Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 12:56

vina wrote:
Sanku wrote:Given that the world is moving towards commonality, what sense does it make to keep rifled gun for pretty much the only tank in the world?


What do you mean by "commonality" . It is like saying just because the AK-47 and the Insas and M-16 are ALL assault rifles, each should be able to fire the other's ammo! .

.


Commonality with the 3000 T 90s and T 72s already in service reducing the logistical trail.

Why would anyone want commonality with NATO round in Indian context?
:-?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 13:05

Or one could regun the Tin cans with 120 mm guns to make them common with the real world :mrgreen: jk


As we saw with 155 mm ammo and 5.56 ammo - we can rush to more manufacturers to get them to supply us when we need it in a crisis.

If we go to the Russians - we will be told - first pay, then they will order some parts, then they will say not enough money, and yada yada.
Last edited by Surya on 27 Apr 2010 13:13, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Apr 2010 13:06

Sanku wrote:Commonality with the 3000 T 90s and T 72s already in service reducing the logistical trail.

Why would anyone want commonality with NATO round in Indian context?
:-?


Those 3000 T-90 and T-72 fire 125mm rounds and Arjun 120mm....guess,that is a good enough reason. Unless, some genius in DGMF's office comes out with requirement for 125mm Main Gun for Arjun. :mrgreen:

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 27 Apr 2010 13:13

clearly Avadi+CVRDE was unable to manufacture tank barrels

The T-72 gun barrels are made at OFB Kanpur. They have nothing to do with Avadi/CVRDE.

The problem really with the T90 barrel was that since it is Russian designed, what we needed to make it was the ORIGINAL MANUFACTURING specs (sort of like a recipe/cook book) to make it, because it is their design and materials etc.

If the Indian designed ones, we don't need the Russian cook book, coz we would know how to make it, because it is OUR design and materials and R&D.

Don't get into the DDM nonsense of sprouting about some great Russian "metallurgy" as if it contains some thing super duper. DDM can't make out the difference between manufacturing process knowledge transfer and fundamental design transfer . Believe me. What you will get from the Russians is a cookbook on how to MAKE the gun and the material that goes into the gun.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 27 Apr 2010 13:13

Does anyone has idea ... about the offical report ... as it has been more then 2 weeks since the trial is over .... any CNN/PNN

or everyone is going to forget about it and let the things go routine way or I read it wrong, actually it is 2 yrs + 2 weeks ..

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby bhavik » 27 Apr 2010 13:14

I dont know if this has been posted earlier ... http://frontierindia.net/dissimilar-combat-arjun-mbt-vs-t-90s-specs

Questions to all experts

1. "As of today" which tank is better - Arjun or T90?
If arjun is equally manvourable, speedy, accurate, easy to operate and most of all indigenous.
Why is'nt the IA ordering more of it?

2. If Arjun was made as per GSQR why is it not acceptable to Army now?
Does IA acknowledge that GSQR was crap.

3.
Again - I heard somewhere some armies build doctrines around their MBT and some build their MBT around their doctrine.
This whole thing so messed up no one knows which one IA is?
I shall be shocked experts tell that there is no long term MBT or FMBT strategies in IA.
It is no wonder that we have'nt planned lighter tanks for mountains of ladakh/NorthEast.

God save india from crazy fanboys.
Last edited by bhavik on 27 Apr 2010 13:23, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 27 Apr 2010 13:16

russian metallurgy and ballistics lags far behind the west. we all know about the failure of their 125mm guns to match the NATO 120mm cannons
and hence their consideration of 152mm - trying to make up by mass what cannot be made up in speed and materials.

in the 155mm artillery competition, the IA didnt not consider the russian offerings either in tower or tracked. if given a chance their 152mm like MSTA would have been offered in 155mm also.

if we are to make a new smoothbore cannon, best tieup would probably be israel or france. Giat of france allegedly gave some tot and help
on the current arjun cannon.

all our T-series are 125mm. so shifting to 120mm smoothbore will give us nothing in additional logistical advantage over rifled ammo unless someone says smoothbore guns have greater muzzle velocity.

a rifled cannon and good HESH round in lofted arc should be able to score hits on static fortifications perhaps from 5km away, which is well
outside the range of any LAW (RPG-xx) or smaller ATGMs like Milan or Konkurs and at extremity of TOW2 range. perhaps that was the idea
behind IA wanting to retain HESH rounds.
Last edited by Singha on 27 Apr 2010 13:21, edited 2 times in total.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 27 Apr 2010 13:18

Sanku wrote:Commonality with the 3000 T 90s and T 72s already in service reducing the logistical trail.

