Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Damian]

What? Hull sides are only protected against 14,5mm ammunition? Why the hell such solution? Did they not considered automatic cannons as threat?

 

[militarysta]

I found on those photos more interesting thinks...
Using GIMP and other program I slighty zoom photos. There is smth interesting...

 

[Dejawolf]

What? Hull sides are only protected against 14,5mm ammunition? Why the hell such solution? Did they not considered automatic cannons as threat?

hmm.. actually, let me revise that estimate a bit.

the thickness of the side hull is 40mm.
but there's also the sideskirt, which are 15mm thick steel,
so total thickness would be 55mm, which should make it proof against 3UBR8@1500m.
although you might want to add a multiplier to the 40mm steel of 1.25 for SHS.
and deflection of the round by the skirt could add as much as 58mm vs KE and 218mm vs HEAT(840mm air gap)

so side hull array is 40mm backing plate + 840mm air gap + 15mm skirt.

 

[Damian]

hmm.. actually, let me revise that estimate a bit.

the thickness of the side hull is 40mm.
but there's also the sideskirt, which are 15mm thick steel,
and under the skirts you have the suspension components acting as armour
so total thickness would be 55mm, which should make it proof against 3UBR8@1500m.
although you might want to add a multiplier to the 40mm steel of 1.25 for SHS.
and deflection of the round by the skirt could add as much as 58mm vs KE and 218mm vs HEAT(840mm air gap)

so side hull array is 40mm backing plate + 840mm air gap + 15mm skirt.

Yeah, this makes more sense.

 

[ersakthivel]

i did everything you did, and got a different result:

45*2 = 90cm
385cm-90cm = 295cm. so how on earth did you end up at 3100mm?

you've made errors too. the hatch is closer to the first clasp, not the second.

See i got the ratio of 0.7 using the scale directly on the picture.

I did not magnify it,

I did not paste a scale on it.I know it is correct.

I got 275 mm,

STGN got 393 mm,

and you got 450 mm,

So it is a very wide variation.

It just cannot happen in a drawing. So at least two of us should be lying.So I don't want to drag it.

every one will know it in the coming defence expo, I am sure members will get a measurement.

lets see who is right then.

 

[ersakthivel]

heh, it's worth it, India is interested in SB, so i might end up making an arjun tank in the future. a reference drawing this good is going to save me a bunch of time,
and time is money.

already it's revealing some pretty surprising details.
hull sides are only 40mm thick, making them only 14.5mm proof.
upper glacis is 140mm thick@75° = 540mm LOS
lower front hull is 100mm thick@60° = 200mm LOS
heavy skirts are 100mm thick.

glacis details:
cover plate 3cm
composites: 5cm
backing plate: 6cm
3+6 = 9
9*1.25 = 112.5
50*0.9 = 45
112+45 = 157mm vs KE
157mm@75° = 606mm LOS vs KE

fuel: 115cm in front of ammunition, 60cm in front of driver

= +90mm vs KE, +330mm vs HEAT@driver
= +172mm vs KE + 632mm vs HEAT@ammunition

Considering the weird type of scales you apply i won't be surprised even if you get a 1.45 mm LOS thickness for hull side armor.

By applying your fancy scales you have a habit of looking for surprise and finding them, not very surprising indeed considering your wacky 3d models and dumb vision block arguments in the past.

 

[STGN]

You didn't understand my post it was not meant to be accurate estimation it was just meant to show you that your turret width was overestimated.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

I found on those photos more interesting thinks...
Using GIMP and other program I slighty zoom photos. There is smth interesting...

See, the first storage box was converted to armor modules long time ago,

and after the TC hatch , the inner turret wall curves in,

to create cavity it has already been shown with photo proofs here.

for which quite evidently you did not bother to reply.

So you found out nothing.

Also the color scheme shows it is not the latest production arjun version and seems to be older one.what is the date of these photos?

 

[ersakthivel]

You write a lot of BS. Not to mention that what I marked, are just lies, and believe me, I closely watched the events and had informations from reliable sources, what you write here is just not truth. You should educate yourself.

what you, methos and DEJAWOLF write here belongs to RIPLEY'S BELIEVE IT OR NOT STUFF,

Methos will chip in with average chinese face width of 14.7 cm to give a 450 mm width for crew hatch cover,

Dejawolf and STGN will say it is 550 mm, and still all of you will hold a certificate for each other,

And when I measure a ratio to be 0.7 , STGN will measure it as 0.8 and DEJAWOLF will measure it as 0.9,

And if shown the inner curvature photo of arjun turret side ,

militarysta will keep quiet, damian will say it houses mechanicals and electricals in arjun ,

while the same cavity houses composite armor in leopard and abrams,

Such hilarious entertaining stuff from special group of experts ,

one squarely contradicting each other and at the same time holding a certificate for each other,

If it goes on further we should name this thread as jokes on ARJUN thread.

 

[ersakthivel]

You didn't understand my post it was not meant to be accurate estimation it was just meant to show you that your turret width was overestimated.
STGN

see , the measuring idea I supplied can be done and checked by any other member, it does not need you or me or anyone to measure and give different ratios.

 

[Dejawolf]

see , the measuring idea I supplied can be done and checked by any other member, it does not need you or me or anyone to measure and give different ratios.

i checked it, and it was wrong.

 

[ersakthivel]

i checked it, and it was wrong.

you are simply lying is my very humble opinion.Noway it can be wrong.

Without any magnification of the actual photo ,while measuring on scale ,

it came to 26 mm on the hull side besides the turret,

and 37 mm on the hatch cover.

How can it be a 0.9 ratio, it can only be 0.7 ratio.

So 0.7x550 mm=385 mmx2=770 mm,

3860 mm-770 mm=3100 mm,

How can it be wrong?

 

[Dejawolf]

Considering the weird type of scales you apply i won't be surprised even if you get a 1.45 mm LOS thickness for hull side armor.

By applying your fancy scales you have a habit of looking for surprise and finding them, not very surprising indeed considering your wacky 3d models and dumb vision block arguments in the past.

oh i'm sorry, is there something wrong with the official engineering drawings for the arjun now?
i did nothing else but scale the official engineering drawings to the official width of the tank, and then measure the thickness of the side plate.

 

[STGN]

what you, methos and DEJAWOLF write here belongs to RIPLEY'S BELIEVE IT OR NOT STUFF,

Methos will chip in with average chinese face width of 14.7 cm to give a 450 mm width for crew hatch cover,

Dejawolf and STGN will say it is 550 mm, and still all of you will hold a certificate for each other,

And when I measure a ratio to be 0.7 , STGN will measure it as 0.8 and DEJAWOLF will measure it as 0.9,

And if shown the inner curvature photo of arjun turret side ,

militarysta will keep quiet, damian will say it houses mechanicals and electricals in arjun ,

while the same cavity houses composite armor in leopard and abrams,

Such hilarious entertaining stuff from special group of experts ,

one squarely contradicting each other and at the same time holding a certificate for each other,

If it goes on further we should name this thread as jokes on ARJUN thread.

Which ratio are you talking about?
STGN

 

[Dejawolf]

See i got the ratio of 0.7 using the scale directly on the picture.

I did not magnify it,

I did not paste a scale on it.I know it is correct.

I got 275 mm,

STGN got 393 mm,

and you got 450 mm,

So it is a very wide variation.

It just cannot happen in a drawing. So at least two of us should be lying.So I don't want to drag it.

every one will know it in the coming defence expo, I am sure members will get a measurement.

lets see who is right then.

you got 375mm(not 275) because you reduced the hatch size to 50cm, instead of 55cm as Kunal biswas said.

i got 450mm measuring at your picture, using correct hatch size of 55cm, but measuring properly i got 500mm.

 

[ersakthivel]

Which ratio are you talking about?
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

you got 375mm(not 275) because you reduced the hatch size to 50cm, instead of 55cm as Kunal biswas said.

i got 450mm measuring at your picture, using correct hatch size of 55cm, but measuring properly i got 500mm.

i did not reduce an hatch size,

I made a mistake in the post , I got 375 mm not 275 mm.

 

[ersakthivel]

you got 375mm(not 275) because you reduced the hatch size to 50cm, instead of 55cm as Kunal biswas said.

i got 450mm measuring at your picture, using correct hatch size of 55cm, but measuring properly i got 500mm.

i did not reduce an hatch size,

I made a mistake in the post , I got 375 mm not 275 mm.

 

[STGN]

Looking at the Drawing it seem its for old prototype.like this:

with the thick mud guard in the front.
It also has 65cm diameter wheels.
STGN

 

[STGN]

Again that picture was not meant to be accurate it was merely meant to show you wrong which it does.
STGN