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.
Post Reply
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

First reaction.

Looks promising with emphasis of what the vehicle is likely to face in the next 40-50 years. But given the way it has managed programs in the past. I have little confidence in the ability of the IA/MOD to not completely F it up.

On a serious note.

The tank should be able to fire Brahmos or it is a failure.
The tank should be able to levitate or it is a failure.
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by rajsunder »

Pratyush wrote:First reaction.

Looks promising with emphasis of what the vehicle is likely to face in the next 40-50 years. But given the way it has managed programs in the past. I have little confidence in the ability of the IA/MOD to not completely F it up.

On a serious note.

The tank should be able to fire Brahmos or it is a failure.
The tank should be able to levitate or it is a failure.
And it should only cost 10 crores or less.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

fanne wrote:can it fly?
then it will be a single engine aircraft which is banned for import.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

But then citing border tensions imports will be sanctioned on a knee jerk basis for tanks which meet none of this criteria. This circus has gone long enough, build what we can and make improvements and next generations.

We all can pet wishes, I would personal prefer a Gas Turbine or Diesel with a Electric drive for a tank with large batteries which power the electronics even when the engine is off, Electric motors also have low end torque which tanks need. But first you build what you can, and then with the Industrial capacity build what you want in iterations- thats why how its is done world over. Tanks get helicopter or aircraft protection with dedicated SAM batteries, Tanks can never do their role without infantry, Artillery, MLRS, Helicopter, UAV, UCAV and related supply vehicles in the modern battlefield.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

Atmavik wrote:
fanne wrote:can it fly?
then it will be a single engine aircraft which is banned for import.
Sadly, no. The RFI seeks approximately 30:1 horse power/ton or better. T-14 has 31:1 and SoKo's K2 has 27.2 hp/ton.

While reading the quoted part from 'ThePrint'* I was thinking of LCH then I saw stealth. When I read about stealth, I realized AMCA can't be adopted to ground role so fast. :wink:

So with a plethora of dreamy features, how does one reconcile the target weight and date of induction?

(*OT: ThePrint is a weird name for an online newspaper given that it doesn't print anything at all.)
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

basant wrote:[
So with a plethora of dreamy features, how does one reconcile the target weight and date of induction?
Marvel Comics and Disney Animations along with Pixar will deliver you a working prototype in 2 weeks.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Future Tank: Beyond The M1 Abrams
Manned armored vehicles will have a place even in a world of killer drones, experts agreed. But will they engage the enemy directly with big guns, or stay hidden and send out armed robots instead?
A brief description of the unofficial thought process of the US army regarding the future of tanks on the battlefield. The Indian army RFQ is attempting to answer very much the same questions but with a single vehicle.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

You have all missed the most important feature of our future stealth tank.Invisibility as in Bond's car,with IR suppressors, but the most important feature will be to fire kamikaze loitering drone swarms from its 203mm ( 8") main gun. The crew will be 2-man,with an R2D2 robot as driver-cum soda-bottle-opener-wallah.
R2D2 will know how to serve a pukka scotch and soda , G& T , boody Mary, or XXX Hercules rum on-the-rocks in the heat of battle. The " full Monty" service! If it as most probably will be , another T-series Armata whatever, then a bottle of 100 proof Stolly in the mini-fridge is de rigueur.Mess traditions must be maintained even in the face of the enemy!
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 153341.cms

Another wild goose chase of unobtanium.
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

There was nothing mentioned about an APS for the new tank? Is it just the DDM did not capture this or the Army is not considering at the moment? Are we placing any APS like Trophy on our existing fleet?
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

Maria wrote:There was nothing mentioned about an APS for the new tank? Is it just the DDM did not capture this or the Army is not considering at the moment? Are we placing any APS like Trophy on our existing fleet?
Why, the document lists all. Just copy-pasting items under SURVIVABILITY.
  1. STANAG level of all round protection including top, bottom, sides and frontal- against current / future KE/CE threat, Mines with combination of other survival means (ERA, APS etc)
  2. Modern Armour material like ceramics, laminates, EM armour etc give higher level of protection with lesser weight which will give a very big operational advantage.
  3. Soft Kill systems and other counter measures (Laser Warning System, IR/RF sensors) desired.
  4. Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA), Hard and Soft Kill Measures, Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Protection & Instant Fire Detection and Suppression System (IFDSS).
  5. Containerized compartments, with suitable safety of blow out provisions.
  6. To suppress visual, audio/acoustic, thermal and electro-magnetic signatures. Provision of Adaptive Camouflage IR stealth and pre fed shapes for deception – Thermal Camouflage.
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

Pratyush wrote:First reaction.

Looks promising with emphasis of what the vehicle is likely to face in the next 40-50 years. But given the way it has managed programs in the past. I have little confidence in the ability of the IA/MOD to not completely F it up.

On a serious note.

