T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Amitabh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby Amitabh » 07 Dec 2001 00:03

From paragraph 24:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As the Government approval for induction of 124 tanks has now been accorded, all the committed expenditure so far for limited Series Production (LSP) tanks will now be transferred to the sanction for 124 tanks, <B>as 15 LSP tanks is the part of 124 nos</B>.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>From paragraph 31:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>31.The Committee desiredto know by what time, it is planned to equip the regiment with the tank. According to the Ministry the first regiment is expected to be equippedwith this tank from 2002 and two regiments are planned to be equipped by 2007 i.e. around end of 10th Plan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

Postby JCage » 07 Dec 2001 00:03

Raj,<BR>The armour is top notch.We can all agree on that.The thing is,quantifying it is a heck of a job.Regarding ceramics,yes,while the idea makes sense and i gave thught to this quite some time back..there isnt any information *actually* stating it...so if paul tries to get" some figures,we'll have to give him more than our combined intuition. <BR>The same problem is again wrt all the other materials etc.<BR>the only thing,for sure,we do have is the direct references to FRP's and thats just(like paul said) the tip of the spear.<P>Right about the heavy-light thing again.When 15 tons of even steel get added on... :)...and its not steel but "composite armour". ;)<P>The week report has some good points but the journo bhai has missed all the nuanes and done gone confused us in the initial days.<P><BR>Like the PA report states,unfortunately,we are stuck with the old wheezin' engine.<P>Gearbox will be indian,definitely.In fact,the team drew upon the Arjun experience to build the one for the LCA!<BR>Initially,even the Hydro-pneumatic suspension was american for the first few ones..irc.But now,an indian one(not licence produced but our own)is well and ready.<P>The initial GCS was german..and it has been reverse engineered thence.Some components iirc are still being imported.The leopard 2 one was modified for the arjun and fitted....not an exact job,but still.<P>Germans have supplied stuff...hence the help.And denied us others...like the engine!<BR>Initially,its fair to say,kraus maffei has been a HUGE "influence" on all aspects of the arjun.<P>Regarding FCS...thats the achilles heel.Its hopefully(statesman,DRDO) resolved now as teh army wouldnt have accepted it otherwise.<P>Reg 8/10...thats what DRDO said.But it appears that the IA was finally convinced only recently after the latest trials!Thats the way it should be anyway and i think user confidence is essential.apaprently,DRDO pointed out that GSQR were being satisfied and exceeded in some parameters.But they demonstsrated it successfully only recently.<P><BR>The 15 + LRP will be included in the 124.<P>Yes,the orders were given long timeback regarding setting up tooling etc...after the 97 trials iirc,so yes to your question.But the order for commencement of production would have been given in feb.<P>Regards,<BR>nitin

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

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

Postby Vick » 07 Dec 2001 00:21

nitin, thanks for the great info. but I do have a question. What about the width "problem" of the tank. One of reasons the IA is/was reluctant to induct the tank was because of the width exceeds railway limits and gets categoried as an oversized item leading to greater freight charges.<P>Also, regarding the weight, I had read in an article that the IA would have to buy new tank transporters to haul the Arjuns.<P>You have given us a great background on the tank, would you mind now giving us some of the logistical changes that will need to take place within the IA to accomodate the Arjun? Thanks.

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

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

Postby JCage » 07 Dec 2001 00:38

If any chaps are wondering about the alkhalid vs the arjun viz armour...<BR>even in midst of a dissin' exercise wrt the arjun and praisin' the khalid...Brigadier (R) A. R. Siddiqi of the PA had this to say in an article in "the Nation"..about the ""indigenous" alkhalid.<P>{Article by Brigadier (R) A. R. Siddiqi: "HIT: rebuild to manufacture" 2001} :)<P><BR><I>"Known less for gloss and sophistication, much of the Chinese hardware is ungrudgingly recognised for its war-fighting utility. The Chinese tend to view weapons as implements of war rather than parade ground accoutrement. A tank which is a mobile firing platform, is known for 3 things (i) maneuverability (ii) hit probability and (iii) protection. <B>In the Chinese order of priority protection comes last.</B> It should in any case flow less from the thickness of the armour and more from the hit probability. Enemy killed first is the best guarantee against being killed. Too much weight causes problems of transportation and maneuverability. <B> In the T series converted to P series, maximum effort has gone into getting the machine as souped-up as possible mainly by cutting down on weight. Just compare the 60 tonnes of Arjun with the contemplated 44 tonnes (maximum) of the Al-Khalid-2000.</B></I><P><BR>A tacit admission that the PA have a lightweight T series clone!<P>regards,<BR>nitin

