Arjun vs T90 MBT

[Damian]

But yes, to leave the tank buster role to extremely vulnerable AT teams is a humiliating situation for us. Arjun and the T90 must be improved as they are the spearhead of the offensive. Btw despite this shortcoming the situation on the ground overall is in our favour.

The problem is that Pakistanis and Chinese also do not have ammunition in modern standards, they use preaty much analogs of ammunition you use. So I suspect that such engagements would be mostly slug fests where more important would be training, how formations would be commanded and... luck.

 

[JBH22]

@militarysta if we go with the T-90MS then it outclass by far anything that our opponents can field?

 

[Dejawolf]

You are correct that shape charge have lower penetration depth as compared to AFSPDS rounds when the target is protected with ERA. But you must also account for the fact that the LAHAT has tandem warhead which significantly reduce the effectiveness of ERA plating,

LAHAT is also top-attack, not direct top attack like TOW-2 but it arcs down towards the target towards the end of it's flight.

 

[Dejawolf]

@militarysta if we go with the T-90MS then it outclass by far anything that our opponents can field?

T-90MS is roughly comparable to type-99 in most aspects. however, type 99 has much higher mobility, with a 1500hp engine@54 tons.
type 99 is more vulnerable in built up areas against infantry, since it lacks the side ERA protection of the T-90MS.
T-90MS can cross lighter bridges than Type-99, and also drive along worse roads, without them collapsing.

 

[Dejawolf]

the biggest factor however, is not which tank is faster than the other, but how those tanks are deployed and used. you can negate range advantage by deploying your forces in built up areas, or in areas with limited visibility range, you can negate mobility advantage by predicting the enemy's movement, negate protection advantage with ambushes. a superiorly skilled user is going to win against a superiorly equipped foe 9 out of 10 times.

 

[Damian]

IMHO ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-99 tanks does not have frontal protection comparable to T-90 tanks, especially ones with welded turret. There are some other deficencies with their turret design, making them vurnable.

Although newest ZTZ-99A2 (or ZTZ-08 as some sources claim) is a different kind of animal.

 

[militarysta]

@militarysta if we go with the T-90MS then it outclass by far anything that our opponents can field?

Propably yes. Only disadvanatge of the T-90MS is engine and transmision -it's still inferior in comapre to the any "western -style" tank. But T-90MS is mucht better tnak then pak. Al-Chalid, and all Chnesee Type-99 - exept the newest one ZTZ-99A2 becouse those tank seems to be first really good Chineese tank. But T-90MS is really powerfula tank whit very good FCS, nice gun, good stabilisation and avible modern APFSDS (Swiniec-1/2 or in ther translation Lead-1/2). The bigest disadvantage of the T-90MS is conected whit T-72 style hull -when the problem is weak engine and trnasmission.

IMHO Idnian Army can buy licence for T-90MS, and...improved Arjun by change this turret on low-profile turret like FALCON or polish turret form Anders-WWO.

BTW: ZTZ-99A2:

This is very far from perfect, bt it's give some scale how coud look armour protection on ZTZ-99A2 tank.

 

[STGN]

75cm road wheels, really? Makes the tank taller than an Abrams. Now wiki does say 2.37m height which is the same as M1 roof but other sources says 2.2 which I find more believable for a T inspired vehicle.
STGN

 

[Damian]

ZTZ-99A2 is bigger and heavier than previous ZTZ-99's. On TankNet the general conclusion is that increase in weight does not comes from more armor protection but more likely from increased size (internal volume) and some improvements to turret to eliminate weak zones present in former tanks.

 

[STGN]

According to this page the front guide wheel of a T72 is 520mm in diameter and using that number the road wheels are 71cm in diameter. giving armor in the thickest part ~910mm

 

[ersakthivel]

OK, now im understan what You try to find. But sorry -it's not work in that way.
Line between two central hatches point is 122-126cm, gun mantled mask is about 136,8cm width on that draw, Both lines are asimetric. Arjun turret in thickes place is 280-284cm width, but on crews hatches side is about 230-234cm width (without toll boxes).

IF you question the assumption for ARJUN's width of turret you can use the same picture from which you arrived at a conclusion of 122-126 cm distance for the crew holes for checking this fact.It will measure exactly 3200 mm , however different picture you use for it.

Line between two central hatches point is 122-126cm----it means 1260 mm at the most.

From the picture above it is obvious that the Tc's seat's right hand side edge is located on the crew hatch hole

So from the turret center point(1260/2=630 mm) 630 mm is the distance at which the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.

There is a distance of at the most 250 mm between the inner side wall and the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.


So the distance between the turret center line and inner side wall is 630 mm+250 mm=880 mm


Till the crew hatch center there are no storage boxes on the production version of ARJUN.

SO the outer most turret wall is located at( 3200mm/2) 1600 mm away from the turret center line.

So 1600 mm -880 mm i.e 720mm is the space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side.

Even if you give an error factor of 200 mm,

(if people dispute the assumption whether TC's seat is at the center of the crew hatch or the estimate for width of the elbow area)


space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side is (720 mm-200mm)= 520 mm.


There can be no error in this estimate.

Storage boxes start only after the crew hatch as can be seen in this image, The first storage box of Tank-Ex turret has been replaced by ARMOR block in the production version of ARJUN.

Look closely and you will notice the side wall curving inside to offset the reduction in armor space besides the storage box that start at ammo storage,

So there is a provision of uniform armor space for the side turret of ARJUn if you accept the width of the turret as 3200 mm.

 

[ersakthivel]

The distance between the blue lines is ~100cm which is the width of the mantel(mantel hole more likely). That is not the distance between the center of crew hatches, saying that is a failure to judge perspective. Distance between the center of hatches is ~130cm commander being ~70cm of CL an loader ~60cm of CL.
When you say turret thickness I guess you mean Armour LOS? I have no Idea, other than to guess its similar to the Leo2 because the design obviously brows heavily from that tank.
STGN

Considering the position of the gun which is right at the center of the picture pointing towards our face at a perpendicular straight line, it is a straight on front elevation shot so there is no chance of failure in judgement due to of perspective.

Does the turret side visible in this picture? NO. SO there is no scope for the failure in judgement due to of perspective.

Why I am sure is the same measurement can be verified on the turret top picture between the green lines.

SO this green carpeted area should measure somewhere between 1200 mm and 1300 mm according to my estimate.

The extreme edge of both the crew seats are exactly positioned on the border line of the green shaded area as per the Tc seat picture above is my estimate.

WHich corresponds to the green shaded area marked by PMAITRA in the picture below.

 

[pmaitra]

Let's look at the images above.

If we look at the lower image, and assume that the gun is a bit bigger than 120 mm, then we can take 5 times that value as a rough estimate, and take that as the distance between the centres of the hatches. So, 5x120 mm x 1.2 (20% dilation for gun barrel) = 720 mm. So, let's say the turret centres are more than half a metre apart. I would assume it would be close to a metre between the centres.

The lower image is also inaccurate, just like my estimates above are. Those rubbery things make things complicated. I'd assume the mantle to cover the entire width, as in the upper image.

 

[ersakthivel]

Let's look at the images above.

If we look at the lower image, and assume that the gun is a bit bigger than 120 mm, then we can take 5 times that value as a rough estimate, and take that as the distance between the centres of the hatches. So, 5x120 mm x 1.2 (20% dilation for gun barrel) = 720 mm. So, let's say the turret centres are more than half a metre apart. I would assume it would be close to a metre between the centres.

The lower image is also inaccurate, just like my estimates above are. Those rubbery things make things complicated. I'd assume the mantle to cover the entire width, as in the upper image.

The 720 mm estimate seems to be on the lower side.

Because in perspective view(a photograph is always a perspective view) the distances farther from the camera are actually larger than they appear ,compared to distances closer to the camera.

See both the crew holes alone is 550 mm in dia. So the crew hole hatch covers standing straight should measure atleast 600 mm in dia .

So when you try to measure the distance between the crew hatch holes you can use the crew hatch cover as a scale distance because of the reason stated above.

My idea is 2 to 2.25 times the length crew hatch covers can be measured as a distance between the center points of two crew hatch hole which will again gives us roughly 1300 mm as the distance
But I have given a rough estimate of 1200 mm for the distance between the crew hatch holes in my estimate.

MILITARISTA too gave 122 cm-126 cm as the distance between the two crew hole centers,

So from the turret center point(1260/2=630 mm) 630 mm is the distance at which the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.

So please check the following estimate of mine, so that we can get it over with,

Line between two central hatches point is 122-126cm----it means 1260 mm at the most.

From the picture above it is obvious that the Tc's seat's right hand side edge is located on the crew hatch hole

So from the turret center point(1260/2=630 mm) 630 mm is the distance at which the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.

There is a distance of at the most 250 mm between the inner side wall and the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.


So the distance between the turret center line and inner side wall is 630 mm+250 mm=880 mm


Till the crew hatch center there are no storage boxes on the production version of ARJUN.

SO the outer most turret wall is located at( 3200mm/2) 1600 mm away from the turret center line.

So 1600 mm -880 mm i.e 720mm is the space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side.

Even if you give an error factor of 200 mm,

(if people dispute the assumption whether TC's seat is at the center of the crew hatch or the estimate for width of the elbow area)


space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side is (720 mm-200mm)= 520 mm.


There can be no error in this estimate.

 

[pmaitra]

Right, I agree, the distance between the crew hole hatches are probably around 1200 mm.

 

[ersakthivel]

Right, I agree, the distance between the crew hole hatches are probably around 1200 mm.

Then please post your opinion on my estimates in post no-1312 regarding ,

1.the Tc's seat's right hand side edge being located right at the center of the crew hatch hole.

2.There is a distance of at the most 250 mm between the inner side wall and the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.

3.So the distance between the turret center line and inner side wall is 630 mm+250 mm=880 mm

4.SO the outer most turret wall is located at( 3200mm/2) 1600 mm away from the turret center line.

5.So 1600 mm -880 mm i.e 720mm is the space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side.

6.Even if you give an error factor of 200 mm,space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side is (720 mm-200mm)= 520 mm.

7.Look closely and you will notice the side wall curving inside to offset the reduction in armor space besides the storage box that start at ammo storage,

8.So there is a provision of uniform armor space for the side turret of ARJUn if you accept the width of the turret as 3200 mm.

as it will clear many misconceptions about side armor space on ARJUn turret.

 

[pmaitra]

Then please post your opinion on my estimates in post no-1312 as it will clear many misconceptions about side armor space on ARJUn turret.

@Kunal Biswas is the guy. He has seen it first hand. Everyone else is speculating. I won't do any better.

 

[ersakthivel]

@Kunal Biswas is the guy. He has seen it first hand. Everyone else is speculating. I won't do any better.

i agree, But if @Dejawolf marks this 1200 mm distance between the crew hatch centers in his drawings and also

correctly mark the Tc's seat's right hand side edge which is located right at the center of the crew hatch hole.

Everything will become self evident.

Thanks for the effort.

 

[SPIEZ]

@Kunal Biswas is the guy. He has seen it first hand. Everyone else is speculating. I won't do any better.

Right, I hope this everyone also includes our beloved foreign posters.

No offense to you intended.

This thread should be removed as one of my favourite threads.

 

[ersakthivel]

Right, I hope this everyone also includes our beloved foreign posters.

No offense to you intended.

This thread should be removed as one of my favourite threads.

Removed????!!!!!!!!!
mate I put in more than 30 hours in it, be kind.