The tank should be able to fire Brahmos or it is a failure.
The tank should be able to levitate or it is a failure.
Reminds me of one hot encoding in DS and ML.
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/n ... d=msedgdhp
Also just like the Brit Bobby, desi paltan will get tinnitus and joint pains if using Arjuns :((
T-14 comes with all the long term health benefits!! :roll:
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Just enjoy how the Brits do it! SHeer brilliance!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 58766.html
Army’s new £3.5bn tank fleet ‘can’t travel faster than 20mph safely’

Problems with Ajax armoured fighting vehicles include not being able to fire cannons while moving
Samuel Osborne
Report says speed restrictions had been caused by excessive vibrations in the Ajax tanks and that crews were limited to 90 minutes inside them at a time.
The army was forced to pause trials of its new £3.47bn fleet of tanks over design issues, which reportedly left them unable to travel safely faster than 20 miles per hour.

Problems with the new Ajax armoured fighting vehicles - which are supposed reach speeds of 40mph - also include not being able to fire cannons on the move, the Daily Telegraph report
...and the IA crib aboot Arjun! The Dear Lord help us if we ever join NATO and have to cross fight. That too battles that can last only 90 mins requiring a tea break! :rotfl:

And BoJO's remedy for the same!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... cerns-ajax
MoD says delivery of £3.5bn tank fleet will go ahead despite safety fears
Leaked assessment shows Ajax vehicles put soldiers at risk of tinnitus if driven faster than 20mph

And here's how good the Challenger is.
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27467 ... LjgXagzbIU
UK's Challenger Tank 'Outmatched' by Russian Armata MBT: Parliamentary Committee
Our Bureau 09:18 AM, July 21, 2020
Our search for an FMBT whatever, can definitely rule out the Brits as "strat. partners"!
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

The Challenger 2 has been in use for over 20 years. There are zero Armata's in active service with the Russian Army today with total orders capped at 100 for now. If a tank first introduced in the 2020's is not better than one introduced in 1998, the maker should stop making tanks.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Can anyone post any pictures of the Rhine metal 130 mm main gun tank prototype.

Along with name of the tank it is based on??

Some people have no bloody idea about what is being done. In order to shill for Russian junk.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Ch-2 has had no upgrades over 20 yrs.Even the upgrades proposed will not improve it to T-14 std. The concept of a 4-crew MBT is passe.
The French Leclerc MBT has a 3-man crew. In a face-off in Latvia,on firing,both appeared about equal. The 3 NATO MBTs are about even,but they are of the last-gen.The IA's FMBT/FRCV whatever is a prog. reqd. now, as its gestation period will be long and arduous given Arjun's history. That's why the GOI is looking for a strat. partner/OEM to fast-track its induction within the next 4/5 years. But until then we aren't badly off with our MBTs in comparison with our enemies. T-72s being upgraded to almost T-90 capability, latest type T-90s under production and another batch of A-1As. the only missing link is the amphib LT.China has just shown clips of its amphib LT the T-15 which we face in Ladakh. An amphib LT is urgently reqd. to also equip the 2 amphib. Bdes. part of the new theatre commands,the maritime command and the ANC sub-command.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Philip wrote:Ch-2 has had no upgrades over 20 yrs.Even the upgrades proposed will not improve it to T-14 std....
Dear lord, one hopes not... don't want it to break down in the parade before old Buck palace now do we :roll:
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Philip wrote:Ch-2 has had no upgrades over 20 yrs.Even the upgrades proposed will not improve it to T-14 std. The concept of a 4-crew MBT is passe.
The French Leclerc MBT has a 3-man crew. In a face-off in Latvia,on firing,both appeared about equal. The 3 NATO MBTs are about even,but they are of the last-gen.The IA's FMBT/FRCV whatever is a prog. reqd. now, as its gestation period will be long and arduous given Arjun's history. That's why the GOI is looking for a strat. partner/OEM to fast-track its induction within the next 4/5 years. But until then we aren't badly off with our MBTs in comparison with our enemies. T-72s being upgraded to almost T-90 capability, latest type T-90s under production and another batch of A-1As. the only missing link is the amphib LT.China has just shown clips of its amphib LT the T-15 which we face in Ladakh. An amphib LT is urgently reqd. to also equip the 2 amphib. Bdes. part of the new theatre commands,the maritime command and the ANC sub-command.
The Brits have a 4 four man crew as per their operational doctrine and it is in service. The T-14 is not in service in any meaningful numbers so this is a moot comparison. And by any means a tank that has still not entered widespread service cannot be the benchmark.
Any upgrade is a tradeoff between cost and benefit. The Brits in any case will not be fighting the Russians and even if they do I am sure then will do better against a conscript army.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

