Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark II

[militarysta]

militarysta, you guys are going by blurry pics without any clear idea of depth, and all sorts of hypothesis, where in one prominent case (Arjun ammo is obsolete, nothing better is on the way) where the data now speaks for itself. until and unless you end up in the actual turret and make accurate measurements, such guess work is completely moot.

Archer, really - measure some LOS thickens is not rocket science. I made this for Leopard-2A4, for T-90A, and for other tank. My error was circa 2-5% depend on photo or taking mesurments points. It's not so difficult. And we have some Arjun Mk.I or prototypes interior turret photos. And it's not relevant if those photos are blurred or not - we can see this what we must see to say when armour is ending. Turret roof periscope above gunner head is one indicator, technology opening for fume extractor or radio antena near turret sides are second indicators where is armour ending, etc. It's really not complicated.
And it's not relevant if Arjun LOS after GPS is 320 or 360mm. It's to small value to stop any APFSDS or HEAT now. Just this. In other tank this value is around 650-840mm...so twice better at least.

BTW:

(Arjun ammo is obsolete, nothing better is on the way)

Existing NOW ammo is obsolate. You say that new ammo is devleoped, OK, but untill it will be introduced to service and production avaible NOW amunition for Arjun is obsolate.
You have some good infos and you write about indian 125 and 120mm APFSDS/FAPSDS ammo - thank Good becouse it was very informative post and it was greate explain indian army ammo problems.

 

[militarysta]

militarysta, you guys are going by blurry pics without any clear idea of depth, and all sorts of hypothesis, where in one prominent case (Arjun ammo is obsolete, nothing better is on the way) where the data now speaks for itself. until and unless you end up in the actual turret and make accurate measurements, such guess work is completely moot.

Archer, really - measure some LOS thickens is not rocket science. I made this for Leopard-2A4, for T-90A, and for other tank. My error was circa 2-5% depend on photo or taking mesurments points. It's not so difficult. And we have some Arjun Mk.I or prototypes interior turret photos. And it's not relevant if those photos are blurred or not - we can see this what we must see to say when armour is ending. Turret roof periscope above gunner head is one indicator, technology opening for fume extractor or radio antena near turret sides are second indicators where is armour ending, etc. It's really not complicated.
And it's not relevant if Arjun LOS after GPS is 320 or 360mm. It's to small value to stop any APFSDS or HEAT now. Just this. In other tank this value is around 650-840mm...so twice better at least.

BTW:

(Arjun ammo is obsolete, nothing better is on the way)

Existing NOW ammo is obsolate. You say that new ammo is devleoped, OK, but untill it will be introduced to service and production avaible NOW amunition for Arjun is obsolate.
You have some good infos and you write about indian 125 and 120mm APFSDS/FAPSDS ammo - thank Good becouse it was very informative post and it was greate explain indian army ammo problems.

 

[methos]

yeah it couldn't be that i was using the current name for a company aka KM that has been around since the 30's. ergo, one liners have to compensate..and that the revised arjun GSQRs saw work pick up in the 800's...again when the Leopard 2 was well established.

If you had any idea about the Leopard 2 development, it would be clear to you why your claims are far from reality.
Modern tanks like the Leopard 2 are not designed like cars from one company. Krauss-Maffei and Maschienenbau Kiel did produce the Leopard 2 MBTs. However neither of them designed the Leopard 2, this was done to a very large extend directly by the German DoD, other parts were designed according to the specifictions made by them.
KMW (or earlier Krauss-Maffei) was selected as main contractor, due to a number of different factors like favourable contract conditions and production capacity, while MaK became secondary contractor. This means that KM was responsible for the final system integration and the largest amount of production. To this Krauss-Maffei acquired a number of rights (Verwertungsrechte), including the rights to export the tank.
Krauss-Maffei however did not design (and also not produce) specific components like the drivetrain, engine, armour, gun, etc. or the turret. The turret - which is due to it's somewhat similar appearance the reason why most people believe that there would be a connection to the Arjun - was designed by Wegmann with again most sub-parts being designed or influenced by other companies (like Rheinmetall, STN Atlas, Zeiss).

Your deduction about how the Arjun has to be influenced by the Germans because it uses a German engine and transmission is simply flawed. Renk and MTU are both market leaders with their products being used on numerous tanks and AFVs with which KMW has absolutely no connection - like the Merkava, the Challenger 2E, the tropicalized Leclerc, the Ulan, the Marder, the M60T and many more.
The situation is quite different, because the joint venture Krauss-Maffei did in the past decades did often exclude MTU and/or Renk... take the Type 90 as example.

There is - like I pointed out at least five times in this forum - not a single German-language source about any connection between the Arjun and Krauss-Maffei. While finding connections to other tank joint-ventures like the Type 90 and Lince is very simple.


So instead of repeating the old - absolutely unsupported - theories about any connection between the Leopard 2 and the Arjun, just doing a very small amount of research would show you how unlikely your theories are.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Keep in mind, You are talking in MK2 thread ..

