T-98 vs Arjun [Archive] - Defence Talk Forum

View Full Version : T-98 vs Arjun

Pages : [1] 2 3

dabrownguy

December 25th, 2003, 06:20 PM

T-98 compared to the Arjun, which is better and at what? Please support your answers and be polite this is not a flame war! I put this post up to learn more of the T-98 which I heard will or is a great tank.

gf0012-aust

December 25th, 2003, 07:52 PM

I have made comment on this issue in another forum, so I will just cut and paste my response from that one...:

"The T-98 is basically a T-72 with a late generation turret. The Arjun has had a 6-7 year gestation period.

I'm not sure either are able to be commented on.

But if I was looking at how the T-72's were absolutely pasted by M1A1's and Challengers in Iraq and how the Chechyans pasted them badly in Grozny, then I wouldn't be too keen about sitting in anything that was a repainted and reconfigured T-72."

dabrownguy

December 25th, 2003, 11:14 PM

T-98 is a T-90 ungrade is it not?
oww wait it was meant to counter the T-90!
opps, sometimes I don't know what I know!

gf0012-aust

December 26th, 2003, 01:55 AM

T-98 is a T-90 ungrade is it not?
oww wait it was meant to counter the T-90!
opps, sometimes I don't know what I know!

The type 98 traces its lineage back to the T-72bu (?) The problem is that as good as the T-72 was, it is not able to survive in a modern tank battle.

Granted there has been changes to the front Glacis etc.. but the inherent design flaws of the 72 are still present.

But for competition with tanks in Chinas region it is probably going to last in a tank on tank confrontation. I wouldn't like to make an assessment on it against ATM like the Javelin (see the clip of what a Javelin did to a T80)

Oqaab

December 29th, 2003, 02:52 PM

What I have heard is that Arjun's project was failed. Arjun MK II may have better capabilities then Arjun. So there is no point of comparing this tank with T-98.

Rw #30

December 29th, 2003, 07:41 PM

I didnt want it to say i would rank arjun with modified version of T 72

Revival_786

December 29th, 2003, 08:08 PM

What are the stats of the two tanks?

elkaboingo

December 29th, 2003, 10:46 PM

t-72 did not have hunter/killer which is why it got a killing by abrams and challenger. also in hunter/killer you can target two things at once, making the battle a turkey shoot. t-72 had to stop to fire. do the t-98 and arjun have hunter/killer?

umair

December 30th, 2003, 06:31 AM

gf0012-aust

December 30th, 2003, 07:44 AM

when you blokes refer to hunter/killer do you mean an ability to shoot in motion?

if thats the case then there are currently very few tanks that have that capacity "at speed".

I think its the M1aX, Challenger X, LecLerc and one of the later T series.
AFAIK T-80's had autoloader stabilisation problems "at speed".

dabrownguy

December 30th, 2003, 07:09 PM

I supose theres no way we can compare them because T-98`s stats cant be found and T-98G.

yutong chen

January 1st, 2004, 03:53 PM

First, it is Type 98, not T-98. T-something are Russian series. Type 98 have a counter for ATM. The designs are very different between Type 98 and T-72. Type 98 have a 1200HP engine while T-72 have a 840HP engine. The Type 98's hull is way longer than the T-72's hull. T-72 was introduced in 1985 while the Type98 was introduced in 2002. The Type 98 was developed to challenge the M1 series.
The thickness of the armor doesn't matter. It depends on what type of armor the tank uses.

gf0012-aust

January 1st, 2004, 05:31 PM

Certainly from my sources the Arjun is in trouble. Arjun it has had persistent problems with the the drivetrain.

OTOH the TAN EX, (Usually and incorrectly referred to as the "Arjun 2" is alive and moving forward). The Tan Ex is a complete T-72M1 chassis fitted with the Arjun turret.

Other AFV plans such as the 155mm SPH that were based on the Arjun chassis have been canned in the interim. The programme is supposed to be in suspension but the fact that other development has been prioritised and that hybrids are being fast tracked would seem to show that the Arjun core programme is a little unwell. Its rapidly becoming an orphaned programme.

Inidian AFV is geared up to produce the T-72M1 chassis, so it would seem that rather than lose extra time (6 years to date) they will go to a tried and true, but less sophisticated solution.

The T90 programme is healthy, on target, on track etc... (no pun intended)

dabrownguy

January 1st, 2004, 06:17 PM

gf0012,
That made no sence to me. 30 Arjuns have been inducted and more are on the way and Arjun MK 2 is being worked on with Isreali help. Isreal is putting in some nice tech. Type 98 was shown in 1999 wasn't it?
Arjun:
Main Battle Tank, Arjun

Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun is a multi-laboratory programme of DRDO with CVRDE as the lead Laboratory. It is a state-of-the-art tank with superior fire power, high mobility, and excellent protection. Twelve Mk 1 prototypes of MBT Arjun have been manufactured and their performance tests have provided satisfactory results. Some of the breakthroughs achieved by CVRDE during the development of MBT Arjun are in Engine, Transmission, Hydropneumatic Suspension, Hull and Turret, and Gun Control System.

Salient Features

Fire Power

The superior armour defeating capability of the indigenously developed Fin Stabilized Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS) ammunition and 120 mm calibre rifled gun give MBT ARJUN an edge over contemporary world tanks. A computer-controlled integrated fire control system incorporating day-cum-night stabilized sighting system guarantees a very high first round hit probability and reduced reaction time to bring effective fire on targets.

The stabilization system for the main armament, slaved to the sighting equipment in elevation and azimuth, with a high and accurate laying speed, allows fire on the move.

The superior fire power of MBT is based on:

Accurate and fast target acquisition capability during day and night and in all types of weather .
Shortest possible reaction time during combat engagements
Ability to accurately engage targets on move
Capability to destroy all possible enemy armour at maximum battle ranges
Excellent first hit probability
Main Armament

The rifled 120 mm ARJUN gun together with the newly developed super velocity ammunition, can defeat any contemporary armour used in tanks. The electro-slag refined gun steel tube is autofrettaged to withstand higher gas pressures. A thermal jacket prevents irregular temperature distribution on to the tube due to the weather influences.

Secondary Armament

A co-axial 7.62 mm machine gun for anti-personnel and a 12.7 mm machine gun for anti-aircraft and ground targets are provided as secondary weapons.

Gunner's Main Sight

Gunner's Main Sight consists of a day-sight, thermal sight, a laser range finder and a stabilized head common to all the three channels. The common sighting head mirror is stabilized in elevation and azimuth. The day- sight provides dual magnification.

The thermal imager provides night vision facility to the gunner and the commander to observe and engage target in total darkness and in the presence of smoke, dust, haze and light camouflage. Integral with the main sight is the laser range finder by which targets can be ranged accurately.

Panoramic Sight for Commander

Commander's panoramic sight enables the commander to effect an all round surveillance in the battlefield without removing his eyes from the sight and without being disturbed by the turret motion. The field of view is stabilized with the help of a two axes rate gyro-mounted on the platform of the head mirror. The sight offers dual magnification.

Ammunition

Two types of ammunition, viz, FSAPDS and HESH have been developed for this armament. The highly lethal
FSAPDS ammunition which is the main battle ammunition of the tank has accounted itself admirably during the trails. In addition, the anti-helicopter round to combat the air threat to armour is also under development.

Mobility

Low ground pressure, high power-to-weight ratio and new design concepts in transmission suspension and
running gear result in highly mobile and agile weapon platform.

The remarkable mobility of MBT which also adds to its protection is the result of:

High performance engine
Robust and effective transmission system particularly flexible hydropneumatic suspension .
Optimized running gear with its high shock energy absorption.
Due to the high power-to-weight ratio and low specific ground pressure, MBT is fast, highly manoeuvrable and extremely mobile to cross the most difficult terrain with ease. High acceleration rapid braking capabilities with excellent steering characteristics make MBT agile in the battlefield. Adequate fuel storage capacity and relatively low fuel consumption allow for an optimal operational range.

An important criterion for the mobility of any AFV is the effective performance of the driver. Excellent vision systems both for day and night provide most effective means of observation in all battlefield conditions. The need to keep the crew's fatigue including that of driver at the minimum level over long periods of continuous operation, have been taken care of.

Protection

All round protection from anti-tank ammunition is achieved by t~e newly developed KANCHAN armour to a degree much higher than available in present generation tanks. The high degree of immunity is achieved by.

The computerised design and simulation
A fabricated turret housing lightweight compact KANCHAN armour
Careful dimensioning of wall through optimal slopes and angles
A low silhouette

Crew Comfort
Ergonometry, using anthropometric data of Indian troops, has been kept in view while designing the fighting and driving compartments to fully exploit the outstanding features of the weapon system. Hydropneumatic suspension provides excellent ride comfort for crew eliminating fatigue even on the extended runs.

Specifications
Dimensions
Overall length {with gun forward) 10.638 m
Overall height {with gun rear) 9.546 m
Overall height {with AD gun mount) 3.03 m(Turret roof: 2.32 m)
Overall width 3.864 m
Combat weight 58.5 tons

Technical Characteristics
Max speed 70 km/hr
Max speed on cross country 40 km/hr
Ground pressure 0.84 kg/sq. cm.
Engine power 1400 HP at 2400 rpm
Engine characteristics V 90° Turbo charged diesel, 10 cylinder water cooled
Power-to-weight ratio 24:1 HP/ton
Gear box 4 fwd +2 rev gears Epicyclic gear train, Torque converter, Mech lockup clutch & hydrodynamic retarder
Steering Double radii, mechancial steering with neutral turn
Suspension Hydrogas
Shallow fording 1.4 m
Vertical obstacle 0.914 m
Trench crossing 2.43 m
Gradient 35 deg
Gun 120 mm rifled
Rate of fire 6-8 rounds per minute
Ammunition 39 rounds (FSAPDS/HESH)
Co-axial machine gun Mag 7.62 mm Tk 715 A
Anti aircraft machine gun HCB 12.7 mm
Fire control system Director type
Gun control system Electro-hydraulic
Night vision Thermal imaging
Ballistic computer Digital
Crew 4 (Cmdr, Gnr, Ldr. Dvr)

Type 98 Main Battle Tank

NAME
PLA designation: Type 98
Manufacturer name: WZ-123

CONTRACTOR: China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO)

SERVICE STATUS: A small number in service with the Army for trial and tests. Mass production expected to begin in 2002 to 2004.

PROGRAMME

The Type 98 is the latest derivative of the Type 90 main battle tank (MBT) family. It is also the officially certified version of China's third generation MBT programme, which had undergone development for fifteen years since the mid-1980s. It is understood that the development of the Chinese third generation MBT suffered certain technical difficulties in the early 1990s. The scheduled date of commissioning was postponed several times, until the initial approval certificate of the Type 98 was issued in 1998.

