Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[pmaitra]

^^

GK, please use the report button if you want to delete or transfer posts you deem as off-topic.

 

[Damian]

@ Damian & P2p arjun is made for tanks to tanks war, that is why it has major major protection on the front side. As told by the developer. My earlier post was as told by developer. He also said that ERA can be added but it is only going to add weight, tank is good without it.

You still do not understand and I wonder how long I will need to explain this... ok, let's try again. Side armor is not responsible only for protection over pure sides, like 90 degrees from turret longitudinal axis. This works this way, for vehicle front protection responsible is so called frontal arc, frontal arc is 60 degrees, this means +/- 0 to 30-35 degrees from turret longitudinal axis for right or left side of vehicle.

This means that in tank vs tank combat, enemy will not allways be facing your pure frontal surface of vehicle, it can even fire at turret or hull side armor.

This is called a principle of safe manouvering angles, it means tha within this frontal arc, there is a covered area within 60 degrees that is providing resonably good protection against enemy threats.

Methos made this drawing as a great example of how this works, these "corridors" shows at which angles, turret weak protected area is exposed to enemy fire from the front arc.

I hope You know understand how much protection depends not only on armor thickness, it's inclination but also on it;s placement over vehicle or turret geometry.

@ice berg

Don't be so cocky, Chinese tanks are either not better designed that Russian, Ukrainian or NATO designs. Turret geometry is a bit better with composite armor placement than in case of Arjun, K2 or Type 10, but either is not perfect for safe manouvering angles principle compared to Russian/Ukrainian or NATO designs.

However there are other strange design solution that can be observed for Chinese designs, and as it seems, newest ZTZ-99A2 is not using front turret modular armor as previous tanks, that suggest and prooves my observation that there was a weak point in front turret modular armor design, like very strange attache points creating rather big, empty cavieties for bolts.

Other weak point of Chinese designs is complete ignorance of additional hull sides protection. Let's be clear, thin sheet metal/rubber skirts is not a modern addon armor for hull sides. There are no either heavy ballistic skirts nor ERA on skirts. which is a strange thing, and thus side hull protection over full lenght have only simple standoff protection against small shaped charges, HESH and similiar munitions that can be stopped by simple armor screens.

 

[no smoking]

@ice berg

Don't be so cocky, Chinese tanks are either not better designed that Russian, Ukrainian or NATO designs. Turret geometry is a bit better with composite armor placement than in case of Arjun, K2 or Type 10, but either is not perfect for safe manouvering angles principle compared to Russian/Ukrainian or NATO designs.

Isn't that something we all know.

Come on, we are talking about Russia/Ukrainian and NATO, who has more experience than them in tank battle?

At least, most of chinese won't blindly believe T-99 is superior than T-90. And the producer never claimed that either.

 

[p2prada]

^^^^
Have to agree with this. The Chinese makers don't believe their tank is better than Russian/Ukranian.

EDIT:
"India has all the building blocks for an anti-satellite capability" : India News - India Today

For anybody interested.

What stage is the Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) project at?

VKS: We are holding discussions with the army for this. We will finalise the specifications of the tank in six to eight months. We are looking at industrial partners for this. We want new technologies for weapons, mobility and signatures for the FMBT. We have to decide on the type of armour to use for it, whether active or passive.

 

[methos]

@ Damian & P2p arjun is made for tanks to tanks war, that is why it has major major protection on the front side. As told by the developer. My earlier post was as told by developer. He also said that ERA can be added but it is only going to add weight, tank is good without it.

Tanks don't fight 1 vs 1, but in platoons, typically they form a line during combat (for covering a greater area). So even if the Arjuns would meet enemy tanks from the front, then still some of the tanks in the platoon could get hit from the outer tanks in the enemy platoon at the weak points. How large are Indian tank platoons? And how large are Pakistani? Do both army employ single platoons for some roles or always multiple at once?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Isn't that something we all know.

Come on, we are talking about Russia/Ukrainian and NATO, who has more experience than them in tank battle?

At least, most of chinese won't blindly believe T-99 is superior than T-90. And the producer never claimed that either.

Your completely wrong, a lot of Indian members here are against the Arjun, everyone from Kunal to p2p. Why are you playing the nice guy? The T-99 Chassis is actually the Russian T series chassis, so there is nothing new in it. The Arjun is a completely different design and it has its own flaws to.

Dont tell us that we are in denial, Copy cat nation.

 

[Damian]

The T-99 Chassis is actually the Russian T series chassis, so there is nothing new in it.

Well not exactly, it is of course based on it yes, but there are major differences. ZTZ-99 to the A1 variant have much longer hull. While obviously decision to place there a bigger engine is understandable, also made vehicle unnececary big (or long) and heavy.

While the ZTZ-99A2 seems to be again completely separate design even to older ZTZ-99 variants. It's hull is shorter and recent close cooperation with Ukraine on engines, suggest it might use 6TD or it's copy.

Also the important question is turret, in ZTZ-99A1/A2 and overall Chinese tanks, it have a small overhang to the rear storing probably turret drives, radios and similiar. Question is, to this small turret bustle, can be effective counterweight to improve turret balance? We must remember that in such small turrets, armor, FCS and main armament, all are in turret front, and are very heavy, this might result in problems with properly balancing the turret.

For example British faced this problem in WWII period with their Sherman VC Firefly, so a small armored box with radios was welded on turret rear as counterweight. However the reason for that was only new gun, and that gun was definetly lighter from todays guns that can weight even 3 tons, combine this with armor that is heavier and much more thick than then, and a FCS block that is still a preatty big and massive thing. So the question is, if even such small overhang can be good counterweight?

And if there are indeed problems with turret balance when we come to soviet and soviet based turret designs.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Your completely wrong, a lot of Indian members here are against the Arjun, everyone from Kunal to p2p.

Arjun MK-1 have its flaws, But its a very good tank, Proved and Operational..

There is no argument there..

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Well not exactly, it is of course based on it yes, but there are major differences. ZTZ-99 to the A1 variant have much longer hull. While obviously decision to place there a bigger engine is understandable, also made vehicle unnececary big (or long) and heavy.

While the ZTZ-99A2 seems to be again completely separate design even to older ZTZ-99 variants. It's hull is shorter and recent close cooperation with Ukraine on engines, suggest it might use 6TD or it's copy.

Also the important question is turret, in ZTZ-99A1/A2 and overall Chinese tanks, it have a small overhang to the rear storing probably turret drives, radios and similiar. Question is, to this small turret bustle, can be effective counterweight to improve turret balance? We must remember that in such small turrets, armor, FCS and main armament, all are in turret front, and are very heavy, this might result in problems with properly balancing the turret.

For example British faced this problem in WWII period with their Sherman VC Firefly, so a small armored box with radios was welded on turret rear as counterweight. However the reason for that was only new gun, and that gun was definetly lighter from todays guns that can weight even 3 tons, combine this with armor that is heavier and much more thick than then, and a FCS block that is still a preatty big and massive thing. So the question is, if even such small overhang can be good counterweight?

And if there are indeed problems with turret balance when we come to soviet and soviet based turret designs.

It is basically a poorly redesigned T-72, on what bases did you say this is better than the Japanese Type-90 and Arjun? Do you have any turret geometry and drawings that show this?

 

[Bhadra]

It is basically a poorly redesigned T-72, on what bases did you say this is better than the Japanese Type-90 and Arjun? Do you have any turret geometry and drawings that show this?

Do you have any design diagram or geometry on Arjun ??

 

[Bhadra]

Arjun MK-1 have its flaws, But its a very good tank, Proved and Operational..

There is no argument there..

Operational means running or proved itself in operations ?
What is the meaning.. even Vijayant is more operational ? what does that prove ??

 

[Damian]

It is basically a poorly redesigned T-72, on what bases did you say this is better than the Japanese Type-90 and Arjun? Do you have any turret geometry and drawings that show this?

Well actually yes I have.



Sorry for crappy drawings, but I hope this will explain alot.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

The angle of incidence is not right for Arjun when you compare to ztz-99, partiality towards the communist?

 

[Damian]

The angle of incidence is not right for Arjun when you compare to ztz-99, partiality towards the communist?

No, it's just imperfection of drawing. It is actually easier to make a proper inclination mark when turret itself have angled sides, than in case of a western type turret. You know, I'm not a graphic artist, my capabilities in this manner are limited. For mistakes I can only apologize. However in general view it won't change much, I can do another one if You wish with more properly aligned lines, ok?

One more drawing to compare something.

 

[p2prada]

I don't think you understood the images. If you look from the top, T-90s turret geometry is indeed different. Arjun's turret geo is like a rectangle while ZTZ-99's geo is somewhere in between. Meaning the area which is not covered by composites are hidden by the frontal armour, however a small part of it in the middle is still exposed within safe maneuvering angles. Suffice to say the probability of Arjun conking it is higher than ZTZ-99 in a shot outside of the safe maneuvering angles.

 

[Damian]

Wait a second, after adjusting angles after GK suggestion something interesting appeared.



Again sorry for crappy drawing.

BTW take a notice of size of Arjun and ZTZ-99 gun mantle area, gun mantle is allways a weak zone and it appreas that size of that weak are is in both tanks more or less same.

 

[ice berg]

The probability of getting a shoot is based solely on turret design?

I think this discussion is turning into a matter of taste now.

They are two different tanks based on different requirements.

The chance of them fighting each other is close to zero.

Let us move on.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

No, it's just imperfection of drawing. It is actually easier to make a proper inclination mark when turret itself have angled sides, than in case of a western type turret. You know, I'm not a graphic artist, my capabilities in this manner are limited. For mistakes I can only apologize. However in general view it won't change much, I can do another one if You wish with more properly aligned lines, ok?

One more drawing to compare something.

I am just asking you to be fair in your judgement not to be partial. Your angle of incidence on Arjun is completely different compared to what you have drawn for ztz-90. That is not any graphical mistake but a complete technical blunder.


Also why do you draw the armor of the M1A1 right over the crew hatch? How can their be armor there? Look at the pic the hatch has no armor running besides it, just like the Arjun the armor wall is way inside the hatch.

 

[p2prada]

The probability of getting a shoot is based solely on turret design?

I think this discussion is turning into a matter of taste now.

They are two different tanks based on different requirements.

The chance of them fighting each other is close to zero.

Let us move on.

You may sell it to Pakistan. That will create problems for us whether we fight or not.

 

[Damian]

The probability of getting a shoot is based solely on turret design?

It is based on many factors. Very important one is turret geometry + composite armor placement + placement of weak zones + armor thickness. Designing a tank is not a simple thing, we compare it to... designing an fighter jet, very complex problems need to be solved.

I think this discussion is turning into a matter of taste now.

No, these are very important problems that need to be solved when vehicle is designed... but Your opinion might be based on a fact that such countries like China are still learning and do not understand importance of such... details.

They are two different tanks based on different requirements.

Not only different requirements but also different design schools. In general there are two major tanks designing schools, Soviet and NATO, but what is slowly forming it seems that Asian designing schools also exists, and seems to combine design solution from both Soviet and NATO schools, which in the end might not be the best idea.

The chance of them fighting each other is close to zero.

Eighter way, comparing them is interesting.