Points mentioned below are based views on MK1 ..

c) lack protected by special armour turret sides on crew comparments hight
d) lack nomal blow-out plates and "bunker" whit separated door for munition in turret
And on interior photos we can see that those periscope in Arjun is placed AFTER (or nex to) armour backplate. So gunner primary sight (GPS) layout is diffrent and those part of turret layout is far from Leopard-2 ones.
Here is no conection. Simmilar in shape but completly diffrent in layout.

 

[ersakthivel]

Ok, but any picture of the new round will we welcome




The problem is that interiorr photos of the Arjun turret are not so blurred to not see obvious think - turret roof periscope is above gunner main sight (vision block) and this periscope in the roof is not IN but AFTER (or nex too) armour. More or less turret interior photos shown that GPS layout is far from Leopard-2A4 whit obvious serious weak spot here.

All is visible here:

But Arjun turret have:
a) more width gun mantled mask
b) not protected turret sides on crew comparment hight
c) lack trully blow-out plates + "bunker" for munition
So why it shoud have the same GPS layout, while interior turret photos shwon that Arjun have not the same layout?
Arjun turret looks like Leopard-2 ones but it's very diffrent in most important aspects.

In fact the corresponding vision block(or gunner periscope ) opening inside is at the head top level of the gunner well below the turret inner roof proving a LEO like channel for the vision block inside the composite armor column, show in the bottom photo.

the photo below clearly shows the inside opening of the roof vision block right below the bottom edge of the orange box or sloped orange FCS box just above the gunner's head .

,





read post number 863 and 864, which clearly explains the lower height of vision block opening than the inside roof of the turret,

The slant on roof can't justify it , because the slant just starts near the vision block and it's gradient gets steep only after the vision block,

Since you could not counter it in mk-1 thread itself , your argument is even more irrelevant in mk2,

So that concludes the argument you raised,

 

[ersakthivel]

If you had any idea about the Leopard 2 development, it would be clear to you why your claims are far from reality.
Modern tanks like the Leopard 2 are not designed like cars from one company. Krauss-Maffei and Maschienenbau Kiel did produce the Leopard 2 MBTs. However neither of them designed the Leopard 2, this was done to a very large extend directly by the German DoD, other parts were designed according to the specifictions made by them.
KMW (or earlier Krauss-Maffei) was selected as main contractor, due to a number of different factors like favourable contract conditions and production capacity, while MaK became secondary contractor. This means that KM was responsible for the final system integration and the largest amount of production. To this Krauss-Maffei acquired a number of rights (Verwertungsrechte), including the rights to export the tank.
Krauss-Maffei however did not design (and also not produce) specific components like the drivetrain, engine, armour, gun, etc. or the turret. The turret - which is due to it's somewhat similar appearance the reason why most people believe that there would be a connection to the Arjun - was designed by Wegmann with again most sub-parts being designed or influenced by other companies (like Rheinmetall, STN Atlas, Zeiss).

Your deduction about how the Arjun has to be influenced by the Germans because it uses a German engine and transmission is simply flawed. Renk and MTU are both market leaders with their products being used on numerous tanks and AFVs with which KMW has absolutely no connection - like the Merkava, the Challenger 2E, the tropicalized Leclerc, the Ulan, the Marder, the M60T and many more.
The situation is quite different, because the joint venture Krauss-Maffei did in the past decades did often exclude MTU and/or Renk... take the Type 90 as example.

There is - like I pointed out at least five times in this forum - not a single German-language source about any connection between the Arjun and Krauss-Maffei. While finding connections to other tank joint-ventures like the Type 90 and Lince is very simple.


So instead of repeating the old - absolutely unsupported - theories about any connection between the Leopard 2 and the Arjun, just doing a very small amount of research would show you how unlikely your theories are.

read post number -885 in the previous page for a detailed explanations based on the inside opening of the vision block or periscope in the crew compartment,

this hazy photo you use to justify your weak spot behind the main sight argument hides all the height of the inside opening for the gunner's periscope or vision block, because of the maze of the wires and different angle of photo graph.

the photo below clearly shows the inside opening of the roof vision block right below the bottom edge of the orange box or sloped orange FCS box just above the gunner's head .

Your conclusion that Arjun mk-2 weld lines don't denote armor back plate position inside arjun mk-2 like LEO-24 A is equally made with no proof and a baseless statement,

No one has said Arjun is a copy of LEO, Arjun follows the same better crew protection principles followed on 4 men crew western tanks like LEO is what is stated here,

And for the schema on composite armor no tank designer needs to copy any one, It will be as per the requirement of IA, Till this day no one in IA raised this weak spot behind main sight theory , which is propounded by some people in this thread even though the IA has raised numerous concerns on Arjun and they were all addressed by CVRDE.

 

[ersakthivel]

The photo below clearly shows the inside opening of the roof vision block right below the bottom edge of the orange box or sloped orange FCS box just above the gunner's head in the photo above.

But the angle of the photo above clearly hides the inside opening of the roof vision block right below the bottom edge of the orange box or sloped orange FCS box because this photo is taken from one or two feet above the the photo below.

This camera angle is leading to the confusion is my idea,

The channel for the roof vision block (shown behind the slanting orange FCS box )on the roof is slanting and not straight as shown below in the illustration is my thought, because one of the inner planes of this channel is visible in the crew inside photo above.

LEO arrangement for the channel is shown below,

it this argument is right then the LOS behind the main sight is 2x 360 to 380 mm, So it will be well above 600 mm LOS as said by me,

So the weld line under kunal's left boot is on top of the back top end of the sloped orange FCS box shown in the model below is my opinion,

 

[ersakthivel]

So this 3D modelling image is wrong in depicting the armor back plate placement.

In fact it is more like this,

the length of the blue block(below the words back plate) will be well above the 600 mm LOS for composite armor behind main sight .

more detailed explanation i post no-5255 and 5256 in the link below,

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-351.html

 

[Dejawolf]

So thats the end to all the theorizing about the armor stopping at the sight itself then.

No, what i was saying is this:

it's the weld between the angled front roof, and the roof.
the front angled roof armour is thicker than the roof armour, since it's at a slight angle and can be hit from the front. this roof is usually designed to have the same LOS thickness as the front turret armour, at least vs KE. why there's 2 weld lines on the arjun not sure.the first weld is for the front roof, the second weld could be for an extra slab added to the back, to keep the LOS thickness uniform even at the top of the angled roof armour.
something like this:

 

[ersakthivel]

No, what i was saying is this:

it's the weld between the angled front roof, and the roof.
the front angled roof armour is thicker than the roof armour, since it's at a slight angle and can be hit from the front. this roof is usually designed to have the same LOS thickness as the front turret armour, at least vs KE. why there's 2 weld lines on the arjun not sure.the first weld is for the front roof, the second weld could be for an extra slab added to the back, to keep the LOS thickness uniform even at the top of the angled roof armour.
something like this:

The weld is not in straight line, it follows zigzag pattern, so LOS of atleast 600 plus mm behind main sight shows up with irrefutable evidence.,

 

[mahesh]

so much detail analysis and pictures, wouldn't they give away some technological points to our enemies. or other countries ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

These are not so accurate, These information are already De-classified as shown in public ..

All you see in DFI is close to reality but not exact

so much detail analysis and pictures, wouldn't they give away some technological points to our enemies. or other countries ?

 

[Dazzler]

thats true, only the manufacturer knows the true dynamics of the their product, we forumers can only guess or in some cases, an educated guess.

 

[sayareakd]

so much detail analysis and pictures, wouldn't they give away some technological points to our enemies. or other countries ?

Yeah all enemy has to do is to aim slightly left of the tank to hit soft area.

 

[arnabmit]

No, what i was saying is this:

it's the weld between the angled front roof, and the roof.
the front angled roof armour is thicker than the roof armour, since it's at a slight angle and can be hit from the front. this roof is usually designed to have the same LOS thickness as the front turret armour, at least vs KE. why there's 2 weld lines on the arjun not sure.the first weld is for the front roof, the second weld could be for an extra slab added to the back, to keep the LOS thickness uniform even at the top of the angled roof armour.
something like this:

I think your assumption that the weld line is the junction of the angled front roof, and the roof, is flawed.

The following pictures prove that the angled front roof starts immediately in front of the commander hatch, and not from the weld line.

 

[Dejawolf]

I think your assumption that the weld line is the junction of the angled front roof, and the roof, is flawed.

The following pictures prove that the angled front roof starts immediately in front of the commander hatch, and not from the weld line.

nah, you can clearly see the weld line starts at the first weld line in that picture.

even in the second picture you can faintly make out the secnod weld line after the first weld line.

 

[mahesh]

These are not so accurate, These information are already De-classified as shown in public ..

All you see in DFI is close to reality but not exact

i just got a thought coz recently A K antony defence ministry was concerned about reports that some crew members on board the ships that escorted INS Vikramaditya may have posed a security risk by uploading the warship's pictures on social media.
well is this leak of picture common is pak and china too ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That might have been, Though regarding other tanks, Yes ..

There are tons of information of other origin tanks too discuses here in great details, Like Merkava, Challenger, M1A2 so does Russian origin once & Mutated Russian origin ones also, Though these tanks have nothing to do with this thread ..

i just got a thought coz recently A K antony defence ministry was concerned about reports that some crew members on board the ships that escorted INS Vikramaditya may have posed a security risk by uploading the warship's pictures on social media.
well is this leak of picture common is pak and china too ?

 

[ersakthivel]

nah, you can clearly see the weld line starts at the first weld line in that picture.

even in the second picture you can faintly make out the secnod weld line after the first weld line.

The weld line you should explain is,

the one that lies just above the red dotted line with 350- 360 mm LOS mark ,

that starts at the end of the dog house for the main sight(on the thin yellow lline)

and

ends at the first weld line across the width of the tank(marked with red arrow).

The length of the blue line in the picture below,


the entire length of that weld line gives us some indication about LOS behind armor.

half the weld line is measured as 380 mm. So the full length will measure around 7oo mm.

That 700 mm is the LOS thickness for composite armor.

there is no denying this fundamental fact.

The 700 mm LOS is the length of the blue line on the following picture.

 

[ersakthivel]