Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[ace009]

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

My bad - it was the T-80BV in the Chechen wars - right? Same basic design, different version, different name. The T-90 were some upgraded armor due to the huge casualties of the Chechen war on the T-80BV. Unfortunately, Armor vs AP rounds are a race and by the time the T-90 appeared, their armor became obsolete. Happy?

As for the Arjun vs the T-90S - read the simulated battle tests done for "evaluation" of the Arjun by IA. The IA had put in a nominally trained crew on the Arjuns and highly trained (?!) crew on the T-90 - expecting a failure of the Arjun - but the Arjun came on tops. Read Archer and Kunal's post from earlier.

 

[Andrei_bt]

My bad - it was the T-80BV in the Chechen wars - right? Same basic design, different version, different name. The T-90 were some upgraded armor due to the huge casualties of the Chechen war on the T-80BV. Unfortunately, Armor vs AP rounds are a race and by the time the T-90 appeared, their armor became obsolete. Happy?

As for the Arjun vs the T-90S - read the simulated battle tests done for "evaluation" of the Arjun by IA. The IA had put in a nominally trained crew on the Arjuns and highly trained (?!) crew on the T-90 - expecting a failure of the Arjun - but the Arjun came on tops. Read Archer and Kunal's post from earlier.

Provide the source where this simulated battle tests are officially published.

 

[ace009]

Provide the source where this simulated battle tests are officially published.

Simulated battle tests published officially? What do you think you are dealing with? The US Army? this is the Indian Army dude - nothing is officially acknowledged till years later.
Here is the media report ...

But Business Standard has learned from multiple sources who were involved in the trials that the Arjun tank has outperformed the T-90 on every crucial parameter.
The trial pitted one squadron (14 tanks) of Arjuns against an equal number of T-90s. Each squadron was given three tactical tasks; each involved driving across 50 kilometers of desert terrain and then shooting at a set of targets. Each tank had to fire at least ten rounds, stationary and on the move, with each hit being carefully logged. In total, each tank drove 150 kilometres and fired between 30-50 rounds. The trials also checked the tanks' ability to drive through a water channel 5-6 feet deep.
The Arjun tanks, the observers all agreed, performed superbly. Whether driving cross-country over rugged sand-dunes; detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets; or accurately hitting targets, both stationery and moving, with pinpoint gunnery; the Arjun demonstrated a clear superiority over the vaunted T-90.

Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90

 

[Andrei_bt]

I see what I am dealing with, it is biased information of Arjun lobbyists. It is not a news that some circles in Indian industry and military lobbying Arjun manufacture as national tanks.
The words «50 kilometers of desert terrain», «30-50 rounds» seems for me as a joke comparing to Russian/soviet comparative test of 10 000 kilometers in various terrains and hundreds of firing tests.
Both Arjun and T-90S cannot be considered modern by current standards, especially Arjun.
It is clear that Arjun is just a downgraded Leopard-2 with German 1400 h.p. engine which had trobles even passing 1000 km (Trials in September 2007 to summer of 2008). It has weird rifled gun which is planned to be abandoned even by British, the only in the world who have them, copied from leopard «shot traps» in the turret at gunner site which is reworked by Germans since leopard 2A5

unreliable hydro pneumatic suspension units which are not the decision for desert conditions.
Also the unreasonable armor design is evident frontal hull

It is clear to everybody that holes in the center of the most threatened areas are weakened zones

Also no powerful side protection is available, like on modern tanks of other countries .

 

[JBH22]

its getting ridiculous that **** measuring contest the T-90 is here to stay in our armed forces periodic upgrades will maintain its combat capabilities though the Arjun MBT appears to give superior crew comfort.

 

[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.

For all the clever claims about T-90s - here's what a Tank expert had to say ...

