Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[ace009]

You quote a guy who quotes Prasun Sengupta when it comes to tanks and then you claim he has experience on tanks and he claims something about something which he has not even seen in service during his tenure. Then you come back saying I am a liar.

I am a liar only because I support the T-90 induction. Everything else is just a lie. War heroes are instantly turned into villains because they reject the Arjun. Even Prasun becomes a celebrity compared to the evil p2prada. Why because at least that bumbling guy is supportive of Arjun induction as compared to the arm chair general p2prada.

Let me tell you something funny. Almost every single weapons systems developer in the world today is an arm chair general. Right from DRDO's chief to the janitor. Right from the top most ranking developer in Raytheon or Rafael to the last guy opening and closing the gates at night. Everybody is an arm chair general.

To get some facts straight, DRDO does not hire anybody above the age of 32 in the position of a scientist. Hardly one or two a year move into DRDO from the services after a SSC. So, get that in your head. There are a lot of arm chair generals in the world who actually know more than in service people when it comes to technology. The air force technical officers will actually know more about the aircraft than the people flying in them.

Coming to the point. The figure you rattled off in all your glory is actually the old T-72BMs figures. Heck the Pakistani T-84s claim a better figure of over 700mm RHA. The T-72BM or even the T-90 have the older version of the STEF. The newer versions that came in the T-90Vladimir or the T-90A and consequently the export T-90S are superior. Even the 1978 made T-80 tanks claim 400-500mm while the T-80U made in 1984 claims a bit higher.

The T-90A stopped the Konkurs missile without ERA in tests. It has a penetration of 650mm. So, it is obvious the armour rating is higher than the best T-72. Then the Kornet ATGM was fired on the T-90. It has a penetration of 850mm. Out of 5 missiles fired only 1 managed to get through the armour. The tank did not have the ERA when the Kornet penetrated.

Now the T-90s current armour has no STEF but the Kanchan inserts between the steel inserts. It is of the same size as the one that is going into Arjun. So, expect the T-90 and Arjun to have similar frontal protection without ERA. The end result is the same.

In conclusion the actual figures of the T-90A or T-90S haven't been revealed to anybody. There are not even manufacturers claims to prove it.

It seems like only P2Prada knows the truth about T-90s - the unpublished, unacknowledged truth that he is shouting from the rooftops - only if someone will listen to and believe him!
I think at this point we should name P2Prada as the Moses to the god of RussTech (Russian technology) - in short "MosesRT".
I wonder why is it that in every other forum I have attended, all defense professionals irrespective of their nationality think that T-90 is obsolete compared to most modern western tanks, while MosesRT claims otherwise.

 

[p2prada]

It seems like only P2Prada knows the truth about T-90s - the unpublished, unacknowledged truth that he is shouting from the rooftops - only if someone will listen to and believe him!
I think at this point we should name P2Prada as the Moses to the god of RussTech (Russian technology) - in short "MosesRT".
I wonder why is it that in every other forum I have attended, all defense professionals irrespective of their nationality think that T-90 is obsolete compared to most modern western tanks, while MosesRT claims otherwise.

The T-90 is indeed obsolete compared to the modern MBTs. No doubt about it. Remember I compared the T-90 to the Leo A4 and not the Leo A6 or the Leo A7. Neither have I compared it to the M1A2SEP or any future M1A3 version nor have I compared it to the Challenger 2 with Rafael's kits.

All of the T-90 comparisons I have made relate to the tanks that were in operation in 1999. Those are the older versions of the same tanks as mentioned above.

With TUSK and other urban upgrade kits which are heavier the western MBTs have even better protection. This comes at a price though. The newer western MBTs are very expensive now but definitely superior to the T-90s in operation today. Nevertheless very few are in operation today.

Blame it on the cancellation of the T-95 and Black Eagle if you want or even the state of their economy or even their lack of focus. But the Russians are currently behind tank technology when it comes to fielding operational prototypes as compared to their western counterparts and they will only leap forward in 2013-15 with the new Armada tank.

The western tanks do have thicker plates, but the difference is not some 30 or 40% in case of T-72, it is 10 to 20% in difference compared to the T-90. It's more or less equivalent.

 

[Immanuel]

well Arjun mk-1 out performed the T-90 during comparative trials. T-90M is however a gr8 tank. Its sheer ruggedness and terrain performance is unparalleled. Our T-90s have Elbit battle management systems, Saab's Active defence system, i think a Thales Commander's sight and lot of good avionics procured from Israel, France etc. Furthermore, the T-90 has missile firing ability, it can fire the Lahat missile out to over 6km and kill helicopters with the same missile too. I think its a gr8 tank and gives us a good fighting partner. Since we dont have to face other western advanced tanks in the world, T-90M in our inventory gives us an edge over anything both China and Pakistan have.

Arjun mk-1 is already far better than the T-90 and hence is one of the best tanks in the world. Arjun mk-2 will most likely be the most advanced tank ever made. 93 improvements over the Arjun mk-1.

 

[plugwater]

Arjun mk-2 will most likely be the most advanced tank ever made. 93 improvements over the Arjun mk-1.

Care to explain ? It could become the best among our tanks but not in the world.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Arjun is build for our needs, like that US M1A2 tusk, & M1A2 are deign specific to US, Also like Merkava is deigned as per IDF needs..

And T-90/80/72/55/34 Build through out time as per Russian Needs..



Things works like that in Armies..

 

[p2prada]

It seems like only P2Prada knows the truth about T-90s - the unpublished, unacknowledged truth that he is shouting from the rooftops - only if someone will listen to and believe him!
I think at this point we should name P2Prada as the Moses to the god of RussTech (Russian technology) - in short "MosesRT".
I wonder why is it that in every other forum I have attended, all defense professionals irrespective of their nationality think that T-90 is obsolete compared to most modern western tanks, while MosesRT claims otherwise.

Something more to add to the armour comparison.

This is a rather reliable website for armour comparisons. It may be biased but could be one of the best we have.

Tank Protection Levels

If you scroll down you will see that the Abrams M1A2 gives 880 to 900mm while SEP gives 940-960mm on the turret. We also see the Challenger 2 being claimed to have 920-960mm on the turret. The leopard A6 is no different. However these are conventional armour and not with ERA.

Now if we scroll further down we see the T-72B 1988 model or the "early" T-90 model which gives 420-750-920mm depending on the turret location with 920mm being the highest. This is the basic model which evolved into the T-90 a decade later. These figures come with the ERA attached. Basically a T-72 with K-5 should give the same or similar level of protection as the Abrams or Challenger 2. Note that the armour level on Glacis is a bit higher with the K-5 as compared to the western tanks.

However we should also note that the early model T-90 is not the same as the current model T-90 or at least the 1998-99 model T-90 which we have inducted today directly from Russia or the one we are building with Kanchan inserts. For eg: the early T-90 which evolved from the T-72BM actually carried a cast turret as compared to the welded turret we see today. This new welded turret has a newer composite armour as compared to the older T-72.

If you look just one step higher, we see the Pakistani version of the T-84 tank with 800 to 1100mm of protection with K-5. The T-90 is said to have superior armour than the T-84. Considering the K-5 provides 250mm, the armour below the K-5 should give 550 to 850mm of armour protection without K-5 on the T-84. This would only mean the T-90 would be slightly higher if not very high.

It is obvious the T-90s armour is superior to some and equivalent to most western MBTs in the conventional sense. If the T-90 with Kaktus ever becomes a reality then the armour would be equivalent to any other western tank with heavy ERA.

Point to note the Arjun is well behind any of the modern tanks in comparison. However a lot of these comparisons depend on which shell was used and at what velocity to deduce these figures. All in all, the T-90 is definitely not the best, but it is certainly better than the Arjun.

 

[hitesh]

IA

 

[ace009]

Point to note the Arjun is well behind any of the modern tanks in comparison. However a lot of these comparisons depend on which shell was used and at what velocity to deduce these figures. All in all, the T-90 is definitely not the best, but it is certainly better than the Arjun.

This is again after the tests in India where Arjuns blew the T-90s out of the ground. Man - are you biased or what?
Anyway, I know you are ful of it, because anyday, I would take practical results from the ground than theoretical BS from you.

 

[p2prada]

This is again after the tests in India where Arjuns blew the T-90s out of the ground. Man - are you biased or what?
Anyway, I know you are ful of it, because anyday, I would take practical results from the ground than theoretical BS from you.

