Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 23 Mar 2011 12:20

vonkabra wrote: ...snip...
the contestants had to get out of the tank and then climb up the turret to get to the commander's seat. Then climb out again to return to the driver's seat.

So basic question - are all tanks this cramped? And if the driver gets incapitated for some reason, does this mean that the gunner or commander will have to expose himself to fire by getting out of the tank to get to the driver's seat?

Not quite sure what you mean. This has nothing to do with T-90 or its cramped-ness.
The driver's "hole" is always outside the turret ...Like this
This is what you were talking about, right?

~Ashish

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 23 Mar 2011 17:19

Every Monday@10PM Mission Army is being aired....last Monday they showed BMP and T-90...next episode would be on big gun bofors ...interested people can tune and record it...I wonder if there will be any further episodes on missiles, mountain and jungle warfare too...only turn off is it was in regional language..in my case telugu

...sorry if its already known here.

Baikul · Post by **Baikul** » 24 Mar 2011 08:17

Austin wrote:Not sure if this really matter but for balanced view on this subject

Ministry of Industry for the fact that Russia has retained its own arms production

Director of Development Department, the military-industrial complex of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia Igor Karavayev does not agree with the statement of representatives of the Ministry of Defence that the Russian military equipment is expensive and inferior to modern Western standards, according to Interfax. Objective assessment of tests, objective figures on the level of military-technical cooperation and the pace with which increases our exports of arms and military equipment, to suggest otherwise "- he said at a press conference in Moscow.

Loaves added that referred to the eve of the Commander in Chief Land Forces, Alexander Postnikov tank , T-90A was tested in three climate zones and three countries - Saudi Arabia, India and Malaysia, having received a positive evaluation. "Those tests that were carried out in Saudi Arabia in an open tender, wholly and completely refute the allegations Commander in Chief" - the director of the department.

According to him, the only tank that has proved in alll the tests in Saudi Arabia, and also carried out after a march-throw defeat more than 60% of the targets was the Russian T-90A. "No" Leopard ", nor" Leclerc ", or" Abrams "to this level has not reached - explained Karavayev. Consequently, to say that our tanks worse western counterparts, it is not entirely reliable information. "

According to him, declared Commander of Land Forces of the cost of the machine, at least a half times the price for which the manufacturer is ready to deliver it in the interests of the Russian Defense Ministry. "The T-90A exceed at least a half times its nearest competitor -" Leopard "- said Karavayev.

Presumably in India the Russians are bigging up the T-90 by claiming that it's good, while in Russia they're bigging up the T-90 by claiming that the Indians say it's good.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Mar 2011 08:47

Baikul wrote:Presumably in India the Russians are bigging up the T-90 by claiming that it's good, while in Russia they're bigging up the T-90 by claiming that the Indians say it's good.

Frankly, I wouldn't have minded it if we were getting a part of the loot.

vonkabra · Post by **vonkabra** » 24 Mar 2011 13:08

Misraji wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean. This has nothing to do with T-90 or its cramped-ness.
The driver's "hole" is always outside the turret ...Like this
This is what you were talking about, right?

~Ashish

I'm not very familiar on this subject, but going by limited experience with the two tanks I've been able to climb into (captured Paki Chafee/ M48), the driver's hatch was outside the turret, but it seemed possible to get to the driver's seat from inside the turret as well.

Just for my understanding, if the driver's seat can only be approached from the driver's hatch, does this mean the tank (T-90, M1 whatever) will get immobilised if the driver is knocked out and will remain in that state till someone jumps out of the turret under fire, pulls driver out and then replaces him? As I said, I'm not an expert on this, but if that is the standard operating procedure, then it seems to require quite a bit of additional valour on the commander/ gunner's part. Appreciate any clarification on this.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 24 Mar 2011 22:37

Come on guys... since this is where the Army bashing routinely happens, lemme ask you to pay a visit to the CPMF thread, and explain why noone has an answer for why the BSF is buying 35000 foreign rifles, when there are perfectly good Indian options?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Mar 2011 22:46

Awww ASP

Yeah BSF is just as bad as the IA

Is that what you want to hear?

We will gladly say that ?? think on the consequences.

You always rail about the CPMFs being given parity

and now you are asking for it

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2011 00:33

ASPuar wrote:Come on guys... since this is where the Army bashing routinely happens, lemme ask you to pay a visit to the CPMF thread, and explain why noone has an answer for why the BSF is buying 35000 foreign rifles, when there are perfectly good Indian options?

ASP, I thought it was clear. The Berretta was developed form existing model to India's MHA specs and hence India is buying them. The longer barrel is to develop the muzzle velocity. The cartridge is already made in India.

