Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[ersakthivel]

because it'll prove him wrong.

i did a backyard experiment myself:

32/32.95 = 0.97 = 3% error
35/36.59 = 0.95 = 5% error.

if you make sure to take the picture head-on, i think it's safe to assume an error of about 5-10%

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS BACKYARD EXPERIMENT IS NO ONE KNOWS,
1. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO OBJECTS,
2.THE ANGLE OF THE CAMERA
3.THE HEIGHT OF THE CAMERA FROM THE GROUND,
4.the angle of the object from the ground,
which are all very important in perspective measurement.

see the angle of the camera and the height from which the photo is taken will be very different from other photos ,so this pixel scale can never be applied universally to other pictures which are of different objects with planes tilted at different angles to the ground and the observer.

I have given a much more accurate method of projection of planes to their proper position

and comparing the hull width besides the turret on the plane,

which is perpendicular to the line joining both the crew hatch covers on the turret ,

to a known width of the crew hatch

and proved beyond doubt that ARJUn turret width is more than 3100 mm ,however you measure it, then why this pixel magic again?
Hilarious.

Look at the measurements made on different planes that are at different distances from the observer,
The turret width is taken in pixels at the turret front.
BUT THE HULL WIDTH IS TAKEN ON A PLANE WHICH IS WELL IN FRONT OF THE TURRET, and compared with same pixel scale giving raise to all kind of erroneous measurements.
same as the explanation below.

See the size of the main gun barrel hole and the size of the head of the man on the turret, they appear to be same if you take direct pixel measurement ,

But we all know the main gun bore is just 120 mm and the man's head should measure significantly more than that(in fact close to double),

That is the error when you try pixel measurements of two objects located at two different planes that are at two different distances from the observer in perspective drawing.

SO PEOPLE MUST STOP USING SAME PIXEL SCALE FOR OBJECTS THAT ARE AT TWO VERY DIFFERENT DISTANCES FROM THE OBSERVER.

SO TO AVOID THIS HUGELY ERRONEOUS METHOD WE MUST USE THE PROJECTION OF PLANES METHOD

The shadow of the turret falls on the hull at the third blue line from the top.
it is the place where turret's side wall projection on the hull would fall.
The blue rectangle drawn on the TC's crew hatch cover represent s the true length of the hatch cover .
This rectangle is projected in the correct plane on the hull ,
found out by the downwards projection of the line joining the two hatch covers on the turret top,
to the top of the hull.
This is the perspective drawing as far as I know,

If the side skirts are not included in the 3800 mm width of the hull the red line indicates that about half of the hatch cover length is the actual width besides the turret on the ARJUN hull.

IF the crew hatch measures 550mm it is about 275 mm.
SO the width of the turret is 3200 mm-(275x2=500 mm)=3300 mm,

If side skirts are included in the width about 4/5 th of the hatch cover length is the actual width besides the turret on the ARJUN hull.
That is about 0.80x550 mm=440 mm
3800-(400x2=880 mm)= 2900 mm is the width of the ARJUN turret.

Even if you take a worst case scenario of 2900 mm turret width,
1450mm is the distance between outter most side wall of arjun side turret and the turret centerline,
1200 mm is the distance between the two crew hatch centers,
1200/2= 600 mm is the distance of Tc' seat edge from the turret center line,
So 1450 mm-600 mm=850 mm is the space available besides the crew hatch center and the outer most side wall of arjun turrret,

If people agree on this point we can have an objective debate,

This 850 mm is the distance between the outer turret wall of the arjun and the crew hatch hole center,
The two crew hatch holes are located at the same distance from the turret center line is my estimate,

SO even if we give out a margin of error of 200 mm in my estimate the space available for armor on the arjun's side turret wall is 650 mm.

Whether it is perspective drawing or perspektive drawing these rules are universal,
All objects must be projected to the apropriatre place to get any fair estimate,
The crew hatch covers are opened and standing vertically,.
The blue line joining the base of the two crew hatch covers represent the proper axis on which the covers are standing vertically,
SO if we have to project the width of the crew hatch cover to the correct position on the hull,
We should project the axis line joining the two crew hatch cover base on the turret top to it's correct position on the hull top,
That's what I have done.

 

[Dejawolf]

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS BACKYARD EXPERIMENT IS NO ONE KNOWS,
1. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO OBJECTS,
2.THE ANGLE OF THE CAMERA
3.THE HEIGHT OF THE CAMERA FROM THE GROUND,
4.the angle of the object from the ground,
which are all very important in perspective measurement.

lol. right..... 5% error is not good enough? in my previous estimate, i gave you a range, of maximum and minimum width of the turret.
284cm is maximum width, and minimum is probably around 278cm.

 

[ersakthivel]

turret width measurement process:

1. Measuring the width of the skirts in pixels, we see the widths are nearly the same. This way, we know the perspective distortion is very small, and width measurements
are therefore going to be fairly accurate.
2. On the real vehicle, all of these red lines are parallell.

all the red lines are not parallel . they are different planes.

3. We use these lines to determine where on the first picture the front turret edge is. We can see from this picture, its somewhere inbetween the yellow and blue lines.
4. Here you can see the measurement points for the maximum and minimum turret width.
5. Doing some calculations.
-first we find the ratio between the width over the tracks, and widths at the estimated positions of the turret.
-the arjun is 3.5m over the tracks. The 956 pixel red line represents this width we divide to figure out the pixel conversion ratio.
-we subtract the turret width in pixels, from the hull width at the blue and yellow lines
-we multiply the width with the estimated perspective distortion.
-we multiply the perspective-distortion adjusted width, with the pixel/cm conversion number.
-we subtract the difference from the hull width over the tracks, to arrive at our final value.

Conclusion: Arjun turret is a maximum of 2.84m wide, and an (unlikely)minimum of 2.711m wide.

dead wrong .the measurements are taken at two different planes as i explained above .

We dont know the actual width of a single object in these planes in real time to make effective comparision.

If we want to take ratio measurement,

follow the steps,

draw a blue line bordering the bottom of the turret extend it to the end of the hull on both sides

and then compare the ratios.

a MUCH BETTER IDEA IS LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE CREW HATCH COVERS BEHIND THE MEN,

draw a line on them ,
then copy the line to the turret side and fix it on the hull width besides the turret,
even this will be inaccurate as the area covered by the line on the front will be significantly less than the area covered on the crew hatch as the plane is much further away from observer.

Just applying same pixel scales on two different planes which are at two different depths from the observer is erroneous.

 

[ersakthivel]

lol. right..... 5% error is not good enough? in my previous estimate, i gave you a range, of maximum and minimum width of the turret.
284cm is maximum width, and minimum is probably around 278cm.

no it is close to 3200 mm as posted by KUNAL BISWAS (who has seen the tank and been inside it and a senior MOD here, and also a member of armed forces, no pixel draftsman.)MONTHS BEFORE THIS DISCUSSION STARTED.

 

[Dejawolf]

ehrmagerd, whudathunk:

let's do this with ershaktivel level math:
18+18 is 36.
36+36 = 72
350-72 = 278cm!

 

[STGN]

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS BACKYARD EXPERIMENT IS NO ONE KNOWS,
1. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO OBJECTS,
2.THE ANGLE OF THE CAMERA
3.THE HEIGHT OF THE CAMERA FROM THE GROUND,
4.the angle of the object from the ground,
which are all very important in perspective measurement. Yes if you had to make 100% accurate measurements but what we are doing not 100% we have acknowledged that from the start.

see the angle of the camera and the height from which the photo is taken will be very different from other photos ,so this pixel scale can never be applied universally to other pictures which are of different objects with planes tilted at different angles to the ground and the observer. We always use make appropriate scales for different planes or rather vectors.
I have given a much more accurate method of projection of planes to their proper position

and comparing the hull width besides the turret on the plane,

which is perpendicular to the line joining both the crew hatch covers on the turret ,

to a known width of the crew hatch

and proved beyond doubt that ARJUn turret width is more than 3100 mm ,however you measure it, then why this pixel magic again?
Hilarious.

Look at the measurements made on different planes that are at different distances from the observer,
The turret width is taken in pixels at the turret front.
BUT THE HULL WIDTH IS TAKEN ON A PLANE WHICH IS WELL IN FRONT OF THE TURRET, and compared with same pixel scale giving raise to all kind of erroneous measurements.
same as the explanation below.

See the size of the main gun barrel hole and the size of the head of the man on the turret, they appear to be same if you take direct pixel measurement ,

But we all know the main gun bore is just 120 mm and the man's head should measure significantly more than that(in fact close to double),

That is the error when you try pixel measurements of two objects located at two different planes that are at two different distances from the observer in perspective drawing.

SO PEOPLE MUST STOP USING SAME PIXEL SCALE FOR OBJECTS THAT ARE AT TWO VERY DIFFERENT DISTANCES FROM THE OBSERVER.

SO TO AVOID THIS HUGELY ERRONEOUS METHOD WE MUST USE THE PROJECTION OF PLANES METHOD

The shadow of the turret falls on the hull at the third blue line from the top.
it is the place where turret's side wall projection on the hull would fall.
The blue rectangle drawn on the TC's crew hatch cover represent s the true length of the hatch cover .
This rectangle is projected in the correct plane on the hull ,
found out by the downwards projection of the line joining the two hatch covers on the turret top,
to the top of the hull.
This is the perspective drawing as far as I know,

If the side skirts are not included in the 3800 mm width of the hull the red line indicates that about half of the hatch cover length is the actual width besides the turret on the ARJUN hull.

IF the crew hatch measures 550mm it is about 275 mm.
SO the width of the turret is 3200 mm-(275x2=500 mm)=3300 mm,

If side skirts are included in the width about 4/5 th of the hatch cover length is the actual width besides the turret on the ARJUN hull.
That is about 0.80x550 mm=440 mm
3800-(400x2=880 mm)= 2900 mm is the width of the ARJUN turret.

Even if you take a worst case scenario of 2900 mm turret width,
1450mm is the distance between outter most side wall of arjun side turret and the turret centerline,
1200 mm is the distance between the two crew hatch centers,
1200/2= 600 mm is the distance of Tc' seat edge from the turret center line,
So 1450 mm-600 mm=850 mm is the space available besides the crew hatch center and the outer most side wall of arjun turrret,

If people agree on this point we can have an objective debate,

This 850 mm is the distance between the outer turret wall of the arjun and the crew hatch hole center,
The two crew hatch holes are located at the same distance from the turret center line is my estimate,

SO even if we give out a margin of error of 200 mm in my estimate the space available for armor on the arjun's side turret wall is 650 mm.

Whether it is perspective drawing or perspektive drawing these rules are universal,
All objects must be projected to the apropriatre place to get any fair estimate,
The crew hatch covers are opened and standing vertically,.
The blue line joining the base of the two crew hatch covers represent the proper axis on which the covers are standing vertically,
SO if we have to project the width of the crew hatch cover to the correct position on the hull,
We should project the axis line joining the two crew hatch cover base on the turret top to it's correct position on the hull top,
That's what I have done.

First Hull width is not taken far in front of turret as I have shown here:

The plane is place on the hull where it should be.
So heres my estimation:

And here is yours

Green lines has not been tempered with its the same as hatch
STGN

 

[Tronic]

Can you tell how you would go about estimating/guestimating scale of pictures?
STGN

That's easy. I wouldn't. You have to go on-site to inspect and measure the object first hand, because anything less than that is not sufficient or reliable information to base any engineering design off. In the case of plying information by spying defence projects and whatnot, there are specialists (not engineers, but more likely in line with cartography related professionals) who are specifically trained to do that job. They would than provide us the scales and dimensions, and we would apply our own theoretical model to see if the system is plausible under those dimensions, or not. It's probably the one reason that no country has been successfully able to exactly copy another's design by merely looking at pictures. You need to have the object on hand for any reliable numbers to work on, otherwise, there will be significant variations in the design.

In short, engineers are not encouraged to guesstimate. It's considered bad practice.

 

[The Fox]

here is a 3D model of Arjun mk I,mk II & mk III
Arjun MBT Series 3-D Visualization Animation - YouTube

 

[Dejawolf]

That's easy. I wouldn't. You have to go on-site to inspect and measure the object first hand, because anything less than that is not sufficient or reliable information to base any engineering design off.

In short, engineers are not encouraged to guesstimate. It's considered bad practice.

let's rephrase the question then. if you're trying to create a replica, or a scale model with an accuracy of +-10cm, would these measuring methods be sufficient for you? i'm mainly trying to confirm the accuracy of these line drawings:

from armyrecognition website, which i based a 3d model of the turret on. so far, lengths aligns nicely with a scale drawing from bharat rhakshak, and the width over skirts and tracks coincide with real width of skirt and tracks. i presume whoever made these drawings had access to the real vehicle. using this scale drawing, turret width comes to about 278-284cm.
multiple measurement estimates from pictures both by STGN and me, confirms this range. Ershaktivel claims 320cm based on who knows what, but he does it to fuel his ridicolous claims about arjun 1200mm vs KE front turret armour, and 600mm turret sides.

 

[Tronic]

let's rephrase the question then. if you're trying to create a replica, or a scale model with an accuracy of +-10cm, would these measuring methods be sufficient for you?

You cannot create a replica or a scale model if you do not have the actual dimensions. If you are guessing your dimensions off of pictures, than that is not considered a scale model. For it to be a scale model, you need the actual dimensions to be able to scale it in the first place.

Also, the +/- 10cm tolerance is insanely large and there is no way on Earth you could call an object a "scaled replica" with such large tolerances. When we talk measurement tolerances, we're usually talking in the range of anything less than millimeters (basically when it becomes difficult with the tools on hand to get more precise readings; i.e. being the most precise, the cheapest way allowed). Any tolerances over millimeters, and you might as well drop all your tools and start using your hands to take measurements, because either way, your pissed off bosses are gonna be tossing those measurements in the garbage and showing you the door.

i'm mainly trying to confirm the accuracy of these line drawings:

from armyrecognition website, which i based a 3d model of the turret on. so far, lengths aligns nicely with a scale drawing from bharat rhakshak, and the width over skirts and tracks coincide with real width of skirt and tracks. i presume whoever made these drawings had access to the real vehicle.

That drawing doesn't tell you if it is actually to scale or not, that is merely your assumption. Can you say for sure that this drawing was not drawn by someone doing the exact same thing as you? It is not difficult to grab base dimensions off the net, and than proportionally guess the rest of the dimensions off of pictures to come up with this. It just gives you a very crude idea of the shape of the tank. It's meaningless if you want accurate dimensions off of this thing.

using this scale drawing, turret width comes to about 278-284cm.
multiple measurement estimates from pictures both by STGN and me, confirms this range. Ershaktivel claims 320cm based on who knows what, but he does it to fuel his ridicolous claims about arjun 1200mm vs KE front turret armour, and 600mm turret sides.

All your measurements are based on far too many assumptions, so your dimensions are no more accurate than Ershaktivel's. Even the huge tolerance of +/- 10 cm you gave me at the start is a guessed tolerance, not actual. Tolerances are defined by the precision of your tools, not estimated. With such large unknown tolerances, that alone shows how crude and inaccurate these measurements are. You cannot confidentally say that your measurements are more accurate than Ershaktivel's. All you folks have made far too many assumptions to be this confident and be arguing with each other over your measurements.


Also, Just to give you a quick example of the precision with which engineers work with (all dimensions clearly stated and the scale of the drawing given at the bottom right). Guesstimating dimensions is a big no-no.

 

[Dejawolf]

You cannot create a replica or a scale model if you do not have the actual dimensions. If you are guessing your dimensions off of pictures, than that is not considered a scale model. For it to be a scale model, you need the actual dimensions to be able to scale it in the first place.

we have the official figures from bharat rakshak,
we have overall width of the vehicle, and width over tracks, as well as height and total length.
overall width is 3.846m, and width over tracks is 3.5m.

Also, the +/- 10cm tolerance is insanely large and there is no way on Earth you could call an object a "scaled replica" with such large tolerances.

a tolerance of +/- 10cm is enough to determine whether the turret is 280cm or 320cm, and that the Arjun turret protection is in the 600-800 range, and not the 1100-1300 range. it is also accurate enough for a simulator. most simulators/games actually work with far lower tolerances than this.

When we talk measurement tolerances, we're usually talking in the range of anything less than millimeters (basically when it becomes difficult with the tools on hand to get more precise readings; i.e. being the most precise, the cheapest way allowed). Any tolerances over millimeters, and you might as well drop all your tools and start using your hands to take measurements, because either way, your pissed off bosses are gonna be tossing those measurements in the garbage and showing you the door.

production tolerances depends on the size and purpose of an object. it's not uncommon for a tank/IFV length to vary with 1-2cm due to the large thick welds,
in the CV9030F manual for example, the length of the vehicle is stated with a % uncertainty.
however, tolerances for components like the engine and gearbox is much smaller, and for things like the gyroscopes, a tolerance of 1mm is considered large.

That drawing doesn't tell you if it is actually to scale or not, that is merely your assumption. Can you say for sure that this drawing was not drawn by someone doing the exact same thing as you? It is not difficult to grab base dimensions off the net, and than proportionally guess the rest of the dimensions off of pictures to come up with this. It just gives you a very crude idea of the shape of the tank. It's meaningless if you want accurate dimensions off of this thing.

we got this as well:

All your measurements are based on far too many assumptions, so your dimensions are no more accurate than Ershaktivel's. Even the huge tolerance of +/- 10 cm you gave me at the start is a guessed tolerance, not actual. Tolerances are defined by the precision of your tools, not estimated. With such large unknown tolerances, that alone shows how crude and inaccurate these measurements are. You cannot confidentally say that your measurements are more accurate than Ershaktivel's. All you folks have made far too many assumptions to be this confident and be arguing with each other over your measurements.

the tolerance of +/-10cm is based on the experiment i did, and the worst measure was off with about 5%. so far, ive' taken 2 images, from different angles, used the 3.846 and 3.5m figures to estimate the turret width and in both cases, it ends up in the range of 278-284cm.
scaling the line drawing to where the hull width is 3.846cm yields a turret width of 284cm as well.
ershaktivel has been pretty much consistently wrong about everything. he couldn't even tell a tank-ex from an arjun, pointing out in several images the measures were useless because it was tank-ex, when in fact it was the arjun.

 

[Dejawolf]

Bharat Rakshak :: Land Forces Site - Arjun

 

[STGN]

You cannot create a replica or a scale model if you do not have the actual dimensions. If you are guessing your dimensions off of pictures, than that is not considered a scale model. For it to be a scale model, you need the actual dimensions to be able to scale it in the first place.

Also, the +/- 10cm tolerance is insanely large and there is no way on Earth you could call an object a "scaled replica" with such large tolerances. When we talk measurement tolerances, we're usually talking in the range of anything less than millimeters (basically when it becomes difficult with the tools on hand to get more precise readings; i.e. being the most precise, the cheapest way allowed). Any tolerances over millimeters, and you might as well drop all your tools and start using your hands to take measurements, because either way, your pissed off bosses are gonna be tossing those measurements in the garbage and showing you the door.



That drawing doesn't tell you if it is actually to scale or not, that is merely your assumption. Can you say for sure that this drawing was not drawn by someone doing the exact same thing as you? It is not difficult to grab base dimensions off the net, and than proportionally guess the rest of the dimensions off of pictures to come up with this. It just gives you a very crude idea of the shape of the tank. It's meaningless if you want accurate dimensions off of this thing.




All your measurements are based on far too many assumptions, so your dimensions are no more accurate than Ershaktivel's. Even the huge tolerance of +/- 10 cm you gave me at the start is a guessed tolerance, not actual. Tolerances are defined by the precision of your tools, not estimated. With such large unknown tolerances, that alone shows how crude and inaccurate these measurements are. You cannot confidentally say that your measurements are more accurate than Ershaktivel's. All you folks have made far too many assumptions to be this confident and be arguing with each other over your measurements.


Also, Just to give you a quick example of the precision with which engineers work with (all dimensions clearly stated and the scale of the drawing given at the bottom right). Guesstimating dimensions is a big no-no.

Okay right the actual dimensions might be unknown but the relative size between different parts of the tank can be known to a relatively good accuracy. This is the point of contention here really, ersakthivel saying turret width to hull width is ~10/12.1 with myself and others arguing its around ~10/13.7. Because we trust the DRDO so far as to give us accurate external dimensions. That is the reason we are talking in meters, when what we are really arguing is the relation between different parts and using ersakthivels numbers gives me a hull width of ~4.3m.
STGN

 

[arunpat]

Arjun MBT @ Republic Day parade 2013

http://www.aame.in/2013/01/indian-military-hardware-displayed-at.html

 

[volna]

here is a 3D model of Arjun mk I,mk II & mk III
Arjun MBT Series 3-D Visualization Animation - YouTube

Is it true that Arjun mk-2 going to have a MMW radar?

 

[ersakthivel]

ehrmagerd, whudathunk:

let's do this with ershaktivel level math:
18+18 is 36.
36+36 = 72
350-72 = 278cm!

What you cannot understand with your level of drawing skill is ,
if you put your 18cm blue lines one by one on the crew hatch black hole you can fit at least 3.5 18 cms blue lines into it.
So as per your level of math the crew hatch radius will be around (3.5x180mm=630 mm+170 mm for perspective reduction considering the analogy of the gun and the crew man's head in the above photo)800 mm, if we accept your pixel based calculation.Which is wrong given the hatch measures no more than 500 mm across in reality.

So please don't try too hard.This pixel based measurement of convenience will never add up to any original dimension no matter how many red and blue lines you draw on it.

 

[ersakthivel]

let's rephrase the question then. if you're trying to create a replica, or a scale model with an accuracy of +-10cm, would these measuring methods be sufficient for you? i'm mainly trying to confirm the accuracy of these line drawings:

from armyrecognition website, which i based a 3d model of the turret on. so far, lengths aligns nicely with a scale drawing from bharat rhakshak, and the width over skirts and tracks coincide with real width of skirt and tracks. i presume whoever made these drawings had access to the real vehicle. using this scale drawing, turret width comes to about 278-284cm.
multiple measurement estimates from pictures both by STGN and me, confirms this range. Ershaktivel claims 320cm based on who knows what, but he does it to fuel his ridicolous claims about arjun 1200mm vs KE front turret armour, and 600mm turret sides.

See you only accurate side view with dimensions is available in BHARATH RAKSHAK website, the top view is without any dimensions , so it is wrong on your part to say that you got the hull width from army recognition site,

If your assumption that the man who did the top view drawing was correct he should have given the dimensions like in the BHARATH RAKSHAK side view drawing.

And still no one here is sure whether the partial wider frontal side skirts are included in the hull width of 3800 mm or not.

What you did was to take the BHARATH RAKSHAK side view with dimensions and impose the dimensionless top view with no dimensions and arrived at a conclusion .

Why I am so certain is that if the distance between the center points s of two crew hatches is 120 cm,

Then from edge to edge you can fit 3 120 cm lines on the hull width,

then it is pretty obvious that only 300 mm space is left on the hull besides the turret, and 900 mm space available there for elbow room for TC + side turret armor is between the center point of the crew hole and the outer edge of the turret.

Just take the top view of the tank,

All objects in the top view are located in symmetrical fashion.

fix three 120 cms lines on the axis which runs through the center points of the two crew hatches across the width of the turret.

The first line will start at the top edge of the hull and stop at the center of the top crew hatch,

The second line will have both it's ends on two crew hatch centers,

The third line will start from bottom crew hatch and stop at the bottom edge of the hull.

All three lines will be almost equal in length is my idea from plain view.

In fact I did a measurement on screen each of these three lines will measure 200 mm on plain scale on the screen.

And the total width of the turret measures 600 mm across on plain scale on screen method.

3x120 cms =3600 mm as close to the hull width as possible.So there can be no room for any error in this simple measurement technique.

So 3800mm-(2x300mm=600 mm) is 3200 mm is the turret width if the partial frontal side skirts are not included in the hull width.


You can get a much more easy and clear picture.

Now there is no room any claim of 2750 mm width for arjun turret.

 

[ersakthivel]

You can try your own hand as explained above.

And compare it with the picture below.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Radar is already is use, Its a modified version of PJT-531 Battle Field Surveillance Radar- Short Range (BFSR-SR)

The PJT-531 Battle Field Surveillance Radar- Short Range (BFSR-SR) is a man portable 2D short range Battle Field and Perimeter Surveillance Radar developed by the Indian Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO). The BFSR has been designed by DRDO's Bangalore-based laboratory, the Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) and is being manufactured by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL).

Detection Range:

Crawling man: 500 m
Walking man: 2 km (1.2 mi)
Group of people: 5 km (3.1 mi)
Light vehicle: 8 km (5.0 mi)
Heavy vehicle: 10 km (6.2 mi)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides the Radar, Tank is also have very upto date Optical devices >>

Is it true that Arjun mk-2 going to have a MMW radar?

A nice picture of MK-2 prototype-1, You can see the modified radar unit as well as new optical unit above the turret..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Did they came out with there own final measurements ?

You can try your own hand as explained above.