Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2644
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby chola » 25 Aug 2018 00:13

Mihir wrote:
chola wrote:No, no, no, no. Let’s be realistic here. If superior armor could be lighter then the world’s heaviest tanks would not all be in the West where technology levels are the highest.

What makes you think that technology levels were highest in the West? Until the M1A1 entered service, Soviet tanks were by-and-large more advanced than Western ones.

chola wrote:The Abrams, Leopard, Challenger, LeClerc and Merkava are all around 60 tons and they are the main battle tanks of countries who put a premium on protecting their servicemen. The T-72/T-90 and Type 96 are around 42 tons are designed by countries who historically do not put that same premium on lives.

The Leclerc, Type 10, and K2 are fielded by "countries who put a premium on protecting their servicemen". They all weigh-in at less than 60 tons.



The Centurion was the best tank of the Cold War until Leopard I which in turn was the best until Abrams and Merkava. I don’t see Soviet tanks being better one-on-one in any period after WWII. They could be better as a strategy. Their tanks were good enough and numerous enough to overwhelm obviously superior German AFVs in WWII.

The LeClerc and K2 Black Panther at 56 tons are a hell of a lot closer to a Challenger or Leopard (or Arjun) than a T-90. The Type 10’s size is restricted by the fact that Japan is a maritime power that doesn’t see itself engaging in mass armored clashes and needs AFVs that can be transported easily by ship or aircraft. I would put it at a major disadvantage in a slugfest with the other Western heavyweights in a straight up fight. A middle-weight boxer no matter how good is at a disadvantage to a heavyweight one.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 861
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 25 Aug 2018 01:03

The Centurion was the best tank of the Cold War until Leopard I which in turn was the best until Abrams and Merkava.

The Cent was a great tank for its time, but so was the T-55, which weighed 10 tons less despite having excellent armour. The Leopard 1 was unimpressive -- it just about had enough armour to withstand 20 mm machine gun fire.

I don’t see Soviet tanks being better one-on-one in any period after WWII. They could be better as a strategy. Their tanks were good enough and numerous enough to overwhelm obviously superior German AFVs in WWII.

The T-55 is generally regarded as superior to the M48. The 64 was leagues ahead of the M60, Chally 1, and Leo-1. The T-72 was superior to the M-60A1. T-80 was superior to the M60A3. Etc. etc.

The LeClerc and K2 Black Panther at 56 tons are a hell of a lot closer to a Challenger or Leopard (or Arjun) than a T-90.

Actually they're bang in the middle.

The Type 10 ... I would put it at a major disadvantage in a slugfest with the other Western heavyweights in a straight up fight. A middle-weight boxer no matter how good is at a disadvantage to a heavyweight one.

Why? It is as good as any Western tank by most metrics. Probably better in terms of firepower because it has a newer gun.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 25 Aug 2018 01:40

Chola, Centurion became better tank once the L7 105mm gun was developed. Before that with the 84mm gun it was average. In Indian.context the tank crew training was the force multiplier.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 25 Aug 2018 01:41

Mihir or anyone, what types of tank ammo is there for Indian tanks?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 25 Aug 2018 02:25

nachiket wrote:
sudeepj wrote:The Army will not accept the Arjun, it hasnt accepted it for 15+ years and wont do so in the future. Ultimately, the customer is right, especially this customer as he puts his life on the line, and the DRDO/ARDE better focus their energies on a new design rather than beating the same dead horse.

So why can't they come out and say it? Let's stop this waste of DRDO's resources and taxpayer money once and for all no? Why do they keep sending the DRDO on wild-goose chases with a new set of "improvements" every time the DRDO finishes with the last set?

This has been my prime complaint against the IA in this entire saga. Their reluctance to be honest about their intentions. They willingly face enemy bullets but they won't come out and admit that they made a mistake with the GSQR? They wanted something back then which they don't do now for whatever reasons. They wasted the country's meagre resources and continue to do so because of their refusal to own up to it. Just once I'd like to see a General raise his hand up and say, "Yes, the DRDO built what we asked them for. But we can't use it because our philosophy/tactics/requirements have changed since then. It is not their fault, it is ours."

Then everyone can just move on from this fiasco.


Sadly, arguing in bad faith is something exhibited by all organizations, even in western countries, even in private organizations. In countries like India, admitting fault will mean termination of career. So that is not going to happen.. We really need to rejigger the way our incentives work for decision makers.

Anyhow, even with the base T90 & 72s, I dont see why an external armored compartment is not attached to the turret rear as a bustle and all propellant moved there. This could be done in an overhaul.. I dont see why an active protection system is not deployed, at least on the 'tip of the spear' tanks..

