The Arjun Tank

[Jade]

The Inian Arjun Tank - is it a big dissapointment or a serious effort ?

[eaf-f16]

The Inian Arjun Tank - is it a big dissapointment or a serious effort ?

Add a little more to your post so I can a add a little more to mine.

[Chrom]

Well, mine opinion - serious effort without a doubt. It is capable modern tank build from international components (best you can aquire on free market) - but nothing exceptional. The question is however its cost and true reliability/maintainability.

Take look:
1. Gun - adequate gun, however rifled which puts doubt in its barrel wear.
2. FCS - should be fairly modern, on the current world average level.
3. Protection - little reliable info. But again, i doubt there is anything exceptional in either direction. Most likely just average level a-la M1A2.
4. Engine - good engine, however with prohibitive cost.
5. Chassis - hard to tell, probably just adequate average.

Addiditional gooddies:
1. LAHAT - again, hard to tell how effective it really is.
2. ERA/APS/Shtora-like might be installed in later batches.

Conclusion: Good starting tank for a country what didnt produced own tank before. Can be safely used in own army, however cost effectivity remains doubtfull.

[eckherl]

Well, mine opinion - serious effort without a doubt. It is capable modern tank build from international components (best you can aquire on free market) - but nothing exceptional. The question is however its cost and true reliability/maintainability.

Take look:
1. Gun - adequate gun, however rifled which puts doubt in its barrel wear.
2. FCS - should be fairly modern, on the current world average level.
3. Protection - little reliable info. But again, i doubt there is anything exceptional in either direction. Most likely just average level a-la M1A2.
4. Engine - good engine, however with prohibitive cost.
5. Chassis - hard to tell, probably just adequate average.

Addiditional gooddies:
1. LAHAT - again, hard to tell how effective it really is.
2. ERA/APS/Shtora-like might be installed in later batches.

Conclusion: Good starting tank for a country what didnt produced own tank before. Can be safely used in own army, however cost effectivity remains doubtfull.

For rifled maingun disadvantages you have two issues:

1. More expensive to produce.
2. Firing KE energy rounds at max effective engagement ranges.

Is there a Lahat round that is produced to fire out of Rifled 120mm mainguns?

[kams]

Is there a Lahat round that is produced to fire out of Rifled 120mm mainguns?

Yes, there is a picture of Arjun firing Lahat. Will try to find it.

Got it..

[eckherl]

Yes, there is a picture of Arjun firing Lahat. Will try to find it.

Got it..

You know what they say - a picture is/can be worth a thousand words.:)

Thanks Kams.

[Waylander]

Another problem with rifled guns is that with the UK changing to the L/55 smoothbore gun there will be no other country left which developes ammunition for rifled guns.
So every new ammunition has to be self developed.

With a 120mm smoothbore you gain access to a huge market of 120mm ammo producing countries (USA, Germany, Israel, France,...).
The same goes for a 125mm smoothbore (Russia, China,...).

[oldsoak]

Agreed . However, there are two factors which may affect this

1 - if you have a programme large enough to support an indigenous ammunition design and manufacture base and the political will to go it alone, then going it alone means you dont have to worry about embargoes.

2 - how advanced your manufacture capability is. The Indians have been producing rifled guns and ammunition and are well versed in that technology. Building smoothbores and their ammunition is more difficult and would be new to them. They may well have taken the pragmatic view that its better to develop what they can do now rather than go for a "new" technology. All this is of course subject to change.

[kams]

Another problem with rifled guns is that with the UK changing to the L/55 smoothbore gun there will be no other country left which developes ammunition for rifled guns.
So every new ammunition has to be self developed.

With a 120mm smoothbore you gain access to a huge market of 120mm ammo producing countries (USA, Germany, Israel, France,...).
The same goes for a 125mm smoothbore (Russia, China,...).
AFAIK India produces it's own 125 mm ammunition (FSAPDS and HE), 120mm FSAPDS, HE and HESH. Pvt. sector units such as SM Group make the combustible cartridge cases (Both 120mm and 125 mm).

Added later;

Local production of 125 mm FSAPDS started some time in 1998. In 1999, they had the capacity to produce 40,000 rounds/year.

[eckherl]

AFAIK India produces it's own 125 mm ammunition (FSAPDS and HE), 120mm FSAPDS, HE and HESH. Pvt. sector units such as SM Group make the combustible cartridge cases (Both 120mm and 125 mm).

It is interesting that they went with one piece ammunition versus two part, thus not relying on the UK for ammunition, why not go with a 125mm gun with one part, any good reason behind India`s decision to stick with the rifled 120mm gun other than the firing of Hesh ammunition.

[oldsoak]

AFAIK India produces it's own 125 mm ammunition (FSAPDS and HE), 120mm FSAPDS, HE and HESH. Pvt. sector units such as SM Group make the combustible cartridge cases (Both 120mm and 125 mm).

Added later;

Local production of 125 mm FSAPDS started some time in 1998. In 1999, they had the capacity to produce 40,000 rounds/year.

- my mistake, I was under the impression that the 125mm ammunition was purchased from Russia. If local manufacture is happening, then why dont they switch to smoothbore or purchase the existing 125mm tube ?

- just found the site for Indian Ordnance Factory - :oops:

[kams]

It is interesting that they went with one piece ammunition versus two part, thus not relying on the UK for ammunition, why not go with a 125mm gun with one part, any good reason behind India`s decision to stick with the rifled 120mm gun other than the firing of Hesh ammunition.


The only official reason I have heard is capability to fire HESH. Another reason may be that they don't want to change anything at this critical junction. It took some time to remove all the bugs both from Gun and FCS and it's no easy task to restart again.

- my mistake, I was under the impression that the 125mm ammunition was purchased from Russia. If local manufacture is happening, then why dont they switch to smoothbore or purchase the existing 125mm tube ?

Not at all, infact I noticed your post late..:( India used buy Russian. Even with local manufacturing, initially they bought Russian rods. As to 125 mm tube, well it's too late in the day to change now. Why didn'y they change before? I guess they didn'y expext T-90 to make an appearence with Indian Army (They being DRDO). :)

[eckherl]

The only official reason I have heard is capability to fire HESH. Another reason may be that they don't want to change anything at this critical junction. It took some time to remove all the bugs both from Gun and FCS and it's no easy task to restart again.


Not at all, infact I noticed your post late..:( India used buy Russian. Even with local manufacturing, initially they bought Russian rods. As to 125 mm tube, well it's too late in the day to change now. Why didn'y they change before? I guess they didn'y expext T-90 to make an appearence with Indian Army (They being DRDO). :)

It looks like a combustable cartridge case is being used. Israel helped work out some of the bugs in the FCS as far as the stabilization system I was told, is there any other Israeli influence besides the ability to fire LAHAT.

Whats the cost comparision of the rifled 120mm versus the Russian 125mm.:)

[kams]

It looks like a combustable cartridge case is being used. Israel helped work out some of the bugs in the FCS as far as the stabilization system I was told, is there any other Israeli influence besides the ability to fire LAHAT.

