordnance Factory advertises a 73 mm RPG warhead - if they use it or not, it is on a technical level decades behind their competitiors from Russia or Europe. How many launchers will they order for their ATGMs? 8,000 missiles is not 8,000 launchers. And no: The European forces have combined more third generation ATGMs (and if you were talking about Javelin/Spike, they are fourth generation). The number of Spikes in Europe is believed to increase due to licence manufacture by EuroSpike. India will also order new Spikes or Javelins, but it will take some more years probably til they have decided which missile they will introduce. Also 30,000 Milans is not unreached... France and Germany probably did have more Milan missiles prior downsizing their forces. Just taking a look at their armies' structures will help. These 30,000 missiles are also mostly older models, with less than half being the equipped with tandem charges...
Konkurs is inferior to the NATO missiles HOT and TOW, which both carry heavier warheads in their later versions and are also superior in other aspects. Late HOT-3 penetrates 60% more armour and has a better way to deal with ERA than Konkurs, late TOW models have top-attack mode.



Both North Korea and Egypt have a pretty dynamic tank development, with Egypt developing a number of composite armour upgrades for their older tanks and North Korea having developed nearly a dozen different tank versions in the last two decades.
Ya they are dynamic not arguing against that may be they can match UK or France. I dont know if NK against UK one on one what will be the out come because of Army personal and MBT counts but i dont think they can go against much larger nation like india which has both numbers and is on an technology upgrade program.

It is not just about some superficial armor upgrades but technology in general, India is in some parts more advanced than some European nations like with Space program or missile technology. NK is under sanctions and they have to do their own stuff, that does not prove quality but merely necessity.
 

blueblood

New Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496
The Indian Ordnance Factory advertises a 73 mm RPG warhead - if they use it or not,
I seriously doubt it.

How many launchers will they order for their ATGMs? 8,000 missiles is not 8,000 launchers. And no: The European forces have combined more third generation ATGMs (and if you were talking about Javelin/Spike, they are fourth generation).
More than 300 launchers and yes, these are the third generation ATGMs, which also includes the likes of Pars 3 LR and Nag but it is not man portable. In most cases there is a follow on order, so the number is likely to be increased further or could end up replacing the thousands of older MILANs.

The number of Spikes in Europe is believed to increase due to licence manufacture by EuroSpike. India will also order new Spikes or Javelins, but it will take some more years probably til they have decided which missile they will introduce. Also 30,000 Milans is not unreached... France and Germany probably did have more Milan missiles prior downsizing their forces. Just taking a look at their armies' structures will help. These 30,000 missiles are also mostly older models, with less than half being the equipped with tandem charges...
Hence, the order of 4,100 MILAN2T to act as interim solution. "Prior to downsizing" is a simplified statement. Offcourse, the European nations have had much larger numbers. But today we are talking about 21 years post Cold War.

Konkurs is inferior to the NATO missiles HOT and TOW, which both carry heavier warheads in their later versions and are also superior in other aspects. Late HOT-3 penetrates 60% more armour and has a better way to deal with ERA than Konkurs, late TOW models have top-attack mode.
Never said anything about the superiority or inferiority. You might wanna compare the armour penetration of HOT3 to the later models like Ataka-V since they belong to the same period.

Numbers do count for something, especially if you are not comparing HK 417 and Jezail.
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
New Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
North koreas new MBT!! Check out its night vision, it has a huge head light! :laugh:

This sure comparable to Indaian stuff we only have IR and night vision on 1500 or more tanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Both France and UK suffers because idiotic politics. It is belived that to compensate money spend on R&D programs, they need to buy at least ~1,000 tanks developed under these R&D programs.

But no such thing happend, and there is more, another short seen decision, at least in case of UK, was that after Challenger 2 was fielded, Challenger 1's were seen as good only to be sold somewhere. It was not good decision, especially with CR2's not being purchased in bigger numbers. More or less same goes for Leclerc even if initial informations said about ~1,000 to be purchased.

However in UK stupidity in politics goes even further, ROF that was manufacturing ammunition for CR2's was closed, and at least 50 of these tanks were send to be cut in to pieces and scrapped, however perhaps process was stopt and someone back to his mind to cancell this decision.

As for NK tanks, they are interested to be discussed later.
 

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
I seriously doubt it.
They do produce a 73 mm RPG warhead, but that is for the BMP-1 (which uses ammunition which is partial identical to early RPGs, because it was developed from them). I'm sorry for making this mistake.

More than 300 launchers and yes, these are the third generation ATGMs, which also includes the likes of Pars 3 LR and Nag but it is not man portable. In most cases there is a follow on order, so the number is likely to be increased further or could end up replacing the thousands of older MILANs.
They are probably third generation ATGMs, but by the claims of the producers Spike is already another generation (i.e. the fourth generation) because the whole design is more or less modular scalabe (from Mini-Spike to Spike-ER). For PARS-3LR a short range and a medium range version was also planned (PARS-3MR and PARS-3SR, SR was only projected), so there is a common development in this direction. If this will really be a new generation can only show us the future. A generation can't be made up by just two members.

