Arjun vs T90 MBT

[Dejawolf]

heh, found a picture of a really old tank-ex prototype:

 

[pmaitra]

@ersakthivel, @Damian, @shuvo@y2k10, attack the content of the post, not the poster. This is a rule applicable to all.

If you cannot debate without calling names, you should put each other in your ignore list. The only thing you three are ignoring is the rules of the forum. Let me know if you don't understand.

 

[STGN]

Do you know the correct width of arjun MBT with armor skirts or without armor skirts?
It is quite evident till today you don't know that,
Then why are you advancing specs for armor thickness?
hilarious, till today you don't even know the tank width, turret width and height of arjun,
But you know it's armor specs, which will be a classified info!!!!!!!!!!!

You are much better,
some guys acting up like tank experts have produced even 3d models ,
without knowing even these basic info and are now keeping a stony silence.

Just take a look with your bare eyes the men standing inside the crew hatch,
the crew hatch is just 550 mm wide,
there is less than half the crew hatch width available for standing on arjun hull besides the turret,
Infact a man cannot stand straight facing us on the side.

The total space available on both the sides barely equal a crew hatch diameter that vis 550 mm.
So if arjun's hull measures 3840 mm anyone can see the turret should measure at the most 600 mm less than that,
That is 3200 mm+.Enough?

If you have any doubts this is a photo with dimensions marked on.

I was trying to be friendly but apparently you are not. Please stop this slander, please qoute me where I have posted any numbers for armor thickness. I only commented on militarysta numbers saying that if they where right it would indicate Leo2 thickness(equal to dejawolfs numbers ). I do know width of the tank right form the horses mouth: DRDO. OVERALL(means whole vehicle including skirts) WIDTH: 3.864 m I even know height and length and you can too DRDO: Arjun page I only showed how wrong your estimation is by making the thought experiment of not using the skirts which gives numbers less than your 3.2m and to block any attempt of the claim that the width was with out the skirts and that was why my calculation was wrong. I see that was a good decision as you have to resort to a "ad hominem" attack trying to discredit me by first making a "straw man" argument that I claim to know armor thickness which I haven't claimed. then the discredit of me saying I am ignorant of the tanks dimensions which are freely available on DRDO website, which I used to get the number for my rough estimation of the turret width.
And I have to say that training in drawing both perspective and isometric, could do you a lot of good. As illustrated by the photo you posted then claiming that a man could not stand besides the turret, he clearly can, look at the photo theres a guy there and clearly he could stand by the side of the turret facing forward. Hell even I who is 200mm+ taller than the average Indian male could probably stand there facing forward. this just a couple of pages after you said schematic view of crew placement in Arjun had the gunner place in the middle of the turret just behind the mantle. Seriously getting a good understanding of the two subjects is very help full.
STGN

 

[militarysta]

Will help?

 

[ersakthivel]

there you go, it's at the bottom there. i've created a few boxes which shows how the measures matches up.

I was asking for the proof of the placements of VISION BLOCKS and Your placement of two crew men one by on (in line ) in the extreme right corner of the ARJUN.
Not these illustrations, which have no relation to the internal crew compartment arrangement.

 

[ersakthivel]

I was trying to be friendly but apparently you are not. Please stop this slander, please qoute me where I have posted any numbers for armor thickness. I only commented on militarysta numbers saying that if they where right it would indicate Leo2 thickness(equal to dejawolfs numbers ). I do know width of the tank right form the horses mouth: DRDO. OVERALL(means whole vehicle including skirts) WIDTH: 3.864 m I even know height and length and you can too DRDO: Arjun page I only showed how wrong your estimation is by making the thought experiment of not using the skirts which gives numbers less than your 3.2m and to block any attempt of the claim that the width was with out the skirts and that was why my calculation was wrong. I see that was a good decision as you have to resort to a "ad hominem" attack trying to discredit me by first making a "straw man" argument that I claim to know armor thickness which I haven't claimed. then the discredit of me saying I am ignorant of the tanks dimensions which are freely available on DRDO website, which I used to get the number for my rough estimation of the turret width.
And I have to say that training in drawing both perspective and isometric, could do you a lot of good. As illustrated by the photo you posted then claiming that a man could not stand besides the turret, he clearly can, look at the photo theres a guy there and clearly he could stand by the side of the turret facing forward. Hell even I who is 200mm+ taller than the average Indian male could probably stand there facing forward. this just a couple of pages after you said schematic view of crew placement in Arjun had the gunner place in the middle of the turret just behind the mantle. Seriously getting a good understanding of the two subjects is very help full.
STGN

Do you support DEJA WOLF's placement of vision block also?
Which according to me is well within the green shaded area drawn on ARJUN by PMAITRA.
That is the point of contention NOW,
It is by the wrong position of the( so called vision block)red box scribbled in ciside crew compartment picture that DEJAWOLF is justifying his 450 mm LOS thickness for arjun frontal turret armor behind Gunner's main sight cutaway.

 

[Damian]

Will help?

To me it is not a blow off panel, but a service hatch for the turret ammunition rack. Simply because there is no isolation of the rack, and rack design itself will not direct fire, gasses of combusting ammunition to the panel/hatch but rather direct them in to the crew compartment just like Dejawolf pointed out in the past posts.

 

[ersakthivel]

What is ther to service above the ammo rack?NOTHING.
Any way it is going to be compartmentalized in mk-2 as per CVRDE statements.So no wranglings over there.

 

[Dejawolf]

Will help?

nice proves my assumption back in post #819

Yes, the doors are not for reloading.

and they are present on the Mk.1 in fact, they're identical. Personally i think the doors are a convenience for the production of the Arjun. You can assemble the whole rack, and then hoist it down into the turret. and afterwards just bolt the roof shut.

 

[Damian]

What is ther to service above the ammo rack?NOTHING.

If you didn't noticed I wrote: To me it is not a blow off panel, but a service hatch for the turret ammunition rack.

 

[ersakthivel]

@ersakthivel, @Damian, @shuvo@y2k10, attack the content of the post, not the poster. This is a rule applicable to all.

If you cannot debate without calling names, you should put each other in your ignore list. The only thing you three are ignoring is the rules of the forum. Let me know if you don't understand.

I only reply after persistent provocation,otherwise I try to stay true to the debate.

 

[Dejawolf]

I was asking for the proof of the placements of VISION BLOCKS and Your placement of two crew men one by on (in line ) in the extreme right corner of the ARJUN.
Not these illustrations, which have no relation to the internal crew compartment arrangement.

No you werent. you were flinging shit and ridiculing my 3d models.

 

[ersakthivel]

If you didn't noticed I wrote: To me it is not a blow off panel, but a service hatch for the turret ammunition rack.

IN MK-2 IT IS GOING TO BE COMPARTMENTALIZED.Considering the space available they can be carried on as MLU in mk-1 as well, nothing prevents it if IA wants it.

 

[ersakthivel]

No you werent. you were flinging shit and ridiculing my 3d models.

OKAY.Now I appologize for any hurt caused by me,AGAIN,Where is the proof for the placement of your scribbled red box called vision blocks from BHARATH RAKSHAK line drawings?

On the very wrong placement of which you based your entire inside crew compartment 3D modelling.

 

[pmaitra]

I only reply after persistent provocation,otherwise I try to stay true to the debate.

I have seen provocation from you as well. You need to stop calling others fanboys. For the second time, use the ignore option.

 

[Damian]

IN MK-2 IT IS GOING TO BE COMPARTMENTALIZED.

In the internet, writing in big letters only, whole sentences is like shouting, do you really need to be so emotional? In everything? Jeeezzz Louise...

And we will see if it will be isolated in Mk2.

Considering the space available they can be carried on as MLU in mk-1 as well, nothing prevents it if IA wants it.

Making isolation means a lot of welding a relatively thick steel plates (IMHO 50mm is minimum), and adding sliding doors, such doors need electrohydraulic or electric motors so they can be quickly opened and closed, which means additional space is needed for such components. There would be a lot of internal components redesigning, changing their placement, it is not cheap.

It is not that easy as some might think.

If you want MLU for Mk1 just scrap the old turret and put there new one from the Mk2, then the only modifications needed are for hull, and instead of mixed fleet of Mk1 and Mk2 you have only Mk2's.

This is how Americans modernize their M1 and M1IP to M1A2SEP, they scrap old turrets, build new turrets for newer standard, and the only cutting and welding work is needed to modify hulls.

 

[Dejawolf]

according to me

i'm sorry to say that you are not a very reputable source.
here's a list of thing that you've been verifiably wrong about:
1. in post 638 you claimed a picture of an arjun was tank-ex. it was NOT, as can be verified by comparing the side hull sponsons.
2. in the same post you claim the interior to be from an arjun. in later posts, you've claimed this interiot to be of the tank-ex...
4. you claimed tool boxes to be armored. they were not, clearly showing strengthening extrusions in production models
5. you believed the panels on the roof were blowoff panels, they are verifiably not.
6. you believed a thin steel tube would be enough to stop the blast of a 120mm round.
7. you believed a picture that said "arjun" on the side of it was of tank-ex.
8. you believed hatches on arjun had the same space between them as on the leopard. they do not.
9. you claimed the arjun hull was 10.64 meters long, this turned out to be wrong, it was 8 meters
10. you believed the space from the gunners controls to the back of the commanders seat to be 60cm... really, 60cm for 2 people to fit inbetween?
11. you believed APFSDS rounds fired from rifled gun to have the same muzzle velocity as smoothbore guns.-false.
12. you believed rear portion of side turret to be 3-4 times thicker than it is in reality..
13. you believed tank-ex to not have the side turret armour extrusions of the arjun. it does.

and on top of being wrong, from the very first post i make in this forum, you've acted like a complete dick.

 

[Dejawolf]

based on the new pictures posted by militarista, i'm going to have to reassess my side turret protection estimates.

it's clear to me now that the turret sides are not 80mm like i previously thought, but 60mm. thick.
and given that it's structural, i'd assume it's a bad idea to harden it, or it'd just end up cracking from stress. so probably just plain old RHA steel, 60mm thick.

 

[sayareakd]

i am sure you guys are enjoying this.

 

[Damian]

Increasing knowledge is always enjoyable, I do not understand why you do not enjoy it?

By increasing knowledge about both, strong and weak sides of each design, it is far much easier to find a proper solution for improvements.

Do I really need to repeat how NATO and Soviet Union was improving their designs? They done this by discussing, analising strong and weak sides of each design and finding alternative solutions. You can't improve without criticism.

The question is, if we, simple enthusiasts could find such weaknesses, what proffesional intelligence could find out. You should think about it. And this is just my hint, for a country and nation, that can definetely be called a possible close friend and ally to NATO in future. So do not treat our posts as offensive and threatening.