Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[ersakthivel]

UK... but what the hell this have to what Militarysta wrote?

You do not have anything valuable to say, so you started to troll? Derail topics and insult other nations?

i asked him a question ,why are you angry?

 

[ersakthivel]

And in what way this is connected whit my post?
I gave four resons why Israeli direction will not help for India. And You shoud go in that way not rubbish post about "who invented" bla bla bla.

I will tell you the reason for BLAH BLAH

So please give me the order of countries who have the world's most advanced APFSD rounds.
And the penetration level of those rounds.

 

[Damian]

USA - M829A2, M829A3 and soon fielded M829A4.
Germany - DM53 and DM63.

Their exact penetration values are classified, however M829A3 is estimated to penetrate ~700-800mm RHA @ 2,000m DM53 should have similiar performance fired from L55.

These are only two countries that design and manufacture the most advanced APFSDS ammunition. Rest of the world is well behind. However the M829 series are not exported by USA, they have export ammunition designated KEW, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2, KEW is based on M829, KEW-A1 on DM43 and KEW-A2 on M829A2.

Germans export are willing to export DM53 and DM63, however these rounds somewhat demand modifications to the Rh-120/L44 gun, or installation of Rh-120/L55.

USA and Germany are not willing to sold their penetrators as standalone ammunition parts to be assembled in other countries for different guns, so are only compatibile with 120mm smoothbore guns firing standard NATO ammunition, like Rh-120 family of guns, M256, XM360 and XM360E1, XM291, MG251, MG253 etc.

 

[militarysta]

So please give me the order of countries who have the world's most advanced APFSD rounds.

USA
Grmany
Switzterland
propably Russia
Izrael
France
UK
South Korea

[guote]
And the penetration level of those rounds.[/QUOTE]

This is not very clever question. Petration is depand on type of target, type of mothodology to count penetration (NATO one, Russian one), and - most importnat -there is nor corelation between RHA penetration and ability to penetrat modern multilayer targets after ERA.

 

[STGN]

Question I was looking at the Arjuns FCS cover plate and it seems like it is manually opened from the outside of the tank is this true?
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

Line between two central hatches point is 122-126cm----it means 1260 mm at the most.

From the picture above it is obvious that the Tc's seat's right hand side edge is located on the crew hatch hole

So from the turret center point(1260/2=630 mm) 630 mm is the distance at which the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.

There is a distance of at the most 250 mm between the inner side wall and the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.


So the distance between the turret center line and inner side wall is 630 mm+250 mm=880 mm


Till the crew hatch center there are no storage boxes on the production version of ARJUN.

SO the outer most turret wall is located at( 3200mm/2) 1600 mm away from the turret center line.

So 1600 mm -880 mm i.e 720mm is the space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side.

Even if you give an error factor of 200 mm,

(if people dispute the assumption whether TC's seat is at the center of the crew hatch or the estimate for width of the elbow area)


space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side is (720 mm-200mm)= 520 mm.


There can be no error in this estimate.

Storage boxes start only after the crew hatch as can be seen in this image, The first storage box of Tank-Ex turret has been replaced by ARMOR block in the production version of ARJUN.

Look closely and you will notice the side wall curving inside to offset the reduction in armor space besides the storage box that start at ammo storage,

So there is a provision of uniform armor space for the side turret of ARJUn if you accept the width of the turret as 3200 mm.

Because in perspective view(a photograph is always a perspective view) the distances farther from the camera are actually larger than they appear ,compared to distances closer to the camera.

See both the crew holes alone is 550 mm in dia. So the crew hole hatch covers standing straight should measure atleast 600 mm in dia .

So when you try to measure the distance between the crew hatch holes you can use the crew hatch cover as a scale distance because of the reason stated above.

Why I am sure is the same measurement can be verified on the turret top picture between the green lines.

SO this green carpeted area should measure somewhere between 1200 mm and 1300 mm according to my estimate.

The extreme edge of both the crew seats are exactly positioned on the border line of the green shaded area as per the Tc seat picture above is my estimate.

WHich corresponds to the green shaded area marked by PMAITRA in the picture below.

 

[militarysta]

Line between two central hatches point is 122-126cm----it means 1260 mm at the most.

From the picture above it is obvious that the Tc's seat's right hand side edge is located on the crew hatch hole

It's first mistake - look where is placed periscope for commander panoramic sight,and when is placed "armrest" for commander right arm. The place needed by TC is bigger (width) then you suspect.

So from the turret center point(1260/2=630 mm) 630 mm is the distance at which the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.