Type 98 is the latest variant of the Type 90 MBT family

The Type 98 was first revealed to the public in the national day parade on 1 Oct 1999. A small number of the initial production model is in service with the Army for initial evaluations and tests. It is expected that the final production model of the Type 98 will join the service before 2004, depending on progress of the final modification work.

The original design target of the Chinese third generation MBT was as a counter to the Soviet T-72, but the changing requirements shifted the development towards a much more sophisticated machine. The later design criteria of the Type 98 was aiming at challenging the U.S. M1A1 Abrams, while certain aspects of the actually performance of the Type 98 is approaching the standard of the M1A2.

It is surprising that China has developed two MBTs, the Type 96 and the Type 98, with similar performance at the same time. Although the Type 96 was regarded as the second generation MBT, while the Type 98 as the third generation MBT, they are comparable in term of general performance and technology. One possible explanation is that the Type 98 will be equipped by the most elite units in a relatively small number, while the Type 96, with less sophisticated technology and therefore cheaper unit price, will replace the bulk of Type 59/69 in current service.

Type 98 in field test

DESIGN FEATURES

The layout of the Type 98 is conventional, with certain influence by the Soviet tank designs. The driver's compartment is at the front, with fighting compartment/turret in the centre, and power pack in the rear. The complete powerpack assembly can be removed in around 30~40 minutes and in field conditions. Suspension is of the conventional torsion bar type and there are six rubber-tyred roadwheels on each side, the drive sprocket at the rear.

To accommodate more equipment and rounds, the Type 98's turret is slightly larger than that of the Type 90, which has resulted in a gap between turret and the hull in the front. This could be a major disadvantage in the battle as the whole turret might be blown off if the gap is hit.

Rear view of the Type 98

In addition, the Type 98 also lacks designs often found on Western MBTs to minimise the damage in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. For example, the armour bulkheads to separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks and rounds, as well as the top panels designed to blow outwards in case of explosion. This could lead to low survivability in modern combat field according to the experience of the 1991 Gulf War.

ARMAMENT: The main armament is a fully-stablised 125 mm 50-calibre smoothbore gun with autoloader. Despite the early reports indicating the gun was a licensed copy of the Russian 2A46, it is actually an indigenous design derived from the Chinese 120 mm smoothbore gun technology.

Ammunitions include armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot rounds (APFSDS), high explosive anti-tank rounds (HEAT), and high explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) projectiles. China has also reportedly manufactured Russian A-11 laser guided anti-tank missile (ATGM) to be fired by the 125 mm gun. In addition, the Chinese have also experimentally developed depleted uranium (DU) rounds for their tanks and it may be available to the Type 98.

The turret of the Type 98

Fire accuracy is attained by the laser rangefinder, wind sensor, ballistic computer, and thermal barrel sleeve. Dual axis stabilisation ensures effective firing on the move. The commander is has six periscopes and a stabilised panoramic sight. Both the commander and gunner have roof-mounted stabilised sights fitted with day/thermal channels, a laser rangefinder and an auto tracker facility. The commander has a display showing the gunner's thermal sight, enabling the commander to fire the main gun.

The Type 98 is also fitted with a compuerised onboard information processing system, which can collect information from vehicle navigation (Inertia/GPS), observation systems and sensors, process it in the computer and display it on the commander's display, giving the ability of real-time command and beyond-vision-range target engaging.

Secondary weapons include a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun and a 12.7 mm air defence machine gun mounted on the commander's cupola. Each side of the turret has a 76 mm Type 84 five-barrel smoke grenade launchers.

ARMOUR: The turret and hull are of all-welded steel armour construction. A layer of composite armour has been added to the front arc. The armour package is of modular design, enabling damaged sections to be replaced or upgrades installed throughout service life. Explosive reactive armour (ERA) can be fitted if required.

ACTIVE PROTECTION: The Type 98 features an JD-3 integrated laser rangefinder/warning/self-defence device. Unlike contemporary Russian active tank self-defense systems like Drozd, Drozd-2, and Arena, which launch projectiles to disable or "shoot-down" incoming anti-tank missiles and projectiles, the Chinese system apparently uses a high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner.

JD-3 roof-mounted active laser self-defence weapon (front) and laser warning receiver (back)

The system includes what appears to be a laser warning receiver (LWR - the dome-shaped device on the turret roof behind the commander's position), that warns the crew that their tank is being illuminated by an enemy range-finding or weapon-guidance laser. The turret of the tank can then be traversed to face the direction of the enemy threat, and the laser self-defence weapon (LSDW - the box-shaped device on the turret roof behind the gunner's position), can be employed against the source of the enemy laser.

The procedure of the laser weapon would first use a low-powered beam to locate the optics of the enemy weapon. Once the enemy weapon was located, the power level of the laser would be immediately and dramatically increased. Such an attack would disable the guidance optics of the enemy weapon and/or damage the eyesight of the enemy gunner.

The available photos of the Type 98 have also confirmed that the laser weapon can be elevated to a higher angle than the tank's main gun, indicating that the engagement of attack helicopters is possible. In addition, the laser device could also be used for communications between friend tanks.

PROPULSION: The Type 98 is powered by a liquid cooled, turbocharged 1,200 hp diesel derived from Germany WD396 diesel technology. At its current battle weight of 52 tons, this gives a power-to-weight ratio of about 23 hp/ton.

Night shooting

SPECIFICATIONS

Crew: 3
Weight: 50 tons
Engine: 1,200 hp liquid cooled diesel
Transmission: Mechanical, planetary
Track: Metallic with RMSh, with rubber-tyred road wheels
Suspension: Torsion bar
Radio: Receive/transmit, telephone, laser communications
Dimension: Length: 11.00 m; Height: 2.00 m; Width: 3.40 m
Ground Pressure: N/A
Cruising Range: 450 km, or 600 km with external tanks
Speed: Max road 65 km/h; max off-road 47 km/h; average cross-country 35 km/h; max swim N/A
Fording Depths: 5 m with snorkel
Main Gun: Indigenous 125 mm smoothbore
Rate of Fire: 8 rounds/min
Elevation/Depression: N/A
Auxiliary Weapon: One coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun; one 12.7 mm air-defence machine gun
Fire Control: Laser rangefinder input, onboard computer, wind sensor, and control panel

What does Arjun have for selfdefence. I read somewhere that it's gonna have a lot of Isreali self defence against missles too.

gf0012-aust

January 1st, 2004, 06:33 PM

all i can tell you is what I know of the project. on the basis of that info, the Arjun project has some considersable problems to contend with. I'm not saying that its unachievable in the long run, but in the present circumstances more effort is going to go to other projects that are less complicated and which involve more use of existing known technologies and existing manufacturing capability.

"blue sky" solutions are off with the Arjun

yutong chen

January 1st, 2004, 11:15 PM

The Arjun had to repair its engine several times during the trial. The Type 98 get GPS gudiance. <It is a state-of-the-art tank with superior fire power, high mobility, and excellent protection> Its probably to Indian standard.

dabrownguy

January 3rd, 2004, 11:19 PM

dabrownguy

January 6th, 2004, 11:04 PM

My mistake its not smooth bore rifle but just rifle.

gf0012-aust

January 6th, 2004, 11:34 PM

The best proven armour in the world is Chobham 3. No tanks have managed to kill a challenger 2, even when they were fired upon by Abrams in a "blue on blue"

The longest tank kill in the world is via a Chally 2 at 5.1k's
On record: An M1a2 killed 2 T72's at once. the AP went through one tank and killed the second to the rear of it.

There is NO empirical evidence supporting chinese, russian or "martian" tanks that have stronger armour and longer range weapons.

The RHA armour on Leo A5's and A6's is considered to be better than an M1a2 but less than a Chally 2.

Its ok to be proud of your countries equipment, but the empirical evidence stands as absolute "proof of life" until proven otherwise.

IF the Arjun is based on Chinese AFV parameters, then it is designed to deliver max ordinance weight at sacrifice to speed and armour. That is current Chinese doctrine, Russian doctrine has been about armour and firepower in a disposable unit, they are built to be rugged and survivable, but less emphasis on "creature comforts". The Arjun appears to be a hybrid concept attempting to embrace the characteristics of british tanks like the chieftain and russian tanks like the t70/80 series. hence, already there is a doctrinal mismatch purely based on the facts that the design parameters for both models are different. The arjun is a hybrid - as is pakistans.

The Chinese the Russians and the French underwent their own armoured RMA after seeing what the US and the British did to russian tanks in GW2. They are good solid tanks, but they are a generation behind. in their own theatre, they are perfect for the expected opfor, and I would assume that Indian and Pakistani tanks are also initially designed along those operation requirements.

BUT to say that they are world killing in class is slightly enthusiastic and somewhat intemperant. That does not detract from their obvious capabilities.

yutong chen

January 7th, 2004, 08:36 PM

gf0012-aust

January 7th, 2004, 09:24 PM

dabrownguy,
<Type 98 is 10 tons lighter than Arjun and that means Type 98 has less armor>

Type 98's turret is half the size of Arjun.

<Arjun's range i believe is 4.6 km! i think thats twice as much as type 98's smooth bore gun>

Type 98's range is 8 km which is twice the range of Arjun.

<but on the battle field Arjun can penatrate any nato armor at 2km distance at a probabibilty of 100% meaning soviet/chinese/pakistabi armor will be dystroyed at 3 km(this is with AFSDS rounds)>

By the time Arjun gets in range, it's FCS will be messed up by Type 98's Active Defense, so Arjun won't even get a chance to fire.

<non the less type 98 is a great tank with many googies like gps>
<Type 96 will enter production because type 96 was not a good value for a dollar>

Type 98 didn't enter, because there is a newer version, maybe you should take a look at Type 98G.

<120 smooth bore rifles are the best turrets around and accurate! btw its easy to fit a tank with gps>

120 smooth bore rifles only proved superior against Iraqi tanks. The best Iraq have is T-72, which is a medium tank. Beside, the Iraqis didn't even try to resist. Iraqis probably broke or damaged the tank before going to battle.

Thats palpably incorrect, there were some Iraqi armoured units that fought very very well. They were beaten not only by superior equipment, but also by tactics. You can read Clausewitz, Guderian, Sukhov, Gorshkov, Schwarzkopff and Sun Tsu as much as you like, at the end of the day it is training that will decide a lot of battlefield outcomes.

To train for war, you have to also know what war is like, be in it. Battlefield experience gained even 30 years ago will not be sufficient against modern combined arms and technology.

Oversimplifying things doesn't make them so.

dabrownguy

January 7th, 2004, 10:06 PM

:cop

gf0012-aust

January 7th, 2004, 10:22 PM

NEW DELHI --- The first T-90S tank “Bhishma” will roll out of the assembly line in the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) at Avadi, Tamil Nadu tomorrow.

The Minister of State for Defence Production and Supplies Shri O Rajagopal will hand over the first tank to the Chief of the Army Staff Gen NC Vij.

