T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

member_201
BRFite
Posts: 425
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby member_201 » 08 Nov 2001 04:47

Sent to me by a BR Forum Member, Avid<P>--------------------------------------------<P><B>Some Russian tankers' experiences in the second Chechen war</B><P>Adam Geibel<BR>07/01/2001<BR>Armor<P>Before the war broke out in Dagestan, the Russian Army had a small T-72 group in the 136th Brigade, while MVD [Ministry of Internal Affairs] troops units were using T-55 tanks. When the Chechens first crossed over into Dagestan in August, 1999, there was a minor curiosity in one of the Russians' tank sheds at Boktiah - a T-- 72 fitted with ERA set up "for export" to India. Rumor had it that the deployment of a battalion of these to the 138th MR Brigade was stopped when it was discovered that soldiers had been selling the explosive from their tanks' reactive armor.2 When the Russians struck back, this T-72BM was put at the head of a company column along the route to Buynaksk. It was soon nicknamed the "Nomad Tank." The crew would receive information from either an artillery forward observer or even a local resident, then drive covertly, but at high speed, into the area indicated. The tank would move independently, without accompanying infantry. Moving offroad along mountain ravines, the tank remained unnoticeable to observers until it reached a suitable firing position, where the crew would fire four to five rounds at the target indicated and then disappear back into the ravines. Over several days, the Russians claimed that a mujihadeen weapons caravan, three mortar teams, and two munitions dumps were destroyed by this method. During the battle for Rakhata, the Nomad rejoined the company. Gunner Sergeant Aleksey R. was employing the main gun to suppress Chechen assault riflemen firing from windows, when return fire from four sides by grenade launchers hit the tank several times and the engine died. The driver-mechanic tried to start it, but the engine wouldn't turn over until several tense minutes had passed. The Russians were convinced that the tank survived the battle only because of the reactive armor blocks. The shaped charge grenades burned through several layers of the turret armor, split the side, and completely removed the sights. The crew came out of the battle bruised and the officer acting as vehicle commander was only wounded.3 For the rest of the T-72 crews, life was full of interesting problems. One T-72 driver-mechanic, contract service Warrant Officer Protsenko, noted in a May 2000 interview that, "In the mountains, the engines overheated. There was not enough power; in fact, it was necessary to stop at 1200 meters. The tracks did not reliably grip the stony soil, especially if there was ice. And it was cold in the tanks. If heat was maintained in the combat compartment, then there was none in the control [driver's] compartment." The crews were able to overcome some of these problems. Claws were fitted to the tracks to improve traction. In the mountains or in low temperatures and humidity, the reloading mechanism's control unit sometimes failed, so the crews would warm them up over a campfire until they ran normally. Some problems were endemic to the T-72's design. The installation and removal of the tank's AKB storage batteries was difficult even under ordinary conditions. The batteries ran down quickly during the winter, and in order to change them, the 70 kg driver-mechanic's seat had to be removed and the equally heavy AKBs raised vertically through a hatch. The mujihadeen took advantage of another of the T-72's weaknesses: after firing, the main gun stops on the hydrostop for reloading, giving the Chechens an opportunity to attack the tank. Sergeant Petelnik, a T-72 tank commander and contract serviceman, noted that, "The rebels tried to attack the left side of the turret and the space beneath the turret, trying first of all to knock the sights out of operation. Sometimes they were successful." After five or six hours of continuous firing, the sabot ejection rack in some T-72s became unserviceable and the magazine lifting mechanism failed. In that case, the ammunition stowage location in the tanks' fighting compartments made it difficult for crews to load the gun from the manual ammunition stowage racks. After the basic load of ammunition was expended, the tank had to leave its position in order to reload a container. Valuable time was lost and in leaving the position, the crew exposed its position and was also forced to leave the vehicle, thereby subjecting themselves to small arms fire. Russian tankers said they wished for an armored transport-- reloading vehicle like those supplied to the missile troops. Others complained about the T-72's fire suppression equipment (PPO), the difficulties detecting the enemy in "complex" conditions with the current vision devices, and the need for secure communications equipment (updated R-174 tank inter-phone systems were mentioned). The mujihadeen had a nasty habit of eavesdropping, sometimes even interjecting bogus commands on unsecure Russian radio traffic. This occurred even down to company and platoon level. Combat operations also illustrated the necessity of equipping all crew members with assault rifles. At the beginning of October 1999, Private Aleksandr Pavlovich Perekrest, a tank driver-mechanic, found himself in Chechnya. Having served for 18 months, he was only six months short of being demobilized. Perekrest described being under fire: "The most horrible thing is when they fire at you for the first time. At first, I let go of the control levers while under fire. The first time was horrifying and later it was nothing, you think: `I'm sitting in an armored vehicle - nothing will happen." Ironically, the private's tank was attached to an infantry platoon and at a position two kilometers from Samashki, it was hit by Chechen mortar fire.4 Even though Perekest had jumped into the tank's hatch, the explosion tore off his hand, temporarily blinded him, and riddled his chest with shrapnel. He regained his sight after three days in the hospital. Perekrest considered his T-72 obsolete, but noted that "there were even older ones - there were T-62s."

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Jagan » 08 Nov 2001 05:08

The T-72 gun is a bi*ch to load, if the auto loader stops working and you have to resort to manual. I dont know how other manual loading tank guns work, but for the T-72, he gun cocks up to a certain angle to facilitate auto reloading, and its a dead give away for anyone nearby to deduce the gun is not going to fire the next 10-15 seconds.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Rudra » 08 Nov 2001 05:23

yes the IA has gone for more of the same on T-90. Let the fish run I always say before you reel 'em in....one awaits the arrival of<BR>moth-balled M1A1s into TSPA as reward for services rendered.

Paul_L
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 06 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Paul_L » 08 Nov 2001 06:50

Good day its good to finally get back on to this site...since so much has changed over the last few months.<P>On the topic of Russian views of their tanks, a T-64 tanker told us on Tanknet last year , that they would take 20 seconds to get a shot off at a target 2km away firing FS HE shell.<P>They do take along time to load, this has always been a major problem with Russian designed tanks. But then I'm told by the Finnish T-72 tankers that they can do very well with enough training...so maybe the problem is also the training they receive [ or don't recieve]!

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Rudra » 08 Nov 2001 07:34

in that case should not be a problem. as per earlier discussion, the NDA graduates prefer the armoured corps first.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Jagan » 08 Nov 2001 19:35

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rudra Singha:<BR><STRONG>in that case should not be a problem. as per earlier discussion, the NDA graduates prefer the armoured corps first.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Its more to do with the status associated with the Armoured Corps rather than its equipment/training.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Vick » 08 Nov 2001 19:50

What horsepower engine do the IA T-72s have? Also, what happened to the upgrade program?

