Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[pmaitra]

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.

I see what you are saying. I was saying w.r.t. the other post about getting a better gun.

I think Arjun's gun is good enough for now. Of course, we will have to improve. When will we ever stop improving?

BTW, how expensive is FCS (General Dynamics?).

I know armour detecting howitzer rounds are more expensive than general ones. Using smoothbore and then having intelligent munitions - hmmm, we need to do some number crunching and I don't have the numbers.

In any case, I am all for simplicity, but yes, you have a point and was also discussed earlier, smoothbore these days has matched rifled guns in accuracy.

 

[Austin]

I see what you are saying. I was saying w.r.t. the other post about getting a better gun.

Yes gun ballistic properties can be improved , But more then the gun we need to improve the L/D ratio of Arjun 120 mm round which from picture Damian showed me is smaller then even T-90 APFSDS , hence you can expect lower penertation capabilities the other is ofcourse the propellent part. From DRDO statement on Mk2 they are working on it

 

[Austin]

I know armour detecting howitzer rounds are more expensive than general ones. Using smoothbore and then having intelligent munitions - hmmm, we need to do some number crunching and I don't have the numbers.

If I am not wrong we already use HE-FRAG rounds for the T-90 gun plus other intelligent system like Relfix missile , so we already have it and in numbers.

In any case, I am all for simplicity, but yes, you have a point and was also discussed earlier, smoothbore these days has matched rifled guns in accuracy.

Its more a case of availability of acurate FCS.

The chief designer of T-90MS tank was mentioning that the older FCS on T-72B gun would give its ammo hit probability of 14 hits for 22 rounds but the newer Kalina FCS of T-90MS gives its a guranteed hit probability of 21 out of 22 rounds , so in 2 decades time the FCS has improved a lot.

 

[pmaitra]

If I am not wrong we already use HE-FRAG rounds for the T-90 gun plus other intelligent system like Relfix missile , so we already have it and in numbers.



Its more a case of availability of acurate FCS.

The chief designer of T-90MS tank was mentioning that the older FCS on T-72B gun would give its ammo hit probability of 14 hits for 22 rounds but the newer Kalina FCS of T-90MS gives its a guranteed hit probability of 21 out of 22 rounds , so in 2 decades time the FCS has improved a lot.

Great information. Thanks.

 

[Damian]

Several thing to clarify.

@Austin

I'm not talking about full NATO standarization of Arjun, You have right that standard should be 125mm main gun for easier logistics, however because Arjun was made in western design, it should share some NATO standards for MBT's like full H-K, Day & Night in all weather conditions, and better turret side protection over at least full crew compartment lenght.

As for HE ammunition with programmabale fuze, there are several solutions in 120mm calliber, like German DM11 (used currently by USMC in Afghanistan), Israeli Kalanit or currently under development, US AMP round (full replacement for M830, M830A1, M908 and M1028 munitions).

Russians also have for their ammunition, AINET fuze programming system mounted on T-90 series AFAIK.

I think Arjun's gun is good enough for now.

With current ammunition only against older vehicles, T-80UD and even Al-Khalid have probably (T-80UD definetly) protection level above current Arjun ammunition penetration capabilities, and HESH is useless against composite, spaced and dynamic protection.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

HESH is used for Anti-Infantry purposes not anti-Armour..

AP are used for Anti-Armour and HEAT is begin evaluated based on latest explosive..

 

[Damian]

Kunal, HESH was designed as dedicated anti tank multipurpose round, and this is its role, however due to armor advances it was replaced by APFSDS as dedicated AP ammunition and HEAT as anti armor multipurpose round.

 

[Austin]

@Austin

I'm not talking about full NATO standarization of Arjun, You have right that standard should be 125mm main gun for easier logistics, however because Arjun was made in western design, it should share some NATO standards for MBT's like full H-K, Day & Night in all weather conditions, and better turret side protection over at least full crew compartment lenght.

I am not sure if there is any thing NATO about full H-K Day and Night capability , its more of a design solution for a problem .... some country have implemented it earlier than other becuase of many reasons some country are approaching to that level , there are always Technical and Financial limitations in implementing a solution and for some one say like India or Russia when money is not available or there are technical limitations a good enough solution might be better then the best out there.

I am sure you wont call a H-K Day/Night capability of T-90MS or Opolt-M a NATO solution.

yes that true Arjun has its genesis in Western Solution and Technology but sometime its good to standardise based on what best meets your needs . I am quite fine with what ever they came up with Arjun based on Western principle or more like German Solution and Principle except for the fact we have no need for a NATO standard round against the backdrop of what I mentioned in previous post , some solutions implemented in Arjun are even better to what the Russian have specially in terms of safety.

