TR1I have to find your statements individually..but I figured out how to quote them..no issues..
K, sorry, I promise I will learn to multiquote one of these days 😉Thing is the Arjun’s ammunition is not stored en masse next to each other & exposed. That is the most basic point, which is of criticality.
Ok, let’s just condense my argument here. We are talking about, post penetration effect, and comparing carousel and the Arjun’s hull storage. In my opinion, the crew safety result is similar. Why? The Arjun’s ammo is well packed, and will give the crew time to evacuate assuming a fire breaks out. No argument there. The Carousel on the other hand is placed away from the crew section, and the crew generally has time to evacuate before it goes up and the tank completely blows the eff up. See examples in Georgia, many Georgian tanks were hit (by various means, not sure about APFSDS, but certainly HEAT, artillery, and aviation), crew got out, later the tank blew into smithereens (in some cases). So I don’t think there is much to choose from there between the two storage layouts. What is important, IMO, is location. From what I have seen, the Arjun’s hull ammo presents a larger profile from the front, than the carousel ammunition. Let’s just say for the sake of the discussion, the T-90 and Arjun are identical. And penetration happens, from, like you mentioned, a KE round. I think the hull ammo compartment is a bigger target than the low, flat, carousel. And if an APFSDS round succesfully penetrates and hits that box, it will do no better than carousel. Call me a skeptic, but I have no reason to believe that ammo compartment actually protects against a HEAT stream or a KE penetration. If those shells light up, the effect will NOT be contained inside each cell. The same is the case from the side. I did not bring up the Arjun’s weak side (they might as well not be armored, just check out weld lines, it is very very thin on most of the turret) to say “Indians are stupid and messed up on side armor!” but it was just clearly not part of the design philosophy. I don’t know why, but the side armor layout is a big problem. Both from the front, where the Arjun turning it’s turret only slightly exposes the full length of the turret, or an enemy tank shooting slightly off the frontal arc; and from the sides, where basically the entire turret is one big weak spot. On the T-90, the war the armor array is laid out, frontal arc coverage is much more comprehensive in terms of angling, and from the side the already much smaller turret is at least partially protected by the front armor array. Now back to the ammunition- the Arjun’s hull box would be supremely vulnerable from the sides, there is basically nothing protecting it. The carousel at least has the big road wheels in the way, and either way it is a smaller profile target. Carousel only, the T-90s layout was proven to be very safe, if we look at T-72 experience in Chechnya. When it comes to AP ammunition (regarding the turrets popping as you mentioned in ODS, I have also read about that) there is nothing to suggest those US tankers hit the carousel. More likely they hit fighting compartment ammo, the effect can be disastrous. In any case, Arjun has never been in the trial of fire as extensively as the T-72, so its a difficult comparison. So yes, to summarize, I firmly believe T-90 ammo layout IF ONLY carousel ammunition is taken is safer. The downside is of course less total ammunition than the Arjun would carry. The ability of OPFOR tansk to actually penetrate the T-90 from the front in terms of India’s theater of operations is dubious though, so they could carry the full load without too much worry.
The evidence is right in front of you but you are not able to believe it, my friend. The evidence speaks for itself, that each round is in its own separate armoured case with closed hatches (which BTW is the side where the brass is located, the obturating cap and not the exposed propellant). The thick steel walls around each & every round are meant for exactly that.
I believe it assures a level of protection to the ammunition hat is better than non armored rounds, and helps when fires break out. I categorically refuse the notion that it would protect against ammo detonation once the box has been penetrated. I would need some conclusive proof that the box can 1.) protect against HEAT stream or KE penetrator 2.) post penetration it would contain each shells explosion.
Its happened in India. Don’t know exactly how, ammunition misfire and burning propellant back into the carousel hoist seems the most likely explanation, but there could have been others. Basically, from what I discerned, armour is amongst the most dangerous branches there is. Operating, and being besides heavy machinery, especially in Indian conditions is pretty tough. Eg people got severe burns by just accidentally leaning on their tanks, without realizing. In such temperatures (within tank, ~46 degrees centigrade+) things are tough.
Damn, that’s pretty scary to hear. Is it really true that some defense minister didn’t want AC on tanks because it made the troops softer?
Look, i have seen and read Damien’s posts – and while he is an enthusiastic guy with a lot of books and what not, frankly, he lacks actual hands on experience with the people who design, make or use these things. In regards to the Arjun, previously as well, I found a lot of things he said & believed to be either grossly misinformed, or absolutely out of date or even lacking context.
Well, i respectfully disagree. I think his posts are much more realistic than the wishful thinking that is often reported by defense industries on their products. It’s not even that he is some kind of genius, he is just well read on the subject, and lacks national biases.
What happened? But while we cannot match the length and breadth of Russian defence by far, we assure you, that in the quality of our abysmal journalists, we have you beat by 10X.
Basically, there were recent exercises in the Pacific Fleet involving coastal missile batteries and submarines. Kravchyk wrote an article that made its rounds all over forums as well as news sites about how miserably the Fleet failed at hitting anything, and how the Marines uttrly failed in their landings, basically crapped completely all over the military. One problem, he wasn’t there. Twower (the blogger) was a journalist actually present at the event, and with visual evidence disproved that douchebag’s blatant lies. Moral of the story, you see anything with Kravchyk’s name on it, use it to wipe your behind.
There is nothing particularly awe inspiring about the turret armour or armoured bulkhead which separates the rounds from the crew either when using blow off panels.
They are thick though, and from what I have seen on the Arjun ammo layout, much thicker than those shields.By the time a penetration gets through, its already degraded. It cannot penetrate several inches of steel, as will be necessary to get through each of those round casings. If you see them close, they are quite thick.
You would be surprised of how far a modern round can penetrate. And it’s not just from the front, where it would have to go through the thick frontal array- if the round comes at an angle into the hull (or the turret, due to the Arjun’s weird lack of side coverage), there will be more than enough energy left to make that hull ammo storage useless.
.
Good discussion, thanks Teer. If you do have photos of the hull array close up or testings with the array detonating (or not) I would be much obliged. Detailed photos of Arjun are far and in between. I am not above changing my opinion, but I am skeptical by nature.
TR1what do you think this is
Object 195, no guess work here.
TR1Too much delusional propaganda transfered from the BR forum on this thread….spoiling the discussion.
I generally agree when this subject comes up but Teer is a respectable poster, not accusing me of anti-Indian nationalism when the Arjun topic comes up. 😀
TR1http://vz.ru/news/2011/9/29/526455.html
Huh! Stole this from art @ mp.net, good poster. Navy denies plans to scrap the 941s.
Rodolpho, do you mean Tsirkon? I have nothing on it, I am curious what size it will be. Navy is standardizing on UKSK, so maybe it will be a minute complex compared to Granit.
On the positive side, apparently domestic “Club” has vastly vastly longer range than its export bretheren.
TR1TR1that’s not much of a turret bustle on the T-90MS
also the new tank is Armada in English, not Armata.. infact its also Armada in Russian too.
The tank is Armata in Russian.
TR1Are they? IIRC the Bars is 980 mm dia, the Irbis 900 mm dia. Whats the area of the Su-34, its oval in shape IIRC? More important than power IMO, is gain. Each db in gain is worth a lot. Also, I think the B004 could be replaced by an AESA once Russia standardizes on that for the PAKFA.
About the only thing the Su-34 could do with is more fuel.Its range is mentioned as the same Flanker class 1500 km, unrefuelled in most sources.
Su-34’s suit is supposedly very well optimized for ground role, much more than Bars or Irbis. I don’t think they will be in any hurry to move to AESA.
Where did you get those range numbers :confused: ? Russian sources point to considerably more range than the Flanker, at least several hundred kilometers worth.
TR1I am afraid you are missing the point – please reread what i wrote to get what I meant about the weakness of the carousel, the presence of so many rounds all next to each other, exposed.
Right. My point was in terms of the tank actually being hit by AT weaponry, the presence of the carousel contained rounds in a safe location on the vehicle is very good for crew safety. The carousel is in a low, isolated, unlikely to be hit location, and separated from the crew. Yes, if it penetrates, and actually hits the carousel ammunition, bad things will happen. This is no different however if penetration occurs and hits the rounds all over the T-90 hull or turret, or inside the Arjun’s hull; ammunition detonation can easily happen in this case. A problem with the Arjun in this scenario is the (comparatively) huge side turret and hull exposure, weakly protected, and very vulnerable. But that is a general design problem.
But against APFSDS – that carousel is less protected than the Arjun layout, *because* the rounds are all exposed to each other. Check the image I shared. Propellants & penetrators (again with propellants) all next to each other, in one carousel without separation!
Huh? How? The carousel is separated from the crew by some covers, how is this worse than the ammo in the Arjun’s hull? Carousel is unlikely to be hit in the first place. Granted, I am making the assumption the T-90 is not carrying ammo in other locations. Even then, the Arjun’s protection is marginally better for ammunition, at best. This is ignoring actual armor layout, which is flawed on the Arjun, IMO.
In contrast, the Arjun’s hull rounds are all individually separated in their own armoured cases and sealed in.
Ok, if you think that will stop ammo detonation….Hence, the Indian approach, to use steel casing & IFDSS. This is not a “half hearted measure” by any means in either case, but a well thought one & better than the carousel autoloader which puts all the ammunition, without separation, in proximity to each other.
For the reasons above, I disagree. Assuming T-90 only has ammo in carousel, it is a smaller profile target to hit, with KE ammunition. Now, the Arjun can also at the cost of ammunition go into battle with only ammo in turret bustle, which would be the safest (in terms of post penetration crew effect) solution. But then the rounds need to be loaded from bustle, while T-90 has 20 something ready rounds in carousel.
The Leo2 approach superficially looks the same, but is not exactly the same. In images that I have seen, the rounds are not cased in, but remain open for extraction with only clamps holding them in place, and are in lightweight containers built into a rack. They took the position of the hull storage (being below the turret ring) to be protection by itself. Thats not whats on the Arjun.
I don’t disagree that the Arjun’s employment might (likely) is better, it is a newer vehicle after all, but I don’t think it is ideal layout either. Everything if a comprimise ofc. The Arjun’s hull ammo layout is better than ammunition all over the T-90s interiors.
In ODS, the penetrated T-72s flipped their turret not because of just the turret ammo, but the carousel detonation. That takes away the best protected part right there.Right, if the carousel is hit, the turret will detonate. I have no reason to believe the hull ammo in the Arjun won’t suffer disastrous consequences when hit with modern round. Most T-72 burnouts occur when the ammunition in the fighting compartment is torched (or the tank is otherwise burnt out). The vast majority of the time the turret flips is because fire spreads and eventually gets to the hull carousel ammo, causing the spectacular flip. Rarely did it happen on hit.
Again, see where the shot was fired from and what it was! We are not talking of only HEAT fired from the flanks here – which is vulnerable to the roadwheels but long rod APFSDS.
Ok, and I maintain if ammunition is stored only in the carousel, it is a safer location, because of likely hood of being hit/exposed to fire from other parts of the tank is lower than ammunition stored directly in fighting compartment. The Arjun does have better INDIVIDUAL ammunition protection, but I would rather the ammo be in a location harder to hit. This applies to both frontal MBT KE engagements, as well as flank HEAT CE attacks. Frankly, I have my doubts it can survive ammo detonation if hit in the hull racks.experience with the T-72, where even in peacetime, ammunition cookoffs caused entire tanks to be lost.
😮 What?!?! I have never heard of that happening a single time in Soviet and post-USSR service, and they have been utilized in some climatically hot areas as well.The MK2 btw is to improve on the containerization even more.
I look foreward to seeing it, I have no doubt it will be a more relevant design than the current Arjun, which is not a bad vehicle in itself. I just jope they work on turret geometry.Any details on the Armata? From what is there on the net, on the T-90MS, some rounds not all have been moved to the bustle, and the carousel remains as is. Though more advanced ERA has been added to the front and flanks.
Nothing firm on Armata, stay tuned though. T-90MS keeps carousel, though it is now armored. The rounds are still next to each other, but that is inescapable. The tank obviously has greater all aspect protection however, from both KE and CE threats. The rest of the rounds are in the bustle, completely isolated from the crew, its basically a bolt on section.
Frankly, the discussions on MP,net can often be inaccurate. The title itself is absurd. Arjun lining up to the worlds most expensive tank – sure, if you divide program costs for a limited number of tanks by the units and assume they are unit costs.
Yes, that part is absurd. But Damiens posts in the thread are essentially my feelings on the subject.
Which is what a particularly silly journalist did when he wrote a writeup on the Arjun misinterpreting a statement given as a reply by the DefMin, nvm the journo, Rahul Bedi has a reputation for being amongst the worst in the field India has produced (and the list is long indeed).
Russia and India seem to both share some awfull defense journalism. You should have heard about the recent Pacific Fleet drama with KRavchyk. Disgraceful.
The Arjun does have completely isolated ammunition – what in the picture suggests that it does not? Consider, each round is in its own individual container, again placed in an armoured box and provided a hatch.
The protection, on an individual round base is better, no disputing that. What I find doubtful is the compartments actual ability to stop a HEAT stream or AP fragments. The armor in the picture is not particularly awe inspiring. Where it is useful is separating the ammunition from a fire in the combat compartment, and yes that does give the crew more time to GTFO and pray they don’t get shot when disembarking. If the compartment is penetrated, boom goes the crew. A layout with the armor completely separated in a blow-off sections safer if penetration does occur.
The bustle stuff is good with venting panels, but problem is by creating blow off panels, you create weak spots. That’s not such an issue for the back of the turret top when the entire section is separated from the crew, but towards the front, you want maximum structural integrity, even towards the tank hull and even towards the bottom, which may have to face mines as well.
Like I said, all designs are compromises, the blow off panels are no different. A problem with the bustle is the inherent weakness of the structure itself and its large profile- easily hit and detonated in combat. Crew will be fine, but still not a good consequence for the vehicle. Armata seeks to completely isolate ammunition from crew, without leaving it in vulnerable locations itself. Will be interesting what solution they come up with.
There is little point in the Arjun incorporating blow off panels at the bottom, if tomorrow, the tank has to acquire more armour (see recent uparmour packages) which add additional modules for antimine protection.
Sorry for black font, I suck at multiquote.
Well, we clearly have a difference of opinion. :p
TR1don’t forget LeiShi series of Satellite/INS guided bomb include their equivalent to the IR/Image/mw band seeker SDB.
so how is “PAK-FA having a complete A2G package from the start” apply to J-20’s state?
Uhh what? I was referring to Hotdog’s post regarding J-20 supposedly being first a striker, second a fighter. Since the T-50 was in the question, I pointed out that it intends to have a fully ready A2G capability.
TR1http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110928/167228086.html
So much for that.
TR1Speaking of huge ships:
http://r-img.fotki.yandex.ru/get/5814/9474866.1a/0_56975_f66be286_orig.jpg
Talk about a sad state of affairs for the Lazarev. Really hope they come to a decision with these ships, like the 941s. Lazarev is done IMO, even Ushakov is in better shape.
Nakhimov wasn’t THAT bad from what I recall….idk but the prospects do not look good to me. Maybe when Gorshkov carrier is finally finished they can move on to one of the 1144s. Both Nakhimov and Ushakov are @ Sevmash right.
TR1Certainly seems like it, though a lot of it is deep modernization of existing complexes. IMO it is partly a very serious outlook on maintaining a cutting edge nuclear arsenal in the face of potential Western ABM efforts as well as the large numbers of tactical and cruise missiles (nuclear capable) that China has been deploying….and partly the politically connected missile bureaus jousting for money.
Seems overkill honestly, and while I do not subscribe to Podvig’s “Nuclear weapons are pointless!” ideology, the strategic missile arm of the navy is completely sucking up funding that is badly needed for surface ships.
TR1Music to my ears, thanks for article.
EDIT: 9-12 small warheads O.O ?
TR1They better keep one as a museum. Or huge tourist ship. Imagine that…
Woah @ Liner. Makes even more sense to retire the big boys if the BRDMs can carry more warheads. Hope they keep these excellent boats in service for as long as possible.
TR1Well they ripped off (excuse me, bought license for) the Kh-31, though that would not fit inside the J-20 in present form.
But either way, the PAK-FA look to have a complete array of A2G weaponry from the start.
Sign In
