Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

If Tanks have to evolve, which path they should follow?

  • Light Vehicles-Best for mobility

    Votes: 25 7.3%
  • Heavy Armour-Can take heavy punishment.

    Votes: 57 16.7%
  • Modular Design-Allowing dynamic adaptions.

    Votes: 198 58.1%
  • Universal Platform-Best for logistics.

    Votes: 61 17.9%

  • Total voters
    341

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
M1 Abrams Versus T-90 (English Subtitles) - YouTube

A rather decent video explaining a Russian POV on the T-90. This is something like what we hear from History Channel or Discovery on the Abrams.

It is obviously biased, but it still gives a decent picture on the T-90s capabilities.
This video is made by similiar morons like their western counterparts. This video don't explain anything, is biased as hell, full of BS etc. etc. etc.

What I heard was the Leclerc can move faster than any tank and fire accurately. Doing 10Km faster than the M1 versions.
Leclerc have faster acceleration and is lighter and have better suspension... on the other hand disable digital engine control in M1A2SEP and see how engine from 1500HP will generate ~2000HP or more, give that beast some time on road and You will see what tank is faster. :)

But this is not safe, however designers give drivers in M1 tanks some possibilities for better engine control. System is called SHAFTS, it permitts driver to increase rapidly engine power and acceleration if needed.

Dunno if those guns are available to us. Even if they are available, ToT will not be available and thus indigenous manufacturing will be impossible. It would be better to develop our own smoothbore gun since we have experience dealing with the 2A46M and 2A46M-2/5 series. We are not looking at a new tank prototype for our FMBT until 2017.
Ask yourself if really India need to do everything on it's own.

I would rather firstly buy something from someone, this would give me a time to design my own gun.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Ask yourself if really India need to do everything on it's own.

I would rather firstly buy something from someone, this would give me a time to design my own gun.

One need to see when the project started ?

Requirements for Gun remained unchanged since issued..
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Requirements for Gun remained unchanged since issued..
So they still want to use rifled gun?! Only because of outdated HESH ammunition?! Even when there are better solutions like programmabale HE ammunition?!
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
That Army`s decision to take, Till now Rifled gun preform fairly well on all ranges..

HESH is simple cheap and effective solution at working well for both bunkers and infantry on open, But that's doesn't mean i am telling Programmable HE rounds are costly, less effective..

If Army wants it will give orders..
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
But this is not safe, however designers give drivers in M1 tanks some possibilities for better engine control. System is called SHAFTS, it permitts driver to increase rapidly engine power and acceleration if needed.
The Americans have always had the most money to splurge. No other country is that highly capable.

Ask yourself if really India need to do everything on it's own.

I would rather firstly buy something from someone, this would give me a time to design my own gun.
We are not doing everything on our own. Even today we depend on external help in engines and electronics. If we are meant to buy something then we already have the 2A46M-2. But as it stands today, the IA just wants to have the Arjun saga completed as soon as possible so DRDO can develop a new FMBT.

When first reports of FMBT came out, it was said to be a tank weighing 40 tons and with a 125mm gun. Later this changed to between 45 and 50 tons as told by DRDO chief. But there is a possibility the FMBT may have a 120mm rifled gun in the initial stages or even in the final prototype. We may go for a Russian equivalent for all we know. It is too early to say anything.

But one thing is for sure, changing the Arjun's gun today will simply increase the already high cost of the Arjun. The Mk2 version is supposed to cost Rs 37Crores or $8.2 Million. Considering the Army has currently invested in only 124 Mk2s with final numbers being 372, it does not make sense to go for a new gun and simply bloat up the prices again while the FMBT is being developed anyway.

Some possible salient features of the FMBT;
Livefist: EXCLUSIVE: India's Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT)
 

black eagle

New Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,237
Likes
134
Country flag
Interesting read....

T-90AM: Latest Avatar Of The T-90 MBT

A delegation of India's Ministry of Defence will be departing later today to take part in the Ural Arms Expo in Nizhny Tagil later this week, and while there it will officially hand over to Rosoboronexport State Corp a restricted RFI which calls for the first 310 imported T-90S MBTs to be subjected to a 'deep upgrade', which will be designed and implemented by Uralvagonzavod JSC. These MBTs will be almost 10 years old by the time their mid-life upgrades are due to carried out from early 2013 onwards.

