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

Hari Sud

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,945
Likes
8,863
Country flag
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Has the new Defence Minister taken note that T-90s is built for cold climate hence unable to,perform well in hot indian desert. Still IA want the T-90. Now they want to install all Arjun -2 improvements on T-90, even has replaced the gun because it's technology is still held secret by Russians.

For these shortcomings why not to use Arjun 1 and 2, why stick with T-90s.

Has the Defence Minister asked for this explanation or he need to fire a few top generals in order to get a proper clarification on tank technology dogging Indian procurrement process for the last ten years.
 

jouni

New Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Personally I do not understand why you prefer t-90. In the last war Finnish tank division was using Sturm III assault guns as their main "tank", they had 20:1 kill ratio against superior Russian t-34, kv and is tanks.

Now we will have 250 Leo 2s, which in paper are much better against current Russian tanks. If we will have only 20:1 kill ratio like in the last time, we are still able to knock out 5000 t-90 and t-72s. I really do not see the point of those t-tanks.
 

bose

New Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,921
Likes
5,963
Country flag
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Personally I do not understand why you prefer t-90. In the last war Finnish tank division was using Sturm III assault guns as their main "tank", they had 20:1 kill ratio against superior Russian t-34, kv and is tanks.

Now we will have 250 Leo 2s, which in paper are much better against current Russian tanks. If we will have only 20:1 kill ratio like in the last time, we are still able to knock out 5000 t-90 and t-72s. I really do not see the point of those t-tanks.
There is a saying that "Quantity is Quality of its own".... what matter is if you have achieved your objectives ... The much feared German tanks did not while the simpler smaller Russian T-34 tanks did... Russian T-34 tanks demolished the superior German tanks ... The so called Leo 2's are not something that can not be defeated...
 

Rushil51

New Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
471
Likes
314
Country flag
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Personally I do not understand why you prefer t-90. In the last war Finnish tank division was using Sturm III assault guns as their main "tank", they had 20:1 kill ratio against superior Russian t-34, kv and is tanks.

Now we will have 250 Leo 2s, which in paper are much better against current Russian tanks. If we will have only 20:1 kill ratio like in the last time, we are still able to knock out 5000 t-90 and t-72s. I really do not see the point of those t-tanks.
Because tanks are purchased on the basis of their performance,the buyers need(and finances) and not on the basis of how their predecessor performed(Which also depends on the factors like crew,maintenance etc.) And let's not forget how German tanks performed against Russian tanks in WW2. Going by that assumptions,things don't look good for your German leopards when the Russians T-series come after them.
 

jouni

New Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

There is a saying that "Quantity is Quality of its own".... what matter is if you have achieved your objectives ... The much feared German tanks did not while the simpler smaller Russian T-34 tanks did... Russian T-34 tanks demolished the superior German tanks ... The so called Leo 2's are not something that can not be defeated...
Yes, quantity 60000 t-34s against 1500 tigers. Nowadays personal anti tank weapons are in a different level NLAW and Spike carry a lot of punch. Leo 2 can destroy t-90 from 4000m, of course it can also be destroyed but the quality and training gap is there.

Modern tank battles are few and far between, also Indian plains and deserts cannot be compared to Finnish dense forests and lakelands. We were lucky to get those 2a6s for two million a piece, so it was grest deal.
 

bose

New Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,921
Likes
5,963
Country flag
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Yes, quantity 60000 t-34s against 1500 tigers. Nowadays personal anti tank weapons are in a different level NLAW and Spike carry a lot of punch. Leo 2 can destroy t-90 from 4000m, of course it can also be destroyed but the quality and training gap is there.
What matters is the the outcome... T-34's are cheap and quick to build than the bulky German Tigers ... more over the heavy Tigers were bogged down in the marshy land... the T-34's could come close to the Tigers and go for the kill...

What is the use of fancy equipment that can not win the war ??

Russins are not static all these years... they have also come up with the anti tank missiles system of similar range ~ 4000 m... nor the the quality of Russian tranings are bad... Russian future tank Armata will be more than handfull for western tanks...

Modern tank battles are few and far between, also Indian plains and deserts cannot be compared to Finnish dense forests and lakelands. We were lucky to get those 2a6s for two million a piece, so it was grest deal.
not a good tarrain for tank battles...
 
