Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Andrei_bt]

If you still dont believe than wait some time, their will be a pic..

I did post the pic of ammo storage in Arjun turret, it is a fact you can not deny.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

U posted ammo storage pic of leo, And a modified pic posted originally by me of Arjun interior in which u claimed those cylindrical objects with rods as ammo..

Yes, that is a fact..

 

[Andrei_bt]

Is this not arjun interiour at this photo - http://www.***********/forums/india-defence/4345-arjun-news-discussions-117.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Link not working..

 

[Andrei_bt]

http:// www. d e f e n ce . pk /forums/india-defence/4345-arjun-news-discussions-117.html
Here are thу Arjun unteriour photos

 

[Kunal Biswas]

http:// www. d e f e n ce . pk /forums/india-defence/4345-arjun-news-discussions-117.html
Here are thу Arjun unteriour photos

LEO A5`s loader side..

Arjun MBT`s from gunner side..

 

[Andrei_bt]

This becomes more clear, the rounds in Arjun are stored in turret basket http://i36.tinypic.com/2ptvwir.jpg (left rear of the photo) and turret bustle, but from your photo I see they are not campartalized, like on Leopard-2/ This is a huge disadvantage comparing to leopard-2. This rises the question why there are blow off panels still present http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/arjun2.jpg

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Karna MBT..

 

[Andrei_bt]

Karna MBT, Not Arjun..

it is so called tank-EX

Here you can see that the access to hull frontal munitions is blocked in battle -
So the ready ammo should be in turret and combat compartment http://s40.radikal.ru/i088/1108/1b/7610784d1f31.jpg .
Finally - do you say that Arjun ammo is stored without compartalization and without blast panels?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Ammo is not where u are indicating, Their are blast panels for precautions if somehow any explosion occur in ammo storage, But again the place you are strongly believe is not....

Its possible you are right, But with current pics its not enough to believe..

By pic i meant clear pic of ammo storage in turret..

it is so called tank-EX

For your Knowledge..

Like Arjun MBT-70, Tank EX known as Karna..

 

[p2prada]

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

This was done on the T-80U and the first version of the T-90 with the cast turret. Not the T-90S or T-90A.

Its like performing tests on Su-27 and then claiming the same would apply for the MKI. Even then the T-90 performed remarkably well.

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!

It's not deployed on the Leopard. The missile is only available does not mean they will buy it without thought. Refleks has been in use since the 80s.

 

[p2prada]

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

LOL. You are the one who keeps claiming something that I never said and then attribute it to me.

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 ...

The T-80 was killed in 1993. The T-90 was given an even more powerful armour compared to an already powerful tank in the T-80U. It has nothing to do with history of tank design but economic viability and requirement.

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.

Unfortunately you haven't learned a thing. Even if I have a 100 years experience in tank building and operation I would still claim I am only "learning." Nevertheless there is a huge difference between my learning and yours it seems.

Next time don't try putting words in my mouth, especially when you are obviously clueless about the topic.

 

[p2prada]

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.

He does not know a thing about tanks. No point pushing it.

As for your discussion with Kunal. The 840 HP claim by the army was indeed correct. But the one who made the claim was a Major or higher rank in the army and he was talking about the first batch of tests in 1999 in Russia which were conducted on the old 840HP engine and used in Rajasthan as well a little while later. It wasn't a complain made but was only an observation. The tanks were updated with the 1000HP V92S2 during induction.

Yes, I informed him. He knows.
But this work is not authentic, just someones imagination, any proof and mistakes in data that clerly state it is fake.

Hmm. Are you certain about it? As in what did Fofanov say when you pointed that out?

BTW, just to add to some more on the T-90 engine. The Army states a 15-20% reduction of power in desert conditions as acceptable. That would be a little over 800HP.

 

[p2prada]

Andrei;
Karna shares the T-72s chassis and the Arjun's turret. It was just a TD for DRDO.

BTW, the Arjun shares a lot of design points from the LeoA4. While the Leo has undergone many changes, Arjun has remained stagnant in internal estate. Arjun has 15 shells in the bustlerack storage. The rest are in the hull.

 

[ace009]

Andrei;
Karna shares the T-72s chassis and the Arjun's turret. It was just a TD for DRDO.

BTW, the Arjun shares a lot of design points from the LeoA4. While the Leo has undergone many changes, Arjun has remained stagnant in internal estate. Arjun has 15 shells in the bustlerack storage. The rest are in the hull.

Right P2Prada - you know best - T-90 is the best ...

Arjun is a heavy category tank - T series is a medium category tank. Comparing them and saying T-90 is better than Arjun is like saying the Panzer iV is better than the King Tiger - I give up.
You win ... no point arguing with asinine arguments ...
I am out of here ...

 

[Andrei_bt]

Hmm. Are you certain about it? As in what did Fofanov say when you pointed that out?

Shtora can not influence the efficiency of Kornet atgm, as it stated. This fake report was created by person not well informed in the questions he tried to discuss.

BTW, just to add to some more on the T-90 engine. The Army states a 15-20% reduction of power in desert conditions as acceptable. That would be a little over 800HP.

No, it is not correct. The 10...15% of power loss is the output the engine provides after installation into engine compartment (air cooling, transmission e t.c.). The temperature effect this radically
I should note that the power of engine in the test facility (like 1000 h.p. for V92, or 1400 for Arjune) is just a digit which does not correspond to it real performance in the vehicle itself. And it does not indicate at what temperature it is used. And it is the crucial point.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Right P2Prada - you know best - T-90 is the best ...

Arjun is a heavy category tank - T series is a medium category tank.
I am out of here ...

Your approach is completely incorrect. You are not buying vegetables, and more does not means better, you should compare real characteristics of them, not just digits in the tables.
Both Arjune and T-90s are not the best, and can not be considered modern and up to date tanks, but the reasons for each one a different.
btw, this year India acquired another batch of 30 t-90s.
Current Arjun design should be completely quit, and the new up to date design is the only option in my opinion.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

btw, this year India acquired another batch of 30 t-90s.
Current Arjun design should be completely quit, and the new up to date design is the only option in my opinion.

I didnt heard that nor any repots on it..

Arjun & T-90S both are mordern degins, The only difference is the improvements over time to original vehicle..

See the Leo-2A4, A5/6/7 are bacically small Improvements over Original Vehicle..

M1A1 was deign in 70s, Since than the vehicle modified and improved to M1A2 and its one of the best tank in the world..

Russian T-72s take a turn in turret deign to have Heavy ERA without gaps in front Armour on turret, Still it remain mostly same tank in 70s..

Indian Arjun MK-1 was rectified throughout time, And its satisfactory, Many Improvements will appear in MK2 but basically its the same..

Ukrainians Tanks mostly prefer T-80S and the deign remain the same till date with some exceptions in sub systems and addons..


Their is nothing outdated it just comes in some new form based on its predecessor..
Yes, New degin is avaliable but its not operational in any country..

 

[militarysta]

Hi, I'm new, from Poland, and rather well-known about Leopard2A4.

It's very interesting forum, unfortunately, someone posted here old myths about Leo2A4.
like this:
(total fake) http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/l21.jpg
or:
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/leo3.jpg

In reality it's look this:









best regards from Poland

 

[p2prada]

No, it is not correct. The 10...15% of power loss is the output the engine provides after installation into engine compartment (air cooling, transmission e t.c.). The temperature effect this radically
I should note that the power of engine in the test facility (like 1000 h.p. for V92, or 1400 for Arjune) is just a digit which does not correspond to it real performance in the vehicle itself. And it does not indicate at what temperature it is used. And it is the crucial point.

It is not clear on what basis the reduced power is acceptable to the Army. The ambient temperature is over 45degrees during a good day in India in deserts. If it is due to reduced power for tracks because power was used up for air conditioning then that is nothing to worry about. But if the air temp reduces power in regular operation then it is cause for concern. 15-20% reduction in power is acceptable however.

Your approach is completely incorrect. You are not buying vegetables, and more does not means better, you should compare real characteristics of them, not just digits in the tables.

I had been repeatedly stressing this point all over the forum. Specs aren't everything.

Both Arjune and T-90s are not the best, and can not be considered modern and up to date tanks, but the reasons for each one a different.

The Arjun during tests in 1999 used Analog equipment and was updated only in 2004-05 with digital systems from Israel. The T-90 has been using the same stock digital equipment since induction. We may have added our own kits over time.

btw, this year India acquired another batch of 30 t-90s.

Is this from our assembly lines or kits from Russian lines?

Current Arjun design should be completely quit, and the new up to date design is the only option in my opinion.

That's what is happening. The Army has ordered 124+124 Arjuns till date. The first batch of 124 Arjun Mk1s are still being manufactured. The second batch is yet to start and those are the Mk2s with ERA, maybe the K-5 in my opinion or a DRDO equivalent. DRDO director recently said the Army will order 248 more tanks, not sure how far that has gone through.

Beyond that the Army has asked for a new design incorporating both Western and Russian design principles. Seems like army wants a 45 to 50 ton tank with ammo compartments, 3 man crew on a 125mm gun and a hyperbar engine. But the GSQR is yet to be released. So, expect a new tank by 2017 or 2020 at the latest.

BTW, in this picture

Do you have any idea on why the tanks seem to have different ERA? The tanks with desert camo seem to have wider ERA blocks compared to the green camo one.

More pics,
First version,

New,

In my opinion, the array on either side of the turret seems to be much thicker compared to the other blocks in the green camo while the older version may not have had the bigger block and thus some space was left while placing the 3 smaller set of arrays.

@Ace

There is no point calling my arguments asinine when I am the one coming up with information while you have nothing to contribute. I am willing to discuss with you if you stop your whining.