Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

What sort of an explanation is that? You must be kidding me right! Those are variants not all Tigers have that on the top. So the LCH wont have any of this so it is 1980s? How do you know LCH wont have all this.

All EC Tigers have over rotor mounted sighting systems because it is only sighting system they have. LCH still don't have such system, it does not mean it will not have.

No they are not, go read my other post.

?? What do You don't understand in my post?

Thats lame, you just said you have no idea where the crew compartment ends.

?? It is clearly visible on photos.

Sure but you seem to have x-ray vision to see what is inside just by looking at a pic, as you did earlier.

?? Why do I need some x-ray vision when something is clearly visible on photos?

CIVT was added in 2000 not in the 80s.

You need to improve You knowledge on history of foreing weapon systems development, CITV's were added on NATO MBT's in early 1990's.

 

[Damian]

Their are safe pressurized ammo containers to keep ammo safe so does their are blow up pannels on turret, Abt challenger burn up case, One have to notice for how long tank was fuming up, It exploded after some long time not at instant..

Pressurized containers proved to be outdated technology, both in Iraq (Challenger 2) and Lebanon (Merkava tanks), and blow off panels is only over turret magazine, while hull magazine don't have sich feature.

Also putting exhaust at back ? , Didn't a KVPT or NSV breached the back of Abrams and case fire ?

It was not rear armor breach and engine fire but EAPU fire.

Placement of exhaust have nothing to do with this incident.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

All EC Tigers have over rotor mounted sighting systems because it is only sighting system they have. LCH still don't have such system, it does not mean it will not have.

It already has and i even meet the pilot in aero india see the pictures in my profile, it has a sights on the nose. Why waste my energy..god i am done with this guy. What hele wont have that these days!

?? What do You don't understand in my post?

No, i meant my other post.

?? It is clearly visible on photos.

It is not, the rear has a blow off panel for ammo explosion and some NBC cylinders i guess.. Look at the open rear hatch of the turret.

?? Why do I need some x-ray vision when something is clearly visible on photos?

How will u see inside the equipment? U where wrong by first assumption on what the sight was, how did the picture help u say what sights they where? Why should i repeat this over and over again that u cant hv x-ray vision by seeing pictures superficially!

You need to improve You knowledge on history of foreing weapon systems development, CITV's were added on NATO MBT's in early 1990's.[

No most where upgraded in late 90s and even then it is 90s tech!! lol. You fail in your own admission that it was early 80s and why do you make such blunders?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Pressurized containers proved to be outdated technology, both in Iraq (Challenger 2) and Lebanon (Merkava tanks), and blow off panels is only over turret magazine, while hull magazine don't have sich feature.

No, Read my post, I mentioned that Challenger didnt got blown up instantaneously, check records abt the amount of time took it explode, Also Check the pics Arjun as well as all Leo use Pressurized containers in hull as well as Turret..

It was not rear armor breach and engine fire but EAPU fire.

Placement of exhaust have nothing to do with this incident.

I had a PDF of that incident from US department back in 2003, I dont have it any-longer, But you can ask on other place for conformation..

 

[Damian]

It already has and i even meet the pilot in aero india see the pictures in my profile, it has a sights on the nose. Why waste my energy..god i am done with this guy. What hele wont have that these days!

WTF You are talking about now? Yes LCH have sighting system in the hull nose, I never said it have not, what I said there is no sighting system over rotor or radar placed over rotor for safe engagements from behind covered positions.

Are You sure You understand what I'm talking to You?

No, i meant my other post.

What post?

It is not, the rear has a blow off panel for ammo explosion and some NBC cylinders i guess.. Look at the open rear hatch of the turret.

WTF? I was not talking about these things...

How will u see inside the equipment? U where wrong by first assumption on what the sight was, how did the picture help u say what sights they where? Why should i repeat this over and over again that u cant hv x-ray vision by seeing pictures superficially!

So I will ask simply because You have problems with understanding.

Do Arjun TC, have such things like GPSE (Gunner Primary Sight Extension) and CITV (Commander Independent Thermal Viewer)?

No most where upgraded in late 90s and even then it is 90s tech!! lol. You fail in your own admission that it was early 80s and why do you make such blunders?

Ehhh, what? M1A2 was fielded in 1992, Leopard 2A5 was fielded in 1998, Leclerc in 1992, so two NATO/Western MBT's with CITV were fielded in early 1990's.

And I never said it was early 1980's, where did You read that?!

I have a proposition to You, be less emotional and read carefully my posts.

No, Read my post, I mentioned that Challenger didnt got blown up instantaneously, check records abt the amount of time took it explode, Also Check the pics Arjun as well as all Leo use Pressurized containers in hull as well as Turret..