Bhishma is a highly versatile and state-of-the-art battle tank, being assembled at the HVF, to meet the needs of the Indian Army in the coming decades. The important features of the new battle tank are its mobility, lethal firepower, surprise-hit at first sight and self-protection. An upgraded 1000 horsepower engine for enhanced mobility, ballistic computers for sight and accuracy and capability to fire all types of ammunitions including guided missiles make the Bhishma among the best in the world.

The main gun is upgraded and has excellent field maintainability. Similarly, the night vision device and thermal imaging system fitted on the Bhishma tank are the latest in the world. Superior armor protection with the explosive reactor armor panel and nuclear, biological and chemical weapons including the most modern communication system further enhance the capabilities of the tank.

At present there are about eighty T-90S tanks in the assembly line in semi-knocked down condition, which will be put together under technical guidance of Russian collaborators. Later on, in a year or so, about one hundred T-90S tanks in completely knocked down condition will be assembled at Avadi. The indigenous production of the tank will start in about three years time.

I'd say that in real terms, the Arjun is doomed. If this tank fills an operational requirement then the GAO equivalent will ensure that future funds for Arjun are killed and invested into a known stable system

dabrownguy

January 8th, 2004, 11:11 AM

Dude never trust the Indian media, their evil! They love to critics. Arjuns one of the best tanks. I have a link here that says Arjun has GPS as does the Tank Ex.

Tank EX: DRDO new tank

Nitin Venkatesh

Tank-Ex is a significant development and is the second attempt (after the successful Combat Improved Ajeya /upgraded T-72M1)by the Arjun MBT developers to harness its technology spin-offs. The Tank Ex appears to be an ideal solution for upgrading the Indian Army's vast and aging T-72M1 fleet. Having undergone six months of trials in Rajasthan till now, it will presumably need many more to be fine tuned per Army requirements. However, it must be noted that the two crucial "parts" of the Tank Ex - namely the Arjun turret with its weapon system and the T-72M1 (Ajeya) platform/chassis are well tested and already certified by the Army.

General details:

Crew: 4 - commander, gunner, loader and driver.

Combat weight: The Tank -Ex at 47 tons is heavier than the T-72M1 (41 tons) and much lighter than the Arjun MBT, which tips the scales at 58.5 tons.

Power plant:The Tank-Ex has a 1000 hp power plant (as on the Combat Improved Ajeya) giving a power to weight ratio of 21 hp/ton for a weight of 47 tons. This represents an improvement over the T-72M1's 20 hp/ton with a weight of 41 tons and an 780 hp power plant.

Ground pressure: 0.94 Kgf/cm Square, marginally higher than the T-72M1's 0.90 Kgf/cm square.

Suspension: Torsion bar with hydrostruts; also an improvement over the T-72M1 torsion bar system.

Dimensions: The usage of the T-72M1 chassis gives the Tank Ex a lower silhouette than the Arjun MBT, which stands tall at 3.03 meters (over AD gun mount).

Length (gun forward): 9.19metres

Width(over tracks): 3.37metres

Height(over AD gun mount): 2.93metres

Ground clearance: 0.47metres

Armament: The Tank Ex utilizes the Arjun MBT's 120mm rifled gun firing unitary APFSDS and HESH semi combustible cartridge case ammunition. A total of 32 rounds are carried as compared to 39 in the Arjun and 45 two piece ones in the T-72.The Arjun's armament system is the most powerful one available to Indian developers today. The choice of calibre, weapon design and ammunition make it superior to the in-service 125mm 2A46 guns on the T-72M1. The Tank Ex retains the Arjun's third generation director type integrated FCS (Fire Control System) including a sophisticated digital ballistic computer. It may be noted that the Arjun FCS is an updated one(with digital components replacing the original analogue ones) as compared to the original, which faced numerous technical problems. Firepower trials validated the efficacy of the updated Arjun FCS and led to its recent acceptance by the Army. Capable of firing on the move, the Tank Ex also is fully "night ready" with the gunner having a thermal imager integrated with his main sight. A standby articulated sight is provided as backup for the main sight. The tank commander (as in the Arjun MBT) has his own fully stabilized sight with relevant controls for surveillance, target acquisition and engagement, giving excellent hunter-killer ability. The gun control system is electro-hydraulic. Gun elevation/depression is +16.5 deg/-10 deg , better than the T-72M1's + 14 deg/-6 deg. As in the Arjun MBT and the T-72M1, a co-axial 7.62mm PKT machine gun and a 12.7mm NVST Heavy Machine gun(air defense) are standard. The tank also incorporates an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) to operate the weapons systems in silent watch mode.

Navigational aids: A global positioning system is provided for accurate navigation. This is a feature common to both the Arjun MBT as well as the Combat Improved Ajeya .

Protection: The Tank Ex utilizes the state of the Art composite armor-"kanchan"-especially over its frontal arc(Turret as well as glacis) giving excellent protection against both Kinetic and Chemical rounds. The usage of the Arjun turret design indicates that the Tank-Ex may also have its "ready" ammunition stored in the bustle (as in the Arjun),separated from the crew and provided with blow off panels. This would be a significant protective feature in line with "western" design practices. Kanchan is an extensively tested and successful armor, which is available for retrofit to other IFV programs. The Tank Ex also has fully integrated Nuclear Biological and Chemical (NBC) protection The usual turret mounted 81mm antithermal smoke grenade launchers are also standard on the Tank-Ex.

Performance and Obstacle Negotiation: The Tank Ex retains the T-72 attributes of speed and agility with a maximum speed of 60 km/hr (on road) and 40 km/hr (cross country).While the gradient climbing at 30 degrees it remains in line with all variants of the T-72 like the B(M). The Tank Ex is better at trench crossing.(2.6 metres as compared to the T-72M1's 2.28 meters).Vertical Obstacles 0.85 metres tall can be surmounted, same as the T-72M1.Shallow fording is quoted as 1.2 metres.

************************************************** ****
I think tank ex is the best solution to upgradeing the t-72. T-72 is now a T-90 comparision with the rifle.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-5/nitin.html
************************************************** ****

yutong chen

January 8th, 2004, 08:49 PM

<Guy any tank can fire 8km but to make the hit affective is like at 4.6 and American M1A's had what 4.8 at max with 125 mm smooth bore gun with their armor penetrated ammo>

M1A have 120mm guns, and Type 98 have a range of 8km and still makes a effective hit. Do some more research. If you still don't know why. Just tell me.

<I doubt the Laser defence system could do something at 4.6 km, and don't you think the DRDO would think of counters, expecially mines since kashmere has a lot of them>

The laser defence is very different from what you think. It can even engage helicopters. Don't expect to hit Type 98 once and then you win. Type 98's armor is almost 4x the armor of T-72.

<So the Arjun outguns the Type-98>

Does Arjun have depleted uranium rounds? There is no arguement, everyones knows India can't stand a full scale invasion by the PLA, it doesn't even have ICBMs to make a threat.

gf0012-aust

January 8th, 2004, 09:18 PM

1) India doesn't need ICBM's to hit China, all it needs are MRBM's which it currently has, In fact there is now considerable debate as to the fact that the Arjun 3 should be classified as an ICBM as it has the range clearly to hit China in a number of places.

2) Its not the thickness of the armour (how many time do people have to say this???) It is the type of armour that counts. BTW try to understand the relationship between armour type, arnour thickness, barrel length, barrel type and round mix and then you'll start to look at the chinese tank with a bit more clarity.

Lasers? yes, you can have them on the platform, but it is highly debatable that you could use them for anything beyond blinding the pilot - which as you may not know would invoke a rather extreme response from the opfor. This has been discussed before in relation to russians laser shooting ASW planes about 20 years ago.

Why do you have this compunction to want to invade or attack India anyway??

as for the rest, whatever you say. You are starting to sound like some French weapons manufacturers I know, everything they do is the best in the world, the fact that France hasn't won a war since 1809 and surrendered within 40 days of commencement of their last major fracas seems to elude their sense of invincibility.

Don't dismiss the Iraqis as total incompetents, some of their units fought very well, and in actual fact Iraq has more actual tanking experience in 12 years than China has ever had - Tianamen Sq doesn't count.... ;)

Show me empirical data from a credible source such as Janes, Bakers etc.. and you'll have more credibility with me. Add up all the things that are on the tank, look at its physical dimensions, then convince me that the engine (which is how many KW's??) will support continuous engagement with all its principle weapons systems - eg main gun and laser etc... I do believe that the laser is part of a designator system and not a weapon that is sufficiently powerful to be used as a threatening continuous armament.

Am happy to be convinced. If you can do all of this technology within the confines of an old russian base model tank platform, then you should have landed a man on the moon by now.

It may be a good tank, but its no land battleship.

elkaboingo

January 8th, 2004, 09:46 PM

The CITV(commander's independent thermal vision) sight is now a common feature on all types of new tanks.It's ceartian that the T-98 and Arjun MkII are equipped with this feature giving them a hunter killer capability. :roll

can they shoot while moving while the target is moving, which is also what i'm referring to. al khalid has this capability (or it was said).

elkaboingo

January 8th, 2004, 10:23 PM

My friends the Arjun is a hybrid between western and soviet tanks, with western tech. Merkava mbt cost 2.6 million and dystroy dosions of soviet tanks! Arjun cost 6 million and with isreali help MK2 is better than type96! Type 98 is 10 tons lighter than Arjun and that means Type 98 has less armor. Accuracy and range can't be better because it had isreali help. Arjun's range i believe is 4.6 km! i think thats twice as much as type 98's smooth bore gun. non the less type 98 is a great tank with many googies like gps! but on the battle field Arjun can penatrate any nato armor at 2km distance at a probabibilty of 100% meaning soviet/chinese/pakistabi armor will be dystroyed at 3 km(this is with AFSDS rounds). gf0012 what you are talking about are the old problems back in 97-98 but Arjun MK2 is perfect! I don't know if this is true or not but I have read on a another forum that the chinese have regarded the type 98 as junk. Type 96 will enter production because type 96 was not a good value for a dollar. 120 smooth bore rifles are the best turrets around and accurate! btw its easy to fit a tank with gps, just like the palm pads.

please do some research before you say this. :idea2
arjun CANNOT compete with western tanks. neither can al khalid. its just a fact of life. leo or abrams or challengers would have a field day with these tanks (unless they were fighting in india or pakistan, which is a totally different thing :D ) and just because something costs more doesnt mean its better.

also the best way to defeat a western tank is hit it on top. thats not capable from another tank. you can only do that with ATGM or MLRS.

gf0012-aust

January 8th, 2004, 10:35 PM

also the best way to defeat a western tank is hit it on top. thats not capable from another tank. you can only do that with ATGM or MLRS.

