Thursday, 14 August 2008

More pictures from Georgia of T-72 (and one T-90?) post-hit damage





































































I've read a lot of comments that seem to suggest that the Arjun would survive most hits from an enemy tank... or even from a missile. The sad truth is that --- in the ninety-year-old contest between tank and anti-tank --- armour-piercing technology is currently ahead of armour technology. The only protection that is effective today is active armour.

In fact, this is the staple argument used by all those who argue today for a 40-ton tank. The argument goes... there is no point slapping on all that heavy armour plate. It's going to get defeated anyway.

16 comments:

Amit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

well that may be true..but the point is that even infantry is equipped with thermobaric-RPG(Russian,CIS)..I think a good armour will protect the crew from annihilation though the tank cannot continue anymore fight. The Hizbullah terrorists used EFP-type Iranian IEDs that massacred Merkavas and they supposed could even penetrate anti-mine vehicles like OFB's

Anonymous said...

ajai, I agree with your comment.

but the point of tanks like arjun is that the soldiers would survive in 50-60% cases even if the tank is written off. something you can't say about russi tanks with their cook offs !!

of course arjun would survive other tanks much better than a T-90 !!

Anonymous said...

ah, anon b4 me has already made that comment !
fighterclass.

Anonymous said...

see all those unexploded intact ERA bricks ! So much for the active protection ! T-series junk rest in piece or pieces shall I say !

Anonymous said...

The autoloader in T series is a design choice, which resulted in a light, compact design and on the flip side the crews inside are relatively more expendable. These are discussed /analyzed in innumerable literature over many decades.
After all these 'best kept secrets...' borders on hyperbole.

Anonymous said...

I'll like to know what will be the internal temperature of a tank if it is hit by a thermobaric-RPG(assuming no or partial penetration of armour, without blowing the ammunition inside).

Anonymous said...

An off topic question:Are these really destroyed in actual combat? Maybe they were captured/abandoned, which the Russians rigged with explosives - blew up - take pics- distribute them !

By the by, I'm not anti Russian after all Vodka is a Russian drink.

Deepak said...

Being an Ex- Army office and commanded an Armoued Regt. u should be able to identify an T-72BM ( look a lot like a T-90 but little difference in K5 tiles spacing on turret) from a T-90.

Russia has not deployed T-90 in the present conflict.

Anonymous said...

deepak, only those who spend a lot of time chasing down these errata would know the difference, ajai will know how to command the tank and lead it into battle, not on how the different headlight or number of return rollers makes it an x tank and not y.

sayareakd said...

Deepak, please check out this link
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/410pebgo.asp
about use of T 90 tank by Russia.

Anonymous said...

Ajai
The Armd Corp is yet to recover from the shock of loss of lives of its crews from "Barrel Bursts". Now with your photos of totally shattered series tanks in Georgia - the regiments would be shit scared to mount the Tank. T90 being a new avatar of T72 is not going to be different. Has the T90 tank has ever been fired at from softcore FSAPDS of Arjun and the imported Isreali FSAPDS to check its both Active and passive armour capability. I understand the Army demanded for arjun and got it tested and verified it that the armor stops even the israeli ammu before it gave the clearance for 124? Is it true? Have they demanded it for T90. If they bent upon importing then why not going for "Global Buy" like the IAF has gone for MRCA desptite they also have the legacy of "mostly" Russian inventory.WITH GLOBAL COMPETITION, ONE CAN HOPE FOR THE BEST THROUGH COMPETITION. Isn't the best to do that. I am surprised there is not a single voice within Army demanding the Best from the world - like the IAF has done. Is it not surprising? May be the rot is too deep in Army to cleanse.

sayareakd said...

Anonymous is right Arjun tank is tested with lot of anti tank weapons. I have posted a picture of Kanchan armour test results in my blog.
It appears that it has zero penetration and Arjun tank provide good protection to its crew.

Unlike T series tank which pop up when hit by anti tank weapon or RPG.

It will be unwise to go for more of T 90S. We should go for as many Arjun tank as OFB can produce till Arjun MK-II role out.

Sontu said...

Ajay Ji,

Quoting your comment..
"In fact, this is the staple argument used by all those who argue today for a 40-ton tank. The argument goes... there is no point slapping on all that heavy armour plate. It's going to get defeated anyway".

I do not agree to this...and I still believe if we can have a better protection level say Arjun...it is going to change the war/conflict result in favour of us...

Referring folloing lines from..following site..where tank commanders and analysts has written their experiance in the Gulf war and lessons for the future..a great learning asset for our IA strategists..

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/december_2005/12_05_3.html

I refer following lines for all who opposes Arjun's requirement in IA inventory in large numbers..

"Insights for the Future

Every operation has distinct features. Iraqi Freedom was unusual in that the enemy had large conventional forces, yet fought mostly as smaller unconventional elements that had little antiarmor capability (probably due to the collapse of most Iraqi conventional units). Even so, the operation suggests the following insights for the future.

Heavy forces were decisive. In Iraq, the United States used a full range of land forces-light, medium, and heavy-but heavy forces were the most important ground combat element. They led the ground advance and destroyed the enemy with direct fire. The heavy land forces received excellent support from artillery and tactical air, including help from attack helicopters. Heavy forces broke enemy resistance in the major cities, leading to collapse of the regime. Light and medium ground units also played important roles, but they generally supported the armored formations. Light units occupied areas bypassed by the fast-moving heavy units"

Anonymous said...

Visit sayareakd blogsite @ http://sayaredefenceworld.blogspot.com/ to see T90 busted. All Armd Corp officers and ORs must see.

Anonymous said...

There were no T-90 tank its just ukranian-soviet upgraded T-72