Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[ersakthivel]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



DRDO width - 3864mm

red line 256px - 3864mm
190px - 2867mm (2,86m)
158px - 2384mm (2,38m)
20px - 301mm (30cm...)
24px - 362mm (36cm)
44px - 664mm (64cm)
55px (thickest option) - ~830mm (80-84cm)

Measurement on draw, on original book draw we have scale 1:72. I had measure this and give values here.
IMHO it's closing this debate about Arjun turret -we have draw, we have official Arjun width, we can rescale whole draw. Until better draw will be avaiable values are more or less like post above.

I think all your pix measurements are wrong. Please read my above postnumber-4203 in conjunction with this post.

So further checking your drawing the turret width is 5.6 times the hatch cover dia in your drawing. SO 5.6 x525 mm=2940 mm is arrived at for turret width .I have included the storage boxes in the turret width measurement.

My measurement can be checked by any body who can take a print out of the drawing.

Further your above drawing is simply not very accurate to scale is my estimate,



Also If we apply 525 mm as a hatch cover width in any photograph based measurement the turret width easily comes to 3140 mm. SO KUNAL's observation that ARJUN turret width is 3 plus meters is right and your dimension less scaled drawing is wrong. it may be a bit inaccurate schema sketch is my guess.

Because in all scaled drawing it is a common practice to mark dimensions legibly and conclusively so that any one can simply read the value.That is the basic reason why people make scale drawing. If one has to take a scale and measure lengths and multiply by 1:72 scale what is the purpose of a legitimate scaled drawing?

During my bachelor's in mech eng times if i submitted such a dimension less drawing for any exam I would only get a big dressing down from the professor..

If you have any doubt ask any eng student regarding this. SO in all probability your drawing is a rough schema , so don't set great store by it.

It is simply wrong, if you compare with any photographic measurements and the measurements from people who have been in ARJUn Tank.

Also Methos estimate of 147 mm for face width is simply wrong for indian males. My own head measures 195 mm including ears.

And please don't post disparaging smileys in a series debate. I did ask only for your so called source, not smileys.

My own head measures 195 mm including ears. So if we exclude ears it may come about 175 mm around.
So 175x3=525 mm is the crew hatch cover width.
See the above photo the ratio of turret width to crew hatch is exacatly 6.

see the edges of the turret sides, they are almost parallel with negligible reduction in width(just 6 mm) from the point of turret front to crew hole depth, meaning the camera is almost on the same plane as the turret top.


So 525 x6=3150 mm straight away as the turret width, No need for any pixel measurement.

 

[Twinblade]

There is not even a single credible source mentioning this, I have probably all credible high quality books about M1 with Richard Hunnicutt book at the top of this, in none of them such trails are mentioned.

Hello Damian,

Brian Cloughley, a long time defence analyst for Reuters claims so in his book.
A History Of The Pakistan Army: Wars And Insurrections Second Edition With A ... - Brian Cloughley - Google Books

Regards.

 

[ersakthivel]

I took these values from an official report. With hatch I only mean the "hole" inside the roof, not the vision blocks, the steel ring for the MG mount, etc. There is another mentioning of the diameters in what appears to be an official report from GD to the U.S. DOD where the value of 22 inches for the loader's hatch is given, but this apparently includes the vision blocks, etc. (judging by the other source and scale drawings). The value for the commander's hatch (were only a cuppola was placed on early M1, no steel rings or vision blocks) is the same (17 inches) in both. 19 inches is 482 mm btw.




Please just stop measuring the screen with a ruler. This is far less accurate than measuring the pixels.




This again illustrates only how limited your "screen measurings" are. You are claiming that the perspective would lead to an error of 20%. Measure the pixels instead of measuring your screen with a very inaccurate ruler and the difference is less than 13%.
Btw: The driver is closer to the turret front than the commander or the loader! Just look at the tank from above, the driver's hatch is just located closer than 1 hatch diamter (~45 cm) in front of the turret. The commander's hatch or the loader's hatch are about ~2.5 hatch diameters away from the turret front. So the driver's face is less affected from pespective distortion than the faces of commander or loader.




It is not the correct measurement. It is less accurate than the previously done by you and even less accurate than the measurements done by dejawolf or others. You are intentionally taken the faces of loader and commander - which are much more affected by perspective than the face of the driver - in order to manipulate your measurements to get the onyl value you are willing to accept.

Not to derail the thread but I am pretty certain the loaders hatch on the Abrams is way bigger than 45cm its more like ~62cm diameter and that is not counting the weld on, on newer versions. Anyway I now know that the dimensions given in that picture is off by a few cm's at least, I was already iffy about it when I made it because it uses a shadow to determine turret width and I tried to correct the height of the non armoured skirts which was a weak method to go about it, now I think I have found a better way. Crew hatch is probable closer to 55cm than 50cm. But I need some free time to sit around and work on some different photos to get closer to accurate numbers and RL is busy. STGN

Your friend STGN whose drawings you approve now says that crew hatch width is close to 550 mm in his post number-4158, what is your opinion on average indian head size now?

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes, but your scale measurement is very inaccurate. You apparently do not enlarge the image in any way and come only to a difference of 20%, because you use your smallest possible measurment unit to measure something smaller (mm).
If you used a smaller measuring unit (or alternatively enlarge the image before using a ruler), the result would be different. As I said previously, the difference is only 13% if you measure it correctly.



Instead of writing numerous posts in essentially no time which results in your replies having nearly no connection to the posts you answer, you should try to read and comprehend the post to which you reply. Take some time to think about what has been written and also take some time to properly format your text.
What I said is that the driver's face is only one hatch length away from the turret front. The commander's and loader's hatches (and therefore their faces) are about ~2.5 times the hatch diameter away from the turret front. Thus basing the turret's width on the commander's face is stupid, because the perspective distortion is more than twice as much as the perspective distortion from the driver's face to the turret front.




As I already said previously, your "20 percent" figure is a result of your faulty measuring (lack of measurement accuracy).




I never said that there isn't any perspective distortion. But this clearly shows your "complete lack of" reading comprehension.
Distance from driver to turret front = about one hatch diameter
Distance from commander to to turret front = about 2.5 hatch diameters

So, guess where is more pespective distortion? (Hint: From the turret front to the commander's face!).

So please stop giving any figure for ARJUN turret width in future as it is clear now that you don't know even what is the hatch width, or can't simply understand a scaling technique on two perpendicular planes . The faces of the driver and the commander and the crew hatch cover and turret frontal plate are situated in 4 perpendicular planes. not in any angled plane to apply perspective distortion technique.

The first set of planes

The face of the crew man standing and crew cover are situated on two very close perpendicular planes at right angles to the camera,

The second set of planes
The face of the driver and the turret front are situated in two perpendicular planes that are very close together and in right angles to the camera.


Only factoring to be done is the visual reduction of length(not real) ,because the distance between the first set of planes and the second set of planes is close to 3 meters.

So objects in the first set of planes appear 20 percent smaller due to the depth from camera , SO if we use a length from that plane to compare a length on the second set of planes , we have to simply scale them up by 20 percent is my argument.

It is quite simply a scaling technique that's all.

 

[ersakthivel]

For somebody as incapable of judging distance and perspective as you this is so rich I am surprised anybody can swallow it. You are a strange person who can't admit that you are wrong and so has to go on this nonsense trolling campaign. It must be pretty clear to others that you have made so many different contradicting arguments that you are the inception of contradicting arguments, a contradicting argument within a contradicting argument within a contradicting argument within ....... you logic is this: If hatch=550 then turret =3.2, If hatch=450 then turret=3.2, if head is 200 then turret=3.2, if head=150 then turret=3.2, if pizza is half eaten the turret=3.2 ,if glass is half full then turret=3.2, if STGN post on forum then turret=3.2 and on and on... are you going to cry personal abuse now, give it up we know you are just trolling.
STGN

I did that intentionally to trap some of you who are masquerading as drawing and defense professionals here,It has been already posted in ARJUn vs T-90 thread by that the crew hatch measures 530 mm to 550 mm many eons ago,

And that was what I used on my initial drawings,So it is not that that I don't know that.And I arrived at the turret width of more than 3 meters from those drawings.Then DEJAWOLF stopped disputing that.

Now I know bloody well you are not going to post any more drawing in this forum .

Since you guys ganged up and kept on saying it was a super luxury hole and 400 mm is correct , I for a moment accepted that to carry on the debate and get some concrete word from you people for the width of the crew hatch.



See if you have devoted the time and energy to write such a detailed play right style critique of my post ,

on applying measurement on any photo(since now you have posted that the crew hatch measures 550 mm), it would have been obvious to you what is the width of the turret.

Anyway I don't expect any more detailed drawing by you here , since it would only end up proving my line of argument,

I neither have any issues with you or your views , as they are simply fiction ,BYE.

 

[STGN]

The problem is that we don't know where to measure accurately because he is wearing tanker headgear, the photo is too low resolution and we don't know his face size exactly, and not to forget the small projective distortion so trying to scale the hatch via this method is highly inaccurate.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

The problem is that we don't know where to measure accurately because he is wearing tanker headgear, the photo is too low resolution and we don't know his face size exactly, and not to forget the small projective distortion so trying to scale the hatch via this method is highly inaccurate.
STGN

Since you are not a machine design professional with any education in engineering drawing or perspective drawing ,
and just a simple sissy butcher and chopper with photoshop you will never know that,

Try to get some formal education on production and perspective drawings before jumping in to a debate to defend a bunch of insomniac teens faking themselves as tank experts who post fake drawings like the one below on other tank forums not even knowing where their right hand is from their left hand.

If you do that they will simply leave you in abeyance like this.

It was my anger against this type of bull shit that dragged me into this whirlwind of a debate. I have got nothing personal against you.

And these DEFENSE PROFESSIONALS wont know the difference from a cartoon to perspective drawing to production drawing to simply save their live.

 

[STGN]

I did that intentionally to trap some of you who are masquerading as drawing and defense professionals here,It has been already posted in ARJUn vs T-90 thread by that the crew hatch measures 530 mm to 550 mm many eons ago,

And that was what I used on my initial drawings,So it is not that that I don't know that.And I arrived at the turret width of more than 3 meters from those drawings.Then DEJAWOLF stopped disputing that.

Now I know bloody well you are not going to post any more drawing in this forum .

Since you guys ganged up and kept on saying it was a super luxury hole and 400 mm is correct , I for a moment accepted that to carry on the debate and get some concrete word from you people for the width of the crew hatch.



See if you have devoted the time and energy to write such a detailed play right style critique of my post ,

on applying measurement on any photo(since now you have posted that the crew hatch measures 550 mm), it would have been obvious to you what is the width of the turret.

Anyway I don't expect any more detailed drawing by you here , since it would only end up proving my line of argument,

I neither have any issues with you or your views , as they are simply fiction ,BYE.

But you aint trapping us your are sawing of the branch that you are standing on because you get the same result with different numbers turret can't be 3.2m wide over the front with both 450 and 550 hatch width. Your method for scaling the turret front dosen't work because you always get the same result no matter the width of other parts.
And again you are lying to try and make us look bad nobody was saying anything about 400mm
STGN

 

[STGN]

Since you are not a machine design professional with any education in engineering drawing or perspective drawing ,
and just a simple sissy butcher and chopper with photoshop you will never know that,

Try to get some formal education on production and perspective drawings before jumping in to a debate to defend a bunch of insomniac teens faking themselves as tank experts who post fake drawings like the one below on other tank forums not even knowing where their right hand is from their left hand.

If you do that they will simply leave you in abeyance like this.

Yeah right mister: gunner sits in the middle behind the mantle, logic was never your strong side. You don't need a higher education to see your methods are highly inaccurate.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

But you aint trapping us your are sawing of the branch that you are standing on because you get the same result with different numbers turret can't be 3.2m wide over the front with both 450 and 550 hatch width. Your method for scaling the turret front dosen't work because you always get the same result no matter the width of other parts.
And again you are lying to try and make us look bad nobody was saying anything about 400mm
STGN

Well if you are a true pro then point out the mistake I did.Or ask your genius friends what I did as a mistake in that drawing , I will wait till you explain the mistake.

I clearly started off with the statement that for a change let me accept your view that hatch measures 450 mm.

If you are a true pro why don't you disprove my statements in post no-4207 with explanations.

 

[ersakthivel]

Yeah right mister: gunner sits in the middle behind the mantle, logic was never your strong side. You don't need a higher education to see your methods are highly inaccurate.
STGN

Just don't torture yourself too much , I simply reproduced a picture that was on the net, Still the gunner sits right behind the gap between the gun and the main sight is what I posted.

 

[militarysta]

Arjun know's that the current round on the Arjun is the one developed for it in the 1980's and was not developed further.

And still we have no single photo or draw better round then those posted here. Until Indian industry don't show new APFSDS whit longer L: D ratio then summary is one - India is still unabele to build even quite modern APFSDS for Arjun gun.

And the Indian round BTW, is being developed further go beyond the level achieved above.

In case you still cant comprehend, here it is. 120MM round , development stopped, pending orders for Arjun MK1 & series production. 125mm round ditto, pending Israeli TOT. DRDO develops 125mm further and comes up with the above which is dusted off and retrialled after IMI is blacklisted. Meanwhile Army asks for development restart and further improvement, ditto for Arjun after series production is cleared, comparative trials succeed and MK2 is ordered.

And still IA haven't even quite modern APFSDS ammo for 120 and 125mm guns. Max is Israeli clon od Cl Mk.2 and 3BM42. No single photo, no single draw, other draws. Models on some exibitions and in pess shows only obsolate ammo.

And spare us that rubbish about super duper Polish rounds with German tech please...Poland has a long way to go.

There is no super-duper Polish round, but both round developed in Poland in last decade are better then APFSDS ammo avaible now in India. In fact in Poland WITU developers are able to do smth. unpossible in India - create two smoothbore APFSDS rounds for 120 and 125mm guns whit bigger then 500-540mm RHA for 2000m. When Indian industry achive that level please come back and tell about ammo again.
The same in Poland WITU, FPS, and Mesko factories are working on composite sabot 125mm ammo, and segmented penetration penetrators. And again when finnaly indian industry will be able to do the same please come back and then start talking about APFSDS ammo and others.




ps. not even mentioned about quality...

For instance, the state of the stuff India has purchased from Poland, most of which has flopped, and has meant that even DPSUs don;t have the time of the day when Polish "collaborators" arrive with their gee whiz claims. ARVs - rubbish, electronics - unreliable and have to be reengineered, optics - ditto...list goes on & on... should I give details?

Yes You shoud give some details, becouse in most most you present only DRDO point of viev and don't mentioned second bottom of the problem - like in Drawa FCS example. BTW -as I know the Indian court decided the case for Drawa developers, and IA will buy Drawa for some pert of the tanks. But of course there is no coruption in India, and trade was free from any pression from IMI and part of DRDO. Pffff Drawa in India is much complitated stroy then you try to present.

 

[ersakthivel]

But you aint trapping us your are sawing of the branch that you are standing on because you get the same result with different numbers turret can't be 3.2m wide over the front with both 450 and 550 hatch width. Your method for scaling the turret front dosen't work because you always get the same result no matter the width of other parts.
And again you are lying to try and make us look bad nobody was saying anything about 400mm
STGN

If you have any doubts how rationally I argued you can read my post no-4058 and your reply in 4059,

My post no-4058,

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.

Your reply in -4059,

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

A measurement like that can never be disputed by any of the so called defense professionals , I know that for sure , It will give a minimum approx value for the turret width , which can never be disputed, the accurate width can only be measured by guys on the field, But IMHO it would be surely higher than this 3 meters width for turret.

We both said the same , didn't we?

, I said the hatch measures 500 mm plus even then. There will always be errors in this kind of measurements, No one can get an accurate measurement from these sort of measurements , So there is no use in dragging this on.

Then suddenly fake tank professionals jumped in with all kinds of face widths , which I didn't agree with initially and I played along for a while so that I have to get some statement on crew hatch width from them to use in arguments with them to disprove it.

SO when guys in the field like KUNAL say that ARJUN has 3 plus meters turret width we should decently agree and leave things at that.Because it agrees largely with the views above.

But other guys won't agree as their motives are very different than trying to find out a reasonably accepted measuring techniques,

Their primary motive is to prove the following bogus claim based on the fake drawing below, which they air freely in other forums on the net.

 

[STGN]

See these are your trolling ways you talk about crew hatch hole and 400mm, then suddenly you where actually talking about the side of the turret. I have shown you wrong so many times, because you are a troll its like "whack a mole" if I show you wrong in one place you suddenly forget all about it and pop your head up someplace else saying "uh oh disprove this" you can't be proven wrong by any acceptable standard because you are a troll and simply will never agree no matter what. Funny thing is that you are now trying to act smart saying "uh oh I was just playing you all" when what you have actually been doing is disproving your estimates because no matter the numbers you get 3.2 as the result. You just assume numbers that fit with your preconception of what the turret should be.
And now argument from authority we should just believe Kunal, just because. And this is only to delay, till you can cook up your next batch of wacky numbers.
STGN

 

[militarysta]

@Archer

As I said FRP/light alloy with dual rounds to a container..

But this shows that you haven't bigger idea how was stored ammo inMerkavas Mk.I and Mk.II, and what is diffrense betwen this and Mk.III and Mk.IV. Your argument was invaild.

Based on what, your expert opinion? Having conducted the relevant tests on it? Yeah right...

Don't be funny, it's really clearly visible on Arjun prototype photo:

indeed 3-4mm thick tube give a lot of protection...and whit uncover bottom round parts. Thos ammo rack was so bad that it was removed in later Arjun prototypes:

and this is mucht better.

And your doubt is worth a tuppence, I'm afraid..

Sure, no blow-out plates, not isolated bunker for ammo in turret, just tubes/conteiners for rounds. But for you its super-duper safe solution becouse beloved DRDO use it and Arjun have this solution. It's your problem not mine, propably you even havent idea how big is residual penetration for APFSDS and HEAT after armour (behind armour effect).

Which is why MTU/Renk and a whole bunch of other suppliers had issues and had to deal with constant challenges to ruggedize the Arjun in the Thar...so much so that problems were only resolved to IA satisfaction a few years back...

I really like your theory about super-duper Thar deser when all other tanks are crap but only beloved Arjun developed by DRDO is brillant. And for your story about MTU/Renk -I don't know if its true or not, that what I know – MB833 whit renk in Euro-powerpack went to Emirates in Lelcerc and in their deser there wasn't bigger problems. But of course only Indian desert is so bad, it's so uniqe that euro-powerpack or other MTU+Renk faild there when in Amirates desert circa ~400 Leclerc whit MB833 + renk haven't problem. The same about Chile desert – 116 old leo-2A4 whit serial MB873 and HSW and again – no biggest problem. But I know, I know -only India have sucht therrible deser and weather conditions that only Arjun can ceal with this. And all other tanks – even used in deser conditions haven't chanse there. Only Arjun. oh seriously?

And "old Leo" are used in Chile with no problem. Seriously, are you retarded? Do you think Chile is India? Does it have to operate buttoned up tanks in the heat of the day, with tank crews facing heatstroke and worse because of the nuke angle? When was the last time Chile conducted sustained armor ops?

Leopard-2 was developed for ABC warfare so where is your point? All european Leo-2 users where trained to fight on ABC battelfield so what the point?

BTW, has Poland even attempted something of the nature, apart from running around in Afghanistan, each time the Americans say run? Please..

Yes. Both israeli removed turrets: RCWS-30 and UTD faild during polish trials – both turrets where unable to work in minus 18 degree frozen. So both where rejected from trade for circa ~500-700 turrets system.
BTW; Leopard-2 (and M1) was tested in really hard evirnoment on servral continents so again – you theory about super-duper Thar deser is slighty funny.

Yeah, copy paste BS from Janes is supposed to be impressive. This jargon equipment that one, wink nod nudge. Impressive.

It's not from Janes -I just know and have detail about Leopard-2 FCS unable to find in interent press or others, so for me talk about "žtest" whole FCS in India in 1980's is bullshit. India can have test whit germany about EMES-13 or other solution for export like TAM-FCS and other tanks but not in case IIIgen MBT FCS (Leopard-2) not in 1980s. You just wrote fairy tails.

are to point out where I said the tank was trialled in India? I didn't.

it was obvious, but you are trying to fetch by talking how to poor gemans have problem whit FCS in this super-uniqe Indian condition and brave DRDO engeners help them and save program. And in your opinion it's argument that Leopard-2 can't be decribe as better then Arjun. When for me it's obious that those traials (even if their are real not in your fantasy) can't be conected whit Leopard-2 FCS. And definetly not in 1980s.

The M1 Abrams was flown to Pakistan, trialled and it flunked its firepower trials badly.

And this storry is the same stupid like M829A2 tests on T-90S or other funny stories living their own life in the interenet. There is no single evidence about M1 tests in Pakistan.

That is how much all these fancy toys from your beloved Germany or US or wherever are worth when deployed out of their country of origin and theater of original design.

And it's again shown that you haven't idea what looks Leo-2 and XM-1 tests in 1970s. And layter. In fact both tnaks where tested much more seriously then even Arjun was. On few continents in very diffrent conditions, during hundret thousands miles, etc. Leopard-2 was tested in Norway, Canada, USA (including deserts), of cource Germany, north africa (engines in Marrocco and others) and is sevral other points. The same M1. But no...only special developed Arjun by the most brainly DRDO engineers in those super-duper Thar deser evirnoments is able to fight. Rest tanks -even if their where tested in oher deserts, mouintaints, jungles, almoust on north pole -they are crap, becouse only India have this one uniqe deser, and those uniqe DRDO engineers. It shoud be obvious!
Nice story

Not just that...it will also be that Georgia does not practise Corps level exercises with running equipment for days on straight...with heat conditions that can reach 45 degrees celsius under the shade. Plus, if the tanks are deployed to Leh, expect them to operate in -10 degrees centigrade consistently. This is the sort of stuff that routinely kills foreign gear.
What matters then is product development and support..

In Leo-2 manuals there is simple answer about weather conditions. And tank was tested from -40 to +50 in sevral diffrent climates and countries -including deserts, mouintaints, jungles, north climate, and others. But again we have funny uniqe Indian desert theory.

Which is what I posted in reaction to the outright hubris of a militarysta claiming an Indian DCAS was stupid, when he was posting about the frank facts regarding the Arjun

It's not my foult -it harsh truth about indian Arjun program.

Of what intensity? What are their "hot climate and deserts? In India we routinely hit 40 degrees + in several places and -10 in others, both of which are active military zones and the first is where our Army has the max impact on Arm War because of no DCB,

And what is so uniqe in those conditions? It's ridiculous and it's again shown that You have no idea how tank traials during developed program looks in M1 and Leo-2 cases.

This is what I mean by book knowledge. Tested. These same tests were done on T-90 prior to induction, when deployed over months, years, the problems become apparent. The Arjun has been tested over ten years to minimize these same issues.

Don't put into one sak Leo-2 M1 and T-90 (in fact T-72). In fact in most aspect about quality and ability to use in heavy conditions Leo-2 and M1 are far better then T-72 clones. And it was proof many times...
BTW: Leopard-2 have no problem in Afganistan and Chile, and Singapour, but it will be not argument becouse those uniqe indian desert...

Send them to Indian and not European conditions and then see.

Again – those tanks where tested in sevreal conditions on sevral continents whit propably mucht more difficult conditions then Arjun was. Yours funny "žuniqe Indian conditions theory" is based on lack knowledges how teste cames (and where) in leo-2 and M1 cases.

Think about this. In the decade since we last worked with Poland, where both sides worked on passive/slotted array antenna's, India has moved completely to AESA. There are now 2 AESAs developed, both JVs, two local - 1 in service, 1 AWACs in development, four more in advanced development...
Can you point to how many operational AESAs Poland has?

Is indian industry able to build artilery radars? Like this:
http://www.bumar.com/elektronika/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/LIWIEC.pdf
No? Upsss...

Is indian industry able to build whole radar family? Like this:
Systemy radiolokacyjne | Bumar Elektronika
Partial definetly yes. Based mostly on foregin components...

Is indian industry able to developed this:
http://banqan.republika.pl/devices/devices_trc20.html

Or maybe Indian industry is abale to made radar on simmilar level to this?
http://banqan.republika.pl/devices/devices_trd1222.html
http://banqan.republika.pl/devices/devices_mmsr.htm
http://banqan.republika.pl/devices/devices_n12.htm

BTW -as I remember IA bought from Poland older ones radar based on this:
http://banqan.republika.pl/devices/devices_trs15.html

But about what we are talking – Indian industry is unable to devleoped and deliverd in to army even good future rifle and INSAS Rifle, program look like now.

Oh man...this is what I mean by the fact that you guys seriously need to look at operational context seriously... Desert is a desert, seriously? You think Iraq is the same as India? The sand is the same, the dunes are the same, the weather is the same, operational conditions are the same? You think one jungle is the same as any jungle? You think Indian soldiers who come out from IA High ALt/cold training can go out and operate in Canada against Inuit trackers, after all snow is snow right?

Of course not. But you made misteke when you assume that only Indian operational conditions are the whors and in other countries they are not so difficult conditions like in India. It's mistake, M1 and leo-2 where tested in other conditions but definetly very difficult too.

In India, equipment breaks because we use it harshly - we dont do simulators much, and our operational tempo is very high, in environments the US just doesnt care about - and the US is all about expeditionary train for all conditions warfare... And we dont have the money to replace it.

So it's not suprise that poor trening crews can boild even V46/ B84MS or V92S2 engine. When crew is poor trening and thery is lack of any bigger users's technical culture then indeed MTU and Renk can fail, or suspension can't hold MTBF time. But you shoud write it first, and not telling how to western equipment is wrong and Indian desert (and environments) uniqe. If IA nees primitive weapons then stay whit Ak-47 clones, T-72 clones, others. It's trening and users's technical culture problem not equipment.

First who exactly are you to deny anyone the right to be proud of any success? What have you done in your life? What have you achieved? In business, in academics, in anything?

Yes dude I have many resons to be proud for my life and sucess, and I done many good thinks in my life,so? In what way is conected whit topic? If you think Im teeneager -sorry unfortunatly Im not. I have my own house, familiy, good work, and making PHDs. Im happy men without any frustration and racism. What is funny in work Im working whit very advanced indian make systems and they are quite good for bisnes customers as low-cost options. And again – in what way it's conected whit topic?

 

[trackwhack]

@Archer. It would be stupid to try. Even defence companies have the largest budget block assigned to marketing, then research.

 

[militarysta]

I am very happy.

But the only problem is you can make nothing out of a drawing that does not have dimensions.
Such drawings are never accepted for any serious purpose,

IMHO avaible Arjun draws are very poor, and they cant be compare whit brilant fabric draw for T-90S or Ob.478Du10 (Oplot-M) or leopard-2. When in those last examples we can made some mesurment, then (until better Arjun draw will be avaible) we can only guest whit some error.

From this drawing please give me
1.Hull width(whether it includes partial frontal side skirts or not?)
2.the ratios of frontal hull width/turret width(including storage boxes)
3.Inner hatch cover dia/frontal hull width.

I made sevral more photos so You can checkt it by yourself ;-)
Scale is 1:72:

so on draw we have:
whole hull width: 53,5mm (after rescale 3,85m)
turret width: 39,2mm (after rescale 2,82m)
turret width without boxes: 32,7mm (after rescale 2,35m)
loaders hath but only plate: 7,5mm (after rescale circa 540mm)
commander whole hath from welding line to welding line: 10mm (after rescale circa 720mm)

BTW: thoso photos will be dleated tommorow becouse IMHO it's wasting transfer on IS for sucht photots

 

[ersakthivel]

IMHO avaible Arjun draws are very poor, and they cant be compare whit brilant fabric draw for T-90S or Ob.478Du10 (Oplot-M) or leopard-2. When in those last examples we can made some mesurment, then (until better Arjun draw will be avaible) we can only guest whit some error.


I made sevral more photos so You can checkt it by yourself ;-)
Scale is 1:72:

so on draw we have:
whole hull width: 53,5mm (after rescale 3,85m)
turret width: 39,2mm (after rescale 2,82m)
turret width without boxes: 32,7mm (after rescale 2,35m)
loaders hath but only plate: 7,5mm (after rescale circa 540mm)
commander whole hath from welding line to welding line: 10mm (after rescale circa 720mm)

BTW: thoso photos will be dleated tommorow becouse IMHO it's wasting transfer on IS for sucht photots

I don't think these dimensionless drawings or ratios as any sort of credible proof. They are vastly different from the ones you posted before.I think they are just schemas.

I have no intention of wasting my time any further as I already posted many photographic measurement to prove my points for which you people have no counter arguments.

these ratios are not needed as far as i am concerned there is no doubt about the turret width. I won't post any more on the topic.

 

[ersakthivel]

See these are your trolling ways you talk about crew hatch hole and 400mm, then suddenly you where actually talking about the side of the turret. I have shown you wrong so many times, because you are a troll its like "whack a mole" if I show you wrong in one place you suddenly forget all about it and pop your head up someplace else saying "uh oh disprove this" you can't be proven wrong by any acceptable standard because you are a troll and simply will never agree no matter what. Funny thing is that you are now trying to act smart saying "uh oh I was just playing you all" when what you have actually been doing is disproving your estimates because no matter the numbers you get 3.2 as the result. You just assume numbers that fit with your preconception of what the turret should be.
And now argument from authority we should just believe Kunal, just because. And this is only to delay, till you can cook up your next batch of wacky numbers.
STGN

That's a very nice one from some one who still could not make up his mind on the crew hatch dia,

and no technical knowledge to either prove me right or wrong,

I consider it as end of the debate as I don't want to provoke you or provoked by you any further on the topic.

 

[sob]

Both @Damian and @militarysta are uniquely qualified to comment on this topic as the Polish Army has had an extensive experience with Russian armour, their own modification and upgrades of Russian armour and also with the the Leo 2A4 tanks. Also with the close Polish -US military co-operation, their exposure to US armour would be much more than most of the people in this forum.