Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Austin]

Interview with Head Tank-Automotive Directorate of the Ministry of Defence, Major-General Alexander Shevchenko has interesting information on Unified Combat Platform , Armata and others

Gur Khan attacks!: ИНТЕРВЬЮ С НАЧАЛЬНИКОМ ГАБТУ

 

[Damian]

I wonder how they will solve some most basic problem with Universal Combat Platform.

As we know most optimal powerpack placement for MBT is in hull rear, however most optimal powerpack placement for UCP and non MBT versions are in hull front.

So MBT version will be use unified bu more specialized hull variant, or it will use front mounted powerpack hull?

 

[Damian]

Several interesting concepts from US.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I wonder how they will solve some most basic problem with Universal Combat Platform.

As we know most optimal powerpack placement for MBT is in hull rear, however most optimal powerpack placement for UCP and non MBT versions are in hull front.

So MBT version will be use unified bu more specialized hull variant, or it will use front mounted powerpack hull?

Mounting Engine at front is better, No need for major redegining in APC, MGS, IFV, Engg vehicle etc..

 

[Damian]

Mounting Engine at front is better, No need for major redegining in APC, MGS, IFV, Engg vehicle etc..

Better from one design point of view, bad from another.

 

[Austin]

From what I have heard in other forums , the heavy tank armata will have engine in the back while Boomerang and Kurganets-25 will have their engine in front.

Well lets see how things develop , it certainly is an interesting concept and the details provided is also much more then we knew.

 

[Damian]

True, more will be known when UVZ will show more.

 

[mki]

Better from one design point of view, bad from another.

With all respect sir, I am agree with Kunalsir. Mounting engine at front will provide extra protection and we can make small modification in Arjun to carry 3-4 infantry personal, like Israeli Marakava.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

With all respect sir, I am agree with Kunalsir. Mounting engine at front will provide extra protection and we can make small modification in Arjun to carry 3-4 infantry personal, like Israeli Marakava.

Yes, that would be a good idea but the Merkava has its flaws too, the southern campaign into lebanon showed that.

P.S. Off-topic, refrain from useing sir, this is not school and your welcome to think and speak your ideas here without patronizing fellow members with undeserved or unneeded respect. We are all internet critiques and we all know only as much as we choose to read on the net. Thanks.

 

[mki]

P.S. Off-topic, refrain from useing sir, this is not school and your welcome to think and speak your ideas here without patronizing fellow members with undeserved or unneeded respect. We are all internet critiques and we all know only as much as we choose to read on the net. Thanks.

I know its not a school. sir word is not only in school to give respect. i believe every member on this form it doesnt matter they are from defense background or not but I am improving my knowledge because of you guys, so all are respected for me. and its our indian culture to give respect.

you are right we are internet critiques but i like to do that with respect.

might be i am wrong, so i will keep you advise.

thank you.

 

[Damian]

About mounting engine, it os good from ergonomic point of view, because there is more space in the vehicle center and rear, however vehicle is much higher, bigger, and thus unnececary heavier. Also compare how much composite armor have Merkava Mk4 even, at hull front and how much have NATO, Russian/Ukrainian or even Asian tanks, besides this penetration of hull front (because there is less composite armor than in mentioned above designs) will just immobilize vehicle and made it more vurnabale.

Of course we can have front mounted engine and good hull protection at front when vehicle will be problerly designed, well this actually means a nececity to use unmanned turret so weight and armor can be better distributed on hull, thus vehicle will be better protected and still not unnececary heavier.

Also take in to consideration that Merkava tanks, have less dense armor than smaller tanks, of course this don't mean less protection, but overall, Merkava is too big, too heavy.

 

[Austin]

Also take in to consideration that Merkava tanks, have less dense armor than smaller tanks, of course this don't mean less protection, but overall, Merkava is too big, too heavy.

Merkava is designed and made for israel , since its a small country and they need to carry infantry they have made a heavier but slower tank good for Urban/Area Conflicts and not really designed for strategic mobility .

No one will find much use for that tank beyond Israel

 

[ace009]

Unless you are fighting in a heavily urban area or surroundings ... Lahore? Islamabad? Karachi maybe?

 

[Damian]

Merkava is designed and made for israel , since its a small country and they need to carry infantry they have made a heavier but slower tank good for Urban/Area Conflicts and not really designed for strategic mobility .

Merkava was never designed to fight in urban combat nor to carry infantry.

If You want to put infantry in to Merkava You will left approx 5 to 10 rounds for main gun and there is not comfortabale in ammo storage compartment to sit.

Merkava design was very smart from the point of view of availabale to Israel technology when Merkava was desinged, lack fo composite armor and few other things were some of many reasons why Merkava had such design.

And strategic mobility is important, I also don't belive that vehicles lighter than 40 tons are capabale to replace heavier MBT's but, damn, 65 metric tons? It's way too heavy.

No one will find much use for that tank beyond Israel

Anyone can find much use with Merkava after some proper redesigns, like deep water fording kit and replacing highly advanced and very heavy Israeli variant of Horstmann suspension with something lighter, like hydrogas suspension system.

Unless you are fighting in a heavily urban area or surroundings ... Lahore? Islamabad? Karachi maybe?

As I said, Merkava was never designed for LIC and urban combat, in fact as any other MBT's Israelis needed to develop upgrades to prepare these tanks for urban combat.

 

[Austin]

Merkava was never designed to fight in urban combat nor to carry infantry

Well it was designed for both specially Merkava 4 , its a heavy tank with engine of 65 T , which gives it low speed compared to other similar tanks , tactical speed is not a high criteria for Israel because most of the times these tank are gona be used will be in populated or semi-populated areas fighting the insurgent or assisting the Israel infantary in combat.
Main Battle Tank - MERKAVA MBT

.

This configuration also cleared room at the rear section for a safe exit and enough space to carry a few fully armed infantrymen, in addition to the crew. The rear access hatch allows for the quick and safe exit of injured crewmen or pickup of wounded soldiers for evacuation.

I dont know of any modern MBT that can claim to carry fully armed infantry men or designed to pick up wounded soldiers , thats quite unique to Merkava.


Like I said the Merks are uniquely designed for Israel environment and the security environment they live in , Like I recollect a Israel Tank Designer mentioned in an Interview if we just wanted to buy a modern tank we could have bought the Abrams but we needed a tank for our needs.

If You want to put infantry in to Merkava You will left approx 5 to 10 rounds for main gun and there is not comfortabale in ammo storage compartment to sit.

Which is fine in a situation where infantary protection would be a priority over say having more rounds , considering the Israel fight the insurgent more they need these features , provides them flexibility.

Merkava design was very smart from the point of view of availabale to Israel technology when Merkava was desinged, lack fo composite armor and few other things were some of many reasons why Merkava had such design.

Yes its designed and built for Israel special needs and the unique environment they live in day in and day out an example would be Gaza like situation.

I do personally like the Merkava 4 design , again a very unique design and finally not the same western type boxy turret , its the same innovative approach that I was talking to you about.

And strategic mobility is important, I also don't belive that vehicles lighter than 40 tons are capabale to replace heavier MBT's but, damn, 65 metric tons? It's way too heavy.

Yes it is important for other countries like US or Russia or NATO but not for Israel , they are a small country where tactical speed/cross country speed or strategic mobility is not a very high criteria.

Anyone can find much use with Merkava after some proper redesigns, like deep water fording kit and replacing highly advanced and very heavy Israeli variant of Horstmann suspension with something lighter, like hydrogas suspension system.

I doubt if any one wants to buy a tank they would look Merkava as a priority , probably they will go for NATO or Russia depending on the countrys affliation and logistics will allow.

As I said, Merkava was never designed for LIC and urban combat, in fact as any other MBT's Israelis needed to develop upgrades to prepare these tanks for urban combat.

I have already stated above why Merkava is different and how it is uniquely designed for Israel.

 

[Damian]

Well it was designed for both specially Merkava 4 , its a heavy tank with engine of 65 T , which gives it low speed compared to other similar tanks , tactical speed is not a high criteria for Israel because most of the times these tank are gona be used will be in populated or semi-populated areas fighting the insurgent or assisting the Israel infantary in combat.
Main Battle Tank - MERKAVA MBT

?

As I said, Merkava tanks were designed for classic manouver warfare, however because armor was priority in design of this tank, and Israel did not have powerfull enough engines for a long time, they decided that tactical and strategic mobility is not that important, also because Israel is small, and there was jut not urgent need.

However Merkava Mk4 have a 1500HP GD883 Diesel engine that gives it in terrain comparabale mobility to other modern MBT's, even Merkava Mk3 with 1200HP engine was capabale to pace with other modern MBT's in hard terrain where speed is no higher than approx 45-50 km/h.

I dont know of any modern MBT that can claim to carry fully armed infantry men or designed to pick up wounded soldiers , thats quite unique to Merkava.

This is a myth, copied and copied in internet. Merkava was never designed to carry infantry, how long I need to repeat this?

Such capability is just a side effect of overall design and how ammunition is stored. Taking infantry is a very, very and extremely rare situation, especially that these days it is not needed due to large quantities of HAPC's like Achzarit and Namer.

Like I said the Merks are uniquely designed for Israel environment and the security environment they live in , Like I recollect a Israel Tank Designer mentioned in an Interview if we just wanted to buy a modern tank we could have bought the Abrams but we needed a tank for our needs.

Yes and?

Which is fine in a situation where infantary protection would be a priority over say having more rounds , considering the Israel fight the insurgent more they need these features , provides them flexibility.

Ta

nk crews don't take dismounts because they are making their mission useless. In IDF doctrine for fighting with vehicles and to provide direct fire support are MBT's so they need plenty of ammo stored inside, for crew transportation are HAPC's, so MBT's are not taking any dismounts.

Yes its designed and built for Israel special needs and the unique environment they live in day in and day out an example would be Gaza like situation.

No, not like Gaza situation, please read some books about Merkava development, like these written by mr. Katz or mr. Gelbart.

I do personally like the Merkava 4 design , again a very unique design and finally not the same western type boxy turret , its the same innovative approach that I was talking to you about.

? But Merkava Mk4 also use boxy turret like western MBT's, it is only hidden under modular armor that use a highly sloped design not only in front (like in all MBT's) but also over sides, just change these huge sloped modules with much smaller and densier similiar to composite armor cavieties in western MBT's and design will be just as same.

Yes it is important for other countries like US or Russia or NATO but not for Israel , they are a small country where tactical speed/cross country speed or strategic mobility is not a very high criteria.

And in the same time Israelis said that their new MBT will be lighter than Merkava Mk4, of course it will not replace Merkava Mk4 but older Magach 6, Magach 7 and oldest Merkava Mk1 and Merkava Mk2 tanks that will be withdrawn from service.

I doubt if any one wants to buy a tank they would look Merkava as a priority , probably they will go for NATO or Russia depending on the countrys affliation and logistics will allow.

But this don't meant that Merkava Mk4 don't have chances on world wide market, it have a low price (compared to other MBT's) and with some modifications can be very atractive for some countries.

I have already stated above why Merkava is different and how it is uniquely designed for Israel.

Yes and You understand this wrong Austin.

Merkava have such design mainly because Israel when designing Merkava, lacked such technologies like composite armor, powerfull enough engines etc. This is Israel Tal choosed such design to maximize protection over frontal arc without using composite armor.

Merkava was designed for open, wide manouver warfare, not for low intensity conflicts and fighting insurgents in cities.

 

[Archer]

Oh!!p2p!!you again!!By the way,how did you know that Arjun's armor is weak??Care to elaborate......................................................Mr armchair general??

One of the reasons I rarely find myself coming to this forum or the internet in general, is due to the amount of comedy on it, guys like you mentioned. Likely to not even have cleared "kaalij", yet to hold a job, yet to even achieve anything in life, understand anything beyond what other wannabe's spout off on the net and then make big statements about "people, understand this..."...he he he...the stupidity is beyond belief.

I spent the better part of one recent evening speaking to one of our foremost metallurgists & realizing how much effort has gone into Indian defence already & where we stand...and its not by any means bad & where we are proceeding would make many sit up.

Carry on regardless. Much appreciation for the likes of Kunal etc and the moderators who have the patience to keep up with this sort of stuff. I wouldn't. Too old to keep up with this sort of bakwaas.

 

[Archer]

Godless-Kafir



First:
You do not know practically nothing about the technological possibilities of Polish companies.

Like you and your chum know nothing about India in this thread. If you knew anything about India & Indian industry, humility would have gone a long way.

Second:

Of course Polish industry made tanks:
Altair - Kontrakt malezyjski blisko finału
Altair - PT-91Ex: Sukces Łabęd

48x PT-91MZ for Malaysia. This tank during trials in Malaysja defeated T-90S and Kern-120 (T-84).
During comparative trials it turned out that polish PT-91MZ is better then T-90S (erly) in all basic parameters (without basick armour) and just win.

Ha, a reengineered T-72 and we are supposed to be impressed. With all due respect, this is no great shakes by any means.

Third:

As I know that Poland exports to India modern weapons system (especially radar stations) and does not import from India of any advanced military technologies. Am I right?

You are wrong. India and Poland had a JV a while back to develop a ground based surveillance radar. That was it. Before that, in the 80's India took a couple of radars for trials and service from Poland - thats about it. The JV radar has been now completely mastered by India with the JV developed systems - radar antenna & much of the Rx hardware replaced by better Indian designed systems. The systems been reconfigured by India for multiple uses. But even that's old hat compared to what we are working on. Last I checked, there are some seven AESA systems India has either developed, or is working on. What's your score?
Boss - face it. You know little of India or Indian capabilities.

The positive is you are not wantonly obnoxious as your peer has been. But even so, you know very little about Indian capabilities.

The kind of systems we are developing and deploying make experienced OEMs walk of out product pitches, knowing they cannot match the complexity.

Go google for F-INSAS or BMS or TACC3I or TCS or CIDSS. Many of these are in advanced stages of development. Your lot so far has not faced any sanctions, has been happily importing subsystems & been reconfiguring - but you have no idea of the scale of development in India.

Where are Polands IRBMs or BMs or cruise missiles? Or for that matter its MEMS based sensor packages? Or its advanced metallurgy programs to make aviation turbines to nuclear reactors?

Heck - some seven years back, we already surpassed several of our "partners" in then technology & ended up using our own stuff. Whats in development now, is way beyond that.

Let me know when Poland even attempts anything like Program Air Defence - which BTW, is just one of 4 AD programs currently underway, apart from some five sensor development programs apart from the strategic level AESAs being developmed for this program.

fourth:

Polish Leopard2A4 is simply no worse then Ajrun Mk.1. Sorry to say that,Czy chodziło Ci o: zwłaszcza wszystkie przetestowane w polsce warianty modernizacji
but it's true...especially, all tested variants of modernization in Poland Leopard2.

You can keep believing this, but unfortunately, the tiny fact - Poland had to rely on hand me down Leopard 2A4s at cheap prices. We built our own stuff. Today, Arjun MK1, MK2 whatever have their own line in India and the MK2 is already in trials and stated intent already, is 384 units+. Wheres your Leopard line?

Where are your nuclear submarines? Where are your own destroyers? Where are your own attack helicopters.

Where are your civil aircraft or 5G aircraft plans?

The truly funny stuff is that all what India has done so far has been achieved on a shoe string budget and with administrative inefficiency of the highest order. The OFB etc come to mind. But now, thanks to offsets the Industry Majors like TATAs & L&T are finally stepping upto the plate.

Frankly, the gap between research & high quality production is closing fast, and in a decade from now, the fact that you even once compared the two MICs- going so far as to state that India needs to import stuff from Poland will be funny.

About the only thing we needed from you guys is your cheaper stuff that can work with Soviet heavy equipment, eg ARVs etc. Once pvt industry gets running - we won't even need that.

I didnt mean to be as obnoxious as your peer has been - but all the talk about "Indian inexperience" makes me laugh. You folks don't even seem to understand the scale of Indian industry and the dynamism that exists.

We are making everything from missile seekers to aircraft carriers. Do you guys get the scale of effort? And that other guy was blathering about patriotism and experience and this and that...

Understand the amount of industrial capabilities that are being built up, day on day, year on year. And unlike the 70's - when india actually started making arms, and 1980's when the process started....the base has been built & there is no dearth of raw talent, funding and ambition either.

Best of luck, way things are going, your MIC will require a market like India to survive. But what we need is not what you'll be able to provide. Obrum is looking towards BEML to make its light tank a success, in terms of an export market. Says it all really.

We dont even need to export to make our MIC a success. Our domestic market, and even recapitalization of existing assets can keep Indian industry in business for a decade and a half.

 

[Archer]

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.

Check out the cost of fancy timed rounds.

HESH performance remains phenomenal. It can take out RCC bunkers with pin point precision.

 

[Austin]

Check out the cost of fancy timed rounds.

HESH performance remains phenomenal. It can take out RCC bunkers with pin point precision.

Yes it would be phenomenal for certain type of targets , after all its 20 kg of raw explosive.

But HESH effect against heavy armoured tank is limited due to use of spall liners and space in composite armour and as I see it from DRDO Arjun brochure , the 120 mm gen uses only APFSDS and HESH.

It practically limits effective engagement with APFSDS armour which is not bad but it limits engagement range , while with Tandem HEAT round you can have long range engagement beyond what APFSDS provides.

Never mind hope they move to a smooth bore in Arjun Mk2 if they cant really change the caliber.