Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[asianobserve]

In simple words as you don't understand, the M829A2 will kill any tank from a decent distance.

And this is not even the latest anymore as M829A3 is already in service. And an even more powerful M829A4 is already under development and soon will be inducted into service.

 

[hitesh]

T90 shot taken by Photron camera at 18000 fps

 

[hitesh]

Another T90 shot

 

[hitesh]

 

[Andrei_bt]

In simple words as you don't understand, the M829A2 will kill any tank from a decent distance.

Not ANY tank, but T-90 because of its obsolete protaction.

 

[p2prada]

Not ANY tank, but T-90 because of its obsolete protaction.

Typical. You are obviously living in the Gulf War period.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Not ANY tank.

Agreed there..

 

[arya]

which tank will be best option for china border

 

[Kunal Biswas]

which tank will be best option for china border

Under 20 ton capable of moving through rough terrain in compact space on mountain passes, Must have weapon capable of impacting around 3kms away, Rfi is out, Polish Anders is considers for 100 tracked under BEML..

For Medium we deployed T-72M1 AJAYAmk1/2

 

[ace009]

Typical. You are obviously living in the Gulf War period.

And you, I feel are living in the Vietnam war times - last time when Russian equipment won a major war against western equipment.

The world has changed since then - cold war is over, the soviet Union is no more, replaced by Russia - their military-industrial complex is a severely reduced and their technologies are now behind the western standards, playing catch up.

FYI - just in case you missed any of it.

 

[p2prada]

And you, I feel are living in the Vietnam war times - last time when Russian equipment won a major war against western equipment.

The world has changed since then - cold war is over, the soviet Union is no more, replaced by Russia - their military-industrial complex is a severely reduced and their technologies are now behind the western standards, playing catch up.

FYI - just in case you missed any of it.

All right then let's look at the 4 largest and possibly the most powerful armies in the world. I have not taken Numbers 5 and beyond because the numbers and power ratio will be lopsided.

Global Firepower - 2011 World Military Strength Ranking

It's really funny how statistics beat theory every time. Western Doctrine MBTs are supposed to be the best, but 3 of those 4 most powerful armies still swear by T-90 type tanks.

 

[ace009]

All right then let's look at the 4 largest and possibly the most powerful armies in the world. I have not taken Numbers 5 and beyond because the numbers and power ratio will be lopsided.

Global Firepower - 2011 World Military Strength Ranking

It's really funny how statistics beat theory every time. Western Doctrine MBTs are supposed to be the best, but 3 of those 4 most powerful armies still swear by T-90 type tanks.

Ahhhh - Let's see - of these 4 largest armies (USA, RUssia, PRC and India) - only two (USA and Russia) have their own defence research and production good enough to design and develop MBTs. The other two have only now started doing that and it will take them 15-20 years if not more to have their own MBTs as a majority in their armies (and given the bias against Arjun from people like you, for India, maybe NEVER). So, the choice for these two countries have been to buy MBTs from Russia or USA. For obvious reasons USA will NOT sell to China. As for India, the price of the US MBT (M1A1) is too high (by Indian mentality, cheaper is better).

Then if you look at the rest of the top 10 - ALL use "western" armor - how is that? So, did you cut it off at 4 for convenience?

Statistics only makes sense when you analyze the arguments and assumptions behind it. Or else it is like the joke of a statistician drowning in a river because according to his statistics "average depth" of the river was 4 feet.

So - in reply to your argument, my friend, the reason 3 of the top 4 armies "swear by" T-90 is simply because of historic reasons and technological limitations on their part.
If we follow that argument, then much of western technology is "useless" since most of the countries do not have it. Just because more people use it does not mean it is good. Or else cheap chinese crap are the best things in the world.

 

[p2prada]

Ahhhh - Let's see - of these 4 largest armies (USA, RUssia, PRC and India) - only two (USA and Russia) have their own defence research and production good enough to design and develop MBTs. The other two have only now started doing that and it will take them 15-20 years if not more to have their own MBTs as a majority in their armies (and given the bias against Arjun from people like you, for India, maybe NEVER). So, the choice for these two countries have been to buy MBTs from Russia or USA. For obvious reasons USA will NOT sell to China. As for India, the price of the US MBT (M1A1) is too high (by Indian mentality, cheaper is better).

Then if you look at the rest of the top 10 - ALL use "western" armor - how is that? So, did you cut it off at 4 for convenience?

Statistics only makes sense when you analyze the arguments and assumptions behind it. Or else it is like the joke of a statistician drowning in a river because according to his statistics "average depth" of the river was 4 feet.

So - in reply to your argument, my friend, the reason 3 of the top 4 armies "swear by" T-90 is simply because of historic reasons and technological limitations on their part.

You are blind to reason. Even Pakistan rejected the Abrams for the older Type 85 and this was not because of money. They actually had money in the 80s and 90s unlike us. China developed the Type 99 and that's not their primary tank either. Even they swear by 2500 Type 90 tanks.

I did not consider the rest of the countries simply because their requirement is very small compared to the first four. Only the first 4 have a million men.

Just because more people use it does not mean it is good. Or else cheap chinese crap are the best things in the world.

See this statement is what differs jingos from people who know better.

It is a jingos perception that the T-90 is inferior to any other tank and this can be applied to how the Israeli air war was won by fighting aircraft which were a generation inferior to IsAF.

Both China and Russia designed the Type 85,90 and the T-90 resply only after watching the results of the Gulf War. It is very very obvious that a future variant is meant to defeat what exists on the field. There is a reason why the Americans also update the armour on Abrams periodically. It's a game of tug of war. If the western doctrine MBTs are so superior then there is no apparent reason why they need to upgrade the armour along with electronics. Heck the Abrams and Challengers don't even need the TUSK upgrade. However we see that even those are not entirely enough to stop Russian made RPGs.

A lot of people don't live on earth you see and that creates the vast difference in knowledge and jingoism. Just because the T-90 does not have a 4th man or that it does not have ammo protection, the armour also automatically becomes weaker for apparently no reason. Wow. That's logic.

The Challenger II's frontal armour was penetrated by a RPG-29 over the ERA. And the T-90s current gun provides more stopping power over a much greater distance than the RPG-29, see where I am getting at. The red army was feared for a reason. Europe designed their defences by considering the war will be fought in their own territory and not in Russia. There is a reason why Russian tanks are feared even today.

 

[asianobserve]

You are blind to reason. Even Pakistan rejected the Abrams for the older Type 85 and this was not because of money. They actually had money in the 80s and 90s unlike us. China developed the Type 99 and that's not their primary tank either. Even they swear by 2500 Type 90 tanks.

I did not consider the rest of the countries simply because their requirement is very small compared to the first four. Only the first 4 have a million men.



See this statement is what differs jingos from people who know better.

It is a jingos perception that the T-90 is inferior to any other tank and this can be applied to how the Israeli air war was won by fighting aircraft which were a generation inferior to IsAF.

Both China and Russia designed the Type 85,90 and the T-90 resply only after watching the results of the Gulf War. It is very very obvious that a future variant is meant to defeat what exists on the field. There is a reason why the Americans also update the armour on Abrams periodically. It's a game of tug of war. If the western doctrine MBTs are so superior then there is no apparent reason why they need to upgrade the armour along with electronics. Heck the Abrams and Challengers don't even need the TUSK upgrade. However we see that even those are not entirely enough to stop Russian made RPGs.

A lot of people don't live on earth you see and that creates the vast difference in knowledge and jingoism. Just because the T-90 does not have a 4th man or that it does not have ammo protection, the armour also automatically becomes weaker for apparently no reason. Wow. That's logic.

The Challenger II's frontal armour was penetrated by a RPG-29 over the ERA. And the T-90s current gun provides more stopping power over a much greater distance than the RPG-29, see where I am getting at. The red army was feared for a reason. Europe designed their defences by considering the war will be fought in their own territory and not in Russia. There is a reason why Russian tanks are feared even today.

I'd prefer to hunker down inside a Challenger II over T-90 when faced with danger anytime of the day and night. How about you, where would you hide in these two MBTs if given a choice during a real combat scenario?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

RPG29 penetrated CH2 when it was not well armored and driver lost his foot, later version were improved once, other than insurgent shot a abrams at side with RPG-29 resulting one KIA which was the loader..

CH2 was hit & is not protected by multilayer laminate armor, these were protected then only by light dynamic protection ROMOR-A, now that place is protected by module of Dorchester multilayer laminate armor and problem is solved.

Places where Composite Armour was not deployed..

Here CR2 don't have special armor, prior to upgrade it was protected by ROMOR-A ERA.That was good against single warhead HEAT rounds.

Now side armour has been replaced too. The blocks look too large to be ERA, so I'd guess they're just remodelled Chobham/Dorchester blocks.designers solved the problem with Dorchester armor module.

On other hand T-90S does feature Compost Armour but Not ERA, If shot by RPG29 tandem warhead there, It would have been fatal for crew..

 

[ace009]

You are blind to reason. Even Pakistan rejected the Abrams for the older Type 85 and this was not because of money. They actually had money in the 80s and 90s unlike us. China developed the Type 99 and that's not their primary tank either. Even they swear by 2500 Type 90 tanks.

I did not consider the rest of the countries simply because their requirement is very small compared to the first four. Only the first 4 have a million men.



See this statement is what differs jingos from people who know better.

It is a jingos perception that the T-90 is inferior to any other tank and this can be applied to how the Israeli air war was won by fighting aircraft which were a generation inferior to IsAF.

Both China and Russia designed the Type 85,90 and the T-90 resply only after watching the results of the Gulf War. It is very very obvious that a future variant is meant to defeat what exists on the field. There is a reason why the Americans also update the armour on Abrams periodically. It's a game of tug of war. If the western doctrine MBTs are so superior then there is no apparent reason why they need to upgrade the armour along with electronics. Heck the Abrams and Challengers don't even need the TUSK upgrade. However we see that even those are not entirely enough to stop Russian made RPGs.

A lot of people don't live on earth you see and that creates the vast difference in knowledge and jingoism. Just because the T-90 does not have a 4th man or that it does not have ammo protection, the armour also automatically becomes weaker for apparently no reason. Wow. That's logic.

The Challenger II's frontal armour was penetrated by a RPG-29 over the ERA. And the T-90s current gun provides more stopping power over a much greater distance than the RPG-29, see where I am getting at. The red army was feared for a reason. Europe designed their defences by considering the war will be fought in their own territory and not in Russia. There is a reason why Russian tanks are feared even today.

@P2Prada
(Seems like we have disagreements in SO many areas - but you are passionate my friend, and can write well - I like you for that - although "reason" as you call it, has escaped you a long time back).

As I have mentioned time and again - you still are in love with the Soviet designs and weaponry. The fact that you are choosing Pakistan as an example tells me how weak your arguments are.

Again - going back to history ...

The reason Pakistan "rejected" Abrams is because it was never offered to them. PA desperately wanted it in the 1990s, especially after seeing it in action in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but after the 1998 nuke tests, US sanctions made sure that Pakistan would NEVER get the Abrams. So, in desparation, Pakistan had turned to it's new overlords, PRC, who were trying to export their MBT-2000 (export version of the Type 90) anyway. Long story short, PA got it's "home-made" Al Khalid, which is 90% similar to the Chinese Type 90.

As for the people who don't live on my planet - I know! They are ignorant jingoistic fundamentalist bums, who do not understand reason, logic and scientific knowledge.

Regarding Abrams and Chellengers frontal armor being destroyed by RPGs, that is a myth created by Russians and pro-Russian fanboys.

Heck, you may not have met Russians, but I do work with a couple of expatriate Russians, and the stories I hear from them, tell me that the "New Russia" is India with fairer skin. As I have mentioned before, they are a shadow of the Soviet era and the technical and talent base is still in decline, unlike India where technological skills are improving. Russia is currently about 2 decades behind USA in technology and India is another 2 decades behind Russia. By 2030, Indian technology will be at par with Russia, unless fanboys like you are successful in destroying all Indian advances by naysaying about homegrown technologies.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Chellengers frontal armor with ERA indeed was destroyed by RPG because it is even less protected that T-90s.

 

[ace009]

You mean where the RPG-29 round fired almost point blank went through the ERA and injured a British gunner? That is true, but it still speaks volumes about the Challenger, where only one crew member was "injured" NOT KILLED. The Frontal armor was not destroyed - the Tank was still in usable and went back to action later.

 

[p2prada]

I'd prefer to hunker down inside a Challenger II over T-90 when faced with danger anytime of the day and night. How about you, where would you hide in these two MBTs if given a choice during a real combat scenario?

Depends on what I am trained on. If you are untrained on neither of the tanks then neither tank can protect you. If you are trained on T-90 then you would prefer the T type else any other tank that you are trained on will do, even T-55.

If I am asked to hide in a T-90 or a Challenger or even Abrams, then I would choose none of them. I am not trained on any of them, it would make me a sitting duck. Tanks are juicy targets and you are flirting with death in such a situation. Tanks aren't invincible except against small arms fire.

Even IAF MKI WSOs like their old Mirage-2000s compared to the MKI. But the first gen MKI pilots prefer the MKI, they do not know any other aircraft. Similarly Jaguar pilots don't want to leave the saddle so quickly for any other aircraft.

 

[p2prada]

RPG29 penetrated CH2 when it was not well armored and driver lost his foot, later version were improved once, other than insurgent shot a abrams at side with RPG-29 resulting one KIA which was the loader..

CH2 was hit & is not protected by multilayer laminate armor, these were protected then only by light dynamic protection ROMOR-A, now that place is protected by module of Dorchester multilayer laminate armor and problem is solved.

On other hand T-90S does feature Compost Armour but Not ERA, If shot by RPG29 tandem warhead there, It would have been fatal for crew..

No. The Challenger 2 that was hit was with the latest in Dorchester armour. The Govt hid that information from public for 8 months because the tank that was penetrated was the latest model of the Challenger 2. In 2003, they even launched an investigation on why the C-2s ERA was penetrated over the latest armour.

This was quite a big deal in Britain in 2003. All the C-2 tanks in Iraq have Dorchester armour.

You mean where the RPG-29 round fired almost point blank went through the ERA and injured a British gunner? That is true, but it still speaks volumes about the Challenger, where only one crew member was "injured" NOT KILLED. The Frontal armor was not destroyed - the Tank was still in usable and went back to action later.

It injured all 4 occupants. The Driver is more in focus because he lost his leg in the mishap.