Whats the cost comparision of the rifled 120mm versus the Russian 125mm.:)

I really don't have definative answers for both questions (nothing that I can back up with source).

There was speculation that BMS and datalink was from Israel, but later proven false, they are from BEL/Army Signal corp.

I will post some more info. on DRDO derived systems tomorrow.

Here is a infoboard on Arjun BMS

Link (http://media.bharat-rakshak.com/aero/AeroIndia2007/Display_Stalls/Computer_Communication/P1010710+Battlefield+Mgmt+Sys.jpg.html)

[f-22fan12]

To me, the Arjun is a tank with modern tech. It is a good tank. Except the fact that the Indians havn't been able to sucessful integrate all the tech. into a producable, non-expensive platform. Either way, the Arjun provides the Indians with experience in tank building.

[aaaditya]

hey guys,check out this interesting link,it provides some information regarding the benefits of the fully combustible cartridges being develoed indigenously for the arjun and the other indian battle tanks.

here is the link:

http://www.smgroupindia.com/ccc.aspx

SM Group was among the first to develop and manufacture combustible catridge cases in India in association with all major wings of Ministry of Defence, namely, DRDO (Defense Research & Development Organisation), DGOF (Director General Ordnance Factories) and DGQA (Director General Quality Assurance).
S M Group has successfully productionised both Felting technology and Resin based Hot pressing technology for manufacture of Combustible Cartridge Cases for 120mm HESH & FSAPDS, 125mm FSAPDS and 155mm BMCS munitions.
Having supplied hundreds of thousands of cumbustible cartridge cases to meet specific ammunition needs of the Indian army for their main battle tank , ARJUNA and the T-72 & T-90 series of Russian guns , SM group is today one of the leading manufacturers of combustible cartridge cases as well as plant and machinery for the same.
The effort of the group in this regard have been best acknowledged by Government of India by awarding a National award for Indigenization of defense products to the parent company in the year 1998.
Advantages

Combustible cartridge cases bring numerous advantages compared with conventional metallic cases:

Fully combustible concept, i.e no spent cases.
Improved crew compartment enviroment due to reduction in noxious fumes and clutter from spent metal cases.
Total round weight reduction.
Addithonal energy to fire.
Incresed firing rate.
Reduction in barrel wear.
Compatiblity with automatic loading due to high mechanical properties.
Contribution to charge vulnerablity reduction : lower reaction level for all types fo threats.

[kato]

Fully combustible concept, i.e no spent cases.


... they got rid of the usual steel case base? Cuz that would be new - the rest isn't really (ok, domestically for India maybe).

[Titanium]

We have been seeing the world first inventions of DRDO for the last 30 years, but is the armay need these Arjun tanks- apart from the token?

[eckherl]

... they got rid of the usual steel case base? Cuz that would be new - the rest isn't really (ok, domestically for India maybe).

Looking at the picture it looks like they are designed the same as other combustible cartridge cases. Most likely still having to deal with the flash rod also that is connected to the primer.

[kams]

Looking at the picture it looks like they are designed the same as other combustible cartridge cases. Most likely still having to deal with the flash rod also that is connected to the primer.

eckherl, you have PM

Coming to barrel life, Arjun barrel has a lining of refractory metal oxides to increase barrel life by reducing thermal stress.

[Jade]

I guess it's just India's 1st attempt and will improve as modifications come along.

But, will it match it's enemies - after all that's what it's there for.

How will it field against the Pakistani Al-Khalid ?

[Titanium]

How will it field against the Pakistani Al-Khalid ?

Surely your intent maybe noble, but it will turn this into flame war. Lets just talk about is it good enough tank, does it do the job a tank suppose to do, as its design consultants were germans.

[Chrom]

Surely your intent maybe noble, but it will turn this into flame war. Lets just talk about is it good enough tank, does it do the job a tank suppose to do, as its design consultants were germans.

Sure it is good enouth, sure it can do its job. The question as i said cost effectivity and reliabilty (bound to cost effectivity).

[Titanium]

Sure it is good enouth, sure it can do its job. The question as i said cost effectivity and reliabilty (bound to cost effectivity).

I am not sure on that, if it was good I doubt the army would shy just coz of cost. Army would have definately gone with "indegionous" tank, had it performed to their expectation.

[Chrom]

I am not sure on that, if it was good I doubt the army would shy just coz of cost. Army would have definately gone with "indegionous" tank, had it performed to their expectation.
What expectation? I cant see army would be very happy to buy a tank like T-90 in general combat capability but with TRIPPLE price, with MORE imported components (thus more depended on foreign countries good will) , and heaver / more expencive logistic needs.

[kams]

What expectation? I cant see army would be very happy to buy a tank like T-90 in general combat capability but with TRIPPLE price, with MORE imported components (thus more depended on foreign countries good will) , and heaver / more expencive logistic needs.


Hmmm you get T-90 for US$ 1.3 million? May be some Chinese bootleg stuff may be available at that price. ( a T-55 with T-90 written in white paint and I can see atleast one of China's favourite customers buying it saying it is the 5 the generation tank:D ). AFAIK India's T-90 cost US$3.3 million (Old contract) and new contract may cost over $4 million.

According to you Arjun cost should be over 12 million!!! a piece

Wow talking about Mad Math..:onfloorl:

[Chrom]

Hmmm you get T-90 for US$ 1.3 million? May be some Chinese bootleg stuff may be available at that price. ( a T-55 with T-90 written in white paint and I can see atleast one of China's favourite customers buying it saying it is the 5 the generation tank:D ). AFAIK India's T-90 cost US$3.3 million (Old contract) and new contract may cost over $4 million.

According to you Arjun cost should be over 12 million!!! a piece

Wow talking about Mad Math..:onfloorl:
First T-90 batches was sold for about 2 mil $. Now they are probably close to 3 mil - but that is with all new goodies like new gen ERA, improved engine, etc. Besides, Arjun price also doesnt fall over years - it constantly "improves" too and now probably reaching 7-8 mil $ mark. Engine alone is close to 1.5$ mils.
Even in favorable case Arjun still cost twice as much.

P.S. Old quote from 2001:
"THE FORMAL INKING of the deal for 310 T-90 tanks with Russia concludes the extended rounds of negotiation which, at one time, seemed in danger of getting bogged down in a disagreement over pricing. What the Defence Minister had described as only ``a small matter of price'' created a number of hiccups in finalising the transaction and it wasn't until Mr. George Fernandes' visit to Moscow in June last year that hopes were revived about breaking the deadlock. Complete technology transfer has been acquired for this third generation main battle tank (MBT) under the terms of the deal, which is estimated to cost a staggering $ 650 million and under which about two-thirds of the T-90s acquired would be assembled under licence at the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. The acquisition, which will considerably enhance India's offensive capability, is closely related to Pakistan's decision to acquire the T-80 UD from Ukraine. "
http://www.hindu.com/2001/02/20/stories/05202512.htm

By the same year (2001) estimate Arjun would cost 5.3 mil $.

