Bharat Rakshak

We haven't seen that with the Arjun have we? Neither the Army nor the press (lifafa or otherwise) have ever suggested that the Arjun's gun was inaccurate at long ranges. Quite the opposite actually. Every other real and imagined problem with the tank has been endlessly played out in the media. In the absence of any such evidence what exactly is your motivation for raking up issues in the Arjun that do not exist?

The DRDO smooth bore that will come on Arjun can/will have better performance. That is why DRDO is moving towards it.

Yes the Arjun's gun is quite good, but no reason why it can not be made better. Evidently DRDO also agrees.

Sanku, pretty much anything can be made better with more time and money. It hasn't stopped the army from inducting certain foreign tanks which could easily be made better in several respects. Seems to be an issue only with the Arjun.

Err what? The smoothbore on Arjun is not holding Arjun up. This is a future initiative. No one has asked Arjun to be held up because of smooth bore. In fact this entire discussion has very little to do with Arjun currently or in the past. Its a general discussion on tanks.

And foreign tanks are not being brought, they have already been brought, again irrespective of Arjun.

The ones that are brought are also being constantly improved, with newer electronics and so on and so forth.

So I am sorry, but I must say that the angst is misplaced -- I would like to see a large number of Arjun++ in IA colors as soon as possible too, but that does not mean we do not keep looking ahead at the same time.

Again Maharaj Ji puts foot in mouth. He talks about "smooth bore" being BETTER (I poured cold water on his "better" claims earlier by quoting his own posts on how his "better" stuff has less range and carries less ammo to target.. oh well, less is "better" I suppose) for "Overwhelming majority" of ammo, and now lets see, what we have here.

2) Okay, he talks about APFSDS long rod penetrators. Smooth bores are more efficient here granted, though the Arjun's APFSDS is pretty comparable at 1650 m/s (per the DRDO brochure) to the best that is out there.

3) Same stabilization tech.. Ha Haa. One uses spin to stabilize short fat rounds, the other uses fins to stabilize a longer thinner round. It is likes saying "If my Aunt had a moustache, she would be my Uncle" (mausi ko mooch hota to woh hoti mera maama)! Or as Dr Shivji would say Piskologically, "If my Aunt had D*ck, she would be my Uncle"

4) Now, like another poster posted earlier, we learn a new thing every day. The lesson the other day was.

a) The gun's penetration is because of it's stabilization tech.
Today's learning is
b) The gun's penetration is because of it's acquisition and tracking system.

Err. Think of this. If I have a x has a rifle and y has another rifle, both use the most commonly used "acquisition and tracking system" , their Eye Balls Mk1 and if X has better "acquisition and tracking system" than Y, it follows that X's rifle has a better penetrating power than Y's !

Seriously Sanku. Please provide ONE LINK that says SOMEBODY(other than you) wants smoothbore gun on Arjun.

--Ashish.

Vina ji

you read Sri Sri Sanku ji's statement wrong, he is not claiming the smooth bore will be "better", which is little ambiguous. He is making a very specific claim.. In his own words:



In other news, the IA is going to go with smooth bore muzzle loading for FINSAS. Why?
1. Easier to manufacture. Gun smiths in Munger will do it for you.
2. You can shoot all kinds of crap out of it.. run out of specialized bullets? just roll down a kancha and shoot it out.
3. And other than that, in Sanku ji's own words, "A rifled gun will be *always* less accurate than a "corresponding" smoothbore for the majority of the munitions".. the stabilization and the FCS are the same (eyeball mk1) in both cases!

ergo.. throw away your HK36s and colt M4s.. we will go with munger brand smooth bores!

No you did not, to put it very mildly you displayed intellectual dishonesty by selectively picking half a sentence.

Not only are you ignorant, you are pompous and unwilling to learn.

Bad habits.

Sir, no need to behave like Vina, one is enough. Deal with the content and go easy on rhetoric.

And yes, most of the world has thrown away their rifled guns for smooth bores. Thats how it is. Either you can keep saying the earth is flat, or try and learn and understand why the world behaves like it does.

Your choice. The world will continue to be round.

Why is DRDO making a smooth bore canon? Please, learn the very basics before making one line posts. Or better still, stick to the newbie thread.

Oh I can deal with 'it', whatever you think 'it' is..

What I cant figure out is, should I make fun of statements like "a rifled gun will *always* be less accurate than a corresponding smooth bore", should I try to correct you, or should I let the knaawlidge shine in all its glory.

You will only embrass yourself buddy, like Vina is, by quoting half-sentences from others post. By the way this is actually a discussion settled around 30 years ago, I am somewhat bemused that we still have to discuss it today.

Again, can you provide a link for your claims, its a simple request, I know you have the intelligence to understand it.

I hope you have the intelligence to understand how to use BRF threads and internet. If you dont, you perhaps should not be posting.

Sanku,there was in a recent mag,I can't recollect which one,a pic of the latest Brit. APFSDS round.It differs a lot from std. rounds with a much heavier rear section behind the dart,possibly providing it with more kinetic energy to penetrate newer types of applique armour.Perhasp some others have seen the pic.