This is again another excuse where we know only one side of the story. The Arjuns never blew anything out of anywhere. The only categories paraded by the Arjun brigade is that the Arjun showed superior accuracy and fire on the move. Other than that if the Arjuns were actually superior or the T-90s were better in accomplishing objectives are not known simply because it has not been revealed. What has been claimed as comparative trials by the media were more of a integration trials by the Army. The Army wanted to know where the tank fits in, that's all. But the media parades the Arjuns so called advantages as though the Arjuns are the new age Samsons.

They say the Arjuns are accurate upto 2m at a distance of 2Km. But Challenger crews claim they can take out helmet sized targets at 1Km. Stark difference for a world class tank is it not?

Also the kind of advantage Arjun showed against T-90 is nothing in real life. The Abrams is not as accurate as the Challenger either. If you run comparative trials between the Abrams and Challenger similar to T-90 vs Arjun, then the Challenger will show superior fire on the move as well as greater accuracy. But does that mean the Challenger is superior to the Abrams? Not even close.

The Arjun can shoot better when it is moving 10Km/hr faster than the T-90. Similarly the Leclerc claims a better accuracy compared to Abrams when it is firing on the move at a 10Km/hr higher speed. Does than indicate the Leclerc is superior to the Abrams? No again.

The advantages Arjun showed over the T-90 mean squat in a real operation. The same advantages the Leclerc and Challenger II have against Abrams also do nothing to offset the Abrams advantage of having a more powerful armour and firepower. Similarly the T-90 has superior armour as well as firepower compared to Arjun. According to Collins, it is actually as good as any tank with the K-5 on. As of 2009, two new Russians shells are being tested and they will be superior to anything OFB can develop for Arjun. We can speculate they will be long rod penetrators compared to the current ones designed in mid-90s.

A tank is evaluated not in a competition like aircraft are. A tank needs to fit into a doctrine. In case of aircraft, the doctrine is created after the aircraft is inducted, but in tanks the doctrine is created first and then the tank is designed for it.

There was more bullshit in the media reports than what comes out of a horse's backside. The difference is on how you analyze the said info. The answers are always in between. Yes I am "full of it" if you are talking about knowledge. However the theoretical BS that I just posted is as true and more accurate than the practical knowledge that you have heard from this guy or the next.

Even after trials the Parliament report suggested the same, superior fire on the move and accuracy. But there was nothing about superior armour or superior firepower. Somethings are best left unsaid.

Somehow we are the only country on the planet which makes the best systems in the first try. Isn't that ironic that China cannot do the same with a better R&D and industry? Funnily enough even DRDO has not made such a claim.

 

[ace009]

This is again another excuse where we know only one side of the story. The Arjuns never blew anything out of anywhere. The only categories paraded by the Arjun brigade is that the Arjun showed superior accuracy and fire on the move. Other than that if the Arjuns were actually superior or the T-90s were better in accomplishing objectives are not known simply because it has not been revealed. What has been claimed as comparative trials by the media were more of a integration trials by the Army. The Army wanted to know where the tank fits in, that's all. But the media parades the Arjuns so called advantages as though the Arjuns are the new age Samsons.

They say the Arjuns are accurate upto 2m at a distance of 2Km. But Challenger crews claim they can take out helmet sized targets at 1Km. Stark difference for a world class tank is it not?

Also the kind of advantage Arjun showed against T-90 is nothing in real life. The Abrams is not as accurate as the Challenger either. If you run comparative trials between the Abrams and Challenger similar to T-90 vs Arjun, then the Challenger will show superior fire on the move as well as greater accuracy. But does that mean the Challenger is superior to the Abrams? Not even close.

The Arjun can shoot better when it is moving 10Km/hr faster than the T-90. Similarly the Leclerc claims a better accuracy compared to Abrams when it is firing on the move at a 10Km/hr higher speed. Does than indicate the Leclerc is superior to the Abrams? No again.

The advantages Arjun showed over the T-90 mean squat in a real operation. The same advantages the Leclerc and Challenger II have against Abrams also do nothing to offset the Abrams advantage of having a more powerful armour and firepower. Similarly the T-90 has superior armour as well as firepower compared to Arjun. According to Collins, it is actually as good as any tank with the K-5 on. As of 2009, two new Russians shells are being tested and they will be superior to anything OFB can develop for Arjun. We can speculate they will be long rod penetrators compared to the current ones designed in mid-90s.

A tank is evaluated not in a competition like aircraft are. A tank needs to fit into a doctrine. In case of aircraft, the doctrine is created after the aircraft is inducted, but in tanks the doctrine is created first and then the tank is designed for it.

There was more bullshit in the media reports than what comes out of a horse's backside. The difference is on how you analyze the said info. The answers are always in between. Yes I am "full of it" if you are talking about knowledge. However the theoretical BS that I just posted is as true and more accurate than the practical knowledge that you have heard from this guy or the next.

Even after trials the Parliament report suggested the same, superior fire on the move and accuracy. But there was nothing about superior armour or superior firepower. Somethings are best left unsaid.

Somehow we are the only country on the planet which makes the best systems in the first try. Isn't that ironic that China cannot do the same with a better R&D and industry? Funnily enough even DRDO has not made such a claim.

After reading your long rant, all I can think of is - "WTF?".
So, you based your "assessment" on what? The performance differences between the Arjun and T-90 means squat in "real" engagements - right! As far as I know, every country claims their tank is the best - the Brits swear by the Challenger-II, the Germans swear by the Leopard, the French think the Leclarc is the best and the Israelis think that the Merkava is supreme. And last but not least the USA thnks the Abrams is way above every other tank out there.
The Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, heck even the damn Pakis think that their own tank is world number one.
Everyone except the Indians like you ... You are still caught up with (now defunct) Soviet worship. To you, every Russian victory against lowly equipped, outgunned and out-numbered oppostion is technical and strategic brilliance, while every proof of superior performance people can throw up for any homemade system is unbelievable. The mentality is SO 1980s, that I do sometimes wonder if you are paid by the Rosoboronexport - but then I know better - even they are not that stupid.
Now, back to the topic. I ran your arguments by some military engineers (who actually design and make stuff for military) - and they laughed their ass off to hear that T-90 is better than western tanks.
By the way, I just read your argument - and it seems you acknowledged NOW that T-90 "may not be as good" as western tanks - hmmm - turning coat - are you?

 

[p2prada]

After reading your long rant, all I can think of is - "WTF?".

So, all you can do is come back with insults while I reply with information. I even give clues on how to analyze data and all you can come back is with silly one line retorts which you can blow into 200 word essays. Is that all you can do? I come with info while you provide the insults.

By the way, I just read your argument - and it seems you acknowledged NOW that T-90 "may not be as good" as western tanks - hmmm - turning coat - are you?

Hardly. The Russians are slightly behind the westerners. A new T-90AM tank is set to be unveiled in September. It will have all the advantages of the western tanks and will incorporate the same advantages as the T-90. Compared to the thickness based armour the westerners follow, the Russians depend on mass based armour.

What I said is current western MBTs which are not yet operationalized and carry heavy ERA will be superior to the current version of the T-90. A kaktus equipped T-90AM will be elsewhere and then that will be followed by the Armata tank. However read some of these excerpts for a better gyan session.

Newest Russian Weapon Inferior to NATO/Chinese Standard: Russian Army Chief - Page 4

Google can spit out a lot of things and even Kunal is there it seems.

To you, every Russian victory against lowly equipped, outgunned and out-numbered oppostion is technical and strategic brilliance,

Exactly the opposite. Tell me then. Which of these do you think are more experienced in warfare, Hezbollah and Iraqi insurgents fighting western tanks or Russians fighting ex-Soviet army veterans?

The lowly equipped army the Russians fought had actually stolen from Russian army depots before fighting began. The outgunned rebels had tanks as well which were actually more advanced than the Iraqi tanks. The out numbered opposition were more dedicated than the Russians and performed better than the Russians themselves. The Chechens and Georgians actually showed tactical and strategic brilliance which surpassed that of the Russian tier 2 army that was sent to deal with the problems. In some cases the Russians were actually less equipped compared to the rebels. There was one instance in 1994 where an entire Russian motor brigade was annihilated.

Comparatively a consortium of 30 of the richest and most powerful nations invaded Iraq and Afghanistan when both countries had high poverty levels and poor human rights records along with poor living conditions and were both already war torn countries. What a frigging joke. Comparing the Iraq and Afghan wars with the situation in Chechnya and Georgia. Heck even the Israelis were fighting an Iranian equipped Hezbollah and lost 11 Merkava Mk4s, against Iranian RPGs ripped off from Russian designs, in the conflict in 2006 out of the 24 Mk4 tanks sent in. The Israelis even went running to the Russians to have them stop export of the Konkurs to Syria because quite a lot of the Merkavas were knocked out due to the Konkurs supplied by Russia.

For a reality bite check this video, this is how real life works. Come out from under your bed. A dose of reality is excellent for even wannabe jingos.

Damaged Abrams M1A1 tanks - YouTube

No tank is infallible, no weapon perfect and no ego big enough to be immovable.

 

[p2prada]

LiveLeak.com - RPG-29 vs M1A2

A rather rare video of a RPG-29 hit on an M1A2.

 

[JBH22]

As they say the tank is as good as it crew.We did wonders with the outdated PT-76 against Pakistani M-48 tanks during 1971 war.

 

[ace009]

So, all you can do is come back with insults while I reply with information. I even give clues on how to analyze data and all you can come back is with silly one line retorts which you can blow into 200 word essays. Is that all you can do? I come with info while you provide the insults.



Hardly. The Russians are slightly behind the westerners. A new T-90AM tank is set to be unveiled in September. It will have all the advantages of the western tanks and will incorporate the same advantages as the T-90. Compared to the thickness based armour the westerners follow, the Russians depend on mass based armour.

What I said is current western MBTs which are not yet operationalized and carry heavy ERA will be superior to the current version of the T-90. A kaktus equipped T-90AM will be elsewhere and then that will be followed by the Armata tank. However read some of these excerpts for a better gyan session.

Newest Russian Weapon Inferior to NATO/Chinese Standard: Russian Army Chief - Page 4

Google can spit out a lot of things and even Kunal is there it seems.



Exactly the opposite. Tell me then. Which of these do you think are more experienced in warfare, Hezbollah and Iraqi insurgents fighting western tanks or Russians fighting ex-Soviet army veterans?

The lowly equipped army the Russians fought had actually stolen from Russian army depots before fighting began. The outgunned rebels had tanks as well which were actually more advanced than the Iraqi tanks. The out numbered opposition were more dedicated than the Russians and performed better than the Russians themselves. The Chechens and Georgians actually showed tactical and strategic brilliance which surpassed that of the Russian tier 2 army that was sent to deal with the problems. In some cases the Russians were actually less equipped compared to the rebels. There was one instance in 1994 where an entire Russian motor brigade was annihilated.

Comparatively a consortium of 30 of the richest and most powerful nations invaded Iraq and Afghanistan when both countries had high poverty levels and poor human rights records along with poor living conditions and were both already war torn countries. What a frigging joke. Comparing the Iraq and Afghan wars with the situation in Chechnya and Georgia. Heck even the Israelis were fighting an Iranian equipped Hezbollah and lost 11 Merkava Mk4s, against Iranian RPGs ripped off from Russian designs, in the conflict in 2006 out of the 24 Mk4 tanks sent in. The Israelis even went running to the Russians to have them stop export of the Konkurs to Syria because quite a lot of the Merkavas were knocked out due to the Konkurs supplied by Russia.

For a reality bite check this video, this is how real life works. Come out from under your bed. A dose of reality is excellent for even wannabe jingos.

Damaged Abrams M1A1 tanks - YouTube

No tank is infallible, no weapon perfect and no ego big enough to be immovable.

Hey - each to his own - I like info, you like insults ...
Seriously P2Prada - you have been handed your ass by Archer, by still tom tom about the T-90.
I will reply to your claims and re-claims again and again - but these days I am a little busy to do all the research - will get there, don't worry.
Unless Archer gets to it first.

 

[p2prada]

Hey - each to his own - I like info, you like insults ...
Seriously P2Prada - you have been handed your ass by Archer, by still tom tom about the T-90.
I will reply to your claims and re-claims again and again - but these days I am a little busy to do all the research - will get there, don't worry.
Unless Archer gets to it first.

If I remember correctly I replied to every one of Archer's comments with counter comments and he has not yet replied back. So, that is yet to be cleared. Considering how many mistakes he has made, there is no question of whose ass is being handed to whom.

Anyway I forgot to reply to one of your comments earlier;

I ran your arguments by some military engineers (who actually design and make stuff for military) - and they laughed their ass off to hear that T-90 is better than western tanks.

Funnily enough you tell them something that I never claimed in the first place. Do you have short term memory loss or merely comprehension issues. What I said was the T-90 does not have weak armour as being suggested and backed up using old T-72 figures. What I said is that the T-90 has more or less equivalent armour as compared to any western MBT that existed in 1999. Check back. I also said the newest MBTs have superior armour to the T-90 simply because the T-90 is old while the newer updated version is yet to be presented. Comparatively the newest western MBTs are yet to be operational which means all are in the same boat.

Only firepower is an issue on the T-90 simply because the Russians were not able to use long rod penetrators until the T-90 came up.

 

[ace009]

What I said was the T-90 does not have weak armour as being suggested and backed up using old T-72 figures. What I said is that the T-90 has more or less equivalent armour as compared to any western MBT that existed in 1999.

Too busy to check - will do when I have time. But my beef is, Arjun armor IS comparable to the western ones, which makes it definitely superior to the T-90, by your admission.
The firepower of the Arjun is definitely better, as has been proven already, which you acknowledge.
The engine specs, speed and durability are at part at worst, at best they are better for the Arjun, no arguments.
The sensors and electronics are also better for the Arjun, since they have been built to IA order and hand-picked from the best of the world.
So, in what way do you think the Arjun is worse of compared to the T-90S.

Only firepower is an issue on the T-90 simply because the Russians were not able to use long rod penetrators until the T-90 came up.

The reason T-90S has less firepower is precisely because of the autoloader design in the T-90.
Also because T-90 is made for Russian specs for warfare in open plains of Europe/ Russia - which means they believe in shoot and scoot - not surviving a hit. Which is also why the T-90s were hit so badly in the mountain areas of Chechnya.

 

[Andrei_bt]

well Arjun mk-1 out performed the T-90 during comparative trials. T-90M is however a gr8 tank. Its sheer ruggedness and terrain performance is unparalleled. Our T-90s have Elbit battle management systems, Saab's Active defence system, i think a Thales Commander's sight and lot of good avionics procured from Israel, France etc. Furthermore, the T-90 has missile firing ability, it can fire the Lahat missile out to over 6km and kill helicopters with the same missile too. I think its a gr8 tank and gives us a good fighting partner. Since we dont have to face other western advanced tanks in the world, T-90M in our inventory gives us an edge over anything both China and Pakistan have.

Arjun mk-1 is already far better than the T-90 and hence is one of the best tanks in the world. Arjun mk-2 will most likely be the most advanced tank ever made. 93 improvements over the Arjun mk-1.

They dont have Elbit battle management systems, Saab's Active defence system.
T-90 has no ability to fire the Lahat missile.

 

[Andrei_bt]

T-90s were hit so badly in the mountain areas of Chechnya.

Funny, how they where hit while they did not participated in thr Chechen war? You have a good fantasy.

 

[Andrei_bt]

This is again after the tests in India where Arjuns blew the T-90s out of the ground. Man - are you biased or what?
Anyway, I know you are ful of it, because anyday, I would take practical results from the ground than theoretical BS from you.

How exactly this happened, can you provide data on how "Arjuns blew the T-90s" or this is again your fantasies?

 

[Andrei_bt]

Even the best western analysts believe the T-90 should offer a 800mm RHA protection in the front without the ERA, similar to any other tank in the world built at the same time as the T-90, like the Challenger-2 without the Rafael Urban upgrade kit or even the Leo A4..

NII Stali, the developers of T-90S armor consider the 90s can be penetrated at 6 km range with M829A2 APFSDS which penetrates 740 mm at 2 km.
With new ERA "Relict" the protection at distances more than 1 km is claimed, also this is still obsolete level of protection.
This shows inability of NII Stali to provide protection against up to date threats.