Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Austin]

I am guessing the benchmark rounds are more in the range of M829 rather than the A2 and A3 versions. That's more in line with the 3BM42 version as an equivalent M829 round.

Yes generally speaking M829 rounds , the A2 and A3 are just enhanced penetrator model of the same .....it now a very well known fact that when US tested the A1 with K-5 post Gulf War they found it was effective in blunting it and hence the A2 came up to effectively deal with K-5 then.The K-5 has themself evolved over time as well

I think it would be logical for Russian to compare their armour against its more likely competitor which is the US and the standard weapon it uses.

If you are giving the Relikt 2x performance increase over K-5, are you saying the K-5 is the regular Russian K-5 or the export version.

Strictly off my head , I can go and check it once i get some time .

From what i read about K-5 performance figures for export model from a Russian article by high ranking armed forces person , the export model K-5 figures were 1.2 for KE and 1.5 for CE and Russian K-5 figures were 1.5 and 2 respectively for KE and CE.

Now from known figures for T-90S we know the basic frontal composite armour turret has a protection level figure of 600 - 650 mm RHA against APDS and with export model K-5 the protection level is around 750 - 800 mm , with export model Relikt should take that figure to 900 - 950 against KE.

The designer gave a similar figure of protection level of T-90MS was atleast 850 for KE and 1300 mm for CE but just back of envelop will show that it would be around 900 - 950 for export model Relikt.

 

[p2prada]

Now from known figures for T-90S we know the basic frontal composite armour turret has a protection level figure of 600 - 650 mm RHA against APDS and with export model K-5 the protection level is around 750 - 800 mm , with export model Relikt should take that figure to 900 - 950 against KE.

The designer gave a similar figure of protection level of T-90MS was atleast 850 for KE and 1300 mm for CE but just back of envelop will show that it would be around 900 - 950 for export model Relikt.

This would put the T-90MS between the T-84 and the M1A2.

I am guessing the 850mm figure could be with the ERA than without. But a 900-950mm would push it closer to the M1A2.

 

[Damian]

Yes generally speaking M829 rounds , the A2 and A3 are just enhanced penetrator model of the same .....it now a very well known fact that when US tested the A1 with K-5 post Gulf War they found it was effective in blunting it and hence the A2 came up to effectively deal with K-5 then.The K-5 has themself evolved over time as well

It is unknown if M829A1 was tested against 4S22, all sources says only about M829. M829A2 was just short term solution against vehicles protected by composite armor and ERA, long term solution was M829A3.

Also even if all of tem have the same designation name, it is not true that there were upgrades only in penetrator, in fact all of them are completely different rounds. AFAIK even alloys from which penetrators were made are different.

IMHO T-90MS in on the same level of protection as other modern MBT's. The reason why Russian (and Ukrainians) were estimating protection of NATO MBT's so low was (among other reasons) that they belived NATO manipulated data about ceramics in composite armor. Today we know from different sources that it was not true, instead of ceramics there is something different, and the whole armor acts like dynamic protection due to use of dynamic elements in it's layers.

Don't ask me more on this, I can only say that these are highly advanced armors, and we still know very little about them.

 

[Austin]

This would put the T-90MS between the T-84 and the M1A2.

I am guessing the 850mm figure could be with the ERA than without. But a 900-950mm would push it closer to the M1A2.

We really want to know what is the export model protection level for M1A2 , we know that US downgrades their export armour and that they atleast come without DU shield.

So yes i think the protection level afforded with Relikt is fairly high even for export model T-90 in latest variant, you can bet those figures would be very high for domestic models with Relikt in the light of the statement that its 4-5 times better then K-5.

But then beyond these so called figures one must not forget that the key conflict is between my armour composition plus my RA composition vesus your APDS and all the factors that go into making it or your CE. Thats a gray area we would know in real combat.

Its very much possible that some composition of armour might be better then the other to deal with certain kind of rounds be it CE or KE and others might just be what the RHA figures state.

When you see say a Abrams being hit by a RPG on its side and that RPG blow its sides , we can say that it not only proves the RHA figures were better but the RPG tandem properties were better then the armour composition of Abrams not withstanding the RHA figures for side which are quoted at 500 - 500 CE and for RPG-29 its 600-650.

May be a moden T-90MS Russian tank in similar situation would have behaved the same way with ERA + Composite armour or may be not.

So essentially at the heart of it its also a game of armour composition plus era composition versus modern anti-armour be it KE or CE.

 

[venkat]

Russia sticks to all the agreements with India on the T-90 tanks : Russian media | idrw.org

response to Broadsword!!!!

 

[Damian]

When you see say a Abrams being hit by a RPG on its side and that RPG blow its sides , we can say that it not only proves the RHA figures were better but the RPG tandem properties were better then the armour composition of Abrams not withstanding the RHA figures for side which are quoted at 500 - 500 CE and for RPG-29 its 600-650.

It depends on angle hit, what weapon was used and of course composition of armor, and this is different on different variants.

May be a moden T-90MS Russian tank in similar situation would have behaved the same way with ERA + Composite armour or may be not.

T-90MS is not using composite of turret sides, it use ERA because with similiar effectivenes it is much lighter.

The situation with front armor is much more different, and I say this in my earlier post, everything we know up to this year about western composite armors was just desinformation spread by NATO, in fact their composite armors were more reactive than it was known previously.

 

[p2prada]

I doubt the export Abrams use something even remotely the same as US Army Abrams. They may have an entirely different composition.

There is no doubt the M1A2 is the best.

 

[Damian]

I doubt the export Abrams use something even remotely the same as US Army Abrams. They may have an entirely different composition.

We do not know that, we can only suppose that perhaps.

There is no doubt the M1A2 is the best.

Maybe the other way, after some modifications and redesign, currently it is one of the best, but have the biggest potential for proper modifications.


After seeing some interior drawings I have ideas to how such modification should look like, also turret need slight redesign.

 

[p2prada]

After seeing some interior drawings I have ideas to how such modification should look like, also turret need slight redesign.

Rail gun, dynamic cloaking and stuff? The Star Wars tank.

 

[Damian]

Nah, redesigned turret so it will be similiar to one seen on CATTB or it's scalled down version called "Thumper", Hydro Gas suspension system, M360A1 gun, more compact engine + whole redesign of the vehicle rear so there can be enlarged isolated ammo magazine with blow off panels and more fuel can be stored (or front fuel cells relocated to engine compartment) etc.

In general, increase armor protection, crew and vehicle surivability, maintainability, reliability, decrease to maximum fuel comsumption etc.

In short, US hire me, give me enough money and army of talented engineers and voila. ;P

 

[nitesh]

As far as I know the only electronic that did not work consistently in extereme climate of Thar on few tanks are the TI , The TI is not the Russians but French one Cathrene-XP, having said that Arjun was designed in India and all the fine little things were kept in mind while designing , It also has much greater internal volume , so it is much easier to make sure during design stage that cooling needs of TI are taken care of and space allows more flexibility.

Like any imported equipment you buy , they dont bring it trial it and have a Eureka Moment , I am sure during trial there would have been issue observed with Russian system and rectified accordingly, Cathrene-XP being French and not part of original system needed more time to be sorted out.

AFAIK Arjun does not uses Cathrene TI but some other type. I could be wrong though.

Austin, so any imported system can be ordered and we will keep ordering even the things have not been sorted out. But there will be a different yardstick for home grown product? Is this you are trying to communicate? Sorry, but this is the impression I am getting.

 

[p2prada]

Austin, so any imported system can be ordered and we will keep ordering even the things have not been sorted out. But there will be a different yardstick for home grown product? Is this you are trying to communicate? Sorry, but this is the impression I am getting.

I can answer that but I won't. There are 1500 posts here and another 1000 in the Arjun thread.

 

[nitesh]

No. The Gun barrel ToT was signed only in 2006 not in 2001. It is simple logic that in 2001 the gun ToT wasn't even negotiated for. Armour ToT is non negotiable as it is a Russian Law. They don't sell armour ToT to anybody by the laws of their constitution. You can quote anything you want, but speak to a Russian defence lawyer first.

The Russians modified their laws to allow transfer of Gun ToT. Armour ToT is still a non negotiable entity.

You are twisting the arguments as usual, so first there is a commitment done by Russians that they will transfer the tech, without even knowing there laws? And can you put a verifiable source that actually it is done. And please provide the sources about your time lines too, will be helpful.

100% Sure. Without an engine a tank will not run. The engine comes from Germany along with the transmission. We don't even have licence to manufacture them. We import the entire thing.

So according to you radar and gun is a single component, once it is purchased it does not require any maintenance, so no technical know how is needed at all. It will just keep functioning. This is getting amazing

There were initial report of TI failures, the Russians paid for most of the damages and then fixed the issue. That's all there is to it.

There are no ammunition issues. We have plenty of Israeli shells. Firing all the ammo is less of a technical issue and more of a supplies issue. If you did not know early MKIs had cracks in the tyres and this is a technical issue. Lack of fuel isn't a technical issue.

Can you please provide a source to it, T1 sights to work properly needed AC to work, and AC tender is out. If the electronics are working without any AC, then it does not makes any sense to ask for an AC. The ammunition issue was sorted out by DRDO, as Russians refused, they hadn't sorted it out.

 

[nitesh]

I can answer that but I won't. There are 1500 posts here and another 1000 in the Arjun thread.

Because you don't have an answer

 

[p2prada]

You are twisting the arguments as usual, so first there is a commitment done by Russians that they will transfer the tech, without even knowing there laws? And can you put a verifiable source that actually it is done. And please provide the sources about your time lines too, will be helpful.

You don't know what you are talking about. If I can read Russian I could have posted snippets from their constitution.

