Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Damian]

Loader Place >>

^^ Note the Independent Isolated pressurized tubes with pressure meter above ( Was not seen in previous pictures )

Still I am not enthusiast of such containers. Israelis use similiar solution and it won't help in case of direct hit in to ammunition magazine, it can however provide some protection against spall and some hot fragments in case of crew compartment penetration.

Merkava Mk2B after direct hit in to ammunition containers, similiar to thouse used in Arjun.

I need to ask, such containers are used to maintain vehicle costs lower and to not make vehicle more complex, because sliding armored doors for completely isolated ammunition compartment requires additional electrohydraulic or electric drive and space for doors to move as well as special racks, while such containers as less safe are definetely cheaper, simpler and save space.

Arjun ammunition containers however, should provide enough protection from fire, at least giving crew enough time to bail out, in times of war as well as in peace time, as far as I know, caseless ammunition used today, tends to be dangerous for crew in case of some accident types or inproper handling inside of turret.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Its not the same for Arjun MK1, Its not because of lower cost or complexity but the Requirement was given at later stage of final development or the needed tech was not there back in those days..

Though MK2 will have isolated ammunition compartment as per Requirement Specified ..

I need to ask, such containers are used to maintain vehicle costs lower and to not make vehicle more complex,

 

[Damian]

Well hopefully prototypes in near ready to mass production configuration will be shown soon.

 

[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, where do you place the center point of the mantle exactly? and please argue why the bore is not going through the center line of the tank.

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. you need to use Photoshop to show where you are measuring because I don't know where you are getting your numbers from cause when I measure the center is on the right side of the turret(from tank's point of view)

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. Sure... and his head is 20cm wide right? does India only have freakish large bodybuilding tank crew members? his shoulders is not near edge to edge look again at the picture. Anyway I don't have an estimate set in stone at the moment to give you I have to check out a few things first.

Measurement on my screen is 16 mm for crew hatch cover and 96 mm for frontal turret width. Before you start using photoshop pixel measurement we can't talk about this at a level playing field
The ratio of crew hatch cover to the turret width is 1/6. Oh this is just great, mister accusing others of not thinking about perspective, what happened to taking distance and perspective into consideration? You know the hatch would be larger in relation to the turret front...

So if we give 550 mm for crew hatch cover the turret width automatically comes to 3200 mm, ... so this is BS. And when you say its 3200 then what is it you think is inaccurate is it the relation(1/6) or is it the hatch width(550mm) because 6x550 is 3300 not 3200?

Let me try and cut it out in neon for you in the top picture the turret is tilted relative to the camera yet both sides measure the same if they where the same length the right(relative to the tank) side of the turret would be shorter due to the perspective. ergo the right side is the longest side and the turret is not symmetrical in width around the CL. As we can plainly see in the picture below the left side is shorter than the right side. Even if the turret is tilted ever so slightly towards the right. This is prof that the turret is not symmetrical. Unfortunately for me I think the only way I can convince you would be to go to a arjun tank and do the measurements with you, and even then I guess you would complain that we didn't know if the measuring tape was accurate enough.
Its kinda funny in a tragic way, this is almost like talking about colour to a colour-blind person. There is no way I could ever explain the color red to a person who can't see it. Luckily for you, you are not blind


STGN

 

[STGN]

this image says pixel measuring gurus who put vision block in front of Tc,

to justify their LOS armor thickness of 450 mm behind the main sights are frauds of the first order.

in reality as i rightly pointed out the vision blocks(or the red scribbled box ) are infront of the gunner and not in front of the Tc,

and there is no way to estimate the frontal armor LOS behind the main sight by simply interpreting a picture wrongly.

How can the vision block be in front of the gunner and not also in front of the commander? Are we back to the "gunner sits in the middle behind the mantel" argument again? In your post #4089 we can clearly see that the gunner sits in front of the commander.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

How can the vision block be in front of the gunner and not also in front of the commander? Are we back to the "gunner sits in the middle behind the mantel" argument again? In your post #4089 we can clearly see that the gunner sits in front of the commander.
STGN

see the red scribled box that was called as vision block(yellow box in front of the gunner) by deja wolf and purported to be in front of the Tc is in front of the driver in reality.

 

[ersakthivel]

How can the vision block be in front of the gunner and not also in front of the commander? Are we back to the "gunner sits in the middle behind the mantel" argument again? In your post #4089 we can clearly see that the gunner sits in front of the commander.
STGN

See the purple lines indicate visual reduction of hull width as we move along the hull's surface length .

The two red lines bordering the frontal side skirts shows how the outer edges of the hull appears to be visually receding in perspective view in the same way as the two rails of railway line.

So we project them farther down the hull following their inclination on the front.

The two red lines drawn across the hull denotes the width of the turret and ,hull at the same cross sectional plane , that can be appropriately compared for dimension.

The bigger red line bordering the turret's bottom edge is 1.275 times bigger than the smaller red line on the turret's perpendicular plane.

Since the length enclosed by the bigger red line is known to us as 3840 mm(provided the partial frontal side skirts are included in the length),

We can estimate the width of the turret by 3840/1.275=3011 mm approx.

Since we take the two lines almost on the same cross sectional perpendicular cutting plane for comparision the effect of perspective distortion is minimal here.

So by any measure of proportional calculation based on photograph or drawing the turret measures more than 3 meters in width is my estimate.

In the same way if we measure the distance between the outer edges of the left and rigth crew hatch covers,

and compare it to the turret width we get a ratio of 1.66,

That means 3011/1.66=1813 mm is the distance between the two outer most edges of the left and right crew hatches,

So 3011-1813=1200 mm space is free for composite armor placement on both sides,

1200mm/2=600 mm is the space available for composite armor on each side.

So even if we give a 200 mm elbow width besides the Tc's chair we get 600-200=400 mm for armor placement,

It is fair to assume that this 400 mm space is used for composite armor placement in front of the Tc's seat , because the first storage box was replaced by armor block from 2008 on ARJUN mk-1 production model.

After the Tc's seat the turret inner wall curves inside, so it can offset the shortage of space created by the storage boxes after the Tc's seat.


This measurement can be verified by every member using his own computers, and members can also post their estimate
if they wish.
AFAIK it is the end of my arguments regarding the calculation of side turret armor space available on ARJUn turret,

How much of this space is utilized for armor placement is something we cannot guess.

 

[ersakthivel]

this picture is further proof that enough space for armor is provided behind the main sight infront of the Tc.

The black handle is held by the commander in the following picture.

We can clearly see how the picture below was used to miscalculate the LOS thickness of armor behind the main sight.

the picture above calculates the LOs thickness for armor behind the main sight based on the lie that the yellow(scribled red box)box is directly infront of the TC

The reality is depicted in the following picture which places the yellow box (the scribbled red box) is actually in front of the gunner .

the truth is the white box (the first w in www.starts on the box) is the place where the inner turret armor mounting wall starts in my estimate,which means substantial frontal armor behind the frontal gunner's main sight cutaway.

 

[ersakthivel]

Scale measurements using pixels have been done on multiple images, where sometimes the angle of the hull and the turret towards the camera is the same. They also sometimes did measure the hull size in the same plane as the turret (like STGN did).


Because I do not post often nor regularily in this forum. I don't check it everyday and I don't think that replying to post older than a few days makes sense. You are making references out of context to the "Arjun vs T90 MBT" where I said everything necessary to understand my absence in this discussion, it just happened that the forum admins of this forum don't seem to allow me using the f-word as adverb, while many other members use it ad hominem. If you checked the mentioned thread prior the admins deleted my post, you would know why I don't post there.

I will personally recommend to the MODs that you alone should be granted the privilege of using f word in the forum,

You don't use an "universally accepted scaling technique" - many people here, including me, have shown you the limitations and faults of your technique. Since you only restrain your posts on this wrong technique this makes you by your definition an troll.

Respected non troll like you can explain the drawing below and exhibit their universally accepted drawing measurement skills.

An important thing in disscussions which you seem to loose quite often, is the context. He didn't post that his face (the head seen from the front) is 250 mm; the human head is not shaped like a cylinder! It is longer than it's wide, unless you are a freaky mutant.

what is inside the brain , is it deceit or quest for fair debate is what matters more than who has a mutant head.

Maybe you should take a look at real values from other tanks to estimate the diameter of the crew hatches, instead of randomly inventing values.
In case of the M1 Abrams the commander's hatch has a diameter of 17 inches (432 mm), while the loader's hatch has an diameter of 19 inches (483 mm)! The average American is taller and wider than the average Indian, so why should the Arjun have 550 mm large hatches?

lets say average indian is smaller than the American and fix a lower hatch width of just 400 mm in place of 0.5 m written dimension on the drawing..
Now you can use this 400 mm hatch width on the drawing below and calculate the turret width.

So 3/4 th of 400 mm is 300 mm space on each side of the hull besides the turret(the blue line with the 0.5 m notification besides it now measures 0.4 m as per your wish ),

3540 mm is track width, assuming 100 mm for side skirts width on track it comes to 3640 mm width on the hull besides the crew hatch(exact place where the projection of crew hatch is made).

So 3640 mm-(2x300 mm=600 mm)=3040 mm of hull width if we go by your calculation.
lets see who is a troll and who is not following universally accepted principles of measurements on drawing.

 

[STGN]

lets say average indian is smaller than the American and fix a lower hatch width of just 400 mm in place of 0.5 m written dimension on the drawing..
Now you can use this 400 mm hatch width on the drawing below and calculate the turret width.

So 3/4 th of 400 mm is 300 mm space on each side of the hull besides the turret(the blue line with the 0.5 m notification besides it now measures 0.4 m as per your wish ),

3540 mm is track width, assuming 100 mm for side skirts width on track it comes to 3640 mm width on the hull besides the crew hatch(exact place where the projection of crew hatch is made).

So 3640 mm-(2x300 mm=600 mm)=3040 mm of hull width if we go by your calculation.
lets see who is a troll and who is not following universally accepted principles of measurements on drawing.

Heres the most recent picture not the first one.

 

[STGN]

See the purple lines indicate visual reduction of hull width as we move along the hull's surface length .

The two red lines bordering the frontal side skirts shows how the outer edges of the hull appears to be visually receding in perspective view in the same way as the two rails of railway line.

So we project them farther down the hull following their inclination on the front.

The two red lines drawn across the hull denotes the width of the turret and ,hull at the same cross sectional plane , that can be appropriately compared for dimension.

The bigger red line bordering the turret's bottom edge is 1.275 times bigger than the smaller red line on the turret's perpendicular plane.

Since the length enclosed by the bigger red line is known to us as 3840 mm(provided the partial frontal side skirts are included in the length),

We can estimate the width of the turret by 3840/1.275=3011 mm approx.

Since we take the two lines almost on the same cross sectional perpendicular cutting plane for comparision the effect of perspective distortion is minimal here.

So by any measure of proportional calculation based on photograph or drawing the turret measures more than 3 meters in width is my estimate.

In the same way if we measure the distance between the outer edges of the left and rigth crew hatch covers,

and compare it to the turret width we get a ratio of 1.66,

That means 3011/1.66=1813 mm is the distance between the two outer most edges of the left and right crew hatches,

So 3011-1813=1200 mm space is free for composite armor placement on both sides,

1200mm/2=600 mm is the space available for composite armor on each side.

So even if we give a 200 mm elbow width besides the Tc's chair we get 600-200=400 mm for armor placement,

It is fair to assume that this 400 mm space is used for composite armor placement in front of the Tc's seat , because the first storage box was replaced by armor block from 2008 on ARJUN mk-1 production model.

http://dejawolf.com/indiadefense/gnrcmd.jpg


After the Tc's seat the turret inner wall curves inside, so it can offset the shortage of space created by the storage boxes after the Tc's seat.


This measurement can be verified by every member using his own computers, and members can also post their estimate
if they wish.
AFAIK it is the end of my arguments regarding the calculation of side turret armor space available on ARJUn turret,

How much of this space is utilized for armor placement is something we cannot guess.

Okay here is why you are wrong in you turret measurement: The problem is that you put the line at the bottom edge of the armor cavities. This is wrong because the armor cavities are not at the same height as the hull armor side skirt upper edge which where we get the armor so you are not taking perspective into account and you are making the turret wider in relation to the hull than it is. Heres a photo to illustrate the problem:

thats why I get these numbers and not anywhere near 3m:

STGN

 

[methos]

this picture is further proof that enough space for armor is provided behind the main sight infront of the Tc.

the picture above calculates the LOs thickness for armor behind the main sight based on the lie that the yellow(scribled red box)box is directly infront of the TC

Actually we can see the gunner is not sitting below an armour block like he does in case of the Leopard 2 and this also validates Dejawolfs and militarysta's claims. This means that there is less place for composite armour behind the GPS than in other tanks (Leclerc, Leopard 2, M1 Abrams).

The yellow box is infront of the TC.

lets say average indian is smaller than the American and fix a lower hatch width of just 400 mm in place of 0.5 m written dimension on the drawing..
Now you can use this 400 mm hatch width on the drawing below and calculate the turret width.

Your image got deleted and thus it is completely impossible to comment on it. But as shown by Dejawolf, militarysta and STGN the distance between turret side and hull side is not 300 mm.

 

[STGN]

Your image got deleted and thus it is completely impossible to comment on it. But as shown by Dejawolf, militarysta and STGN the distance between turret side and hull side is not 300 mm.

The picture was mine and I deleted it because it was old and contained lines that could be misunderstood the picture in #4117 is the same except those lines have been removed to avoid confusion.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

Okay here is why you are wrong in you turret measurement: The problem is that you put the line at the bottom edge of the armor cavities. This is wrong because the armor cavities are not at the same height as the hull armor side skirt upper edge which where we get the armor so you are not taking perspective into account and you are making the turret wider in relation to the hull than it is. Heres a photo to illustrate the problem:

thats why I get these numbers and not anywhere near 3m:

STGN

The angle of your illustrations are ten times higher than the angles on the photo,
because in the photo the camera position is far higher and the so called distortion by you is negligible,
In your illustration the eye position is far lower than the camera.

SO your explanations are not needed to the topic in debate,

My illustration is correct as it is normal practice to take measurements on planes as close as possible.

If you have any doubt ask real drawing and design professionals, this matter is not as complicated as it seems,

since the camera is well above the tank the difference is minimal or negligible.

You are yet to answer my question about what is the width of the crew hatch cover in any way of measurement.

 

[ersakthivel]

Actually we can see the gunner is not sitting below an armour block like he does in case of the Leopard 2 and this also validates Dejawolfs and militarysta's claims. This means that there is less place for composite armour behind the GPS than in other tanks (Leclerc, Leopard 2, M1 Abrams).

The yellow box is infront of the TC.




Your image got deleted and thus it is completely impossible to comment on it. But as shown by Dejawolf, militarysta and STGN the distance between turret side and hull side is not 300 mm.

I asked your explanation of the drawing ,not your certificate for deja wolf or stgn these guys can discuss stuff with me without your certificate,

And the whole forum can view the discussion and make their own judgement,

if you are unable to offer any explanation you can keep quiet for another fortnight as you did before.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

i had the previledge to view the arjun tank from very close range early january when it was showcased in salt lake stadium kolkata as part of drdo's acheivement during indian science congress held between january 2-5.all i can say is that turret of arjun measures about 3.2m even though some foreign members think it is not more than 2.86m based of calculation from pictures which is not accurate since such measurement from pictures can only give approximate measurement and is dependent on how close the picture is taken and angle of observer with respect to the object.

 

[venkat]

Thanks shuvo for settling the dispute once for all!!! no more darjee measurements please!!!

 

[Damian]

i had the previledge to view the arjun tank from very close range early january when it was showcased in salt lake stadium kolkata as part of drdo's acheivement during indian science congress held between january 2-5.all i can say is that turret of arjun measures about 3.2m even though some foreign members think it is not more than 2.86m based of calculation from pictures which is not accurate since such measurement from pictures can only give approximate measurement and is dependent on how close the picture is taken and angle of observer with respect to the object.

But of course nobody have any hard scientific proof like a damn simple photo of meassurements on vehicle. We have only empty claims. I take meassurements made by Dejawolf or STGN as more reliable untill someone won't give a hard proof of that 3,2m, which is ridiculous width in it's own way.

I also do not understand why people mostly believe in a fanboy style claims, instead of scientific research, even if baised on photographs meassurements, still more reliable than empty claims.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It is a fact that width is + 3 meters, No one is allowed to take a tape and measure, I did with my hand..

Photos are secondary proof compare to People with first hand experience of measurement, No one here will come to you with tape and photo to prove his point ..

===================================

Continue discussion ..

 

[Damian]

It is a fact that width is + 3 meters, No one is allowed to take a tape and measure, I did with my hand..

Wait a second, you want to say that you meassured it with your hand not with meassuring tape? Seriously? :shocked:

Photos are secondary proof compare to People with first hand experience of measurement, No one here will come to you with tape and photo to prove his point ..

Sorry, but claims without any sort of proof are only claims, it is not a proof.

I also can say hey I have a first hand experience with building rockets, you do not need any proof because what I say is absolute truth!

Again, seriously?

Not to mention that this restrictions are ridiculous, are not meassuring armor thickness but just a vehicle width, so what's next, vehicle dimensions are also top secret?

Serious this is for Western scientific research methodology just unacceptable, and is also ridiculous to make such things top secret.