[eckherl]

First T-90 batches was sold for about 2 mil $. Now they are probably close to 3 mil - but that is with all new goodies like new gen ERA, improved engine, etc. Besides, Arjun price also doesnt fall over years - it constantly "improves" too and now probably reaching 7-8 mil $ mark. Engine alone is close to 1.5$ mils.
Even in favorable case Arjun still cost twice as much.

P.S. Old quote from 2001:

By the same year (2001) estimate Arjun would cost 5.3 mil $.

Exactally what next armor generation package is being placed on India`s T-90

[kams]

First T-90 batches was sold for about 2 mil $. Now they are probably close to 3 mil - but that is with all new goodies like new gen ERA, improved engine, etc. Besides, Arjun price also doesnt fall over years - it constantly "improves" too and now probably reaching 7-8 mil $ mark. Engine alone is close to 1.5$ mils.
Even in favorable case Arjun still cost twice as much.

P.S. Old quote from 2001:

By the same year (2001) estimate Arjun would cost 5.3 mil $.

LOL, what India paid for T-90 in 2000 deal has been a topic of controversey, with parliament debates alleging we waid too much. As per govt. sources, Russians asked for 2.7 million, we offered 2.2 million, settled somewhere in between. Now this was before we opted for Katherine. That cost was additional and substantial.

IA placed an order for 124 Arjuns in 2000-2001. The contract value was INR 1760 crore (US$390 million considering exchange rate of INR 45=1 US$ , 2001 rate - estimated), so Arjun cost comes to around US $3.1 million/tank.

Import content was around 50%, will get reduced to 40% with initial order of 124 units and will be reduced to 30% with serial production.

[yess]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?t=2544&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=200

Arjun’s detractors also are quick to state that it did poorly in army trials and tests. The reason could be attributed to the comprehensive nature of the testing; it remains to be seen if this same level of testing was conducted upon the T-90s before their rushed induction. “Initially, the tank engines worked well, as the trials were being conducted at night. Problems, however, emerged once daytime trials began, with the power packs de-rating and at least one of three tank engines suffering extensive damage in high desert temperatures.” Despite the problems encountered, the MOD went ahead with the acquisition of the tank, dismissing the objections as “easily fixable.” The Arjun on the other hand suffered engine failures only after rigorous testing in the middle of the day. Also, one must take into account the dimensions of the engine. The T-90’s power-plant was in the 800hp class and had to propel 40 tons; whereas, the Arjun’s 1400hp power-plant had to push along 58 tons. The Arjun's powerplant operated under much more stress.

The media continually compares a Leo-2 style tank with a Russian T-series. Arjun's delays reflect the changes in IA specifications and parameters.
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.
_________________________________________________

why does india's own media and military tend to show rejection toward this project!?

[Chrom]

LOL, what India paid for T-90 in 2000 deal has been a topic of controversey, with parliament debates alleging we waid too much. As per govt. sources, Russians asked for 2.7 million, we offered 2.2 million, settled somewhere in between. Now this was before we opted for Katherine. That cost was additional and substantial.

IA placed an order for 124 Arjuns in 2000-2001. The contract value was INR 1760 crore (US$390 million considering exchange rate of INR 45=1 US$ , 2001 rate - estimated), so Arjun cost comes to around US $3.1 million/tank.

Import content was around 50%, will get reduced to 40% with initial order of 124 units and will be reduced to 30% with serial production.

390$ was preliminary cost, as usuall with DRDO it ended up with 5.3 mil $ in 2001 ALREADY, even before Germany nearly doubled engine price.

P.S. There was recently a papier regarding Bhim project. The Arjun chassis ALONE in that project stated to cost 3.2-3.7 mil $ - i.e. even BEFORE adding turret and FCS.

Regarding import content in Arjun - absolutely most vital components in Arjun imported to some degree. For security reason it doesnt matter much if you import 25% or 90% FCS - it will be still useless when foreign country stop delivering. At least T-90 is depended from 1 supplier only - Russia. Even Catherine thermals can be flawlessly replaced by equivalent russian ones - ALREADY tested and integrated. Try to replace Catherine with some other thermals - and it will require time & money for integration and testing.

[kams]

390$ was preliminary cost, as usuall with DRDO it ended up with 5.3 mil $ in 2001 ALREADY, even before Germany nearly doubled engine price.

P.S. There was recently a papier regarding Bhim project. The Arjun chassis ALONE in that project stated to cost 3.2-3.7 mil $ - i.e. even BEFORE adding turret and FCS.

Regarding import content in Arjun - absolutely most vital components in Arjun imported to some degree. For security reason it doesnt matter much if you import 25% or 90% FCS - it will be still useless when foreign country stop delivering. At least T-90 is depended from 1 supplier only - Russia. Even Catherine thermals can be flawlessly replaced by equivalent russian ones - ALREADY tested and integrated. Try to replace Catherine with some other thermals - and it will require time & money for integration and testing.

Preliminary cost? thats the contract..DRDO doesn't produce ARJUN, but HVF AVADI does.

Well for that matter T-90 TI is from France, rest from Russia. . Arjun chasis cost claimed in the paper (which disputes viability of Bhim project a dead project for different reasons) is not given by MoD. Till now there are no indications of cost escalation wrt to 124 unit order.

Arjun FCS is not imported. TI is, for the time being. so is the Engine. A project was activated this year to develop indigenous engine, but with peanut funding as usual.
T-90 and Arjun are in different class. Just take a look at the armor, gun , Suspension, BMS, NBC systems, comm, Automatic fire suppression system, (all indigenous) etc with an open mind if possible.:rolleyes: Compare the first hit PK of Arjun (Mobile at 45 kmph) vs T-90.

14 Arjuns took part in full scale army excercise Ashwamedh with T-90 in Rajasthan desert. The results shut up the critics real fast.

Yess - India is a democracy not a dictatorship headed by some General, people are free to write about what they want. Some people don't agree that Ajun is right for Indian Armyt, some do. There are plenty of article/papaers which support Arjun, but offcourse you are not interested in them.

[Chrom]

Preliminary cost? thats the contract..DRDO doesn't produce ARJUN, but HVF AVADI does.

Well for that matter T-90 TI is from France, rest from Russia. . Arjun chasis cost claimed in the paper (which disputes viability of Bhim project a dead project for different reasons) is not given by MoD. Till now there are no indications of cost escalation wrt to 124 unit order.

Arjun FCS is not imported. TI is, for the time being. so is the Engine. A project was activated this year to develop indigenous engine, but with peanut funding as usual.
T-90 and Arjun are in different class. Just take a look at the armor, gun , Suspension, BMS, NBC systems, comm, Automatic fire suppression system, (all indigenous) etc with an open mind if possible.:rolleyes: Compare the first hit PK of Arjun (Mobile at 45 kmph) vs T-90.