I dont see why a new autoloader is not designed that allows longer AP rounds.. As far as machines go, the autoloader looks pretty simple. Definitely simpler than a modern sewing machine..

Finally, I dont think the army plans to go deeper than 50-60kms in Pakistan, so they dont think they need great tanks. A sufficient number, sufficient capability to kill enemy tanks does it for our Army.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15488
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 25 Aug 2018 11:02

Mihir wrote:
chola wrote:No, no, no, no. Let’s be realistic here. If superior armor could be lighter then the world’s heaviest tanks would not all be in the West where technology levels are the highest.

What makes you think that technology levels were highest in the West? Until the M1A1 entered service, Soviet tanks were by-and-large more advanced than Western ones.

chola wrote:The Abrams, Leopard, Challenger, LeClerc and Merkava are all around 60 tons and they are the main battle tanks of countries who put a premium on protecting their servicemen. The T-72/T-90 and Type 96 are around 42 tons are designed by countries who historically do not put that same premium on lives.

The Leclerc, Type 10, and K2 are fielded by "countries who put a premium on protecting their servicemen". They all weigh-in at less than 60 tons.

Karan M wrote:Modern mediums compromise on survivability. You want blast off panels to protect the crew, then separated ammo comes with a space premium. Similarly, long rod penetrators + larger guns will again take up volume. An Abrams has hence more growth potential than a volume limited T-8XX.

That's only true for Russian mediums, though, isn't it? The Type 10 and Leclerc have decent armour, long-rod penetrators, and blast-off panels to protect the ammunition.


Mihir, not really. In the Abrams, even the hull ammo is protected via blast off panels. In the Merkava and Challenger, individual rounds are split in armored canisters (hull rounds in Merk4). Such survivability measures consume internal volume. Second, there is the issue of upgunning. Much thought in recent years of going to 130mm or even 140mm guns. An Abrams can handle that with much more ease than an everything compactly packaged to the corners approach like in the Leclerc or the Japanese tanks. Adding new ammo itsrlf to the Leclerc will be a challenge due to the compact magazine coupled with an autoloader. Hopefully they would have kept some growth potential but at the end of the day the whole thing would be engineered for performing with current rounds.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15488
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 25 Aug 2018 11:07

There is also the issue of the 4th crew member. Adds resilience to the crew and allows for the tank to operate for extended periods of time as the crew exhaustion angle is addressed to a degree.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 27 Aug 2018 06:15

Why the in-between MBT and ICV Terminator ( to deal with both MBTs and embedded infantry) has arrived.
Lack of support by infantry accompanying Israeli armour in Lebanon saw them incur heavy losses of Merks. Our NAMICA is occupying this space too but has no cannon for dealing with infantry.Robotic armour is going to be an increasing feature in land warfare just as UCAV/UAVs have become standard fare today in the air.Less or no crew, less armour protection required, smaller AV,lower costs.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 27 Aug 2018 15:45

Karan M wrote:There is also the issue of the 4th crew member. Adds resilience to the crew and allows for the tank to operate for extended periods of time as the crew exhaustion angle is addressed to a degree.

Karan , would love to hear your thoughts on the fact that after cold start most Indian tank crews will not be traveling beyond 200kms (from base to enemy teritory) and that too a span of Will fatigue be such an important factor.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 27 Aug 2018 18:24

ArjunPandit wrote:
Karan M wrote:There is also the issue of the 4th crew member. Adds resilience to the crew and allows for the tank to operate for extended periods of time as the crew exhaustion angle is addressed to a degree.

Karan , would love to hear your thoughts on the fact that after cold start most Indian tank crews will not be traveling beyond 200kms (from base to enemy teritory) and that too a span of Will fatigue be such an important factor.


Sir, with all due respect, the 200 kms will not be like a boys day out trip in a sedan on an expressway.

It will probably be over some very rugged terrain, in inclement weather, day and night, with hostile opposition on land (and in the air), behind a bush and building, hell bent to stop you very very violently. Man and machine both will be stretched and tested, thoroughly.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 27 Aug 2018 19:18

ArjunPandit wrote:
Karan M wrote:There is also the issue of the 4th crew member. Adds resilience to the crew and allows for the tank to operate for extended periods of time as the crew exhaustion angle is addressed to a degree.

Karan , would love to hear your thoughts on the fact that after cold start most Indian tank crews will not be traveling beyond 200kms (from base to enemy teritory) and that too a span of Will fatigue be such an important factor.

Sit in a tank in the thar for half an hour and you will want to ban tank warfare in the desert for human rights violations!!!
Driving a tank is no joke...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 27 Aug 2018 19:42

Vayu says that the CCS headed by the PM will most likely approve the 484 nos. of T-90s to be acquired from Russia.If this is accurate news then there must be compelling reasons why the CCS has approved the same.
I surmise that the cost and commonality factor has determined the decision.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 861
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 27 Aug 2018 21:22

ramana wrote:Mihir or anyone, what types of tank ammo is there for Indian tanks?

Hi Ramana, I believe Rohit Vats' last article is still accurate. There were some rumors floating around some time back that the Arjun's FSAPDS round was lacking in terms of penetration, since R&D on it had basically stalled. Not sure how true it is.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 27 Aug 2018 21:56

https://www.quora.com/How-do-soldiers-withstand-the-intense-heat-inside-a-tank
How do soldiers withstand the intense heat inside a tank
I served with 2nd Tank Battalion (US Marines) as a Forward Air Controller/Air Officer in 1998–1999. One of the greatest tours I did, by the way, fantastic group of Marines.

I had wondered this myself about the heat in the desert……we did have an air blower (we have another name for it) on the M1A1 Abrams, but it only does so much.

While we were at our annual training event in the Mojave desert, we even had to get into our full NBC suits (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical). My station was the loader’s position in the Executive Officer’s tank for Bravo Company as there isn’t any extra room for additional personnel. With my flight pay and as a Major, a well paid tank loader I was.

After one particularly trying two day evolution, where we estimated the inside of the tank may have reached 140F, (and at one point a Marine was very seriously injured in an accident), we had all later admitted the same thing: that we were hallucinating at various points and unsure of what was real and what was not.


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-buys-non-AC-tanks-draws-CAG-fire/articleshow/30643885.cms
NEW DELHI: India’s main-battle tanks, the Russian-origin T-90 draws CAG fire for missing Air Conditioning.

NEW DELHI: India’s main-battle tanks, the Russian-origin T-90S, are without any airconditioning. Apart from crew discomfort, this is “degrading”
the sophisticated fire-control systems, thermal-imaging sights and missile firing mechanisms of the tanks due to their prolonged exposure to heat and
dust conditions.
The latest CAG report, tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, has fired a salvo at the defence ministry and the Army for signing deals worth Rs 9,083 crore
with Russia for 657 T-90S tanks, and concluding another Rs 330 crore contract for transfer of technology to indigenously produce another such 1,000
tanks at the Avadi Heavy Vehicles Factory, without providing for the critical air-conditioners.
“Ignoring the recommendations of the trial team (which tested the tanks in Russia in 1999), the MoD procured the tanks in 2001 and 2007 without
ACs, rendering the fleet vulnerable to degradation of sensitive components,” said CAG.


Just how is a human being supposed to fight @140 degrees Fahrenheit/60 degrees Celsius.. All the preening Cavalry generals criticizing the Arjun, and all the DRDO/ARDE scientists pushing the Arjun must be made to answer this question.. There is a reason why our tank fleet is toothless and not fighting fit for perhaps 6-9 months out of a full year.

1. No tech infusion in APFSDS for a while.
2. No thought given to the sowars comforts to let them do their duties efficiently.
3. No tech infusion in active protection measures.
4. No thought given to survivability of sowars in combat.

Forget about the T90 vs Arjun, we are missing the basics here.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1703
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Picklu » 28 Aug 2018 01:34

ArjunPandit wrote:
Karan M wrote:There is also the issue of the 4th crew member. Adds resilience to the crew and allows for the tank to operate for extended periods of time as the crew exhaustion angle is addressed to a degree.

Karan , would love to hear your thoughts on the fact that after cold start most Indian tank crews will not be traveling beyond 200kms (from base to enemy teritory) and that too a span of Will fatigue be such an important factor.


Ind pak border is heavily fortified. 25km per day and less than 100 km overall are the max penetration we have achieved even during our wargames, realistic projection for actual war is far less than that.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15488
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 28 Aug 2018 02:49

Mihir wrote:
ramana wrote:Mihir or anyone, what types of tank ammo is there for Indian tanks?

Hi Ramana, I believe Rohit Vats' last article is still accurate. There were some rumors floating around some time back that the Arjun's FSAPDS round was lacking in terms of penetration, since R&D on it had basically stalled. Not sure how true it is.


Mihir, Arjun's Mk2 FSAPDS has cleared trials.
https://tdf.drdo.gov.in/technology_updates/index/7

It offers performance equivalent (other reports note slightly superior even) to the 125mm Mango rounds we are importing from Russia for the T-90 and T-72 fleet.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15488
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 28 Aug 2018 02:51

Picklu wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:Karan , would love to hear your thoughts on the fact that after cold start most Indian tank crews will not be traveling beyond 200kms (from base to enemy teritory) and that too a span of Will fatigue be such an important factor.


Ind pak border is heavily fortified. 25km per day and less than 100 km overall are the max penetration we have achieved even during our wargames, realistic projection for actual war is far less than that.


Issue is not merely one of distance traveled but of intensity of combat, especially in a buttoned down environment in a NBC clime or one where engineering resources are stretched and hence ad hoc battlefield repairs, maintenance devolves back to the crew. A 4 man crew will anyday have more redundancy and staying power, than a 3 man one. More folks to man the tank, as it were.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 28 Aug 2018 05:15

A 4 man crew will add to AC load reqs.With greater automation, the tasks of the crew of an MBT has come down.The T-14 has a completely auto- turret, auto- loader, etc.The crew is not housed in the turret either ,but in an armoured capsule in the hull giving better survivability.There is also a significant weight and cost difference between a 3 man MBT and a 4 man MBT.Weight around 12-15t and cost of a few nillion$ per tank.In the future even robotic AVs and MBTs are being planned for.4 man MBTs will eventually go the way of the dinosaur.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 28 Aug 2018 09:53

^^Thanks everyone, while i did know that the drive in hostile terrain was never a joyride and full of stress but fact of high temperatures and crew fatigue was important. I did a bit of research on pakistani attack at longewala too. Even a small thing as barbed wire and confusing it for a minefield led to (na)pakis losing multiple tanks to M40 fire.
It would also be helpful in close combat between Tank on tank. This is also similar to so called "overstaffing" on Indian navy ships too..where more sailers enable rotation of duties or rest and redundancies in case of mishap

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 28 Aug 2018 19:54

Sorry, 464 T-90s approved not 484.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 28 Aug 2018 21:30

If there is a next generation of MBTs with larger 140mm canons, a human loader will not be able to manhandle those rounds anyway. So its most likely that next gen tanks will have a max of a 3 man crew and the loader will go the way of the 'radio operator' in tanks.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 29 Aug 2018 13:12

Q.Would it not be better for ATGM rounds launched from say a 125mm barrel be
better than hugely increasing the size of the barrel? I know that the Armata has been designed for a larger barrel but even the Russians seem to be in no hurry to field such a monster.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 29 Aug 2018 13:34

Philip wrote:Q.Would it not be better for ATGM rounds launched from say a 125mm barrel be
better than hugely increasing the size of the barrel? I know that the Armata has been designed for a larger barrel but even the Russians seem to be in no hurry to field such a monster.


Pls. refer to the post by Karan M, on the previous page:

Karan M wrote:
ATGMs are slow flying and hence susceptible to interception. Modern APFSDS remain very hard targets to counter, besides with which being dumb, they are effectively immune to countermeasures. In terms of penetration, the jury is still out, because once new chem-guns or even rail guns become available, then they will again take precedence (compact power gen. + storage remains the issue for the latter).

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 29 Aug 2018 16:09

The good Admiral does not take a step back...into previous discussios :twisted:

Onwards it is - leading to groundhogs day!!!!

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 29 Aug 2018 16:28

:oops: All along I thought Rakesh Ji was the Admiral and Philip Saar, the Field Marshal.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 29 Aug 2018 16:57

What is this ji businesss..You have already given them ranks!!!Admiral Filipov is like the joint chief of staff - he can equally defend Russian Army, Navy and Airforce equipment!!!
Rakesh is Field Marshal
Ramana is Raksha Mantri

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 29 Aug 2018 17:26

Sir, Duly Noted, Sir!

(Admins - pls. forgive the off topic-banter)

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 30 Aug 2018 00:20

The golden age of the ATGM is past us. Active protection systems will render most of these obsolete within the next 5-7 years. The golden age of a sensor fused, drone integrated, 2 or 3 person tank is still ahead of us.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 30 Aug 2018 10:32

ATGMs for greater range.Plus are their warheads also not designed to defear ERA? Otherwise why are wd devloping and inducting Nag/ HELINA, etc.?

No need for dxalted ranks.See what humble corporals achieved in history...chai- wallahs too ( despite Mani Sankar Aiyer) :D

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50230
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 30 Aug 2018 10:43

Wonder when the CLGM will ever materialize!

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 30 Aug 2018 14:34

Philip wrote:ATGMs for greater range.Plus are their warheads also not designed to defear ERA? Otherwise why are wd devloping and inducting Nag/ HELINA, etc.?


Valid points.

Do however also take in account that Tanks would also be used against fortified positions, bunkers, buildings (in urban warfare) etc. In comparison Tank vs Tank warfare now seems to be less common. So regular (and cheaper) dumb rounds would be quiet effective and more economical for those situations. The ideal load mix would anyway be decided by the commanders on the ground, based on the mission requirements.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 236
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby pushkar.bhat » 02 Sep 2018 20:19

nam wrote:Hope DRDO quickly brings out 1500hp version of these engines. That should clear probably one of the biggest roadblock for commonality for Arjun with T-90.

The German MTU engine.


Sir this will happen hopefully in the near future.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15488
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 03 Sep 2018 01:38

Philip wrote:ATGMs for greater range.Plus are their warheads also not designed to defear ERA? Otherwise why are wd devloping and inducting Nag/ HELINA, etc.?

No need for dxalted ranks.See what humble corporals achieved in history...chai- wallahs too ( despite Mani Sankar Aiyer) :D


Nag is a top attack ATGM. Not easy for standard IFV APS to intercept. Unlike the Refleks etc which follow more standard trajectories.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16417
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rahul M » 03 Sep 2018 09:15

sudeepj wrote:The golden age of the ATGM is past us. Active protection systems will render most of these obsolete within the next 5-7 years. The golden age of a sensor fused, drone integrated, 2 or 3 person tank is still ahead of us.

for the current designs, possibly.

APS have a limited protection bubble, of a few metrs beyond the extent of the vehicle. I would predict if APS do become as ubiquitous & effective as you imagine, weapon designers would respond by mounting a kinetic terminal stage on ATGMs instead of a conventional HEAT warhead. the terminal stage would be programed to fire just outside the protective bubble of the APS. further development might see a smaller kinetic stage initiated first to trigger the ERA.
another approach would be to target APS directly, with a dummy fired to pinpoint the location following by simultaneous firings at the APS itself in order to overwhelm & destroy it. akin to a SEAD/DEAD mission but on a much smaller range.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19560
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 03 Sep 2018 12:46

When will we see lasers on AVs? Laser weaponry are being gradually reduced in size for use aboard warships and aircraft.There may be some form of laser weaponry to eliminate sensors of an MBT rendering it useless.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 03 Sep 2018 14:32


Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 310
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Anoop » 03 Sep 2018 17:29

Our gratitude for your uncle's valor in service, Sir.

Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rishi_Tri » 04 Sep 2018 00:45



Maha Vir Chakra .. True Valor. Salute!

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 05 Sep 2018 09:41

The Pentagon Spent Decades Developing Hypersonic Anti-Tank Missiles, Then They Vanished

(Mods - pls. let me know if this is not relevant for this thread)

As the threat of advanced anti-tank guided missiles and other infantry anti-tank weapons continues to grow, numerous countries, including the United States, are adding active protection systems to their armored vehicles. While being able to defend against some kinds of incoming rounds is very important, it's even more important to kill the threat before it ever has a chance to fire in the first place, or at least be able to attack it in such a way that it too can't defend itself with high-end countermeasures. This is precisely where hypersonic weapons should come into play.


The reality is that the U.S. Army was heavily invested after spending decades developing hypersonic kinetic-kill anti-tank missiles up until a little less than a decade ago. Peculiarly, even today, in a time of supposed great power competition, the concept seems to have largely vanished, at least publicly.


Even just at supersonic speeds, kinetic penetrators are especially good at negating various types of add-on armor and other countermeasures. Explosive reactive armor (ERA) and slat or bar armor work to neutralize the warheads in incoming tank shells, missiles, or other anti-tank rounds, which kinetic hit-to-kill projectiles do not have at all.


Hard-kill active protection systems (APS) with either explosive charges or physical interceptors work on much the same principle. The sheer speed of existing non-missile kinetic penetrators, which can hit speeds of around Mach 4.75, is too fast for the sensors on even the most modern APS arrangements to track and engage in the first place, making them best suited to defeating slower anti-tank guided missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other infantry anti-tank weapons.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16417
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 05 Sep 2018 10:18

ha ! ^^^ exactly what I had 'predicted' above viewtopic.php?p=2292334#p2292334, not knowing they have already thought about this.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: souravB and 20 guests