Sankuji,
i've been reading this thread since god knows when. But I don't remember seeing any link/studies that show rifled guns to be less accurate than corresponding smoothbores. I tried searching too, but couldn't find it.

From what i have read, smoothbores impart a greater velocity to the ap round compared to the rifled bore and hence makes the ap round far more potent.

I have no interest in starting a flame war, but nonetheless I have to say that despite being asked many times to give proof for your statements, you not only refuse to do so, but also attacked whoever dared to ask. Maybe you feel privileged for being a senior poster with a substantial post count and thus would not deem others (particularly a newbie like me) worthy of such an effort. All the same, neither I nor any unbiased reader would believe a word you say in this regard without proof. So, I suggest you start acting like the senior you are and stop attacking anyone who dares to ask you for proof and consider providing us lesser mortals with a link that is privy only to those who live atop Mount Olympus.

Prasad-ji; as I said before, there are two effects. The first one is velocity. It again has two impact

1) Penetration
2) Drop in trajectory due to gravity is less, since the flight time is less.

The second makes the trajectory "flatter" and hence "more accurate" since the compensation for trajectory during flight is a lesser problem.

It is quite simple, if some one does not wish to start a flame war, one does not. If one makes a dergratroy post, a civil reply should not be expected.

On the specific issue of DRDO developing smooth bores I must say that the articles have been both posted here, just a short while ago and also discussed to death. IMVHO, I think folks should do some amount of effort from there end as well.

Here is one, there are many

http://business-standard.com/india/news ... ue/460560/

The fanciful FMBT specs made by "some" in the army along the lines of requirements mentioned by Gen. V. K. Singh in his interview does not qualify as a impending smooth bore downgrade of Arjun. You have implied if not outright said that this is a forgone conclusion, but have not provided any proof linking the "Arjun" tank to a smooth bore cannon. If you said the FMBT was gonna have a smooth bore cannon, I would have no problem believing you, as i have read this article as well, and don't tell me that Arjun MKIII is the FMBT mentioned in this article which weighs only 50 tons. So, again, I ask you for proof that there is an impending downgrade of the Arjun tank with a smooth bore gun.

I knew I was wasting time, but I thought I will give you the benefit of doubt, as it turns out not only do you not know, you neither want to know.

Your problem boss.

^Indeed asking for proof from someone who haven't any to give is a waste of time, anyway I just wanted to make sure since you seemed so confident.

Also, to clear any doubts, Gen. Singh did criticize the ridiculous requirements given by "some" in the Army and I was referring to that. Lately, he has been a great inspiration to me, standing up for himself and the Army without the stiff upper lip bullshit that one usually sees as a hangover from British times.

Look boss, kindly dispense with the nonsense. Let me be honest -- you dont care for the "proof", there are numerous reports out there including interviews with Dr Sawarasat.

I posted one, because you were being a nuisance, but really with the "What does Gen VKS know what is needed" is quite a clear indicator of your interest in the matter.

If you are serious I suggest you do your home work in looking up Dr Swarwasts interview. I am certainly not going to spoon feed you any longer.

Let me be clear, I am not going to argue with you any more with regard to the smooth bore cannon on Arjun thing. I am now convinced I can't get any real proof from you. As for the quoted part, I don't know how you are getting me wrong (unless you are doing it on purpose). I am fully endorsing Gen. Singh's view, as stated by him in that interview (which should be archived for posterity). He had mentioned how impossible requirements are given by "some" in the army (similar to the FMBT requirements). If you still think that I am questioning Gen. Singh, I really don't know how to convince you otherwise. All I can say is that I hope we have more Army Chiefs like him in the future.

Interesting discussion here. An analysis done in history Smoothbore Vs Rifled Muskets

^^May be this can sort out the issue.
The longest documented range at which a tank has scored a hit on another is 4.1 km (2.54 miles) by a British Challenger tank of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards during the land offensive of the Gulf War (24 to 28 February 1991). The Iraqi tank was a Russian-made T-55.

Source: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wor ... -by-a-tank

Guys, I fail to understand one very basic point. How can some one say that the DRDO is working on 120 mm Smooth bore. for the FMBT. When the GSQR it self has not been issued for it. IIRC, it is just, the imagination of Defence DDM, who posted his wishlist on his blog. As to what the FMBT ought to be.

The IA is has not yet come out with what they want.

Oh..... I forgot, the Human Tandoor Machine 72 with its flying turret is the last word in armored warfare.

I am appalled at the current behavior of few new and old posters on BRF. They seem to wear ignorance as a badge of honor on their sleeves and rhetoric and mischievous attribution to other posters is their chief contribution.

Why dont you ask the head of DRDO?

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/08/f ... 00000.html



http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/01/f ... attle.html

This is filtered bull, because that is precisely what the FCS is supposed to do. "Flatter" does not mean "more accurate" in any tank with modern FCS. Heck even in rifles with adjustable sights, compensating for bullet drop has been done for a century. In any case, higher velocity or not, depending on range, some compensation should be made for the drop. Are you suggesting more compensation is somehow harder than less compensation? The curvature of the earth is around 8 inch per mile. On a range of 2 miles, many inches of compensation has to be made to account for earth curvature! Tanks dont fire on other tanks on a flat surface - what of a tank in lower or higher terrain? Is compensating for that easier than compensating for "less flat trajectory" ?

Modern FCS have round-specific compensation for drop based on the round mass, velocity, range, terrain and aerodynamic characteristics. Heck there is even wind correction and compensation for firing from a moving tank on a moving tank! This is precisely the reason why T90 FCS refuses to work with locally produced rounds and Russies are squeezing our testimonials by not providing the source codes for the FCS. And you are tell all of us "flatter" = "more accurate"!!

Let me throw out another bull: More drop = darts hitting sloped armor is a "more perpendicular" trajectory and hence more effective. Therefore, "less flatter" is "more effective"

Discuss.

^^^

PSQR == GSQR. I was ignorant of that.

Indeed FCS is supposed to do all that.

Unfortunately, it is, like everything else, not a miracle worker, it is only a piece of technology with limitations. Your piece assumes that all gun+FCS will work exactly the same, irrespective of the distance, difference in height, wind velocities etc etc.

It assumes that a for a moving target, the time taken by the round to reach the target adds no difficulty to the FCS software in any manner whatsoever.

Unfortunately, in real world, the FCS is not a omniscient VI that effortlessly plugs everything and works just like everytime.

Just like the slip rings do not remove friction totally and still leave the round with spin, they minimize the spin but "zero friction" does not exist in reality.

So yes, given a FCS (software+hardware), a moving target, a moving platform, quick reaction times, long range engagements, uncertain winds etc etc etc. -- a high velocity round will always be "better" for accuracy, since the mathematical model being executed by the FCS, will have lesser real life variables whose performance would be different from the model.

No you appear to be ignorant that something called PSQR exists for FMBT which is already the template for a significant tech development effort by DRDO.

You are also appear unaware about technologies needing to be created by DRDO before or at least in parallel to product development.

So yes DRDO is working on a smoothbore guns, and other technologies, as a part of capacity building effort for future products.

Sanku, attributing that quote to Dr. Saraswat is a bit less-than-honest, don't you think? It was Ajai Shukla who said that the PSQR has been formalised, and he appears to taken a used a statement the defence minister made in parliament as his reference. Turns out that Antony was wrong then. This is what Shukla says in a more recent piece dated Jan 2012:





Where does it say that the smooth-bore gun is being made for the Arjun? Until now, it is onlee you who claims, "Now that India has expertise in guns, as expected, Indian designed tanks including Arjun will have smooth bores", with nary a reference to solid sources.

Let me put it in mathematical terms. Assume you made a smoothbore as smooth as Hema Malini's cheeks and fired a round at 3000 m/sec. (Which is about twice the muzzle velocity of any modern tank). Over a range of 3km, the drop is about 10 meters. Yes 10 Meters. If you do not correct for that, you will miss a tank by 3 tank heights or more than 5 times the height of the tallest SDRE. And this is for a smoothbore.

Now calculate and tell me how "slow" rifled guns are when compared to smoothbores and what percentage more drop they add? (if at all Arjun's gun is slower?)

Thats not a quotation Sir.

I have not attributed the quote to Dr. Saraswat. In fact, I have merely posted snippets as is from the blog. The sentence about PSQR is not under the quotes "" if you see.

Yes, there have been further clarifications about the PSQR. However it does not change the fundamental point, that in fact, the broad contours of future tank tech development are being worked on by DRDO.

A number of them are direct quotes by Dr Sarawsat as well.

Philip, Bascially the APFSDS is an arrow in flight. So it needs some taper at the aft to give it static stability for the Center of pressure to be aft of the center of gravity. And at the high velocity, all it needs is a small taper.

Also the purported switch from rifled to smooth bore imply that the roles and functions are back to anti-tank role is the primary role for the new tank?
A rifled gun could fire at other targets but may not be optimum in an anti-tank role with APFSDS?

^ Anujan ...even in the Arjun mk1-mki firing test video one could make out the shell dropping visibly in what looked to be 1km shots. unless the shell has some kind of lift generating wing/fin or its a lifting body fuselage it will suffer drop regardless of rifled or smoothbore I think . gravity and drag surely play no favourites.

When you say, "Why dont you ask the head of DRDO?", in response to a someone saying that no GSQR has been issued, and then proceed to highlight this particular sentence in the "quote" field, it very much is a quotation, my dear sir.

Unless, of course, you were responding to Pratyush's query on the GSQR with "the DRDO will develop the FMBT. We need about 7-8 years from the time the project is formally sanctioned"

Dishonest or illogical? Take your pick


Ah, so from GSQR, it came down to PSQRs, and then finally "broad contours", eh? Very nice onlee.

Wait, what? I'd like to see something to back this up. I wont dig up facts to back your statement. So before you throw statements like that, please do give us some reference to what variables various FCS' use and how smoothbore uses less variables compared to rifled bores, simply due to a higher velocity round.