Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tanks

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   


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 "!!!!!




posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Yeah, but these types of Anti Tank Guided Missiles are often shot from a distance and they are not top attack missiles, they don't fly in an arc and hit the tank from the top.

however, if the angle is different, it's possible for the missile to hit the soft spot on the tank, even a few 70-80mm rockets could easilly take a tank out like that, esspecially if the engine is hit or the top of the turret, but from that range that would be required, the heavy machineguns would have an EXCELLENT view of the helicopter and blow it out of the skies, however a Mi-24 hind is VERY resistant to these rounds, the rotors are resistant to 23mm(!) rounds, that's incredible.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Yeah.. a total ogre of teh skies.. this Hind Mi24/35 is!



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
latest rumors are that the Chinese have developed a round for the type-98 125mm gun that can penetrate 960mm of armour.

More details soon



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   

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?



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I was going to make a seperate thread for this, but decided I would post here first.


Does anyone know of any unmanned tank or armored fighting vehicle??

Just imagine a SWORDS like robot about 10 times the size with a 100+ mm main gun



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004
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.


I answered Stealth Spy the same way that Daedalus3 talked about the Type-98. Kozzy sure is always correct right? So let me borrow your statements. Given that Kozzy is always right, the Type-98 is better than the Arjun.


Yeah but kozzy seems to rate the T-98 below these two as well...
infact he never explained why he rated the T-80 abv the T-98 and the Arjun..?


From Stealth Spy:
What makes you say so? Look at the performance charts, armour, optics, mobility, ergonomics, Firecontrol, etc and everything else .

If its out of prejudice and propaganda that you make the claim, i wont bother to answer them.

Raj on Kozzy's Ratings:
What? Recognized by whom? The Type-98 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.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
?

I'm not talking about the Type-98. I'm talking about the Arjun.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
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]



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004
?

I'm not talking about the Type-98. I'm talking about the Arjun.


I know. I borrowed your answer and changed it to answer Daedaleus's post about the Type-98.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Christ cowlan, that's the second time you've come to this discussion quoting from that same globalsecurity article... which was last updated in 1999!


This is exactly what I mean by when I said "some unscrupulous people still refer to (past problems) as a concern today"


I'm not even going to waste my time with you debunking outdated and absurd claims when I bloody gave you a very in-depth source _/b] quoting DRDO officials that explains in great detail the technical aspects of the Arjun... as opposed to some mishmash webpage plagarized from a couple of six year old news articles

Read up somethign on the subject written in this millenium then I'll bother getting back to you.






[edit on 28-5-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
OMG you gave a article from the tanks developers. of course there going to hype up the arjun.

i doubt the armour on the tank is as good as the manufracture says. stop believeing this BS and read something from a Neutral source.

They might have a requirment for a M1A1 tank but i doubt indias level of tech and budget could produce one

www.defencejournal.com...

www.madisongov.net...

this article says that arjun might only be used for training.
rak can you find anything to disprove this.

Arjun tank nowhere in sight
Who is responsible for the delay?
by Maj-Gen Himmat Singh Gill (retd)

www.tribuneindia.com...

this is something good about the arjun
www.defensenews.com...

[edit on 28-5-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Jesus, read the article before commenting on it. It is not by the tank's developers. It is from a third-party that indepdenantly confrims and quotes specific technical specifications stated by the manufactuer.

Is this how you debate? Talking at length about and posting random links to articles you don't read to give the impression that you aren't full of it??


And frankly your 'doubts' mean nothing as you obviously have shown zero understanding of the basic facts on the subject.

Unless you can bring me specific arguments or critiques based on fact adn from current documents, I am not going to waste my time.

Peace,
Raj

[edit on 28-5-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I would go for the challenger 2 it has superior armour a rifled main gun and is the fastest tank when going off road .The next gen of challenger is going to have some type of force field to protect it self from all known rpg's and shaped charges , it was on the discovery channel and it was very impressive , it was basically a very high voltage electric current going around the armour ...just shows you the country who invented the tank our still thinking of new great ways of ajusting it to the modern battlefield



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rajkhalsa2004
Jesus, read the article before commenting on it. It is not by the tank's developers. It is from a third-party that indepdenantly confrims and quotes specific technical specifications stated by the manufactuer.

Is this how you debate? Talking at length about and posting random links to articles you don't read to give the impression that you aren't full of it??


And frankly your 'doubts' mean nothing as you obviously have shown zero understanding of the basic facts on the subject.

Unless you can bring me specific arguments or critiques based on fact adn from current documents, I am not going to waste my time.

Peace,
Raj

[edit on 28-5-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]


its not a third party if its a indian commenting on the arjun.

i know indians and there most likey the most nationislitc people on earth

on a side note. i read every article i post twice to make sure the article states what im trying to say.

dont waste your breath saying i dont read my articles again



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Something I never see discussed is the fact that Russian turrets do not allow for a proper blast door in the roof to vent exploding ammo. Bad for crew survivablity. Not sure if this has been fixed in the latest designs but they did not believe the reports coming back after GW 1 until they found out for themselves in Chechnya.






top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join