Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 30 Apr 2010 12:23

Of course it is pure BS

if commonality was the aim we could start by converting T 72s to Tank Exes but nooo we must help rodina out.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 12:41

rohitvats wrote:All this talk of standardization of main gun around 125mm and the compatibility of using the same ammo is pure hogwasg. And the numbers thrown around are pure distilled BS. Consider these:


Execpt of course the discussion is also about 120 mm smooth bores, it is about both. Which you sidestepped.

(a) 3,000 tanks with 125mm main gun - What every one forgets is that Russians developed a modified auto-loader for T-90 to allow it to fire "their" latest APFSDS with longer projectiles. While no one knows whether IA has these Russian APFSDS, by chance if we do, it means the T-72 cannot fire the same ammo as T-90 (at least the APFSDS). So, there goes the commonality and 3,000 number out of the window.


An autoloader is not married to a 125 mm smooth bore, if needed a 125 mm gun with a autoloader can work.

Meanwhile EVEN without the T 72s we have 1600 T 90s, it is worth to try commonality on that scale.

Secondly we are assuming that T 72s will not also get to fire the new rounds with upgrades. Given that this is supposed to make T 72 as good as T 90 in all aspects, I am not sure if that is correct.

(b) Commonality of Ammo - This takes the cake. How can there be commonality of ammo when T-72 and T-90 fire two piece ammo while the Arjun (even with 125mm gun) fires/will fire unitary round?


Why not two piece?

The picture that I propose (and have been proposing) is a 125 mm gun which can take in 2 piece T 90 ammo.
Failing that
120 mm smooth bore with commonality with NATO rounds.

I have two questions.
Can we have a gun which takes in both 1 piece and 2 piece ammos? (NO auto loader) We have 2 piece ammos with and without autoloaders and 1 piece with and without autoloaders.

Can we have both 1 and 2 piece for manual loading?

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 » 30 Apr 2010 12:58

pure distilled BS

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: .. I wonder how that looks and smells like!.But frankly the amount of FUD , chicanery and the skulduggery that the Natashas, Village Idiots and "Interested Parties" have indulged in, must fit that to a T.

Also take the case of on particular gentlemen here in these threads, who obviously cant make out the difference between the business end of a tank gun vs the back end of a cow. Obviously a Google Warrior, who in some respects is very "Google Challenged" as well.

Now after all the "spinning" yesterday and a vehement declaration that a spinning HEAT round does not exist and is my imagination (either it SPINS OR DOES NOT SPIN .. err Einstein it does both in parts, just like I told you! ) and demanding a link, I posted a link and the article on that to help out. Despite that, another gem today.

Bheem posts a "Chailwala" talk about how some amount of spin is indeed beneficial to a APFSDS as it prevents the round from bouncing off the target and increases accuracy our man demands an "open source" link.

What can I say to that. He obviously didnt have an NCC unit in his school which he attended (and they would have shown him a real Rifle bullet and he would have fired a couple maybe and the instructer would have drilled into his head that it spins), but more perplexing is that he seems to have not had any basic science/physics in his school either, where they taught him the law of conservation of momentum!.

Why I remember very clearly when they taught the law of conservation of momentum in the ninth standard. The NCERT text book used the exact same thing to illustrate it , including a diagram of a bullet bouncing off a steel plate!. The good book taught us that a rifle bullet is given a spin, precisely because the system tends to conserve angular momentum and when disturbed by a wind or some such thing, doesnt tend to go off course and even when hitting a sloped plate, will not bounce off it like a marble (or a non spinning round like a pistol /revolver or APFSD round) and tend to penetrate.

What to do. Open source ?. Okay, open the ninth standard physics book again or if that is too difficult, googling for terms like conservation of momentum rifle bullet etc should do it no ?.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 13:43

Seems I touched raw nerves. Hopefully people will spend some time now on (at least on) Wiki on smoothbores, rifled, heat, CHally 2, LeClerc etc.

Better late than never.

Hopefully such comments like spin is good for Sabots and HEATs will not be made. It is frankly quite embarrassing.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 30 Apr 2010 14:18

Sanku wrote:Seems I touched raw nerves. Hopefully people will spend some time now on (at least on) Wiki on smoothbores, rifled, heat, CHally 2, LeClerc etc.

Better late than never.

Hopefully such comments like spin is good for Sabots and HEATs will not be made. It is frankly quite embarrassing.


But why do you fel embarrased by elementry physics? Spin staibilization is an established method of conserving momentum. Look o"in fashion / out of fashion" may be running language, but the simple story is something like this:-

1.) In the 60s, US / GErmany start research on a future tank capable of firing missiles from the tube. Hence the move away from rifled design since adapter technology (ala LAHAT style) was not available. Mind you even missiles were not available. It was purely conceptual and technology risk at that time.

