Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 27 Sep 2015 01:53

Philip wrote:Tx Singha.Your post should satisfy most queries reg. Soviet tank doctrine. There is another point about the MBT acquisitions by India and Pak. In the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR,it was a free-for-all as far as tech and surplus eqpt. was concerned.Pak obtained from the UKR,the T-80UDs on the cheap in a "stealth attack".They then possessed a better tank than out T-72s.Our knee-jerk reaction was to obtain the T-90 from Russia,an incremental improvement upon the T-72 and supposedly better than T-80s. If you examine the history of the Arjun programme,it shows that what we tried to achieve was an Indian improved version of the German Leopard,considerded by many as the best at that time.Our aim was a better tank that the Pakis could throw at us ideas by acquiring the at-90 along with large numbers of it. Remember then that Western wares were also not available to us and Arjun had yet to pass muster. Numbers still matter in the Indo-Pak context.Russian tanks aren't "tin cans" as derisively mentioned by some.Read the various improvements types ,etc. used in incremental upgrades,ERA which could defeat any Western tank ammo,etc.

The Armata series is the latest evolution,or should one say "revolution" in Russian MBT/AV doctrine,with the turretless design. However,Indian tank doctrine took a Russian cue after acquisition of T-72s and T-90s in bulk. Arjun may indeed have been an attempt to design and build a desi Western model,but given our varied tank terrain,from Himalayan heights to deserts,just one design may not suffice.For the riverine terrain of E.Pak/BDesh,the PT-72 light tank served us splendidly.

Same horse-sh*t. Don't expect anything diff from you. Arjun has less ground pressure than the TIN-CAN and is superior in every regard. It can perform in all environments and decisively outperformed your russian pos in trials.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Sep 2015 19:42

Roy,spare us your verbal abuse.You can't seem to differentiate the rear of a animal or tank from its front end in this debate! This debate is not about the greatness of Arjun vs Russian tanks,etc., but started off as an observation as to the increased thickness of skirt ERA panels on the new Ru MBTs/AVs,most probably due to recent conflicts like Lebanon where Israeli Merkava tanks were KO'd by the HIz's RPGs.The rise in urban warfare scenarios is making tank designers react accordingly. Your animosity for Russian wares is your personal affair. Be objective in your statements instead of getting personal and cheapening the quality of your debate.

Mods,the "horse sh*tters" and their abusive posts are getting rather tiresome. Kindly instruct those who indulge in abusive words/language to refrain from doing so or give them their marching orders.If a debate has to be peppered with abuse and insults in an uncivilised manner on BRF its better it was wound up.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 27 Sep 2015 21:26

^^^^
Philip saab , the question is why is that they using such heavy ERA panels on the skirt area. A little bit of penetration will make the panel explode ( this is what ERA do anyway ) and expose a very large part of the skirt for secondary hits. I find the ERA brick on Ajeyas , practically far better .

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 27 Sep 2015 22:38

Philip wrote:Mods,the "horse sh*tters" and their abusive posts are getting rather tiresome. Kindly instruct those who indulge in abusive words/language to refrain from doing so or give them their marching orders.If a debate has to be peppered with abuse and insults in an uncivilised manner on BRF its better it was wound up.

Giving orders to mods and deciding the fate of the forum now are we? What happened to skin thicker than an Assam rhino?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 27 Sep 2015 22:52

Remember then that Western wares were also not available to us and Arjun had yet to pass muster. Numbers still matter in the Indo-Pak context.Russian tanks aren't "tin cans" as derisively mentioned by some.Read the various improvements types ,etc. used in incremental upgrades,ERA which could defeat any Western tank ammo,etc.

It is a "tin can". Who are you trying to fool after years of debate? Almost everyone on BRF knows so. It's time to move on from this "vintage" design.

The Arjun proved itself better even early on compared to your tin can despite its faults. Follow on orders of your tin can still happened. We are all still waiting to see the tin can "pass muster".

You brought up the "tin can" derision. I just find it funny that you think you can disguise all this.

The Armata series is the latest evolution,or should one say "revolution" in Russian MBT/AV doctrine,with the turretless design. However,Indian tank doctrine took a Russian cue after acquisition of T-72s and T-90s in bulk. Arjun may indeed have been an attempt to design and build a desi Western model,but given our varied tank terrain,from Himalayan heights to deserts,just one design may not suffice.For the riverine terrain of E.Pak/BDesh,the PT-72 light tank served us splendidly.

Seriously? Where did you get the idea that the Arjun MAY NOT be able to perform on varied tank terrain? Slipping in your excuses for adopting that "vintage"

rust bucket and then acting like some Saint Mother Teresa. Pathetic.

Be objective in your statements instead of getting personal and cheapening the quality of your debate.

Says the guy who has been cheapening it for years. And, all in the name of objectivity? Give me a break.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Sep 2015 23:54

Philip wrote:Roy,spare us your verbal abuse.You can't seem to differentiate the rear of a animal or tank from its front end in this debate! This debate is not about the greatness of Arjun vs Russian tanks,etc., but started off as an observation as to the increased thickness of skirt ERA panels on the new Ru MBTs/AVs,most probably due to recent conflicts like Lebanon where Israeli Merkava tanks were KO'd by the HIz's RPGs.The rise in urban warfare scenarios is making tank designers react accordingly. Your animosity for Russian wares is your personal affair. Be objective in your statements instead of getting personal and cheapening the quality of your debate.

Mods,the "horse sh*tters" and their abusive posts are getting rather tiresome. Kindly instruct those who indulge in abusive words/language to refrain from doing so or give them their marching orders.If a debate has to be peppered with abuse and insults in an uncivilised manner on BRF its better it was wound up.

I understand the argument about "horse sh*tters".

But, what can one do - or one should do - when it is true?

So, here is a very long lost story (of course true to recent BR tradition, never researched):

NGP (German 4th gen. tank)

NGP (Neue Gepanzerte Plattformen) was a military project that started in 1990 and in some aspects lasted till 2002. Its purpose was to create a German "next generation armored platform" aka Leopard 2 successor. The company leading the project was the Kraus-Maffei Wegmann. Around 1992 first research facilities were founded and in 1998 prototype of the hull was created on which a concept of a two man crew working with systems providing automatic information processing was tested. The biggest novelty was a completly changed architecture of the situational awarness system similar to the one used in airplanes with HOTAS controllers and crew in pilot-type helmets which were supposed to have integrated HUDs and displays showing stereoscopic style image provided by the information processing system and captured by external sensors.

The project ended in 2002 because of two reasons. First, the Bundeswehr already had enough modern 3rd gen. MBTs (Leo 2A6) which should be in service even after 2030 due to lack of newer designs from other countries. The second was fall of the bipolar world order and end of the Cold War which slowed down the arms race. NGP project was planned as a response to the new generation of Soviet tanks: Object 640 (known as the Black Eagle), Object 477 and Object 195 (T-95). None of these vehicles entered production and only Object 640 and 195 prototypes were built. Due to a lack of strong enough opponents creating a new, revolutionary vehicle was considered unnecessary.

EGS after years.

EGS prototype was a test bench for the future Leopard 3 hull and its concepts - including a two man crew, engine, suspension and maybe even armor. Rare photos show the vehicle with a mockup of the unmanned turret.

The hull of the prototype was shortened compared to the Leo 2 hull. Six pairs of road wheels were used in the suspencion system. The important fact is that we can rather precisly determine the engine used. Most likely it was supposed to be the new MTU MB833 - succesor of the legendary MB873 KA-501. Its characteristic features were decreased volume (by ~2,5 m3) and lenght (by 1 m) with keeping the same power level. Because the crew compartment ends near the 3rd wheel we can see that the space left for the ammunition storage was equall the the space left for MB833, so the autoloader with ammo would have to fit in 2.5 m3. Considering the low hight of the EGS (a bit less than 2m) we can estimate the vehicle weight to be around 50 tons in the final configuration (40 tons for the hull).

The use of suspension system with double sponsons (fitting both the suspension and fuel) can be found in the newest German IFV - Puma. As we can see a concept used in Puma was already tested a decade ago on the EGS prototype. The pro of such system was an increased protection provided by the hull sides. If the 50 tons NGP was supposed to have the Puma suspension combined with 1500 HP MB833 engine it would become a vehicle with revolutionary tactical mobility and great strategic mobility.

Protection

Sadly we don't know much about the protection level of the vehicle because ESG was just a prototype. The low size of the prototype and its turret were surely a good thing. Such a concept - with crew sitting in an armored "capsule" was simmilar to the one found in TTB, Object 477 and Object 195 prototypes.

A very important fact is that the Merkava design (engine - crew -ammo) was not duplicated in EGS due to some reasons. First, the hull height (it's 1,2-1,5 m in the EGS) and providing it with optimal geometry. The frontal part of the vehicle had to fit large, multi-layered armor inserts of high density. In case of the Merkava it's almost impossible and leads to an unnecessary increase of the hull's weight and size. The crew was places under the thickest (frontal) armor, providing very high protection level for 0-35 degree angles from the hull's longitudinal axis. The more forward we move the bigger the degree range thus the probabilty of armor penetration throught the side armor increases. Another question is the situational awarness in such a system, probably a design from Puma would be used.

Hull's sides protection would be provided by heavy ballistic skirts know from late Leo 2A4 series and the suspension with double sponsons carrying both the suspension and fuel. The frontal armor would have reactive elements known from later Leo 2 versions. The EGS prototype seems to have its mockups. The frontal protection is estimated to be over 1000 mm RHA vs APFSDS which is double the protection of Leopard 2A4.

Additional survivability would be provided by an Active Protection System. This is the part which development lasted beyound the year 2002 even with the NGP program being closed. Probably the AMAP-ADS system by IBD Deisenroth is its result.

Firepower

120-L44, 120-L55 and NPzK-140 guns

Sadly we can only speculate in this paragraph. The original design dedicated for the NGP was most likely the 140 mm NPzk gun mounted in an unmanned turret. The use of the 140 mm gun was caused by a need to penetrate a variety of dynamic (Kaktus, Relikt, Nozh) as well as passive armor designs that were supposed to be used in next gen. Soviet tanks. A temporary solution was mounting the Rh120 Lh.55 cannon with new generation of APFSDS rounds (eg. DM53LKEII) getting close the the magical 10 MJ barrier. The problem is that the 140 mm ammunition dimensions do not fit to the EGS dimensions. But if the plan was to use the 120 mm then it would be possible to fit the autoloader known from the TTB in the 2,5 m3 space.

A clue leading to such an assumption is the mockup of the NGP turret, expecially its back part. The TTB autoloader fits 44 120 mm rounds and EGS would be able to fit ~38 rounds due to its small size. In case of the 140 mm rounds the ammo capacity would be reduced to 16-18 rounds. It is a very small ammount but we shall know that for example in case of the 140 mm XM-291 gun from the US the "first use" ammunition load was supposed to be ~17 rounds and the entire vehicle load was supposed to be 22 rounds. It is possible that the designers agreed with the fact of loosing half of the ammunition load in comparision to 3rd gen. tanks but we don't have enough info to confirm this.

The EGS as a testing bench and a technology demonstator for the NGP which was a leading concept for the next generation tank that was supposed to replace Leopards 2

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 28 Sep 2015 01:17

^Nice read, thanks.

But, does the above indicate that instead of a bustle borne ammunition design, the Germans are going with a turret basket borne ammunition design like the Russians?

A combination of choosing a low profile for the turret combined with the need for a larger tank round and resultant size restrictions may force the future tank to have such an arrangement. Given that the crew is separated from the turret in an armored capsule may allow this, as the previous safety concerns no longer apply.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Sep 2015 01:54

Just leave the russian loyalist to his delusions, engaging him in any discussion is a waste of time..he will curse all things Indian while braying about the superiority of unproven Russian tin sheet models and what not..

Meanwhile.. first detailed cutaway I've seen of the Mk2

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Sep 2015 02:06

You can make out the heavy amount of armor used in the design as with the Leo2

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2015 07:09

tanks have thin hull armour around the turret cage .

from the sides only wheel and skirt is there. its felt to be a low probability of any MBT shell hitting it so long there.
from the back the dense engine block protects it.
from the front the thick frontal hull armour.
these theories work in tank vs tank not in urban warfare where RPG22/26/29 type LAW weapons can be fired from 200m range at vulnerable parts.

in iraq, insurgents using some LAW/anti material guns were able to penetrate M1 from the side hull at close range.
this new concept of having thick side skirts (spaced composites) or ERA + anti RPG grills might be to deal with the urban warfare thing.

the Emirati leclercs who have invaded yemen is a good example. some of them have a AZUR urban warfare kit
some of them do not.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2015 07:12

abrams tanks lower hull, with holes for the wheel axles.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2015 07:21

you can see some abrams hull breach photos here
http://btvt.narod.ru/spec/iraq/abrams_2003_demage.htm

they had taken to using sand filled jerricans to protect the turret bustle
http://btvt.narod.ru/5/iraq2003/d5.jpg

http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userp ... 29~5~0.jpg

ammo compartment blowing up, with the hatches diverting the explosion
http://www.janes.com/images/assets/550/ ... -_main.jpg

MBTs are way more vulnerable in urban warfare and mountain/forest country vs ODS style open terrain, unless properly equipped with tons of additional protection and crews adequately drilled, with infantry (check ambushes) and helicopter support (check rooftop shooters).

its like the horse armies of central asia/alaksindr coming to grief in swamps, forests, marshy lands and mountains of central europe and south asia.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Sep 2015 10:03

Well at least some Western entities are taking the new Russian tank design philosophy seriously.Complacency is never a virtue.Why we should not take lightly the large numbers of JF-17s that Pak is acquiring while we retire hundreds of MIG types.

http://taskandpurpose.com/why-russias-n ... or-the-us/

[/quote]Why Russia’s New Tanks Are A Wake-Up Call For The US
By Christian Beekman
on May 22, 2015

Russia’s recently unveiled T-14 Armata main battle tank could mean big problems for the U.S. in future confrontations. Here’s why.

During its annual May 9 Victory Day Parade commemorating the end of World War II, the Russian military brings out the most striking examples of their ground force vehicles. This year, they publicly unveiled what is possibly the most ambitious ground vehicle program since the end of the Cold War. The Armata Universal Combat Platform is Russia’s attempt to make a interconnected family of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, and other vehicles. The centerpiece is the T-14 Armata main battle tank, a radical design that highlights a troubling lack of fighting vehicle development in the West.

The T-14’s biggest departure from traditional tank design isn’t quite evident from photos. The turret is completely unmanned; instead, the three crew members operate the tank in a compartment at the front of the hull. This provides several advantages. There is more room in the turret for armament; currently, the T-14 is equipped with the latest upgrade of Russia’s standard 125mm tank gun, the 2A82A; in addition to the wide variety of Russian armor-piercing and high-explosive shells available, the gun is also capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles. According to the technical periodical, Jane’s Defense Weekly, additional armament could be provided in the form of a co-axial 30mm autocannon and PKT machine gun, giving the T-14 the ability to engage a wide variety of targets. The remote turret could also theoretically allow a single crew member to maneuver and fire the T-14’s weapons, albeit much less effectively.

The turret is notably taller than than previous Russian designs and contemporary Western tanks; a tall profile hinders the ability of the tank to go “hull down” behind cover, a quintessential tactic of armor warfare. But the larger turret could possibly accommodate a larger 152mm main gun, increasing the T-14’s firepower even more. Another possible tradeoff involves the crew compartment; while the front armor of most tanks is often the toughest, the T-14 crew will certainly be the first to know if any rounds do get through. Some designs, like the Israeli Merkava, have moved the engine to the front in order to provide more protection for the crew for exactly this reason.

The T-14 crew may not have to worry, however. In an unprecedented shift to prioritize protection over mobility, which shaped the design of many Soviet tanks, the T-14 will incorporate several active protection systems designed to kill incoming missiles before they even strike the tank. The tank also features explosive reactive armor as an inherent part of the design, providing an increased defense against projectiles. Completing the defense are slat armor panels at the rear, which provide some protection against shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons. The overall armor composition is new, but its makeup is unknown. It is likely similar to the “Chobham” and “Dorchester” composite armor developed by the British Ministry of Defense, putting it on par with tanks used by NATO nations.

The T-14 features a new target and sensor package, including an active electronically scanned array radar suite derived from a fighter jet, enabling the T-14 to track multiple targets simultaneously and provide automatic ballistic solutions to the gunner. The commander has day, night, and thermal optics in a remote systems that also features a machine gun similar to the American Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station.

The T-14’s massive improvements may seem shocking, but the truth is the Russians have pioneered new tank designs for decades. Professor Richard Ogorkiewicz, a armour expert who has studied tanks since the early 1960s, explains in his book “Tanks: 100 Years Of Evolution” that the Russians always considered tanks an important part of ground warfare, whereas the West questioned the future of the tank several times during the Cold War. This was notably seen in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, where Israeli tanks counter-attacking against Egypt and Syria took heavy losses from AT-3 “Sagger” anti-tank guided missiles. Ogorkiewicz elaborates:

On the Sinai front, the successful assault crossing of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian forces was followed immediately by counter-attacks by the Israeli 252nd Division, which ran into Egyptian infantry equipped with an exceptionally large number of Soviet-made Sagger anti-tank guided missiles and failed, losing 165 of its 268 tanks. This immediately led to worldwide rumours that tanks were no longer effective and it took some time for these to be disproved by the evidence provided by the rest of the Yom Kippur War, in which many more tanks were destroyed by the guns of the opposing tanks than by guided missiles.

Western tank development has ebbed and flowed, whereas Russian armored vehicle research remained almost a constant. Several NATO allies have dominated their armored forces in comparison with the Russian Federation, as Ogorkiewicz explains:

… the size of the Western European tank fleet was reduced to a fraction of what it had been. Thus, major Western European armies, such as those of Germany, France, Britain and Italy, were left with no more than about 200 tanks each… But elsewhere tanks have continued to be viewed as a major element of military strength. In particular, the army of the Russian Federation has maintained a fleet of 2,000 to 3,000 modern tanks backed by a reserve of several thousand older vehicles…

That trend seems to have continued. The current American main battle tank, the M1A2 Abrams, is an improved version of a design from 1979. The Abrams is good tank, and the performance of its predecessor, the M1A1, in the Persian Gulf War is often cited as proving its superiority over Russian tanks like the T-72. In the decisive engagement at the Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War, one particular troop of 12 M1s destroyed 28 tanks, 16 armored personnel carriers, and 30 trucks in less than half an hour. But as Victor Suvorov, a member of Soviet military intelligence who defected to the West, explains, the Gulf War performance is misleading because the Soviets provided greatly simplified version of equipment for export to foreign nations, called “monkey models.” Suvorov writes:

It is intended that the `monkey-model’ approach will be used not only for building tanks, but for all other sorts of equipment-rockets, guns, aircraft, radio sets, etc. In peacetime these variants are turned out in large quantities, but they are only issued to countries friendly to the Soviet Union. I have seen two variants of the BMP-1 infantry combat vehicle-one which is issued to the Soviet army and another which is intended for the Soviet Union’s Arab friends.

The “Lion of Babylon” T-72s, used by the Iraqis during Desert Storm, did not necessarily represent the full capabilities of the Russian design, especially given the inferior training of Iraqi tank crews. There’s also the fundamental fact that the T-72 was designed to be a cheap, mass-producible tank in order to ensure numerical superiority against NATO armor in Western Europe.

Therefore, the overmatch the Abrams enjoyed may fast be disappearing. Plans to upgrade the tank to “M1A3” status won’t happen until at least 2020, and its modest changes of upgraded electronics and a lighter 120mm main gun won’t put it on par with the T-14. Tanks from the South Korea and China have leap-frogged the Abrams in terms of fire-control capability. The Army plans to keep the Abrams design until 2050, after the Ground Combat Vehicle program intended to replace many ground vehicles was canceled, itself replacing another canceled program called Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicle.

Even then, upgrading the Abrams presents problems. The M1A3 upgrades assume the 120mm cannon and associated ammo will be sufficient to engage modern tanks like the T-14. 120mm guns are about the heaviest tank caliber able to accommodate a human loader. While the United States has experimented with a 140mm gun, it has never put an autoloading tank into full production. “Upgunning” the Abrams would require a redesign to fit an autoloading system. Then there’s the armor. While it was very effective in 1991, the Abrams’ composite armor has proved vulnerable to IEDs and tandem-shaped charge warheads. There’s also two of the more glaring flaws of the Abrams. Its heavy at over 60 tons, making it difficult to airlift. And it has a gas turbine engine, that while powerful and relatively quiet compared to the diesel option, guzzles gas and limits the tank’s range.

According to reports, the Russian military intends to purchase 2,300 T-14s over the next five years. With the struggling Russian economy, it’s likely that Armata-based vehicles will be offered for export in order to offset the cost. Even if the Russia continues the “monkey model” policy for export gear, a downgrade T-14 could still stack up well against Western tanks, like the Abrams, Leopard 2, and Challenger 2. If the United States and its allies continue to assume their tanks are adequate for future confrontations, they may find out what the Iraqi experience was like at 73 Easting.[/quote]

Some more for the seriously interested.In this v.lengthy feature on the Armata family of AVs,of part. interest and underscoring the point I made initially,is the v.wide slab skirt armour on the Russian Kurganets-25 IFV,which looks like it is 2ft. wide.Far wider than on any MBT of the previous gen. east or west.JDW on the detail:

Both feature a large appliqué kit to the sides of the vehicle, although whether this is principally for armour or flotation purposes is unclear. Amphibious capability has been designed into the Kurganets family, with both featuring a bow plane and waterjets installed within the rear of the hull.

Russia's armour revolution
Nicholas de Larrinaga, London and Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
16 May 2015
http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russ ... revolution

srin · Post by **srin** » 28 Sep 2015 10:41

So, you want to compare the Armata which hasn't even been produced with Abrams ?

In the same page here, you've already gone from declaring Armata as unmanned turret to turretless. And yet, you don't tell us why it means Armata is invulnerable to say an RPG-29.

Also, I don't know what's so great about the composite armour of the Armata - may be it is because it is probably made of cardboard ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Sep 2015 10:45

Well at least some Western entities are taking the new Russian tank design philosophy seriously.

As everyone should. After all the chances are it will go into production.

However, the original point was that there is nothing new in the Armata thinking. Evolutionary for Russians granted. Nothing beyond that. There are other than Germans that have thought of various types of designs. And rejected them mostly for cost. Even the Russians rejected their own T-95. And that tank was a leap over the previous designs.

This Armata is not a done deal ..........yet. no amount of Jane's articles makes it a great, viable tank. Plenty of two men in some sort of a bath tub, remotely controlled turrets, great armour for its era.

Besides that there is absolutely no reason for India to consider it. Not even a close viable option.

But more power to the Russians. Hope they get something out of all this. As long as they keep out of India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Sep 2015 11:02

imo future wars and post-war peace enforcement vs legions of insurgents are likely to be highly urban in areas like middle east, pakistan, ukraine, turkey and so on. the modern MBT even with TUSK/AZUR type urban warfare packs are not really ideal for this battlespace.....because they were not designed for it and these packs are cobbled together workarounds over a design not suited to this....too heavy, gas guzzling, clumsy, main cannon cannot traverse to bear into narrow lanes to the side, vulnerable to top attack or side/back attack by 200-500m range RPG29 class cheap throwaway tube weapons, vulnerable to buried mines.

instead I propose - MINOTAUR - a concept and vehicle drawn up for this new mode of war.

Chassis all up weight - 55 tons
Dimensions - about the size of a Arjun tank but taller - as tall as the crew compartment of a Namer IFV from front to back.
Crew - 5
driver, commander, mission specialist(to monitor 360 TVs, radar, comms links etc), gunner1, gunner2
engine - 550 hp economy diesel
armour - 100% slat armour, 100% era, 100% even composite armour all around, MRAP design lower hull
Equipment
- folding dozer blade in front to clear mines
- ground penetrating radar in front to detect buried mines
- turret1 - low pressure 105mm cannon firing purely FAE and HE shells to clear buildings + coax HMG
- turret2 - unmanned and taller in the top of turret1 - 30mm cannon + coax HMG
- both turrets are unmanned and rotate independently so one can fire in front and other can still rotate to engage targets anywhere
- micro grenade launched by MMW radar to defeat incoming RPG/LAW

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Sep 2015 11:14

Need a bigger engine. With so many butts to move.

No matter what it is no use importing a tank. Absolutely nothing new out there. India needs better decision makers.

This year, they publicly unveiled what is possibly the most ambitious ground vehicle program since the end of the Cold War.

The T-95 could have claimed the same if it were not scrapped.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 28 Sep 2015 11:57

@Singha

Very interesting indeed.

I would suggest an addition of a 60 mm mortar (like the Israelis did to the Merkava) to help hit tops of buildings and also aid indirect fire

Fire coming from basements and sub ground level (gutters, dug in positions) is a another big challenge

BTW this is quite a different route to some western think-tanks - DARPA Thinks Less Armor Could Make Tanks Safer

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Sep 2015 12:04

With an automated turret,the years ahead will see automated urban warfare AVs,probably initially being used along with manned AVs.There was a report some time ago about our own desi robotic efforts.We already have in use robots for mine detection and bomb disposal,being used in anti-terror ops.The US has also experimented with a robotic AV,report below.

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-armata-ta ... 00894.html
Russia's new Armata tank: step toward fully robotic vehicles
Associated Press By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
June 12, 2015

NIZHNY TAGIL, Russia (AP) — Russia's new tank, the Armata, is expected to form the backbone of the nation's armed forces for years to come. Its designers say the new machine may evolve into a fully robotic vehicle that could operate autonomously on the battlefield. Here is a look at some of the key features of the new tank:

REMOTE-CONTROLLED TURRET

The Armata is groundbreaking in having a remote-controlled turret and an internal capsule for the crew that is isolated from ammunition and fuel, a layout that could significantly increase the chances for the crew survival if the tank is hit.

While previous Russian tanks featured a low silhouette and compact size at the expense of crew comfort, the Armata is significantly bigger and heavier. Designers say they put special emphasis on ergonomics, so that even very tall people feel comfortable in it. One designer said the new tank is as pleasant and easy to drive as a modern SUV.

COMPUTERIZED CONTROLS

The Armata features a digital control system that directs its movement, tracks targets and activates the tank's defense systems. It frees the crew from performing routine tasks to allow it to focus on key combat functions. "For the crew, it's like playing a video game," said Ilya Demchenko, one of the Armata's designers.

The Armata's chief designer, Andrei Terlikov, said that the new technologies built into the Armata could make it possible in the future to build a fully robotic vehicle that would operate autonomously on the battlefield.

MODULAR DESIGN

The new tank is part of a family of new armored vehicles built on a unified platform that has a structure based on replaceable modules. This helps lower production costs and leaves room for further development.

The Armata family includes a heavy armored infantry vehicle that offers the same level of protection as the tank, and various support machines.

SUPERIOR PROTECTION
The Armata uses a new type of armor, which designers say is significantly more resistant to enemy fire, although they are coy about its specific characteristics. On top of that, the vehicle is protected by an improved version of reactive armor, which explodes on impact to stop a projectile from reaching the main layer of armor.

The Armata is also equipped with a so-called active protection system, forming an outer perimeter of its defenses. When the system spots an enemy projectile, it fires a round to destroy it or knock it off its path.

SUPER CANNON

The current version of the Armata is equipped with standard-caliber 125-mm cannon, similar to those used on current tanks, which can fire both regular shells and rockets.

Designers say that a much more powerful 152-mm cannon could be easily fitted to the Armata in the future — although they say there is no need for that yet.

A cancelled US programme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1219_Ar ... ic_Vehicle

The XM1219 Armed Robotic Vehicle was an unmanned ground combat vehicle based on the MULE Platform. The ARV-A-L MULE Vehicle (XM1219) would feature integrated anti-tank and anti-personnel and reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) systems remotely operated by network linked soldiers. The Armed robotic vehicle was canceled in July 2011 over mobility concern

Some interesting info on the T-90 "tincan"

Read the entire piece for a god analysis about the T-90.
What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank
Tyler Rogoway
Filed to: Tanks3/13/14
Xcpt:

Why can't we procure platforms that are proven to work for 80% of the tasks they will be presented with, like the T-90, then invest in smaller fleets of weapon systems that can handle the other 20% better than any one-size-fits all solution ever could? In the end we would save a ton of money, become a more resilient and adaptable force, and we would no longer have to hear the term "too big to fail" associated with fiscally obese and already antiquated weapons programs.

THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW THEIR HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank

Could it be that we actually have a lot to learn from Russia's "balanced approach" to fielding the T-90 Main Battle Tank? I think so, but don't take my opinion for it, take WWII's! This conflict taught us a very valuable lesson about tank warfare and force structure in general: in a serious peer state conflict, with prolonged hostilities, the numerical advantage can triumph over technological superiority.

Just google "Panzer vs Sherman tank" to learn more about this valuable history lesson. It is amazing that Russia seems to have remembered such a hard fought lesson from what they call "The Great Patriotic War," and have factored it into their procurement strategy, but America seems to have all but forgotten it. The capable, affordable and reliable T-90 main battle tank remains direct proof of this fact.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Sep 2015 13:21

Not an accident. If Tyler Rogoway says it, keep away from the topic.

Tyler Rogoway Sets Off a Global Disinformation Cascade
He Owes the World an Apology but Don’t Hold Your Breath: It’s His 'Job'

Proof enough that it is a "tin can".

Just saying. For good sleep at night and normal BP, buy the Arjun.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Sep 2015 13:25

Russia's new Armata tank: step toward fully robotic vehicles

As long as they man it during parades, it should be fine.

srin · Post by **srin** » 28 Sep 2015 13:28

One technical question: does the Armata have the same autoloader that T-90 has ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Sep 2015 18:43

Differing views/reports.Some say the same,some "improved",some T-95 tech,some a larger gun/autoloader on the anvil.What we've seen thus far is the first avatar.perhaps first versions built to take part in the 70th great anniversary parade.However,the full family of Arm. AVs was unveiled.One needs to wait a bit to see them inducted in the Ru.Army ,etc. before arriving at conclusions.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Sep 2015 03:57

Philip wrote:...
Some interesting info on the T-90 "tincan"
Read the entire piece for a god analysis about the T-90.
What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank
Tyler Rogoway
Filed to: Tanks3/13/14
Xcpt:
Why can't we procure platforms that are proven to work for 80% of the tasks they will be presented with, like the T-90, then invest in smaller fleets of weapon systems that can handle the other 20% better than any one-size-fits all solution ever could? In the end we would save a ton of money, become a more resilient and adaptable force, and we would no longer have to hear the term "too big to fail" associated with fiscally obese and already antiquated weapons programs.

THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW THEIR HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank

Could it be that we actually have a lot to learn from Russia's "balanced approach" to fielding the T-90 Main Battle Tank? I think so, but don't take my opinion for it, take WWII's! This conflict taught us a very valuable lesson about tank warfare and force structure in general: in a serious peer state conflict, with prolonged hostilities, the numerical advantage can triumph over technological superiority.

Just google "Panzer vs Sherman tank" to learn more about this valuable history lesson. It is amazing that Russia seems to have remembered such a hard fought lesson from what they call "The Great Patriotic War," and have factored it into their procurement strategy, but America seems to have all but forgotten it. The capable, affordable and reliable T-90 main battle tank remains direct proof of this fact.

So why are the Russians developing a heavy and much more expensive Armata tank?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Sep 2015 04:40

One needs to wait a bit to see them inducted in the Ru.Army ,etc. before arriving at conclusions.

So all those articles were a waste of tin? We got canned!!

Par for the course.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 29 Sep 2015 06:00

Philip wrote:With an automated turret,the years ahead will see automated urban warfare AVs,probably initially being used along with manned AVs.There was a report some time ago about our own desi robotic efforts.We already have in use robots for mine detection and bomb disposal,being used in anti-terror ops.The US has also experimented with a robotic AV,report below.

http://news.yahoo.com/russias-armata-ta ... 00894.html
Russia's new Armata tank: step toward fully robotic vehicles
Associated Press By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
June 12, 2015

NIZHNY TAGIL, Russia (AP) — Russia's new tank, the Armata, is expected to form the backbone of the nation's armed forces for years to come. Its designers say the new machine may evolve into a fully robotic vehicle that could operate autonomously on the battlefield. Here is a look at some of the key features of the new tank:

REMOTE-CONTROLLED TURRET

The Armata is groundbreaking in having a remote-controlled turret and an internal capsule for the crew that is isolated from ammunition and fuel, a layout that could significantly increase the chances for the crew survival if the tank is hit.

While previous Russian tanks featured a low silhouette and compact size at the expense of crew comfort, the Armata is significantly bigger and heavier. Designers say they put special emphasis on ergonomics, so that even very tall people feel comfortable in it. One designer said the new tank is as pleasant and easy to drive as a modern SUV.

COMPUTERIZED CONTROLS

The Armata features a digital control system that directs its movement, tracks targets and activates the tank's defense systems. It frees the crew from performing routine tasks to allow it to focus on key combat functions. "For the crew, it's like playing a video game," said Ilya Demchenko, one of the Armata's designers.

The Armata's chief designer, Andrei Terlikov, said that the new technologies built into the Armata could make it possible in the future to build a fully robotic vehicle that would operate autonomously on the battlefield.

MODULAR DESIGN

The new tank is part of a family of new armored vehicles built on a unified platform that has a structure based on replaceable modules. This helps lower production costs and leaves room for further development.

The Armata family includes a heavy armored infantry vehicle that offers the same level of protection as the tank, and various support machines.

SUPERIOR PROTECTION
The Armata uses a new type of armor, which designers say is significantly more resistant to enemy fire, although they are coy about its specific characteristics. On top of that, the vehicle is protected by an improved version of reactive armor, which explodes on impact to stop a projectile from reaching the main layer of armor.

The Armata is also equipped with a so-called active protection system, forming an outer perimeter of its defenses. When the system spots an enemy projectile, it fires a round to destroy it or knock it off its path.

SUPER CANNON

The current version of the Armata is equipped with standard-caliber 125-mm cannon, similar to those used on current tanks, which can fire both regular shells and rockets.

Designers say that a much more powerful 152-mm cannon could be easily fitted to the Armata in the future — although they say there is no need for that yet.
A cancelled US programme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1219_Ar ... ic_Vehicle
The XM1219 Armed Robotic Vehicle was an unmanned ground combat vehicle based on the MULE Platform. The ARV-A-L MULE Vehicle (XM1219) would feature integrated anti-tank and anti-personnel and reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) systems remotely operated by network linked soldiers. The Armed robotic vehicle was canceled in July 2011 over mobility concern
Some interesting info on the T-90 "tincan"
Read the entire piece for a god analysis about the T-90.
What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank
Tyler Rogoway
Filed to: Tanks3/13/14
Xcpt:
Why can't we procure platforms that are proven to work for 80% of the tasks they will be presented with, like the T-90, then invest in smaller fleets of weapon systems that can handle the other 20% better than any one-size-fits all solution ever could? In the end we would save a ton of money, become a more resilient and adaptable force, and we would no longer have to hear the term "too big to fail" associated with fiscally obese and already antiquated weapons programs.

THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW THEIR HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank

Could it be that we actually have a lot to learn from Russia's "balanced approach" to fielding the T-90 Main Battle Tank? I think so, but don't take my opinion for it, take WWII's! This conflict taught us a very valuable lesson about tank warfare and force structure in general: in a serious peer state conflict, with prolonged hostilities, the numerical advantage can triumph over technological superiority.

Just google "Panzer vs Sherman tank" to learn more about this valuable history lesson. It is amazing that Russia seems to have remembered such a hard fought lesson from what they call "The Great Patriotic War," and have factored it into their procurement strategy, but America seems to have all but forgotten it. The capable, affordable and reliable T-90 main battle tank remains direct proof of this fact.

Probably Russia can learn some from Russia and buy some Cheap But Deadly T-90 Tank instead of a heavy and expensive Armata

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 29 Sep 2015 06:28

The only thing i can say to philip saab is , we know tin cans are tin cans because we have tin cans !! But spare us this time...!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Sep 2015 14:17

Cost! One can't drive in a Rolls or Bentley all the time.You also need Marutis,Hondas,Toyotas,etc.Even the US can't afford all fighters to be F-22s.There has to be "willing donkeys",to "take the load",like SHs and F-16s,A-10s,etc. That's why the "breaking down the door" concept by heavyweights both in the air and on the ground ,with the toughest most capable beats,is advocated,allowing the "swarm" of bees,soldier ants,to rush through the holes in the defences and mop up the enemy. It is very clear from my earlier posts about the Soviet armoured warfare doctrine as to why they built two tanks,T-80s and T-72s. In the Indian context the ,heavier,and we presume heavily armoured Arjun could perform the role of being the spearhead of armoured formations,with smaller,cheaper T-90s and T-72UGs making up the bulk of the armoured corps (fait accompli by the IA,no point moaning now).

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 30 Sep 2015 20:56

Philip wrote:Cost! One can't drive in a Rolls or Bentley all the time.

Russia can save itself some money by building more T-90s, which after all, are vastly zuperior to ze western tanks

srin · Post by **srin** » 30 Sep 2015 22:07

Philip wrote:Cost! One can't drive in a Rolls or Bentley all the time.You also need Marutis,Hondas,Toyotas,etc.Even the US can't afford all fighters to be F-22s.There has to be "willing donkeys",to "take the load",like SHs and F-16s,A-10s,etc. That's why the "breaking down the door" concept by heavyweights both in the air and on the ground ,with the toughest most capable beats,is advocated,allowing the "swarm" of bees,soldier ants,to rush through the holes in the defences and mop up the enemy. It is very clear from my earlier posts about the Soviet armoured warfare doctrine as to why they built two tanks,T-80s and T-72s. In the Indian context the ,heavier,and we presume heavily armoured Arjun could perform the role of being the spearhead of armoured formations,with smaller,cheaper T-90s and T-72UGs making up the bulk of the armoured corps (fait accompli by the IA,no point moaning now).

Why do you say T-90s are cheap ? Cheaper than what ? And how do you compute it ? Does it include the ammo including invar missiles ?

We're using French thermal sights, local barrel etc. So how do you account for this ?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 01 Oct 2015 05:09

British Replacement for Scimitar (includes the other five replacement models)
Ajax is the base fighting model of the family.

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20150930 ... ar-machine

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Oct 2015 05:21

Check MBT comparative costs from various sources. The Russians have planned a long time ago for a new family of AVs based upon the Armata concept.chassis/systems for cost-effectiveness and ease of support,etc..They were unveiled this year.Russia already has enough T-90s in service and are raising the bar of armoured warfare for an even more revolutionary MBT and AVs ,after learning from and studying the results of recent conflicts,where urban warfare is expanding and classic tank battles as in WW2,Assal Uttar,etc.,may be fewer. Regional conflicts rather than continental wars have been on the rise post WW2.Iran-Iraq,Indo-Pak,Arab-Israeli and the two GWars are the exceptions. Hence changing concepts in MBT design to also meet more lethal weaponry like cheap RPGs. What the IA/DRDO have to understand are the same facts internationally and our own specific context before designing/acquiring the IA's needs.The IA and Arjun,IAF and LCA are two instances where there is a disconnect which should not be so. The debate as to who is to blame has been going on for decades.Primarily,the fault lies with the Gs of I in the past for not being responsible enough in monitoring the programmes and bringing the end-user and designer/manufacturer to work together as a team.Happily,that has not been the case for most of the time with the IN.

How the IA is going to "travel" in its armoured warfare acquisitions is going to be an interesting exercise.

PS:There was an excellent AIR radio programme ,reconstruction of the '65 tank battles,where our RCLs (Havildar Hamid PVC) knocked out heaps of Paki Pattons.Today the RCL has been replaced by the ubiquitous RPG,also used extensively in downing attack helos.

srin · Post by **srin** » 02 Oct 2015 09:53

Philip wrote:Check MBT comparative costs from various sources. The Russians have planned a long time ago for a new family of AVs based upon the Armata concept.chassis/systems for cost-effectiveness and ease of support,etc..They were unveiled this year.Russia already has enough T-90s in service and are raising the bar of armoured warfare for an even more revolutionary MBT and AVs ,after learning from and studying the results of recent conflicts,where urban warfare is expanding and classic tank battles as in WW2,Assal Uttar,etc.,may be fewer. Regional conflicts rather than continental wars have been on the rise post WW2.Iran-Iraq,Indo-Pak,Arab-Israeli and the two GWars are the exceptions. Hence changing concepts in MBT design to also meet more lethal weaponry like cheap RPGs. What the IA/DRDO have to understand are the same facts internationally and our own specific context before designing/acquiring the IA's needs.The IA and Arjun,IAF and LCA are two instances where there is a disconnect which should not be so. The debate as to who is to blame has been going on for decades.Primarily,the fault lies with the Gs of I in the past for not being responsible enough in monitoring the programmes and bringing the end-user and designer/manufacturer to work together as a team.Happily,that has not been the case for most of the time with the IN.

How the IA is going to "travel" in its armoured warfare acquisitions is going to be an interesting exercise.

PS:There was an excellent AIR radio programme ,reconstruction of the '65 tank battles,where our RCLs (Havildar Hamid PVC) knocked out heaps of Paki Pattons.Today the RCL has been replaced by the ubiquitous RPG,also used extensively in downing attack helos.

Please provide sources to substantiate the claim that T-90 is cheaper than Arjun.

And also why Armata is invulnerable to cheap RPGs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Oct 2015 18:12

Srai's post in the arty td.

The MoD has cleared 124 Arjuns for series production, but military sources said that with the arrival of the Russian T-90s main battle tank, its chassis would now be "diverted" to Bhim. The Army wants to acquire around 100 to 120 SP 155mm weapon systems in completed condition or as kits and build indigenously the remaining 400 to 450 in order to arm around 30 mechanised infantry regiments. These systems are meant to counter some 150 American M109A2 SP guns with the Pakistan Army.

The Army, meanwhile, has rejected Arjun, which continues to face problems with its fire control system and gun accuracy at battle ranges and has poor operational mobility because of its weight and width. The manufacturers of its German MTU 838 Ka-510, 1,400 hp diesel engine have also raised their price, significantly adding to the MBT's overall cost of around Rs.15 crores to Rs.20 crores each. The 310 Russian T-90s tanks that India has bought and which it plans to build indigenously under licence at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi in Tamil Nadu are priced at around $1.02 million apiece.

If this report/costs are even approx. accurate,one could buy two-3 T-90s for just one Arjun. $1.02M works out to about 6.5 cr. Along with one crew member less,its capital,operating and manpower costs would be much higher than a T-90. That may be a key reason why the IA is reluctant on Arjun,as the IA plans to possess about 4500 MBTs by 2020.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Oct 2015 18:46

^^^

Is there really a need for 4500 MBT? Isn't the IA getting 117 LCH (and more down the road as someone in the forum had mentioned every Corps will eventually have them)? Wouldn't that negate some of the need for MBTs?

In any case, a huge chunk of IA's MBT requires modernization. Better money spent doing that than just adding quantities, IMO.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Oct 2015 18:54

Given Ass-ads army has supposedly lost over 1000 MBTs, papa Put-in can put in his effort in replenishing that fleet.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 06 Oct 2015 08:27

Philip wrote:If this report/costs are even approx. accurate,one could buy two-3 T-90s for just one Arjun. $1.02M works out to about 6.5 cr.

Please compare prices from the same time period, not one form the past and one from much later. Also, please don't compare the price of a full option product with a bare bones variant of another product.

These kind of disingenuous lies go a long way in earning hostility.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 06 Oct 2015 09:18

Arun Menon wrote:
Philip wrote:If this report/costs are even approx. accurate,one could buy two-3 T-90s for just one Arjun. $1.02M works out to about 6.5 cr.
Please compare prices from the same time period, not one form the past and one from much later. Also, please don't compare the price of a full option product with a bare bones variant of another product.

These kind of disingenuous lies go a long way in earning hostility.

I can buy three cheap (tin) cupboards for the price of a single Godrej. Which is better?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 06 Oct 2015 11:30

^Now compare the year 2000 price of the cheap cupboard which has no handle, shelves or hangings with the 2013 or 2014 price of the Godrej cupboard will everything required and also a small safe inside it, and you will get an idea of how fair the above comparison was.

Of course, all this is superfluous for someone with skin as thick as that of an Assam rhino and thinks he can get away with spouting whatever pleases him.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Oct 2015 12:21

I have quoted from a v.recent report posted by another member. There is not discrepancy in the costs. Here's an interesting if dated report from Janes on the T-90.Previous posts have emphasised the incremental upgrades in T-90 armour and defensive weapon systems. Please read carefully the test results.One presumes that the IA has conducted tests as to the capability of T-90s to various types of projectiles and missiles.Naturally,such results will be classified,but one seriously doubts that the IA would buy a so-called "tin can".

Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"
By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.
In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."

Christopher Foss of Janes' on the latest T-90MS.

T-90ms: a big step forward
http://survincity.com/2013/11/t-90ms-a- ... forward-4/

T-90ms: a big step forward
British magazine IHS Jane’s International Defence Review published an article by Christopher F. Foss on a brand new Russian tank T-90ms. Creator — the expert on armored vehicles and armament of the Army.

He not only browser such recognizable in the midst of military professionals of magazines like IHS Jane’s International Defence Review and IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, and the editor of a noble yearly directory Jane’s Armour and Artillery («armor and artillery»), His outlook on T-90ms, certainly deserves attention.

With its main battle tank, which owns Oversize EFFICIENCY IN URBAN criteria Our homeland is aimed at EXPORT MARKETS

Christopher F. Foss

Russian Uralvagonzavod has developed an improved version of the main battle tank (MBT) T-90S, which is currently being aimed at the export market. Compared with baseline model newcomer modification popular as T-90ms, different improvement of all 3 components of the triad armored vehicle: firepower, mobility and protection, designed to improve the overall efficiency of its urban criteria. What elements or T-90ms very similar to elements of the tank Leopard-2 PSO firm Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, created for peacekeeping operations.

In the Russian time Our homeland disposed of 4 tank plants. Now she has only one — «Scientific and Production Company» Uralvagonzavod «in Nizhny Tagil. Besides promoting MBT T-90ms on the world market the company continues to sell the previous model T-90S tank commander T-90SK also fighting vehicle fire support «Terminator.» The latter was developed in accordance with the requirements of the Russian army, but was among the programs, suspended in 2010 Game «terminator» was sold to Kazakhstan, where the machine for the first time appeared in the parade in 2011

T-90ms armed upgraded 125-mm smoothbore gun 2A46M-4 (in fact refers to the gun 2A46M-5 — approx. Edition), which is claimed to provide a significantly higher accuracy compared with the previous models, and the dispersion of the shells has decreased by least, 15%. Unlike models 2A46M its trunk chrome that provides overcharge his vitality. He also resettled ejector shroud thermal protector and accounting system thermal meander of the gun barrel, which allows the gunner to inspect the line of sight through the bore without departing from the tank.

As with all family tanks T-72 autoloader placed below the turret and provides loading of the gun shell, and then charge with partly burned down sleeve, from which a shot can only pan. In ammunition includes 22 ready to use the shot (projectile and charge) plus 18 shots available in reserve. Previously, all spare shots were placed in the tank hull, but T-90ms most of them moved to the aft part of the tower, in what is now expelling installed panels on the roof. Other 125-mm ammunition stored in the fighting compartment, but in a separate section to increase crew survivability.
The actual composition of ammunition 125mm gun will depend on combat tasks performed by tank. The tank can carry a full range of everyday shooting ammunition, including armor-piercing discarding sabot projectile feathered (BOPS), cumulative projectile (COP) and high-explosive/fragmentation (CFC). He can also shoot the guided missile laser-guided 9M119M at a range of 100 to 5000 m Projectile 9M119M resettled tandem HEAT warhead and is capable of hitting targets outside the firing range of the main armament. From the gunner requires detain crosshair tools and associated illumination laser spot on the target to the rocket hit the target, which can take up to 15 seconds at maximum range.

Coupled with the gun 7.62-mm machine gun PKTM (6P7K) is set to the right of the main armament and ammunition has a standard 2000 rounds.
Installed on the roof of the tower 12.7-mm machine gun 6P7K (in fact, this gun is 7.62 mm, but in its place by the customer can be installed mnogokaliberny anti-aircraft gun — approx. Edition) in remotely controlled weapon stations. It can rotate 316 degrees in azimuth and range from -10 to +45 degrees in elevation to hit targets in urban labyrinths. Food machine gun carried by 2-magazine capacity of 400 rounds each, and from the probable shooting on the move.

T-90ms resettled computerized fire control system (FCS), which allegedly allows the crew to hit stationary and moving targets, including when the tank itself is in motion, with the highest probability of hitting the target with the first shot in virtually all weather criteria . This MSA contains a digital ballistic computer and a set of sensors, including sensor criterion shooting, mounted on the roof, and automatic target tracking. There is also an emergency sight, associated with the main armament and located in front of the main gunner’s sight.

On the roof of the tower there is a separate stabilized commander’s panoramic sight, having a television and thermal channels, a laser rangefinder and that allows to implement the principle of «hunter-shooter.»

The commander also has day periscopes for radial observation. Cover flap tower can be closed or partially tilted backwards, like an umbrella, raised.

Place gunner Resettled stabilized TV / teplovovizionnym sighting system which includes a laser rangefinder with maximum range of 7500 m and the sight missile guidance 9M119M.

Russian tanks usual drawback was the lack of thermal sights, because T-90ms in standard configuration is a big step forward, and significantly improved situational awareness tank makes applicable for use in urban criteria. For example, apart from the sights and periscopes, four cameras provide almost radial charts, transferring images on monitors commander and gunner. Any camera has a field of view of 95 degrees in azimuth and 40 degrees elevation.

As the power plant is used forced a 12-cylinder diesel engine in the power-92S2F 1130 hp coupled with the automatic transmission. Through this 48-ton tank is equipped with a power density of 22.9 ps / m, sufficient for the traffic on the highway at a speed of 60 km / h

T-90cm able to overcome a ford deep 1,2 m without preparation and up to 5 m — with special equipment.

IMPROVED BOOK

In the basic model T-90 was used absolutely welded housing made of metal armor with improved frontal armor plate, and the tower was absolutely cast and had a built-in armor. Last version of the T-90ms has the hull and turret with improved armor that provides overcharge protection from ammunition hitting the top.

This superior set of armor includes not only the protection of dynamic modules (RS), and passive armor elements in modules that in case of damage can be rapidly changed.

Rear hull and turret equipped bars, providing more effective protection against rocket-propelled grenades, and in the fighting compartment are also provided-proof screens to protect the crew from the secondary fragments.

Active protection of ammunition semi-active laser guidance system provides automatic smoke-screens. This system consists of multiple laser sensors are located so as to provide a radial scan location. Upon detection of laser hazards, the crew is alerted by visual and audio means, and in the direction of danger put a gun spray Zahav. In addition, the tower can be rotated in the direction of the machine with the following danger actuation 81mm smoke grenade launchers mounted on either side of the tower.

T-90ms is also equipped with electrical protection system capable allegedly neutralize anti-tank mines, kitted electric detonators.

This also installed armored vehicle combat control and navigation system, which allegedly can be integrated directly to division.

Outside on the rear left side of the tank’s hull mounted auxiliary diesel-electric installation, providing the main function of the T-90ms, when the main engine is shut down to save fuel.

T-90ms is also equipped with equipment for self-entrenching installed on the front armor plate, which can be used, and to overcome obstacles. Standard equipment auxiliary equipment includes fire fighting system, NBC protection system and a communication system crew.