Mike_Brando
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 3,232
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
R e Bhai tuh rehne de,tere ne trolling na ho payga!!30 years then rejected
70 KM per liter
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
R e Bhai tuh rehne de,tere ne trolling na ho payga!!30 years then rejected
70 KM per liter
Yeah bro,I'm in there.But I rarely visit that site,since it remains in a semi active state due to lack of traffics!!Kunal sir ke cheno tumi?*** er ki member naki tumi??
shuroo ho ja mery munni dekh kidr khtam krta hn
meray or mery munni k beach na aa aag hai dono traf brabar lagi huiYeah bro,I'm in there.But I rarely visit that site,since it remains in a semi active state due to lack of traffics!!
Ye munni munni kya laga rakha hai bhai?? And no trolling business here.
I have been an active member of that forum for the last 3 and a half years.But nowadays i rarely visit that forum due to the same issue.I just wish that more and more Indian members visit that forum and become members thus increasing the traffic of that forum.I just don't understand that why on earth are our fellow citizens tend to become members of foreign defense forums rather than becoming a member of one of our own!!Yeah bro,I'm in there.But I rarely visit that site,since it remains in a semi active state due to lack of traffics!!
I have been an active member of that forum for the last 3 and a half years.But nowadays i rarely visit that forum due to the same issue.I just wish that more and more Indian members visit that forum and become members thus increasing the traffic of that forum.I just don't understand that why on earth are our fellow citizens tend to become members of foreign defense forums rather than becoming a member of one of our own!!
That's your opinion,not a fact.
Nonsense!!The T 72M1 glacis armor's LOS value is stated to circa 550 mm at 0 degree.And Tank Ex turret didn't have such values,it was more like circa 750-800 mm at 0 degree from main gun axis!!And even if your values were to be true,what's the big problem??Historical record since WWII shows that majority of the hits taken by tanks were on the turret,not the hull.So it's obvious,one would want to put heavier armor over the frontal turret compared to the hull front!!It's no big deal.
was supposed to be a deep upgrade,an interim solution only,till the FMBT would be available for service induction!!This way,Indian Army would have been able to get a modern MBT fleet compared to what the situation they are left in with the FMBT no where to be seen!!But then again,"It was probably one of the very few sensible decisions made by the Army Brass regarding tanks!!"
Ya sure why not
Estimates for the T-72A as per US: (T72A closely resembles the Object 172-M1-E6, the designation for the Indian Variant)
The T-72A Glacis is 215mm thick with 60mm RHA plus 105mm Steltexolite and 50mm RHA.
Glacis = 40cm-48cm Side Hull = 7-12cm 21- 26cm
Lower hull = 19cm 19cm Rear Hull = 6cm 30-40cm
It is common practice to take the minimum value for the purpose of estimation of protection. And yes, there was no upgrade planned for the thickness levels of the glacis plate; only the composition was changed to Kanchan. Those levels of armor were outdated in the 1990s, 20 years back
And the historical evidence you quote is mostly from WW2 and Arab Israeli wars. The modern gun stabilization and FCS allows a CEP error of around 0.5-1m at 2000m, with a first hit probability of ~95%. It requires no stochastic analysis to understand that with those numbers a trained crew will be capable of putting the rounds where the armor is weaker, in this case, that huge hull and under-side.
The deep upgrade you talk about was expected to run at 60 tanks a year, as against an army requirement of 200/yr, according to internal HVF and DRDO files, and would have begun roughly around 2010. You do the math.
And Yes, Arjun MKII orders will increase, perhaps upto another 4 regiments. That much is now being rumored. Why? The feedback from the Arjun crews were more than positive. Don't ask me how I know that now.
You had to quote me and made those words bold because you couldn't ignore your internal insecurities, eh?
What a little joker.
F*ck off.
so if not the rifeled one can a120 mm smooth bore have same devastating effect as a 125 mm smooth bore ?Of course but only thing is that there are no trade offs in favor of the 125mm guns..............none at all.And it is almost certain that Army will settle either for a 120mm (for the manned turret) or a 140mm smooth barrel gun design for its FMBT.
No way,not even one chance in a million!!You could mark my words for it if you want to!!There is simply no sense in retaining the rifled guns since it's thing of past when HESH used to be a viable anti tank round,when tanks used to be armored with RHA only.But with the advent of various exotic composite armors,the HESH has ceased to be an effective anti tank round and therefore the rifled guns have also lost their edge.
I have been an active member of that forum for the last 3 and a half years.But nowadays i rarely visit that forum due to the same issue.I just wish that more and more Indian members visit that forum and become members thus increasing the traffic of that forum.I just don't understand that why on earth are our fellow citizens tend to become members of foreign defense forums rather than becoming a member of one of our own!!
You had to quote me and made those words bold because you couldn't ignore your internal insecurities, eh?
What a little joker.
F*ck off.
Do you have any problem with that mate??I think you don't even know what we were talking about,so why make such unnecessary comment when i wasn't even having a conversation with you!!Keyboard Warriors!
so if not the rifeled one can a120 mm smooth bore have same devastating effect as a 125 mm smooth bore ?
but unmaned and fuly automated gunturret with latest merkawa like front ingne layowt & auto loader can be achieved and it will not onli save space and wieght but would be more secure for the crew aswell
whatsay u sirji
Could you please rephrase thi squestion??I can't understand what are you trying to ask.
The bold part is actually the worse thing you can do while designing an MBT!!Why? Because if you place the engine at front,then you have to reduce the thickness of the glacis plate and lower hull front armor.So if anything, it would actually just weaken the frontal hull armor,instead of making the tank more secure.There is a reason why no one else except the Israelis have done it and I don't see why DRDO has to follow this flawed logic.
Keyboard Warriors!