A T-72 is a T-72 is a T-72 and anyway you cut it it is a flying frying pan. Russia likes to claim that the versions sold to Iraq were not "real" T-72's. Yet for other T-72's to have signifigantly higher protection would mean they would weigh signifigantly more with a reduction in the all important power to weight ratio and performance. With the exception of the T-64 no Soviet desinged tank until the T-80U had ceramic armors. They all used face hardened RHA later backed by ERA. A typical Pakistani tank using a Chinese built versipon of the L-7 105mm rifled cannon can expect to penetrate from 350mm+ of FHRHA. The maximum T-72 armor thickness is only 280mm (T-72B/T-90 380mm+) India's T-72's prior to the upgrade program were no better than Iraq's, and many of her T-72's remain un-upgraded.
lets take a detailed look at the T-72

When it was introduced it could be defeated from the front by all NATO 105mm and 120mm HEAT and APFSDS rounds in service. It has a rate of fire roughly half that of western tanks, it's 125mm cannon had limited velocity and was mated to decidely inferior optics.

The often trumpted tube fired ATGM is slow and easilyt defeated by sagger drills and smoke let alone that the firing tank had to stop to fire thus presenting itself as the primary target.

It is not a fast tank capable of only about 25kmph across rough terrain the same as a WW2 era Sherman or Panther.

The small size runs into direct conflcit with Soveit war plans that required a larg eonboard fuel supply. If you shoot the right front fender of a T-72 with 50cal HMG tracer ammo you can destroy the tank in excess of 1000m, becuase that fender is an unarmored fuel tank. Normally deisel fuel is a type armor (The M1 abrams uses fule tanks to protect the rear 1/4 of the tank for this reason) with its natural resitance to flash fires below the fuel/air level. However the HMG fires so fast that it will cause the desiel to aerosol and ignite ( I have friends who did it in Iraq).

The tank lacks even rudimentary protection of it's ammuntion and also lacks a turret ring meaning any internal fire is likely to result in a catostrophic explosion negating any chance at battlefeild salvage.

It lacks rubber trackpads leading to increased vibrations which combined with cramped and uncomfratble crew quarters limit maximum crew effectiveness to just a few hours.

The same lack of track pads means it tears up pavement doing magor daamge to roadways requring the tank be driven off road or transported at all times. off road movement increases maintence requirments.

Now onto it's advantages, it is cheap, easily massproduced, and wont overload most bridges. it can also with some preperation ford most prepared crossing sites reducing strain on bridging or ferry assets.

Upgraded T-72's with an improved gun/optics and armor pakages can efectively take on older western tanks form a superior posistion (M-60A3, leopard 1a5, AMX-30 etc) but being able to beat a tank 20 years older than itself is no mean feat.

As a former tanker if I had to go into combat with a either a Type 59II or a T-72 w/o ERA I would take the Type 59II. the T-55 chassis had similar armored protection 203mm vs 280mm but lacked the vulnerable front fender and possessed a turret ring and the Type 59II has a gun rated at 2500m vs the T-72's 2000m.

In GW1 no Iragi weapon was capable of breaching the front of an M1A1HM. In OIF I have seen pictures of an M1A2 hit on the front glacis by an ATGM that apeared to have nearly or lightly penetrated. Given that Iraq was under an arms embargo both the US and Russia deny that Iraq was illegally re-armed just before the invasion with advanced Kornet missiles, but I have my doubts. One weapon we do know the Iraqies aquired enmasse after 1991 is thye RPG-7VR. Contray to Russian claims it cannot breach cermaic armor son the M1. it can however penetrate the track skirt and then the hull behind the turret and penetrate into the engine compartment starting a fire. Numerous M1's have been mission killed this way incluidng the famous Comancho (name painte don the barrel) sititng with a burned out engin in the middle of a Baghdad traffic circle while crazy alli was on CNN telling everyone the Americans were no where near the city. The new TUSK upgrades adress this problem.

I am not sure about losses during the insurgecy. But form the end of the Vietnam war through the fall of baghdad the only US tankers to be killed by enemy fire in combat was a marine crew who drove off a tigris river bridge after the driver was drilled by a sniper.

