The Arjun Tank

[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...

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.