From Small Arms Thread:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1046541

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 25 Mar 2011 02:05

vonkabra wrote: Just for my understanding, if the driver's seat can only be approached from the driver's hatch, does this mean the tank (T-90, M1 whatever) will get immobilised if the driver is knocked out and will remain in that state till someone jumps out of the turret under fire, pulls driver out and then replaces him? As I said, I'm not an expert on this, but if that is the standard operating procedure, then it seems to require quite a bit of additional valour on the commander/ gunner's part. Appreciate any clarification on this.

I also watched the series on youtube and it does seem that a little head poking out under the gun is a nice sniper target but in battle, the driver would be under the hatch, at least that is what the abrams have.

http://www.knox.army.mil/center/pao/alb ... Driver.jpg

The following link also shows a small drivers hatch over top of the driver in a T 90:

http://www.enemyforces.net/tanks/t90.htm

It makes sense since the driver having to drive with his/her head exposed to the elements can result in hearing impairment with the guns going off or foreign objects blinding him/her during emergency maneuvers.

And the last link also states somewhere that the drivers compartment is separated from the main stations.

Best Regards.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 25 Mar 2011 08:59

Not trying to take shots at the Tin Cans....but, in the Mission army videos we have taken a sneak peek into the interiors of the T-90S,

here's the interior of a Merkava 4

This stupid video is of a T72(Old captured iraqi one perhaps)

Ofcourse, the tanks are not in the same class. Would have loved to have some interior pics of the Arjun for comparison.
Does the Merkava come with A/C for the crew? considering that they also operate in desert hot conditions?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2011 09:31

the most surgically neat interior seems to be the Leclerc. the other western heavies also have fairly neat interior. arjun interior per my reading is not that neat but manageable...and it can only improve being under our control and amenable to feedback and review cycles.

Gurinder P · Post by **Gurinder P** » 28 Mar 2011 16:24

question for the armored guru's, gaps between the turret and glacis is a major detriment for tanks like the monkey models of the t 72 and such, but the Al Khalid has a huge gap at the back, between the turret and body. Would that be cause for concern as the Arjun has a lip that rises from the body to keep flush with the back of its turret and the T series have a dome.

srai · Post by **srai** » 29 Mar 2011 10:06

This may have been posted somewhere ... but great footage of the IA's armor:

Mission Army (Ep 4) - The Armoured Corp

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Mar 2011 10:25

^^^Many thanx......had missed the episode.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Mar 2011 14:26

Uralvagonzavod will continue in 2011-2012 supplying parts for the production of T-90 tanks in India ( Arms Tass )

MOSCOW, March 28. JSC Scientific Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod will continue in 2011-2012. Supplying parts for the production of T-90 tanks in India. According to ARMS-TASS news service UVZ within host high-level delegation of the plant HVF (Avadi, India) in Russia, 23 and 24 March in the Rosoboronexport held talks on the agreement and the signing of the contract documents at the request of Indian side.

March 25, a meeting management UralVagonZavod headed by Director General Oleg Sienko with the Indian delegation headed by Director General of HVF Mutnuri Sathyanarayana Rao to discuss issues of mutual cooperation on the project T-90.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 09 Apr 2011 02:54

Rakshaks,

I have a couple of questions about the Arjun MBT. I understand the main gun is 120mm and rifled. I also understand the advantages of rifling when using ordinary HEAT and HESH rounds, however, from what I've read; two kinds of muntions are anticipated for use with the Arjun which may not be perfectly compatible with a rifled gun.

1. From what I understand of APFSDS ammo, it works better with a smooth-bored gun. It can be made to work with a rifled gun, but this requires bearings in the sabot assembly, and altogether, this is less effective than when using APFSDS rounds on a smooth bored gun. Have the OFB's APFSDS rounds been certified for use on the Arjun's rifled gun specifically? If so, what kind of CEP variance was seen in the testing? (Just asking in case that was published -- though probably it's classified.)

2. I've also read that the IA wants to fire an Israeli-made missile through the 120mm gun. However, similar to the case of APFSDS rounds, these missiles are better fired through a smooth-bored gun. Have the Israeli missiles in question been certified for use on the Arjun's rifled gun? (Again, just asking in case that's been published.)

If these questions have already been discussed in this thread, please just provide a link and I'll catch-up on my reading.

Thanks, RK

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 09 Apr 2011 03:18

Austin wrote:Uralvagonzavod will continue in 2011-2012 supplying parts for the production of T-90 tanks in India ( Arms Tass )

MOSCOW, March 28. JSC Scientific Production Corporation Uralvagonzavod will continue in 2011-2012. Supplying parts for the production of T-90 tanks in India. According to ARMS-TASS news service UVZ within host high-level delegation of the plant HVF (Avadi, India) in Russia, 23 and 24 March in the Rosoboronexport held talks on the agreement and the signing of the contract documents at the request of Indian side.

March 25, a meeting management UralVagonZavod headed by Director General Oleg Sienko with the Indian delegation headed by Director General of HVF Mutnuri Sathyanarayana Rao to discuss issues of mutual cooperation on the project T-90.

So all the noise on TOT being fully provided is crap. We are still dependant on "parts"..

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 09 Apr 2011 09:19

This is the first deal that the Anna Hazare movement needs to take a closer look at and find out who all have betrayed India.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Apr 2011 11:04

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Rakshaks,

I have a couple of questions about the Arjun MBT. I understand the main gun is 120mm and rifled. I also understand the advantages of rifling when using ordinary HEAT and HESH rounds, however, from what I've read; two kinds of muntions are anticipated for use with the Arjun which may not be perfectly compatible with a rifled gun.

1. From what I understand of APFSDS ammo, it works better with a smooth-bored gun. It can be made to work with a rifled gun, but this requires bearings in the sabot assembly, and altogether, this is less effective than when using APFSDS rounds on a smooth bored gun. Have the OFB's APFSDS rounds been certified for use on the Arjun's rifled gun specifically? If so, what kind of CEP variance was seen in the testing? (Just asking in case that was published -- though probably it's classified.)

2. I've also read that the IA wants to fire an Israeli-made missile through the 120mm gun. However, similar to the case of APFSDS rounds, these missiles are better fired through a smooth-bored gun. Have the Israeli missiles in question been certified for use on the Arjun's rifled gun? (Again, just asking in case that's been published.)

If these questions have already been discussed in this thread, please just provide a link and I'll catch-up on my reading.

Thanks, RK

RK,

1) As long as APFSDS is working well within the paramaters of what the user wants, rest is an academic excercise. There are always tradeoffs.
2) There is "no such certification" existing for what you are asking. The firing has been demonstrated. Mark 2 will incorporate it.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 10 Apr 2011 13:08

amit wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Good catch Amit!! It is amazing to see the extent that some will go to keep the Arjun out.
Thanks Vivek.

I personally don't think anyone on BRF has a hidden professional agenda (I know I'm sticking my neck out here) when they dish the Arjun and glorify T90.

Not a professional agenda, but an agenda nonetheless.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 10 Apr 2011 13:12

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote: 1. From what I understand of APFSDS ammo, it works better with a smooth-bored gun. It can be made to work with a rifled gun, but this requires bearings in the sabot assembly, and altogether, this is less effective than when using APFSDS rounds on a smooth bored gun. Have the OFB's APFSDS rounds been certified for use on the Arjun's rifled gun specifically? If so, what kind of CEP variance was seen in the testing? (Just asking in case that was published -- though probably it's classified.)

An APFSDS round fired from a rifled barrel is fitted with a slip ring, which is discarded with the sabot when the round exits the muzzle. IIRC there is no significant loss of velocity when using a slip ring with this round.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Apr 2011 14:58

neeraj wrote: So all the noise on TOT being fully provided is crap. We are still dependant on "parts"..

ToT being provided does not mean that we have shaken of dependence on Russian inputs totally. Su 30 MKI still has aircraft's and parts coming from both Indian and Russian sources as the Indian manufacturing ramps up.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Apr 2011 15:11

TOT is just a glorified name for lic manufacturing , in good old days they use to proudly say Lic Manf and these days they just changed the word to TOT ,with perhaps the latter being paid better who so ever gains from deals.

No matter where we buy from Russia or Israel or US , even if we buy the technology the manufacturing equipment and know how would come from OEM and likely will be restricted to building the types we have signed for and restricted to that types only and we end up Lic building the component from locally sourced raw material and machines/equipment building it will come from OEM and will be made under their supervision and guidance.

Needless to mention even with TOT there will be tons of equipment directly imported since it may not be feasible to build it here for economical reason or OEM simply wont let us build it out here since its there bread and butter stuff.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 11 Apr 2011 15:50

^^^ That's why there really is no substitute for indigenous R&D.

ToT always has plenty of strings attached. Licensed manufacturing is even more restrictive. Even with all R&D done in-house, it is highly likely that machine tools will still need to be acquired from abroad; and while this presents fewer constraints, there are always cost factors and acquisition delays, not to mention the question of skilled labour. Not to veer OT, but many here on BRF actually expect the MMRCA acquisition to cost $10-$11 Billion USD, while it is a certainty to cost much more, in terms of necessary equipment and training to absorb all the ToT and license manufacturing. I am sure a similar situation exists with every other licensed production deal with the IA, IN and IAF. (BTW: This would be very valuable research to do, in case there's a business school student/professor reading this.)

In the long run, where it really counts; your own efforts are the only ones you can truly depend on. This is especially true for a nation's strategic/industrial sectors, especially WRT military capability and high technology.

People who view ToT and licensed production as anything more than a domestic jobs program are deluding themselves. This isn't to say that there isn't (economic) value in retaining some of that workload -- but make no mistake: the strategic value of such deals isn't what many here on BRF seem to expect.

JMT

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 11 Apr 2011 18:21

Do we have any sources(panwala/chaiwala) that give out f/b on Arjun by the Army after it's induction in the western sector?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Apr 2011 00:45

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote: the strategic value of such deals isn't what many here on BRF seem to expect.

JMT

The strategic value of ToT in Indian context basically is "Promise, we wont screw you with sanctions when you need the goods most, as proof here's lots of spares and how to make them"

For us Indians, it still is a HUGE DEAL.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Apr 2011 02:59

but many here on BRF actually expect the MMRCA acquisition to cost $10-$11 Billion USD, while it is a certainty to cost much more, in terms of necessary equipment and training to absorb all the ToT and license manufacturing. I am sure a similar situation exists with every other licensed production deal with the IA, IN and IAF.

MiG-21 were license produced. MKI was ToT, MMRCA is ToT (based on the RFP - so there should not be ANY confusion, on BR or otherwise). And, PAK-FA is to some extent co-developed. The MCA will be totally Indian. It has evolved, I would assume, based on their previous experience. IF that assumption is true, then, even the PAK-FA is not what India will be too proud of. And, it should be that a way.

BTW, I agree that BRiets get lost as time goes along, BUT the cost of the MMRCA is "Total life-cycle". Whatever that means, it should mean that whatever is the negotiated price should be fairly close. On the flip side I would guess that the Russians having not too much of a supply chain MAY not come close the quoted price and the F-18 (on the other end of the spectrum) will come closest (again because of mature supply chain).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Apr 2011 03:02

Thanks.

-self deleted-

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 12 Apr 2011 03:42

I've never used Avast, but I'm able to use the full editor!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Apr 2011 09:26

<del>

kindly leave out dodgy blogs when posting on BR.
Rahul.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 16 Apr 2011 11:11

<del>

kindly leave out dodgy blogs when posting on BR.
Rahul.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 16 Apr 2011 12:16

^^^ What is the indigenous content in Arjun Mk2, in fact we are going one step back from Arjun Mk1, dont call it arjun better call it something else, I hope the crew is Indian

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Apr 2011 12:23

meh, you should be a little more circumspect before believing anything that appears on the net.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Apr 2011 21:19

sorry about that rahul, consider it as inadvertent.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 May 2011 01:00

Israel's Trophy tank defense system:

"Trophy is design[ed] to form a 'beam' of fragments, which will intercept any incoming HEAT threat, including RPG rockets at a range of 10 – 30 meters from the protected platform."

An alternative/competitor to the U.S. designed Raytheon’s Quick Kill.

http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/20 ... eaker.html

See also:

http://www.israelsituation.com/2011/03/ ... ves-lives/

http://quitenormal.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... errorists/

Seems to be an important new development.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 02 May 2011 18:53

Srinagar-Leh national highway broadened for T-72 tank movement

AJames · Post by **AJames** » 03 May 2011 03:06

suryag wrote:^^^ What is the indigenous content in Arjun Mk2, in fact we are going one step back from Arjun Mk1, dont call it arjun better call it something else, I hope the crew is Indian

This is stating what should be obvious, but when you are talking about cutting edge technology, indigenous content will come only when you start manufacturing locally in volume. You are hardly going to have the latest cutting edge technology already in manufacture, since the tank components you are talking about are only used in the latest generation of tanks. If you carry this argument to its logical conclusion, India will end up manufacturing only obsolete hardware.

The important thing is to own the rights to the design, and the ability to develop and update it. If you can do that, you can decide what and how much you manufacture locally, you can improve and update the design as you like, and you are free to export it to who you like.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 May 2011 07:28

suryag wrote:^^^ What is the indigenous content in Arjun Mk2, in fact we are going one step back from Arjun Mk1, dont call it arjun better call it something else, I hope the crew is Indian

You are talking about indigenous content? We will be happy even if it breaks even 500 Units needed for break even. If such piece meal orders come, I doubt any Indian company would like to bid for Arjun order in the future.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 03 May 2011 07:56

^^^ IIRC that rant was wrt to an article that claimed arjun 2/fmbt (?) would be a indo russian project and will be based on t95. The article was then removed as it was possibly from a troll website.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 05 May 2011 15:46

deleted