And sources for what timelines? TI broke, TI fixed, broken TIs replaced. That's all. 2001- first agreement, 2006 1000 tank contract with ToT agreement signed, 2008 ToT received, 2009 first 10 indigenous tanks rolled out, 2010 50 tanks rolled out, 2011 100 tanks ready. Google all these you will find your sources.

Seems we are happy finding faults in Russian hardware when we have fought a number of wars using them.

So according to you radar and gun is a single component, once it is purchased it does not require any maintenance, so no technical know how is needed at all. It will just keep functioning. This is getting amazing

A radar and gun is not even close, not even 10% compared to a tank. Radars have a long shelf life, if we can maintain them well, they won't need parts replacement. A tank does, no matter how well you maintain them. Guns and radars stop working only if you blow them up. A tank is different. It is much more maintenance intensive.

Can you please provide a source to it, T1 sights to work properly needed AC to work, and AC tender is out. If the electronics are working without any AC, then it does not makes any sense to ask for an AC. The ammunition issue was sorted out by DRDO, as Russians refused, they hadn't sorted it out.

The advantages to AC is completely different. The Army does not seem to have asked for an AC only to get the TI to work. It is more of a DDM's attempts to find faults when there aren't any. The AC comment was actually recorded in 2004 as a possible fix for the TI. It is very obvious an alternative solution was chosen. Saudi T-90 trials did not have AC and the TIs worked fine. IA has conducted over 10 major exercises with T-90s and nobody has reported T-90s falling apart.

Because you don't have an answer

Cute. There are 2500 posts on tanks. Read em all again. Stop reading Shukla for Arjun, T-90 and MRCA. Look for official sources. There are way better blogs which explain things better.

I don't see why I have to reply anymore. The Arjun is passe, IA has bought the T-90, it's over. The FMBT is the next tank. Focus on what's there, not what could have been.

 

[p2prada]

It's more to do with Arms exports laws than something you will find in their constitution.

Like how Congress does not allow export of technology. Russia has similar laws.

 

[nitesh]

You don't know what you are talking about. If I can read Russian I could have posted snippets from their constitution.

And sources for what timelines? TI broke, TI fixed, broken TIs replaced. That's all. 2001- first agreement, 2006 1000 tank contract with ToT agreement signed, 2008 ToT received, 2009 first 10 indigenous tanks rolled out, 2010 50 tanks rolled out, 2011 100 tanks ready. Google all these you will find your sources.

Again twisting, it will be more helpful if you post the links about what are you saying. You are specifically saying that Shukla is just putting an hyper bole. Shukla says 310 ordered in 15 Jan 2001 with further 1000 to be build in India and Tot agreement, which is not adhered too, by 2007 due to pressure we order 347 more, only after that we got to build more. He clearly says no tech has been transferred for Gun barrel and Armor, which was part of contract. So either it was not part of contract, ot it was deliberately denied later after committing.

Seems we are happy finding faults in Russian hardware when we have fought a number of wars using them.

Stop BSing, and make some logical arguments.

A radar and gun is not even close, not even 10% compared to a tank. Radars have a long shelf life, if we can maintain them well, they won't need parts replacement. A tank does, no matter how well you maintain them. Guns and radars stop working only if you blow them up. A tank is different. It is much more maintenance intensive.

Sigh, what to say this is becoming

The advantages to AC is completely different. The Army does not seem to have asked for an AC only to get the TI to work. It is more of a DDM's attempts to find faults when there aren't any. The AC comment was actually recorded in 2004 as a possible fix for the TI. It is very obvious an alternative solution was chosen. Saudi T-90 trials did not have AC and the TIs worked fine. IA has conducted over 10 major exercises with T-90s and nobody has reported T-90s falling apart.

Actually the process started in 2008, when there is no fix found for not working of T1 not in 2004. Just for the sake of it, if everything is fine, why Arjun crew can work without AC and T90 crew can not work without AC?

Cute. There are 2500 posts on tanks. Read em all again. Stop reading Shukla for Arjun, T-90 and MRCA. Look for official sources. There are way better blogs which explain things better.

I don't see why I have to reply anymore. The Arjun is passe, IA has bought the T-90, it's over. The FMBT is the next tank. Focus on what's there, not what could have been.

Again twisting, you don't have any answer, plain and simple. If you have, please educate others.

 

[p2prada]

There are 2500 posts and all the answers are there. You don't want to believe it even if it is spelt out to you. Believe what you want.

 

[nitesh]

There are 2500 posts and all the answers are there. You don't want to believe it even if it is spelt out to you. Believe what you want.

So all in all, you don't have any thing to prove what ever you are saying.

 

[plugwater]

So all in all, you don't have any thing to prove what ever you are saying.

Saar, He has proved everything a zillion times, being a admin i really dont know how you missed all his conversation with kunal and several others.

Time to start reading this and arjun thread from page one.