Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 31 Mar 2010 20:58

You are right. Stopping and firing is to improve accuracy. If Arjun can hit the target while on the move, then it is much more easier to hit the target while stationary.
Just see some footage of real action. Urban warfare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmidb92H ... re=related

Notice the Type 90 firing at moving targets while stationary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBe20isdooM

Arjun has got the capability to fire at moving targets while on the move.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 31 Mar 2010 21:03

Per the IA (in one of Broadsword blog posts), "the T-90 is not on trial". So technically this is not a comparative trial. So, I would not be surprised if the final report talks only about the Arjun performance stats & make no mention of the T-90 stats.

Panwalla tidbits & early breaking news from Ajai Shukla are juicy no doubt & would even have their place (in triggering parliament questions or CAG audit) if the final report looks cooked up. Lets wait & see.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 31 Mar 2010 22:15

niran wrote:
Saar, the above figures were of the "firing on the move test" i hear that
stationary firing results were similar, no figures were provided, but i am told
that there was a test whereby the Tanks had to travel a certain distance
over tall sand dunes and shallow pond and had to put in 3 rounds in a 20x20
cardboard target. Arjun was 540 seconds faster than T90 in the test, but
since T90 came to a full stop before firing, and Arjun crews detected and fired
before even coming to a full stop, it was deemed that Arjun crew cheated,
it has nothing to do with Arjun ability to move faster, quicker and farther away
detection, and fantastic ability to fire on the move, crews had cheated, and since
no more rounds were available for the test it was declared null(why no more rounds were ordered? i dunno nor i had asked)

i think its a case of Chinese wiser...

Type of fire drills...

- Fire from Stationary position
--- No of Tgt hit and how many rounds hit the tgt (typically depending on tgt and round being fired 2 rounds are also fired on single tgt and then gunner acquires a new tgt and same.)

- Fire after moving a some distance
--- Travel a distance acquire a tgt Fire, again move and acquire tgt fire... (typically depending on tgt and round being fired 2 rounds are also fired on single tgt and then gunner acquires a new tgt and same. This is with a time penalty, plus if a crew fires on move negative marking)

- Fire on the move
--- Fire while moving (typically depending on tgt and round being fired 2 rounds are also fired on single tgt and then gunner acquires a new tgt and same. This is with a time penalty)

the difference between both mbt is totally dependent on crew rather that ability... specially in firing accuracy... as both are equally gr8 in hands of trained crews...

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 31 Mar 2010 22:18

rohitvats wrote:Rahul, are the 5-year procurement plans of Indian Armed Forces available in public? Any link? The reason I ask is some timeback during T-90 versus Arjun debate, d_berwal had posted details of planned purchase of MBT(?) under various plans. Just curious about the source. It will also help in understanding any planned mechanization of Indian Infantry.

go to Indian parliament site .... Defense standing committee section

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Mar 2010 22:21

Fire after moving a some distance
--- Travel a distance acquire a tgt Fire, again move and acquire tgt fire... (typically depending on tgt and round being fired 2 rounds are also fired on single tgt and then gunner acquires a new tgt and same. This is with a time penalty, plus if a crew fires on move negative marking)

What you test by this ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2010 22:24

that the brakes work.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Mar 2010 22:25

And it needs 540secs to stop?

I think, cumlatively, it took 540 secs to acquire 30 or so targets and fire on them. On avg, it took 18 secs for single target acquistion and then to fire. Or if the target is acquired while still in motion, it took 18 secs to fire alone.

Thanks Uddu for the link. In the youtube link, JSDF Type-90, fires within a sec of coming to stop.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Mar 2010 22:27

d_berwal wrote: the difference between both mbt is totally dependent on crew rather that ability... specially in firing accuracy... as both are equally gr8 in hands of trained crews...

Can't use this argument. The IA has plenty of trained and experienced crews for the T-90 but only a few (trained but obviously less experienced) for the Arjun. Why would they send an inexperienced crew for the trials of their favorite little tank against the big bad Arjun? So during trials if the Arjun outperforms the T-90, it is because of the difference in capabilities of the tank not the crews.

sunilpatel · Post by **sunilpatel** » 31 Mar 2010 22:45

still no official reports of trial....
i think IA is busy in fixing the QSR for FMBT tin -9xx which can perfom superior than Arjun

negi · Post by **negi** » 31 Mar 2010 22:52

The M1 Abrams crew are reported to have maintained a firing rate of 10 rounds per minute i.e. a round every 6 seconds considering Arjun's sight , muzzle reference system and FCS are pretty much comparable there is no reason why Arjun can't achieve a similar rate of fire . With the T-90 the load cycle of the auto loader is a constraint as far as rate of fire is concerned time required for target acquisition notwithstanding.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 31 Mar 2010 22:56

Rahul M wrote:that the brakes work.

that sums up all the quality of debate and the knowledge level....

it needs no comment....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2010 22:58

d_berwal wrote:
Rahul M wrote:that the brakes work.

that sums up all the quality of debate and the knowledge level....

it needs no comment....

it sums up for sure, someone's humour quotient.

you need a lesson in sarcasm 101. (but by all means carry on with a procession of

in the meantime)

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 31 Mar 2010 23:03

negi wrote:The M1 Abrams crew are reported to have maintained a firing rate of 10 rounds per minute i.e. a round every 6 seconds considering Arjun's sight , muzzle reference system and FCS are pretty much comparable there is no reason why Arjun can't achieve a similar rate of fire . With the T-90 the load cycle of the auto loader is a constraint as far as rate of fire is concerned time required for target acquisition notwithstanding.

in Vijayanta the record is 25+ rounds in a min form static fire... on diff tgt.... not more that 2 on a single tgt...

8 rounds per min vs 10 rounds per min is not very relevant...

If ever a crew finds itself to fire more that 5 in a min its a lost cause

C i lv Arjun... but the quality of Arguments and Tin can 90 ideology is what my comments are about

and Rahul nothing personal

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 31 Mar 2010 23:10

awwww berwal is back - for days he was showing up in "Users browsing" but no comments posted here

T camp must have sent him with special instructions

Now he comes up with such gems

Fire after moving a some distance
--- Travel a distance acquire a tgt Fire, again move and acquire tgt fire... (typically depending on tgt and round being fired 2 rounds are also fired on single tgt and then gunner acquires a new tgt and same. This is with a time penalty, plus if a crew fires on move negative marking)

Maybe an outmoded test which only is needed for T series

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 31 Mar 2010 23:13

that the brakes work

8 rounds per min vs 10 rounds per min is not very relevant...

In that case of rulling out the big difference between target acq and firing between the tanks, the lag of 540 secs directly refer to the poor mobility of T-90S in crossing dunes, bunds and ditches compared to Arjun as per the available information.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 31 Mar 2010 23:22

Kanson wrote:
that the brakes work

8 rounds per min vs 10 rounds per min is not very relevant...
In that case of rulling out the big difference between target acq and firing between the tanks, the lag of 540 secs directly refer to the poor mobility of T-90S in crossing dunes, bunds and ditches compared to Arjun as per the available information.

what is the source of info..... not authentic
EDIT.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 31 Mar 2010 23:28

2 points :

@ all, no further discussion on paanwala info, this is the second time I'm asking.

@ d_berwal, kindly stop using SMS lingo and do not flame posters by references to spine etc.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 31 Mar 2010 23:30

Surya wrote:awwww berwal is back - for days he was showing up in "Users browsing" but no comments posted here

T camp must have sent him with special instructions

Now he comes up with such gems

Fire after moving a some distance
--- Travel a distance acquire a tgt Fire, again move and acquire tgt fire... (typically depending on tgt and round being fired 2 rounds are also fired on single tgt and then gunner acquires a new tgt and same. This is with a time penalty, plus if a crew fires on move negative marking)
Maybe an outmoded test which only is needed for T series

Suryaji....

MBT are never tested 1 vs 1

its a Troop vs Troop

Sqd vs Sqd

test which make any kind of sense.... because that is how they are employed.....

even fire drill are either at troop or sqd level.....

Thank u for welcoming me...

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 31 Mar 2010 23:38

DELETED.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Mar 2010 23:40

Well lets wait for the GOI to come up with reliable information on this trials and future of both these tank in IA .

Just judging based on information from a or b blog and panwala source has its own downfall , suddenly the whole discussion has turned into if you support tank "a" then you are true patriot and if you support tank "b" you are condemned.

Considering there is no reliable information from these test and mere speculations based on fanboy type information on both sides , we need to wait till GOI comes with information and accept it.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 31 Mar 2010 23:41

d_berwal wrote: Suryaji....
MBT are never tested 1 vs 1
its a Troop vs Troop
Sqd vs Sqd
test which make any kind of sense.... because that is how they are employed.....
even fire drill are either at troop or sqd level.....
Thank u for welcoming me...

First, thank you for the reference to the Parliamentary Standing Committee wrt the acquisition of IA. I had gone through a lot of these when searching for historical info on Arjun. Seem to have missed the future acquition part; will look again.

Now coming to the MBT versus MBT - while not applicable in this case for T-90 is here to stay, if the idea is to compare two or more competing platforms, irrespective of the fact that they be a MBT or Fighter a/c, the basic parameters of system at hand will be compared one on one. If protection on Tank X is better than Tank Y or electro-optronics on Tank X allow it to achieve higher kill ratio than Tank Y, then there is nothing a troop of Tank Y can do as compared to troop of Tank X (with better feature). Proficiency of troops being equal, a troop or squadron of Tank X will defeat a similar strength force of Tank Y.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 31 Mar 2010 23:56

berwal you are always welcome

even taking our digs at you on the tank battle

, you have provided interesting info in other areas not related to T90\Arjun.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 01 Apr 2010 00:04

rohitvats wrote:
d_berwal wrote: Suryaji....
MBT are never tested 1 vs 1
its a Troop vs Troop
Sqd vs Sqd
test which make any kind of sense.... because that is how they are employed.....
even fire drill are either at troop or sqd level.....
Thank u for welcoming me...
First, thank you for the reference to the Parliamentary Standing Committee wrt the acquisition of IA. I had gone through a lot of these when searching for historical info on Arjun. Seem to have missed the future acquition part; will look again.

Now coming to the MBT versus MBT - while not applicable in this case for T-90 is here to stay, if the idea is to compare two or more competing platforms, irrespective of the fact that they be a MBT or Fighter a/c, the basic parameters of system at hand will be compared one on one. If protection on Tank X is better than Tank Y or electro-optronics on Tank X allow it to achieve higher kill ratio than Tank Y, then there is nothing a troop of Tank Y can do as compared to troop of Tank X (with better feature). Proficiency of troops being equal, a troop or squadron of Tank X will defeat a similar strength force of Tank Y.

... Idea is not what u hope for... Idea is just Induction of Arjun ... rest all is DDM hype....

if even we test basic parameter ...

electro-optronics = both same gen...

its again about the quality of debate... both mbt are same generation.. 19-20 difference or edge 1 has over other in one or more.... holds true for both......

if any of u read all the reports of defense standing committee, long before it was made clear 124 mk1 rest order for mk2....

niran · Post by **niran** » 01 Apr 2010 09:16

I think i should clarify some miss-fortunate misunderstanding here.

the figure 540 sec.
-Both Tanks were to traverse over Sand dunes and wet mud shallow ponds
to reach a Squarish area where a 20x20(what?cm or mm or m i dunno) target
was placed, and the Tanks were to fire 3 rounds into that 20x20.
Time started as soon as Tanks started moving.

T90 was slow to climb the Dunes and was slower to reach the Target area,
and the Tank came to complete stop before acquiring and firing.

Arjun was quicker to the Target area and the Crews acquired and fired
while still around the edge of the Target area while still on the move.

this act was deemed as cheating by Arjun crew, and later on this test was nullified.

I cannot ascertain the truth, or the lack of it, coz me is a civvie can onlee relay what i heard little Birdies chirping( see, no paanwallah or chaiwallah or dudhwallah)

WRT to the crew training-

The Arjun crew were only few weeks trained, while T90 were veterans, the morning set
were changed (i dunno the reason) in the afternoon Tests and once again during the Night Tests, while Arjun crew members were the same through the Day.

The reason i brought up this crew change was to make a point about IA perceived logic that Arjun
need 4 crew members and T90 needs 3, the extra member could be trained and an extra Tank staffed, i.e. one extra Tank could be staffed for every 3 Arjun's.
Now i do not think that you could have 3 crew changes in real life situations, no? then the above logic is superfluous, no?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 01 Apr 2010 10:14

niran wrote: The Arjun crew were only few weeks trained, while T90 were veterans, the morning set
were changed (i dunno the reason) in the afternoon Tests and once again during the Night Tests, while Arjun crew members were the same through the Day.

The reason i brought up this crew change was to make a point about IA perceived logic that Arjun
need 4 crew members and T90 needs 3, the extra member could be trained and an extra Tank staffed, i.e. one extra Tank could be staffed for every 3 Arjun's.
Now i do not think that you could have 3 crew changes in real life situations, no? then the above logic is superfluous, no?

Hazarding a guess here, but perhaps the T-90 crew overheated and had to be changed

. I thought there was an article a while back saying that since IA forbade DRDO from adding an AC to the Arjun, they solved the cooling issue by hardening the electronics and inventing individual cooling suits for the Arjun's crew to keep them cool.

Perhaps the T-90 crew were wishing they had cooling suits inside their tank as well.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Apr 2010 10:36

I see Rahul's post was lost on you folks

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Apr 2010 11:41

Austin wrote:Just judging based on information from a or b blog and panwala source has its own downfall , suddenly the whole discussion has turned into if you support tank "a" then you are true patriot and if you support tank "b" you are condemned.

Considering there is no reliable information from these test and mere speculations based on fanboy type information on both sides , we need to wait till GOI comes with information and accept it.

The article from Broadsword was also published by Business Standard. And while a lot of us may question his opinions or analyses, I don't think anyone questions his integrity. When he claims he's spoken to 'multiple sources' including officers involved the trials(as apparently did Shiv Aroor), I think he deserves the benefit of doubt.

That said, its the DGMF report that matters and it would prudent to wait for it before pronouncing a verdict.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Apr 2010 11:48

niran wrote: -Both Tanks were to traverse over Sand dunes and wet mud shallow ponds
to reach a Squarish area where a 20x20(what?cm or mm or m i dunno) target
was placed, and the Tanks were to fire 3 rounds into that 20x20.

Mm would be practically invisible, metres would make 'barn'-sized. Its probably cms but that's seems too small to me(little smaller than a laptop screen). But it would explain the lower than expected T-90 hit rate(assuming that the info is correct).

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 01 Apr 2010 11:56

Bhai log, between cms and meters, there is also another measurement called sq foot. That could be 20X20 sq feet board.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Apr 2010 12:06

Venu wrote:Bhai log, between cms and meters, there is also another measurement called sq foot. That could be 20X20 sq feet board.

Ah yes... I've heard rumors about such a thing. Sadly engineering and SI units have robbed me of that experience.

20'x20' still seems high. I would've though it would be closer to 2m x 2m.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 01 Apr 2010 12:09

Venu wrote:Bhai log, between cms and meters, there is also another measurement called sq foot. That could be 20X20 sq feet board.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... firing.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... firing.jpg

From
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/06/ ... -club.html

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 01 Apr 2010 13:34

Why not dm.
1 dm=10 cm.
A 20 x 20 will represent a 2m by 2m target.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Apr 2010 14:03

Mukesh.Kumar wrote:Why not dm.
1 dm=10 cm.
A 20 x 20 will represent a 2m by 2m target.

Dm is just a designation given for the sake of thoroughness. It is rarely used in science and never used in industry. Maybe they just put a 20x20 grid on a 2m x2m target to grade the accuracy of the shot.

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 01 Apr 2010 14:09

Viv S wrote:
Venu wrote:Bhai log, between cms and meters, there is also another measurement called sq foot. That could be 20X20 sq feet board.
20'x20' still seems high. I would've though it would be closer to 2m x 2m.

Look at it from a distance of, say, 1000 mts. It would look not so big. But yes, it still is bigger for measuring the accuracy of tank guns.

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 01 Apr 2010 14:11

Kakarat wrote:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... firing.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... firing.jpg

From
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/06/ ... -club.html

Are armour piercing rounds fired from the main gun? If so how come the holes on the board look so small?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Apr 2010 14:38

Please to see these pic of APFSDS to understand about the size of hole in the target. It is the high density rod that is the kill-vehicle.

Sabot seperating from main kill vehicle:

APFSDS Round:

See here the cross-section of APFSDS round:

Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator

Hope it helps.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Apr 2010 14:40

Venu wrote:
Look at it from a distance of, say, 1000 mts. It would look not so big. But yes, it still is bigger for measuring the accuracy of tank guns.

From a distance of 1000m, a 2m high tank would look correspondingly (far) smaller.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Apr 2010 14:44

rohitvats wrote:Please to see these pic of APFSDS to understand about the size of hole in the target-
Hope it helps.

I always assumed fin casing detached on impact.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Apr 2010 15:15

Just for reference - This is how APFSDS round hit looks like:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... ics)/page2

Viv S wrote:I always assumed fin casing detached on impact.

Seperates on discharge from the tank gun. That is why there is safe-zone requirement for infantry when in proximity of MBT firing APFSDS.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Apr 2010 15:24

Viv S wrote:That said, its the DGMF report that matters and it would prudent to wait for it before pronouncing a verdict.

Agree with you 100 % , lets wait till we have an official word on this.