T-98 vs Arjun
- Thread starter dabrownguy
- Start date
- Status
i'm actually looking forward to seeing Arjun MBT2 in service, it shows promise the Arjun project as it stands has ended i want to see what Arjun MBT2 has in store for us, ive heard the indian got Israelis in the project so it should be alot more impressive then most tanks in the region!!!
Firstly, any vehicles with aerodynamic designs will be allow to travel more smoothly, hence faster, less fuel consuming and therefore allowing a greater range and less maintenance, and meaning more mobile. That is one of a tank's major needs;
secondly, a tank with more aerodynamic designs will also indirectly give it more protection against attacks. Ever heard of Iraqi AP shells bouncing off M1A2's? That's a factor which gave the Americans this advantage.
You know if your tank's body is like a box, a shell hiting it anywhere will seem to be a direct hit, but if it has an aerodynamic design, a shell will atleast have less potential in piercing it because of deflection, and also, armor with a slant angle tends to be thicker than armors that's vertically straight up.
Now get it? Or are there some people here trying to prove to me that depleted uraniums ain't so dense afterall Question LOL
secondly, a tank with more aerodynamic designs will also indirectly give it more protection against attacks. Ever heard of Iraqi AP shells bouncing off M1A2's? That's a factor which gave the Americans this advantage.
You know if your tank's body is like a box, a shell hiting it anywhere will seem to be a direct hit, but if it has an aerodynamic design, a shell will atleast have less potential in piercing it because of deflection, and also, armor with a slant angle tends to be thicker than armors that's vertically straight up.
Now get it? Or are there some people here trying to prove to me that depleted uraniums ain't so dense afterall Question LOL
I was in a rush and probably pressed the wrong button, all I can say is- I don't like this forum's layout (or atleast not used to).
Yes it does. (read the other post)
If a tank doesn't move fast enough for aerodynamic effects to come into play, how about have a parachute on your back while your run? A tank moves at about 50km, and human's WR land spped is only about 30km.
I already mentioned about its superior self-defence effect when in comparison to tank's with a shape like Arjun.
And what I'm talking about will fall into the equipment quality category.
mr berry,a vehicle to have any trouble with air resistance and hence trouble with fuel consumption,it will have to travel in speeds in excess of 65-70 km an hour.there is a threshold limit in speeds that has to be crossed for air resistance to have any effect on fuel consumption.by the way look closely at m1a2 abrams,chally2,leo2 or leclerc...you still call them aerodynamic??????
Well, he has a point about deflecting rounds and about putting armor at an angle to increase the thickness a round has to penetrate. But that is more relevant for RHA than modern composite armor (although it does still matter, see Challenger, M1, etc). But, yes, these things have nothing to do with aerodynamics.
Well, I'm not a tank. A tank and a human have very different power to weight ratios. The same parachute that would slow me down 50% is a sprint would have no effect on a tank. You could square all the surfaces on the front an Abrams, and I seriously doubt it would make a measurable of difference in speed, fuel economy, or ride.berry580 said:
The factors that will determine the speed and ride of a tank are things like horsepower, weight, drivetrain, suspension, ground clearance, etc. I went to General Dynamics' website, and several other sites on the Abrams, and nowhere did I see any mention of its superior aerodynamic qualities.
:Simply put, tanks are not designed with aerodynamic effects in mind.
Do you mean M1A2's aerodynamic design is comparable or inferior to Arjun's?neel24neo said:
Believe it or not, anything that is designed to be moved will include some sort of features to make it more aerodynamic, unless it is extremely slow moving vehicles (e.g A space shuttle mover). Factors such as horsepower, weight, drivetrain, suspension, etc are all major factors, but if you have a poor aerodynamic design like Arjun's, you're simply not using the engine's power effectively.
Also, a vehicle with an aerodynamic design would tend to weight less than a vehicle with a less aerodynamic design, as you won't need additional material to make that corner.
come on mr berry how often i have to tell you about the threshold limit in vehicles for the wind resistance factor to come into play??????sure wind resistance does have some influence on fuel consumption,BUT THOSE EFFECTS WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY AFTER A CERTAIN THRESHOLD VELOCITY.tanks are comparatively slow moving vehicles and does not have to worry about wind resistance since they move at lower velocities than the threshold velocity.
by the way tanks arent shaped like parachutes.
by the way tanks arent shaped like parachutes.
Hmm, this is in response to various people who mention Iraq as an example of the T-72s performance:
Tanks, really cant be that much better then eachother, its really the crews, using iraq as an example is flawed in that, if you had put American crews i T-72s and Iraqi crews in M1s The iraqis still wouldve lost because US and to a Far great Extent british/french/german tank crews are simply just that good.
Tank design only makes a differance when it comes to Composite armour, of which to my understanding the British have the best on there tanks... theyve only lost 2 in battle and that was to friendly fire :/
Anyway, my point is, its the crews not the tank, and however much people look at a tank as superior, its still gonna come down to the training of the crews and the tactics used.
Its like most people think as the Panzer Tanks as some sot of technical MArvel, when in reality, the French had far better tanks (the Char B1 for instance) its just that the French and british parcelled there tanks off to the infantry battalions, split them up, and didnt view them as too important (so didnt skimp on training). It was when we adopted German Organisation and drilling though that the war in north africa turned around(offcourse they wernt the only factor).
Tanks arnt like Planes or Warships. If it had been T-72 with russian crews Versus M1s In iraq, am sure american losses wouldve been much higher... The T-72 is actually a good tank. As for the chechen example its a quagmire, so dont be suprised the tanks get pasted
Tanks, really cant be that much better then eachother, its really the crews, using iraq as an example is flawed in that, if you had put American crews i T-72s and Iraqi crews in M1s The iraqis still wouldve lost because US and to a Far great Extent british/french/german tank crews are simply just that good.
Tank design only makes a differance when it comes to Composite armour, of which to my understanding the British have the best on there tanks... theyve only lost 2 in battle and that was to friendly fire :/
Anyway, my point is, its the crews not the tank, and however much people look at a tank as superior, its still gonna come down to the training of the crews and the tactics used.
Its like most people think as the Panzer Tanks as some sot of technical MArvel, when in reality, the French had far better tanks (the Char B1 for instance) its just that the French and british parcelled there tanks off to the infantry battalions, split them up, and didnt view them as too important (so didnt skimp on training). It was when we adopted German Organisation and drilling though that the war in north africa turned around(offcourse they wernt the only factor).
Tanks arnt like Planes or Warships. If it had been T-72 with russian crews Versus M1s In iraq, am sure american losses wouldve been much higher... The T-72 is actually a good tank. As for the chechen example its a quagmire, so dont be suprised the tanks get pasted
Hellios, you have a point both about training of crew and unit as well as doctrine. However, if given a choice, I would NEVER trade an M1 or Challenger or Leopard II etc for a T72 or older model, and probably not even for a T80 or T90. Although is not as big as it used to be, there is a qualitative difference between these groups of tanks (... which, by the way, is totally unrelated to their relative aerodynamical shape and performance)
Berry580, by your reasoning German Leopard II or Japanese Type 88 would be inferior to M1, which is hardly the case.
Berry580, by your reasoning German Leopard II or Japanese Type 88 would be inferior to M1, which is hardly the case.
you are right hellios,actually this was what gf0012-aust was saying elsewhere.the tanks are utilised efficiently by an army when their equipment,training and tactics fit their war doctrine.training of the soldiers has a very big role in battle,so does their morale and will to fight.
I think I know that. A tank designer probably won't sacrific firepower or protection to achieve reduced air resistance, but they'll still try to reduce it, and that's all I have to say, if someone still doesn't get the point, then maybe the someone never will by the looks of the trend (unless you don't know English at all).neel24neo said:
Obvious you didn't know about this case-
A US M1 (I think it was an M1A1) was stuck on the ground and couldn't move and 3 Iraqis tanks were coming (not sure if they're T-72's or not) towards it. The first one spotted the M1A1 and took a shot, it hit, but the AP shell bounced off and the M1 retaliated and immobilized it, the 2nd tank took its shot, it was a direct hit, and the AP shell was stuck on the M1 turret but didn't pierce through it, and the M1 killed the 2nd one too, and the 3rd one fled and hided somewhere, but was spotted by M1A1's thermal detector and was eliminated too.
Did this story help anyone? (e.g Quality counts alot)
theres several problems with your analysis:berry580 said:
1. Had the crew of the T-72 been trained enough they wouldve killed that tank, they obviously either didnt have the right shells or failed to pick the right shell to hit the M1, tests have shown that if you know what your doing you can definetly kill an M1 in one shot, or atleast take it out of battle.This is standard training in modern armies, you teach your crews about all the tanks in current armies and there strengths and weaknesses there even taught the weaknesses of there own and allied tanks just incase there captured.
2. it may have been a direct hit, but the chances are it hit the wrong place of the tank. i am 100% sure, that the american gunner wouldve targetted a basic area of the T-72 as it being hit at the front for instance probably wouldnt have done it.
3. even if there is a qualitive differance, in battle it STILL comes down to the crews, had you put an iraqi in that tank, and americans in the 72s, you wouldve had a very differant result.
4. your analysing a tank in singular action, the last time tanks where deployed for BATTLE in numbers less then 10 was WW2 and we all no what happened to those that did. Tanks nowadays are made for large engagements.
Again i restate, had you put Iraqis in M1s and americans in the T-72s the result of the war and the battles still wouldve been the same.
1. You mean they picked the wrong shell?hellios said:
Well if an Armor Piercing shell wasn't right, then what is when its against another tank?
2. I agree with you in that, that the hits are probably in the front, which explains why it still wasn't disabled. If they shot it the M1 from the side or back, it should do the job.
3. It makes sense, but not in a 3 (M1) vs 1 (T-72) case.
4. I''m not so sure about that. Tanks today are rather multi-purpose in my opinion.
Possibly, but the Americans wouldn't have won so easily in this case. As the Iraqi's would have much more confidence to fighter if they' know they're operating something thats so advanced, hence they won't just abandon the tank.
Loved the story about the big bad M1 and the 3 little T-72,s.
Reminds me of a story in nursery, but l think that involved 3 pigs.
Lets talk facts: The M1,s out fought the iraqi T-72,s and other tanks during the gulf war because, and listen carefully.
The iraqis did not possess suitable night vision, were therefore sitting ducks at night and in bad light. The M1 could fire while on the move while the iraqis could not. M1 could load and fire more rounds per minute. The american tank crews also receiving overwhelming air support from Apaches and A-10,s.
The most important factor being BETTER TRAINED TANK CREWS.
Russians in T90,s against the M1, well that may be a different story as would Pakistanis in their T80,s and Khalids.
Regarding the 3 T-72,s story,
well a man called John Rambo took on half the red army in afghanistan, anythings possible:
The Arjun, well at this moment in time it,s unproven, might look good on paper, if that. The indians will only induct it in small numbers so as not to cause an attack by the press at the induction of a white elephant. The arjun has already faced a lot of technical faults and problems.
l don,t think its wise at this stage to compare the arjun to other proven tanks. On paper, maybe !
Reminds me of a story in nursery, but l think that involved 3 pigs.
Lets talk facts: The M1,s out fought the iraqi T-72,s and other tanks during the gulf war because, and listen carefully.
The iraqis did not possess suitable night vision, were therefore sitting ducks at night and in bad light. The M1 could fire while on the move while the iraqis could not. M1 could load and fire more rounds per minute. The american tank crews also receiving overwhelming air support from Apaches and A-10,s.
The most important factor being BETTER TRAINED TANK CREWS.
Russians in T90,s against the M1, well that may be a different story as would Pakistanis in their T80,s and Khalids.
Regarding the 3 T-72,s story,
well a man called John Rambo took on half the red army in afghanistan, anythings possible
: The Arjun, well at this moment in time it,s unproven, might look good on paper, if that. The indians will only induct it in small numbers so as not to cause an attack by the press at the induction of a white elephant. The arjun has already faced a lot of technical faults and problems.
l don,t think its wise at this stage to compare the arjun to other proven tanks. On paper, maybe !
Deary me, at what point do you understand the concept of combined arms?muslim282 said:Loved the story about the big bad M1 and the 3 little T-72,s.
Reminds me of a story in nursery, but l think that involved 3 pigs.
Lets talk facts: The M1,s out fought the iraqi T-72,s and other tanks during the gulf war because, and listen carefully.
The iraqis did not possess suitable night vision, were therefore sitting ducks at night and in bad light. The M1 could fire while on the move while the iraqis could not. M1 could load and fire more rounds per minute. The american tank crews also receiving overwhelming air support from Apaches and A-10,s.
The most important factor being BETTER TRAINED TANK CREWS.
Russians in T90,s against the M1, well that may be a different story as would Pakistanis in their T80,s and Khalids.
Regarding the 3 T-72,s story,
well a man called John Rambo took on half the red army in afghanistan, anythings possible
The Arjun, well at this moment in time it,s unproven, might look good on paper, if that. The indians will only induct it in small numbers so as not to cause an attack by the press at the induction of a white elephant. The arjun has already faced a lot of technical faults and problems.
l don,t think its wise at this stage to compare the arjun to other proven tanks. On paper, maybe !
Rather than make innane comments, I suggest you do some research on the what the Republican Guard Black Hats said about fighting the abrams.
And a T-80, T-98, hallelujah, a T-62 with ERA and a british modified L7? Are you serious in thinking that a T-62 base product is competitive against a modern grounds up current generation MBT? LOL I don't think so. Unlike you, I have actually seen the insides of some of those tanks and been part of evaluation teams for system upgrades for a number of different countries. I would not get in a T-62 or T-72 derived tank against any western MBT, they are, without doubt, rolling pieces of crap. heaven help any blackhat who has to gfo to war in one of them against a modern army. You can rebuild them as much as you like, you can't change the internal dimensions, you can't change basic drivetrain limitations within that space, and you certainly can't add decent armour beyond an ERA solution. And thats useful once. A Chally 2 has recorded evidence (and from the Iraqi strike teams) of being hit 7 times in succession - a T-72 and T-62 base product would never have survived that. The ERA would have protected it once. The next two RPG's would have weakened and breeched the hull, and the remaining 4 would have been saved for the next tank.
As for the Arjun. Denel have just agreed to provide the turret and FCS. Another words what India will now have is a Leopard tank with denel firing systems. I'd rate that gun over anything the Chinese and/or Russians can field.
China still hasn't got precision machining for ballistic weapons down pat.
The Arjun has been a white elephant, but to continue to assume that it will stay so .....
The 3 T-72's killed by one M1A1 occurred at the Battle of 73 Easting and has been confirmed by the Iraqis who survived on other tanks and subsequently surrendered. Please avoid commenting on things that you know little of, as it makes you look a little foolish.
- Status