India's MBT: Arjun and its standing among Tanks

[gf0012-aust]

Before this thread continues on.

Read the forum rules about according respect.

We are not going to have another thread turn into a flag waving contest.

Either accept that others have opinions and move on or forget about posting altogether.

Again, I'd remind people that the individuals flagged as professionals have actually earned that right, and although there is some enthusiasm for the internet to be used as a gospel resource, anyone with a military or industry background knows that there is no sensitive data of any credibility available on in service platforms.

If you don't like the answers then move on. This isn't a marketing forum to convince anyone of anyone elses views. People will make decisions based on merit, and that includes the perceived competency of the posters involved in the debate

This post does not require a response.

I would remind everyone that the thread topic is about the Arjun. Off topic discussion can be started via another thread.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm going to answer your points before reinforcing that the topic is the Arjun - not the M1A1,2 M60A1,2,3 or T7nn, T8nn, T9nn.

If you want to start another thread on the capabilities of the T series to whatever other tank is on your personal radar then feel free to do so.

And? If i'm wrong - please prove it. Just telling "you are wrong" carry exactly zero information for anyone and bring exactly nothing to discussion.

are you seriously going to say to me that the basis of the strength of all your arguments and debate is based on unverifiable OSINT from the internet? Some of us have been incredibly polite. Some of us have been involved in weapons testing. Some of us have been involved in ballistics testing. Some of us have been Master Gunners. Some of us are currently involved with current armour technologies. On the basis of what our involvement some of us have had and still have - you are seriously challenging the competency of people who have had associated involvement?

Define internal volume as you wish - T-xx serie have only half of M1xx serie. IF you think i'm wrong here - prove it. The general drawning of both tanks are publicity available. But alas, it is well known basic fact.

What? I am stating that relative volumetric displacement on any platform does not give you any indication of relative armoour thickness. To even attempt to try and draw an association between a platforms internal volumetric displacement and nominal armour thickness is not only crude, but spectacularly wrong. Trying to draw an association of relative armour thickness between two tanks of different doctrine design philosophy is just a nonsense.

And no, internal volume / weight ratio give very good explanation why T-xx serie have better armour than M-60x and M1xx serie while being lighter. I repeat, NOW we know pretty well M-60 and early M1 series armour figures. We know T-72x, T-80x armour figures. We can compare and draw some conclusion based on facts, and not just opinions.

Yours is opinion. Ours is based on project or platform involvement. There is a huge difference. You are aware that there are still classified figures for the M60 series? Why would you think that M1A1 data is available when some of the M60 data is still classified? (Sure people can guess as much as they like, but its still a guess.) Considering the fact that US policy is to absolutely destroy in the field any M1 carcasses that couldn't be recovered, you can't argue that data was obtained from the field. Standard US Army and Marine policy is to place a snatch team on the remains of the asset to secure it until either a recovery can be made or its "blue" compromised enough to render it useless. OTOH, ask Eckherl (or a current serving Master Gunner) how many russian tanks of the T5/6/7 series are sitting out at bases like Aberdeen.

Even the Leo1 data is still classified. Just because some people have made claims on the internet has no relationship between the factual data and what they try to imply to satisfy their own conclusions.

I am absolutely surprised that for someone who implies by knowledge discussions that they are competent in these matters would even begin to promote the argument that their view of the issue is defensible because they can refer to internet data or fan club data from enthusiasts.

While i agree what general RHA fugures generally is a bit misleading - but this is best we can do without presenting long table with every APFSDS shell type against every armour combination under every angle.

Yes, and thats an example of why empirical statements need to be couched in cautious or conditional terms.

If you want facts, lets concentrate on early M1xx and T-xx serie. These we can compare. Then we can give some prediction how later "unknown" M1A2 and T-90A upgrades relates to each other.

Again, any data on the M1 series (even the A1's) is pure speculation. Again, critical M60 data is still classified, and thats the precursor tank to the M1A1 (let alone A2).

btw, Australia considered the M60 prior to purchasing the Leo 1, so the reason why I know the internet data is rubbish is because we had the real specs to do proximity and contact tests. If you seek to believe that armour specs on the internet are unimpeachable resources, then its says more about your lack of involvement at a professional level in this sector of industry than anything else debated to date.

 

[Chrom]

Crom Good afternoon, I’ve returned from trying to sort out the COs computer and am able to give your post my full attention.

“Most experts agree what no single T-72 tank was killed during 1982 campaign by APFSDS. T-72 never encountered Merkava in the battle. Several T-72 tanks were destryed by ATGM's ambush - and thats it.”

In June 1982 Syria had around 250 T72 and T72M tanks in her inventory. The 82nd Armoured Brigade contained most of the T72s deployed to Lebanon. In an attempt to relieve the besieged 1st Armoured Division the 82nd were pressed forward. The Israeli had anticipated the move and in a brief ambush by Merkava tanks and M113 Nagmash tank destroyers armed with TOW the unit (The 82nd ) was stopped. Total losses for the campaign were 19 T72 to Merkava and 11 to TOW missiles from the M113 and AH-1 Cobras. The Markava armed with a 105mm gun firing the new M111 APFSDS had no difficulty penetrating The T72s armour..

Again, most reliable sources do not support t-72 vs Merkava engagement. Only TOW ambush is accepted by all sources. Israel claimed only 9-12 T-72 tanks destroyed - i dont know where you got 30!!! destroyed tanks. This is also proved by the fact what no single T-72 were captured by Israel.
Besides - no difficulty? When by these tests only glacis could be penetrated, and only at sub-1000m range? And only in 3 of 5 hits?

Now here is the sting in the tale. During the Operation Peace for Galilee, the Israeli 362d Tank Battalion on the 10th/ 11th of June 1982 lost 8 Magach-4s in the town of Sultan Yakoub. Those tanks which were paraded to the worlds press also included a quantity of the new 105mm M111 ("Hetz" or "arrow") armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) ammunition. The Russians took delivery of those 105mm rounds and in secret testing which took place at Kubinka in 1982 the Russians shot up the latest variant of the T72 the T72A ((Obiekt 174) This live-fire testing confirmed that the Mill Hetz round was able to penetrate the T-72A's glacis armour, but not the tank's turret frontal armour. Because of this the Soviets went back to the drawing board and came up with the T-72B1 (Aka Super Dolly Patton) which instead of 3 layers of armour (of the T72A) had 5 layers. In other words it was the penetration capabilities of the 105mm APFSDS (used in Lebanon) which lead to the up armouring of the T72A versions to the T72B standard.

T-72B was developed before 1982 engagement. The result of the test was 20mm aplique armour on T-72A. T-64B and T-80 were fielded even earler. Either way, by early 80x T-72A was the weakest tank in USSR invertory, weaker than both t-64 and t-80 models.

Then you just intentionally flaming.

Sir, I am 46 years of age and have worn the uniform of my country for the last 27 years. I study history in order to understand the present. Why should I disregard historical fact which tells the truth when subscribing to emotional content paints a false picture? A picture I should add which will only lead to the untimely deaths of those foolish enough to follow me into battle. (Mind you at my age I usually end up following them) At no time have I posted in an attempt to flame. But merely to discus the subject at hand. If you feel that I am incorrect then you are free to say so. But to try and say I am flaming on this board does you no justice. I’m not the most knowledgeable on AFVs and such but if you should peruse my pictures on this site you’ll see I make a hobby of going around and visiting as many Tank museums/Tank Parks/Exercises as possible in which to improve my lot.

Again, what historical facts? As much as i know, there is no T-72 with APFSDS holes from 1982 in any museum.

Admin Edit. Text deleted. Do not ignore requests by Moderators to demonstrate civility. This type of response is again uncalled for and unnecessary.
Lets repeat what i said earler:
My question was:

DO you think what T-90A against M1 with impotent 105mm gun would result in any different outcome - yes/no?

Follow up questions:
1. Do you think 105mm gun with AFPSDS of early 80x origin can penetrate T-90A armour? Yes/no?
2. Do you think T-90A with modern APFSDS rounds can penetrate M1 armour at 3+km distance - yes/no?
3. Do you think T-90A can hit targets at 3+ km distance - yes/no?

Honestly, answer these question and then we can talk about "bad show" of T-72 vs M1A1.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I did not state that the thread had to stay on topic for the hell of it.

If discussion is going to be about other MBT's (ie not the ARJUN - as the ARJUN has not been mentioned for the last 24 posts) then start a new topic/post.

This thread is closed for the interim.

Chrom, feel free to delete your last post or make it ARJUN specific. If not edited it will be deleted before the post re-opens.

To reiterate: If you want to discus the merits of russian contemporary armour over xyz then start another thread topic.

There have been complaints about the continuing derailment of this post. This will not continue.