T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

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

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

Postby Vick » 10 Jan 2002 17:28

nitin, are we seeing the nascent stages of the IA moving away from (albeit hesitatingly and kicking and screaming) the light tank force structure to that of a medium-to-heavy tank force and doctrine?<p>The more realistic scenario is that for the next 10-20 years the IA will continue to be made up of mostly the T-series but a significant number of Arjuns will be operating. I am assuming the IA is also going for a high-med-low mix for their tanks where the Arjuns would be the high and the older (unupgraded T-72s) would be the lows and the upgraded T-72s and T-90s their medium levels?<p>As far as anyone knows, are there any plans to make a AFV or APC using Arjun tech?

Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 322
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

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

Postby Rupak » 10 Jan 2002 18:36

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vick:
As far as anyone knows, are there any plans to make a AFV or APC using Arjun tech?<hr></blockquote><p>Vick there is some input into the Abhay project. IIRC the first protoypes of the Abhay should have started trials already.

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

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

Postby Vick » 10 Jan 2002 18:49

Is there any up-to-date info on the Abhay? The last thing I saw of the Abhay was about 2-3 years ago and that was a plexiglass and duct tape model in Defexpo. BTW, is the Abhay an AFV or an IFV? Is there a difference?<p>Also, is the Abhay's core more of a BMP-2 or Arjun? I thought it was more of a BMP-2 core.<p>Any word on Namica?

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

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

Postby JCage » 10 Jan 2002 19:11

Hi,
Too early to say.The Arjun,in its "latest" iteration -as of now-not the MK2,has proven successful.
If the IA can get enough money to overhaul its logistics/transportation issues then it will defnitely sustain more arjuns.<p>Arjun tech?Definitely.Namica incorporates kanchan armour too.(DRDO reports).<p>Regards,
nitin

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

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

Postby Nandai » 10 Jan 2002 20:47


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 » 11 Jan 2002 02:19

It looks like the DRDO has it hands full on with the following tank projects
1) Assembling / Manufacturing of the T-90
2) Upgradation of the T-72. (BTW whats the schedule on this look like)
3) Manufacture of Arjun (124 ?)<p>Whats the status of the T-72 upgrade project ? It looks that is the most cost-effective way of upgrading the tank fleet (and also the T-55). Is this again a DRDO R&D project or is this been sourced from the supplier itself (or any other third party).<p>Another question is why does the army oppose heavy tanks? It sounds like the opposition goes beyond the current explanation of logistical constraints being a damper to arjun's implementation. If the heavy tanks worked in the deserts of arabia and elsewhere why can't they work in the thar ?
Another question is whether the T-series light tanks have an advantage over arjun in armor ?

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

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

Postby JCage » 11 Jan 2002 11:40

1) Assembling / Manufacturing of the T-90
-----
That aint a DRDO job but an OFB/HVF one.<p>2) Upgradation of the T-72. (BTW whats the schedule on this look like)
-------
Schedule was good till our deshbhakts started gunning for GF.It includes both DRDO and external vendors.<p>3) Manufacture of Arjun (124 ?)
--------
Actually 109 as 15 prototypes have already been built.Sytem configuration,once frozen-means that DRDO's job is done and HVF does the rest.<p>Army per se didnt exactly oppose heavies.The arjun devpt was protracted-as is obvious-for we were building up core competency a/c the spectrum-this led the army to import t-90's for a "quick fix".bureucratic muddling has also delayed the t72 project.
meanwhile,some army types -seeing that pakis dont have any m1 clones-say that the much cheaper tseries can make do..why invest in arjun.etcetc.It must be noted that other army guys dont and have contributed significantly 2 the project.<p>PS:You can post your questions in the questionboard thread.<p>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004626<p> Regards,
nitin

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

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 11 Jan 2002 14:17

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Actually 109 as 15 prototypes have already been built.<hr></blockquote><p>
Nitin are You sure about the 15 being built? any idea about engine and FCS etc etc?

member_3733
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

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

Postby member_3733 » 11 Jan 2002 14:54

What does this mean?-
Tanks lack Night Vision Equipment
I thought NVD's were standard on T-72's. Don't they have infra red night vision equipment?