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Raj Malhotra » 09 Nov 2001 00:51

Re Paul <P>Welcome back. I know it is very very belated but I would like to thank you for you post in response to my query (on an earlier thread) to comparing T-72 and Leo-II their weights in relation to size, you did post detailed calculations which I supposed would have required substantial effort. Actually I could not respond at that time as I was off the net due to some problems for a month or so. I am posting rather than giving pm as I do not know whether u will be checking the same.

Paul_L
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 06 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Paul_L » 09 Nov 2001 02:04

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Raj Malhotra:<BR><STRONG>Re Paul <P>Welcome back.......Actually I could not respond at that time as I was off the net due to some problems for a month or so. I am posting rather than giving pm as I do not know whether u will be checking the same.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yeah you and me both! I got "access denied" message for the longest time, not quite sure what I did wrong or who I ****ed off!<P>I gather from polish sources that a hybrid T-72 with a surplus LEO-2A4 turret is being considered to bring the bulk of their tanks in line with NATO requirements!

Guest

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Guest » 09 Nov 2001 02:07

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:<BR><STRONG><BR>I got "access denied" message for the longest time, not quite sure what I did wrong or who I ****ed off!</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Neither!! The UBB software has been behaving bugsy ever since we upgraded it. lots and lots of login problems for "innocent" members since then.. :roll:

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Div » 09 Nov 2001 09:31

Rakesh,<P>Paragraphs are our friends. ;)

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Raj Malhotra » 10 Nov 2001 22:02

Paul if you are reading this thread then would u like to discuss what in your view is better option Arjun (almost like Leo-IIA4 firing single piece semi combustible rounds from rifled barrel) compared to T-90 from hardware point. This is a hot topic here.<P>Secondly related to the same issue how come western designers not make any serious attempt to try and decrease the volume of their tanks. To my somewhat limited understanding (assuming equal tech) a 71-ton Leo-II should weight only 50 tons with the design of T-72. So you can have a lighter tank or eve more armour.

Paul_L
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 06 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Paul_L » 11 Nov 2001 02:45

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Raj Malhotra:<BR><STRONG>Paul if you are reading this thread then would u like to discuss what in your view is better option Arjun (almost like Leo-IIA4 firing single piece semi combustible rounds from rifled barrel) compared to T-90 from hardware point. This is a hot topic here.<BR></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Not quite sure what you mean could you elaborate.<BR><STRONG> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>Secondly related to the same issue how come western designers not make any serious attempt to try and decrease the volume of their tanks. To my somewhat limited understanding (assuming equal tech) a 71-ton Leo-II should weight only 50 tons with the design of T-72. So you can have a lighter tank or eve more armour.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>The internal volume / tank mass issue has several reasons. The all round protection of western tanks is higher than Russian designs of the same tech level so this creats one discrepency.But in the west since WW-II german tank designs it was far more important that the crew have a sufficent space to fight from and a sufficently powerful gun, than have enough armor in front of them.<P>The reason is obvious , you win fire fights by shooting at the enemy and hitting them not just from suviving their hits.<P>So western tanks can burst fire atleast 2 shots in the time it takes a compareble Soviet tank design to respond. Given the phemonminal accuracy and killing power of these rounds ...they are in a position to kill their opponents before they even get to fire back because they fire first....this is the best armor of all!

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Raj Malhotra » 11 Nov 2001 20:59

Paul my question was in context of the fact that India seems to be procuring for now both T-90 and producing Arjuns. But it seems that for all practical purposes the budget may only be able to support one of the two programmes (tanks) to be produced in sufficient numbers.<P>Therefore I generally asked u to compare the merits of the two systems considering one is based on Leo-II and another off course is T-90.<P>***<P>Does the higher volume of the western tanks is also related to the bigger engines (required for higher power, reliability and air conditioning).<P>Also Is leclerc an attempt to utilize the benefits of lower volume.<P>Lastly I agree in classic tank vs tank tactics the fire power and crew comfort may be very important. But with RPGs and ATGMs becoming so powerful and top attack capability of missiles; the only way to increase protection would be to decrease volume I suppose.

Nandai
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 14 Jul 2000 11:31
Location: Sweden

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Nandai » 11 Nov 2001 22:35

Do we for a fact know that the Arjun is based on the Leopard 2, or is it just assumed as they look similar.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Sanjay » 11 Nov 2001 22:43

Hello,<BR>I'd just like to point out a few minor issues before detailing some things as they pertain to Indian armour at present.<P>1) M-1 is much too heavy for use in subcontinent. Arjun has same problem and even the Centurion and Churchill had problems because of their bulk.<P>2) T-72 is still popular in India.<P>Now to Indian armour.<P>To fans of the Arjun this, from the Nov. 24 1997 issue of India today brings cheer:<P>"Despite the well-publicised problems, the Army has in a mature decision agreed to accept 124 tanks of the first batch, while insisting on the required improvements in the second. These include some "slimming" down of weight, redesigning to accommodate an internal auxiliary power unit and a better gun, and provision of reactive armour to neutralise incoming kinetic-energy shells." <P>and<P>"DRDO officials insist, however, that the award was a gesture of appreciation for the general for having overridden his general staff teams' objections to Arjun by conducting the last set of trials himself. On May 31, the last day of the summer trials, Roy Chowdhury had 16 derelict tanks scattered randomly at the test range. Then, choosing two of the four Arjun tanks, he called out the target number at random and ordered them to fire. <P>The result: 15 out of 16 hits." <P>now this year:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.indiadefence.com/aeroindiareport.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.indiadefence.com/aeroindiareport.htm</A> <P>"The ARJUN MBT(15 prototypes) is heavy but it is the most heavily tested tank in the world. Some tanks have done 600 hours and performed at 70% hit probability on the move." <P>Of interest, the T-72 has been given a new 125mm FSAPDS round that defeats the NATO triple heavy targets at ranges exceeding 2500 metres (3500m possible).<P>One wonders if this is as impressive as it seems ? If I recall correctly, the Leopard 2 achieves the same at 2200 metres+ (ie similar performance).<P>On the autoloader vs. manual:<P>In 1965, the Indian Centurions, using the 'battle-range' technique were able to get off 3 rounds in under 20 seconds against M-48s equipped with stereoscopic rangefinders before the M-48s got off their first round. What's more, the rounds fired by the Indians achieved a very high hit rate and penetrations of M-48 frontal armour at ranges up to 1200 metres. This was with APDS 20pdr. ammunition.<P>Even the Vijayanta, with all its flaws, has an excellent first-round hit rate with both the 12.7mm ranging MG and the laser rangefinder based fcs used on some 450 tanks. Some 100-150 tanks have also been fitted with Kanchan armour which imparted a high degree of protection against FSAPDS rounds, HESH and HEAT.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby JCage » 12 Nov 2001 00:04

