Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 01 Apr 2010 16:28

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.

It definetely helped. Thanks Rohit.

shanksinha · Post by **shanksinha** » 01 Apr 2010 16:59

OT POST DELETED.

...........
(Moderators plz feel free to delete this OT post and issue severe reprimands)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 01 Apr 2010 20:19

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.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 01 Apr 2010 23:30

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.

Doesn't that nullify the point of having fins since the round (usually) doesn't have any spin imparted through rifling?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Apr 2010 00:22

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?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 00:23

al khalid and T-90 are comparable tanks. arjun > T-90 = al-khalid

Surya wrote:Egad we have another Guederian on BRF

it's raining guderians these days isn't it ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Apr 2010 11:47

please continue discussion on general uselessness of tanks in http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 02#p848702
TIA.

Rajput · Post by **Rajput** » 02 Apr 2010 22:25

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.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 03 Apr 2010 19:15

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.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Apr 2010 19:27

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.

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 03 Apr 2010 23:50

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.

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

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???

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 04 Apr 2010 00:08

Bheem wrote:Arjun at 57 tons is really really heavy and cannot be used in attacking Pakistan.

When IA set the initial GSQR similar to a heavy western tank, what was it meant for? Fighting Naxalites in plains?

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Apr 2010 00:15

Viv S wrote: Doesn't that nullify the point of having fins since the round (usually) doesn't have any spin imparted through rifling?

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 .

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2010 00:21

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 ?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 04 Apr 2010 00:25

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 ?

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.

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Apr 2010 00:29

Keep an eye on PIB or other sources for parliamentary report , it might come out late but should have something concrete .

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 04 Apr 2010 01:20

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.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 04 Apr 2010 01:42

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.

Surya wrote:why don't you type once you have figured out what you want to say???

Saars, I think Bheem was being sarcastic!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Apr 2010 02:26

Ahaa

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 04 Apr 2010 02:40

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.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Apr 2010 06:50

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 ?

that may be never. either way it can't be before 10th april.

With the trial report still being compiled --- it is expected to reach Army Headquarters after a fortnight

the article came out on 25th march.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Apr 2010 09:39

Rahul M wrote:
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 ?
that may be never. either way it can't be before 10th april.
With the trial report still being compiled --- it is expected to reach Army Headquarters after a fortnight
the article came out on 25th march.

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 .

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

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Apr 2010 09:51

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

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.

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.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 05 Apr 2010 12:14

... Chaiwall calling.... char new regt this yearrrr....

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 05 Apr 2010 12:19

I vaguely remember reading something about the IA ordering the LEDS-150. Can anyone tell what that was about?

K Mehta · Post by **K Mehta** » 05 Apr 2010 12:25

^^ d berwalji, Whoa!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 05 Apr 2010 13:09

1 Regt = 62? that makes Char new = 248! Not yet 500, but close enough

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Apr 2010 13:14

d_berwal wrote:... Chaiwall calling.... char new regt this yearrrr....

d_berwal saar, you've just become my most favorite BRFite.....loads of pappi and jhappi saar......

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 Apr 2010 13:17

d_berwal wrote:... Chaiwall calling.... char new regt this yearrrr....

Of what ??

Arjun or T 90

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Apr 2010 13:24

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.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Apr 2010 13:30

Anujan wrote:1 Regt = 62? that makes Char new = 248! Not yet 500, but close enough

saar, you forget the 124 ordered initially.....372...yes, but still not 500....

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 05 Apr 2010 13:31

may be he means order for 4 regiments of arjuns will be placed this year.?
yippy

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Apr 2010 13:32

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.

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 · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Apr 2010 13:34

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.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 05 Apr 2010 13:39

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.

Dada, you are making it sound like a USB device...

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 05 Apr 2010 13:40

rohitvats wrote:
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.
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.

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...

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 05 Apr 2010 13:43

... ANd here i was thinking it was going to be four regiments of arjun...

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 05 Apr 2010 13:44

KLPD

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Apr 2010 13:50

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...

d_berwal sahab, please to stop speaking in riddles. I'm trying to decipher your post. Please correct me where I'm wrong:

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.