Why would anyone want commonality with NATO round in Indian context? :-?


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: .

Why just the ammo ?. At least the Army was more honest here. You would have the least logistical tail if you had exactly the SAME tank. Same logistics for everything from lubes to spares to ammo to tank crews!.

Problem is you are stuck with the crappy Russian 2 piece tank round and auto loader.. Classic case of CUSTOMER CAPTIVITY. Yellow matter for the Indians, cash cow for the Russians!.

So ask around for the likes of Sanku.. Err.. Problem with Ammo, go for the T-90 M (does such a thing exist).. so go upgrade all the autoloaders of your T90s and T72s , along with guns for full compatibility!.

Other way around.For the T72 upgrade, go the "Karna" way and put the Arjun gun and turrent on the T72 like the DRDO did!. You get the commonality of the gun that you wanted!.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Apr 2010 13:20

Singha wrote:r......<SNIP> in the 155mm artillery competition, the IA didnt not consider the russian offerings either in tower or tracked. if given a chance their 152mm like MSTA would have been offered in 155mm also<SNIP>


IA did consider the 152mm MSTA but decided against it due to the 152mm barrel...they wanted/want the 155mm

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 27 Apr 2010 13:24

there is an export 155mm version called M-390 iirc.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 14:07

vina wrote:
Sanku wrote:Commonality with the 3000 T 90s and T 72s already in service reducing the logistical trail.

Why would anyone want commonality with NATO round in Indian context? :-?


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: .

Why just the ammo ?. At least the Army was more honest here. You would have the least logistical tail if you had exactly the SAME tank. Same logistics for everything from lubes to spares to ammo to tank crews!.

.


With thankfully they do consider. Thus distinguishing a professional army with a bunch of amateurs.

However this habit of turning everything into "random statements against T series" is fairly trying with bringing in all sorts of statements which have not been said.

So let me try and remind everyone what I was actually saying (in totality instead of taking a word out of here and there)

For Arjun Mk II I speculate
1) No country operates Rifled any more, even the British, which we were following have given up on that. Logically, it is time for us to move on too. No particular advantages are seen.
2) Getting rid of the rifled gun in favor of a smooth bore which can take in T 90 ammunition, and other paraphernalia will be a good way of simplying at least some things.
3) Considering the stellar record on Indian Mil-Ind complex of making guns (at OFB kanpur or where-ever) of their own design, it stands tor reason that they would need help.
4) I suspect that help has come in through T 90 ToT for making gun barrels. We can now take it forward from here hopefully.

Note I am NOT speculating on continuing Russian or ANY other involvement for the development of 125 mm Indian smooth bore canon.

I have also not said anything about a auto-loader.

Hopefully this thread will eventually learn the discipline of debating what has been said rather than personal hobby-horses.

PS> If folks actually READ what I said, I never said 120 mm anywhere. :mrgreen:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2010 14:15

Indeed it makes sense to move to Indian Designed 125 mm Smooth Bore gun for Arjun and have common and standard ammo across Arjun/T fleet , that is one less mess to worry about and introduces standardization.

Rather then worring about NATO/US/Israel and what not , 125 mm works best since its the most common and widely used gun in Indian tank.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 27 Apr 2010 14:48

Indeed it makes sense to move to Indian Designed 125 mm Smooth Bore gun for Arjun and have common and standard ammo across Arjun/T fleet , that is one less mess to worry about and introduces standardization.


That is an oxyomoron . The T90 gun system is designed around the autoloader and ammo (which are stored separately in 2 pieces, shot and propellant). To have compatibility between the two, you need to use the same autoloader as the T72. So what you are essentially saying is, that the Arjun tank should take the gun and autoloader from the T90/72 and use it.

Rather then worring about NATO/US/Israel and what not , 125 mm works best since its the most common and widely used gun in Indian tank.


Problem is, the current T90/72 gun is outdated/long in the teeth and dont cut it. So far so good as far as T90 and T72 go. But problem is the moment you say, I want to get the new long rod that the T90 M which uses a new autoloader, the T90 M ammo is no longer backwards compatible with the T90/T72 (sure, the T90M may be able to fire the ammo from the older tanks).

Standardization might be good, if you standardize around a sound system. No point in standardizing around an "old/outdated" system. So if you want to do it, do it the right way and go for the Karna upgrade of the T72 with the Arjun turrent replacing the 125mm Russian gun and carousel autoloader.

And oh, it is critically important to worry about Isreal/Nato standards. Thank god that we chose the 155mm Nato std for our artillery. That is the single factor that saved our a**es at Kargil. We could rush import thousands of standard rounds from Isreal and South Africa and probably a dozen nations if it were needed . If we had gone for a Russian 152mm system, guess where other than Russia we could have got the Ammo from in a crunch ? Hint. PRC !

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 27 Apr 2010 14:57

rohitvats wrote:Those 3000 T-90 and T-72 fire 125mm rounds and Arjun 120mm....guess,that is a good enough reason. Unless, some genius in DGMF's office comes out with requirement for 125mm Main Gun for Arjun. :mrgreen:


Austin wrote:Indeed it makes sense to move to Indian Designed 125 mm Smooth Bore gun for Arjun and have common and standard ammo across Arjun/T fleet , that is one less mess to worry about and introduces standardization.

Rather then worring about NATO/US/Israel and what not , 125 mm works best since its the most common and widely used gun in Indian tank.


Rohit be careful what you are suggesting to pro T. Another reason to delay Arjun for 2-3 yrs :mrgreen: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 15:01

vina wrote:Standardization might be good, if you standardize around a sound system.


I will take the sound system or unsound system bit with a pinch of salt right now.

As it happens, if T90s can fire the long rod projectile (as well as a host of Tank launched missiles) that IS THE SYSTEM we have and will have. (get used to it, its true :mrgreen: ) not to mention the most probable commonality with upgraded T 72 guns (if they being upgraded too?)

So that is what we have. As Shiv said, time to work with what we have, really.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 27 Apr 2010 15:08

T90s can fire the long rod projectile

Nope. They cant. The T90S and the T72s that India has inducted can never do so.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 15:09

RKumar wrote:Rohit be careful what you are suggesting to pro T. Another reason to delay Arjun for 2-3 yrs :mrgreen: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Which is probably another reason why IA stuck with the rifled gun, so as to do the least from its end to jeopardize the project.

Its a meaningful requirement probably on Arjun Mk II, the question is --- why is the Arjun program is such shape that any meaningful change results in "panic delay, panic delay, panic panic, 3 years, 6 years, 9 years... Bloody army" etc etc?

The challenger program took 2 years to change the gun to be ready for firing trials.

Here given the tank is barely in serial production, and has more parameters to play with it should be easier to do logically? No?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 15:14

vina wrote:
T90s can fire the long rod projectile

Nope. They cant. The T90S and the T72s that India has inducted can never do so.


Why? Who stops their upgrade? The T 72 is supposed to go up to T 90 Bhisma with the upgrades? (Serious questions not merely for debate)

Anyway even without that there are enough T 90Ms which are worth commonality for the long rod shot. And of course mating all the Russian missiles would of course be much easier and common.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2010 15:28

vina wrote:That is an oxyomoron . The T90 gun system is designed around the autoloader and ammo (which are stored separately in 2 pieces, shot and propellant). To have compatibility between the two, you need to use the same autoloader as the T72. So what you are essentially saying is, that the Arjun tank should take the gun and autoloader from the T90/72 and use it.


Big Deal whats the fuss about auto loader , even the french leclerc has a 3 man crew with autoloader. Unless GOI thinks adding a 4th man inside the tanks generates job

Upgrading the gun to 125 mm just makes the logistics of the whole affair simpler and there is no need to have 2 type of ammo one for Arjun and other for T's

Problem is, the current T90/72 gun is outdated/long in the teeth and dont cut it. So far so good as far as T90 and T72 go. But problem is the moment you say, I want to get the new long rod that the T90 M which uses a new autoloader, the T90 M ammo is no longer backwards compatible with the T90/T72 (sure, the T90M may be able to fire the ammo from the older tanks).


The outdatedness of the gun just exist in the mind of people who cannot see any thing beyond western way is the only right way to do things.

The autoloader to fire the new long rod is placed aft of turret
T-90M new specs

Standardization might be good, if you standardize around a sound system. No point in standardizing around an "old/outdated" system. So if you want to do it, do it the right way and go for the Karna upgrade of the T72 with the Arjun turrent replacing the 125mm Russian gun and carousel autoloader.


The IA never saw merit in karna so got rejected ,the right way or wrong way is individual opinion , the IA thinks merits in having 125 mm gun and does not think its outdated and thats what matters.

And oh, it is critically important to worry about Isreal/Nato standards. Thank god that we chose the 155mm Nato std for our artillery. That is the single factor that saved our a**es at Kargil. We could rush import thousands of standard rounds from Isreal and South Africa and probably a dozen nations if it were needed . If we had gone for a Russian 152mm system, guess where other than Russia we could have got the Ammo from in a crunch ? Hint. PRC !


You can always import things from Russia if you use a Russian round ( they dont sanction us ) or better just let the OFB guys do a good job and manuf it in India.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 27 Apr 2010 15:44

Sanku wrote:Why? Who stops their upgrade? The T 72 is supposed to go up to T 90 Bhisma with the upgrades? (Serious questions not merely for debate)

Coz, you have to throw out the autoloader and the gun. So lets see, change the engine (you want the 1000 hp engine), change the gun, change the autoloader, change the firecontrol and electronics, change the armor (ERA bricks).. Hey.. what is left of the old tank is just the metal shell :rotfl: :rotfl: .

So why bother ?. Buy a brand new tank instead ?.

Anyway even without that there are enough T 90Ms

Pray, where are the T90 Ms?. At best there will be two or three, at best half a dozen prototypes that they will trial to customers while trying to make a sale . And mind you that is all there is in the entire world. T90Ms are what they will try to sell to you as an "upgrade".

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 27 Apr 2010 15:55

Austin wrote:Upgrading the gun to 125 mm just makes the logistics of the whole affair simpler and there is no need to have 2 type of ammo one for Arjun and other for T's


I already explained . Just changing the gun bore to 125mm and smoothening out the rifling will not do. That will not let you fire the same rounds in Arjun and Ts. You need to adopt the entire T series system including autoloader and all to ensure compatibility. You cannot take a LeClerc /KX2 type autoloader and fire T series ammo. The other rounds are unitary with combustible case (something the army demanded from the Arjun......just like the western tanks see, they read all the brochures), while the T series is a 2 piece split ammo (shot and powder separate) like the Challenger.



As of now, this is pure vapor ware. Not a single one sold to anyone. The Russians are not going to buy it ever. If IA wants to be the "Bakra" to buy it, God save us.

The IA never saw merit in karna so got rejected ,the right way or wrong way is individual opinion , the IA thinks merits in having 125 mm gun and does not think its outdated and thats what matters.

Maybe they need to think again,now that they will have to induct Arjun in serious numbers and they can think matters afresh with a fresh pair of eyes and without their outdated lenses and prejudices.

You can always import things from Russia if you use a Russian round ( they dont sanction us ) or better just let the OFB guys do a good job and manuf it in India.


The Russians cant supply washers and basic spares for their systems, leading to painful localization from basic stuff like washers and POL and other stuff,which are in GOST stds and not Indian/IEEE stds (you immediately lose economies of scale and commonality between Indian civil sector and defense), imagine supplying Ammo and other crucial spares stuff in crunch situations at short notice.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 27 Apr 2010 16:02

Sanku wrote:
RKumar wrote:Rohit be careful what you are suggesting to pro T. Another reason to delay Arjun for 2-3 yrs :mrgreen: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Which is probably another reason why IA stuck with the rifled gun, so as to do the least from its end to jeopardize the project.

Its a meaningful requirement probably on Arjun Mk II, the question is --- why is the Arjun program is such shape that any meaningful change results in "panic delay, panic delay, panic panic, 3 years, 6 years, 9 years... Bloody army" etc etc?
The challenger program took 2 years to change the gun to be ready for firing trials.
Here given the tank is barely in serial production, and has more parameters to play with it should be easier to do logically? No?


I am sorry to say again and again .... we, IA army sleeping until end time... I have given link a few pages back from PIB release ... where army had/has testing and validating it since at least 10 years, drover it over 1,00,000 KM and fired over 10,000 arounds. All ready inducted 45's arjun and cleared the n-number of trials.