As for HE ammunition with programmabale fuze, there are several solutions in 120mm calliber, like German DM11 (used currently by USMC in Afghanistan), Israeli Kalanit or currently under development, US AMP round (full replacement for M830, M830A1, M908 and M1028 munitions).

Russians also have for their ammunition, AINET fuze programming system mounted on T-90 series AFAIK.

Sounds good I am sure both parties have it , I am not aware of AINET fuse being used.

With current ammunition only against older vehicles, T-80UD and even Al-Khalid have probably (T-80UD definetly) protection level above current Arjun ammunition penetration capabilities, and HESH is useless against composite, spaced and dynamic protection.

T-80UD yes it is the best they have , I wont rate Al-Khalid any better then the upgraded T-72 we would have and the upgrade package is quite comprehensive.

They seem to use AL-Khalid as some kind tank design which has mix and match of every thing out there (West and East) without coming up with effective solution to solve problem , Much like some one would paint their Pomeranian Dog with Red and Black colour to make it look scarry.

We would be more than happy to meet Al-Khalid half the way.

I am sure Ukranian must be teasing them with Opolt-M when India goes witj Arjun-Mk2 or even T-90MS

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Kunal, HESH was designed as dedicated anti tank multipurpose round, and this is its role, however due to armor advances it was replaced by APFSDS as dedicated AP ammunition and HEAT as anti armor multipurpose round.

Damian, The way the round is used is very different here, Its primarily use as anti-Infantry role just like HE but have advantages than regular HE & HEAT.

1. HESH have quality to make effects behind the shield now that is concrete bunker or Metal plates..
2. Unlike HEAT, HESH carry 20kg of Pure plastic explosive with makes good explosion and blast effect on infantry in Open..
3. Its much Cheaper than today's programmable HE yet gives more or less same results..
4. Its less complicated with simple impact fuse inside..
5. With all these factors It can be used against armored vehicles like APC & Older tanks..

 

[militarysta]

Hey:

Polish Defence Yearbook 2010

http://www.magnum-x.pl/download/Polish_Defence_Yearbook_2010_(www.magnum-x.pl).pdf




About Poland, polish industry, military, etc.

In english.


BTW. Now in Polish army we have:

541 T-72 (133 T-72M (Russian: T-72A), 131 T-72A (Russian: T-72M), 254 T-72M1, 23 T-72M1D (command).
232 PT-91 (92 PT-91, 27 PT-91M, 113 PT-91MA1)
128 Leopard-2A4

all: 901 tanks.

 

[p2prada]

ps. as i remebmer Polish PT-91M was better then russian T-90S for Malaysia... ;-)

The Malaysians rejected both T-80 and T-90 because they were a little too heavy. The PT-91 was actually 5 tons lighter and won the day forPoland.

Damn, the thread has moved so fast, I am like a decade behind.

 

[blueblood]

Hey:

Polish Defence Yearbook 2010

http://www.magnum-x.pl/download/Polish_Defence_Yearbook_2010_(www.magnum-x.pl).pdf




About Poland, polish industry, military, etc.

In english.


BTW. Now in Polish army we have:

541 T-72 (133 T-72M (Russian: T-72A), 131 T-72A (Russian: T-72M), 254 T-72M1, 23 T-72M1D (command).
232 PT-91 (92 PT-91, 27 PT-91M, 113 PT-91MA1)
128 Leopard-2A4

all: 901 tanks.

Is there any successor planned for PT 91 ?

 

[Damian]

Is there any successor planned for PT 91 ?

There are some early plans to develop new MBT under Wilk (Wolf)/Maczek (name of one of Polish Generals) program, our politicians even asked for Army demands for new MBT and designers give them some early WZTT.

Ok here are demands for new MBT Wilk/Maczek... some are a bit... high.

1- załoga do 4os 2- armata dużego kalibru 3- amunicja dolna przebić pancerz przeliczeniowy o grubości minimum 1000mm RHA 4- zas. ognia bezpośredniego do 4000m 5- odporność balistyczna czołowa na przebicie pociskami kal 120/125mm 6- boki wieży i kadłuba odporne na przebicie granatnikami ppanc 7- progowa grubość pancerza przedniego 1000-1200mm RHA 8- możliwość montażu pancerza dodatkowego 9- APU, elektronika, et 10- zas.po drodze 600km w terenie 300km 11- odporność na eksplozję miny o masie 12TNT pod kadłubem lub gąsienicą, 12- oporność na IED o masie 20-30kg położone na poboczu

1) Crew to max 4 men.
2) High calliber main gun.
3) Armor piercieng ammunition capabale to penetrate 1000mm RHA (?!).
4) Max range of direct fire 4000m.
5) Front armor capabale to protect against armor piercing ammunition fired from 120/125mm main guns.
6) Side turret and hull armor protecting against RPG fire.
7) Front armor thickness 1000-1200mm RHA (?!).
8) Capability to mount add on armor.
9) APU, modern electronics etc.
10) Max range on road 600km, in terrain 300km.
11) Max protection against mine explosion of 12 TNT under hull or track.
12) Protection against 20-30kg IED explosion on the road side.

 

[militarysta]

p2prada

The Malaysians rejected both T-80 and T-90 because they were a little too heavy. The PT-91 was actually 5 tons lighter and won the day forPoland.

Well, T-90S was rejected becouse it was worse then PT-91MZ in any parameter - except bacisk armour (it's better in T-90S). Of course we can not mistake and compare T-90S to T-90SA. T-90S (erly) was worse in most parameter then PT-91MZ (firepower, FCS, engine, BMS, engine transmission, etc.) but T-90SA is just beeter in most parameter then PT-91MZ (maybe except FCS and engine with transmission...).

BONUS: old - (2001) article about PT-91MZ prototype FCS:




BONUS-2 erawa:

 

[militarysta]

Austin

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.
(...)
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.

First.
Yes, trully only pak T-80UD and Al-Chalid II will be dangerous enemy. But, You know - NATO was preparing to total slaughterhouse against Wersaw Packt. When Leopard-2 and M1 Abrams was "nucleus" of one big anti-tank system in western Germany. And western tanks are prepering to maneuvering speed and destroy targest like T-72/90 or T-64/80 in 800-2500m range.. Therefore, it may derive from proven designs will bo good for India?
You know, my oldest friend was a coonel in polish army durinng comunism. He said that they have some estimates about fight polish T-72M1 against german Leopard-2A4:
During the attack a one Leopard-2 had to be destroyed at the expense of losses eight T-72M1.
During the defense a one Leopard-2 had to be destroyed at the expense of losses four T-72M1.
Estimated life time of a Polish officer in the front line was estimated at 28 minutes. Sweet -isn't it?

Of course our polsih T-72M1 was a crap when we compare it to russian T-80U or T-64BW, but...as you see - NATO (exspecially German and US forces) was powerfull enemy. I still have some friends in Polish armored corps, and in Bundeshweer (15 Pz.Brig). More than armor are important: perfect C3 and trained crew.

About Ammo.
Well - cooperation with IMI sucks. Sorry to say that but jewish 125mm APFSDS rod's are fare from perfect.
Polish "PRONIT" can penetrate about 500-540mm RHA for 2000m (90.) After the affair with defective cores from Israel (20-25% of them..) we start to cooperate with Germany. And - mirracle! Nex gen. polish 125mm ammo can penetrate about 600-610mm RHA for 2000m. But future polish caliber is 120 not 125mm... Of course in poland we start to produce our own 120mm (becouse DM-33A1 is to weak). Now polish 120mm have about 560mm RHA for 2000m, but propably the latest variant (prototype only) have more then 600mm.

If the Polish industry achieve these results, it is possible that the Indian industry did the same. But, new ammo should have more then 600mm to destroy T-80UD and new chinnese tanks.

 

[Storm shadow]

Austin



First.
Yes, trully only pak T-80UD and Al-Chalid II will be dangerous enemy. But, You know - NATO was preparing to total slaughterhouse against Wersaw Packt. When Leopard-2 and M1 Abrams was "nucleus" of one big anti-tank system in western Germany. And western tanks are prepering to maneuvering speed and destroy targest like T-72/90 or T-64/80 in 800-2500m range.. Therefore, it may derive from proven designs will bo good for India?
You know, my oldest friend was a coonel in polish army durinng comunism. He said that they have some estimates about fight polish T-72M1 against german Leopard-2A4:
During the attack a one Leopard-2 had to be destroyed at the expense of losses eight T-72M1.
During the defense a one Leopard-2 had to be destroyed at the expense of losses four T-72M1.
Estimated life time of a Polish officer in the front line was estimated at 28 minutes. Sweet -isn't it?

Of course our polsih T-72M1 was a crap when we compare it to russian T-80U or T-64BW, but...as you see - NATO (exspecially German and US forces) was powerfull enemy. I still have some friends in Polish armored corps, and in Bundeshweer (15 Pz.Brig). More than armor are important: perfect C3 and trained crew.

About Ammo.
Well - cooperation with IMI sucks. Sorry to say that but jewish 125mm APFSDS rod's are fare from perfect.
Polish "PRONIT" can penetrate about 500-540mm RHA for 2000m (90.) After the affair with defective cores from Israel (20-25% of them..) we start to cooperate with Germany. And - mirracle! Nex gen. polish 125mm ammo can penetrate about 600-610mm RHA for 2000m. But future polish caliber is 120 not 125mm... Of course in poland we start to produce our own 120mm (becouse DM-33A1 is to weak). Now polish 120mm have about 560mm RHA for 2000m, but propably the latest variant (prototype only) have more then 600mm.

If the Polish industry achieve these results, it is possible that the Indian industry did the same. But, new ammo should have more then 600mm to destroy T-80UD and new chinnese tanks.

Well,most of your claims are true.But according to your tank security website the Indian 120mm FSAPDS T rounds can penetrate 680mm of RHA at 2000 meter when fired from the ARDE L/52 rifled gun.That should be enough to take out the Al Khalid and Al Khalid Is.And AK 2 will come after 8-10 years.By that time IA will have Arjun MkII in numbers.

 

[Austin]

Austin

First.
Yes, trully only pak T-80UD and Al-Chalid II will be dangerous enemy. But, You know - NATO was preparing to total slaughterhouse against Wersaw Packt. When Leopard-2 and M1 Abrams was "nucleus" of one big anti-tank system in western Germany.

Thank God the slaughter didnt happen ,Thats just a one sided post you are assuming that Soviet/Warsaw would have kept quite and would not have retaliated. If NATO/US had Leopard-2 ,M1 then Soviet had T-72A/B and T-80 there was nothing to choose from , infact after the Gulf war when iraqi tank were were export and degraded of what Soviet used with K-5 were shot at they could not penetrate and US built a newer APFSDS.

And western tanks are prepering to maneuvering speed and destroy targest like T-72/90 or T-64/80 in 800-2500m range.. Therefore, it may derive from proven designs will bo good for India?

Again a very one sided post , Soviet tank were built for manouvering warfare too and had the firepower to deal with NATO tanks and according to Damian the Arjun turret design has flaws both on frontal and at side .... so much for proven Western design.

I dont have any problems with the design inspite of flaw becuase I know they will be rectified with Mk2 but I am talking of logistics , it makes sense for us to go for 125 mm round instead of 120 mm NATO standard since we dont have any tank with 120 mm gun but most are 125 mm.

You know, my oldest friend was a coonel in polish army durinng comunism. He said that they have some estimates about fight polish T-72M1 against german Leopard-2A4:
During the attack a one Leopard-2 had to be destroyed at the expense of losses eight T-72M1.
During the defense a one Leopard-2 had to be destroyed at the expense of losses four T-72M1.
Estimated life time of a Polish officer in the front line was estimated at 28 minutes. Sweet -isn't it?

T-72M1 was just a degraded variant of Soviet T-72 perhaps a Warsaw standard a more appropriate comparision would be against T-80 , And if 8 tanks had to be destroyed for 1 Leo it speaks poorly of Polish officer training and APFSDS round they seem to have

Of course our polsih T-72M1 was a crap when we compare it to russian T-80U or T-64BW, but...as you see - NATO (exspecially German and US forces) was powerfull enemy. I still have some friends in Polish armored corps, and in Bundeshweer (15 Pz.Brig). More than armor are important: perfect C3 and trained crew.

The fact is if there had been a war bewteen NATO/US or Soviet no amount of Leo/Abrams or T-80/T-72 would have decided the fate but it would have been Strategic and Tactical nukes either side would have used nukes if they were loosing conventional edge.

About Ammo.
Well - cooperation with IMI sucks. Sorry to say that but jewish 125mm APFSDS rod's are fare from perfect.
Polish "PRONIT" can penetrate about 500-540mm RHA for 2000m (90.) After the affair with defective cores from Israel (20-25% of them..) we start to cooperate with Germany. And - mirracle! Nex gen. polish 125mm ammo can penetrate about 600-610mm RHA for 2000m. But future polish caliber is 120 not 125mm... Of course in poland we start to produce our own 120mm (becouse DM-33A1 is to weak). Now polish 120mm have about 560mm RHA for 2000m, but propably the latest variant (prototype only) have more then 600mm.

Fact is no country is going to give us their best APFSDS round , be it Russian , Israel or Poland export model APFSDS will be some what degraded much like export model armour would be , the only way to make a better APFSDS is to do it ourself

If the Polish industry achieve these results, it is possible that the Indian industry did the same. But, new ammo should have more then 600mm to destroy T-80UD and new chinnese tanks.

They would probably need APFSDS in the range of 750 - 800 mm RHA to beat the T-80UD armour but thats my take , it would depends on armour compositon too but a ~ 800 mm KE figure will give us more confidence dealing with T-80UD or more advanced Oplot-M tank which I am sure Paki would eventually buy , I personally think Chinese tanks are not too good to worry at this stage.

 

[Storm shadow]

According to some sources the Arjun MkII will get a new thicker gun of same caliber length to fire next generation 'long rod' rounds at much higher chamber pressure than present 612 mpa.But it's hard to confirm at this point of time.Besides a new kind of dynamic armor was developed by HEMRL that they call 'hybrid armor'.It uses multiple rubber and ceramic layers encased in composite,glass reinforced plastic and tungsten steel.They claimed that this new armor provides a much greater degree of resistance against repeated strikes from HEAT and FSAPDS rounds than any known present armor.Hope they will use this in Arjun MkII.

 

[Austin]

Saw a picture of French Leclerc tank

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/images/Leclerc_11.jpg

IT seems to have the same flaw that the Gunner Sight is very close to the frontal turret.

Even if a APFSDS or HEAT round does not perforate the frontal armour of Leclerc , having a very sensitive equipment like Thermal Sight so close to the frontal turret has its own disadvantage , the impact of such rounds would be good enough to cause damage to the Optics due to fragements/splinters or the weakest area which happens to be the Optics Copula might blow off due to impact.

Any ways the French Leclerc among all NATO/US stands out IMO as it looks quite pretty , It would certainly win the beauty and elegance contest

 

[Damian]

Saw a picture of French Leclerc tank

http://www.army-technology.com/proje...Leclerc_11.jpg

IT seems to have the same flaw that the Gunner Sight is very close to the frontal turret.

Even if a APFSDS or HEAT round does not perforate the frontal armour of Leclerc , having a very sensitive equipment like Thermal Sight so close to the frontal turret has its own disadvantage , the impact of such rounds would be good enough to cause damage to the Optics due to fragements/splinters or the weakest area which happens to be the Optics Copula might blow off due to impact.

It looks a bit more complex.

Sight itself is placed on turret roof (but very low and close to front armor), however main sight components go through "chimney" in front armor to crew compartment.

So it looks more or less like this : Front turret armor - "chimney" for main sight components - front turret armor behin "chimney" and in front of gunner face.

K-5 were shot at they could not penetrate and US built a newer APFSDS.

Here is something fishy, the official reports say only about M829, but even no one word about M829A1, however it was definetly tested.

Again a very one sided post , Soviet tank were built for manouvering warfare too and had the firepower to deal with NATO tanks and according to Damian the Arjun turret design has flaws both on frontal and at side .... so much for proven Western design.

It is a bit more complicated.

Both Soviet and NATO tanks were designed for manouver warfare but with different philosophy in mind.

However Arjun using western design principles is not designed with western experiences and thus have weak points, forget for a moment about front turret face weak zones, these are normal for all MBT's, there is a problem with side armor.

So no slowly so everyone can understand.

As we know or at least some of us know, there is principle in tank design called principle of safe manouvering angles, this means that at frontal arc, tank front and side armor should provide good protection to enemy ammunition hits at angles +/- 0-30/35 degrees from turret/hull center longtidual axis.

And here we have two different solutions:

Soviet solution - to provide good protection and small weight, turret is very small and composite armor is placed only in front armor, so how to protect weak and thin side turret armor within safe manouvering angles? Solution is very simple, side turret armor need to be angled in such way that they will be covered by front armor.

So turrets look this way:




So here we are small, lightweight turret with good frontal protection and side protection weak but with maximized as much as possible probability of hit.

NATO solution - Well actually we have here two different solutions, US and European solutions.

Maybe we should start with general view. Because turrets are big and looks from top view like big rectangle, there is no possibility to cover side turret armor behind front turret armor, how to solve this problem? By using thick composite armor over turret side armor.

And now two examples, one from US and one from UK (Europe).

US - Americans felt that best way to protect side turret armor within safe manouvering angles is to place on full side turret lenght thick composite armor, so this looks like this:



Such solutions gives more vehicle survivability because composite armor not only protects crew compartment but also ammunition stored in turret bustle magazines.

UK (Europe) - Europeans had different view on this problem. They were thinking that bustle protection is not nececary, so only crew compartment need composite armor protection. Of course CR2 stores HESH and propelant charges in hull below turret ring, but same philosophy in Leopard 2 where turret bustle is only protected by thin RHA armor.



So this is how it looks in reality.

Back to Arjun, as we seen on photos, crew compartment is only partially protected by composite armor and rest is thin RHA plate covered with storage boxes.