[MB4DI]

Very informative thread, thanks for sharing.

Do these tanks have air conditioning facility installed in their cabins like M1 Abrams ?

regards,
MB4DI

[lsjey]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I can't comment here with the same confidence that I could on an aviation thread but let me try. Others more qualified may want to add their views.

One reason a single category emerged is because anti-tank HEAT rounds fired as shoulder launched missiles are so developed today that a light or medium tank has high risk of getting hit & disabled even against a well trained infantry.

My query was based on the following articles that I'd read:

1. https://guardingindia.com/featured/i...jun-mk-ia-mbt/
"
End of the Arjun series
DRDO officials believe this order of 118 tanks will be the last orders for the 68-ton Arjun. The army’s refocus on the northern borders with China following the ten-month standoff with the PLA will mean a diminished appetite for heavy tanks like the 68-ton Arjun.
The army wants light tanks that weigh between 20-25 tons and medium tanks that weigh between 30 and 50 tons to equip its armored forces.
“Light and medium tanks have an advantage in multi-spectrum deployability, employability and capability in the varied terrain that the army operates in,” says Lt General AB Shivane, former Director General mechanised forces.
The Indian Army had already set its sights on acquiring light and medium tanks even before the PLA moved into eastern Ladakh with its mechanised columns including tanks and infantry combat vehicles. Army officials cite the Arjun’s 68-ton weight as the reason it has limited mobility along roads and bridges along the rugged northern areas. The requirement for light tanks which could operate in the mountains is at least a decade old, it was revived more recently after the PLA’s Type 15 light tanks appeared on the Tibetan plateau."


2. https://missionvictoryindia.com/vers...lving-warfare/
This article also argues in favor of having a mix of light, medium and heavy tanks.



3. Also, I read sometime back the uniqueness of the Israeli Merkava tank. Seems that the entry/exit door is on the rear of the Merkava rather than on top of the turret. This is supposed to help in evacuating casualties under fire and also provides better safety for loading ammo and doing on field repairs.

Regards,
lsjey

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Look forward to reading & writing on this thread on the Queen of the land battle.

Any thoughts on frequent obituaries written by "strategists" on the utility of battle tanks in a modern battlefield?

During the 2020 Azerbaijaan-Armenia War, Azeris picked out Armenian tanks & IFVs from their comfort of an armchair (using armed drones made in Turkey).
https://theprint.in/opinion/how-dron...arfare/544668/

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

Thank you for pointing out the smoothbore vs rifle. Would love to know why a smoothbore is ever preferred? Wouldn't it be less precise by design?

The whole idea of rlfling is to spin the projectile thus increasing accuracy & effective distance (simple physics) as you rightly pointed out. However - majority tank-killer-tanks now a days rely heavily on the Sabot rounds - which are predominantly fin-stabilized already. I.e. - they stabilize themselves by design & don't need the barrel & pressure combination to spin them into stability on launch.

Tank guns are often now expected to fire AT missiles as well, and smooth-bored pipes would probably make it less complex (that said - the Israeli LAHAT is mainly a 105-120mm gun missile and I think the Arjun has capability to fire it already). Add to that - the smoothbore guns are cheaper to make due to removal of one complex step. They also suffer lesser wear in usage cycles. So more and more tank-killer tanks have moved to larger (125mm) but smooth bore guns.

Multi-role tanks with complex roles including infantry support & those that intend to use HESH rounds that need induced spinning for improved accuracy, continue to use rifled guns. I have a personal affinity to rifling. Always a fan when simple principles of physics are used to achieve something. So I like the rifled cannons & even rifles over carbines in infantry assault weapons, no matter which one has more benefits .

[SchrödingersCar]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

The whole idea of rlfling is to spin the projectile thus increasing accuracy & effective distance (simple physics) as you rightly pointed out. However - majority tank-killer-tanks now a days rely heavily on the Sabot rounds - which are predominantly fin-stabilized already. I.e. - they stabilize themselves by design & don't need the barrel & pressure combination to spin them into stability on launch.

Tank guns are often now expected to fire AT missiles as well, and smooth-bored pipes would probably make it less complex (that said - the Israeli LAHAT is mainly a 105-120mm gun missile and I think the Arjun has capability to fire it already). Add to that - the smoothbore guns are cheaper to make due to removal of one complex step. They also suffer lesser wear in usage cycles. So more and more tank-killer tanks have moved to larger (125mm) but smooth bore guns.

Multi-role tanks with complex roles including infantry support & those that intend to use HESH rounds that need induced spinning for improved accuracy, continue to use rifled guns. I have a personal affinity to rifling. Always a fan when simple principles of physics are used to achieve something. So I like the rifled cannons & even rifles over carbines in infantry assault weapons, no matter which one has more benefits .

In addition to quoted reasons, One other reason for prevalence of Smoothbore guns/cannons is the increased usage of APFSDS ammunition in Tank-v-Tank battles. It is considered the most potent/lethal anti-tank ammo nowadays, and most advanced countries use heaviest metal (Depleted Uranium) penetrators to increase Penetration of armor (in RHA terms) these days. Effectiveness of APFSDS penetrators increases with increased muzzle velocity, as there is more Kinetic Energy associated with it, aiding penetration. Smoothbore guns allow higher muzzle velocities due to lack of rifling.

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Any thoughts on frequent obituaries written by "strategists" on the utility of battle tanks in a modern battlefield?

During the 2020 Azerbaijaan-Armenia War, Azeris picked out Armenian tanks & IFVs from their comfort of an armchair (using armed drones made in Turkey).
https://theprint.in/opinion/how-dron...arfare/544668/

Tanks are sitting ducks without ground/infantry support or Air Superiority/Support.

Most Man Portable ATGMs are now highly effective against armour, and mostly target the vulnerable non-frontal areas of the tank where Armor and ERA is concentrated (Top Attack is most devastating), which can only be prevented by boots on the ground to a large extent.
Alternately, tanks are highly vulnerable to Attack Helos, ground attack aircraft (like A-10 or Su-25), drones, and using them without air superiority or air dominance is suicidal for tanks. This should be taken into account in the ORBAT/Operational doctrine.

Originally Posted by lsjey

3. Also, I read sometime back the uniqueness of the Israeli Merkava tank. Seems that the entry/exit door is on the rear of the Merkava rather than on top of the turret. This is supposed to help in evacuating casualties under fire and also provides better safety for loading ammo and doing on field repairs.

The Merkava, having its engine in the front also helps in crew survivability, as tanks are expected to take mostly frontal hits, and the engine block provides additional protection to the crew.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

However - majority tank-killer-tanks now a days rely heavily on the Sabot rounds - which are predominantly fin-stabilized already. I.e. - they stabilize themselves by design & don't need the barrel & pressure combination to spin them into stability on launch.

Originally Posted by SchrödingersCar

In addition to quoted reasons, One other reason for prevalence of Smoothbore guns/cannons is the increased usage of APFSDS ammunition in Tank-v-Tank battles. It is considered the most potent/lethal anti-tank ammo nowadays

APFSDS = Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot.
This is what I have mentioned as the primary reason already in my post (in bold) . I tend to hate such fancy American acronyms so avoided using it. Thats all.

Originally Posted by lsjey

3. Also, I read sometime back the uniqueness of the Israeli Merkava tank. Seems that the entry/exit door is on the rear of the Merkava rather than on top of the turret. This is supposed to help in evacuating casualties under fire and also provides better safety for loading ammo and doing on field repairs.

Originally Posted by SchrödingersCar

The Merkava, having its engine in the front also helps in crew survivability, as tanks are expected to take mostly frontal hits, and the engine block provides additional protection to the crew.

Not just this - the Merkava with its engine in front - can actually carry additional 6 armed soldiers in the rear compartment which also has the rear hatches. Effectively - its a potent frontline tank + an APC that can directly & safely deploy armed soldiers exactly where needed. A very unique combination.

[SchrödingersCar]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

APFSDS = Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot.
This is what I have mentioned as the primary reason already in my post (in bold) .

Yes sir, thank you. You did indeed mention it.
I was just adding a small detail on the increased effectiveness of APFSDS rounds based on increased muzzle velocity that a smoothbore gun allows due to lack of rifling.

[Retro Dalliance]

I'm not sure about fuel economy of the MBT Arjun or the T90, but the T 72, or the Vijyanta for that matter do not give 1.5 - 3 km per litre. It's more like 5 to 8 litres per kilometre!

In fact the old Nisaan jongas, once they'd been outfitted for recce, gave nothing more than six km per litre.

[IP_Man]

Originally Posted by SchrödingersCar

Sorry sir, but I am not sure if you are serious here, or are kidding.
Tanks return a mileage of 1.50-3.00 kmpl depending upon the weight of the tank and terrain, and are designed for war-fighting and power. Moreover, they are not subject to MVA or RTO rules. So I don't think emission is at the top of tank designers' minds.

If emission is not concern then efficient two stroke diesel comes to my mind. Can somebody confirm it?

[lsjey]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Not just this - the Merkava with its engine in front - can actually carry additional 6 armed soldiers in the rear compartment which also has the rear hatches. Effectively - its a potent frontline tank + an APC that can directly & safely deploy armed soldiers exactly where needed. A very unique combination.

Originally Posted by SchrödingersCar

Tanks are sitting ducks without ground/infantry support or Air Superiority/Support.
Alternately, tanks are highly vulnerable to Attack Helos, ground attack aircraft (like A-10 or Su-25), drones, and using them without air superiority or air dominance is suicidal for tanks. This should be taken into account in the ORBAT/Operational doctrine.

The Merkava, having its engine in the front also helps in crew survivability, as tanks are expected to take mostly frontal hits, and the engine block provides additional protection to the crew.

Well, Merkava solves the problem of supporting infantry as it can take in soldiers, right? Seems like an ideal tank for the Indian army. Thanks for all the info.

Was reading a book on the battle of Longewala. I really appreciate your point that tanks should not be deployed if you don't have air superiority. The book The Epic Battle of Longewala tells the story of how a handful of Hawker Hunters of 122 Sqdn from Jaisalmer air base put paid the armour attack of Pakistan. Really drives home your point that tanks need air superiority to make an impact.

Regards,
lsjey

[shantonob]

Went to the Ausarmor museum in 2019 - few of the exhibits have been with our army too.

The venerable T72 - got to see the insides through the hatch. These are running tanks that are taken out regularly and people can ride it during the Ausarmor fest. Even with T90's and the armata, there is no end to the T72's being upgraded, with the T72 B3 looks a lot like the T90.



A T55 , also used by the army, no more used by frontline troops but still in service as mine trawls and pillboxes i believe.



A centurion tank, the most famous British tank, and arguably one of the most liked tanks of all time. Was in service during the 65 and 71 war helping level the field against the pattons with their. Still in service in heavily upgraded variants with israel and SA.



SA2 guideline SAM's, made famous in vietnam and for shooting down a U2.



british behicles with a Abbott SPG on the right with saracens, saladins and the mighty churchill.



This tiger 1 was restored from the one that was built for the movie Fury. its in running conditions with a Scania engine and T55 tracks.

[nitinsharma1000]

Originally Posted by shantonob

Went to the Ausarmor museum in 2019 - few of the exhibits have been with our army too.
...

I believe they must have used this Tiger elsewhere because in Fury they used the Tiger 131 which is the last remaining and working tiger in existence. The Tiger 1 above has odd dimensions compared to the real Tiger 1.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

Any thoughts on frequent obituaries written by "strategists" on the utility of battle tanks in a modern battlefield?
During the 2020 Azerbaijaan-Armenia War, Azeris picked out Armenian tanks & IFVs from their comfort of an armchair (using armed drones made in Turkey).

SmartCat, one can always rely on you to come up with insightful conceptual questions which compel some thought before answering. Before I pen my response I'll state again I am no expert, I have never sat in a tank and I don't play video war games :-)

In a land war today any self respecting army needs a combined arms operating doctrine if it is to win against another well equipped land force or fend off against a force of well armed irregulars like the Americans dealt with in Afghanistan. Combined Arms here means infantry, armour, artillery, close air support, combat engineers and electronic warfare and surveillance. No one arm can alone do the job. Like the five fingers they need to work together for success. Infantry {preferably mounted in tracked IFVs} and tanks work very well together making 1+1=3. The complement each other marvelously protecting each other - infantry destroy the little hidden threats which the tanks can't or often do not see and the tanks destroy the big threats to clear the way for the infantry. Similarly when close air support is added as and when needed or continuously in an offensive thrust then 1+1+1=6. You get the drift. If with this you have air superiority so much the better.The Germans & the Russians practised this best on the Eastern front in WW-II. To their credit, in modern times, the Americans practise it most thoroughly.

Between different opposing weapon systems a constant see-saw goes on for decades. Tank vs anti-tank missiles/shells; Ship vs submarines; aircraft vs anti-aircraft missile. Sometimes technology & tactics favour one sometimes the other. Journalists and arm chair experts enjoy predicting the death or obsolescence of the tank, the warship, the aircraft carrier, the manned fighter and what not because they need something to argue over and because words are cheap when you carry no responsibility to defend the borders. Never ever heard an army man of any nation say I am ready to go to war without tanks. Better to listen to the man entrusting his life on the line than journalists and civilian analysts.

Where the drones are concerned in the recent Armenia conflict - innovative but not very different from a wire or radio command guided shoulder launched HEAT missiles in use for over 50 years. It reflects the innovation of the user but it should not be assumed it will achieve the same result against a well heeled army like that of USA, UK, Israel or India.

Till war means physical occupation of land of the other side we will need a piece of equipment that combines the maximum armour + the biggest gun with mobility. Today we call it a tank. To be able to move forward while being protected from 2/3rds of the threats and being able to destroy 2/3rds of the enemy targets is invaluable in a battlefield. That fundamental isn't changing anytime soon. I have been reading worthy experts predicting the demise of the tank since 1975.

Originally Posted by lsjey

My query was based on the following articles that I'd read:End of the Arjun series
DRDO officials believe this order of 118 tanks will be the last orders for the 68-ton Arjun. The army’s refocus on the northern borders with China following the ten-month standoff with the PLA will mean a diminished appetite for heavy tanks like the 68-ton Arjun.

Procurement of a long serving weapon like a tank cannot and should not be decided by medium term shifts in threats because getting production runs into place takes years not months. Pakistan is likely to remain a threat for decades. The army may need to allocate a limited budget to T-90s now but in the long run I don't see the Arjun being abandoned after spending billions and 30 years developing it. But I don't take policy decisions so let's see.

2. https://missionvictoryindia.com/vers...lving-warfare/This article also argues in favor of having a mix of light, medium and heavy tanks.

I read the article. Used toilet paper. He can't even copy paste correctly.

[hsingh]

My father is still serving in the Mechanized Infantry Regiment. They uses BMP as their primary armored troop carrying vehicles. BMP is extremely capable and no-nonsense Russian designed vehicle capable of even cruising on Water.

A tank cannot travel beyond the depth of 5 meters, whereas BMP's don't have any such restrictions. That's my father in S. Sudan with the BMP's in background.

[sukhbirST]

Thanks Aditya for sharing.
The terrain in our country changes from desert , snow , mountains to coast. It is really tough on the army guys to operate and maintain in all these conditions. Being a naval veteran, can recall my close association with the tanks during my first tenure in 1990 onboard Kumbhir class LST (landing ship tanks). Being at kakinada have witnessed few amphibious exercises conducted recently with foreign nations. There is naval land on the beach road here for the future amphibious school . Would request memebers to also read @V. Narayan post on Amphibious ships of the Indian Navy.
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...an-navy-3.html (Amphibious ships of the Indian Navy)