14 Arjuns took part in full scale army excercise with T-90 in Rajasthan desert. The results shut up the critics real fast.

Yess - India is a democracy not a dictatorship headed by some General, people are free to write about what they want. Some people don't agree that Ajun is right for Indian Armyt, some do.

As always with indian military industry contracts, they first signe it and THEN starting to compute how much really it will cost them. It wasnt first time when DRDO/Avadi/whoever overrun contract costs.

And well, lets compare all these properties - head to head. With numbers please, and not phrases like "best-in-world-super-high-tech-composite-passive-active-reactive-hard-grade-steel-advanced-chromium-armor".

Arjun FCS is not imported, but vital PARTS of said FCS are imported. In fact i can say without much mistake what Arjun FCS is only assemled in India - almost all parts are manufactured outside the country.

P.S. Where are the results?

[kams]

As always with indian military industry contracts, they first signe it and THEN starting to compute how much really it will cost them. It wasnt first time when DRDO/Avadi/whoever overrun contract costs.

And well, lets compare all these properties - head to head. With numbers please, and not phrases like "best-in-world-super-high-tech-composite-passive-active-reactive-hard-grade-steel-advanced-chromium-armor".

Arjun FCS is not imported, but vital PARTS of said FCS are imported. In fact i can say without much mistake what Arjun FCS is only assemled in India - almost all parts are manufactured outside the country.

P.S. Where are the results?

Sorry dude, it's you who said Arjun and T-90 are comparable, prove it, and again it's you who said there is cost escalation wrt to 124 units, prove it (that IA has paid the escalated cost or agreed to pay or has paid). Data regarding all the points I mentioned (except for the Kanchan armour) is publicly available. I assumed when you made that bold statement that Arjun and T-90 are comparable, you have the data..

[Chrom]

Sorry dude, it's you who said Arjun and T-90 are comparable, prove it. and again it's you who said there is cost escalation wrt to 124 units, prove it (that IA has paid the escalated cost or agreed to pay or has paid)
Ghm?
I already presented my points - why Arjun cant be much superior to T-90. Thermal imagers are from very same producer, armor cant be better due to large Arjun volume, FCS might or might be not slightly better - but T-90 already have more than adequate, gun is best case comparable to T-90 and most likely slightly worse due to rifled design... Mobilty is again best case comparable - but most likely worse due to heaver weight. And dont tell me about hp/t ratio becouse not everything is measured in it. Reliablity - i will not even start here, but T-xx series are widely known as extremely reliable, particulary also in indian conditions.
Given relatively counterporary designs and overall technological level of both manufactures - i assume both tanks are done on the same technological level. As such, if you want to imply what some Arjun component is far superior to some T-90 component - PROVE IT! Becouse common sense tell otherwise.
If datas are avalaible - bring it here. We'll see.

P.S. And costs, costs... well, right now i see what Avadi produced 15 prototypes with unknown cost . And openly talk about newer produced Arjuns would cost in excess of 25 Crore.

P.P.S. Are you REALLY believe AVADI will produce 124 tanks for 390 mil $ as signed in contract? When the very same AVADI told DRDO what Arjun chasis ALONE, without turret and FCS, would cost 3.2-3.7 mil $ ?

[kams]

Ghm?
I already presented my points - why Arjun cant be much superior to T-90. Thermal imagers are from very same producer, armor cant be better due to large Arjun volume, FCS might or might be not slightly better - but T-90 already have more than adequate, gun is best case comparable to T-90 and most likely slightly worse due to rifled design... Mobilty is again best case comparable - but most likely worse due to heaver weight. And dont tell me about hp/t ratio becouse not everything is measured in it. Reliablity - i will not even start here, but T-xx series are widely known as extremely reliable, particulary also in indian conditions.
Given relatively counterporary designs and overall technological level of both manufactures - i assume both tanks are done on the same technological level. As such, if you want to imply what some Arjun component is far superior to some T-90 component - PROVE IT! Becouse common sense tell otherwise.
If datas are avalaible - bring it here. We'll see.

P.S. And costs, costs... well, right now i see what Avadi produced 15 prototypes with unknown cost. And openly talk about newer produced Arjuns would cost in excess 25 Crore.


ROFLMAO, you haven't seen one bit of data and you draw all these conclusions. It really doesn't matter to you that Kanchan is composite armour where as T-90's is not. You don't have a clue to velocity of 120mm FSAPDS or it's accuracy and consistency (0.2 MSD) of the round yet you draw a conclusion that it's comparable to T-90. You have no idea about barrel life of 120 mm rifled gun with refractive metal oxide liner(500 EFC), yet you assume that it's worse than T-90.

OK I too had assumed that you are a serious poster, have seen the data available on internet, obviously I was wrong. Believe what you want. I am not going to educate you when you don't make any effort to research.

I have already Pmd the data to more serious posters on this board and I will stop here.

[Chrom]

ROFLMAO, you haven't seen one bit of data and you draw all these conclusions. It really doesn't matter to you that Kanchan is composite armour where as T-90's is not. You don't have a clue to velocity of 120mm FSAPDS or it's accuracy and consistency (0.2 MSD) of the round yet you draw a conclusion that it's comparable to T-90. You have no idea about barrel life of 120 mm rifled gun with refractive metal oxide liner(500 EFC), yet you assume that it's worse than T-90.

OK I too had assumed that you are a serious poster, have seen the data available on internet, obviously I was wrong. Believe what you want. I am not going to educate you when you don't make any effort to research.

I have already Pmd the data to more serious posters on this board and I will stop here.

Heh, T-90 is NOT composite armor? What you know about T-xx serie then? T-64 used composite armor 40 years ago already, decades before any other tank in the world...\

And yes, generally rifled gun have lower life, is much more expencive, and less accurate when firing APFSDS rounds. IF India have technology to make rifled gun BETTER than T-90 smoothbore - THEN for sure they can produce EVEN BETTER 125mm smoothbore gun. But they cant.

P.S. So, you cant present any evidence. Expectable.

[extern]

It's disappointed to see the battle of two import lobbies: of Arjun and T-90S. Instead of natural aspiration for tech unification they promote self affirmation by puting the huge logistic burden on IAF:
1) double caliber without clear need for this
2) two completely different FCS without any thinking for comparability
3) two engine packege from different foreign vendors, two repair fascility structure
4) two totally incompatible chassis.
It's just funny to hear about the 'great HESH round' while all the World has abandoned it at the late 60th. The old fasion rifled munition without AL is promoted as a 'quantum leap', while India had lost a gold possibility for developing really new design by the indigenisation and MKI-sation of T-90 towards really advanced features, like BlackEagle-type autoloader, active defence and new gen ERA. Now this is a gloom reality: India has two types of MBTs, producted in the country with great technological dependence from abroad, but no SPH (after Bhim death) . OK, the national ego must be satisfied by any price, and if it's costly and profitable for a long list of foreign vendors, so it's just an expenditures...