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

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

Postby JCage » 11 Jan 2002 16:36

Hi,<p>Viz the NVD's they are probably referring to thermal imagers for the FCS and crew.
Infrared passive devices have been manufactured in india for a long time now.
Again DDM,...DRDO apart,its been clearly noted that TI were to be procured from abroad.Guess what,the upgrade has been stalled due to the "brains" at MoD busy opposing GF .How DRDO is to be blamed -today-is beyond reason.Note that even HHTI's were imported.<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Raj Malhotra:
<p>
Nitin are You sure about the 15 being built? any idea about engine and FCS etc etc?
<hr></blockquote><p>Raj,
These are the PPS tanks of all the types tried out till now...with the 15th to serve as the base model for production.
If our bhai log crib about long time frame for production-look at this way...mk1 itself will be near perfect.Mk2 will be icing on the cake.Aint kidding.<p>Regards,
nitin

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

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

Postby Sanjay » 13 Jan 2002 10:12

Gentlemen, please also remember that the T-55s and even the Vijayantas have their utility.
As more T-90s and upgraded T-72s come on stream, I strongly suspect that most Vijayantas will be used as pillboxes with their 105mm guns still viable against many Pak threats.
The T-55s have gone through one major upgrade with FCS, night fighting and main armament being improved. This program ended in the 1980s.
Despite all the doom and gloom about some real problems with the Indian armoured fleet - especially the slow T-72 upgrade - things aren't too bad.
BTW, there were some pressing technical problems with the original DRDO T-72 upgrade regarding the weight increase of the tank that contributed to delays in the program.

member_128
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

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

Postby member_128 » 13 Jan 2002 10:26

T-55 and Vijis defnitely have their utility value and agree wit sanjay.. escpecily in their holding ad defensive roles

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 » 13 Jan 2002 12:30

Whats the reason for the increase in the weight of the T-72 following the upgrade ? Has this anything to do with the kanchan armor ?

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

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 13 Jan 2002 14:29

Sanjay have any T-72s been modernized and if yes how many?<p>Can they fire missiles?<p>Is it Israeli FCS and TI?<p>As regards the T-90 also initially it was 40 then 26 and now 10 tanks have reached India. Do you think they will be used in war if it happens off course?

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

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

Postby Raj Malhotra » 13 Jan 2002 18:30

Nitin one of us here is missing the point, probably me!<p>When Arjun project started around 40 tanks were authorised. Of which DRDO made 32-33 including 15 PPS. Subsequently around 15 additional LRP were ordered on which CAG rased accounting objections. These 15 LRP were regularized by putting them in 124 final order but the their clearance had come in 1999 based on 12 PPS while for the rest 109 clearance came in 2001 based on 15th PPS (I think).<p>
The question is have these 15 LRP been produced?

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

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

Postby Sanjay » 14 Jan 2002 08:16

I heard that the upgrade had started for the T-72s two or three years ago. What's actually happened is a little unclear.
TI, new FCS and ERA are the salient points of the upgrade.
Can they fire missiles ? I presume that some tanks will receive that capability.
New engine is also supposed to be fitted in about 300 tanks.
Problem was that the extra armour - which had initially included the Kanchan - imposed serious problems for the original T-72 engine.