Thanks Sanjay, :)<P>Pretty interesting information that.All Arjun fans here!<BR>A few doubts...need some brainstorming!<P>#1.Is the new APFSDS projectile for the upgraded T72's..ie is it a recent development?<BR> <A HREF="http://www.drdo.org/products/fsapds.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.drdo.org/products/fsapds.htm</A> <P>If this IS the one,then 75,000 rounds++ have already been produced with production at 40,000 rounds/year continuing.<P>As an aside,iirc,the 2A46M has a stated range of 4km or thereabouts but its performance degrades significantly after 2.5km upwards.<P>#2.With reference to the 1997 IToday report wrt the arjun-Is it the issue of a better gun or a better FCS?It may be of interest to know that the 120mm rifled Gandiva had a "low" muzzle velocity...hence the 120mm APFSDS/HESH were/are hypervelocity rounds...the ammo made up for the gun!<P>Also, <A HREF="http://www.drdo.org/products/mbt.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.drdo.org/products/mbt.htm</A> <P>{The highly lethal<BR>FSAPDS ammunition which is the main battle ammunition of the tank has accounted itself admirably during the trails}<P>The above seems to be a tad different from the usual writeups..does indicate that the ammo is good.Interestingly,its still under wraps spec wise.<P>#3.The vijayanta & kanchan thing mentions that the kanchan DOES offer protection against APFSDS.Then why go for ERA on the arjun against "Kinetic Energy Projectiles".<P>Kinetic Energy Projectiles are=Armour Peircing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabots/Long Rod Penetrators.<P>I guess they want to be absolutely sure!<P><BR>Paul,<BR>Add this to your data about indian rounds...<BR>It gives an L/D ratio as well=15.do you have the other files i sent you?can the data in this link + that in the JPEG file be sufficient to get an effective estimate about this round vis a vis our usual flunkies..alkhalid and type 98?<BR> <A HREF="http://www.drdo.org/products/fsapds.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.drdo.org/products/fsapds.htm</A> <P>Regards,<BR>nitin<P>PS:I had a rather bulky compilation of various sources wrt the Kanchan,including Paul's data.If anyones interested ,will search it out and post.

Guest

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Guest » 12 Nov 2001 00:18

"..and provision of reactive armour to neutralise incoming kinetic-energy shells." <P>That is strange. Era is no good against Kinetic Energy Projectiles. Only laminated armor like Kanchan will do.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Rudra » 12 Nov 2001 00:34

+ERA may be due to kanchan not good enough<BR>against new RPG and ATGM warheads. But<BR>really one would like a single soln like <BR>Dorchester armour....need a lot of R&D in<BR>Univs & DRDO.<P>This new armour may then be applied selectively to all future IFVs, tanks etc.<BR>The BMPs are very vulnerable to ATGMs and RPGs.

Guest

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Guest » 12 Nov 2001 00:41

The guy who heads the Armour Design & Development at DMRL and led the Kanchan armour programme was a Visiting Scientist at JPL, Pasadena, for three years. <BR> <A HREF="http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/sept2000/personnel.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/sept2000/personnel.htm</A> <P>scroll down on the link

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby JCage » 12 Nov 2001 03:04

Arjun and the kanchan…<BR>The kanchan armour is claimed by the DRDO to be the best in its class.There has been considerable controversy over the claims and counterclaims regarding the arjun’s protection levels…heres an attempt to collate certain circumstantial info to give us a “guessestimate” of what we are talking about.<P><B>1.Protection offered…...by .paul lakowski.</B><P>FRont Arjun turret looks like 50cm -57cm KE & 84-83cm HEAT, while Type 90 [Al Kahlid] is about 60cm-63 KE & 102-112cm HEAT....[ Estimates from JANES A&A-95/96] ….(The Addition of ERA adds another 20cm,say 70-77cm KE)<BR>Glacis ~ 47cm LOS <BR>Lower hull ~45cm LOS <BR>Front upper turret ~ 48-50mm @ 80° ~ 27-28cm LOS<BR>Front turret ~ 60-65cm LOS <BR>Top turret ~ 45mm <BR>Rear turret ~35mm & 20mm plates and ~ 40cm spaced armor.<BR>Rear hull 35mm & 20mm plates with ~ 2 meter thick spaced armor.<BR>Side Hull should be similar to T-72 or 60mm RHA plus rubberized side skirts about 25mm thick. <BR>Side turret 40cm? <P><BR><B>2.The exact nature/composition of the armour and its properties thereof.</B><P>DRDO claims that the armour is of a “composite” nature and is in the “chobham class”.<BR>We know that kanchan was developed in 1981,so its not exactly state of the art.(date-WOP,chengappa).<BR>Paul has also mentioned in the past that the armour appears to incorporate fibre reinforced plastic -ie steltextolite.The advantages are light weight,the disadvantages are poor performance against long rod penetrators namely APFSDS.Paul’s assumption about FRP being used can be reinforced by these snippets at DRDO.org <P><BR>a.<I>“FRP composites, having thermoset resin as binder and high tensile strength fibres as reinforcement have been<BR>developed as substitutes for metals in protective systems. The FRP composites of lower density and excellent energy absorption capacity<BR>developed for Kanchan armour are suitable for use in AFVs. Various aramid reinforced ballistic composites of various thicknesses ranging from 5<BR>to 40 mm have been designed and developed to meet the requirement of protection level of 1.1 g FSP, 9 mm SMC, and 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm<BR>rifle bullets. These composites have been found to be stable under extreme tropical and marine conditions. In addition, DRDO has become<BR>self-reliant in advanced composites, e.g., multidirectionally reinforced carbon-carbon composites for re-entry and brake disc applications, using<BR>advanced weaving and braiding technologies”</I><P><BR>b.<I>”Shri MN Saraf obtained his MSc in chemistry from Nagpur University and joined DRDO in 1967 as Junior Scientific Officer at Dett--DRL(M), Gwalior. Later he<BR>joined DRL(M)/ DMSRDE in 1972. <BR>Shri Saraf has been actively involved in R&D programmes of DRDO related to polymers and polymeric composite materials for protective systems, high<BR>temperature resistance resins matrix materials and honey comb structures for the last 32 years. Presently, he is heading the Composite Materials Group at DMSRDE<BR>and has been responsible for development of FRP composites for Kanchan arm our, aramid reinforced composites for naval applications, composites for EMI<BR>shielding, composites for body armour, high shock resistant composites, composites for light weight sandwich structures. Shri Saraf has developed several products,<BR>such as GRP honeycomb structure, anti-mine boot, armour vest, anti-riot GRP helmet, anti-riot polycarbonate shields for paramilitary forces. His another significant<BR>contribution is in the production and supply of anti-riot equipment worth about six crore rupees for various police departments in the country.”.</I><P>The part about being susceptible to APFSDS(and in a way FRP composite)can be inferred from the following too.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.the-week.com/97oct12/cover.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.the-week.com/97oct12/cover.htm</A> <P>.<I>” The DRDO has been claiming to have used Kanchan armour in appropriate combination with monolithic armour for enhanced immunity. The earlier trials showed Kanchan was very effective against high-explosive attack but not against high-velocity armour-piercing fin-stabilised darts. "The turret has not been shaped properly to provide ballistic protection," said an officer. "The panniers and the turret composite armour should ideally be able to withstand chemical energy ammunition hits." </I><P>Monolithic armour +kanchan being the fit.Monolithic,iirc=the usual,standard,steel armour.<P>The above points to another fact…the sides not being sloped to deflect incoming APFSDS rounds.DRDO preferred to stick to the slab sided turret,which according to the week article was effective against chemical attack(HEAT) but not kinetic attack warheads.(APFSDS).DRDO was averse because substantial reeingineering would further delay the project and lead to even more cost overruns.<P>Some more from the following on the HEMRL(DRDO) official website.<P><I>“ERA:<BR>The developed technology disrupts and defeats the shaped charge jet of even the latest anti-tank missile warhead effectively. In this armour, explosive sheets are sandwiched between two metal plates forming a cassette; two such cassettes are mounted in a panel. A large number of these panels are fixed on the tank in such a way that the explosives jet from the shaped charge is deflected by the sympathetic detonation of explosive sheets. The total weightpenalty on account of mounting of ERA panels is less than 1 ton. This is being adopted for modernisation of T-72 tanks and MBT Arjun.</I><P><BR>Here the HEAT warhead/chemical attack thing is being mentioned.Why go for ERA unless your basic composite armour is susceptible to the same?Or you want even better protection against-say-ATGM's!<BR>IIRC,HEAVY ERA also adds to protection against APFSDS.this might be it...<P><BR>The good news is that the ERA fit on the arjun(primarily turret/glacis and front ) will be around 1 ton.<P><B>3.The IA’s view on kanchan.</B><P>The army indicated circa 1997 that the armour was yet to be tried out.(CAG)<BR>BrigGole in the Week article had this to say.<P><I>"Armour is an area where we are delightfully vague," said Brig. Gole (retd). "DRDO says that since it is developed indigenously and is a special technology which nobody in the world has got, the armour has to be kept a secret. I told them that I don't want to read any official documents about the armour's performance. But my chief should say, 'I have seen the performance and I am satisfied that what has been developed is up to the mark.' I will take my chief's word. But the chief would not do it. Nobody will do it unless they have seen it. And I am not ready to take the DRDO's word for it."</I><P>However,it does appear that the army later did try out kanchan and was satisfied….attempts were made to even retrofit the vijayantas with the kanchan.*GenVN sharma* had this to say(Tehelka.com)<P><I>“The Kanchan armour of the Arjun tank is perhaps the best in the world. We suggested that the Vijayanta’s lifespan could be improved by 10 years if we used Arjun’s armour and the T-72 engine, but the idea was cracked down on."</I> <P>The Gen appears to be “in the know” as he says:<BR><I>"I failed the Arjun in 1989 and said that it was not acceptable to the Indian army. Had the defence ministry acted on our suggestions, we could have saved thousands of crores and also ended up in the long run with a technologically superior Indian tank.”</I><P>So to conclude:<BR>Kanchan…FRP based armour composite…lightweight but ineffective against APFSDS.It is effective against CE attacks yet ERA is being sought..the inference is that more protection from even ATGM's is being considered. .<P><B>4.The “spanner in the works” dept.</B><P>It has been posted previously on BRF by a member that protection isnt the issue…if one keeps stacking the armour on…<BR>In short,the arjun weighs in around 100 tons.<BR>However,all accounts till date..including the CAG have stated that the max wt of the arjun has hovered around the 61.5 tons dept.<P>[/i]“As the indigenous efforts to develop a suitable engine and transmission system for the MBT were beset with problems, 42 power packs with transmission units were imported between November 1983 and 1988 from Germany for use on the prototypes and PPS tanks. However, as the imported transmission system was designed to cater upto 60 tonne load as against the all-up weight of 61.5 tonne for the MBT, a mismatch had arisen between engine and transmission which had resulted in bulging of side walls of the hull. As a consequence six transmission units failed before the stipulated life of 6000 Kms. Frequent overheating of transmission oil, noticed during user trials, clearly indicated that the transmission was working outside its design parameters. The DRDO stated in November 1997 that the weight will not be allowed to go beyond 60 tonne and that the failures of transmission units were traced as failure of externally mounted brazed tubes for pressure sensing and the same had since been corrected. The Army, however, pointed out in November 1997 that the transmission was working at its optimum peak when the weight of MBT Arjun was 58.5 tonne.”[/i]<P>Another point being that a 100 ton tank would have zilch mobility with a 1400 hp engine…14 being the power to weight ratio..and would never even achieve the claim speed of 72kmph.<P>Hence,I am not inclined to believe this line of reasoning...must be a mistake.<P>The official DRDO website gives the <B>combat weight</B> of the Arjun as 54.5 tons.*(*=probably intended)<BR>The combat weight should include all the ammo,gas and supplementary weights.<P><BR>Paul has also stated in the past that the arjun may employ BDD type of armour…there have been a number of papers on the same from kanchanabad..talking about a number/series of steel plates mounted at an angle which induce a yawing motion into the projectile upon impact.The T90 ostensibly uses BDD.<P><B>5.Comparison with what we have.</B><P>There is no doubt that the arjun(in the Mk2 mode,as and when it comes out) will be superior in protection to any T72,upgraded or not.The army has insisted that the arjun incorporate blow out panels on the ammo bin/bustle.(CAG)…a feature common to the western tanks and not the t series.<BR>If and when the ammo does blow up,the crew will have a higher chance of survival as the force of the explosion will be vented outward by the blow out panels.<P>Armour specs of the T72M1 from various sources.(courtesy Rob Vdolen-tanknet.org)<P>a.“"TACOPS" a computer game by USMC Major I.L. Holdrige (1999) <BR>T-72M: 450mm KE and 900mm CE<P>b.Digital Soldiers" by James F. Dunnigan <BR>Maximum frontal protection <BR>T-72: 250mm<P>c. "Gulf War Fact Book" (1991) by GDW <BR>T-72M1 (Iraq): 400mm KE and CE RHAe.<P>d.T-72 Soviet Main Battle Tank" (1989) by Steven J. Zaloga <P>T-72M1 technical data:<BR>Glacis plate: 200mm laminate @ 69 degrees.<BR>Turret front: 250mm + laminate @ 5-10 degrees<P>e.<BR>"How to Make War" (1993) by James F. Dunnigan <BR>T-72 maximum armor: 170mm steel + sloped = 238mm KE and CE. <P>f.From the armour tech thread…..read the specs of the T72A and roughly extrapolate t the T72M1 taking the T72M1 to be an enhanced T72A.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000047" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000047</A> <P>In each and every case,we can see that the <I><B>basic arjun protection is beyond T72M1 levels…and the T72M1 is hardly a yardstick to compare arjun with.</B></I><P><B>6.The opposing firepower.</B><P>Paul:<P>The Chinese , with Israeli help have a 59cm long 27:1 L/d Tungsten APFSDS with 1.73 km/s velocity **. In all likely hood thats 64cm @ 2km range [compared to 62cm for the BM-32],and then ofcourse the chinese have their long 125mm DU round. <BR>**{Andersons @ 2km [1.67-0.85] x 1.17 = 0.96 x 59cm = 56± 8cm}<P><B>****Can penetrate stripped arjun WITHOUT ERA.<BR>An arjun with ERA can theoretically take it on.****</B><P><BR>Regards,<BR>nitin<P>PS:There is no clear indication of any subsequent developments wrt APFSDS and kanchan being improved...but it might have been done nonetheless.<P>The fact that ERA is suficient + kanchan to do the job may well mean this aint the plain jane 1981 version anymore and is better wrt APFSDS.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Sanjay » 12 Nov 2001 03:29