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

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

Postby Umrao » 07 Dec 2001 00:43

nitin>> Thats called <B>'C$H$I$N$K'</B> in the armor

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

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

Postby JCage » 07 Dec 2001 00:51

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vick:<BR><STRONG>nitin, thanks for the great info. but I do have a question. What about the width "problem" of the tank. One of reasons the IA is/was reluctant to induct the tank was because of the width exceeds railway limits and gets categoried as an oversized item leading to greater freight charges.<P>Also, regarding the weight, I had read in an article that the IA would have to buy new tank transporters to haul the Arjuns.<P>You have given us a great background on the tank, would you mind now giving us some of the logistical changes that will need to take place within the IA to accomodate the Arjun? Thanks.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Thanks vick. :)<P>No question about this(logistics).The entire logistics chain will have to be redone.Back to CAG we go.<P><I><B>However, the MBT Arjun regiment configured around the present design would require 16 additional three tonne vehicles and 45 personnel per regiment to sustain its present operational mobility.</B> <BR>The MBT Arjun in its present configuration being the largest in size i.e. height and width among contemporary tanks will require a special wagon for its rail transportation along with its full pay load as the wagons available with the Army presently are not capable of carrying this tank. <B>The Ministry accordingly, in January 1997, accorded sanction for the design and development of three prototype special bogie flat wagons for its rail transportation at an estimated cost of Rs 1.65 crore with the time schedule for completion of this work as 24 months i.e. January 1999.</B><P>Any consignment which exceeds the limits of standard moving dimension becomes over dimensional consignment (ODC) for which the railways charge one and a half times over the normal charges. Most defence equipment/vehicles when loaded in wagons for rail transportation are categorised as ODC class consignments but the empty wagons are categorised as non-ODC. In the case of wagons specially designed and built for the rail transportation of MBT Arjun, the wagons will move as ODC class even in the reverse empty direction and would thus entail payment of additional transportation charges of 150 per cent more than the normal charges. Further, the Railways are yet to give route clearance certificates for the transportation of MBT Arjun on all sections of Indian Railways (November 1997)<P>The height, width and weight of MBT Arjun would also affect its tactical mobility by road as the Army <B>at present do not have suitable trailers to carry a tank of over 60 tonne</B>.</I><P>Also you'll need to overhaul all the base repair depots and retool them,train chaps for an entirely new skillset,-both maintenance and operators,stock spares,<BR>reevaluate and come up with new tactics/doctrine,store new 120mm ammo......you want a "western" tank with all the bells and whistles,you gotta pay for it too. :(<P>Regards,<BR>nitin

krsai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 05 Nov 2001 12:31

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

Postby krsai » 07 Dec 2001 00:56

How difficult it is to increase maneuverability and hit probability with current weight of Arjun. Is it not the power of the engine that matters. If we increase the power and go for an advanced engine, should'nt that solve the problem?<P>Hit probability is entirely based on precision, is my understanding. I am not sure of how much protection can Kanchan give if it is hit by a du weapon. <P>Coming to think of protection, is there a short distance anti-"anti-tank"-missile defence (wierd?)

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

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

Postby JCage » 07 Dec 2001 00:58

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Umrao:<BR><STRONG>nitin>> Thats called <B>'C$H$I$N$K'</B> in the armor</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thats a good pun!!!<BR>Just like the blunt round missiles being better than the pencil thin indoo ones! :D<P>Regards,<BR>nitin

