T-72s in Chechnya, From Armour Magazine

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 23 Nov 2001 01:36

Also Arjun may have been designed with mtu-838 in mind.if i am not far wrong the volume of Mtu-838 is around 10m^3 (compared to 4m^3 of mtu-883)stowage 39 roundsAm i distracting from the discussion?Nitin i just wanted to confirm as I thought per the whiners 4 khalids are equal to 171 Arjuns.

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 Nov 2001 02:55

Paul, I presume the Arjun has Kanchan over its most vulnerable arc - front hull and turret. Some might eventually be incorporated to protect from top-attack in a Mark-2 variant. However, I do not believe the lower hull is only a single RHA plate. Double plate - spaced maybe ? Chieftan was rejected because of weight and very poor engine power. The L-60 is loathed in India because it has a very poor reliability and maintenence record. The Arjun has weight problems as well. It all goes back to the problems Centurions and Churchills had in service. Raj, For now, let's keep the MTU-838 in the calculations. I suspect changes will be made, but let's not overly speculate. The 39 rounds are due to the APU. Original stowage was 44 rounds.

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 23 Nov 2001 03:52

From the JoMO VOl-10 # 4 pp56" Comments by a former Arjun Program manager also suggest that only the turret is fitted with Kancahn composite armor."Where did the idea of Kanchan adding 15 tons to the weight of the tanks come from?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 Nov 2001 04:29

Paul, that's not true. It's the frontal armour - not just turret. "The chassis is fabricated from rolled homogenous armour plate using advanced welding technique. Frontal armour is of Kanchan composite sandwiched between armour plates." URL=http://www.drdo.org//pub/jun98/combat.htmThis is confirmed in April 1993 Indian Defence Review. They were present at the 1993 trials and had been closely monitoring the Arjun's development:" The Arjun, given its Kanchan ( composite ) and 'monolithic' or homogenous armour mix, should provide good protection, in the frontal arc, against likely opposition in the West including the Khalid. All main guns on tank inventories in the West are now capable of firing very high velocity APDS or long-rod APFSDS."I checked with the IDR's editor on this one - and it is turret and hull. Frontal at any rate.Look at the Vijayanta upgrade and you'll notice - I think - some Kanchan fitted to front hull. Look at the picture - it's on the BR army page in the image gallery: <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... s/0360.jpg" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 360.jpg</A> I think we can also consider Arjun's armour in some ways to mirror Kanchan fitment to Vijayanta.Vijayanta gained 5 metric tons with Kanchan. Weight went up to 43 metric tons - at least.Now as per the 15 tons, here's where things get odd. I suggested to Nitin that a range of 10-15 extra tons is reasonable.Now the tank that was original prototype - I don't mean the mild steel model - the real prototype was alleged to weigh 45 tons. It came in at 56.5. Then in 1997, the weight of Arjun ballooned to 61.5 tons. This is believed to be because of armour in large part. Then weight was stabilized in 2000 at 58.5 metric tons.The GSQR of Arjun was 45 metric tons. The tank ended up beyond that almost entirely due to the sheer weight of the Kanchan armour. This was in the SIPRI yearbook of 1993, 94 or 95.Now, I'll admit we're guessing somewhat, but I'm trying to reconcile a great deal of what I've heard and learnt over the years of the Arjun. Sorry about this.

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 23 Nov 2001 07:12

Their was a report in a HongKong news paper that Arjun had HY-80 armor plates. These have a hardness of only 220 BHN [ similar to late model WW-II german tanks ] thats not to far away from mild steel [ ~ 180 BHN].Do you or anyone know what the hardness is on these armors?

Sanjay · Post by **Sanjay** » 23 Nov 2001 07:51

Paul, I think we'd need an exact ref. But it is more likely not. Unless the plates were used in a non-vulnerable area. Fundamentally, two things have to be borne in mind: 1) India was already manufacturing T-72 2) Vijayanta armour was also around.Finally, India apparently only started production on a pilot scale of HY-80 steel in the 1990s - long after Kanchan was developed - and it was used on the pressure hulls of submarines. This was part, I suspect, of the TOT from the Type 1500 SSKs.Here's a nice link on it: "The indigenous production of HY-80 steel for the pressure hull of submarines have been established on a pilot scale." <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/INFO/DRDO.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/INFO/DRDO.html</A> This was first reproduced in SP's Military Yearbook 1993-94.Hence, on the balance of things, I think that unless the plates were used in a non-vulnerable area of the tank and was a recent addition, there seems to be a 'temporal predicament' in reconciling India's apparent first production of HY-80 steel for submarines - as this seems to be where HY-80 really found its military niche - and the fact that in 1987, Kanchan was already being tested on ranges and the first Arjun was emerging.It seems that press reports cannot be taken at face value !

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 23 Nov 2001 22:34

Paul, The DIIC article(is it the one?) you refer to about the arjun using HY-80 also says that the kanchan armour by DMRL is based on a german design and is similar to chobham. Cant say whether it is right or wrong..or simply a compilation of the dated reports on the net.The 15 ton figure is thought likely(10-15 ton range) because of the threat assessment shooting up,(It was in the last mail,with the IDR quotes,other info and the links?) 45T->61.5 T with 58.5T desired by the IA. And this weight doesnt include ERA!I second Sanjay on this,because the kanchan was meant to be the prime component(the link in sanjay's last reports/suggest kanchan as a filler type /composite? between armour plates.And paul,the 2000 trials and army acceptance are very important(sorry if i'm repeating myself).The DRDO achievements file at <A HREF="http://www.mod.nic.in" TARGET=_blank>http://www.mod.nic.in</A> under the section reports for 2000 also clearly states that the arjun successfully cleared the trials and the recently held armour trials.hnce,its not just a statesman/newspaper report.The arjun would not have been accepted unless the frontal armour was good enough and more against the APFSDS rounds available now and likely to be available in the future to the pakistanis.IDR is very credible and if it mentions that the arjun is to be protected(or the intention) against long rod apfsds-even western ones...then it can be taken as real.The reason why we-sanjay and i,if i may say so,are so sure is that the army is very hard to please in this respect.The trials of 20 +++PPS variants and others have been going on since eternity and some have logged in more than 600 hours per tank.For what its worth,regarding arjun's hull.,a techfocus article talks about indigenous ballistic louvers <A HREF="http://www.drdo.org//pub/jun98/combat.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.drdo.org//pub/jun98/combat.htm</A> Ballistic louvers are used in the hull structure of tank. These are configured to give protection against small arms fire and splinters and to provide adequate passage for coolant air to cool the 1500 HP power pack. These louvers are made out of alloy steel. Indigenous source for manufacturing these louvers using special extrusion technique has now been established.This article also has a pic of the arjun with a slightly better view of the rear.Regards, nitin

