Arjun vs T90 MBT

Dejawolf

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
579
Likes
241
ersakthivel said:
blabla storage boxes.
no.

and i wonder why you would need a screwcap on an armour module...
seems to me it's more likely filled with some fluid. maybe water, or diesel for APU, or hydraulic fluid.

oh hey look, i found some more pictures of Arjun prototypes just parading around in the desert:

it looks suspiciously like that previous picture with ARJUN written on the side of the turret, but hey what do i know.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
no.

and i wonder why you would need a screwcap on an armour module...
seems to me it's more likely filled with some fluid. maybe water, or diesel for APU, or hydraulic fluid.
Well these are neither mk-1 nor mk-2.modified mk-Is acting as Testbeds for validating some design improvements in mk-2.
Really is this the place the store diesel or hydraulic fluid?
 

sayareakd

New Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,953
Country flag
Lets assume for second that they have storage boxes at both sides. Then giving the way IA function with all the audit etc, those alleged boxes dont have space for putting locks. Other argument is that it is big tank and it has lot of space at the back.

left side shows that it has storage box at the back with lock


Other important thing guys this is tank, few more tons of weight wont make a difference for tank that size. Tank is made for protection, firepower and mobility. Weight is not much of issue when it get more weight then 50 tons.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
no.

and i wonder why you would need a screwcap on an armour module...
seems to me it's more likely filled with some fluid. maybe water, or diesel for APU, or hydraulic fluid.

oh hey look, i found some more pictures of Arjun prototypes just parading around in the desert:

it looks suspiciously like that previous picture with ARJUN written on the side of the turret, but hey what do i know.

There are many variants ,since design was frozen later and it might be possible that few of the prototypes with lesser armor might have been inducted as well.
This was the one that took part in defexpo 2010 posted in DFI on 02/02/2010
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-25.html
This page has many inside pics as well.
How does this looks like without any suspicions?
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Lets assume for second that they have storage boxes at both sides. Then giving the way IA function with all the audit etc, those alleged boxes dont have space for putting locks. Other argument is that it is big tank and it has lot of space at the back.

left side shows that it has storage box at the back with lock


Other important thing guys this is tank, few more tons of weight wont make a difference for tank that size. Tank is made for protection, firepower and mobility. Weight is not much of issue when it get more weight then 50 tons.
that's what I am saying.The tank has the capability to be evolved into FMBT.The army too has recognized this fact and accepted it for FMBT candidate.
it has the lowest ground pressure per sq inch,
highest accuracy while firing on the move,
can withstand 60 deg desert temp with heat hardened electronics,
and has the highest power to weight ratio,
higher APU power for network centric warfare capability,
better safer ammo storage(going to be improved even further in mk-II),
among the tanks in the IA stables,
and going to have a higher powered locally developed lesser weight diesel engine as per developmental plans,
armor too is going to evolve.
What is even more better is it's turret and hull are going to be redesigned to reduce the weight to 55 tons, in full fledged MK-II version.
So there is no point in splitting hair over the photos of few earlier prototypes and arguing endlessly.
 
Last edited:

Dejawolf

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
579
Likes
241
that's what I am saying.The tank has the capability to be evolved into FMBT.The army too has recognized this fact and accepted it for FMBT candidate.
it has the lowest ground pressure per sq inch,
highest accuracy while firing on the move,
can withstand 60 deg desert temp with heat hardened electronics,
and has the highest power to weight ratio,
higher APU power for network centric warfare capability,
better safer ammo storage(going to be improved even further in mk-II),
among the tanks in the IA stables,
and going to have a higher powered locally developed lesser weight diesel engine as per developmental plans,
armor too is going to evolve.
What is even more better is it's turret and hull are going to be redesigned to reduce the weight to 55 tons, in full fledged MK-II version.
So there is no point in splitting hair over the photos of few earlier prototypes and arguing endlessly.
india would've been better off buying and upgrading leopard 2A4s. they're faster, lighter, got similar protection, compartmentalized ammunition, have better upgrade potential, and nowadays, they are cheaper than Arjuns.
 