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

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

Postby Rudra » 07 Dec 2001 01:10

Too much is made of the train thing. Tell me how many of you in your numerous train journeys have seen these tank-trains rolling around ? I have seen 1 in delhi cantt and maybe 1 more in assam. mostly they would train in practice areas near their homebase and deploy for field training a few months each year. And considering we are talking of<BR>a few hundred wagons, its strange to see people griping about paying extra for the return trip. Why return, since its a special flatbed? shove it into a siding in rajasthan and let it cook there until arjuns are ready<BR>to return home.<P>And as for the base repair chaps, they should <BR>be flogged if they are unwilling to pick up new skills and hit the training room for a while. Too much rough-n-ready soviet style equipment + lazy baboo mentality. why cant a person learn no matter what the age ? hell,<BR>given a sufficient beating I am sure I will<BR>memorize the entire Koran in a week ! fear <BR>is the key.<P>Tools ? yawn. <BR>Fuel ? yawn - cut down on officers using army<BR>vehicles for personal errands. let the Gen sahib _walk_ from the club to his bungalow.<P> :D

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

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

Postby JCage » 07 Dec 2001 01:29

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rudra Singha:<BR><STRONG>Too much is made of the train thing. Tell me how many of you in your numerous train journeys have seen these tank-trains rolling around ? I have seen 1 in delhi cantt and maybe 1 more in assam. mostly they would train in practice areas near their homebase and deploy for field training a few months each year. And considering we are talking of<BR>a few hundred wagons, its strange to see people griping about paying extra for the return trip. Why return, since its a special flatbed? shove it into a siding in rajasthan and let it cook there until arjuns are ready<BR>to return home.<P>And as for the base repair chaps, they should <BR>be flogged if they are unwilling to pick up new skills and hit the training room for a while. Too much rough-n-ready soviet style equipment + lazy baboo mentality. why cant a person learn no matter what the age ? hell,<BR>given a sufficient beating I am sure I will<BR>memorize the entire Koran in a week ! fear <BR>is the key.<P>Tools ? yawn. <BR>Fuel ? yawn - cut down on officers using army<BR>vehicles for personal errands. let the Gen sahib _walk_ from the club to his bungalow.<P> :D</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Rudra.Happened to talk to a few IA officers about this.Theres no doubt.Overhauling the logistics chain will cost way too much for the IA...today at any rate.There are simply 2 many pressing demands on the IA's funds...if they spend it in the first place and the FinMin doesnt grab it back.<P>Dont forget the additional maintenance(16* trucks) and extra chaps(45)/regiment.<P>Jokes apart..the arjun cant go on any train now in service.Its got to be disassembled for tr'port and then reassembled at arrival.<BR>Try doing that at wartime.<P>Try thinking of the strike corp in bhopal deploying urgently and you'll see teh point.Y'know how expensive it will be to duplicate facilities for maintenance if the arjuns are "stored" in forward deployment areas?<P>Regarding BRDepots u miss the point.Money.To get new tooling.<BR>Time.To get them trained.<BR>The chaps are well trained and motivated.No need for any thoughts of soviet eqpt=soviet mentality.<BR>Money to maintain different spares/logistical lines.<BR>eg think of the hydro-pn suspension and the extra care and eqpt(inert gases etc)taht have to be lugged around.Hardly as easy as pullin' out a few torsion bars.<P><BR>And yeah,lest we forget our record viz storing ammo hasnt been 2 great either in recent times.The IA wants/needs money for taht too.<P>Regards,<BR>nitin

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

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

Postby Vick » 07 Dec 2001 01:51

The CAG report states that the Arjun is taller than all other western designs. Is this accurate? If so, what is limiting factor in reducing the height?

krsai
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 72
Joined: 05 Nov 2001 12:31

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

Postby krsai » 07 Dec 2001 01:53

Arjun: Can't it go by road - trucked?

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

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

Postby JCage » 07 Dec 2001 05:26

Some unrelated nice links. ;)<P>MANUFACTURING PLANTS/120 HESH,FSAPDS & 125mm combustible cartridges and accessories<P> <A HREF="http://www.maspackindia.com/cartridges.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.maspackindia.com/cartridges.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.maspackindia.com/mpackplant.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.maspackindia.com/mpackplant.html</A> <P><BR>Vick,will check later.Offhand i'd say the loader!<P>Sai,<BR>yes..but they need to have trucks capable of taking a 60T tank and roads/bridges capable enough to take 60T+weight of the transporter.<P><BR>Regards,<BR>nitin

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 » 07 Dec 2001 09:17

The report of the reduced armor Vs HEAT for the Arjun comes from JoMO Vol10-[July 2000] pp 56.They report<P>" Army officers are also said to be conserned that Arjuns armor cannot defeat Pakistan's Baktar Shikan ATGM (which is a variant of the Chinese Red Arrow-8) . These concerns have led to calls for fitting Arjun with explosive reactive armor-something that would probably add a couple of tonnes more weight."