Mechanically the M1 is superb, readiness when I was in was always over 95%. Almost all magor systems that might fail are easily replaced. Infact you can swap the M1's entire powertrain in 45 minutes. Hydraulics, electronics and final drives might take a bit more but almsot any job is just a few hours at most.

M1A2 vs T-80U

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The words «50 kilometers of desert terrain», «30-50 rounds» seems for me as a joke comparing to Russian/soviet comparative test of 10 000 kilometers in various terrains and hundreds of firing tests.

Their are many trails are done before in which EFC test on gun are conducted..

This test was mainly done to measure both tank`s efficiency..

T-90s sub systems are failed in thar..

An Indian Army official said that some of the tanks' computerized systems failed in summer desert heat.

Indian T-90 Tanks Struggle in Summer Desert Heat - Defense News

Also its 1000hp engine was found ill rated giving 840hp power..

Both Arjun and T-90S cannot be considered modern by current standards, especially Arjun. It is clear that Arjun is just a downgraded Leopard-2 with German 1400 h.p. engine which had trobles even passing 1000 km (Trials in September 2007 to summer of 2008).

You have least Idea what u are talking abt..

Arjun is a evolved variant of LEOA4, Side Armour is enhanced also the module is harder there..

And also the report of 2008-9 doing what here ? , Any recent reports you have to post on the topic..

We have many fools running around with outdated reports here, Pls i hope you are not..

It has weird rifled gun which is planned to be abandoned even by British, the only in the world who have them, copied from leopard «shot traps» in the turret at gunner site which is reworked by Germans since leopard 2A5

As long as the shells are hitting the targets at bulls eye !, IA have no complains..
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/SFXbvxRBpUI/AAAAAAAAAMY/AffqvhPOqic/s1600/Bobby%2Bfiring.jpg

Armature work but same deign fault with LEOA4 follows in Arjun..

BUT

From the main sights till the gunner periscope is abt 350mm in between harder Kanchan module is applied for such zone..
This is far lesser in Leo A4..

The measurement is done by me, On a Arjun by myself..

unreliable hydro pneumatic suspension units which are not the decision for desert conditions.
Also the unreasonable armor design is evident frontal hull

It is clear to everybody that holes in the center of the most threatened areas are weakened zones

Suspension works well, Only in early 2004-5 their were problems, Which is no longer a issue, It offers superior ride..

Suspension is ok, If anything wrong provide a RECENT SOLID LINK !

And, ==>>
ImageShack� - Online Photo and Video Hosting

Do you know it purpose ?

Are those bolted are really bolted or welded ?

Is that tank a prototype ?

Also no powerful side protection is available, like on modern tanks of other countries .

As for side armour are provided where its needed and its thicker than most mordern tanks.
ImageShack� - Online Photo and Video Hosting


The Pic you posted above is Ukrainian tanks which use heavily Addon Armour, But those are not side armor..
The same can be done, For example LEOA4 evolution..

 

[p2prada]

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.

LOL. You are the first guy claiming Arjun has armour equivalent to the western designs. The T-90 has the same armour as the Kanchan and then has the K-5 over the said armour. CAn you add 1+1 or should I tell you that?

The firepower of the Arjun is definitely better, as has been proven already, which you acknowledge.

I never said that. You definitely have comprehension issues. Arjun shows superior accuracy, but the T-90 gun is definitely more powerful.

The engine specs, speed and durability are at part at worst, at best they are better for the Arjun, no arguments.

Dude are you slow or something? The T-72 and above are said to be the most maneuverable tanks in the world. You know nothing about tanks.

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.

Except for a director mode and APU the advantages the T-90 has surpasses that of the Arjun in any given situation.

So, in what way do you think the Arjun is worse of compared to the T-90S.

You need a lesson on tanks.

The reason T-90S has less firepower is precisely because of the autoloader design in the T-90.