2.) Due to differences in design standards, US / Germany part ways.

3.) Germany continues with the tube launch philosophy and comes up wth L44 on Leo2 and produces smoothbore ammunition en-masse as it would be the first country to be invaded through the Fulda gap.

4.) US installs 105mm rifled gun on Abrams and keeps tinkering with future gun.

5.) German system is mature and Germany is willing to provide tech / license to produce on US soil. US sees merit in getting an established product & incorporates the 120mm L44 gun on the Abrabs.

6.) The US produces '000s of Abrams and ships them to oirope.

7.) Now Oirope has '000s of amir khan's & '000s of germ tanks with compatible ammunition.

8.) This provides more economies of scale for producing smoothbore ammo.

9.) Now the VIP Frenchie like everything cooked the french fried way.

10.) So, GIAT industries designs a 120mm gun (which is theoritically capable of using the NATO standard ammunition - courtesy your earlier link), even though the German gun was available.

11.) This ensures that the underwear spirit is maintained, while NATO standard ammo is available in case of any disturbances.

12.) So the French approach is also dictated by logistical issues.

13.) This leaves out Brittania.

14.) As discussed and stated numerous times, they preferred the capability to fire HESH.

15.) It is proven that rifled designs can fire HEAT and APFSDS rounds almost equally well.

16.) The British move to German 120mm gun is based only on economic / logistical reasons.

So there is no way, a rifled gun is decisively inferior to a smooth bore.

Coming to IA, Arjun etc

17.) As of now ammunition for T-72, T-90 and Arjun are all different and incompatible.

18.) Rodina has been dragging feet on T-90 FCS and indian ammo compatibility issue.

19.) Tank-EX with Arjun rifled gun will have far superior firepower (assuming parity with Arjun firepower).

20.) So if fleetwide standardization is an issue, we must standardize on the Indian 120mm rifled gun (as HESH was a capability called for by the IA). It is an indigenous gun with better performance.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 14:58

aditp wrote:
Sanku wrote:Seems I touched raw nerves. Hopefully people will spend some time now on (at least on) Wiki on smoothbores, rifled, heat, CHally 2, LeClerc etc.

Better late than never.

Hopefully such comments like spin is good for Sabots and HEATs will not be made. It is frankly quite embarrassing.


But why do you fel embarrased by elementry physics? Spin staibilization is an established method of conserving momentum. Look o"in fashion / out of fashion" may be running language, but the simple story is something like this:-


Because the modern AFPSDS are fin stabilized and spin gets in the way. Its quite so simple.

The HEAT shells are supposed to not spin to be effective, so even when fired from rifled guns their spins are removed by a driving/rotating band.

So while it is elementary that spin stabilizes, it is TOO elementary pre 60s knowledge.

So the two main rounds that the modern Tanks fire, dont work well with spin. (Links already provided)

1.) In the 60s, US / GErmany start research on a future tank capable of firing missiles from the tube. Hence the move away from rifled design since adapter technology (ala LAHAT style) was not available. Mind you even missiles were not available. It was purely conceptual and technology risk at that time.


Incorrect, the adaptor has been around since pre 60s, Germans were first to use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank
The Germans were again the ones to produce the most capable gun-fired HEAT rounds, using a driving band on bearings to allow it to fly unspun from their existing rifled tank guns. HEAT was particularly useful to them because it allowed the low-velocity large-bore guns used on their numerous assault guns to become useful anti-tank weapons as well.


2.) Due to differences in design standards, US / Germany part ways.


What different design standards? From the second world war to 1970s the british, the germans and the US all used the same Rifled GUN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L7

3.) Germany continues with the tube launch philosophy and comes up wth L44 on Leo2 and produces smoothbore ammunition en-masse as it would be the first country to be invaded through the Fulda gap.


Yes Germans as always were the first to embrace new technology. So the Germans move to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_L44#L44
It was developed in response to Soviet advances in armor technology and development of new armored threats. With production beginning in 1974, the first version of the gun, known as the L/44, was used on the German Leopard 2, and was soon license produced to be used on tanks such as the American M1A1 Abrams tanks


So as soon as they went for the next gen tanks both US and Germany move to this smoothbore canon.

4.) US installs 105mm rifled gun on Abrams and keeps tinkering with future gun.

That was because
Even as the Leopard was entering service in 1965, an up-gunned version with the new Rheinmetall L44 120 mm gun was being considered to keep pace with newer Soviet designs, but this was cancelled in favour of the MBT-70 "super-tank" project developed jointly with the United States. The MBT-70 was a revolutionary design, but after large cost overruns, Germany withdrew from the project in 1969.


So as you see, the chronology you lay out is completely incorrect. The US and Germany both together decided to go for smooth bores from 105 mm rifled because in 70s they clearly saw that the future was smoothbore, which continues to be the case till this day.

M1A1 Abrams from day 1 had smooth bores. The M60 Patton was the one with 105 mm guns, which are contemporary with Leopard 1 and Centurian.

10.) So, GIAT industries designs a 120mm gun (which is theoritically capable of using the NATO standard ammunition - courtesy your earlier link), even though the German gun was available.

12.) So the French approach is also dictated by logistical issues.

This cannon is theoretically capable of firing the same NATO standard 120mm rounds as the German Leopard 2 and US M1 Abrams, but in practice only custom French-produced ammunition is issued

And if you see my link, the French for all practical purposes have a fully independent logistical tail including shells. So logistics is a very small part of French decision. Very very small.

15.) It is proven that rifled designs can fire HEAT and APFSDS rounds almost equally well.


Yes almost equally well, but tons of attendant headaches.

So if we leave apart Arjun in 2000 only 400 Chally 2s in the world used rifled guns of about 20000 MBTs of French, Russian and German-US school.

Starting 1974, when Germany had a good smoothbore gun. The west has moved to smooth bores (Russians moved in 60s) -- the British were the last hold out. Who went with smooth bores in 2000s.

The British held out for longer (20 years) because they had moved on the 120 mm rifled gun before Germans and the US moved to 120 mm smooth bores. This gun was made in 1957 as compared to L55 which was made in 1974.

So frankly this love for Rifled guns is a result of Vijayanta era thinking. The world has moved on and its being described as fashion?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 15:02

And frankly I dont by the chai wall stories that T 90 canon + shell (forget stablization + forget fcs) is better than Arjun (apart from HESH) Some one has to show public records for me to accept that gyan.

Otherwise we just dont which is better. Period.

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 » 30 Apr 2010 15:24

aditp wrote:9.) Now the VIP Frenchie like everything cooked the french fried way.

10.) So, GIAT industries designs a 120mm gun (which is theoritically capable of using the NATO standard ammunition - courtesy your earlier link), even though the German gun was available.

11.) This ensures that the underwear spirit is maintained, while NATO standard ammo is available in case of any disturbances.


:rotfl: :rotfl: . Gotta love the VIP Frenchie "Underwear" spirit !. But seriously that is the way they do business. Take a "standard" and just put a small curve ball /googly in it to make it just that wee bit "propreitary" so that it becomes a "French" way of doing things.

Case in point TV transmission standards.. Unkil came up with NTSC (jokingly called Never Twice Same Color .. becuase unkil's power supply is 60cyles , refresh rate 60 hz).. The rest of the world went for PAL (power supply 50 cycles, refresh rates hence 50hz, but way better color management/reproduction). The Frenchies take the PAL standard and apply a "twist" on it to call it "Secam" to keep out other foreign TV makers (read Japs and Germans) and to sell to former French colonies (google which countries went SECAM).

But that apart, I hope we do get some of that "underwear" spirit and fully develop a kick ass HEAT round like the French did for the AMX-30 , which is possible with the Arjun rifled gun (impossible to develop a decent heat round with smooth bore).

So next round of trials/exercise in the desert with T90s and Arjuns, would love to see the Arjun squadron take long range sniper shots from 6 to 7 Kms to take out "enemy armor", while the Tin cans huff and puff over the sand dunes and get ambushed by Tow 2s all the while trying to maintain H&D to get in range to get off a shot!.

Oh, btw, dont waste your breath explaining to wilfully tone deaf folks who are barely coherent and cant get facts right (case in point that M1A1 first debuted with the L7 and after the gun change, it was renamed to M1A2!) its futile.
Last edited by vina on 30 Apr 2010 16:30, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby bhavik » 30 Apr 2010 15:34

Army did state GSQR that it needed rifled guns - it is a different issue that we given a choice IA wants rifled guns but when offered by ruskies it accepts a smoothbore.

I think T90 fanboys started whole discussion (smoothbore v/s rifled) just to derail the real debate
"As of today - whether more Arjuns or more T90s should suit our defence needs?"

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 15:45

vina wrote:Oh, btw, dont waste your breath explaining to wilfully tone deaf folks who are barely coherent and cant get facts right (case in point that M1A1 first debuted with the L7 and after the gun change, it was renamed to M1A2!) its futile.


Vina maintains his consistent standards in accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
3273 M1 Abrams were produced 1979-85 and first entered US Army service in 1980. It was armed with the license-built version of the 105 mm Royal Ordnance L7 gun. An improved model called the M1IP was produced briefly in 1984 and contained small upgrades. The M1IP models were used in the Canadian Army Trophy NATO tank gunnery competition in 1985 and 1987.

About 6000 M1A1 Abrams were produced from 1986–92 and featured the M256 120 mm smoothbore cannon developed by Rheinmetall AG of Germany for the Leopard 2, improved armor, and a CBRN protection system.


:mrgreen:

Yeah and Vina I am still looking for your magical HEAT round which is better from rifled and smoothbore. (Today btw)

From open source you know. Since as I have demonstrated time and again, we just know how accurate you tend to be.

---------------

BTW werent you saying that Arjun doesn't have a HEAT round yet? Want to guess why? :lol:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 30 Apr 2010 16:00

bhavik wrote:"As of today - whether more Arjuns or more T90s should suit our defence needs?"


Both are needed but right now its Arjun's fate thats hangs on Govt Decision , so we need to wait and see what GOI/IA decision is on this. I do not expect the decision to come soon though.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 16:05

bhavik wrote:Army did state GSQR that it needed rifled guns - it is a different issue that we given a choice IA wants rifled guns but when offered by ruskies it accepts a smoothbore.


When the GSQR was written --
the problem was that IA was besotted with L7 and Vijyanata and not happy with T 72s which was pushed down its throat. Given that it was written in 74-85 period essentially, the preponderance of smooth bores was not obvious.

In fact when the GSQR was first written there was no T 72 around in India anyway.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Arm ... India.html
The original Indian intention was to order only a small number of export T-72M1 MBTs from Russia pending the production of the locally-designed Arjun MBT


I think T90 fanboys started whole discussion (smoothbore v/s rifled) just to derail the real debate
"As of today - whether more Arjuns or more T90s should suit our defence needs?"


When people say things like fanboys et al, you know that they are resorting to sledging tacitcs because points can not be made otherwise. Earlier I used to get riled up about it, now I enjoy it. Since it makes it clear that there is no answer to the questions raised.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby KiranM » 30 Apr 2010 16:19

Sanku wrote:When people say things like fanboys et al, you know that they are resorting to sledging tacitcs because points can not be made otherwise. Earlier I used to get riled up about it, now I enjoy it. Since it makes it clear that there is no answer to the questions raised.

The bolded portion of your reply makes it very clear that your intention is to engage in a pissing contest rather than a debate.

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 » 30 Apr 2010 16:33

BTW werent you saying that Arjun doesn't have a HEAT round yet? Want to guess why? :lol:


Because the Frenchies who developed that HEAT round for the AMX-30 wore VIP undies, while the folks at DRDO wear langotis because of the HEAT? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 16:38

vina wrote:
BTW werent you saying that Arjun doesn't have a HEAT round yet? Want to guess why? :lol:


Because the Frenchies who developed that HEAT round for the AMX-30 wore VIP undies, while the folks at DRDO wear langotis because of the HEAT? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Of course. It must be fashionable thing. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 30 Apr 2010 16:42

Sanku wrote:Execpt of course the discussion is also about 120 mm smooth bores, it is about both. Which you sidestepped.


Have you seen any comment from my side on the merit or other wise of smoothbore and rifled gun on MBT? If not, then how could have I side stepped the debate that I'm presently not part of? Also, in case you did not notice, my reply was specific to argument given by Austin about commonality of ammunition when entire tank fleet is equipped with 125mm smoothbore. Have I mentioned anything about 120mm smoothbore?

Now that we've established that I'm not sidestepping any issue, let us proceed further.

An autoloader is not married to a 125 mm smooth bore, if needed a 125 mm gun with a autoloader can work. Meanwhile EVEN without the T 72s we have 1600 T 90s, it is worth to try commonality on that scale.


I think what you meant was "can work without auto-loader". Right? Who is debating that? As for commonality with T-90, the whole post above was to debunk the commonality argument. But you seem to have missed it completely. No problem, let's try again.

Secondly we are assuming that T 72s will not also get to fire the new rounds with upgrades. Given that this is supposed to make T 72 as good as T 90 in all aspects, I am not sure if that is correct.


That is very correct. Even the good Russians modified the T-90 and not T-72 to accept the new APFSDS. As for the T-72 upgrade, I had posted details of planned upgrade of 5 crores per tank. The upgrade consist of the following (from Ajai Shukla's blog):

The military’s Annual Acquisition Plan for 2008-2010 (AAP 2008-10) lists out the cost of modernizing the T-72 fleet as follows:

• New 1000-horsepower engines (identical to the T-90 tank) to replace the T-72’s old 780 horsepower engines. The cost of each engine: Rs 3 crores.

• Thermal Imaging Fire Control Systems (TIFCS) that will allow the T-72 gunners to observe, and fight at night. Each TIFCS will cost Rs 1.4 crores.

• Thermal Imaging (TI) sights to provide T-72 tank commanders with night vision. Each TI sight costs Rs 0.4 crores.

• An auxillary power unit (APU) to generate power for the tank’s electrical systems. Each APU will cost Rs 0.16 crores.


So, that leaves us with only 1,600 odd T-90 for commonality argument. Let us see how that again is a non-argument.

Why not two piece? The picture that I propose (and have been proposing) is a 125 mm gun which can take in 2 piece T 90 ammo.


At the expense of repeating myself again, this is what I had posted.Something you could have spent more time reading, I guess.

Russian APFSDS growth potential - From what I gather, the maximum length of APFSDS permissible is 635mm which they have achieved with their DU round. There is talk of 740mm APFSDS but the same requires modification to auto-loader of T-90. Compare this with 780mm for western APFSDS. Now, considering the fact that Arjun does not suffer from any auto-loader induced limitation (even when you give it bustle mounted one) for the length of its ammo, should it be restricted to fire "shorter" Russian/Indian/Israeli APFSDS for the sake for commonality with T-90?


So, pray tell me, even with 125mm smoothbore gun, why should Arjun be subjected to limitations when it can use better APFSDS round with longer projectile? The argument here is not about 2-piece ammo, it is about the relative quality of that ammo. Chally with it's 2-piece ammo does not suffer from the limitations of T-90. So, a 125mm smoothbore gun equipped Arjun may well use 2-piece ammo, but it would not be the T-90.

I guess we have put the argument of commonality at rest here?

Failing that 120 mm smooth bore with commonality with NATO rounds.


As for the 120mm smoothbore versus rifled, I have no comments on the same at the moment. But what do we acheive with 120mm smothbore?

Can we have a gun which takes in both 1 piece and 2 piece ammos? (NO auto loader) We have 2 piece ammos with and without autoloaders and 1 piece with and without autoloaders. Can we have both 1 and 2 piece for manual loading?


Can we? I don't have answer to this. But do we need two types of ammo in the arsenal? Why not only one? Why increase the headache?
Last edited by rohitvats on 30 Apr 2010 17:08, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby bhavik » 30 Apr 2010 16:57

Sanku wrote:
I think T90 fanboys started whole discussion (smoothbore v/s rifled) just to derail the real debate
"As of today - whether more Arjuns or more T90s should suit our defence needs?"


When people say things like fanboys et al, you know that they are resorting to sledging tacitcs because points can not be made otherwise. Earlier I used to get riled up about it, now I enjoy it. Since it makes it clear that there is no answer to the questions raised.

My point exactly. As for sledging tactics please go thru your last few posts including the one quoted here.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 17:08

rohitvats wrote:[my reply was specific to argument given by Austin about commonality of ammunition when entire tank fleet is equipped with 125mm smoothbore. Have I mentioned anything about 120mm smoothbore?

Now that we've established that I'm not sidestepping any issue, let us proceed further.


In which case, fine.


So, pray tell me, even with 125mm smoothbore gun, why should Arjun be subjected to limitations when it can use better APFSDS round with longer projectile? The argument here is not about 2-piece ammo, it is about the relative quality of that ammo. Chally with it's 2-piece ammo does not suffer from the limitations of T-90. So, a 125mm smoothbore gun equipped Arjun may well use 2-piece ammo, but it would not be the T-90.


This I agree with, it is not about number of pieces but quality of pieces etc.
So you agree that the ammo CAN be used, what you say is that it should not be used since inferior, correct?

My points
1) The claim that quality of T 90 ammo is necessarily inferior is right now open. Unless we see data.
2) Even if inferior, by how much? Enough to forsake commonality is possible? Forces often chosen less than the best to stay common, not unusual so why not in this case too.

Now note, to debate this point fully, we need real data. So my proposal is, unless real data can be brought to the table. I propose we leave this as a thought in the air.

I guess we have put the argument of commonality at rest here?


No not at rest. Merely that we can not know for sure if the idea is valid or not. I agree to that and have never claimed otherwise (its finally a IA+DRDO decision)

Now for T 72s.
I know that you posted from Col Shukla's blog which CLEARLY DOES NOT have a gun upgrade. However I am trying to get official data on T 72 upgrade. (I have always found him unreliable when he was anti Arjun and when he is pro, he tends to sensationalize) Some official statements say "as good as T 90". Let me look for those some more.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 30 Apr 2010 17:50

Sanku wrote:This I agree with, it is not about number of pieces but quality of pieces etc.

So you agree that the ammo CAN be used, what you say is that it should not be used since inferior, correct?


If the DRDO adopts the 125mm 2A46M-5 gun for Arjun (same as T-90A) or designs new one around it, sure I guess.

My points
1) The claim that quality of T 90 ammo is necessarily inferior is right now open. Unless we see data.
2) Even if inferior, by how much? Enough to forsake commonality is possible? Forces often chosen less than the best to stay common, not unusual so why not in this case too.


If the Russians did not want "better round" with 740mm length projectile, they would not have gone the whole hog of modifying the auto-loader, right? That should tell you something about the desire for longer rounds. Also, there is still no calrity on spread of this round in Russian service. The 635mm 3BM-46 projectile that I spoke of earlier, is made from Uranium and I don't know if others were given the same. IA uses DRDO and Israeli APFSDS rounds for T-72.

I have no figure to qoute at the moment on the differential performance but I guess, if the question is about something as important as KE Penetrator, you'd want the gold standard. I'm working on the topic and should be able to post something. Till then, let the sleeping dogs lie.

Now for T 72s.

I know that you posted from Col Shukla's blog which CLEARLY DOES NOT have a gun upgrade. However I am trying to get official data on T 72 upgrade. (I have always found him unreliable when he was anti Arjun and when he is pro, he tends to sensationalize) Some official statements say "as good as T 90". Let me look for those some more


There are some references to it in the PSCD Reports. Focus is on optronics and engine and the "environment control system" :P

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby bhavik » 30 Apr 2010 18:33

sivabala wrote:Choices are to be done based on requirements not on fashion. If other did something we have analyse before repeating the same.(Remember look before you leap)
APFSDS and HEAT works for both anti-tank and vehicle roles. HESH works against for fortified defensive formations also.

Smooth bore european tanks are expected to face off numerous armored small Russian tanks and BMPs.
But Indian tanks are expected to cut through the defensive fortifications in gujarat,Rajasthan, Punjab.
As a commander what choice will you make.(Smooth bore- APFSDS, HEAT. Arjun-APFSDS, HESH)

IF the accuracy is not lost in smooth bore why would Gemrans go for a long barrelled gun ?

Bigger the diameter of projectile, more the drag. So for a given charge , sufficiently smaller the diameter, distance traveled is farther. If 120 mm can do a job why go for 125 mm which needs more energy for the same distance to be travelled.
Farther the distance from which we destroy enemy fortifications safer our fleet will be.

Autoloader saving a manpower. There are a number of advantages of another crew. The extra crew can help speed up the reload, and help with repairing the damaged tank. more than that its faster to shoot the enemy manually than with the autoloader. The time saved might save the tank itself in crucial times. In that case, the cost of a tank exceeds the cost of the additional man crew itself.

Commonality can be achieved by replacing the T-72 and T-90 turrets with Arjun's turrets with our rifled as already pointed out and this way we need not import ammunition from any other country.


Well said. Also a question to all any other tanks in world having 125 mm turrets?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 19:38

rohitvats wrote: Till then, let the sleeping dogs lie.


While you look for those, can you also see if a smooth bore canon, accept both 2 piece and unitary rounds? If the autoloader is not in the picture, the flexibility increases I think, but it would be nice to get a confirmation.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 30 Apr 2010 21:31

Have this snippet from "The Chanakya Aerospace Defence & Maritime Review" on recent Arjun and T-90 MBT Trials which is two page analysis.

1 ) It mentions that the Arjun performed well in the Trials and DGMF is looking into operational roles into which it can be deployed.

2 ) DRDO would like to get a minimum order of 500 Arjuns to stabilise production lines and pave way for development of FMBT.

3 )Trails were attended by senior General from Army HQ including the DGMF Lt Gen D Bharadwaj,Strke Corp Commander Lt Gen Anil Chait ,Army Commander South Lt Gen Pradeep Khanna and Deputy Chief of Army Staff Lt Gen JP Singh , DGMO Lt Gen AS Sekhon also attended the trials

4 ) Army has a requirenment of 1,781 MBT to replace the older T-55 abd T-72 which will be met by progressive induction of T-90 and Arjun

5 ) There is ongoing upgradation of 692 T-72 Tanks to CIA standards

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 30 Apr 2010 22:31

Austin wrote:Have this snippet from "The Chanakya Aerospace Defence & Maritime Review" on recent Arjun and T-90 MBT Trials which is two page analysis.


That's great Austin. Does this mean that this is now official? Or does it mean that this is just as good as a blog albeit printed?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 30 Apr 2010 22:46

^^ Nah Nothing Official about it , but it does have 2 page analysis and more or less they all say the same thing.

But from what i can make out from blog and this report 500 Arjun is the best case possibility DRDO is vouching for and DRDO has put all its weight behind it , but the IA may not want to go in for such big number of Arjun's as they have plans of their own , so ball is in GOI court , may be GOI will work out a compro number to keep both parties happy.

500 Arjun numbers say in mark 2 will keep HVF busy for the next 10 year , so jobs generated is also something GOI will be looking at as well.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8103
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 01 May 2010 00:00

Austin wrote:
But from what i can make out from blog and this report 500 Arjun is the best case possibility DRDO is vouching for and DRDO has put all its weight behind it , but the IA may not want to go in for such big number of Arjun's as they have plans of their own , so ball is in GOI court , may be GOI will work out a compro number to keep both parties happy.

500 Arjun numbers say in mark 2 will keep HVF busy for the next 10 year , so jobs generated is also something GOI will be looking at as well.


The IA cannot order the Mk2 right now, as it doesn't exist yet.
If the IA is serious about the Arjun, they can place a firm order for (say) 300 tanks right away and while these are being manufactured, the DRDO can simultaneously go ahead with developing the Mk2 with a new engine, BMS, Commander's Independent Thermal Sight, and an Active Protection System. When development is complete, the Arjuns in service can be progressively upgraded while orders for the Mk2 itself are placed in bulk.

If on the other hand the IA is not serious about the Arjun and wants to stick with the T-90s and T-72s, they can crib about the Arjun not having all the above-mentioned capabilities and delay placing the order till the Mk2 development is complete. It is sure-fire way of killing the project since without a firm order right now, the government is not going to pour any more funds into the Arjun project.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 01 May 2010 00:04

nachiket wrote: It is sure-fire way of killing the project since without a firm order right now, the government is not going to pour any more funds into the Arjun project.


Actually with or without IA support GoI MUST fund Arjun. MUST. No two ways about it.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8103
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 01 May 2010 00:07

Sanku wrote:
nachiket wrote: It is sure-fire way of killing the project since without a firm order right now, the government is not going to pour any more funds into the Arjun project.


Actually with or without IA support GoI MUST fund Arjun. MUST. No two ways about it.


For whom? If the IA doesn't want it, who is going to use it?

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 01 May 2010 06:11

Armour Day release

Today, the armoured corps is in the process of modernisation. The existing fleet is being refurbished and is being brought at par with the best. Legacy equipment is being phased out and new systems are being put into place. Concurrently, the Arjun tank is being improved and simultaneously design and development of the next generation of tanks has also commenced.

:wink: This is official release.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17052
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 01 May 2010 06:16

that refers to the mythical FMBT I presume.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 01 May 2010 06:33

^^^^^^ Ofcourse, they are developing an undefined and emerging technology FMBT.

Added later.....

At least the word Arjun is getting to be mentioned in Army releases, even with face saving lines.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 01 May 2010 08:12

nachiket wrote:The IA cannot order the Mk2 right now, as it doesn't exist yet.


Nachiket , Ajai Shukla has mentioned in his blog that the new Arjun will have 7 improvements including ability to fire missile and CITI , so the new batch is the Arjun Mk2 link

The DRDO, meanwhile, is working overtime to sweeten the deal. Dr S Sundaresh, the DRDO’s Chief Controller for Armaments and Combat Engineering, has told Business Standard, that all Arjuns now ordered will fire anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) through the tank’s main gun; provide extra protection for the tank’s crew through explosive reactive armour, or ERA; be fitted with thermal imaging panoramic sights that allow the Arjun’s commander to scan his surroundings even by night; and incorporate at least seven other improvements over the current Arjuns.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 01 May 2010 10:02

chackojoseph wrote:Armour Day release

....Concurrently, the Arjun tank is being improved and simultaneously design and development of the next generation of tanks has also commenced.

:wink: This is official release.



CAUTION : they may still imply that the development of next gen tank has commenced in RUSSIA. :mrgreen:

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 519
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 01 May 2010 10:22

Austin wrote: but the IA may not want to go in for such big number of Arjun's as they have plans of their own

what plans saar?
only plan where t90 will fit and arjun wont is.. capture airfield in pakistan/china and then get the tanks there by air transport.
but then what will they use to capture the airfield?

what other "plans" 'IA top brass' can possibly have in mind which will not allow a superior tank to fit in the "plan"??

austin sar can you please list such scenarios ?
It will be very interesting to know.

Bheem
BRFite
Posts: 161
Joined: 12 Sep 2005 10:27
Location: Vyom

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bheem » 01 May 2010 10:30

Indian EDITED and Russian lobby are trying to dump 3 projects into India in the name of JV being light tank read sprut, FMBT read T-xx and new IFV. These projects have found no traction anywhere else and India is convenient dumping ground.

The so called concept of FMBT has fallen apart both in USA and Russia after billions of dollars having been spent in its R&D.
Last edited by archan on 01 May 2010 23:38, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: not a very judicious use of language. User warned.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 01 May 2010 11:38

aditp wrote:CAUTION : they may still imply that the development of next gen tank has commenced in RUSSIA. :mrgreen:


Nah! they are using the experience developed while making Arjun Tank. Indian Army is going to apply for a patent on this.

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 » 01 May 2010 11:49

Bheem wrote:Indian EDIT and Russian lobby are trying to dump 3 projects into India in the name of JV being light tank read sprut, FMBT read T-xx and new IFV. These projects have found no traction anywhere else and India is convenient dumping ground.

The so called concept of FMBT has fallen apart both in USA and Russia after billions of dollars having been spent in its R&D.


That was right on the money. But hush.. You are talking sense here. Weren't you the one who posted something from Chaiwala which made some sense here. But yeah.. Indian EDIT..(aka Natashas) and the Russian Lobby along with the useful ignoramuses and village idiots who pass for journalists in the country are pushing that agenda, some wittingly other as total unwitting puppets (ignoramuses) .. journalists of course are the guys who take cuts from the Natashas, as long as the price is right, they will do anything.

But frankly, the Sprut-SD is garbage.. Natashas and ignramuses will push the "same gun /commonality" with T72/90 as a plus ! The "new" IFV is a dud and Russia simply cannot build anything half decent with the existing parts bin, so they need something brand new for which they will need to spend Soviet like amounts on R&D , a surefire way to go bankrupt again.. Same case with T-XX..With the existing parts bin has reached the absolute limit.

Anyway, to keep the cash rolling in , rope in useful idiots.. Notice this entire hulabullo about "2 piece" ammo.. Heck. That seems to be latest fad/fashion on this thread. Sure.. 2 piece is far better than the 1 piece. Haven't you been to the beach or gone near a swimming pool lately ?. It is the 2 piece which packs the greatest Ooomph and gives the maximum Kaboom like explosion. Poor one piece suits.. They are so out of fashion..(but gotta admit that Pam Anderson in a 1 piece in Bay Watch packed quite a wallop back in those old days). Oh well.
Last edited by archan on 01 May 2010 23:42, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: go easy on certain words

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 01 May 2010 12:27

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Actually with or without IA support GoI MUST fund Arjun. MUST. No two ways about it.


For whom? If the IA doesn't want it, who is going to use it?


No please note support means "No firm orders in short run" not that IA will never use it. A serious problem in India is that MoD does not release funds for Indian R&D till the forces cry themselves hoarse that they needed a product like 3 years back. And to make up for lost time, a project which would take 10 years anywhere and 15 in India is targeted for 5 years. :roll:

Everyone then expects DRDO to jump up and make the product and/or expect IA to take what ever DRDO has made in 5 years.

Where is the look ahead gestation period? Where is persisting with a product in R&D lab even if customer is not sure that they want it in the current form?

Tons of failed products go into making a single successful one. Do we give DRDO this chance to fail? We dont because they are on a schedule where failure means import.

They should be nurtured and fed and money spent -- so that they can fail all they want in the time while IA is scratching its head. We dont invest the money and effort early.

"Aag lagne pe kuna kohdne jaate hai" (Dig a well when the fire is already burning)

-------------------

This is related to the same theme Shiv is bemoaning in the Indian Mil thread.

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby a_kumar » 01 May 2010 20:29

Austin wrote:Have this snippet from "The Chanakya Aerospace Defence & Maritime Review" on recent Arjun and T-90 MBT Trials which is two page analysis.

1 ) It mentions that the Arjun performed well in the Trials and DGMF is looking into operational roles into which it can be deployed.


What was DGMF doing all this while? GSQRs were updated until 90's. Even if one disregards that, comparative trials/AUCRT/summer-winter trials etc were carried on from 2004 pretty much non-stop.

Was all that done without any effort into possible operational roles in mind? And now we are talking like this product suddenly appeared from nowhere and DGMF has to spend time looking into fitting it somewhere.

They must be either sleeping until now or had other ideas for Arjun. Most of us know the answer. It just seems like a cruel joke if they have didn't already know possible operational roles as of 2007 or 2009 or 2010.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 01 May 2010 20:49

Austin wrote:^^ may be GOI will work out a compro number to keep both parties happy.
.


Both meaning Indians and Russians ??

Austin wrote:so jobs generated is also something GOI will be looking at as well.


Jobs in India or Russia ??

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 01 May 2010 21:23

Kersi D wrote:Both meaning Indians and Russians ??


IA and DRDO

Austin wrote:Jobs in India or Russia ??


HVF and the 60% component imported from Western Countries could benefit as well.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests