Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Viv S wrote:http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/walk-t ... /230667?hp

The most illuminating part of that interview was the penetration figures of the FSAPDS described. And I have to confess I was rather disappointed with what I learned.

According to Dr. Saraswat, the existing type in service is graded as 400mm RHAe, units currently in production are graded 500mm RHAe and a type with a penetration of 600mm of RHA is currently in development. In contrast the original M829 DU round introduced in 1984 had a RHAe penetration of 500-550mm (540mm at 2km acc. to Jane's). The M829A3 and the German DM63 are both believed to have a RHAe figures well in excess of 750mm. Necessary, considering the proliferation of heavy ERA on the later Soviet/Russian models.

(^^ I sincerely hope I'm wrong and/or misinformed)

In the regional context, while information about the ERA packages on the Pakistani Al-Khalid and T-80UD tanks, is sketchy, one should probably err on the safer side. I'm surprised a DU penetrator instead of the WHA model in service, has not been opted for - unlike the Germans we don't have any particular aversion to nuclear products nor are we striving for export driven production like the Russians.

Given the see-sawing in the MoD/IA between domestic production and importing state-of-the-art, its not altogether surprising that the morass in decision making has led to a shortfall in ammunition reserves. I admit I wouldn't be altogether too disappointed if we were to settle for the proven L55-DM63/M829 (or derivatives thereof) on the Arjun Mk3/FMBT as so many other countries are doing. If not, I hope DRDO and the IA are approaching the issue with the resolve similar to the NATO during the Cold War to ensure Indian tankers never see their rounds pinging off enemy armor.
VivS, why do you think we are spending a huge bomb on the otherwise unecessary Refleks rounds, but for the fact round development in the T-90/T-72 is already hitting practical limits?
Furthermore, take the penetration figures for all those M829 etc series rounds with a grain of salt. The issue is not of penetration numbers against RHae alone, but whether the dart maintains some level of efficacy against complex, multi-layer composite, and that too protected by ERA. So a round with "lesser" absolute penetration numbers could still be equivalent to another with more numbers.

Even so, a round designed for the legacy T-90/T-72 autoloader will have length limitations - you are expecting a shorter dart to do as well as a longer dart, and in rough terms, the longer a KE round is, the better. Can't come up with more explosive power in the propellant, the gun won't stand for it.

Ok, with that said - what Saraswat was referring to was the classic rubbish that is Indian procurement. The first round he mentioned was the DRDO-OFB MK1 125mm round. The OFB messed that up by mixing and matching russian propellant (which leaked) and the round got a bad rep. Even so, production was restarted once problems were fixed and many delivered. But by then the Army got its hands on an Israeli round with better performance and thought their issues were over as OFB would license make it. In reality, OFB never quite got around to it & had trouble even assembling the Israeli rounds with screwdriver tech (the FSAPDS "shots" came from Israel, unlike the DRDO ones, and were merely machined in India). The IMI guys got into trouble BTW with the CBI over allegations many IMI deals were struck with Ghosh who is under investigation for corruption charges. Even in Europe, production of Israeli 125mm rounds has not really taken off (which is where this round first appeared) and Rheinmetall/German munition makers have stepped in successfully, supplanting the Israelis. In the meanwhile, the DRDO had its own MK2 FSAPDS round ready (per the interview above it was at the Israeli rounds level) but the Army wanted something better, so last year a bunch of rounds were ordered, at the improved level, to be put through AUCRT.

So, the basic challenge with the T-90/T-72s will remain. The huge order of the otherwise useless Refleks (cant use it against bunkers or any multipurpose use, its just too expensive) is to somehow overcome the fact that with more ERA, these rounds are going to be challenged in the future by heavier and heavier tanks.
svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4727
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by svenkat »

Niece, friend of Adviser to Manmohan got land largesse from BEML co-op.
Plots returned after whistle-blower complained to PMO

A cooperative society of employees of BEML, a public sector defence undertaking, made at least two irregular allotments of housing sites to a niece and to a friend of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Adviser, T.K.A. Nair, in December 2008, documents available with The Hindu show.

The allotment of plots in South Bangalore at throwaway prices was made at a time when complaints by company whistle-blowers about the role of BEML Chairman and Managing Director V.R.S. Natarajan in the controversial Tatra truck deal — first made in 2005 — were pending with the Central Vigilance Commission, the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister's Office.
The plots were allotted to Mr. Nair's niece, A. Preethy Prabha, and family friend, Uma Devi Nambiar, by the BEML Employees Cooperative Society. A third plot was allotted to another person, who, the whistle-blowers claim, is also related to Mr. Nair, who was the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary when the allotments were made, and still has Minister of State rank. Her identity is being withheld by The Hindu as her relationship to the senior official could not be independently verified.

