Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Austin wrote:Karan from what i could gather from VKS interview he says the production is for 400-425 mm which is the Mk1 and they then upgraded to 500 mm which is the MK2

The army wanted 600 he says and that did not fructify for some reason which i think is the IMI ban

interview
Austin,
That transcription is rubbish, taking an entire back and forth between both sides to just a one line reply by Saraswat, besides which he is referring to the 125mm MK1 rounds not the Arjun round. See the interview for what actually occurred. He starts explaining, Gupta cuts him off and then that is that. Gupta just comes up with arbitrary ranges for the rounds, and VKS nods his head in a general sort of fashion. As such, the exact details get muddled up. Good in a way..

The timeline for what happened is what I have explained above. The details are also mentioned above. Beyond that, it really does not help us to come up with what round does what.

The actual designation for the Arjun FSAPDS is 120mm T1 btw. The 125mm round (MK1) round, its peer, was referred to as 125mm softcore FSAPDS. The 125mm rounds are the 400-xxx level rounds you mention above. Better Israeli rounds were imported in 1999 (16,000) but they were marginally better. Significantly better Israeli rounds (CL series) went into production at OFB. DRDO MK2 round was developed and waited for actual staff requirements to judge it against, they didnt come till 2010-11. The benchmark will obviously be the CL rounds, though its quite possible the IA would have asked for better performance. Meanwhile, India imported T-90s which came with BM-42 (BM-17 assembly, BM-42 penetrator). DRDO 120mm MK2 round designation is as of yet unknown.

That's the story so far.

But here is the interesting thing, as with the LCA, when the easy way is denied, then indigenization occurs. If the Israeli option was easily available, who knows we may have had a repackaged Israeli round with the Israeli flag for the Arjun as well. Now, the round will be local, which is essential for many reasons.

The 155mm BMCS project which languished for a decade, is now to be completed locally. 155mm arty, which had no hope in sight now has 3 guns planned, one 39 and one 45 caliber both with Bofors designs suitably modified at OFB, and a 50+ caliber futuristic gun is to be developed by ARDE.

So this circus of blacklisting, in a bizarre way, may actually help us break free of the stranglehold of dealers. Its a different matter that without blacklisting, proper JVs could have developed some of this equipment too..
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

I dont think he is mentioning 125 mm round because i saw the interview and the question was related to Arjun no where the T-90 or 125 mm round came for discussion , may be i will watch it later , also the gentle man in the discussion surya posted says the Arjun APFSDS needs improvement and is lower than T-90.

Any ways will dig this later as i get some time.

Rehimental can be a good bet now if they can cut out some deal they have really good rounds comparable to US DU.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Austin wrote:I dont think he is mentioning 125 mm round because i saw the interview and the question was related to Arjun no where the T-90 or 125 mm round came for discussion , may be i will watch it later ,
He is mentioning the 125mm round. There is no mention of Arjun with the conversation start whatsoever!

The conversation starts with the Army shortage, VKS mentions that shortage exists for only some kind of rounds like FSAPDS, then both go over to the exhibit with a display picture of the FSAPDS. VKS starts mentioning what DRDO's history for the Army requirement i.e. 125mm tank FSAPDS was given the context of the discussion, and from there onwards, Gupta the great interjects and takes control of the discussion to show off his knowledge of the workings of FSAPDS and even comes up with approximate ranges ...about the only thing Saraswat points out is that production of foreign rounds really did not take off...his rather charitable take on the disaster that was IMI supply+TOT than on top of it, the blacklist. In case you are unaware, even the IMI round supply was anemic, barely able to meet IA yearly requirements, let alone top up WWR.
also the gentle man in the discussion surya posted says the Arjun APFSDS needs improvement and is lower than T-90.
I don't know what is so hard to understand.

The Arjun round as mentioned before, was of the same vintage as the first DRDO MK1 125mm round! Both went into production at around 1993-94! While the 125mm design went into further development, the Arjun round stood still since the Arjun itself went nowhere without Army acceptance.

So obviously, it will be behind the rounds on the T-90 (whose modified ballistic computers will enable them to fire both CL rounds and BM-42)! While the BM42 is at the same level penetration wise, as the Arjun round, though a much more complex round in terms of penetrator design, the CL series outperforms it by a significant margin, and well it should. It was designed much later.
Rehimental can be a good bet now if they can cut out some deal they have really good rounds comparable to US DU.
All in the air till we know whats what re: blacklisting.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

For those still confused about which round what, here is the history,all from public sources.

Note, I am keeping prototypes and 105mm rounds out of the picture and what we got with the T-72 etc.

Actually, per my notes, the OFB-IMI TOT deal is an even bigger disaster than it appeared. Perhaps the blacklisting was a blessing in disguise.

Indian rounds - 4 designs
120mm T1 FSAPDS, 125mm MK-1 FSAPDS, hybrid round 125MK-1 design (and Indian penetrator) but with Russian propellant, 125mm MK-2 FSAPDS

120mm T1 FSAPDS, designed and developed over 1983-1993 (initial attempts to use 105mm projectile assembly did not work out). Finally in production since then, with series production at OFB established around 2000 and thereafter. Waiting for Arjun to be cleared thereafter.

125mm MK-1 FSAPDS and hybrid round. DRDO designs and develops the 125mm round over 1984-1993, Army tests it thereafter, gives it clearance. OFB manufactures a hybrid round with Russian propellant thereafter, which is a disaster. Army stores these rounds in the open, under the sun, and the propellant leaks through the case. Rounds explode in the tank, causing casualties. 88,000 rounds destroyed. Thereafter only DRDO 125mm MK-1 FSAPDS (purely local) cleared for production. After initial packages of these too are rejected, probably for the same reason (lack of heavy packaging), the round production is stabilized with production restarted in June 2001. Over 1,30,000 rounds are produced successfully, by December 2003.

