Tanks, page 7


Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 22-5-2005 @ 03:50 AM by 187onu

12.7mm is 0.50inches so that's .50 cal.

When referring to 12.7mm HMG's they often refer to guns that use Soviet M30/38 rounds of 12.7x108mm.

This round has slightly better power and ballistics compared to the Browning 12.7x99mm rounds.

All tanks use MG's as air defense, they provide last resort protection, but they are more often used on ground targets from infantry up to APCs.

the Russian AT-11 Sniper round is designed to take out slow flying aircraft as well as armor however.

the NSVt is probably more suitable since it's much more flexible than a M2HB IMO since it's mounted on a more mobile platform.

Just some stats on attack helicopters and their weapons:

AH-64A/D

AGM-114 Hellfire, it's armor penetration is so high that no tank will surface a direct hit.
70mm Hydra rockets, unguided rockets which can be used on lightly armored targets and infantry but will probably suffice to damage MBTs as well
M230 30mm moveable cannon, fires at 625RPM, can be succesfully used against a wide variaty of targets, sometimes even used on infantry.
AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles, Air to Air missiles can be carried as well.

In short, no tank will survive an Apache and/or Longbow Apache.

Mi-24D to P Hind D to F

AT-2 Swatter AT-6C Spiral
57mm rockets or 80mm rockets
12.7mm Multibarrel Gun, 1 23mm Cannon or 2 30mm fixed cannons

The Hind is a very deadly helicopter, it's highly manaunverable, it is capable of carrying troops although it never often does, it often is seen carrying multiple rocket pods, ATGM launchers and a cannon or heavy machinegun mounted near the nose.

The Armor Penetration of the aging AT-2 is very limited, the AT-6 is below par as well, however, the sheer number of ordanances carried by the Hind make it a very deadly platform.

Mi-28A/N Havoc
AT-9/AT-16(?) Ataka/Ataka-M

Penetrate 950-1000mm of armor, compare this to about 1600mm of penetration on the Hellfire, still better than the TOW-2B.

80mm or 122mm rocket pods

Can be used on most targets.

30mm moveable gun

Similar to the Apache.

The Mi-28 is the Russian counterpart to the Apache.

The KA-50 and KA-52 are even more impressive but their future remains unclear.


My friend Kozzy said that, the armor on top of the tank is only an inch thick, so even a 30/80mm canon should go through right?
the rockets for sure, even the "AT-9/AT-16(?) Ataka/Ataka-M " and the "AT-2 Swatter AT-6C Spiral "!!!!!


reply posted on 27-5-2005 @ 01:05 AM by rajkhalsa2004
No its not...ask Kozzy...It is generally known that the T-90 and T-80UM is better than the Arjun.

And in 1997 the problems surfaced. I still don't see any information regarding these problems. I can probably see that they fixed it, but how do you know for sure?

What? Recognized by whom?

The Arjun and the T-90 are designed for different roles. A direct comparison between them without taking into consideration the operational scenario in which they will be employed is inane.

The Arjun is by all respects a superior performing tank with superior capabilities... but it also has a significantly superior cost.

As for the problems, they were widely reported back in the day. Some unscrupulous people still refer to them a concern today The subsequent correcting of these problems is well detailed in the annual MOD reports, available online. The first batch of 124 Arjuns is slated to be inducted by 2008.


Originally posted by bisonn
the arjun is even so much better than the t-90 that the arjun was cancelled while hundreds of T-90s were ordered. end of story.

Bison, do you usually read by holding the book upside down, flipping to a random page, trying to make sense of the words on the page, fail, and than triumpantly proclaim "The End!"

If so, than that is a brilliant analysis. However, garbaled understanding does not a story make. Rather than retype a response to the exact same points, I'll simply repeat one of my posts from several weeks ago.

Cheers,
Raj

===========

As I said before, the Arjun was first brainstormed in the 80s to address Pakistan's planned aquisition of a Western heavy, which outclassed every Indian tank at the time, and at the time, didn't have a Russian counter. The M1A1 sale was openly talked about by US offiicals and came at the time where America poured billions in weapons for Pakistan, including high-profile a/c like F-16s. The Indians had T-55s, Vijayantas and old-model T-72s in service at that time.

The Arjun project was concieved as a Western-style tank that would counter any Pak tank, but, because of reliabilitiy problems from Soviet equipement, and to jump start India's own military-industrial complex, the Arjun was to be built in-house. Though it had a 20-year development cycle, the requirements were changed almost yearly, and the DRDO was continually scrambling to change the specs of the tank.

As I also said before, the Abrams never came, and the Paks relied on knocked down Chinese tank designs. When India's economy started its boom, and due to the events like 9-11, etc. the Indian army unveiled a new doctrine called "Cold Start", which did away with the concepts of striking and holding corps, and restructured the Indian army for mobile, hard-hitting strike units. This tri-force integrated doctrine influenced defense aquisition in a big way, and was one of the main reason the Arjun was limited to 2 rgmts.


The Arjun is an expensive, but powerful tank. It is a unique build that doesn't have much commonality with the rest of India's Russian-derived armor. It requires significant additions to the IA's logisitics that, along with its price, makes it a very heavy investment.

With Indian advances in technology, and the tech stagnation of Pakistans armored divisions completely rewrote the equation. India's "Project Rhino" T-72 upgrades more than countered Pak's fleet and aquisitions, and the T-90Ss, intially a stopgap measure due to initital Arjun delays, because they didn't require major changes in logisitcs, and because they were a bit cheaper (though inferior, but still top-of-the-line), were inducted in large scale.

The Cold Start doctrine and the fencing of the border and other changes in the geopolitical postition and doctrine made for the Arjun Mk.1 to be inducted as only 2 rgmts, and the cost-savings from not having a full Arjun induction translated into big improvements in India's C3I, and modernization infantry programs and aquisition of things like arty, rockets, etc.


Furthermore, you state that because Arjun does not have 100% major components as Indian, its a failure? While ot uses a German engine in the Mk.1, well, the engine is still under development. Failure? If the Arjun can fire an Israeli origin ATGM, its a failure? Especially when the whole of the rest of the weapons system, FCS, etc. are Indian? Dude, the M1A2 uses a German rifle!

And dude, if you're doing your research from Globalsecurity, no wonder you're so confused. Their Arjun page hasn't been updated in over half a decade!

Let me give you the heads up on one of the best (and most up to date) resources on the Arjun. Autocar India magazine, India's most respected automobile magazine, did an independant review of it as its cover story. It is considered a groud-breaking article, straight from the horse's mouth, with independant-verification. It's considered a canon source document for defense researchers.

A PDF of the article is available at:
s90370077.onlinehome.us...

I suggest you, and any other Indian defense watchers first read that, rather than some website. Indian guys, save and make note of it. Note in particular what the exactly foreign components are and the tank specs are in this millenium, and y'all won't make comments like "putting stuff together from others instead of designing a new tank"

I won't debunk outdated claims.


In short, the decision was not to go with more Mk.1 versions because the money could better be spent elsewhere. An exact analogy can be made to America's F-22 program. Initially, it was designed to replace the whole swath of America's fighters. However, program delays from changes in req's, cost overruns cut the F-22 order down by over half. Instead, America's upgrading its F-16s, F-15s to extremely powerful new-block versions that, while not F-22 capability and cost, are easily more than enough for the current needs. In the Indian context, replace F-22 with Arjun, and the others with Russia's T-series.

Does this mean the F-22 is a failure? Does a delay in Arjun induction until the Mk.2 build mean failure for the Arjun? Absolutely not, when taken into account money and doctrine. If India (or America) were awash with money, the whole of India's armored strike would be Arjuns (and the whole of the USAF fighters would be F-22s.) That aside, even with the expense, it is a very powerful tank and bang-for-the-buck, (offering comparable, if inferior capabilities to the Abrams, Leopard, but at half the cost -- even with the German engine.) Furthermore, Arjun spinoff-technologies make up the majority of the T-72 Rhino upgrade, as well as in the T-90 and a myriad of other vehicles. It also literally developed the entire Indian armored vehicle industry from scratch -- no small accomplishment!

When defense outlays and/or changing requirements require additional Arjuns in the future, they will be inducted in the Mk.2 version (ugpraded FCS, Indian engine, etc.) Till now, no use, but hardly a failure. As the saying I'll invent goes... why have a fleet-full of MKIs when MiG-21 Bisons are all you need?


reply posted on 27-5-2005 @ 10:19 PM by COWlan
Cost for Type-98G is 4 million dollars per tank compared to the 5.6 million dollars per tank for the Arjun. Arjun at the beginning wished to have a building cost of 4 million dollars per tank but it rose significantly during its developement to the 5.6 million dollars per tank.
www.globalsecurity.org...

The cost problem for the Arjun is because of its German engines which one Indian poster on another forum stated could cost as much as a T-90S. I'm pretty sure it doesn't cost as much as a T-90S but it is EXPENSIVE.

One thing I noticed about the Arjun was it takes 4 person to man the tank instead of the usual 3 person on new western tanks and Type-98/G. Could someone tell me why?

And I noticed that Globalsecurity states that Arjun only has a cruising range of 200 Km, thats awfully short compared to other tanks which usually do at least 400 Km. That German must really be drinking fuel when its on.

Type 98/G does have its faults though, I seriously doubt the autoloader on there, it can't do the as fast as the M1A1/2s or Challys or Leopard or Merkavas and it shortens the length of the penetrator rod for the round. The combination of our new ERA and Composite armour combination is yet to be proven although I think it will do well but it is not proven yet.

[edit on 27-5-2005 by COWlan]

[edit on 27-5-2005 by COWlan]


reply posted on 28-5-2005 @ 07:18 AM by chinawhite

Pages: <<  4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



Top 10 Non-Lethal Weapons
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags
A Different look at the Tunguska Event
  Posted 2 days ago with 7 member flags
The Robots Of Boston Dynamics Inc.
  Posted 5 days ago with 4 member flags
Camouflage face paint \'resists intense heat from bombs\'
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags
Freeze Dried Food
  Posted 1 days ago with 1 member flags
Asia’s New Arms Race: Missiles, Missile Defenses
  Posted 15 days ago with 0 member flags

ATS Live North America is broadcasting now.
Today's Show: ATS Live:161:Trees,Ghosts,Phantom 'Copters,Pshop,Teaching,Jail,Violence,MajorTom,Animals,