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.
jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1055
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jaysimha » 31 Oct 2019 16:05

Image
India's Main Battle Tanks
The shape of things to come
https://imrmedia.in/current-issue.php

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 01 Nov 2019 01:42

The thing to note about the FRCV listed contender like T14, Oplot, Lelrec, K2;

All are 3 man crew with auto-loader.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 515
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby pralay » 01 Nov 2019 14:19

Another incident of T90 barrel burst
idrw.org/soldier-dies-as-battle-tank-barrel-explodes-in-mahajan-ranges-in-firing-practice
An Army soldier lost his life when the barrel of a T-90 tank burst during routine field firing training practice at the Mahajan firing ranges here on Thursday. “Army soldier killed when the barrel of a T-90 tank burst during routine field firing training in the Mahajan ranges today,” Army sources said. Investigations have been ordered into the accident, they said.

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1122
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Nikhil T » 08 Nov 2019 08:18

464 T90 tanks to be made in Avadi at Rs 20,000 crore

BENGALURU: More than six months after the Centre cleared the procurement of 464 Russian-origin T-90 main-battle tanks (MBTs), the ministry of defence has placed an order for the entire fleet worth 20,000 crore with the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi. Going by the present production capability of the factory, which is about 120 tanks a year, it could take over four years for it to deliver all 464.

When the procurement was cleared in April this year, the value of the deal was to be a little more than 13,000 crore. But multiple sources in the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) confirmed on Thursday that the order had been valued at 20,000 crore. :?: :?:

The order for 464 units of Bhishma, the newest MBT that the Army is using, is meant to bolster the shock-and awe capabilities of the armed forces along the western sector of the India-Pakistan border. Once the delivery is complete, the Army will have over 1,500 of these tanks.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11230
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Nov 2019 10:41

Last year there were reports that we had indigenoused the Engine, I am all for this if Night Sights etc are Indian, Ammo is manufactured in India and almost all of tank is built from raw material in India. Being a Torsion Bar medium tank it will always be cheaper than a heavy tank with pnuematic suspension like Arjun at USD 6 Million a unit VS 10 Million for a Arjun MK2 which is more advanced and should be deployed in lesser numbers say a total fleet of 600 tanks.

VikramA
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 29 Aug 2018 15:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby VikramA » 08 Nov 2019 16:43

how many total t-90 would this order make> approx 2000?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11230
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Nov 2019 16:49

1500

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 359
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby dinesh_kimar » 08 Nov 2019 17:27

We have indegenised almost entire tank, close to 95 %. This was in one of shows of Maj. Gaurav Arya.

The high cost of Russian royalties can perhaps smartly be avoided, possibly by introducing a new Tank, mechanically similar in nature.

Avadi built T-90 for 10 years, but no variants or product improvement.

Quality might not be great either, barrel burst again yesterday, and repeat breakdowns in Tank Biathlon in Russia.

It's not the best, but IA loves it !

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11230
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 08 Nov 2019 17:42

The Night Vision camera , avionics and electronic equipment seem to be Indian customization

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 09 Nov 2019 04:52

dinesh_kimar wrote:It's not the best, but IA loves it !


T90 may have had it's peculiar Russian problems of space, ammo all around, not fully tested etc, however it is a myth that T90 is a bad tank. It is rugged, easy to use and cheap to build and maintain. The reason why IA has inducted thousands. The numbers have given a phenomenal over match over Pak armor units.

We all have the image of blowing T72 turret in GW1. One aspect people forgot is that, M1A1 was blowing steel turrets with depleted uranium rounds! There was no contest.

Today T90 is composite armor + ERA. Any sabot round is not going to have a easy time penetrating it. The T90 what we have is not a completely monkey model.

It contains Kanchan composite armor and barrel built by us. Russia may have sold us export model, but we can easily modify the protection level.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 09 Nov 2019 04:59

I wonder if the RWS can be computer controlled to act as CIWS against ATGM? instead of expensive APS.

You would still need the detecting radar, to slew the RWS towards incoming ATGM. it will be less harmful than APS, which will explode everywhere!

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 986
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby shaun » 09 Nov 2019 07:04

nam wrote:I wonder if the RWS can be computer controlled to act as CIWS against ATGM? instead of expensive APS.

You would still need the detecting radar, to slew the RWS towards incoming ATGM. it will be less harmful than APS, which will explode everywhere!

APS is for various types of projectile

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3389
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 09 Nov 2019 14:40

nam wrote:I wonder if the RWS can be computer controlled to act as CIWS against ATGM? instead of expensive APS.

You would still need the detecting radar, to slew the RWS towards incoming ATGM. it will be less harmful than APS, which will explode everywhere!




Is that a workable option given the response times required.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 09 Nov 2019 21:08

For an ATGM the reaction time would be fine. It would have trouble targeting cannon fired round.

A radar driven RCWS would be a cheap defense for light armored vehicles against ATGM, when rolling out APS for every vehicle will be expensive.

Most of these vehicles may not be facing tanks.

Ofcourse as with every hard kill system, there is problem of collateral damage.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby John » 10 Nov 2019 05:14

kit wrote:
nam wrote:I wonder if the RWS can be computer controlled to act as CIWS against ATGM? instead of expensive APS.

You would still need the detecting radar, to slew the RWS towards incoming ATGM. it will be less harmful than APS, which will explode everywhere!




Is that a workable option given the response times required.

First off you still need sensors to detect the missile which actually costs more than hard kill system. So you are better off installing an Aps than using Remote weapon system. Also the system won’t be that effective, 12.7mm gun (or 7.62mm?) doesn’t have lethality or response time to safely destroy the incoming missile.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2244
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 12 Nov 2019 00:09

For all the experts on BRF who keep calling T90 a tin can please read the following
Maybe Indian Army experts might know little more about T90 then the BRF experts


Meet Russia's T-90 Tank: It Blew Up All Over Syria
Even the most heavily armored main battle tanks are significantly less well protected from hits to the side, rear or top armor.

The interconnected conflicts raging across the Middle East today have amounted to a dreadful human catastrophe with spiraling global consequence. One of their lesser effects has been to deflate the reputations of Western main battle tanks mistakenly thought to be night-invulnerable in the popular imagination.

Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent he capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.

While these tanks could have benefited from specific defensive upgrades in some cases, the real lesson to be drawn was less about technical deficiencies and more about crew training, competent morale, and sound tactical employment matter more even than “invulnerable” armor. After all, even the most heavily armored main battle tanks are significantly less well protected from hits to the side, rear or top armor—and rebels with years of combat experience have learned how to ambush imprudently deployed main battle tanks, particularly using long-range anti-tank missiles from miles away.

One exception to the general tarnishing of reputations has been Russia’s T-90A tank, 550 of which serve as Russia’s top main battle tank until the T-14 Armatas fully enters service. The T-90 was conceived in the 1990s as a modernized mash-up the hull of the earlier mass-production optimized T-72, and the turret from the higher-quality (but operationally unsuccessful) T-80. Retaining a low profile and a three-man crew, (the tank’s 2A46M auto-loading cannon takes the place of a human loader), the fifty-ton T-90A is significantly lighter than the seventy-ton-ish M1A2 and Leopard 2.

When Moscow intervened in Syria in 2015 on behalf the beleaguered regime of Bashar al-Assad, it also transferred around thirty T-90As to the Syrian Arab Army, as well as upgraded T-62Ms and T-72s. The Syrian military could desperately use this armored infusion, as it had lost over two thousand armored vehicles in the preceding years—especially after Syrian rebels began receiving American TOW-2A missiles in 2014. The T-90s were spread out between the 4th Armored Division, the Desert Hawks Brigade (composed of retired SAA veterans led by pro-Assad warlords) and Tiger Force, an elite battalion-sized SAA unit specialized in offensive operations.

In February 2016, Syrian rebels filmed a video of a TOW missile streaking towards a T-90 tank in northeast Aleppo. In a blinding flash, the missile detonates. However, as the smoke cleared it became evident that the tank’s Kontakt-5 explosive-reactive armor had discharged the TOW missile’s shaped-charge warhead prior to impact, minimizing the damage. (This fact was perhaps not appreciated by the tank’s gunner, who in the full version of the video clambered out of an already open hatch and fled on foot.) Nonetheless, the video went viral.

While the T-90A is still outgunned by Western main battle tanks, it does sport number of defensive systems particularly effective verses anti-tank missiles that (all but a few) Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks lack—and anti-tank missiles have destroyed far more armored vehicles in recent decades than tank main guns have.

If you look head on at a T-90A you may notice the creepy “eyes” on the turret—a reliable method of distinguishing it from similar-looking modernized T-72s. These are actually infrared dazzlers designed to jam laser-targeting systems on missiles, and glow a terrifying red color when active. The dazzlers are just a component of the T-90’s Shtora-1 active protection system, which can also discharge smoke grenades that release an infrared-obscuring aerosol cloud. Shtora is integrated with a 360-degree laser-warning receiver which automatically triggers the countermeasures if the tank is painted by an enemy laser—and can even point the tank’s gun towards the origin of the attack. The T-90A’s second line of defense comes in the form of plates of Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor, which was designed to detonate prior to a missile impact in order to disrupt the molten jet of its shaped-charge warhead and feed additional metal in its path.

So did the T-90’s reactive armor and Shtora active protection system prove a sure-fire countermeasure verses long-range anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs)?
In a word, no—but you would only know that if you followed the many less well publicized videos depicting the destruction or capture of T-90s by rebel and government forces.


Jakub Janovský has dedicated himself to documenting and preserving recorded armor losses in the Syrian Civil War for several years, and recently released a vast archive of over 143 gigabytes of combat footage from the conflict ranging from atrocities perpetrated by various groups to hundreds of ATGM attacks.

According to Janovský, of the thirty transferred to the Syrian Arab Army, he is aware of five or six T-90As being knocked out in in 2016 and 2017, mostly by wire-guided TOW-2A missiles. (Some of the knocked out tanks, to clarify, may be recoverable with heavy repairs.) Another four may have been hit, but their status after the attack as not possible to determine. Of course, there may be additional losses that were not documented, and there are cases where the type of tank involved could not be visually confirmed.

Furthermore, HTS rebels captured two T-90s and used them in action, while a third was captured by ISIS November 2017. On June 2016, Sham Front rebels knocked out a T-90 with a TOW-2. Drone footage taken afterwards shows smoke rising from the turret hatch, and reveals the T-90’s tell-tale Shtora dazzlers. Another video recorded on June 14, 2016, at Aleppo shows a T-90 pulling a sharp turn and racing for cover behind a building—possibly aware of an incoming TOW missile. However, the T-90 is struck in its side or rear armor. The tank explodes, scattering debris high into the air, but stills continues to roll behind cover.

Another T-90A was either hit by a Russian-built Konkurs (similar to the TOW) or the more powerful laser-guided AT-14 Kornet missile near Khanassar, Syria, wounding the gunner. The crew eventually abandoned the vehicle as a fire spread from the machine gun mount into the vehicle, where it began to cook off the 125-millimeter shells on the carousel-style autoloader. The placement of ammunition in middle of the tank alongside the crew, rather than a separate stowage compartment as in the M1, has long been a vulnerability of Russian tank designs.
Rebels, meanwhile, maintained two T-90s in an abandoned brick factory in Idlib province. In April 2017, of the rebel T-90As, reinforced with sandbags on its armor, apparently went on a rampage assisting rebel forces in recapturing the town of Maarden, according to Russian media. Later, one of the T-90As was recaptured by the government, and the other was knocked out—reportedly, by a T-72 tank using a kinetic sabot round in the side armor.

In October, ISIS captured a 4th Armored Division T-90A near al-Mayadeen in eastern Syria when it ventured alone into a sand storm. Then on November 16, 2017, ISIS ambushed a Tiger Force armored column and apparently blasted a T-90A’s turret clean off its hull and left to rot upside down in the desert. The crew was reportedly killed. However, pro-Assad media claims this was the T-90 captured earlier by ISIS, found to be inoperable, and then destroyed for propaganda purposes.

This not to say the T-90’s defensive systems never worked. In one remarkable incident recorded on July 28, 2016, a T-90 tank near the Mallah farms of Aleppo was struck by a TOW missile, but emerged apparently unscathed from the dust cloud thanks to its reactive armor. As the vehicle frantically scuttled away, the TOW crew smacked it with a second missile—which it apparently survived despite sustaining damage.

Janovský says he is not aware of T-90s being lost to shorter-range weapons, “since the regime rarely used T-90s in close combat, especially after two were captured.” The T-90 has in fact been “relatively successful” in Janovský’s opinion, despite losses due to “overconfidence and poor coordination with infantry, which has been a long term problem of the SAA.”

According to Janovský, the T-90’s most useful feature has actually proven to be its superior optics and fire control computer compared to earlier Russian tanks. “T-90s performed well when they had an opportunity to shoot at rebels from long distance or at night, when modern optics and fire-control computer proved to be a major advantage.” Indeed, the T-90A model began receiving French-built Catherine FC thermal imagers in the mid-2000s.

Of course a small number of T-90s was not going to have a great impact on a sprawling civil war that had been raging for years. However, Janovský still see lessons to be drawn from the situation. “The regime was also lucky that rebels never got any modern ATGM that has top attack mode—which would reliable kill T-90.” Examples such of top-attack weapons include the Javelin missile, and the TOW-2B.

“In my opinion, the major issue with T-90 (and most other modern tanks) is a complete lack of hard-kill Active Protection System [one that shoots missiles down], ideally with 360 degrees coverage, but 270 degrees should be minimum. This not only means that it is vulnerable to being disabled by cheap rocket propelled grenades in urban combat but also from Anti-Tank Guided Missiles fired from unexpected angle. When you consider the range of current ATGMs [typically two to five miles], it will be fairly regular occurrence that you get a side shot opportunity against attacking enemy tank from positions across from the of attacked location.”

Indeed, Russia is reportedly planning to upgrade its T-90As—which are currently less advanced than the T-90MS’s in service with the Indian Army—to a T-90M variant with new hard-kill active protection systems, upgraded reactive armor, and a more powerful 2A82 main gun. Ultimately, the losses in Syria show that any tank—whether T-90, M-1 or Leopard 2—is vulnerable on a battlefield in which long-range ATGMs have proliferated. Active protection systems and missile warning systems are vital to mitigate that danger—but so are careful tactical employment, competently trained crews, and improved cooperation with infantry to minimize exposure to long-range attacks, ward off ambushers, and provide extra eyes on possible threats.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: VikramA and 16 guests