Aho! It is because of the autoloader that the T-90 demonstrates very high rate of fire. Even Leclerc has an auto loader. The issue with autoloader is that long rods could not be used in the T-72, and that was rectified with the T-90. The T-90 is capable of manual loading of rounds which allows for longer rounds.

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.

Proves to the highest extent that you don't know anything about maneuver warfare. Also the fact that the terrain in Europe is very similar to the Punjab plains or the deserts in Rajasthan. The T-90 may be made for the plain of Europe but the Leopard, Abrams and Challenger are also meant to fight in the same area. Or is it that T-90s will fight in Europe while the Europeans will be twiddling their thumbs while the Soviet invaded?

No T-90s were used in Chechnya. Also no modern tanks were lost in any Russian war after 1999. Comparatively the Europeans, Americans and Israelis lost tanks to weaker enemies than the Chechens using middle eastern rip offs of Russian weapons.

 

[p2prada]

My bad - it was the T-80BV in the Chechen wars - right? Same basic design, different version, different name. The T-90 were some upgraded armor due to the huge casualties of the Chechen war on the T-80BV. Unfortunately, Armor vs AP rounds are a race and by the time the T-90 appeared, their armor became obsolete. Happy?

Amazing. A T-80 is the same basic design but a different version with a different name. That would make the F-15 a modified Su-27 or the Tejas a modified JF-17. I sure am happy.

As for the Arjun vs the T-90S - read the simulated battle tests done for "evaluation" of the Arjun by IA. The IA had put in a nominally trained crew on the Arjuns and highly trained (?!) crew on the T-90 - expecting a failure of the Arjun - but the Arjun came on tops. Read Archer and Kunal's post from earlier.

More idiocy and misinformation from your side. There was no battle simulated between the T-90 and Arjun. Comparative trials were done and the only aspects the Arjun showed superiority was in accuracy and fire on the move. Nothing else is known about the trials.

This ladies and gentlemen is what we call jingos.

 

[p2prada]

They dont have Elbit battle management systems, Saab's Active defence system.

We have had over 10 exercises in the last 7 years demonstrating network centric warfare. An Israeli solution was demonstrated and the same version as the Arjun's will find it's way in the T-90 if it already has not. The latter has a high chance of already having taken place.

T-90 has no ability to fire the Lahat missile.

Save the Arjun, the only other tanks to fire missiles are the Merkava and T-90. Not the Abrams, not the Challenger, not the Leopard and not the Leclerc. Too expensive you see. The T-90 fires the Refleks and each tank can carry 6 missiles.

The T-90 has this kit called the Nakidka shroud which confuses enemy TI when the range is being estimated. No other tank has the shroud. I guess the Israelis are experimenting with one, but no idea what they are doing because no Merkava is deployed with a camo shroud. It's simple, you see the T-90, but you don't know exactly how far it is in order to calibrate the gun.

 

[hitesh]

LAHAT laser guided anti tank missile is available for the 120mm L/44 & L/55 Rheinmetall smoothbore tank guns now, which gives additional +4km more fire range to the Merkava 4 and Leopard 2. LAHAT has an effective range of 8km!

 

[hitesh]

TEST OF PROTECTION BETWEEN T-80U AND T-90 TANKS AGAINST MODERN ANTI TANK WEAPONS

On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.

T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.
One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.

The following weapons were used:

Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)

RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)

ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)

Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)

APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.

The trials yielded the following outcome:
ATGLs

T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.

T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
ATGMs

T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.

T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.

APFSDS

T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence. Without ERA, one round penetrated.

T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

Shtora-1 Trials

10 Kornet ATGMs with removed warheads were fired at a tank with a crew. 4 ATGMs hit the tank, the other 6 deviated to the left of the target in the middle of the flight.

Conclusions (VF)

RPG-29 proved to be by far the most potent weapon among those used. As powerful as heavy ATGM Kornet, it appeared to assure the frontal penetration of T-80U even for the squad-level firepower. Even though T-90 fared better, it is still not immune to it. Considering sufficient proliferation of this weapon and the fact that this is still a fairly light infantry weapon, it is the most dangerous adversary of modern Russian MBTs, and is a very disturbing development.