Interestingly, the three sale deeds show that a senior official in Mr. Natarajan's office put his signature to the land transaction as a witness.

Violation

All three transactions violated section 10 (b) of the BEML society's by-laws, which stipulate that allotments of land — which had been given to the society by the State government at significantly subsidised rates — be restricted to employees of the company.

Why the f58k should GoKN subsidise the employees of BEML.

Natarajan was also allotted plots
BEML Chairman and Managing Director V.R.S. Natarajan, too, was allotted plots by the BEML Employees Cooperative Society, in violation of norms, at Thubarahalli near the HAL Airport here.

The plots (number 795 and 796), which were combined to form a contiguous corner site measuring nearly 6,000 sq ft, were sold to Mr. Natarajan on January 22, 2005, for Rs. 8.58 lakh, or Rs. 152 per sq ft. Today, the average market rate hovers around Rs. 8,000 per sq ft., and a corner site is worth much more.

The violation of norms in his case arises from the fact that he was allotted two sites, whereas the by-laws allow for only one plot per person. Secondly, corner plots are supposed to be auctioned in the open market by a housing cooperative. But an exception was made for Mr. Natarajan
arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arijitkm »

Night-blind army tank falls into ditch, 2 troopers dead

http://idrw.org/?p=11162
arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arijitkm »

Deleted
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

huh! what type of tin can is this? did they die of suffocation and got drowned? details?
aniket
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 14 Dec 2010 17:34
Location: On the top of the world

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by aniket »

The article says the incident happened during an exercise.Is it Ex Shorveer ?
RIP
aniket
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 14 Dec 2010 17:34
Location: On the top of the world

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by aniket »

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kn7A2d2XNNg/T ... C01005.JPG
Is that a remote operated machine gun on the top ??
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

yes the T90 commanders HMG can be remotely operated, though it seems lack its own optronics like a proper remote weapons station would.

btw tanks falling into ditches and rivers is fairly common even for super dooper Abrams. a bunch of such incidents happened in OIF leading to some fatalities also. I have a book on the abrams ops in iraq that has colour photos of the fallen tanks and recovery work by ARVs.

even with best of NVG, doesnt match that of a guy in a car imo.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Philip »

Xcpt. from the BR news item quoting DNA about the Govt. shoving Tatra trucks down the IA's throat and the "Saint's" erroneopus statements to Parliament.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=18269
But inexplicable changes followed and an order for 490 trucks were placed with BEML in March 2006 at an estimated cost of Rs254.54. Kalyanraman's audit investigation revealed that the order went to BEML after "secretary (defence production) strongly recommended" the public sector unit to the then defence secretary and the then vice-chief of the army.

Shekhar Dutt was the defence secretary then. He is now the governor of Chhatisgarh. Considered close to the senior Congress leadership, Dutt received several assignments after retirement.

The defence ministry justified the switch by changing the parameters. It used a GSQR meant for some other truck to push the deal in favour of BEML. All this was done "to keep the production line of BEML alive".

Last year, too, the CAG reported negatively against BEML and Tatra. The CBI, a source said, will use these reports as evidence in its investigation into the Tatra scam.

The audit report (No. 24 of 2011-12) on defence services noted: "The increase of Rs352 crore under heavy and medium vehicles was mainly due to… additional requirement of funds for the new scheme (HMV Tatra Quantity 788)".

At least Rs314.85 crore was paid as advance for contracts that were hastily pushed through in March 2010 "for Tatra vehicles". But "no benefit could be achieved" and there was a case of "over-booking".

Once General VK Singh took over as the army chief, he refused to authorise a purchase of Tatra trucks, following a "bribe offer of Rs14 crore". The general has accused Lt Gen (retd) Tejinder Singh of making the bribe offer. The CBI is investigating the matter.

But the fact is Kalyanraman's audit findings were buried under files and a scam was allowed to flourish for several years.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by mody »

NO Arjun Tanks in use during the Shoorveer Exercise :((

With the exercise tauted as testing Army's future war doctrine, I was desperately hoping that IA would also field the Arjuns.
tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by tejas »

They are too busy fielding Russian uber tanks which lack muzzle reference systems as in the above pic.
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by d_berwal »

mody wrote:NO Arjun Tanks in use during the Shoorveer Exercise :((

With the exercise tauted as testing Army's future war doctrine, I was desperately hoping that IA would also field the Arjuns.
ARJUN Regiments do not belong to the formations that took part in the Exercise.
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by d_berwal »

tejas wrote:They are too busy fielding Russian uber tanks which lack muzzle reference systems as in the above pic.
So, what is your point? Can you explain instead of one liner! Please. (Technically you are wrong, T-90 does not lack muzzle reference system, it has a muzzle reference system)
Last edited by d_berwal on 07 May 2012 18:07, edited 2 times in total.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

d_berwal wrote:
mody wrote:NO Arjun Tanks in use during the Shoorveer Exercise :((

With the exercise tauted as testing Army's future war doctrine, I was desperately hoping that IA would also field the Arjuns.
ARJUN Regiments do not belong to the formations that took part in the Exercise.
Err.....I thought 24 RAPID is part of SWC or has it moved?
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by d_berwal »

rohitvats wrote:
Err.....I thought 24 RAPID is part of SWC or has it moved?
24 is part of SWC but i guess only strike corps elements were part of exercise.... Complete SWC was not on Exercise.
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by d_berwal »

Singha wrote:yes the T90 commanders HMG can be remotely operated, though it seems lack its own optronics like a proper remote weapons station would.
HMG is mated to TKN-4S commanders sight/ optronics.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by chackojoseph »

Saturday or Sunday, I'll post some new info in Arjun MBT. Very few have heard it now. :twisted:
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by krishnan »

which sat/sunday ?
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by chackojoseph »

Coming 12 or 13.
pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 524
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by pralay »

chackojoseph wrote:Saturday or Sunday, I'll post some new info in Arjun MBT. Very few have heard it now. :twisted:
Kal kare so aaj kar:D aaj kare so ab :rotfl:
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by chackojoseph »

Busy to type it. Its worth the wait.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Picklu »

^^ 372?
shyamoo
BRFite
Posts: 483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by shyamoo »

Chacko Saar. Should we worry about this --> :twisted: ?

We usually hear something -ve when things are going good.. :(
tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by tejas »

My point was that if the exercise was test new army doctrines/tactics is it any surprise that the Arjun would get left out? Where is the MRS on the T-90?
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by d_berwal »

tejas wrote:My point was that if the exercise was test new army doctrines/tactics is it any surprise that the Arjun would get left out? Where is the MRS on the T-90?
no surprise as they had no role as per their AOR, in past 5 yrs every exercise was held to test new army doctrines/tactics. Arjuns were in a similar exercise just few months back. One just cant keep those units in constant exercise because of some ones wishes.

Before i answer where is MRS on T-90, What is your definition of MRS and its functionality? and how many times does one use it in say service life of an MBT (service life = 20yrs )?
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by chackojoseph »

vnmshyam wrote:Chacko Saar. Should we worry about this --> :twisted: ?

We usually hear something -ve when things are going good.. :(
No, need not worry.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by chackojoseph »

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Yogi_G »

chackojoseph wrote:Ok, got it typed

DRDO develops Situational Awareness Unit for Arjun MBT
I was hoping it was some new follow on order. :((
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by d_berwal »

chackojoseph wrote:Ok, got it typed

DRDO develops Situational Awareness Unit for Arjun MBT
Guess another name for BMS, what i get form your article is:
- To be tested at Troop Level (some sort of testing done)
- Squarden level capability under development
- Regiment Level and Above to be developed.
- Plus A Command version of ARJUN is planned for (where you are talking about Squadron commander and Squadron 2IC) with added features of BMS
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

I think they should set reasonable goals and make sure it enters service from day1 in the MK2 proto#1 testing, so any feedback can be incorporated right away.

a good target would be squadron level networking and beyond that let only the command tank have its usual links to HQ. sure it sounds sexy and cool to have a full regiment of 55 tanks networked but there is unlikely to be a fight that needs so many tanks moving in one group. .... they can focus on the immediate problems and not get carried away trying to scale it up immediately.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by chackojoseph »

Simply put,

Expect helio/ arty / infanty input via the C4I2. A totally networked unit that won't friendly fire, good situation appreciation, good reporting.

If this is implemented at sqn level then expect FMBT on same lines.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Did they get the A/c unit working off the secondary power unit (dedicated one?) what is the news there?

And righttly pointed out on the fuel drum back by Singha, any redesign to have internal fuel capacity increased up?
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by srai »

SaiK wrote:...
And righttly pointed out on the fuel drum back by Singha, any redesign to have internal fuel capacity increased up?
Fuel drums could be designed to be carried like the Challenger 2 MBT which does not affect turret turning on the back side and is at least protected from the front hemisphere. Check this out:

Image


versus Arjun MBT fuel drums:

Image
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vic »

BMS is being offered since 2002
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Yagnasri »

While we are discussing fuel drums - one of the issues on Mark 1 was the range without any refuelling - Is it addressed in Mark2. I came accross no news item etc on this. Any gurus?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Philip »

TOI.Arjun MK-2 final trials with (89)modifications as per IA specs on June 10th.Is the accompanying pic the actual tank? If so it is marked improvement in turret armour shaping,track protection body panels,speed-58.5 kmh,etc.Costs 34 cr. 3t heavier than MK-1,1500 hp German engine,tack width mine plough,LAHAT ATGM,but production rates are very low,just 15 tanks by 2016,30 in 2017,45in 2018,and the balance of the order later on.An order of only about 120+? If just 124 MK-1s have been ordered,by 2020 we would have just about 300+ Arjuns in both MK1 and 2 avatars.Surely HVF can amp up Arjun production and instead use the earliest T-72s meant for ugrades as chassis for a variety of armoured vehicles as was planned in one option? At this rate of production we will always be dependent upon imports.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nachiket »

^^The 1500hp German engine must be DDM. We never got the 1500hp MTU 873 powerplant. A DRDO(Cummins ?) 1500hp engine was supposed to be under development. It is highly unlikely that it is already ready. The speed reduction is probably due to the 3t weight increase with the engine remaining same. This is probably the only remaining issue with an otherwise superb tank. Keep in mind though, that the P:W ratio of the original Arjun Mk1 was greater than that of the T-90. So even with the weight increase the P:W ratios should remain roughly the same.
tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by tejas »

Being deeply involved in the UK MoD's original developments of tank-bourne Muzzle Reference Systems (or....MRS, as it is commonly referred to), I can answer this with some experience.
As tank barrels became, through evolution and the need to shoot further and more accurately, basically longer and longer in length, there became inherent difficulties in maintaining accuracy of these long barrels. Believe it or not, how ever sturdy tank barrels appear, they bend, frequently in use. Tank barrels bend especially as they gain heat from repeated firing and/or through differential cooling due to, say, winds, snow, rain, etc. [More normally a combination of those former factors]. Accepted that the last metre or so of the pointing direction of the end (or muzzle) of a tank barrel determines the direction of the projectile fired, it is easy to see that the aiming device of a tank, ie the tank sights (or more modernly the tank's fire control system) must keep as accurate as possible harmonisation [or co-alignment] with the pointing direction of the muzzle end of the barrel as it goes through these deformations during firing.
In order to maintain accuracy of fire and compensate for this thermally-induced inaccuracy in modern tank barrels, a system was developed around ,simply put, a light projector (mounted at the tank's turret) which bounced light off a mirror at the muzzle end of the barrel and back into the gunner's sight. In use, the system would be initially accurately aligned with the gun muzzle (by 'boresighting'....I'll keep that a separate subject) and, as the thermal deformations in the barrel occurred during use, the deflections at the muzzle could be checked by the movements in the reflected light spot back into the gunner's sights and the gunner could alter his sight co-alignment with the barrel end by adjustment of 'x' & 'y' of his zero aiming point. Therefore the system was termed a 'reference' system, in that it takes account of inaccuracies induced after first accurate alignment, or reference, of the sights to the gun muzzle.
Formally, I said 'simply put', because the technical difficulties in developing and producing accurate and stable devices to allow such a system to succeed in arduous tank battle conditions are massive. I believe I cannot, to this day, divulge the technical details of what the systems comprise, save to say that they are and have been developments of complex opto-mechanical, precision technologies working in some of the most violent conditions and environments man can produce for such equipment.
I was involved in the initial developments of the system, up to its acceptance into service, as a 'manually adjusted' system, ie the tank gunner had to check his Muzzle Reference System and manually adjust his zero on the tank's sights. However, as I moved on from by involvements, fully-Automatic Muzzle Reference Systems were being discussed and that is where the technology has progressed to today; fully automatic compensation and constant accurate alignment between the firing controls of the tank gunner and the aiming direction of that critical last metre or so of the end of the modern-day tank's long barrel.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_muzzl ... z1utGSmF9g


A pretty decent explanation of what MRS is. I do not know how soon barrel deformation occurs.
Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Gurneesh »

nachiket wrote:^^The 1500hp German engine must be DDM. We never got the 1500hp MTU 873 powerplant. A DRDO(Cummins ?) 1500hp engine was supposed to be under development. It is highly unlikely that it is already ready. The speed reduction is probably due to the 3t weight increase with the engine remaining same. This is probably the only remaining issue with an otherwise superb tank. Keep in mind though, that the P:W ratio of the original Arjun Mk1 was greater than that of the T-90. So even with the weight increase the P:W ratios should remain roughly the same.
Also one must consider the fact that the 1.5 ton plough will not be carried by all the tanks. So, the weight increase will only be 1.5 tons (mostly ERA) for majority of tanks.

Plus in an earlier article on Mk2 (from broadsword IIRC), it was mentioned that the transmission has been tweaked to provide better acceleration even with the increased weight.
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by d_berwal »

tejas wrote: Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_muzzl ... z1utGSmF9g


A pretty decent explanation of what MRS is. I do not know how soon barrel deformation occurs.
http://ofb.gov.in/products/data/optical/23.htm

The above bore-sighting(MRS) device is used for T-90 in India.
Now to say T-90 does not have a MRS would be incorrect. Would you agree ?
Post Reply