Second mistake - line between two central points of two hatches is slighty asimeric to the turret longitiudal axis! So you can't do "/2" becouse it haven't sense...

There is a distance of at the most 250 mm between the inner side wall and the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.

No. The distance is between 145 and 160mm to the edge of TC hatch. (the range is for some error). Distance between edge katch of gunner and wall is 187 -200mm. But as we can see at loader side -there is no plaec for inner (after backpate) armour inside Turret. There is even no place for a goood spal-linear. Simmilar problem is on TC side becouse from inner wall to the TC pancoramic sight block there is about 100-120mm.

So the distance between the turret center line and inner side wall is 630 mm+250 mm=880 mm

It's 1188mm (118,8cm) when you double this value you have 2376mm (237cm) whit some error it wil be 234-240cm. This is width of Arjun turret at crews hatches place.

Till the crew hatch center there are no storage boxes on the production version of ARJUN.

SO the outer most turret wall is located at( 3200mm/2) 1600 mm away from the turret center line.

So 1600 mm -880 mm i.e 720mm is the space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side.

Even if you give an error factor of 200 mm,

(if people dispute the assumption whether TC's seat is at the center of the crew hatch or the estimate for width of the elbow area)


space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side is (720 mm-200mm)= 520 mm.

And as I said -your estimatous is not very celver. In fact avaible space for Arjun side armour is only one - replace storage boxes by armour cavity. And this place is very simple to count:
tured width in thickest place (280-284cm) - turret width at crews hatches place (234-240cm) this give us: 46-44cm for both sides so for one turret side we have ~22-23cm + 50-60mm side RHA wall.
And You can forgot about placing smth. like armour after backplate (side walls) there is no space in loader sides, and on tank commander sides tehere is necessery space to using panoramic sight block and others.

Storage boxes start only after the crew hatch as can be seen in this image, The first storage box of Tank-Ex turret has been replaced by ARMOR block in the production version of ARJUN.

Better photo will be welcome becouse I don't seen any special armour block whit some points on top (point like fuel cap, or others). So try to find better photo becouse those one do not resolved enought clearly what is there.

Look closely and you will notice the side wall curving inside to offset the reduction in armor space besides the storage box that start at ammo storage,

So there is a provision of uniform armor space for the side turret of ARJUn if you accept the width of the turret as 3200 mm.

Agian mistake. Turet width is here 234-240cm. In thickes place is 280-284cm.



IMPORTANT - all mesurment are based on draw from book "Kampfpanzer heute und morgen" in 1:72scale

 

[STGN]

Line between two central hatches point is 122-126cm----it means 1260 mm at the most.

From the picture above it is obvious that the Tc's seat's right hand side edge is located on the crew hatch hole

So from the turret center point(1260/2=630 mm) 630 mm is the distance at which the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.

There is a distance of at the most 250 mm between the inner side wall and the right side edge of Tc's seat is located.


So the distance between the turret center line and inner side wall is 630 mm+250 mm=880 mm


Till the crew hatch center there are no storage boxes on the production version of ARJUN.

SO the outer most turret wall is located at( 3200mm/2) 1600 mm away from the turret center line.
NO its not, why do you keep making this fallacious claim when a frontal picture of the tank clearly shows this not to be true?? is it because it says 3.2 on dejawolfs picture? because that distance is from the other side of the tank not the other side of the turret.

So 1600 mm -880 mm i.e 720mm is the space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side.

Even if you give an error factor of 200 mm,
If you have an error factor of 200mm on such a relatively small object as a tank your estimation is wrong, Never mind that your error is closer to the double that number.
(if people dispute the assumption whether TC's seat is at the center of the crew hatch or the estimate for width of the elbow area)


space available for composite armor on ARJUN turret side is (720 mm-200mm)= 520 mm.


There can be no error in this estimate.
.......

Storage boxes start only after the crew hatch as can be seen in this image, The first storage box of Tank-Ex turret has been replaced by ARMOR block in the production version of ARJUN.

Look closely and you will notice the side wall curving inside to offset the reduction in armor space besides the storage box that start at ammo storage,

So there is a provision of uniform armor space for the side turret of ARJUn if you accept the width of the turret as 3200 mm.

Because in perspective view(a photograph is always a perspective view) the distances farther from the camera are actually larger than they appear ,compared to distances closer to the camera.

See both the crew holes alone is 550 mm in dia. So the crew hole hatch covers standing straight should measure atleast 600 mm in dia .

So when you try to measure the distance between the crew hatch holes you can use the crew hatch cover as a scale distance because of the reason stated above.


Why I am sure is the same measurement can be verified on the turret top picture between the green lines.

SO this green carpeted area should measure somewhere between 1200 mm and 1300 mm according to my estimate.
Nobody was disagreeing that between the centers of the crew hatches there are 1.2-1.3m but that width is not the same as the width of the mantle, which is smaller as illustrated by both me and PMAITRA look again on his picture the green area dosen't enter the center of the commanders front vision block but of to the side of it, the same with the loaders vision block.

The extreme edge of both the crew seats are exactly positioned on the border line of the green shaded area as per the Tc seat picture above is my estimate.

WHich corresponds to the green shaded area marked by PMAITRA in the picture below.

By keeping that wrong 3.2m claim your calculation is way way off. Not to mention that the turret is offset to the right side.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

By keeping that wrong 3.2m claim your calculation is way way off. Not to mention that the turret is offset to the right side.
STGN

NO its not, why do you keep making this fallacious claim when a frontal picture of the tank clearly shows this not to be true?? is it because it says 3.2 on dejawolfs picture? because that distance is from the other side of the tank not the other side of the turret.

No deja wolf is needed for turret width.Turret width is given by KUNAL who is from Indian army in a very earlier post on this forum.

So it is obvious you don't know what is the turret width.Partial side skirts are not included in arjun hull width measurement of 3.8 meters.

1.The width of the Arjun tank is3.84 meter.Then what can be the width of the turret.Give your estimate from the following picture.
Even a kid can guess there is no more than 300 mm space besides the turret on the hull.Where is the 500 mm space you are mentioning?

2.I gave the error pobability as 200 mm as the extreme margin.Not because of mistakes in my estimate.

just look at the boot size of the man with army fatigue,
You can place two of those shoes in line at the most besides the turret on the hull,That comes to no more than 300 mm.
Where is the space for 500 mm?So the width of the ARJun TURRET is no lesser than 3200 mm is the definite conclusion,
Whether one accepts it or not does not matter.

 

[ersakthivel]

It's first mistake - look where is placed periscope for commander panoramic sight,and when is placed "armrest" for commander right arm. The place needed by TC is bigger (width) then you suspect.


Second mistake - line between two central points of two hatches is slighty asimeric to the turret longitiudal axis! So you can't do "/2" becouse it haven't sense...


No. The distance is between 145 and 160mm to the edge of TC hatch. (the range is for some error). Distance between edge katch of gunner and wall is 187 -200mm. But as we can see at loader side -there is no plaec for inner (after backpate) armour inside Turret. There is even no place for a goood spal-linear. Simmilar problem is on TC side becouse from inner wall to the TC pancoramic sight block there is about 100-120mm.



It's 1188mm (118,8cm) when you double this value you have 2376mm (237cm) whit some error it wil be 234-240cm. This is width of Arjun turret at crews hatches place.



And as I said -your estimatous is not very celver. In fact avaible space for Arjun side armour is only one - replace storage boxes by armour cavity. And this place is very simple to count:
tured width in thickest place (280-284cm) - turret width at crews hatches place (234-240cm) this give us: 46-44cm for both sides so for one turret side we have ~22-23cm + 50-60mm side RHA wall.
And You can forgot about placing smth. like armour after backplate (side walls) there is no space in loader sides, and on tank commander sides tehere is necessery space to using panoramic sight block and others.


Better photo will be welcome becouse I don't seen any special armour block whit some points on top (point like fuel cap, or others). So try to find better photo becouse those one do not resolved enought clearly what is there.


Agian mistake. Turet width is here 234-240cm. In thickes place is 280-284cm.



IMPORTANT - all mesurment are based on draw from book "Kampfpanzer heute und morgen" in 1:72scale

it is obvious that the distance between two center points of hatch is no more than 1200 to 1300 mm from this pic.
You can't fit at most 2.25 crew hatch covers Between the center points of two crew hole s.So no assymetry is going to affect the measurement.

 

[STGN]

No deja wolf is needed for turret width.Turret width is given by KUNAL who is from Indian army in a very earlier post on this forum.

So it is obvious you don't know what is the turret width.

1.The width of the Arjun tank is3.84 meter.Then what can be the width of the turret.Give your estimate from the following picture.
Even a kid can guess there is no more than 300 mm space besides the turret on the hull.Where is the 500 mm space you are mentioning?

2.I gave the error pobability as 200 mm as the extreme margin.Not because of mistakes in my estimate.

You are just making a joke right?? You obliviously can't show that the turret is 3.2m wide while the hull remains 3.846m. I have already show how a width of 3.2m is wrong given that 3.846m width of whole tank:

Now its your turn to do something show your self not to be a troll, now you do estimation on a picture, draw some perspective lines, measure some distances or admit defeat. Heres a link where you can download Photosop CS2 for free and with legal code which has measuring tool and line drawing the whole shebang: Adobe - CS2 Downloads
Heres a tutorial for the measuring/ruler tool Photoshop Tutorial : How to Use Photoshop Measurement Tools - YouTube
Now get going prove your point, if you can?????............

 

[ersakthivel]

You are just making a joke right?? You obliviously can't show that the turret is 3.2m wide while the hull remains 3.846m. I have already show how a width of 3.2m is wrong given that 3.846m width of whole tank:

Now its your turn to do something show your self not to be a troll, now you do estimation on a picture, draw some perspective lines, measure some distances or admit defeat. Heres a link where you can download Photosop CS2 for free and with legal code which has measuring tool and line drawing the whole shebang: Adobe - CS2 Downloads
Heres a tutorial for the measuring/ruler tool Photoshop Tutorial : How to Use Photoshop Measurement Tools - YouTube
Now get going prove your point, if you can?????............

if each crew hole measures about 550 mm in this picture,The ARJUN turret width must be 3200 mm using the same scale.

Because each crew hole measures 20 mm on the picture in computer screen nad ,In reality it is 550 mm minimum.

So a scale of 1mm on the computer screen equals 27.5 mm in reality,

So on the same crew hole axis if we measure the width of the turret it is close 120 mm on computer screen between the two green lines,

So 120 mmx27.5 mm=3300 mm in reality

What else can I do?

Now it is your turn to draw some lines and prove conclusively, This much of trolling is unheard of in any forum,

 

[militarysta]

if each crew hole measures about 550 mm in this picture,The ARJUN turret width must be 3200 mm using the same scale.

Because each crew hole measures 20 mm on the picture in computer screen nad ,In reality it is 550 mm minimum.

So a scale of 1mm on the computer screen equals 27.5 mm in reality,

So on the same crew hole axis if we measure the width of the turret it is close 120 mm on computer screen between the two green lines,

So 120 mmx27.5 mm=3300 mm in reality

What else can I do?

Now it is your turn to draw some lines and prove conclusively, This much of trolling is unheard of in any forum,

Loader hatch is 500-504mm width (this moving plate to close it).
Tank Comander hatch is the same.
Values taken from those draw (kampfpanzer).
But those values are changin nothing. As I posted: whole turret is 2,8 -2,84m width, in place when crews hatches are is 2,34m -2,4m width.

 

[skj]

You are just making a joke right?? You obliviously can't show that the turret is 3.2m wide while the hull remains 3.846m. I have already show how a width of 3.2m is wrong given that 3.846m width of whole tank:

1. You dont need photoshop to measure lengths, you can just as easily do it with a ruler/scale. Your measurement ignores perspective and the distortion introduced by the wide angle lens. In order to deduce the length of an object by comparing it with an object of known size by using simple linear scaling, the two objects *must* be at the same distance from the lens. Therefore, if you want to deduce the width of the turret by comparing the number of pixels it occupies to the number of pixels occupied by the hull, both measurements must be made at the same plane/line in the picture.

If you do that using the inner red and the blue parallel lines you have drawn, the ratio of the turret:hull = 10:12.

If hull width at that point = 3.86m, turret = 3.21m
If hull width at that point = 3.75m, turret = 3.12m
If hull width at that point = 3.5m, turret = 2.91m.

Its impossible to reconcile the picture you have posted with a turret width of 2.84 meters.

2. My second point is about the gun mantlet. The size of that thing is huge! in fact it takes up almost 1/3rd of the frontal face of the turret. In size, its comparable to the 'cheeks' of the turret. Now, if the mantlet cant be armored, its logical to keep its size as small as possible. Why would Indian designers make it perhaps the largest mantlet on a tank in the whole world? They have been manufacturing the tiny T72 mantlet for decades now, its not as if they dont know how to make a small mantlet that can take the recoil. To me, the deduction is, that It is not a weak spot in the turret, it is made of composite armor, and is as protected as any other frontal part of the turret face.

3. About ammo containerization. Broadsword: Heavier, more lethal Arjun tank poised for trials An excerpt from the article, quoting the designer of the tank, GK Kumaravel. "We also now have an ammunition containerisation system. If the tank is hit, and the on-board ammunition explodes, it will blow outwards, saving the crew. A metallic box with 'blow-off panels' directs the explosion outwards,". When the designer of the tank is saying something, I would take it at face value. Perhaps not the Mk1, but the Mk2 definitely has the blow out panels needed for safety against ammo cookoff.

 

[STGN]

1. You dont need photoshop to measure lengths, you can just as easily do it with a ruler/scale. Your measurement ignores perspective and the distortion introduced by the wide angle lens. In order to deduce the length of an object by comparing it with an object of known size by using simple linear scaling, the two objects *must* be at the same distance from the lens. Therefore, if you want to deduce the width of the turret by comparing the number of pixels it occupies to the number of pixels occupied by the hull, both measurements must be made at the same plane/line in the picture.

If you do that using the inner red and the blue parallel lines you have drawn, the ratio of the turret:hull = 10:12.

If hull width at that point = 3.86m, turret = 3.21m
If hull width at that point = 3.75m, turret = 3.12m
If hull width at that point = 3.5m, turret = 2.91m.

Its impossible to reconcile the picture you have posted with a turret width of 2.84 meters.

2. ...

3. ...

Now as you are new to the debate I will explain the image to you. The blue lines are the actual turret width based on the DRDO given hull width. the red lines are a thought experiment to show that even with out the side skirts the turret is not wide enough to cover 3.2 meters. so of cause when you use the red lines as you do, you get wrong numbers. And actually I have done what you say I haven't, that is taken into account the perspective, so I tried to line up the to turret edges on a level plane. Is it 100 accurate no, is it good enough to show that turret is not 3.2 or anywhere near yes.
And from personal previous experience I can tell you that measuring using a ruler on your screen is inaccurate because it is practically impossible to keep the eye to ruler relation the same for different measurements.
The 2 and 3 comment I don't think where aimed specifically at me so that is why I haven't answered. Other than to say that the mantle is indeed huge and covers just over 1/3 of the turret front.
STGN

 

[skj]

Now as you are new to the debate I will explain the image to you. The blue lines are the actual turret width based on the DRDO given hull width. the red lines are a thought experiment to show that even with out the side skirts the turret is not wide enough to cover 3.2 meters. so of cause when you use the red lines as you do, you get wrong numbers. And actually I have done what you say I haven't, that is taken into account the perspective, so I tried to line up the to turret edges on a level plane. Is it 100 accurate no, is it good enough to show that turret is not 3.2 or anywhere near yes.
And from personal previous experience I can tell you that measuring using a ruler on your screen is inaccurate because it is practically impossible to keep the eye to ruler relation the same for different measurements.
The 2 and 3 comment I don't think where aimed specifically at me so that is why I haven't answered. Other than to say that the mantle is indeed huge and covers just over 1/3 of the turret front.
STGN

Actually no, you havent taken perspective into account.

Take a measurement along the dark line that appears at the turret/hull join, right behind the driver's head, and you will come to a ratio of hull width:turret == 12:10. Ofcourse, this does not include the armored skirts, but theres no way to directly compare the hull+skirt width to the turret width using that picture due to the perspective.

Anyone with a ruler/scale can make this measurement, so I think this is something that is indisputable. Though I think one qualification can be added to my post above.

Turret width : (Hull width - armored skirts width) == 10:12.

If hull width - armored skirt width = 3.86m, turret = 3.21m
If hull width - armored skirt width = 3.75m, turret = 3.12m
If hull width - armored skirt width = 3.50m, turret = 2.91m.

So while 3.2 meters may be the upper end of the possibilities, 2.84 meters is basically impossible, as the track width itself is IIRC, 3.54 meter, and a hull width - armored skirt width of 3.5 meters is too low. I am willing to be corrected if track width is less than 3.54 meters.

Now, if we have a front view picture of the mk1 tank that includes the tracks, we can calculate the width of the hull and armored skirts, as the width over tracks is known as 3.54 meters. (once again with the qualifier, IIRC).

 

[STGN]

Actually no, you havent taken perspective into account.
As I will show, I have, thank you very much.

Take a measurement along the dark line that appears at the turret/hull join, right behind the driver's head, and you will come to a ratio of hull width:turret == 12:10. Ofcourse, this does not include the armored skirts, but theres no way to directly compare the hull+skirt width to the turret width using that picture due to the perspective.

Anyone with a ruler/scale can make this measurement, so I think this is something that is indisputable. Though I think one qualification can be added to my post above.

Turret width : (Hull width - armored skirts width) == 10:12.

If hull width - armored skirt width = 3.86m, turret = 3.21m
If hull width - armored skirt width = 3.75m, turret = 3.12m
If hull width - armored skirt width = 3.50m, turret = 2.91m.

So while 3.2 meters may be the upper end of the possibilities, 2.84 meters is basically impossible, as the track width itself is IIRC, 3.54 meter, and a hull width - armored skirt width of 3.5 meters is too low. I am willing to be corrected if track width is less than 3.54 meters.
So you know that you only have measured the hull less skirts yet you calculate using full width and says it upper limit, i mean WTF?

Now, if we have a front view picture of the mk1 tank that includes the tracks, we can calculate the width of the hull and armored skirts, as the width over tracks is known as 3.54 meters. (once again with the qualifier, IIRC).

OMG. See the blue slanted lines to the side?? they follow the outside of the armoured skirts, they follow the perspective because the skirts are horizontal you can do that. Now where the blue vertical lines connect with the perspective lines is where the edges of the turret is seen from the side so at the middle of the rear armour skirt. That is how I make a level plane for the edges of the turret.
But wait what happens if I use the same numbers that I got from using that plane to calculate the turret width on the red lines which followed the perspective lines of the hull with out skirts??

oh thats right 3.56, oh boy that is weird thats the same numbers you get, when we take in account the crude simplification to 10:12, when you use the turret shadow. What do you know you have proven me right thanks skj! And its just wider than the tracks, my oh my how everything seems to fit together its almost like I made a pretty accurate estimation.
STGN

Come on ersakthivel, be a man(or woman if thats what you are, no disrespect) and admit you where wrong.

 

[ersakthivel]

OMG. See the blue slanted lines to the side?? they follow the outside of the armoured skirts, they follow the perspective because the skirts are horizontal you can do that. Now where the blue vertical lines connect with the perspective lines is where the edges of the turret is seen from the side so at the middle of the rear armour skirt. That is how I make a level plane for the edges of the turret.
But wait what happens if I use the same numbers that I got from using that plane to calculate the turret width on the red lines which followed the perspective lines of the hull with out skirts??

oh thats right 3.56, oh boy that is weird thats the same numbers you get, when we take in account the crude simplification to 10:12, when you use the turret shadow. What do you know you have proven me right thanks skj! And its just wider than the tracks, my oh my how everything seems to fit together its almost like I made a pretty accurate estimation.
STGN

Come on ersakthivel, be a man(or woman if thats what you are, no disrespect) and admit you where wrong.

You have said that a turret crew hatch size of 550 mm is superluxury and the crew hatch mesures onlt 400 mm across.

If you say the turret hatch measures just 400 mm, then on the space besides the hull parallel to the turret hatch ,

after the green dotted line which marks the outer edge of the armor block to be fitted,

You can't fit a line any more than the 2/3 radius of crew hatch.So there is no more than 300 mm of space besides the turret on the hull there.



I have completed my BE degree with Four years in eng drawing , and taking lessons in dimensioning from guy or girl like you is an insult to the institution I studied,

You don't have to think that I was arguing to convince you, or to clarify my doubts in a debate with you,It is to make sure that the other members here should understand who is posting with what motives in this debate,

 

[ersakthivel]

Loader hatch is 500-504mm width (this moving plate to close it).
Tank Comander hatch is the same.
Values taken from those draw (kampfpanzer).
But those values are changin nothing. As I posted: whole turret is 2,8 -2,84m width, in place when crews hatches are is 2,34m -2,4m width.

post the --------------------- draw (kampfpanzer).
or
Post a link to this---------------------------------- draw (kampfpanzer).

 

[STGN]

You have said that a turret crew hatch size of 550 mm is superluxury and the crew hatch mesures onlt 400 mm across.
That is not what I said, here you are lying again now what I said was that most people could get through a 400mm hole and that 550 is too big that was all I said.

If you say the turret hatch measures just 400 mm, then on the space besides the hull parallel to the turret hatch ,

after the green dotted line which marks the outer edge of the armor block to be fitted,

You can't fit a line any more than the 2/3 radius of crew hatch.So there is no more than 300 mm of space besides the turret on the hull there.



I have completed my BE degree with Four years in eng drawing , and taking lessons in dimensioning from guy or girl like you is an insult to the institution I studied,

You don't have to think that I was arguing to convince you, or to clarify my doubts in a debate with you,It is to make sure that the other members here should understand who is posting with what motives in this debate,

You gotta ask your school to give you the money back.
STGN