Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[pankaj nema]

Some posts moved to http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/pakistan/17865-how-america-supports-pakistan.html and http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defence-strategic-issues/33944-armed-forces-vs-bureaucracy.html

Thank you sir for not deleting my post and moving it to the right thread

 

[pmaitra]

Wrong. This is because you are looking at undergraduate level physics. Perhaps stuff you learn as a BE in mechanical.

Theoretically you are correct. If you fire HESH from a smoothbore, the accuracy level will be lower than Rifled. But you are forgetting the fact that nobody in their right mind will fire HESH from smoothbore. Heck nobody even makes it like that.

If you are talking about undergraduate physics in a tank discussion then you will always be wrong because at that level a lot of physics is ignored. Like the point where you agree with LB's comment that a rifled will have more kinetic energy. Real world tests, where there are so many fixed and variable quantities in the surroundings, showed that theoretical physics in the undergraduate level is wrong. If you completely omit friction and air resistance which already exists the time a shell leaves the breach, then that kind of theoretical science works correctly.



When you study a subject you don't bring in all quantities into it. Like you said it will inundate the subject with irrelevant matter. You should see the kind of horse crap we are fed when studying electronics in BE. It is terrible. Meaning once we enter the real world there is more to it than what's in the text books of that level. If you really want actual world info then look through research papers and technical papers from IEEE. Look through PhD text books. They give the complete picture.

How many IEEE papers have you read? How many IEEE papers have you implemented?

Last time I know I implemented a paper from PAMI (Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence). Do you know what that is?

Now quit being a loudmouth. You spout too much, you know that?

I was refering to undergrad texbooks because you and Damian are arguing like, not even undergrads, but like high school kids.

Do you remember in school, when we were kids we were told that arteries carry oxygenated blood and veins carry deoxygenated blood. But once you get to high school you come to know that there are two exceptions where the Pulmonary vein carries oxygenated blood and aorta carries deoxygenated blood. Reach a level higher, in the field of medicine you realize that all of this was horse crap, the minute you start talking capillaries and other blood vessels, it gets even more complex, like everything you were taught in school was wrong.



So, what? Newton looked at the world like you are doing now. Einstein saw the the entire Universe as something interrelated.

Too much crap.

Then ask properly. You don't throw riddles at a Eastern European. If you wanna do that then post in Polish. Heck even I did not know what your intentions were.

Sorry, this is an English language forum, not a Polish forum. Now don't act like a kid whose candy has been stolen. Ok?

Throw the right question at the right time. Understand what OP was talking about. Don't come into the middle of a discussion with a textbook question and act as though you have some triple PhD. What you asked was a noob question, the kind of which I asked a few posts ago, about stabilization with different guns. Damian and Methos did not have to give a detailed textbook physics answer for that post. I got what I needed to know with just a few points and a frigging picture.

Sorry, if my question and its timing has exposed you and Damian.

Again, think with a cool head before responding.

 

[p2prada]

Depends on the rounds used. Low-performance rounds (kinetically) like HE, HEAT and HESH do often only 1/3 - 1/5 as much barrel wear a firing APFSDS. 1800 APFSDS is not realistic, it is more likely to be 500 APFSDS or ~1800 low-power shots.

It is not 1800 APFSDS. Any shell which gives an EFC of 1 per shot will allow firing 1800 rounds. APFSDS rounds have a EFC rating higher than 1. I don't know the EFC rating for Mk1 shell or 3BM-42. Ultimately it means if the same round(EFC=1) is fired from Arjun's gun it will give 500 shots.

I am guessing the EFC values are greater than 3-4 for 3BM42. So, that comes down to 400-500 shots at nominal pressures. Still way better than the earlier 250 EFC.

 

[Damian]

Most APFSDS wear barrel like 4 shots of HEAT or HE, this of course might depend on ammunition.

So HEAT/HE/HESH would be like 1 EFC and APFSDS like 4 EFC.

 

[p2prada]

How many IEEE papers have you read? How many IEEE papers have you implemented?

Last time I know I implemented a paper from PAMI (Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence). Do you know what that is?

Now quit being a loudmouth. You spout too much, you know that?

Great. But what's it got to do with tanks?

I will come to you when I want info on pattern analysis. I will go to someone else when it comes to tanks.

I was refering to undergrad texbooks because you and Damian are arguing like, not even undergrads, but like high school kids.

Like I said. You bring undergrad stuff in a tank discussion then we won't know what you are talking about.

Please bring even one person from anywhere in the world who will support your logic, ie, of firing HESH from a smoothbore to prove a point.

Aren't you the one who supports another logic(perhaps I should say DRDO physics) where Rifled gun has more energy than Smoothbore. Funny that! Please prove it.

Too much crap.
Sorry, this is an English language forum, not a Polish forum. Now don't act like a kid whose candy has been stolen. Ok?
Sorry, if my question and its timing has exposed you and Damian.
Again, think with a cool head before responding.

Coming from a guy who accepts he asked a Noob question and is beating his chest about it. Don't bring undergrad physics into this field. It will make you look real bad.

 

[p2prada]

Most APFSDS wear barrel like 4 shots of HEAT or HE, this of course might depend on ammunition.

So HEAT/HE/HESH would be like 1 EFC and APFSDS like 4 EFC.

Hmm, so that's 450 APFSDS shots for the 2A46Maple as compared to 62 shots on the 2A46 or 125 shots on LRDE's gun, assuming EFC remains the same for rifled gun. Not bad.

 

[pmaitra]

Great. But what's it got to do with tanks?

Yeah, what has that got to do with thanks? Perhaps nothing, but a lot to do with imaging, machine vision, including thermal imaging, missile guidance, target acquisition, tracking etc.. It wasn't me who brought up the issue of IEEE. Simply mentioning some cool names does not make you great. Let's talk about things that are easy for everyone to understand, shall we?

I will come to you when I want info on pattern analysis. I will go to someone else when it comes to tanks.

So keep IEEE out of this, because you don't know what you are talking about, yet once again.

Like I said. You bring undergrad stuff in a tank discussion then we won't know what you are talking about.

Please bring even one person from anywhere in the world who will support your logic, ie, of firing HESH from a smoothbore to prove a point.

Again, you just have a collection of information, but zero explanation. That best sums you up.

Aren't you the one who supports another logic(perhaps I should say DRDO physics) where Rifled gun has more energy than Smoothbore. Funny that! Please prove it.

When did I say that rifled gun has more energy? Quote me.

Coming from a guy who accepts he asked a Noob question and is beating his chest about it. Don't bring undergrad physics into this field. It will make you look real bad.

You are not even fit for middle school physics. The only thing you are good at is memorising, so just do that. Don't argue.

Also, you did not answer my question. How many IEEE papers have you read and how many have you implemented?

 

[pmaitra]

P2P, you brought up IEEE in this thread. IEEE hosts a lot of conferences and publishes a lot of journals.

I ask you, post a few links of papers published in IEEE journals that talk about anything related to rifled/smoothbore guns, or HESH, or tank turrets.

Post that/those link(s) here for everyone in DFI to see.

P.S.: I have access to IEEE.

Here is the link of a paper that I had re-implemented as PoC several years ago: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=112783
Yes, I used military grade images. This is free access I believe.

 

[pmaitra]

P2P, your silence is a good enough answer.

If you want to talk about rifled/smoothbore guns, HESH or tanks turrets, IEEE is not the place where you go, do you understand that or not?

Now, with your permission, I would like to go ahead and delete all the posts from where you started off with IEEE.

Let me know your verdict.

 

[p2prada]

Yeah, what has that got to do with thanks? Perhaps nothing, but a lot to do with imaging, machine vision, including thermal imaging, missile guidance, target acquisition, tracking etc.. It wasn't me who brought up the issue of IEEE. Simply mentioning some cool names does not make you great. Let's talk about things that are easy for everyone to understand, shall we?

So, nothing to do with tanks.

When did I say that rifled gun has more energy? Quote me.

It was indirect but you were agreeing with what pankaj and lurker had posted.

Last line of post 2644. Last line of post 2647 and your agreement with their statements, in post 2650.

Also, you did not answer my question. How many IEEE papers have you read and how many have you implemented?

There is none for tanks as such. Only certain tank electronics and electricals.

What I am saying is you are bringing in undergrad physics into a technology that requires a much higher base understanding.

But if you ask noob questions and act like a Phd in the subject, it gets really funny.

 

[p2prada]

P2P, your silence is a good enough answer.

If you want to talk about rifled/smoothbore guns, HESH or tanks turrets, IEEE is not the place where you go, do you understand that or not?

Now, with your permission, I would like to go ahead and delete all the posts from where you started off with IEEE.

Let me know your verdict.

Oh! Please. Ever wondered what time people go to eat.
Check the time, I am in India.

Edit:
I forgot to mention you are thick in the head.

Please notice where I used the IEEE quote
To make it easier, here it goes:

When you study a subject you don't bring in all quantities into it. Like you said it will inundate the subject with irrelevant matter. You should see the kind of horse crap we are fed when studying electronics in BE. It is terrible. Meaning once we enter the real world there is more to it than what's in the text books of that level. If you really want actual world info then look through research papers and technical papers from IEEE. Look through PhD text books. They give the complete picture.

Please tell me where in this paragraph I talked about tank and guns. Please open your eyes and notice I mentioned I am a BE in electronics. You bring undergrad stuff when I am telling you not to. Then you accuse me of using the word IEEE when you don't even know what I am talking about.

I am pretty sure now that you are just skimming through my posts. Read this para again and again and again. Then come back after you have read it 30 times more. Let's talk after that. You talk like an expert when you make one mistake after another.

Check back all your posts and only read Methos's posts since the time you came into the thread. He contradicts you in almost every point you have made till now.

But I guess you will still accuse me of something that only you can make up. Cheers.

The best part is you judge me even when I am out to eat and that too over a point which has no bearing to the discussion at hand. IEEE for tanks. Where did you get that gem? You are an idiot. Period.

 

[pmaitra]

So, nothing to do with tanks.

Not nothing to do with tanks, but nothing to do with rifled/smoothbore guns, HESH or turrets/metallurgy.

It has everyting to do with target tracking, imaging etc., that are relevant to tanks.

It was indirect but you were agreeing with what pankaj and lurker had posted.

Last line of post 2644. Last line of post 2647 and your agreement with their statements, in post 2650.

Nothing implicit here. Damian does not understand English very well but you are Indian and you don't have that excuse. Quote me where I said rifled gun has more energy.

There is none for tanks as such. Only certain tank electronics and electricals.

Good job!

What I am saying is you are bringing in undergrad physics into a technology that requires a much higher base understanding.

But if you ask noob questions and act like a Phd in the subject, it gets really funny.

That's fine. You made a big mistake by bringing in IEEE. Now look at your own posts, you are awfully defensive.

So you haven't implemented any papers from IEEE right? Not sure how many you have read.

Anyway, I should I delete all the off topis posts, since you started off with IEEE or leave them here? If I leave them here, it will further embarrass you. It's your call.

 

[p2prada]

Not nothing to do with tanks, but nothing to do with rifled/smoothbore guns, HESH or turrets/metallurgy.

It has everyting to do with target tracking, imaging etc., that are relevant to tanks.

Of course. Because you worked on one aspect of a tank, you suddenly became an authority on all other aspects too, especially with all the gems you posted.

Nothing implicit here. Damian does not understand English very well but you are Indian and you don't have that excuse. Quote me where I said rifled gun has more energy.

Considering you linked IEEE with tanks, I have every right to say you agreed with their posts. When I said LB was being theoretical, because he said let's assume velocities for rifled and smoothbore guns are the same(which they are not). You liked his post and gave a nice little line pretty much agreeing with what he said.

That's fine. You made a big mistake by bringing in IEEE. Now look at your own posts, you are awfully defensive.

You have to be defensive with an idiot. You never know when you will get another gem like the way you linked IEEE with tanks. It seems you haven't read my post. Please read it at least 30 times. You were the one who linked tanks with IEEE, not me. What I said is you need to read papers of that caliber if you want to act like an authority on tanks. Notice I also used research papers and Phd textbooks in the same quote. Why don't you link those to tanks too? At least you will become more believable after that.

So you haven't implemented any papers from IEEE right? Not sure how many you have read.

No I haven't. But I have read many during my time as a student and when I had access to papers. They thought it is good for students, but I was never entirely serious about it. I have read papers on networking and stuff, mainly because I am starting with a doctorate course in one. But nothing to do with the military, unless we consider networking is specific to it as it can be used anywhere. Anyway, don't bring it up unless you submitted research papers on tanks. It does not make you some kind of a genius and definitely not when it comes to tanks.

Anyway, I should I delete all the off topis posts, since you started off with IEEE or leave them here? If I leave them here, it will further embarrass you. It's your call.

No please don't. It is so easy to prove you are an idiot if people read your posts. Haha! IEEE for tanks. At first I never understood why you breached that subject. Then I thought you were mocking me because I mentioned IEEE during my BE with electronics, which I understand is a lot of unnecessary info for a BE student. Then I read your post again and then it hit me that all you did was simply skim through my post, saw I mentioned IEEE and somehow linked tanks with IEEE, and then you tried passing it off as though I said it.

To be honest, it is so funny that I am not even mad at you.

You come out with gems like ground pressure(Abrams has 0.2Kg/cm2 more than Arjun and 0.1 more than T-90), dust(M1 tops the list), different classes for Arjun and T-90(M1 and T-90 are in the same class), then assume we don't know anything while bringing in undergrad physics and now finally IEEE for tanks(which is the gem of gems, the Kohinoor of this thread).

It is too late for me now. I am gonna hit the sack. Notice I am in India and we live in a different time zone. I hope you are already done with your lunch. Next time, when we are in the middle of a discussion I will make sure I tell you what I am upto, so you don't think I ran away or something. Haha! That was another gem. You make up stories even when I am "silent."

 

[Ray]

Now now.

What is the reality?

 

[pmaitra]

Of course. Because you worked on one aspect of a tank, you suddenly became an authority on all other aspects too, especially with all the gems you posted.



Considering you linked IEEE with tanks, I have every right to say you agreed with their posts. When I said LB was being theoretical, because he said let's assume velocities for rifled and smoothbore guns are the same(which they are not). You liked his post and gave a nice little line pretty much agreeing with what he said.



You have to be defensive with an idiot. You never know when you will get another gem like the way you linked IEEE with tanks. It seems you haven't read my post. Please read it at least 30 times. You were the one who linked tanks with IEEE, not me. What I said is you need to read papers of that caliber if you want to act like an authority on tanks. Notice I also used research papers and Phd textbooks in the same quote. Why don't you link those to tanks too? At least you will become more believable after that.



No I haven't. But I have read many during my time as a student and when I had access to papers. They thought it is good for students, but I was never entirely serious about it. I have read papers on networking and stuff, mainly because I am starting with a doctorate course in one. But nothing to do with the military, unless we consider networking is specific to it as it can be used anywhere. Anyway, don't bring it up unless you submitted research papers on tanks. It does not make you some kind of a genius and definitely not when it comes to tanks.



No please don't. It is so easy to prove you are an idiot if people read your posts. Haha! IEEE for tanks. At first I never understood why you breached that subject. Then I thought you were mocking me because I mentioned IEEE during my BE with electronics, which I understand is a lot of unnecessary info for a BE student. Then I read your post again and then it hit me that all you did was simply skim through my post, saw I mentioned IEEE and somehow linked tanks with IEEE, and then you tried passing it off as though I said it.

To be honest, it is so funny that I am not even mad at you.

You come out with gems like ground pressure(Abrams has 0.2Kg/cm2 more than Arjun and 0.1 more than T-90), dust(M1 tops the list), different classes for Arjun and T-90(M1 and T-90 are in the same class), then assume we don't know anything while bringing in undergrad physics and now finally IEEE for tanks(which is the gem of gems, the Kohinoor of this thread).

It is too late for me now. I am gonna hit the sack. Notice I am in India and we live in a different time zone. I hope you are already done with your lunch. Next time, when we are in the middle of a discussion I will make sure I tell you what I am upto, so you don't think I ran away or something. Haha! That was another gem. You make up stories even when I am "silent."

Nope, it is you who first brought in IEEE into this discussion, because you thought it will make you look super smart, but your bluff got called out, and now you have proven to all who can read that you are a complete retard.

Next time, go easy on your testosterone.

Here, quoting for your short memory span:

Wrong. This is because you are looking at undergraduate level physics. Perhaps stuff you learn as a BE in mechanical.

Theoretically you are correct. If you fire HESH from a smoothbore, the accuracy level will be lower than Rifled. But you are forgetting the fact that nobody in their right mind will fire HESH from smoothbore. Heck nobody even makes it like that.

If you are talking about undergraduate physics in a tank discussion then you will always be wrong because at that level a lot of physics is ignored. Like the point where you agree with LB's comment that a rifled will have more kinetic energy. Real world tests, where there are so many fixed and variable quantities in the surroundings, showed that theoretical physics in the undergraduate level is wrong. If you completely omit friction and air resistance which already exists the time a shell leaves the breach, then that kind of theoretical science works correctly.



When you study a subject you don't bring in all quantities into it. Like you said it will inundate the subject with irrelevant matter. You should see the kind of horse crap we are fed when studying electronics in BE. It is terrible. Meaning once we enter the real world there is more to it than what's in the text books of that level. If you really want actual world info then look through research papers and technical papers from IEEE. Look through PhD text books. They give the complete picture.

Do you remember in school, when we were kids we were told that arteries carry oxygenated blood and veins carry deoxygenated blood. But once you get to high school you come to know that there are two exceptions where the Pulmonary vein carries oxygenated blood and aorta carries deoxygenated blood. Reach a level higher, in the field of medicine you realize that all of this was horse crap, the minute you start talking capillaries and other blood vessels, it gets even more complex, like everything you were taught in school was wrong.



So, what? Newton looked at the world like you are doing now. Einstein saw the the entire Universe as something interrelated.



Then ask properly. You don't throw riddles at a Eastern European. If you wanna do that then post in Polish. Heck even I did not know what your intentions were.



Throw the right question at the right time. Understand what OP was talking about. Don't come into the middle of a discussion with a textbook question and act as though you have some triple PhD. What you asked was a noob question, the kind of which I asked a few posts ago, about stabilization with different guns. Damian and Methos did not have to give a detailed textbook physics answer for that post. I got what I needed to know with just a few points and a frigging picture.

I will gladly leave your posts undeleted.

 

[Mr.Ryu]

Friends what ever the thing is Arjun is my countries first MBT and i love it just because we have started in right direction and in coming years with various improvements every critic of Arjun will be silenced.

 

[p2prada]

Nope, it is you who first brought in IEEE into this discussion, because you thought it will make you look super smart, but your bluff got called out, and now you have proven to all who can read that you are a complete retard.

Retard eh? Praise me, praise me some more. After Damian, it is obvious I was next in line. Einstein had a bit of insanity to him. Maybe we do too.

Yes. I brought in IEEE. So what? You presented one paper and you think you own IEEE.

Even in the Third World we know about IEEE and we use it to base our papers on it. Heck, we are made to present papers on at least 30 topics in IEEE before we graduate, and that's only for BE. Our scientists in DRDO read IEEE too.

Next time, go easy on your testosterone.

Here, quoting for your short memory span:

Let me spell it out for you, read the next sentence carefully. Notice my usage of IEEE was preceded by my experience as a BE graduate in E-l-e-c-t-r-o-n-i-c-s. I know you beat your head on the monitor when you realized the mistake you made.

However, since you managed to link IEEE to tanks. I will humour you. Let's see what else in the quote can be linked to IEEE.

Notice my first paragraph talks about physics, so let's link it to IEEE. IEEE for physics.

Oh! Wait this is hilarious. I even talk about blood, oxygenated blood, aorta, veins and what not. So, we can have IEEE for Biology too.

Then there's Newton and Einstein. Brilliant topics that you brought up. Maybe Newton established IEEE. Einstein is a given since there is already physics for IEEE.

It gets even better. Let's link East European and Polish with IEEE too.

Some one should write to IEEE. A guy who supposedly presented an IEEE paper opened up such a vast area in the field of mechanics, physics, biology and ethnicity for them. You my man deserve a Nobel.

IEEE for tanks is still the icing on the cake.

I will gladly leave your posts undeleted.

Yes. Please. An ethical moderator will not modify posts to his liking when he is involved in the discussion. Definitely not when it is a moderator with an agenda.

 

[p2prada]

Now now.

What is the reality?

Nobody is interested in such complex things. They refuse to see it even when it is staring right in the face.

Should I give up now? There's no point anyway.

 

[p2prada]

Mad Indian

If you are reading this, now do you understand why mods don't allow vs threads.

 

[Damian]

Let's stop this hard discussion for a while and look at one interesting point. It was mentioned that there is developed HEAT round for Arjun, let's hope that at least this time designers will take more atention to very important details.

HEAT ammunition is currently used as secondary anti armor ammunition to fight lighter armored vehicles, it have also some usage against non armored targets and structures.

However HEAT warheads and shaped charge jet do not like spin effect made by rifled gun. Spin greatly reduce penetration abilities of HEAT, however there were efforts to reduce this problems.

This is French 105mm HEAT round for 105mm rifled guns, like that used on AMX-30, as we can see it's design is more complex than ordinary HEAT round, we can see ball bearings and other design details, that were placed there so the internal shaped charge warhead will not spin, while the outer shell will spin.

However, we can also see that this makes projectile shell thick, and such thick shell is not good at all for HEAT ammunition, this is why thin shells of RPG's or ATGM's permitt's them or penetration abilities similiar to tank guns HEAT ammunition of bigger calliber or even higher penetration abilities than tank guns HEAT ammunition of the same calliber.

Compare this to rather simple design of DM12/M830 HEAT for 120mm smoothbore.

Please do not connect this post to earlier discussion, it only shows some problems and design details of this type of ammunition and it can be interesting for some users.