Arjun vs T90 MBT

shuvo@y2k10

New Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,710
Country flag
this thread and the arjun thread has become totally bogus since everyone started arguing with geometrical measurements of arjun based on some pictures.may be mods can open a new thread just for the disscusion of arjun geometry and leave these two threads for some serious disscussion.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
All discussions on ARJUn turret are over.

The reason I persisted with counter arguments is that by saying the width of the ARJUn turret is less,

a bunch of people are arguing that it has no frontal armor protection behind the main sights,

and it has no side turret armor,

which will raise a serious question regarding ARJUn as a viable fighting machine.

Because no square turret MBt in the world has zero armor protection on sides,and 400 mm protection in the front.

the reason for a big turret and heavy tank is exactly for providing better all round crew protection without relying on just truncated turret geometry based designs.

So that is why I persisted with my arguments, And since the issue is almost settled , I won't argue further in this thread unless concrete posts with solid backings are made in this thread.

I know the possibility of that happening is very remote as the other side has no arguments to counter , since I have used their own measurements to argue my views.

If future arguments are to take place on the same topic, it is a better idea to open another thread for that matter, as you are correct in saying it is a irritating to others to keep on viewing the same thing again and again .
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789



DRDO width - 3864mm

red line 256px - 3864mm
190px - 2867mm (2,86m)
158px - 2384mm (2,38m)
20px - 301mm (30cm...)
24px - 362mm (36cm)
44px - 664mm (64cm)
55px (thickest option) - ~830mm (80-84cm)
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


DRDO width - 3864mm

red line 256px - 3864mm
190px - 2867mm (2,86m)
158px - 2384mm (2,38m)
20px - 301mm (30cm...)
24px - 362mm (36cm)
44px - 664mm (64cm)
55px (thickest option) - ~830mm (80-84cm)

Mesurment on draw, on orginal book draw we have scale 1:72. I had mesure this and give values here.
IMHO it's closing this debate about Arjun turret -we have draw, we have official Arjun width, we can rescale whole draw. Until better draw will be avaible values are more or less like post above.
 

Archer

New Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
414
Likes
669
Country flag
It's funny when You describe this in that style when Ajrun gun don't look to be better then KBA from Ukraine (pak. T-80U) or we consider that Idnian army havent AFSDS able to kill frontally T-80UD or ZTZ-98 tank. IMHO its even more funny when we look ad avaible in India tank ammo...
Its funny because you don't know about the context of the program and hence end up finding things amusing. The Arjun FCS+ Gun combo can take far more modern rounds than it currently has, and the answer to that is simple. GSQRs- the Arjun team had no incentive actually a discentive, to go beyond the GSQRs when the base line Arjun was not being ordered! In contrast, the modified GSQRs were very emphatic on FCS performance including fire on the move. In the mid 80's itself, based on a mishmash of Janes and Brassey's the IA wanted 90% Pk from moving Arjun to a moving target. Such implausible requirements are the bane of Indian design efforts because they delay programs for decades, since the Army/AF in particular lacked design engineers with experience in technology and are highly dependent on 3rd party sources like Janes to know what is current tech,. beyond the earlier gen stuff they got from Russia! Today with many officers cutting their teeth on such programs, things are better, but still the Army is a vast organization and problems remain!

Net, after the Army accepted the Arjun MK1, which met all GSQRs, and series production was launched, the finances became available (as there was a tangible ROI) to develop modern ammunition beyond the late 80's genesis of the FSAPDS! And the FSAPDS itself was not asked for to be improved. The Army asked for an improved FSAPDS only after the Arjun beat the T-90 in trials and DRDO itself realized that it needed to put newer rounds in, lest all the other effort go waste. Hence the rush to qualify the LAHAT as well.

In those opinnion I was based on previos post about Kanchan in this topic. And mix RHA, ceramis and light aloys plates present in those posts was base for that opinnion.
Sorry, but that opinion is still an assumption, because what is in Kanchan, the latest version on the newer Arjuns is still classified. The light alloy, composites, RHA stuff you are mentioning is the same that was first released about the armor way back in 1995! I leave it to you to discern whether things are the same today after all those year.
The same description for the Arjun is given in 90% of the talks as well.

Please note DRDO has no incentive to release such information beyond the bare minimum of jargon. The reason being no matter how good or bad you and I may feel about this, they only have one customer, the Indian Army. None of their items, hitherto have been for export. As such, they completely lack any PR sense & only after this was heavily expolited by a sensationalist media, have they even endeavoured to develop basic stuff like websites. And nine tenths of that stuff is the same I saw when the sites were first launched in 2005-07. Like it or hate it, this is how most Indian defence organizations work, with a customer that hates it when information is released. Further, all that matters to them is that whether the product clears trials. After that, only can orders be expected after all.
 

STGN

New Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2013
Messages
191
Likes
73
this thread and the arjun thread has become totally bogus since everyone started arguing with geometrical measurements of arjun based on some pictures.may be mods can open a new thread just for the disscusion of arjun geometry and leave these two threads for some serious disscussion.
I also think we should have a separate thread for Arjun dimensions. no more cross postings.
STGN
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
All discussion on ARJUn turret width are over and I am sure that our foreign guests have no more pixel magic to unveil.
 

Dejawolf

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
579
Likes
241
All discussions on ARJUn turret are over.

The reason I persisted with counter arguments is that by saying the width of the ARJUn turret is less,

a bunch of people are arguing that it has no frontal armor protection behind the main sights,

and it has no side turret armor,

which will raise a serious question regarding ARJUn as a viable fighting machine.

Because no square turret MBt in the world has zero armor protection on sides,and 400 mm protection in the front.
wrong, the japanese type 90 tank has thin turret sides. and also, the korean K2 has thin turret sides. and rear side turret armour of the T-series tanks is roughly equal to the side hull armour. the rear turret side armour should be equal to the rear side hull armour on the arjun.
side rear turret half of arjun turret should be able to stop rounds from BMP-2 main gun, same with side hull. RPG-7 will be able to penetrate both side hull and turret, but not front half of the sides.
 
Last edited:

Dejawolf

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
579
Likes
241
All discussion on ARJUn turret width are over and I am sure that our foreign guests have no more pixel magic to unveil.
the discussion were over 30 pages ago, but you kept reviving old assumptions despite being hit back with hard solid evidence, proving your assumptions had no foundations at all. there's 4 people in here, using over 4 differenent methods of measuring, using over 5 different sources, images, line drawings, widths and measurements of the real vehicle, consistently showing that it's impossible for the turret to be wider than 2.9m, and yet you keep spewing out your bile. you have nobody supporting your views, who can BACK UP your measures. our measurements are peer-reviewed now. they are scientifically proven to be the most likely.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
the discussion were over 30 pages ago, but you kept reviving old assumptions despite being hit back with hard solid evidence, proving your assumptions had no foundations at all. There's 4 people in here, using over 4 differenent methods of measuring, using over 5 different sources, images, line drawings, widths and measurements of the real vehicle, consistently showing that it's impossible for the turret to be wider than 2.9m, and yet you keep spewing out your bile. You have nobody supporting your views, who can back up your measures. Our measurements are peer-reviewed now. They are scientifically proven to be the most likely.
I spewed no bile on guys who did not post personal abuses against me.


And you know that very well.


THERE IS ONLY ONE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED METHOD OF MEASUREMENTS .

IT IS NOT THAT 400 PEOPLE CAN USE 400 DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASUREMENTS.

NOW EVERY ONE IS ACCEPTING THE HATCH COVER MEASURES BETWEEN 500 TO 550 MM. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW?

A MEMBER OF ARMED FORCES KUNAL HAS CONFIRMED TURRET WIDTH TO BE 3 METERS PLUS.

DO YOU ACEPT IT OR NOT?
open a separate thread on it and we will discuss it there. Nobody is running away from it. but not here, I have done hundreds of drawings myself both manually and using CADD in college days. SO you won't get away with shit on this topic.
 
Last edited:

ersakthivel

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


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


DRDO width - 3864mm

red line 256px - 3864mm
190px - 2867mm (2,86m)
158px - 2384mm (2,38m)
20px - 301mm (30cm...)
24px - 362mm (36cm)
44px - 664mm (64cm)
55px (thickest option) - ~830mm (80-84cm)

Mesurment on draw, on orginal book draw we have scale 1:72. I had mesure this and give values here.
IMHO it's closing this debate about Arjun turret -we have draw, we have official Arjun width, we can rescale whole draw. Until better draw will be avaible values are more or less like post above.
I said a separate thread. Don't dump your shit here with some anonymous dimensionless drawing.

give proof on photos of ARJUN or keep shut up.

It only opens your foolishness to every one around.closes nothing.
 

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
give proof on photos of ARJUN or keep shut up.
No you don't. Your "proofs" was many times refuted by Methos, Dejawolf and STGN job on photos. Even stupid draw whit mesurmant or scale from book shows something else then you try to proof. It's not my foult that you were wrong.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
Then please open a thread for the purpose demanded by other members.
 

ersakthivel

Brilliance
New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
7,029
Likes
8,764
Country flag
No you don't. Your "proofs" was many times refuted by Methos, Dejawolf and STGN job on photos. Even stupid draw whit mesurmant or scale from book shows something else then you try to proof. It's not my foult that you were wrong.
Well , if this thread is meant for that , please post your photo measurement to support the case for ARJUn turret width of 2.9 meter.



explain the purpose behind the curvature of the inner turret wall with no corresponding outer turret wall curvatures.

my opinion is it for composite armor placement according to military recognition site , which clearly says that ARJUN has composite armor all around.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/indi...ons_information_description_intelligence.html
Arjun has an all-round protection from antitank ammunition achieved by the newly developed Kanchan armour to a degree much higher than available in the present generation tanks.

Also since you have posted 550 mm as the hatch cover width , give me the ratio of turret frontal plane width to that of the hatch cover width, and what in your opinion is the turret width according to the calculation?

And what is the perspective reduction ratio?
 
Last edited:

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
Well , if this thread is meant for that , please post your photo measurement to support the case for ARJUn turret width of 2.9 meter.


explain the purpose behind the curvature of the inner turret wall with no corresponding outer turret wall curvatures.

my opinion is it for composite armor placement according to military recognition site , which clearly says that ARJUN has composite armor all around.


Also since you have posted 550 mm as the hatch cover width , give me the ratio of turret frontal plane width to that of the hatch cover width, and what in your opinion is the turret width according to the calculation?

And what is the perspective reduction ratio?
I will not duplicate STGN job. many times yours argument where destroyed and I don't see any point in doing this again. It's first reson - second - my job will be definetly not as good as STGN was so there is no point to make whorse copy of His job. I posted many times my ow job on draw or arjun photos, IMHO STGN ones is mucht better.
 

Dejawolf

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
579
Likes
241
Well , if this thread is meant for that , please post your photo measurement to support the case for ARJUn turret width of 2.9 meter.
the discussion about the turret width is over, and we've agreed that the turret width is ~2.85m over the widest portion. if you need reference, review the hundreds of previous post. if you need answers to any of the questions you've made, review the hundreds of previous posts, your questions have already been answered, some more than once.
 

Lubov

New Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
13
Likes
37
I don't know anything about Arjun, but I think it doesn't matter, worse it or not. That's the key thing - always buy your own, even if it's worse. Only if this is not entirely worse. Only having your own design experience you can create a design school.

In addition, it will be a good kick-in-the-butt to Russian designers to stop them from producing of countless modernization of 40-years old tank and finally take the Object 195 and Armata in serious development.
 

Articles

Top