It definetely helped. Thanks Rohit.rohitvats wrote: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.
Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
-
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 98
- Joined: 17 Aug 2009 16:48
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
OT POST DELETED.
...........
(Moderators plz feel free to delete this OT post and issue severe reprimands)
...........
(Moderators plz feel free to delete this OT post and issue severe reprimands)
Last edited by Rahul M on 01 Apr 2010 17:25, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: felt free.
Reason: felt free.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
A suitcase size target probably refers to 2 feet x 2 feet. It can be further gleamed from Ajai's photo.
it could possible refer 20 inch x 20 inch. Which comes to 1.5 feet x 1.5 feet which almost matches Ajai's description of suitcase size target.
it could possible refer 20 inch x 20 inch. Which comes to 1.5 feet x 1.5 feet which almost matches Ajai's description of suitcase size target.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Doesn't that nullify the point of having fins since the round (usually) doesn't have any spin imparted through rifling?rohitvats wrote: Seperates on discharge from the tank gun. That is why there is safe-zone requirement for infantry when in proximity of MBT firing APFSDS.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Rohitvats, So how does the T-90 rank with the Al Khali dibba of the TSP? And how will the Arjun fare vis a vis the Al Khali dibba?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
al khalid and T-90 are comparable tanks. arjun > T-90 = al-khalid
it's raining guderians these days isn't it ?Surya wrote:Egad we have another Guederian on BRF
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
please continue discussion on general uselessness of tanks in http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 02#p848702
TIA.
TIA.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
The target seems to be 20' x 20' . But note the grid pattern on it.
You want a much larger area around the point you're shooting at, so you can see by how much you missed the target if you miss it.
You want a much larger area around the point you're shooting at, so you can see by how much you missed the target if you miss it.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Israeli unveils tank-defense system of the future
The tiny Trophy system, lodged behind small rectangular plates on both sides of the tank, uses radar to detect the incoming projectiles and fires a small charge to intercept them, said Gil.
After firing, the system quickly reloads. The entire process is automated, holds fire if the rocket is going to miss the tank, and causes such a small explosion that the chances of unintentionally hurting friendly soldiers through collateral damage is only 1 percent, the company says.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I saw a cv90 video yesterday. didnt realize tanks/ifvs had such a bigtime smoke screen capability these days. it fired a rounds and then bam a white wall of smoke grenades totally washed out a wide frontage and it disappeared back into the forest.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Arjun at 57 tons is really really heavy and as per army cannot be used in attacking Pakistan. So I assume as per Army version of history the 55 ton centurions were Not used in 1971 and also SA, UK & USA did not use 60-70 ton M60s, Chally-2s and M1s in invading Iraq. If heavy tanks cannot be used in enemy area/nation then the only possible army version of truth is that either US lost in Iraq or Iraqis built roads and bridges for assiting in their own invasion or heavy tanks were fitted with helium balloons to float them across Iraq.
Last edited by Bheem on 04 Apr 2010 01:19, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
.As per Army version of history the 55 ton centurions were Not used in 1971 and SA, UK & USA did not use 60-70 ton M60s, Chally-2s and M1s in invading Iraq. I think that US lost in Iraq or Iraqis built roads and bridges for assiting in their own invasion
why don't you type once you have figured out what you want to say???
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
When IA set the initial GSQR similar to a heavy western tank, what was it meant for? Fighting Naxalites in plains?Bheem wrote:Arjun at 57 tons is really really heavy and cannot be used in attacking Pakistan.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Well in case of Arjun's gun or even the Chally-2 (I guess now being upgraded with RM AG's L55) they use a sort of collar/adaptor around the sabot which ensures that the sabot and penetrator assembly do not spin inspite of the rifling .Viv S wrote: Doesn't that nullify the point of having fins since the round (usually) doesn't have any spin imparted through rifling?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Do we have any fix dates when we will hear from Official Source ( GOI/Military) on the result of these test and future of T-90/Arjun in the IA ?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4680
- Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
- Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I don't know if it will even be made public. The earlier trials too weren't made public, but what happened was due to leaks to media, or Army officers making a few remarks. I doubt if it will be different this time. The only saving grace will be parliamentary committe reports, and for that, we will have to wait till end of this year or next year.Austin wrote:Do we have any fix dates when we will hear from Official Source ( GOI/Military) on the result of these test and future of T-90/Arjun in the IA ?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Keep an eye on PIB or other sources for parliamentary report , it might come out late but should have something concrete .
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I meant to say:-
Arjun at 57 tons is really really heavy and as per army cannot be used in attacking Pakistan. So I assume as per Army version of history the 55 ton centurions were Not used in 1971 Indo-Pak war. Also SA, UK & USA did not use 60-70 ton M60s, Chally-2s and M1s in invading Iraq. If we believe the army and heavy tanks cannot be used in enemy area/nation then the only possible army version of truth is that either US lost in Iraq or Iraqis built roads and bridges for assiting in their own invasion or heavy tanks were fitted with helium balloons to float them across Iraq.
Arjun at 57 tons is really really heavy and as per army cannot be used in attacking Pakistan. So I assume as per Army version of history the 55 ton centurions were Not used in 1971 Indo-Pak war. Also SA, UK & USA did not use 60-70 ton M60s, Chally-2s and M1s in invading Iraq. If we believe the army and heavy tanks cannot be used in enemy area/nation then the only possible army version of truth is that either US lost in Iraq or Iraqis built roads and bridges for assiting in their own invasion or heavy tanks were fitted with helium balloons to float them across Iraq.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Marten wrote:Absolute nonsense. M1 Abrams were used in 2003 in Iraq. And why cannot the Arjun be used? Are our bridge layers non-functional or will the tank crew refuse to operate on Pakistani soil? Please don't recycle the "too heavy" nonsense all over again. Support your theory with facts, not plain misinformed opinion - and if you cannot, then retract the statement.
Saars, I think Bheem was being sarcastic!Surya wrote:why don't you type once you have figured out what you want to say???
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I am going to change my handle to Arjun and pretend everyone is talking about me & pretend that the popularity gives my sad sad squalid, condemned, pointless, suffering cesspit which is an excuse of a life some meaning.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
that may be never. either way it can't be before 10th april.Austin wrote:Do we have any fix dates when we will hear from Official Source ( GOI/Military) on the result of these test and future of T-90/Arjun in the IA ?
the article came out on 25th march.With the trial report still being compiled --- it is expected to reach Army Headquarters after a fortnight
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Thanks , the report perhaps may not be released , but spectacular performance claimed by few blogs ( add panwalla , sparrow ,cuckoo ,crow and BRF'ites ) will result in more orders for Arjun most likely Mark 2 .Rahul M wrote:that may be never. either way it can't be before 10th april.Austin wrote:Do we have any fix dates when we will hear from Official Source ( GOI/Military) on the result of these test and future of T-90/Arjun in the IA ?the article came out on 25th march.With the trial report still being compiled --- it is expected to reach Army Headquarters after a fortnight
The proof of the pudding is in its eating, lets see if the Tin Pot can make Arjun look like a Tin or vice verse
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
As things look now, there is little chance of that happening. The best that the tin can hope to achieve is to somewhat match Arjun's performance in mobility and firepower since the Arjun will definitely provide better protection on account of its heavier armor.Austin wrote:
The proof of the pudding is in its eating, lets see if the Tin Pot can make Arjun look like a Tin or vice verse
What the Indian T-90 and Arjun both need is a good BMS and an Active protection system. The IA should try out both the Arena and the Trophy systems and select the better of the two to be integrated with both the T-90 and Arjun. The DRDO should also be looking to try and add a Commander's Independent Thermal sight on the Arjun if they can find space in the turret. Does the T-90 have one?
^^This last para is a clueless jingo dreaming of course.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
... Chaiwall calling.... char new regt this yearrrr....
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I vaguely remember reading something about the IA ordering the LEDS-150. Can anyone tell what that was about?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
^^ d berwalji, Whoa!
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
1 Regt = 62? that makes Char new = 248! Not yet 500, but close enough
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
d_berwal saar, you've just become my most favorite BRFite.....loads of pappi and jhappi saar......d_berwal wrote:... Chaiwall calling.... char new regt this yearrrr....
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Of what ??d_berwal wrote:... Chaiwall calling.... char new regt this yearrrr....
Arjun or T 90
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I don't think he means arjun, he means T-90. four regiments of arjun can't be produced in one year. for T-90 it may be possible, with HVF + russian imports.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
saar, you forget the 124 ordered initially.....372...yes, but still not 500....Anujan wrote:1 Regt = 62? that makes Char new = 248! Not yet 500, but close enough
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
may be he means order for 4 regiments of arjuns will be placed this year.?
yippy
yippy
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Rahul da, even with Russian CKD+Avadhi, induction of four new regiments in a year is not possible....what about the training of the crew? IMo, what he means is that 4 new regiments of Arjun will be ordered this year.Rahul M wrote:I don't think he means arjun, he means T-90. four regiments of arjun can't be produced in one year. for T-90 it may be possible, with HVF + russian imports.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
who says training is required for the T-90 ? you just plonk a T-72 crew in it, plug and play !
p.s I do hope you are right.
p.s I do hope you are right.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
- Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
- Contact:
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Dada, you are making it sound like a USB device...Rahul M wrote:who says training is required for the T-90 ? you just plonk a T-72 crew in it, plug and play !
p.s I do hope you are right.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
what i meant was new raising's...rohitvats wrote:Rahul da, even with Russian CKD+Avadhi, induction of four new regiments in a year is not possible....what about the training of the crew? IMo, what he means is that 4 new regiments of Arjun will be ordered this year.Rahul M wrote:I don't think he means arjun, he means T-90. four regiments of arjun can't be produced in one year. for T-90 it may be possible, with HVF + russian imports.
तिरेपन total new
चौवन indep sqd to new
पचपन indep sqd to new
छप्पन indep sqd to new
all T-90
plus 2 regt already in conversion ...
totall 6 new T-90 by ear end.
for the training part... only crew coming from exiting t-90 regt (45x3 per regt) rest manpower from other regt...
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
- Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
- Contact:
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
... ANd here i was thinking it was going to be four regiments of arjun...
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
d_berwal sahab, please to stop speaking in riddles. I'm trying to decipher your post. Please correct me where I'm wrong:d_berwal wrote:
what i meant was new raising's...
तिरेपन total new
चौवन indep sqd to new
पचपन indep sqd to new
छप्पन indep sqd to new
all T-90
plus 2 regt already in conversion ...
totall 6 new T-90 by ear end.
for the training part... only crew coming from exiting t-90 regt (45x3 per regt) rest manpower from other regt...
53rd Armored Regiment - new raising
54th (I) Squadron - nucleus of new 54th Armored Regiment
55th (I) Squadron- nucleus of new 55th Armored Regiment
56th (I) Squadron- nucleus of new 56th Armored Regiment
Can't make sense of training part.
PS: Your status of most favorite BRFite stands revoked.