Original reports that ATGM Kornet performance is severely degraded by ERA due to its peculiar order of internal components proved true as the ATGM with at least 100mm higher penetrating potential was not superior to a much lighter RPG-29.

Report of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS trials is confusing. Being laser-guided, ATGM Kornet should not suffer any interference from Shtora as it only affects IR SACLOS ATGMs. Furthermore, ATGMs can only deviate to the left if the marker is set to the left of both emitters, which is hardly likely. It is probable, however unlikely, that it was caused by a sloppy work of removal the warhead which e.g. could cause a gyro cofusion.

 

[ace009]

Amazing. A T-80 is the same basic design but a different version with a different name. That would make the F-15 a modified Su-27 or the Tejas a modified JF-17. I sure am happy.



More idiocy and misinformation from your side. There was no battle simulated between the T-90 and Arjun. Comparative trials were done and the only aspects the Arjun showed superiority was in accuracy and fire on the move. Nothing else is known about the trials.

This ladies and gentlemen is what we call jingos.

This is what is called name calling and insulting, what you condemn others for ...

T-80 is based upon T-64 design and T-90 is based on T-72 design. T-72 comes from Obeykt-172, while T-64 comes from T-62. Both of these designs are descendants of T-55. While T-55 design was directly incorporated into T-62 and T-64, the manufacturing process was too time consuming and expensive. T-72 was designed and built to be a cost effective, mass manufactured tank, with the SAME BASIC DESIGN as the T-64 (parallel to T-64A). As a descendant of T-64, the T-80 and as a descendant of T-72, the T-90 share same basic design features although follow different manufacturing processes.
It is like I had called the Chimp and a Human has the same basic design.
Talk about Jingoism ...

I sure need to know a LOT about tanks - but definitely not from you. I learn from the professionals in other forums, who have designed and built armor, or have fought in a real war in a real tank, or have been a defense analyst for a major publication for 20 years or so (after retirement from the army). When you have any of these credentials, come and tech me. Till then, you and I are on the same level - learning. The difference is, I NEVER claim to be an authority although I may have strong opinions. You my friend, on the other hand survive on false authority.

 

[Andrei_bt]

TEST OF PROTECTION BETWEEN T-80U AND T-90 TANKS AGAINST MODERN ANTI TANK WEAPONS

On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.

T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.
One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.

The following weapons were used:

Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)

RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)

ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)

Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)

APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.

The trials yielded the following outcome:
ATGLs

T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.

T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
ATGMs

T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.

T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate.

APFSDS

T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence. Without ERA, one round penetrated.

T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

Shtora-1 Trials

10 Kornet ATGMs with removed warheads were fired at a tank with a crew. 4 ATGMs hit the tank, the other 6 deviated to the left of the target in the middle of the flight.

Conclusions (VF)

RPG-29 proved to be by far the most potent weapon among those used. As powerful as heavy ATGM Kornet, it appeared to assure the frontal penetration of T-80U even for the squad-level firepower. Even though T-90 fared better, it is still not immune to it. Considering sufficient proliferation of this weapon and the fact that this is still a fairly light infantry weapon, it is the most dangerous adversary of modern Russian MBTs, and is a very disturbing development.

Original reports that ATGM Kornet performance is severely degraded by ERA due to its peculiar order of internal components proved true as the ATGM with at least 100mm higher penetrating potential was not superior to a much lighter RPG-29.

Report of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS trials is confusing. Being laser-guided, ATGM Kornet should not suffer any interference from Shtora as it only affects IR SACLOS ATGMs. Furthermore, ATGMs can only deviate to the left if the marker is set to the left of both emitters, which is hardly likely. It is probable, however unlikely, that it was caused by a sloppy work of removal the warhead which e.g. could cause a gyro cofusion.

It is FAKE tests from Vasilii Fofanov site.

 

[Andrei_bt]

This is what is called name calling and insulting, what you condemn others for ...