Challenger 2 did explode, two crew members that were inside were dead, if ammunition would be completely isolated then only one crew mmeber would be dead.

Leopard 2 don't use pressurized containers for ammunition, just simple ammo rack in hull and isolated ammunition magazine in turret.

Israeli experiences prooved that pressurized containers for ammunition are not safe.

I had a PDF of that incident from US department back in 2003, I dont have it any-longer, But you can ask on other place for conformation..

It was definetly EAPU fire, PM Abrams, GDLS and Army reported that there were problems with externally mounted APU's when they were hit with small arms, some incidents ended with extensive vehicle fires.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Why does this area require protection? It is just an blow off duct for ammo explosion and cylinder storage.


The red line is where the crew compartment ends and the armor also ends.. The rear is for storage....Another fail by Damian?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Under the blow up pannels are the ammo in protective containers, The other written as blow up panel is APU..

 

[Damian]

Why does this area require protection? It is just an blow off duct for ammo explosion and cylinder storage.


The red line is where the crew compartment ends and the armor also ends.. The rear is for storage....Another fail by Damian?

Where did I say that this area need to be nececary protected by composite armor, I was saying about crew compartment, hello...

Not to mention that You even confused ammunition storage placement with NBC and hydraulics storage... Do You even know where loader in Arjun sits? Because it would be hard for him to load ammunition from behind TC station.

Who had made fail?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Under the blow up pannels are the ammo in protective containers, The other written as blow up panel is APU..

What is the open hatch at the rear? Also the crew is not present in that area right?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What is the open hatch at the rear? Also the crew is not present in that area right?

Those are APU electronics connected to main APU..

The External Box at back is APU connected to tank, The blow up pannels are on left side, And their is ammo in pressurized containers..

 

[Damian]

Red - Side turret composite armor, only partially protecting crew compartment.
Black - Side RHA armor.
Green - Ammunition storage in turret blow off panel.
Brown - Turret hydraulics/NBC protection system or different components storage.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

WTF You are talking about now? Yes LCH have sighting system in the hull nose, I never said it have not, what I said there is no sighting system over rotor or radar placed over rotor for safe engagements from behind covered positions.

Are You sure You understand what I'm talking to You?

What post?

WTF? I was not talking about these things...

So I will ask simply because You have problems with understanding.

This is outright silly, how do you say the LCH will not have these Avionics or Radar? So how did it end up inferior simply because its Indian?

Do Arjun TC, have such things like GPSE (Gunner Primary Sight Extension) and CITV (Commander Independent Thermal Viewer)?

All of this are upgrades and where not there in the 80s. The CITV is more of a design philosophy for NATO more than an advancement.

Ehhh, what? M1A2 was fielded in 1992, Leopard 2A5 was fielded in 1998, Leclerc in 1992, so two NATO/Western MBT's with CITV were fielded in early 1990's.

And I never said it was early 1980's, where did You read that?!

Do you plan to also lie to cover you ass? What id Kunal and me talking off here then? You said. "Arjun is still in early 1980's standard for NATO tanks", What is this?

I have a proposition to You, be less emotional and read carefully my posts.

I think any sane person would get annoyed by this much bias against someones nation.

Challenger 2 did explode, two crew members that were inside were dead, if ammunition would be completely isolated then only one crew mmeber would be dead.

Leopard 2 don't use pressurized containers for ammunition, just simple ammo rack in hull and isolated ammunition magazine in turret.

Israeli experiences prooved that pressurized containers for ammunition are not safe.



It was definetly EAPU fire, PM Abrams, GDLS and Army reported that there were problems with externally mounted APU's when they were hit with small arms, some incidents ended with extensive vehicle fires.

As i understood you said Side armor not rear. You said this "Or placing composite armor over crew compartment on turret side surfaces, this means that storage boxes will need to be placed elsewhere, it can even means complete storage system redesign".

You did not say rear but you said side armor and you posted a side view in a earlier post to some one else criticizing the length of the side armor.

The Challenger did explode but this is a problem with most tanks, tanks cant even go head to head with helicopters, aircraft's, ATGMS or infantry, tanks are only good to fight tanks.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Where did I say that this area need to be nececary protected by composite armor, I was saying about crew compartment, hello...

Not to mention that You even confused ammunition storage placement with NBC and hydraulics storage... Do You even know where loader in Arjun sits? Because it would be hard for him to load ammunition from behind TC station.

Who had made fail?

You said side armor and i have quoted you in the post above this. You did not mention rear.

 

[Damian]

You said side armor and i have quoted you in the post above this. You did not mention rear.

WTF? What are You talking about? I was saying only about side turret armor, not rear armor? Do You understand difference between side and rear armor?

This is outright silly, how do you say the LCH will not have these Avionics or Radar? So how did it end up inferior simply because its Indian?

? When and where did I say it will not have such systems? It can have such systems, everything depends on financing side and decision makers.

And where did I say it is inferior because it was made in India? You really have problems with head mate.

All of this are upgrades and where not there in the 80s. The CITV is more of a design philosophy for NATO more than an advancement.

GPSE was used in NATO tanks even in 60's, at least some NATO tanks. CITV is not design philosophy, H-K is design philosophy, CITV is element of vehicle that improves situational awareness, TC gunner cooperation etc. In NATO before CITV was present, there were used powered cupolas or CIV's.

Do you plan to also lie to cover you ass? What id Kunal and me talking off here then? You said. "Arjun is still in early 1980's standard for NATO tanks", What is this?

What do You not understand here?

Current NATO standard = full H-K capabilities day & night, CITV to TC.
Arjun Mk1 = no full H-K day & night (because no CITV), only day H-K with CIV = 1980's NATO standard.

It is so complicated to You to understand something such simple?!

I think any sane person would get annoyed by this much bias against someones nation.

WHere I have bias against someone nation You idiot? Where, show me? Make a quote of where I say something bad about India and Indian people? WHERE???!!!

As i understood you said Side armor not rear. You said this "Or placing composite armor over crew compartment on turret side surfaces, this means that storage boxes will need to be placed elsewhere, it can even means complete storage system redesign".

Yes I say side armor, what You don't understand here? Did I really need explain You everything step by step?

May be i did not understand this one but you said side armor and you posted a side view in a earlier post to some one else.

So if You not understand such simple wors maybe You should shut the fuck up and learn something?

The Challenger did explode but this is a problem with most tanks, tanks cant even go head to head with people, tanks are only good to fight tanks not helicopters, aircraft's, ATGMS and infantry.

What? Why then tank crew world wide train to fight with low flying helicopters and planes by using main gun? Why they can effectively fight with ATGM emplacements, why tank crews train to engage infantry and they can do it effectively in real combat (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon).

Yeah, You are great specialists, not only You are insulting people, have paranoia, don't know crew and equipment placement in Your own country MBT, but You have also incredible fantasy about how tanks are used and how crews are trained! Well done mr. Adult person with great knowledge.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

^^ Listen loser, go away we dont need any of your arguments here. Its all complete bull shit that you keep reversing. If LCH can get those then why the hell did you say its inferior to everything? Now you say it is not, keep flip flopping into circular arguments.

You again said 80s tech and then you said when did you say that and now again you use only the CITV argument when clearly CITV is a design philosophy, its the gunners job to spot it and shot. Rest of the technologies never existed in the 80s now you sight only the CITV issue to down grade it to 80s? Why such bias? what irks you moron? Calling me an idiot wont solve your hidden bias.

I have done enough winning against trolls like you, go ahead and say stupid stuff. The Arjun is 80s tech.Like they had computerized fire control back then?? did they ass hole? Have a nice day.

 

[Damian]

^^ Listen loser, go away we dont need any of your arguments here.

Listen little boy, and listen carefully. The only person that don't know how to use argumentations and is unabale to understand argumentation is You.

Its all complete bull shit that you keep reversing. If LCH can get those then why the hell did you say its inferior to everything? Now you say it is not, keep flip flopping into circular arguments.

If it don't have currently such capabilities then it is inferior, when it will have such capabilities it will be comparabale in this subject to NATO and Russian attack helicopters.

But there also other issues, like combat load (how much ordnance it can take), engine power (how high it can fly with how much ordnance) etc.

You again said 80s tech and then you said when did you say that and now again you use only the CITV argument when clearly CITV is a design philosophy, its the gunners job to spot it and shot. Rest of the technologies never existed in the 80s now you sight only the CITV issue to down grade it to 80s? Why such bias? what irks you moron? Calling me an idiot wont solve your hidden bias.

WTF is this?

In case of FCS Arjun is in 1980's level NATO standards, adding BMS won't make it superior in this subject, I can add BMS to WWII M4A3E8 and this won't make it comparbale or superior to M1A2SEP.

And You don't even understand difference between Hunter-Killer philosophy and CITV as vehicle component.

Do You actually know that Hunter-Killer capabilities were achieved by US.Army in 1960-1970's without CITV but with powered cupola on M60A2? Of course it was not true H-K bu todays standards but hey, they got it then, and this is design philosophy, CITV is just a vehicle component, tool, element of wider system.

Do You understand this? And yes You are a moron, and I hate such uneducated morons posing to be some super specialists knowing anything in fact creating only BS on forums, derailing threads etc.

I have done enough winning against trolls like you, go ahead and say stupid stuff. The Arjun is 80s tech.Like they had computerized fire control back then?? did they ass hole? Have a nice day.

Of course that NATO MBT's and even Soviet MBT's used computerized fire control systems, even in 1970's. Of course You did not know that?

Do You even know how MBT computers look like? Oh wait I know, little boy expects something similiar to his PC.

Here little genius, this is how looks like one of modern 3+ generation MBT's computer looks like:




Ok and maybe some of moderators kindly do something with this troll, really I want only a nice, good discussion on high level, not a trash talk with little boys that are not understand what tey see, what they read and what other people try to say them.

 

[Austin]

Overall Arjun is not a bad tank, but still it represents mostly first half of 1980's in NATO standards, so as it would not meet NATO countries standards, it is rather good for India and need urgent improvements and redesigns, and IMHO most important is to equip it with different main weapon.

I wont loose my sleep if Arjun does not meet NATO current standards which yes I do agree there are many areas it needs improvement , we are not going to fight NATO any time soon.

Arjun Key Area of operation will be the Deserts of Rajasthan and Punjab plain and its most likely enemy will be Pakistan Army Armoured capability where it exist now and what will come in the future , As long as it can hold or defeat it its a job well done , the same goes for Indian Bhishma (T-90S) and Ajeya (T-72M1)

The only real challenger for Arun will be the PA T-80UD , considering its a better tank they have and capabilities it would match up with it , but i think with what I read about Arjun Mk2 upgrade , it should be more than a match of T-80UD or any thing present and future in Pakisatan Army or for that matter even with PLA , two most likely country we would likely compete.

So all this talk about being like NATO standard is pretty much useless , infact there is atleast one good reason why Arjun should not ape nato standards which is its main gun.

Currently most of Indias fleet and future fleet will be based on around 1200 upgraded T-72 or Combat Imroved Ajeya as we call it here ( there are two standard here one is basic upgrade done by drdo including ERA and EO and the second is more comprehensive upgrade involving engine , fcs ,EO etc ) , there is 1650 T-90Bhishma tank under order , so we are looking at a fleet more than 2600 tanks that will have 125 mm MG as its standard gun , Arjun on the other hand uses 120 mm NATO standard gun . So within a fleet of tank we have two different standard of MG , considering Arjun fleet is so much smaller compared to T fleet , there is real logistic pain in maintaining two types of ammo.

I for one personally do not see any benefit in operating a NATO caliber when logistics tell me Russian standards will give be greater standardisation benefit.

Just one example of why not to ape NATO and get down from where ever we are on why our tank should be like NATO when in our environment we are dealing with any body but NATO.

 

[pmaitra]

^^

Good post Austin.

There has been much debate regarding the rifled vs smooth-bore gun.

In our case, rifled is more useful because while its life may be short we will get better hits. In case of Cold Start, it will be a high intensity war that will end quickly and will not drag on. So, our best bet is to rely on accuracy.

 

[Austin]

^^

Good post Austin.

There has been much debate regarding the rifled vs smooth-bore gun.

In our case, rifled is more useful because while its life may be short we will get better hits. In case of Cold Start, it will be a high intensity war that will end quickly and will not drag on. So, our best bet is to rely on accuracy.

Thanks ,actually that is what i thought initially but the use of rifled bore is primarily for HESH round as these rounds tend to spin and can be used for anti-bunker anti-material role with accuracy

But the newer ammo available has sensors ( fuse timer ) ( i really dont recollect the name off my head now but Damian can recollect it ) that you can use with HE-FRAG round in the same role with smooth bore gun and modern FCS takes care of accuracy part. , so using rifled bore is not an advantage right now with the right ammo being available that does not need to spin which was not available in the 80's

But my opinion is not about rifled or smooth bore ( obviously the latter is any day any time better today ) but more about the need to have NATO standard 120 mm MG which its of little logistical advantage to us when 80- 90 % of our tank fleet will have /use 125 mm Russian standard MG .

In the end we would end up using resource to develop different round and involving production cost when we can easily develop technology/production base for single round.

Ok some one will tell me Russian rounds are two part with ammo and CC but its not hard to develop a single one case round or use Auto Loader mechanism for two case rounds. Would save us a lot on logistics and keep standardisation of fleet.

 

[Austin]

militarysta, I check on Kornet-EM capabilities and it indeed does not have top attack capability , my appologies I miss read what the vendor was trying to say.