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

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

Postby JCage » 15 Jan 2002 03:16

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Raj Malhotra:
Nitin one of us here is missing the point, probably me!<p>When Arjun project started around 40 tanks were authorised. Of which DRDO made 32-33 including 15 PPS. Subsequently around 15 additional LRP were ordered on which CAG rased accounting objections. These 15 LRP were regularized by putting them in 124 final order but the their clearance had come in 1999 based on 12 PPS while for the rest 109 clearance came in 2001 based on 15th PPS (I think).<p>
The question is have these 15 LRP been produced?<p>
<hr></blockquote><p>Yeah,those designations...too many P's for one,are a bit confusing.<p>CAG states:
12 MK-I prototypes with imported propulsion unit were produced by February 1989 and 15 MK-I PPS tanks were produced upto December 1996. Apart from this two torsion bar tanks, one test vehicle, one tank in recovery role and one MK-II test vehicle with imported power unit were also produced.<p>TOTAL:32 tanks.<p>The Ministry (Department of Defence Production) in August 1996 sanctioned the manufacture of 15 Limited Series Production (LSP) tanks by Ordnance Factory Board using PPS-15 as reference tank after its successful trial evaluation by Army.<p>These LSP(15) are part of the 124 total series production..<p>in the Arjun Executive Board (AEB) meeting held on 9 September 1997 it was decided that Director General Ordnance Factories (DGOF) should continue with the activities involved in the limited series production of Arjun tanks without waiting for formal clearance from the users for production of MBT Arjun (LSP) subject to final General Staff approval. The AEB also recommended that all feasible improvements suggested by the users be incorporated and demonstrated to users on PPS 15 tank so that it becomes a reference tank<p>
MK-2 actually refers to a tank with indigenous engine.Since that was delayed/scrapped,the MK-2 was displayed with a German MTU.
Lets not confuse that with the "new" MK2.
15th PPS is to serve as base tank for the production for 15+109 (LSP+Regular Series).<p>At the very minimum,Adding up the numbers,excluding the LSP-thats 32 arjuns. :) <p>
Lets leave the rest for better times.Cant speculate on weapons deliveries.<p>Regards,
Nitin

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby jrjrao » 16 Jan 2002 22:20

What tank is this (one of the older ones?)
web page

member_3768
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

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

Postby member_3768 » 16 Jan 2002 23:50

My bad, I agree the tank is an unmodified vijayanta.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » 17 Jan 2002 00:03

Vijayanta, without the side armor screens

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

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

Postby Umrao » 17 Jan 2002 00:05

I think its Vijayanta Tank.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby Paul » 17 Jan 2002 00:06

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>What tank is this (one of the older ones?)
web page<hr></blockquote><p>Must be a Vijayanta.

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

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

Postby abhay » 18 Jan 2002 07:47

From Stratmag (January 2002)<p>http://www.stratmag.com/page02.htm#a01<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Contributing to the sad state of affairs has been the disastrous program to develop an indigenous tank, the Arjun. "This debacle cost India over $1.23 billion and explains why the necessary maintenance, overhauls and upgrades for the T-72 and other Indian tanks have not been funded," Fetter said. <hr></blockquote><p>Nitin, A rather disheartening statement about Arjun Program. Who is this Fetter? Any comments?

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

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

Postby JCage » 18 Jan 2002 10:24

Abhay,
Fetter's entire article on the IA tank fleet and at the end ..Arjun is full of fallacies.Not worth even considering.<p>These chaps look up dated janes reports etc and use it as a base for "analysis".Stratmag has just reproduced it.<p>Regards,
Nitin

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

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

Postby abhay » 18 Jan 2002 17:36

Nitin,
GOI/MOD should come out with a clear statement on the status of Arjun. Ambiguity on their part, repeated hankerings in the press about the "failed MBT program", and to top it all the CAG reports keep the doubts smouldering in people's minds. Don't really care if the cost involved is unexpectedly high or there is delay in development (happens everywhere), as long as we know that Arjun is there to stay.

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

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

Postby JCage » 18 Jan 2002 20:09

They have their own reasons.....i guess.The CAG reports are circa 98.The PAC circa 2000.And they hide more than they reveal.
In a couple of years time,i guess the"updated" info should be out.<p>Regards,
Nitin

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 567
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

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

Postby VKumar » 18 Jan 2002 21:39

There is at least one regiment of Arjuns in operation. (as usual-Uncle's son told me this). But it adds up that if about 30+ arjuns are mfd. then one regiment is in operation (the operation bit may be news).

