Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Damian]

Oh, so when independent research shows that beliefes of some individuals and official propaganda are wrong, then you need to attack these who shows you are wrong and your beliefes are false? How mature!

 

[Dixit13]

LurkerBaba. .....can you have lil more courtesy to explain why have you deleted my last comment???

 

[ersakthivel]

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.

Trolling is keeping quite when inconvenient points countering your view are raised and suddenly surfacing when you think you have found out something to counter.

See average measurement on chinese heads has no place in a military thread, Chinese are traditionally smaller, shorter than Indians,

And also even among the chines , men who are fit enough enter military service will measure far higher than the average population,

Considering the average Indians are taller and stouter than chinese, and Indians fit enough to enter military service will measure more,

Also since head is a spherical object effects of angles on perspective distortion is minimum , contrasting it with a titled turret front plane which will give significantly lower dimension than the actual length.

this is not the only way of measurement I posted , I posted many ways of measuring in this thread and the ARJUnvs T-90 thread, for which neither you nor any of other members advocating 2.75 meter turret width has responded.

You have not tried to question their so called unscientific "PIXEL MEASUREMENT", with out taking into consideration the perspective distortion and different depths of measuring planes from the observer shows what is your motive.

So if you don't have any measurement technique to offer don't feed the troll.

if you have any doubts on turret width read my post no-4071 below and get them cleared.

 

[ersakthivel]

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

Hmmmmmmmmmmm,

The vertical hatch cover measure about 27 mm on my screen in the photo on post -4067,

It's width must be atleast 580 mm, because the crew hatch alone measures around 500 mm as per my estimate and widely accepted here in the ARJUn vs T-90 thread.

[

If you say the crew hatch cover measures only 400 mm , you will be trapped by your own statement in the perspective estimate based on the picture above.

So againthis will give the same scale of 1:20.7.

Even if you don't factor the close to 3 meter depth the crew hatch cover plane is from the driver head,resulting in apparent visual reduction due to perspective distortion (in reality it means a higher scale.)

 

[ersakthivel]

Oh, so when independent research shows that beliefes of some individuals and official propaganda are wrong, then you need to attack these who shows you are wrong and your beliefes are false? How mature!

Since you yourself has admitted you don't know anything about perspective drawing and visual reduction of dimensions due to different depth of measuring planes from the observer, I don't see it fit to debate this topic further with you.

if you have any doubts on turret width ,
and any sincere wish to get them clarified
please read my post no-4071 right above and get them cleared.

or you can raise any of my mistakes in the post above,

and debate in a mature manner without personal abuse,

You don't have to be THE MATURITY INSPECTOR of anyone here.

You are not getting paid to do the job of THE MATURITY INSPECTOR

 

[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.

please show me proof that the turret is not symmetrical around CL. The drawing above was used by DEJAWOLF to generate his 3D image using 3d max. AFAIK there is no asymmetry of turret around 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

please show proof for the asymmetry of turret around centerline.

 

[methos]

See average measurement on chinese heads has no place in a military thread, Chinese are traditionally smaller, shorter than Indians,

And also even among the chines , men who are fit enough enter military service will measure far higher than the average population,

Considering the average Indians are taller and stouter than chinese, and Indians fit enough to enter military service will measure more,

"I don't want to admit that I was wrong so I simply try to distract the discussion". I provided you data for the average head size of Chinese and Americans. Important is that the average Indian is not taller than the average Chinese, while the average American is taller than the average Indian. I am from a country with an even greater average height, and nobody here has a 20 cm wide head.
That means you again say completely nothing in a whole post and just randomly troll.

this is not the only way of measurement I posted , I posted many ways of measuring in this thread and the ARJUnvs T-90 thread, for which neither you nor any of other members advocating 2.75 meter turret width has responded.

You did not post a single valid way to measure the distance. You simply said "the head is 200 mm, so the turret is x mm" or "the hatch is 550 mm, so the turret is x mm" - that is not measuring. I only response seldomly because I don't have much patience with trolls.

You have not tried to question their so called unscientific "PIXEL MEASUREMENT", with out taking into consideration the perspective distortion and different depths of measuring planes from the observer shows what is your motive.

The pixel measurment has been done on various different image with different angles of view (inlcuding scale drawings without any perspective distortion). Dejawolf also provided an example how much perspective distortion is influencing measurment.
What is however much more important is that the pixel measurement is based on scaling the size of the turret from a known dimension (like the hull width which has been given by DRDO). You "measure" things by choosing a random part of the image which size is unknown (like the hatch or the head of the driver) and then you choose an incredibly large value to manipulate the calculations for reaching to high values.

 

[STGN]

please show proof for the asymmetry of turret around centerline.

STGN

 

[Abhi9]

Discovery channel Episode on ARJUN MBT

 

[sayareakd]

Discovery channel Episode on ARJUN MBT

hope this video will settle few controversies here. :thumb:

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Discovery channel Episode on ARJUN MBT

Waited for long time..

 

[ersakthivel]

"I don't want to admit that I was wrong so I simply try to distract the discussion". I provided you data for the average head size of Chinese and Americans. Important is that the average Indian is not taller than the average Chinese, while the average American is taller than the average Indian. I am from a country with an even greater average height, and nobody here has a 20 cm wide head.
That means you again say completely nothing in a whole post and just randomly troll.




You did not post a single valid way to measure the distance. You simply said "the head is 200 mm, so the turret is x mm" or "the hatch is 550 mm, so the turret is x mm" - that is not measuring. I only response seldomly because I don't have much patience with trolls.




The pixel measurment has been done on various different image with different angles of view (inlcuding scale drawings without any perspective distortion). Dejawolf also provided an example how much perspective distortion is influencing measurment.
What is however much more important is that the pixel measurement is based on scaling the size of the turret from a known dimension (like the hull width which has been given by DRDO). You "measure" things by choosing a random part of the image which size is unknown (like the hatch or the head of the driver) and then you choose an incredibly large value to manipulate the calculations for reaching to high values.

The only problem with this technique is the DRDO's hull size on production drawing,
where the tank is right angles to the viewer,
is being used on PERSPECTIVE DRAWING type photographs,
for comparing other objects that are more than 3 meters away from the frontal hull,
with scant regard for the angle of the planes and perspective reduction of visual measurement due to different depth of planes.



the reason for you to keep quiet through out this measurement debate until now and intervening right now is quite clear to me.

Well , lets stop our great discovery of who is a troll here and get to the substance of the matter, as I have known the technique of calling the other guy as a troll to silence the other guy , is prevalent all over the net.

trolls are the guys who push their own view without any scientific or technical basis for their view, What I did was to try a universally accepted scaling technique that can be verified by any member in this forum by simply taking print out of the ARJUN tank photo and measure it themselves.

It is tiresome, but let me repeat that the average size of the head of adult man has no place in a discussion on military,
as "one of the arjun has no armor worth the name on the side" proponent ,
has himself posted that he has a head that measures 250 mm on the ARJUN vs T-90 thread.

Any way if you guys don't agree on head measurement, then answer what is the width of the crew hatch cover ? and do the comparision once again.

I didn't measure things choosing by random,I selected them based on their known length in reality for comparing with unknown length,which is a standard practice in trying to find out an unknown length.

See, if we use a measurement technique, it should be verifiable by all, and it should have been an acceptable basis that can be verified by all,

pixel measurement with one's own THEORY of factoring in perspective distortion allowance fails this test,DEJAWOLF said he developed the 3D model based on a drawing of ARJUN top view, when I raised a few queries he is keeping silent.

It was you with the company of some polish guys here who put the TANK-EX drawing as ARJUN drawing and posting in forums all over the net that ARJUN follows the non existent turret side armor placement of Russain MBT philosophy and it has no side protection.

SO when I probe all you guys deeper , what I and everyone here is finding out is that the so called "ARJUN has no side armor protection guys" have in fact no data on any specs on ARJUN and simply trolling all over the net, which is something I know from the outset.That's why you won't answer my question regarding hatch cover.



So what is the size of the crew hatch cover in other tanks? And what is the crew hatch cover size of ARJUN MBT?

 

[Damian]

hope this video will settle few controversies here. :thumb:

Indeed, image is worth more than thousands words, and I am happy that this video proves many of points made by me, Methos, STGN or Dejawolf... pity that they didn't show more of the welding process though.

 

[ersakthivel]

STGN

note the turret is tilted not facing straight on.that's the reason for this kind of pixel measurement inaccuracies.

use the center point on the gun mantle plate , not the bore of the gun,

from my measurement the total turret length was 12.8 mm and the centerpoint of the gun on the base mantle plate is at 64 mm , so no asymmetry AFAIK.

What is the width of hatch cover based on the size of the man standing in the crew hole ? BOTH HIS SHOULDERS ARE EDGE TO EDGE WITH CREW HATCH. minimum 550 mm is my estimate. WHAT IS YOURS?. That will settle most issue here.

Measurement on my screen is 16 mm for crew hatch cover and 96 mm for frontal turret width.

The ratio of crew hatch cover to the turret width is 1/6.

So if we give 550 mm for crew hatch cover the turret width automatically comes to 3200 mm,

 

[ersakthivel]

indeed, image is worth more than thousands words, and i am happy that this video proves many of points made by me, methos, stgn or dejawolf... Pity that they didn't show more of the welding process though.

proved what?

See the map of rajasthan on the film ,it comprises almost 70 percent of the INDo-PAK tankable border area, here foreign tanks packed up unable to withstand to heat and terrain in 1972 war,
So to avoid the repeat of that only ARJUN was developed, and it has proved itself to be desert ferrari.

Also the first GSQR was for 100 mm gun 40 ton tank , then for 115 mm, and then for 120 mm gun,

So actually the arjun tank's delay was the rapidly changing user requirements , not due to incompetence as legions of trolls here are bluffing,

See the part about hydro pneumatic suspension and the specialized gyros that are the reason for the gun's accuracy, it proves it to be a world class tank with best armor protection .

The tank was developed to meet the battlefield conditions of future wars, your are comparing it with obsolete world war -two statistics to support the case for weaker armored , smaller turret geometry based protection, which was not the GSQR requirement for arjun.

So what is your complaint?

 

[Damian]

proved what?

Arguments about turret designs... seriously, you need explanations for even such obvious things?

See the part about hydro pneumatic suspension and the specialized gyros that are the reason for the gun's accuracy, it proves it to be a world class tank with best armor protection .

I know that children do not understand advertisement typical for such silly TV shows. This is what image is worth more than words, image is objective, gives possibility to make own conclusions.

You can masturbate yourself listening what these people talk there, for me and most people that have greater and deeper understanding of subject it is nothing special, what is said there, nothing new either, we had such solutions from even 1930's I suppose, French were first that were experimenting with gyrostabilization of sights and main weapon, Americans were first that fielded tanks with such stabilization, Soviets had stabilization for main sights in some of their pre WWII tanks with special trigger mechanism that fired gun when it was aligned with main sight.

So if for you it is some rocket science, for us it is nothing new and special.

The tank was developed to meet the battlefield conditions of future wars, your are comparing it with obsolete world war -two statistics to support the case for weaker armored , smaller turret geometry based protection, which was not the GSQR requirement for arjun.

Yeah, you can say that the most advanced and most experienced armies around the world like US Army, Russian Army, whole NATO and ex Warsaw Pact are just bunch of idiots, but you know what, I take their experiences and knowledge over your ridiculous posts, and you know what, I think that you do not deserve my time. Do not respond to this post, you are not welcome to discuss with me, as I do not tolerate trolls.

 

[sayareakd]

in the video i think they mention about 60 degree protection.

 

[Damian]

in the video i think they mention about 60 degree protection.

Yes, this proves that designers are aware of this tank designing principle, however for some reason turret is designed such way, it does not provide such protection completely for crew compartment and bustle. IMHO there was a good reason, and this reason is weight efficency of armor. If you look at the vehicle weight and where composite armor is placed and compare it with other modern MBT's, their weight and composite armor placement. Weight efficency of armor might be plausible answer to this problem.

I doubt that these people that developed Arjun are idiots, so they just choose trade off, good protection for purely front armor and lower protection for complete frontal 60 degrees. It is reasonable explanation. Of course someone might sit at this problem and think using constructive criticism, or can be unreasonable fanboy who believe more in slogans than even in his own mind and constructive criticism ability, it is a choice, everyone needs to make.

I actually write my bachelors work, and I can say allready that such tradeoffs and sacrifices might be sometimes the only way to move forward in military programs, especially for nations that are building their scientific and industrial base from scratch, and this is nothing to be shame of, but it is good to be aware of own limitations, be critical, and do not let to be overoptimistic, it is a bad thing that leads to arrogance and fatal mistakes.

 

[sayareakd]

in a years time i will get some answers since the designers are their to answer questions, but it is quite difficult to get answer now a days.

 

[Damian]

I do not think that weight efficency issues should be classified issue at all. As it does not say anything about more important characteristics of armor protection.