sayareakd
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 17,734
- Likes
- 18,953
embedded
from the looks of it, they will put the price below Arjun tank.
BTW inside is not that sleek and stylish as shown to Putin.
Last edited by a moderator:
embedded
Yeah, but we do not know the distribution of tanks in the army. The Army has used older tanks in tandem with the mechanized infantry since the tanks cannot keep up with a newer tank. So, it is not necessary it is part of the armoured strike force.
Overheating problems don't exist on the T-90. Like I said, media generated news to blow teething issues out of proportion. If you tell the French to tropicalize their systems, will they do it or not?
The Arjun you speak of didn't exist in 2000, when T-90s were purchased. It exists only today. Does the Navy purchase weapons systems based on promises?
Even Ajai Shukla claimed recently that the Arjun units are complaining about quality issues now.
It is, you do not understand. At 30 degrees the "virtual" increase in thickness of such thin armor is insufficent today, it might be in 1939-1944 period, but not today. Simple RPG-7 can penetrate much more armor.Considering the shells targetted on arjun's lesser turret side armour have to penetrate a higher thickness due to the angle as shown by PMAITRA it is not such a debilitating defect.
It depends on inclination. If we are talking about 60 degrees frontal arc, then +/- 30 degrees for left or right side of vehicle, means that turret side armor is immposible to hit, you will hit or frontal armor, or projectile will fly... somewhere over there not even hitting a tank.Also another interesting question is where will the shells aimed on the sides of the T-90 hit ? Since T-90 has a truncated turret they will hit the backside of the T-90 if they follow a parobolic curve path as is normal with the arty shells. So T-90's backside top armour surely doesnot have a matching thickness compared to frontal armour I think.
Currently neither Arjun Mk1 neither photos of supposed Mk2 shows such configuration. However T-90MS have such configuration already, and there are proposals for T-90S both from Russia and Ukraine to have such vehicle configuration.The lesser thicness armour plate protection on the side turret of ARJUn can easily be remedied by placin ERA on the sides
And considering the parabolic path of shells the the shells aimed at T-90s inclined side turret will definitely hit the exposed back top portion of the tank which is very visible to the naked eye to this truncated turret. So this inclined side turret is not such a genius of a armour solution.It is, you do not understand. At 30 degrees the "virtual" increase in thickness of such thin armor is insufficent today, it might be in 1939-1944 period, but not today. Simple RPG-7 can penetrate much more armor.
It depends on inclination. If we are talking about 60 degrees frontal arc, then +/- 30 degrees for left or right side of vehicle, means that turret side armor is immposible to hit, you will hit or frontal armor, or projectile will fly... somewhere over there not even hitting a tank.It is not 30 degree. It will be way less than that due to the protruding frontal armour of arjun as decklander said, So the angle is lesser from the front and the penetration thickness will be higher.
You don't need to teach me anything.with combination of extra ERA tiles and the virtual increase which almost doubles the armour thickness this is not such a big week point as you make it out to be with big pictures.Also the frontal armour of arjun protrudes outwards ggiving cover to this area.
So it has protection against RPG penetration.And if the IA thinks it is such a big issue the CVRDE can even provide some extra armour for arjun mk-1 turret sides in upgrades along with ERA tiles.
There is no point in repeating this non existent weakness again and again.which is common to all tanks.In urban combat the inclined sides of T-90 too are vulnerable as it too wont know where the enemy is located.
If you talk about purely side hits closer to 90 degrees for left or right, then both Arjun and T-90S are vurnable and this means someone made something wrong... or this is battle in urban terrain or assymetric warfare, then both tanks are not ready for such scenarios.The frontal armour of arjun does protrude outwards to cover this area as well.
Currently neither Arjun Mk1 neither photos of supposed Mk2 shows such configuration. However T-90MS have such configuration already, and there are proposals for T-90S both from Russia and Ukraine to have such vehicle configuration.
I am from TN but I don't have any friends in AVADI. All the news about arjun I posted is from open source only.@ersakthivel,
You are from TN, right?
I somehow get the feeling that you know a lot about Avadi, where these tanks are made. Tell me, you have friends who work there, right?
Ok, thanks. I like the way you debate. Keep it up. :thumb:I am from TN but I don't have any friends in AVADI. All the news about arjun I posted is from open source only.
That is what I wrote in the beggining of this article. The T-90 lobby has been making a fool of Indians as we Indians have very limited exposure to these kind of tech. I have known these features for a long long time as my own coursemates have operated these machines.
it clearly shows the less than 10 degree angle available from the front to hit the sides. And if the IA desires these box type accessories can be replaced with ERA tiles and armour plates .It is not as wide as it you have shown in the drawing. And the bigger arjun turret also covers the back top portion of the hull from being hit.But the truncated inclined side turret of T-90 exposes the back top portion of the hull for shells and RPGs
from the above picture you can notice that arjuns frontal thick armour plate is protruding into the path of the side turret. So arjuns side turret arrangement is far better than T-90 in anyway you look at it.
You apparently have no idea of modern tank design. Damian has posted the explanation mulitple times on this forum.from the above picture you can notice that arjuns frontal thick armour plate is protruding into the path of the side turret. So arjuns side turret arrangement is far better than T-90 in anyway you look at it.
How do you calculate these angles and what is the datum?You apparently have no idea of modern tank design. Damian has posted the explanation mulitple times on this forum.
The Arjun uses a hybrid design based on Western and Eastern concepts. E.g. the vehicle has a very "Western" turret shape (e.g. box shaped turret), but the armour is placed much in the Soviet manner (only at the front). These design decisions are the reason why the Arjun turret is bad designed - from any angle greater than +/- 17° from the turret centerline the crew comparment can be hit. Since on early Arjun there seems to be no isolation of the turret bustle, the vulnerability is even greater (angles greater than ~ +/- 6°). It is very important that the frontal 60° (-30° to +30° from the turret centerline) are heavily armoured, because analysis form various wars (including the Gulf War, the Yom-Kippur War and much more) has shown that this area is most likely hit.
Both Western tanks and Eastern tanks are designed keeping this in mind. Western tanks carry heavy composite armour to protect the turret flanks for these angles, while Soviet-legacy tanks use have turret cheeks covering the rest of the turret for the frontal 60°.
Storage boxes will not protect against any modern type of ammunition. And even if the Indian army would have ERA for covering the flanks - which never has been used or shown by Indian army till now - then the turret flanks are still easily penetrated by kinetic ammunition, while the T-90's turret sides cannot be penetrated by such, given that they cannot be hit from the frontal sector.
In an assymertical conflict the Arjun is not less protected at the sides than the basic T-90, but the T-90's turret is simply shorter and so less likely of being hit.
To use your statement in a modified form: The T-90's turret layout is far better than that of the Arjun in any way you look at it.
1.Then please explain the reason for protrusion of the heavy frontal turret armour and how much will it protrude into the line of fire of the side.You apparently have no idea of modern tank design. Damian has posted the explanation mulitple times on this forum.
The Arjun uses a hybrid design based on Western and Eastern concepts. E.g. the vehicle has a very "Western" turret shape (e.g. box shaped turret), but the armour is placed much in the Soviet manner (only at the front). These design decisions are the reason why the Arjun turret is bad designed - from any angle greater than +/- 17° from the turret centerline the crew comparment can be hit. Since on early Arjun there seems to be no isolation of the turret bustle, the vulnerability is even greater (angles greater than ~ +/- 6°). It is very important that the frontal 60° (-30° to +30° from the turret centerline) are heavily armoured, because analysis form various wars (including the Gulf War, the Yom-Kippur War and much more) has shown that this area is most likely hit.
Both Western tanks and Eastern tanks are designed keeping this in mind. Western tanks carry heavy composite armour to protect the turret flanks for these angles, while Soviet-legacy tanks use have turret cheeks covering the rest of the turret for the frontal 60°.
Storage boxes will not protect against any modern type of ammunition. And even if the Indian army would have ERA for covering the flanks - which never has been used or shown by Indian army till now - then the turret flanks are still easily penetrated by kinetic ammunition, while the T-90's turret sides cannot be penetrated by such, given that they cannot be hit from the frontal sector.
In an assymertical conflict the Arjun is not less protected at the sides than the basic T-90, but the T-90's turret is simply shorter and so less likely of being hit.
To use your statement in a modified form: The T-90's turret layout is far better than that of the Arjun in any way you look at it.
Post a new picture with the protruding armour's obstruction of the turret side. Considering the the protruding frontal armour 's length is more than the third of the entire turret length the portion of the exposed turret side is very minimal.Just look at the pictures which have been posted about a dozen times in this forum. Arjun is in the frontal sector (+/-30° from turret centerline) less protected than the T-90. You can find pictures about this a few pages ago in this thread, in the Arjun thread and in the Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology thread.
Do you even read what I wrote? Do you even once looked at the images? The "protruding fronal armour" covers far less than +/- 30° - as I wrote about +/- 17° (if you don't include the turret basket, else only ~ +/- 6°). Not more. Any shot from the frontal sector from 18 to 30° will have no problem of piercing through the thin side.Note the protruding frontal armour 's length is more than the third of the entire turret length.So instead of drawing a weakness zone with 30 degree vulnerability as wide as river of moscow you should ask damian to answer this post.So the issue is settled once for all. As he is the one who kept on repeating that side armour of arjun turret is vulnerable from 30 degrees at front with repated posting of drawing.
Bullshit. It increases turret width.The reason for this protrusion and and reduction in width of the turret behind the protruding heavily armoured protruding turret front is to protect the thinner armoured turret side as per the indian army's protection requirement.
Again, read and understand what I wrote. Read what has been written over a dozen times here about rifled and smoothbore guns. You are clueless when it comes to technical aspects, instead you prefer some self-published articles on blogs and forums.3.No hybrid design design philosophy its higher power to weight ratio, lesser ground pressure per square inch,accurate fire on the move, acccuracy lasting over longer ranges with rifled guns(however you and damian argue rifled guns are obsolete you cannot deny the fact of it's superior accuracy over T-90 smoothbore gun ,as it is certified by by MOD to parliamentary standing committee report) are all as per IA specs only.
Hull backside top? You mean the engine comparment? If so, then you fail to understand the modern tank armour design once again.6.Meanwhile the truncated T-90 side turret doesnot protect anything. It save on armour weight and exposes the lesser protected hull backside top ,but arjun's larger turret protects this hull backside top
What do you mean by modern Tank design? Is it some kind of a bible which can't be changed? or anyone who deviates from them will be hanged on the orders of the church? What is it?Do you even read what I wrote? Do you even once looked at the images? The "protruding fronal armour" covers far less than +/- 30° - as I wrote about +/- 17° (if you don't include the turret basket, else only ~ +/- 6°). Not more. Any shot from the frontal sector from 18 to 30° will have no problem of piercing through the thin side.
Bullshit. It increases turret width.
Again, read and understand what I wrote. Read what has been written over a dozen times here about rifled and smoothbore guns. You are clueless when it comes to technical aspects, instead you prefer some self-published articles on blogs and forums.
Hull backside top? You mean the engine comparment? If so, then you fail to understand the modern tank armour design once again.