T-14 Armata

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
DRDO failed. As we seen on photos many from factory, side turret is not even in half lenght protected by composite armor, oncly covered by storage boxes. This means that any hit within safe manouvering angles any hit at 30-35 (or higher) degrees angle in turret side over the frontal arc (or sides) will disable or destroy vehicle.
What did i tell you to do? Who is the designer did you go learn or will you only come back with pointless shit?

You look at your sily pics, i live in the same city it is made in i see it and talk with the tank makes to. The composite armor has withstood all attacks and has been proven. Your childish analysis is only good for some silly internet forum.
 

methos

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
The composite armour might survive "all attacks" (which is very likely not including all types of ammo available), but as Damian pointed out it is not located at the turret sides. This is not "pointless shit", it is a drawback of the tank when compared to others.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
@Methos, he probably do not understand the fact that composite armor needs high space volume to be installed (and be also effective) and can't be placed on all tanks surfaces. The obvious drawback of Arjun is a fact that Kanchan is not mounted on turret sides, it would not be an problem if it would protect only crew compartment, protection of turret bustle is not needed as nececity, but Kanchan is also not protecting the crew compartment. Only less than half of turret side lenght is covered by Kanchan. It's rather curious decision why it was done that way. And or DRDO designers have some serious reason to do so, or they have not even slightest idea about vehicle protection and how it is achieved. As we all know armor itself is not everything, important is it's placement, and also size, placement and number of weak zones in armor.

@P2P I'am not fully aware if You are aware, but recently there was an interview with Mr. Murakhovsky, he was one of very few person that seen Object 195 from close distance, and he said that besides obvious work on "Armata", Object 195 is not dead yet, and it might turn out that it will be finally fielded in future in cooperation with some country interested in it. Whole development is very interesting, as it seems, "Armata" might be very closely connected to Object 195, and as it was said many time, it can be downsized version of it.

What is even more interesting from Murakhovsky words, it seems that Object 195 was ready to mass production, but they have problems with very advanced sighting system. It seems that project was very ambitious and maybe even too advanced in terms of electronics for current capabilities of Russian Federation industry.
 
Last edited:

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
The composite armour might survive "all attacks" (which is very likely not including all types of ammo available), but as Damian pointed out it is not located at the turret sides. This is not "pointless shit", it is a drawback of the tank when compared to others.
Apart from the Merkava which other tanks has armour on the turret side? It is designed by the same Design Bureau that designed the Leopard 2A4, the Arjun is much larger than the Leo-2A4 the turret side is as protected as the German tank which is not much, both share latches on top for entry. I understand the protection is not good and i myself have pointed out on that. Its only the newer generation missiles that attack from the top, particularly becoz of this weakness in most tanks.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
@P2P I'am not fully aware if You are aware, but recently there was an interview with Mr. Murakhovsky, he was one of very few person that seen Object 195 from close distance, and he said that besides obvious work on "Armata", Object 195 is not dead yet, and it might turn out that it will be finally fielded in future in cooperation with some country interested in it. Whole development is very interesting, as it seems, "Armata" might be very closely connected to Object 195, and as it was said many time, it can be downsized version of it.
I wasn't aware of that. I know the Russians cannot very well afford it and I doubt India can now considering Arjun is being shoved down the Army's throat anyway, more or less, if the second order for 248 comes through. I can't think of any other country being able to fund the Obj 195 beyond India. I am talking about countries who Russia is comfortable sharing tech with. So, we are forced to call it a prototype until otherwise. Too bad.

You had already mentioned before that Armata was a downsized version of the 195. While it may be a standard for Russia, it may not be viable for India. We have the T-72, T-90, Arjun now and FMBT 8 years later. We will look like fools if we go for a 5th one. Anyway, at least we know that there will be two concrete fourth generation tank projects happening soon, Russia and India. Dare I say, China too.

What is even more interesting from Murakhovsky words, it seems that Object 195 was ready to mass production, but they have problems with very advanced sighting system. It seems that project was very ambitious and maybe even too advanced in terms of electronics for current capabilities of Russian Federation industry.
Electronics do not have a large gestation period for development. What is not feasible now becomes a standard just two or three years later. We will never know if there are other bigger problems on the 195 so quickly. Who knows?
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
@Methos, he probably do not understand the fact that composite armor needs high space volume to be installed (and be also effective) and can't be placed on all tanks surfaces. The obvious drawback of Arjun is a fact that Kanchan is not mounted on turret sides, it would not be an problem if it would protect only crew compartment, protection of turret bustle is not needed as nececity, but Kanchan is also not protecting the crew compartment. Only less than half of turret side lenght is covered by Kanchan. It's rather curious decision why it was done that way. And or DRDO designers have some serious reason to do so, or they have not even slightest idea about vehicle protection and how it is achieved. As we all know armor itself is not everything, important is it's placement, and also size, placement and number of weak zones in armor.

@P2P I'am not fully aware if You are aware, but recently there was an interview with Mr. Murakhovsky, he was one of very few person that seen Object 195 from close distance, and he said that besides obvious work on "Armata", Object 195 is not dead yet, and it might turn out that it will be finally fielded in future in cooperation with some country interested in it. Whole development is very interesting, as it seems, "Armata" might be very closely connected to Object 195, and as it was said many time, it can be downsized version of it.

What is even more interesting from Murakhovsky words, it seems that Object 195 was ready to mass production, but they have problems with very advanced sighting system. It seems that project was very ambitious and maybe even too advanced in terms of electronics for current capabilities of Russian Federation industry.
Please, it is time for you to shut up. You dont even know who the designer is, only the Arjun Mk2 will be refitted by DRDO the original design is by a German tank design bureau that designed the Leopard 2A4.

You hardly knew who designed it let alone anything about the tank armor placement, looking at a few pics you wont know anything trust me, the Arjun is not week at armor it weighs 60 tons and the inside beyond the composite is again lined with Armour, that is where the tank gets it massive weight from, yet like last time with the scope issue you brag as if you know the tank up close. Most tanks have latches on the roof for entry of the crew, including your favorite Abrams.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Apart from the Merkava which other tanks has armour on the turret side?
All NATO tanks do. Try to sell Arjun to any NATO country and it won't even pass initial requirements.

It is designed by the same Design Bureau that designed the Leopard 2A4,
CVRDE is not German. Arjun is an Indian design. German help was most probably used in Armour and regular consultation. Nobody will help India in designing a tank even today.

the Arjun is much larger than the Leo-2A4 the turret side is as protected as the German tank which is not much, both share latches on top for entry.
Leo 2A4 has composite armour on the sides. Larger isn't necessarily good, even if you are comparing it to the A4.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Apart from the Merkava which other tanks has armour on the turret side?
Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger 1, Challenger 2, Leclerc.

But placement of composite armor on turret sides depends on turret geometry, in case of tanks with typical "western" turret, side composite armor is nececity to preserve high protection over frontal arc, these is very important for "safe manouvering angles" principle. If You have turret geometry like T-90S, there is no need to have composite armor over turret sides, because within safe manouvering angles, turrets sides are hidden behind front turret armor.

It is designed by the same Design Bureau that designed the Leopard 2A4, the Arjun is much larger than the Leo-2A4 the turret side is as protected as the German tank which is not much, both share latches on top.
Where vehicle is designed does not matter, K1 and K1A1 tanks are also designed in US by GDLS, company that bought Chrysler Defence where team that designed M1 Abrams worked, and some of these guys are probably working in GDLS up to this day or are mentors to current generation of designers working there. And hey, K1 and K1A1 are in terms of armor protection and crew survivability completely inferior to M1 series.

Size of Arjun do not coresponds to offered protection, as weight do not correspond to protection level of vehicle.

I understand the protection is not good and i myself have pointed out on that. Its only the newer generation missiles that attack from the top, particularly becoz of this weakness in most tanks.
It's preatty funny that people are talking only about top attack ATGM's, and are not aware about safe manouvering angles principle and that side hull and turret armor not only protects vehicle from the pure sides, but also against hits from the frontal arc.

It is never that way, that projectile allways hit in ideal 0 degrees to turret or hull longitudinal axis, it is in reality an arc of 60-65 degrees, or 0 to 30-35 degrees for left or right side of vehicle.

Many of these "silly" drawings as You like to call them, perfectly explains this problem of vehicles protection, but because instead of listen You start some sort of "patriotic holly war" with representants of other nations, knowning more about tanks designing, You might not be aware of these interesting and very complex problems that tank designers need to face and overcome without making vehicles unnececary big and heavy.
 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
@P2P

All NATO tanks do. Try to sell Arjun to any NATO country and it won't even pass initial requirements.
No, not all, C1 Ariete is an example how to not design a tank... but Italians can only blame themselfs for low funding, and making vehicle that in many ways is well below any NATO standards... You know that this is the only NATO tank that do not have even part of it's ammunition in isolated compartment or armored bins? :)

Leo 2A4 has composite armour on the sides.
Leopard 2 have typical for European design, turret side composite armor over crew compartment, bustle is not protected by composite armor, AFAIK even Leclerc do not have composite armor over turret bustle. On the other hand, for example M1 Abrams have full turret sides lenght protected by composite armor. Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 do not store anything very important in turret bustle, this is why it is only covered by storage bins, while crew compartment is protected by composite armor.
 
Last edited:

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
All NATO tanks do. Try to sell Arjun to any NATO country and it won't even pass initial requirements.

Kraus Maffei, who designed Germany's Leopard 2 tank, helped to design the Arjun MBT. Consequently, the Arjun is very similar to the Leopard 2.
Arjun Main Battle Tank | 21st Century Tanks | tanks.net


CVRDE is not German. Arjun is an Indian design. German help was most probably used in Armour and regular consultation. Nobody will help India in designing a tank even today.
No, there is no designer for Arjun in India, no particular name. It was heavily aided by German designer Karus which is why it shares some similar features. That is not because of CVRDE.

Leo 2A4 has composite armour on the sides. Larger isn't necessarily good, even if you are comparing it to the A4.

Historically, urban and other close battlefields have been the worst place for tanks to fight—a tank's front armor is much stronger than that on the sides, top, or rear, and in an urban environment, attacks can come from any direction, and attackers can get close enough to reliably hit weak points in the tank's armor, or get sufficient elevation to hit the top armor.


M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arjun will not qualify that is true, that is because it is not up to their standards. I agree i am not disputing that but to say its a total sack of shit is wrong to.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
No, not all, C1 Ariete is an example how to not design a tank... but Italians can only blame themselfs for low funding, and making vehicle that in many ways is well below any NATO standards... You know that this is the only NATO tank that do not have even part of it's ammunition in isolated compartment or armored bins? :)
Ah! My bad. Not such a good tank IMO. Arjun is better than this in some respects.

Well! The Italians have their pride.

Leopard 2 have typical for European design, turret side composite armor over crew compartment, bustle is not protected by composite armor, AFAIK even leclerc do not have composite armor over turret bustle. On the other hand, for example M1 Abrams have full turret sides lenght protected by composite armor. Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 do not store anything very important in turret bustle, this is why it is only covered by storage bins, while crew compartment is protected by composite armor.
Do we need to go as far as turret bustle? Arjun has this drawback, but it may not be a major obstacle in a tank vs tank battle within a smaller safe maneuvering angle, unless of course if it is compared to M1A2s or T-90s design.
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger 1, Challenger 2, Leclerc.

But placement of composite armor on turret sides depends on turret geometry, in case of tanks with typical "western" turret, side composite armor is nececity to preserve high protection over frontal arc, these is very important for "safe manouvering angles" principle. If You have turret geometry like T-90S, there is no need to have composite armor over turret sides, because within safe manouvering angles, turrets sides are hidden behind front turret armor.
So your saying an hit on the turret side will got go through the crew hatch? Sure that turret hatch cant be penetrated. :rolleyes:




Where vehicle is designed does not matter, K1 and K1A1 tanks are also designed in US by GDLS, company that bought Chrysler Defence where team that designed M1 Abrams worked, and some of these guys are probably working in GDLS up to this day or are mentors to current generation of designers working there. And hey, K1 and K1A1 are in terms of armor protection and crew survivability completely inferior to M1 series.

Size of Arjun do not coresponds to offered protection, as weight do not correspond to protection level of vehicle.
The point is you did not even know that. Stop pulling up bullshit to defend your argument. The size does matter in so far as how much armor it carries.



It's preatty funny that people are talking only about top attack ATGM's, and are not aware about safe manouvering angles principle and that side hull and turret armor not only protects vehicle from the pure sides, but also against hits from the frontal arc.

It is never that way, that projectile allways hit in ideal 0 degrees to turret or hull longitudinal axis, it is in reality an arc of 60-65 degrees, or 0 to 30-35 degrees for left or right side of vehicle.
I know that, if that is new news to you i cant help it. The arjun wont have any safe maneuvering angles i am sure.
Many of these "silly" drawings as You like to call them, perfectly explains this problem of vehicles protection, but because instead of listen You start some sort of "patriotic holly war" with representants of other nations, knowning more about tanks designing, You might not be aware of these interesting and very complex problems that tank designers need to face and overcome without making vehicles unnececary big and heavy.
Moron it is safe to say i went to the Avadi tank factory to see when it had a test run on the grounds. You assessment is wrong about the armor, it is safe to say it is robust even after the kanchan armor there is enough on the inside. i was not allowed to photograph the t-90 or the Arjun on the inside for obvious reasons but chatting with the tank men i came to know it had taken direct hits of all the rounds. The composite armor did have a hole from APFSDS but they did not enter the hull.


The turret side is definitely a weakness but i am not sure it was built for urban or mountain combat where the turret is exposed to rocket attack. In that case even the Merakavs did not manage to survive a turret attack in the Lebanon conflict and they retreated. The sides and the front arc are extremely robust and you need to go see. Offcourse you cant but you have bragging rights because you talk of a lot of crap on the net.

There are couple of no nothing chaps on the net who go by arm chair criticism, i cant sit here and waste my time over the pissing contest.
 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Do we need to go as far as turret bustle? Arjun has this drawback, but it may not be a major obstacle in a tank vs tank battle within a smaller safe maneuvering angle, unless of course if it is compared to M1A2s or T-90s design.
It depends, for Americans it was somehwat nececity to also give enhanced protection over turret bustle.

Mainly because tank was developed over a priority to give crew higher survivability than any other tank can offer, this is why in turret bustle there are two separated ammunition magazines, these are not only separated from eachother but also separated from crew and it was far more easier to install such magazines with blow off panels in turret bustle. Because turret bustle is exposed much more than hull, it was nececity to add protection there, if not then any hit could end with loss of allmost all ammunition stored in tank.

This is a tradeoff, higher crew and vehicle survivability, but also bigger weight. On the other hand west european tanks have at least some part of ammunition in hull (well in case of Challenger 1, Challenger 2 and Ariete all or allmost all ammunition is in hull), thanks to this turret ammunition magazines can be smaller, or there is no turret magazines at all, making vehicle overall lighter, however tradeoff for this is low crew survivability in case of armor perforation and possible ammunition cook off.

Arjun was designed in very similiar way as western european tanks, however, as it was pointed out, due to lack of composite armor protection over turrets sides when it comes to at least crew compartment, made vehicle highly vurnable in tank vs tank combat withint vehicle safe manouvering angles.

What is more important, composite armor over turret sides is a very usefull addition for assymetric warfare and urban operations. It is a very big mistake to see city as a deathtrap for tank, no it isn't if vehicles are used properly with cooperation to infantry and other assets. Also what is more important, vehicles need to be prepared for such operations. In case of Arjun this can mean deinstallation of storage bins over non composite armored turret sides, and installing there some sort of modules or ERA. But it is easier if such armor is allready integrated in to vehicles structure and not developed when need suddenly become obvious for everyone.

Let's make a short analize of all urban addon armors for NATO tanks. Americans use ERA (currently a multilayer ERA to be precise), mostly because it's highly effective yet light and easy replaceable solution, Germans use Composite armor modules, these are probably heavier than ERA or are some sort of low density composites optimised only against HEAT and EFP's to maintain low weight. British use ERA + Composite mix, it's highly effective yet incredibly bulky and heavy bringing Challenger 2 max combat weight to 74 tons, such weight is rather unacceptable. France seems to used ERA on Leclerc AZUR demonstrator. Even C1 Ariete was used in Iraq with composite armor modules protecting hull and turret sides over crew compartment, these were similiar to MEXAS armor modules seen on Canadian Leopard C2 (Leopard 1 variant).

But besides Ariete all these tanks have at least crew compartment in turret, protected from sides by composite armor, it is a good thing, because if there is no need turret might be using only it's basic protection, thus some weight is saved, and if there is need, additional protection can allways be installed.

Please remember that additional weight is closely connected to vehicle wear and tear, as it's mechanical components. So different solutions need to be analized. But as India mostly seen use of tank in classic conflicts and tank vs tank engagements, after detailed analize of tanks design, it is safe to say that T-90S in at least armor protection, might be better than Arjun (an definetly not worse), and it is highly probable that Pakistani modified T-80UD's (Object 478BE) are better or at least not worse in terms of armor protection. And highly exposed, not protected weak zones in Arjun turret structure might be very dangerous.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Kraus Maffei, who designed Germany's Leopard 2 tank, helped to design the Arjun MBT. Consequently, the Arjun is very similar to the Leopard 2.
Arjun Main Battle Tank | 21st Century Tanks | tanks.net
A lot of our stuff is similar to already designed stuff. We aren't copying, but our designers aren't creative enough when they started off. The Chinese have the same problem, but people call it copying.

No, there is no designer for Arjun in India, no particular name. It was heavily aided by German designer Karus which is why it shares some similar features. That is not because of CVRDE.
There is no German designer called Krauss. The person who created Krauss Co(George Krauss) was dead well before WW I. Krauss merged with another company called Maffei to create Krauss Maffei.

Just see who was the project lead in CVRDE for Arjun in 1985 and you will have your designers name.

Arjun will not qualify that is true, that is because it is not up to their standards. I agree i am not disputing that but to say its a total sack of shit is wrong to.
There is no point trying to prove Arjun is a sack of sh!t or otherwise. No matter how good Arjun is IA has already chosen it's future tank. The point is Arjun is not necessary and that's what even the DGMF was saying.
 

utubekhiladi

The Preacher
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
4,768
Likes
10,311
Country flag
DRDO designers have some serious reason to do so, or they have not even slightest idea about vehicle protection and how it is achieved. As we all know armor itself is not everything, important is it's placement, and also size, placement and number of weak zones in armor.

finally, i have to interfere...

hello Mr "i know all about arjun tanks", lets play answer my stupid questions and see how much u know about arjun tank. :troll:

1) what's the actual weight of Arjun MBT's tank turret?
2) what's the actual weight of it's gun(minus turret) and chasis sepreately?
3) what's the exact volume in percentage of RHA in latest kanchan Armour?
4) what's the turret side wall thickness in cm?
5) what's rifling twist rate in it's main gun and how many twists are there?

finally

6) what the hell is "safe maneuvering angles" :pound:

:) have you designed tank by yourself? i don't think so. people in DRDO are 100000x smarter and intelligent than internet keyword arm chair generals like you and me. people in DRDO know what they are doing. DRDO have more experience than anybody on this forum. granted, arjun may be still rough around the edges but they are working on it. so don't climb the creek of your ego called "i know everything" and blindly blame DRDO. you may have valid concerns regarding it's design and placement like you highlighted in your previous post. but there must be an explanation or a reason why tank turret is build that way. drdo knows all about tanks as we are operating tanks for past 70 years in all kind of terrain and weather and faced 3 full scaled wars. so please stop cursing DRDO


Don't bother to google answers for my top 5 questions as they are classified. only me and 1 other person in this forum can answer such questions.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
So your saying an hit on the turret side will got go through the crew hatch? Sure that turret hatch cant be penetrated.



Armor ends where hatch ring starts. I will do one better photo from that video if there will be better shot and post it later.

The point is you did not even know that. Stop pulling up bullshit to defend your argument. The size does matter in so far as how much armor it carries.
Size of armor cavity yes, not size of vehicle.

I know that, if that is new news to you i cant help it. The arjun wont have any safe maneuvering angles i am sure.
Oh so now You say that Arjun do not have any safe manouvering angles? Poor crews then.

Moron it is safe to say i went to the Avadi tank factory to see when it had a test run on the grounds. You assessment is wrong about the armor, it is safe to say it is robust even after the kanchan armor there is enough on the inside. The turret side is definitely a weakness but i am not sure it was built for urban or mountain combat where the turret is exposed to rocket attack. In that case even the Merakavs did not manage to survive a turret attack in the Lebanon conflict and they retreated. The sides and the front arc are extremely robust and you need to go see. Offcourse you cant but you have bragging rights because you talk of a lot of crap on the net.

There are couple of no nothing chaps on the net who go by arm chair criticism, i cant sit here and waste my time over the pissing contest.
? Can someone translate this?

I explain once more, side armor is reposnible not only for attack from pure sides, for example 90 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, but also to protect vehicles from frontal attack that are within 60-65 degrees arc. It is called frontal arc of vehicle.



This drawing might explain, as we can see T-72B turret have very thin side armor, but within safe manouvering angles (60-65 degrees frontal arc of vehicle) these are completely covered by frontal armor. This is typical for any possible hit in tank vs tank combat on open ground.
 

utubekhiladi

The Preacher
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
4,768
Likes
10,311
Country flag
the Arjun on the inside for obvious reasons but chatting with the tank men i came to know it had taken direct hits of all the rounds. The composite armor did have a hole from APFSDS but they did not enter the hull.
even in the 1980s, the Kanchan armour defeated a 106 mm RCL gun which was tried on the Arjun Tank.

During the trials in 2000, the Kanchan was able to withstand a salvo of direct hits from a T-72 at point blank range, and was able to defeat all available HESH and fin stabilized armour piercing discarding sabot (FSAPDS) rounds, which included the Israeli FSAPDS rounds :pound:

it provides protection against all kind of known anti-tank ammos like APDS, HEAT and HESH rounds.
 

utubekhiladi

The Preacher
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
4,768
Likes
10,311
Country flag


Armor ends where hatch ring starts. I will do one better photo from that video if there will be better shot and post it later.

Size of armor cavity yes, not size of vehicle.

Oh so now You say that Arjun do not have any safe manouvering angles? Poor crews then.

? Can someone translate this?

I explain once more, side armor is reposnible not only for attack from pure sides, for example 90 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, but also to protect vehicles from frontal attack that are within 60-65 degrees arc. It is called frontal arc of vehicle.

This drawing might explain, as we can see T-72B turret have very thin side armor, but within safe manouvering angles (60-65 degrees frontal arc of vehicle) these are completely covered by frontal armor. This is typical for any possible hit in tank vs tank combat on open ground.
aren't we talking about Arjun MBT here :confused:
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
1) what's the actual weight of Arjun MBT's tank turret?
2) what's the actual weight of it's gun(minus turret) and chasis sepreately?
3) what's the exact volume in percentage of RHA in latest kanchan Armour?
4) what's the turret side wall thickness in cm?
5) what's rifling twist rate in it's main gun and how many twists are there?

finally

6) what the hell is "safe maneuvering angles"
1) What weight have to do with protection? Besides this it was not realesed to public to assume how heavy turret is. But comparing overall vehicle weight with other vehicles of comparable size, I assume it can be something similiar to Leopard 2, this means around 15 tons.
2) Todays typical 120mm gun weight is something around 2 to 3 tons.
3) Hard to say without photos of opened composite armor cavieties.
4) 80mm max where there is no composite armor, where composite armor is placed, something around ~300mm, as this is typical for most design with composite armor over the turret sides.
5) I do not know, do You know?
6) It was explained many times, it is a rule used by all big tank designers to properly optimize side protection for increasing vehicle survivability within vehicles frontal arc.

have you designed tank by yourself?
No, but I base my knowledge on observations, documents, literature of that subject. Analize all designs made by great designers like Alexander Morozov, General Israel Tal, Phillip Lett.

people in DRDO are 100000x smarter and intelligent than internet keyword arm chair generals like you and me. people in DRDO know what they are doing. DRDO have more experience than anybody on this forum. granted, arjun may be still rough around the edges but they are working on it. so don't climb the creek of your ego called "i know everything" and blindly blame DRDO. you may have valid concerns regarding it's design and placement like you highlighted in your previous post. but there must be an explanation or a reason why tank turret is build that way. drdo knows all about tanks as we are operating tanks for past 70 years in all kind of terrain and weather and faced 3 full scaled wars. so please stop cursing DRDO
And only recently India started to design it's very first tank. Using tank and designing tank from scratch are completely different things. And I'am amazed that Indians do not curse DRDO, they should do that for the sake of designs quality and competetivness, even in Soviet Union Politbureau had it's way to achieve competetiveness by creating multiple design bureaus that will compete with each other to create the best vehicles possible. Having only one big organization creating such weapons means there are no competition, and nobody really cares.
 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
even in the 1980s, the Kanchan armour defeated a 106 mm RCL gun which was tried on the Arjun Tank.
Not impressive really, even old BDD armor installed on T-55 can do that.

During the trials in 2000, the Kanchan was able to withstand a salvo of direct hits from a T-72 at point blank range, and was able to defeat all available HESH and fin stabilized armour piercing discarding sabot (FSAPDS) rounds, which included the Israeli FSAPDS rounds
Composite armor defeating HESH is nothing impressive, even simple only steel spaced armor can do that. As for APFSDS, what APFSDS ammunition was that? 3BM15? What Israeli ammunition was that? It is nice and all, but without details it is not worth much, especially that armor penetration values or estimations are known, and tested ammunition might be ineffective against any other modern tank, also T-90 or some more modern T-72 variants.

it provides protection against all kind of known anti-tank ammos like APDS, HEAT and HESH rounds.
You are making here a wrong assumption. First, yes there are different types of ammunition, but there are also different variants and models of ammunition within one class. 125mm 3BM15 is APFSDS, as M829A3 is APFSDS, but M829A3 can penetrate much more armor and is less vurnable to ERA than 3BM15 or for example DM33.

aren't we talking about Arjun MBT here
And also about "Armata" and Object 195 and other vehicles. GK had some doubt about one issue, I provided explanation.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top