Gentlemen,<P>I remember that Week article.<P>There is a major problem with the Kanchan armour - it is murderously difficult to machine.<P>The vulnerability of Arjun to FSAPDS should not be seen as absolute or send people into panic. It's just that the shaping of the armour is not ideal - looks like a Leopard 2 before the upgrade.<P>Now, I did some research and contacted a former CVRDE chap and asked a straight question - was the Kanchan tested against FSAPDS rounds and was the performance found acceptable. The answer was an unequivocal yes.<P>The army's argument is that the turret of the Arjun is not ideally shaped to offer max. protection against FSAPDS rounds and wants to alter the shape using the ERA panels to enhance both physical protection and defacto protection via better sloping.<P>If they tried to do it with Kanchan, there would be a massive weight penalty - weight would apparently cross 60 metric tons.<P>Note the Indian T-72 upgrade altered the sloping of the turret armour of the T-72.<P>I suggest being a little bit careful about reading the Week article and basing everything on it. It was a good article, but it was not entirely accurate.<P>The tank is well protected against both KE and HEAT/HESH rounds. However, the army wants additional protection against top-attack and KE rounds and this is to be accomplished using ERA.<P>Furthermore, had India been a temperate country, Arjun would have been declared a success since Dec. 1993. However, the muzzle ref. system and engine malfunction above 45 degrees celcius. I expect that things have been improved since then.<P>The Arjun has good firepower and protection. Let us not be distracted about that. The army wants it to be better. Somebody commented that the Indian army wants a Leclerc standard to be achieved immediately.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby JCage » 12 Nov 2001 03:43

WRT ERA vs APFSDS..heavy duty/integral era also works against the same.<BR>EG the K5 ERA on the T90 purportedly degrades long rod penetrators by over 30%.<P>This is differnt from the normal brick type ERA tiles you can see on the ajeya upgrade(BR pics page)..integral ERA often has a clam shell appearance(T90-K5)and consists of light steel armour plates with Explosives within.<P>K5 claims to offer something like 250mm protection against APFSDS and 600mm against HEAT.<BR>Weighs round 3tons!<P>The last probably discounts it or a similar type being used on the Arjun as the weight is around 1 ton.<P>Of course applying the ERA to only the front of the turret and the glacis may result in reduced weight.<P>Regards,<BR>nitin

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Sanjay » 12 Nov 2001 03:53

Gentlemen,<BR>Nitin, guess what ? Back in 1999, the Arjun ERA came up in a discussion and some were talking about a weight penalty of up to 6 tons ! So go figure.<P>Yes, the FSAPDS round is the one in full production at present.<P>I'm sharing an e-mail with you from a serving DRDO scientist whose name I will withold at present. He served at CVRDE.<P>This was the answer:<BR>Dear Sanjay,<P>DRDO claims could be taken as correct. All tests are done to the<BR>satisfaction of the armed forces. There are no false claims as I<BR>know. The target specs are not known to me. I think, it is triple<BR>heavy NATO only.<P>bye.<P>These were the questions:<P>> Perhaps you can answer something:<BR>> <BR>> DRDO websites have this to say about Kanchan armour:<BR>> <BR>> "All round protection from anti-tank ammunition is<BR>> achieved by the newly developed KANCHAN armour to a<BR>> degree much higher than available in present<BR>> generation tanks."<BR>> <BR>> and<BR>> <BR>> "Kanchan, Composite Armour for Vijayanta and Arjun<BR>> Tanks:<BR>> The state-of-the-art armour affords immunity against<BR>> Heat, HESH and KE rounds at appropriate ranges and<BR>> under different service conditions. Vijayanta has<BR>> acquired significantly in-creased protection with<BR>> Kanchan armour. The armour for MBT Arjun has been<BR>> successfully tested against different threats."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> It also says this about its FSAPDS 125mm projectiles:<BR>> <BR>> "Performance:<BR>> <BR>> Accuracy - <0.3 miles<BR>> <BR>> Penetration - Can defeat all NATO targets at a range<BR>> of 2500m and beyond<BR>> <BR>> Range - Effective lethal range up to 3000m<BR>> <BR>> Behaviour - Functions satisfactorily at extreme<BR>> climatic conditions"<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Can we assume that DRDO is being honest with these<BR>> claims and has carried out thorough and rigorous tests<BR>> and that these claims can be taken at face value ?<BR>> <BR>> What is meant by NATO targets - is it the triple heavy<BR>> target that NATO uses for testing its 120mm guns ?<BR>>

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby JCage » 12 Nov 2001 03:57

Sanjay,<P>Great news indeed! :)<P>There were/are obvious discrepancies in the week article...looks like the journo missed the nuances.<P><I>The army's argument is that the turret of the Arjun is not ideally shaped to offer max. protection against FSAPDS rounds </I><P>Ok!<P><I>and wants to alter the shape using the ERA panels to enhance both physical protection and defacto protection via better sloping.</I><P>Could you elaborate more? :)<BR>I mean normal ERA wouldnt really affect KE penetration and how would ERA help in changing the shape of the basic turret?Or is it an attempt to mount the ERA at an angle and have the APFSDS glance off(being simplistic here..)<BR>Are we talking of heavy duty ERA here?<P><I>If they tried to do it with Kanchan, there would be a massive weight penalty - weight would apparently cross 60 metric tons.</I><P>More and more sense!<BR>The army wants the weight to be reduced from 61.5 tons to 58 or thereabouts...so ERA-lighter -does the job as a sort of replacement.<P><I>The tank is well protected against both KE and HEAT/HESH rounds. However, the army wants additional protection against top-attack and KE rounds and this is to be accomplished using ERA.</I><P>Right!A little doubt again-are we talking of heavy duty ERA here(protection against KE)?The tiles on the T72/Ajeya looked pretty much the normal sort to my untrained eye.Or has DRDO done something nifty?<P><I>Furthermore, had India been a temperate country, Arjun would have been declared a success since Dec. 1993. However, the muzzle ref. system and engine malfunction above 45 degrees celcius. I expect that things have been improved since then.</I><P>Ok!So its not the FCS to blame but the Muzzle ref. system which provides inputs to the FCS.<P>Regarding the engine, i believe they did redesign the cooling pack.<P>Regards,<BR>nitin

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby JCage » 12 Nov 2001 04:06

I just read your post!Thanks.<P> 6tons vs 1 ton... :)<P>In a single series of posts you have shed more light on the arjun than the entire stuff available so far.Way to go!!!<P>Could you take a jab at the other q's?<P>Any more known about the arjun's other facets?FCS/Main Gun etc...? :)<P>Regards,<BR>nitin

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Sanjay » 12 Nov 2001 04:06

Nitin,<P>The ERA formed almost an arrowhead on the upgraded T-72s. It was described as the one of the most comprehensive ERA arrays ever fitted to a tank - this was from Military Technology sometime in late 1999.<P>Let me ask something now - how does the design and penetration characteristics of the Indian FSAPDS compare ?<P>Mind you, all have the same source - a new FSAPDS designed for 105mm guns for the Vijayanta in the 1980s.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby JCage » 12 Nov 2001 04:28

Sanjay,<P>You appear to be on the dot!I had forgotten the turret appearance.<P>The T90+k5 ERA:<BR> <A HREF="http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/IMAGES/t-90001.html" TARGET=_blank>http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/IMAGES/t-90001.html</A> <P>To my eye,the clam shell appearance(the K5 is near the smoke launchers and the sighting eqpt right beside the turret) is a bit different from the bricks in this pic..but that appears to be the individual size of the K5 module vs the Indian one.<P>Upgraded Ajeya:<P> :)<P><BR>For what its worth,a chinese defense mag,a few months back compared our new 125 mm APFSDS(i didnt know what was being referred to) as equivalent to the latest NORINCO round.This would be the same NORINCO rounds which would be on the MBT2000/ALkhalid and type98.<P><BR>regards,<BR>nitin

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Sanjay » 12 Nov 2001 04:37

Nitin,<BR>Can you please find Gen. Sharma's exact quote and link from Tehelka ?<P>If he says that about Kanchan, take it seriously.<P>Kanchan was fitted to some Vijayantas. However, every powerplant tried failed somewhere. In fact, the reason that the full Vijayanta upgrades were never done was because so much had to be changed that it would have cost a massive sum.<P>So NORINCO says that India's FSAPDS has similar performance to their latest round ? <P>That's impressive since they pulled their stuff from Israel.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby JCage » 12 Nov 2001 04:56

Sanjay,<BR>Cant find the link but those 2 are the exact quotes from the article! <BR>They were the ones of greatest interest. :)<P>The chinese mag said so.Norinco hasnt claimed the same yet.Not that i think they ever will! <P>regards,<BR>nitin

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Sanjay » 12 Nov 2001 06:11

Here's the latest report on Arjun from the Statesman Feb.28th. 2000<P>Orders for Arjun tank to be placed<P>SRINJOY CHOWDHURY<BR>STATESMAN NEWS SERVICE<P>NEW DELHI, Feb. 27. — At last, the first orders for the indigenous Arjun main battle tank will be placed. The Arjun, being readied since the mid-80s, recently cleared the last trials at Balasore, and the Kanchan armour which was under a cloud, has been found good enough.<BR>“The doubting Thomases are finally silent. All the problems have been ironed out and now, we are ready to place orders for two regiments of tanks,” a defence ministry official said. The Army is likely to ask for about 120 tanks; this will include the 90 or so tanks for the regiments plus the reserves and a few for the training establishments. Each tank is likely to cost Rs 10 crore to Rs 12 crore. After the Arjun begins service, work on a modified version, Arjun II will begin.

Prof Raghu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 24 Mar 1999 12:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Prof Raghu » 12 Nov 2001 07:34

From Monday's (tomorrow) HT:<BR><A HREF="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1641249864" TARGET=_blank>New tanks will give India a significant edge</A>

Paul_L
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 06 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Paul_L » 12 Nov 2001 09:25

