India's Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT)

[Mike_Brando]

30 years then rejected


70 KM per liter

R e Bhai tuh rehne de,tere ne trolling na ho payga!!

 

[Omega007]

Kunal sir ke cheno tumi?*** er ki member naki tumi??

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!!

shuroo ho ja mery munni dekh kidr khtam krta hn

Ye munni munni kya laga rakha hai bhai?? And no trolling business here.

 

[PATHAN786KING]

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!!



Ye munni munni kya laga rakha hai bhai?? And no trolling business here.

meray or mery munni k beach na aa aag hai dono traf brabar lagi hui

 

[Mike_Brando]

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!!

 

[Omega007]

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!!

Exactly my bro.

 

[Didact]

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.

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.

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!!"

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.

 

[AUz]

Ya sure why not

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.

 

[Omega007]

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

What you wrote is the actual armor thickness.But the glacis place is sloped at a very sharp angle and that's why the LOS thickness increases.And when I said circa 550 mm,I didn't mean in terms of protection in RHA value,rather the LOS thickness.And in any case,the glacis plate is rather easier to replace,as the Poles did with their T 72M1s and PT 91s.They replaced the original 220mm laminate armor with their home built KAWA 2 composite armor (which is actually pretty similar to earlier versions of Kanchan with similar materials),which could stop DM 33 rounds fired from under 1 km distance,from the Rheinmetall L44s of their Leopard 2A4s.Same could have been done here if the IA had asked for something alike.

Besides,you also need to remember that the Tank Ex didn't inherit the AZ series of carousel loader on the hull floor,neither ammunition and propellant charges were kept in the fighting compartment.Instead,ammunition was stored in an armored box,isolated from the crew compartment.So even if the glacis plate would have been penetrated,there would have less chance of a catastrophic kill.

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

Thanks for this heads up by the way,didn't know this before.

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.

Actually this is still relevant for today (albeit to a lesser extent due to adaptations of LRF and ever increasing sophistication of the digital FCS),happened again during Operation Desert Storm and more recently during the 2nd Gulf War, if Zaloga is to be believed.Actually,even if you can pinpoint a particular location from 3 km away,with a 38X digital magnification,the penetrators will always deviate at such extreme ranges due to a variety of factors.So,the tankers world wide,are trained to 'aim for the middle',that's the established norm.

I think,you should buy the Steel Beast Pro PE and try it for yourself.It's the closest you can get to the real shit!!I know the graphics sucks big time and it costs too much,but it's the most realistic tank simulator ever.

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.

I see.But even then I would say that Army should have tap on this thing.It would be much better for the northern front and have presented much more credible challenge to the PLA,compared to the presently deployed original monkey models do.

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.

Of I wouldn't.I'm very happy to hear that at long last,Army is actually thinking on that line.

And by the way,actually it's the T 72M that was an export model of the Object 172-M1-E6 you quoted ,and not the M1.But they are quite similar though.

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.

Forget about it.But one thing I would say that as of now,even the present AK models have a slight edge over the Arjuns in terms of fire power.Because although Arjun sports a longer barreled gun with greater maximum chamber pressure limits,it's primary APFSDS round was developed way back in the mid 80's and haven't been changed ever since,because there were no certainty of whether it will be put into service at all.That would make the round almost 30 years old (less a few years may be) and no wonder it has gone beyond obsolete by yesterday.On the other hand,the Naiza DU rounds is newer and more advanced.Of course the situation will be changed when the newer multi segmented round enters servicce.But till then,AK has an edge over Arjun in this field at least.

And as for protection parameters of AK variants,I won't be comparing them since I do not know much about its armor.But Andrei is to be believed,the LOS thickness of AK frontal turret was about 640 mm at 0 degree from turret center line axis,which is kinda less by today's standards.

 

[GURU DUTT]

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.

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

 

[DeathInvader]

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!!

Keyboard Warriors!

 

[Echo_419]

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.

A very mature way to deal with this

 

[Mike_Brando]

Keyboard Warriors!

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!!

 

[Omega007]

so if not the rifeled one can a120 mm smooth bore have same devastating effect as a 125 mm smooth bore ?

Could you please rephrase thi squestion??I can't understand what are you trying to ask.

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

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.

 

[holysaturn]

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.

An engine at front was designed with IED's and mines in the mind. What it does is it pushes the driver and the crew to the rear which means they have a higher chance of survival as they(esp the driver) will not be directly over the explosion. But from the thermal signature point of view a merkava will glow bright on thermal imagers as the engine and exhaust are at the front.

 

[Omega007]

Keyboard Warriors!

Dude!!Everyone here is one!!