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.