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

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

Postby JCage » 07 Dec 2001 13:59

Paul,<BR>Those reports-tho' JOMO is good-have misinterpreted the use of ERA .ERA wasnt there for the same reasons that kanchan was supposed to protect against.<P>The use of ERA-top attack and because kanchan is hard to shape vs APFSDS.<BR>I figure JoMo may be wrong because they may have (if it was them)wrong about kanchan location/protection on the frontal arc of the tank<P>Regards,<BR>nitin

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

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

Postby JCage » 07 Dec 2001 16:12

Paul,<BR>Isnt the bakhtar shikan/Red Arrow(HJ-8) a chinese "development" of the Milan2 with slightly inferior or at best similar performance?And the milan-2 would have been definitely involved in the testing process itself from quite some time back.(we even licence produce the same at BDL).Thats what makes me believe the JoMo report is flawed.<P><BR>regards,<BR>nitin

Umrao
BRFite
Posts: 547
Joined: 30 May 2001 11:31

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

Postby Umrao » 07 Dec 2001 20:31

Our bridges are not rated for that kind of rolling loads.<P>Some time back L&T had to ship reactor parts to kalpakkam and they had a huge problem in shiping from bombay to Madras by road. I dont know why they did not use sea route.<P>BHPV / BHEL also ship heavy parts in CKDs and then assemble them.<P>By the way this is another business opportunity for young entrepreneurs. There are only 2 or 3 companies in India who have all the material handling expertise to ship this big machines. (Two in Mumbai and 1 in calcutta IIRC)

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

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

Postby Sanjay » 09 Dec 2001 04:43

Paul,<BR>India has been producing Milan-2 for several years now and did evaluate TOW-2 ( long story on that one ). Arjun's Kanchan was designed to deal with threats from HEAT as well as KE rounds and the Indians would have used weapons at their disposal to test it - Milan-2, Konkurs/ Fagot etc. <BR>Nitin, why do you say that the armour is top notch ? Not that I disagree, just would like a summary of your conclusion and reasoning.

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 Dec 2001 05:54

The Chinese missile is reported to do 800mm, but what can the TOW-2 do ~ 900-1000mm if you assume precision jet [1000-1100mm if you assume semi particulated jet]...against RHA target.<P>Was Kanchan equipped Arjun tested against TOW-2?

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

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

Postby JCage » 09 Dec 2001 14:11

Sanjay,<BR>Check mail. :)<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 » 09 Dec 2001 22:20

Paul,<BR>I suspect TOW-2 class system was used.<BR>I suspect, though I'm not 100% certain, that India did obtain a number of TOW-2 systems in the 1980s. US bureaucracy and nonsense created such an enormous delay for India's desire to purchase 2000 TOW-2 launchers and a production license that the deal was dropped. That's when Milan-2 and Konkurs came in.

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

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

Postby Nandai » 09 Dec 2001 22:31

Lots of good pix of russians in Chechnya, including MBTs.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/chechnyamil/index.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/chechnyamil/index.htm</A>

Subra
Webmaster BR
Posts: 30
Joined: 01 Jun 1998 11:31

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

Postby Subra » 10 Dec 2001 05:36

Problems of trains and transporters also existed for the M1. It was still thought worthwhile to invest in it to get the capabilities that the M1 offered.

abhay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 23 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby abhay » 11 Dec 2001 20:39

An excellent thread indeed!!! I had not accessed BR forum for a few days (rather weeks). Kudos to everybody for making it so informative. Upto date news about Arjun is now available in one thread. Good to know Arjun is alive and kicking. One question to the pundits....why is it going to take so long to make 124 tanks? Is it the cost, or establishment of new production facilities or reasons we folks are not aware of.

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

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

Postby Vick » 15 Dec 2001 03:24

This is the new SPG that Soltam of Israel has been working on for India and other export customers. Also, this SPG will be on display at a defense exposition in India in Feb.<P><BR> Image <P><BR> Image

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

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

Postby JCage » 15 Dec 2001 03:54

Paul.<BR>The bakhtar shikan . <A HREF="http://www.krl.com.pk/htmls/atgmwsbs.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.krl.com.pk/htmls/atgmwsbs.htm</A> <P>Regards,<BR>nitin

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 » 15 Dec 2001 07:10

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nitin:<BR><STRONG>Paul.<BR>The bakhtar shikan . <A HREF="http://www.krl.com.pk/htmls/atgmwsbs.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.krl.com.pk/htmls/atgmwsbs.htm</A> <P>Regards,<BR>nitin</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thanks for the link Nitin . Question, why are some indian officers worried about a 120mm HEAT warhead which can only penetrate 180-220mm armor @ 68° [ 500-600mm LOS]. Also if this already has a tandem charge, the ERA will be useless.<P>Perhaps the hull armor is less than the turret armor!<P>In the LEO-2 model the armor mass devoted to the front turret is some thing like 42cm steel[composite 83cm thick] and only about 19-20cm devoted to the hull [spaced armor 60cm thick].<P>If they are worried about this warhead then this can only mean that the Arjun follows the LEO-2 armor profile and devotes twice as much armor to the turret as opposed to the hull and the lower hull spaced armor is ~ <500mm effective resistance!

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

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

Postby JCage » 16 Dec 2001 05:02

Paul,<BR>The Bakhtar shikan admitted by the pakistanis does >800mm at optimum range.<BR>That may be point blank for all we know.<P>Basically my point is this:<BR>JoMo has been proved wrong vis the Kanchan/Hull armour protection.Sanjay has confirmed it.I confirmed it too.Mail me for more.<BR>Kanchan/Armour extends to the entire frontal section.IDR beats Jomo anyday.The reason being that IDR *is* the indian establishment-generals and all that.<P>JoMo-it may be wrong again viz the bakhtar shikan being superior to the arjun protection available.<BR>The ERA was basically applied to the arjun coz of top attack protection.<P><BR>A tandem charge may be stipped partially by ERA and then face kanchan composite armour.Its effectiveness would be degraded,wouldnt it?<P><BR>Paul,the Leo2 is the basis.I have no doubt(indigenization apart ;) ) that arjun derives a lot from LEO2.But the threat assessment dictates that indian armour designers would have taken bakhtar shikan into account a long time back!Milan2 being available!TOW2 samples being provided.<P><BR>I can appreciate the trouble you are going thru extrapolating the known info to armor effectiveness.Keep up the good work!<P><BR>Regards,<BR>nitin

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

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

Postby Raman » 17 Dec 2001 06:10

Hi,<P>This is a slightly off-topic question, but I think this is still the most appropriate thread to post it in.<P>What are the advantages/disadvantages of using a gas turbine engine for Arjun? The M1 uses a gas turbine engine (I think) and so did the original T-80, although the later T-80UD uses a diesel engine.<P>Some of the problems of a gas turbine engine listed by <a href="http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-80.html">http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-80.html</a> include:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The original 1,000 hp GTD-1000T, although significantly more powerful than the conventional diesel engines, was much criticized for its noise level, low reliability (especially in conditions of excess heat, dust and so on), much larger fuel consumption (resulting in a smaller operating range) and greater thermal signature. This is one of the reasons (barring the competition between plants) why the T-90 MBT uses the uprated diesel instead of the gas-turbine. However, the reliability problem is being solved; the new 1250 hp GTD-1250 is far more reliable. The large fuel consumption is compensated somewhat by an auxiliary GTA-18 18 kW powerpack. There were also variants of T-80 MBT using a diesel engine, for example T-80UD (Ob.478B) with 1,000 hp 6TD diesel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But is seems like the problems can be overcome. In addition, I'm guessing we might be able to use the Kaveri core for Arjun.<P>Thoughts?<P>++Rajesh

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 490
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby maitya » 17 Dec 2001 18:29

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rajesh Raman:<BR><STRONG>What are the advantages/disadvantages of using a gas turbine engine for Arjun? </STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Rajesh, I'm not an expert - but this I'll say. Using Gas turbine engines in Indian conditions is NOT possible - problem is with dust ingestion in the desert. No doubt Gas turbine engines add speed to the tanks, reduces noise level and fuel consumption, but becomes very costly maintenance-wise. IMHO, during desert storm M1 had this problem (even after fitting them with multiple filters). Also UAE, got their LECREC's converted to more conventional diesel engines, because of this same problem.

