Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

[Dejawolf]

It has full impact on TRUE PROFESSIONAL TANK EXPERT COMMUNITY.

well, as a spokesman of the true tank expert community, it has zero impact on it. if you want, i could take this "extraordinary evidence" over to tank-net, so we can all have a good old chuckle over it.

 

[ersakthivel]

well, as a spokesman of the true tank expert community, it has zero impact on it. if you want, i could take this "extraordinary evidence" over to tank-net, so we can all have a good old chuckle over it.

Really, You are the true spokeman of true tank expert community????????

don't bother to reply. And I too will stop replying to you,

End of debate.

 

[methos]

What is the use of the red lines in the second picture if we can not see the gunner seat at all?

It can be seen and it was even marked with green colour...

You also seem to have poor memory and unable to remember what was told to you in my previous posts,

If you had read my posts, you would notice that you are having poor memory.

Those were not claims, Those were general statements made in countering some of the outlandish and stupid claims made by some people when I don't know much about Arjun and tanks in general,

You do not know much about tanks in general, else you would have known that no tank has a 10 m long hull and that it is impossible to achieve 1,000 mm RHAe protection with mere steel in a limited space. General statements which are not facts are claims btw.

Initially or sequentially or finally you posted not a grain of useful data about Arjun and you never will.

I don't post data useful for you, because you don't accept any data disagreeing with your opinion.

Because you don't even know the height of 3.03 meters include the gun height,

It is not the gun height, but the height including the anti-air machine gun mount (including the sights). If you would have read my post, you would have noticed that I was always aware of the fact that this value includes the AAMG.
I didn't doubt that value, but the roof height, which is said to be 2.32 m by DRDO. Unlike you, I don't make random values up in my mind and claim they would be true (like you did with the Arjun's turret length), but I base my words on sources. There are images, to which I even link in the posts, where the Arjun's roof is clearly higher than the cupola of a T-55 and the top of the gunner's sight of a BMP-2, which are both larger than 2.32 m

because you are not willing to acknowledge simple truths and instead asking chinese face width based measurements,

STGN and me provided data for several different face width and that is the average. The average Chinese is by the way as tall as the average Indian. What however even more shows another "ersakthivel-type" failure is that I provided the average width of the Chinese and the American face. The average American is taller than the average Indian btw, so again you are just trying to confuse people with your failed attempt to disqualify me.

 

[Dejawolf]

That is ----------No. All the three items are on the plane perpendicular to the plane on which orange gunner's box is located..

It has full impact on TRUE PROFESSIONAL TANK EXPERT COMMUNITY.

I did not bring this up 5 minutes ago,

I brought them up months ago in Arjun MBT thread from page -300 onwards, and you gave the same answer all the time.

So if you are not willing to answer , go ahead,

i answered, you rejected the answer. and no, the white ocular box is not on the same plane as the yellow gunners FCS input panel.

this is obvious for one reason: you can see the bottom of the ocular box, you cannot see the bottom of the FCS input panel.
hence, yellow box is angled, white box is hot. but this is just another one of your pointless diversions.

because it is crystal clear in this image, that your mythical white box doesn't exist:

 

[militarysta]

Really???

Don't you understand the question?

What is the use of the red lines in the second picture if we can not see the gunner seat at all?

Why doesnot militarysta draw that red line in the first picture itself ,

For a change you can try that and post,

or I will draw the red line and post it tomorrow for you to understand that,

This is what I think it is useless to talk to you,

The question I put is not to you,
But to the guy who drew those lines, Why are you taking it? Can't milarysta answer it?
Thanks.

On all 3 photos is visible gunner seat and it's width What more - there is visble bar from turret basket bottom as aditional indicator.
You just have no single idea how it's look in reality.

 

[Dejawolf]

It can be seen and it was even marked with green colour...




If you had read my posts, you would notice that you are having poor memory.




You do not know much about tanks in general, else you would have known that no tank has a 10 m long hull and that it is impossible to achieve 1,000 mm RHAe protection with mere steel in a limited space. General statements which are not facts are claims btw.




I don't post data useful for you, because you don't accept any data disagreeing with your opinion.




It is not the gun height, but the height including the anti-air machine gun mount (including the sights). If you would have read my post, you would have noticed that I was always aware of the fact that this value includes the AAMG.
I didn't doubt that value, but the roof height, which is said to be 2.32 m by DRDO. Unlike you, I don't make random values up in my mind and claim they would be true (like you did with the Arjun's turret length), but I base my words on sources. There are images, to which I even link in the posts, where the Arjun's roof is clearly higher than the cupola of a T-55 and the top of the gunner's sight of a BMP-2, which are both larger than 2.32 m




STGN and me provided data for several different face width and that is the average. The average Chinese is by the way as tall as the average Indian. What however even more shows another "ersakthivel-type" failure is that I provided the average width of the Chinese and the American face. The average American is taller than the average Indian btw, so again you are just trying to confuse people with your failed attempt to disqualify me.

arjun and leopard 2A4 3d model side by side comparison.

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

DRDO went for hardened steel with high thickness efficiency instead of composites with high weight efficiency. to us experts, it says only one thing.
thickness behind sight is insufficient, so materials with high TE and low weight efficiency must be used instead, to maintain uniform front turret protection.

I have to agree with this.

@ersakthivel, it is true that DRDO is doing its best, yet, since we do have a non-uniform front protection, it is important to focus on that vision cutout in the front turret that seems like an Achilles Heel of the Arjun Mark II.

BTW, we have a thread for Arjun Mark II, so let's debate it in the correct thread.

 

[ersakthivel]

It can be seen and it was even marked with green colour...




If you had read my posts, you would notice that you are having poor memory.




You do not know much about tanks in general, else you would have known that no tank has a 10 m long hull and that it is impossible to achieve 1,000 mm RHAe protection with mere steel in a limited space. General statements which are not facts are claims btw.




I don't post data useful for you, because you don't accept any data disagreeing with your opinion.




It is not the gun height, but the height including the anti-air machine gun mount (including the sights). If you would have read my post, you would have noticed that I was always aware of the fact that this value includes the AAMG.
I didn't doubt that value, but the roof height, which is said to be 2.32 m by DRDO. Unlike you, I don't make random values up in my mind and claim they would be true (like you did with the Arjun's turret length), but I base my words on sources. There are images, to which I even link in the posts, where the Arjun's roof is clearly higher than the cupola of a T-55 and the top of the gunner's sight of a BMP-2, which are both larger than 2.32 m




STGN and me provided data for several different face width and that is the average. The average Chinese is by the way as tall as the average Indian. What however even more shows another "ersakthivel-type" failure is that I provided the average width of the Chinese and the American face. The average American is taller than the average Indian btw, so again you are just trying to confuse people with your failed attempt to disqualify me.

On all 3 photos is visible gunner seat and it's width What more - there is visble bar from turret basket bottom as aditional indicator.
You just have no single idea how it's look in reality.

Thanks for your values,

Since you have given many valuable inputs to the forum , please give another one,

Show me the 4 bolts in the picture above in the same exact place as Dejawolf has put,

in any actual operating Arjun tank inside photo,

All four bolts must be in the same place is what counts,

one bolt that is visible is far way from where it Dejawolf has put it.

Why?

If the actual arrangement is like this , we can not see the roof top vision block in any photos, as it shows up in the photo below,

The roof top vision vision block shows up below the orange box in the photo below,

That too at the same height as that of the bottom of the vision blocks over Tc's seat. More than 200 mm below the ceiling of the inside turret roof.

It can never happen if the arrangement is as as shown in the photo

In the photo above the camera should have been held at the chest level of the Tc. So there is no way that the roof top vision block can show up below the orange box.It is impossible.

And also if you observe the roof top vision block closely , you can see the opening for light is NOT cut out in the horizontal inside roof top turret, But it looks like a rectangular opening cut out of a slanting plane on the white block behind it.

Also with this model you can never explain the folded bumps and their purpose on the wall of the white armor block on which the main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece is mounted,

These folds indicate that the armor block behind the main sight is not flat as you repeatedly call for and the thickness varies to compensate for the cutaway for the main sight.

A huge gap is shown between the back side wall of the white armor block on which the main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece is mounted and the turret inside front armor wall,

But as per the photo above this back side wall of the white armor block on which the main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece is mounted directly on the armored column,

And this armored column ends at a distance of more than 1300 mm behind the front tip of the turret gun covering plate.

Even Dejawolf has accepted it.

So if you deduct the 1300 mm from the 2500 mm pivot base point we get 1200 mm ,

If we deduct 700 mm depth taken away by the hatch cover cutaway from this 1200 mm , A minimum 500 mm still stands even if we accept your argument that the armor wall behind the main sight is flat.

In real life the whole cylindrical pipe shown in grey colr is inside the armor block and there is no air gap between the back wall of the white main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece and the turret armor back plate.

So if the roof top vision block is cut behind the slanting orange box with bolts and that too at the same height as the bolts , it can never show up in the photo above.

 

[ersakthivel]

well, as a spokesman of the true tank expert community, it has zero impact on it. if you want, i could take this "extraordinary evidence" over to tank-net, so we can all have a good old chuckle over it.

Before chuckling you can clarify some inconvenient points raised in the post no- 288 above.

So if the roof top vision block is cut behind the slanting orange box with bolts ,

and that too at the same height as the bolts , it can never show up in the photo below.

and that too below the bottom of the slanting orange box.

Also with this model you can never explain the folded bumps and their purpose on the wall of the white armor block on which the main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece is mounted, as shown in the photo below,


These folds indicate that the armor block behind the main sight is not flat as you repeatedly call for and the thickness varies to compensate for the cutaway for the main sight.

A huge gap is shown between the back side wall of the white armor block on which the main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece is mounted and the turret inside front armor wall,

But as per the photo above this back side wall of the white armor block on which the main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece is mounted directly on the armored column,

And this armored column ends at a distance of more than 1300 mm behind the front tip of the turret gun covering plate.

Even you have accepted it. and gave 600 + 600 mm in your distances for A, B, C, D discussion, for C and D

So it is crystal clear that the armor back plate is at 1300 .

So if you deduct the 1300 mm from the 2500 mm pivot base point (includes the gun cover plate)we get 1200 mm ,

If we deduct 700 mm depth taken away by the hatch cover cutaway from this 1200 mm , A minimum 500 mm still stands even if we accept your argument that the armor wall behind the main sight is flat.

But it is not flat as the bumpy folds on the armor back plate shows,

 

[Dejawolf]

Before chuckling you can clarify some inconvenient points raised in the post no- 288 above.

So if the roof top vision block is cut behind the slanting orange box with bolts ,

and that too at the same height as the bolts , it can never show up in the photo below.

and that too below the bottom of the slanting orange box.

Also with this model you can never explain the folded bumps and their purpose on the wall of the white armor block on which the main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece is mounted, as shown in the photo below,


These folds indicate that the armor block behind the main sight is not flat as you repeatedly call for and the thickness varies to compensate for the cutaway for the main sight.

A huge gap is shown between the back side wall of the white armor block on which the main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece is mounted and the turret inside front armor wall,

But as per the photo above this back side wall of the white armor block on which the main vision block with binocular gunner's eye piece is mounted directly on the armored column,

And this armored column ends at a distance of more than 1300 mm behind the front tip of the turret gun covering plate.

Even you have accepted it. and gave 600 + 600 mm in your distances for A, B, C, D discussion, for C and D

So it is crystal clear that the armor back plate is at 1300 .

So if you deduct the 1300 mm from the 2500 mm pivot base point (includes the gun cover plate)we get 1200 mm ,

If we deduct 700 mm depth taken away by the hatch cover cutaway from this 1200 mm , A minimum 500 mm still stands even if we accept your argument that the armor wall behind the main sight is flat.

But it is not flat as the bumpy folds on the armor back plate shows,

your "bumpy folds" are imaginary:

 

[Dejawolf]

Thanks for your values,

Since you have given many valuable inputs to the forum , please give another one,

Show me the 4 bolts in the picture above in the same exact place as Dejawolf has put,

in any actual operating Arjun tank inside photo,

All four bolts must be in the same place is what counts,

one bolt that is visible is far way from where it Dejawolf has put it.
.

lol, the bolt is exactly wher eit should be. and you used to deny that these bolts even existed, remember that? now that you have accepted they exist, your previous argument was wrong. which was the yellow box was attached directly to your imaginary angled armour block. just give the ---- up, you're rehashing old arguments that has been completely destroyed, as if they were anything new. whenever these pictures that kunal is going to take of the arjun arrives, i'm sure all of the things you've said doesn't exist, will appear smack bang in those photographs. the back wall behind the sight will be flat, you'll ignore this, and create some crazy new argument, there will be measurements, you will ignore this, and create another crazy new argument, DRDO will come out and officially state the thickness behind the main sight, you will ignore this, and create some crazy new argument....
there will be news articles about the shocking lack of thickness behind the sight, you will deny these.....
no mountains of proof will ever satisfy you and your need to be right when all the evidence points to the contrary.
but fine, i won't stop arguing until you admit all the things you have been wrong about, and publicly apologize for wasting everyones time, as well as filling up threads will all sorts of pointless arguments to dig down the truth, or cover it up.

whenever you are proven wrong, you unleash an avalanche of new posts half a page long, to make sure the truth is put as far back into the archives as possible.

 

[ersakthivel]

lol, the bolt is exactly wher eit should be. and you used to deny that these bolts even existed, remember that? now that you have accepted they exist, your previous argument was wrong. which was the yellow box was attached directly to your imaginary angled armour block.

This bolts were not for the purpose you intended them to be. And your model is completely wrong in this corner of Arjun , you are solely relying on 1990s india today photos and not what it is on the field today.

And where is the evidence of the vertical pipe for the roof top vision block only in your mind not in the real world,

I already told you to to post in ARJUN MBT thread as this thread is not for this purpose.Forcing me to reply here.

I have to agree with this.

@ersakthivel,
BTW, we have a thread for Arjun Mark II, so let's debate it in the correct thread.

Bumpy folds are to the right of this white box , See the photo below.
But contrary to all your estimates the white armor wall behind the gunner's main vision block consisting binocular eyepiece is at a distance of 1300 mm from the turret front tip negating your fancy 300 mm LOS behind the main sight estimate.

because 1300- 700mm(the depth of the cutaway for the main sight ) alone will give a value of 600 mm for the LOS behind the main sight. There is no escape for you.

because you yourself has marked the position of this wall at 1200 mm infront of the pivot base which is 2500 mm behind the turret front tip, Remember your 760+300+600+600 values for A.B, C, D distances,(A-is the depth of main sight cutaway, B is the LOS for armor behind the main sight and C+D is the space for the gunner and the Tc)

 

[Dejawolf]

The bolts are for the purpose you intended them to be. And your model is completely right in this corner of Arjun , you are relying on photographs from the recently released bluemangofilms.com video.

fixed your post, as it contained multiple lies.

 

[ersakthivel]

fixed your post, as it contained multiple lies.

don't troll here shift to Arjun MBT thread, and I will expose all your stupid lies,

That is why I asked you to mark the A, B, c, D distances to lock your escape routes,
Now you can't troll forever, I already notice that most of your posts are stupid two liners and three liners containing no facts.

 

[Dejawolf]

don't troll here shift to Arjun MBT thread, and I will expose all your stupid lies,

That is why I asked you to mark the A, B, c, D distances to lock your escape routes,
Now you can't troll forever, I already notice that most of your posts are stupid two liners and three liners containing no facts.

and as it turns out, you trapped yourself, because i posted the distances, and lo and behold, they matched up with my statements.
there's a nice saying, "keep it simple stupid". your arguments are unneccesarily verbose containing a lot of namecalling, and basically boils down to a 1 or 2 line rebuttal, perhaps accompanied with a picture.

 

[ersakthivel]

and as it turns out, you trapped yourself, because i posted the distances, and lo and behold, they matched up with my statements.
there's a nice saying, "keep it simple stupid". your arguments are unneccesarily verbose containing a lot of namecalling, and basically boils down to a 1 or 2 line rebuttal, perhaps accompanied with a picture.

You posted 760+ 300+600+600 for the distances A, B, C, D in response to my estimates of 700+ 600+600+600.

Don't troll now by saying that these something else.

You can't deny that now

No escape though a big admirer of your work , who always says that Dejawolf has done right, Dejawolf has right has posted this image above validating my own 1300 mm(700+600)

We all accept that below is the photo of the Arjun turret,

To the bare eye the distance between the back wall of main sight cutaway and the start of the vision block

is almost equal to the

crew entry hole for TC or the vertical standing hatch cover width

SO it must be 500mm plus at bare minimum,

How come you got 300 mm measurement?

If your 300 mm measurement is true then the Tc must saw both his hands off before entering the tank.

[/SIZE][/B]

The below is the original drawing , observe the position of the pivot base for the hatch cover,

compare it to the position of the pivot base in your drawing above,


Do you notice anything different?

You have intentionally placed them well behind their original position to suit your fancy 300 mm LOS behind main sight needs.

In the picture posted above 1.7143 is the ratio of this human head height to the Tc seat head rest behind him at a point close to the left side edge of the head rest.

So the height of the head rest is 23.2/ 1.7143= 13. 53 mm,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/HeadAnthropometry.JPG

In the picture below the ratio of the [horizontal distance between the back of the TC head rest ] / [height of the Tc seat head rest is ] = 95

So 95 x 13.53 = 1294 mm



So it is beyond any doubt that the distance between the TC seat back rest and the inside opening for the vision block above gunner main sight eye piece is 1294 mm approx

In the picture above , In the same way the ratio of [ distance from front tip of the turret(excluding the gun cover plate) to the pivot base of the hatch cover ] / [ distance from tip of the turret (excluding the gun cover plate) to for hatch cutaway ] is 3.14 .

In the image below distance from front tip of the turret(excluding the gun cover plate) to the pivot base of the hatch cover is 2250

so 2250 / 3.14 = 716 mm is the gap for the hatch cutaway.

.

So 1294=216= 2010 mm that is ,

SO 2500 mm -2000 =500 mm is the LOS for main sight in the prototypes versions shown in blue mango film.



Now what are you going to say?

 

[ersakthivel]

fixed your post, as it contained multiple lies.

look at the first of the three pictures, in the second picture our very trusted friend

@militarysta

has marked the position wrongly as he always does by posting the right picture and making the wrong estimate!!!!!!!!

If at all he has drawn another red line bordering the left hand side edge of the Tc seat , he could have right conclusion, Alas, fate has determined otherwise.

Above is the pic showing most of the gunner seat situated right behind the gap between gun covering plate and the main sight cutaway

Infact 90 percent of the gunner's seat is not behind the main sight.
.

Notice that gap is not there in LEO and very big in ARJUN,

Notice your stupid 3d model below, Where is the gunner sitting?

Who is telling multiple lies?

Will you also fix this?

 

[Dejawolf]

You posted 760+ 300+600+600 for the distances A, B, C, D in response to my estimates of 700+600+600+600.

Don't troll now by saying that these something else.

You can't deny that now

speak for yourself, i'm not the one who changed my estimate from 800 to 600mm for the armour behind the sight.

 

[Dejawolf]

look at the first of the three pictures,

Above is the pic showing most of the gunner seat situated right behind the gap between gun covering plate and the main sight cutaway

and? any point to this post? if you'll remember, i was the one who originally pointed out the position of the gunners seat, in this picture in order to counter your belief that the gunner sits right behind the mantlet. obviously, you were wrong about this, and now you act like this was always your position on the matter.
par for the course.

 

[ersakthivel]

speak for yourself, i'm not the one who changed my estimate from 800 to 600mm for the armour behind the sight.

I am now arguing first for the gap between cutaway for main sight and the roof top vision block,

first as per the assumption that the armor back plate behind the main sight is flat(i don't accept it as truth but what I am making sure is whether you got any single dimension right in your model, which you haven't).

Where ever i claimed any LOS for main sight , I made it based on drawings and calculation,

And you have not made a single post countering my estimates based on A+B+ C+D =2500 break up.

That shows you are wrong on every count on these crucial 4 dimensions.