Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Kunal Biswas]

Simplified ..

Its just not tanks but small arms as well ..

==============================

1.
http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default...e_Defence_Army_Ordnance_Factories_35_2014.pdf

 

[India22]

You were saying as if I was trolling I was not. I thought every one knew these

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...arjun-army-imported-components-drdo/70963382/

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...hief-says-they-missed-the-point/1/629489.html

"while Russian anti-tank missiles and 125mm shells couldn’t pierce the American tank’s Chobham armor. In fact, the Abram’s own gun reportedly struggled to penetrate the Abram’s depleted uranium armor."

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-m1-abrams-tank-still-the-best-the-world-17263 Further it was Chinmoy who said Arjun can withstand 125mm hits.

But seems you have not followed the Arjun thread over here from beginning. Arjun and T-90 when tested for armour protection in test range, Arjun survived a full blown point blank shot from T-90. Whereas T-90 didn't stand a chance. Now where would you want to be in a war?

http://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/11/10/t-90ms-will-best-new-tank-for-the-indian-army_646595

 

[India22]

https://web.archive.org/web/20110725073043/http://frontierindia.net/the-kanchan-armor/

Here one can get that Arjun tank defeated 125mm gun of T 72 tank. On this context I said to use 200mm gun.

1. They are damn costly, overweight, - So which ever product is costly & Overweight can be called failure or only applies to Indian Product?
2. cant build all parts of them in country. How many we are really building in India name it those equipment's and rest scrap it since its failure by your logic.
3.We have to import parts from abroad. Same as above stated Imported Item = failure, Am I right or missing some logic?

Citation from CAG report

http://www.cag.gov.in/sites/default...e_Defence_Army_Ordnance_Factories_35_2014.pdf

Comparative field trials of MBT Arjun with T-90 tanks took place in
February/ March 2010. Till such time, the Army had been consistently
reporting quality problems in MBT Arjun; this was also reported to the
Standing Committee on Defence (2007-08). The comparative trials were on
four parameters viz. fire power, survivability, reliability and miscellaneous
issues of the tank with weightage of 40, 35, 15 and 10 respectively. As per the
trial report, MBT Arjun performed marginally better than the T-90 tank in
accuracy and consistency of firepower. However, T-90 tank performed better
in lethality and missile firing capability. The Army concluded (April 2010)
that “Arjun had performed creditably and it could be employed both for
offensive and defensive tasks with same efficacy of T-90 tank.” The Army
also recommended upgrades154 to make the Arjun tank a superior weapon
platform. We were informed (February 2014) that the Mark-II version of
MBT Arjun was under trials by the Army and that it would include the
upgrades recommended by the Army.

If yo think CAG has not done good Job please suggest other way to assess failure or success

That was against T 90S, correct me if I am wrong. T 90MS is different.

http://idrw.org/why-t-90ms-tagil-is-not-just-upgraded-tank-for-indian-army/ So it comes which is better improved Arjun MK 2 with insecure supply of spares and weight or light T 90 MS with secured supply of spares? I read somewhere that Russians sent instruments of T 90, but DRDO or Avadi failed to translate them. Will give source if I could find it.

Found : http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/12/how-india-lost-6-years-on-t-90-tanks.html

"The report says: “The documents were in Russian and OFB efforts to get these documents translated into English failed. These documents were received between September 2001 and January 2003 following which HVF Avadi concluded four contracts between September 2003 and September 2006 for translation of these documents. The documents were completed by July 2007 after the expiry of scheduled delivery period of the first phase of 15 indigenous tanks by 2006-07. Thus translation of TOT documents from Russian to English language took almost six years.”

 

[Kunal Biswas]

You have not provided a single official source for your claims but yellow journalism, Just a page behind you have been provided official source from GOI portal, You can quote from PIB, DRDO newsletters & annual reports so does CAG reports ..

In case you have your ideas, Best make some other thread and avoid posting them in quality threads ..

You were saying as if I was trolling I was not. I thought every one knew these

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...arjun-army-imported-components-drdo/70963382/

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...hief-says-they-missed-the-point/1/629489.html

"while Russian anti-tank missiles and 125mm shells couldn’t pierce the American tank’s Chobham armor. In fact, the Abram’s own gun reportedly struggled to penetrate the Abram’s depleted uranium armor."

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-m1-abrams-tank-still-the-best-the-world-17263 Further it was Chinmoy who said Arjun can withstand 125mm hits.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/11/10/t-90ms-will-best-new-tank-for-the-indian-army_646595

https://web.archive.org/web/20110725073043/http://frontierindia.net/the-kanchan-armor/

Here one can get that Arjun tank defeated 125mm gun of T 72 tank. On this context I said to use 200mm gun.

