Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Austin on Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:39 am

    I was having an interesting discussion with d_berwal at BRF , he is a person from Arny background and has been in tank regiment with experience , I asked him to rate T-90 vs Arjun this is what he gave link

    The gunnery solution and driving solution is 1 generation ahead for Arjun. vs T-90.
    But this does not mean They are not up to mark in T-90 ( assuming driving and gunnery solution to be not upto the mark would be incorrect)
    - TI has similar range and are of same generation.

    Arjun Driving Points: 10
    T-90 Driving Points: 8

    Arjun Gunnery Solution: 10
    T-90 Gunnery Solution: 8

    Arjun TI: 10
    T-90 TI: 10

    Arjun Missile firing: 0
    T-90 Missile Firing: 10

    Arjun Protection Armour: 8
    T-90 Protection Armour: 10

    Arjun Crew Comfort: 8
    T-90 Crew Comfort: 5

    Arjun Maintainence: 6
    T90 MAintainence: 10

    Arjun APU(silent ops): 10
    T-90 APU(silent ops): 0

    Arjun Silhouette: 8
    T-90 Silhouette:10

    Arjun FCS: 10
    T-90 FCS: 9



    I was surprised to know Indian T-90 dont have APU , Do russian T-90 have APU ?
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:28 am

    According to Vasiliy Folfanov, the T-90 variant with the 1,000 HP engine has a 1 KW APU.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:47 am

    AFAIK the gas turbine T-80s got APUs because running their engines all the time used up huge amounts of fuel, but otherwise it was mostly commander model Russian tanks that had APUs to power the extra radio equipment in them.

    I would expect that with battle management systems and other electronic gear will require APUs in the next upgrade for all T-90s.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:44 am

    I tend to hear these complains more on Indian forums on Arjun vs T-90 debate , specially those who prefer Arjun and say T-90 lacks innovation and is old 70's design of T-72

    1 ) The commander/driver on a T-90 is a roast if its hit , Arjun has blow up panel and ammos are stored seperately preventing spontanous combustion when hit.
    2 ) T-90 is a small tank and lacks space for growth compared to the Western heavy Arjun
    3 ) Big tank like Chally,Abrams,Arjun provide better crew comfort and better protection due to heavy armour
    4 ) Lacks proper cooling and electronic gets heated often in heat of Rajasthan desert , which will be the place where the great tank battle will take place.
    5 ) Lacks the long rod ammo to penetrate western heavy ( ofcourse T-90M may have it )
    6 ) All in All T-90 is a bad tank compared to Arjun and is a older design.

    I just want a rational opinion on this , what does Garry and others who have closely watched Soviet/Russian tank have to say on these points.

    I should point here that Indian Army has bought the T-90's in good numbers ( ~ 1600 tanks to be lic produced ) , so Indian Army may not agree with these and since they operate T-72 they know the T's well , I think a 1600 Tank purchase is probably the largest by any Army in decades if I remember.

    Here is a nice picture of T-90

    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:52 am

    It's obvious that Points 1-3 are based around the size debate.

    Russians (being Russian) have always preferred their Main Battle Tanks to be smaller than contemporary Western designs.

    Some Pros and Cons of being a small tank:

    Pros:

    1. Weight - Smaller tanks are usually lighter, which allows for lower ground pressure and thus better maneuverability in say, muddy terrain. Also, smaller tanks (if given the right engine) would have a better HP/Tonne ratio than a larger tank, which would give it better acceleration. Lighter tanks also demand less of the local infrastructure (for example, 60 tonne Abrams could not cross many bridges in Iraq due to weight).

    2. Cost - Being smaller requires less materials, which will reduce it's cost (IIRC, a single T-90 in 2010 would cost about $1.7 million USD, compared to a single M1A2 Abrams in 2010, costing $6-7m USD). Lower cost allows for more production, which means more numbers.

    3. Size - The Small silhouette (2.22 x 3.78 x 9.53 m) of the T-90 would hinder a tracking by enemy Tanks or weapons. It would also allow the T-90 to position itself in advantageous positions unreachable by fatter or taller vehicles.


    Cons:

    1. Protection - A Smaller tank will usually mean lighter or less armor. In the case of the T-90, a stripped T-90 v.s. a stripped M1A2 Abrams, the Abrams has a thicker LOS Glacis, which would mean that the Abrams would have a better protected hull. To compensate for this of course, T-90s have Kontakt-5/Kaktus/Relikt ERA.

    2. Crew comfort and Survivability - A Smaller tank will mean a more cramped tank. However, there are only 3 persons in a T-90 anyways. Survivability wise, a larger tank based around Western doctrine would usually produce a higher survivability rate, if blow out panels and blast shields are in place.



    Personally, I never liked that argument that Western designs are slow, fat, and big rocks while Russian designs were basically Eagles with guns. An Abrams will not surpass a T-90 on a drag race nor will an Abrams out turn a T-90 in a Formula 1 race, but that's not the point. In retrospect, the doctrine of high maneuverability was formulated to battle Tiger I tanks back in WW2, but those Tigers have only evolved into Abrams, Challengers, and Leopards, which have admittedly less maneuverability than that of Russian tanks but more than enough to get the job done.


    I can't really comment on Point 4 as I honestly do not know anything in regards to T-90 cooling systems, but I do know the export T-90 to India does has a cryogenic cooling system from Israel.

    T-90M does in fact have it. The Welded turret was done so that elongated ammo such as the BM-42 can be used (which has an estimate of 650 mm of RHAe perforation at 2 km). If one were to be foolish and looked Wikipedia, they'd see that the Abrams has about a 900 mm RHAe equivalency v.s. KE. This is true, but that is only the protection level from the Abram's front turret. the Glacis of the Abrams is only about 600 mm RHAe v.s. KE at best and 560 mm at worst. In theory, a T-90's APFSDS round should perforate that easily.

    Arjun is a good tank, and it really depends on the doctrine the Indians want. However, I am unsure that the T-90 will get out of this one. The Arjun is becoming the pride of Indian fanboys so it seems.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Austin on Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:35 pm

    IronsightSniper , thanks for your insight.

    Indeed among forums and bloggers in India , Arjun has become of every thing that is bad with T-90 tank and in general bad with T design.

    Well there is also a belief that in recent Arjun vs T-90 trials that was held recently , Arjun defeated T's comprehensively , although there is no single official word on it just hearsay and bloggers opinion.

    But considering the T-95 tanks which was suppose to superceed T-90 is of a heavier class , the Soviets were considering moving to heavy tank but one prototype wouldnt say every thing about the tank or if its a final design.

    I think the new T-90M overcomes most of the limitation of basic T-90 , namely isolation of ammo and crew although no blowup panel exist and ammo of long rod to defeat western heavies , although an APU is still needed.

    Do you have or read this book ?

    http://www.amazon.com/M1-Abrams-T-72-Ural-Operation/dp/1846034078/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:01 am

    1 ) The commander/driver on a T-90 is a roast if its hit , Arjun has
    blow up panel and ammos are stored seperately preventing spontanous
    combustion when hit.

    This problem has been recognised... and is shared by many modern tanks... including the Leopard and Challanger tanks.
    Immediate solution is not to carry loose ammo in the crew compartment areas which limits the tank to 22 ready to use rounds in the armoured autoloader. The turret bustle autoloader of the T-90 upgrade will add 30 rounds which are seperate from the crew and also ready to use.

    2 ) T-90 is a small tank and lacks space for growth compared to the Western heavy Arjun

    Smaller targets are easier to hide and harder to hit. When more room is needed it can be created as shown with the reshaped turret design of the upgraded T-90 with more space for electronics.

    3 ) Big tank like Chally,Abrams,Arjun provide better crew comfort and better protection due to heavy armour

    A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

    4 ) Lacks proper cooling and electronic gets heated often in heat of
    Rajasthan desert , which will be the place where the great tank battle
    will take place.


    Saturday, January 9, 2010 New tank conditioner
    The new compact conditioner for tanks, armored and civilian vehicles was developed in Russia. It used Peltier effect: thermoelectric cooling, based on creating a heat flux between the junction of two different types of materials. The most problem successfully solved was effectiveness of the Peltier modules. It's all solid state freon-free device, without any negative effect on ozone layer and global warming.
    Also it's very compact and stress-withstanding. Unlike current models it can be installed inside the Russian MBT tank T-90A. However, the more probable target for the new conditioner installation is 'Burlak' - the modernized version of T-90 tank currently over the tests. It could be installed on the export version T-90S or T-90M instead of the external conditioner, which can be seen on the Algerian and Libian T-90s.
    Naturally the Russian Future MBT, which published name is T-95, would be equipped with a conditioner based on the same principles, if the program succeeds.

    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-tank-conditioner.html

    5 ) Lacks the long rod ammo to penetrate western heavy ( ofcourse T-90M may have it )

    Answered that yourself...

    6 ) All in All T-90 is a bad tank compared to Arjun and is a older design.

    Must be a terrible tank because the Indian Army keeps buying them and putting them in service...

    Or it might not be a bad tank, just not a great tank, and offer potentially good commonality with existing T-72s already in Indian service with an upgrade path to make it every bit as good as the bigger, heavier and more expensive Arjun.

    Russians (being Russian) have always preferred their Main Battle Tanks to be smaller than contemporary Western designs.

    Not quite... they haven't looked at western designs and decided to make them smaller... they have gone with the premise that a smaller tank is harder to hit and that a low small lighter tank is better most of the time than a big tall heavier tank.

    Keep in mind the T-90 is in the same weight class as a WWII Panther.


    1. Protection - A Smaller tank will usually mean lighter or less
    armor. In the case of the T-90, a stripped T-90 v.s. a stripped M1A2
    Abrams, the Abrams has a thicker LOS Glacis, which would mean that the
    Abrams would have a better protected hull. To compensate for this of
    course, T-90s have Kontakt-5/Kaktus/Relikt ERA.

    I disagree here. A smaller tank could easily be fitted with armour the same thickness as the M1 Abrams so a smaller tank does not necessarily mean lighter or less well armoured.

    To put it in simpler terms if the only weapons were pistols, assault rifles, machineguns and heavy machineguns then your armour should not be compared with your enemies armour, it should be compared with your enemies weapons.
    For instance having the same level of armour protection as the other guy doesn't help if his HMG is a 14.5mm weapon and your armour protects you from 12.7mm ammo only. That would mean both of you are protected from all your weapons but you aren't protected from his most powerful weapon.

    What I am getting at is that the Russians have gone for lighter and smarter, so instead of putting armour as thick as that used by the US on the Abrams they have made it almost as thick and also put ERA on it... and EO jammers like SHTORA, and they are working on active defence systems as well... DRODZ was tested in Afghanistan in the 1980s for example.

    2. Crew comfort and Survivability - A Smaller tank will mean a more
    cramped tank. However, there are only 3 persons in a T-90 anyways.
    Survivability wise, a larger tank based around Western doctrine would
    usually produce a higher survivability rate, if blow out panels and
    blast shields are in place.

    And here we disagree again... having lots and lots of space inside a tank does not make it more or less comfortable.
    The separation of ammo and fuel from the crew compartment is very important but again has nothing to do with size as shown by the T-90M upgrade which separates the crew and ammo without making the tank taller.

    Personally, I never liked that argument that Western designs are slow,
    fat, and big rocks while Russian designs were basically Eagles with
    guns. An Abrams will not surpass a T-90 on a drag race nor will an
    Abrams out turn a T-90 in a Formula 1 race, but that's not the point. In
    retrospect, the doctrine of high maneuverability was formulated to
    battle Tiger I tanks back in WW2, but those Tigers have only evolved
    into Abrams, Challengers, and Leopards, which have admittedly less
    maneuverability than that of Russian tanks but more than enough to get
    the job done.

    Soviet experience during WWII... remember with the KV-1 they had experience with big slow tanks and found mixed units of tanks resulted in the T-34s arriving first, T-26 light tanks arriving next and being wiped out, and KV-1s arriving last if at all.
    They put an 85mm gun in the KV and then put the same gun in the T-34 and realised that there was no great advantage to a slow heavy tank with a good gun over a smaller lighter faster easier to produce tank with a good gun so they started looking at huge guns to put in the KV.


    T-90M does in fact have it. The Welded turret was done so that
    elongated ammo such as the BM-42 can be used (which has an estimate of
    650 mm of RHAe perforation at 2 km). If one were to be foolish and
    looked Wikipedia, they'd see that the Abrams has about a 900 mm RHAe
    equivalency v.s. KE. This is true, but that is only the protection level
    from the Abram's front turret. the Glacis of the Abrams is only about
    600 mm RHAe v.s. KE at best and 560 mm at worst. In theory, a T-90's
    APFSDS round should perforate that easily.

    And just as importantly the best armour on any tank is in its front 60 degrees... the simple matter of putting some "mine" signs to make the tanks turn and approach from a different direction presents thin side armour... and most importantly in Guerilla warfare the most common attack is from the side or rear anyway which completely negates the advantage of an enormous weight of heavy frontal armour.

    Well there is also a belief that in recent Arjun vs T-90 trials that was
    held recently , Arjun defeated T's comprehensively , although there is
    no single official word on it just hearsay and bloggers opinion.

    Wouldn't you expect the Arjun to beat the T-90? Wasn't that what it was designed for? It is like saying the F-22 is the best so lets chuck out all those useless F-15s. The simple fact is that the F-15s are probably more useful right now than a handful of F-22s. Plus in many ways the F-15 still has plenty of growth potential in it anyway.

    But considering the T-95 tanks which was suppose to superceed T-90 is of
    a heavier class , the Soviets were considering moving to heavy tank but
    one prototype wouldnt say every thing about the tank or if its a final
    design.

    The main reason it was bigger was because all three crew were going to be sitting under armour in the front hull of the tank... which meant a wider tank and when you make the front of the tank wider that means you are increasing the width of a very thickly armoured area which of course will greatly increase the weight of the hull. Some of this is saved because the turret doesn't need heavy armour any more because there is nothing in there to protect but it makes the vehicle bigger... which makes it heavier without increasing protection levels.

    Regarding the future of Russian tanks they rejected the T-95 on mobility and cost issues and possibly because of high foreign content too, but basically I think they feel that they already have huge numbers of tanks already and that buying more right now is not a great idea. Their concept of light, medium, and heavy brigades where all are relatively mobile suggests a western style heavy tank is not really an option, so the T-90M will be it for a while and that the next gen tank will truely be a next gen tank... likely an electric tank possibly even with plastic armour and even electric armour and gun.
    Who knows... it might be unmanned with datalinks back to HQ where the commander, gunner and driver sit and fight like they are playing a computer game with a few UAVs over top giving them a birds eye view...
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:43 am


    1. Protection - A Smaller tank will usually mean lighter or less
    armor. In the case of the T-90, a stripped T-90 v.s. a stripped M1A2
    Abrams, the Abrams has a thicker LOS Glacis, which would mean that the
    Abrams would have a better protected hull. To compensate for this of
    course, T-90s have Kontakt-5/Kaktus/Relikt ERA.

    I disagree here. A smaller tank could easily be fitted with armour the same thickness as the M1 Abrams so a smaller tank does not necessarily mean lighter or less well armoured.

    To put it in simpler terms if the only weapons were pistols, assault rifles, machineguns and heavy machineguns then your armour should not be compared with your enemies armour, it should be compared with your enemies weapons.
    For instance having the same level of armour protection as the other guy doesn't help if his HMG is a 14.5mm weapon and your armour protects you from 12.7mm ammo only. That would mean both of you are protected from all your weapons but you aren't protected from his most powerful weapon.

    What I am getting at is that the Russians have gone for lighter and smarter, so instead of putting armour as thick as that used by the US on the Abrams they have made it almost as thick and also put ERA on it... and EO jammers like SHTORA, and they are working on active defence systems as well... DRODZ was tested in Afghanistan in the 1980s for example.

    The difference between the Russian manifestation of "Smarter" protection (i.e. Heavy ERA), is that they are not as effective when faced with contemporary weapons. For example, Relikt ERA, even with it's thicker Front plate, will not stop a Tandem heat charge from say, a TOW (TOW's precursor charge is more than enough to perforate and destroy Relikt ERA).

    When it's all said and done, that so and so tonnes of "Smart" armor could always be incorporated into an Abrams or a Leo 2A6, which would only beef them up more. But I'm quite sure you can't stack ERA on top of each other.

    2. Crew comfort and Survivability - A Smaller tank will mean a more
    cramped tank. However, there are only 3 persons in a T-90 anyways.
    Survivability wise, a larger tank based around Western doctrine would
    usually produce a higher survivability rate, if blow out panels and
    blast shields are in place.

    And here we disagree again... having lots and lots of space inside a tank does not make it more or less comfortable.
    The separation of ammo and fuel from the crew compartment is very important but again has nothing to do with size as shown by the T-90M upgrade which separates the crew and ammo without making the tank taller.

    Of course. But one only needs to look into the Hulls of a big Western tank v.s. a Smaller Russian tank to see the volume difference, even when loaded.

    Personally, I never liked that argument that Western designs are slow,
    fat, and big rocks while Russian designs were basically Eagles with
    guns. An Abrams will not surpass a T-90 on a drag race nor will an
    Abrams out turn a T-90 in a Formula 1 race, but that's not the point. In
    retrospect, the doctrine of high maneuverability was formulated to
    battle Tiger I tanks back in WW2, but those Tigers have only evolved
    into Abrams, Challengers, and Leopards, which have admittedly less
    maneuverability than that of Russian tanks but more than enough to get
    the job done.

    Soviet experience during WWII... remember with the KV-1 they had experience with big slow tanks and found mixed units of tanks resulted in the T-34s arriving first, T-26 light tanks arriving next and being wiped out, and KV-1s arriving last if at all.
    They put an 85mm gun in the KV and then put the same gun in the T-34 and realised that there was no great advantage to a slow heavy tank with a good gun over a smaller lighter faster easier to produce tank with a good gun so they started looking at huge guns to put in the KV.

    The difference of course is that the KVs of today are not the KVs of World War 2. You are going to see tanks stuck in mud but you aren't going to see a T-90 running circles around an Abrams and the Abrams struggling to match the turret's rotation with the T-90's turns.


    T-90M does in fact have it. The Welded turret was done so that
    elongated ammo such as the BM-42 can be used (which has an estimate of
    650 mm of RHAe perforation at 2 km). If one were to be foolish and
    looked Wikipedia, they'd see that the Abrams has about a 900 mm RHAe
    equivalency v.s. KE. This is true, but that is only the protection level
    from the Abram's front turret. the Glacis of the Abrams is only about
    600 mm RHAe v.s. KE at best and 560 mm at worst. In theory, a T-90's
    APFSDS round should perforate that easily.

    And just as importantly the best armour on any tank is in its front 60 degrees... the simple matter of putting some "mine" signs to make the tanks turn and approach from a different direction presents thin side armour... and most importantly in Guerilla warfare the most common attack is from the side or rear anyway which completely negates the advantage of an enormous weight of heavy frontal armour.

    However, I should mention that hit ratios from Gulf War 1 has shown that the majority of Modern APFSDS rounds have a 60% chance of landing 1.5 m above the ground, i.e. hitting the turret of the tank.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Austin on Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:04 am

    GarryB wrote:This problem has been recognised... and is shared by many modern tanks... including the Leopard and Challanger tanks.
    Immediate solution is not to carry loose ammo in the crew compartment areas which limits the tank to 22 ready to use rounds in the armoured autoloader. The turret bustle autoloader of the T-90 upgrade will add 30 rounds which are seperate from the crew and also ready to use.

    So do you mean Chally and Leopard carry loose ammo and they do not have blow off panel and no seperation of ammo and crew.

    From what I have read this problem is distinct to T's and hence the view that the crew of T's would be roasted.

    Smaller targets are easier to hide and harder to hit. When more room is needed it can be created as shown with the reshaped turret design of the upgraded T-90 with more space for electronics.

    Yes you can redesign the turret and make it roomy but what about the chasis , a bigger chasis affords better space in every respect.

    A redesigned Turret like T-90M also means you add weight and that means they need to go for higher HP engine , from what I have read the T-90M has a 1200HP engine.

    A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

    Not always the case a bigger tank with better over all protection will mean higher HP engine to afford the same mobility with better protection.



    Must be a terrible tank because the Indian Army keeps buying them and putting them in service...

    Or it might not be a bad tank, just not a great tank, and offer potentially good commonality with existing T-72s already in Indian service with an upgrade path to make it every bit as good as the bigger, heavier and more expensive Arjun.

    Not really the IA really likes the T series and has been cautious and conservative in adopting heavy tank.

    Probably that is quite understandable , the only place where a tank warfare will ever occur will be Indo-Pak border , the bridges and other infrastructure will be be in a position to support a heavy 55 - 60 T tank , which means the IA might need its own logistics , mobile BLT etc to transport it across.

    Remember even pakistan does not operate heavy tank and it just operated the most modern T-80UD and similar series 40 plus T tank.

    Ofcourse there are lobbies in Government circle that would want to push Arjun since its a home made product , DRDO has been aggresively pushing Arjun claiming its the best tank etc

    But considering the big number of T-55,T-72 that IA is operating , the T-90 likely number of 1600 Tanks , the T series will be spear heading the IA frontline tank for the next 20-25 years.

    There is the new 40T FMBT under development , so with all things of DRDO project you can expect delays and most likely it will come out after 2020.

    Not quite... they haven't looked at western designs and decided to make them smaller... they have gone with the premise that a smaller tank is harder to hit and that a low small lighter tank is better most of the time than a big tall heavier tank.

    A counter argument i can present with Arjun tank specs of silhouette

    T-90 ht - 2.23 metres (7 ft 4 in)
    Arjun ht - 2.32 metres (7 ft 7 in)

    And ground pressure is 0.84 and power/weight ratio of 24

    Check this interesting comparision table of Arjun with other heavy tank by DRDO

    Main Battle Tank Comparision

    Can some one tell me what does those 2 Drums on the back of the tank carry in the new T-90M ?

    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:29 am

    Austin wrote:
    GarryB wrote:This problem has been recognised... and is shared by many modern tanks... including the Leopard and Challanger tanks.
    Immediate solution is not to carry loose ammo in the crew compartment areas which limits the tank to 22 ready to use rounds in the armoured autoloader. The turret bustle autoloader of the T-90 upgrade will add 30 rounds which are seperate from the crew and also ready to use.

    So do you mean Chally and Leopard carry loose ammo and they do not have blow off panel and no seperation of ammo and crew.

    From what I have read this problem is distinct to T's and hence the view that the crew of T's would be roasted.

    Smaller targets are easier to hide and harder to hit. When more room is needed it can be created as shown with the reshaped turret design of the upgraded T-90 with more space for electronics.

    Yes you can redesign the turret and make it roomy but what about the chasis , a bigger chasis affords better space in every respect.

    A redesigned Turret like T-90M also means you add weight and that means they need to go for higher HP engine , from what I have read the T-90M has a 1200HP engine.

    A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

    Not always the case a bigger tank with better over all protection will mean higher HP engine to afford the same mobility with better protection.



    Must be a terrible tank because the Indian Army keeps buying them and putting them in service...

    Or it might not be a bad tank, just not a great tank, and offer potentially good commonality with existing T-72s already in Indian service with an upgrade path to make it every bit as good as the bigger, heavier and more expensive Arjun.

    Not really the IA really likes the T series and has been cautious and conservative in adopting heavy tank.

    Probably that is quite understandable , the only place where a tank warfare will ever occur will be Indo-Pak border , the bridges and other infrastructure will be be in a position to support a heavy 55 - 60 T tank , which means the IA might need its own logistics , mobile BLT etc to transport it across.

    Remember even pakistan does not operate heavy tank and it just operated the most modern T-80UD and similar series 40 plus T tank.

    Ofcourse there are lobbies in Government circle that would want to push Arjun since its a home made product , DRDO has been aggresively pushing Arjun claiming its the best tank etc

    But considering the big number of T-55,T-72 that IA is operating , the T-90 likely number of 1600 Tanks , the T series will be spear heading the IA frontline tank for the next 20-25 years.

    There is the new 40T FMBT under development , so with all things of DRDO project you can expect delays and most likely it will come out after 2020.

    Not quite... they haven't looked at western designs and decided to make them smaller... they have gone with the premise that a smaller tank is harder to hit and that a low small lighter tank is better most of the time than a big tall heavier tank.

    A counter argument i can present with Arjun tank specs of silhouette

    T-90 ht - 2.23 metres (7 ft 4 in)
    Arjun ht - 2.32 metres (7 ft 7 in)

    And ground pressure is 0.84 and power/weight ratio of 24

    Check this interesting comparision table of Arjun with other heavy tank by DRDO

    Main Battle Tank Comparision

    Can some one tell me what does those 2 Drums on the back of the tank carry in the new T-90M ?


    Those 2 drums are still fuel tanks.

    They also serve as impromptu stand-off applique armor.

    About Vasiliy Folfanov estimates those fuel tanks to give the rear of the T-90 a total protection of 180 mm RHAe.


    Also, to regards to Garry:

    A bigger tank by definition will require a lot more armour for a lower level of overall protection. It is basic physics that if you make a box bigger then if it offers the same thickness of protection then it will have to be much heavier.

    This is not always the case as Tanks of nowadays are not as "well rounded" as they were in say, WW2.

    An example of this would be the T-72.

    The T-72 has about a 300 mm LOS thickness for the Glacis. For comparison, Tiger 1 tanks of Germany had 100 mm of LOS thickness for their Glacis. However, the side of the T-72 has only about 60 mm of LOS thickness and the rear of it has only 40 mm, this is compared to the 80 mm on the sides and the rear of the Tiger 1. So it's obvious that not only has the levels of protection changed, but also where it's prioritized.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:49 am

    The difference between the Russian manifestation of "Smarter" protection
    (i.e. Heavy ERA), is that they are not as effective when faced with
    contemporary weapons.

    I am not suggesting the Soviet/Russian approach is better than the US/UK/German/etc approach, just that it is different.
    They believe a smaller target is harder to hit and cheaper to own and operate and deploy and support operationally.

    For example, Relikt ERA, even with it's thicker Front plate, will not
    stop a Tandem heat charge from say, a TOW (TOW's precursor charge is
    more than enough to perforate and destroy Relikt ERA).

    ERA is not supposed to stop penetrations, it is supposed to degrade performance so that the remaining energy is not enough to penetrate the main armour. TOW will penetrate Relikt... but it has to get past ARENA or DRODZ first and also the guidance system has to defeat SHTORA as well. (Note SHTORA defeats SACLOS weapons by shining IR light at the guidance system. It is like looking at two lighthouse lights through a telescope trying to follow a lit match so the guidance system can manouver the missile the lit match is attached to onto a target between the two lighthouse lights...)

    Even if TOW or HOT can't do the job the US will develop something that will... measure and countermeasure is an ongoing battle so any victory is always short lived.

    When it's all said and done, that so and so tonnes of "Smart" armor
    could always be incorporated into an Abrams or a Leo 2A6, which would
    only beef them up more. But I'm quite sure you can't stack ERA on top of
    each other.

    As far as I know the Relikt tiles remain in place so I really don't see why they couldn't be stacked and still work. Certainly work seems to be heading towards ERA that doesn't use explosives... called Non Explosive Reactive Armour or NERA that should in theory work perfectly well in as many layers as you want.

    I do remember in the 1980s when I think it was a T-72 tank fitted with ERA blocks had the blocks stacked in three layers, but that was old first gen ERA so the outer boxes would have worked but the inner boxes probably would have acted only as spaced armour. As the ERA blocks were the same size of course on a curved surface the outer blocks had large gaps between them and the inner blocks would not probably have worked properly so it would likely have been less effective than a single layer.

    But one only needs to look into the Hulls of a big Western tank v.s. a
    Smaller Russian tank to see the volume difference, even when loaded.

    AFAIK the internal volume difference between a T-90 and an M1 Abrams is exactly the difference in average size of Russians and Americans and the omission of one crewman in the form of the loader.

    You are going to see tanks stuck in mud but you aren't going to see a
    T-90 running circles around an Abrams and the Abrams struggling to match
    the turret's rotation with the T-90's turns.

    I rather doubt a direct comparison of Abrams and T-90s is even relevant unless America plans to invade India or Russia.

    Even right now I rather doubt either vehicle could penetrate the other frontally at more than 2kms range and it is only a matter of time before they have perfected their MMW radar terminal homing seekers for their HERMES ATGMs. These missiles are 130mm calibre so should be fully transferable to the 125mm missiles used on Russian tanks.
    With long range diving top attack MMW radar guided missiles I think a T-90 could hold its own against pretty much any enemy.

    So do you mean Chally and Leopard carry loose ammo and they do not have blow off panel and no seperation of ammo and crew.

    From memory even the Abrams in their early models had to carry about 8 rounds in the crew compartments too, and yes the Chally and the Leopard had loose rounds in their crew compartment. Like the T-72 they had the choice of not carrying those rounds of course, but for a full load of ammo they were in the crew compartment.

    From what I have read this problem is distinct to T's and hence the view that the crew of T's would be roasted.

    The truth is that the Abrams were one of the first tanks to separate ammo into the turret bustle and that earlier British and German and French tanks all carried ammo in the crew compartment.
    One of the criticisms of one of the Soviet tanks that had ammo in the turret bustle area during WWII was that enemy infantry could place HE charges under the turret bustle full of ammo and take out the whole tank. That is what stopped them storing it there AFAIK. (It didn't have blow out roof panels and vented the explosion directly into the turret and crew compartment.)

    Yes you can redesign the turret and make it roomy but what about the
    chasis , a bigger chasis affords better space in every respect.

    The Tigers bigger chassis was a complete pain in the @$$, as was the Panthers larger chassis. They had to take the tracks off the Tigers and the outer wheels and special narrow tracks had to be fitted to transport them by rail and had similar problems with the Panthers.
    Width of the vehicle is limited by many factors including the width of common bridges and the width of tank transporting means and tunnels etc.
    It also adds weight by making the frontal armour wider.

    Not always the case a bigger tank with better over all protection will
    mean higher HP engine to afford the same mobility with better
    protection.

    Power to weight ratio is important for acceleration, but not mobility. Countering weight increases with more power is a complicated solution governed by the laws of diminished returns. Increasing engine power means changes to the drive train and gearbox and running gear too... an Abrams might keep up with a lighter tank but when it comes to some places like bridges or even some roads it is total mass that counts and causes roads and bridges to collapse under the weight.
    Some terrain will put up with a lot of weight and other types of terrain wont.

    I am currently reading a book about the Soviet forces pushing the German forces back from Murmansk in 1944 and so far their T-34s and ISU-152s have been stuck on the single road in the region which of course the Germans are mining heavily and setting up anti tank guns to cover... a bottleneck because the terrain is rocky and unsuitable for any tanks.

    There is the new 40T FMBT under development , so with all things of DRDO
    project you can expect delays and most likely it will come out after
    2020.

    The Americans are also working on a lighter tank than the Abrams, which suggests that even if you have a good heavy tank sometimes a lighter tank can be more useful.

    Can some one tell me what does those 2 Drums on the back of the tank carry in the new T-90M ?

    Diesel. Used for long marches and can be transfered into the internal tanks from inside the tank. Normally dumped before going into battle. They basically extend the range of the vehicle... like drop tanks for an aircraft.

    A counter argument i can present with Arjun tank specs of silhouette

    Proof that a smaller tank is not necessarily lighter or less well protected than a larger tank.

    I have not suggested the Arjun is a bad tank. I have not suggested any tanks are bad.

    At the end of the day a tank is a mobile gun platform that can take and/or hold ground and support infantry in doing the same.


    Last edited by GarryB on Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:32 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3191
    Points : 3281
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  medo on Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:41 pm

    I really doubt, that Arjun is any better tank than T-90. I don't think it have any better armor, FCS, gun, mobility, ... On the other hand if we consider the quality of Indian made Mig-21 planes which have very high rate of crashes, than I wouldn't like to be in Arjun tank in actual battle.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:31 am

    This is not always the case as Tanks of nowadays are not as "well rounded" as they were in say, WW2.

    An example of this would be the T-72.

    The
    T-72 has about a 300 mm LOS thickness for the Glacis. For comparison,
    Tiger 1 tanks of Germany had 100 mm of LOS thickness for their Glacis.
    However, the side of the T-72 has only about 60 mm of LOS thickness and
    the rear of it has only 40 mm, this is compared to the 80 mm on the
    sides and the rear of the Tiger 1. So it's obvious that not only has the
    levels of protection changed, but also where it's prioritized.

    Germanys super tanks were the exception, the Tiger and for that matter the Elephant had what you might call good all aspect armour, though it could have been greatly improved if it was sloped. The Panther for example was well known for having very thin rear turret armour, and standard design from the start was to put the heaviest armour at the front of the vehicle and was adhered to by most designers of armour. Of course even the best armoured tank can be let down... I think the British know who I am talking about here. The Matilda and the Churchill tank both had good armour for their time but were let down because of poor speed and mostly because of pathetic armament with both having a 2 pounder gun. The British described their guns by the shell weight they fired, so the 2 pounder fired a 2 pound shell and was a 40mm calibre weapon. The crazy thing was that both tanks were designated as infantry support tanks yet their 40mm guns didn't have a HE shell and so they were pretty useless against infantry or enemy positions. The Soviet equivalent to the 40mm gun was the 45mm gun which was replaced by the 76.2mm gun with better penetration and a much more effective HE shell in tanks fairly quickly, but continued throughout the war in the form of a towed weapon used to support infantry with a HE shell. The irony is that the KV-1 Soviet heavy tank was criticised for having a weak gun at a time when Churchills had 40mm guns which were later upgraded to 6 pounders or 57mm guns.


    Those 2 drums are still fuel tanks.

    They also serve as impromptu stand-off applique armor.

    I remember reading a US field manual that described Soviet diesel fuel as having a very high flashpoint and that even their standard small arms incendiary ammo would have trouble igniting it.

    Of course they wouldn't be present in a combat area... just like BMP-1 and BMP-2s would not have fuel in their rear crew compartment doors in a combat area either.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Τ-90 vs Arjun

    Post  Austin on Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:03 pm

    medo wrote:I really doubt, that Arjun is any better tank than T-90. I don't think it have any better armor, FCS, gun, mobility, ... On the other hand if we consider the quality of Indian made Mig-21 planes which have very high rate of crashes, than I wouldn't like to be in Arjun tank in actual battle.

    Actually d_berwal who was an ex-Tank/Armour officer in Indian Army and has presented a balanced view on T-90 vs Arjun debate has mentioned that Arjun is better than IA T-90 in driving comfort and firecontrol , the firecontrol is reportedly one generation ahead.

    You can find the debate we had on T-90 vs Arjun and d_berwal views link

    This is what he said when I asked him to compare Arjun vs T-90

    Arjun MkI is in the process of being a world class tank.
    - The driving and the gunnery solution is the real edge or main points of ARJUN.

    Driving solution i mean:
    - Providing a steering instead of sticks.
    - Driver reaction time is faster.
    - Driver training is easier.
    - Less fatigue in driving it. (as lesser hand, leg and eye coordination)
    - very forgiving for lesser trained crews.

    Gunnery Solution:
    - Giving a joy stick for turret control/ movement.
    - Joystick based controls for laser and firing.
    - This leads to better hand eye coordination and little forgiving for lesser trained crews.

    from my point of view these two are the main plus point of ARJUN MkI



    I would personally be very happy if Indian Army now starts series building the new T-90M , it has a new Turret , has new Gun/FC system and we need a new APU.

    I am not certain if the T-90M has a new 1200 HP engine as well but even a 1000HP engine as the IA uses it for Bhishma would suffice incase if there is a marginal increase in weight of T-90M


    Last edited by Austin on Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Austin on Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:51 am

    I was reading on T-90A and Arjun debate in mp.net and I found this rather interesting post from Damian which list out the flaw in Arjun viz a viz T-90

    Arjun Flaws

    So it seems even leopard has the same flaw , though I do find it a bit difficult to understand what he means by that flaw in Arjun.

    Another point I came to know is that T-90 in terms of the armour layout, the T-90 has a FAR better armour to internal volume ratio, as well as a better frontal armour array layout as it provides full protection up to 30degrees off center.

    Since Arjun has rifled gun over smooth bore , they affect the performance of APFSDS and HEAT round since it does not need spinning compared to HESH round.

    Although I remember reading they used a rubber coating on APFSDS and HESH round to prevent spinning
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:57 am

    Well depending on who you want to believe , the IA took a 3rd opinion on Arjun from Israeli and the Israel were impressed enough to call it Desert Ferrari , check the full story

    Not exactly a compliment for a tank... ferraris are fast and stylish, but not very practical, very expensive and need to be looked after.

    Removing one crewman and replacing them with an autoloader reduces internal volume which makes the tank smaller, particularly the turret smaller as you only need to fit two people in it.

    As the front turret armour is the thickest and therefore also the heaviest on the tank per square metre then making the area smaller saves weight and reduces the tanks profile.

    And Arjun have the same turret design flaws as had Leopard 2A1/A4, starting from big gun mantle mask, main sight placed in the front turret armor plate, it is obvious that there are some armor behind but if someone will find how this looks even in modern versions of Leopard 2 he will know that this flaw is not easy, if not completely impossible to improve.

    Look at this image:



    As you can see from this close up front image the mantle (ie moving bit around the gun barrel) is large and relatively thin which creates a weak spot for enemy fire.
    Also the optics sight is embedded in the front glacis armour... to put it there you are taking armour out and replacing it with electronics. This means you are cutting a bit hole in your thickest strongest armour to put an electronics box in there... a weakness if the front turret is hit there because the armour thickness of 1.2m of armour or whatever the thickness is for the Leo II in its turret front does not apply if the round hits the sight or goes through the cavity where the site is mounted.


    Next flaw is complete lack of understanding one of the most important tank design principles, angles of safe manouvering this means angles +/- 0-30 degrees from turret center line, and here we have two aproaches, or very heavy and thick side turret armor, or a turret geometry like in Russian/Ukrainian tanks,

    He is basically saying that most tanks have the front 60 degrees with their heaviest protection, but Soviet tanks angle the sides of their turret so that they offer even better protection from off centre shots. The Leopard and other western tanks have horizontal sides but require thicker armour to offer reasonable side protection.

    Very simply an APFSDS round is too long and slim to properly stabilise with spinning... it needs fins. Any spinning it does get from a rifled barrel actually destabilises the round and makes it less accurate.
    For HEAT rounds the spinning effect reduces the penetrator effect of the plasma beam generated by the explosive and metal liner so they work best in a smooth bore too.

    The only rounds the need spinning for accuracy are HESH and HE FRAG rounds.

    HESH is pretty obsolete as most modern armour structures have cavities and layers of rubber and other materials that absorb shock waves. Most of the time a standard HE round is more useful especially with proper fragmentation design and an electronic timed fuse system like ANIET.

    Although I remember reading they used a rubber coating on APFSDS and HESH round to prevent spinning

    Slip rings are sometimes used for HEAT and APFSDS rounds in rifled barrels to reduce spin. HESH like spin and would not have slip rings.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Austin on Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:19 am

    Thank You much appreciated , what are the chances that a frontal hit will actually hit the mantle or the optical area , a heat or rod will have to pass through it and chances that it would hit the area in its weak spot is slim.

    I think probably they are deal with the optical weakness in Mk2 but dealing with mantle weakness will not be easy because it will have impact on the gun movement if they make the area more thicker.

    One more thing I came to know is Mk2 Arjun will come with Cummins 1500 hp engine over German MTU 1400 HP but as they say it will be 68 T then those high HP wont compensate for mobility.

    I personally like the T-90AM approach , I wonder if they would upgrade the composite armour and ERA , Kaktus K-6 is twice as better then K-5 but K-5 is quite old almost 2 decade old and K-6 is quite old by now wonder they have improved on K-6 model.

    The French Tank Lelerc also uses a autoloader proving the point that autoloader save on crew and volume.

    Another think i realised with Arjun Mk1 is their armour is not sloped or angled but straight making it better for penetration.

    What are your thoughts on the L=740 rounds , compared to western greater then 900 mm L dart , ofcourse what gurkhan is saying is true.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:08 am

    Thank You much appreciated , what are the chances that a frontal hit will actually hit the mantle or the optical area , a heat or rod will have to pass through it and chances that it would hit the area in its weak spot is slim.

    The front of the turret is statistically the most common place for a tank to be hit in tank on tank warfare.

    Behind the mantlet the armour is very thin because that is where the mechanism for mounting the gun, stabilising it, and raising and lowering the gun is, so penetration is very likely there... the larger the mantlet the larger the "target area".

    Also in the photo above of the optics remember that the visible optics port does not include an area around it for the electronics etc so the weak spot is likely larger than the visible part which is a significant target.

    I have heard Challenger tank gunners claim they can hit a helmet sized target at 1km range, so such a weakness is a problem.

    I think probably they are deal with the optical weakness in Mk2 but dealing with mantle weakness will not be easy because it will have impact on the gun movement if they make the area more thicker.

    The optics problem might require a complete rearrangement of the electronics inside the turret and would not just be a cosmetic change.
    The mantlet will be a similar problem... they likely didn't make it large for fun, it is clearly a case of a large gun cradle and stabilisation system that may need to be redesigned too.

    One more thing I came to know is Mk2 Arjun will come with Cummins 1500 hp engine over German MTU 1400 HP but as they say it will be 68 T then those high HP wont compensate for mobility.

    Power to weight ratio is a reasonable measure of acceleration potential, but shifting a near 70 ton beast over rough country is always going to be thirsty work with a lot of risk.

    I personally like the T-90AM approach , I wonder if they would upgrade the composite armour and ERA , Kaktus K-6 is twice as better then K-5 but K-5 is quite old almost 2 decade old and K-6 is quite old by now wonder they have improved on K-6 model.

    When they had money before the end of the cold war they put new stuff on almost every overhaul the vehicles in service got. It made it very difficult to spot one model from another because when a new model came out with a new feature that distinguished it from previous models the older model vehicles got that feature added during their overhauls.
    They have certainly shown that they don't put all their eggs in one basket so they will likely use composite armours, ERAs, NERAs(when ready), and APSs.

    The French Tank Lelerc also uses a autoloader proving the point that autoloader save on crew and volume.

    Quite true, and if or when NATO goes to 140mm calibre rounds I think more countries will realise that an autoloader is a necessity rather than a luxury... a round that weight would be hard to handle and load inside a turret.

    What are your thoughts on the L=740 rounds , compared to western greater then 900 mm L dart , ofcourse what gurkhan is saying is true.

    Well I think what happened was that the UVZ company had spend several decades working on a next gen tank with a new large calibre gun and up until 2010 they thought that by the time money was actually going on production replacements for current equipment the T-95 and a large calibre gun and ammo would likely be in production and entering service.
    Knowing that there was a possibility that a turret bustle designed tank could possibly get into service in the form of an upgraded T-90 in the mean time they were probably very conservative in making penetrators that could fit in T-90AMs in their rear turret auto loaders but also in upgraded T-90S tanks that could use projectiles that were about 750mm long.
    Once they get a contract to make x hundred T-90AM tanks then they will likely start working on penetrators that are significantly longer, but until then it makes no sense developing a round that could only be fired by towed 125mm anti tank guns.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 vs Arjun

    Post  Austin on Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:28 pm

    yeah I agree a close to 70 T tank is a monster in it self low on accleration high on fuel thirst , affecting its tactical mobility and range , hope that number is wrong not quite sure why it should jump from 58.5 T to 67 odd ton , unless they are doing something radical which is not the case , the only weight addition is ERA which is K-6 and that will not add 5 odd tons but 2-3 at best , one report spoke of 62 T which looks more like it to me.

    Beyond that all good , i am eagerly waiting to see T-90AM and Arjun Mk2 in the months and years ahead.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Austin on Sat May 18, 2013 5:37 pm

    An interesting write up , since the author has acquaintance with Arjun program , commanded the T-72 regiment and was also involved with T-90 procurement

    The Arjun Saga

    http://www.geopolitics.in/june2012.aspx

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon May 20, 2013 1:16 pm

    Austin wrote:An interesting write up , since the author has acquaintance with Arjun program , commanded the T-72 regiment and was also involved with T-90 procurement

    The Arjun Saga

    http://www.geopolitics.in/june2012.aspx




    I would be very glad to see ,only one time, an official involved in weapon selection program for MBTs ,so deeply different in design concept, getting the courage to produce a comparison taking coldly into account EFFECT ON THE BATTLEFIELD and, above all, at THE SAME RESOURCES (material and human) employed ,of the selection of one of the other.



    Fact 1 : With the same crew's unit with which you can man 900 Arjun MK-I/II (or similar western-like "heavy" MBT ) you can man 1200 T-90S/MS


    Fact 2 : With the same financial resources necessary to procure Arjun MK-I/II you can procure from 1,4 to 1,9 times as much T-90S/MS


    Fact 3 : For unavoidable volumetric and weight factors, the same strategic ferry-asset capable to transport or sustain an Arjun MK-I/II (or similar western-like "heavy" MBT) can transport/sustain 1,5 to 2 times how much T-90S/MS


    Fact 4 : With the same fuel necessary to move 3 Arjun MK-I/II for 100 km you can move of the same distance about 4,2/4,6 T-90M/MS


    Fact 5 : Target area offered to enemy direct fire by part of Arjun MKI/II (or similar western-like "heavy" MBT) is much greater than that offered by T-90S/MS


    Fact 6 : Cost and time to repair hull/turret damages to a T90S/MS is immeasurably lower than that to conduct the same repair on Arjun MKI/II (or similar western-like "heavy" MBT)



    Now, if someone would attempt to establish the best investment for tax money in MBTs it should take into account the same resources employed and the operative capabilities obtained with it.


    Do you want to establish what public Indian money expenditure, between Arjun and T-90S, is more efficient in achieving the best target hit percentage in unitary time?

    Well, place 36 Arjun MKI/II and 48 T-90S/MS (same number of Indian tank crew and Indian tax-money taken into account) at a shooting range and measure the time necessary to hit 100 target for the former group and the latter.


    Do you want to establish what public Indian money expenditure, between Arjun and T-90S, offer the best strategic mobility and sector Armored Force's density in unitary time?
    Well, set a time and a strategic ferry asset (air-lift, ship-transport , rail transport or all of the three together) and measure how much Arjun MKI/II or T-90S/MS was present on the target sector at the same distance when the set time elapse.


    Do you want to establish the overall exchange ratio and PHit of a direct fire engagements between the two design, involving the same public Indian money expenditure and Indian lives taken into account ?
    Well, put 36 Arjun MKI/II and 48 T-90S/MS in the Rajasthan desert and let those two group shoot one against the other in mobile engagement with training rounds (or, even better, better colored powder ones) and measure the number and placement of hit for each MBT -....the result of this test ,also with same number of tanks, would be obviously equally one-sided in T-90’s favour-.

    And so on with: logistic burden and length, average time and cost for battle damages repair, tactical mobility, mobilization times etc.... or even better COMBINE all the up-mentioned trials : transport the three equivalent groups of Arjun and T-90S, with theirs necessary logistic vehicles, with three different strategic ferry asset in a sector ; after leave them proceed for 200-300 km long local road and off-road environment, leave each group engage the "opposing" one with the actual number of MBT present in the intended sector, collect "damaged" vehicles and repair them allowing to return in the battles in the subsequent days.
    The result would be simply CRUSHING.



    Now THIS, is a serious , analytical approach to military value assessment of two different systems with the same role, the problem is that a similar ,cold , strictly parametrical procedure for comparative trials would represent an enormous danger for some industrial interests.

    Reality is much more simple : India , as a quickly rising power, need to develop a domestic military heavy industry's base and ,within it, a critical MBT's design capability.
    Arjun is a good choice to develop a scientific and production basis for the creation of a modern MBT; but Indian analysts are perfectly aware of the factor's interaction previously mentioned.

    It is not a chance that FMBT has way more stringent volumetric limits and target weight of 50 tons Wink




    Last edited by Mindstorm on Mon May 20, 2013 4:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon May 20, 2013 4:18 pm

    Another way to put it simply: T-90S is a STEAL Twisted Evil .

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Αrjun vs T-90

    Post  Austin on Mon May 27, 2013 2:41 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Austin wrote:An interesting write up , since the author has acquaintance with Arjun program , commanded the T-72 regiment and was also involved with T-90 procurement

    The Arjun Saga

    http://www.geopolitics.in/june2012.aspx

    I would be very glad to see ,only one time, an official involved in weapon selection program for MBTs ,so deeply different in design concept, getting the courage to produce a comparison taking coldly into account EFFECT ON THE BATTLEFIELD and, above all, at THE SAME RESOURCES (material and human) employed ,of the selection of one of the other.



    Fact 1 : With the same crew's unit with which you can man 900 Arjun MK-I/II (or similar western-like "heavy" MBT ) you can man 1200 T-90S/MS


    Fact 2 : With the same financial resources necessary to procure Arjun MK-I/II you can procure from 1,4 to 1,9 times as much T-90S/MS


    Fact 3 : For unavoidable volumetric and weight factors, the same strategic ferry-asset capable to transport or sustain an Arjun MK-I/II (or similar western-like "heavy" MBT) can transport/sustain 1,5 to 2 times how much T-90S/MS


    Fact 4 : With the same fuel necessary to move 3 Arjun MK-I/II for 100 km you can move of the same distance about 4,2/4,6 T-90M/MS


    Fact 5 : Target area offered to enemy direct fire by part of Arjun MKI/II (or similar western-like "heavy" MBT) is much greater than that offered by T-90S/MS


    Fact 6 : Cost and time to repair hull/turret damages to a T90S/MS is immeasurably lower than that to conduct the same repair on Arjun MKI/II (or similar western-like "heavy" MBT)



    Now, if someone would attempt to establish the best investment for tax money in MBTs it should take into account the same resources employed and the operative capabilities obtained with it.


    Do you want to establish what public Indian money expenditure, between Arjun and T-90S, is more efficient in achieving the best target hit percentage in unitary time?

    Well, place 36 Arjun MKI/II and 48 T-90S/MS (same number of Indian tank crew and Indian tax-money taken into account) at a shooting range and measure the time necessary to hit 100 target for the former group and the latter.


    Do you want to establish what public Indian money expenditure, between Arjun and T-90S, offer the best strategic mobility and sector Armored Force's density in unitary time?
    Well, set a time and a strategic ferry asset (air-lift, ship-transport , rail transport or all of the three together) and measure how much Arjun MKI/II or T-90S/MS was present on the target sector at the same distance when the set time elapse.


    Do you want to establish the overall exchange ratio and PHit of a direct fire engagements between the two design, involving the same public Indian money expenditure and Indian lives taken into account ?
    Well, put 36 Arjun MKI/II and 48 T-90S/MS in the Rajasthan desert and let those two group shoot one against the other in mobile engagement with training rounds (or, even better, better colored powder ones) and measure the number and placement of hit for each MBT -....the result of this test ,also with same number of tanks, would be obviously equally one-sided in T-90’s favour-.

    And so on with: logistic burden and length, average time and cost for battle damages repair, tactical mobility, mobilization times etc.... or even better COMBINE all the up-mentioned trials : transport the three equivalent groups of Arjun and T-90S, with theirs necessary logistic vehicles, with three different strategic ferry asset in a sector ; after leave them proceed for 200-300 km long local road and off-road environment, leave each group engage the "opposing" one with the actual number of MBT present in the intended sector, collect "damaged" vehicles and repair them allowing to return in the battles in the subsequent days.
    The result would be simply CRUSHING.



    Now THIS, is a serious , analytical approach to military value assessment of two different systems with the same role, the problem is that a similar ,cold , strictly parametrical procedure for comparative trials would represent an enormous danger for some industrial interests.

    Reality is much more simple : India , as a quickly rising power, need to develop a domestic military heavy industry's base and ,within it, a critical MBT's design capability.
    Arjun is a good choice to develop a scientific and production basis for the creation of a modern MBT; but Indian analysts are perfectly aware of the factor's interaction previously mentioned.

    It is not a chance that FMBT has way more stringent volumetric limits and target weight of 50 tons Wink



    Mindstorm , that kind of analysis that you have done is also what drives Indian Army in purchasing 1600 T-90 and making it the Main Battle Tank for the Army for the next 20 years to come with appropriate modernisation time to time.

    Also the fact that logistically and training weapons wise T-90 is closest to the 1800 plus T-72 that Army operates makes Army Decision to keep T series a more lopsided one in its favour.

    While Arjun came in late it has proved a point and it will go in a long way for DRDO to build a 50 T FMBT which will eventually replace the T-72 in the Army in the latter half of next decade.

    Considering the Office who wrote the piece is the one who has dealt with all three tanks with the IA i.e T-72 , T-90 and Arjun in different capacity , it also reflects the thinking of IA as to which tank best meets its need.

    I think when T-90MS enters IA it will be equal in capability to Arjun Mk2 and the upgrades being planned for it.

    Austin

    Posts : 6232
    Points : 6638
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Austin on Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:01 pm

    Can some one objectively compare the T-90MS with Arjun Mk2 ?  ( No nationalism just comparision based on merits , I have posted specs of T-90MS and Arjun Mk2 above )

    Its certain IA is buying additional T-90's  235 to be deployed in NE , Most likely though its not certain yet these would be T-90MS

    From FORCE
    The Indian Army is now said to have only 800 T-90 tanks in service out of a planned total of 1,657 (plus 235 from the latest order).

    As per article in Force by ex DGMF the upgrade path for T-72 and T-90 are as below


    By Lt Gen Dalip Bhardwaj (Retd)
    (The writer is former Director General Mechanised Forces)
    Quote:
    Current Status-Armour
    The current holding of tanks exceed 3000 comprising the T-72M1 which is the mainstay of the Armoured Corps, a number of regiments of the state-of-the-art T-90S and the indigenous Arjun tanks. An AFV once inducted is expected to be in service for 34 years before being declared obsolete. Hence, after a tank has been in service for a decade, a comprehensive modernisation package is initiated which is expected to be implemented within a span of five years, so as to ensure that the tank holds its own in the battlefield for the balance second half of its life in service.

    As a plethora of vendors are involved in modernising various sub-systems, the package is never introduced as a whole, hence, slippages occur and the tank is not available to the user for protracted periods. Ideally, the modernisation package must be implemented when the tank is withdrawn for its mid-life overhaul, however, this is only on paper as the schedule of overhaul and the modernisation package never coincide leading to a disjointed effort and wasteful expenditure.

    Tank T-72 M1:
    The tank was inducted into service in the early Eighties and after three decades the tanks issued to the first few regiments are being withdrawn from service without any major modernisation scheme being implemented. The modernisation programme includes:

    • Mobility: Uprating the engine to 1000 HP to ensure that the power to weight ratio is maintained despite having added additional weight. Trials for a suitable power pack were initiated a decade ago without success. The most suitable choice is the engine of the T-90 tank duly modified which would also ensure commonality of parts and reduction of the logistic chain.

    • Firepower: The most critical scheme is removal of night blindness by introducing the thermal imaging sight and enhancing its accuracy by fitting a modern fire control system. As regards night blindness, the older tanks were to be fitted with a thermal imaging stand alone sight (TISAS) and the newer tanks with a full solution fire control system (TIFCS).

    Whereas the TISAS programme has been successfully implemented, the delay has been in introducing the TIFCS. The plan to adopt the T-90 TIFCS was initiated which should have been the ideal solution, however due to issues of non-compliance of electro-magnetic interference/compatibility (EMI/EMC) the project was delayed. It is expected that both systems will be introduced by the end of 2014.

    • Protection: To give added protection two projects were initiated. First was the fitment of the explosive reactive armour (ERA) panels against chemical energy ammunition attack and second was the more ambitious Active Protection System (APS). Whereas the ERA panels are cleared and fitment is in progress, the APS which was included later will take time to be implemented due to its complexity and cost.

    Tank T-90S: The T-90S tank was first shown in Russia in 1993 and was procured by India in 2002. A total of 657 tanks were imported from Russia with a contract to manufacture 1000 tanks at HVF Avadi. Despite being a tank of recent origin, an upgraded package has already been formalised and would be implemented within the next three-five years. Notwithstanding, by the end of the decade at least 25 Armoured Regiment would be equipped with this state-of-the-art tank. The modernisation projects include:-

    • Firepower:
    The TIFCS has been given dual control with the Commander being able to exercise the same functions as the gunner. The 12.7 mm AD machine gun to be upgraded to a dual axis stabilised remote controlled weapon system. To engage moving targets more effectively, an automatic target tracker (ATT) needs to be fitted. The effectiveness of the Invar missile has to be enhanced to penetrate up to 1000 mm armour thickness.

    • Protection: The greatest benefit would be the fitment of the APS to defeat both the CE and KE ammunition. In addition, the ERA panels are to be upgraded to enhance protection by 250 mm, thereby even degrading a KE projectile to a very large extent.

    • Miscellaneous: To ensure that electronics in the tank function at peak efficiency even during the peak summer temperatures, an environment control system will be fitted. In addition to ensure that the life of the main engine is conserved an auxiliary power unit to be fitted. For better situational awareness, a battlefield management system will be fitted supported by a software defined radio (SDR).

    With the implementation of the above modernisation package, hopefully, within the next three-five years the T-90S will dominate the battlefield till 2030-35.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  TR1 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:50 pm

    Honestly, the Arjun 2 still has many many question marks, and the whole design just looks clunky and not yet finished.

    More question marks than answers at this point, but from Arjun 1 at least, the prognosis is not terribly promising.

    T-90MS is just a one off right now, if Russia (or anyone else buys it) it will be modified as well, so a direct comparison is pointless.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Arjun vs T-90 MBT

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:28 pm