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 24 Nov 2001 15:16

paul, Here it is..what i said about threat perceptions vis a vis weight. Frontline article on the arjun,march 8 ,1996(frontline is an indian monthly magazine).With direct interviews with the arjun developers/techs ,CVRDE etc."The combat weight of the tank to begin with was 45 tonnes with a perceived threat from a 105mm gun. But with a 120mm gun likely to be available in the 1990's and beyond,the armour protection on the arjun had to be changed,pushing up the weight to 58 tonnes."This is the defacto quote wrt armour necessitating the weight increase-13 tons from the article.Note 120mm-they were thinking of western tanks too.Apparently the weight ballooned to 61.5 after this circa 97...even more armour.Regards, nitin

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 27 Nov 2001 02:36

Some info on Tank Ammo and ERA here <A HREF="http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/sep2001/personnel.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.drdo.org/pub/nl/sep2001/personnel.htm</A> "Dr Haridwar Singh, Director, High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, obtained his PhD in Solid Rocket Propellant Combustion from Pune University and Post-doctoral Research from Max-Planck Institute, Gottingen, Germany, during 1985-86.At HEMRL, Dr Singh has initiated and monitored many challenging and time-bound mission-oriented research programmes in the area of high energy materials especially propellants and explosives for rockets and missiles and advanced pyrotechnics. A spectrum of scientific achievements under his leadership included development and transfer of advanced technologies of high energy propellants for various applications including state-of-the-art propellant technology of a novel class of low vulnerability ammunition (LOVA) for tank gun. Development of explosive reactive armour, combustible cartridge case technology, high explosive compositions for different types of warheads, advanced non-smoky RDX-based propellants for booster and sustainer applications, are a few of other notable contributions. HEMRL has gained the expertise of life extension of propulsion system of missiles, under his leadership and guidance and it has become an asset for all the three Services and has made the country self-sufficient in this area.Dr Singh is the recipient of the Scientist of the Year Award 1983 and 1993, DRDO Cash Award 1984, Astronautical Society of India Award 1994 and the Agni Award for Excellence in Self-Reliance 1998. Dr Singh has eight patents and 142 research publications to his credit.He has been a visiting scientist at the Max-Planck Institute, Germany; High Pressure Combustion Lab, Pennsylvania State University; University of Arizona; Army Research Lab, Maryland; Science Applications Center, Santa Clara and Sandia National Lab, Livermore, US. He is the Chairman of High Energy Material Society of India, Hon. member of the Russian Academy of Astronautics, senate member of Pune University, fellow of the Deccan Education Society, member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and member of the Defence Science Journal Editorial Executive Board."What is meant by "low vulnerability ammunition (LOVA) for tank gun"?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Nov 2001 03:03

My guess it is same as insensitive explosives. These cannot be set off easily and are supposed to be latest and greatest in this business. So an enemy hit wont set off the ammo and blow up the vehicle.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 27 Nov 2001 03:17

folks>> slight detour, In the movie saving Private..., Tom Hanks and his comrade in arms are shown hitting a mortar shell on rock and then throwing it on the Huns, which explode.Is this really possible, is not mortar shell supposed to propell itself (along the guide tube under spring or compressive gas pressure?) and then explode?All I saw was netwons third law being defied and explode on the bad guys.Please throw some light.

member_3530 · Post by **member_3530** » 28 Nov 2001 16:10

Paul why is the Brinell hardness number so important? If the armor were just hard it would shatter on impact, would other factors like toughness and ductility not have an equally important part to play?

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 29 Nov 2001 00:10

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by thoma: Paul why is the Brinell hardness number so important? If the armor were just hard it would shatter on impact, would other factors like toughness and ductility not have an equally important part to play?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes absolutly, theres a point where increasing hardness is offset by reducing ductility so the effective resistance is the same.The problem is this applies to thin plate situations. In thick plate situations the increasing hardness nets increasing resistance.Further more in modern sandwich armors the hard layer in the middle of a RHA sandwhich results in Dual hardness steel which offers about 1.5 to 1.6 times the resistance of simple RHA for no weight gain! This is reported to be used in the Leclerc tank and is thought to be used in the LEO-2 tank.In addition its been shown in ballistic tests against APFSDS threats, that a ceramic or composities resistance in a sandwich arrangement with metal plates...the resistance of the ceramic is controlled by the hardness and density of the backing plate.SO a steel ceramic arrangement mounted on an aluminum armor will offer less resistance than the same armor arrangement mounted on a RHA backing. Further more if such arrangement where mounted on a heavy metal back plate [ like tungsten or DU] the ceramic steel armor resistance would leap again....From tests I've seen the aluminum would result in 2/3 of the resistance while the DU would result in about 1.5 times the resistance... This may be one of the secrets to chobham and DU armor arrangements...that it effects the whole armor system!