Hence, the order of 4,100 MILAN2T to act as interim solution. "Prior to downsizing" is a simplified statement. Offcourse, the European nations have had much larger numbers. But today we are talking about 21 years post Cold War.
And is there any proof that the stocks of ammunition have been destroyed or that all launch units have been sold? I recall that just 3 years ago there was an excersice of German reservists using Igla missiles from old GDR stocks! This did cause some murmurs in German forums.

Never said anything about the superiority or inferiority. You might wanna compare the armour penetration of HOT3 to the later models like Ataka-V since they belong to the same period.
My point is that there is something called combat value (Kampfwert for those who speak German) which is totally ignored by this ranking. I.e. we can use something as base to determine the relative usefullness in combat of other weapons. This e.g. has been done during the Leopard 2 development, to choose the best configuration keeping in mind procurment costs, availability of parts and needed time.
If an army has many weapon systems, it is not necessarily the best. The Syrian army is in the web ranking posted by Godless-Kafir some posts ago in the top ten, still their weapon systems are more or less completely on the technical level of 1975-1985... do you think they would be capable to win against a smaller but better equipped force from Europe or America? I don't think they will stand a chance. How many T-72s/T-72M1s and T-55s does it take to destroy a single modern NATO MBT, like a M1A2, Leclerc, Challenger 2 or Leopard 2? The exact result will depend on tactics (like ambushes etc.), but a ratio greater than 5 to 1 seems probable.
The Indian Army currently has only ~1,000 partial good MBTs (i.e. the T-90s and Arjuns produced until now), which still have only outdated ammunition; the rest of the large tank force is more or less on the 1960 - 1980s level. All IFVs in the Indian army are inferior to most of the Western ones (excluding some like the AMX-10), i.e. they can be penetrated from a significantly larger range.
Similar things can be said about the Indian anti-tank weapons. They have many, but the majority of them will not be capable to deal with enemy tanks. It also should be noted that mostly the number of missiles is stated which was ordered, but not the number currently in inventory or the number of launching units.

If the ranking of land-based weapon power from globalfirepower.com would be realistic, then India probably would not be in the top 3, it could be possible that it would not be in the top 5.

North koreas new MBT!! Check out its night vision, it has a huge head light!

This sure comparable to Indaian stuff we only have IR and night vision on 1500 or more tanks.
The "head light" is an IR light, probably L2AG Luna. It is not much known about the latest North Korean tanks, but it is known that North Korea imported a number of T-72s, one T-72M1 (iirc.) is on a static display. They once wanted to licence produce this tank, but their factories were not capable to do so.
The North Koreans also got a number of different main battle tanks from the Soviets/Russia for scrapping. It is unkown to me which models they got, but I think that they might have got some informations about their construction while scrapping them.
More interessting is that the North Koreans did have good relations with Libya and Iran. The Iranians got the T-72S, which is in various aspects comparable to the early T-90, especially the composite armour. They also licence produce the currently strongest Russian export APFSDS 3BM-42 Mango - if the North Koreans were capable to get some of this from the Iranian Republic, then their tanks should not be underestimated. It is also possible that they produce their own DU ammunition, especially the early alloys from M829/A1, Nadfil-2 and Vant should be pretty easy to make and are pretty much known in the public.
China might also have shared some of it's technology with North Korea, both are allies since a long time.
An older North Korean article which can be found in the internet translated to English claims that their tanks have a 700 mm thick front armour - this is between T-72M1 and T-72B (or between T-80B and T-80U)... the tank the author refered to is very likely not one of the latest models (still we must say that it might be a propagandic exaggeration, but judging from pictures 70 cm is possible for some of their older tanks). Their latests tanks might got armour as thick as the T-90 and maybe also similar composed. Their new heavy ERA is the most interessting aspect. It is thicker than Kontakt-5, by more than 50%. Kontakt-5 is, even though it is pretty effective, nothing more than steel plates and explosives. So it might be that the North Korean ERA is stronger than Kontakt-5, depending on the number of steel plates, their sizes and the amount of explosive.
 

ice berg

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
292
I highly doubt China will share military technology with NK. Food, yes, but not military tech. I think you are overestimate their capacity.

Their claims should be taken with a grain of salt...:cool2:
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
And on the other hand, some of Chonma'ho variants, have a front turret armor designed as replaceable modules, very similiar to Chinese tanks. These armor modules are not addon like in case of Soviet BDD armor, but integral part of vehicle protection, just like on Chinese tanks. IMHO China just shared this concept and know how, however indeed, armor itself might be very different, simpler, less effective than Chinese analog.
 

blueblood

New Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,872
Likes
1,496
They are probably third generation ATGMs, but by the claims of the producers Spike is already another generation (i.e. the fourth generation) because the whole design is more or less modular scalabe (from Mini-Spike to Spike-ER). For PARS-3LR a short range and a medium range version was also planned (PARS-3MR and PARS-3SR, SR was only projected), so there is a common development in this direction. If this will really be a new generation can only show us the future. A generation can't be made up by just two members.
They are the third gen ATGMs. Nothing as of now can be called the fourth gen. Spike is not modular but a family of missiles which include missiles with different ranges and seekers.

As for the Pars LR, it has numerous analogues, like Nag, Hellfire etc. They are, in the right sense, "fire and forget" missiles.

Spike and Javelin are not the only two members. Japanese Type 01 is another example. DRDO intends to make a 14kg variant of Nag whose performance will be comparable to spike etc. This is the latest tech in the field of ATGMs, so I'm sure other countries are also looking for the same.


And is there any proof that the stocks of ammunition have been destroyed or that all launch units have been sold? I recall that just 3 years ago there was an excersice of German reservists using Igla missiles from old GDR stocks! This did cause some murmurs in German forums.
Could be or not. Much of that is cold war era ammo about to be expired. Europe is facing no threats, downsizing and a lean and mean military was the way forward.

Not really my backyard but you tell me that despite the constant budget cuts and a bleak foreseeable future, Europe will struggle further to upkeep it's military strength. Royal Navy is a classic example, which once ruled the oceans is now without a carrier.

My point is that there is something called combat value (Kampfwert for those who speak German) which is totally ignored by this ranking. I.e. we can use something as base to determine the relative usefullness in combat of other weapons.
Agreed, but not entirely.

If an army has many weapon systems, it is not necessarily the best. The Syrian army is in the web ranking posted by Godless-Kafir some posts ago in the top ten, still their weapon systems are more or less completely on the technical level of 1975-1985... do you think they would be capable to win against a smaller but better equipped force from Europe or America?
Depends, their air defence is densest in the world. If you consider S-300 as an obsolete system then West and Israel were wrong for worrying about Iran getting S-300.
I don't think they will stand a chance. How many T-72s/T-72M1s and T-55s does it take to destroy a single modern NATO MBT, like a M1A2, Leclerc, Challenger 2 or Leopard 2? The exact result will depend on tactics (like ambushes etc.), but a ratio greater than 5 to 1 seems probable.
The Indian Army currently has only ~1,000 partial good MBTs (i.e. the T-90s and Arjuns produced until now), which still have only outdated ammunition; the rest of the large tank force is more or less on the 1960 - 1980s level. All IFVs in the Indian army are inferior to most of the Western ones (excluding some like the AMX-10), i.e. they can be penetrated from a significantly larger range.
Similar things can be said about the Indian anti-tank weapons. They have many, but the majority of them will not be capable to deal with enemy tanks. It also should be noted that mostly the number of missiles is stated which was ordered, but not the number currently in inventory or the number of launching units

If the ranking of land-based weapon power from globalfirepower.com would be realistic, then India probably would not be in the top 3, it could be possible that it would not be in the top 5.
Again, you are interpreting it the wrong way. You are counting platform vs platform rather than the warfighting capability of the nation. Quantity and quality of weapon platforms cannot be used as scale for any nation's abilities.

For your tanks vs tanks scenario, you kept some serious things out of the loop like attack choppers and infantry. In case of attack choppers, India will outnumber the combined western Europe by the end of this decade.

Ranking can be justified by two things. A nation's capability to wage war and defend itself. India is appropriately placed at number 3.
On a different forum, a poster (ex US marine) argued that today nations as large as India and China cannot be invaded and conquered by any nation other than themselves.

The sheer number of men and material required for this task is beyond the reach of anyone except maybe US.
[/QUOTE]
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
My point is that there is something called combat value (Kampfwert for those who speak German) which is totally ignored by this ranking. I.e. we can use something as base to determine the relative usefullness in combat of other weapons. This e.g. has been done during the Leopard 2 development, to choose the best configuration keeping in mind procurment costs, availability of parts and needed time.
If an army has many weapon systems, it is not necessarily the best.(...) How many T-72s/T-72M1s and T-55s does it take to destroy a single modern NATO MBT, like a M1A2, Leclerc, Challenger 2 or Leopard 2? The exact result will depend on tactics (like ambushes etc.), but a ratio greater than 5 to 1 seems probable.
I have propper dates about T-72M1 and Leopard-2A4. This dates are from Polish People Amy (LWP - Ludowe Wojsko Polskie 1945-1989). Polish LWP was well trained and equipment. Polish T-72M1 was exatly the same like T-72M1 in India :)
Shrotly:
In attack: 8 lost T-72M1 for 1 destroyed leopard-2A4
In defence 4 lost T-72M1 for 1 destroyed leopard-2A4

Of course polish export model T-72M1 was not the same T-72B (Ob.184) and T-72A for Soviet Union and and was depleted, and worse in most aspects, but trenning and morale Polish Tank Corps was no worse then Soviet's ones in those years.
:)
Sorry, hard truth but export model T-72M1 sucks. 8 for 1 Leopard-2A4 and it's for Polish Inteligence dates from late 1980.
rest leater
 
Last edited:

methos

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag


Leopard 2 driver simulator - from a Canadian file. I think the armour thickness might be shown correctly.
 
Last edited:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
@methos

Wow, nice shot.
When I had tried to masure frontall Leo2A4 hull it looks that:



 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
OFB don't produce 73mm Heat Rounds for BMP-1, These are imported ..
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Interesting last time i saw those shells had foreign markings..
 

Articles

Top