Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

[mody]

If a 125 mm smooth bore gun is adopted for the Arjun, the only commonality with the T-series ammo, can be the gun fired missile and even for that the length of the missile might create problems.
The T-series ammo is split into 2, due to the autoloader. The Arjun ammo is single piece. Also, increasing the barrel size to 125 mm smooth bore, would have increased the weight of the gun and hence the tank. Would have required additional testing as well. The army never asked for a larger gun for the Arjun, only better APFSDS rounds.

The new 130 mm Rhinemetal gun itself weight in excess of 2 tons. The recoil of such a beast of a gun would require the tank weight also to be high and not in the max 50 ton range that the FMBT is being dreamed about. A 125 mm or 130mm smooth bore L51 gun might be possible for the FMBT, but even with an autoloader, the weight of the tank would still be in the range of 56-60 tons.

[Yagnasri]

From all accounts 120mm of Arjun is a very good gun. So why we are thinking about importing a gun from Russia and replace that one?

[Picklu]

From all open source documentation, 120mm gun in Arjun is superior to 125mm in tincans.

The commonality of ammo is another canard floated to delay mass induction.

[Vips]

Improved home-grown Arjun tanks still awaits Indian army order.

Arjun’ may have ultimately vanquished `Bhishma’ in the battlefield of Kurukshetra, but the Army still does not have faith in the former. The 13-lakh force continues to drag its feet in approving the long-pending order for 118 `improved’ Arjun Mark-1A main-battle tanks.

The DRDO, however, is confident that the Rs 6,400 crore indent to produce the indigenous tanks will be placed on the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) at Avadi before this fiscal ends on March 31.

The mood is buoyant after PM Narendra Modi took a ride on the Arjun in Jaisalmer last month. “The Mark-1A tanks have better repower, mobility, protection and endurance than the first 124 Arjuns inducted by the Army over a decade ago. As per HVF, each Mark-1A tank will cost Rs 54 crore,” said a defence scientist.

An army officer said the procurement for Arjun Mark-1A is still under active consideration and will be progressed accordingly but the Army is not convinced yet. The force continues to bank upon the Russian-origin T-90S tanks, christened `Bhishma’, for its “shock and awe” capabilities on the western front.

In November 2019, another Rs 20,000 crore indent was placed on HVF for 464 more upgraded T-90S tanks to add to the 1,193 such tanks already inducted. After the first 657 T-90S tanks were imported for Rs 8,525 crore from 2001 onwards, the next 1,000 are being licensed produced by HVF with Russian kits.

Arjun has been a long running feud between the Army and DRDO. The force contends the “extra-heavy” Arjun Mark-1 tanks (62.5-tonne as compared to 46.5-tonne T-90S tank) is plagued by “maintenance, sustenance and ammunition issues”.

The DRDO, however, says “all maintenance, spares and other issues” have now been resolved for the first 124 tanks. Moreover, there are 14 major and 58 minor “improvements” or capability-enhancements on the Mark-1A tanks to meet the Army’s requirements.

“Validation trials of Arjun Mark-1A tanks, which were driven over 6,000-km, were successfully completed in December 2018. They met all technical requirements. The only requirement left is the cannon-launched guided missile (CLGM),” said a scientist.

“The Israeli Lahat CLGM did not meet the Army’s specification for lower-range fire below 1.5-km, though it could hit targets between 2 to 5 km away. An indigenous CLGM has already been tested twice it can later be fitted on the Mark-1A tanks,” he added. But a senior Army officer said the Arjun Mark-1A tank was still a work in progress. “While substantive issues have been addressed, additional upgrades or modifications are required in view of technology advances (shifting goal-posts - Natasha lobby influence). The case for procurement of Arjun Mark-1A tanks is under active consideration and will be progressed accordingly,” he added.(Scope for more vodka from Russia)

As per MoD officials, HVF has promised to produce the first five Arjun Mark-1A tanks within 30 months of the indent being placed “Once approved after tests by the Army, HVF will deliver 30 tanks per year,” said an official.

Despite the capability enhancements adding another six tonne weight to the Arjun Mark-1A, mainly due to the explosive reactive armour and mine-plough, the tank’s cross-country speed in deserts remains the same at 40 kmph. DRDO is keeping its fingers crossed.

[Prem Kumar]

Better to not follow Arjun news, if we want functioning blood vessels.