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

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

Postby Nandai » 17 Dec 2001 22:21

Maitya, a gas turbine doesnt cut fuel consumtion compared to an ordinary diesel engine, gas turbine are real fuel guzzlers.<BR>The LeClercs ordered by the UAE are equipped with the german Europack engine and transmission system.

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

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

Postby JCage » 20 Dec 2001 01:31

Ok.Some more data for paul. :)<BR>We have additional information that may *confirm* JoMo's report and at the same time point to a HEAT resistance of at least 800mm.With the Milan 2 and equivalent threat perceptions of TOW2/RedArrow(Bakhtar Shikan) having been part of any realistic assessment.This was then overtaken by a *new* variant of the red arrow with a tandem warhead.<P>1.Ok.The IA may have wanted *more* protection against Missiles.<BR>Major General Ashok K Mehta in an article circa 2000 also said that the army's latest requirement was for protection against anti tank missiles.<P><B>Wednesday, August 30, 2000(The Hindustan Times)<BR>Ashok K. Mehta <BR>[snip]By 2003, a project mired in controversy and recrimination between the army and the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) will finally bear fruition. There are a number of reasons for the delay in the MBT. The DRDO says each time the MBT came close to being completed, the army would raise fresh staff requirement. <BR>This time, during the last round of testing, the army found that while the MBT had passed the test for tank-versus-tank armour protection, it was not safe from missiles. It felt that India’s premier battle tank must also be missile proof. This was a tall order. <BR>Promptly, DRDO referred to the escalation in General Staff Requirement from the original set out by the army and pointed out that the anti-missile clause was not there. They added they could not redesign the tank each time a new Chief of Army Staff took office. Therefore, the army has now acquiesced and will take possession of the first six pieces in three years. [/snip]</B><P>2.Why?Because the IA may have factored in a new variant of the redarrow/Bakhtar Shikan with a tandem warhead and a claimed ability of more than 800mm RHA.The TOW2/Milan2/RA dont have a tandem warhead.<P><B>New Warhead for Pakistani anti-tank guided weapon<BR>PRESS TRUST OF INDIA<P>LONDON, DEC 6: Pakistan has developed a new version of its Baktar<BR>Shikan Anti-tank Guided Weapon (ATGW) with an improved warhead and<BR>it will enter service with its army in 2001, Jane's Defence Weekly has<BR>said.<P>The Baktar Shikan is a locally-produced copy of the NORINCO (China<BR>North Industries Corporation) Red Arrow 8. The semi-automatic<BR>commando-to-line-of sight ATGW has a maximum range of 3,000M and a<BR>minimum range of 100M.<P>The missile weights 11.2kg at launch. The standard system has a day<BR>sight and a thermal-imaging night sight is now offered, the Weekly said<BR>in its latest issue.<P>The current Baktar Shikan has a single high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT)<BR>warhead which is claimed to be capable of penetrating 800mm of<BR>conventional steel armour at zero degree.<P>The new tandem HEAT warhead has been developed by Pakistan's<BR>National Development Complex (NDC) which has considerable experience<BR>in the development of HEAT warheads for missiles and recoilless rifles<BR>as<BR>well as explosive reactive armour (ERA).<P>The warhead is claimed to be highly effective against both ERA and<BR>composite armours which are being fielded on an increasing number of<BR>main battle tanks to give a high level of protection against both<BR>Kinetic Energy and HEAT attack.<P>The warhead has a probe in the tip of which is a small precursor<BR>self-forging projectile, which punches a small hole in the ERA to allow<BR>the jet from the 120mm main warhead to pass through and cause the<BR>maximum amount of damage.<P>According to the NDC, the warhead is capable of defeating a NATO triple<BR>target and penetrating more than 460mm of steel behind the ERA.<P>The missile, NDC said has a flight speed of 200 to 240M/S and its hit<BR>probability is claimed to be around 90 per cent.<P>In addition to the standard tripod-mounted configuration, the Pakistani<BR>army deploys at least two self-propelled versions of the Baktar Shikan.<P>The first is a Land Rover Defender 1104X4 light vehicle with the<BR>launcher mounted on the rear, one missile in ready-to launch position and another two missiles in reserve.<P>The second is a United Defence LPM113 series armoured personnel<BR>carrier, with the launcher mounted on a pedestal and additional missiles being carried inside under armour protection, the weekly said.</B><P>Note that the data supporting the article is from Dec6,2000 ( Janes quoting paki claims) while Indian media carried it in 2001.It stands to reason that the pakistani attempt to productionise and incorporate the new improved ATGM was known to the IA before. .ie by the time of the Feb2000 trials.<P>Having said that, one has to take both the chinese and hence the pakistani "RHA penetration" with a lump of salt.<BR>For what its worth,the bakhtar shikans exported by pakistan to the anti-serbian forces ,croatian or muj iirc,were found to be of extremely poor quality too.<BR>Then add the kanwa report.<P>Anyway,the IA would have to take their quoted remarks as true and proceed as such.Prudence.<P><BR>regards,<BR>nitin

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

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

Postby JCage » 26 Dec 2001 00:05

Paul,<BR>If you are there....<P>1.Would ERA + Kanchan work "better" against a tandem warhead(designed to strip ERA in the first place) than plain kanchan armour?<P>2.Any "baseline" guesses for teh protection yet?Frontal in particular.<P>Regards,<BR>nitin<P>Happy Xmas and New Year to all. :)

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 » 27 Dec 2001 02:07

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nitin:<BR><STRONG>Paul,<BR>If you are there....<P>1.Would ERA + Kanchan work "better" against a tandem warhead(designed to strip ERA in the first place) than plain kanchan armour?<P>2.Any "baseline" guesses for teh protection yet?Frontal in particular.<P>Regards,<BR>nitin<P>Happy Xmas and New Year to all. :)</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Hi Nitin ,merry ho ho to all and great new year!<P><BR>The problem with the whole ERA/ Tandem thing is we have little if any historical examples or even research to point towards the real capabilities of these systems to work. So all we can do is speculate....if the era works, and if its arranged as follows....and if the tandem works and its arranged as follows...then this will happen.....etc.

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 » 27 Dec 2001 02:11

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nitin:<BR><STRONG>Paul,<P><BR>2.Any "baseline" guesses for teh protection yet?Frontal in particular.<BR> :)</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think what I'll do is make two models , one based on the assumption of a armor mass distribution similar to chieftain , while the other similar to the armor mass distibution similar to german tanks like the LEO-1 or LEO-2.

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

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

Postby JCage » 27 Dec 2001 06:03

A merry Xmas to you too. :)I'm repeating myself,but its a nice time.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>The problem with the whole ERA/ Tandem thing is we have little if any historical examples or even research to point towards the real capabilities of these systems to work. So all we can do is speculate....if the era works, and if its arranged as follows....and if the tandem works and its arranged as follows...then this will happen.....etc.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ok.But does the theory sound feasible in a sense?Add ERA for enhanced protection....when adding kanchan would have *perhaps* weighed more.. <BR>Then again... <BR>ERA on T72 added upto ~6 tons.<BR>Kanchan on Vijayanta(Vickers MBT) weighed in at ~ 5 tons.<P>To sum up....<BR>We do know that the IA/DRDO had ample missile stocks of TOW2,BS/RA standards(ie Konkurs and Milan2's) to test the arjun against...and would have.<BR>We do know that the ERA was intended for protection against top attack missiles,initially at the very least.<P>Just speculating if the ERA+ composite & monolithic armour combination could presumably work against tandem warhead ATGM's too. :)And whether that could be a reason for IA/DRDO pursuing the ERA angle.<P>Mind you,if the ERA erray is as comprehensive as on the T72,then the 1400hp engine will not suffice(and thats the best we can get).Thats 58.5 tons combat weight+ 6 tons of ERA...in that case they might just add 1 to 1.5 tons of ERA as reported on the DRDO website.<P>We have two guesses here too.. :)<P>1.ERA replaces kanchan -in part and hence higher tonnage of ERA may be added sacrificing x tonnage of kanchan/monolithic armour in return.Might be of use against both top attack and "normal" atgms as well as keep KE protection at previous levels.<P>2.1-1.5 tons of ERA only.Too limited to be as comprehensive as on T72(Full frontal arc + top).So might be intended for protection against top attack only.We have the 1-1.5T figure from the DRDo webpage posted by me on this thread earlier.<P>So after my ramble,whats <B>your</B> take on this? :)<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:<BR><STRONG><P>I think what I'll do is make two models , one based on the assumption of a armor mass distribution similar to chieftain , while the other similar to the armor mass distibution similar to german tanks like the LEO-1 or LEO-2.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Allright! :)You da' man!Leo-2 would be my best bet. :)<P>Regards,<BR>nitin

