Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Swiftfarts]

They can have any arrangement of the reactive elements and metal plates in their ERA. That depends on the user requirement. IF IA wants 10 layer ERA, with such arrangement. DRDO can come up with it. We already have the reactive elements (line charges) as well as HHS to form the metal layer. this can easily be accomplished if requirement arises. But fact is the effectiveness of this Relikit ERA is not documented, no test results exists, no International customer has installed this after field testing, unlike Kontack 5. The only thing in brochure is supposed claims that it is twice as effective as Kontack 5.

See ERA MK 2 is nothing but Kontakt 5 copy .Russian tech transfer under the table.

ERA MK 2

Kontakt 5

 

[Swiftfarts]

Relikt on T 90M has 2 plates instead of 1 in case of Kontakt 5.

Kontakt 5 single plate mechanism to induce Yaw into the projectile to snap it.

Tungsten alloy projectile snapped by K 5.

This reduce effectiveness of KE projectile by 20 to 30% in case of K 5.

To counter this modern APFSD like M829A3 use segmented rod where tip break of when induced with Yaw, while main rod continue it's Couse unperturbed.

So if a DU projectile is 780mm with it's 100mm tip made up of tungsten alloy than this tip will break off when toruqed by ERA like kontakt 5. rest of the DU rod will continue it's Couse without any hindrance.

This lead to the development of 2 plate ERA like Relikt by Russians to deal with it.

 

[Swiftfarts]

Relikt ERA use two plates moving in opposite directions instead of one unlike
Kontakt 5 or ERA mk 2 to deal with segmented rod and tandem warhead.

Gap created is enough to reduce segmented rod effectiveness as well as tandem warhead, by more than 50% in case of KE penetrators.

 

[Swiftfarts]

Comparative performance of DZ knife , Kontakt 5 and Relikt ERA against different ammunition.

 

[ArgonPrime]

I've heard that rifled ones are more accurate and stable.

You've heard wrong, I'm afraid.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Rheinmetall 130mm smoothbore for Leo upgrade.
why not put something like this on Arjun instead of s***y rifled gun.

A far better option would be to begin researching this gun technology -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_light-gas_gun

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

He is right. Rifled guns are inherently more accurate than smoothbore guns and can also hit longer ranges. Till date the longest tank kill is attributed to Challenger 1 of UK, which scored a 5 km+ kill on a Iraqi T-72 during Gulf War 1. However, modern smoothbore guns in combination with accurate fire control system (as found in most NATO tanks), and gun and turret stabilization have achieved parity with rifled guns. Additionally the smoothbore gun can have a higher muzzle velocity and high EFC of the barrel and can handle higher chamber pressure. The primary anti-tank ammunitunition in a tank is the FSASPDS, which loses some of its momentum after exiting the barrel, if spinned inside the rifle barrel.

The reasoning behind IA insistence on Rifled guns, is that it fell into love with British L7 105 mm gun on the Vijayanta. The Arjun project was infact trying to combine 2 diffferent philosophies of firepower of a British tank to the mobility and armour protection of a German tank. Also the IA had a very bad expereince with the smoothbore gun of T-72 in the 80s which has a low Single Shot Hit Probability (at 2 km). Though this has to do with the fire control system, the gun stabilization mechanism among other things. Also, the IA wanted Arjun to fire HESH round, which was considered critical in destroying the semi-permanent structures and fortification across the LOC.

Important thing to note is that the 120 mm gun in Arjun is not DRDO's personal choice, but user requirement from the side of the army. On its part, the DRDO has already developed a 125 mm smoothbore gun, based on modified chemsitry barrel , having much better performance, which is already in production from 2012. This was done since the Russians refused to transfer the gun technology as part of T-90 TOT.

Source: https://www.news18.com/blogs/india/...s-main-battle-tank-programs-10879-748711.html
So smoothbore gun is nothing new to DRDO, and can even be applied to Arjun if the user requirement arises. Also a new 125 mm gun is in development for the FMBT project.

 

[ArgonPrime]

He is right. Rifled guns are inherently more accurate than smoothbore guns and can also hit longer ranges.

You've gotta be shit kidding me, mate!! This is not the case when we are talking about APFSDS ammunition!! If anything, rifled barrels have a rather detrimental effect on the stability of APFSDS rods!!

Let me try to further explain this to you by asking you a rather simple question -

You can stabilize a Beyblade (I hope you know what it is) by imparting spin to it. Now, can you do that with a ballpoint pen??!! Can you keep it stabilized in an upright position by spinning it??

Try to answer this question and the rest you should be able to figure out by yourself.

Till date the longest tank kill is attributed to Challenger 1 of UK, which scored a 5 km+ kill on a Iraqi T-72 during Gulf War 1.

Haaaaa......the same ol' Chally vs T-72M bs, as if this example hasn't been repeated to death already. The crew just got lucky, that's all it was.

However, modern smoothbore guns in combination with accurate fire control system (as found in most NATO tanks), and gun and turret stabilization have achieved parity with rifled guns.

Additionally the smoothbore gun can have a higher muzzle velocity and high EFC of the barrel and can handle higher chamber pressure. The primary anti-tank ammunitunition in a tank is the FSASPDS, which loses some of its momentum after exiting the barrel, if spinned inside the rifle barrel.

Yeah, no shit Captain Obvious, what would we do without you??

The reasoning behind IA insistence on Rifled guns, is that it fell into love with British L7 105 mm gun on the Vijayanta. The Arjun project was infact trying to combine 2 diffferent philosophies of firepower of a British tank to the mobility and armour protection of a German tank. Also the IA had a very bad expereince with the smoothbore gun of T-72 in the 80s which has a low Single Shot Hit Probability (at 2 km). Though this has to do with the fire control system, the gun stabilization mechanism among other things. Also, the IA wanted Arjun to fire HESH round, which was considered critical in destroying the semi-permanent structures and fortification across the LOC.

Which simply goes to show how mind-numbingly stupid the then top honchos were.

Important thing to note is that the 120 mm gun in Arjun is not DRDO's personal choice, but user requirement from the side of the army.

Everyone knows that already as the Army had specifically demanded a rifled gun in its GSQR.

On its part, the DRDO has already developed a 125 mm smoothbore gun, based on modified chemsitry barrel , having much better performance, which is already in production from 2012. This was done since the Russians refused to transfer the gun technology as part of T-90 TOT.
Source: https://www.news18.com/blogs/india/...s-main-battle-tank-programs-10879-748711.html

https://www.news18.com/blogs/india/...s-main-battle-tank-programs-10879-748711.html
We know that already.

So smoothbore gun is nothing new to DRDO, and can even be applied to Arjun if the user requirement arises. Also a new 125 mm gun is in development for the FMBT project.

That'd be most unfortunate unless it's being planned as a temporary fitment. They should seriously consider investing R&D efforts into Combustion Light Gas Guns, cause that is the future, and definitely not a very distant one either.

 

[Swiftfarts]

A far better option would be to begin researching this gun technology -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_light-gas_gun

Americans and western European post 2030 time frame are all moving towards Electrothermal chemical technology. Americans are not going for new tank instead upgrading old one for simple reason , they are waiting for technology to mature. Which they think will happen by 2030.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Americans and western European post 2030 time frame are all moving towards Electrothermal chemical technology. Americans are not going for new tank instead upgrading old one for simple reason , they are waiting for technology to mature. Which they think will happen by 2030.

That's debatable because it seems like lately, they have taken a keen interest in the Light Gas Gun technology since it has a far higher potential than the electrothermal thing.

 

[Swiftfarts]

Recently, the mass media actively advertise the dynamic protection "KNIFE" and "DUPLET" of Ukrainian design, for example, on the website of the SC "Ukrspetsexport".

Scientific and production company JSC "Research Institute of Steel", part of the machine-building and industrial group "Tractor Plants Concern", which has been working on the problem of dynamic protection for more than fifty years and has sufficient experience in this direction, is ready to dispel the myths formed around this complex in the mass media , and give a real picture of the current situation in this direction. "Tractor Plants" present an expert assessment of the leading specialists of the Russian research institute.

According to the advertising materials of Ukrspetsexport, a subsidiary of Ukrinmash, the KNOZ protection modules are a parallelepiped with dimensions of 250х125х36 mm and 250х125х26 mm weighing 2.8 kg and 2.1 kg, respectively, inside which shaped cumulative elements "KNIVES" are installed. the number of which reaches 7 pcs.

Figure 1 shows the KNOZH modules KHSKV-34, KHSKV-34A and KHSKV-19A of 2007 and 2008, which are made on the basis of RDX with the marking of the manufacturer GPBTsKT “Mikrotech”, although some advertising materials contain production modules 107th plant (DZRKHI, Donetsk).

Fig.1 Modules DZ "Knife"

The principle of operation of the cumulative "KNIFE" is based on the formation of a narrowly directed flow of metal obtained by compressing (collapsing) a profiled cumulative lining when detonating an explosive charge located under this lining. A narrowly directed metal flow formed during impulse deformation of the lining moves in a solid angle of ~ 5-10 °, and is capable of destroying (cutting) metal barriers with a thickness equal to 0.5 caliber of the size of the recess of the cumulative lining under static conditions. The effect of flat directional cumulation is deeply studied and described in the technical literature on the study of fast processes occurring during an explosion, for example, L.P. Orlenko et al. "Explosion physics", Moscow, Fizmatlit, 2002

In the period 1970 - 1985. The Scientific Research Institute of Steel carried out a series of joint search and fundamental works with the Institute of Hydrodynamics of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, aimed at realizing the effect of flat cumulation and creating special protective devices for dynamic protection of armored objects of military equipment. So, for example, in 1984 the Research Institute of Steel developed an ammunition for dynamic protection of armored vehicles (copyright certificate No. 199058 dated 02/08/84), in which the explosive charge is made corrugated and lined with metal. The bending angle of the corrugation is from 15 ° to 150 °, which makes it possible to obtain flat cumulative "KNIVES" when the cladding metal collapses at bending angles of 15 ° -100 °, and at bending angles of 100-150 ° to obtain striking elements of the "shock core" type.

Such a directed flow of a flat cumulative "KNIFE" has a velocity gradient along its length, which contributes to an increase in the time of active exposure to a projectile and to the simultaneous effect of several cumulative flows on the core of an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile (BPS).

Tests of such a device were carried out both in laboratory conditions and in full-scale conditions at the test site by firing real shells.

The results obtained showed that the effectiveness of this device was not much higher than the serial built-in dynamic protection (VDZ) "Contact-5".
Figure 2 shows a photograph of the cumulative "knife" developed by JSC "Research Institute of Steel".

Such a corrugated cumulative "KNIFE" of dynamic protection (DZ) was placed in a flat box, and outwardly did not differ from the usual DZ.

Figure: 2. Constructive version of the corrugated cumulative module forming seven cumulative flat knives

Figure 3 shows a photograph of a model BPS when exposed to a single flat cumulative "KNIFE" in static conditions.

Figure: 3. The nature of the destruction of the BPS core model under the transverse action of a single flat cumulative knife in static conditions In static conditions, the

BPS core is destroyed (cut) into parts. Under dynamic conditions, when the BPS core moves at a speed of V = 1300-1600 m / s, the effect of the cumulative "knife" decreases due to the smearing of the directed cumulative flow along the length of the active part of the BPS, which reduces the effect of the destructive action of the cumulative "knife".
Whencumulative "knife" acts on the cumulative jet of an anti-tank ammunition, it is destroyed: fragmentation into parts, curvature, partial destruction and demolition from the trajectory, which also leads to a decrease in the armor-piercing effect of the cumulative jet.

In comparison with the action of a flat plate thrown by an explosion at an angle, there is no particular gain in the destruction of the cumulative jet in the "KNIFE" variant. Figure 4 shows an X-ray diffraction pattern of the destruction of a cumulative jet under the action of a plate thrown by an explosion.

Figure: 4. The nature of the destruction of the cumulative jet of the laboratory charge under the action of dynamic protection, which implements the principle of two-sided expansion of plates in opposite directions.

It should be noted that this technical solution (copyright certificate No. 199058) is known in Ukraine, since at one time, the Research Institute of Steel conducted joint work with the KMDB them. A.A. Morozov on the creation of a promising tank, and a number of R&D tests were carried out at the test site of the Pavlograd Mechanical Plant.

Works in this direction are also known abroad. So, for example, there is an international patent of Germany DE 10119596A1 dated 04.21.01 on reactive armor of directional action, in which the effect of a flat cumulative "KNIFE" is realized, but structurally made in a slightly different version.

Studies on the creation of promising ERA schemes, which have been carried out at the Scientific Research Institute of Steel in recent years within the framework of R&D, have shown that the most effective and technologically advantageous is the creation of heavy built-in dynamic protection (ERA).

In a heavy VDZ, the BPS is destroyed into many parts in different directions, due to the combined action of plates flying in opposite directions (Figure 5). The action of such heavy plates is also very effective from tandem HEAT ammunition of the PARS-3 type.

This technical solution is currently implemented in order to modernize previously released tanks in the ROC "Relikt", and ensured a decrease in the level of armor penetration from modern feathered BPS, tandem ATGM and anti-tank grenades of melee weapons.

Figure: 5. The nature of the destruction of the full-scale BM9 BPS under the action of a heavy VDZ( Relikt ).

A similar approach in the creation of dynamic protection is adhered to in Germany, as was the publication of M. Held at the 19th international symposium on ballistics.

Let us analyze the work of dynamic protection "NOZH", which is officially advertised by SC "Ukrspetsexport", using the method of numerical modeling.

When simulating the devices under consideration, the Scientific Research Institute of Steel used the ANSYS software package, which quite correctly allows simulating the processes occurring during the explosion of explosive charges.

Figure 6 shows the geometric characteristics of the KNOZH module. Figure: 6. Geometric characteristics of the module DZ "KNOZH"
Figure 7 shows a single shaped shaped charge and its characteristics. At a distance of 17 mm from the end face of the charge, the jet has the form shown in Figure 8. Fig. 7. Geometric characteristics of a single profiled shaped charge included in the KNOZH module Fig. 8. Shaped "knife" from a single shaped shaped charge . Time - 14 μs The velocity of the head of the jet is V = 3300 m / s, and the average diameter is 1.8 mm, with a time of 14 μs. The task of modeling the impact of the "KNOZH" protection on the striker, which is the active part of the foreign BPS 829A3, was solved. The initial data are shown in Figure 9. Fig. 9. Scheme for calculations. 1 - BPS; 2 - front screen; 3 - single profiled short circuit.

The first option for initiating the remote sensing modules, when the "KNIFE" is triggered instantly, immediately when the BPS hits the front screen. Figure 10 shows the stage of implementation of the head of the BTS into the front screen, and the formation of cumulative "KNIVES" under the screen and their mutual influence on each other. Figure 11 shows the process of starting the formation of cumulative "KNIVES". If we consider this task in static conditions, then the action of the cumulative "KNIVES" will be more effective.

In Figure 12, cumulative "KNIVES" cut the armor screen. At 53 μs, the process of breaking through the front screen is completed (Figure 13), i.e.,

the screen is destroyed into separate fragments and subsequently affects the BPS core not by a solid plate thrown by an explosion from detonated explosive charges, but by separate narrow parts of the destroyed front screen in the form rods.

As for the action of the rods thrown by the explosion on the BPS, such schemes were worked out and tested in 1990 - 2000. Research Institute of Steel. The results are given, for example, in the journal "Bulletin of armored vehicles" No. 1 for 1991, V.A. Kruzhkov et al. "Study of the interaction of an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile and striking elements of active protection."

The scheme of lateral throwing of rods in terms of the effectiveness of protection in the conditions of its use directly in contact when the BPS strikes the protected armor is significantly inferior in comparison with the plate thrown by the explosion during the contact impact.

There is an advantage only when the rods act on the BPS core at a certain distance from the protected armor, for example, 1 - 2 meters. Then the core of the BPS has time to disintegrate into parts and deviate from the initial trajectory at large angles of attack.

It can be seen from the above results that in the first variant of the initiation of the KNOZH modules, the entire armor-piercing ability is only used to destroy the front screen into parts and are almost completely triggered on it, and do not have a destructive effect on the BPS core.

The second option for initiating the KNIFE remote control modules is when the KNIFE is initiated immediately after the BPS breaks through the front screen.

From the point of view of the effectiveness of the impact on the BPS, this is the best option, i.e. the impact of the cumulative "KNIFE" directly on the head of the penetrating core in the gap between the front screen and the protected armor.

Figures 14 and 15 show the process of interaction of the cumulative "KNIFE" with the head of the BPS according to the second initiation option without taking into account the front screen.

The main thing is that the cumulative jet DZ "KNOZH" is smeared over the lateral surface of the BPS core and loses its damaging armor-piercing effect in comparison with the effectiveness of action in static conditions.

The damage inflicted by the flat cumulative "KNIFE" in dynamic conditions is insufficient for the projectile to collapse.

For comparison, Figures 16 and 17 show the process of interaction of a similar BPS core with the "Relikt" DZ. Time - 190μs and 600μs. The characteristic signs of the impact on the core of the BPS of heavy plates thrown by the explosion in opposite directions (towards and behind) are the angles of attack, actuation of the core on the back plate, twist and destruction of the core inside the cavity. And, as a result, a sharp (up to 40 - 50%) decrease in the level of armor penetration.

Figure: 16. The nature of the interaction of the BPS with the remote control "Relikt" . Time - 190 μs

Figure: 17. The nature of the interaction of the BPS with the remote control "Relikt" . 600 μs

Considering that all seven single shaped charges are simultaneously triggered in the KNOZH, which is 500 g of explosive in one module, and several modules are installed in the cassette, the total mass of the explosive undermined is from 1.5 to 2.5 kg. With such a mass of explosive undermined, the front cover rushes at a speed of 275 m / s, which affects the core of the BPS: it turns it at the angle of attack, at which the introduction of the head of the BPS into the front layer of the main armor is disrupted. The old structures of the BPS (composite) such as BM-22 "Hairpin" and BM-42 "Mango" react especially strongly to this. And for one-piece BPS made of depleted uranium or VNZh alloy, the effectiveness of such one-sided throwing of the plate towards the opposite side is significantly inferior to the two-sided throwing of plates towards and after.

In DZ "Relikt" it is the variant of the most effective impact on the core of the BPS that is realized, i.e. throwing heavy plates by an explosion of an explosive charge in both directions: one towards, the other in pursuit. Therefore, the Ukrainian DZ "NOZH" has some advantages over the DZ "Contact-5", only due to the fact that in the DZ "KNOZH" simultaneously from 1.5 to 2.5 kg of explosive is detonated compared to 0.5 in the Russian DZ "Contact-5". It should be borne in mind that the DZ "KNIFE" lies on the main armor (and what will be inside the tank?). In DZ "Relikt" up to two kg of explosives are simultaneously detonated, but at a distance from the armor, and there is no direct high-explosive effect on the armor due to the shielding of the rear plate, the impact of which on the armor through the damper is undoubtedly weaker than the direct high-explosive effect of the explosion on the armor.

Summarizing all of the above, one can see the undoubted advantage of the heavy DZ "Relikt", developed by JSC "Research Institute of Steel", which implements the principle of two-way impact of armor plates thrown by the explosion towards and after, in comparison with the Ukrainian DZ "KNOZH" and its modernized version of "DUPLET".

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

You've gotta be shit kidding me, mate!! This is not the case when we are talking about APFSDS ammunition!! If anything, rifled barrels have a rather detrimental effect on the stability of APFSDS rods!!

Let me try to further explain this to you by asking you a rather simple question -

You can stabilize a Beyblade (I hope you know what it is) by imparting spin to it. Now, can you do that with a ballpoint pen??!! Can you keep it stabilized in an upright position by spinning it??

Try to answer this question and the rest you should be able to figure out by yourself.

At least read my full post, if you intend to reply to it. I did talk about smoothbore gun and its advantages against rifled gun w.r.t firing APFSDS round.

Haaaaa......the same ol' Chally vs T-72M bs, as if this example hasn't been repeated to death already. The crew just got lucky, that's all it was.

This is not advertised by me . This is widely advertised by the British themselves since GW1. Anything in war can be attributed to luck. However war or no war, no smoothbore have even struck at 5 km+ distance, under any terrain and under any climatic conditions.
Also, if you read most of the threads of DFI, its the same thing which gets repeated over and over again. I have been a member of this forum since 2010, and this has been going on the whole time. So if you get bored of any discussion which has happened in this forum previously, then its entirely your problem, not mine, nor the forum.

Yeah, no shit Captain Obvious, what would we do without you??
<Mod : Off Topic Convo removed>

Yes IA is very stupid, so as to formulate requirement based on its doctrine, servicability and other factors. THey should have consulted Mr Einstein AKA argonprime before formulating their requirements.

 

[Bleh]

You can stabilize a Beyblade (I hope you know what it is) by imparting spin to it. Now, can you do that with a ballpoint pen??!! Can you keep it stabilized in an upright position by spinning it??

Shit this is actually good explanation.

However, stabilising fins for APFSDS are given a cant angle of 0.5 deg... Spin alone can't assure accuracy but apparently some degree of spin is desirable;
Dispersion sensitivity analysis & consistency improvement of APFSDS - ScienceDirect

I think the rifled=bad may have been DALAL propaganda!.. Rifled rounds actually have detrimental effect on HEAT. That's a real issue.

 

[Swiftfarts]

drift of spinning round from a rifled gun due to yaw of repose will directly affect a longer projectile & since future requirements is achieving higher L/D ratio. Good luck achieving higher accuracy at longer ranges with required KE using rifled gun so @ArgonPrime is right in his analogy.
It's not just drift.... spin induced ricochet of armoured due to rifled induced spin is another disadvantage.
even UK is looking to replace rifled gun but Arjun Fanboys are that just fanboys.
Indian Military work differently though, no wonder they are going for more T 90 & real dalal's with vested interest are p****d lol.

 

[ArgonPrime]

At least read my full post, if you intend to reply to it.

I did, actually and you know what my first thought was??

I did talk about smoothbore gun and its advantages against rifled gun w.r.t firing APFSDS round.

It appears that you'd suffered brain trauma in your childhood and hence, you've difficulty remembering things. So how about we jog your memory a bit, shall we??

This was your opening statement!! This claim (a rather erroneous one) was the lynchpin of your entire argument but now, it seems that you've conveniently forgotten about it!!

Then you said this -

I'm sorry but this is wrong!! There is no parity, rifled guns are decidedly inferior to their smooth barrel counterparts in terms of both accuracy and muzzle energy at any given range, given everything else (such as fire control system, crew training, sighting systems, etc) being equal...............PERIOD!!

This is not advertised by me .

This is widely advertised by the British themselves since GW1.

Of course, it is!! That's how propaganda works after all. But that does not mean we should just blindly follow whatever they propagate without applying reason and logic like a bunch of sheep!!

It's not completely your fault though, it's the fault of our education system and our society as a whole where critical thinking is not only not practiced but is actively suppressed and frowned upon!!

Anything in war can be attributed to luck.

Nope, not true at all.
Somethings are lucky. For example, nailing someone through their earhole from over 1 km through a C cup titty sized glass pen at 6 knots crosswind - that's what I'd call lucky, just as nailing a tank at ~4.7 km is!! Yes, it was 4.7 and not 5+ if the tank commander is to be believed and it was against a T-55, not a 72M1.

However war or no war, no smoothbore have even struck at 5 km+ distance, under any terrain and under any climatic conditions.

Since you've got such a hard-on for anecdotes, let me satiate your lust for the same with a few others.

1. Do you know that this same Challenger had missed 28 out of 28 shots during a firing trial conducted in front of Egyptian army delegates?? They were considering buying the Challenger but you can imagine what happened after this spectacular display by your champion!!

2. Fast forward to 1987 Canadian Army Trophy competition - The Challenger MkIIs took part and got royally shafted in the arse by the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams!!

3. The same thing was repeated in the subsequent Danish army trials as well where both Abrams and Leopards thrashed it consistently!!

Also, if you read most of the threads of DFI, its the same thing which gets repeated over and over again. I have been a member of this forum since 2010, and this has been going on the whole time.

What’s your point?

So if you get bored of any discussion which has happened in this forum previously, then its entirely your problem, not mine, nor the forum.

I do not believe that you've got the right to speak for the forum. You'd do better to stop taking yourself so seriously, mate.

Yes IA is very stupid,

Well, some of them are, including those who 'handled' this whole disaster of galactic proportions that has since been come to be known as Project Arjun.

so as to formulate requirement based on its doctrine,

So, what's this devil gifted doctrine that compels an Army to opt for an option which is demonstrably inferior to the available alternative?? Please, do care to enlighten us mere mortals, oh the Great Lord Kratos.

You know what, don't answer it, it's a rhetorical question. I know what you gonna say - HESH, which is about as useful in modern combat as is a broom handle.

servicability

and other factors.

Such as??

THey should have consulted Mr Einstein AKA argonprime before formulating their requirements.

<Mod : Off Topic Convo removed>

Rant over. Feel free to ignore the following text.

PS - @Bleh
<Mod : Off Topic Convo removed>

 

[ArgonPrime]

@Bleh @Swiftfarts
@Swiftfarts , to some extent, @Bleh is right. What's really the point in going for additional T-90S which does not add any new capabilities to our present arsenal?? Now, had they gone for the MS variant, that would be understandable but this present arrangement doesn't make one bit of sense to me.


Even the MkIA is not fit for service induction!! But even then, it's got a few pluses over the T-90S such as the base armor (of course we are talking without ERA cover), post penetration survivability, crew comfort, better more accurate FCS with automatic target tracking, the addition of LWS, more advanced transmission and suspension systems, better gun depression, lower ground pressure to name a few and he just pointed out those facts. That does not make him an Arjun fanboy.

@Bleh I won't mind if the Army does decide to go for the T-14 Armata as it will utterly dominate anything our adversaries field now or will field later on. At least, it will be a better decision than what they are going to do now with 464 additional T-90S.
But this would also bring disaster for our local tank projects as it will undoubtedly kill off the NGMBT program and all the knowledge gained from and time and resources sunk in the Arjun project will go down the drain.


Post edited removed personal arguments.

 

[ArgonPrime]

However, stabilising fins for APFSDS are given a cant angle of 0.5 deg... Spin alone can't assure accuracy but apparently some degree of spin is desirable;
Dispersion sensitivity analysis & consistency improvement of APFSDS - ScienceDirect]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3KDUxivT9qQredyyG4nyst

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3KDUxivT9qQredyyG4nyst
Well, it's more of a backup feature put in place to compensate for any possible asymmetries in the construction and alignment of the fin units. But the point is, as you already know probably, the rate of spin has to be kept at bare minimum levels or else the round will go haywire due to spindrift and yaw once they leave the barrel.

And this is precisely why the designers had to wrap a slipper band with ball bearings in them around the sabo petals in the APFSDS rounds meant for rifled guns, to keep the sabo from spinning (too much) inside the barrel, which adds further complexity to the manufacturing process as does it limit your sources of procurement.

Rifled rounds actually have detrimental effect on HEAT. That's a real issue.

Another point to consider, yes.

 

[hit&run]

Try addressing each other with any adjective whatsoever and be gone from this thread forever. Even the use of pronoun ‘You’ will be treated as an offence.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

I'm sorry but this is wrong!! There is no parity, rifled guns are decidedly inferior to their smooth barrel counterparts in terms of both accuracy and muzzle energy at any given range, given everything else (such as fire control system, crew training, sighting systems, etc) being equal...............PERIOD!!

No matter how many times you repeat the same thing, you are wrong. Rifled guns were the primary tank gun canon for a long time, until the smoothbore gun first came in the 60s. Also, rifled guns can fire accurately for a large distance in a relatively flatter trajectory, since the the shell is spin stabilized inside the barrel. When the smoothbore gun came, to compensate for the loss of stability during flight of the APDS rounds, fins were introduced, which came to be known as FSASPDS. In the 80s when the first PSQR of Arjun came out, India did not have access to the advanced fire control systems, and good quality turret and gun stabilization system, so smoothbore was not preferred. Over the course of the Arjun project those things were developed. Also, IA had a very good experience with 105 mm L7 gun of the Vijayanta, and sangar type fortification along the Indo-pak border in Punjab and Rajasthan which could be decimated by the HESH round went into the decision.

Since you've got such a hard-on for anecdotes, let me satiate your lust for the same with a few others.

1. Do you know that this same Challenger had missed 28 out of 28 shots during a firing trial conducted in front of Egyptian army delegates?? They were considering buying the Challenger but you can imagine what happened after this spectacular display by your champion!!

2. Fast forward to 1987 Canadian Army Trophy competition - The Challenger MkIIs took part and got royally shafted in the arse by the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams!!

3. The same thing was repeated in the subsequent Danish army trials as well where both Abrams and Leopards thrashed it consistently!!

The rifled gun of Challenger 1 and 2 has proved itself in combat in GW1 and GW2 respectively.

Also let me remind you also that General Zia ul Haq, just before his death in August 17 1988, witnessed a demonstration of M1 abrams tank by the americans, along with his entire PA armoured corps. The tank scored 0/10 hits in the demonstration.


So, what's this devil gifted doctrine that compels an Army to opt for an option which is demonstrably inferior to the available alternative?? Please, do care to enlighten us mere mortals, oh the Great Lord Kratos.

You know what, don't answer it, it's a rhetorical question. I know what you gonna say - HESH, which is about as useful in modern combat as is a broom handle.
[/QUOTE]
Doctrine depends on the Army's perceived threat perception, its terrain, the servicability of components by the available tools and manpower in army base depot, availability of spare parts, technology maturity etc. Based on that the PSQR of Arjun was formulated in around 1985. And yes, HESH firing was a requirement, whether you like it or not.

Well, some of them are, including those who 'handled' this whole disaster of galactic proportions that has since been come to be known as Project Arjun.

Absolutely baseless. The Arjun mk1 and MK1A has proved its mettle against T-90 and other trials conducted by the IA. Also, don't forget, the other 3rd generation tanks in service of other nation is also modernization of 3-4 decade old design.Again most of the crucial subsytems which Russia has refused to transfer to us as part of T-90 TOT as well as the T-72 modernization, were developed by DRDO as part of Aarjun project.
Moderation notes: Post edited.

 

[Suryavanshi]

Lets start here.

1)What is a smoothbore?(Include pictures, animation if possible)
2)Explain Working Mechanism of smooth bore
3)Application and History of smooth bores.
4)Advantage of smooth bore over Rifled ones.
5) Official reports and Analysis of Smooth bore.