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby svinayak » 18 Jan 2002 22:06

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> GOI/MOD should come out with a clear statement on the status of Arjun. Ambiguity on their part, repeated hankerings in the press about the "failed MBT program", and to top it all the CAG reports keep the doubts smouldering in people's minds.<hr></blockquote>
It is part of the massive disinformation campaign which MOD has been successfull for the last several decades overall. BR had figured out some time back about status of some of the delays. But the actual 'reality' is still unknown.

member_3791
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

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

Postby member_3791 » 19 Jan 2002 13:02

This has been a wonderful discussion. There has been mention of the Israeli HETZ M-111 round. If someone has already mentioned this particular aspect I apologize. With regard to its effectiveness I think the best example was the photo that IMI put in various publications such as Military Technology. It shows a T-62 barrel that had been penetrated by the HETZ round. The round stuck about 1/3 down the barrel, slowly digging in until it penetrated completely. How does the density of the 115mm gun compare to the primary armor?

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

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

Postby JCage » 20 Jan 2002 12:55

Hi Python,
I mentioned the IMI round in a previous post.
Any links/info on the same?Open source,that is.<p>Were you referring to the 105MM L7A2 round/s?<p>Regards,
Nitin

jrjrao
BRFite
Posts: 869
Joined: 01 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby jrjrao » 24 Jan 2002 09:33

OKay, BR tank connoissuers, play the detective here. From this smallest glimpse of a tank barrel, can you tell what tank this is? (I obviously don't know..)<p> web page 1 ; web page 2

dbpatra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 15 Jul 2000 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby dbpatra » 24 Jan 2002 09:55

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jrjrao:
OKay, BR tank connoissuers, play the detective here. From this smallest glimpse of a tank barrel, can you tell what tank this is? (I obviously don't know..)
<p>web page 1 ; web page 2
<hr></blockquote><p>If the barrel is rifled, it is T-55, Arjun or Vijayanta and if it is smoothbore it has to be T -72 or -90. So then from the shape of the sleeve, one can easily identify the tank.<p>Anyway, the turret is visible in both pics and thus there is no mystery.

ehsmang
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 54
Joined: 12 Nov 1999 12:31
Location: ndelhi
Contact:

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

Postby ehsmang » 24 Jan 2002 10:14

I think the fundmental difference between the arabian deserts and Indian deserts is that the Arabian deserts are hard as compared to the soft Indian thar. This is one of the many reasons why the Indian Army is chary of the Arjun. While heavy tanks were OK in the arabian deserts same might not be true for the thar.

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

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

Postby JCage » 24 Jan 2002 14:56

ehsmang,
The arjun's wide tracks and low ground pressure are meant to compensate for that very fact.Note that the army's never mentioned it as a problem -anywhere-indicating acceptance.<p>Regards.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » 24 Jan 2002 19:48

Arjun has a lower ground pressure than the T-72/90. Therefore it is capable of going where the T-series cant. During WW2 the King Tiger had a lower ground pressure than the T-34 due to its extra wide tracks though it was the heaviest tank used in the war.

member_3793
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

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

Postby member_3793 » 26 Jan 2002 20:59

Nitin,<p>Sorry for the delay in responding. I had used a verboten sign on Python 4 instead of my name so I was taken out of the system. All I have been able to dig out of my files is the advertisement from Israel Military Industries showing the penetration of the tank barrel. I will continue to look for more information.

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

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

Postby JCage » 26 Jan 2002 21:33

Darell,
Ok! :)
can you describe the pic?Ie is it frontal-near the gun or did it impact at the side of the turret?We can get a rough approximation then.<p>regards,
nitin