ks_sachin wrote: The T-14 is not in service in any meaningful numbers so this is a moot comparison. And by any means a tank that has still not entered widespread service cannot be the benchmark.
Ah but since it is a Russian tank, even a scale model is good enough to be the benchmark.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Philip wrote:Ch-2 has had no upgrades over 20 yrs.Even the upgrades proposed will not improve it to T-14 std. The concept of a 4-crew MBT is passe.
The French Leclerc MBT has a 3-man crew. In a face-off in Latvia,on firing,both appeared about equal. The 3 NATO MBTs are about even,but they are of the last-gen.The IA's FMBT/FRCV whatever is a prog. reqd. now, as its gestation period will be long and arduous given Arjun's history. That's why the GOI is looking for a strat. partner/OEM to fast-track its induction within the next 4/5 years. But until then we aren't badly off with our MBTs in comparison with our enemies. T-72s being upgraded to almost T-90 capability, latest type T-90s under production and another batch of A-1As. the only missing link is the amphib LT.China has just shown clips of its amphib LT the T-15 which we face in Ladakh. An amphib LT is urgently reqd. to also equip the 2 amphib. Bdes. part of the new theatre commands,the maritime command and the ANC sub-command.
So much BS over & Over & Over again. That one doesn't know where to begin refuting this nonsense.

On a plus side. I guess this is a best example of trolling that it is below the surface and not blatant or offensive enough to be banned.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Prat,pl.stop your prattling and demands that I be banned.If you can't debate with decency,pl. refrain from debate.You can agree to disagree.The BS is not coming from my side.When I post I support my statements with facts and figures,unlike some.
Mods,pl. teach this poster some manners.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

An interesting piece on current and future trends in MBTs.
https://dfnc.ru/en/journal/2020-1-60/wh ... te][b]What Can Modern MBT Designs Tell Us About The Future?[/b]
HomeJournal2020, №1 (60)
The battlefield must be examined as a whole, it is senseless to only evaluate a tank without thoughts on what war the tank will be fighting and where. In addition, other aspects such as the army using them must be considered.

Questions such as what other supporting elements the army has, the quality of their other service branches, and the likely opponents the army will be facing must all be considered when evaluating the merits of various tank designs.

It must be remembered that no tank in history has proven itself to be invulnerable, and nearly every positive design decision also results in a trade-off somewhere, whether this is an immediate design trade-off, or an economic or manufacturing trade-off, all of which may help a country to win a war, which is the ultimate purpose of a tank after all.

DIFFERENCES IN EASTERN AND WESTERN DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Engineers in the East and West had competing design philosophies which were largely borne out from experiences in the Second World War and the wars that followed. Both of these philosophies have led to the tank designs of today, and an analysis of their relative advantages provides clues about what to expect from the future.

Soviet tank design philosophy had a preference for two tiers of tank, with one tank which is less capable, but can be produced in greater numbers, and a more capable tank which was less numerous, but better-suited to tank combat. These pairings can be seen with the T-54/55 and the T-64, or with the T-72 and the T-80. With the advent of the main battle tank concept, Western planners broadly speaking preferred to use a single main battle tank platform forming a unified fleet of tanks. Soviet designers exhibited a preference for making tanks relatively small, low-profile, and not too heavy, while Western vehicles became progressively larger and heavier through the second half of the XX century, with notable exceptions to this trend being the Leopard 1 and AMX-30 tanks.

The results of this difference in philosophy can be easily seen when, for example, comparing the T-72 and the Leopard 2, or the M1 Abrams series of tanks. The T-72s are significantly smaller, shorter, and lighter than their Western counterparts. This has some advantages, insofar as the T-72s are significantly cheaper to produce and cost less to maintain, allowing the user to field a larger fleet of T-72s than they could with Western tanks for the same budget. In addition, they can be dug into protected positions more quickly, they don’t require an engine as powerful as those required by modern Western tanks, more of them can be transported per ship or other transport vehicle, and they can be more easily recovered by recovery vehicles. The low-profile layout of Soviet-designed tanks was intended to present a more difficult target to enemy fire, minimising the risk of being spotted or hit, and came at the cost of a more cramped and less comfortable interior and a lower range of gun depression. The lighter weight of Soviet tanks also presented its own trade-offs insofar as it meant that Soviet tanks tended to lag behind the heavier US and British designs such as the M60 and Chieftain in terms of the level of passive armour protection they provided. Although Soviet designers did adapt to the crucial threats of the day by developing layered armour solutions such as the Combination K package used on the T-64, the greater breakthrough which to an extent vindicated the lighter tank design philosophy was the use of explosive reactive armour (ERA). This provided significantly greater protection against shaped-charge threats in particular, and has since also become more effective against armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds as well.

Western tank designs from approximately 1980 onwards have been looked at more kindly in the public imagination, due in large part to the apparent successes of its designs shown through low losses in conflicts until around 2006. However, this perception has begun to change as the technologies built to defeat these tanks have landed in the hands of the people actually fighting against these tanks. In more recent conflicts such as Syria and Yemen, where rebel groups have had access to more modern anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM), many Western tanks have been shown to have significant vulnerabilities. However, while most attention tends to focus around tank losses, it is perhaps more significant to see the toll the heavier tank philosophy has exacted on their users and on budgets.

In the present day, Western tank fleets are often seen as cumbersome tools by their primary users, being too expensive to purchase and operate in large numbers, and too heavy, which prevents them from being rapidly deployed to where they are needed in any meaningful quantity (1, 2). The extreme costs of purchasing and maintaining an active tank fleet have led to repeated cuts to active tank personnel and increasing numbers of tanks being mothballed in warehouses and relatively small tank fleets compared to those maintained by major European countries during the Cold War. Some of this is due to risk-averse strategies to increase survivability, such as simply adding increasing quantities of various passive armours and tolerating the weight increase, or an aversion to gambling on riskier technological advances and new designs, or budgetary constraints and greater budget priorities. However, regardless of the cause, in a time of strained defence budgets, and due to the changing character of modern warfare, it is becoming evident that fleets of post-1980 Western tank designs do not represent a sustainable and flexible option for most Western armies. A re-evaluation of some core design concepts will be necessary in the tranche of new tank designs which are due to emerge post-2035.


It is also important to note that over the past half-century there have been very few clashes between Western and Eastern tanks of the same generation, or between those upgraded to a similar standard. With the possible exception of several tank battles during the Iran-Iraq war there seem to be almost no examples of significant numbers of tanks of a similar standard clashing in combat. Even the examples in the Iran-Iraq war, such as the Nasr Operation which took place in 1981 and represented the largest of the tank battles during this war, holds relatively few lessons which pertain to tank design compared to the lessons it provided in tank tactics and the importance of reconnaissance (3, 4, 5). With all this in mind, it is still possible to evaluate some of the most significant modern tank designs and get an idea of the direction tank design is heading in.

T-14 ARMATA

The T-14 Armata has easily been the most-discussed tank in recent memory, and with good reason. The most notable feature of the tank is that it uses a layout of an unmanned turret and protected crew citadel which has previously not been used on any tank entering serial production. The concept however is not a new one, and has been examined by a number of countries over the years in various concept prototypes.

These concepts notably include:

• Russian Object 195 (T-95) – began development in 1988 and was cancelled in 20106 .

• US M1 Abrams Tank Test Bed (TTB) – began development in the early 1980s, a prototype (SRV) built by 1983, and was cancelled in the early 1990s7 .

• US Teledyne Expeditionary Tank – began development in 1982, eventually losing out to other designs in the AGS competition in 1992, and was effectively cancelled by the mid-1990s8 .

• Soviet Object 450 (T-74) – began development in 1972 and was effectively cancelled by 19749 .

• British COMRES 75 test bed vehicle – built in 1968 and did not progress significantly (10).

Unmanned turret designs have therefore been of significant interest to militaries for a long time, and with good reason – while the turret is perhaps the most definitive feature of the tank, its presence is also greatly problematic for tank designers as it represents perhaps the tank’s greatest vulnerability which must be addressed. In order for the gun to depress sufficiently to aim and fire at targets located lower than the tank, the turret needs to be reasonably tall, to allow the gun trunnions to be fitted higher in relation to the hull, and to allow sufficient space for the breech to move upwards. However, with manned turret designs this would lead to creating a bigger target, allowing the vehicle to be spotted at greater distances and more easily hit. In addition, because the majority of the crew are located inside the turret, it becomes necessary to add more armour to the front and sides of the turret, in order to protect the crew. If the turret is already large, the designers need to provide protection to a greater surface area, which makes the turret and the entire vehicle much heavier.

On most designs the turret face is the best-protected portion of the tank, simply because it presents the likeliest target for enemy fire and has to protect two or three members of the crew. However, doing so means adding much more weight to the front portion – typically the frontal 60° of the turret, and this can throw the turret off-balance, with too much weight centred on the front portion. This can be balanced by adding a bustle to the rear of the turret to act as a counterweight, but doing so makes the turret an even bigger target, and this added weight increases the inertia of the turret while traversing, which requires more powerful motors to traverse the turret. Without more powerful motors the ability of a turret to aim at different targets in quick succession would be adversely affected (11). This increases weight and power requirements, which can lead to some of the previously-mentioned problems associated with modern tanks.

The unmanned turret of the T-14 Armata solves some of the greatest disadvantages of turreted tank designs. However, it has not managed to achieve this without some significant departures from Soviet tank design philosophy. For starters, the size, and reported cost of the vehicle has risen to standards almost comparable to Western designs, although the weight remains slightly lower. This is indicative of a cultural shift within the Russian Armed Forces which has been ongoing for the past decade, aiming to professionalise and modernise. With the replacement of conscripts by Kontraktniki (contracted professional soldiers) wherever possible, these professional soldiers became an investment which need to be protected by modern equipment, and for tanks this means a design which provides a radical increase in survivability. The T-14 certainly meets these criteria for crew survivability, however it has also made some significant trade-offs which affect its suitability for warfighting, and its cost and ease of production in order to attain its level of capability.

To start with the turret, the models shown so far have been fitted with a ‘soft-skin’ of steel approximately 5–7 mm thick around the turret’s systems, which is unlikely to be capable of protecting against heavy machine gun fire, to say nothing of its inability to keep out automatic cannon fire. Doing so is not necessarily bad – it saves a great deal of weight and allows the T-14 to be more deployable than its Western analogues, and makes the tank cheaper and simpler to manufacture. However, it also creates a problem of a lack of protection for the vehicle’s expensive electronic components, such as the sighting systems and radars. As such, these expensive components are highly vulnerable to common battlefield threats – artillery, machine-gun fire, and cannons. Although the crew may survive such threats easily, the tanks which have sustained fire to their optics and radars will be unfit to send into combat. This forces the army which uses the T-14 to invest significantly more into logistics, repairs, and spare parts, or forces them to limit the conditions under which the vehicle can be deployed to combat. This last point is perhaps more significant one, as no army would like a vehicle which is limited in terms of deployability. The T-14 seems to be well-suited to engaging rivals in tank-on-tank combat, but much less suited to engaging nonstate armed groups in the complex, low-intensity conflicts which are more common today. In such conflicts, it is a more expensive and less efficient tool for the job than a T-72B3, and this is perhaps why the T-14 has yet to be spotted in Syria.

Ultimately, wars are won by achieving the right balance of priorities, and while the T-14 is undoubtedly a very advanced and capable tank, it is of less use to most armies than a more flexible platform such as an IFV, which is cheaper, more deployable, less of a logistical burden, and has a more flexible mission profile. While these critiques have been raised here in discussing the T-14, in reality they are equally applicable to Western armies and Western tanks also. The tank still has an important place on the modern battlefield, but its primacy has been overtaken by its smaller and lighter cousins such as IFVs for cost and flexibility reasons. Modern Western tanks likewise have difficulty protecting their external components such as optics or radars from artillery and machine guns, simply because it is difficult to make a valid tank design which can protect these. As such, this problem is global, and without an obvious solution, it is likely to be a very expensive factor which every actor simply has to accept as a design limitation through the XX century. There are certainly a number of important innovations on the Armata which should influence future tank designs, and chief among these is the location of the crew and remote turret concept, and the level of automation invested in many of the tank’s systems. As battlefield threats increase in speed and complexity, it is naturally to be expected that many human tasks will likely need to be fulfilled by machines.

M1A2 ABRAMS The US M1A2

Abrams, while a highly capable vehicle, also suffers from a great many of the problems previously outlined with tank fleets. It is provided with high levels of protection for the turret based around a multi-layer sloped passive armour array in the turret sides and bustle, and on domestic variants the front of the turret includes depleted uranium (DU) armour elements (12, 13, 14, 15). It should be noted that the export variants of the tank, such as those in use by Saudi Arabia, did not receive the DU armour elements, and this may be a partial contributing factor in their loss rates in Yemen (16).


The wisdom of using depleted uranium (DU) as an armour material for the M1 Abrams has been put into question, having been cited in a number of cases related to health risks (17, 18). While a clear consensus is unlikely to emerge, this issue may have been a contributing factor to the decision to add a graphite coating to the DU armour elements in the first Systems Enhancement Package (SEP v1) upgrade (19, 20). It is also notable that no other mass-produced tank design has copied this particular feature of the Abrams. Nonetheless, the Abrams family’s performance in Iraq has shown that the protection along the frontal portions of the vehicle is extensive against many commonly-available AT weapons. However, the protection of the upper surface seems to have been a low priority, as the Abrams has notably thin and weak roof armour (21, 22). While the roof armour of nearly all vehicles is rather thin, some NATO countries have taken the threat from artillery bomblets and top-attack missiles a bit more seriously, and have provided additional roof protection for the tanks, while on the Abrams this is notably absent, even on the M1A2C variant, judging by available images (23, 24).

The Abrams series has undergone significant upgrades since the original model, and these upgrades have largely focused on improving the passive protection, the engine, the sighting system, digitisation, and power storage. A key element which has not been upgraded is the gun, which remains the M265 L44 smoothbore gun used on the M1A1. This leaves it with a gun capable of generating significantly less muzzle energy than those used by the British Challenger 2 (L55), the French Leclerc (L52), and later variants of the German Leopard 2 (L55). The Russian 2A46 series guns are also alleged to provide a higher muzzle energy, however their potential in tank combat has been partially held back due to ammunition being limited to a length of approximately 640 mm to fit into the T-72 and T-80 autoloaders25, 26. Although it became possible to fit the longer 740 mm Svinets round into the T-90A and T-72B3 models, overcoming the fundamental limitations to Russian tank ammunition and adopting longer penetrator designs was only truly possible by moving to a larger hull design which could provide the space needed to accommodate an autoloader with larger munitions of a new generation – the T-14 (27).

The Abrams’ impact on future tank design is difficult to quantify, as although it is a capable vehicle, two major design features, the gas-turbine engine and the DU armour elements, stand out as features unlikely to be used in a future MBT. The gas-turbine engine for example requires significantly more fuel than high-end diesel engines and generates a larger heat signature. The DU armour, as previously discussed, is unlikely to re-emerge due to uncertainty regarding its effects on personnel.

LEOPARD 2

The most upgraded variants of the Leopard 2 are perhaps the most combat-capable tanks in the NATO arsenal. It is difficult to criticise vehicles such as the Leopard 2A7V without reference to their extreme cost to build and operate, and their lack of an active protection system. The losses of Turkish Leopards in Syria should not be seen as a true lesson on the vulnerability of this vehicle, as the Turks were using the much older Leopard 2A4 standard, which is significantly less capable than more modern variants. In addition, the lack of support for the Turkish Leopards was a contributing factor in their loss, as tactics which do not provide adequate support are liable to be punished, as was shown. Perhaps the biggest lessons to be learned from the Leopard 2 is that the inbuilt modularity and upgradeability is a necessary factor in any future tank design to maintain pace with future threats. The newest variants of the Leopard 2, such as the 2A7, are almost a completely different vehicle when compared to the older models such as the 2A4, and are capable of withstanding fundamentally greater threats. Other tanks have shown themselves to also be upgradeable to a high standard, but none exemplify this characteristic to the same extent as the Leopard 2’s evolution has shown. However, the still-greater significance of Leopard 2 may be political rather than its battlefield capabilities.


As Europe proceeds to seek greater integration in the defence matters, it is likely that European leaders will seek to coalesce future designs around a common platform for greater interoperability and to create larger economies of scale. This has already started to happen with the ‘OMBT-Leo2’ pooling and sharing initiative of the European Defence Agency (EDA), which seeks to upgrade Leopard 2 tanks to the Leopard 2A7 standard and lease, rent, or sell these tanks to European countries which wish to replace their obsolescent (and often Soviet) tank fleets (28). The legacy of the Leopard has also been shown by the increased cooperation between Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and France’s Nexter Systems, with projects like the ‘Leoclerc’ designed to test the compatibility between the two companies in terms of expertise and cooperation (29). As Europe looks to the future, the idea of common vehicle fleets will seem increasingly attractive to its members.

A GLANCE TO THE FUTURE

The Israelis have shown in concepts a vision for what might be a viable alternative to existing MBT design with the Carmel. This vehicle is still in development, so hard facts about its performance cannot be drawn, but the major design principles can still be evaluated. To begin with, it represents a heavy IFV more than it does a tank. Concept art and small-scale presentations by Israeli defence companies involved with the project has shown the vehicle to use a two-crew layout, with the crew sat in a protected citadel like in the Armata. It has a remote turret which is armed with a medium-calibre automatic cannon, and on top of the turret there are two remote weapon stations which have a machine-gun and two ATGMs each. The vehicle relies on an active protection system such as Trophy for defeating RPGs and ATGMs. From the crew position, the crew have large displays showing them the tank exterior, and the Iron Vision 360° see-through armour system allowing them to see all around the vehicle without having to rely on exposing themselves or using periscopes. The vehicle also has a very high level of automation, with automatic vehicle terrain navigation, automatic target recognition and independent target search functionality for all weapons. This means that in combat situations, the vehicle is capable of locating targets independently and the crew would simply need to prioritise or select the targets they want to engage and the vehicle conducts the engagement automatically. This level of automation also allows the crew to be removed from the vehicle altogether and for it to be used as an entirely unmanned platform.


As we noted at the start, the tank must be built first and foremost to be suited to the type of war an army is prepared to fight. Israel’s Carmel design therefore reflects their likely opponents insofar as it prioritises extremely fast sensor-to-shooter times, flexible multipurpose armament choices, and deployability over raw protection and raw firepower. Insofar as the Carmel is a demonstration of what to expect in the future, the most prescient innovation is probably the level of automation, which reduces the level of cognitive load on the crew, and allows training to be simplified. The optionally-manned component is also a component likely to be copied in future designs, having already become a component of the US Optionally-Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program to replace the Bradley.

However, due to the wars which are likely to be fought, Western designs are likely to pursue a large-calibre gun instead of relying on missiles which are more easily intercepted by active protection systems. As such, the tanks will need to be bigger than the Carmel, comparable in size to modern tanks. Western vehicles are also highly likely to borrow the Russian design philosophy of using an autoloader and with it, the rationale of an unmanned turret. This is because larger-calibre guns are seen as a future requirement – a 130 mm gun has been developed by Rheinmetall, and the French have already tested a 140 mm gun design (30). With larger guns, it becomes more difficult for a human to handle the heavier ammunition, and so an autoloader is a logical solution to the problem. This also allows a reduction from four to three crew, and makes it possible to eliminate crew from the turret altogether, as the Armata has done. The appeal of a smaller crew is simple – it means that engineers can make a smaller vehicle with a smaller protected surface area, and save some weight, and for military planners it allows them to simplify training and eliminate 25% of the personnel costs of a tank force. The Israeli innovation of moving to a two-person crew by providing the vehicle with an autonomous driving capability is likely to appeal even more for exactly the same reasons.

Top-attack threats deserve further discussion, because they remain a challenge for both existing tanks, even those fitted with rotating active protection systems such as Trophy and Iron Fist (31). They are more difficult to intercept, and they target the weakest portion of the vehicle. As ATGM designs continue to evolve, a top-attack functionality is likely to become increasingly common, and so future vehicle designs will be required to factor in protection against them in order to remain relevant.


While there are some lessons to be learned from existing designs, there are sadly insufficient conclusions to draw because the modern vehicles discussed have never been engaged in the type of combat scenario which truly puts their design capabilities to the test. With an absence of such data, it is difficult to make a comprehensive assessment. However, the most concerning trend for tank fleets globally are the costs associated with running them. In order to remain relevant in the XX century, tank designers are faced with the colossal challenge of making their vehicles more deployable, and more affordable in large quantities in addition to being highly capable.

Text by John Smith
[/quote]A few points.
About the T-14.
To start with the turret, the models shown so far have been fitted with a ‘soft-skin’ of steel approximately 5–7 mm thick around the turret’s systems, which is unlikely to be capable of protecting against heavy machine gun fire, to say nothing of its inability to keep out automatic cannon fire.


I find this difficult to believe that the Rus would field such thin armour on the turret for a tank costing a lot more than a T-90! The tank would've undergone extensive testing against various types of anti-tank and MG munitions.Other analysts have felt that the turret's armour is of composite material,probably layered as in Chobam,Kanchan armour. Thus far,no western expert has been able to examine the T-14 at close quarters and measure its armour thickness!
However,it is larger and more expensive and probably will be inducted in lesser numbers than the earlier T-series,following the two-tier system of the Ru Army's doctrine of having two tank types for combat.

He is spot on about other smaller AVs in modern urban battlefields.The other AVs in the Armata modular family and western equivs will accompany MBTs into battle especially in urban warfare.Here too protection from mines and other IEDs are reqd.

That a 3-man crew is to be the norm of the future,along with autoloaders for heavier ammo is a fundamental. The Israeli 2-man crew MBT design will be eagerly awaited.Ru have also demonstrated prototypes of an unmanned AV,but hwo it can be deployed in the heat and dust of a fast-moving battle is open to Q.

The protection of AVs from drone swarms has not been touched upon,perhaps because this piece was written before the Azer-Armenian spat. Dealing with this threat is going to be one of the most severe for MBTs and would require extra specialised anti-drone/aircraft/helo systems,combining AA guns and missiles.A mobile version of the iron dome exists aboard a truck,but if fitted to a tracked AV could be deployed on terrain that trucks cannot negotiate.
Last edited by Philip on 04 Jun 2021 12:18, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The latest tank from a beloved country is only equal in capacities to a German tank from 40+ years ago. Or a French tank from 30 +years ago or a British tank from 20 + years ago. No one is even talking about the M1A2 which is also 20 + years old in service. Let alone the latest version of the tank.

It is conveniently ignored that both the French and the Germans are working together to develop a new MBT. The only thing known about the vehicle is that it will use 130 Mm main gun. The prototype of which is already mounted on a current generation Challenger chassis. While at the same time both the Germans and the French have a 140 Mm main tank gun. Hell even the puny Switzerland has a 140 MM tank gun design.

That the Americans have 4 different MBT designs under evaluation.

The sum and substance of the post looks as follows, in the future battle field a Russian tank commander will stop his tank in full view of the NATO tank commander. Walk half way to the NATO tank. Issue a one on one challenge for a tank duel using megaphone. A refusal to oblige will result in NATO accepting defeat.

Any future war will not be as simple. The decision will be made on the basis of the integration of systems that happens amongst different weapons. Individual weapons however superior will never decide the outcome of the war.

So how many vehicles of the Armata family are in service. Or are likely to be in service by 2025 or 2035.

I will take the NATO plans much more seriously compared to any Russian plans for armament production.

Why, because they have the financial resources to make it happen.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Wait and watch, water and FMBTs will find their own level.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prasad »

Irrespective of whether the IA wants a brand new futuristic tank in 1 yr, 5 yrs or 10 years, it should be done within the country. We have the building blocks for all the crap IA wants on this tank right here. We need them to create a team that will oversee development and not get kneecapped by the dgmf 5 years later and to accept whatever this IA team develops. Going outside the country for a billion dollar program when your own country is suffering from the economic shocks of covid is all kinds of brain-dead.
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

Prasad wrote:Irrespective of whether the IA wants a brand new futuristic tank in 1 yr, 5 yrs or 10 years, it should be done within the country. We have the building blocks for all the crap IA wants on this tank right here. We need them to create a team that will oversee development and not get kneecapped by the dgmf 5 years later and to accept whatever this IA team develops. Going outside the country for a billion dollar program when your own country is suffering from the economic shocks of covid is all kinds of brain-dead.
+108, it would be criminal of this Government if it is anything else.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... v/2264711/

Idiots in GoI even sent Turkey an RFI for FRCV program.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

:roll:

Faint hope it is a chankian way of slapping their H&D by rejecting them later in trials...leaving a few crumbs for the Pakis. Loss of face is a huge takleef for islamists..
Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Neela »

The new RFI for tanks must be seen in conjunction with second list of weapons that cannot be imported. The second list has Tank engines which cannot be imported.
Appears panic has set in in lobby and they are rushing to get something out.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

Would be interesting to find how the RFI and future tank specs are actually formulated...certainly not from brochures ., or ??!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Neela wrote:The new RFI for tanks must be seen in conjunction with second list of weapons that cannot be imported. The second list has Tank engines which cannot be imported.
Appears panic has set in in lobby and they are rushing to get something out.

No it's not that simple. The ban is on 1000 t72 engine's. Not tank engines in general.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

kit wrote:Would be interesting to find how the RFI and future tank specs are actually formulated...certainly not from brochures ., or ??!!
This one doesn't look like a case of brochureites. It is quite well drafted and well thought out. The question is about execution.

We will have to wait and see.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Sending the Turks an RFI is a chanakyian way to find out about Turk tank tech. as the same may end up with the Pakis as the west has imposed an unofficial embargo on sensitive tech well-knowing that the Pakis will hand over everything to the Chins.

Once again as with the LCA at inception, futuristic tech. is being demanded some of which may not exist in the country and will take time to develop on our own.I wish our FRCV decision-makers read Dr,Pillai's excellent book,the "BMos mantra".He spelt out 3 ways in which we could accelerate indigenous defence production and tech. acquisition. What we can manage,within our grasp, develop at home fast. What we can only partly do use JVs (as with BMos),and what is beyond our capability, import-as we're doing with the S-400s,Akulas,etc. The big unanswered Q about the FRCV is can we do it all alone,in what timeframe and at what cost? IN fact,the opportunity lies open for desi ICV orders where pvt. sector majors have developed prototypes.The number reqd, is huge,to replace thousands of Sov. era BMPs,etc. In the article I posted earlier about AV warfare,doctrine,MBTs,etc.,
in many hotspots the req. is more for urban warfare AVs rather than classic MBTs. AV tech. already developed for the Arjun could be shared with pvt. players for an IP consideration,and fast track the testing of prototypes and place orders as with the desi-developed arty.
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

Just imagine the amount of burnol, Rooh afza and pindi chana that will be needed to douse the Paki gastronomical fires and heartburn if we actually order the Turkish Altay before the Paikhanaistanis do.

Commerce is actually a Chanakyian way of separating these biraders (both of whom dream of bearded hoors).
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

They'll run to Rus-Putin for T-90s,Armatas instead! Thus far they've been snubbed. The crafty spooks of perfidious Albion allegedly did just that by deliberately fixing a Tsarist Russian order for warships in favour of the Germans instead of the British Vickers design.because there ace-spy Sidney Riley had fixed the local Ru agents for the deal.That way the Brits could study the German warship designs,plans,etc. which stood them in good stead against the German navy in WW1.
The Ottomans will ,if they're really keen on the deal,have to show us the tank's vitals,performance will be tested on the field,etc. If the Pakis ever get Turko tanks,we'll know all about their pros and cons!
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

+108 Field marshal!
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

What bloody nonsense. We might as well reach out to the South Koreans who have helped with the design of the Altay. In effect the Altay is a scaled down K2.

The turret system is from K2 as well I believe.

Only in India.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The FRCV RFQ provided a wonderful opportunity to develop a world beater in India. But as usual the MOD had to make it a circus tat will keep the Army occupied for the next 10 years.

When no progress is made in acquisition of the CV for the next 10 years the Army will buy the T 14. That will be the end of that.

Having said so. I was looking at the US efforts to replace the M1. They have 4 concept vehicles out of which 3 have been declassified. With vehicles ranging from 55 to 60 tons. It seems like they will have their own effort in service in the next 10 to 12 years.

What Will the Army's M1 Abrams Tank Replacement Look Like?

The Army’s M1 Abrams Tank Replacement
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The US Army has no *real* plans to replace the Abrams and neither would the Pentagon would like to fund such an effort with the air and maritime focus around China. The latest variants of the Abrams (A4) have not even been fielded yet, and there is the MPF for airborne and light infantry that will be fielded in the 2025-2032 time-frame. Basically, no clean sheet Abrams replacement is likely to emerge before late 2030's. And that's really too far into the future to really see what sort of new tank they will need given the focus around the Pacific, and what attributes (performance, survivability, lethality/weapons) it should/could have. The Germans and the French will likely go first, but the US may just be the last western (major) power to field a clean sheet MBT owing largely to prioritization.
Post Reply