That was against T 90S, correct me if I am wrong. T 90MS is different.

http://idrw.org/why-t-90ms-tagil-is-not-just-upgraded-tank-for-indian-army/ So it comes which is better improved Arjun MK 2 with insecure supply of spares and weight or light T 90 MS with secured supply of spares? I read somewhere that Russians sent instruments of T 90, but DRDO or Avadi failed to translate them. Will give source if I could find it.

 

[Krusty]

@India22 the fact that Even self propelled artillery today have rotating turrets is an indication that turretless designs are not practical for whatever reasons. If not, armies would have adopted it already. It cannot be just mere coincidence that the Americans, Russians, chinese, Brits,French, Germans and Israelis all chose tanks with rotating turrets.

 

[India22]

You have not provided a single official source for your claims but yellow journalism, Just a page behind you have been provided official source from GOI portal, You can quote from PIB, DRDO newsletters & annual reports so does CAG reports ..

In case you have your ideas, Best make some other thread and avoid posting them in quality threads ..

Will this do?

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/RFI/445/FRCV RFI.pdf will this do? New request for tank? In one of link DRDO chief was quoted saying Arjun MK 2 is overweight.

""We are planning to procure the latest variants which would be deployed to tackle the heightened threat on the western front," highly-placed sources in the army told Mail Today.

Modalities of the proposal have been cleared by the army at the top level and would be soon placed for approval before Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar-led Defence Acquisition Council, the sources said."

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...s-make-in-india-pakistan-threat/1/799614.html

@India22 the fact that Even self propelled artillery today have rotating turrets is an indication that turretless designs are not practical for whatever reasons. If not, armies would have adopted it already. It cannot be just mere coincidence that the Americans, Russians, chinese, Brits,French, Germans and Israelis all chose tanks with rotating turrets.

If 200mm gun can be mounted on a rotating turret that is even better. I thought it was not possible. SPGs generally have 155mm. Not 200mm.

 

[Krusty]

If 200mm gun can be mounted on a rotating turret that is even better. I thought it was not possible. SPGs generally have 155mm. Not 200mm.

Not necessarily. It's not as if Russia, Europe and USA didn't experiment with large tank guns (140+ mm). But none of them chose such a design.

British 140mm gun on centurion chassis test.

Big guns outperform the regular 120s in ballistics, but they have a lot of disadvantages. Add that to turretless designs and the problems get compounded.

Bigger guns need completely redesigned (read reinforced and heavier) chassis, wheels, suspension to deal with the immense recoil. Turretless design is already cramped with 120s. Means Less space for ammo and the crew. Even more so If you add a big gun, as i said, the trade off made in manouverability and ability to carry ammo is simply not justifiable. Not to mention higher on maintenance thanks to the parts coping with higher stresses.

Especially in Indian context, size isn't everything. Just mounting a big gun will have little or sometimes no advantage fighting in marshes, forests and deserts where mobility and agility is key. MBTs have to still put up with their most common adversaries, the modern ATGMs with TOP Attack mode.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asal_Uttar

This is a typical example. Indians flodded agricultural fields and even the light weight tanks got bogged down and got picked by infantry with ATGMs and light tanks.

What will a heavy turretless tank with a 200mm gun do here?

We have reached a point of diminishing returns as far as tank guns go with our current technology. Any increase in gun size can only be considered if there is some revolutionary ground breaking advancements in both propellant and metallurgy. Using our current tech, if we mount a big gun and turretless design, its disadvantages will far outweigh its advantages. That's why no one chose that path. It has been extensively researched by the west and Russia.

 

[India22]

Not necessarily. It's not as if Russia, Europe and USA didn't experiment with large tank guns (140+ mm). But none of them chose such a design.

View attachment 12756
British 140mm gun on centurion chassis test.

Big guns outperform the regular 120s in ballistics, but they have a lot of disadvantages. Add that to turretless designs and the problems get compounded.

Bigger guns need completely redesigned (read reinforced and heavier) chassis, wheels, suspension to deal with the immense recoil. Turretless design is already cramped with 120s. Means Less space for ammo and the crew. Even more so If you add a big gun, as i said, the trade off made in manouverability and ability to carry ammo is simply not justifiable. Not to mention higher on maintenance thanks to the parts coping with higher stresses.

Especially in Indian context, size isn't everything. Just mounting a big gun will have little or sometimes no advantage fighting in marshes, forests and deserts where mobility and agility is key. MBTs have to still put up with their most common adversaries, the modern ATGMs with TOP Attack mode.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asal_Uttar

This is a typical example. Indians flodded agricultural fields and even the light weight tanks got bogged down and got picked by infantry with ATGMs and light tanks.

What will a heavy turretless tank with a 200mm gun do here?

We have reached a point of diminishing returns as far as tank guns go with our current technology. Any increase in gun size can only be considered if there is some revolutionary ground breaking advancements in both propellant and metallurgy. Using our current tech, if we mount a big gun and turretless design, its disadvantages will far outweigh its advantages. That's why no one chose that path. It has been extensively researched by the west and Russia.

Look I gave a report where Arjun tank withstood T 72 125mm hit successfully. Chinese and Pakistani MBTs too will be able to successfully withstand 125mm hits. Modern armour has reached a such point in which it is almost impenetrable, which is why blast concussion of 200mm is needed. In WW2 Soviet T 34/76, T 34/85(letter could cause damage) could not destroy German heavy tanks and tank destroyers. But Soviet ISU 122, ISU 152 could destroy.

India won battle of Asal Uttar because we had large number of RCL guns. Sherman tanks and AMX 13 tanks had problem in penetrating Patton tank's armour but 106mm RCL and Centurion tanks did not have.

Bigger guns would not require big change, you cant mount a 200mm gun on turret. For this precise reasons I said to mount a 200mm gun. Or you can tell me what MBT is going to do if it's gun cant penetrate armour of another MBT? Remind you Arjun survived T 72 gun hits.

What I essentially said was a turret less SPG with 200mm gun and AGS, TOW launcher in direct fire mode.

Since that tank is turret less therefore it's weight will automatically be low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_8-inch_howitzer_Mk_VI_–_VIII I said specially to mount this type of gun, it weights 8 ton. Using modern technology its weight can be reduced and muzzle velocity can be increased. No tank can withstand a hit of a 91 kg shell coming at 500 m/s. Because a tank's main role is to destroy other tanks.

Go to other thread anyway.

 

[Krusty]

Look I gave a report where Arjun tank withstood T 72 125mm hit successfully. Chinese and Pakistani MBTs too will be able to successfully withstand 125mm hits. Modern armour has reached a such point in which it is almost impenetrable, which is why blast concussion of 200mm is needed. In WW2 Soviet T 34/76, T 34/85(letter could cause damage) could not destroy German heavy tanks and tank destroyers. But Soviet ISU 122, ISU 152 could destroy.

India won battle of Asal Uttar because we had large number of RCL guns. Sherman tanks and AMX 13 tanks had problem in penetrating Patton tank's armour but 106mm RCL and Centurion tanks did not have.

Bigger guns would not require big change, you cant mount a 200mm gun on turret. For this precise reasons I said to mount a 200mm gun. Or you can tell me what MBT is going to do if it's gun cant penetrate armour of another MBT? Remind you Arjun survived T 72 gun hits.

What I essentially said was a turret less SPG with 200mm gun and AGS, TOW launcher in direct fire mode.

Since that tank is turret less therefore it's weight will automatically be low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_8-inch_howitzer_Mk_VI_–_VIII I said specially to mount this type of gun, it weights 8 ton. Using modern technology its weight can be reduced and muzzle velocity can be increased. No tank can withstand a hit of a 91 kg shell coming at 500 m/s. Because a tank's main role is to destroy other tanks.

Go to other thread anyway.

Correction. No current armor can withstand 91kg shell.
Oh Kay, so if you can't penetrate the current armor, your solution is to mount a bigger gun? What if a breakthrough is made in armor material and the next gen armor can withstand a hit from a 200. What then? Go for 300? 400?

When you say Chinese and Pakistani tanks can withstand 125mm hits, just out of curiosity, are you saying that the Abrams/challenger2/leapord2/Merkava won't be able to punch through Chinese/paki armor? They all have a120mm gun.

Coming to Asal Uttar, of course we had RCL. A tank should face that too you know. Even though the main purpose of a tank is killling another tank, no modern combat doctrine will allow MBTs to loiter around without infantry support. Even if we didn't have RCL, what can tanks that are immobile do? Especially ones without turning turrets? We were in a defensive position. How Long can tanks burn fuel while being bogged down in a firefight? The crews will eventually have to come out. An immobile tank with a big gun that is bogged down will eventually just be a cannon fodder. Be it by artillery or airstrike. Their crews have no way to escape.

 

[India22]

I opened a different thread, come there.

 

[Chinmoy]

You dont get it. If Arjun tank was built along with Indian farms, it would be less costly. Why would indigenous parts make the cost increased? DRDO and other defence companies by joint effort should build. Finally dont get into armour. M1 Abrams were hit by RPG 29 although M1 Abram can tolerate point blank hit by another tank. Instead using super heavy armour, use APS and more hard metal like Steel-tungsten alloy.