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

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

Postby member_201 » 05 Feb 2002 22:59

Nitin, where is the Arjun article you were supposed to be writing? :) <p>-------------------------------------------------<p>Arjun, India's Mythical Warrior Nearing Completion <p>By 1Lt Adam Geibel, 1998 <p>Relations between India and Pakistan have been in a state of simmering hostility since the 1971 War, which was characterized by some intense armour battles on both the Eastern and Western fronts. While the United States had supplied M48 and M47 "Pattons" to Pakistan, the Soviet Union has been the primary supplier of MBTs to India since the '60s. At that time, two armoured divisions fielded about 900 T -55s. These served well in both the 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan, but both belligerents recognized the limitations of existing designs. This sparked the India-Pakistan MBT race. In addition to sequential upgrades of models already in their inventories, both countries embarked on indigenous MBT designs. India's "Arjun" and Pakistan's "Al Khalid" have soaked up millions of defense dollars, with little more to show for the dual efforts then a handful of prototypes and pre-production models of both tanks. <p>Arjun Development History <p>At the end of the 1971 war, the Indian army realized the limitations of their tank fleet in the harsh desert conditions of Rajasthan, a northwestern Indian state bordering Pakistan, so they initiated their own MBT design. The first "Arjun" (named after a mythical Hindu warrior prince) concept was laid out in 1974 by the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO). Based on 1971 battlefield experiences, the Arjun would have a locally-designed, rifled 120mm main gun, a German, MTU-based diesel power plant (The Indians consider turbine engines fuel guzzlers), and a computerized fire control system with a laser rangefinder. One of the early Arjun prototypes was unveiled to the public in April 1985 (though it was probably ready to roll at some point in 1983-84), with a number of prototypes undergoing technical testing while desert trials were scheduled for that summer. Indian Army Chief of Staff, General A.S. Vaidya and Dr. V.S. Arunachalam (Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister) presided at the ceremony, announcing that they planned to have the Arjun in service by the end of the decade.<p>At the time, it was reported to have a 120mm smooth-bore main gun and would use a 1400-hp MTU-based diesel until an indigenous one was ready. Weight would be about 50 tons, and the tank would cost about $1.6 million (U.S.), but development costs rose about 500 percent throughout the '80s. Twenty-six years later, through a development process plagued with delays, the end product visually resembles the German Leopard II, however, unlike the German vehicle, its future is in doubt. According to Indian Defense Minister Sharad Pawar, there were 12 prototype Arjun MBTs "in an advanced stage of development" as of October 1991. At that point, the first production Arjuns were projected to be in service by 1995. Years of firepower and tactical tests on the firing ranges in desert and semi-arid conditions followed, until the Indian Army considered the results "excellent." Indications were that the Indians were ready for production decisions. Then the Pakistani's announced in 1985 a deal with the Ukraine to purchase T -84s, This announcement caused another flurry of activity in the Indian tank development community. <p>On 9 January 1996, the Arjun was formally unveiled and cleared for mass production. According to Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, Dr. Abdul Kalam, the Indians consider the Arjun comparable to the M1A2 Abrams, Leopard 2, and Leclerc. However, Army Chief of Staff General Shankar Roy Choudhury pointed out that, while some of the tank's parameters needed to be "further fine-tuned," they have enough confidence to plan Arjun variants - mobile assault guns, an observation post vehicle, an air defense (gun or missile) version, a recovery vehicle, an engineer vehicle, and bridge layers. New bridge layers and recovery vehicles were necessary, given the Arjun's substantial weight increase over the T 72M1 series.
Technical Background
The 59-ton 15th Variant can achieve a maximum speed of 70 kph (55 mph) and cross-country speed of 40 kph with its 1400-hp power plant. The Arjun's hydropneumatic suspension can be hardened or softened, according to the terrain, and the 1,610-liter fuel tank allows for a cruising range of 200 km (120 miles). The semiautomatic transmission, hydrodynamic torque converter, retarder, and integral system are local designs (the designers seek to produce from 70 to 80 percent of the tank's parts in-country.). The service brake consists of a hydraulically operated, high-performance brake disc that is incorporated into the final drive.