'Der aye, durust aye' (better late than never) will probably be the best way to welcome the emergence of the 50-tonne T-90AM—the latest member of the T-90 family of main battle tanks (MBT). In a nutshell, the T-90AM appears to have overcome all the previous design/performance deficiencies associated with the earlier T-90 variants (the T-90S and T-90M), and also with the T-72, from whose design the T-90's design has evolved. Interestingly, India has had a huge though as yet unacknowledged role to play with the T-90AM's R & D process. In order to delve deeper into this issue, we will have to take a walk down memory lane back to the late 1970s and early 1980s when the Indian Army was evaluating its options for a future main battle tank (FMBT) of imported origin to complement the indigenously designed Arjun MBT—which then was still on the drawing boards.

By the late 1970s, Indian Army HQ had decided to acquire new-generation replacements for its UK-origin fleet of Royal Ordnance Factories-built Centurion and Vickers-built Vijayanta Mk1 MBTs and consequently, paper evaluations concerning the firepower and mobility characteristics of the two principal contenders being offered for full in-country production—AMX-40 developed by GIAT Industries of France, and the Chieftain 800 (which later evolved into the Challenger 1 from Royal Ordnance Factories (then owned by British Aerospace PLC)—were conducted by the Indian Army. Between these two contenders, the Army had by early 1980 zeroed in on the 43-tonne AMX-40 MBT, which was still on the drawing boards and was meant to be powered by a 1,100hp Poyaud V12X 12-cylinder diesel engine coupled with a LSG-3000 automatic power shift transmission built by RENK Aktiengesellschaft of Germany (offering a power-to-weight ratio of 25.6hp/tonne, and armed with a 120mm smoothbore cannon. However, things didn't go according to the Army's well-conceived plans, since, after coming back to power, the then Indian Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi took the political decision to acquire new-build MBTs from the USSR, following which the Soviet Union's Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations (which after 1991 morphed into Oboronexport, then Rosoboronservice and ultimately Rosoboronexport State Corp) made a formal offer to India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) for supplying the 37-tonne T-72M Ob'yekt 172M-E4 MBT off-the-shelf, and according an approval for licenced-production of the 41.5-tonne T-72M-1982 Ob'yekt 172M-E6 to the MoD-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi. By early 1981, two T-72Ms--powered by a 780hp diesel engine, armed with 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun and offering a power-to-weight ratio of 20hp/tonne, were subjected to an exhaustive series of in-country firepower and mobility trials by the Army, while copies of the T-72M's operating and maintenance manuals supplied by the Soviets (who in those days were totally aghast when shown marketing brochures of competing MBTs of Western origin and were asked why such types of materials were unavailable from the USSR) were subjected to intense academic and operational scrutiny for a 90-day period.

Immediately later, a delegation of 'experts' comprising members of the MBT's design bureau-- Kartsev-Venediktov; the MBT's manufacturer--Uralvagonzavod Factory located in Nizhny Tagil; and officials from the Soviet Defence Ministry's Land Forces Armaments Directorate, all converged at the Indian Army HQ, where extensive deliberations on and analysis of the T-72M's in-country firepower and mobility trials were conducted by both sides for at least a week. Following all this, it ultimately emerged that while the T-72M possessed excellent and hassle-free mobility characteristics, its firepower capabilities were clearly a full generation behind that of the AMX-40. The Army, which had all along wanted to acquire a MBT incorporating hit-survivability design features (something that the home-grown Arjun Mk1 MBT's design strongly signifies), now found to its utter horror that basically, with the exception of the T-55, the overall Soviet approach to MBT design in the post-World War II era was found to be flawed on two major counts: namely, the gamble on not being hit rather than on surviving hits, and the refusal to perceive survivability of the tank crew as a quite distinct issue from survivability of the vehicle, with the former having priority over the latter. The combination of these two shortcomings produced design solutions such as the T-72M's carousel autoloader and ammunition reserve being accommodated on the turret floor. This indeed allowed for a very compact configuration and ensured that the ammunition is less likely to take a direct hit—but it also entailed a very high risk of ignition or sympathetic detonation should the fighting compartment be penetrated, in which case there went the MBT and the crew with it. When confronted with such 'hard facts' along with the Army's criticisms about the lack of even a 'decent' hunter-killer fire-control system (when compared to the likes on board the AMX-40), members of the Soviet delegation were clearly red-faced and a depressed lot, and it took several bottles of vodka during and after dinner-time to come out with the truth: according to the MBT's designers, the performance characteristics of all weapons produced in the USSR were dictated purely by the warfighting doctrine of the country's armed forces. Hence, weapons like the T-72M were meant for usage only by follow-on echelon formations of the Red Army, while the all-critical breakout forces then stationed throughout the East European member-states of the Warsaw Pact were equipped with state-of-the-art MBTs like members of the 38-tonne T-64 and 42.5-tonne/46-tonne T-80 MBT families—designed by the Ukraine-based Morozov Design Bureau and series-produced at Malyshev in Kharkiv, Ukraine, and in Russia by both the Leningrad Kirov Plant and Omsk Transmash. In other words, while members of the T-64 and T-80 MBT families were the vanguard elements of the Red Army's armoured juggernaut, those of the T-72 MBT were meant to be used merely for encirclement and envelopment of the enemy's armoured formations.

Yet, despite all this, India's Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs of the day decreed that the T-72M and T-721982 (powered by a Model V-84MS four-stroke 12-cylinder multi-fuel engine developing 840hp and offering a power-to-weight ratio of 18.8 hp/tone) would be the Army's future MBTs, and a procurement contract for 2,418 T-72s was subsequently inked. Interestingly, while the first off-the-shelf shipments of T-72Ms began arriving by ship in Mumbai in mid-1982, in Lebanon the 105mm APFSDS rounds fired by Israeli Merkava Mk1 MBTs with 105mm rifled-bore guns routinely pierced the Syrian T-72M's front glacis, went straight through the MBT and exited through the engine compartment, leaving a turretless hulk behind. Five years later, The Indian Army's worst fears were realised when got a first-hand demonstration of the T-72M's acute vulnerability in October 1987, after LTTE guerrillas exploded improvised explosive devices underneath two T-72Ms deployed with the Army's 65 Armoured Regiment for Operation Pawan during the battle for Jaffna, which resulted in armour penetration and the ensuing catastrophic detonation of the MBT's ammunition reserve (this being stored in a carousel autoloader on the turret's floor), resulting in the turrets being blown off. Subsequent events in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm would convincingly highlight the T-72's totally flawed design features. Despite such developments, the Army—starting in 1988 began inducting the HVF-built T-72M-1982s into service.

A year earlier (1987), however, the Indian Army—being acutely aware of the T-72M's vulnerabilities, had decided to undertake Project Bison—an ambitious upgrade project in cooperation with Yugoslavia's state-owned Yugoimport SDPR, under which all its T-72Ms would be fitted with a new rolled homogenous armour (RHA) package developed by the Ravne-based Slovenske Železarne and comprising high-hardness steel, tungsten, and plastic fillers with ceramic components, plus the SUV-M-84 digital fire-control system that incorporated a Hughes-built gunner's sight that was stabilised in two axes and included a thermal imager and laser rangefinder. The gunner's ballistics computer—developed by Banja Luka-based Rudi Cajevec—was designed to automatically download crosswind data, vehicle cant, azimuth tracking rate and range, while the gunner manually inputted the data for air pressure, air temperature, barrel wear, barrel droop and ammunition type. Also planned for retrofit was the 12-cylinder water-cooled V-46TK 1,000hp diesel engine, that would have given the T-72M a power-to-weight ratio of 24.10hp/tonne. A procurement contract was signed with Yugoimport SDPR in early 1989 and an advance down-payment was made as well, but by 1991, Project Bison had to be scrapped in its entirety as by then civil war had broken out in Yugoslavia, and the country was subjected to an UN-mandated universal arms export/import embargo.

Both the MoD and the Indian Army learnt valuable lessons from Project Bison, and almost a decade later, when it came to the planned procurement of 1,657 T-90s (to replace the 1,781 T-55 and T-72M MBTs in a phased manner), it was decided to adopt a product block developmental approach similar to what by then was being planned for the Indian Air Force's Su-30MKI procurement exercise. Consequently, in February 2001, India bought its first batch of 310 47.5-tonne 47.5-tonne T-90S MBTs worth US$795 million, of which 124 were delivered off-the-shelf, 86 in semi-knocked down kits (for licenced-assembly by the MoD-owned HVF in Avadi), and 100 in completely-knocked down kits (all these MBTs were retrofitted with Saab's IDAS radar/laser warning system and LEDS-150 active protection system, or APS, worth Rs25 billion between 2009 and 2011). This was followed by a follow-on contract, worth $800 million (or Rs175 million per unit), being inked on October 26, 2006, for another 330 T-90M MBTs that were to be built with locally-sourced raw materials and also come fitted with LEDS-150 APS. The third contract, worth $1.23 billion (which was inclusive of the R & D funds required for designing a customised version of the T-90—the 50-tonne T-90AM), was inked in December 2007 for 347 upgraded T-90Ms, which are now being licence-built by HVF. These T-90Ms each come with a THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth and housed within the Peleng-built 1G-46 gunner's sight), the commander's panoramic sight (which houses the Matis-STD thermal imager that operates in the 3-5 micron bandwidth and which has also been selected for the Arjun Mk1 MBT's panoramic sight), an automatic gearbox, an electro-hydraulic turret-drive-cum stabilisation system, and most importantly, has a 2A46M-5 Rapira smoothbore main gun barrel that also comes fitted with a muzzle reference system.

While all the enhancements featured on the T-90M will also be found on the T-90AM, the latter will, among other things, incorporate a totally new redesigned turret that will now house a remote-controlled weapon station, an independent commander's panoramic sight and gunner's sight, a rear-mounted ammunition stowage bustle and its autoloader (thereby doing away with the much-criticised carousel autoloader on the turret's floor and enabling the stowage of single-unit FSAPDS rounds containing long-rod kinetic energy penetrators which the T-90S and T-90M cannot fire at the moment), and redesigned modular armour tiles. The hull-section, housing the driver's and gunner's compartments, will be equipped with a battlespace management terminal, fibre-optic gyro-based land navigation system, software-defined radio suite, health-and-usage management systems for on-board diagnosis of the MBT's vectronics and automotive elements—all these being selected and furnished by the customer (in India's case) to Uralvagonzavod for on-board fitment-cum-integration. Also to be furnished by India for integration is the active protection suite (APS), for which the LEDS-150 is competing with the Iron First APS (already installed on board the Arjun Mk2 MBT) from Israel Military Industries. Powerplant for the T-90AM will comprise a Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-built 1,130hp V-92S2 diesel engine, while a 1kW AB-1-P28 auxiliary power unit will provide back-up electric power when the engine is idling. By today calculations, 670 T-99AMs could well be delivered to the Indian Army between 2013 and 2019.

This finally brings us to the issue of whether or not to upgrade the remaining 1,664 T-72s in successive tranches. Already, 692 T-72Ms have been upgraded thus far into the T-72 'Combat-Improved Ajeya' standards, while a follow-on tranche of 700 T-72M1s (whose per unit procurement cost is Rs90 million) is due to be upgraded at a cost of Rs50 million per unit, for which there is an on-going competition between Russia's Rosoboronexport State Corp, ELBIT Systems of Israel, and the Raytheon/Larsen & Toubro combine, with work scheduled for completion by 2018). One interesting view prevailing within the Army HQ's Directorate of Mechanised Forces calls for scrapping the planned T-72 upgrades altogether and instead procuring up to 900 T-90AMs and up to 400 Arjun Mk2s (each costing Rs380 million or $8.2 million) before 2020. This view also calls for re-engineering the hulls of the existing 1,100 T-72Ms and 1,318 T-72M-1982s to accommodate a family of turrets housing not only missile-launchers of the Akash E-SHORADS and their Rajendra L-band PESA target engagement radars and battery command-and-control centres (62 T-72M hulls have already been re-engineered for this purpose), but also air-defence artillery guns and their fire-control systems like the Skyranger from Rheinmetall Defence, a turret containing anti-armour guided-missiles like up to eight Kornet-EM in ready-to-fire configuration along with a 30mm rapid-fire cannon and 30mm automatic grenade launchers—all remotely-operated, MLC-70 bridge layers (like the BLT-72), equipment required by armoured recovery vehicles for the T-90 family of MBTs, and counter-mine flails.

Via: Trishul Blog
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
That Army`s decision to take, Till now Rifled gun preform fairly well on all ranges..
It perform well on ranges but in battle it will perform poorly when it come to armor penetration values. KE penetrator in ammunition used by Arjun is very short it is a level of early 1980's in NATO MBT's, sorry these are facts. It would be better to just buy licence for RH-120 gun, licence for DM53 or DM63 (or in worser scenario for DM43 or KEW-A1) or KEW-A2 and it would be much better weapon system against Pakistani and Chinese tanks, especially the newer ones.

HESH is simple cheap and effective solution at working well for both bunkers and infantry on open,
But this only means that Arjun is well suited to fight against infantry units and older tanks...

The Americans have always had the most money to splurge. No other country is that highly capable.
Nah, they can't do everything, for example in 1990's they got two new generation engines for M1 series, LV100-5 compact gas turbine (it was tiny compared to AGT-1500C, and had the same power - governed 1500HP and gross ~2000HP if not more) and XAP-1000 compact Diesel (1500HP) of course due to collpase of Soviet Union and political decisions to go in to FCS program (that ended as one huge failure and waste of money) both engines never were mounted in M1 tanks.

But these engines gived huge opportunity for upgrades, for example bigger hull ammo magazine, as turret magazine also isolated and for blow off panels, I figuer out that mounting there derivative of auto/semi-autoloading system designed by Meggitt company, You can store in hull magazine ~30-34/36 rounds, same system can be mounted in turret bustle, this gives 2x34/36 rounds (or even 36 rounds after some turret redesing) gives 68 to 72 120mm rounds stored in isolated magazines with blow off panels inside tank.

Meggitt system also had at once 34-36 rounds ready to use, so crew only needed to reload it after firing these rounds, no ready rack and semi-ready rack in turret as it is now.

Survivability improvements were also there, because Meggitt company system did not use big sliding doors but solid steel bulkhead with small ammunition port. So as I said after turret redesign and small hull redesign it would made M1 tanks even better.

Engine improvements also give other upgrade capabilities, like APU integrated with engine, so powerpack would contain transmission, engine and APU in one. between engine and hull ammunition magazine there could be placed big fuel tank, this would allow to do 2 things.

Or we left front hull fuel tanks, so with two sponson fuel tanks at rear and one big fuel tank in engine compartment we would have capacity to store ~2000+ litres of fuel (end these next generation engines were more fuel efficent, so imagine how range would increase).

2nd way is to throw away front fuel tanks and use that space for crew equipment storage so there would not be need to store everything outside on turret.

Another way to improve tank was use of hydrogas suspension, so this means more space inside because there are no torsion bars, no openings for suspension elements in hull side armor, and modular easy repairabale, replacabale suspension modules mounted outside hull.

I was thinking also on many other upgrades and redesigns, I couldn't belive how much upgrade potential M1 tanks have.

We are not doing everything on our own. Even today we depend on external help in engines and electronics. If we are meant to buy something then we already have the 2A46M-2. But as it stands today, the IA just wants to have the Arjun saga completed as soon as possible so DRDO can develop a new FMBT.

When first reports of FMBT came out, it was said to be a tank weighing 40 tons and with a 125mm gun. Later this changed to between 45 and 50 tons as told by DRDO chief. But there is a possibility the FMBT may have a 120mm rifled gun in the initial stages or even in the final prototype. We may go for a Russian equivalent for all we know. It is too early to say anything.

But one thing is for sure, changing the Arjun's gun today will simply increase the already high cost of the Arjun. The Mk2 version is supposed to cost Rs 37Crores or $8.2 Million. Considering the Army has currently invested in only 124 Mk2s with final numbers being 372, it does not make sense to go for a new gun and simply bloat up the prices again while the FMBT is being developed anyway.
True that new gun maybe will increase price. But in such case someone should as why someone decided to use outdated technology.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
It perform well on ranges but in battle it will perform poorly when it come to armor penetration values. KE penetrator in ammunition used by Arjun is very short it is a level of early 1980's in NATO MBT's, sorry these are facts. It would be better to just buy licence for RH-120 gun, licence for DM53 or DM63 (or in worser scenario for DM43 or KEW-A1) or KEW-A2 and it would be much better weapon system against Pakistani and Chinese tanks, especially the newer ones.
Gun have nothing to do but the ammo this is a fact
Their is a new gun in development dont know its rifled or Smooth-bore but much thicker..

Why licensed produce when we have the technology and infrastructure to develop one..
 

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
Nah, they can't do everything, for example in 1990's they got two new generation engines for M1 series, LV100-5 compact gas turbine (it was tiny compared to AGT-1500C, and had the same power - governed 1500HP and gross ~2000HP if not more) and XAP-1000 compact Diesel (1500HP) of course due to collpase of Soviet Union and political decisions to go in to FCS program (that ended as one huge failure and waste of money) both engines never were mounted in M1 tanks.
Even the FCS program turned out to be a colossal waste of time. Do you have any specs of the 40 tons tank that they were developing?

As for some aspects even they needed help. They borrowed the Chobham technology from Britain with the L-44 gun from Germany. So, even the big brute is not infallible.

But these engines gived huge opportunity for upgrades, for example bigger hull ammo magazine, as turret magazine also isolated and for blow off panels, I figuer out that mounting there derivative of auto/semi-autoloading system designed by Meggitt company, You can store in hull magazine ~30-34/36 rounds, same system can be mounted in turret bustle, this gives 2x34/36 rounds (or even 36 rounds after some turret redesing) gives 68 to 72 120mm rounds stored in isolated magazines with blow off panels inside tank.
I have seen this autoloader concept. They want an automated or unmanned turret in one version similar to Falcon on CR. That would mean a major redesign of everything, including reducing crew to 3 and packing them all in the hull. But I doubt it would be value for money and they may actually want to retain the loader for maintenance. Even the unmanned turret concept has flaws. But superior sensors may alleviate that issue.

Engine improvements also give other upgrade capabilities, like APU integrated with engine, so powerpack would contain transmission, engine and APU in one. between engine and hull ammunition magazine there could be placed big fuel tank, this would allow to do 2 things.
Is there any truth in the HMG being able to take out the APU on the Abrams?

Or we left front hull fuel tanks, so with two sponson fuel tanks at rear and one big fuel tank in engine compartment we would have capacity to store ~2000+ litres of fuel (end these next generation engines were more fuel efficent, so imagine how range would increase).

2nd way is to throw away front fuel tanks and use that space for crew equipment storage so there would not be need to store everything outside on turret.
An unnecessary weight penalty in the first way. The current range is more than enough. It would be silly to increase range for one asset while all other supporting assets do not have a similar range. I like the second way.

Another way to improve tank was use of hydrogas suspension, so this means more space inside because there are no torsion bars, no openings for suspension elements in hull side armor, and modular easy repairabale, replacabale suspension modules mounted outside hull.

I was thinking also on many other upgrades and redesigns, I couldn't belive how much upgrade potential M1 tanks have.
It seems like everything is a mix and match kind of thing. Like take advantages of CR, Arjun, M1, Leclerc, T-90, Merkava etc and put them all in one tank. Autoloader, larger space, more armour, new engine, hydrogas suspension, better positioning of shells etc along with newer tech like APS, Sat comm/navigation, IFF, RCS reduction etc. But do the Americans have the kind of money for developing this and inducting a significantly large number for any effective use?

It would effectively be a new tank though.

True that new gun maybe will increase price. But in such case someone should as why someone decided to use outdated technology.
About the Arjun, we had already discussed it. At the time the Rifled gun was thought of, India did not have access to Smoothbore guns. Already explained about L-7, L-11 and the D-10 that India possessed in the Vickers, Centurion and T-55. It did not make sense for India to go for something without any experience in smoothbore.

The requirements for the final form of Arjun was set up in 1985. But the first batch of T-72 was introduced in 1979 followed by the main force in 1982. So, the experience with smoothbore was obviously next to nothing. I doubt we received ToT for the gun anyway. We got it way after induction. Now we do have experience with the 125mm, we even designed our own manufacturing process for the T-72 gun, to the point where the EFC of 250 was increased to 800 along with increase in power from the base levels. So, it is possible we will see a smoothbore on the FMBT when the time comes.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Even the FCS program turned out to be a colossal waste of time. Do you have any specs of the 40 tons tank that they were developing?
There are no specs because it was work on paper only, the original FCS concept was a 40 tons tank with unmanned turret equiped with a gun and coaxial weapon and behind that turret there was some space for dismounts/recon or VLS launcher for anti tank, anti structure or anti air missiles.

This concept was abandoned for 20 tons universal combat platform and in 2009/2010 they finally cut that all.

There was also 55 ton FMBT concept, very interesting similiar to 40 ton FCS tank.

As for some aspects even they needed help. They borrowed the Chobham technology from Britain with the L-44 gun from Germany. So, even the big brute is not infallible.
There never was such thing like Chobham armor, the armor in fact codeveloped by US and UK (most work was made by UK scientists) was codenamed Burlington, and was used only in original M1, from M1IP Americans started to play with design and in 1988 they replaced it by their own design.

German gun was only used as a base for M256 gun, M256 have different reciol mechanism, MRS, thermal shroud, bore evacuator and other things.

It was used for cost and time savings, because many guns (US, UK and FRG made) were tested.

I have seen this autoloader concept. They want an automated or unmanned turret in one version similar to Falcon on CR. That would mean a major redesign of everything, including reducing crew to 3 and packing them all in the hull. But I doubt it would be value for money and they may actually want to retain the loader for maintenance. Even the unmanned turret concept has flaws. But superior sensors may alleviate that issue.
I think You confused TTB prototype that indeed had unmanned turret and crew in hull (BTW it was better design than Jordanian Falcon turret, TTB had 44 rounds ready to use in AL while Falcon have only 17 if I remember correctly).

The system designed by Meggitt company was different, it was designed to be used even in existing M1 tanks turrets. It was very simple and elegant design, pitty that never used in tanks. :(

Is there any truth in the HMG being able to take out the APU on the Abrams?
Only EAPU on M1A1 series and basic M1A2, because it is mounted completely outside with no armor protection, M1A2SEP use UAAPU mounted inside hull left rear sponson.

An unnecessary weight penalty in the first way. The current range is more than enough. It would be silly to increase range for one asset while all other supporting assets do not have a similar range. I like the second way.
Fair point.

It seems like everything is a mix and match kind of thing. Like take advantages of CR, Arjun, M1, Leclerc, T-90, Merkava etc and put them all in one tank. Autoloader, larger space, more armour, new engine, hydrogas suspension, better positioning of shells etc along with newer tech like APS, Sat comm/navigation, IFF, RCS reduction etc. But do the Americans have the kind of money for developing this and inducting a significantly large number for any effective use?

It would effectively be a new tank though.
I think that taking in to consideration that we will use classic MBT design for some while it is worth to do... and only US from western countries have money and technological base to do that... damn, I should be engineer building tanks. :D

About the Arjun, we had already discussed it. At the time the Rifled gun was thought of, India did not have access to Smoothbore guns. Already explained about L-7, L-11 and the D-10 that India possessed in the Vickers, Centurion and T-55. It did not make sense for India to go for something without any experience in smoothbore.

The requirements for the final form of Arjun was set up in 1985. But the first batch of T-72 was introduced in 1979 followed by the main force in 1982. So, the experience with smoothbore was obviously next to nothing. I doubt we received ToT for the gun anyway. We got it way after induction. Now we do have experience with the 125mm, we even designed our own manufacturing process for the T-72 gun, to the point where the EFC of 250 was increased to 800 along with increase in power from the base levels. So, it is possible we will see a smoothbore on the FMBT when the time comes.
Fair enough.
 
Last edited:

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
There are no specs because it was work on paper only, the original FCS concept was a 40 tons tank with unmanned turret equiped with a gun and coaxial weapon and behind that turret there was some space for dismounts/recon or VLS launcher for anti tank, anti structure or anti air missiles.

This concept was abandoned for 20 tons universal combat platform and in 2009/2010 they finally cut that all.

There was also 55 ton FMBT concept, very interesting similiar to 40 ton FCS tank.
There is actually a video from Discovery about the 40 ton tank. This is the only piece of evidence available that something like a new tank may have been worked on.

U.S Army Future Combat Systems 40ton Prototype Tank - YouTube

The entire program was killed and a smaller program replaced it. So, no real point in talking about it.

I think that taking in to consideration that we will use classic MBT design for some while it is worth to do... and only US from western countries have money and technological base to do that... damn, I should be engineer building tanks. :D
The Indian FMBT will also not be any different from whatever the Armata program may come up with. Even the Russians say the Armata will not be significantly different from existing tanks.

No rail gun is planned for the FMBT.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Ok, to not confusing You p2prada I will explain how many different prototypes were for further upgrading and replacing M1 series, it will also show others how existing tanks can be upgraded.

Ok so here is TTB, it have crew placed inside armored capsule in hull, and unmanned turret armed with 120mm smoothbore gun (M256 modification) and coaxial machine gun. It was early prototype this is why it have additional sighting system elements on both sides of hull.





This was unconventional and very futuristic design. AL cassettes hold 44 rounds.

And here we have different design, it is CATTB, a prototype for testing new modular armor, FCS (MTAS/SAVA), new 120/140mm XM291 ATAC gun, XM91 Autoloader and XAP-1000 engine.





Here we have vehicle that we call "Thumper", official designation name is not known, for short we can call it a less advanced, smaller version of CATTB:



Here we have a prototype with Cadillac Gage hydrogas In-Arm modular suspension system.



And here we have different engines made in US. You can compare size of older generation AVCR-1100, AVCR-1360 Diesel engines, AGT-1500C Gas Turbine Engine with size of compact LV100-5 Gas Turbine and XAP-1000 Diesel.







And here XM2001 SPH based on M1 tank, it was really revolutionary SPH, actually still there is nothing that can match with XM2001.



There is actually a video from Discovery about the 40 ton tank. This is the only piece of evidence available that something like a new tank may have been worked on.

U.S Army Future Combat Systems 40ton Prototype Tank - YouTube

The entire program was killed and a smaller program replaced it. So, no real point in talking about it.
This thing is a mockup made from wood, not a true prototype.

The Indian FMBT will also not be any different from whatever the Armata program may come up with. Even the Russians say the Armata will not be significantly different from existing tanks.

No rail gun is planned for the FMBT.
True, so as I pointed out, such upgrades as in my previous post should be integrated in to design.

Ah and here is a PDF document from Meggitt Defense Systems about their AL system.

http://mdswebmaster.com/UK/MDS2008/cms/images/stories/pdf/PD_120mm Compact Autoloader.pdf
 
Last edited:

p2prada

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,017
The 40 ton tank in the video is apparently made out of plastic and fibre. Yes. It is not a prototype. The actual prototype was supposed to be ready in 2017, but Robert Gates killed it.

Anyway it is called the XM-1202 Mounted Combat System.

The TTB and CTTB are heavier than the T-90 and is not part of the FCS program. I was being specific. :)
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
The 40 ton tank in the video is apparently made out of plastic and fibre. Yes. It is not a prototype. The actual prototype was supposed to be ready in 2017, but Robert Gates killed it.
This prototype on that video was made from wood, belive me I know what I'm talking about, and it was killed way before Robert Gates become chief of DoD.

Anyway it is called the XM-1202 Mounted Combat System.
Nope, XM1202 MCS is this:



The TTB and CTTB are heavier than the T-90 and is not part of the FCS program. I was being specific. :)
Yes I know that TTB and CATTB were not part of FCS program.

In fact FCS had a more logical, better counterpart in form of earlier ASM program... pitty that it was not continued.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
My Article about never exist 4th gen. MBT (in polish):

Forum Militarium • Zobacz temat - Ostatnie ogniwo - niedoszÅ‚a IV powojenna generacja czoÅ‚gów p

some photos:

Leclerck with 140mm:



Ob.195 aka "T-95" (wrong, incorrect name)

Turret test prototype:


Ob.195:


152mm autoloader:



Charkov's Ob.477 Molot (Hammer?):


Ob.640 (incorrect name: "Black Eagle")





USA:
CAATB:



TTB:



Thumper:


Tank Block III:



German NGP (EGS prototype):












140mm NPzK autoloader prototype:




NPzK 140mm autoloader in Leopard2:


 
Last edited:

Global Defence

Articles

Top