Have you seen TATA's or Mahindra's building their Truck engines from scratch in house? Have you seen Maruti manufacturing their car engines?
Now what you said is true that its cost would definitely come down. But here you have to keep in mind that we are not talking about a civilian commodity vehicle over here. Its a completely different beast for different purpose. Moreover its viable only with numbers. Its a simple helix, you need numbers to cut down on cost and to cut down cost, you need numbers.

You want to cut down on cost but talking about Steel Tungsten alloy. APS could only provide you with minimal protection. You should know that system like APS are single shot weapon. Talk of two or three RPG round after round, APS would be a pure dud. You can't compromise on main armour. Even Israelis, who developed APS are still doing improvement in their main armour.

 

[Chinmoy]

@Chinmoy

The turret less tank I said was in view of that, now a MBT can survive 120-125mm hit by other tank, it means Chinese MBTs and Pakistani ones are going to withstand 120mm hits successfully. A tank's main objective is to destroy other tank. For this purpose I said a turret less stank. Turret less tanks can mount heavier armament. So a turret less tank armed with a 200mm light weight gun. Now armours are becoming exceedingly hard to penetrate, for this reason this tank will rely on sheer blast impact of high velocity 200mm gun. The sheer blast concussion will immobilize the opponent tank. This 200mm gun will have large part of its barrel on rail, so that in case breaking wall, the other part can be be pulled back. Over this, there will a small rotating turret, armed with an AGS with 60 rounds, and ATGM launcher. Apart from machine guns.

In WW2 Soviet tanks were generally incapable of destroying German tanks and tank destroyers, but Soviet tank destroyers and Self-propelled guns like ISU-122 and ISU-152 had no problem.

Now a lightweight 200mm gun can be made, as lightweight 155mm Howitzer M777 has been made. The loading system will be automatic.

First of all, when you are providing a solution, you need to consider its pros and cons. Turret less tanks does have a lower visual signature, agreed. But its main drawback is its targeting system. It can't target on move. To fire, it needs to stop and correct its bearing. Because when you remove the turret, you are essentially fusing the cannon on the main body. Even if you solve this stability issue, then too you are good to shoot at a straight line of sight. If the target moves marginally across from your LOS, you would have to stop in track and reallign the whole vehicle before taking the shot. In this whole time, you would be a sitting duck there in battlefield.
Auto loader has its own pros and cons. Some commanders love it, others loath it. It depends largely on the tank crew mindset.
None of the ATGM could take place of the main gun system in a tank. Even the most advanced ATGM has its limitation in modern battle field in the form of electronic warfare. Smart weapons like this could easily be countered by electronic measures. Even APS could tackle them. But against main kinetic rounds, APS are not effective.

 

[Chinmoy]

Really knee jerking post? Then why army is not interested in Arjun? They ordered T 90 MS? Why 75% of Arjun is grounded?

As @Kunal Biswas already said, first correct your bearings. IA never said its not interested in Arjun. They have infact asked for improvement and after that only Mk2 came out. Neither Arjun is grounded.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That is RFI for FMBT and not Arjuns, RFI includes DRDO, It does not support your claims ..

Talk about new models is not mentioned on official portal yet but sanction of money for remaining T-90 bhishma does ..

=========

Prototypes are meant to see changes in design, This does not support anything you have claimed again ..

I suggest take some time off and do some research as told ..

Will this do?

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/RFI/445/FRCV RFI.pdf will this do? New request for tank? In one of link DRDO chief was quoted saying Arjun MK 2 is overweight.

 

[tharun]

That is RFI for FMBT and not Arjuns, RFI includes DRDO, It does not support your claims ..

Talk about new models is not mentioned on official portal yet but sanction of money for remaining T-90 bhishma does ..

=========

Prototypes are meant to see changes in design, This does not support anything you have claimed again ..

I suggest take some time off and do some research as told ..

Very good answer..but you to bee too bold to this type of guys..being too soft is not applicable now a days

 

[Glavcom]

Ukrainian tanks T-84 BM Oplot in Action

 

[Glavcom]

Leopard-2A4 tanks have a thin cardboard armor.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The better design is always put on front-lines, Its simply states that nothing else ..

Tank being taken out in their dug out positions and while moving stress less coordination with Infantry and aviation, Its more tactics than tool again ..

I gave you the above information, which clearly indicates that for the same period of time, the Turkish army has lost 10 German tanks Leopard-2A4, and just only one tank M-60T amerikans production!
It you about something said?

 

[Glavcom]

Ukrainian tanks T-64BV in Real Action !!!

 

[Glavcom]

Protection T-72 Syria