the russians "eliminated" a chechyan rebel using a Tochka battlefield rocket. 10kms and you don't even get to hear it before you disappear

personally, for standoff, I'd go for the MLRS solution... now a precision guided MLRS would be interesting... ;)

dabrownguy

January 8th, 2004, 11:56 PM

:cop

gf0012-aust

January 9th, 2004, 12:09 AM

Aussie Digger

January 9th, 2004, 06:19 AM

Guided MLRS rounds DO exist - ATACMS. :)

gf0012-aust

January 9th, 2004, 06:32 AM

Guided MLRS rounds DO exist - ATACMS. :)

yep, just realised I left a bit off, a MIRV capability to lob clusters..

that one was another little brain fart on my part.... ;)

gf0012-aust

January 9th, 2004, 06:48 AM

You guys think i'm idoit don't you? I know about DU rounds but in order to use that on Type 98 you need to up the Tanks ASS! Do know the difference in a rife and shotgun? rifle is the choics for range and higher pentration unless your a M1A mbt! Your gonna have to do better than that. What can Type 98 or Type 98G do that would make it better? Anyways off topic the best tanks in the world are 1)M1A abraham 2)Leapord 2 3) Challenger! And I believe a Arjun Mk 2 can be compared to Challenger. The Type 98G has some good defences but when a Tank is already aiming at you he'll fire his rounds at the Type 98 and than the Type 98 has to get closer to the Arjun!

am not sure whether your comments were for me, but you also use rifled for longer range accuracy using HE shells. the Brits thus prefer using rifled because of the rounds they use.

smooth bore are easier to manufacture and have less wear and tear. depending on rounds used, you might have to replace a rifled barrel slightly more often than a smooth bore. no one has been able to find the happy metallurgical medium that slows down the wear rate on a rifled weapon. The chinese tried laminates but they failed miserably - hence the shift to smooth bore - their preference was rifled originally

yutong chen

January 9th, 2004, 05:50 PM

gf0012,
Are you Indian?

WebMaster

January 9th, 2004, 05:53 PM

gf0012 is an Australian. :australia

yutong chen

January 9th, 2004, 05:55 PM

Do you run a web page?

The Watcher

January 9th, 2004, 05:59 PM

yutong chen

January 9th, 2004, 06:04 PM

I was asking WEBMASTER, WEBMASTER.

WebMaster

January 9th, 2004, 07:49 PM

Do you run a web page?

I'm not sure what you mean, but yes I do run a web page... maybe you have heard of defencetalk.com? :) :o

yutong chen

January 9th, 2004, 09:34 PM

I thought you run something else

elkaboingo

January 10th, 2004, 06:22 PM

lets get back to the MLRS.
someone tell me about the new precision ones.

the old ones are about as accurate as normal arty, but can have better armor piercing qualities. they mainly rely on numbers more than accuracy which makes them fairly cheap.

does guided mean they can follow targets moving targets if they change course. when plotting the old MLRS you have to either have the splash zone somewhere along the expected route or hit them at a choke point.

thanks.

gf0012-aust

January 10th, 2004, 06:54 PM

I'm not sure what the ATACMS CEP is. But the fact that they are used for grid kills means that they must be fairly accurate.

also - the warheads can be changed for tasking.

560 kg (1240 lb) (950 M74 APAM bomblets);
MGM-140B: 160 kg (353 lb) (275 M74 APAM bomblets);
MGM-140C (MGM-164A): 268 kg (592 lb) (13 BAT submunitions);
MGM-140E (MGM-168A): 227 kg (500 lb) WAU-23/B unitary high-explosive

either way, you wouldn't want to be underneath an attack. The Chally 2 has topdeck ERA, so has a better chance of pulling through - but not on a sustained MLRS strike.

elkaboingo

January 11th, 2004, 09:38 PM

darn, tech seems to have left me behind. lately, i havent had so much time to look at these new things. i'm still back in the mid-90's

yutong chen

January 12th, 2004, 11:26 PM

If a country that can design a ICBM similar to USSR and USA, why don't you'll think that it can't design a MBT better than India.

Red aRRow

January 13th, 2004, 03:48 AM

darn, tech seems to have left me behind. lately, i havent had so much time to look at these new things. i'm still back in the mid-90's

:D :D

gf0012-aust

January 13th, 2004, 04:05 AM

umair

January 13th, 2004, 05:12 AM

If a country that can design a ICBM similar to USSR and USA, why don't you'll think that it can't design a MBT better than India.

yutong, was this a rhetorical question or were you asking anyone in particular??

My two cents: rhetoric :roll BTW guys I was having a discussion with my army aviation uncle a few days back and he told me that some exciting plans are afoot for Al-Khalid improvements.The things which he told me are different from the Turkish proposal which is related to the present version of the Al-Khalid.Since these plans are still on paper/in the proposal stage I would not be posting anything regarding them untill they have become firm and are backedup by some sources not just my word. ;)

gf0012-aust

January 13th, 2004, 05:27 AM

is there anything in the public domain about arnoured doctrine for Pakistan and/or India?

India appears to favour a cpmbination of russian armoured doctrine and british infantry doctrine. Pakistan seems to favour a british armoured and infantry style doctrine.

yutong chen

January 14th, 2004, 12:04 AM

What makes Arjun so SPECIAL?

Winter

January 14th, 2004, 12:32 AM

What makes Arjun so SPECIAL?

Nothing. Nobody here is saying the Arjun is a super magical appliance single-handedly repulsing several alien invasions while rescuing Africa, curing cancer and appearing on American Idol. Well, at least I'm not....We are dealing on equal terms here and discussing comparative capabilities on several subject topics. Note the thread title, yutong chen.

elkaboingo

January 14th, 2004, 03:01 AM

gf0012-aust

January 14th, 2004, 03:10 AM

to gf:

pak has two 'striker brigades' that as soon as pak is attacked they push into indian territory. we dont have enough land to be able to battle on it. we'd get divided in two. the two brigades are followed up by all the 2nd class things.

this is the general 'plan' or do you want something on a smaller company level?

from teh 60-70 pak and india had a screwed up doctrines. they involved everyone advancing in a line with tanks following closely. uffff what a bad plan.

anyways tanks WILL NOT be sent into battle without infantry. that would just be a massacre.

Thanks matey. I was curious as to how their armoured units were defined.

eg what is in an armoured brigade, tanks, IFV. AFV, SP Howitzers, ADS systems etc... I am a little curious as to whether they mirror chinese, british, russian platform mix.

Winter

January 14th, 2004, 07:27 PM

Couldn't locate much at all...

'- Pakistan shifts from the division structure to the brigade structure for ease of handling and to speed up the battle tempo. The division is now simply an HQ with signals capability, and can be inserted above 2-5 brigades to reduce the span of control as needed.

- Within the brigade, now a combined arms unit, logistic support is stripped from maneuver battalions and centralized in the brigade Logistic Support Battalion. This works for Pakistan because it abandons the traditional expeditionary force model, useful for indefinite duration operations overseas, to one that is optimized for short duration operations from home bases.

- Armor and mechanized brigades have a standard 2-1, 1-2, tank-mechanized mix with a mixed artillery regiment [32 guns/RL], and supporting units; infantry brigades have 3 infantry battalions and brigade base similar to the heavy brigades; equipment is lighter – for example, instead of battalion 120mm mortars there are 81mm mortars.

- The Cat B regiments have limited armor – a support battalion of 19 tanks [one squadron of 11 tanks plus APC platoon, one company of 8 tanks plus two APC platoons, one heavy anti-tank missile company. The brigade artillery battalion has 18 guns. Vehicular mobility is limited, and supporting units are smaller – the engineer squadron has 100 men versus 200 for a Cat A brigade.

- Tank regiments remain at 44 tanks; as in India’s case, they are now called battalions and most regiments have 2 battalions [thus: 1/5th Lancers, 2/5th Lancers]'

Orbat.com

I believe there is a section available detailing Pakistani Armoured brigades further, however it sits behind a subscription barrier...

I still doubt this will help much and it it is wrong, then correct it. :roll

View more on: The Pakistani Army tank inventory (http://orbat.com/site/orbats/data/pakistan/tankinventory.html)

elkaboingo

January 14th, 2004, 10:59 PM

the equipment really comes down to where you are. if your in the desert, youll get everything, MLRS, arty, ak's and t80ud, apc saad/talha, and infantry.

here they basically advance, when they get close the infantry dismount and the FIST tries to plan where to hit them with the arty. hopefully the enemy's track and the splash zone coincide. tanks engage at farther ranges while infantry get out of their apcs and try to get close. they hide behind the many bushes and fire rpg-7s and baktar shikan. CAS is flown by mirages, f6 (now replaced by f7pg) and i think a5 (not sure if we still use these) and cobra too. some battlefield snipers using g3a3 with custom scope or steyr aug. tons of anzas, stingers, and rbs70's used for aa.

if youre in the northern rivery area, things are limited. arty isnt so mobile so you have a set coverage. CAS can still be flown by the same planes and helos. lots of choke points so good to have arty and CAS. tanks are restricted to what can be moved over quickly assembled pontoon bridges and things like that. the jeep w/ 105mm recoilless rifle dominates. it can get over bridges quickly and can fire HE and armor piercing. apcs are used to some extent but insertion by helo is more common. now infantry alone are used more though. weapons like baktar shikan and rpgs are good for ambushes and things. anti material sniper rifles against enemy jeeps. also mortars are good support weapon along with mg3 machine gun. same manpads are used.

a little higher up, the same equipment as the river area is used except not as many jeeps. this is the place where that famous pic of a howitzer on a donkey takes place. yes (*sigh*) they use donkeys to carry howitzers and heavy mortars.

now for the really high mountain areas. no vehicles except CAPs planes, supply helos, and snowmobiles. here is where you see all those pak soldiers wearing the puffy white jackets. heavy reliance on the mg3 and its high rate of fire. there are 105mm howitzers and other arty at pretty much fixed locations, some as high as 18,000 feet.

elkaboingo

January 14th, 2004, 11:04 PM

hey i just noticed, gf your a mod :eek
:smokingc: :australia good job!

yutong chen

January 14th, 2004, 11:12 PM

Can Al-Khalid beat a Arjun?

gf0012-aust

January 15th, 2004, 12:42 AM

hey i just noticed, gf your a mod :eek
:smokingc: :australia good job!

thanks! be gentle with me... ;)

gf0012-aust

January 15th, 2004, 12:57 AM

Can Al-Khalid beat a Arjun?

There's more to this than just comparing the specifications for the tanks, it gets down to issues of terrain, commanders discretion, armoured doctrine, crew training, logistics, maintenance, attrition, etc....

both tanks don't have any deployment history behind them, so its hard to determine factors such as the above, reliability, performance in a war zone (which is completely different to even the most rigorous of testing regimes)

Both tanks have been designed for usage in what is seen as the most likely engagement scenarios and yet both are very different in concept. That means that both design briefs have been determined by armoured doctrine that is dissimilar.