Ok some comments and info, most modern 105 APFSDS can penetrate NATO triple heavy target @ 4-6km range so this round looks deficent to me!<P>ERA will effect APFSDS rounds,the original idea for ERA was a layer of explosives sandwich between two thin 2-3mm plates that are driven appart at high velocity that distrupts the HEAT jet because it lacks any real mechanical strength.The assumption that this armor would not be detonated by APFSDS was not borne out since the impact force of medium and large calibre HEAT is the same as medium and large calibre APFSDS rounds. Inaddition most reports claim that the ERA can't be detonated by small APFSDS..but these claims end at 25mm APFSDS.<P>Russian Kontakt is quite different with just one 5-10mm thick flyer plates with a layer of explosive behind.Thus the 'flyer plate' is driven out wards .The K-5 features these ERA elements inside armored box that has 25mm front and back steel plates, so its more of a hybrid armor.This way even when the ERA is 'expended' the array still offers considerable spaced armor, which effects both APFSDS and HEAT.<P>We now have the armor lay out for the T-80UM-1 tank which is very similar to T-90...here are some facts.<P>The lower hull [which accounts for 1/3 of the front hull profile], is 90mm thick @ 65° RHA [ probably 270BHN since this is the armor of the Yugo M-84 - T-72 model].Even when you add dozer blade and the rubber mesh skirting you end with maybe <B>30cm KE resistance and 40-45cm HEAT</B>.Most battlefeild AT warheads can penetrate this much armor at combat ranges.<P><BR>The glacis is 235mm set back at about 67°-68° and features a 9 layer array with the insert a BDD arrangement with two thin 10mm steel plates suspended in some material [rubber?]. This should offer about <B>50cm KE resistance and 60-65cm HEAT.</B><P>The upper front turret accounts for 1/4 of the front turret profile and offers <B>~ 35-40cm KE resistance including ERA and 60-70cm HEAT resistance.</B> Bit better but the armor can be penetrated by modern 105mm APFSDS @ 2-3kms range.<P>Middle turret section [ 1/2 meter either side of the gun] is ~ 65cm thick cast armor [ no special armor] that with lateral confinement offers only about <B>45cm KE and say 65-70cm HEAT resistance.</B> Good armor but has no chance of standing up to TOW-2 or any modern 120mm APFSDS at combat range.In fact most modern LAWs could acheive penetration here.<P>1/2 front turret profile is very thick indeed, about 1.1 meter thick [LOS thickness] with 1/2 cast armor plus an insert with ~ 30cm ceramic layer [Aluminua ] and 5cm thick aluminum plate and the rest some steltexolite material.<P>Taking into account lateral confinement , T/d and material thickness effectiveness ..I make that out to be about <B>52-54cm KE resistance from straight on and 45cm KE from ± 30° off angle.</B><P><B>So about half the front armor can be penetrated by 120mm DM-33 L-26[Charm 1] or M-829 @ 3km , while the 105mm M-900 and French OFL-105 E 2 can penetrate this much armor at 2-3kms range. The Chinese Type 86 100mm DU round can penetrate this much armor @ 2km range.<P>The other half of the armor can be penetrated by most other 105mm ammo @ 3 kms and more.</B><P>K-5 ERA is available , but it only covers 2/3 of the heavy armor sections of these tanks leaving the vunerable sections still vunerable and some of the heavy armored sections. K-5 should offer 50mm KE resistance @ angle ..so the front turret arrays are set @ ~ 65-70° so they offer ~ 8-10cm additional armor to the above estimates. Inaddition these type of armors destablize APFSDS penetrators by shattering the tips of hard penetrators and yawing the remaider so penetration is greatly reduced. This can amount to 18-22cm additional KE resistance to as much as 25-28cm , if hard steel APFSDS. However studies show this kind of armor has hugh shot to shot variation in resistance, so the real additional armors should be rated as <B> plus 16cm ±6cm and plus 22± 6cm respectively</B>.<P>However its obvious that NATO ammo designers are aware of the limitations of these kinds of armors because the following. British ammo designers and GErman ammo designers use very high strengh alloys that reduce the variable resistance considerably. In addition german designers are known to employ 'sectioned' noses which seperate after penetration of the outer ERA layer which means the yawing actions are not transmitted to the main penetrator.Their may be evidence of this type of nose in other penetrators like the British rounds like the L-23, AMerican M-829A2 & 3 and possibly the 105mm M-900 as well as the German 120mm DM-33 & 53 penetrators.<P>If this is the case, the effectiveness of these ERA armors may be limited to just the erosion component plus a small variable .... <B>+ 10-16cm total.</B>In that case even the heavy T-80UM-1 armor backed up by K-5 could reach <B>60-70cm KE resistance</B> and be penetrated by state of the art penetrators with 50% success at the following ranges....<BR><B><BR>120mm DM-33 ; 105mm M-900E1 & 120mm Charm-1 under 1km.<P>120L44 DM-53 @ 2to 3kms<BR>120L55 DM-53 ; M-829A2 & Charm-3 @ 3-4km <BR>M-829A3 @ > 4km .<BR></B>

Paul_L
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 06 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Paul_L » 12 Nov 2001 09:50

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nitin:<BR><STRONG>Various aramid reinforced ballistic composites of various thicknesses ranging from 5 to 40 mm have been designed and developed to meet the requirement of protection level of 1.1 g FSP, 9 mm SMC, and 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm rifle bullets. These composites have been found to be stable under extreme tropical and marine conditions. In addition, DRDO has become<BR>self-reliant in advanced composites, e.g., multidirectionally reinforced carbon-carbon composites for re-entry and brake disc applications, using<BR>advanced weaving and braiding technologies”[/i]<BR>.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This tells something since it means an material effectiveness of 0.35 to 0.4 of RHA facing bullits. Any indication of if they were API shots or just lead shot?<P>Simple spectra sheild or Dyneema offers 0.2 resistance to API shot while much heavier SA glass offers about 0.25 of RHA and ALuminum Al5xxx series offers 0.35 of RHA.<P>Any clues as to the density of Kanchan?<P>You say 15:1 L/d on the 125mm penetrator any muzzle velocity and mass?

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Raj Malhotra » 12 Nov 2001 12:45

Kanwa News April 20, 2001<P>While the country holds satisfactory comments on its overall features, Pakistan has also complaints about its 125-mm APFSDS. The China side once claimed that this APFSDS can penetrate 500-mm high-quality armor, but tests performed by Pakistan Army in real situations showed that it can only penetrate high-quality armor of between 460 and 480 mm. As a result, improving work will be started. Pakistan Ordnance Factories has also developed another kind of APFSDS, which was exclusively for AI Khalid and Ukraine's T80UD MBT. Both products have the same functions, with the only difference in the shape of top shell part.<P>(posted earlier on BR)<P><BR>Details of Indian 125mm<BR>Cartridge 125 mm FSAPDS is a soft core Tank Ammunition. It is fired from T-72 Tank. It has the capability of defeating the heavy triple target. <BR>The Ammunition consists of a front carg. And a rear cartg. The front Cartridge consists of a Tungsten Alloy penetrator with Aluminum alloy Sabot, Tail Unit and Semi Combustible components and Triple base propellant. The Rear Carg. of the ammunition consists of metallic base Electrical - cum - Percussion Primer and Semi combustible components together with a triple base propellant as the main charge. <BR>CHARACTERISTICS<BR>· Muzzle velocity : 1500 to 1550 m/s<BR>· <BR>· Pressure : 413 to 427 mpa<BR>· <BR>· Effective Range : 3.5 kg<BR>· <BR>· Accuracy<BR>· :HSD : 0.35 mils(max)<BR>· :VSD : 0.35 mils(max)<BR>· :ASD : 0.30 mils(max)<BR>· <BR>· <BR>· Weight of Read Cartg. : 9.424 +/-0.025 kg<BR>· <BR>· <BR>· Weight of Front Cartg. : 9.606 +/-0.050 kg<BR>· <BR>· <BR>· Weight of Empty Shot : 7.080 kg<BR>· <BR>· <BR>· Weight of Metallic Base : 3.400 kg<BR>· <BR>· <BR>· Weight of Propellant in Rear Cartg. : 5.200 kg<BR>· <BR>· <BR>· Weight of Propellant in Front : 2.3 kg<BR>QUALITY<BR>Each individual components and propellant are proved both statically and dynamically before these are taken to Assembly of the ammn., The assembled Ammn. is again subjected to Gun Proof for Accuracy. Penetration and other relevant criteria.<BR>SHELF LIFE<BR>10 years <BR>PACKING<BR>Both the front and rear cartridges are packed in snug fit hermetically steel containers. These steel containers are then packed in a steel packing box. <BR>HAZARD CLASSIFICATION<BR>· compatibility group : E<BR>· <BR>· <BR>· Hazard division : 1.2<BR>· <BR>· <BR>· Fire fighting classification : 1<P><BR>Details of 120mm Indian – seems more powerful and single piece<P><BR>FSAPDS SPECIFICATIONS <BR>· Length of round : 944mm<BR>· Weight of round : 20.2 kg<BR>· Type of propellant : NQM-119<BR>· Weight of propellant charge : 8.46 kg<BR>· Type of primer : SCP MK II B<BR>· Tracer : No.33<BR>· Fuze : -<BR>· C.9(from base cup) : 425 mm<BR>· Muzzle velocity : 1650 m/s.<BR>HESH SPECIFICATIONS.<BR>· length of round : 998 mm<BR>· Weight of round : 22.2 kg<BR>· Type of propellant : AP/S-400-120<BR>· Weight of propellant charge : 3.4 kg<BR>· Type of primer : L1 A4 MK-II<BR>· Tracer : No.30<BR>· Fuze : L29A3<BR>· C.9(from base cup : 562 mm<BR>· Muzzle velocity : 735 m/s.<BR>· HESH is Capable of engaging tanks upto 2500metres Anti Helicopter capable of firing up to 4000 metres. <P>Information is from<BR> <A HREF="http://www.weaponsindia.com" TARGET=_blank>http://www.weaponsindia.com</A> <P><BR>Also I was not earlier trying to discuss the merits of Arjun but focusing on design philosophy relating to internal volume.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby JCage » 12 Nov 2001 12:59

Raj,<BR>My apologies for deviating but this thread has been a zinger so far for arjun and other things!Hope we may go on! :)Thanks for the link and the info from weaponsindia.com.<BR>Should make things clearer.Interestingly,again,the 120mm apfsds info seems to be missing.<P>Sanjay,<BR>That statesman article is very heartening!<P>Paul,<P>That L/D ratio is from this link.Muzzle velocity given in Raj's post. <A HREF="http://www.drdo.org/products/fsapds.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.drdo.org/products/fsapds.htm</A> <BR>It has more on the indian 125mm APFSDS.<P><B>BTW</B>,<BR>How does the pic of the IA T72 appear to you?Will it degrade KE attack in any significant manner?<P><BR>Regards,<BR>nitin

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Raj Malhotra » 12 Nov 2001 13:10

Nitin it is not my thread and u are welcome to discuss what ever u may want.<BR>i just wanted to clarify my post.<P><BR>i think some info on 120mm afpds is also there.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Sanjay » 12 Nov 2001 20:39

Hi,<BR>I wouldn't take the range claims too seriously since these are the realistically engageable combat ranges of the Indian army.<P>Yes the FSAPDS round can defeat a triple heavy target at a longer range, but there is little point in DRDO saying so since the army doesn't care. There view is simple - will it defeat frontal armour of T-80 etc. at realistic battle ranges. Answer may well be yes. <P>Classic example of range underspeak is the HESH. The thing has been tested to 8000 metres and worked. Go figure.<P>Look at the data for the upgunned T-55:<BR> <A HREF="http://www.weaponsindia.com/upgunning.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.weaponsindia.com/upgunning.htm</A> <P>Let me just say this, I'm led to believe that in testing the Arjun's armour, 125mm FSAPDS rounds imported from Russia were fired at it at various ranges. Indeed, Arjun's armour was designed to take this on -the army would not have accepted anything less. The armour was also required to protect against TOW-2. If the army says the armour is OK, at this stage, we have insufficient evidence to the contrary.<P>The Arjun was always designed to view the Khalid or whatever PRC tank it was derived from as the adversary and to be able to defeat it at all combat ranges. This was the threat seen since 1993.<P>They stuck the armour on the Vijayanta for trials against similar stuff. Problem is that the tanks weight went up by 6-9 tons.<P>If anybody can find the links for V.N. Sharma's Kanchan comments it would be very important. Sharma is not prone to flights of fancy and is very conservative in his comments. If he said that about Kanchan, I'd not want to refute him easily.<P>Again, problem with Arjun's armour was machining the turret armour to get a good ballistic shape against FSAPDS rounds.<P>In 1993, the Indian Defence Review commented that it is one thing for the armour to stand up to all threats in the lab and testing ranges, quite another when it is fitted to the tank. They were arguing for better shaping of turret.<P>Also, the Arjun has vastly improved ammunition stowage versus T-72. This was a major priority because the crew of a T-72 burnt to death during an exercise back in 1993.<P>You know something's strange here:<P>No country has written so much against its own tank designs as India has about the Arjun. It's a point worth considering.<P>Paul, I can't answer directly the question on the density of the Kanchan armour on the Arjun, but I can say that the Arjun was supposed to weigh in at 45 metric tons and comes in at at least 58 at present. This is apparently entirely due to the Kanchan.<P>What I will say is that the Indian army has a very clear threat perception and will not accept something that does not work. It has never done so before and I can't see them doing so now.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Rudra » 12 Nov 2001 21:22

The "natural" and proven soln for arjun's <BR>turret changes might be to do what the germans did from L2a4 -> L2a5 transition. <BR>They fitted a wedge of armour on three sides<BR>fitted with angled plates of chobham to bend,<BR>deflect or break the APDS sabots.<P>But from what I read here, they will keep<BR>the kanchan in a flat current shape and use<BR>the wedge or angle to pack in ERA bricks ?<P>in conjunction, an improved FCS (leclerc quality) might be worth exploring if its <BR>meant to be a mainstay, else the T-90/Ajeya<BR>FCS is the cheaper option.<P>We need to keep in mind the inevitable swift<BR>improvements in PRC tank tech in next 20-30yrs as they become a manufacturing and<BR>hi-tech powerhouse.

Guest

Re: T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Postby Guest » 12 Nov 2001 21:24

While the thread is a zinger - a note of caution please back up any claims with an open source post.<P>If not this will get deleted


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest