Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 22 May 2010 19:33

met a Army major who has quit to pursue other interests.

he was with T 90s

Unfortunately he was not able to give any comments on the Arjun side other than he had heard it was a trifle more complicated to maintain but had better features

He will send me some notes on the T 90 later.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 22 May 2010 22:32

It is perhaps too much to expect, but, try and ping him for hip (open source) thoughts on "FMBT" - in general and perhaps his thinking.

Perhaps, if you can, also show him this "wish list" and get some feed back.

Also, folks, if anyone can track the MoD's "Technology Perspective and Capability Road Map 2010" it would perhaps provide some insight into the maturity of technologies and thinking (in general - not tank related).


uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1857
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 23 May 2010 12:29

The Merkava's weakness were exploited quite successfully. Otherwise it's different story like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCxHIWj658

Also Tanks do survive AT mines as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Tr1Epi ... re=related

If Israel has to succeed in the next war, then it need to close all weakness present with the Merkava.

For India, we will be facing large number of ATGM's. Need Active protection to survive it in an armored warfare with the Pakis. The Ajun's and T-90's need Active protection at the earliest.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 23 May 2010 14:58

From the youtube video one can make out the problem with Merkva was when ever it took direct hits from Kornet ATGM it did not survived , the video shows many footage of Merkava getting direct hit from Kornet even at longer ranges and getting blown up.

Some how the Armour of merkava though thick could stand hits from RPG could not stand direct hits from Kornet.

akash_k
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 20 Apr 2010 21:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akash_k » 23 May 2010 15:13




Its not failure of the tank as much it is the failure of a strategy of using heavy tanks in urban warfare.. just putting it in perspective...

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 23 May 2010 15:36

akash_k wrote:Its not failure of the tank as much it is the failure of a strategy of using heavy tanks in urban warfare.. just putting it in perspective...


Its failure of both , the Israels would like to get away with saying the Hizb were motivated and Israel failed in strategy , but the point still remains that though being heavily armored direct hit from Kornet blew it up quite convincingly .

Considering that the video did show that Kornet were fired from distance ( probably Hizb wanted to hit from comfortable standoff distance to minimize their own loss and the terrain helped them ) and the guidance for Kornet were laser based , wonder how merkava laser warning did not warn or probaby they had little time since kornet is supersonic. On second thought its SACLOS which rides on the laser rather then the one reflected from target it does not need a high power laser.

In retrospect the Israel could have gone for a better strategy and could have minimized losses , the Israel went to the extent of going to Moscow to prove that Kornet were used and to urge Moscow to stop Kornet getting into hand of Hizb.

akash_k
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 20 Apr 2010 21:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akash_k » 23 May 2010 15:42

Makes me wonder, how would an M1A2 fair against a Kornet hit. Any documented facts available about the same??
No need to ask the same about the t-90s as we've all seen how they blow up like pressure cookers.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 May 2010 16:23

Austin wrote:From the youtube video one can make out the problem with Merkva was when ever it took direct hits from Kornet ATGM it did not survived , the video shows many footage of Merkava getting direct hit from Kornet even at longer ranges and getting blown up. Some how the Armour of merkava though thick could stand hits from RPG could not stand direct hits from Kornet.


In which part of the video did you see Merkava blowing up? Was it the Merkava blowing up or the explosive carried by the ATGM blowing up on impact?

As for the direct hit and survivability, what matters is where those ATGM/RPG hit. I don't need Kornet to achieve mobility-kill of Merkava or any other tank. Every tank will suffer the same fate if hit on skirts/tracks/rear. What matters is whether the frontal armor/side armor of Merakva was hit and penetrated.


BTW, I don't expect anything but one sided view from Al Jajeera....Just imagine the takleef that Merkava cuases, for them to make a documentary on the tank... :-o

akash_k
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 20 Apr 2010 21:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akash_k » 23 May 2010 16:33

Contrast a hit Merkava with this..
As they say, an image expresses a thought better than a thousand words.


Image



edit : linked a smaller image.

akash_k
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 20 Apr 2010 21:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akash_k » 23 May 2010 16:40

You might also like to take a look at this.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-pictures-from-georgia-of-t-72-and.html

Mods pls del if posted earlier.
Thanks.

SanjibGhosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 30 Jan 2009 18:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SanjibGhosh » 23 May 2010 17:15

Army for laser-based weapons on its futuristic tanks

http://www.ptinews.com/news/664700_Army ... stic-tanks

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 23 May 2010 18:29

Folks, much ado about nothing.

The bottom line IS that tanks are not a solution unto themselves (I am sure that is an over statement). Point being that a tank needs infantry to "clear" (as was the case in the '73 war too) and in the recent past - since the ATGM have so taken over "wars" - there has been an attempt to use modern technologies to replace the infantry with technologies: as in Trophy Active Protection System

Whatever the case, I would like to make another point: that the Indian "FMBT" better be one that suites IA - for sure. Again, from what I have researched (and I am very sure that my effort is very small) India will need two perhaps three different types of tanks and I just do not see a "Mark 2" being a part of that solution. I do see a "Mark 2" as a host to some of these "futuristic" technologies.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 23 May 2010 18:35

Since we are on ayoutube binge:

Trophy Active Protection System

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 23 May 2010 18:42

rohitvats wrote:In which part of the video did you see Merkava blowing up? Was it the Merkava blowing up or the explosive carried by the ATGM blowing up on impact?


In all the videos where Kornet hit the Merkava ,infact in one direct hit where Kornet blows the turrert of Merk is clearly seen , fortunately for Israel Kornet was not available in the number via Syria plus its an expensive system.

As for the direct hit and survivability, what matters is where those ATGM/RPG hit. I don't need Kornet to achieve mobility-kill of Merkava or any other tank. Every tank will suffer the same fate if hit on skirts/tracks/rear. What matters is whether the frontal armor/side armor of Merakva was hit and penetrated.


No one is talking of mobility kill , but of direct hit of Kornet , the tank clearly could not withstand Kornet hit inspite of all the good things said about Merkava prior to war . And direct hit does matter one of the key reason why 3rd gen tank have top attack capability where it tries to hit the turret from top.

Why do you think Nag employs a top attack capability if it cannot achieve a kill , it would rather have track attack capability where it achieves mobility kill than a tank kill.

BTW, I don't expect anything but one sided view from Al Jajeera....Just imagine the takleef that Merkava cuases, for them to make a documentary on the tank... :-o


Neither do I expect CNN to speak any thing other then shock and awe effect of American weapons rather then the ordinary civilian that gets killed due to such indiscriminate bombing.

Fact remains that Israel did go to moscow and complained of Hizb getting Kornet via Syria , is an indication he takleef Kornet caused to Merkava in that war.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 May 2010 19:57

Austin wrote: In all the videos where Kornet hit the Merkava ,infact in one direct hit where Kornet blows the turrert of Merk is clearly seen , fortunately for Israel Kornet was not available in the number via Syria plus its an expensive system.


Austin, can you point to a particular instance in that 4 part video where the turret of the Merkava blows off? Because I sure cannot see any turret blowing off? And you do realize that none of the Anit-Tank weapons, Kornet or TOW, carry enough explosive to blow off a turret? There will have to be a secondary explosion to blow-off the turret. None of the hits in those videos is for enough duration to show any secondary explosion.

As for the spectacular explosion, has it occured to you that all these missiles carry tandem warhead and second explosion, which follows split second after impact and first explosion, could be the second warhead going off?

No one is talking of mobility kill , but of direct hit of Kornet , the tank clearly could not withstand Kornet hit inspite of all the good things said about Merkava prior to war . And direct hit does matter one of the key reason why 3rd gen tank have top attack capability where it tries to hit the turret from top.


Sorry, "withstand" a hit is a very wide term. Hit on the side or rear or front (engine) from a Kornet ATGM is also hit which Merkava or any other tank cannot withstand. There is no known report of Kornet piercing the frontal armor of the tank. There is added question of variants of Merkava - with 18 of Mark IV type being hit and only 2 being complete write offs.

Fact remains that Israel did go to moscow and complained of Hizb getting Kornet via Syria , is an indication he takleef Kornet caused to Merkava in that war


So would I; those ATGM are as much a threat to Merkava or APC or any other armored vehicle.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 23 May 2010 20:26

I too dont see a turret explosion, not even in that tank thats perpendicular to the ground due to a giant IED mine.

in any case the israeli experience with prolonged urban/semi-urban warfare in tough terrain isnt a direct match for us.
the pakis have better resources to fight a open war and the terrain is more open for us. cold start doesnt involve permanent
occupation of territory so IED threats and ambush threat in a prolonged occupation is not much.

our use of tanks will be like the M1s in Iraq - a couple weeks of high intensity combat followed by ceasfire and withdrawal.
biggest threat will be ATGms and tanks, but more mobility is possible.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 23 May 2010 20:33

^^^

IF at all all that!

The recent reports have clearly stated that the IAF will be the force that India relies on.

And, if we read the recent reports, for whatever reason, the IA is relying on technologies to solve some of the nagging problems - mostly quick reaction related issues. Thus:

"High/medium-energy level laser is expected to be a lethality option against rockets, air vehicles, light ground vehicles, antennas of armoured vehicles and electro-optical sensors," the Army stated in its long-term technology plans submitted to the Defence Ministry.


Clearly the game plan is to replace what the foot soldier did "in the past" - as far as possible - with technologies. For sure, react to technologies with technologies.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 23 May 2010 20:39

our use of tanks will be like ..................


With a more resurgent India (read: better economy) India can never do with a single "tank". The western sector will need A tank and the NE will need ANOTHER tank. And, I suspect a third one for expeditionary forces, unless the NE one fits this bill too.

IMHO, the key IS: funds (IA may be poor, India is rich) and politics (how far will GoI be willing to push her weight or be forced to do so).

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 23 May 2010 20:53

rohitvats wrote:Austin, can you point to a particular instance in that 4 part video where the turret of the Merkava blows off? Because I sure cannot see any turret blowing off? And you do realize that none of the Anit-Tank weapons, Kornet or TOW, carry enough explosive to blow off a turret? There will have to be a secondary explosion to blow-off the turret. None of the hits in those videos is for enough duration to show any secondary explosion.


Check the part 3 of the video as well as check this link on Kornet in Lebanon

Its true that the current ATGM may not have enough power to blow of a turret , nor are they designed to do that , they are suppose to penetrate turret from the weakest part which is the top and kill the crew and let secondary explosion do rest of the damage.

Kornet carries 7 kg of Tandem heat and Nag 8 kg not much difference in warhead , the hermes carries 16 kg of tandem heat.

As for the spectacular explosion, has it occured to you that all these missiles carry tandem warhead and second explosion, which follows split second after impact and first explosion, could be the second warhead going off?


It could also be possible that some of that spectacular explosion might have occurred from ammo inside the tank has that occured to you ?

Sorry, "withstand" a hit is a very wide term. Hit on the side or rear or front (engine) from a Kornet ATGM is also hit which Merkava or any other tank cannot withstand. There is no known report of Kornet piercing the frontal armor of the tank. There is added question of variants of Merkava - with 18 of Mark IV type being hit and only 2 being complete write offs.


The fact that 18 Mark 4 went out of action is itself an achievement considering there were no 1000 odd Kornet/Metis floating around , its just that Kornet did its job and so called impenetrable Merk were proven vulnerable affects the morale of tank crew.

There are no reports or visuals of Nag penetrating any modern tank turret and you want me to believe DRDO claim that it can penetrate any modern tank turret ?

In a modern tank versus 3rd/4th gen F&F/guided anti-tank missile , chances are that the missile with tandem heat will achieve a kill or in worst case immobility for tank as long as it achieves a direct hit at the tank no matter if that happens to be the strongest area of the tank.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 May 2010 21:02

Singha wrote:
I too dont see a turret explosion, not even in that tank thats perpendicular to the ground due to a giant IED mine.


Singha, for a turret to go off, the ammunition will have to cook-off. And these tanks are designed to excatly to ensure that this does not happen.

in any case the israeli experience with prolonged urban/semi-urban warfare in tough terrain isnt a direct match for us.The pakis have better resources to fight a open war and the terrain is more open for us. cold start doesnt involve permanent occupation of territory so IED threats and ambush threat in a prolonged occupation is not much.


Singha, there is enormous proliferation of ATGM in PA - and that too heavy variety TOW and others. So, we do need to tackle the ATGM thrat. Thye even have formations called Light Anti-Tank Brigades - which are nothing but ATGM equipped troops in mobile (APC/Wheeled) as well as manned version.

That is why we need the heavy armor MBT like Arjun with heavy-duty ERA thrown in.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16882
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 23 May 2010 21:12

Austin, it's a little dishonest to claim 'merkava' blew up, you well know that there are 4 variants of the tank, in addition to the modern merkava 4, IDF has a large number number of the 80's design merkava 3 and thea earlier merk 1 and 2, which are from late 70's and early 80's respectively.

if we are to judge 'modern tanks' against ATGMs and the like, it is the merk 4 we consider, not the older merk 3 and certainly not the semi-obsolete merk 1 and 2.

for that let me repeat from an earlier post of mine :
Overall, 18 of the 52 damaged tanks were Merkava Mark IVs, eight of which remained serviceable on the battlefield. Two Merkava Mark IVs were completely destroyed, one by powerful IEDs, and another supposedly by a Russian AT-14 'Kornet' missile. All but two Merkava Mark IV tanks damaged during the war were repaired and returned to the IDF. The Israeli military said that it was satisfied with the Merkava Mark IV's performance, and attributed problems to insufficient training before the war


moreover,
On a comparison done by the armor corps newsletter it was shown that the average number of crewmen killed per tank penetrated was reduced from 2 during the Yom Kippur War to 1.5 during the 1982 Lebanon War to 1 during the 2006 Lebanon War
for a t-series dabba the number is 3 KIA/hit each and every time a missile as much as f*rts in its general direction.


The fact that 18 Mark 4 went out of action is itself an achievement considering there were no 1000 odd Kornet/Metis floating around , its just that Kornet did its job and so called impenetrable Merk were proven vulnerable affects the morale of tank crew.
is again a twisting of facts, when the actual situation is
18 of the 52 damaged tanks were Merkava Mark IVs, eight of which remained serviceable on the battlefield.


it's *nobody's* contention that these tanks are immune to ATGM fire but , everyone and their mummy knows that AT weapons are ahead in the evolutionary arms race at this point of time, repeating that ad nauseum serves no purpose whatsoever.
the *primary point* however is crew protection, I would like to see your posts about how the merk 4 featured in that respect.

It could also be possible that some of that spectacular explosion might have occurred from ammo inside the tank has that occured to you ?
a blind T-90 fan ( :P ) might not remember it but all modern tanks(tin cans not included) feature blow-off panels, which was introduced in the merk3, expressly to prevent a cook-off which T-series achieves with regularity.

hmm, I wonder if we should call the t-series 'suicide bomber' tanks. :wink:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 23 May 2010 22:35

little dishonest???

Sometimes I wonder whether Arundhati has joined BRF and taken interest in this thread :mrgreen:

This is on par with the targetted assasination theory

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 23 May 2010 22:40

Dishonesty and disinformation is the reason that IA continues to buy thousands of T-90s and just a couple of hundred Arjuns!! So Austin is doing what IA has chosen to do with regard to MBT acquisition.

akash_k
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 20 Apr 2010 21:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akash_k » 23 May 2010 22:43

BTW, how is Merkava survivability and soda bottle tin cans popping up relevant to Arjun?

I mean, are you trying to imply that since armor is vulnerable to ATGMs, the amount of protection on a tank doesn't matter?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 23 May 2010 22:49

Rahul M wrote:Austin, it's a little dishonest to claim 'merkava' blew up, you well know that there are 4 variants of the tank, in addition to the modern merkava 4, IDF has a large number number of the 80's design merkava 3 and thea earlier merk 1 and 2, which are from late 70's and early 80's respectively.

if we are to judge 'modern tanks' against ATGMs and the like, it is the merk 4 we consider, not the older merk 3 and certainly not the semi-obsolete merk 1 and 2.


The point i was trying to make was Kornet was effective and the very fact that one Kornet supposedly managed to destroy it completely is a proof of the fact.

From your post among the 18 of the 52 damaged or for that matter for argument sake of the 52 damaged how many were hits from Kornet would be interesting figure to look at , they used different types of ATGM including Metis , Kornet , RPG-29 and IED's and in all that Kornet would be the most expensive one.

Any ways a very effective and assymetric response from ATGM that would cost few thousand/lakh dollars against a multimillion dollar tank.

moreover,
On a comparison done by the armor corps newsletter it was shown that the average number of crewmen killed per tank penetrated was reduced from 2 during the Yom Kippur War to 1.5 during the 1982 Lebanon War to 1 during the 2006 Lebanon War
for a t-series dabba the number is 3 KIA/hit each and every time a missile as much as f*rts in its general direction.


A lot depends on tactics , T's were given/donated by Soviet with various minuses compared to what they operated , so it does not come as a surprise if T's operated by bad crew , bad tactics and degraded tank will loose against a well trained Israel crew.

The IA for one does not have any complains except for night blindness of T-72 and most of the T-72 will go for partial and 600 odd full upgrade

it's *nobody's* contention that these tanks are immune to ATGM fire but , everyone and their mummy knows that AT weapons are ahead in the evolutionary arms race at this point of time, repeating that ad nauseum serves no purpose whatsoever.


Which proves the point that it would be easier for ATGM to defeat any modern tank , it would be far easier for a missile designer to double warhead weight and range for ATGM like Hermes proves it compared to a tank designer to add 50 % increase in weight to offer better protection at the cost of mobility , range and footprint.

Ofcourse one can argue that you can opt for active defense like Trophy or Arena but both system uses Radar to do the task which itself is vulnerable to jamming or spoofing.

the *primary point* however is crew protection, I would like to see your posts about how the merk 4 featured in that respect.

Crew protection would also depend on the type of threat a tank is facing for eg if a tank is hit by metis or RPG the crew would probably be better protected compared to being hit by Nag ,Trigat ,Kornet or 16 Kg warhed of Hermes.

a blind T-90 fan ( :P ) might not remember it but all modern tanks(tin cans not included) feature blow-off panels, which was introduced in the merk3, expressly to prevent a cook-off which T-series achieves with regularity.

hmm, I wonder if we should call the t-series 'suicide bomber' tanks. :wink:


Cant be more suicidal then those self exploding OFB rounds :shock:

Well T-90 is the MBT of IA so I have nothing much to complain , I just hope they order few more of new types to make it round figure of 2000 :wink: and this debate was more on Merks and not T or Abrams.

akash_k
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 20 Apr 2010 21:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akash_k » 23 May 2010 22:54

The following is my understanding of turret blowing up and a can popping.


Image


Image


Image



Image


I strained my eyes hard but couldn't find anything even resembling the above in either of the three videos.

Edit : deleted a large image to maintain uniformity.
Last edited by akash_k on 23 May 2010 22:59, edited 1 time in total.

akash_k
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 20 Apr 2010 21:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akash_k » 23 May 2010 22:58

Cant be more suicidal then those self exploding OFB rounds :shock:


Now are we supposed to move the discussion from tanks to OFB rounds???
:shock: :roll:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 23 May 2010 23:02

Its just amazing how many unrelated diversions have been brought in this thread

MOD, then smoothbore commonality, now Kornet and what it can do to Merk

keep going

akash_k
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 20 Apr 2010 21:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akash_k » 23 May 2010 23:17

Surya wrote:Its just amazing how many unrelated diversions have been brought in this thread

MOD, then smoothbore commonality, now Kornet and what it can do to Merk

keep going


You don't get it, since the Kornets were able to disable 2 Merkavas, its justified that the IA bought tin-cans :wink:

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 May 2010 23:55

Austin wrote:
Check the part 3 of the video as well as check this link on Kornet in Lebanon


Neither this video nor the Part 3 of the 4 Part series has turret getting blown off anywhere. So, let us not imagine things here for the sake of it. The tanks were sure hit - but there is no case of frontal turret penetration and ammunition cooking -off in those videos.

Its true that the current ATGM may not have enough power to blow of a turret , nor are they designed to do that , they are suppose to penetrate turret from the weakest part which is the top and kill the crew and let secondary explosion do rest of the damage. Kornet carries 7 kg of Tandem heat and Nag 8 kg not much difference in warhead , the hermes carries 16 kg of tandem heat.


Has it occured to you that there is a very specific reason that ATGM manufacturers shifted to Top-Attack profile for future ATGM? And this was because of level of protection offered by frontal armor of western MBT and advent of heavy ERA on Eastern Block Tanks? And therefore, it might well nigh be impossible for KORNET to penetrate the frontal armor of Merkava IV? These frontal armors are manufactured keeping in mind the HEAT rounds in adversary's arsenal - which are far more potential threats.

Another point - How come Kornet and NAG are being spoken of in same breadth? Is KORNET a Top-Attack missile like Javelin or Bill or NAG? No, it is not. The Hezbollah fired those missiles from elevated positions on those hills in the valley -which is different from the Top-Attack profile of Javelin or Swedish Bill. So, let us not confuse the capabilities here.

Why don't you see these videos of NAG and see what a Top-Attack ATGM is all about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWJPi7K1Fc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glhSHXjou98&feature=related

Is there any similarity between NAG and KORNET?

It could also be possible that some of that spectacular explosion might have occurred from ammo inside the tank has that occured to you ?


No, it has not - for a simple reason that I was looking for plausible explanation(s) and not flights of fancy. First, those explosions occur in rapid succession of each other. Second, if the ammunition had blown off, the turret should have been in the air and explosion would not have been "outside" and on the turret - it would have been inside. Which is not the case here.

And you forget - Merkava IV has been designed to tackle these issues to the best extent possible. Here is what Wiki says about the ammunition storage and safety:

Ammunition is stored in individual fire-proof canisters, which reduce the chance of tank rounds cooking-off in the case of a fire inside the tank. As a result, the turret is classified as "dry", meaning that no active rounds are stored above the turret line.


The fact that 18 Mark 4 went out of action is itself an achievement considering there were no 1000 odd Kornet/Metis floating around , its just that Kornet did its job and so called impenetrable Merk were proven vulnerable affects the morale of tank crew.


How do you know about the number of KORNET or Metis used? And which ATGM disabled Merkava IV? As for vulnerability, it is only arm-chair generals and fan-boys who call MBT as impenetrable - those who drive and fight in those tanks know better.

And what is this nonsense about tank crew morale? After seeing how many of Israel tank crews walked away alive from those Merkava IV hit by ATGM - the morale and faith in the tank will be higher and not lower.

There are no reports or visuals of Nag penetrating any modern tank turret and you want me to believe DRDO claim that it can penetrate any modern tank turret ?


There is difference between penetrating '"Frontal Armor" on a MBT (where it is thickest) and penetrating armor or turret in general. As for the capability of NAG, the penetration would have been based on tests against standard and defined Armor targets Whether the same strength is obtained in the frontal armor of a western MBT, is an open question.

However, you think any tank can survive the top-attack from NAG as is seen in videos posted above?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 24 May 2010 00:15

Austin wrote: The point I was trying to make was Kornet was effective and the very fact that one Kornet supposedly managed to destroy it completely is a proof of the fact.


So, one KORNET out of many fired and some of those which hit, destroys a MBT and hence, it was effective. But the fact many of those MBT hit survived to fight another day and so did their crews, is lost on you. Bravo!!! Keep it up...

Any ways a very effective and assymetric response from ATGM that would cost few thousand/lakh dollars against a multimillion dollar tank.


A lot depends on tactics , T's were given/donated by Soviet with various minuses compared to what they operated , so it does not come as a surprise if T's operated by bad crew , bad tactics and degraded tank will loose against a well trained Israel crew.


No tactics or crew training can save an inherently flawed design - those tin cans are roast if something like a KORNET hits them anywhere.

The IA for one does not have any complains except for night blindness of T-72 and most of the T-72 will go for partial and 600 odd full upgrade


And how do you know this? Because a Parliamentary Committe Report does not say so? And even with upgrades (inclusion of ERA), will rectify the problem to an extent and not solve it.

Crew protection would also depend on the type of threat a tank is facing for eg if a tank is hit by metis or RPG the crew would probably be better protected compared to being hit by Nag ,Trigat ,Kornet or 16 Kg warhed of Hermes.


And we're going to face the TOW - so let us think about the crew safety on Indian MBT


Cant be more suicidal then those self exploding OFB rounds :shock:


Which we can control by addressing the QC issues - but what do you do about the PA Heavy ATGM?
Last edited by rohitvats on 24 May 2010 01:32, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16882
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 24 May 2010 00:38

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:Austin, it's a little dishonest to claim 'merkava' blew up, you well know that there are 4 variants of the tank, in addition to the modern merkava 4, IDF has a large number number of the 80's design merkava 3 and thea earlier merk 1 and 2, which are from late 70's and early 80's respectively.

if we are to judge 'modern tanks' against ATGMs and the like, it is the merk 4 we consider, not the older merk 3 and certainly not the semi-obsolete merk 1 and 2.


The point i was trying to make was Kornet was effective and the very fact that one Kornet supposedly managed to destroy it completely is a proof of the fact.
{oh dear ! *very* effective ??!! it scores one write-off out of god knows how many scores hits and it is effective ? would you call a bowler who gets one wkt in 5 matches 'effective' ? }

From your post among the 18 of the 52 damaged or for that matter for argument sake of the 52 damaged how many were hits from Kornet would be interesting figure to look at , they used different types of ATGM including Metis , Kornet , RPG-29 and IED's and in all that Kornet would be the most expensive one. {what happened to the semi-obsolete merkava models is irrelevant to this discussion, we can continue general discussions on israel-lebanon war in international military thread if you are interested. for this thread, only the merkava4 is relevant}

Any ways a very effective and assymetric response from ATGM that would cost few thousand/lakh dollars against a multimillion dollar tank.
{certainly, as long as you are using them against t-series dabbas. NOT so effective against modern tanks}
moreover, [quoteOn a comparison done by the armor corps newsletter it was shown that the average number of crewmen killed per tank penetrated was reduced from 2 during the Yom Kippur War to 1.5 during the 1982 Lebanon War to 1 during the 2006 Lebanon War/quote] for a t-series dabba the number is 3 KIA/hit each and every time a missile as much as f*rts in its general direction.


A lot depends on tactics , T's were given/donated by Soviet with various minuses compared to what they operated , {aha, the proverbial model M or 'monkey model'.}so it does not come as a surprise if T's operated by bad crew , bad tactics and degraded tank will loose against a well trained Israel crew. {err, which war is this ? israel last fought against t-series tanks in 1982, back then western tanks were hardly much superior. I guess you mean american crew and gulf war(s) ?

btw, the russians with their 'besht' models and well trained crew were absolutely humiliated in chechnya and subsequent wars, so this argument doesn't stand to scrutiny}


The IA for one does not have any complains except for night blindness of T-72 and most of the T-72 will go for partial and 600 odd full upgrade {neither did the iraqi army have any complaints about their T-72's, the lion of babylon (FYI, which were better protected than IA ones), until the americans struck that is ! :wink: }

it's *nobody's* contention that these tanks are immune to ATGM fire but , everyone and their mummy knows that AT weapons are ahead in the evolutionary arms race at this point of time, repeating that ad nauseum serves no purpose whatsoever.


Which proves the point that it would be easier for ATGM to defeat any modern tank , it would be far easier for a missile designer to double warhead weight and range for ATGM like Hermes proves it compared to a tank designer to add 50 % increase in weight to offer better protection at the cost of mobility , range and footprint. {tanks will also improve soft-kill and hard-kill measures in time to counter the guidance systems, so the war will go on. it's not a foregone conclusion by any means}

Ofcourse one can argue that you can opt for active defense like Trophy or Arena but both system uses Radar to do the task which itself is vulnerable to jamming or spoofing. {as above}

the *primary point* however is crew protection, I would like to see your posts about how the merk 4 featured in that respect.

Crew protection would also depend on the type of threat a tank is facing for eg if a tank is hit by metis or RPG the crew would probably be better protected compared to being hit by Nag ,Trigat ,Kornet or 16 Kg warhed of Hermes. {a larger/more sophisticated missile is more dangerous, (obviously) so ? I didn't get the point ? :-? }

a blind T-90 fan ( :P ) might not remember it but all modern tanks(tin cans not included) feature blow-off panels, which was introduced in the merk3, expressly to prevent a cook-off which T-series achieves with regularity.

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1142
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby A Sharma » 24 May 2010 01:49

From MOD 2010 Report
Sorry if posted before

Fiber Optic Gyro (FOG) : An indigenous Fiber Gyro based 3 axis Sensor Package Unit (FSPU) has been developed and successfully flight tested in Nag control flight. A FOG based 2 axis sensor Package Unit has also been indigenously developed and fitted in Main Battle Tank, Arjun and passed field trials.
Millimeter Wave Seeker : Millimeter Wave Seeker with Seeker Servo systems have been developed for Anti-Tank applications and successfully field tested.

Mobile Camouflage System (MCS) : As part of the project ‘Development of Defensive Aids System’, the MCS has been developed, integrated in MBT Arjun and conducted the performance Evaluation Trial.

Advanced Laser Warning Countermeasure System (ALWCS) : First prototype of the Interface box for Fire Control System with Advanced LWCS has been developed and demonstrated. Verification Test on interfacing of ALWCS with Integrated Fire Control System has been carried out. ALWCS has been integrated on MBT Arjun and Limited Performance Evaluation and integrity trials Phase-I were conducted during April/May 2009 and Phase-II trails were conducted in August 2009. Development of Mobile Test and Instrumentation System and Mobile Power Distribution and Generation has also been completed.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 24 May 2010 02:31

From MOD 2010 Report
Sorry if posted before


Thanks for that post. Interesting. Trust it cannot be posted right now. Would appreciate if it can be scanned.

Or, can you please compare what is in that report and the "wish list" by any chance?

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1142
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby A Sharma » 24 May 2010 02:44

NRao
This is from MOD annual report. Its available online.
Link

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 24 May 2010 03:15

A Sharma wrote:NRao
This is from MOD annual report. Its available online.
Link


Thanks!!! 96 MBs. 225 pages. I am expecting quite a bit from this report.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16509
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby NRao » 24 May 2010 07:30

Technology Perspective & Capability Roadmap

A 88 page MS Word doc. Check out page 19 onwards, titled: "Armour". "Wish list" is a real list as this document envisions (and more actually) and also it seems some of the technologies are really not that far out!

The title is rather appropriate I would say.

(BTW, this is the document that AWST is referring to!!!!)

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 25 May 2010 17:13

Indian Army Scouts For Hovercraft Troop Transports

The Indian Army is looking to acquire an unspecified number of armed military hovercraft, technically Air Cushioned Vehicles Troop Carriage (ACV-TC) for use in the Eastern theatre. The Army wants hovercraft that can cruise at 25-40 knots with 80 fully equipped combat troops (excluding crew) along with their battle loads, three-days of logistics requiremements, and vehicles in lieu of troops when necessary. The Army has specified that contending hovercraft should be able to operate in marshy land, sand bars, mudflats, mangroves, tidal creeks, swamps, weed choked lakes, lagoons, backwaters, islands and coastal areas.




Is it possible to deploy these with armored columns in desert/arid regions(even though they're intended for marshy land), maybe with formations under the South Western Command? Screened by tanks and IFVs they have the speed to keep up with the rapidly advancing armored forces while carrying a company of troops each or other supplies.
Last edited by Viv S on 25 May 2010 22:32, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests