Arjun News & Discussions

[lockh33d]

the "sinking" heavy M1A1

Haha, you're a joke! We're talking about losses of tanks to enemy fire and here you go, posting images of tanks in a ditch?

There is a difference between a car accident between two parties (Faults on both sides) and a car which drove itself off a bridge, unless you think they're EXACTLY the same?

 

[lockh33d]

Be attacked by Taliban,but it still alive and have no through injury,we have to say that the M1A1 ...poor child!!

Thats what happens when a $6.21 million tank don't have well developed APS.

T90`s defences are one of the best in the world, a three-tiered protection systems made up of composite armour, Kontakt-5 ERA and an APS.

@ Xu, your images show damaged Abrams, not destroyed ones. We were discussing losses to the enemy, which there were plenty of on the Iraqi side, whom were using mostly T-72's.

@ Beckham, using ERA on tanks with sophisticated armor is simply mental. Why would you want to blow up your own defenses afterall? You know why the Ruskies are using ERA? Because they can't come up with decent composites for their tank armor.

 

[lockh33d]

But, an APS could have given them better chances of survival against an RPG or ATGM.

Check this out,

yyXY7sfajS8[/media] - T-90 Active Protection Systems

[url="

FCS Quick Kill[/url]

That really depends on what APS system you have installed on the T-90. For one, defense systems on the T-90 most likely incorporate IR/Radar decoys. However, most AT weapons the US military has aren't IR or radar based. E.g. TOW missiles are wire guided, whereas JDAM's have live feeds via satellite with an eye on the real target throughout the course of action.

 

[beckham]

That really depends on what APS system you have installed on the T-90. For one, defense systems on the T-90 most likely incorporate IR/Radar decoys. However, most AT weapons the US military has aren't IR or radar based. E.g. TOW missiles are wire guided, whereas JDAM's have live feeds via satellite with an eye on the real target throughout the course of action.

The APS on Abrams is very crude compared to the Shtora found on T-90.The Shtora system uses laser warning sensors to spot threats at very close range (said to be five meters). The threat warning is handed over to the countermeasures array, located in strategically located multiple modules, which create a hemispherical coverage of the protected platform. Based on the threat parameters, the best location is selected for activation, launching an explosive charge which creates a strong blast effect (but without much fragments), which counteracts with the incoming projectile . This system is effective against both CE and KE threats.It can also jams the enemy's semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) antitank guided missiles, laser rangefinders and target designators.

There isn't such a high level of active protection in Abrams.Abrams are equipped with just a Missile Countermeasure Device which disrupts the function of guidance systems of semi-active control line-of-sight wire and radio guided anti-tank missiles and thermally and infrared guided missiles (ATGM). It lack the capability to intercept the incoming projectile. (correct me if I am wrong )

 

[Hellfire]

1.why army is deliberately trying to avoid the comparative tests of Arjun MBT vs T-90 for so long??

The rationale is the year the demand for induction of adequate numbers to be made (approximately minimum 500 - a figure for DRDO to recover costs of development) was raised by DRDO - 2006as per its own admission. The aim was cost recovery, not any other issue at the end of the day. Please go through the desert trials in 2000 and subsequently the re-evaluation of the tank again in 2002 and so on. The DRDO was only able to stabilise the piece by 2006 by which time, the army had moved on into phase of induction of T-90s in large numbers for over 5 years ..... how is it possible to introduce a new tank immediately? Maybe you can shed some light on the matter where the decades experience of armed forces failed. Even a rifle as basic as INSAS took over 10 years to be inducted in sufficiently large numbers. The reason: for every weapon introduced you have to have maintenance/repair facilities, production facilities, build of training stocks (which is in thousands of tonnes) in addition to first line ammunition and then there is the war stocks etc etc .... a time and resource consuming process all the more complicated if you are phase of inducting one system and wanting to overide it with another

if you were to look at the present Indian army inventory it stands at approximately:

T-90s : 700+ (and increasing)
T-72s : 2000+
T-55s: approximately 300-500 operational and 800+ in mothball
Vijayants : 500-700 operational and 1000+ in mothball

T-55 and Vijayants are increasingly being used as pillbox defence in DCB environment along western border ...