Israeli round. M711 FSAPDS

India, running short of rounds during Kargil, decides to order Israeli rounds. Between 2001 and 2003, India gets some 46,000 of these rounds.

These are found to be ahead of the DRDO MK-1 FSAPDS in performance, and Israel offers local production with TOT. DRDO notes that its MK-2 version in development will outperform these. Even so, production of DRDO rounds is stopped, production shifts to CLxxxx series M711 rounds at OFB.

The production would occur in 2 phases, phase 1 OFB woud give the primer igniter, stub case, rest would all come from Israel. Some 15,000 rounds ordered in 2004 in Phase 1. Phase 2, everything from India, presumably with partial tech transfer, but the penetrator blanks (the crucial tech.) coming from Israel and machined in India at OFB. In production since 2005, at a rate of 15,000 rounds per year. HAPP noted that it intended to scale up production to 30,000 per year in 2009.

Meanwhile, the first 15,000 failed a proof test. Without that given, OFB went ahead and imported another 30,000 rounds. By 2010, OFB has 45,000 Israeli rounds on its hands, without anywhere to go.

Meanwhile, in 2009, Sudipta Ghosh OFB head, gets arrested for corruption. Antony blacklists IMI..

And..in between...the kargil era to the late 2000's..

India also buys T-90S tanks, these come with the 1986 developed, BM42 FSAPDS from Russia. The current "state of the art" in production round from Russia. Other attempts to make newer non DU rounds went nowhere, so if you buy Russian, this is what you get unless you rope the Israelis in.

In the meanwhile, in 1996..

DRDO sanctions a MK-2 project for 125mm round without clearance from Army HQ in 1996.

By 2004, after substantial issues (4 missed PDCs) they finally have a round which is an improvement over MK1. Given a transition from 14:1 l:d to 20:1 l:d, the change is clearly drastic, and pretty much generational. Army responds that conducting user trials would not qualify as user trials since they never issued a GSQR. Finally, three years later, they agree to hold AUCRT in 2007, which did not meet requirements. By May 2010, 30 rounds of improved ammunition cleared trials successfully, and in 2011, Army HQ gave clearance for accelerated user trials with 500 rounds of these new MK-2 FSAPDS.

With IMI deal cancelled, and the DRDO rounds in proofing, IA HQ rushed out to buy new rounds, we all know what happened then. India looked around and the only round available is the BM42. We order 16,000 of these in a rush in December 2010, and are busy negotiating for a thoroughly outdated round today, with 66,000 more to be acquired OTS and licensed manufacture thereafter. In typical short sighted fashion, TOT is expected to bring all of our problems to a close. Note that 3 years were lost between 2004 and 2007 due to a lack of proper requirements for the Indian MK-2 round and it took till 2007 for AUCRT to be held.

Russia has asked for 4X the usual price for BM42s in the meanwhile, so the 66K order and TOT is hung up. While happy reviews appear from Russian press about how India will make the Mango.

One only hopes that wisdom dawns, and we finish the test-validation cycle for the local round and get it to manufacture rather than wasting our time with the Mango or whatever aged fruits we are offered!
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Karan M wrote:While the BM42 is at the same level penetration wise, as the Arjun round, though a much more complex round in terms of penetrator design
Is there any know figures of penetration from OFB or DRDO for DRDO developed rounds ?
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re:

Post by Katare »

Karan M wrote:
Austin wrote:Karan I wont be too worried if we are opting in worst case for 3BM42 considering what we know now the Mk1 and Mk2 rounds for Arjun has 400 - 500 mm the figures for 3BM42 is respectable .
No, thats wrong.. See, the Arjun MK1 round has ~450-500 mm performance depending on the target, range etc, usually 2 km, because it was developed at the same time as the MK1 125mm round. I have given the dates earlier, you can check them out for the history. Thereafter, the Indian MK1 round (still available on the OFB website) had its production stopped, as production shifted to the Israeli round which was an improved version of the Israeli rounds imported during the Kargil conflict. The OFB's disastrous mix-and-match with Russian propellant (which leaked) and a couple of rounds brewed up in the tanks, didn't help the round either. The DRDO design left the propellant sourcing to OFB, with the CCC cases, and penetrator sourced locally. The round was fixed, and production restarted, but the perception damage was done, and the Army jumped ship to the Israelis thereafter, once the latter promised to give TOT of an even better round than they had supplied during Kargil. Of course, the long term virtues of depending on TOT and what if it did not work out, were beyond the IA's concern.

Anyways, the Arjun MK2 round - in development, will clearly be far ahead of the MK1 level, which we can judge from current DRDO technology level. For instance, the MK2 125mm round, is designed to match the IMI round which was assembled at India. This can be verified by the technical specifications. The IMI round and the DRDO 125mm MK2 round, both come in at 20:1 l:d for the penetrator.

Incidentally, the Arjun round by virtue of being one piece also enjoys an advantage. As shown earlier, the DRDO unitary round actually allows for almost ~1kg more of propellant, which is another plus. In contrast, when splitting rounds up into two piece systems, the packaging material gets duplicated. Longer rounds with even better l:d can be incorporated in the future.

The main challenge will be basically to get series production underway, but its not insurmountable by any means. For one, using the Arjun MK1, DRDO proved the entire ammunition development and manufacture cycle, including the penetrators at HAPP. Even with the 125mm, luckily, despite the Israeli TOT for penetrators not having worked out, the rest of the round was made in India. There are also two private firms in India which make the CCC (Combustible Charge Cases) for the 120 and 125mm rounds. Also, thanks to TD programs at ARDE per public reports, they have kept apace with propellant tech. Note after the other disaster of the Denel BMCS deal at OFB (Denel and then IMI got blacklisted), the tech is to be provided by ARDE.

So, the technology exists and is probably in trials already. "Enhanced penetrator" - code speak for FSAPDS penetrator - is one of the core improvements for MK2. Per an interview with Saraswat, 80% of MK2 improvements have already been delivered for testing. The interview should be around the forum someplace. The MK2 also entered the second phase of trials recently.

Point is a lot is going on without the sort of PR, export oriented organizations make. The interview above for instance has the blue turbaned gentleman (Brigadier) mention that an urban combat kit for the Arjun has also been developed and put on a trial tank! Ready for the Army if it wants. In all likelihood a better version of the BUSK shown for the BMP.
Probably the IA thinks it is good enough against its potential adversary with Invar to back it up , may be new rounds might have better figures we wont know for sure , may be if OFB lic manuf it we might know better.
The IA certainly does not think anything of the sort, they are just making do with the best of a worst situation, for which they share part of the blame, having sat on the development of a local round!

Cynics would argue that they did not push for the DRDO MK2 round because the obvious fear was that if the round cleared trials, DRDO would push for it to supplant the Israeli round in production and the Army just didn't want its easy supply of rounds to be affected. Others would state it was typical IA inertia and filepushing gone awry, with vital plans falling through the cracks. Eitherway, the chickens came home to roost when the Israeli round got cancelled.

Eitherways, the Army does NOT have an options today beyond BM42, since there is no other round available easily, in number, off the open market. Note India itself went for the Israeli round because it outperformed the Russian rounds available to us, and the Israelis promised that they would transfer TOT (didn't really work out) and as usual convinced us that they had more rounds in the pipeline.

The INVAR is our great hope, because with a large warhead and a tandem one, its the only round that can at least face off against the newer ERA heavy Chinese tanks (and Pakistani tanks are just export versions with tweaks). Its big problem is its time of flight. With LWCS, the Chinese tanks can pop smoke and attempt to escape...on the plus side, they don't have proper active countermeasures systems, so if it hits, the INVAR will create a mess. If not destroy the tank outright, it may well M-kill it.
Most certainly banning IMI or Rheinmetall is the worst decision one can take or get in this situation.
What else can one say about the brilliance that is Indian procurement.
BTW would Rheinmetal export its APFSDS to a non-NATO country
Times have changed. Our tax money has made many of these worthies see India in a new light. From new variants of HDW submarines, to EF Typhoon with TOT, everything is on the table.
What is your source for this information?
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

Karan,

Why do you think India is buying mango and not the latest version with 650mm penetration capability? Ordering stop gap quantity at army headquarter level for existing product (mango) is different than global procurement of large quantities as standard future round for mainstay MBT. I am sure they'll procure the latest round.

Also 120mm APFSDS available for Arjun to fire is widely quoted as 400mm penetration class, as of now no new/better substitute has been qualified.

Under trial 125mm APFSDS (that you are calling Mk2) of DRDO is of ~500 mm penetration class and the one in development is 600mm class.

Clearly IA urgently needs to import a 600mm class APFSDS from global suppliers for it's T90s and T72 tanks. If and when DRDO develops a replacement round it can be brought on to replace foreign maal.

Also, agree that higher L/D ratio is one of the requirement for 600mm penetration rounds but making a longer dart is technologically as simple as making a small dart. It's the integrity and stability of this thinner rod at high accelaration velocities and stress fracture toughness at impact that determin sucess. A long and thin W dart that can penetrate 600mm layerd armor would have to be perfected by itirative development cum testing cycle over years.

As I understand it, 600mm penetration is the evalutionary dead end for tungusten darts. Not much room left at these performance levels for improvement, it almost had to be perfect. DU is the only known way from here onwards...
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

using the same round, can we get a better figure if we change the arjun cannon to L55 (as in latest leclerc and leo2) and hence use higher muzzle velocity also?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Katare wrote:What is your source for this information?
ARDE interview on a "meet the press day" a couple of years back
Why do you think India is buying mango and not the latest version with 650mm penetration capability? Ordering stop gap quantity at army headquarter level for existing product (mango) is different than global procurement of large quantities as standard future round for mainstay MBT. I am sure they'll procure the latest round.
Ordering stop gap quantity at AHQ level for "existing product" is not any different than global procurement of large quantities etc. It seems you believe that a round will specifically be developed for "mainstay tanks" when the fact is we have very limited number of rounds available! And the options from OEMs are also limited.

AHQ wants a ready, tested round, available ASAP, from a reputed manufacturer, compatible with existing tank guns and also, as similar as possible to existing rounds (no expensive, time consuming tampering with BC required). That's been the message each time we have gone to market. The inability to build up large stockpiles mean that they don't have time for the long development-certification-validation-manufacture process invariable with new designs.

All that apart, the fact is there is no manufacturer available today who can give us 125mm rounds (APFSDS) of a tested design in quantity. Only Israel had broken into this market because the Russians never really managed to put their BM46 follow on to the BM42 into production! That is why we got Mango with the T90S. That is why we went to Israel for the CLxxx FSAPDS and just this past year, Israel has come out with a more advanced variant! The only two other countries which made an effort to make 125mm FSAPDS (leaving China and Pakistan out) are Romania and Poland. Both used IMI penetrators, and in recent years, Poland has been working with Rheinmetall - their program with IMI collapsed over production quality issues.

So..limited options...especially when we seem to blacklist each and everyone out there..
Also 120mm APFSDS available for Arjun to fire is widely quoted as 400mm penetration class, as of now no new/better substitute has been qualified.
If it is widely quoted then why did you ask me for a source, i guess you have it? Anyways, re: no new/better substitute has been qualified, that is an assumption. After having followed how round development in India has taken place, I wouldn't be surprised at all about a new round appearing in some time..

FYI..the 125mm and 120mm round were designed with a lot of common features. Compare the penetrator & sabot design for the 120mm and 125mm T1 and MK1 respectively.

With a ready sabot and penetrator design for the 125mm MK-2 in advanced trials, the same can be leveraged for the 120mm. While it may not be as high end as a brand new design, it can still allow for a new design to be fielded comparatively quickly.
Under trial 125mm APFSDS (that you are calling Mk2) of DRDO is of ~500 mm penetration class and the one in development is 600mm class.
I am not "calling it" MK2 - its the official designation. The first round's official designation per OFB was ARDE MK-1. DRDO calls its softcore 125mm MK-1. This second round is referred to in all literature as 125mm MK-2. The Army's designation of 125mm MK-1 was AMK-340!

Second, this ~500 mm penetration class stuff is too vague. One can actually decipher what the performance of the Israeli round was based on public literature, and hence realize what the ARDE MK-2 was intended to match and even surpass, judging by prior aims. The point is that the minimum level is at the same level as the CL-XXXXX FSAPDS from Israel, and substantially ahead of the BM42.
Clearly IA urgently needs to import a 600mm class APFSDS from global suppliers for it's T90s and T72 tanks. If and when DRDO develops a replacement round it can be brought on to replace foreign maal.
The BM42, FYI is not 600mm class, its more like 450mm ..
Also, agree that higher L/D ratio is one of the requirement for 600mm penetration rounds but making a longer dart is technologically as simple as making a small dart. It's the integrity and stability of this thinner rod at high accelaration velocities and stress fracture toughness at impact that determin sucess. A long and thin W dart that can penetrate 600mm layerd armor would have to be perfected by itirative development cum testing cycle over years.
Boss, I thought it was common understanding that when I mentioned l:d ratio, it meant a long dart that was able to perform against layered armour! Tungsten monobloc penetrators are invariably harder to produce at longer lengths when this performance yardstick is applied! And so, no its not as technologically as simple as making a small dart! Also, sabot design needs to be considered - parasitic mass is an issue. Quality of casting is an issue, machining is an issue...the overall design is a challenge...the list is as long as an arm! Obviously no manufacturer can point out all this in a para, hence they provide a few substantive parameters to demonstrate the technology level of their ammo, one of which is l:d ratio.
As I understand it, 600mm penetration is the evalutionary dead end for tungusten darts. Not much room left at these performance levels for improvement, it almost had to be perfect. DU is the only known way from here onwards...
Actually, thats not true. 600mm and above is considered to be the norm for all modern western unitary penetrators. Now how much so, 100-200 etc mm is up for debate. The west classifies its rounds pretty strongly, and with limited amounts available to select operators (e.g. those operating ex NATO Leopards), some transparency is coming in. Otherwise, they had a very strong lockdown on product data. In contrast, Eastern (read Russian/Chinese) ammo has been pushed along with export tanks, and hence many product brochures carry details..
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Singha wrote:using the same round, can we get a better figure if we change the arjun cannon to L55 (as in latest leclerc and leo2) and hence use higher muzzle velocity also?
Possibly, but given the fact that ARDE can develop a new FSAPDS round, we are likely to see a new round existing gun combo, than the other way around.

Basically, since folks on this thread don't seem to have followed the ammo issue in depth and are relying on that rather superficial interview with Gupta...the below bears remarking.

See, the DRDO was fairly logical when they developed the 120mm round and then the 125mm round. Both follow the same basic sabot design and the dart design as well. The details are in my prior post including program timelines, but if you want visual proof check, the round on the right and the one below.

Check: http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg846/sc ... es=landing

The round on the top left is the new 125mm MK-2 round. Expect that the same sabot, new penetrator design will be suitably employed for the 120mm if DRDO goes for a "quick solution". If they actually choose to develop it further, then we have a further interesting thing to observe.

You see the 125mm rounds are penetrator length limited because the dual charge system autoloader in the T tanks puts a height restriction on each of the dual pieces!

Whereas the Arjun round, being one piece, manually loaded can actually field a longer penetrator. In the past, the DRDO actually kept a common "modular design" (as mentioned in trade journals at the time) between the 120mm and 125mm designs, and as such the 120mm round does not take advantage of the size differential of the unitary 120mm round! Take a look at dart plus sabot size versus round here. http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/f ... sapds1.JPG
Its basically the common sabot & round design between the 125mm and 120mm rounds albeit with some tweaking to address the higher velocities achieved by the Arjun gun/round combo.
If DRDO extends the round significantly further, they'll have to do a comparatively minor redesign of the Arjun crew compartment to include a deeper ammo rack, if that has not already been done.

They will have to trade some of that extra propellant (Note the brochure has one error, they mention total round weight as propellant mass, the rest is accurate and checks out on comparison. Arjun has 8.3 kg propellant, ARDE MK1 has around 7.4 kg or thereabouts, MK-2 weight has gone up by 0.3 kg, assuming that sabot weight is the same or even lesser, its probably due to the newer penetrator mass)...

Basically, thanks to the fact ARDE didn't wait for IA sanction and developed a 125mm MK-2 round on its own..we have the ability to field a 120mm round today with more punch. If ARDE had stopped after 125mm MK-1 ...then today, we'd be in trouble regarding an Arjun round because it'd take several years to achieve the drastic jump in capabilities between a 14:1 L:D monobloc penetrator (instead of the needlessly complex BM42 style design which can have many points of failure) and a 20:1 one. Note that we didn't get penetrator TOT from Israel for the IMI round. They savvily kept that with themselves and provided blanks to HAPP (set up by DRDO-OFB for the FSAPDS) to machine...
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

Karan,

Do you have a link for the ARDE interview you are refering too?

As of now I have not seen any open source info that DRDO APFSDS fired from Arjun has more than 400-425mm penetration. (1970s technology)

On the other hand the IA officer who conducted the comparative trials have stated that Arjun Sabos have lower penetration than T-90s who fire mangos that have penetration of 500mm. (1980s technology)

On top of that DRDO cheif Sarswat has stated that DRDO only has technology for 450mm penetrators and they are in trial for 550mm penetrators while another program for building a 650mm penetrator is on the cards. It was also stated that 650 is IA requirements in the same interview.

Given these realities VKS was right in asking GoI for large imports of 650mm class penetrators. Besides 650mm rounds, large quantity of mangos is needed too for large inventory of T-series tanks. Once DRDO round clears trial it can supplant and eventually replace imports.

On technology front -
600-650mm Tungsten penetrators were first developed in the early 1980s. Since than (~30 years) no one had developed a tungsten round with significantly better penetration capabilities. 650mm is widely considered the limit of material properties of tungsten alloys. Materials heavier than tungsten are way too expansive (gold, platinum) or too exotic.

Making a 10" or 25" tungsten rod needs same technology (but bigger equipment) and it is surprisingly simple, old and inexpensive. You can buy tungsten coating blanks as big as 2 meter long in thick plates, pipes and rods pure or doped/alloyed with plethora of other metals made same as penetrators. Typical target would achieve close to theoretical density, four nine (.9999) purity and under 10 micron dimensional accuracy.

For sabbos, trick lies in perfecting the round in all aspects to support/stabilize a high L/D rod which is now much weaker in one direction. This weakness causes round to go off track, vibrate, shatter and also bend at impact . Finding an inexpensive, manufacturable process for the round that has enough precision to support a thin extra heavy rod of a hard and brittle material in extremely high acceleration, shock and vibrational energy fields cuts down most options a designer can use.

DU rounds are the only reliable choice for higher penetration than 650mm. They are much simpler to make, dirt cheap compared to tungsten and much more deadly because the round burns at impact with radioactive dust.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Katare wrote:Karan,

Do you have a link for the ARDE interview you are refering too?
I thought you had all the sources. After all, you told us that it was common knowledge what mm the DRDO round was at. You mentioned it two posts back.
As of now I have not seen any open source info that DRDO APFSDS fired from Arjun has more than 400-425mm penetration. (1970s technology)
The sources are there. Please find them. I am tired of this back & forth.

If the DRDO round has 400-425mm penetration (it actually has a bit more) then it is actually 80's technology, since BM42 DOI was 1986 and it claims 450mm at 2km certified, with a maximum possible of 500mm. Which is fairly ok, since it to
On the other hand the IA officer who conducted the comparative trials have stated that Arjun Sabos have lower penetration than T-90s who fire mangos that have penetration of 500mm. (1980s technology)
First - that was not the IA officer who conducted the comparative trials. It was a Brigadier from the Armoured Corps who was mentioning the actual results of the trials. All three gentlemen on that show were retired. They could not have conducted any of the trials.

Second, you don't know what rounds those tanks fired. The T-90s that are in India today are of two batches. The first batch were imported with Mangos. But India has been working to include more rounds into the T-90. Bottomline- don't assume that the benchmark is the Mango.

Third - this stuff of 400-425mm is 1970s tech, 500mm is 1980's tech is all bunkum as well. Countries like India, Israel, Russia have developed multiple classes of rounds within the same decade, each with drastic jumps in performance. To put decade long year bands around the rounds just shows a very casual attitude towards the whole topic.

Further, you add-subtract 50-100 mm at whim based on whatever you choose to interpret from that "interview", claims of 400mm class or 500mm class in the previous post. Now its 450mm or 400-425mm. And 500 class became 550 mm, 600 class became 650mm.

Why are you posting these numbers? What guarantee do you have of any of these? Its a waste of time to even respond to such generalizations.

First, to respond in specifics means that I provide estimates of in-service IA rounds, which I or nobody sane on this board is stupid enough to do.

Second, those arbitrary bands you are applying based on a journalists speech are all over the place. They are nowhere near accurate and totally miss the topic by a mile and a quarter.
On top of that DRDO cheif Sarswat has stated that DRDO only has technology for 450mm penetrators and they are in trial for 550mm penetrators while another program for building a 650mm penetrator is on the cards. It was also stated that 650 is IA requirements in the same interview.
Here we go again..with all these mm claims..
Lets play it by your theme.

In other words, if what you are saying is right, DRDO has the same technology as the BM42 rounds India is importing, and the current rounds (which already cleared initial trials in 2010) are already ahead of the BM42.

The stuff about current penetrators being at xxx mm etc, as mentioned earlier, if you take that interview as gospel and keep repeating that to me as some insight - suffice to say, you are just wasting my time.
Given these realities VKS was right in asking GoI for large imports of 650mm class penetrators.
Again, your assumption, because VKS did not ask GOI for imports of 650mm class penetrators!

The Army has asked for ANY rounds, note ANY which can supplant AMK339 and AMK340A. Both rounds are given as baseline to judge new rounds by. They did NOT set a new level.

This is well known to anyone who has followed the issue, since the Army went public with the information in 2010 itself!

Just because the IA may have asked DRDO to develop its round further, you have jumped to the conclusion that such rounds are available in the open market for IA to import (when IMI has been blacklisted) & you think that these are what the IA is getting!

Have you even spoken to one Russian arms developer offering tank ammo? Even at an arms fair? Please do so. It will be very educative, and then you will not waste our time with all these increasingly pointless back and forth about this mm and that mm, with an air of certainty based on a joke of an interview and half baked information!

If you do so, you will realize that the Russians, as much as they hate it, tacitly accept the presence of the Israelis, because customers like India can go to Israel and then make up the ammo deficiency by importing rounds. That is helping their product succeed in the Indian market. And they accept this with great reluctance, because they do not have more modern rounds in series production!! This is why India went to Israel and became the only export customer at the time, for the 125mm round from IMI.

What India is importing from Russia are BM42 Mango rounds, not some magical "650 mm class" rounds, a figure you have seized on from a pretty messed up back & forth conversation!

The BM42 Mango is certified by Russia as firmly in the "450mm-500mm" range, something India had better rounds than quite a while back thanks to the Israelis.

VKS/IA are just stuck with BM42s thanks to pathetic planning from the Armoured Corp who assumed that IMI TOT would flow well and hence did not pay sufficient attention to developing an alternate source of supply.
Besides 650mm rounds, large quantity of mangos is needed too for large inventory of T-series tanks.
Hello...this is just some theory that you are coming up to claim that both rounds are needed and the procurement fiasco somehow makes sense!

If India were getting "650 mm" rounds, for the T series, that would be all it needs. It would not need Mangos of the order of 100,000 rounds. Indian T-72s fire both AMK-340A and AMK-339/BM42. Its only the first tranche of T-90s which are known to have issues with AMK-340A!

Anyhow, it is converting all T tanks to Indian BCs to accept any rounds it inducts.

There are no 650 mm rounds coming, first of all - since Russia has no rounds of this class in series production to begin with and second, the AMK339/BM42 was purchased with T-90s because the Russians refused to provide ballistic computer source codes for India to integrate their own AMK340A rounds in the tank! India has developed its own solution to that via TATA, utilizing the Arjun BC.

Right now, it does not matter, because there is only one round available off the shelf and that is the BM42.
Once DRDO round clears trial it can supplant and eventually replace imports.
We know that.
On technology front -
600-650mm Tungsten penetrators were first developed in the early 1980s. Since than (~30 years) no one had developed a tungsten round with significantly better penetration capabilities. 650mm is widely considered the limit of material properties of tungsten alloys. Materials heavier than tungsten are way too expansive (gold, platinum) or too exotic.
Just your opinion, passed off as gospel. Now you have the inside track on what material limit of tungsten alloy rounds are, apparently. May I ask as to how many you have personally observed & put in service to know this "material limit", please?

If you actually follow this topic, you'd know that the current leading edge round for T-type tanks, offered for quantity production is claimed to be 600 mm (current!) Not developed in the 1980s. Not developed in the 1970s. Developed in the late 2000's and available for sales in the past couple of years.

This is the latest round marketed by IMI since 2011, which IA would have chosen for import if it was not banned in 2009. This is that round!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-52cwi67Vd9g/T ... f+RHA+.jpg

And to claim that since the early 1980's, nobody has developed a tungsten round with better penetration, is stretching the heights of credulity!

That figure above - does not even elicit the slightest of shock from western arms developers who have been dealing with unitary rounds for a while now! That limit above is an artificial limit imposed on the round by the autoloader. At least two German rounds, with L55 all approach DU performance levels and are widely accepted to be very dangerous for the most advanced conventional armour in service today.
Making a 10" or 25" tungsten rod needs same technology (but bigger equipment) and it is surprisingly simple, old and inexpensive. You can buy tungsten coating blanks as big as 2 meter long in thick plates, pipes and rods pure or doped/alloyed with plethora of other metals made same as penetrators. Typical target would achieve close to theoretical density, four nine (.9999) purity and under 10 micron dimensional accuracy.
Yes, its very simple & if you think that the same rods w/o any special treatment are used for machining actual penetrators, then I think the discussion is clearly at a close.

In the meanwhile, the world over, armour conferences are being held to figure out how to keep pushing tungsten rod manufacture to the next level to meet increasing improvements in armour profiles.

I mean what was the point of the above para? Do you seriously think it added anything to the discussion? Obviously the the challenge lies in determining the exact composition of the monobloc penetrator and manufacturing methods therein. Its what a company like Rheinmetall excels in, what IMI has spent a lot of money in developing, and which is why their rounds outperform those from former east european states! And then to test these rounds against actual targets, to find out what set of targets the round actually performs against, and to make those targets mimic enemy threat profiles to the greatest possible extent to get accurate results. All the while trying to extend known published equations like Andersons and other formula to match experimental results, and try and save expensive developmental time as versus going into dead ends.

All this is known. So what exactly is the point of saying "tungsten rods are very easy to manufacture" and "you can buy tungsten coating blanks ... same as penetrators"? One would think that there are a million companies in the world ready and willing to give you tungten blanks of the correct composition and voila, penetrators are ready. If not, your statements added nothing substantive, and completely missed the point re: IMI retaining control of the crucial monobloc tech.
For sabbos, trick lies in perfecting the round in all aspects to support/stabilize a high L/D rod which is now much weaker in one direction. This weakness causes round to go off track, vibrate, shatter and also bend at impact . Finding an inexpensive, manufacturable process for the round that has enough precision to support a thin extra heavy rod of a hard and brittle material in extremely high acceleration, shock and vibrational energy fields cuts down most options a designer can use.
All known..and a sabot does not need to support/stabilize a high l/d round because it falls off much before impact...its primarily meant to keep the subcaliber round in the larger barrel and also to impart a flat trajectory when firing by having it mimic a full caliber round..its parasitic mass which is dropped off as soon as possible.. FYI, the overall round matters, its about finding an actual design that flies the fastest, has a penetrator design that can "dig" into the armour without yaw/or shatter at impact, about a round that maintains stability despite facing composite armour that is designed to produce competing sectional stress in the shaft to shatter it, its also about sabot design that puts the least amount of parasitic mass onto the round, its also about a sabot and penetrator combo that have a perfect flat trajectory...the list goes on and on..

And all this is known stuff.

I fail to see exactly what you think you are doing.
DU rounds are the only reliable choice for higher penetration than 650mm. They are much simpler to make, dirt cheap compared to tungsten and much more deadly because the round burns at impact with radioactive dust.
Actually, the term you are looking for is pyrophoric. And the other term is adiabatic shear. FYI, there is one western non DU manufacturer which claims to have adiabatic shear capabilities in its rounds already. They are taken rather seriously.

Unfortunately, DU rounds are not exactly dirt cheap to make given the environmental concerns involved in their manufacture, not to mention testing them & certifying them during peacetime is another pain. So, no - they are not much simpler to make and dirt cheap compared to tungsten - not for those nations which don't have large isolated testing ranges and also large quantities of DU.

Next, the claim that they are the only reliable choice for penetration greater than 650mm - a figure which you seem to have picked on from that interview is also incorrect.

Right now, there are at least a couple of KE round makers who point out that their rounds w/L55 series guns can match/outperform several recent DU rounds. These rounds are conservatively estimated to be ahead of 650mm.

Sorry, but Katare, I am done talking to you. You seem to revel in argument for arguments sake and think that doing so confers some sort of advantage. It's actually a waste of my time.

Unfortunately, you know little about Indian ammunition procurement or even what the state of affairs is.

Because, all you have to go on is that "interview", and five minutes into that interview & I already knew what rubbish was being said by Gupta after having interrupted VKS.

But you are quoting it as gospel to me. Its just a big huge waste of time.

On top of it you are quoting all sorts of random "mm" ranges tying it to decades, claims of material limits and so forth none of which are remotely correct. I have been around enough w/ developers at public events to know what you are saying is not something the industry believes or quotes as any sort of gospel, despite what you are insisting.

Please use somebody else as your sounding board to "debate" this further. I am done.

Thanks much.
Last edited by Karan M on 25 Jul 2012 03:15, edited 1 time in total.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

Karan,
Too much talk but little proof man! On top of that you appear upset about being asked to explain your source. If you got an open source link show it, if not than you are free to believe what you want.

Just so you know, I did search for arjun/DRDO APFSDS performance on google and every link that I found and read was pointing to 400-425mm. You are the only one with sooped up figures for APFSDSs based on an interview that you saw couple of years back.

I have not even seen the Gupta/VKS interview that you think I am quoting. I am only quoting Saraswat and The gentleman who "trailed Arjun" for decades.

You started this direct debate by replying to my generic quote. I try to stay away from "PSG types", too much incorrect tech mumbo-jumbo, little understanding or grasp of issues. If you want to talk authoritatively about facts directly to me, better come with a source to back it up.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Katare wrote:Karan,
Too much talk but little proof man! On top of that you appear upset about being asked to explain your source. If you got an open source link show it, if not than you are free to believe what you want.
Katare, re: "too much talk and little proof"...kindly go back and look at your own posts. You have contributed nothing to the discussion apart from going on and on about a TV interview which anyone with any knowledge of IA rounds would know was too generic! But you quote this as gospel!

Everything I said can be actually traced back. It requires effort. But you wish to be mollycoddled, and this after you come back with the same replies, again and again, with the same stuff copy pasted again and again from post to post, and then proceed to inform me about very interesting stuff like "the round you are calling MK2" , "VKS did the right thing in asking for 650mm", "in 30 years there has been no progress beyond 650 mm".. what relevance does all this have? None of that is correct to boot.

In contrast, I have given step by step details about the Indian rounds, product designations, orders, development status etc. Your reply? Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V above..

Three - four times over. Wasting my time all the while, in which time I could have posted all the sources instead. And now, after this entire "debating society" rubbish, you want me to go through the pain of collating all the data for you to leisurely inspect, and dismiss? Thanks much, but I have better things to do!

Boss, clearly, you have some belief system that has you set out to talk for talkings sake. All that is fine..join a debating society, but its not a worthwhile way for me to spend my time..
Just so you know, I did search for arjun/DRDO APFSDS performance on google and every link that I found and read was pointing to 400-425mm. You are the only one with sooped up figures for APFSDSs based on an interview that you saw couple of years back.
Ok, so you did a search on google & every link you found was pointing to 400-425mm! In which case, you have the data you want right? Why are you asking me? Right?

And where did I say I have "sooped up figures for FSAPDS"? Again your assumption! All I said is it is in the same class as BM42- i.e. 450-500mm, depending on the target and range!! Hardly sooped up. Thanks to your own cavalier assignment of ranges, nicely split by 100mm (400 mm class, 1980s, 500mm class 1990s, 600mm class...ok limit reached), you are having a problem fitting it in. In real life though, its no great shakes and firmly a round of the mid-80s and given it was India's second series produced FSAPDS, a reasonable effort for the time, but hardly earth shattering!

In short you have set some wide ranging assumptions, and just because the numbers mentioned above don't fit in, off you go!

Instead of going on and on... It should make you think about the sources you found on google!

Furthermore, you are just posting all sorts of numbers and assigning them merrily to 70's era, 80's era and similar stuff!

None of these make sense! There are rounds out there with performance at 500 odd mm at 2km (average) taken very seriously because they are designed to penetrate multi-layered composite armour AFTER going through initial opposition such as light ERA. Designed in the late 90s, with production in the 2000's. By your standards, those rounds were '80's era. Do you even see how pointless your posts are?

And take this ..."interview from couple of years back" - do you even realize that the people who will actually know the most about the round are the guys from the places that make the round and what goes into it and witness the tests?
I have not even seen the Gupta/VKS interview that you think I am quoting. I am only quoting Sarswat and The gentelman who "trialed Arjun" for decades.
How are you quoting Saraswat if you havent seen the Gupta and VK Saraswat interview?
You do know there is more than one VKS around, right?

Plus..you are quoting generic stuff about tungsten rods, this, that, everything under the sun....and then you come back to the same old, same old. Whats the point, really?
You started this direct debate by replying to my generic quote. I try to stay away from "PSG types", too much incorrect tech mumbo-jumbo, little understanding or grasp of issues.
Oh I made a big mistake replying to your generic quote. Sire before calling others PSG types, do look in the mirror...cent per cent certified maha-PSG type ...I would have run a mile away if I had known what I was getting into before replying!

With just ONE interview and ZERO background knowledge of any of the rounds/data involved, you have been busy "debating" away, cooking up stuff about VK Singh-ji importing 650mm rounds and what not, with no idea of whats in production or not, coming up with arbitrary classifications of generations...the list goes on and on..
If you want to talk authoritatively about facts directly to me, better come with a source to back it up.
Actually, I don't want to talk to you at all, your level of insight and discernment is beyond me. The level of authoritativeness and facts in your posts about "1970s tech", 400 mm class, 450mm, etc with such extensive accuracy ...was a bit too much for me to take, so I withdraw!

Hopefully though, folks who actually wanted to understand what the FSAPDS issue was, will have enough information from my posts. And its not "generic", but fairly specific..
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sivab »

http://www.smgroupindia.com/ccc/120mm.htm
FSAPDS
Fin Stabilised Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS) is the primary antitank ammunition for MBT Arjun.

3 component cartridge case
Defeats all modern targets at range of 5000 m and above
Accuracy: 0.2 mil standard deviation

http://www.smgroupindia.com/ccc/125mm.htm
Fin Stabilized Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS) is a soft core Tank Ammunition fired from T-72 & T-90 tanks.

Salient Features Mk I Mk II

Propellant Mass 19kg 19.3kg
Muzzle velocity 1500m/s 1600 m/s
L/D ratio 14 20
Range at which triple NATO target defeated 2.5 km 3.5 km
http://www.smgroupindia.com/ccc/index.htm
SMPP, an S M Group company is the leading Indian manufacturer of various components for Tank and Artillery ammunitions for the Indian Army. It was among the first to develop and manufacture Combustible Cartridge Cases for 120mm and 125mm caliber tank ammunitions in India. It has been closely associated in the developmental efforts of HEMRL (High Energy Materials Research Laboratory), which is a part of DRDO (Defense Research & Development Organisation), Ministry of Defense.

SMPP has played a key role in meeting the specific ammunition needs of the Indian Army for MBT ARJUNA, T-72 & T-90 series of Russian Guns and 155mm Artillery Gun.

S M Group is today one of the leading manufacturers of combustible cartridge cases in the world. It is the only company to receive NATIONAL AWARD for Indigenization of combustible cases from Ministry of Defense, Govt. of India
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

Still no link....only more words!
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25384
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SSridhar »

Can somebody explain why any deficiency in FSAPDS round is being attributed to Arjun. HVF, Avadi doesn't make these rounds, do they ?
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

Sridhar,

I don't think there is any deficiency in Arjun FSAPDS, they are meeting their specs and no one has reported problems with these rounds in recent time.

T-90/72 ammos is running out which DRDO doesn't make, IMI/OFB round is banned so IA wants these imported ASAP. DRDO's newer rounds are in trial or in development which should start to come online in few years
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

RIAN Video : Heavyweight T-90 Tanks Drive Five Meters Underwater

http://en.rian.ru/video/20120727/174810880.html
pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 529
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by pralay »

its modified Arjun MK1, not MK2.
if you compare the photo with MK2 illustration, there are many more systems and modifications on MK2.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

First pictures of Arjun Mk2 surfaces link source India Today

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2564 ... 2crop2.jpg
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

austin

already posted courtesy amitabh and the Week in misc pictures
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1208
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nits »

Quick Comparison

Arjun 1

Image

Arjun 2

Image
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

killah! awesome! and as dr. saraswat points out, that this will fire missiles and host an active protection system [hopefully indigenous based on trophy].. get ready for action.

from a visual perspective, the only aspect I see it needs a NERA is for those wheels.. just like car wheel covers. And the future version they have that external fuel tank tucked in rather.

excellent pics.
Last edited by SaiK on 29 Jul 2012 21:48, edited 1 time in total.
gkriish
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 36
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by gkriish »

how to post pics from my computer man i tried and i couldn't and how did u do it
Last edited by SSridhar on 30 Jul 2012 06:47, edited 4 times in total.
Reason: No need to quote the whole post for this single line. Ask this in appropriate thread.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36427
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

did you try flickr?

and imageshack as above
tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by tejas »

That turret looks much less boxy even discounting the ERA add on. I say stop any further T-90 orders and use what we have as target practice for this monster :lol:
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4112
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by suryag »

there was also talk of some skirts to cover the wheels from becoming immobislised. We dont see that here or is it realised in some other way
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1208
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nits »

suryag wrote:there was also talk of some skirts to cover the wheels from becoming immobislised. We dont see that here or is it realised in some other way
Does that add much weight to platform; considering it will be used as protection - i assume that will be a heavy weight armour
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

maybe a grill type armour on skirts and turret rear/side to detonate ATGMs ... its not a likely area of hit when facing tanks.
anishns
BRFite
Posts: 1382
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 09:43
Location: being victim onlee...

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by anishns »

What are those claw like things in the front?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

those are tarika#420 drafted by DG mech warfare to give its munna T90 a chance...mine ploughs on all tanks!
Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Virupaksha »

Singha wrote:maybe a grill type armour on skirts and turret rear/side to detonate ATGMs ... its not a likely area of hit when facing tanks.
something like a chain mail I guess, but wouldnt it get entangled when driving cross country
nits
BRFite
Posts: 1208
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nits »

one more visible difference is on tracks of Arjun 2 is pointed objects near wheels; it may be not visible in Arjun 1 due to angle at which picture is taken... Not sure ?
Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4080
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Lilo »

FWIW
Prasun K. Sengupta said...
To [email protected]: None, but Raytheon is going ahead with the AMRAAM-ER & its SL-AMRAAM-ER variant.

To Mr.RA 13: But mind you, the sloped ERA tiles are only in the port side of the turret & not on the starboard side, since the starboard side houses the gunner's sight & the IR jammer. The IR jammer needs to be relocated to a location in the turret-top above the cannon & only then can the turret's starboard side also have sloped ERA tiles for sound & uniform frontal protection.
member_23657
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_23657 »

I was browsing while i came across this monster.. Wish something like this comes up from our industry answering for any such requirements for the IA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marauder_(vehicle)
Wish to see it in IA desert camouflage sometime..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHZAUnQe ... re=related
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Recently Displayed during deputy PM Rogozin visit to Motovilika plant

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8233 ... e524e0.jpg
Combat Artillery Platform on the Unified Armata Chassis

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8250/vh0c5.jpg
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6503/948 ... 98a_XL.jpg
http://i43.servimg.com/u/f43/17/13/61/45/kurgan10.jpg
Boomerang Wheeled APC and Kurganets-25 Tracked Vehical
Post Reply