Arjun vs T90 MBT

[ersakthivel]

Funny thing, but I actually talked with people that were NATO tanks crews members, and they are far more realistic than you, and have much greater respect to T tanks. This is enough for a comment.

Even more funny thing is ,
there will be equal number of T series crew members who will have even more respect for NATO type bigger turret ,higher volume ,heavier tanks with safe ammo storage avoiding cook off ,whose design philosophy ARJUN follows.

 

[ersakthivel]

@Dejawolf, @Damian
See the width of gun mantlet is 1140 mm.
1.In reality the first crew member you have drawn in red in the post above is sitting right behind the 1140 mm width maingun plate.

[But you have wrongly put him in the left side corner to , that is the reason your calculations for frontal turret armor thickness and side armor thickness are less than the actual one.]

2.The other two crew members sit behind him,on both sides of him

Since each crew hatch measures just 550 mm in width ,
and the blue LOS line with 940 mm LOS thickness marked in the will reach the middle of the crew hole hatch,
only half the width of the crew hole (that is 275 mm length(550/2)) overhangs this line.

So from edge to edge all the three seats of the crew are situated within 275+1140 +275=1690 mm width .


That is from a line drawn through the center of the main gun barrel all three seats are situated within 845 mm to the left side and 845 mm to the right side according to the schematic drawing.

So if you add another 400 mm of elbow room for the crew members who sit right under the crew hatch,
2X400mm =800 mm+1690 mm=2490mm is supposed to be the width of the crew compartment(bordered by side wall armor mounting painted in white in the photo ) in the hull.
The total arjun turret width measured from outside is 3280 mm.

So 3280-2490mm=790 mm of space is the total available space available for armor on both sides of the arjun turret.each side has 420 mm(including the storage boxes)

So IMHO for the frontal turret armor KUNAl's estimate of 1000+ mm LOS thickness is also correct.
IMHO Side turret armor should have atleast 395 mm LOS thickness at least till the crew hatch .
After the middle or end of the crew hatch storage boxes reduce this width to armor space to LOS thickness of 300 plus mm is my estimate.

this is my estimate based on the schema of original arjun drawing..

So arjun having composite armor placement all around seems right,please post your clarification.

 

[Damian]

Arjun design does not follows as it was proven, any of the western design philosophy.

For example internal volume, do you know that in turret Arjun actually have too much internal volume? Of course you don't. Compared to Arjun, M1, Leo2, Challenger 2 or Leclerc are cramped inside, why? Oh the answer is simple, reducing internal volume to improve armor protection without increasing weight beyond significant levels.

Oh and look, one of the goals of the ECP-1 improvement program for the M1 is to redesign or design a new, all, internal components of vehicle, why? It's simple, with all recent improvements, tank have nearly expired SWaP-C (Space Weight and Power - Cooling) limits, so now the goal is to reduce all internal components size, weight, improve power efficency, improve coling, and in the end, overall reduce vehicle weight.

Germans were also very cautious about weight increase, this is why to not increase vehicle weight significantly, the recently developed up-armor packages developed by IBD Deisenroth are made with use of nanotecnology, to reduce weight but keeping protection on desired level.

The Challenger 2 with latest TES(H) armor package weights 74 metric tons, a complete insanity, and British guys are completely aware of that, they said to me that suspension barely holds such weight, not to mention that vehicle is seriously underpowered even without this armor package installed, and when it is installed, we can only imagine the stress that is put on engine and transmission.

The weight issues are very well known in the west, and there are significant R&D programs to reduce the weight, by playing with vehicle mechanical components, it's electronics (yeah, these also have a weight) and armor. Just recently I had been shown with some document about R&D performed on MIT, the goal is to develop ERA with nanotechnology in mind, to reduce weight and improve overall performance.

So do not think that only because currently used tanks or their variants are weighting above 60 tons, NATO does not see the need of weight reduction, currently the desired weight would be somewhere between 50-55 tons, with keeping current levels of protection, or if possible even increasing them.

So IMHO for the frontal turret armor KUNAl's estimate of 1000+ mm LOS thickness is also correct.

It is immposible, such thick armor would made PMCS, maintnance and other crew jobs immposible, as I said earlier. The front left turret armor have same thickness as on Leopard 2, the right front is like Dejawolf made on his 3d model.

But of course if someone wish to live in a fantasy world, this is his choice.

 

[ersakthivel]

See the big gun mantlet plate covering half the width of the crew hatches on both the side.

 

[Damian]

So what it is covering? It does not change anything.

Are you trying to make from Arjun some super tank, superior to any other design?

 

[STGN]

So according to you this is the original seating arrangement of arjun.Isn't it?WRONG

then why this following schematic diagram of arjun looks so different from yours?
the drawing below places the man sitting right behind the gun in the middle of the tank, between the other two members of the crew.
But your drawing fixes him to the extreme left.Which one is right?
So which is the right one?

Your argument here is based on a failure of judging the perspective. I mean even if the picture actually showed that, which it dosen't, then by logic and reason alone the gunner obviously is not sitting right behind the main gun. The gun recoils and moves up and down he would get killed sitting there. and in your next post you show a picture which clearly shows the gunner sitting right in front of the commander like Dejawolf showed.

Your overestimation of the turret width is based on you suddenly not counting the sloped edges now covered by cloth as part of the turret mantle look at the round openings on the mantle they are in the same locations on both pictures its the same mantle just covered in cloth on the outside.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

Arjun design does not follows as it was proven, any of the western design philosophy.

For example internal volume, do you know that in turret Arjun actually have too much internal volume? Of course you don't. Compared to Arjun, M1, Leo2, Challenger 2 or Leclerc are cramped inside, why? Oh the answer is simple, reducing internal volume to improve armor protection without increasing weight beyond significant levels.

Do you know what is the total internal volume?Most of you guys have got the seating arrangement for the crew wrong in your drawings and thats why you are saying it has too much internal volume

Oh and look, one of the goals of the ECP-1 improvement program for the M1 is to redesign or design a new, all, internal components of vehicle, why? It's simple, with all recent improvements, tank have nearly expired SWaP-C (Space Weight and Power - Cooling) limits, so now the goal is to reduce all internal components size, weight, improve power efficency, improve coling, and in the end, overall reduce vehicle weight.

Germans were also very cautious about weight increase, this is why to not increase vehicle weight significantly, the recently developed up-armor packages developed by IBD Deisenroth are made with use of nanotecnology, to reduce weight but keeping protection on desired level.

The Challenger 2 with latest TES(H) armor package weights 74 metric tons, a complete insanity, and British guys are completely aware of that, they said to me that suspension barely holds such weight, not to mention that vehicle is seriously underpowered even without this armor package installed, and when it is installed, we can only imagine the stress that is put on engine and transmission.

The weight issues are very well known in the west, and there are significant R&D programs to reduce the weight, by playing with vehicle mechanical components, it's electronics (yeah, these also have a weight) and armor. Just recently I had been shown with some document about R&D performed on MIT, the goal is to develop ERA with nanotechnology in mind, to reduce weight and improve overall performance.

So do not think that only because currently used tanks or their variants are weighting above 60 tons, NATO does not see the need of weight reduction, currently the desired weight would be somewhere between 50-55 tons, with keeping current levels of protection, or if possible even increasing them.

Every one sees the need for weight reduction.But the point is with incresing penetration level of APFSD rounds where can they reduce weight.That's why no production model from west is reducing weight.Why even T-90 S which has no separate safe ammo storage is more in weight compared to T-72

It is immposible, such thick armor would made PMCS, maintnance and other crew jobs immposible, as I said earlier. The front left turret armor have same thickness as on Leopard 2, the right front is like Dejawolf made on his 3d model.

But of course if someone wish to live in a fantasy world, this is his choice.

dejawolf has got his 3d model wrong is what I am explaining in the previous post.These phantom fantasy lessons are not neede.DO you subscribe to the seating arrangement view posted by deja wolf in his drawings with two crew members to the left and one in the right for arjun?

 

[ersakthivel]

Your argument here is based on a failure of judging the perspective. I mean even if the picture actually showed that, which it dosen't, then by logic and reason alone the gunner obviously is not sitting right behind the main gun. The gun recoils and moves up and down he would get killed sitting there. and in your next post you show a picture which clearly shows the gunner sitting right in front of the commander like Dejawolf showed.

Your overestimation of the turret width is based on you suddenly not counting the sloped edges now covered by cloth as part of the turret mantle look at the round openings on the mantle they are in the same locations on both pictures its the same mantle just covered in cloth on the outside.
STGN

OKAY LEAVE ASIDE THAT PICTURE.
You can take a look at the following three pictures,

It is obvious that the big gun plate(mantlet) which is 1140 mm wide is starting from the center of left side crew hatch and ends at the the right side hatch.is it right?

Then the following calculations make sense or not?
Since each crew hatch measures just 550 mm in width ,
and the blue LOS line with 940 mm LOS thickness marked will reach the middle of the right side crew hole hatch,
only half the width of the crew hole (that is 275 mm length(550/2)) overhangs this line.

So from edge to edge all the three seats of the crew are situated within 275+1140 +275=1690 mm width .


That is from a line drawn through the center of the main gun barrel all three seats are situated within 845 mm to the left side and 845 mm to the right side according to the schematic drawing.

So if you add another 400 mm of elbow room for the crew members who sit right under the crew hatch,
2X400mm =800 mm+1690 mm=2490mm is supposed to be the width of the crew compartment(bordered by side wall armor mounting painted in white in the photo ) in the hull.
The total arjun turret width measured from outside is 3280 mm.

So 3280-2490mm=790 mm of space is the total available space available for armor on both sides of the arjun turret.each side has 395 mm(including the storage boxes)

Actually the red box scribled by dejawolf(vision block) is on the left hand side of the man in the picture,
actually right infront of the man who sits up front.

Since the seat of the that man(gunner, I suppose) is vacant it is mistakenly marked as right infront of the man in the photo(TC, I suppose) that is why frontal armor thickness as calculated by dejawolf is misleadingly lower.

The TC's right hand rests on a handle which will be inline (marked as 450 mm LOS thickness on the turret top photo in blue dotted line)with the rectangular cutaway made in the turret front (for sight).So there is enough space for whatever specified armor thickness not restricted by the cut away is my contention

 

[Damian]

Do you know what is the total internal volume?Most of you guys have got the seating arrangement for the crew wrong in your drawings and thats why you are saying it has too much internal volume

There are some limits for the internal volume, it can't be too big, because it's compromise protection, increase weight etc. and can't be too small, because then it will make crew life a hell. Simple as that. If you look at M1 or Leopard 2 turret's interior, You will notice that due to armor placement, there is much less volume for a crew, it is more cramped.

Every one sees the need for weight reduction.But the point is with incresing penetration level of APFSD rounds where can they reduce weight.That's why no production model from west is reducing weight.Why even T-90 S which has no separate safe ammo storage is more in weight compared to T-72

NATO tanks would have reduced weight if not the budget cuts. For example USA planned to replace AGT-1500C GT engines with compact engines developed under AIPS program, the LV100-5 GT and XAP-1000 Diesel, both were approx half the size of AGT-1500C. Currently in USA GDLS talks seriously with US Army about replacing torsion bars suspension, with lighter hydrogas suspension and replace AGT-1500C with MB883 compact Diesel. And of course the changes I mentioned earlier. This is not experimental work, but a serious R&D because as I said, SWaP-C limit is nearly expired.

dejawolf has got his 3d model wrong is what I am explaining in the previous post.These phantom fantasy lessons are not neede.DO you subscribe to the seating arrangement view posted by deja wolf in his drawings with two crew members to the left and one in the right for arjun?

Dejawolfs 3d model is correct, no doubts here.

 

[STGN]

....

Heres a picture to show your mistaken measurement.

STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

Heres a picture to show your mistaken measurement.

STGN

You don't even realize the turret it at a slight angle tilted away from us?
Just mark the lines on the pictures below

 

[STGN]

Yes I do, what does that have to do with you not using full width of mantle for your 114 cm figure.

Your measurements assume that the black lines are the 114 cm full width of the mantle, unfortunately you made a mistake because of the fabric more recently added around the edges of the mantle which cover the slopes on each side of the mantel. The fabric covers what is red lines on my photo, thats where you made the mistake.

STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes I do, what does that have to do with you not using full width of mantle for your 114 cm figure.

Your measurements assume that the black lines are the 114 cm full width of the mantle, unfortunately you made a mistake because of the fabric more recently added around the edges of the mantle which cover the slopes on each side of the mantel. The fabric covers what is red lines on my photo, thats where you made the mistake.

STGN

leave the fabric there is a turret top picture I posted above that picture ,you can just extend the blue LOS dotted lines.

Since each crew hatch measures just 550 mm in width ,
and the blue LOS line with 940 mm LOS thickness marked will reach the middle of the right side crew hole hatch,
only half the width of the crew hole (that is 275 mm length(550/2)) overhangs this line.

So from edge to edge all the three seats of the crew are situated within 275+1140 +275=1690 mm width .


That is from a line drawn through the center of the main gun barrel all three seats are situated within 845 mm to the left side and 845 mm to the right side according to the schematic drawing.

So if you add another 400 mm of elbow room for the crew members who sit right under the crew hatch,
2X400mm =800 mm+1690 mm=2490mm is supposed to be the width of the crew compartment(bordered by side wall armor mounting painted in white in the photo ) in the hull.
The total arjun turret width measured from outside is 3280 mm.

Actually the red box scribled by dejawolf(vision block) is on the left hand side of the man in the picture,
actually right infront of the man who sits up front.

Since the seat of the that man(gunner, I suppose) is vacant it is mistakenly marked as right infront of the man in the photo(TC, I suppose) that is why frontal armor thickness as calculated by dejawolf is misleadingly lower.

The TC's right hand rests on a handle which will be inline (marked as 450 mm LOS thickness on the turret top photo in blue dotted line)with the rectangular cutaway made in the turret front (for sight).So there is enough space for whatever specified armor thickness not restricted by the cut away is my contention.

 

[ersakthivel]

this picture too shows the TC's seat not right below crew hatch but more nearer to the gun.

 

[STGN]

Hope this better show where you went wrong:

the 90 cm is calculated on the asumtion that the upper picture figure of 114 is right other wise its roughly 0.8 times the total width of the mantle.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

Hope this better show where you went wrong:

STGN

instead of extending blue dotted lines you are doing something else.
I did not ask you to project the mantlet to the turret top picture.
your unwillingness to do so proves my assumption right.
Coupled with the image below i hope members do understand what I am trying to convey as i don't have drawing software loaded on this system, if anyone else has please extend the blue dotted LOS thicness like marked as 950 mm LOS thickness and 450 mm LOS thickness.
They will end right at the center of crew hatch holes.

And the picture below also proves that Tc's seat is nearer towards gun and not right under the crew hatch.

In the model below both the crew men have been placed well left of where they actually should have been.

 

[Dejawolf]

So according to you this is the original seating arrangement of arjun.Isn't it?WRONG

then why this following schematic diagram of arjun looks so different from yours?
the drawing below places the man sitting right behind the gun in the middle of the tank, between the other two members of the crew.
But your drawing fixes him to the extreme left.Which one is right?
So which is the right one?

lol, you can't be serious... gunner behind gun mantlet? lol.

 

[ersakthivel]

lol, you can't be serious... gunner behind gun mantlet? lol.

I didn't say right behind , but lot closely packed than you have drawn.
Just extend the blue dotted LOS lines that have 940 mm LOS thickness and 450 mm LOS thickness written besides them so that you can see my arguments.

 

[Damian]

@Dejawolf

It is like trying to convience an islamist fanatic with reasonable arguments.

I didn't say right behind , but lot closely packed than you have drawn.

You got to be kidding.

There is no way you can put him closer, where do you will find space for auxiliary gunner sight? Not to mention that if gunner and TC would be closer, gun recoil would be dangerous for them.

 

[ersakthivel]

@Dejawolf

It is like trying to convience an islamist fanatic with reasonable arguments.

i didn't flaunt spurious,dubious 60 degree frontal turret weakness drawing of ARJUN all over the forums in web like you did.
it took me 30 pages o argument from my side for you to correct it.Don't you remeber?

Does that reasonable argument include not extending those blue dotted line at any cost.

i know pretty damn well you guys understand what I am saying.That is why no one is extending the blue dotted LOS thickness lines that will prove my point.