t_co

New Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Country flag
india would've been better off buying and upgrading leopard 2A4s. they're faster, lighter, got similar protection, compartmentalized ammunition, have better upgrade potential, and nowadays, they are cheaper than Arjuns.
Well, DRDO has to do something to justify its budget. Remember how Dmitriy Ustinov completely screwed up the Soviet tank industry by making the T-80 his pet project?
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
india would've been better off buying and upgrading leopard 2A4s. they're faster, lighter, got similar protection, compartmentalized ammunition, have better upgrade potential, and nowadays, they are cheaper than Arjuns.
thanks for your expert opinion.Arjun is better than LEo 2A4.Because it will be continually upgraded by CVRDE.I think indians have already finished their fair share of monkey wrench holding,welding torch cutting to upgrade every obsolete platform available in the world in all three branches of armed forces.

Arjun has been custom built for indain conditions and went through years and years of validation and refinement in trials for the past decade and a half.No right thinking defense planner will throw it all into the dustbin and buy another platform to repeat the same validation program.

Also Israelis are deeply involved in ARJUN MBT refinement and all the troubles regarding the fire control system, heat hardening to withstand 60 deg without AC in the desert have been rectified.And it's turret is going to be redesigned to reduce it's weight to 55 tons as per the statement of DRDO chief V.K.Saraswath.

And arjun mk-II will be at par with most MBTs presently serving in the world and it is going to be evolved into FMBT in future versions.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Well, DRDO has to do something to justify its budget. Remember how Dmitriy Ustinov completely screwed up the Soviet tank industry by making the T-80 his pet project?

SO are you also suggesting the chinese defense projects are run for the simple purpose of showing to the world that the chinese defence firms are doing something?

Thankfully ARJUN has not been screwed up. In future versions it is going to get a higher powered lighter weight engine and it has one of the best combinations of lower ground pressure per sq inch and higher power to weight ratio at par with any other tank in the world.
As per indian army's statement ARJUN's firing accuracy on the move is better than T-90, and in range and firepower and in agility it is the best in IA stables, according to MOD report submitted to parliamentary joint committee.

Rifled gun is exceptionally good now in accuracy on the move now.If IA desires it will be replaced by smooth bore gun to standardize ammo across all tanks in IA.
 
Last edited:

t_co

New Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Country flag
SO are you also suggesting the chinese defense projects are run for the simple purpose of showing to the world that the chinese defence firms are doing something?
I wouldn't be surprised if they were. It happens in every nation's military-industrial complex. For example, I believe that China didn't need to build the Type 051 destroyer while they were also building the Type 052, and building two stealth airframes when the PLAAF still lacks a true fifth-generation fighter engine is a misallocation of resources. Also, the Chinese aircraft carrier is probably too expensive to be used just as a training tool, but its sortie rate is too low for it to be a real game-changer versus the US Navy (although it would do well against anything India, Vietnam, the Phillippines, or Japan sends to sea.) However, it does have a ton of symbolic value, and if it can get the Chinese populace interested in building a true global strike and blue water navy capability, then so much the better.

Thankfully ARJUN has not been screwed up. In future versions it is going to get a higher powered lighter weight engine and it has one of the best combinations of lower ground pressure per sq inch and higher power to weight ratio at par with any other tank in the world.
As per indian army's statement ARJUN's firing accuracy on the move is better than T-90, and in range and firepower and in agility it is the best in IA stables, according to MOD report submitted to parliamentary joint committee.

Rifled gun is exceptionally good now in accuracy on the move now.If IA desires it will be replaced by smooth bore gun to standardize ammo across all tanks in IA.
Future version this... future version that... pardon me, but isn't the Arjun already over-budget and massively delayed? And being better than the T-90 is not much of an accomplishment when you realize that the T-90s in Indian hands are twenty years old. As Dejawolf stated above, the Arjun doesn't stack up against the Leopard 2A4 through 2A7, nor does it stack up well against the Abrams.

What's pretty obvious here is that, while the Arjun can become a great tank, it's a mediocre weapons project. It's over budget, late, and it keeps getting measured by the DRDO against obsolete tank designs. While militaries win or lose in wartime based on the quality of their equipment, nations win or lose in peacetime based on how efficiently they can perform national projects. The USSR learned this the hard way; it would be a pity if India didn't absorb those lessons.

One more thing--you really should check up on the saga of the T-80 tank and how Dmitriy Ustinov messed the Soviet tank industry up so hard that it went from behind better than Western tanks (the T-64 versus the M-60) to being much worse (the T-80 versus the Abrams) in the span of 15 years.

T-80 Standard Tank: The Soviet Army#s Last Armored Champion - Steven Zaloga - Google Books
 

Sridhar

House keeper
New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,474
Likes
1,062
Country flag
seems to me that Damians drawings are correct. it is obvious that the space between hatch lid and side turret side is larger than on the leopard 2.

you can compare here the tubular thing with hook on the roof, the ventilator slot, the antenna, and the loaders vision block. for them to fit inside the turret, the walls HAVE to be as thin as damian showed. it's pure basic logic.
The pic is from a Def Expo Feb 2004 . The person who took the photo is dead now

http://acig.org/artman/uploads/arjun3.jpg

 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
I wouldn't be surprised if they were. It happens in every nation's military-industrial complex. For example, I believe that China didn't need to build the Type 051 destroyer while they were also building the Type 052, and building two stealth airframes when the PLAAF still lacks a true fifth-generation fighter engine is a misallocation of resources. Also, the Chinese aircraft carrier is probably too expensive to be used just as a training tool, but its sortie rate is too low for it to be a real game-changer versus the US Navy (although it would do well against anything India, Vietnam, the Phillippines, or Japan sends to sea.) However, it does have a ton of symbolic value, and if it can get the Chinese populace interested in building a true global strike and blue water navy capability, then so much the better.

But the arjun is the only tank project in india and army is satisfied with it's performance and even settling for improving it to FMBT.So no way you can call it irrelevant to IA.
Future version this... future version that... pardon me, but isn't the Arjun already over-budget and massively delayed? And being better than the T-90 is not much of an accomplishment when you realize that the T-90s in Indian hands are twenty years old. As Dejawolf stated above, the Arjun doesn't stack up against the Leopard 2A4 through 2A7, nor does it stack up well against the Abrams.
And DEJAWOLF is talking only in future tense "Upgrade an existing LEO". see upgrading individual sub systems of any weapon platform is a continuous ongoing process through out it's service lifetime.So there is no point in future tense only talk.Right now mk-II is good for IA. In future mk-III will fulfill the FMBT role according to army not by me.
What's pretty obvious here is that, while the Arjun can become a great tank, it's a mediocre weapons project. It's over budget, late, and it keeps getting measured by the DRDO against obsolete tank designs. While militaries win or lose in wartime based on the quality of their equipment, nations win or lose in peacetime based on how efficiently they can perform national projects. The USSR learned this the hard way; it would be a pity if India didn't absorb those lessons.

One more thing--you really should check up on the saga of the T-80 tank and how Dmitriy Ustinov messed the Soviet tank industry up so hard that it went from behind better than Western tanks (the T-64 versus the M-60) to being much worse (the T-80 versus the Abrams) in the span of 15 years.

T-80 Standard Tank: The Soviet Army#s Last Armored Champion - Steven Zaloga - Google Books
ARJUN is already a great tank according to IA.best suited to fight along the indo-pak border with it's
lowest ground pressure per sq inch meaning it can move in terrain that can not be negotiated by other tanks,
highest power to weight ratio,
safer ammo storage,
higher powered APU for network centric warfare needs,
highest accurate firing while on the move,
best suited to fight in desert with heat hardened electronics and even without an AC,
superior in range and accuracy
according to army report to MOD, which was submitted to indian parliamentary committe on defense and which was also endorsed by third party audit and in comparitive trials with T-90 by IA.
Can you compare the budget of ARJUN to other tank projects and specify how over budget it is?
So why are you using he following project to beat it down?

One more thing--you really should check up on the saga of the T-80 tank and how Dmitriy Ustinov messed the Soviet tank industry up so hard that it went from behind better than Western tanks (the T-64 versus the M-60) to being much worse (the T-80 versus the Abrams) in the span of 15 years.
See the approach used by CVRDE is very different from the approach used for T-80.
Indians aimed for a tank that follows the western design principles of

crew protection level,
and 4 men crew type meaning lesser fatigue on crew,
lesser ground pressure per sq inch,
more power to weight ratio,
safer ammo storage,
heavier weight tank,
And they largely achieved it according to IA which set the GSQR.
And they did it with design consultancy from germans and Israelis .
Present engines and transmission are from germany, FCs problems licked by Israeli firms, and CVRDE proposes to localize it sub system by sub system once they get a larger order from IA.They didnt go for any fancy stuff like gas turbine engine.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
See the approach used by CVRDE is very different from the approach used for T-80.
Indians aimed for a tank that follows the western design principles of

crew protection level,
and 4 men crew type meaning lesser fatigue on crew,
lesser ground pressure per sq inch,
more power to weight ratio,
safer ammo storage,
heavier weight tank,
And they largely achieved it according to IA which set the GSQR.
And they did it with design consultancy from germans and Israelis .
Present engines and transmission are from germany, FCs problems licked by Israeli firms, and CVRDE proposes to localize it sub system by sub system once they get a larger order from IA.They didnt go for any fancy stuff like gas turbine engine.
What? Arjun is by no way following a NATO's tank designing school for 3rd generation MBT's.

- Crew protection level - what does that mean?! Arjun does not have isolated ammunition compartments, it's crew protection equals that of Soviet T tanks.

- 4 man crew? - NATO stick to that due to not immediate need for autoloader and lack of mature autoloader designs for a long period of time. In fact there were modernization proposals for both M1 and Leopard 2 with autoloaders tat could fit in to currently used turrets.

- Safer ammo storage - my ass, neither you understand the principle, neither seems people at CVRDE, I suppose that they only read somewhere about blow off panels when Arjun was designed, but they didn't seen a point where ammunition was isolated from the crew as well.

- Heavier weight of vehicle is not a goal on it's own, but effect of bigger internal volume for bigger components, crew comforts, ammunition compertalization and a composite armor that is placed not only at front but also at turret sides.

- There is no proof in Germans sources that Rhinemetall or KMW provided support for Arjun project.

- Gas Turbine is not a fancy thing, in fact it have it's advantages over Diesel, as we as disadvantages, there are no perfect solutions, there is allways something for something. As for Arjun Diesel, you still are making mistake to think it is sufficent.

Engines allways loose some power for cooling, on transmission etc. So from nominal 1400HP the power can even reduce to belo 1000HP, especially in climate like in India.

Besides ersakthivel, for me it is preaty obvious that you are not interested in objective discussion, because it is not about tank itself, for you it seems, the reason to fight with any criticism is a matter of personall, national pride.

The longest tank kill in the world is by a challenger 2 at 5.1k'ms
On record: An M1a2 killed 2 T72's at once. the AP went through one tank and killed the second to the rear of it.
The longest tank kill was performed by Challenger 1 crew in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, and I talked with British guys that were in or were close to Royal Armoured Corps about this, they says that commander of this tank was a high rank officer who could waste ammunition, that it is immposible it was a one shot one kill scenario due to IFCS capabilities or rather how awfull IFCS was, and nobody really knows what ammunition was used, and how many rounds were fired before it actually hit Iraqi tank.

And if this is argument that a rifled gun is better, may I remind all of you that both Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 were in all gunnery trails and competition performed by NATO, defeated by M1, Leopard 2 and Leclerc armed with smoothbore guns.

As for the second scenario, in fact it was M1A1 not M1A2, it was also in 1991, and the Iraqi tanks were hit from the side, there their armor was max 70-80mm thick, which means it was non obstacle for M829A1.
 

tharikiran

New Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
763
Likes
1,040
Country flag
The main reason US went for 4 man crew is more psychology related than not having matured auto loader options.
What I have found on the net consistently in interviews on M1 Abrams is, having 4 people in a tank helps people rest better and distribute tasks(repairing etc.) more effectively and also helps in improving morale of the team/tank crew as they have to spend time alone in a box.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
What? Arjun is by no way following a NATO's tank designing school for 3rd generation MBT's.
Well you are the only one peddling some nth gen MBt model with no turret and all the crew members in hull with some drawings.Who is developing it?
For all practical purpose arjun is as per the latest design trends of modern MBTs in the world.
- Crew protection level - what does that mean?! Arjun does not have isolated ammunition compartments, it's crew protection equals that of Soviet T tanks.
MK-2 ARJUNs that are going to enter will have compartmentalized ammo storage.Even in mk-I the ammo storage is 10 times safer than T-90 despite all the faulty drawings you have posted here.
- 4 man crew? - NATO stick to that due to not immediate need for autoloader and lack of mature autoloader designs for a long period of time. In fact there were modernization proposals for both M1 and Leopard 2 with autoloaders tat could fit in to currently used turrets.
So the rest of the couldn't master the auto loaders THAT WERE MASTERED BY russians according to you.
- Safer ammo storage - my ass, neither you understand the principle, neither seems people at CVRDE, I suppose that they only read somewhere about blow off panels when Arjun was designed, but they didn't seen a point where ammunition was isolated from the crew as well.
No one here wants to see your ASS.you can keep that safely in your pant.
See I can understand one thing clearly from the posts you have made here and in many other international forum on ARJUN.Yu will repeatedly post factually wrong statements regarding the non existent frontal 60 degree turret weakness and deny there is any protection for ammo storage in turret because they are situated right next to thinner storage bx but both claims have been proved to be factually wrong in this thread.
- Heavier weight of vehicle is not a goal on it's own, but effect of bigger internal volume for bigger components, crew comforts, ammunition compertalization and a composite armor that is placed not only at front but also at turret sides.
Well your typical denigrating comment about heavier tanks being repeated here again.Let me once again bet my two cents that tanks become heavier because
designers want a safe ammo compartmentalized storage ,
less fatigued four men crew tank ,
with more armor weight on turret front and sides to protect crew ,
with heavier engine for better power to weight ratio,
resulting in heavier tanks .
But Your recommended smaller MBT follows on the all the discarded design principles in western world like,
a truncated turret with protection only on frontal 60 degree is enough ignoring the vulnerability of hits on the thinner turret side ,
making the crew sit on ammo and placing ammo in auto loader where it is impossible to be protected from fire by compartmentalization,
having a lesser weight engine leading to lesser power to weight tanks
And you are crazily claiming this is the best solution for future.But the fact of the matter is not a single western tank major is designing any tank on the quixotic concept advanced by you.They all are making close to 60 ton tanks with all the features same as ARJUN.
- There is no proof in Germans sources that Rhinemetall or KMW provided support for Arjun project.
So without any consultancy from them CVRDE bought engine and transmission from them according to you.Just google it and find it out.
- Gas Turbine is not a fancy thing, in fact it have it's advantages over Diesel, as we as disadvantages, there are no perfect solutions, there is allways something for something. As for Arjun Diesel, you still are making mistake to think it is sufficent.
Gas turbine is excellent if you can customize it for tank.Otherwise barring ABRAMS every other tank has rugged desiel engines that are rated as best.
Engines allways loose some power for cooling, on transmission etc. So from nominal 1400HP the power can even reduce to belo 1000HP, especially in climate like in India.
Any source for the so called 400 HP power loss?AFAIK T-90 loses 100 hp because it is not optimized for indian desert conditions.If proper cooling is given there will be no power loss in any diesel engine.However hot the desert may be.You agree or not?Only jet engines have their performance degraded when they suck hotter air.Diesel engines need just proper water cooling.that's all.The problem is the T-90's engine was built for colder climates where this cooling was not needed.that was the reason for the power loss.
Besides ersakthivel, for me it is preaty obvious that you are not interested in objective discussion, because it is not about tank itself, for you it seems, the reason to fight with any criticism is a matter of personall, national pride.



The longest tank kill was performed by Challenger 1 crew in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, and I talked with British guys that were in or were close to Royal Armoured Corps about this, they says that commander of this tank was a high rank officer who could waste ammunition, that it is immposible it was a one shot one kill scenario due to IFCS capabilities or rather how awfull IFCS was, and nobody really knows what ammunition was used, and how many rounds were fired before it actually hit Iraqi tank.
See this kind of PERSONAL I AM MY OWN SOURCE ARGUMENTS CAN NEVER BE COUNTERED.
Universally accepted truth is rifled gun fires more accurately that's why they were put in the first place.
If it is not why was the rifled gun put in challenger in the first place?in earlier decades?
Now every one is changing to smooth bore in NATO to standardize ammo .That's all.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/t-98-vs-arjun-657-5/
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/t-98-vs-arjun-657-7/

Rifling is more expensive to produce, wears out faster, causes barrel to heat faster, and reduces speed of projectile compared to smooth bore guns. Requirement of plastic deformation of projectile adds cost and limits properties of outer layer of projectile. Also makes rounds like beehive (flechette) rounds more difficult and expensive to make.

On the other hand, spin stabilization dramatically increases accuracy of relatively short projectiles. Using other methods to stabilize, such as fins, can increase cost of projectiles for smooth bores.
But this problem is solved in ARJUN RIFLED GUN by rubber coating the APFDS rounds and chromium lining of the barrel which improves the accuracy range and barrel life significantly as per the discussion in the above forum between guys who are actually doing the work on the field,not pie in the sky posters like you.

Visit the above site for some home truth regarding the rifled gun on arjun in the discussion between the moderator- gf0012AUST and dabrownguy.I am sure you are no stranger to the site.
And if this is argument that a rifled gun is better, may I remind all of you that both Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 were in all gunnery trails and competition performed by NATO, defeated by M1, Leopard 2 and Leclerc armed with smoothbore guns.
The reason IMHO is british didn't in invest in any further r&D on rifled gun as they are going to change in order to use standard NATO AMMO.While others are continually improving their FCS.
As for the second scenario, in fact it was M1A1 not M1A2, it was also in 1991, and the Iraqi tanks were hit from the side, there their armor was max 70-80mm thick, which means it was non obstacle for M829A1.
It is pretty obvious to me that you will continue along this vein for the next 40 pages dragging me kicking and screaming throughout the thread.i neither have the time nor there is anything worthwhile in it for me.So Good Bye.Happy new year.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
while APFSDS rounds have improved dramatically. They have long, arrow shaped projectiles, so spin stabilizing doesn't work well. Also, spin stabilizing APFDS rounds reduces terminal performance. Since primary mission of tank is anti-armor, and non-spin APFSDS is best antitank round, the smooth bore therefore has an edge. Accuracy of fin stabilitzed APFDS rounds is excellent. Other rounds with larger diameter to length ratio are surely less accurate than for rifled guns, but artillery function for MBT's is considered a secondary function.
But this problem is solved in ARJUN RIFLED GUN by rubber coating the APFDS rounds and chromium lining of the barrel which improves the accuracy range and barrel life significantly.So now arjun is the first rifled gun in the world that is capable of firing APFDS rounds and HESH rounds both pretty effectively to their maximum range with much better muzzle velocity.

Developments in chromium lining gives increased velocity and therefore penetration power to the round, greater precision and reduced wear on the barrel.which is reduced to negligible amount in the Arjun and a Russian high charge shell specially designed for the 120 of Arjun

The AP fired from this barrel is a dual stage projectile. The cone is sealed in a condom type rubber around it with 3 burnable line seals. During travel through the barrel it heats up and burns out exposing the main cone on exit and then separates the sabot jacket. So during travel it is as smooth as a smoothbore with a HIGHER velocity and hence a flatter trajectory, better accuracy and greater penetration. The griping by rifling is thus removed from the concept of FS-AP shots long rod and otherwise.This is a significant contribution of Arjun 120mm to the MBTs of the world if ever the tech is declassified.
 
Last edited:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Well you are the only one peddling some nth gen MBt model with no turret and all the crew members in hull with some drawings.Who is developing it?
For all practical purpose arjun is as per the latest design trends of modern MBTs in the world.
A design scheme for 4th generation MBT's that was world wide accepted by the biggest and most eperienced nations designing tanks, was to put crew in hull and use unmanned turret. Who is designed it? Americans and Germans developed advanced prototypes, but R&D was postponed due to collapse of Soviet Union, while Russians are currently developing such MBT under codename "Armata".

While the Arjun represents design scheme 42 years old.

MK-2 ARJUNs that are going to enter will have compartmentalized ammo storage.Even in mk-I the ammo storage is 10 times safer than T-90 despite all the faulty drawings you have posted here.
Why? Because you say so? As for 10 times safer, oh did you done any tests? Or perhaps calculated probability of hit in to more exposed turret bustle? You do not understand anything in tank designing.

So the rest of the couldn't master the auto loaders THAT WERE MASTERED BY russians according to you.
No, the problem was not autoloader per se, but how to design it so it could be placed in to isolated compartment. Actually the first nations that developed working autoloaders were Americans during WWII for T20 series of prototype tanks and Germans were also experimenting with them at that time, I think that French also had some ideas, though later they go for something tha can be called semi-autoloader that was simpler in design.

No one here wants to see your ASS.you can keep that safely in your pant.
See I can understand one thing clearly from the posts you have made here and in many other international forum on ARJUN.Yu will repeatedly post factually wrong statements regarding the non existent frontal 60 degree turret weakness and deny there is any protection for ammo storage in turret because they are situated right next to thinner storage bx but both claims have been proved to be factually wrong in this thread.
Proven wrong by who? By you? Hahaha you are so funny with this arrogance and ignorance of yours. Dejawolf made very good 3d models as well as detailed analisis, it is obvious that what you say is only your fantasy and wishfull thinking.

Well your typical denigrating comment about heavier tanks being repeated here again.Let me once again bet my two cents that tanks become heavier because
designers want a safe ammo compartmentalized storage ,
less fatigued four men crew tank ,
with more armor weight on turret front and sides to protect crew ,
with heavier engine for better power to weight ratio,
resulting in heavier tanks .
But Your recommended smaller MBT follows on the all the discarded design principles in western world like,
a truncated turret with protection only on frontal 60 degree is enough ignoring the vulnerability of hits on the thinner turret side ,
making the crew sit on ammo and placing ammo in auto loader where it is impossible to be protected from fire by compartmentalization,
having a lesser weight engine leading to lesser power to weight tanks
And you are crazily claiming this is the best solution for future.But the fact of the matter is not a single western tank major is designing any tank on the quixotic concept advanced by you.They all are making close to 60 ton tanks with all the features same as ARJUN.
It seems you are just naturally uncapable to comprehend what other peoples says.

Not to mention that this part of your post is just hilarious... a lesser weight engine having less power? :D Where did you read so? Gas Turbines are typically 1-1,5 tons lighter than Diesels and provide same or even higher power. A MTU MB883 Diesel is smaller and lighter than it's predecessor MB873 and provides exactly the same power.

And the widely accepted in the biggest tank producers community, perspective tank design scheme was as I said, small unmanned turret, and crew in the hull. Americans calculated that such design with also heavy armor for turret, would weight 55 tons, reducing armor for unmanned turret would probably lead to 40-50 tons heavy design, with superior protection to any currently used MBT.

So you have absolutely no idea about tank designing.

So without any consultancy from them CVRDE bought engine and transmission from them according to you.Just google it and find it out.
They just bought a licence for engine and transmission. You even know what licence means? And I do not use google because google is mostly good for people that have poor education, and have problems with reading books or finding documents (even via internet).

Gas turbine is excellent if you can customize it for tank.Otherwise barring ABRAMS every other tank has rugged desiel engines that are rated as best.
Why customize? Every engine can be placed in most tanks if there is enough space in engine compartment, simple as that. There were T-64's used as test beds for gas turbines, even Leopard 2 had trails with gas turbine used in M1 during R&D phase.

Any source for the so called 400 HP power loss?AFAIK T-90 loses 100 hp because it is not optimized for indian desert conditions.If proper cooling is given there will be no power loss in any diesel engine.However hot the desert may be.You agree or not?Only jet engines have their performance degraded when they suck hotter air.Diesel engines need just proper water cooling.that's all.The problem is the T-90's engine was built for colder climates where this cooling was not needed.that was the reason for the power loss.
Militarysta had some access to the different engines characteristics.

I will ask him to send me that data, there was also data for 1500HP MB873 which is similiar engine to the MTU one used in Arjun, the power on sprockets provided by German engine was lower than 1000HP despite the fact that engine itself generates 1500HP, this is because every engine type have power losses on cooling on transmission. As any engineer that works with engines.

See this kind of PERSONAL I AM MY OWN SOURCE ARGUMENTS CAN NEVER BE COUNTERED.
Universally accepted truth is rifled gun fires more accurately that's why they were put in the first place.
If it is not why was the rifled gun put in challenger in the first place?in earlier decades?
Now every one is changing to smooth bore in NATO to standardize ammo .That's all.
It is funny because when Americans were making trails for different types of guns, be it smoothbore or rifled, the German Rh-120 smoothbore was the most powerfull and most accurate, despite the fact that there were British 110mm and 120mm rifled guns also tested by Americans (among them L11A5 used in Challenger 1).

So no, the generally accepted "fact" that rifled guns are more accurate is a myth. Also the proof for this are results of NATO trails where smoothbore armed tanks defeated tanks amed with rifled guns, even when fire control systems were comparable in performance.

But this problem is solved in ARJUN RIFLED GUN by rubber coating the APFDS rounds and chromium lining of the barrel which improves the accuracy range and barrel life significantly as per the discussion in the above forum between guys who are actually doing the work on the field,not pie in the sky posters like you.

Visit the above site for some home truth regarding the rifled gun on arjun in the discussion between the moderator- gf0012AUST and dabrownguy.I am sure you are no stranger to the site.
I do not care what was done in India, because much more experienced nations, that are designing and building tanks for a much longer time, and have better tanks than Arjun, transitioned to smoothbore guns. So their opinion is far more credible than opinion of a "noobs".

The reason IMHO is british didn't in invest in any further r&D on rifled gun as they are going to change in order to use standard NATO AMMO.While others are continually improving their FCS.
L30A1 is probably one of the most advanced if not the most advanced, high pressure rifled gun, and in the end the result was that a much older, smoothbore gun designed in Germany was still superior in accuracy. Besides this Challenger 2 use FCS that is derivative of the M1A2 FCS, which is one of the most advanced and precise FCS manufactured in the world. So both Challenger 2 and M1A2 in Greece had similiar FCS (same in fact) and Challenger 2 was far behind in accuracy during trails.

Think about this.
 

tharikiran

New Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
763
Likes
1,040
Country flag
@ersakthivel awesome links man. This line made my day-"F*kkkk it will kill a merkava at night...OH GOD WHAT HAVE WE CREATED....
BIG PARTY TODAY "

If one goes through the links provided by ersakthivel, this argument is closed according to me. I don't think I will ever believe what non sense people talk about Arjun.

It's game over . @Damian Please at least go through the links provided.

What we have developed for Arjun is something the western countries are running after.Amazing. Simply amazing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
It's game over . @Damian Please at least go through the links provided.

What we have developed for Arjun is something the western countries are running after.Amazing. Simply amazing.
For people like you, that have absolutely no knowledge about tanks, or for children it might be something amazing, for me as educated person it is just pathetic.

And this is actually funny even, a country that never beofre developed any type of tank, all the sudden developes a super tank? Without any experience? You really believe this? How old are you then, 5? It is just immposible by any common logic.

After what NATO would be? A rifled gun that was accepted as obsolete technology and currently everyone is using smoothbore guns. What else? Armor? NATO countries like USA or UK are working on composite armors from 1943-1945 period, this is 69-67 years of continous research and development work, with what you want to impress them here?

Fire control systems? Nope, electronics? Nope actually US Army is first fully digitized armed forces, so again, with what you want to impress them in terms of technology?

Engines? Again Arjun use German MTU Diesel which is less powerfull than ones used in Leopard 2's used for last 33 years, and there were more advanced engines developed like the LV100-5, XAP-1000 under AIPS program, or MTU MB883 and other types.

Ammunition? When Arjun APFSDS ammunition represents level of NATO ammunition in first half of 1980's there is really nothing to impress NATO.
 
Last edited:

Articles

Top