In short, its anyones guess. Look at the M1a1. It was originally designed as a tank to combat the Warsaw Pact in a European theatre, it has demonstrated that it has the clear capability to fight "kursk" type battles in desert conditions. - So it has demonstrated that the basic design was a very sound and flexible war fighting platform.

The T-98 and Arjun are also conceptually dissimilar to core western tank designs. Again that reinforces different war fighting doctrines.

umair

January 15th, 2004, 02:43 AM

Can Al-Khalid beat a Arjun?

There's more to this than just comparing the specifications for the tanks, it gets down to issues of terrain, commanders discretion, armoured doctrine, crew training, logistics, maintenance, attrition, etc....

both tanks don't have any deployment history behind them, so its hard to determine factors such as the above, reliability, performance in a war zone (which is completely different to even the most rigorous of testing regimes)

Both tanks have been designed for usage in what is seen as the most likely engagement scenarios and yet both are very different in concept. That means that both design briefs have been determined by armoured doctrine that is dissimilar.
In short, its anyones guess. Look at the M1a1. It was originally designed as a tank to combat the Warsaw Pact in a European theatre, it has demonstrated that it has the clear capability to fight "kursk" type battles in desert conditions. - So it has demonstrated that the basic design was a very sound and flexible war fighting platform.

The T-98 and Arjun are also conceptually dissimilar to core western tank designs. Again that reinforces different war fighting doctrines.

One thing gf, remember that new Al-Khalid I talked about in this forum. My AA uncle gave me a "thumbnail" escription so as to speak.what I deciphered was that it is also going to be conceptually closer to western tanks.But since it's on paper one never knows :roll .
AS regards the inventory winter, thats kept highly hush hush.Whats on the web is merely speculation.We'll get to see all of it in case a war happens(hope not!)
PEACE!

Winter

January 15th, 2004, 03:04 AM

AS regards the inventory winter, thats kept highly hush hush.Whats on the web is merely speculation.We'll get to see all of it in case a war happens(hope not!)
PEACE!

Of course, that is always the hazard on the internet especially linking military-related data...Still a wonderful information medium though...

dabrownguy

January 22nd, 2004, 10:17 PM

gf man did you d research? Arjun and Type 98 are very different from each other. The Arjun uses 120 mm barrel superior to the 125 mm used in the type 98. Not only is 120 mm barrel supperior but rifle gun is supperior to smoothbore. Arjun's turret is simmilar to Challenger 2 because noth use rifles that have twice the range of 125 mm smoothbore. Type 98's turret is comparable to that of t-90. Arjun wieghs 59 tons while the Chinese tanks at 49 tons. Type 98 has better laser defence but lacks the range and fire power given by the Arjun. I think we wil see indegnious engine of 15 000 hp which DRDO is developing with Russia in the Arjun MK2 and many other electronics and anti helecopter missiles.

gf0012-aust

January 23rd, 2004, 08:45 AM

gf0012-aust

January 23rd, 2004, 10:11 AM

Bits and pieces...

HESH requires a rifled barrel. HEAT works best from smoothbores. Brit Challengers use HESH rounds. they are changing to smoothbore, but that is to standardise the NATO fitouts.

HESH is not particularly good for anti-personel work due to its fragmentation properties, which are inferior to HE.
HESH is ideal for structures, light armor, etc.

HEAT is better for an anti-tank role, but you would probably use an APFSDS round instead anyway

The advantages of smoothbore are a longer barrel life, stronger usable propellents, cheaper to manufacture

HESH rounds require rifling. They are next to useless if they don't spin, hence no smoothbore HESH rounds.

One of the armour guys should be able to tell you more.

Its not a simple thing to say that smoothbores are better than rifled, they are not in a number of circumstances, it really gets down to army and armoured doctrine - the prosecution of war by an armoured division will be dictated by the overall armour strategy.

elkaboingo

January 23rd, 2004, 04:00 PM

yutong chen

January 31st, 2004, 09:27 PM

dabrownguy
Type 98 MBT was made to challenge the M1A1. Was Arjun made to challenge a M1A1? Didn't think so. By the way, i don't think Arjun have any laser defence :smokingc: Type 98 MBT can fire a ATGM which have way more range than Arjun.

dabrownguy

January 31st, 2004, 11:28 PM

yutong chen, corrections my friend. Type 98 was made to challenge soviets T-80 and than changed it to challenge M1A1 which I seriously doubt it could do because of 125 mm and light armor. And the ATGM on tanks are useless. They are for last defence and maximum range on those are probabily 5km while the Arjun's "rifled" gun can throw hesh rounds at 8km effectivaly. Type 98 costs 2 million compared to Arjun whos cost is 4.6 to 5.6 million each. And in orfer to use ATGM the tank has to stop that is why its a last resort. Arjun's gun can penatrate ALL NATO armor at 2.5 km distance with AFSPDS rounds with 100% result! which only leads me to conculde that soviet design armor with be dystroyed at 3.5kms with 100% results while maximum range could be 5 km. I never read a article comparing to M1A1 cause that is ridecoulous. ATGM are only good when on fast vehicles or helecopters. And the laser defence is nothing to be proud of when it would only be succesfull against helecopters. Arjun gun is superior to type 98, which is obvious and probabily superior to Leapords 120 mm smoothbore but I believe smoothbore is supperior because of the variety on ammonution. I don't see how Type 98 can be a challenge to M1A1 or A2. Theres a 20 ton difference in armor and majour differnce in guns. Arjun is the same speed as Challenger 2 but faster on roads with the 1500 hp engine. Thats right Arjun now uses a 1500 hp engine indenous developed, and the problem was solved in the MK1 versions. The German engine did not fit with the transmission and the indegnous engine is doing well for the army and 12 Arjuns are in service. And you are right that Arjun wasn't made to challenge Abrhams. The first Arjun prototype costed 1.6 million each with a 120 mm smoothbore but due to the armies demands they changed the design severel times. The Arjun costs 5.6 million because the engine and gun are the most expensive parts. Arjun wasn't meant to challenge Western tanks but it is now comparable in firepower,speed,meunarbility,everything. Type 98 can't last long against Abrhams! Tank battles are fought with many tanks and other vechiles and helecopters. DRDO never sought to put NAG on Arjun because BMP2 can carry the NAG and SAMs while Arjun can knock out other tanks. Arjun's range is the main advantage just like most western tanks. Type 98 was designed for numbers and easy to manufacture while the Arjun was comparabily hard to manufacture because components of the gun had to imported. Arjun also has majour Isreali tech. And by the way dont listen to propganda that compares Type 98 with Western tanks.
My list of best tanks.
Leapord 2-simply the best
M1A2-Armor is heavy and battle proven
Markeva 4-Isreali and latest American tach
Challenger 2-Rifled gun and tech.
Lecrlec-Frances best
Arjun-Rifled gun and tech
T-90-Japanese version with American tech, not related to T-90 (russia)
T-90-Russias improved T-80 and T-72 version. Superior to T-80 is everyway.
Type 98-Active laser defence.
T-80-One of the best
AK-For desert combat.
I personally this list right. If you think its wrong tell me.

yutong chen

February 1st, 2004, 12:10 AM

I don't know where you got the facts about Type 98's weight and the main gun. China doesn't declassify any active military hardware. In fact, China never showed its troops. The parade at any year are run by a bounch of soldiers trained for "demonstrations". India, on the other hand, is weak, which cannot keep secret from a superior nation such as US. Tanks from a poor country that are said too good to be true are published to confuse World Powers so they will think twice before attacking. Have you ever wondered why US takes China so seriously, and never really cares about India? China will be a 21st century USSR with a strong economy. 50 years, China came from a country like present day Iraq to a world power, what will happen in another 50 years?

gf0012-aust

February 1st, 2004, 12:31 AM

without wanting to start a more robust exchange of "ours is better than yours" between proponents of these two platforms, the bottom line is that these 2 designs are a legacy of each countries war fighting doctrine.

They are both very very different tanks in design and capability that are relevant for the "extremis" of their perceived conflict participation.

dabrownguy

February 1st, 2004, 12:58 AM

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type98.asp, says right here that the tank is 50 tons compared to Arjuns 58.5 tons. And I don't know why you brought up media sensorship. The truth is in India the media always spys on IA and Ia gives aways vaulable secerts. IA isn't very secerative when it comes to regular military equipment, which country is? China doesn't hide standard military facts. And the US isn't afraid of India because we don't plan to challenge them, India just wans to grow. PRC is always talking about the US threat. The truth is PRC is worried about US and US don't give a rats @$$ about PRC. Its the American media my friend because fear of war sells. US could send PRC back 50 years but don't cause of China's ICBM. PRC plans to challenge the US, India on the other hand only sees the US as a potential ally against terroism. I really don't understand what you mean about papers saying tanks suck but Indian media always practices is right to critize the Indian military in everway. Indian media never said anything about Arjun being the greatest tank is the world. On the other hand Chinese media always sayz Type 98 is compared to Abrhams. And back to the topic. Arjun has atleast 5 ton more armor that is a fact. A 1500 hp engine. Rifled gun. And the Type 98 uses a 125 mm gun. GF0012 knows that 120 mm gun is supperior. 120 mm gives more penetration and more variety of ammo. 125 mm gun is only good if you have "new" high charge ammo, which unfortunatly Russia has; they just developed it. And it is a FACT that rifled gun is superior to smoothbore! Rifled guns are expensive. Thing is smoothbore can fire DU rounds. Most tank carry 10 or less DU rounds which are usaully 1-3 hit kill, depends on the tech. The rest of the ammos are smoke,AFPSDS or other. Now HESH rounds are useless which most tanks end up fireing most of the time. HESH rounds fired from a smoothbore weapon do not kill armor but when fired from a rifle which spins it, it becomes just as lethal as DU rounds. And AFSPDS ammo is at its maximum when fired from rifled guns.

dabrownguy

February 1st, 2004, 01:21 AM

you need to brush up on your tank knowledge.
Actually i will post something i keyed in earlier on a diffrent forum. i was having a argument with some lad. Questions are his and ans mine.
here it is:
Q) Sorry for stepping in, but i'm quite annoyed by people here keep saying a rifled tank gun is better while the fact is a smooth bore is obviously superior

Ans)…and that is why I keep saying that this Arjun rifled gun is a accidental find by Indian Engineer’s.
Lets take this point by point and in the process look at the deeper secret of rifled guns, development/advances in chromium lining[…gives increased velocity and therefore penetration power to the round, greater precision and reduced wear on the barrel.which is reduced to negligible amount in the Arjun…will explain below] and a Russian high charge shell specially designed for the 120 of Arjun.{sorry can’t say much on this due to classification of technology.}

Q1). The gas seal on a rifled round has to be metal-on-metal contact between the round and the barrel this has a high friction co-efficient -limiting acceleration (see chromium lining as mentioned above) of the rifled round.

Ans] Wrong - overcome by advances in chromium lining and here is what’s new- rounds fired through this 120 are specially designed to reduce friction. This is true for FS-AP and the high power round they developed with the Russians. So rounds fired are a) HesH, b) FS-AP and c) special ammo for high range high impact tank busting (more like a SPIN stabilized round)

Q) On a fin-stabilized round the gas seal can be plastic etc (any suitable low friction material). There are no edges inside the barrel to inhibit acceleration (rifling). So more energy is expended accelerating the round.

Ans] Ok 100% correct (you are saying: “rifling does increase range and accuracy but actually decreases muzzle velocity. As the grooves on the inside of the barrel "grip" the projectile to spin it, they also slow it down) - not valid though. This FS-AP you are pointing out is the one with exposed cone. The AP fired from this barrel is a dual stage projectile. The cone is sealed in a condom type rubber around it with 3 burnable line seals. During travel through the barrel it heats up and burns out exposing the main cone on exit – and then separates the sabot jacket. So during travel it is as smooth as a smoothbore with a HIGHER velocity and hence a flatter trajectory, better accuracy and greater penetration. The griping by rifling is thus removed from the concept of FS-AP shots…long rod and otherwise. Also note that the “Greenhill's Rule” is pushed to its limits through research. This is a significant contribution of Arjun 120mm to the MBT’s of the world…if ever the tech is declassified. Our Israli council is working on tech transfer for the same.
…and that’s the reason I had said in my earlier post the British and even the American’s would be interested in this barrel and tech. Apparently these chaps seem to be better in not just software. Believe me I had my opinions about rifling before I saw what I saw.
The reason I didn’t post was because I did’nt have people with your knowledge to share it with.

Q2). The ability to fire a differnt types of ammunitions. This includes missiles and long rod penetrators. (long rod penetrators are long rod like ammunition designed to punch through armour like a "dart". This type of ammunition cannot be spin stablised because the spinning will break the long projectile)

Ans) Missiles are not required by long range powerful guns. Are you saying rifled barrels don’t fire long rods??? Because the do, what do you think the CHARM ammo is! The AP for Arjun is long-rod type. Yes correct spin will break the long rod projectile….again chromium lining and condom’sing the cone was the answer. The spin is actually reduced to extremely slow spin to a point of being negligible …not like a bullet. But note that the Arjun 120mm barrel is one of the most expensive parts of the tank.

Q3). While a rifled helps to stabilise the shell by spinning, it does subject the round to precession. This means the point tends to wander in a small circle. This is less than desirable when you want to punch a hole through armour by brute force.

Ans) same as point 2. Though you are conventionally correct.

Q4). Less wear and tear for smooth bores

While a shell from a rifled gun is marginally more stable over long ranges, this is nothing when compared to the importance of the Fire Control System. With a good FCS, the effect of wind speed and such can be compensated so a fin stablised round can be just as accurate as a spin stablised round.
When we talk about range for tank gun, we talk about the maximum range that the shell can still penetrate enemy armour. In this aspect, a smooth bore gun has better effective range.

Ans) I think these are answered by reading above. Also the “EFFECTIVE” range is of Smooth bore is challenged by rifled hyper velocity long rods which don’t compromise on muzzle velocity and thereby give long effective range.

Q5)Just look at the most modern MBTs in the world, everyone of them saves our own challenger is using a smooth bore gun. Plus our army is talking about switching to smooth bore guns for the challenger 2'sreplacement.

Ans) Correct. The reason why this is a so is due to R&D into various forms of ammo and the diversity achieved in ammo’s and standardization to NATO and cheaper production costs of conventional shells. This is not possible via Rifled guns. The Arjun is designed for this continent with specific objectives and the 3 type ammunition variety more than meet the required demand of the Indian Army. The ground displacement is good, mobility, sensors, crew comfort and ease of driving Superior firepower - to destroy targets (tank/bunker’s) and very good Armour protection.
I would also like to add that Arjun had its 120mm barrel pop out during trials of the Russian high charge ammo about 2 years ago – as told to me.
P.S: With developments like the german L55 and DM 53 developments maybe Rifling will have to be droped and smooth bore re-adopted. I guess when R&D started with the Indian's the rifled looked more promising....lets see, time will tell
I got this from another forum. The guy goes by the name of Denil. Tank Xpert

gf0012-aust

February 1st, 2004, 01:34 AM

To be fair, I wouldn't say that HESH rounds are absolutely useless, HESH was used against Iraqi T-55/62/69 tanks in desert storm.

The longest recorded tank-against-tank kill in history was recorded by a Challenger firing HESH in that conflict (5,200 meters).

The other thing is that NATO standardisation to a 125mm gun could indicate that they believe that the 120mm rifled gun has been maxed out in its development. Of course this can change with the right ammo mix - its a matter of whether some countries will persist in trying to make more effective ammo rather than go to a larger calibre.

dabrownguy

February 1st, 2004, 01:54 AM

dabrownguy

February 1st, 2004, 02:08 AM

I'm not gonna respond for a while so heres something to ponder and read about.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/arjun.htm
Arjun
At the end of the 1971 war, the Indian army realized the limitations of their tank fleet in the harsh desert conditions of Rajasthan, a northwestern Indian state bordering Pakistan, so they initiated their own MBT design. The Main Battle Tank (MBT) occupies a pivotal role in the present day battle field on account of its ability to provide accurate fire power with cross country mobility, reasonable protection from conventional and nuclear threats and flexible response to changing battle situations.

In order to eliminate dependence on foreign countries for design and manufacture of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFV) and to place the country on par with super powers with regard to quality of tanks and also to eliminate completely the requirement of foreign exchange (FE) in the production of tanks, Government in May 1974 sanctioned a project for design and development of MBT by Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) at a total cost of Rs 15.50 crore (FE Rs 3.70 crore). The tanks were to be in service during 1985 to 2000 AD and were in replacement of existing tanks which were expected to be out-dated beyond 1985.

The first “Arjun” (named after a mythical Hindu warrior prince) concept was laid out in 1974 by the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO). Based on 1971 battlefield experiences, the Arjun would have a locally-designed, rifled 120mm main gun, a German, MTU-based diesel powerplant (The Indians consider turbine engines fuel guzzlers), and a computerized fire control system with a laser rangefinder.

The Main Battle Tank Project sanctioned in May 1974 envisaged bulk production by April 1984. However this time frame was not adhered to and was revised from time to time and bulk production was to commence from 1990 onwards but even the revised time frame could not be adhered to. As per time frame fixed in May 1974, four mild steel prototypes were to be offered for trials by April 1980 and eight armoured prototypes by April 1982. Trickle production was due to commence by April 1983 and bulk production by April 1984. This schedule was revised from time to time.

One of the early Arjun prototypes was unveiled in April 1985, with a number of prototypes undergoing technical testing while desert trials were scheduled for that summer. At the time, it was reported to have a 120mm smooth-bore main gun and would use a 1400-hp MTU-based diesel until an indigenous one was ready. Weight would be about 50 tons, and the tank would cost about $1.6 million (U.S.). Development costs rose about 500 percent throughout the ’80s, and through a development process plagued with delays, the end product visually resembles the German Leopard II, however, unlike the German vehicle, its future remains in doubt.

A total of 12 MK-I prototypes based on imported propulsion unit, seven MK-II prototypes with indigenous propulsion were to be delivered by June 1987 and June 1990 respectively; 23 MK-I, PPS tanks by December 1988 and bulk production was to commence from 1990 onwards. As against this, 12 MK-I prototypes with imported propulsion were produced by February 1989 and 15 MK-I PPS tanks upto December 1996. MK-II type prototype were not expected to be ready in the near future on account of the delays in the development of the indigenous engine.

The automotive trials of two prototypes carried out by Army during 1988-89 revealed major deficiencies. The Army, therefore, on 26 July 1989 wanted these deficiencies to be sorted out before commencement of production of pre-production series (PPS). However, on 31 July 1989 Ministry decided to place orders for the production of PPS tanks. Two fully integrated prototypes were given to the Army for full fledged evaluation only in March 1990 after the commencement of production of PPS tanks. The evaluation trials of the prototypes also revealed major deficiencies. Subsequent trials were conducted on PPS tanks. Till July 1997, 15 pre-production series tanks which were subjected to extensive user and troop trials failed to meet fully even the bottom line parameters of the user.

As of mid-2000 India planned to acquire T-90 tanks, based on field trials which had already been completed. Although orders had been placed for the supply of 124 Arjun tanks through the Defence Research Development Organisation, it would be difficult to predict when these orders would be fufilled. Until such time, T-90 tanks would serve to counter Pakistan's T-85 tanks.

Pakistan’s announcment in 1995 of a deal with Ukraine to purchase T-84s caused a flurry of activity in the Indian tank development community. And on 9 January 1996, the Arjun was formally unveiled and cleared for mass production. Further improvements were deemed necessary even after the Arjun design profile was accepted again in July 1996. On 27 August 1996, the Defense Production and Supplies Secretary ordered 15 pre-production tanks from the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi (at which point, estimates placed the project cost at $112 million).

The Summer trials carried out in April 1997 on PPS-15, reference tank for bulk production indicated that though there was improvement from the previous years, it was still below the acceptable standards. The major deficiencies pointed out in the summer trials of 1996 i.e. accuracy of gun at battle ranges, mission reliability, lethality of ammunition, containerisation of ammunition bin, emergency traverse etc. continue to persist and were yet to be solved. The Army accordingly indicated in July 1997 that in its present form, the overall reliability of MBT Arjun was far from satisfactory. The Army further indicated that periodic failures of equipment and subsystems tend to reduce the confidence level of troops. The Army also observed that the aspect of armour protection had not been tried out.Army recommended in June 1997 that Limited Series Production should commence only after all the observations and shortcomings noticed were rectified and shown to them.

As of mid-1997 the list of faults after 20 years of development was not encouraging. In addition to numerous technical modifications to its fire and gun control systems, the fire control system in particular has been found unable to perform in temperatures above 42 degrees Celsius (108° F). The DRDO has been considering scrapping the current Arjun fire control system in favor of whatever is accepted for the T-72M1 upgrade program. Defects noticed during the user trials of the Arjun Mk.1 MBT, including over-heating of the engine in Rajasthan desert areas, had supposedly been “by and large overcome” while other complaints were being addressed.

MBT Arjun in its present form will require increased maintenance time and efforts-says the Army. The Army accordingly expressed grave concern on the reliability and maintainability of MBT and pointed out that while the world over the trend was to reduce the maintenance time, it had increased with MBT Arjun. According to DRDO, the views expressed by the Army are only a subjective opinion and the analysis of data shows an upward trend in mean time between failures (MTBF) over the years. DRDO have pointed out that trials carried out clearly brought out the efficiency/improvements effected in weapon system and in the automotive area ability to cover the required range in the stipulated time was also proved. They further contended that there is no overheating of the engine in desert conditions. Summer trials of 1997 indicated that the performance was below the acceptable standards.

Considered comparable to the M1A2 Abrams, Leopard 2, and Leclerc, the 59-ton "15th Variant" can achieve a maximum speed of 70 kph (55 mph) and cross-country speed of 40 kph with its 1400-hp powerplant. The 1,610-liter fuel tank allows for a cruising range of 200 km (120 miles). To ensure crew survivability, production versions will have the indigenously-researched and developed ‘Kanchan’ composite armor, an automatic fire detection and suppression system, and an NBC protection system designed and built by the Bhabha Atomic Research Center.

The rifled 120mm gun, which includes a muzzle reference system, is made of ESR steel and is fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. All main gun rounds use a semi-combustible cartridge case with increased energy propellant for higher muzzle velocity and greater penetration characteristics. In addition to the usual suite of rounds, an anti-helicopter round is under development as well. The Arjun’s fire control system includes a laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, thermal imaging night sight, stabilized panoramic sight for the tank commander, and a secondary telescopic sight. The LRF (integral to the gunner’s sight) has a range of nearly 10 km and a thermal imager (which can “see”’ at around 5.5 km, recognize a target at 3.1 km and identify targets at 2.5 km). The Arjun fire control system’s ability to fire on the move during the night is a major step forward for Indian armored forces.

The Chassis and Automative System of MBT Arjun comprises main chassis, power pack (1400 HP engine coupled to hydromech transmission), running gear with hydropneumatic suspension, integrated fuel system, advanced electrical system and other dedicated special systems like integrated fire detection and suppression system. The chassis is fabricated from rolled homogenous armour plate using advanced welding technique. Frontal armour is of Kanchan composite sandwitched between armour plates. This fully integrated Arjun chassis and Automative System having smooth riding characteristics can be used as a mobile platform for any advanced weapon system. An extremely effective hydropneumatic suspension system has been developed for MBT Arjun. The suspension is externally mounted and provides vehicle springing and damping. It consists of one bogey wheel pair for each suspension station. Gaseous medium in the hydropneumatic suspension is for all terrain maneuverability for exploiting the power available. Casing and hub of the hydropneumatic suspension are sealed for preventing dust ingression and water seepage into the casing during operation in marshy area or shallow/medium fording. The MBT Arjun is fitted with double-pin steel track with detachable rubber pads. It is made out of steel casting having two bores for insertion of rubberised pins. It is an integral piece incorporating guide horns and has got a provision for insertion of detachable pads. The end connectors are induction-hardened in the area which comes in contact with the sprocket teeth to prevent wear.

As the indigenous efforts to develop a suitable engine and transmission system for the MBT were beset with problems, 42 power packs with transmission units were imported between November 1983 and 1988 from Germany for use on the prototypes and PPS tanks. However, as the imported transmission system was designed to cater upto 60 tonne load as against the all-up weight of 61.5 tonne for the MBT, a mismatch had arisen between engine and transmission which had resulted in bulging of side walls of the hull.

The integrated fire and explosion suppression system developed for MBT Arjun is based on state-of-the-art technology. The indigenous development of this system is considered to be a breakthrough in the field of fire protection engineering. It is capable of suppressing hydrocarbon fuel fire/explosion resulting from an enemy hit on the tank or due to any malfunctioning of the engine, transmission or any electrical short circuiting. The system is based on infra-red detectors for the detection of fire/explosion in the crew compartment of the battle tank and a continuous type of linear thermal detector popularly known as fire-wire for the engine compartment. Halon-1301 has been employed as a fire extinguishing medium. The system is capable of detection and suppression of hydrocarbon fuel fire/explosion in the crew compartment within 200 milliseconds and in the engine compartment within 15 s thereby enhancing the chances of survivability of the crew and battle effectiveness of the tank.

The first 120 tanks to be built would cost $4.2 million each, while other cost estimates places the figure at $5.6 million each per tank by 2001, given a purchase of 124 tanks to equip two regiments. Production of the first batch of tanks might take more than the planned five years, given the capacity at the Avadi factory.

Planned Arjun variants include mobile assault guns, an observation post vehicle, an air defense (gun or missile) version, a recovery vehicle, an engineer vehicle, and bridgelayers. New bridgelayers and recovery vehicles were necessary, given the Arjun’s substantial weight increase over the T-72M1 series.

Specifications
ARJUN Mk 1 (15th Preproduction Model)

Weight 59 tons (58.5 tonnes)
Length (gun forwards) 10.19m
Width (over tracks) 3.5m
(w/ skirts) 3.85m
Height (w/o 12.7mm AAMG) 2.32m
Engine 1400 HP MTU 838 Ka 501Diesel
Transmission Semi-automatic with 4 forward and 2 reverse gears.(also reported as ZF automatic)
Fuel 1610 ltrs
PERFORMANCE
Max Speed 72-70 kph (55 mph)
Cross Country Speed 40 kph
Cruising Range 200 km (120 miles)
Ground Pressure . 84 kg/cm Square
Ground Clearance .45m
Slide Slope: 60%
Climbing Gradient 35°
Trench 2.43 m (also given as 3m)
Vertical Obstacle .9m
Ford 1.4 m
ARMAMENT
Main Gun 120mm, stabalized w/ MRS (APFSDS, HE, HEAT, HESH and smoke)
12.7mm AA Gun (probably NVST)
7.62mm Coax (probably PK-T)
2 X 9 Smoke Grenade Launchers
LRF Range 10 km
Sights Thermal (Max Rng 5.5 km)
Active and Passive
Defensive Systems 'Arena' a possibilty, probable Laser Warning System

gf0012-aust

February 1st, 2004, 02:10 AM

Is that the Challenger that uses rifled gun?
gf there are things I would not agree with. NATO knows 120 mm is superior. For somereason that even NATO doesn't now the 120 mm turret gets more penetration and range. And 120 mm is also used because of technology availability.

the next gen of challenger will use a rifled barrel. NATO is also standardising on using a rifled barrel. most of the reasons for the UK/NATO shift are due to data and results from Iraq.

the selection of 120 or 125 is really going to boil down to where those countries have done their threat assessment.

There are clearly reasons for the use of both. I'll see if I can get any info on why the shift.

The use of barrel launched GM's is usually considered to be a non useful application by western militaries, that is primarily because greater efficiencies could be realised out of using "dumb" munitions. The dynamics of this can obviously change if a smart barrel launched GM is developed. The germans, french, UK, US and the swiss certainly don't think so - that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile per se, but certainly hasn't been deemed worthy enough of continued development by those nations.

The chinese may well have developed an efficient barrel launched GM. They are certainly capable of developing a useful solution even if it is not considered to be mature and viable by the west - but that gets down to an issue of continental doctrine etc...)

The issue for me would be, if you are going to turn the tank into a missile platform, then do it completely and make it a dedicated capability. AT this point you don't have a tank anymore, you have a missile based AFV crewed by "missileers" rather than "tankers".

gf0012-aust

February 1st, 2004, 02:25 AM

The 125mm shell is typically used by Russian and Chinese tanks

The reason for it over the 120mm was that the Russians were unable to build as tank barrels as strong as those in the the West (metallurgy issues in relation to mass production).

Therefore they couldn't fire 120mm shells that were as powerful as the standardised NATO ones. The "workaround" was to build 125 mm shells to gain extra power.

Rule of thumb: kinetic energy = mass x velocity squared, and thus speed is more important than mass. Velocity appears most important with sabots.

In real terms though the Russian/Soviet 125mm shells are still considered less powerful than NATO 120 mm, (assuming barrel length, ammo type are comparable)

I have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting from a poster I know who moderates a Tank and Armour forum. He is a master gunner, and was responsible for ammunition and gun development for the abrams, he also led the opening tank engagement in desert storm and has extensive respect accorded to him due to his common sense and balance (even by the ex russian tankers!)

/excerpt on

Okay, I guess a master gunner should answer this question and help with all the speculation. The Soviet 125mm gun (by the way, tank armament is a gun, not a cannon, for a bit of weapons trivia) is inferior in all aspects to the American M256 120mm gun. First issue is metallurgical technology, Russians are quite behind on that, and their main gun cannot fire a round equivalent to the sabot fired by an M1A1/A2. Because there is not as much propellant, the muzzle velocity is lower, decreasing accuracy. The advantage to a smoothbore gun is that you can fire rounds at very high velocity (upwards of 1600 m/s). This leads to a very stable ballistic trajectory. At lower velocities you are much better off with a rifled gun, where the spin will impart stability.

Next issue is something very technical called parallax. Basically, the bore of the gun and the gun sights can only point at the exact same place at one particular distance. Think of the line of sight from the sights and the gun as forming an X. You boresight your gun for a specific parallax range. If the enemy target is not precisely at that range, then the round fired will miss the aiming point by a few inches. This is not a problem if the ballistic trajectory is very stable, like APFSDS fired by an M1. If, however, the ballistic trajectory is unstable (for example the Russian 125mm gun at ranges beyond 1000 meters) parallax introduces a major accuracy problem. The Soviet army did not consider this to be an issue since combat in Western Europe tends to occur at ranges of 1000 meters or less due to the density of the urban terrain and mountains and forests.

Finally, as someone noted, kinetic energy, which is the primary means of killing a tank is determined by mass x velocity squared. But, the mass of a long rod penetrator has little do with the bore of the gun. The penetrator is typically no more than 40mm in diameter and 500mm in length. This basic design changes very little due to bore size. The American 105mm rifled gun fired a penetrator almost the same size as the American 120mm gun, albeit at a lower muzzle velocity. So, the reality is that the only way to increase the killing power and ballistic stability of the kinetic energy penetrator (sabot round) is by increasing the velocity. Since the Russian 125mm gun cannot withstand the amount of propellant required to do this it is at a disadvantage. This was seen clearly during Desert Storm in 1991 when American M1's engaged T-72's. The T-72 consistently missed targets beyond 1500 meters, while the M1 was successfully engaging beyond 3000 meters (I had first round hits at 3400 meters)

/excerpt off

Finally, this response is from a tanker with extensive experience in russian tanks and is the foreign equivalent of the prev poster (a US master gunner)

/excerpt on

The overall tolerances of gun making quality are much less strict that those in west in general.

Objectively looking, however, I wouldn't consider the accuracy of 125mm gun as dramatically worse as you suggest. Most of the limitations confronted are brought by inferior FC, not the gun itself (this is particularly true with Iraq tanks, though very poor crews in western standard and woefully outdated ammunition, 30 years old protection standards etc. also affected to their bad overall appereance). The problems brought by 125mm gun accuracy are significantly present at ranges over 3000 meters, i.e. ranges that they're not able to engage nearly as effectively as western tanks due to limitations of FC anyway. Only at ranges beyond 2500 meters the grouping of 125mm is such that it can cause a significant number of misses over frontal profile of a tank (higher than 1.3 of 125 vs. higher than 0.5 of 120). A qualified crew can achieve a very good hit percentage even with elder russian guns and sights at ranges up to 2000m. Unqualified crews, as seen on Iraqi case, can easily miss at ranges of 500m, which shouldn't happen

/excerpt off

The catch in the above is that the western development of the 125 cannot be associated with data history based on russian legacy weapons platforms. (remember the mass production metallurgy and qualitative metallurgy issues).

I hope this clears up some things for everyone.

dabrownguy

February 1st, 2004, 02:34 AM

gf0012-aust

February 1st, 2004, 02:56 AM

Nice job. Good point. If think Russia is ahead in making better rounds.
Did you read all of Denils comments? Heres something interesting. gf you'll like it.
"As the grooves on the inside of the barrel "grip" the projectile to spin it, they also slow it down) - not valid though. This FS-AP you are pointing out is the one with exposed cone. The AP fired from this barrel is a dual stage projectile. The cone is sealed in a condom type rubber around it with 3 burnable line seals. During travel through the barrel it heats up and burns out exposing the main cone on exit – and then separates the sabot jacket. So during travel it is as smooth as a smoothbore with a HIGHER velocity and hence a flatter trajectory, better accuracy and greater penetration."
Thats pretty insane eh? I guess 25 years in research payed off. what do u think?

so, are you saying that the three burnable seals are acting like disposable forms of wadding? thus there is a concatenating increase in pressure behind the shell and thus a higher terminal velocity?

I know the russians tried to sleeve ceramic linings but had no success, the germans also tried teflon lining as well. its an age old problem. The US has had problems with bore wear on its rail guns as well. - at a far higher degradation rate than any tank or arty barrel. ;)

dabrownguy

February 1st, 2004, 07:37 PM

This is interesting converstion. I guess so. India wouldn't be useing Arjun's rifled gun if it wasn't high velocity. That must be one of the reasons why Arjun costs 5.6 million eh?

gf0012-aust

February 1st, 2004, 11:22 PM

Not sure if its possible to extrapolate this to a tanks main gun. But a few years ago I was involved with a project that looked at recoil management on artillery, the general barrel replacement process for a rifled barrel was 2-3 times higher than a smooth bore. (assuming same firing rate per minute and then averaged out until system failure)

So, not only are the initial costs nominally higher at purchase, but they are also higher throughout the life of the platform.

There are obviously some clear tactical benefits perceived in continuing to purchase a rifled bore over a smooth bore.

Its not always simple to say rifle is better than smooth, or vice versa.

Platform, ammo, threat, theatre of ops, logistical support, training etc all come into play

dabrownguy

February 2nd, 2004, 04:25 PM

Hey i've always been confused about ATGM. When an ATGM is on a tank the tank has to be still to fire the missile...is that correct?

gf0012-aust

February 2nd, 2004, 05:57 PM

Hey i've always been confused about ATGM. When an ATGM is on a tank the tank has to be still to fire the missile...is that correct?

Depends on the tanks FCS and/or the stablilisation hardware and s/w interface

Generally they can be fired at speed as the issues are diff than for a main gun.

dabrownguy

February 2nd, 2004, 09:02 PM

Arjun has no ATGM, but i supose it has the rifle. Maybe MK2 will have ATGM.

yutong chen

February 2nd, 2004, 11:50 PM

dabrownguy
Did you also know Type 98 is a prototype? India spy can't get to China's arsenal, go to globalsecurity.com and see how many military base are mapped. Is everyone here believes what the media say.

dabrownguy

February 3rd, 2004, 10:21 AM

Well most chinese say they have been inducted. I guess I believe what I see. I wasn't even talking aobut spys...Keep to the topic. We all now about the basics about the Type 98 since it is export. I really think you lost the topic guy.

dabrownguy

February 5th, 2004, 01:58 AM

Check this out.
Augmenting the capability of indigenous main battle tank Arjun, defence scientists for the first time have successfully fired a missile from the tank.

The Israeli semi-active, laser-homing, anti-tank missile was successfully fired from an Arjun tank about a week back at an Army test range in Rajasthan. Success of these missiles does not depend on the contours of the terrain.
The trial was conducted as a part of the Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) continuing effort to improve the capability of indigenous main battle tank Arjun.

Incidentally, DRDO had attracted flak in the past from many quarters for its failure to deliver an indigenous tank that suits the requirement of the Army, thereby increasing the armed forces’ dependence on Russian tanks.

“We have been able to hit the target at a distance of 5 km successfully,” Mr M Natarajan, one of the chief controllers of R&D at DRDO, told Deccan Herald on Wednesday on the sidelines of the ongoing defence expo here. The anti-tank missiles can be used to strike targets at a distance of 2.5 to 6 km.

DRDO’s long-term objective is to equip the first batch of 120 Arjun tanks with missile-firing capability, Mr Natarajan said. These tanks were scheduled to be delivered to the Army by 2007, he added.

Another advantage was that the missile could be fired in two separate trajectories — aiming enemy tanks as well as helicopters.
However, many more test and user trials had to be conducted and more fine-tuning had to be done before the missile-carrying Arjun became operational, Mr Natarajan added.

Another advantage was that the missile could be fired in two separate trajectories — aiming enemy tanks as well as helicopters.
However, many more test and user trials had to be conducted and more fine-tuning had to be done before the missile-carrying Arjun became operational, Mr Natarajan added.

looks like Isreal could be India's arm supplier. They're like the mechnics of war eh?
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb052004/n4.asp

dabrownguy

February 24th, 2004, 09:04 PM

Congrats to Arjun. The succesfully fired LAHAT missile will not damage the rifled gun. India has found a way to "condomize" the missile. Thats what I read on another forum. GF, is this possible?

gf0012-aust

February 24th, 2004, 09:16 PM

Congrats to Arjun. The succesfully fired LAHAT missile will not damage the rifled gun. India has found a way to "condomize" the missile. Thats what I read on another forum. GF, is this possible?

Technically yes, as its a variation of the sabot principle.

eg the missile could be surrounded by a teflon sleeve which falls away after discharge.

Another advantage was that the missile could be fired in two separate trajectories — aiming enemy tanks as well as helicopters.
However, many more test and user trials had to be conducted and more fine-tuning had to be done before the missile-carrying Arjun became operational,

The complexity here is that the missile to be of any use would need to be a dual seeker/dual mode - and probably an all aspect missile as well

Otherwise the tank would be constricted by turret speed, elevation limitations etc.. There are a substantial amount of changes required to the tanks Fire Control System, and then there is the issue of a reduction in main projectiles as the tank would lose main armament to allow for a load out mix.

The other issue is the speed of an autoloader (is the Arjun manual or auto??) The autoloader would need to be able to select the right projectile and respond before the AT Helo acquired and killed it.

dabrownguy

February 24th, 2004, 10:11 PM

I think it is auto. I am not sure. :help

gf0012-aust

February 24th, 2004, 11:03 PM

The missile would need to be universal in capability, ie, anti-air and anti-armour. If it wasn't that complicates the ordnance load out again.

eg projectiles, AAM, ATM with associated FCS complications for all
a universal missile that is all aspect would narrow it down to projectiles and Anti-materiel/anti-air

The US and Western Europe tried missile firing tanks (eg 152mm Sheridan) but they were an abject failure as the design was a compromise.

With new technologies etc it would be interesting to see whether India has circumvented the operational, tactical and logistical probs that were prev there. China also beleives in them as they have their own development of a main gun missile. The other major militaries are still avoiding and/or revisiting the concept.

dabrownguy

February 25th, 2004, 08:01 PM

I guess DRDO had some help from Isreali's because it is a Isreali missile.

gf0012-aust

February 25th, 2004, 10:54 PM

I guess DRDO had some help from Isreali's because it is a Isreali missile.

If there was a degree of disproportionate tactical benefit, then I would wonder why the Israelis have not pursued it for themselves.

dabrownguy

February 26th, 2004, 12:29 AM

They probabily did. They did it for India and got paid by India and then sold it to India and then took the knowledge home. :?

gf0012-aust

February 26th, 2004, 12:34 AM

They probabily did. They did it for India and got paid by India and then sold it to India and then took the knowledge home. :?

No, the Israelis don't use GM main gun munitions. It's more like they have done ToT - like what they have done with the J-10/Lavi for China

oops, correction - Israel uses the Lahat. which now opens up a whole new can of worms.

Looks like ToT is happening with Air to Air, Air to Ship, Anti-air, AWACs and ATM's

Which might explain now the fascination of the the Chinese with the main gun fored ATM.

I'll see if I can dig up some details on development. It begs the question of whether the US laser designators are enhanced with Israeli electronics.

Salman78

July 15th, 2004, 09:37 PM

An upgraded Arjun might be better but since indian army itself rejected it hence no point in compairing them. it was such a time consuming and ill fated project.

gf0012-aust

July 15th, 2004, 10:06 PM

Salman78

July 15th, 2004, 10:53 PM

An upgraded Arjun might be better but since indian army itself rejected it hence no point in compairing them. it was such a time consuming and ill fated project.

The Israelis are actually quite involved with Arjun now. An Israeli AFV and ballistics specialist I know of is involved. There have been substantial changes made in the last few months.

Arjun is not as "dead" project wise as many assume.

If no forigen orders for Arjun materialize and Indian army orders only a handful the project in my terms would be as dead as a stone (failure i mean) ... Results, Performance and Numbers are more important then whose working on what and what might the future hold. The fact remains that Indian Army is so not impressed by Arjun...

RealIndian

July 19th, 2004, 10:50 AM

Arjun & Type-98 are not same class. Type-98 is compare able with Tank-EX. While Arjun is in the same class of M1A2 SEP, Leopard2EX, Markava mk-IV. :mrgreen

Pathfinder-X

July 19th, 2004, 04:35 PM

Arjun & Type-98 are not same class. Type-98 is compare able with Tank-EX. While Arjun is in the same class of M1A2 SEP, Leopard2EX, Markava mk-IV. :mrgreen

An armour unit commander in Canada called the Arjun... [Admin Edit: Lets not hurt other people's feeling for this tank? Respect is the key to winning hearts and minds! Learn the art.]. When did it end up in the top of the line class tank?? :D:
A list of problems with Arjun
-Engine problem
-Armour strength does not match requirement
-Main gun did not meet performance standard
-High cost
-More than 60% imported parts
So tell me, why would India develop Arjun MK2 if the original Arjun is already in the class of M1A2, Merkava MK4, and Leopard 2EX??

lalith prasad

July 20th, 2004, 02:28 AM

arjun2 is nothing but a version of arjun1 like m1a2 is a version of the original abhrams.by the way currently the only problem with the arjun is the engine(high cost) for which an engine is under development.arjun 2 is expected to have the new engine and all the improvements currently being developed and tested on arjun1 .check drd