To ensure crew survivability, production versions will have the indigenously researched and developed `Kanchan' composite armour, an automatic fire detection and suppression system, and an NBC protection system designed and built by the Bhabha Atomic Research Center. <p>The tank exerts a ground pressure of .84 kg/cm square and can climb a gradient of 35 degrees (necessary for crossing Rajasthan sand dunes). Since the river strewn Punjab area "ditch cum bund"' defenses caused innumerable problems during the 1971 War, the Arjun can cross on the Vijayanta's Mk 1B FCS developed by Bharat Electronics, but this was probably an earlier prototype). The gunner's main sight includes daylight, thermal sight, and laser rangefinder channels. The common sighting head mirror is stabilized in elevation and azimuth. The daylight sight has dual magnification while the thermal imager provides a night vision facility to the gunner and the commander. <p>The LRF (integral to the gunner's sight) has a range of nearly 10 km and a thermal imager (which can "see"' at around 5.5 km, recognize a target at 3.1 km and identify targets at 2.5 km). The Arjun fire control system's ability to fire on the move during the night is a major step forward for Indian armoured forces. The commander's panoramic sight provides 360-degree surveillance without the TC moving his eyes from the sight and also without disturbing the lay of the turret. The field of view is stabilized with the help of a two-axis rate gyro mounted on the platform of the head mirror. Apparently, improvements were deemed necessary even after the Arjun design profile was accepted again in July 1996, an acceptance which would have allowed production to commence when funding became available. However, some elements of the chosen version fell far short of army specifications. <p>On 27 August 1996, the Defense Production and Supplies Secretary ordered 15 pre-production tanks from the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi (at which point, one Indian media estimate placed the project cost at $112 million (U.S.). At least one Arjun fielded by the 43rd Armoured Regiment participated in the 48th Republic Day parade on 27 January 1997. Field trials were again declared completed and series production was to start in early June '97. As of mid-year, around 15 prototypes of the Arjun Mk.1 MBT had already been built, with the last being the basis for the production model. <p>However, the list of faults after 20 years of development was not encouraging. In addition to numerous technical modifications to its fire and gun control systems (the commander's periscope sight, the laser warning sight, and the muzzle reference sight have been found "unreliable"), the fire control system in particular has been found unable to perform in temperatures above 42 degrees Celsius (108° F). The induction into the army. One reported government-sanctioned figure for Arjun development and the upgrade of the nation's T 72M1s (with most going to the Arjun) at $1.12 billion (U.S.), spread out over the next three to five years. <p>Despite promises made by the Finance Minister, Mr. P. Chidambaram, that lack of funds would not come in the way of India's defense needs, some officials were sceptical over deadlines being maintained by the factory and subcontractors. The result would be not only a cost escalation due to the effects of inflation but also an adverse impact on defense preparedness. Detractors think that (baring drastic changes) the country's progressively shrinking defense budget, coupled with the persistent technical problems, would delay any serious Arjun serial production until 2002-2004. In early August, General Choudhury promised officers and soldiers of the 13th Armoured Regiment that the Arjun would enter production soon. Less than two months later, DRDO was shaken by the desertion of scores of military scientists and engineers lured to the more lucrative private sector, thus jeopardizing the Arjun project's success. As of 18 September, the Indian Parliament approved a 250 billion Rupee ($6.9 Billion) Five-Year Defense Budget. In this 1997-2002 budget, some 40 Billion has been allocated for the Ajeya rebuild program, and another 1 Billion Rupees for the first 100 Arjuns. <p>Footnotes <p>The Soviet Union has been the primary supplier of MBT's to India since the `60s, but since 1990 the supply of spare parts from Russia has been questionable (the Indian Air Force's MiG fleet is also suffering from this problem). Local production started in 1979 as a response to the Arjun's slow development and to stimulate supporting industries in India's economy. The DRDO has also produced versions of the BMP-2 and the "Ajeya" (a T-72M1). There have been plans to retrofit India's "Ajeya" fleet with the "Arjun's" updated FCS as time and funds permit, starting in 1986-87. Furthermore, in May 1997 the Russians offered the "Arena" active defense system to India. Presumably, the Arjun could be fitted with this suite as well. <p>One source claims that, as of 1997, there exists a total of 17 prototypes and 20 pre-production vehicles, with the first pre-production vehicle delivered in 1988. DRDO has been considering scrapping the current Arjun fire control system in favor of whatever is accepted for the T 72M1 upgrade program. Since the Arjun extends beyond the official width limit on either side of a standard Indian flatbed rail car, strategic transport would be extremely difficult. This would also require that India refurbish large sections of her rail network, as well as acquire new rolling stock. (This is nothing new in the annals of tank development, as the Germans had this same problem when fielding the 'Tiger' Mk VI during World War II.) <p>ARJUN Mk 1 (15th Prototype Model)
Weight: 59 tons (58.5 tonnes)
Length (gun forwards): 10.19m
Width (w/ skirts): 3.85m
Height (w/o 12.7mm AAMG): 2.32m
Engine: 1400 HP MTU 838 Ka 501 Diesel (some reports of 1500 HP) Transmission: Semi-automatic with 4 forward and 2 reverse gears. (also reported as ZF automatic)
Fuel: 1610 liters <p>PERFORMANCE
Max Speed: 72-70 kph (55 mph)
Cross Country Speed: 40 kph
Cruising Range: 200 km (120 miles)
Ground Pressure: .84 kg/cm Square Ground Clearance: .45m
Slide Slope: 60%
Climbing Gradient: 35x
Trench: 2.43 m (also given as 3m)
Vertical Obstacle: .9m
Ford: 1.4 m <p>ARMAMENT
Main Gun: 120mm, stabilized w/MRS (APFSDS, HE, HEAT, HESH and smoke)
12.7mm AA Gun
7.62mm Coax
2 x 9 Smoke Grenade Launchers LRF Range: 10 km
Sights: Thermal (Max Rng 5.5 km) Active and Passive Defensive Systems: "Arena" a possibility, probable Laser Warning System