Last edited:

sgarg

New Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,480
Likes
986
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Yes, quantity 60000 t-34s against 1500 tigers. Nowadays personal anti tank weapons are in a different level NLAW and Spike carry a lot of punch. Leo 2 can destroy t-90 from 4000m, of course it can also be destroyed but the quality and training gap is there.

Modern tank battles are few and far between, also Indian plains and deserts cannot be compared to Finnish dense forests and lakelands. We were lucky to get those 2a6s for two million a piece, so it was grest deal.
Send your invincible tanks to Kiev. Maybe Poroshenko can use those tanks.
 

jouni

New Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Send your invincible tanks to Kiev. Maybe Poroshenko can use those tanks.
It is no use, Ukrainians do not have the system or the training. It would take years to make those. In Finnish system Leo 2s are never alone: panzer jaegers are there and co op is seamless.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iOJBJtsYsRY[/video]
 

karn

New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,715
Likes
15,777
Country flag
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Everytime I read 20:1 or 5:1 or 1500:30000XXXX kill ratio for WW2 I have a drink .
People talking about "kill ratios" forget that what was counted as a loss was different for different armies .
For the USSR/USA armies if a tank was disabled (not able to fight for whatever reason =loss) . But Germans counted their losses in terms of if tank irrecoverable only then is it aloss.
For example if a tank is knocked out and is sitting on the field it is not lost until the germans have to retreat from the area . This has the curious effect of losses appearing on records weeks after a battle.
The 30000xxxx whatever soviet losses comes from kirosheevs book . The author took all t 34s manufactured vs all t34 remaining at the end of the war . He forgets to count t 34s rebuilt given to allies or transfered to NKVD .
On top of this kill ratios of tanks is meaningless only 14% of tanks are killed by other tanks .
If your anology is Arjun/Leo2 = tiger t90=t34 I would take t90 anyday .
The tiger was an enormous strain on resources which could have been useful elsewhere and had little value other than propaganda .
Then think of tiger 2 where the nazis continued with the insanity . The first time the tiger 2s saw action the soviets mistook them for panthers acted appropriately and destroyed them . Later while checking the abandoned/destroyed "king tigers" the soviets realised that it was a new tank .
Then there is heavy tank destroyer ferdinand that catches fire while driving up a slope .

All that was offtopic:
My gripe with the arjun is
It has a classic layout with a human loader . This is an old setup (in terms of ammo storage) that the americans and germans came up with in the late 70s.Where the shells are kept right at the front next to the driver . HE shells can weigh upto 22 Kgs prolonged shooting will fatigue the loader . It only has 17 shells in the read rack . Abrams and T 90 have more . With larger guns possible the move to an autoloader is essential.
As much as you talk about "ground pressure" the weight has its consequences . The weight is not evenly distributed on the whole track there is weight concentrated under the wheels. With a heavy tank you need special tracks or they will wearout and break fast (Germany provides the tracks for all NATO tanks and for the Arjun) .The L&T tracks were not satisfactory now tracks will be imported from Diehl.
Despite higher power to weight ration the heavier vehicle will always be slower off the mark due to inertia ( A quality of Abrams highly praised by US soldiers in the Iraq war where the gas turbine , engines gave their tanks high acceleration from a stand still one of the reasons they do not want to switch to diesels despite its higher fuel consumption).

If you look at the K2 and type 10 these represent the direction of modern armour (3 man crew , active suspension , less than 55 tons) . Soon we will see armata also with similar design philosophy .
It is time for the army to stop with its doctrinal paralysis and clarify the need for the FMBT and FICV. Buying 4000+ arjun or t 90 and making them the mainstay of the fleet for the next 30 years is the worst decision .
 
Last edited:

jouni

New Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Everytime I read 20:1 or 5:1 or 1500:30000XXXX kill ratio for WW2 I have a drink .
People talking about "kill ratios" forget that what was counted as a loss was different for different armies .
For the USSR/USA armies if a tank was disabled (not able to fight for whatever reason =loss) . But Germans counted their losses in terms of if tank irrecoverable only then is it aloss.
For example if a tank is knocked out and is sitting on the field it is not lost until the germans have to retreat from the area . This has the curious effect of losses appearing on records weeks after a battle.
The 30000xxxx whatever soviet losses comes from kirosheevs book . The author took all t 34s manufactured vs all t34 remaining at the end of the war . He forgets to count t 34s rebuilt given to allies or transfered to NKVD .
On top of this kill ratios of tanks is meaningless only 14% of tanks are killed by other tanks .
If your anology is Arjun/Leo2 = tiger t90=t34 I would take t90 anyday .
The tiger was an enormous strain on resources which could have been useful elsewhere and had little value other than propaganda .
Then think of tiger 2 where the nazis continued with the insanity . The first time the tiger 2s saw action the soviets mistook them for panthers acted appropriately and destroyed them . Later while checking the abandoned/destroyed "king tigers" the soviets realised that it was a new tank .
Then there is heavy tank destroyer ferdinand that catches fire while driving up a slope .

All that was offtopic:
My gripe with the arjun is
It has a classic layout with a human loader . This is an old setup (in terms of ammo storage) that the americans and germans came up with in the late 70s.Where the shells are kept right at the front next to the driver . HE shells can weigh upto 22 Kgs prolonged shooting will fatigue the loader . It only has 17 shells in the read rack . Abrams and T 90 have more . With larger guns possible the move to an autoloader is essential.
As much as you talk about "ground pressure" the weight has its consequences . The weight is not evenly distributed on the whole track there is weight concentrated under the wheels. With a heavy tank you need special tracks or they will wearout and break fast (Germany provides the tracks for all NATO tanks and for the Arjun) .The L&T tracks were not satisfactory now tracks will be imported from Diehl.
Despite higher power to weight ration the heavier vehicle will always be slower off the mark due to inertia ( A quality of Abrams highly praised by US soldiers in the Iraq war where the gas turbine , engines gave their tanks high acceleration from a stand still one of the reasons they do not want to switch to diesels despite its higher fuel consumption).

If you look at the K2 and type 10 these represent the direction of modern armour (3 man crew , active suspension , less than 55 tons) . Soon we will see armata also with similar design philosophy .
It is time for the army to stop with its doctrinal paralysis and clarify the need for the FMBT and FICV. Buying 4000+ arjun or t 90 and making them the mainstay of the fleet for the next 30 years is the worst decision .
I believe concensus globally is that Leo2 is worlds best MBT. Regarding Finnish kill ratio, they are real not "calculated", of course defender can get those kill ratios easier than attacker ( Gulf war one being exclusion ). Trusting either leo or t for the next 30 years is just stupid, the concept is already 40 years old. We bought ours used and cheap, if buying new something better is adviced.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Prototype of 99 MBT The SAM launchers are mocked up ..
 

karn

New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,715
Likes
15,777
Country flag
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

I believe concensus globally is that Leo2 is worlds best MBT. Regarding Finnish kill ratio, they are real not "calculated", of course defender can get those kill ratios easier than attacker ( Gulf war one being exclusion ). Trusting either leo or t for the next 30 years is just stupid, the concept is already 40 years old. We bought ours used and cheap, if buying new something better is adviced.
Regarded by who ? Discovery channels top 10 tanks ?
The leopard has never been put to the test like Abrams challenger merkava and t90 .
 

jouni

New Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Regarded by who ? Discovery channels top 10 tanks ?
The leopard has never been put to the test like Abrams challenger merkava and t90 .
That speaks a lot of the leopard, it is such a deterrence that it has secured peace in Europe. Tiger was feared by the enemy, but Leopard is respected in a way that to this day nobody has dared to test its abilities. Like one Finnish General said about the A6 variant " now we have the best tank in the world ".
 

DivineHeretic

New Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,153
Likes
1,897
Country flag
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Everytime I read 20:1 or 5:1 or 1500:30000XXXX kill ratio for WW2 I have a drink .

All that was offtopic:
My gripe with the arjun is
It has a classic layout with a human loader . This is an old setup (in terms of ammo storage) that the americans and germans came up with in the late 70s.Where the shells are kept right at the front next to the driver . HE shells can weigh upto 22 Kgs prolonged shooting will fatigue the loader . It only has 17 shells in the read rack . Abrams and T 90 have more . With larger guns possible the move to an autoloader is essential.
As much as you talk about "ground pressure" the weight has its consequences . The weight is not evenly distributed on the whole track there is weight concentrated under the wheels. With a heavy tank you need special tracks or they will wearout and break fast (Germany provides the tracks for all NATO tanks and for the Arjun) .The L&T tracks were not satisfactory now tracks will be imported from Diehl.
Despite higher power to weight ration the heavier vehicle will always be slower off the mark due to inertia ( A quality of Abrams highly praised by US soldiers in the Iraq war where the gas turbine , engines gave their tanks high acceleration from a stand still one of the reasons they do not want to switch to diesels despite its higher fuel consumption).

If you look at the K2 and type 10 these represent the direction of modern armour (3 man crew , active suspension , less than 55 tons) . Soon we will see armata also with similar design philosophy .
It is time for the army to stop with its doctrinal paralysis and clarify the need for the FMBT and FICV. Buying 4000+ arjun or t 90 and making them the mainstay of the fleet for the next 30 years is the worst decision .
I'll ignore the talk about WW2 as that is not the focal point of discussion here. Let's focus on your points.

1. It has a classic layout with a human loader .

The reason nations persist with this 'archaic' methodology is the extra protection offered to the crews in this format versus that in the Auto loader concept. The ammunition stored in separate compartments prevent the tank from cooking if the tank is penetrated. Even if the stored ammunition is hit, the blast panels direct the blast away, protecting the crew.

It's not possible with an autoloader, not with the efficiency of a human. Well, atleast not till now.

2. As much as you talk about "ground pressure" the weight has its consequences . The weight is not evenly distributed on the whole track there is weight concentrated under the wheels.

You're correct, but only partially. Even though the weight distribution is not exactly uniform, the differences are not significant enough to warrant a new design philosophy. Approximations to uniform distributed load work just as well, minus the extra effort for separate point load calculations for N number of wheels.

And yeah, The effects of weight are subordinate to the effects of pressure, which is why pressure is one of the primary design parameter, and not weight. (Except in bridges)

3. Inertia at rest is countered by the engine power, at low RPM. The Arjun with its 58 ton weight has a comparable acceleration to the T-90 with it's original 840HP engine.

The moment the IA asked for a 4 man crewed tank capable of holding its own against the M1, there was no realistic hope of obtaining a sub 55 ton tank.
 

karn

New Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
3,715
Likes
15,777
Country flag
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

That speaks a lot of the leopard, it is such a deterrence that it has secured peace in Europe. Tiger was feared by the enemy, but Leopard is respected in a way that to this day nobody has dared to test its abilities. Like one Finnish General said about the A6 variant " now we have the best tank in the world ".
Ahahahahahaha ... More like Europe does not hae the courage to even stand up for itself. In every situation where leo 2 were deployed for war they remained far from battle while Abrams and Challengers did the fighting .And this is the case in Europe proper as well we will see abrams and challengers fighting before the first leo leaves the motorpool .
Why doesn't Europe send leo 2s into ukraine ... surely all the rebels will run away and putin will cower at the awesomeness of the leo 2 .
I'll ignore the talk about WW2 as that is not the focal point of discussion here. Let's focus on your points.

1. It has a classic layout with a human loader .

The reason nations persist with this 'archaic' methodology is the extra protection offered to the crews in this format versus that in the Auto loader concept. The ammunition stored in separate compartments prevent the tank from cooking if the tank is penetrated. Even if the stored ammunition is hit, the blast panels direct the blast away, protecting the crew.

It's not possible with an autoloader, not with the efficiency of a human. Well, atleast not till now.

2. As much as you talk about "ground pressure" the weight has its consequences . The weight is not evenly distributed on the whole track there is weight concentrated under the wheels.

You're correct, but only partially. Even though the weight distribution is not exactly uniform, the differences are not significant enough to warrant a new design philosophy. Approximations to uniform distributed load work just as well, minus the extra effort for separate point load calculations for N number of wheels.

And yeah, The effects of weight are subordinate to the effects of pressure, which is why pressure is one of the primary design parameter, and not weight. (Except in bridges)

3. Inertia at rest is countered by the engine power, at low RPM. The Arjun with its 58 ton weight has a comparable acceleration to the T-90 with it's original 840HP engine.

The moment the IA asked for a 4 man crewed tank capable of holding its own against the M1, there was no realistic hope of obtaining a sub 55 ton tank.
1.K2 ,leclerc , type 10 all have separate ammo in the turret bustle with blow off panels , look it up .(leclerc however keeps non ready ammo in the same place as the leo 2)
And looking at the enormous bustle on the new type 99 Im sure the Chinese have hit on this solution as well.
In the second video there is a mistake that is the auto loader of t 80 not t 90 . K2 , type 10 , leclerc all use the same autoloader
2. I disagree.
3.Ah you mentioned the problem yourself , the heavier tank is forced to use lower RPM which restricts its speed . Only the first 300 t 90 had the 840 HP engine . All the rest have been upgraded to the 1000HP engine with the option of using a 1200 HP engine . The T90 S will be upgraded after the Ajeya2 upgrade program. The statement that the Arjun 2 had its gear ratios reduced is troubling in itself .

If the army asked for 4 man tank that weighed less than 55 tons . It is possible , the Korean K1 weighs less and that was developed in the same timeline as the arjun .
I highly doubt that the army will stick with the human loader demand , with the l52/l55 barrel guns in the future the charge will be increased we may see the weight of new rounds topping 25 kgs
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DivineHeretic

New Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,153
Likes
1,897
Country flag
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

Ahahahahahaha ... More like Europe does not hae the courage to even stand up for itself. In every situation where leo 2 were deployed for war they remained far from battle while Abrams and Challengers did the fighting .And this is the case in Europe proper as well we will see abrams and challengers fighting before the first leo leaves the motorpool .
Why doesn't Europe send leo 2s into ukraine ... surely all the rebels will run away and putin will cower at the awesomeness of the leo 2 .


1.K2 ,leclerc , type 10 all have separate ammo in the turret bustle with blow off panels , look it up .(leclerc however keeps non ready ammo in the same place as the leo 2)
And looking at the enormous bustle on the new type 99 Im sure the Chinese have hit on this solution as well.

2. I disagree.
3.Ah you mentioned the problem yourself , the heavier tank is forced to use lower RPM which restricts its speed . Only the first 300 t 90 had the 840 HP engine . All the rest have been upgraded to the 1000HP engine with the option of using a 1200 HP engine . The T90 S will be upgraded after the Ajeya2 upgrade program. The statement that the Arjun 2 had its gear ratios reduced is troubling in itself .

If the army asked for 4 man tank that weighed less than 55 tons . It is possible , the Korean K1 weighs less and that was developed in the same timeline as the arjun .
I highly doubt that the army will stick with the human loader demand , with the l52/l55 barrel guns in the future the charge will be increased we may see the weight of new rounds topping 25 kgs
1. The DRDO chose to not go with the autoloader and go with the manual option,which was then a safe, reliable and trusted choice compared to the unreliable auto loaders of the T-72s, which as per some reports meant that the tanks were as feared by their crews as by their opponents. A simple choice, and besides, the army specifically asked for the 4 man crew. No point stabbing your fingers at DRDO/Arjun over it.

2. Whoever are you to disagree? I didn't state an opinion, those are facts. If you want I can toss in the entire research literature on load distribution and geotechnical mechanics for load analysis. So if you're going to disappove of them, you better be one established genius.

3. I can't help you if you want to miss the road for the roadkill. Don't you know anything about gears, rpm, torque and their relationship with acceleration? Whoever gave you the impression that heavier tanks are forced to use lower rpm? That's why I urge people to atleast know what they are talking before making ridiculous comments.

Read up torque and it's necessity for acceleration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

The charge is more or less same for 55 caliber gun to a 51 caliber gun ..

The basic physics tells, Longer the barrel greater the muzzle velocity hence greater penetration ..

I highly doubt that the army will stick with the human loader demand , with the l52/l55 barrel guns in the future the charge will be increased we may see the weight of new rounds topping 25 kgs
 

Articles

Top