[Waylander]

Having the ability to use a capable HESH round is a poor excuse for using a rifled tank gun in my eyes.

It is not as if modern HEs (programmable fuse) for smoothbore guns are useless compared to a traditional HESH round while smoothbore guns tend to have better APFSDS performance which is still the main goal of a good tank gun.

One can better live with a little bit less effective HE round compared to a HESH than with a less effective APFSDS. (The two calibre problem of the Indian army has already been mentioned).

[Chrom]

It's disappointed to see the battle of two import lobbies: of Arjun and T-90S. Instead of natural aspiration for tech unification they promote self affirmation by puting the huge logistic burden on IAF:
1) double caliber without clear need for this
2) two completely different FCS without any thinking for comparability
3) two engine packege from different foreign vendors, two repair fascility structure
4) two totally incompatible chassis.
It's just funny to hear about the 'great HESH round' while all the World has abandoned it at the late 60th. The old fasion rifled munition without AL is promoted as a 'quantum leap', while India had lost a gold possibility for developing really new design by the indigenisation and MKI-sation of T-90 towards really advanced features, like BlackEagle-type autoloader, active defence and new gen ERA. Now this is a gloom reality: India has two types of MBTs, producted in the country with great technological dependence from abroad, but no SPH (after Bhim death) . OK, the national ego must be satisfied by any price, and if it's costly and profitable for a long list of foreign vendors, so it's just an expenditures...

This is also understandable. Arjun takes roots in 80x and early 90x, when India didnt had acess to advanced russian tech. And in later 90x it was probaly too later to unify Arjun with T-90. India had 2 choices: either scrap Arjun and develop totally new tank with T-xx in mind , or just save face and continue.

They choose later option which is also not bad. After all, the real expences for Arjun project is not THAT large for such big project. These money was good spend in developing own industrial and ingeniering base, gaining experience.

Hower, the question about Arjun large-scale induction in army is totally different matter. Here indians should really ask question if Arjun indeed so much better than T-90 to justify much higher price. And they cant hide behind indenisation - becouse honestly Arjun components are imported to even large scale (and what is more important from more countries) than T-90.

[crobato]

How is 1400hp pushing 58 tons more stressful than 800hp pushing 40 tons? The math don't seem to agree.

[Chrom]

How is 1400hp pushing 58 tons more stressful than 800hp pushing 40 tons? The math don't seem to agree.

Becouse in many cases weight simply matters on its own, regardless of hp/t or t/m2. Not only with artifical buildings like bridges or railcars - but also sand, mud, steep hills, etc also have particulary similar properties when they can withstand only so much weight in limited area. I will repeat - regardless of t/m2 on tracks.

P.S. But that is also not the point. We are comparing here 46t heavy T-90 with 1000hp engine (and possible even 1200hp engine if indians will opt for it) and about 60 tons heavy Arjun with 1400/1500 HP engine. As you see, real hp/t ratios are very close to eachover, and we cant say about definite one-side advantage.

[kizilsungur]

I have some Arjun concepts. Arjun 2, Arjun 3 ... Arjun 5.

I will post it here soon

;)

[kizilsungur]

Arjun Original
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN.bmp/ARJUN-full.jpg

and my concepts....

Arjun 2 (for Forest Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition.bmp/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 3 (for Desert Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition.jpg/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 4 (for General Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition.jpg/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 5 MM (for Urban Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl.jpg/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl-full.jpg

Thanks :)

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Becouse in many cases weight simply matters on its own, regardless of hp/t or t/m2. Not only with artifical buildings like bridges or railcars - but also sand, mud, steep hills, etc also have particulary similar properties when they can withstand only so much weight in limited area. I will repeat - regardless of t/m2 on tracks.

P.S. But that is also not the point. We are comparing here 46t heavy T-90 with 1000hp engine (and possible even 1200hp engine if indians will opt for it) and about 60 tons heavy Arjun with 1400/1500 HP engine. As you see, real hp/t ratios are very close to eachover, and we cant say about definite one-side advantage.

The advantage is, like you said, T-90 is 46ton and Arjun is 60ton...

[kizilsungur]

The advantage is, like you said, T-90 is 46ton and Arjun is 60ton...

Indians have only 18 Arjuns.

Meanwhile how is my concepts dude?

Arjun Original
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN.bmp/ARJUN-full.jpg

and my concepts....

Arjun 2 (for Forest Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition.bmp/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 3 (for Desert Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition.jpg/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 4 (for General Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition.jpg/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 5 MM (for Urban Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl.jpg/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl-full.jpg

Thanks :)

[BlahBlahBlah1]

You don't have a clue to velocity of 120mm FSAPDS or it's accuracy and consistency (0.2 MSD) of the round yet you draw a conclusion that it's comparable to T-90.

Velocity of "APFSDS" (at least I hope this is what you're trying to spell) don't matter as much as the quality of the round. Trying comparing Depleted Uranium and Tungsten

[kizilsungur]

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:S%C3%BCnger_Bob_K%C4%B1z%C4%B1l.JPG

:shudder

[Chrom]

The advantage is, like you said, T-90 is 46ton and Arjun is 60ton...
But the weight by itself is NOT advantage, it is DISADVANTAGE!

The idea behind heaver tank is what it should have better firepower/armor/whatever than light tank. If it dont - then weight is pure defeciency what is not compensated by any corresponding advantage.

[Chrom]

Velocity of "APFSDS" (at least I hope this is what you're trying to spell) don't matter as much as the quality of the round. Trying comparing Depleted Uranium and Tungsten What is more funny, ammo actually matters for accuracy even more than a gun.
Besides, there are speculations what starting from about 1.800 m/s tungsten have better AP properties than DU. But that is for future guns and ammo's anyway. Right now DU is certainly best and cheapest option - if we disregard ecological unfluence of course.

I think this is the reason why USSR/Russia maintain both DU and Tungsten ammo lines in service.

[aaaditya]

Velocity of "APFSDS" (at least I hope this is what you're trying to spell) don't matter as much as the quality of the round. Trying comparing Depleted Uranium and Tungsten

indian's term the apfsds(armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot) as the fsapds( fin stabilised armour piercing discarding sabot) both the terms are correct and mean the same.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

But the weight by itself is NOT advantage, it is DISADVANTAGE!

lol, I'm also trying to communicate that the extra weight is disadvantageous...

The idea behind heaver tank is what it should have better firepower/armor/whatever than light tank.

Abrams is a four man crew, the loader adds an entire row to the turret, lengthening the turret puts it around the weight it should be. In addition, it's not the weight that determines the armor/protection of the tank...for example, the Tiger I tank weighed around 57 metric tons, are you gonna tell me that it's better protected than T-90 because of the weight?

I don't see any proof that heavier tanks has better firepower. In fact, firepower has nothing to do with the weight. It's purely dependent on the gun/breech and the round.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Besides, there are speculations what starting from about 1.800 m/s tungsten have better AP properties than DU.

Nice speculation...but here is fact: NO!

[BlahBlahBlah1]

indian's term the apfsds(armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot) as the fsapds( fin stabilised armour piercing discarding sabot) both the terms are correct and mean the same.

Well, this isn't India...my advice is that write your comments with universal terms that everyone since this forum also have people other than Indians.

[Chrom]

Nice speculation...but here is fact: NO!

Have you seen applicable studies? Can you point me to it?

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Have you seen applicable studies? Can you point me to it?

I'm just gonna assume you're not familiar with google.

DU vs. Tungsten: the natural advantage of DU over Tungsten
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/du-2.jpg

As it hits the armor, DU sharpens itself, thus creating greater penetration as opposed to Tungsten, in which the tip kinda falls apart.

[eckherl]

Tungsten needs additional muzzle velocity to have the same penetration performance as a DU round with less muzzle velocity, Tungsten long rod penetrators still have the issue of mushrooming or bending upon impact. Both Russia and the U.S use DU as a primary armor defeating round. With Germany designing the L55, they have given tanks with the likes of LEO`s, Challenger 2 and Black Panther the added punch needed for Tungsten projectiles. I would really be interested in knowing what the French are getting out of the Leclerc CN120-26 120mm maingun, there are some who will lay claim that Frances latest Tungsten long rod penetrator OFL 120 F1 will leave the tube at a muzzle velocity of 1790m/sec, not to shabby for a tank gun that measures 52 calibers.

Either way - The Indian military likes the potential that they have with the Arjun, the T-90 purchase was supposed to be a stop gap measure to help counter Pakistans latest MBTs. I find it rather interesting that countries who can afford to supply their militaries with the best tank technologies that are out there in armor protection seem to alway`s want to swing towards the laminated composite type armor protection.

[eckherl]

indian's term the apfsds(armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot) as the fsapds( fin stabilised armour piercing discarding sabot) both the terms are correct and mean the same.

Yes - other countries have used the same terms also.

[eckherl]

lol, I'm also trying to communicate that the extra weight is disadvantageous...



Abrams is a four man crew, the loader adds an entire row to the turret, lengthening the turret puts it around the weight it should be. In addition, it's not the weight that determines the armor/protection of the tank...for example, the Tiger I tank weighed around 57 metric tons, are you gonna tell me that it's better protected than T-90 because of the weight?

I don't see any proof that heavier tanks has better firepower. In fact, firepower has nothing to do with the weight. It's purely dependent on the gun/breech and the round.

Could you please clarify to me why weight doesn`t have any determination of a MBT`s armor protection level, please keep in mind that a M1A2 SEP comes in at a hefty 70 ton fully combat loaded.:)

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Could you please clarify to me why weight doesn`t have any determination of a MBT`s armor protection level, please keep in mind that a M1A2 SEP comes in at a hefty 70 ton fully combat loaded.:)

Tiger I tank=57ton
T-90=46.5ton

Now, are you telling me that Tiger is better protected than the T-90?

What matters is the material the armor is made out of.

Abrams has a four man crew. Adding an extra man behind the breech just about doubled the length of the turret. That is gonna add a lot of weight, but will not increase the protection.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Could you please clarify to me why weight doesn`t have any determination of a MBT`s armor protection level, please keep in mind that a M1A2 SEP comes in at a hefty 70 ton fully combat loaded.:)

BTW

FV214 Conqueror=66tons
Panzerjäger Tiger Ausf. B JagdTiger=71.7tons
A39=78tons
T-28=95tons

Guess what, all of their armor can be easily penetrated with a T-90

[eckherl]

Tiger I tank=57ton
T-90=46.5ton

Now, are you telling me that Tiger is better protected than the T-90?

What matters is the material the armor is made out of.

Abrams has a four man crew. Adding an extra man behind the breech just about doubled the length of the turret. That is gonna add a lot of weight, but will not increase the protection.

You are talking about different metal properties for armor protection.

A initial M1 started out with a weight class of 60 tons fully combat loaded, the M1A1 upgrade sent it to a weight class of 63 tons fully combat loaded, so what constitutes a 7 ton increase in combat weight.

[kams]

Well, this isn't India...my advice is that write your comments with universal terms that everyone since this forum also have people other than Indians.


Sorrydidn't see your question earlier, that was the term used by the agency (DRDO) which developed the round for Arjun. I was talking about the performance of Arjun's gun/FSAPDS, not Leo/chally/ and APFSDS.

Eckherl,

While there is no opposition to DU rounds in India by enviornmentalists (yet), no information has been made public regarding development program of a DU round.

[eckherl]

This argument that heavier modern tanks are at a disadvantage over lighter modern tanks hold no truth what so ever, a Arjun will perform just as good as a T-90 will on the battle field. Fire control systems slaved off to good stabilization with good sound suspensions are just as important especially when going cross country. Given the gun travel on traditional T series tanks I would give it to the Arjun as a better cross country performer.

[eckherl]

Sorrydidn't see your question earlier, that was the term used by the agency (DRDO) which developed the round for Arjun. I was talking about the performance of Arjun's gun/FSAPDS, not Leo/chally/ and APFSDS.

Eckherl,

While there is no opposition to DU rounds in India by enviornmentalists (yet), no information has been made public regarding development program of a DU round.

Do you know which primary armor defeating tank round is used for India`s T-90S. I know that India manufactures their own, but is it feasable to say that maybe Russia has sold some of their top of the line armor defeating DU rounds.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

This argument that heavier modern tanks are at a disadvantage over lighter modern tanks

...god damn it, there are two of them now...

My statements were that heavier tanks doesn't mean they are better protected than lighter tanks...DON'T EVER MISQUOTE ME!!!

Arjun will perform just as good as a T-90 will on the battle field. Fire control systems slaved off to good stabilization with good sound suspensions are just as important especially when going cross country. Given the gun travel on traditional T series tanks I would give it to the Arjun as a better cross country performer.

That Hydropneumatic suspension is more trouble than it is worth...it's a tank, not a luxury car. Comfortable ride for the crew doesn't mean better cross country capability for the tank.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

You are talking about different metal properties for armor protection.

A initial M1 started out with a weight class of 60 tons fully combat loaded, the M1A1 upgrade sent it to a weight class of 63 tons fully combat loaded, so what constitutes a 7 ton increase in combat weight.

By your logic, the T-28, which weighs at 95tons is better protected than either tank you mentioned above.

[kams]

Do you know which primary armor defeating tank round is used for India`s T-90S. I know that India manufactures their own, but is it feasable to say that maybe Russia has sold some of their top of the line armor defeating DU rounds.


I have to search my harddrive for some old news reports, but AFAIK, that information has never been made public. Interestingly, I recall reading a British MoD report on DU enviornmental hazard mentioning that both India and Israel either have or developing DU rounds. This was in late nintys. Will dig up that info too. (have to wait till tomorrow).

As to performance of Arjuns suspension, there is a video showing Arjuns high speed run over an offset course and crosscountry. I think video also shows the Gun stabilizer enabled in the cross country (no live firing though:( ). Will try to dig it up though.

Thats lot of digging to do.

[eckherl]

...god damn it, there are two of them now...

My statements were that heavier tanks doesn't mean they are better protected than lighter tanks...DON'T EVER MISQUOTE ME!!!



That Hydropneumatic suspension is more trouble than it is worth...it's a tank, not a luxury car. Comfortable ride for the crew doesn't mean better cross country capability for the tank.

Do not ever talk a hostile approach towards me again, if you cannot enter a debate in a civilized fashion then do not even make an attempt to respond to my comments and I will give you the same courtesy.

If you think that heavier vehicles do not offer any amount of protection advantages then explain why.

[eckherl]

By your logic, the T-28, which weighs at 95tons is better protected than either tank you mentioned above.

Again you are comparing ancient designs and metal properties, I think the quality and process has come along ways since the 1930s.

[kizilsungur]

Arjun Original
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN.bmp/ARJUN-full.jpg

and my concepts....

Arjun 2 (for Forest Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition.bmp/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 3 (for Desert Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition.jpg/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 4 (for General Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition.jpg/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 5 MM (for Urban Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl.jpg/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl-full.jpg

Thanks :)

[eckherl]

Arjun Original
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN.bmp/ARJUN-full.jpg

and my concepts....

Arjun 2 (for Forest Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition.bmp/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 3 (for Desert Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition.jpg/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 4 (for General Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition.jpg/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 5 MM (for Urban Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl.jpg/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl-full.jpg

Thanks :)

Why the wedge shape armor referenced on the urbanized print.

[kizilsungur]

Why the wedge shape armor referenced on the urbanized print.

For RPG-7 rockets my buddy. ;)

[eckherl]

For RPG-7 rockets my buddy. ;)

Do you think that a RPG-7 will penetrate the 60 degree frontal arc on a modern MBT.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Do not ever talk a hostile approach towards me again, if you cannot enter a debate in a civilized fashion then do not even make an attempt to respond to my comments and I will give you the same courtesy.

Didn't mean to be hostile...but stop misquoting me, I'm dead serious

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Again you are comparing ancient designs and metal properties, I think the quality and process has come along ways since the 1930s.

Exactly, you admitted yourself...weight doesn't matter, it's the "quality" that matters.

[Waylander]

Crew comfort defenitely enhances battlefield performance.
Everybody who had to ride for hours and hours in any sort of combat vehicle will say that to you.
And a soft ride also enhances your ability for fire on the move.

BTW, DM53/63 is said to have, at least partially, solved the problem of tungstens rounds tending to mushroom.

[eckherl]

Crew comfort defenitely enhances battlefield performance.
Everybody who had to ride for hours and hours in any sort of combat vehicle will say that to you.
And a soft ride also enhances your ability for fire on the move.

BTW, DM53/63 is said to have, at least partially, solved the problem of tungstens rounds tending to mushroom.

Yep - a good suspension set up offers you better shoot on the move capabilities and faster movement through terrian.

[eckherl]

Exactly, you admitted yourself...weight doesn't matter, it's the "quality" that matters.

No - you have two different concepts for armor protection:

Russian approach - cast armor, small amounts of laminated armor and ERA panels.

Western approach - large amounts of composite laminated armor.

Which offers the better protection, I`ll take the 70 ton M1A2 SEP over the Russian 47 ton T-90.

[kams]

Here is the link to Arjun video. Gives a good look at the suspension. The reporter at the end of the video is Col Ajai Shukla (retd) of Poona Horse (Cavalary), IA. He was one of the harshest critic of Arjun.

Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXQrbVcCD64)

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Crew comfort defenitely enhances battlefield performance.

Crew comfort enhances battlefield performance, yes. But it doe not improve the performance of the tank. The tank ain't gonna fly just because the crew is comfortable. And the cross country ability of the tank isn't gonna improve just because the crew is less stressed.

Everybody who had to ride for hours and hours in any sort of combat vehicle will say that to you.

Oh yea, why not put leather seat, plasma TVs, and surround sound in the tank? What if the crew is bored? It's called the military for a reason. Last time I checked, the Abram still uses Torsion bar. Arjun's suspension is not going to give enough comfort for what it's worth. Maintanence cost is great and it breaks down faster than Torsion bar. Talk about cross country when your suspension is gone.

BTW, DM53/63 is said to have, at least partially, solved the problem of tungstens rounds tending to mushroom.

How about any sources? I want to see how they changed the chemical properties of Tungsten...

And a soft ride also enhances your ability for fire on the move.

Now days, people use something called an autotracker and stabilization.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

No - you have two different concepts for armor protection

Well, your concepts of armor protection is that the heavier the tank, the better it is protected, which I have already proved wrong.

[BlahBlahBlah1]

Yep - a good suspension set up offers you better shoot on the move capabilities and faster movement through terrian.

The hydropneumatic suspension isn't good for combat, it's good for luxury cars though...suspension doesn't affect the shooting on the move capabilities if you have an autotracker and dual stabilization. As for movement through the terrain, we'll see how that hydropneumatic suspension once it breaks down so often...even the US Army stuck to torsion-bars, why can't you?

[eckherl]

Well, your concepts of armor protection is that the heavier the tank, the better it is protected, which I have already proved wrong.

Disregard this one.;)

[Waylander]

How about any sources? I want to see how they changed the chemical properties of Tungsten...


As I said they are rumors from people which shot DM 53/63 live rounds.
Nothing more and nothing less.

Now days, people use something called an autotracker and stabilization.

Oh, really?
I didn't know that... :rolleyes:

A soft ride enhances and supports even the best stabilization.

Maybe it is because I am not a native speaker but your style of discussing things sounds rude to me.

[eckherl]

Well, your concepts of armor protection is that the heavier the tank, the better it is protected, which I have already proved wrong.

Again - for current armor technology that is out there, composite laminated armor rules, so yes I`ll take it over anything that a Eastern Europe designed tank has to offer. You have proven nothing to warrant me to make a big switch to a T-90, and you could slap all the relict or kaktus armor that you want on it.

[eckherl]

The hydropneumatic suspension isn't good for combat, it's good for luxury cars though...suspension doesn't affect the shooting on the move capabilities if you have an autotracker and dual stabilization. As for movement through the terrain, we'll see how that hydropneumatic suspension once it breaks down so often...even the US Army stuck to torsion-bars, why can't you?

You really do not know what you are talking about do you, what else is working with that torsion bar to make the M1 move the way that it can cross country, suspension wise.

A good suspension plays a major part in a offensive engagment sequence, suspensions are a important factor in a vehicles stabilization and FCU.

Ask yourself this - when the Russians upgraded the T-90 with a better FCU and stabilization system did they not also upgrade the suspension so that they have a better offensive cross country engagement capability.

Let me state this in regards to the German DM63 tank round.