If Arjun was found to inferior its fate'll be sealed and army can move with more T-90 i guess.

It was found at the time of induction of a new MBT in IA ..... its like we award MRCA award to Boeing right now and Russians cry 1 year hence about having FGFA ready and India not going for it .... every weapon system has its value of time in terms of technology being introduec. What exactly do you achieve by having comparative trials just now? You are introducing same tech at further costs per piece .... whereas you already have an existing infrastructure, so actually the costs per piece inducted is much lower ....

2.Our Army chief admitted that only 20% of our tanks can fight in the night times while pakistan and china have 80% and 100% capablility in that matter.

difficult to work it out how that figure came up ..... T-72s are well in advanced stages of NV visions and TIs fitment ..... only he can explain this ..... maybe it was to throw another whammy after the dual war issue

If T-90 is nighttime capable??
when would other legacy tanks in the Tseries becomes night time capable??
And how army is planning to replace these old tanks and by what ??

T-90 is NV capable .... 100% of them ....
T-72s are in advanced stages of same .... cant put a figure to it but more than 60% is safe bet
These tanks will begin to be replaced by a suitable platform around 2016 on ..... so if Arjun Mk. II was created and fielded then it may have a better chance than T-95, a likely successor ... although there are unofficial rumors of M1A3 offer by US .....

Talkng about T-90,it comes with its one set of problems.
T-90 rigged with engine problems and its has cooling issues in extreme heat conditions of Rajastan .It looks like IA ran out of money to put AC in these tanks.

That my friend, is the problem of our political masters! All mechanical equipment breaks down in Rajasthan over extended period of deployment, even something as basic as Ashok Leyland Stallion the mainstay of transport of Indian army !!!!

As for AC ... funds are allocated by MoD ..... and diktats on issues such as this also ..... its being rectified

3.IA might be right that it like to have more lighter T-90s fro its cold start doctrine.
But what happens when cold start gives way for a hot ended battle ????

oh sorry .... you are confused about the said doctrine .... go to the thread for it .... I have just rejoined teh forum after some absence so shall be posting relevant issues there ... only thing is that Cold start is based on achieving maximal momentum and maintaining a high rate of operations within a very short time to preclude adequate preparation of defences by opposing force ..... it envisions deployment of overwhelming and superior force disproportionate to force opposing it in order to achieve a breakthrough in first few moments of outbreak of hositilities. nothing to do with a formal dance here .....

Btw,if one goes by the billions of dollors worth shoping spree of foreign armaments made by indian armed force every yr and sort of strong hesitation to buy indigenous product made by DRDO...i feel if Americans or russians were ready to sell IRBM's or ICBM's, our IA & IAF personnels would have been flocking at their doorsteps & our Prithvi's & Agni's would have been placed in museums.

strangely MTCR prevents that or russians would love to do that .... and would have been better ....seeing that Agni is still far from perfect as highlighted by the recently failed user trial

 

[xuxu1457]

@ Xu, your images show damaged Abrams, not destroyed ones. We were discussing losses to the enemy, which there were plenty of on the Iraqi side, whom were using mostly T-72's.

@ Beckham, using ERA on tanks with sophisticated armor is simply mental. Why would you want to blow up your own defenses afterall? You know why the Ruskies are using ERA? Because they can't come up with decent composites for their tank armor.

From these injuries I mean :it's very hard to thorough destroy M1A1 by T-72 T-80 or general RPG

 

[Hellfire]

Wouldn't put too high hopes on T90

--------

Flaws in T 90 Main Battle Tanks troubles Indian Army
Daily News & Updates
Dated 13/6/2006

Chandigarh: Inducted to serve as India's main battle tank just over three years ago, the Army's fleet of Russian-built T-90s have run into serious trouble.

The problems include critical flaws in its fire control system, availability of ammunition and, what military officers said, was avoidable overuse during training exercises, rendering many tanks in need of overhaul.

According to Jane�s Defence Weekly, the tank�s continuing technical flaws are "adversely impinging on the Indian Army�s operational preparedness."

Confirming the Jane�s report, senior Army officers told this newspaper that the French Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera, which gives the T-90�s Belarussian (Peling IG-46) night sight its 3 km range and higher accuracy, is not "adequately tropicalised" and hence prone to malfunctioning in the extreme heat of the Rajasthan desert region, where temperatures inside the MBT routinely average between 55�C and 60�C.

During repeated manoeuvres in the Thar Desert, where the T-90s will ultimately be deployed in the event of an outbreak in hostilities, prolonged use under high temperatures had already "knocked out" between 80 and 90 of the Catherine TI cameras, rendering the FCS "unserviceable." The officers said that repeated efforts to correct the problem had been without success.

The TI cameras are the crucial "eyes" of the tank�s systems. At Rs 2 crores each, the Catherine TI system comprises almost one-sixth of each T-90�s total cost of Rs 11.75 crores.

One of the options currently being explored to rectify the FCS is to locally develop an airconditioning plant for the TI camera. For this, a former director-general of mechanised forces is understood to have already held discussions with some French manufacturers, including Thales (which makes the Catherine TI cameras). However, neither this nor the local vendors called in by the DRDO have had any success in this matter.

The Army, incidentally, does not have a D-G for its mechanised forces after Lt. Gen. G.D. Singh became deputy chief of staff at Army Headquarters recently. Under the circumstances, it could take any new D-G who is appointed quite a while before he can adequately address the T-90�s problems, possibly further delaying the MBT�s operational preparedness.

The problem of successfully integrating the Catherine TI camera with the Belarussian IG-46 sight is also believed to have considerably delayed the licensed production of T-90s at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) at Avadi. Sources said the indigenous T-90 production, as part of the transfer of technology agreement signed with Russia, which was scheduled to begin in 2006, has been deferred after problems were encountered in fitting out the FCS in assembled tanks. Of the total of 310 T-90 tanks, 124 were bought fully formed and kits were imported for the remaining 186 to be assembled at Avadi. The first locally-assembled T-90s rolled out of the HVF in January 2004, but these too have run into problems with the FCS.

According to the transfer of technology agreement, the T-90�s IG-46 sights were to be made at the Opto Electrics Factory at Dehra Dun, the gun at the Ordnance Factory Board facility at Rishikesh and its 1,000-horsepower engine by Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. All the three projects stand deferred, official sources said.

The T-90s are also facing a host of other problems, including a nearly exhausted inventory of ammunition. The tank�s 125 mm smooth-bore gun is electronically configured to fire imported Russian AMK-338 and AMK-339 shells, the supply of which has run out after innumerable exercises.

Surprisingly, the T-90�s gun has not been configured to fire the Indian-made AMK-340 shells. These shells have turned out rather dubious in quality, with over 150,000 rounds having to be destroyed, leading to the loss of over Rs 700 crores. Some AMK-340 shells have even burst inside the tanks, killing crew members, in at least one instance at Babina. Armoured Corps officers said many tank crews, who feared the shells would explode inside the barrel, had refused to use the faulty ammunition, and when forced to do so went to elaborate lengths, enabling them to fire from outside the tank.

According to the Armoured Corps officers, the ordnance factory board had triple-packed the 125 mm AMK-340 shells with propellant, but without adequate packing in between the layers to prevent leakage at high temperatures in which they are stored, often under the open sun. This had led not only to a near-complete freeze on regular firings but also "severely dented" the confidence of tank crews, sources said.

The Secunderabad-based Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL), which was scheduled to start production of 9M119 Refleks missiles for the T-90 early this year, has also fallen badly behind schedule amid failed trials. BDL is believed to have sought technical assistance from the Russians in building the Refleks (Nato designation: AT-11 Sniper) missile.

It was the T-90�s missile-firing capability that had initially clinched the Army�s decision in its favour way back in 2001. But with BDL unable to supply the missiles and the endless problems with the fire control system, many officers are of the view that the tank appears little better than the already proven T-72, also currently in service with the Indian Army.


Flaws in T 90 Main Battle Tanks troubles Indian Army | India Defence

read the date of issue of report buddy before posting for the sake of posting ...... want me to issue the articles concerning failure of M1A1 tanks in the Pakistan field trials in front of President Zia? what a sheer waste of bandwidth

 

[ptldM3]

Can you prove this? The book I read said otherwise. Your source might change my view on this..

Here you go:

Perhaps the most curious feature is the estimate of only 200-300 T-72 tanks, since the initial stock of about 1,000 was largely deployed by the Republican Guard units that appear to have suffered the fewest losses during the ground campaign.

Republican guard, and only republican Guard used the T-72, so all these stories about T-72's getting knocked out left and right is funny. Don't get me wrong many did get knocked out. However, when as many as 1388 tanks were destroyed by air, and between 1245-1708 were destroed or abandoned, and keep in mind most Iraqis surendered, then something isn't right. Moreover, Iraq had about 5,500 tanks, which mean many survived the war. I think it's clear where im going from here...





Iraqi Ground Forces Equipment

And just so you know, those "T-72's" were actually kit builts produced by Iraq, mostly made up of Polish parts, aswell as some Iraqi, and soviet parts. They were crap. Like i mentioned, they lacked basic capabilities that REAL T-72's had. Also the Chinese Type 69 was called the T-55.

It makes we wonder, did the US know the difference between T-72's (aka fake T-72) and T-55 (aka Chinese type 69)? I'm guessing they regarded everything as a T-72.

"During the ground war, only seven M1A1's were hit by rounds fired from the Iraqi's T-72 tanks, with none being seriously damaged. The Army reported that the Iraqi armed forces "destroyed no Abrams tanks during the Persian Gulf War."22 Nine Abrams tanks were destroyed during the war: seven due to friendly fire and two were intentionally destroyed to prevent capture after they became disabled.23 One incident in particular demonstrates the effectiveness of armor-piercing rounds and tank armor made of depleted uranium. As allied forces pushed into southern Iraq at the start of the ground war, an M1A1 tank became stuck in the mud."

Collateral Damage: How U.S. Troops Were Exposed to DU

That was writen by the same people that told you Iraq had WMD

The bold part is bullcrap. Everyone knows atleast one Abrams was knocked out killing one crew-man.

Only 23 M1A1s were taken out of service in the Gulf[10] and one of these losses resulted in crew deaths from Iraqi fire. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. Very few Abrams tanks were hit by enemy fire

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those are all from the second Iraqi invasion, most loses from the A1 variant after the Iraqi armed forces better equipped themselves the second time round.

Exactly my point, Those are M1A2's not M1A1's getting wasted, need i say more?

Merkava is not an Abram is it? Any test to show that it's better? A direct comparison perhaps?

Firstly, you said the T-90 can't compete with WESTERN tanks, the Merkava is a wester tank isn't it? I have already proved Russian RPG's, of all things, can destroy your superior, magical, western tanks.

Now a sourse to your other question:

The latest Merkava Mk.4 is slightly larger than the Mk.3. The new MBT is one of the most protected tanks in the world.

Merkava Mk.4 Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com

Keep in mind that the Merkava is 65 ton tank.

If you understood the context of my view I was coming from, you would have understood that I was talking about Iraqi weapons. The Maverick and Hellfire missiles can destroy any armor on this planet. As for Iraqi gear imported from Russia? Well that can't destroy M1's I'm sorry.

because you say so right let me educate you.

Abrams estimated armour protection vs. 9m119 Svir:

Turret- 800-900 mm ........ 9M119 Svir 950 mm penatration =kill

Glacis- 560-590 mm......... 9M119 Svir 950 mm penatration =Kill

Lower fron haul- 580-650 mm........ 9M119 Svir 950 mm penatration =Kill

9M119 Svir penatrates over 37 inches! Can't destroy Abrams my ***!
If the Abrams is on the recieving end, it's lights out.

Main Battle Tank - M1, M1A1, and M1A2 Abrams

Read above, Abrams are not Merkava's.

No. However, if RPG-29 with 750 mm penatration can cut through the 65 ton Merkava like butter than a T-90 can take out the Abrams.

Again, sources differ and vary. But congrats to your source for running along the same lines as what you want to believe.

Funny because several sources say the same. Let me find you another. PS all the sources i have found are American, and if you read them they portray the Abrams as a tank of the gods.

1,848 Abrams tanks then sent to Iraq.

Abrams heavy tank proves its mettle in Iraq campaign

That really depends on what APS system you have installed on the T-90. For one, defense systems on the T-90 most likely incorporate IR/Radar decoys. However, most AT weapons the US military has aren't IR or radar based. E.g. TOW missiles are wire guided, whereas JDAM's have live feeds via satellite with an eye on the real target throughout the course of action.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the fire an control system on the Abrams utilizes a lazer that pinpoints the distance of the target, then that lazer gives an estimated distance, and lets the gunner adjust for elivation. The lazer also helps stabalize the turret on ruff terrain, buy causing the turret to act like a gyro, thus keeping the sight on target. The Shtora-1 jams lasers, so the Abrams is **** out of luck.

 

[Hellfire]

"The unit (part of the 24th Infantry Division) had gone on, leaving this tank to wait for a recovery vehicle. Three T-72's appeared and attacked. The first fired from under 1,000 meters, scoring a hit with a shaped-charge (high explosive) round on the M1A1's frontal armor. The hit did no damage. The M1A1 fired a 120mm armor-piercing (DU) round that penetrated the T-72 turret, causing an explosion that blew the turret into the air. The second T-72 fired another shaped-charge round, hit the frontal armor, and did no damage. The T-72 turned to run, and took a 120mm round in the engine compartment (which) blew the engine into the air. The last T-72 fired a solid shot (sabot) round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1's frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a (DU) sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion.24"

A nice combo of HEAT's and Ek rounds.

Source: Collateral Damage: How U.S. Troops Were Exposed to DU

You know you lost your credibility with quite a few posts inspite of my giving pointers on what you will trip over

1. I specifically stressed in my previous posts that T-72s (of 1970s era) were only held by Iraqi Republican Guards (and you can go through US army literature on that fact) ..... and they were not in their 1000s .... only a couple of hundred about 130-170 maybe 200 .... so have not understood how 1000s were shot (oh they can be if more than 1 tank was firing at one target and the same was fired upon by multiple US tanks). And you may kindly post me the instance where US army engaged Republican Guards directly, I have still not seen any such instance in all literature written on it since 1995. As far as I know, it was pounded by AF .... The only units engaged by US directly were the regular Army Armoured Corps and they had T-55s/T-69s/T-59s

2. I did point out that HEAT/HESH are not effective against M1A1 (its CHOBAM type armour) and it was further strengthened by emergency DU add on. Only M-60 being held by Marines were not as well protected. In addition, the only sabot Iraq had was steel core .... so dont even head into KE discussions .... you are way out of league here and you really need to do some reading on KE Penetrators as the LD ratio of the sabot held by Iraq was roughly equal to the best of HESH rounds and they could not even tickle CHOBAM type. And US used a APFSDS-DU everytime which would easily penetrate a T-59/T-69/T-55 Hull.

3. And you have posted yourself about HEAT/HESH which are the shaped charges ....

4. And lastly ... the article has only T-72 as tank in it ... strange that nowhere in any US literature I see T-59/T69 or T-55 .... can you really tell me the points of differentiation of above tanks with respect to T-72 on visual inspection in two circumstances:

a. Before the commencement of engagement on detection of threat.
b. After complete neutralisation of threat (read destruction fo threat)

I am keenly awaiting your response to the same
regards

 

[Hellfire]

A good book I read at my local library a few years ago.

would be grateful if you could provide the name of the same .... am a keen student of this area

also would recommend you to read Guerilla Warfare a good book with Mao Tse Tung and Che Gueveras principles being elucidated and foreword by Capt Hart. Its in reference to your concepts of Guerilla/Terrorist warfare as applicable in Iraqi scenario

 

[Hellfire]

From these injuries I mean :it's very hard to thorough destroy M1A1 by T-72 T-80 or general RPG

for majority - yes. But the biggest drawback is its thermal signature ... which is amazingly nice and big and can be spotted. Then with a good APFSDS-DU you can kill it .... with a tandem warhead ATGM you need about 1 to 2 hits to take it out completely

overall an excellent piece which is a mean machine with air support (helicopter gunships) in typical air-land battle doctrine for conventional war in open terrain

however it is same in susceptibility in built up area and CI grid engagements ,,,,,,

 

[Gazzi]

read the date of issue of report buddy before posting for the sake of posting ...... want me to issue the articles concerning failure of M1A1 tanks in the Pakistan field trials in front of President Zia? what a sheer waste of bandwidth

aaarrrr.....we seem to have hit a raw nerve there...........

i'm a little peeny weeny child and i'm going to tell my mummy about you and then tell everyone in school says hellfire.........

and by the way, if you want to get dirty in a healthy debate bringing leaders into it, then I will have no quarms in getting murky and dragging Mr Gandhi into the conversation. I have already had a thread deleted showing facts about this man so please don;t try and derail the thread as it is open to everyone and I have just posted an article from an Indian source with regards to the T-90 and thought it helpful to add and discuss.

So please take your little childish rants elsewhere

 

[Icarus]

WRONG THREAD ! PLZ MOVE THIS POST TO : Stupid and Funny from all over the world



Now thats what I call an expert analysis !

Typical "Deny all facts" reaction, references have been given, if you can, prove it wrong !!!!!!!!

Try these as well...................I have got loads more where those came from..........

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/72-8409.aspx

http://forum.********************/lofiversion/index.php/t80141.html

 

[gogbot]

Who on Earth are you? Last time I checked, you're just another Indian trolling around on these forums.



US does not share a healthy appetite with India overall. Down the road, I don't see there to be no possibility of the two becoming enemies or arch rivals at the least.

P.S. If you ever make up information to mislead again, I'll report you to a mod for invading my privacy.

Did you just deny knowing me just so you can continue to troll.

That is a new low for you,

it not like you to lie so much.

 

[Hellfire]

aaarrrr.....we seem to have hit a raw nerve there...........

i'm a little peeny weeny child and i'm going to tell my mummy about you and then tell everyone in school says hellfire.........

Be my guest, and have a candy too ... sure ..... no raw nerve ... just dont post something that is certainly outdated and not in the present times. If you cant add something to the recent issue, atleast dont regress ... am sure you shall be knowing more about Indian Army than I ....... am sure I shall learn a lot from you what I could not learn inside it .......

and by the way, if you want to get dirty in a healthy debate bringing leaders into it, then I will have no quarms in getting murky and dragging Mr Gandhi into the conversation. I have already had a thread deleted showing facts about this man so please don;t try and derail the thread as it is open to everyone and I have just posted an article from an Indian source with regards to the T-90 and thought it helpful to add and discuss.

So please take your little childish rants elsewhere

you find getting your leadership in as getting dirty???? if you have a bit of difficulty in understanding what I meant I shall repeat again .... should I post some data proving M1A1 is a useless tank as proved on testing grounds in 1988 when Prez Zia had gone to witness the said test and it had failed miserably and as such that was the reason then that PA had not inducted the tank ...... so it may point that the M1A1 is useless??? Am sure if you had used a little percentage of your grey cells you would have got what was meant and what you perceived ......

but instead you chose it to type what you just did .... coming up with real fancy language to show intelligence ...... am impressed sure!

regards