neeraj
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 12 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: UK

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

Postby neeraj » 27 Dec 2001 06:29

here is a quote from Vasiliy Fofanov's<BR>Modern Russian Armour Page<P><B>The year 1999 saw the appearance of a new model of T-90, that features a fully welded turret instead of a cast one carried by the original T-90. This new model is called "Vladimir" in honour of T-90 Chief Designer Vladimir Potkin, who died in 1999. It is unknown how this design affects the protection and layout of the turret, and whether the frontal armor package was also extensively redesigned. The contract is signed to ship 350 T-90 MBTs to India. These tanks will probably have an original cast turret, but their powerpack is replaced with a new 1000hp V-92S2 Chelyabinsk diesel. There are reports that these tanks will also feature advanced thermals.</B><P>I gather that welded turrets are better thn the cast ones. Any thoughts on why the IA did not go in for the welded option considering that it was availble in 1999.

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

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

Postby JCage » 02 Jan 2002 01:24

Not related to the Arjun but adds more valid information to the 125mm apfsds types fielded by the IA today.<P>However,please lets not deviate from the arjun now on the basis of this information. :)<P>Anyway,<BR>CAG<BR>(Indian Express, 13 December 2001<BR><B>Though deployment of T-72 tanks was not possible in high altitude, the Defence Ministry had used the pretext of Operation Vijay and the relaxation of procedures to push through a deal worth $27.17 million, in July 1999 for delivery of 2800 rounds of T-72 ammunition from Israel and another 7000 rounds within six months, the CAG said in its report on Operation Vijay tabled in Parliament on December 12th.</B><P><BR>Note that currently the IA fields the DRDO apfsds discussed previously.Production is/was yet to reach optimum levels...partly due to sanctions on our most sophisticated OFB(in orissa)which was being "set up" by certain american firms.<BR>Meanwhile,stocks would have run a bit low post ammo dump explosions.<P>The rationale for importing the israeli rounds,iow.<P>We also can conclude with reasonable certainty that these *are* the latest israeli 125mm rounds with much better performance than baseline russian ones...or for that matter the indian one.<P>Also if transfer of tech or even reverse engineering is done in the future,we may conclude that the cancellation of the "stalled" long rod penetrator project of the DRDO will not hurt us so badly after all.<P>Immediate relevance:<BR>India has top of the line 125mm apfsds ammo which should be able to take on anything the pakis have for now..at "appropriate ranges".<P>9800 rounds@45 rounds/t72 that comes to 217 tanks.<BR>At ~55 T72's per regiment-thats approx. 4 regiments. :)<P><BR>Regards,<BR>nitin<P>ps:The CAG imho are invariably dorky to the extremes.The above info is enough to know how sill they can be.

bored_desi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 17 Dec 2001 12:31
Location: Chicago

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

Postby bored_desi » 10 Jan 2002 12:00

So does this mean that the Arjun tank is not a lemon and that it will be actually fielded on the front-lines unlike the vijayanta tanks which are held in reserves to inflate the numbers ? :confused:

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

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

Postby JCage » 10 Jan 2002 17:04

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by pchupunkar:
So does this mean that the Arjun tank is not a lemon and that it will be actually fielded on the front-lines unlike the vijayanta tanks which are held in reserves to inflate the numbers ? :confused: <hr></blockquote><p>In short.Yes.The Arjun is in a different "class" as compared to the Tseries and their clones everywhere.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests