Arjun vs T90 MBT

[sayareakd]

everything you need to know is in that picture.

are you sure it is complete picture ?

 

[Dejawolf]

are you sure it is complete picture ?

.... yeah.

 

[Damian]

are you sure it is complete picture ?

Seems legit, especially in case of interior photo as You can see between TC vision blocks and gunner control panel above his sights there is no armor block, which means very thin armor there. In case of Leopard 2 there is thick armor block between TC position - front turret surface and above gunner station.

 

[pmaitra]

are you sure it is complete picture ?

Frankly, I am not sure what he is trying to convey.

 

[Damian]

Frankly, I am not sure what he is trying to convey.

I am surprised that you do not see it. Look at the TC vision blocks, and then go the turret front, you can see that between vision blocks and gunner control panel, there is no armor, which means that this place is more serious weak zone than I thought. I suppose that Arjun designers looking at the Leopard 2 thinked that there is also no armor behind main sight, probably they didn't had interior photos or photos frim turret welding process, where armor block behind main sight is visible, so they didn't placed armor block behind main sight in Arjun.

 

[pmaitra]

I am surprised that you do not see it. Look at the TC vision blocks, and then go the turret front, you can see that between vision blocks and gunner control panel, there is no armor, which means that this place is more serious weak zone than I thought. I suppose that Arjun designers looking at the Leopard 2 thinked that there is also no armor behind main sight, probably they didn't had interior photos or photos frim turret welding process, where armor block behind main sight is visible, so they didn't placed armor block behind main sight in Arjun.

Ok now I understand. I was getting the impression the gunner's field of view was blocked.

Thanks.

 

[Damian]

For comparision:

You can see that above gunner position and in front of TC vision blocks in Leo2 there is armor block, in case of Arjun, there is no such armor block, which gives hint that there is not much armor behind main sight.

 

[p2prada]

Do you have any references? Right now, it is a totally unsupported claim. Also, what were the details or test parameters in this particular test?

This was posted twice.

I don't have the patience to find it. There was a 2 part video, we even discussed the video for quite sometime. A lot of the misconceptions of the Arjun vs T-90 trial was cleared in that. 4 army commanders talking about both tanks.

So, a completely well supported claim.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

What you mention is with many other tanks..

1. So does in T-90A/S etc, turret geometry is good only in theory in practical its not..

2. Are you sure ? Do you have internal pics to support your claim so, I dont have but i do know the amount of space between main sight and gunner at back..

3. So does in many other tanks but still safer than T-72/90 exposed Ammo at floor..


I think you are going over your regular quality posts, to support your argument you are using nonsense..

2.Therrible protection:
-non protected turret sides
- huge weak zone after main sight
- no isolated ammo in turret without blow-out plates.

It's ridiculous...T-90S (SA) have mucht better developed turret:
-no sucht gaps in protection
- better armour integity
- bigger armour LOS
- no ammo in turret

BTW: Guys from India - I have nathing against indian Army, Citizens, Industry, but you all shoud understand that Ajrun is ----ed up and it's patetic in compare to pak. T-80UD (Ob.478BE). Goog bless that Idia bought many, chepa and quite good T-90 from Russia, becouse Ajrun -whit that funny turret -is weisting money... Sorry - this turret is misunderstand.

========================================

I dont remember there is any talk like that but they did mention that advance ammo is needed, T-90S ammo is recently updated and its penetration is 500mm RHA from 2000ms and Arjun is 460mm RHA from 2000ms, Though it is also mentioned that there is a 500mm@2000ms is also in use and there is 650mm in development..

Do you have any references? Right now, it is a totally unsupported claim. Also, what were the details or test parameters in this particular test?

 

[pmaitra]

This was posted twice.

I don't have the patience to find it. There was a 2 part video, we even discussed the video for quite sometime. A lot of the misconceptions of the Arjun vs T-90 trial was cleared in that. 4 army commanders talking about both tanks.

So, a completely well supported claim.

Maybe, but since I don't know about that, it remains an unsupported claim.

You are making an assertion, you furnish the references. I did the same with rifle vs smoothbore discussion.

Till then, your argument is invalid.

 

[militarysta]

What you mention is with many other tanks..

1. So does in T-90A/S etc, turret geometry is good only in theory in practical its not..

2. Are you sure ? Do you have internal pics to support your claim so, I dont have but i do know the amount of space between main sight and gunner at back..

3. So does in many other tanks but still safer than T-72/90 exposed Ammo at floor..


I think you are going over your regular quality posts, to support your argument you are using nonsense..

Kunal, those topic is for me less interesting the those:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-308.html
Im writing here only for great Dejawolf posts and job. But if You want to talk. Yes, I'm trying to respect Ajrun and india developers job but here it's impossible to do. It just danger for Indian Army and tank crews. Anyway:

So does in T-90A/S etc, turret geometry is good only in theory in practical its not..

It was disputed many many times. Soviet/Rusian/Ukrainian new welded turrets shape provide very good protection (and thick) on typical battelfield for +/-35 degree from longitiudal axis. ut they are weak in case near to 90. for turret sides hits. And rear-side-plates are only 80mm thick. But in India case -desert, long fields etc, when medium range will be at least 2000m then T-90A welded turret shape is not worse then western (M1, Leo-2) turret, and far far better then Ajrun turret whit obvious weak plase on front of the tank. It's madness! Huge mantle (114cm) and main sight zone.

And two estimatus made on russian forums for Ob.188A1/A2 (T-90A) (whit welded turret)

Compare this whit Ajrun...sorry - even if we put Kachan rmour in tat thickenss then overal protection shoud be better for 0. degree and simmilar on 30.degree.

Are you sure ? Do you have internal pics to support your claim so, I dont have but i do know the amount of space between main sight and gunner at back..

IMHO after main sight is about 30-35cm armour monoblock (slighty thicker are then on dejawolf draw) it's ends before additionla small periscope .But it change nothing -it's still very weak point...

So does in many other tanks but still safer than T-72/90 exposed Ammo at floor..

Sorry Kunal but it's not true.
In T-72, T-90, T-80 etc tnak You have one great advantage - noe main gun ammo in turret. So in that case soviet/russian/ukrinian tank turets are more sefer then other turrets. Becouse there is no ammo rack in turret. So yes T-90 is mucht sefer then Ajrun about turret case.
But lack of ammo rack in turret case that T-xx tanks have whole hull full of ammo. Amunition in caroussel autoloader is quite safe (as Chechenia battle proofs) but rest of ammo is stick in any space. And those ammo is huge danger. Ajrun have mucht better proected and placed hull ammo rack. So hull have mucht better protected amunition (and safer) the an T-xx tank.
But:
Clou: 70% hits on modern battelfield always have turret:

And Ajrun turret haven't blow out plates and separated ammo in other special "bunker". So in fact Ajrun have whorse ammo placmend then T-90...sorry -70% possibility of taken hit in turret. T-90 -no ammo in turret, Ajrun -unprotected ammo in turret + almoust non protected turret sides + weak zone after main sight + huge gun manteld mask (teh biggest known -114cm!).
It's suck when we consider all factors :/

 

[militarysta]

And special for our Indian friends -what is wrong whit Ajrun turret on one draw:


made by myself during 5min in gimp.

IMHO the only think what Indian industry can do whit Ajrun is:

a) take quite good Ajrun hull and:
b) place on it low-profile turret like FALCON turret, or polish LPC turret (from Ander-WWO):

It will have mucht more sense then doing something whit those Ajrun turret.
And -take a notice - that low-profile turretis quite easy to developed -even polish industry was able to do it in one year, so propably Indian tank industry shoud be able to do the same whit some help from RUAG or KMW.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1. You are talking theory, Its indeed the geometry of the turret is nicer but battlefield conditions are unpredictable, tanks not always go head on but mostly ambush each other, you talk mostly about turret hits, Have a look where most turret hits occur and how come not at front, My study is based from WW2 and Indian conflicts so does most basic way of ambushing tanks, So even though with proper geometry its not a big success, T-90S sides are still weak as Arjun..

Big mantal is indeed a weak zone but again over hyped here, Arjun Big mantel serves its a purpose, I would like to keep it Opsec coz i never read about it on net, And i dont want to declassify it over open net..


2. I never said its not, Nor in Leo2A4s it is but the issue is over hyping here..

3. This is the point i wont agree with you a bit, Arjun ammo in turret are enclosed in ammo bins, Without a direct hit on that it wont go off by magical powers unlike T-90S/72 type auto-loader where few sparks are good enough, There are few examples of T-tanks survived direct hits rest were not lucky even in Chechenia there are more tanks blown out with turret high than few survived, Even in recent exercise a T-72/90 caught fire due to spark and crew died, It is told the incident occurredtraini with lack of training..

About hits over turret, Its up-to different Armies philosophy, Tanks are hit where they are most vulnerable..

4. In the diagram the periscope does not always goes down as in typical submarine..

===============================================

It was disputed many many times. Soviet/Rusian/Ukrainian new welded turrets shape provide very good protection (and thick) on typical battelfield for +/-35 degree from longitiudal axis. ut they are weak in case near to 90. for turret sides hits. And rear-side-plates are only 80mm thick. But in India case -desert, long fields etc, when medium range will be at least 2000m then T-90A welded turret shape is not worse then western (M1, Leo-2) turret, and far far better then Ajrun turret whit obvious weak plase on front of the tank. It's madness! Huge mantle (114cm) and main sight zone. Compare this whit Ajrun...sorry - even if we put Kachan rmour in tat thickenss then overal protection shoud be better for 0. degree and simmilar on 30.degree.

IMHO after main sight is about 30-35cm armour monoblock (slighty thicker are then on dejawolf draw) it's ends before additionla small periscope .But it change nothing -it's still very weak point...

Sorry Kunal but it's not true. In T-72, T-90, T-80 etc tnak You have one great advantage - noe main gun ammo in turret. So in that case soviet/russian/ukrinian tank turets are more sefer then other turrets. Becouse there is no ammo rack in turret. So yes T-90 is mucht sefer then Ajrun about turret case. But lack of ammo rack in turret case that T-xx tanks have whole hull full of ammo. Amunition in caroussel autoloader is quite safe (as Chechenia battle proofs) but rest of ammo is stick in any space. And those ammo is huge danger. Ajrun have mucht better proected and placed hull ammo rack. So hull have mucht better protected amunition (and safer) the an T-xx tank.But:Clou: 70% hits on modern battelfield always have turret: /

And special for our Indian friends -what is wrong whit Ajrun turret on one draw:


made by myself during 5min in gimp..

 

[militarysta]

1. You are talking theory, Its indeed the geometry of the turret is nicer but battlefield conditions are unpredictable, tanks not always go head on but mostly ambush each other, you talk mostly about turret hits, Have a look where most turret hits occur and how come not at front, My study is based from WW2 and Indian conflicts so does most basic way of ambushing tanks, So even though with proper geometry its not a big success, T-90S sides are still weak as Arjun..

In fact Ajrun turret is not western whit protected sides by 30-40cm armour not estern whit no typical side armour. It's somthing diffent but whorse then typical western and typical estern -due to lack of side protection turret...
And here you have chanse to hit AFV and others in today battielfield:

and for last 4 big war:

in fact my studies are based on books writen by profesionalist and...tank manuals (German and Polish) sorry...

Big mantal is indeed a weak zone but again over hyped here, Arjun Big mantel serves its a purpose, I would like to keep it Opsec coz i never read about it on net, And i dont want to declassify it over open net..

ABM and guided munition don't need sucht big mantled...it first, second: it's problem with those damm gun, not develoed...

2. I never said its not, Nor in Leo2A4s it is but the issue is over hyping here..

"what is" in Leo-2A4?
Area behind EMES-15 have 65cm thick special armour cavity. Gun mantled mask is 93 width (not 114cm like in Ajrun) and gun mantled mask is 42cm thick not under 30cm like in Ajrun. In both cases Leopard-2A4 have mucht mucht better protection.

3. This is the point i wont agree with you a bit, Arjun ammo in turret are enclosed in ammo bins, Without a direct hit on that it wont go off by magical powers unlike T-90S/72 type auto-loader where few sparks are good enough, There are few examples of T-tanks survived direct hits rest were not lucky even in Chechenia there are more tanks blown out with turret high than few survived, Even in recent exercise a T-72/90 caught fire due to spark and crew died, It is told the incident occurredtraini with lack of training..

But we are agree that lack of any ammo in T-90 turret is better then have ammo without isolation in Ajrun turret? Yes or no?

About hull ammo - You replicate old myths about both Chechenia battle. During 1999 war only 14 T-72B tanks had tottal los. And Russian as fist where using insensitive ammo! (for the other hand those insensitive ammo had therrible problem whit accuracy -Im talking about HE-FRAG). And there was mirracle -those T-72BW can whindstand 2-3 hull perforation without "flying turrets". For the othe hand - ussaly crew was so injury that tank must escpae from battelfield. But it's diffrens story.

4. In the diagram the periscope does not always goes down as in typical submarine..

Yeay sure -it's plaing "snake" under turret roof.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1. That is something already explained and no need to repeat for sake of showing off, The diagram shows what is told by me earlier ( Read again if you not or already ), As i said different armies different way of approach & Its speaks what told..

The Chart shows odd results despite its from proclaimed authors ( According to you ), According to this most tank vs tank engagement are head on which is incorrect..

2. Then you dont understand the need for a big mantel..

3. How you figured its under 30cm ?

4. Nope, Any flash under turret will cause fire to exposed ammo inside tank creating high chances of explosion unlike Arjun ammo is covered from flash..

5. So you agree that most had there turrets flying without insensitive ( Still not perfect ) ammo..

6. Periscope is made in snake structure..

================================================

In fact Ajrun turret is not western whit protected sides by 30-40cm armour not estern whit no typical side armour. It's somthing diffent but whorse then typical western and typical estern -due to lack of side protection turret... And here you have chanse to hit AFV and others in today battielfield:


and for last 4 big war:

in fact my studies are based on books writen by profesionalist and...tank manuals (German and Polish) sorry...

ABM and guided munition don't need sucht big mantled...it first, second: it's problem with those damm gun, not develoed...

"what is" in Leo-2A4? Area behind EMES-15 have 65cm thick special armour cavity. Gun mantled mask is 93 width (not 114cm like in Ajrun) and gun mantled mask is 42cm thick not under 30cm like in Ajrun. In both cases Leopard-2A4 have mucht mucht better protection.

But we are agree that lack of any ammo in T-90 turret is better then have ammo without isolation in Ajrun turret? Yes or no?

About hull ammo - You replicate old myths about both Chechenia battle. During 1999 war only 14 T-72B tanks had tottal los. And Russian as fist where using insensitive ammo! (for the other hand those insensitive ammo had therrible problem whit accuracy -Im talking about HE-FRAG). And there was mirracle -those T-72BW can whindstand 2-3 hull perforation without "flying turrets". For the othe hand - ussaly crew was so injury that tank must escpae from battelfield. But it's diffrens story.

Yeay sure -it's plaing "snake" under turret roof.

 

[Daredevil]

Maybe, but since I don't know about that, it remains an unsupported claim.

You are making an assertion, you furnish the references. I did the same with rifle vs smoothbore discussion.

Till then, your argument is invalid.

These are the videos he is talking about

 

[pmaitra]

I saw/heard it. It is in the second video, @2:30.

 

[p2prada]

I saw/heard it. It is in the second video, @2:30.

Does change things when real facts are brought out, doesn't it?

 

[pmaitra]

Does change things when real facts are brought out, doesn't it?

No it doesn't change the fact that it was your responsibility to provide support for your claims.

They also nullified your earlier assertion that weight based classification of tanks is not done anymore. I think you should see the video once again - and ;learn something as well.

 

[p2prada]

No it doesn't change the fact that it was your responsibility to provide support for your claims.

They also nullified your earlier assertion that weight based classification of tanks is not done anymore. I think you should see the video once again - and ;learn something as well.

Firstly, I am under no obligation to prove everything I say, you can take it or leave it. Secondly, the fact that Arjun's penetration capabilities was lesser than T-90s was known since the day specs and pics were released for the guns and shells for both tanks.

Thirdly, they are comparing Soviet style vs western. Nothing to do with a tank being heavier or not. Arjun is just a "heavy" tank would also mean my brother is just a "heavy" guy. It doesn't put us in two different classes if he weighs 15 kilos more than me. Such simple facts escape a lot of people here even now. The Obj 195 weighs 55 tonnes and "may probably" have twice the armor as on a 63 tonne Abrams. The Armata may end up with the highest possible protection levels among all tanks and still weigh around 50 tonnes.

Lastly, even though Arjun is a heavier tank, it's armor and firepower is inferior to the T-90, a lighter tank.

If you are comparing a Tiger tank with a Sherman, then there is heavy, medium and light involved. Today, there is no such thing.