Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[sayareakd]

But it also means that such GLATGM is not trully top attack, you need to put a laser marker on top of target and fire missile from elevated position or at high ballistic trajectory. AFAIK the only GLATGM with real top attack capabilities designed for a tank was US XM1111 MRM-KE/CE.

as long as it moves where the laser is painted fine with us. for top attack mode Nag missile is good.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

CLGM is mainly for Arjun Tank..

does this mean we don't need JAVLIN from U.S

 

[rahulrds1]

NAG missile test-- TOP attack.

 

[ersakthivel]

Yeah it really does sum up this whole debate..
There you go ersakthivel, that is why the 3.2m number is way off. Kunal Biswas just typed "3.2m" on a keyboard it was just a statement not meant to be taken in serious connection with anything. And that is alright because "3.2m" like "computers" are just figures of the imagination they are not real.
STGN

Including the storage box turret measures 45 mm on scale.

If you have any doubt you can measure it on the above picture.

The 1:68.75 scale is provided to the forum by your good friend DEJA WOLF whose posts you liked the most, So I don't think you are going to dispute that.
SO 45x68.75=3093 mm more or less equal to 3200 mm ,if we take into account inaccuracies.

 

[ersakthivel]

lol. troll. picture time:

here's a picture of my screen. each of those little rectangles is a pixel.
as this image shows, there's 3-4 pixels per mm. so measuring with pixels should essentially be a minimum of 3-4 times more accurate than measuring with a ruler.
that is of course, if you're measuring on a 21 inch screen like i am. judging from your measure of 8mm of the hatches, i'm assuming you're on a 15 inch or 17 inch screen, which will make the measures far more inaccurate. but of course, i don't measure the pixels on the screen, i measure the pixels on the image, which is more accurate than measuring pixels on the screen.

Respected NON TROLL,
What are you trying to prove here?
I used your own 1:68.75 scale on the arjun drawing you used to produce you so called 3D model and proved to you that ARJUn turret measures close to 3100 mm in my post no-4040 , which is the same as I calculated using projection o planes as per perspective drawing rules,

Including the storage box turret measures 45 mm on scale.

If you have any doubt you can measure it on the above picture.

The 1:68.75 scale is provided to the forum by your So I don't think you are going to dispute that.

SO 45x68.75=3093 mm close to 3100 mm, which is in fact far higher than my estimate of 2900 mm below using perspective projection.

Quite reasonable considering I used rough lines and did that to disprove your idea that turret measures 2.75 m only, because you can never get acccurate measurements considering perspective distortion of dimensions in photographs,

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 3800 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,which may not be needed now because 3100 mm is from your scale drawing.

1550mm is the distance between outer 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 1550 mm-600 mm=950 mm is the space available besides the crew hatch center and the outer most side wall of arjun turrret,

Considering from 2008 the first storage box has been replaced with armor , a total of 950 mm space is available for armor ,

Even if we minus 300 mm for Tc's elbow room besides the crew hatch then another 600 mm space is available as per ARJUN turret design for armor,

So the claim that ARJUN has composite armor all around is correct,

Also considering the curvature on the turret inner wall after the TC's seat from the picture below,

It is quite evident that ARJUN turret design has space of around 600 mm for composite armor placement all around it's turret side , how much of it is used for that purpose is beyond scrutiny as there is no available evidence to find out.

So what is your complaint now?

 

[STGN]

Including the storage box turret measures 45 mm on scale.

If you have any doubt you can measure it on the above picture.

The 1:68.75 scale is provided to the forum by your good friend DEJA WOLF whose posts you liked the most, So I don't think you are going to dispute that.
SO 45x68.75=3093 mm more or less equal to 3200 mm ,if we take into account inaccuracies.

Again if we assign turret width on that drawing to 3.2m the hull gets way too wide and long for DRDO measurements an on that picture using official width turret is about 2.8m wide now that drawing is inaccurate in my opinion because it doesn't take into account that the turret is not symmetrical in width around the CL.
Now you have to give a unit for the scale for it to have any meaning, what does 1:68.75 mean?? And because we don't have the same monitor or the same measuring tool I can't replicate your numbers and as I know, from having tried it earlier in my life, using a ruler on a screen gives inaccurate and numbers I can't repeatedly make there is always to much guess work too large error in measuring. Now I have already provided link for you to go download Photoshop completely legal, then we can use the same standardized measuring tool, that will eliminate personal bias in the measuring.
I don't know Dejawolf, so I am not good friends with him. Just so happens that I agree with him on his measurements regarding the Arjun tank. And can only admire his work on models. If I thought he was wrong on something I would point it out.
STGN

 

[STGN]

No it is a class room for top secret pixel measurement discipline expounded by few foreigners which will always give a turret side armor thickness of just 50 mm irrespective of any logical counter argument.

Because for them it must be proved that ARJUN designers are fools who don't know geometry, pixel measurement or the simple thing of how to provide protection for turret.

If they put a photo and say turret measures 2700 mm by some magical pixel measurement we all have to accept that,
Damn with silly questions like how far is the object from the camera?
What is the perspective distortion of dimensions?
How do you know a real measurement from a photo which gives only an illusory three dimensional idea?

Yeah its so top secret that I provided you link so you could do it yourself, yet you have elected not to do that, why is that??

A tank having thin side Armour is a design choice, its on you if you call it foolish and there by deem Indian designers as fools.
Where have you seen photo which said width was exactly 2.7m?
You go on and on about perspective distortion, yet show again and again that you have no concept of distortion. You know like when you said the gunner sad in-between the commander and the loader just behind the mantle.
We get scale difference of photos and then use official measurements to work out size. all you say is "no its wrong" and you refuse to show how you think it should be done. You are unwilling to come forth and show how and where you have done measurements choosing instead the position of "you are wrong, but I am not going to show why I am right" like somebody unwilling to have his position scrutinised and criticised(I guess more than it has already been shown to be highly inaccurate).
I also find it funny how you have your self said that 2.9m turret could be true, yet when you realise that you are actually agreeing with us your turn around compartmentalize you measurements and then say, no no its 3.2m.
Even Kunal Biswas is unwilling to defend 3.2m as the width of the turret front.

Why do you keep doing this?
STGN

 

[arkem8]

[video=youtube_share;W53pMpfgaZE]http://youtu.be/W53pMpfgaZE[/video]

 

[Akim]

@arkem8

Have a question. How she can shoot from the T-72 with the caliber of 120 mm and length of the meter?

 

[Damian]

@arkem8

Have a question. How she can shoot from the T-72 with the caliber of 120 mm and length of the meter?

Calliber is not a problem you can use a sabot, but the lenght is indeed a problem.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It should have Arjun MK-2 & 1 if upgraded in future..

Nice video as always..

 

[arkem8]

Calliber is not a problem you can use a sabot, but the lenght is indeed a problem.

2 things:-

1. I could'nt find a nice pic of a Suzuki Shogun/Gypsy(Maruti Gypsy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediain India)(used to mount MILAN's for our special forces teams and paratroopers) and used the t-72 instead)
2. You could probably mount a pair on articulating pivoted arms like that Cech AA cannon modification, the t-72 is in service in very large numbers and the missile even if mounted externally ala BMP-2 would greatly enhance combat effectiveness especially when you are talking about targeting utility, transport and attack helicopters not to mention UAV's.

 

[ersakthivel]

Again if we assign turret width on that drawing to 3.2m the hull gets way too wide and long for DRDO measurements an on that picture using official width turret is about 2.8m wide now that drawing is inaccurate in my opinion because it doesn't take into account that the turret is not symmetrical in width around the CL.
Now you have to give a unit for the scale for it to have any meaning, what does 1:68.75 mean?? And because we don't have the same monitor or the same measuring tool I can't replicate your numbers and as I know, from having tried it earlier in my life, using a ruler on a screen gives inaccurate and numbers I can't repeatedly make there is always to much guess work too large error in measuring. Now I have already provided link for you to go download Photoshop completely legal, then we can use the same standardized measuring tool, that will eliminate personal bias in the measuring.
I don't know Dejawolf, so I am not good friends with him. Just so happens that I agree with him on his measurements regarding the Arjun tank. And can only admire his work on models. If I thought he was wrong on something I would point it out.
STGN

It was his scale on the above drawing 1:68.75 that I used. Since you seem to agree with his measurement and admire his 3d modelling , why are you disputing his scale?

 

[ersakthivel]

Yeah its so top secret that I provided you link so you could do it yourself, yet you have elected not to do that, why is that??

A tank having thin side Armour is a design choice, its on you if you call it foolish and there by deem Indian designers as fools.
Where have you seen photo which said width was exactly 2.7m?
You go on and on about perspective distortion, yet show again and again that you have no concept of distortion. You know like when you said the gunner sad in-between the commander and the loader just behind the mantle.
We get scale difference of photos and then use official measurements to work out size. all you say is "no its wrong" and you refuse to show how you think it should be done. You are unwilling to come forth and show how and where you have done measurements choosing instead the position of "you are wrong, but I am not going to show why I am right" like somebody unwilling to have his position scrutinised and criticised(I guess more than it has already been shown to be highly inaccurate).
I also find it funny how you have your self said that 2.9m turret could be true, yet when you realise that you are actually agreeing with us your turn around compartmentalize you measurements and then say, no no its 3.2m.
Even Kunal Biswas is unwilling to defend 3.2m as the width of the turret front.

Why do you keep doing this?
STGN

I have clearly said 2.9 is on lesser side in my post.
Because when you port the crew hatch that is deeper in the photo to front some factoring in must be done, I did not do it since you have no idea about that and I don't want to be accused of explanation to suit my view point.
See if you can not understand perspective drawing, there is nothing I can do about it.
As per the perspective measurement of the hull besides the turret compared to a known dimension of hatch cover we get 3000 mm plus turret size for arjun.
Also ARJUn is shorter wider and longer than LEO.
So the measurements are in perfect order as for as I am concerned.

Once again without knowing the distance of the camera from the object
and at least the real dimension of one object you cannot use any scale pixel measurement tot get correct dimension.

In the above picture if you take into account the hull width of 3840 mm for ARJUN , what is the width on the hull beside the turret, certainly very less nothing more than 400 mm if you compare the width of the open.crew hatch.
So 3840 mm-(2x400 mm) you get atleast 3000 mm for turret width.

 

[ersakthivel]

Since this picture is shot from above the top if you start your measurement besides the first hazy lock of the storage box on the turret side midway besides the crew hatch , and compare it with the hatch cover length ,you can get a fair idea.

Because the hazy lock and the standing crew hatch cover are on the same plane , so there is no chance of any perspective distortion of dimensions.

And you can project a perpendicular line from the hull side to the turret top for comparing.

The first lock on the storage box besides the turret is in line with crew hatch. SO you can start your pixel measurement on that plane.

To me there is no more than 400 mm space on the hull beside the turret at the side of first lock on storage box if you compare it with hatch cover width, because the space can not hold more than 2/3rds of the open hatch cover's length at that point on the plane.
So 3840-(2x400 mm)=3000mm must be the minimum turret width in any worst case scenario.

 

[STGN]

Since this picture is shot from above the top if you start your measurement besides the first hazy lock of the storage box on the turret side midway besides the crew hatch , and compare it with the hatch cover length ,you can get a fair idea.

Because the hazy lock and the standing crew hatch cover are on the same plane , so there is no chance of any perspective distortion of dimensions.

And you can project a perpendicular line from the hull side to the turret top for comparing.

The first lock on the storage box besides the turret is in line with crew hatch. SO you can start your pixel measurement on that plane.

To me there is no more than 400 mm space on the hull beside the turret at the side of first lock on storage box if you compare it with hatch cover width, because the space can not hold more than 2/3rds of the open hatch cover's length at that point on the plane.
So 3840-(2x400 mm)=3000mm must be the minimum turret width in any worst case scenario.

Definitely far from 100%, but it gets the point across I think. See with out even taking into account the slight angle to the side skirts, we already have almost 400mm free space on the left side of the tank assuming .5m hatch cover and that is over the widest part of the turret. So its pretty clear that .4m free air is the minimum possible amount on the left side of the tank and that is at the widest part of the turret, the front which is what we are discussing is narrower. So your smallest possible is actually the largest possible from a casual glance. I need more time to get better numbers but I have some ideas for how to get better and more accurate numbers.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

Definitely far from 100%, but it gets the point across I think. See with out even taking into account the slight angle to the side skirts, we already have almost 400mm free space on the left side of the tank assuming .5m hatch cover and that is over the widest part of the turret. So its pretty clear that .4m free air is the minimum possible amount on the left side of the tank and that is at the widest part of the turret, the front which is what we are discussing is narrower. So your smallest possible is actually the largest possible from a casual glance. I need more time to get better numbers but I have some ideas for how to get better and more accurate numbers.
STGN

The man's head measures 10mm(ear to ear is actually 11 mm, but lets leave out the ears and stick to the head) on scale on the screen.

Normally his head would have measured close to 200 mm in reality. Same as the scale I stated in my post no-4064.

So 1 mm on this photo roughly measures 20 mm in reality.

SO the total turret width measures 157 mm on scale on the photo.

SO 157x20=3140 mm close to 3200 mm. SO that must settle any doubts on the Arjun turret once for all.


Why the man's head is taken as a reference because he is closer to the plane of turret and his head dimension can easily be estimated in reality.

So nothing can go wrong in this type of simple scale dimensioning of comparing a well known length on appropriate plane where the effect of perspective distortion is eliminated as much as possible.

See any member can simply take a print out and check it for himself.

 

[ersakthivel]

See from the center point of the gun the frontal turret edge measures 70 mm on scale.
See from the center point of the gun the back turret edge measures 80 mm on scale.

The turret is tilted slightly to the left,
But the hull is straight on because we can not see the side skirts.

for correct measurement the turret has to be staright on.

To do that the turret must tilt slightly towards right to reveal it's true length.
SO we can give a 5 to 10 percent allowance for the perspective distortion and estimate the turret half width to measure around 75 mm is the turret is straight on facing us

The hull width measures 93 mm.

All the above measurements are from the turret centerline only.
so 3840/2=19200 mm occupies 93 mm on the photo.


That gives a scale of 1:20.645.

So 75x20.645=1548 mmx2=3100 mm.

See in this photograph the turret plane is at least 2 meters behind the frontal hull plane where we took measurement.

So another 5 percent increase should be added to this 3100mm to factor for the perspective reduction in dimension on farther plane.

So the turret width simply comes to 3200 mm.

Measurements and scale may differ from one computer screen to another but the ratios and turret dimension will always be the same if the same methodology of calculation is used.

why only measurements are taken from the center line instead of the tank as a whole?

it is obvious from the photo that the camera man was standing to the right side of the tank center because the right side of the turret is visible.If you want further confirmation , then the distance from the outer hull to turret side on the left appears higher than the same distance on the right side of the photo indicating the slight leftwards tilt of the turret.

To reduce the effect of perspective distortion as much as possible.Because farther the object is from the position of the camera greater will be the reduction in length on the image,

So if we take the full hull width and turret width for comparision it will only distort the scale further.


So which ever way you measure the turret width is close to 3200 mm is my estimate. There may be some inaccuracies , but certainly it cannot be 2.5meter or 2.75 meter as bandied here.

 

[methos]

The man's head measures 10mm(ear to ear is actually 11 mm, but lets leave out the ears and stick to the head) on scale on the screen.

Normally his head would have measured close to 200 mm in reality. Same as the scale I stated in my post no-4064.

So 1 mm on this photo roughly measures 20 mm in reality.

SO the total turret width measures 157 mm on scale on the photo.

SO 157x20=3140 mm close to 3200 mm. SO that must settle any doubts on the Arjun turret once for all.


Why the man's head is taken as a reference because he is closer to the plane of turret and his head dimension can easily be estimated in reality.

Can't you just stop trolling?

Average width of the human head is about 15 cm, not 20 cm. In case of a Chinese study the average width was 14,7 cm for males and 14 cm for females. This American dissertation cites another study where the average is 14.5 cm.
Using your completely unscientific and flawed measurement methods, the result would therefore be 157 x 14.7 cm = 230,8 cm, which nicely illustrates the failure of your methods.

 

[STGN]

The man's head measures 10mm(ear to ear is actually 11 mm, but lets leave out the ears and stick to the head) on scale on the screen.

Normally his head would have measured close to 200 mm in reality. Same as the scale I stated in my post no-4064.

So 1 mm on this photo roughly measures 20 mm in reality.

SO the total turret width measures 157 mm on scale on the photo.

SO 157x20=3140 mm close to 3200 mm. SO that must settle any doubts on the Arjun turret once for all.


Why the man's head is taken as a reference because he is closer to the plane of turret and his head dimension can easily be estimated in reality.

So nothing can go wrong in this type of simple scale dimensioning of comparing a well known length on appropriate plane where the effect of perspective distortion is eliminated as much as possible.

See any member can simply take a print out and check it for himself.

Hmm, no a human head is not that wide: head dimensions
STGN