T-80 is based upon T-64 design and T-90 is based on T-72 design. T-72 comes from Obeykt-172, while T-64 comes from T-62. Both of these designs are descendants of T-55. While T-55 design was directly incorporated into T-62 and T-64, the manufacturing process was too time consuming and expensive. T-72 was designed and built to be a cost effective, mass manufactured tank, with the SAME BASIC DESIGN as the T-64 (parallel to T-64A). As a descendant of T-64, the T-80 and as a descendant of T-72, the T-90 share same basic design features although follow different manufacturing processes.
It is like I had called the Chimp and a Human has the same basic design.
Talk about Jingoism ...

I sure need to know a LOT about tanks - but definitely not from you. I learn from the professionals in other forums, who have designed and built armor, or have fought in a real war in a real tank, or have been a defense analyst for a major publication for 20 years or so (after retirement from the army). When you have any of these credentials, come and tech me. Till then, you and I are on the same level - learning. The difference is, I NEVER claim to be an authority although I may have strong opinions. You my friend, on the other hand survive on false authority.

I must inform, that you are completely wrong here - T-64 has nothing else with T-54(T-55) except the chief designer. If you want to argue just point any detail or feature inherited from T-55 in T-64/
In reality situation is following - T-72 and T-80 are created on the basis of ideology of T-64.

 

[hitesh]

It is FAKE tests from Vasilii Fofanov site.

inputs from -"Lt.Col. Vladimir Karpov" ATW Testing Center NPO "Geodezia"

T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99
TEST OF PROTECTION BETWEEN T-80U AND T-90 TANKS

 

[Andrei_bt]

Their are many trails are done before in which EFC test on gun are conducted..

This test was mainly done to measure both tank`s efficiency..

T-90s sub systems are failed in thar..

Indian T-90 Tanks Struggle in Summer Desert Heat - Defense News

Also its 1000hp engine was found ill rated giving 840hp power..


You have least Idea what u are talking abt..

Arjun is a evolved variant of LEOA4, Side Armour is enhanced also the module is harder there..

And also the report of 2008-9 doing what here ? , Any recent reports you have to post on the topic..

We have many fools running around with outdated reports here, Pls i hope you are not..

As long as the shells are hitting the targets at bulls eye !, IA have no complains..
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/SFXbvxRBpUI/AAAAAAAAAMY/AffqvhPOqic/s1600/Bobby%2Bfiring.jpg

Armature work but same deign fault with LEOA4 follows in Arjun..

BUT

From the main sights till the gunner periscope is abt 350mm in between harder Kanchan module is applied for such zone..
This is far lesser in Leo A4..

The measurement is done by me, On a Arjun by myself..


Suspension works well, Only in early 2004-5 their were problems, Which is no longer a issue, It offers superior ride..

Suspension is ok, If anything wrong provide a RECENT SOLID LINK !

And, ==>>
ImageShack� - Online Photo and Video Hosting

Do you know it purpose ?

Are those bolted are really bolted or welded ?

Is that tank a prototype ?



As for side armour are provided where its needed and its thicker than most mordern tanks.
ImageShack� - Online Photo and Video Hosting


The Pic you posted above is Ukrainian tanks which use heavily Addon Armour, But those are not side armor..
The same can be done, For example LEOA4 evolution..

I did not said that T-90S is adequate and modern tank, in relity it is the worst of the soviet tanks based on obsolete technologies, unlike the T-80U and T-80UD.
The problems whith engine V-series (which first appeared on T-34 tank) is well known.

As for your frase "Also its 1000hp engine was found ill rated giving 840hp power" – it is not completely correct, the engine provides 1000 h\p nominally, not in the tank, because some of the power (15%) are taken to rotate cooling system ventilator, some lost in transmission unit.
Than the temperature mast be taken into accont
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/8694/5tdfa3.jpg
for example you can see this table where motor compartments whiy\th ejection cooling system (like on Pakistani T-80UD and "al-khalid" and ventilation cooling system like on T-72-90 is shown). The T-72M (780 h\p) and T-90 (1000 h\p) show great power loss at high temperature, this is also true for "Arjune". For example at temperature +55 Celsius T-72M engine provides 340 h\p (!)

About armor, you correctly mentioned that "arjune' is based on Leopard-2 and inherited its drawbacks – as I pointed it is "shot trap" in the turret at gunner sight which is now solved by Germans since Leopard-2A5, another drawback is weekly armored turret ammo storage.
You said that on "Arjune ""module is harder" – it is not correct, it has no modular armor, also I doubt you have any idea of the hardness of the materials comparing to Leopard-2A4.
It is sound to make a conclusion that "Arjune" has even worse armor protection than T-90S as it has no reactive armor. Yoг said "from the main sights till the gunner periscope is abt 350mm", mast inform, that its grater distance in reality, but still a weakened zone.
About hull armor you asked "that tank a prototype" I suppose no, because there are severall of such on photos at assembly plant.

 

[Andrei_bt]

inputs from -"Lt.Col. Vladimir Karpov" ATW Testing Center NPO "Geodezia"

T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99
TEST OF PROTECTION BETWEEN T-80U AND T-90 TANKS

Fake tests, fake Lt.Col.

 

[hitesh]

protection blocks inside the turret of T-72B

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I did not said that T-90S is adequate and modern tank, in relity it is the worst of the soviet tanks based on obsolete technologies, unlike the T-80U and T-80UD.

As for your frase "Also its 1000hp engine was found ill rated giving 840hp power" – it is not completely correct, the engine provides 1000 h\p nominally, not in the tank, because some of the power (15%) are taken to rotate cooling system ventilator, some lost in transmission unit.

Than the temperature mast be taken into accont
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/8694/5tdfa3.jpg
for example you can see this table where motor compartments whiy\th ejection cooling system (like on Pakistani T-80UD and "al-khalid" and ventilation cooling system like on T-72-90 is shown). The T-72M (780 h\p) and T-90 (1000 h\p) show great power loss at high temperature, this is also true for "Arjune". For example at temperature +55 Celsius T-72M engine provides 340 h\p (!)

T-90S protection is far better than T-80, Members given the links in previous posts..

Any ways it does not give the amount required..

And the claim of 840hp is only given by IA and its SOLID!..

Arjun do loss some power but it was specified before, unlike T-90s..

About armor, you correctly mentioned that "arjune' is based on Leopard-2 and inherited its drawbacks – as I pointed it is "shot trap" in the turret at gunner sight which is now solved by Germans since Leopard-2A5, another drawback is weekly armored turret ammo storage.

Arjun Ammo stores in tight containers behind the loaders, But in Leo the ammo is behind the loader also it is placed in other places..

Arjun is not 100% copy as you falsely assumed..

Lots of tech errors were corrected in course of 40 years..

You said that on "Arjune ""module is harder" – it is not correct, it has no modular armor, also I doubt you have any idea of the hardness of the materials comparing to Leopard-2A4.

Let me more clear..

Composite Armour of Arjun is much harder in those weak zones..

LeoA4 tech was 70s which was available to us by Germans, Since than India developed and refined Armour technology..

Few mins of Google on Kanchan Armour will give you the source..

It is sound to make a conclusion that "Arjune" has even worse armor protection than T-90S as it has no reactive armor. Yoг said "from the main sights till the gunner periscope is abt 350mm", mast inform, that its grater distance in reality, but still a weakened zone.About hull armor you asked "that tank a prototype" I suppose no, because there are severall of such on photos at assembly plant.

I wont talk much, 350mm i measured with hand, Against heat it same as +700mm and Against AP +800..

As i said Arjun evolved better than LEOA4 degin, The Deign rectify most errors, But not like Germans with LEOA5..

ERA are good for one shot, But its the main Armour which last longer..






Btw, Do you have any information on Knife ERA ?