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 04 Dec 2001 18:05

Re Paul:-You have said that the volume of Leclerc is 17.5 m^3. As I understand, Leclerc that were supplied to Dubai had their engine compartment enlarged. Is it correct? So the volume of 17.5 is for French or emirates tanks?Incidentally the difference between leo-2 and le does not seem to be very large even though Leo seems to be trying to use the Russian philosophy of low silhouette, 3 men crew and autoloader. How come?Secondly I think considering the assistance of KWM in the design of Arjun one can safely say that the placement of armour and its organization will be similar to Leo 2A4. For hardness of armour plate’s estimates of Indian T-72 may be used as India has a full production line for the same and it is likely that similar metal may be used.The laminated armour may be in concept similar to Germans again. They may not have disclosed the exact composition of their own armour plates but they would have perhaps pointed out the general concepts. What actually will be the armour of production variant is very difficult to say, as DRDO seems to be working on numerous/various concepts.For estimating the internal volume I would think reduce the volume of fighting compartment to suit Indian ergonomics and increase the volume of engine compartment for older engine variant.Also the 15 LRP were based on 12th prototype and the production is supposed to be on the basis of 15th variant with some additional changes. You must read the CAG reports as even though they are accounting oriented but the info is completely authoritative and perhaps you can make more out of it them then we can. Re sanjayUse of Kanchan on top is slightly unlikely as it will make the tank heavier and also shift the CG. I think ERA panels are more likely as they are lighter and effective against HEAT and top attack will normally be chemical explosives. Also I understand Mtu-838 is no longer being produced. Even Mtu-883 has been around for a decade atleast. As numerous orders that seemed likely have not materialized for Mtu hence I would think even Mtu-883 is likely let alone Mtu-873.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 04 Dec 2001 22:28

Raj, the Leopard 2 doesnt have a 3 man crew and auto-loader, it features a standard 4 man crew with manual loading, there have been tests done with an auto-loader though.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 04 Dec 2001 22:42

A very simplistic theory, but from the top of my head.Hardness is directly related to ability to be indented ( or resistance to thereof).(In BHN we use a spherical indenting tool on the surface to be tested and then measure the dia of the the indented spherical surface to calculate Hardness)Without using many (partial to non engg) differential equations. consider that the small length 'delta l' (lets make it very simple and stick to two dimensions) armour. Lets suppose that this length is like a simply supported beam. When an armor piercing shell lands the simply supported beam is being impact loaded ( ie. twice the loading of a static load). Now the surface that takes the impact should be obviously hardned so that it does not get indented or is minimally indented, i.e deformed. The surface (delta l) would get compressed( compressive force) and along the depth / thickness, there would be a neutral axis at which compressive force is zero and beyond that there are tensile forces. It can be shown that by lamination of multiple layers increases the tensile strength and therby increased absorbtion of energy before it yields. If the material crystall structure changes due to heat energy released by the explosives then we have to use more complex model.In nut(or Tank) shell the hardness is indeed important ( watch the Battle of the Bulge, The american Sherman tank score a direct hit on panther tank not even a dent is scored, hence BHN must be high

)Please visualize based on the digram to the right ( In this model we are applying the delta load as slowly as possible usually hydraulically so that its constant force, so as to minimise the kinetic loading and enough time for the energy to be absorbed by the crystalline structure so that it deforms uniformly. In real tank battle I dont think this would happen, there is more of kinetic and Chemical energy being dissapated in a very short time, hence shock loading).( Disclaimer: after my immigration 15 yrs ago, I defected from structures to data structures hence my engineering knowledge may be dated. ) <A HREF="http://www.industrialheating.com/CDA/Ar ... 41,00.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.industrialheating.com/CDA/Ar ... tures/BNP_ _Features__Item/0,2832,22341,00.html</A> <A HREF="http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt7.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt7.htm</A>

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 05 Dec 2001 00:45

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Raj Malhotra: Re Paul:-You have said that the volume of Leclerc is 17.5 m^3. As I understand, Leclerc that were supplied to Dubai had their engine compartment enlarged. Is it correct? So the volume of 17.5 is for French or emirates tanks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Its the French version , but an expanded engine compartment shouldn't impact the front armor, since any such change would be to that area...either heavier over all or slighly thinner armor around the engine compartment. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Incidentally the difference between leo-2 and le does not seem to be very large even though Leo seems to be trying to use the Russian philosophy of low silhouette, 3 men crew and autoloader. How come? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As pointed out the LEO-2 is conventional in crew layout so their has to be room for the standing loader ~ 2.48m max height ..leclerc is shorter.This will lead to less volume..also the Leclerc hull is shorter from what I remember . Were only talking about 17.5 to 19.4m^3 , when the M-1 changes from M-1 to M-1A1 the volume went from 21 to 23m^3. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Secondly I think considering the assistance of KWM in the design of Arjun one can safely say that the placement of armour and its organization will be similar to Leo 2A4. For hardness of armour plate’s estimates of Indian T-72 may be used as India has a full production line for the same and it is likely that similar metal may be used.The laminated armour may be in concept similar to Germans again. They may not have disclosed the exact composition of their own armour plates but they would have perhaps pointed out the general concepts. What actually will be the armour of production variant is very difficult to say, as DRDO seems to be working on numerous/various concepts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've been leaning in this direction, the inital estimates for Kanchan density are way to high. By current standards composities are usually lighter and lighter but offer the same reisitance . Fibreglas [2.6g/cc] offers about the same resistance as Kevlar[ 1.44 g/cc] , which offers about the same resistance as Dyneema/Spectra sheild [ 0.9 g/cc].I'd been wondering if their are other plates involved in the insert armor? Nitin has suggested Titanium which is hughly expensive in the west [ ~ 10 times steel], but most common ceramics [aluimina] are twice as expencive as RHA as are hard steel and Aluminum. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>.Also the 15 LRP were based on 12th prototype and the production is supposed to be on the basis of 15th variant with some additional changes. You must read the CAG reports as even though they are accounting oriented but the info is completely authoritative and perhaps you can make more out of it them then we can. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again where are these reports? [QB][QUOTE]

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 05 Dec 2001 00:50

There is plenty of Ti on the market from Russia, some of it is being recycled into golf clubs.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 05 Dec 2001 01:09

i think as soon as Drdo said lighter we all jumped to conclusion it is Titanium. it may even be ERA or smaller-lighter-more powerful engine.as regards le I was thinking it would much smaller compared to Leo. as it is not that small it would mean that even adopting Soviet design philosphy with western mechanicals does not lead to huge savings in volume.Cag <A HREF="http://www.cagindia.org/reports/defence ... /chap3.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.cagindia.org/reports/defence ... ap3.htm</A>

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 05 Dec 2001 02:02

Ok chaps, This is official!100% confirmed. No more confusion.

The all up weight of the arjun- 58.5 tons including ammo/gas. The all up weight of the tank with IA's requirement of a vintage mine trawl(weighs 3 tons) added is 61.5 tons! Thats the bloody problem!To sum up. Hence,with 105mm apfsds in mind,the weight was 45 tons. With 120mm and beyond in mind,the weight went upto 58.5 tons. Thats 13.5 tons of kanchan approx.And add the weight of armour that would have been included for the original 45 ton tank...we have 15 tons and beyond.The weight of ammo-gas being similar to that in the 45 ton tank and included in that assessment itself...as the frontline report clearly states that the weight increase is due to enhanced protection.Regards, nitin

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 05 Dec 2001 02:05

nitin, are you getting the 58.5 metric tons from the Jane's Armor and Artillery?How do ya like the pics of Arjun? Had you seen them before?

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 05 Dec 2001 02:06

so what are the 124 arjuns being powered with now if the MTU has stopped making the engine ?are they being made at all ?

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 05 Dec 2001 02:10

The first batch will be powered by the MTU-838 Ka 501 engines. They were bought earlier by Avadi so there's a stock of them in India. But for the follow on batches, I don't know for sure.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 05 Dec 2001 02:20

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vick: nitin, are you getting the 58.5 metric tons from the Jane's Armor and Artillery?How do ya like the pics of Arjun? Had you seen them before?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope mate. :)I just went thru my long maintained archive on the arjun..cobwebs and all!The frontline article,DRDO reports and parliamentary accounts all clearly state 58.5 tons.CAG threw a spanner with the 61.5 tons thing. Now i've confirmed :)that the mine trawl-3 tons raises the weight from 58.5(including 1.5 tons of ammo/gas/etc) to 61.5 tons! You must also consider that the actual weight *with ammo/gas/etc* will be 61.5 TonsPS:Thanks for the pics and the other stuff.They're superb.

Regards, nitin

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 05 Dec 2001 02:22

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Raj Malhotra: i think as soon as Drdo said lighter we all jumped to conclusion it is Titanium. it may even be ERA or smaller-lighter-more powerful engine.as regards le I was thinking it would much smaller compared to Leo. as it is not that small it would mean that even adopting Soviet design philosphy with western mechanicals does not lead to huge savings in volume.Cag <A HREF="http://www.cagindia.org/reports/defence ... /chap3.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.cagindia.org/reports/defence ... aj, The engine is considered different than the frontal armour(here).It adds to the concept of spaced armour.Paul was asking about kanchan. The ERA again is a different issue.From the T72 article that began this thread..i'd wager that DRDO ERA incorporates russian expertise too. But keep in mind this would at max be an improvement,not a direct rip-off. In 1996 itself,CVRDE revealed that ERA had been developed!And it has been handed over to OFB and productionised.Regards, nitin

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 05 Dec 2001 02:50

Pual, One more thing before i forget as you peruse the CAG reports...they're actuarial and miss out on many points.Like the trawl thing.The CAG points out stuff circa 1997. In 2000,DRDO reported to the Parliamentary Committe on The arjun that out of 10 essential parameters specified by the IA(mentioned in the CAG report)..8 HAD been achieved. The 10 parameters were. 1·Enhancement of overall mission reliability; 2·Fielding of Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) and Medium Fording Capability; 3·Containerisation of ammunition bin with blow-off panel,(new requirement added for the first time in 1994); 4·ergonomics needs substantial attention; 5·cruising range to be enhanced; 6·firing in the rear arc at zero degree is a must; 7·provision of an emergency power traverse and Auxiliary Power Unit(APU) ; and 8·an all electric power traverse to obviate the problem of leaks that occur in the present system in our environmental conditions (new requirement added in 1994). 9·Improved accuracy of the gun at battle ranges; 10·Establish accuracy in the dynamic mode to acceptable levels; The 9th and 10th ...ie ...dynamic accuracy of armament & at battle ranges had been highly improved and were to be demonstrated to the army for their approval at the next firing trials.(2000){this was later proven and accepted as given below}The 8th..inclusion of all electric traverse for the arjun would involve substantial reengineering and would be done after the 124 tank production for the MK2.The CAG reports@1997 also misses out on protection...saying yet to be proved.Circa 2000(statesman article-feb 28th 2000,DRDO official reports for 2000-2001)the arjun went thru' the next phase of trials at balasore.These are the latest! The kanchan armour was proved AND the armament accuracy finally considered acceptable.You see the above is confirmed by the fact that the MoD asked the army whether the indent of 124 was acceptable to them *if* DRDO had achieved 8 out of 10 parameters. The army's reply was that the JAP(Joint Action Plan)b/w the DRDO AND THE IA after the last trials in 1997 specified that all the critical 10 parameters had to be met. The traverse one being the sole exception as the IA did realise taht more unacceptable delay would occur!Note that while the FCS was considered technically limited by the army,DRDO reported taht it included the latest signal processors and associated s/w. The FCS problem wasnt a problem of the FCS per se but of the sensors(muzzle ref indiacator etc) which were behaving erratically at 40-50 deg celsius!Even so,some prototypes of the arjun have performed at 70% hit probability on the move.This wasnt considered good enough! On an average ,each of the some 15 arjun tank prototypes has done 6000 kms(the max life of the transmission-renk) and fired 600 shells till date!!! So a lot of water has flown under the bridge since 1997!And the CAG reports are dated!Regards, nitin

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 05 Dec 2001 02:57

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 05 Dec 2001 03:10

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 05 Dec 2001 16:35

.My bad!The weight of the arjun-58.5 tons includes the ammo/gas etc.The 60 ton figure is apparently quoted because its the max limit of the renk transmission.With a 3 ton trawl,we have 61.5 Tons.Still adds upto ~15 tons of kanchan keeping in mind the original armour on the 45 ton tank!The original weight-45 tons included the ammo/gas weight...the enhanced weight to 58.5T is purely due to more protection-frontline report.I have edited my posts above.Heres the proof...from a parliamentary report circa mid 2000.These excerpts are all i have for now.On being asked as to how a power pack for 60 tonne was selected for a 61.50 tank, the Ministry in a note stated: “The power pack delivers a range of torque necessary to propel the 60 tonnes tank over the terrains envisaged.Since the all up weight of MBT Arjun is only 58.5 tonnes, under 60 tonnes, fully kitted up, the performance cannot be contested.The all up weight of 61.5 tonnes is a projection of one of the User’s requirement, when the tank if it gets fitted with mine trawl of vintage design weighing 3 tonnes.By its very nature the demining operation is carried out at a very slow speed, the requisite torque for which can be delivered by the transmission.This comparison is true of all tanks world over.This explains our selection.” Regarding the doubts about the powerpack etc...

To a specific query from theCommittee, when and how the power pack is designed to be indigenised, the Ministry stated that the manufacturing infrastructure for power pack now exists with Ordnance Factories at Avadi and Bharat Earth Movers Limited(BEML), Mysore and Kolar plants.According to them, if the volumes justify, licence manufacture of power pack is contemplated in these plants. Regards, nitin

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 05 Dec 2001 19:06

Paul, are you sure about the UAE LeClercs being french standard? I have read several articles about these tanks, and all of them claim that these LeClercs use Europack instead of the Hyperbar engine.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 05 Dec 2001 19:10

Paul, could you please give an easy explanation how "telescoped" ammo works, and why it is good, as everybody claim it to be. Without being to technical

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 05 Dec 2001 21:08

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nandai: Paul, are you sure about the UAE LeClercs being french standard? I have read several articles about these tanks, and all of them claim that these LeClercs use Europack instead of the Hyperbar engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NandaiWhat I mean't was that the figure of 17.5m^3 volume came from a discussion with a french source about the french version.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 05 Dec 2001 22:57

Re NitinHi1. kindly provide the link for the excerpts, as I will love to read them in detail.2. You are perhaps right about the weight being 61.5-3=58.5 but the CAG report does not seem to talking about the mine trawl. If it was so simple why did the IA protest in the first place.The quote from CAG 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 that had resulted in bulging of sidewalls 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. Also is the tank was already light (58.5) the issue of titanium will not arise.Any way I am drifting out of the topic.3. The interesting thing is that everybody refers to the armour as heavy and DRDO is very secretive so much so that they refused to tell the Project Director of Arjun as to what it is composed off. Note referring to overweight tank or extra armour is different from referring to ‘heavy armour” which implies higher densities. Now Sanjay also refers to difficulties in machining.Could it possibly be perhaps say tungsten and ceramic laminates. Why would simple steel and glassfibre laminate be such an issue?Frankly it is impossible to predict the armour of prototypes and it can be anything from basic steel/glassfibre to tungsten/ceramic and with use of plastic and titanium to reduce weight. 4. Now on the second issue – I know Paul was referring to armour but I was referring to the issue of reduction in weight. Reduction in weight can be achieved by multiple methods and not necessarily by making the armour lighter.5. Incidentally I hope for new powerpacks the DRDO keeps more of the margin (as apart from issue of mine trawl) the additional ERA may also be required and as sanjay pointed out that a full coverage may weight something like 6 tons. Also if the tanks carry additional ammo or drop tanks even then more weight may be added. This is off course apart from battlefield carriage of numerous add ons.6. The Cag report itself says that 8 out of 10 criteria have been met DRDO however, contended that the summer trials of 1997 clearly met eight out of the ten bottom line requirements laid down by the Army. Though from general reading I think a better engine, new FCS, GCS and license produced electric traverse systems will solve most of the rest.7. The Cag report itself indicated the course of action for next couple of years and one must note that in 1998 sanctions have come into effect so the progress may have been delayed. The Germans I understand removed the sanctions only recently (early 2001?)8. Now the issue of 124 tanks. The disconcerting fact is there seems to be no reports of the orders being placed for their imported components and this means possible bureaucratic delays.9. Can you give links to Statesman and DRDO reports of 2000 and 200110. The indigenous FCS even as BEL site hits moving targets when the tank is stationary OR by moving tank at stationary targets. No reference to hitting moving target y a moving tank. But this is needless pettifogging and I may be wrong also. 11. my pet peeve has always been non involvement of pvt sector in engine development. The comments about the engine facities in the quote are very general.[quote] To a specific query from theCommittee, when and how the power pack is designed to be indigenised, the Ministry stated that the manufacturing infrastructure for power pack now exists with Ordnance Factories at Avadi and Bharat Earth Movers Limited(BEML), Mysore and Kolar plants.According to them, if the volumes justify, licence manufacture of power pack is contemplated in these plants. [quote] beml has a alleged engine manufacturing facility from 10 to 1000 hp. It was to import the technology from the Japs who as usual reneged. The indigenisation achieved was less than 5%. The engines for most of the vehicles of BEML are made by Kirloskers. Last time I checked the news, they were trying to sell of the facility.Avadi makes Old Russian engines for T-72 and BMP-2. They have been slightly up rated but no special indigenous R&D capacities are available.What the report wants to say that when we import if required we will license assemble, which is tripe.Even if they license manufacture the engine will soon become outdated. Note the story of Nissan jonga and Shaktiman trucksNitin I am all for DRDO but the project is 20 years late. Even though it has remained contemporaneous it is late. Both T-72 and T-90 were/are interim purchases. 12. Nitin, The CVDRE report you mentioned talked about indigenous gearbox. Any news about it? I think Indians always wanted power assisted manual gearbox for fuel efficiency compared to automatic Renk.

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 06 Dec 2001 00:39

I agree with the multple layers of the insert being more than just a reinforced fibre composite and if DROD is so secretive then what we've seen of Kanchan armor is only the tip of the spear and some other compontent must be there.Normally with a western tank [ even all tanks now] I would assume ceramics are involved and work from their. However this thing about the Arjun armor being incapable of dealing with that Pak missile warhead bothers me. Chineses sources report that missile capable of 800-900mm HEAT penetration,suggesting the Arjuns HEAT protection is at best at this level.If ceramics are involved then the HEAT protection should be much higher...given the large amount of protection potential the weight suggests.The other alternative is to assume SOviet influence , the T-72B is reported [Zaloga] to feature "BDD" type armor [ thin metal plates sandwiched in composite]. These offer the same resistance to KE and HEAT attack [T-72B has about 52cm KE & HEAT protection].Kanchan could be a development to improve the HEAT resistance...either that or ARjuns frontal armor is ~ 800mm KE/HEAT!BTW I estimate from the poor drawings that I have , the front armor packs are 75-80cm thick. Can any one confirm this?

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 06 Dec 2001 03:22

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Raj Malhotra: Re NitinHi1. kindly provide the link for the excerpts, as I will love to read them in detail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hi,this is a paliamentary report...while i 'dlike to.there aint any link that i have. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>2. You are perhaps right about the weight being 61.5-3=58.5 but the CAG report does not seem to talking about the mine trawl. If it was so simple why did the IA protest in the first place.The quote from CAG 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 that had resulted in bulging of sidewalls 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. Also is the tank was already light (58.5) the issue of titanium will not arise.Any way I am drifting out of the topic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CAG is actuarial.The report i stated is from that provided by DRDO to 13th lok sabha on 27-04-200.These details are from the doubts created by the imprecise CAG REPORT WHICH drdo RESPONDED TO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>3. The interesting thing is that everybody refers to the armour as heavy and DRDO is very secretive so much so that they refused to tell the Project Director of Arjun as to what it is composed off. Note referring to overweight tank or extra armour is different from referring to ‘heavy armour” which implies higher densities. Now Sanjay also refers to difficulties in machining.Could it possibly be perhaps say tungsten and ceramic laminates. Why would simple steel and glassfibre laminate be such an issue?Frankly it is impossible to predict the armour of prototypes and it can be anything from basic steel/glassfibre to tungsten/ceramic and with use of plastic and titanium to reduce weight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DRDO clearly refers to the kanchan as lightweight with reference to the scientists involved in developing the same.Check the website!GenVNSharma clearly refers to the kanchan being the best.He was the COAS,btw and checked the kanchan/arjun after gole and his comments clearly put Brig.Gole's remarks into the proverbial waste paper basket. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>4. Now on the second issue – I know Paul was referring to armour but I was referring to the issue of reduction in weight. Reduction in weight can be achieved by multiple methods and not necessarily by making the armour lighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Basically,issue of engine contributing to protection is treated as separate and not inclusive of frontal protection.Thus,basically ,you are missing the point . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>5. Incidentally I hope for new powerpacks the DRDO keeps more of the margin (as apart from issue of mine trawl) the additional ERA may also be required and as sanjay pointed out that a full coverage may weight something like 6 tons. Also if the tanks carry additional ammo or drop tanks even then more weight may be added. This is off course apart from battlefield carriage of numerous add ons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The germans (!@#$%^) aint willing to provide more than a 1400hp engine.The battlefield carriage /era apart...DRDO has undertaken that the overall "all up weight" will never exceed 60 tos!(CAG) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>6. The Cag report itself says that 8 out of 10 criteria have been metDRDO however, contended that the summer trials of 1997 clearly met eight out of the ten bottom line requirements laid down by the Army Though from general reading I think a better engine, new FCS, GCS and license produced electric traverse systems will solve most of the rest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The report is circa 1997...not 2000. By 2000 the armour and other trials at balasore had established the relevant criteria. This is regarding the fcs, According to Audit, the MBT was designed around an imported Fire Control System (FCS).The firing results of the User trials carried out upto summer 1997 indicated that firing accuracy was erratic and unpredictable.The Army were of the view that the design was no longer responsive to any technical inputs and its performance was at its saturation level.The DRDO reportedly stated in November 1997 that by 1995 they had removed the causes for erratic firing accuracy and taken measures to control and improve it.However, according to Audit, the Army even in the joint approach meeting held from 20 October 1997 to 13 November 1997 reiterated their earlier stand that the imported FCS had reached its development limit. 15.The Committee enquired when was the FCS selected and what was the vintage of FCS used.The Committee also desired to know about its possible obsolescence and shortcomings with reference to the contemporary FCS available in the world.The Ministry in a note stated that though the design of hardwares dates back to 1988, the system employs state of the art digital signal processors,and60 element 4 : 1 interlace Thermalimager of very high quality standard.In its feature and performance, it compares favourably with state of the art FCS currently available with World class Tanks.According to the Ministry, the question of its having become obsolete therefore did not arise. 16.The Committee desired to know whether the FCS supplied had undergone any evaluation/performance trial before their acceptance and the erraticunpredictable firing accuracy noticed at the time of trial as well.The Ministry in a note stated; “The FCS hardwares supplied as two prototype units were laboratory tested and field evaluated before their acceptance. Apart from the imported hardwares, the FCS featured ballistic computer and a variety of sensors that were obtained from other sources.During the integration process and the field evaluation thereof at times variations in performance got noticed.These cannot be attributed to FCS hardwares exclusively.Necessary corrective measures, based on a scientific assessment have already been incorporated to obtain consistent performance.” 17.The Committee enquired whether DRDO expect FCS to perform on a par with a state of the art modern battle tank particularly when the Army had taken a stand that imported FCS had reached its development limit.The Ministry in a note furnished to the Committee clarified the position as follows: “In DRDO’s assessment, the FCS as incorporated in MBT- Arjun performs at par with contemporary world class MBTs.This is authenticated by the fact that we have consistently obtained the desired first round hit probability from a static tank on a static target even under harsh environmental conditions of Indian deserts and performance better than that stipulated in GSQR under dynamic modes of firing.” 18.On being asked what plans are being contemplated for indigenous production of FCS, the Ministry stated that the initial production of certain tanks will feature imported hardwares.However, according to them, indigenous hardwares that are presently undergoing lab cum field evaluation on certification, will be progressively inducted <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>7. The Cag report itself indicated the course of action for next couple of years and one must note that in 1998 sanctions have come into effect so the progress may have been delayed. The Germans I understand removed the sanctions only recently (early 2001?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The germans are involved in gun stabilisation,engine and transmission.All 3 issues are resolved. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>8. Now the issue of 124 tanks. The disconcerting fact is there seems to be no reports of the orders being placed for their imported components and this means possible bureaucratic delays.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope.The 124 tanks were cleared to be produced a long time bac by the bureucrats only *if* the arjun cleared/satisfied the users demands in the users eyes, By feb 28 ,2000 the arjun did so. For details check sanjays posts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>9. Can you give links to Statesman and DRDO reports of 2000 and 2000<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Refer to mine and sanjays posts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>10. The indigenous FCS even as BEL site hits moving targets when the tank is stationary OR by moving tank at stationary targets. No reference to hitting moving target y a moving tank. But this is needless pettifogging and I may be wrong also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right.You're doubts have been addressed above, Also,Read my post about prototypes achieving 70% Probability of kill i dynamic state.The desired one is 80% at 2km. The latest trials have apparently met the criteria. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1. my pet peeve has always been non involvement of pvt sector in engine development. The comments about the engine facities in the quote are very general.[quote] To a specific query from theCommittee, when and how the power pack is designed to be indigenised, the Ministry stated that the manufacturing infrastructure for power pack now exists with Ordnance Factories at Avadi and Bharat Earth Movers Limited(BEML), Mysore and Kolar plants.According to them, if the volumes justify, licence manufacture of power pack is contemplated in these plants. [quote] beml has a alleged engine manufacturing facility from 10 to 1000 hp. It was to import the technology from the Japs who as usual reneged. The indigenisation achieved was less than 5%. The engines for most of the vehicles of BEML are made by Kirloskers. Last time I checked the news, they were trying to sell of the facility.Avadi makes Old Russian engines for T-72 and BMP-2. They have been slightly up rated but no special indigenous R&D capacities are available.What the report wants to say that when we import if required we will license assemble, which is tripe.Even if they license manufacture the engine will soon become outdated. Note the story of Nissan jonga and Shaktiman trucksNitin I am all for DRDO but the project is 20 years late. Even though it has remained contemporaneous it is late. Both T-72 and T-90 were/are interim purchases.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Leaving the personal issues with DRDO apart,the report clearly states that volume justifying ,licence proiduction is intended at OFB.Regarding 20 years late....“In a project of MBT-Arjun’s complexity and technical intricacies, several agencies are responsible in an interwoven manner for development and completion of the project.It must be appreciated that in view of the magnitude of system engineering technology development and trial and evaluation and associated risks in each of the developmental tasks, certain amount of delay is inherent in projects of this magnitude as is well known with such developments world over. In view of this the delay in developmentcannot be attributed to any single agency.” The Ministry in a note submitted that the MBT – Arjun as configured to meet the latest GSQR issued in November 1985 was significantly different from that envisaged in the year 1974, both with regard to its system configuration and technology modules to meet with the requirements for a sea change in performance.The closure of the MBT project in 1995 only related to procedural requirements and cannot be construed as abandonment of project without realisation of the intended objective.They have further claimed that the tank PPS-15 presently cleared by the User as the reference tank for production with all the modifications listed in Joint Action Plan (1997) incorporated and certified by the Users, brings MBT-Arjun at par with State-of-the-ArtWestern MBTs.It has further been adduced by the Ministry that the development time of 24 years should be judged in relation to the time frame (15 to 18 years) for such developments in industrially advanced countires such as US and Germany, vis-à-vis inadequate design related infrastructure in our country in comparison. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>12. Nitin, The CVDRE report you mentioned talked about indigenous gearbox. Any news about it? I think Indians always wanted power assisted manual gearbox for fuel efficiency compared to automatic Renk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The gearbox was developed by the same team that drew upon the experence to build the LCA gearbox. Regards, nitin

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 06 Dec 2001 13:03

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: I agree with the multple layers of the insert being more than just a reinforced fibre composite and if DROD is so secretive then what we've seen of Kanchan armor is only the tip of the spear and some other compontent must be there.Normally with a western tank [ even all tanks now] I would assume ceramics are involved and work from their. However this thing about the Arjun armor being incapable of dealing with that Pak missile warhead bothers me. Chineses sources report that missile capable of 800-900mm HEAT penetration,suggesting the Arjuns HEAT protection is at best at this level.If ceramics are involved then the HEAT protection should be much higher...given the large amount of protection potential the weight suggests.The other alternative is to assume SOviet influence , the T-72B is reported [Zaloga] to feature "BDD" type armor [ thin metal plates sandwiched in composite]. These offer the same resistance to KE and HEAT attack [T-72B has about 52cm KE & HEAT protection].Kanchan could be a development to improve the HEAT resistance...either that or ARjuns frontal armor is ~ 800mm KE/HEAT!BTW I estimate from the poor drawings that I have , the front armor packs are 75-80cm thick. Can any one confirm this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Paul, Dont know about the chinese thing you are referring to...they were always sure(after kanchan was demonstated that is)that it was good enough and it was designed with all that in mind....starting from 120mm APFSDS..to 125mm APFSDS for the alkhalids and the HEAT rounds in service. Earlier on in this thread,we discussed that the TOW-2 was a "threat" and the Arjun would have to be better than that.The IA has substantial amounts of milan-2's and soviet atgms to test the kanchan against.Perhaps i've missed the detail/quote about arjun bein' vulnerable to the same.Could you post it?The army wanted that ideally "even the panniers shuld be protected against CE attack"...so the kanchan/armour/protection ,a different issue,cant be limited to that chinese penetration limit.Besides which,the ERA was for added protection against top attack...basically,the chaps involved in kanchan are the best there are that DRDO has...and they've been way too secretive.regards, nitin

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 06 Dec 2001 16:20

Re Nitin 1. I think even the PAC reports are intended to be put online soon. Let us hope for sooner than later. 2. I understand that Paul was talking about spaced armour in reference to engine but I was talking about weight/volume in the context of tank design. So cross connection. (See my very first few posts to Paul on Page 1). I think we should accept the DRDO explanation. Though I am guilty of talking about two different issues in same breath.3. As regards to Kanchan/armour protection what I am trying to say is that the protection offered may be WAY MORE than being estimated. In fact that ties with your and Sanjay thinking that it intends to give protection against TOW. For this around 700-900mm is required. Arjun was being designed in the time when it was thought that Pakistan would continue to have access to improved technology from US. DRDO has always strived for more than normal and simple fibreglass and steel plates is out of character. DRDO also always had an interest in ceramics. I would place baseline frontal protection requirement for Arjun atleast for TOW and additional ERA can deal with emerging threats. Further, armor can also continue to evolve. The Slap sided look of Arjun also indicates that some difficult to machine or mould, material may have been used. 4. Further the issue of heavy and light is not mutually exclusive. I have read DRDO thingie. What DRDO can mean is that the armour is lighter than if you use equivalent RHA to obtain same protection. What other articles may be talking about is that it heavy per se. And if we conjecture some exotic material may have been used then both the views stands reconciled.5. Week report is trash and I can appreciate that. In fact I am trying to use the miniscule facts stated therein to point out that exactly opposite conclusion can be drawn to say that the efficacy of the armour is much higher. The very fact that DRDO picked up the gauntlet thrown down and was able to satisfy Sharma Gen shows that I may be right about armour protection.6. You had referred to FRP but that does not mean that all sandwich layers have to be FRP. Ceramics can still some into play.7. What I am interested to know what is Leo 2A4 & 5 armor to understand Arjun. For Arjun while the metals may come from same production line for T-72 and Arjun but I am extremely skeptical the concepts of T-72 would have been used. I think while Soviets relied on BDD/ERA the western allies were into ceramics and stuff. The Arjun was perhaps meant to face Abrams and TOW and low protection against AFPDS offered by FRP (only) does not jell. 8. I suppose Paul can try to calculate the density of armour as now weight of armour is as per you 15 tons, external volume I suppose can be calculated from dimensions and internal volume can be guessed by comparing with designs of Leo-2.9. Now whether the Germans are supplying the advanced engines or not? Which engine is going to be used?10. Is the gearbox on the production variant going to be Indian?11. I thought that GCS is already being license produced by BEL. (French or German?)12. What do you mean Germans have helped in fixing the problems Engine, transmission and GCS? I thought they were not being helpful. More info please!13. I hope that the development of indigenous FCS continues and after a few imports it comes on line! 14. However, according to them, indigenous hardwares that are presently undergoing lab cum field evaluation on certification, will be progressively inducted15. My friend, If I am saying that 8 out 10 were achieved in 1997 itself then, obviously I am supporting the issue that by the time Arjun rolls out 2002? 2003? It will exceed GSQR. 16. When do you think the first batch of production variant will role out?17. Whether 15 LRP were built or they have become part of 124?18. Have the orders for the components of production batch of Arjuns been given?

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 06 Dec 2001 16:22

Re paul I suppose rather than BDD we must continue to look at western concepts (Chobam?) and especially German mid and late eighties concepts which would have been perfected by now by India and supplemented by ERA. Are the Germans not using Alumina-ceramics or something like that? If something like this has been used in Arjun alongwith FRP then it will tie up with lightweight claim of DRDO also.Also Chinese and Pakistan reports have to be taken with a pinch of salt and don’t we all know. Nandai/paulThere was a typo in my post when I said Leo with 3 men crew what I meant to say Le with three men crew. With one alphabet the whole meaning of the post and the question therein changed.What I actually said was even though Le and Jap Type-90 use Soviet philosophy of low silhouette with a autoloader the volume & weight saving compared to Leo are not huge.As per Paul even Arjun volume is around 17.6m^3 which is comparable to Le and type 90. So it would mean that extraordinary volume/weight saving is NOT easily achieved just by lower profile.I suppose a penalty of around 3-5 tons if one adopts manual loading and consequent higher profile with benefits of faster manual loading (till now atleast) alongwith less mechanical problems/less complexity/better protection/extra crew member.

dbpatra · Post by **dbpatra** » 06 Dec 2001 16:47

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Raj Malhotra: 1. kindly provide the link for the excerpts, as I will love to read them in detail.--------------- Nitin : Hi,this is a paliamentary report...while i 'dlike to.there aint any link that i have.--------------- Raj Malhotra: 1. I think even the PAC reports are intended to be put online soon. Let us hope for sooner than later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE FIFTHREPORT THIRTEENTHLOKSABHA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF MAIN BATTLE TANK - ARJUNMINISTRY OF DEFENCE <A HREF="http://alfa.nic.in/CommitteeR/PAC/5th.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://alfa.nic.in/CommitteeR/PAC/5th.htm</A>Scroll to about the middle of the report, the excerpts are in paragraph 20.Link to Public Accounts committee: <A HREF="http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/committee/p21.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/committee/p21.htm</A> Check out the 21st report concerning Design and Development of PTA, submitted to parliament this March.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 06 Dec 2001 23:44

Raj, Yeah.the arjun rocks

...the FCS problem is the only one,imho,which has really affected the performance.Solve that and you have something worth having!Regards, nitin