This cr@p by the DGMF will stop the day Rajnath Singh puts tanks in the No Import list

[Vivek K]

Amazing - can the IA provide a side by side comparison of the T-90 and T-72 (Depot Queen) vs the Arjun? Does the Arjun come out way better than the frontline tanks being used? And if the LAHAT could work for 2-5 Km, wouldn't they use the gun for the shorter range? This when the T-90 was bought without its missile system. Can the T72s fire a missile? Can all the T-90s fire a missile?

The armed forces "through their imports only" requirements, keep their ability to fight China low, waste resources and destroy the economic security of the nation.

[sum]

Better to not follow Arjun news, if we want functioning blood vessels.

This cr@p by the DGMF will stop the day Rajnath Singh puts tanks in the No Import list

Time to have a ignore post feature for keywords like Arjun etc.
Reading anything related to it definitely causes BP shoot up ( never seems to be any good news related to it)

[ks_sachin]

Amazing - can the IA provide a side by side comparison of the T-90 and T-72 (Depot Queen) vs the Arjun? Does the Arjun come out way better than the frontline tanks being used? And if the LAHAT could work for 2-5 Km, wouldn't they use the gun for the shorter range? This when the T-90 was bought without its missile system. Can the T72s fire a missile? Can all the T-90s fire a missile?

The armed forces "through their imports only" requirements, keep their ability to fight China low, waste resources and destroy the economic security of the nation.

They do not want the Arjun period!!!!
We are flogging a dead horse...

We also do not need such a big arms force me thinks....

[Vivek K]

Sachin, we say that yet the forces ask for FMBT, some here talk of Armata. When there is money to buy foreign junk that cannot win simple competitions, why can't the Arjun be bought? Sad state of affairs.

[kvraghav]

Its not that Army wants imports and so is rejecting Arjun. I feel its more that Army made a huge blunder in drawing up the GSQR for a heavy tank when their entire philosophy is based on light tanks. After some money was spent, they realized this but never stopped from more money being wasted. Now they simply do not have the guts (Not the fighting type of course) to stand in front of public and accept that they created a blunder by drawing up that GSQR. Any western army would have done this and closed the project and moved on. This is because in India, we take failure as a mistake rather than a learning.

[Vivek K]

Come now - the GSQR could have been modified 30 years ago. Capabilities come with a weight penalty! And local production helps employment and creates future tanks and other spinoffs. This attitude of the armed forces has kept India technologically backward and in foreign debt to pay for the pricey toys and to sustain the industry of other nations.

[ks_sachin]

Sachin, we say that yet the forces ask for FMBT, some here talk of Armata. When there is money to buy foreign junk that cannot win simple competitions, why can't the Arjun be bought? Sad state of affairs.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs. Agree with you completely I do.

However the other side of the equation is that army warfare in the western sector i.e. an armr breakthrough is probably a khyali pulao. Speaking to my High Command the Pakistanis have such a extensive network of canals now that army warfare as we envisage is off the cards.

So do we need 4000 odd tanks?

JMT.

[ks_sachin]

Come now - the GSQR could have been modified 30 years ago. Capabilities come with a weight penalty! And local production helps employment and creates future tanks and other spinoffs. This attitude of the armed forces has kept India technologically backward and in foreign debt to pay for the pricey toys and to sustain the industry of other nations.

Sirji that is a simplistic assessment. What you are saying is that successive DGMF at Army HQ from 80s when the Arjun first took shape have been questionable?

Just look at your statement “capability comes with weight penalty” —— Look at other areas where this logic applies...

INSAS - extended range for the rifle with 5.56 ammo
ATAGS - range vs weight

There are perhaps other examples..

One theory that I have is that unlike the IAF and IN the army has never had a technocratic leadership that understands the development process. I am not saying that the other two services are great but they are definitely better than the IA.
On the other hand the OFB experience makes then wary of desi products and there was a time DRDO said yes to everything and underdelivered...now there are many reasons for this but OFB could not even get right side of the stuff they make through ToT. I was at College of Combat and witnessing a fire power demo where they were firing one of the russian ATGMs. I think three failed just after launch....Common refrain - bloody OFB.....

[Vivek K]

You can have detailed assessments and we can discuss the tanks itemwise. But that has been done before and what does it lead to - Arjun is a heavy tank and therefore cannot be used a) in the desert, b) to cross Pakistani bridges, c) cannot be used with the army's bridges built in war in enemy territory ......
The simple answer is - BS! The engineering explanation for all of the above is available and has been repeated ad nauseum.

The DGMFs and the GSQRs and the army's evaluations have been questionable. The CAG criticised the army's comparative trials that (per CAG) were biased against the Arjun.

Problem is you cannot be on both sides of the problem Sachin ji. Call a spade a spade. Capability is delivered through weight. Capability like survivability (T-72 shell bouncing off Arjun is an example - I'm sure you can find it).

Boss - IAF and IN have extremely qualified leaders. They know what they're doing. I will let you connect the dots. OFB is a point and that needs to be fixed - but who makes the AK-203 or the T-90? OFB. But OFB is a tangential discussion not suitable for the Arjun discussion.

[ks_sachin]

You can have detailed assessments and we can discuss the tanks itemwise. But that has been done before and what does it lead to - Arjun is a heavy tank and therefore cannot be used a) in the desert, b) to cross Pakistani bridges, c) cannot be used with the army's bridges built in war in enemy territory ......
The simple answer is - BS! The engineering explanation for all of the above is available and has been repeated ad nauseum.

But this explanation is not necessarily getting through to the Armd Corps who have been used to the T series and are wedded to it. This is points to your other point that the IA has less technocrats as leaders.

The DGMFs and the GSQRs and the army's evaluations have been questionable. The CAG criticised the army's comparative trials that (per CAG) were biased against the Arjun.

My point exactly. Once the threat of the Abrams dissipated the Army saw no reason for the Arjun and even today does not. Good luck with that.

Problem is you cannot be on both sides of the problem Sachin ji. Call a spade a spade. Capability is delivered through weight. Capability like survivability (T-72 shell bouncing off Arjun is an example - I'm sure you can find it).

I am not on both sides and have agreed with you in a previous post - so what is the problem. But the DGMF does not agree with you and is happy with the trade off...

Boss - IAF and IN have extremely qualified leaders. They know what they're doing. I will let you connect the dots. OFB is a point and that needs to be fixed - but who makes the AK-203 or the T-90? OFB. But OFB is a tangential discussion not suitable for the Arjun discussion.

Agree OFB is a tangential discussion. However you are again saying that IAF and IN have qualified leaders. I agree and this is because of the tech rich env they operate in. IA in my general observation has few of these techie generals who will understand the engineering facts that have been published.

However this is becoming a broken record of a conversation so the last of this from me.

[nam]

Arjun has the same weight as M1A1, because Arjun has to go where M1A1 can go. M1A1 cannot go where T72 can. IA knows T72 was no match for M1A1. T90 as a concept is quite good. The koreans perfected this concept in K2. 3 men with autoloader sub-50 ton tank.

I asked a former armor man, why autoloader was not considered for Arjun, when the primary IA tank, T72 was having autoloader. The peculiar answer I got was, autoloader are complex tech!

There are other reasons as well, but I feel this ONE decision not to have AL, killed Arjun in the weight department.

[ParGha]

So do we need 4000 odd tanks?

Probably not (fwiw, there are around 3000 front-line tanks, not 4K). About 20-30% of the Armoured Regiments may end up being converted to Armoured Infantry battalions, and another 20% may end up as light armored regiments and/or RSTA regiments. Don’t be surprised if the Brigade of the Guards begins converting half its mech-inf battalions into Air-Assault role, and the Army asks the Armoured Regiments to replace the Guards with heavy APCs/IFVs mounted “dragoons”.

[Anoop]

Probably not (fwiw, there are around 3000 front-line tanks, not 4K). About 20-30% of the Armoured Regiments may end up being converted to Armoured Infantry battalions, and another 20% may end up as light armored regiments and/or RSTA regiments. Don’t be surprised if the Brigade of the Guards begins converting half its mech-inf battalions into Air-Assault role, and the Army asks the Armoured Regiments to replace the Guards with heavy APCs/IFVs mounted “dragoons”.

ParGha, can you elaborate on a couple of points:

1. If half of the Brigade of the Guards battalions convert to Air Assault Role, that would mean 11 battalions or over 3 Bdes worth. Where would we get the air transport platforms for this? AFAIK the previous plan to convert 54 Inf Div to Air Assault role in the 90s failed for this reason.

2. What would be the ToE of the proposed Armoured Infantry Battalions?

3. Is the intention behind these Armoured Infantry Battalions to bring the concept of the RAPIDS down to a Bde level, instead of having just a different composition of Armd/Inf/Mech Bdes to make up the RAPID?

Thanks in advance.
Anoop

[hnair]

The peculiar answer I got was, autoloader are complex tech!

There are other reasons as well, but I feel this ONE decision not to have AL, killed Arjun in the weight department.

How will an auto loader reduce weight? Reduce tanks’ volume/size and profile, yes.

90s Auto loader would not handle long rod ammo and was prone to breakage on field. Khan used well-trained manual loaders who performed more efficiently than the iraqii tank’s autloaders and also provided backup for other crew members.

With advances in electro mechanical actuators, auto-loader reliability issues might have changed in last few years but by then Arjun got stymied already.

[Vivek K]

Serial development would have allowed incorporation of auto loader if it is the magic bullet. But then IA got a far superior tank in the T90. And makes sense to go in for the Armata as the next generation or FMBT. No point in wasting money on a failed tank manufactured by OFB.

[ParGha]

2. What would be the ToE of the proposed Armoured Infantry Battalions?
3. Is the intention behind these Armoured Infantry Battalions to bring the concept of the RAPIDS down to a Bde level, instead of having just a different composition of Armd/Inf/Mech Bdes to make up the RAPID?

Organization is probably the same as an existing Mechanized Infantry battalion -- 50 IFVs divided into 3 maneuver companies/squadrons and 1 HQ coy/sqdr. The major difference will be in equipment -- they will have heavier IFVs than mechanized infantry's BMP2s and Abhays. There is no grand vision or strategy behind the conversion -- simply technical and skills considerations. We learned in Chechnya that even simple RPG-7s can cut through BMP2's armor and turn it into a death-trap; it is mostly useful for quickly moving through machine-gun and artillery-shrapnel kill-zones. If you need to stop and clear the enemy, you need something heavier like a T-72 converted to HAPC/HIFV.

If half of the Brigade of the Guards battalions convert to Air Assault Role, that would mean 11 battalions or over 3 Bdes worth. Where would we get the air transport platforms for this? AFAIK the previous plan to convert 54 Inf Div to Air Assault role in the 90s failed for this reason.

<off-topic-speculation>
Army Aviation Corps has already surpassed the Armoured Corps as the single largest target of CAPEX. It will continue to expand simply because it is a lot more flexible and versatile for today's operational needs. Heliborne operations are going on all the time -- in offensive, defensive, maintenance and humanitarian roles. The last time that IFVs engaged offensively was in 1990s under Brig (later Lt. Gen.) RK Nanavatty.
</off-topic-speculation>

The conversion of the 54 ID into AA role was abandoned in 1980s because of the massive influx of Stingers and other PADs into Pakistani Army and its proxies. Any large-scale air-assault operation could take unacceptable levels of losses. For that very reason, it is highly unlikely that the Indian Army will ever attempt anything bigger than a battalion-level heliborne operation. Most likely you'll see company- and battalion-sized AA reserves added to brigades and divisions in mountains and jungles.

[Anoop]

Thank you, Sir. Can you elaborate on this point below? Is there such a precedent anywhere? Would even a Bradley IFV have protection against RPGs? Wiki says that only recently they have got active countermeasures to defeat rockets and missiles.

If you need to stop and clear the enemy, you need something heavier like a T-72 converted to HAPC/HIFV.

Also, what has changed now along the Indo-Pak or Indo-China borders to make obsolete the current practice of tanks being the tip of the spear, followed by mechanized infantry mopping up after them? If built up fortifications along the Indo-Pak border ensure that even tanks can't really traverse the terrain, would a less protected IFV based on similar chassis fare any better?

Thank you
Anoop

[nam]

How will an auto loader reduce weight? Reduce tanks’ volume/size and profile, yes.

90s Auto loader would not handle long rod ammo and was prone to breakage on field. Khan used well-trained manual loaders who performed more efficiently than the iraqii tank’s autloaders and also provided backup for other crew members.

With advances in electro mechanical actuators, auto-loader reliability issues might have changed in last few years but by then Arjun got stymied already.

Reduce the volume, you require less protection, you reduce weight. T90 is under 50 ton, because of it's smaller turret volume. T90 base protection is not too far from Arjun.

T90's engine is smaller than Arjun. So the hull can be made smaller, reducing the weight. 3 men instead of 4, using a autloader, allows for smaller turret. Smaller turret, require less ERA bricks, reduces weight.

As I said, the Koreans perfected the idea of T72/T90 in their K2.

[ParGha]

Can you elaborate on this point below? Is there such a precedent anywhere?

If you need to stop and clear the enemy, you need something heavier like a T-72 converted to HAPC/HIFV.

Almost all new-build IFVs are getting heavy (into 30T+ range) — Warrior 2, Puma, Namer, T-15 IFV, etc. The Israelis have long re-purposed old tanks as HAPCs — Schot, Achzarit, Nakpadon, etc., And others are following suit — Jordanian Dawsar, Russian BTR-T, etc. India also made a half-hearted attempt with Tarmour (T55 conversion); the work on T72 conversions has to be more focused and faster in delivery.

[niran]

Arjun has the same weight as M1A1, because Arjun has to go where M1A1 can go. M1A1 cannot go where T72 can. IA knows T72 was no match for M1A1. T90 as a concept is quite good. The koreans perfected this concept in K2. 3 men with autoloader sub-50 ton tank.

I asked a former armor man, why autoloader was not considered for Arjun, when the primary IA tank, T72 was having autoloader. The peculiar answer I got was, autoloader are complex tech!

There are other reasons as well, but I feel this ONE decision not to have AL, killed Arjun in the weight department.

autoloader is to assist loading not to reduce weight, whoever says Arjun is heavy becuase it has no autoloader is as true as Paxistan is an ancient country. as a matter of fact lightest autoloader in lightest tank till date Amx 13s weighed 200 plus kgs, and what is an average tankist weight? hope you and people get the drift.

[nam]

Autoloader removes the need for the 4th man, allowing a smaller turret design. The savings are on the turret weight, not human or AL.

Lighter turret allows lighter hull.

[Vivek K]

I think autoloader in the first iteration is unobtainium and a canard floated to cover for the glaringly bad decision by IA. Nothing would stop changes like that in serial development. But by changing specs for the first product, you successfully derail the entire effort. That is what the DGMF wanted and that is what occurred.

[durairaaj]

One important 'metric' that T(in) fans bothered to ask is the rate of fire between Autoloader and manual firing.
In battle situation, not only the long rod but also the number of shots fired in a short time is important. Historically the rate of fire by manual loading is much faster than autoloader. There is no new piece of information that says otherwise.
Advantages of autoloader:
1) Long rod APFSDS ensuring higher penetration,
2) Additional man allows for rotation among the crew
3) Very high rate of fire
4) Large internal space allows for better crew comfort for long term staying under unnatural conditions in desert.

Only in very rough terrain light tank is preferred. Koreans went with Soviet solution, because the entire country is full of mountains. While they went for western solutions for all other military options.

[Philip]

3 man MBT vs 4 man MBT,costwise a no-brainer. Smaller turret, lighter tank,etc.,plus the terrain infra problem,transporters,bridges, etc.
As I pointed out a few years ago,the T-90 is around $3-4M a pop,while the new A-2 is in an above post,54cr.,the equiv. of almost 7+M,a huge difference. You'll get 2 T-90s for the price of 1 A-2. So one can see the IA's reluctance to order Arjuns.
It's why I said that the DRDO/CVRDE should've developed a hybrid,a T-90 turret mated to an Arjun chassis.The smaller turret,lesser weight, would've allowed for better engine performance,range,etc.,perhaps extra ammo too. It would've been v.hard to dismiss.

[niran]

One important 'metric' that T(in) fans bothered to ask is the rate of fire between Autoloader and manual firing.
In battle situation, not only the long rod but also the number of shots fired in a short time is important. Historically the rate of fire by manual loading is much faster than autoloader. There is no new piece of information that says otherwise.
Advantages of autoloader:
1) Long rod APFSDS ensuring higher penetration,
2) Additional man allows for rotation among the crew
3) Very high rate of fire
4) Large internal space allows for better crew comfort for long term staying under unnatural conditions in desert.
Only in very rough terrain light tank is preferred. Koreans went with Soviet solution, because the entire country is full of mountains. While they went for western solutions for all other military options.

bingo, there are various types of autoloaders ruski system in T series necessitates breech to be horizontal for loading reloading and few shells has to be in open baskets, shells in open is very hazadrous a teeny weeny sharpnel will ammo rack the tank in anglaise it will dentonate the shells and you see tank turrets flying off manual loading does away with storing shells in open basket onree spent shell casings are stroed in baskets reason for fotos of T series without turrets during both gulf wars and non of tanks with manual loaders losing their turrets.
BTW turret size depends upon gun design in particula breech and recoil system loader stands beside not behind the gun. all in all large spacious turret allows for more effcient crews translate into shorter reload means more lead on target and the one pumping more lead on target always wins.

[Pratyush]

This whole autoloader thing making tanks lighter is total BOKWAS. Why???

Because it totally ignores the order by Kruschev which artificially limited weight of USSR tanks to under certain tonnage in order to meet some imaginary quality.

All USSR / Russian tanks had to follow this till the early 80s. When the Red army started thinking abut 152 MM gun the weights of the tanks that would deploy the gun would automatically by in the 60 ton range. We all know what happened after that. T-14 is a clean sheet design and it is in the mid 50s in terms of tonnage.

Coming to T90 purchase. It made sense in the 90s economic environment. Due to lighter logistical requirements. The DGMF should have left it at that. The bad faith demands of seeking "improvements" in Arjun especially when T90 doesn't have most of the features being sought from Arjun is what is leaving a bad taste.

[srin]

One important 'metric' that T(in) fans bothered to ask is the rate of fire between Autoloader and manual firing.
In battle situation, not only the long rod but also the number of shots fired in a short time is important. Historically the rate of fire by manual loading is much faster than autoloader. There is no new piece of information that says otherwise.
Advantages of autoloader:
1) Long rod APFSDS ensuring higher penetration,
2) Additional man allows for rotation among the crew
3) Very high rate of fire
4) Large internal space allows for better crew comfort for long term staying under unnatural conditions in desert.

Only in very rough terrain light tank is preferred. Koreans went with Soviet solution, because the entire country is full of mountains. While they went for western solutions for all other military options.

I thought it is the opposite ? The T72/90 autoloaders use two piece APFSDS ammunition and not the long rod ones, thus affecting the penetration ?

[soumik]

Posting here a link to my piece on the FICV project 7 history of the ICV in the Indian Army, please do let me know what you think.
https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/futu ... t-of-steel

[durairaaj]

It's my mistake, I missed few 'not's in my rush to post before going to work.
Corrected post below:
One important 'metric' that T(in) fans "not" bothered to ask is the rate of fire between Autoloader and manual firing.
In battle situation, not only the long rod but also the number of shots fired in a short time is important. Historically the rate of fire by manual loading is much faster than autoloader. There is no new piece of information that says otherwise.
"Dis"Advantages of autoloader:
1) Long rod APFSDS ensures higher depth of penetration "by guns of tanks following western doctrine", whereas in T-cans the APFSDS is shorter due to the limitation of autoloader.
2) Additional man allows for rotation among the crew
3) Very high rate of fire
4) Large internal space allows for better crew comfort for long term staying under unnatural conditions in desert.

Only in very rough terrain light tank is preferred. Koreans went with Soviet solution, because the entire country is full of mountains. While they went for western solutions for all other military options.
To Philipovsky:
T tank is cheaper only when not including the ERA, thermal sight, mine plough, auxillary power unit, cooling system for desert conditions, air cleaning system for bio-defense, hunter killer system. Arjun comes with all these bells and whistles.

[srin]

The Leclerc also has an autoloader. Does it also use two piece ammo or the long rod ?

[ks_sachin]

The Leclerc also has an autoloader. Does it also use two piece ammo or the long rod ?

The Leclerc autoloader takes the rounds from the bustle. Ammo is not stored like To series.
Hence ammo is one piece.

[nachiket]

The Leclerc also has a 52 caliber gun giving it higher muzzle velocity than the Rheinmetall Rh-120 L/44 on the Abrams and Leopard 2A5. The 2A6 has the longer L/55 version.

[ks_sachin]

The Arjuns rounds stored in the bustle are less safe than the western heavies because the whole storage area is not protected by a blast door.

In the event of a cook off where is the energy directed?

[nachiket]

The Arjuns rounds stored in the bustle are less safe than the western heavies because the whole storage area is not protected by a blast door.

In the event of a cook off where is the energy directed?

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation ... 73023.html

Another key feature added is a Containerised Ammunition Bin with Individual Shutter (CABIS) that gives crew enhanced protection from inadvertent burning of ammunition stored in the ready round bin.

The hot gases generated due to ammunition burning is vented out by blow-off panels from the roof of the turret, thus saving the crew.

[ks_sachin]

The Arjuns rounds stored in the bustle are less safe than the western heavies because the whole storage area is not protected by a blast door.

In the event of a cook off where is the energy directed?

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation ... 73023.html

Another key feature added is a Containerised Ammunition Bin with Individual Shutter (CABIS) that gives crew enhanced protection from inadvertent burning of ammunition stored in the ready round bin.

The hot gases generated due to ammunition burning is vented out by blow-off panels from the roof of the turret, thus saving the crew.

The bin itself is not protected by a blast proof door like the Abrams or the Leclerc