BTW who is opposing meaningful changes??? IA induct it at least 500-1000 tanks as Mk1 then we can talk about all the changes in Mk2. Why to make so much noise when GoI is about to make a decision on numbers. And say sorry we can't induct this tank because I just had a dream/wishful thinking/senseable/meaningful of ABC, ZYX, XYZ configurations and changes. Go home DRDO, fulfill all these when you are done then we will do trial again and see how it perform, in the mean time we go and cry in public we dont get what we want. When DRDO complete those changes, then you say bloody DRDO took 30 years to complete this thing. Because never in the history it got accepted as T-55 or T-72 or T-90 with few brawback from day one. I really pity on few people, who keep changing goal post abruptly then blame other party.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 16:06

vina wrote:
Sanku wrote:Why? Who stops their upgrade? The T 72 is supposed to go up to T 90 Bhisma with the upgrades? (Serious questions not merely for debate)

Coz, you have to throw out the autoloader and the gun. So lets see, change the engine (you want the 1000 hp engine), change the gun, change the autoloader, change the firecontrol and electronics, change the armor (ERA bricks).. Hey.. what is left of the old tank is just the metal shell :rotfl: :rotfl: .

So why bother ?. Buy a brand new tank instead ?.


Well you have just repeated my argument to Rahul M on T 90 vs T 72, but despite the new T 90s, the "change everything" upgrade seems to be already happening with T 72 program.

Pray, where are the T90 Ms?. At best there will be two or three, at best half a dozen prototypes that they will trial to customers while trying to make a sale . And mind you that is all there is in the entire world. T90Ms are what they will try to sell to you as an "upgrade".


Dont know, d_berwal has said on the forum that the current ones are taking the long rod penetrator. Given how right his info has been I will take his word that the current T series are indeed taking in the projectile.

Since its comes out to his word against yours.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 16:11

RKumar wrote:I am sorry to say again and again .... we, IA army sleeping until end time... I have given link a few pages back from PIB release ... where army had/has testing and validating it since at least 10 years, drover it over 1,00,000 KM and fired over 10,000 arounds. All ready inducted 45's arjun and cleared the n-number of trials.


So? What was needed was done? What does it have ANYTHING to do with what I said about possible changes needing to be done in a quick manner?

BTW who is opposing meaningful changes??? IA induct it at least 500-1000 tanks as Mk1 then we can talk about all the changes in Mk2. Why to make so much noise when GoI is about to make a decision on numbers.


Hello ji? Asking for one possible change amongst many others in Arjun Mk II causes so much grief? Lot of noise? My few posts on BRF? I didnt know I was so powerful?

CVRDE is done with Arjun in 2008 (the current claim) this is 2 years since 2008 and will be 3-4 more years to Arjun Mk II. Irrespective of Arjun orders (when did I say dont order more?) why cant Arjun Mk II be fitted out with a new gun if needed?

One small possible request gets everybody's so hassled?

Aiyo...

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 16:14

The outdatedness of the gun just exist in the mind of people who cannot see any thing beyond western way is the only right way to do things.


More rubbish

As Singha points out the Soviets \Russians have tried to have a larger gun to compensate for their inefficiency

Previously the western ones were 105 mm and were ranged against the Russian 105 and 115 mm and clobbered them

The Russians then moved to 125 - not that it made any difference. The Western ones moved to 120 mm and after some studies pretty much have stayed. And here too they have clobbered the 125 mm tanks. (yeah yeah even taking into account superioty in other areas)

Seriously you would drag the Arjun backwards by suggesting the stupid 125 mm gun - how desperate can you get??

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 16:17

Dont know, d_berwal has said on the forum that the current ones are taking the long rod penetrator. Given how right his info has been I will take his word that the current T series are indeed taking in the projectile.


berwal also peddled the T 90 like no ones business especially its wonderful 1000 HP engine. well we know from the T 90 AUCRT snippet how that turned out. :mrgreen:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2010 16:18

vina wrote:I already explained . Just changing the gun bore to 125mm and smoothening out the rifling will not do. That will not let you fire the same rounds in Arjun and Ts. You need to adopt the entire T series system including autoloader and all to ensure compatibility. You cannot take a LeClerc /KX2 type autoloader and fire T series ammo. The other rounds are unitary with combustible case (something the army demanded from the Arjun......just like the western tanks see, they read all the brochures), while the T series is a 2 piece split ammo (shot and powder separate) like the Challenger.


I do not see adopting an entire T series gun ( specially the new one on T-90 2A82 125 mm MG ) as an issue , if that bring in logistics standardisation in gun and ammo , thats still better and cheaper then introducing 120 mm rifled gun on 3000 T's we have.

Unless you want to say 120 mm gun is better then 125 m etc then lets agree to disagree

As of now, this is pure vapor ware. Not a single one sold to anyone. The Russians are not going to buy it ever. If IA wants to be the "Bakra" to buy it, God save us.


Considering we have still 1000 more T-90 to be build locally , its better bet to go for T-90M in Mark 2 variant and T-90 'Burlak variant in Mark 3 variant.

I say IA will be a Sher after we go for these two types in remaining 1000 Tanks and God Bless the IA.

Maybe they need to think again,now that they will have to induct Arjun in serious numbers and they can think matters afresh with a fresh pair of eyes and without their outdated lenses and prejudices.


I doubt we will see Arjun any greater than 500 tanks in total , ofcourse we can replace all the 3000 T's with Arjun if GOI finds the fund for it , considering they found ~ $ 5 billion for C-17 ,I say we have lot of money to spend :shock:

The Russians cant supply washers and basic spares for their systems, leading to painful localization from basic stuff like washers and POL and other stuff,which are in GOST stds and not Indian/IEEE stds (you immediately lose economies of scale and commonality between Indian civil sector and defense), imagine supplying Ammo and other crucial spares stuff in crunch situations at short notice.


Well I would rather trust the Russian in crunch situation to help us then US , Western or Israel the latter being vulnerable to US pressure as seen wrt to China.
Last edited by Austin on 27 Apr 2010 16:30, edited 2 times in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 16:23

Surya wrote:
Dont know, d_berwal has said on the forum that the current ones are taking the long rod penetrator. Given how right his info has been I will take his word that the current T series are indeed taking in the projectile.


berwal also peddled the T 90 like no ones business especially its wonderful 1000 HP engine. well we know from the T 90 AUCRT snippet how that turned out. :mrgreen:


Please Surya why repeat the patently wrong data. T 90 AUCRT were needed to get the data for breakages. And the breakage rate was more than acceptable.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2010 16:27

Surya wrote:As Singha points out the Soviets \Russians have tried to have a larger gun to compensate for their inefficiency

Previously the western ones were 105 mm and were ranged against the Russian 105 and 115 mm and clobbered them

The Russians then moved to 125 - not that it made any difference. The Western ones moved to 120 mm and after some studies pretty much have stayed. And here too they have clobbered the 125 mm tanks. (yeah yeah even taking into account superioty in other areas)

Seriously you would drag the Arjun backwards by suggesting the stupid 125 mm gun - how desperate can you get??


Every one has their views and being a forum every one has the right to express it , As long as IA thinks 125 mm gun are what they want is fine and I think its one of the good guns out there, but if DRDO can make a better 125 mm smooth bore gun then why not ?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 16:29

Surya wrote:
The outdatedness of the gun just exist in the mind of people who cannot see any thing beyond western way is the only right way to do things.


More rubbish

As Singha points out the Soviets \Russians have tried to have a larger gun to compensate for their inefficiency



Actually Russians were the first to go for Smooth bore and the west was pulled in from their antique rifled guns kicking and screaming once the superiority of Russian approach was clear.

The only hold out was Britian with its Great Britannia complex which also gave up on rifled guns 10 years back.

but NO the great Arjun MUST ONLY have RIFLED GUNS.

And making the smooth bore is so easy, we can do it without any help, but wont because it will delay the project by another 10 years just because a change is asked for.

Hello there BTW, the question is NOT whether Leopards Gun is better than T 90?

The question is whether Arjun's GUN is better than T 90? And whether WE can indigenously make a INDIAN GUN which can share commonality with T 90 tanks (since hey for next 30-40 years) THOSE are the tanks we will have.

And not NATO tanks.

Let us stick to the basic questions.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 16:36

Sanku


1. First does not make their guns better :)

2. The ARMY asked for the rifled gun to fire HESH rounds - so whats your point - its not that DRDO came up with the suggestion


The question is which tank for the future - with potential for upside - thats Arjun - and that would be the way to go - ok if the Army now wants smooth bore.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Apr 2010 16:37

Sanku wrote: Well you have just repeated my argument to Rahul M on T 90 vs T 72, but despite the new T 90s, the "change everything" upgrade seems to be already happening with T 72 program.


The change everything, even if it applicable, is happening to a legacy system to bring it on par with current standards. Apart from that, the change is in the ERA+Optics+Engine. The basic tank design remains the same.

Dont know, d_berwal has said on the forum that the current ones are taking the long rod penetrator. Given how right his info has been I will take his word that the current T series are indeed taking in the projectile. Since its comes out to his word against yours.


It does not have to be his word against anyone, if one understands what he meant. The term Long Rod penetrator as used is defined simply as "an anti-tank projectile, consisting of a simple metal dart (made out of a high-density metal, such as tungsten carbide or depleted uranium, and usually fitted with fins in order to provide extra stability in flight). It is fired at a very high velocity and uses kinetic energy to punch its way through armour".

This is used generally for APFSDS. It does not mean that T-90 has started using unitary APFSDS rounds as used by western tank. It still uses the two piece APFSDS with incremental charge and main propellant charge. What I understand from reading on the web is the Russians have developed a new high performance APFSDS round. But this requires some modifications to the autoloader (commented to be as striaght forward). These modifications seem to have been carried out on the T-90. T-72 cannot take this round due to autoloader limitation. d_berwal could very well have been referring to these.

As for the T-90M, it is still vapor ware and no where on horizon. And considering that the additional loader and ammunition (which are unitary rounds btw) is aft of the turret and feeds from there to the gun, the turret will most probably have to be new one.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 27 Apr 2010 16:47

whether Arjun's GUN is better than T 90?

Yes. It is. Greater accuracy , ability to fire more modern ammo, and longer range.

And whether WE can indigenously make a INDIAN GUN

Yes. We already have it in the Arjun.

which can share commonality with T 90 tanks

NO. Unless you put an autoloader and go for the same split ammo philosophy as in the Russian tank, and just like the Russian tank, if there is a penetration are prepared to see the crew go up in a pyre and the tank blow it's top off.

Remember, the British want to go the Rheinmetall way not because of performance issues, but because of ECONOMICS and if they standardize on the Rheinmetall , they can do away with the entire supply chain, ammo and upgrade problems wrt to the gun on their Challengers . Their tank force is small and limited. Small numbers go against fundamental economics.

India's is the reverse. We are the guys with the "volumes". We can be the guys who drive changes.
That said, finally, I have a question.

Fundamentally , Why should we go for a smooth bore gun ? Especially if the current gun is better than than the 125mm on the T90 . Earlier, the Indian Army "harrumphed" (esp the DGMF I think) and said you cant fire a Anti Tank Rocket from the barrel of a rifled gun.. Of course you know better now (look up YouTube videos of Arjun firing the LAHAT)..That knocked the bottom off the "oh.. Rifled guns are so backward ,they cant fire rockets, we must get smooth bore " camp of the IA. Plus there are advantages to the rifled gun like firing long range HESH munition.

Of course rifled barrels wear out faster than smooth bore and are more difficult to make. But then, if any tank like Arjun fires enough munitions to wear out rifling, it must have fired 1000s of shots in anger and fought a big serious war and survived it to lived to tell the tale, something we cant say of the T series.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 16:48

Surya wrote:The question is which tank for the future - with potential for upside - thats Arjun - and that would be the way to go - ok if the Army now wants smooth bore.


Sir, that I am not even debating. I take it for granted that there is nothing better than homegrown product.

I am only wondering what changes should Arjun Mk II have, and I think commonality with T 90 ammo is a good to have. Failing that commonality with Nato ammo is good to have.

We should discard the rifled gun. IMVHO. Finally of course Army knows best and if they really want HESH in Indian circumstances? Who am I to disagree?


rohitvats wrote:The change everything, even if it applicable, is happening to a legacy system to bring it on par with current standards. Apart from that, the change is in the ERA+Optics+Engine. The basic tank design remains the same.


Accepted, my only question is the Gun change also happening? At least a Gun control seems to be in pipeline.

These modifications seem to have been carried out on the T-90. T-72 cannot take this round due to autoloader limitation. d_berwal could very well have been referring to these.


Again fully accepted. The question was could the T 90 system be retrofitted to T 72s? Is it being?

Can the Indian smooth bore canon handle that kind of Ammo even with manual loader? (A two step load?) If so isnt commonality achieved?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2010 16:49

The T-90ME has already been demonstrated to Putina in Dec 2009 as per Igor Blog

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/12/t-90me.html

Now the T-90ME is ok but what we need to look is Russian standard 'Burlak' program, that is the gold standard T-90 , I hope the MOD has been briefed on the Burlak program.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 16:55

vina wrote:>>whether Arjun's GUN is better than T 90?
Yes. It is. Greater accuracy , ability to fire more modern ammo, and longer range.


Greater accuracy is not merely a function of the canon.It is a function of the tank (fire control system etc). I am ONLY speaking of the gun.

More modern ammo? For a rifled gun? Which no one in the world uses?

Longer range? Just the canon?

Sources please?

And whether WE can indigenously make a INDIAN GUN

Yes. We already have it in the Arjun.


Very funny. Hopefully we can make more than ONE gun in our lives.

A smooth bore one also IF needed.

which can share commonality with T 90 tanks

NO. Unless you put an autoloader and go for the same split ammo philosophy as in the Russian tank, and just like the Russian tank, if there is a penetration are prepared to see the crew go up in a pyre and the tank blow it's top off.


Are you saying that ammo can never be manually loaded if needed?

Remember, the British want to go the Rheinmetall way not because of performance issues,


Nopes performance issues too. Look it up

Fundamentally , Why should we go for a smooth bore gun ? .


Good question? Why did the entire world? Including the Americans? They were on rifled could have stayed there?

The answers are as old as 1970s.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 16:57

Finally of course Army knows best


Sorry over the last few years there are 2 areas which have cast serious doubts

- the Arjun and whole FMBT nonsense
- the converting of all para to SF in rapid fashion

So no blanket acceptance of Army knows best :)

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5426
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 27 Apr 2010 17:05

Sanku wrote:
Good question? Why did the entire world? Including the Americans? They were on rifled could have stayed there?

The answers are as old as 1970s.

Sanku saar, IA want a rifled gun, and so orders, and so was delivered.
as to why IA wants a rifled gun? the answer is the need was perceived.
and AFAIR Arjun is designed WRT IA needs. so please do not bring this
Unkil does this so it must be good, IA does not do this so it must be bad.
now why not rifled T90? it is a Ruski machine and Ruskies have smooth bore
hence no can get.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 17:10

Well folks, decide between yourself whether army knows best or not. You guys cant have it both ways. :P

As far as I am concerned, I think IA will take the right decision w.r.t. one type of gun or the other based on its request.

I am only making some educated speculations for Arjun Mk II. I hold no brief for IA decision making, sacchi.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 27 Apr 2010 17:12

Nopes performance issues too. Look it up


Nope. That was due to lack of investing in keeping up with the developments at Rheinemetall (like 55 caliber gun etc). So if you dont have money to invest in your own system, you buy others. That is what they did. So fundamentally boils down to economics.

Good question? Why did the entire world? Including the Americans? They were on rifled could have stayed there?

The answers are as old as 1970s.


In the 70s yes.. That was because the Americans and Germans thought they will jointly develop a tank that fired rockets through the barrel, which is easier to do if you have smooth bore. Finally they went separate ways, Americans dropped their tank project as a white elephant , went for the M-1 (which had the 105mm rifled gun , same Royal Ordnance L17 as in Vijayanta btw), but when they wanted to go 120mm, rather than develop a new gun, they went with the Rheinmetall 120 mm smooth bore.

Rheinmetall 120 became the de facto "standard" in the west because of maximum market share .. sort of like Windows Operating system on the PC.

Irony is the west in the end did not field rockets in their tanks, but the Soviets eventually did, becuase of the weakness of their tanks in range and ballistics and hitting power (Soviets too went smoothbore way because they wanted to fire rockets through the barrel right from the T60).

It really came down to "fashion" in the 70s , with the percieved need to fire rockets, not really technical merits/demerits of conventional rounds in rifled vs smooth bore, where rifled will easily in the majority of cases.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests