Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

P Chupunkar · Post by **P Chupunkar** » 08 Jul 2002 23:01

Originally posted by nitin:
PC,
The T90 is a heck of a lot better than a T72.Check the archives for the "armor tech thread" for armor specs.Giun is improved.Better FCS,long range ATGM's,and the Shtora 1 jammer.Also,the T72's in ODS were hardly the soviet best.At the time that would have been the T80.Not that it was an Abrams equivalent but still.
The T72's also lacked thermal imaging and had inferior non DU ammo.Any hit on the Abrams would be=no hit at all.Unless it was in the shot trap or in the rear.

Are you saying that India is also getting DU ammo along with the T-90's. It was my understanding that India did not make indigenous DU ammo (Maybe I am wrong).
About lack of thermal imaging with T-72 this is amazing. Can you convert existing T-72's to T-90 standards ? I have seen web postings (tank net) which claim the M2 are never manufactured from scratch but rather M1's were converted to M2. Maybe this can be done with existing T-72's.
I still believe that we need the heavy tank capability of arjun. I have again seen web-postings that claim arjun would fare much better against the bund/ditch defences compared to the T-series.

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 09 Jul 2002 00:58

the days of t55, vijayanta, t72 is well nigh
past no matter how much upgrades you lash onto
them. their levels of protection, guns and
tiny internal volume (no loader, less fire rate)
just are not going to make the cut against
quality opposition behind strong defences (PA in
punjab and jammu). they do a have a certain
nuisance value and can be mobile pill boxes, but
if a drive to the east bank of Indus is needed,
dont have unfair expectations of these. t90 is a
more modern t72 but has same flawed design
philosophy of sacrificing armour for speed and
a lagging (behind nato) Ru fcs. it too will suffer (and make us suffer as well).

a totally new production line managed by some
domestic automakers or perhaps BEML should be
started to make bhim, arjun and karan. t90 should
be capped at 300 and all tanks >15 yrs at time of
upgrade should be scrapped. the $$ and manpower
freed up can be utilized elsewhere like bhim and
MBRLs.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 09 Jul 2002 01:56

Rudra, there is a way to increase the internal space in the later T-series MBTs, without losing the autoloader. You move the autoloader to the turretbustle, as seen on this ukrainian T-72 upgrade, the T-72-120.
In this upgrade the maingun have been replaced with a 120mm NATO standard smoothbore gun, but I dont see any reason why it shouldnt work with the standard 125mm gun.

<img src="http://armor.kiev.ua:8101/Tanks/Modern/ ... 72-120.jpg" alt="" />

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 09 Jul 2002 02:01

wow thats a cute idea. lets hope PA doesnt
get it as a upgrade to their T80s or on
future new T80s.

to reply on another question, no DU ammo
from Ru. just tungsten.

its good to remember M1 entered service
with a 105mm british gun, non-DU ammo,
first gen chobham(no DU embedded dorchester),
lighter, unproven 1500hp gas turbine....
...the then leo2A4 could have mauled it badly.
they kept on improving it and adding stuff
in SEP1 and SEP2 to make it a monster.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 09 Jul 2002 08:09

Yes,definitely ..TI can be added!Also FCS changed to give fire on the move capability.ERA for cheap modular protection,better NBC protection ,GPS for nav,....you get the idea.All thats been mentioned is part of the CI upgrade.

Nandai's post shows imho the most needed upgrade.Off with the carousel autoloader.The website is a killer.If only DRDO/OFB could do any of the same wrt presenting their products.

Besides which the T90 will soon(hopefully) have the Refleks with its errors sorted out.
Alo note IA wasplanning on acquiring Svir's-Refleks' predecessor for the T72 upgrade when it was first envisaged.

Regards,
Nitin

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 09 Jul 2002 17:45

The origin of the gun used in the ukrainian tank is something of a mystery, the ukrainians themselves claim that they developed the gun all on their own, something most experts dont believe. From what I have read 2 countries have been pointed out as probable sources for the gun, either Switzerland and the company RUAG or France and Giat, my money is on RUAG.
And Nitin, you are correct, the swiss gun, called 120mm Compact Tank Gun(CTG), have been fitted and tested on the CV90 MICV, that vehicle is called CV90120. A nice looking beast, if I may say so.

<img src="http://www.ruaglandsystems.com/eng/L01/ ... _klein.jpg" alt="" />

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 09 Jul 2002 19:44

you could get a university degree going thru these threads.frnakly speaking BR is the best thing to have happened to India in a long time.Can anybody say how a FCS works?Does it use RADAR to track targets and aim or what ???

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2002 20:08

Can anybody say how a FCS works?Does it use RADAR to track targets and aim or what ???

And many more. As an example here is a flow diagram for a FCS (Computingdevices) . IR, visual, Low res IR and low res visual are used. Seems like more emphasis is on correcting the acquired data and fusing images, all in a very short period of time. As an example the Al Khalid claims a one second response time and a first hit at 2000m on a 8x8 ft area. (There are other requirements that are critical - one of them moving vs. both moving vs both stationary - that define the FCS.)

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 09 Jul 2002 21:23

from what little I know, the gunner or commander
can put a marker on specific targets and the
system keeps the main gun aligned on that until
told to move along. as the tank is jolting along
there must be moments when the correction loop
to keep the gun precisely aligned lags and I guess
the gun would refuse to fire but wait until lock
is obtained again. I wonder if "hunter-killer"
means commander does the spotting and target
marking, while gunner concentrates on the one
primary target and aims for a spot just ahead
to cope with ~1.5secs of flight time..this can mean
quite some distance at 40kmph.

so my theory is the system doesnt really interpret
the imagery until a target is designated.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 09 Jul 2002 21:42

A hunter-killer tank allows the commander to designate targets on his own, while the gunner is finishing off an earlier target. The commander can also over ride the gunner, and have him take care of a more urgent target, instead of blowing up a paki tank, the Arjun will take out mushys car.

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 09 Jul 2002 22:21

WOW !!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Jul 2002 23:15

hunter-killer tank

Are there any other types of tanks?

Also, regarding Mush and his car/s, let us leave that to the Jihadis. One less shell to waste. Just a thought.

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 09 Jul 2002 23:27

niranjan, in older tanks the commander didnt
have a direct interface to designate targets
on the shared data, but could use his periscopes
to do look for threats and do a few things
-tell the driver who has poorer SA of upcoming
obstacles and which way to steer
-shout to the gunner about "target at 1300m 3-o-clock!! hurry up and nail your current al-khalid!!"
-tell loader what type of ammo to load."get off your
*&&^^ $ss and ram one APDS. now!"
-talk with other tanks & to base over radio.
maintain cohesion with group of tanks.
-activate defensive measures like smoke grenades.

so hunter-killer just makes one job a little
simpler and more direct. his plate continues to
be quite full

for a platoon leader, one more job is to divide
upcoming targets among his tanks and decide
the course of action for platoon as a whole
keeping in view known situation. dividing is
easy when hull-down behind a berm and a dozen
targets appear over next ridge...aint so easy
when engaged in offensive moving combat and
leaders tank itself is under fire. I guess to
some extent its chaos and the cards will fall
where they may...with superior FCS, armour, ammo
and gunnery winning mostly.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 09 Jul 2002 23:28

As time permits i'll try and dig up a brief summary of FCS engaement on an old gen tank-say T72 as compared to the system on a leo2A4.

Niranjan,
A hunter killer "ability" can be retrofitted to almost all tanks.Including the T72..

Regards,
Nitin

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jul 2002 03:30

defencejournal: Russian T-72 Tank

The fire control system comprises the 1A40-1 sighting complex based on the TPD-K1 laser ranging sight of the T-72A tank. The field of view of the sight is stabilized in two planes.

For firing artillery rounds at night and launching guided missiles in daytime, provision is made for the 1K13-49 tracker, which is included into the 9K120 guided weapon system. It can operate in both the active and the passive mode. The gun is stabilized in two planes by means of the 2E42-2 stabilizer provided with the electrohydraulic elevating drive and electromechanical traversing drive.

army-tech: T 72S MAIN BATTLE TANK, UKRAINE

This under upgrades:

The Czech Republic are upgrading 140 T-72M1 tanks to T-72CZ standard, which will include ERA, Officine Galileo TURMS-T computerised fire control system and a new powerpack by NIMDA of Israel with Perkins engine and Allison transmission. Poland has begun an upgrade programme, and Croatia is considering modernising T-72 tanks. India is to upgrade 250 of its T-72M1 tanks with the Drawa-T thermal imaging fire control system from PCO of Poland. Deliveries are to be completed by 2004. ZTS Dubnica of Slovenia offer an upgrade for T-72 Moderna tanks

Russian Defence Export: T-90

Target detection and high precision aimed fire are conducted, at any time of day and night, from stationary or moving tank both by the gunner and tank commander with the help of the 1A45T integrated fire-control system. The IFCS comprises the gunner's day/night fire-control system, gunner's IR sight or thermal imaging sight, and commander's day/night sight-observation system. The fire control system comprises day sight-rangefinder with missile guidance channel, armament stabilizer and ballistic computer. The commander's day/night sight-observation system is used by the commander for gun and machine gun fire control.

The 9K119 integrated guided missile system features a jam-proof semi-automatic laser guiding system ensuring high kill probability at target ranges from 100 to 5,000 meters. The 9M119 guided missile launches are initiated by the gunner.

saint · Post by **saint** » 10 Jul 2002 04:33

http://www.china-defense.com/armor/Type98-2/type98-2_1.html

This link says that the chinese have developed 100mm DU ammunition and confirms that that Pakistan is currently marketing at least two DU tank rounds. Pakistan is a close Chinese ally and currently employs both the Chinese 125mm-armed Type 85-IIAP MBT as well as the new limited production Al-Khalid MBT.

[?]

Wonder if DU ammunition is illegal or classified as WMD? any geneva convention? wondering why?

Is Arjun going to be silent on these issues if there is no ban on using DUs?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 10 Jul 2002 08:00

India is to upgrade 250 of its T-72M1 tanks with the Drawa-T thermal imaging fire control system from PCO of Poland. Deliveries are to be completed by 2004.

This and other similiar reports of late, appear to confirm previous reports about India's tank force that are quite disturbing. It looks like India's T-72's are all still using primitive stadia reticle sights (no computerized FCS w/laser-ranging). This means Indian T-72's are probably only about 1/10 as effective in gunnery as an Al-Khalid, T-85III, or T-80U. Of course lack of a stabilized FCS also means they cannot fire accurately on the move. It also appears the Indian T-72 gunners do not have thermal sights.

Rather disqueiting to say the least. Only the 90-odd T-90's and the handful of Arjun-I's have these capabilities. The T-72's, T-55's, and Vijayanta's are a match only for Pakistan's T-69's, M-48's, and their non-upgraded T-59's. All the other tanks in the PA inventory are superior to every Indian tank except for the T-90S.

I guess the good news is it may not matter.

P Chupunkar · Post by **P Chupunkar** » 10 Jul 2002 09:07

Originally posted by Mike:

Rather disqueiting to say the least. Only the 90-odd T-90's and the handful of Arjun-I's have these capabilities. The T-72's, T-55's, and Vijayanta's are a match only for Pakistan's T-69's, M-48's, and their non-upgraded T-59's. All the other tanks in the PA inventory are superior to every Indian tank except for the T-90S.

I guess the good news is it may not matter.

Yeah its criminal behaviour. Maybe the entire parliaments next of kins (especially eligible ones) should be sent to the frontlines (especially siachen etc) before we see a change in behaviour.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 10 Jul 2002 11:33

It looks like India's T-72's are all still using primitive stadia reticle sights (no computerized FCS w/laser-ranging). This means Indian T-72's are probably only about 1/10 as effective in gunnery as an Al-Khalid, T-85III, or T-80U.

All Indian T72M1's have Laser range finders.And passive night sights.

Dont believe whatever you read.After all one paki tank is anyway equal to three indian one's.

How many AL khalids does Pakistan have?In service now?If your answer is "a handful",chuck 'em from the discussion.

T85-II AP is just a rough comparator of the T72M1.Can fire on the move but with no great accuracy if its generation is considered.They dont have Thermal imagers either but the usual passive image intensifiers like the T72M1 has.Armor etc..in the T72 class.Glacis,at any rate significant part of the frontal arc should be vulnerable to the T2A,besides which the carousel autoloader makes 'em every bit as vulnerable as Indian T72's if you factor that thing in.

Total numbers?225 imported (SKD-CKD kits/assembly at HIT etc)iirc. Other "sources" note that production may have continued with another 300 or so produced(now replaced on the produiction line by the Khalid i'd say).Somewhere around 550-575 or so in all even if we give the pakis credit .We have anywhere between 1400-2000 T72's NOW.Take your pick.Too lazy to check the numbers meself.

320 T80UD or rather T84's...fine.By this year end we'll have 124 plus T90's .Better armor,better thermals,better guns and better ammo.T2A APFSDS as well as Refleks ATGM at the minimum.Of course if the Russians release their approx 600 mm RHae BM series ammo to us,even better.Oh and this considering that the original plan to assemble them at Avadi is still valid.If direct imports..then ....count the numbers...
Anyway,we can bunch in more T72's where we want to.And aah yes the ATGM factor again.

Re remaining paki tanks..they are the T59 and the T69MP with the same RO derived L7 105mm as on our Vijayanta's and T55's.Again with roughly similar FCS and passive image intensified night sights which our tanks have too.(refer Sanjay's article in the BRM).Armor /Mobility on both sides roughly the same.Either side takes a hit...its a goner.So no advantage to eithers side.We have more T72's.They have more creaky rust buckets.We win.

And hey...lest you forget.We got thousands of Milan2's and Konkurs around.Milans with their thermal sight and the Flame launcher which can fire both.

Lets not even bring the IAF in shall we.

Things arent always as bad as they may seem.

Regards,
Nitin

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 10 Jul 2002 11:53

BTW,the Drawa T FCS is a Polish one in service with the Polish army(IOW ,it works and has been shown to work) which gives fire on the move capability in conjunction with better stabilization.Incorporated with minimal changes to the tank structure.

Regards,
Nitin

P Chupunkar · Post by **P Chupunkar** » 10 Jul 2002 11:58

But nitin we could easily have begun the upgrade program in the mid 1990's itself to have complete superiority over the pakistani tank fleet.
You have about 1000-2000 (dont know the exact figure) of T-72's which could have been easily upgraded to roughly T-80 standards (or beyond) by now. From the news coming out of india, it does look like this is a cost-effective option. I suspect that the army probably was not interested in this because they feared that if they agreed to this, they would forced to use Arjun.
Maybe you can enlighten me about the logistics nightmare with the fielding of arjun. Is the logistics nightmare because of
1) Current rakes cannot support arjun
2) Current rail-road tracks cannot bear the weight of arjun (something i find hard to believe).
3) Due to excess size/weight the railways would charge more to transport ?
4) New tech, new depot's require engineering upgrades etc.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 10 Jul 2002 19:51

PC,there was no money for upgrades.Then.We didnt evne have money for Avadi to build plain jane T72M1's.Please check up and then post.Jeez,dont tell me you dont "remember" the times of gold and honey for the services..ie the 90's.

I suspect that the army probably was not interested in this because they feared that if they agreed to this, they would forced to use Arjun.

With all due respect this is one of the most idiotic and illogical statements i have ever had the misfortune to observe.

So the Army wont upgrade the T72's so they dont buy the Arjun at wartime.Great.This despite the umpteen links posted and previous threads.Could you do us all a favour and read through them before posting such nonsense?Including the words of an army appointee?.

Raj and i post all that and then we have a wise conclusion at the end of it.God help us.

A)Considering the present capex,do you upgrade or buy NEW tanks.
B)If you choose to trade off and delay the upgrade if you want a cutting edge lance ASAP.All this bakwaas of T72S upgraded=T90.Yeah right.What about the costs?Do you rebuild the turret?
Replace the gun barrel?The FCS?Will it have the Shtora1?
Net,upgrading the T72 will result in a more capable tank,but the T90 is still superior.

Please do us another favour and check BR to see what the T72 upgrade consisted of.
It'd also suit us to find out which upgrade-per defensenews-has been delayed.If it has been delayed,that is.

They -***if*** they are correct--were talking of the fleet wide limited upg.Not the "full" one.

Note delayed.Not cancelled.
ANother thing.90 percent of what you'll hear is junk.Cross ref.Check.And tehn consider.

Logistical nightmare be damned.The yanks faced this same issue and though it worthwhile to invest.Here we have a case of shoehorning an inferior product to match a dated logistics line.

Only thing against the ARjun is cost(tank itself too).T90 is cheaper.

And lest we forget,Arjun is in the Leo2,Abrams class..anyone wanna check up on how much *they* cost?

You want the best,you gotta pay for it.

Or continue with that damn carousel autoloader which guarantess crew fatality.The import lobby in the MoD stinks to high heavens.

Why do you think DRDO came out with the Karna or the EX?
________________________________________________

The point of the post wrt armor was to show Mike how badly we err if one considers all the usual media and Paki bakwaas.Despite "running down" our assets the IA tank inventory remains formidable and the match of pakistans.Any claims of clear pak superiority are...false.

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 10 Jul 2002 20:19

Does anyone have any sort of estimate of our AFV inventory? How many T-90s,T-72s?

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 10 Jul 2002 20:37

Pardon me but i'm bloody well irritated.Fine this thread is veering into AFV/IFV territory but the least that can be done is to check one's facts before speculating.And even the speculation is based on wrong assumptions.

We have the usual scare theories and then "trashing" a product despite the fact that the previous official information clearly indicates success. And that other data indicates that the wartsila integration may be in progress to come up with an product with significantly enhanced perfomance .

Originally posted by Sai_NT:
http://www.china-defense.com/armor/Type98-2/type98-2_1.html

This link says that the chinese have developed 100mm DU ammunition and confirms that that Pakistan is currently marketing at least two DU tank rounds. Pakistan is a close Chinese ally and currently employs both the Chinese 125mm-armed Type 85-IIAP MBT as well as the new limited production Al-Khalid MBT.

[?]

Wonder if DU ammunition is illegal or classified as WMD? any geneva convention? wondering why?

Is Arjun going to be silent on these issues if there is no ban on using DUs?

DU ammunition is controversial but not banned.DU rounds have significant performance advantages over the regular tungsten ones due to the features of DU itself.Its pyrophoric and has a self sharpening ability..ie as it penetrates the tip will remain sharp and the DU flakes that result will catch fire.

The equivalent method is to come up with new Tungsten alloys and long rod penetrators using them,ie penetrators with a length to dia ratio of greater than (say) 20:1 etc which enhance penetration for the given dia.

DRDO is presently involved in the latter effort.

DU is hard to machine and expensive.Stocks arent easily available either.

Pakistan apparently is trying "hard" to make a DU round.But they are nowhere near that yet.Their "effort" is to import Chinese DU rounds and paint 'em green.The Chinese havent displayed any 125mm DU rounds till date.One effort is to "mate" 100 mm rounds with relevant sabots to fit the 125mm barrel.Not a good solution and prone to failure.

All they have-for now-is the POF manufactured licenced Norinco one- 460mm RHAe round,inferior to the indian T2A APFSDS.

Even SIPRI reports of Svir ATGM's for the T84's are-per SIPRI themselves-unconfirmed.

Regards,
Nitin

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 10 Jul 2002 20:38

80 T-90s in india. all inducted. no ATGMS. the atgms were initially meant for T-80s, so in the
rush nobody had time to qualify them for T-90s!!

we might get another 80 by end of 02 is my guess.
I think they will continue to purchase direct
from Ru factory to make up numbers quickly. so
maybe another 160 next year to reach ~300. by then
avadi gets up steam and starts doling out a few
now and then...perhaps eventual inventory will
reach 600-700. thats twice the inventory of a
typical EU country.

based on this newfound "love" for T90s my prediction is that the Full T72 upgrade will be
cancelled to preserve capital and perhaps the
500 newest ones will Inshallah get the Karna
avatar.

Its a game of diminishing returns to keep with
the vijay & T55s & older T72s. never very reliable
or capable of sustained rough use in best of times.

we we end up with
600 T90s - can deal with anything in PA
500 Karnas - less mobile but can stand its ground
and fight
about 1000 nuisance older tanks of dubious value
in attack

to reach that 2000 mark, we need a 1000 Arjuns
to deliver a crushing "weight" on the problem.

the paradigms are shifting and if IA/GOI miss the
boat on this one, we shall end up with a ineffective and outdated force concept for next
25 yrs of "hot-peace".

advitya · Post by **advitya** » 10 Jul 2002 20:51

Rudra
If there is ever a real imbalance..worry not...we will simply buy the store! If 40 F-16s could trigger 130 M2K/MiG-29s and 50 Fantans could trigger 200 MiG-27s...can you imagine what a couple of 100 Al Khalids will trigger?

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 10 Jul 2002 20:58

advitya, "buying" is exactly the worry. a lot of
people will push the case for hundreds more t90
and to standardize on it, though it was meant to
be a stopgap until arjun came online. arjun met
reqs in 2000, but avadi hasnt been allowed to
start producing, instead all its efforts have been
directed to t90 production.

I think I will rest easy only when I see a arjun
production line established (with photos) and
the first tanks hit the ground.

even the karna is by no means certain. far more
money to made in east europe applying that upgrade
to t72s.

advitya · Post by **advitya** » 10 Jul 2002 21:11

Sorry, I misunderstood your concern. d'accord.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Jul 2002 21:14

If there is ever a real imbalance..worry not...we will simply buy the store! If 40 F-16s could trigger 130 M2K/MiG-29s and 50 Fantans could trigger 200 MiG-27s...can you imagine what a couple of 100 Al Khalids will trigger?

I would like to see this cycle broken once and for all. Along with the nara to stop jihadis coming across the border, India MUST stop these acquisitions by TSP. Else, use those 130 M2K/29s and 200 27s. What use are all these upgrades if we get into a cyclical acquisition game with a far inferior nut case? Get that thorn out of the foot and move on to the next thing.

Just a thought.

Vinay J · Post by **Vinay J** » 10 Jul 2002 21:19

The solution to everyone's woes is to form a BR Strategic Consultants, Inc. Have Nitin (President of SC) shoot off letters to the CAS and the PM, MOD, GF etc about the value of Arjun/Karna!!

Seriously, I think BR needs to put in its advice to the above. That is the duty of a citizen. To listen or not is the prerogative of the addressee but maybe it may make a difference.

The Arjun was and is an excellent Tank. The Wrtsila integration can be done later. The IA should first take delivery of 124 Arjuns and then order 500 more maybe with the Wartsila engine.

What is the point of developing a good Tank but failing it on the basis of unrealistic expectations which even the best frontline tanks (as Nitin and Raj have shown) cannot fulfil? Boy, this is frustrating

CPrakash · Post by **CPrakash** » 10 Jul 2002 21:37

Originally posted by VinayJ:
form a BR Strategic Consultants, Inc. Have Nitin (President of SC) shoot off letters to the CAS and the PM, MOD, GF etc about the value of Arjun/Karna!!

Excellent Idea ! <NOT

> BR needs to be more proactive and intiative taking. We need to extend our thoughts and actions beyond the Web Fora and into the offices of the dork babus doing the decision making in Delhi <Yeah Right!>

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 11 Jul 2002 06:20

nitin - are you saying that Pakistan's upgraded T-59's and its T-85III's do not have a thermal gunner's sight? You're saying they employ passive night vision only. (For the benefit of the uninitiated, night vision means a light enhancing viewer - NOT to confused with a thermal viewer. Both are passive devices, but night vision merely amplifies ambient light, while thermal sights show everything in the IR spectrum).

I have used both extensively, and I can tell you the difference is night and day (no pun intended). At ground level, night vision is useless except at close range. You simply cannot spot, track, and engage targets at anything beyond close range when using night vision. But thermal sights allow you to spot and engage targets at any range. In fact, we trained to use thermal virtually all the time (even during the day). For one thing, thermal sees through smoke. And you can pick out vehicles and personell more easily, even when they're camoflauged.

I used to be 11H which is mechanized anti-tank. Our AT units consisted of armored HUMVEE's with mounted TOW launchers. Until you use some of this equipment, you can't appreciate what a huge difference it makes. Tanks and other AFV's that rely on primitive FCS with no thermal vision, are going to get slaughtered by an opponent who has them. And by the way, not all thermal or night vision devices are equal. There are vast differences in how effective they are. I've used Russian night vision goggles and they're practically useless compared to US ones. That may be an irrelevent observation, though - because I haven't ever played with any of the latest Russian stuff.

member_4487 · Post by **member_4487** » 11 Jul 2002 08:44

hello guys,
i am new to the site!! just got registered. Well have been reading a lot of messages on the forum. Well thought i might add in a bit too. I guess you guys might be having more technical knowledge about stuff but i have seen most of the things on ground and in functional condition. Dunno how relevant my information would be.

Ok about the Arjun. Actually i knew an uncle who was in the Arjun trial team for a few years plus i had gone and seen the trials. As of present the tank has passed all trials. The suspension being the best part of the tank no doubt. The armour has been cleared and found satisfactory (Kanchan). One of the problems faced by arjun that even the DRDO scientists had problems solving was that on the move also known as oblique encounter with another tank moving in the opposite direction Arjun hits Point blank or in simple terms around (92%-98%) hit probability but when stopped the tank only accquires an accuracy of 83%. It had problems hitting behind lower than certain degrees due to the engine and the cooling pack. But after all the years of trials i can say that arjun has been well tested and is reliable and should not be thought of as a gone project. And as the army has accepted to induct that tank in few numbers i won't doubt the testing capabities of 100's of officers sitting at the table risking lifes of our soldiers. Atleast it can take most tanks that pakistanis have.
Well also the FCS as i asked was indian now!
Dunno let me see if i can find some more information.

livingzodiac

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 11 Jul 2002 08:52

nitin, you have posted twice that DRDO is working
on a L:d 30:1 apds. what is your public source if
any ?

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 11 Jul 2002 13:36

Russias latest T-72 upgrade, from Jane's.

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 11 Jul 2002 14:29

. I mean these T-72 were crushed like matchbox's. They showed snaps of when an armored regiment of the US crushed 27 tanks (all T-72 in the early 90's was almost state of art from russia) in just 23 minutes. It was just amazing, all the M1's were doing is locating target, firing, locating target again.
With respect to the T-90, what are the upgrades of the T-90 over T-72? Is there any improvement in the firing rate, the armor/protection etc.

The only reason why the M1A1 were successful aginst T-72 was the the DU armour and DU sabot rounds.Othere wise I think technically Russian FCS was as good as M1A1 at daytime.

There is this famous story of an Abrams that got stuck in the mud and was waiting to be hausled up by a ARV when 3 T-72s emerged to take on the solitary Abrams.The first one fired a HE round but didint scratch the armour.The Abrams fired a sabot and finished it off.The second one did the same thing and once agin no scratch on Armour and Abrams fired another sabot to destroy it.The Thrid T-72 fired a sabot and did damage to the armour.Then it hid behind a sand berm.But the thermal imager spotted the plume and they fired a sabot thru teh berm and destroyed the T-72.

The baove story also appeared in a american aptriotic website dedicated to teh soldiers who died in Gulf War.

The article ends with teh following expert comments.

"In the above battle it is worthwhile to point out that all six shots scored direct its.Its a tribute to the lethality of modern tank systems that there is hardly a miss.It should also be noted that the Abrams survived all shots as they were directed against its frontal armour.Had the abrams been fired at from any otehr angle , it would ahev certainly killed the tank."

Harry Van · Post by **Harry Van** » 11 Jul 2002 14:46

also 50 % of Iraqi tanks were in dug in position and were taken out by PGMs from air.the incident he is referring too i think it was an F-16 which destroyed 23 T-72's better check up.In dug in position there was no way they could have been destroyed.But main thing is armour.And better thermal imagers which T-72 did not have.So many T-72 was destroyed inspite of haze created by oil well fires...but Iraqis without that advantage shot each other.Main thing was lack of armor and thermal imaging and lack of DU rounds.

Another advantage claimed is the American doctrine of mobility and exploiting chances in the battlefield , giving freedom to the creativity of tank commander , where as Iraqis were following centralized linear Soviet doctrines

Its not just technology that matters.If you a good C4I systems , and diversity of sensors well integrated and fused plus aircraft whihc an share datalinks even stealth aircraft can also be
spotted and engaged.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 11 Jul 2002 15:02

Rudra,

The http://www.mod.nic.in site mentions that OFB is working on a long rod penetrator.

As Paul infers that the present Arjun APFSDS is around 20:1 L:d and western ones DM43 etal are "hitting" the 30:1 range,it appears DRDO is wrking towards the latter.

Mike,

nitin - are you saying that Pakistan's upgraded T-59's and its T-85III's do not have a thermal gunner's sight? You're saying they employ passive night vision only

Yes!Do a google for Heavy Industries Taxila.

The *second* upgrade on the T59 namely the ALzARRAR may have TI but its not really underway now.If you follow the reports on Chinese websites,it appears that a chinese 120mm gun combination offered on the T59D may yet be selected though HIT still sticks by the 125mm combination story.
At any rate,for now its passive.Cost grounds apparently.

Though the MBT2000 features a chinese one.But reports indicate that certain electropotical components are being imported for the khalid..may well be TI from france.

Livingzodiac
Youll have to register under a human sounding name per forum guidelines.

Whats your mail id?

Regards,
Nitin

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 11 Jul 2002 22:27

More on the russian T-72 up-grade, and other russian weaponsystems.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/data/communiques/data/2002Jul11101

Ashutosh · Post by **Ashutosh** » 11 Jul 2002 22:38

Originally posted by harryvandeusan:
also 50 % of Iraqi tanks were in dug in position and were taken out by PGMs from air.the incident he is referring too i think it was an F-16 which destroyed 23 T-72's better check up.

In one post you say the Abrams destroyed the T-72s, and in the other you say F-16s.

That piece of information was from Tom Clancy's book on armoured operations.