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

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

Postby JCage » 06 Feb 2002 00:45

Raks,
Lets leave the article for "better" times.
Adam Geibels articles are pretty comprehensive,but some parts are dated.<p>Lets take the FCS :<p>The FCS problems are ,afaik,resolved. :)
Note that even the original FCS achieved results equal to and at times better than those claimed by Norinco for their *production ready* MBT-2000/Alkhalid namely a dynamic PK(prob of kill) of 71%.During Gen Roy-Chowdhurys tenure,the Arjun scored a remarkable 90%+ in its gunnery trials-and these included moving targets by a moving tank(arjun.)
The army's grouse was consistency and removing any "erratic" results.
Some components of the FCS did underperform at high temp.
Hence the JAP(Joint Action Plan) which stated that accuracy at battle ranges and under dynamic modes needed to be improved.
DRDO has reported to the PAC-and these reports were true(and are already old ;) )-that they had substantially improved upon both the criteria and the results were acceptable to the enduser.
The Arjun remains one of the most heavily tested battle systems in the world.Some tanks have fired >600 rounds and performed with 70% in dynamic(moving)conditions-consistently-(performance=MBT2000/ALKHalid).Apparently,the IA wanted better.
AS of today,the Arjun incorporates a more "advanced" FCS with results surpassing anything the chinese or the pakis can procure/put out.And no change is needed.
Also,the army accepted the Arjun in trials circa feb 2000 and beyond.The armour was also validated.<p>The "karan"(new T72/Arjun hybrid) report (janes/def news)also makes a lot of sense.Think of a T72 chassis + the Arjun turret with its kanchan armour and the 120mm rifled gun.Superior to the old 125mm here or its "development" a/c the border.
The remaining armour may consist of substantial ERA...giving protection beyond the current T72's.<p>In fact this may be why the Army contemplates a "full upgrade" for a few T72's....rest may be modified indigenously to the standard described above.<p>
Regards,
nitin

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

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

Postby member_201 » 06 Feb 2002 01:15

But I need to update the Arjun Page. Can't I just re-upload the Arjun Page from the latest edition of Janes?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests