Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 May 2011 23:34

Surya wrote:any long rod discussion needs the pictures of the "long rod ' ammo of Tin can and long rod ammo for Arjun\others

Evil evil, Surya!!!

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 23 May 2011 01:57

Surya wrote:any long rod discussion needs the pictures of the "long rod ' ammo of Tin can and long rod ammo for Arjun\others

Sigh... This discussion has already descended to "mine is bigger than yours" level?? ...

~Ashish

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 May 2011 03:22

no No

Not bigger

longer only

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 May 2011 03:23

Austin wrote:I really have no intention to beat on that because there is no official result of the trials , all we have is bloggers and fan boys assessment and you know that former has been proven wrong and latter will never change.

So, Indiastrategic, run by Col Gulshan Luthra, rtd. is also a blogger and fanboy assessment?
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories623.htm

New Delhi. The Indian Army will soon place orders for 124 additional Arjun main battle tanks (MBTs) to boost its firepower after the tank outperformed the Russian-built T-90 tanks in the recent grueling trials in Thar desert.

Sources present at the site of the trials told India Strategic “the tank outgunned the T-90s by 30 percent in nearly hundred parameters compared by the user (the Army).”

Lets see what the MOD official spokesperson, Shri Sitanshu Kar said after the T-90 versus Arjun trials.

“After many years of trial and tribulation it has now proved its worth by its superb performance under various circumstances, such as driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes, detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets, accurately hitting targets – both stationary and moving, with pin pointed accuracy.

“Its superior fire-power is based on accurate and quick target acquisition capability during day and night in all types of weather and shortest possible reaction time during combat engagements,” Kar added.

Its fairly obvious what the results were of the showdown, even if you don't wish to acknowledge them.

Also:

The T-90 can carry 22 rounds in Underfloor autoloader ,the rest are just stored in the turret where its vulnerable after penetration.

This is wrong! The remaining T-90 and T-72 ammo is distributed all over the turret and drivers compartment. In fact, instead of being in armoured containers, like on the Arjun, there are just open attachments for the two piece ammo all over the tank. Effectively, half the rounds are scattered all around these T series tanks, making them that much more dangerous. In case of Arjun, ammo is split across two locations but in case of these two tanks, the ammo is all over, making the likelihood of a penetrating round hitting these exposed rounds that much more likely.

What is so special about the underfloor autoloader as well. If it is penetrated, 22 two piece rounds in the carousel will go up, flipping the turret.

In the Arjun, the crew can make the conscious decision to either use up the hull ammo first (given turret has a blow off panel) or the hull ammo, depending on what they wish. In case of the T-90, they have no such option. The autoloader has to be used, and the round chosen if its in a particular location, needs to wait for the carousel to rotate once it gets it. Once the 22 rounds are over, the crew have to painstakingly manually reload the autoloader will all those rounds scattered all across the tank. Unlike in the Arjun, where the loader either just reaches behind himself for the rounds at the back of the turret, or for the hull rounds in front. Frankly, the Arjun layout is more logical and beneficial for extended buttoned up operations. The T series tank, in many ways, is the worst of soviet design, where ergonomics and crew comfort went out of the window. Its one thing to be in this tank, in Siberia, and require a heater. Another to be in Thar (55 degrees centigrade inside tank) without air conditioner in such a cramped tank.

srai · Post by **srai** » 23 May 2011 04:32

Austin wrote:...

The T-90AM solves it using rear turret bustle auto loader which can fire longer rods.

Reason for IA to cancel the Arjun orders ... now a new improved T-90AM is available ... IA will order another 1,000 units

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 May 2011 04:47

Austin wrote:
rohitvats wrote:As for long rods - that is another myth till we see a long rod.
most people who have analysed pic of T-90AM believe it can carry long rod in rear turret bustle auto loader , well we will come to know when they make it public in September.

The T-90 M or AM may be the best tank in the world but it is not relevant to this discussion since the IA has no plans to acquire it. It seems tincan lovers conveniently keep forgetting this fact whilst coming up with the same arguments over and over again.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 May 2011 04:52

The autoloader has to be used, and the round chosen if its in a particular location, needs to wait for the carousel to rotate once it gets it. Once the 22 rounds are over, the crew have to painstakingly manually reload the autoloader will all those rounds scattered all across the tank

thats if you have not got your hands mangled in the cramped confines with that autoloader

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2011 08:04

Karan M wrote:So, Indiastrategic, run by Col Gulshan Luthra, rtd. is also a blogger and fanboy assessment?
http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories623.htm

Its his personal views any one who can blog can claim his sources gave his x or y info, so you have to leave it there.

I tried to inquire from some better known names on the result of trials and all say the army and MOD has classified the trial result and is tightly guarded , hence I am skeptical on what known bloggers has to say , they are saying things that would give them and their website more eyeballs.

In the Arjun, the crew can make the conscious decision to either use up the hull ammo first (given turret has a blow off panel) or the hull ammo, depending on what they wish.

I think it has been mentioned that Arjun has no blow off panels , AFAIK only Abrams 2 has blow off panels
, any ammo in hull or turret will end up with the same result after penetration as T end up with , but not before killing or badly injuring the crew.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 23 May 2011 08:49

Austin wrote:
I think it has been mentioned that Arjun has no blow off panels , AFAIK only Abrams 2 has blow off panels
, any ammo in hull or turret will end up with the same result after penetration as T end up with , but not before killing or badly injuring the crew.

That was D_berwal's claim which u are parroting ....
Leopard 2, Merkava, Leclerc all have blow-off-panels.
So does Arjun ...
Its amazing that you wouldn't even google for such a basic fact and accept somebody else's word just because it suits your world-view...

~Ashish.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 May 2011 09:30

Some of the gurus can answer this newbe question. Where are the blow off panels located on the T 72/90.

Cause AFIK, they have the blow off turret system. Please to correct me onlee.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 May 2011 09:50

could it be here
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 58769i.jpg

on the +ve side, makes it easy for the crew to evacuate a tank when under attack.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2011 10:03

Misraji wrote:That was D_berwal's claim which u are parroting ....
Leopard 2, Merkava, Leclerc all have blow-off-panels.
So does Arjun ...
Its amazing that you wouldn't even google for such a basic fact and accept somebody else's word just because it suits your world-view...

~Ashish.

from what I have read the only tanks with all ammo storage isolated and equipped with blow off panels are M1 series, other tanks would suffer the same catastrophic failure as T series if penetrated , western tank are slightly better then T's as far as safety goes link

T-90 or 80 does not have blow off/out panels

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 May 2011 10:44

Austin wrote:Its his personal views any one who can blog can claim his sources gave his x or y info, so you have to leave it there.

I see, so two rtd Army guys, Ajai Shukla & now an entirely unrelated Gulshan Luthra categorically point out the Arjun slammed the T-90, and all you can come up with is "personal views"? You have the MOD spokesperson say the Arjun has superior firepower etc, and thats "personal views"..

I tried to inquire from some better known names on the result of trials and all say the army and MOD has classified the trial result and is tightly guarded , hence I am skeptical on what known bloggers has to say , they are saying things that would give them and their website more eyeballs.

All this says is that your better known names whoever they are may not be as better known as you think they are. In contrast, Gulshan Luthra was writing about Indian Armor when 99% of indian defense mags did not even exist and all these well known names were beginning their so called journalism. He ran a think tank after his retirement from the Army. And all you have to say about this, is call him a "known blogger", which he is anything but & claim he wrote that article for eyeballs when he has hardly publicized that article. IndiaStrategic, whether you admit it or not, has a record of fairly credible information on a variety of topics.

Sorry Austin, what you are demonstrating is not skepticism. Its just sheer stubbornness in refusing to admit the reality.

I think it has been mentioned that Arjun has no blow off panels , AFAIK only Abrams 2 has blow off panels
, any ammo in hull or turret will end up with the same result after penetration as T end up with , but not before killing or badly injuring the crew.

Sorry but here you are just quoting d berwal's rubbish. The Arjun turret ammo clearly has a blow off panel, located directly above the ammunition rack.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 4.jpg.html

Look at it yourself instead of having to rely on what someone else says.
If you want a reference as to why it was included, go look at Army requirements postulated after the initial trials, when they specifically asked for blow off panels after they lost T-72 tanks to cooking off of ammunition.

Furthermore, each of the Arjun rounds, hull and turret is in a steel container, with a thick cover, which has to be manually unlocked before a round can be taken out.

In the Leopard, Leclerc, there is no such arrangement. The racks are thinner metal, with the hull rounds stacked in them. In Arjun, construction pics clearly show the metal racks is more rugged. Furthermore, the hull and turret are both linked to a fire detection and suppression system, which can detect & suppress fire within milliseconds. The hull ammo is directly placed next to the system. In contrast, the T series tanks have ammunition scattered all over the tank, making fire detection system placement and operation very problematic, especially given crew is also in proximity and equipment is in the way, with literally no space for other items!

Perhaps its high time you admit that your rosy eyed view of the T-tanks has not allowed you to see how poorly they are designed from the internal (passive) crew protection point of view, not to mention the lousy ergonomics. If you are moderately tall and above, try being in the T-tank and trying to do a bunch of tasks. And see the strain on your body after a few years ..

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 23 May 2011 10:56

Austin wrote:...
from what I have read the only tanks with all ammo storage isolated and equipped with blow off panels are M1 series, other tanks would suffer the same catastrophic failure as T series if penetrated , western tank are slightly better then T's as far as safety goes link

T-90 or 80 does not have blow off/out panels

Austin ... Kindly google it up. Name of the tanks that I have given AND the term "blow off panel".
There are numerous sites that state what I have just said...

And I am really skeptical about what you have read .... Give the source.
Just because D_berwal said so, does not mean we accept it hook, line and sinker ....

~Ashish

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 23 May 2011 11:08

Misraji wrote:
That was D_berwal's claim which u are parroting ....
Leopard 2, Merkava, Leclerc all have blow-off-panels.
So does Arjun ...
Its amazing that you wouldn't even google for such a basic fact and accept somebody else's word just because it suits your world-view...

~Ashish.

Power of Google is Awesome!
It remains with individual who uses it and it is entirely up to that individual to interpret the fruits of Google power in absence of any official literature!

If we go back to pages where discussion on blow-off panels got heated up, my understanding still is that there are no blow up panels on Arjun MK1, pls enlighten me through Google power.

Pls use the google and also see the ammo arrangement of M1A2, Markeva 4, Challenger 2, Leo 2 etc and let us know if:
- In case of hull breach and ammo detonation inside turret, whose crew has max chances of survival and why, if all of them have blow-off panels?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 May 2011 11:22

afaik the Leo2 has a secondary mag inside the hull to left of the driver + the usual bustle main mag.
the merkava has some kind of 10 round 'ready mag' electrically loaded mag, plus around 62 rds capacity elsewhere (vs the usual 40-45 in others). in a emergency I read they can even load up the 2 person infantry compartment in rear and store further rounds of ammo in there...a grand total of 82 has been alleged.
M1 only has the main bustle mag, but it carries 10,0000 rds (astonishing but true?) of 0.50cal ammo which must be kept in boxes in every nook n corner.
not sure of chal2.

does the hull storage in Leo2 have a blast panel blowing out of the side behind the roadwheels..?

pretty much all of them would be storing in individually armoured cells for each round though..as does Arjun.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 May 2011 11:33

guys, please drop this discussion. we only end up going round and round discussing the same thing with berwal sahab BSing like anything.

the merkava incorporated blow-off panels from Mk3 IIRC.

btw, nearly every news report and website on arjun mentions blow-off panels. for example http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general ... _tank.html

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 May 2011 12:05

^^^The fact that there is a magazine in the turret bustle means that Arjun has blow-off panels.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 May 2011 12:21

^^

Folks can see it for themselves from the CAD image on BR Website itself

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 23 May 2011 12:22

Can chacko just call HVF Avadi and ask them if the Arjun has blowoff panels? Should settle things once and for all?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2011 12:39

BTW is the image of Arjun correct because it talks of Commander Panoramic Sight ( CITV) when we know this feature will come only with Mk2 options.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 May 2011 13:55

Austin wrote:BTW is the image of Arjun correct because it talks of Commander
Panoramic Sight ( CITV) when we know this feature will come only with
Mk2 options.

This is some thing that confuses me. What is discribed as the CITV has been present on the Arjun for since at least 1999 if not earlier. The DRDO brochure from Def expo 99 should show that equipment on the tank. Hell it is present on the T 90 as well, (Mission army Armour episode confirms for both.) If you look at the Tank Ex you will see the same equipment present on it as well.

Then why is the IA asking for the equipment that is present already on Arjun?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 May 2011 14:00

Prasad wrote:Can chacko just call HVF Avadi and ask them if the Arjun has blowoff panels? Should settle things once and for all?

IIRC, the 1996/97 GSQR of the IA had made the Blow off armour panel the bottom line requirement for the Arjun. It was included as one of the 10 improvements that had to be made in the Vehicle, if it was to see service in the IA in any number.

While the DRDO/ HVF were makeing the changes to arjun the IA went ahead and ordered the T 90 to offset the TSPA T 80 purchase in the late 90s. Interestingly, the T 90 did not have the Blow off armour panels that were mandatory for the Arjun.

The rest as they say is history.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 May 2011 14:40

^^^Nonsense - T-90 has a far-far advanced system - the turrent blow-off mechanism.

You see, it is far superior to stupid blow-off panels...first and foremost, it doubles as crew ejection capsule as well. The two man crew also flies while comfortably strapped on their seats. No further threat of being hit by enemy anti-tank rounds - you're removed, or literally blow away, from the danger area. Crews are important to us, you see. Second, it serves as highly advanced air-con - lot of fresh air once the turret is off - it increases the leg room and gives far higher FOV as well. Third - helps in reducing the target cross section for the enemy - you see, no turret, no target. The crew can drive the tank to secret location and screw the turret back....try beating this!!!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 May 2011 14:45

^^^^

Rohit ,

You have stolen my line WRT the T 90 posted earlier on this page.

The Stupid Arjun should have the turret blow arrangement, it will be superior to the turret blow off system of the T90. Why, cause it will have 3 Jawans straped in it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2011 14:49

I do not see CITV in this image link , it seems only the Gunner has a TI in hunter/killer mode , while the commander lacks CITV , hence Mk2 will have it for the commander

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 May 2011 15:37

Austin wrote:I do not see CITV in this image link , it seems only the Gunner has a TI in hunter/killer mode , while the commander lacks CITV , hence Mk2 will have it for the commander

in the first couple of rows of this link, you can see it -

http://www.google.com/search?q=arjun+ta ... 80&bih=709

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2011 15:52

Those could be IR or Day Light Optical sight onlee , a CITV should be something similar to see on French leclerc or Abrams 2 , its quite huge.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 May 2011 15:55

^^^I don't know how one defines a Commanders Panoramic Sight but IIRC from my visit to the Arjun, there was this sight which rotated 360 degree to allow the commander to look all around him - independent of the position of the turret. And this was in mid-90s.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2011 15:57

BTW is that a TI sight or IR/Optical sight ?

And where is the similar sight for the gunner , both have independent sight one is in hunter/killer role dedicated to the gunner and one is CITV for commander.

Check similar CITV for the commander sight for Arjun and Leclerc

http://www.armyrecognition.com/News/Aug ... dia_02.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MlcIJtVqC0I/S ... tyrytr.JPG

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 May 2011 16:06

Austin,

this is what drdo site says -

Panoramic Sight for Commander

Commander's panoramic sight enables the commander to effect an all round surveillance in the battlefield without removing his eyes from the sight and without being disturbed by the turret motion. The field of view is stabilized with the help of a two axes rate gyro-mounted on the platform of the head mirror. The sight offers dual magnification.

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/mbt.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2011 16:13

Ok I seem to find what it is from BEL website , its Indigenous Gunners Main Sight for MBT

http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=315

So they share the display between gunner and commander , right now the commander does not have a CITV independent of the gunner , which means if the gunner is engaging the commander cannot independently scan 360 * for other targets.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 May 2011 16:24

pragnya wrote:Austin,

this is what drdo site says -

Panoramic Sight for Commander

Commander's panoramic sight enables the commander to effect an all round surveillance in the battlefield without removing his eyes from the sight and without being disturbed by the turret motion. The field of view is stabilized with the help of a two axes rate gyro-mounted on the platform of the head mirror. The sight offers dual magnification.
http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/mbt.html

Oh! that is what it is called?

Thanx.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 May 2011 16:27

it may be daytime and image intensifier nighttime only, not a true "3rd gen" thermal sight.

secondly also needs backend integration to tie in the gunnery system and gunners TI into the 2nd TI and have the commander able to designate fresh targets for the gunner maybe.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 May 2011 17:07

what is the max latest gen range for a thermal sight night vision? meaning something like the OLS, we could have for tanks (considering line of sight ) integrated (sensor fusion) with fire control of atgms.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 23 May 2011 17:10

In this Image You can see the pamaromic sight on top of the turret infromt of the commanders hatch.

The following is pure speculation on my part WRT the performance of the current Arjun Panaromic sight. It may not have a FCS soloution attached with it as is the case with the Challanger 2 or M1A2 Etc. The Commander can lock the target and the gunner can kill it, while the commander is looking at another target. The advantage would be the engagement time is reduced in this senario as the gunner is not spending time acquiring the shooting solution. It is already provided to him by the commander to him.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 May 2011 17:19

Prasad wrote:Can chacko just call HVF Avadi and ask them if the Arjun has blowoff panels? Should settle things once and for all?

I can do that, but, I want to receive the info in writing. So I have kept a request.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 23 May 2011 17:50

Singha wrote:it may be daytime and image intensifier nighttime only, not a true "3rd gen" thermal sight.

secondly also needs backend integration to tie in the gunnery system and gunners TI into the 2nd TI and have the commander able to designate fresh targets for the gunner maybe.

Its more to do with generation of technology and more capable FCS.

MK2 will get Gen 3 CITV and better FCS integration and more modes/ functions for commander.
MK1 has a CITV but limited in functionality and now a generation and half behind.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 May 2011 17:56

d_berwal wrote:
MK1 has a CITV but limited in functionality and now a generation and half behind.

IIRC, there is no CITV of any generation on the Mk1. The commander has a panoramic sight without thermal imaging capability and the Gunner has the Thermal sight just like what is shown in that picture above.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 May 2011 17:58

I think both T-90 has and Arjun Mk2 will get French Catherine 3rd Gen TI , while MK1 has older TI from Holland