It has the capability to take out a Russian T-90 at the 60 degree frontal arc at a distance of 2000 meters, including if it is sporting Kaktus armor. it is by far one of the best Tungsten armor piercing projectile that is out there. And yes, they do still have a occasional slight bending issue with engagement shots beyond the 2000 meter range.

[Chrom]

.

It has the capability to take out a Russian T-90 at the 60 degree frontal arc at a distance of 2000 meters, including if it is sporting Kaktus armor. it is by far one of the best Tungsten armor piercing projectile that is out there. And yes, they do still have a occasional slight bending issue with engagement shots beyond the 2000 meter range.

I wouldnt bet on it. DM-63 should have penetration figure around 800mm at 2000m. T-90A passive frontal armor believed to be around the same figure. Plus, Kaktus should increase the protection in 1.5 times (at least according to advertising).

[Waylander]

Where do you get the 800mm from?
I know about T-72M1s being penetrated at close to 4000m with the rod leaving the back of the turret in relatively good shape.

What is your possible protection level of a T-72M1 frontally + the back of the turret?

[Chrom]

Where do you get the 800mm from?
I know about T-72M1s being penetrated at close to 4000m with the rod leaving the back of the turret in relatively good shape.

What is your possible protection level of a T-72M1 frontally + the back of the turret?

T-72M1 armor is known to be :

Turret: 380(490) mm
Glacis : 400 (490) mm

Data are from NII Stali itself.

So, front+back KE armor is probably close to 450-480mm.

Note, T-72M1 is more or less comparable to later 70x USSR T-72A.
Comparing T-72M1 armor and T-90 armor is like comparing M1 and M1A2SEP armor.

in reality, there are several variants of T-72M1, and these data are for most protected one. I dont know which variant was penetrated at 4000m. Still, given what fairly modern round with nominal penetration close to 500mm at 4000m range was used it is very possible what the round penetrated both front and and back turret armor.

P.S. 800-850mm is based on estimation supported by Vasiliy Fofanov. More known Paul Lakowsky estimation gives somewhat higher figure, but general consensus what his estimations are fare too generous for all tanks (he provided figures for most modern tank including western tanks).

[Waylander]

I thought that T-72M1s are comparable to T-72Bs.

But still we have a KE which penetrated 380(490)mm frontal protection at close to 4000m and left the turret through the back with a relatively intact rod...

Giving the DM53 a penetration capability of 800mm is very optimistic of you are at the receiving end.

BTW, the DM53 gives you for example a seriously improved penetration capability compared to the L27 APFSDS in use with the british L30 gun.
What are your penetration numbers for it?

[Chrom]

Again - for current armor technology that is out there, composite laminated armor rules, so yes I`ll take it over anything that a Eastern Europe designed tank has to offer. You have proven nothing to warrant me to make a big switch to a T-90, and you could slap all the relict or kaktus armor that you want on it.

Again, T-xx seriese long ago used composite laminate armor. The number of armor sheets in "sandwich" has increased from 3 in basic T-64 to about 12 in T-90 (exact data are classified).

[Chrom]

I thought that T-72M1s are comparable to T-72Bs.

But still we have a KE which penetrated 380(490)mm frontal protection at close to 4000m and left the turret through the back with a relatively intact rod...
As i said, nothing unusual in it for fairly modern round.

Giving the DM53 a penetration capability of 800mm is very optimistic of you are at the receiving end.

BTW, the DM53 gives you for example a seriously improved penetration capability compared to the L27 APFSDS in use with the british L30 gun.
What are your penetration numbers for it?

Obviously exact figure is classified, but most estimations agree at 720-750mm. Believeable given introduction time.

P.S. DM-53/L55 estimates to around 760-800mm at 2km.

[Waylander]

So the difference of DM53 and L27 is somewhere around 50mm?
Hard to believe when the british MoD states an increased penetration capability compared to the L27 fired with a L30.

[eckherl]

Again, T-xx seriese long ago used composite laminate armor. The number of armor sheets in "sandwich" has increased from 3 in basic T-64 to about 12 in T-90 (exact data are classified).

It is not too classified, it consists of titanium and rubber on the T-90.

[Chrom]

So the difference of DM53 and L27 is somewhere around 50mm?
Hard to believe when the british MoD states an increased penetration capability compared to the L27 fired with a L30.

Even 50mm is a lot. But in reality its perfomance against laminated armor and ERA might be increased disproportionally. It might have increased accuracy/reduced barrel wear/increased life time/etc. There are many reason why one round would be replaced by another. And well, what else shoud british MOD tell? Sure DM-53 have "ncreased penetration capability compared to the L27 fired with a L30". They dont lie.

[eckherl]

I wouldnt bet on it. DM-63 should have penetration figure around 800mm at 2000m. T-90A passive frontal armor believed to be around the same figure. Plus, Kaktus should increase the protection in 1.5 times (at least according to advertising).

How do you know the exact performance figures of a DM53/DM63, the Germans are quite content with it`s abilities engaging potential enemy armor even matched up with Kaktus up to 2000 meters. Relict ERA may be a different matter at that range.

[Chrom]

It is not too classified, it consists of titanium and rubber on the T-90. Even that is unproven, and we dont know exact thickness and shape of titanium and rubber sheets anyway.

[Chrom]

How do you know the exact performance figures of a DM53/DM63, the Germans are quite content with it`s abilities engaging potential enemy armor even matched up with Kaktus up to 2000 meters. Relict ERA may be a different matter at that range.

Its dimensions is pretty well known, its muzzle velocity is also known with some accuracy degree. Plus of course comparable general technological and scientific level means DM-53 should have similar perfomance to M829A3.
Germans are not "content" with anything regarding T-90 penetraton untill they publicaly test it. Else it is just well, wishfull thinking. After all, they cant just tell everyone "look, our most modern round cant penetrate our most likely enemy's tank! We all die!"
They just made best gun and best round they can. They cant make anything better regardless if present APFSDS can or cannot penetrate T-90 armor.

[eckherl]

T-72M1 armor is known to be :

Turret: 380(490) mm
Glacis : 400 (490) mm

Data are from NII Stali itself.

So, front+back KE armor is probably close to 450-480mm.

Note, T-72M1 is more or less comparable to later 70x USSR T-72A.
Comparing T-72M1 armor and T-90 armor is like comparing M1 and M1A2SEP armor.

in reality, there are several variants of T-72M1, and these data are for most protected one. I dont know which variant was penetrated at 4000m. Still, given what fairly modern round with nominal penetration close to 500mm at 4000m range was used it is very possible what the round penetrated both front and and back turret armor.

P.S. 800-850mm is based on estimation supported by Vasiliy Fofanov. More known Paul Lakowsky estimation gives somewhat higher figure, but general consensus what his estimations are fare too generous for all tanks (he provided figures for most modern tank including western tanks).

Okay - I have deep respect for both of these gentlemen, but please keep in mind that they are only estimates and they will tell you that also. I have asked questions in regards to tank rounds like the M829A1 and M833 to these guy`s just to see how close they could get, and they came up short.