Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[militarysta]

Please don't jump in with this first home made idlis argument.

But it's true. Indian industry can't modify themselfs stupid T-55 or T-72 and need foregin solutions. Indian T-90 licenced production have huge quality and technical problems solved by sent russian engeeners. And Arjun is first home-made indian tank, and it's grate that most guys here are proud of that fact. it's nothing wrong in taht. But some other guys -like You- forgot about any objectivism and strat talking BS about Arjun. No it's not super tank. It's not as good as leo-2, Merkava Mk.IV, M1A2, Oplot-M. It's good tank as first Indian tank. Nothin more but nothing less. And Arjun have some serious flaws.
Next indian tank will be mucht better -it's sure.

Comparing the obsolete T-80s which got their butts whipped in the recent civil wars Arjun is much better tank.

There is no T-80 in pakistan.
There is T-80UD and this is huge difrence.
And there are serius doubts if Arjun is really better over T-80UD.

 

[The Last Stand]

But it's true. Indian industry can't modify themselfs stupid T-55 or T-72 and need foreign solutions.

We use foreign equipment and make our own upgrade kits. By your logic, American industry is stupid and can't upgrade their Abrams properly (Foreign ERA for TUSK, Foreign gun for M1A1 ( M256 is not totally different gun, US still pays royalty for making it )

I understand. Arjun has maybe 65 % of capabilities of Foreign tank but still with Mark-2 upgrades it will be 80 % comparable. Arjun is not world class. It was not meant to be world class. Just made to counter original M1 (105 mm gun, 80's Burlington). There were some rumours back in 80's that Abrams was going to be sold to Pakistan.

GoI is secretive about all insider projects. Panics the moment they hear Pakistan is getting something good.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

T-80UD falls back in many way compare to Arjun MK-1 and fighting terrain here..

But T-80UD have advantages over Arjun in some ways...

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

Lets not talk this vs that in this thread, Please continue in other thread..

 

[ersakthivel]

But it's true. Indian industry can't modify themselfs stupid T-55 or T-72 and need foregin solutions. Indian T-90 licenced production have huge quality and technical problems solved by sent russian engeeners. And Arjun is first home-made indian tank, and it's grate that most guys here are proud of that fact. it's nothing wrong in taht. But some other guys -like You- forgot about any objectivism and strat talking BS about Arjun. No it's not super tank. It's not as good as leo-2, Merkava Mk.IV, M1A2, Oplot-M. It's good tank as first Indian tank. Nothin more but nothing less. And Arjun have some serious flaws.
Next indian tank will be mucht better -it's sure.


There is no T-80 in pakistan.
There is T-80UD and this is huge difrence.
And there are serius doubts if Arjun is really better over T-80UD.

When you upgrade a foreign bought product logic demand it is always better to ask for help from the original makers. SInce most of the components needed for the upgradation must come from their stables, all suitably altered according to IA needs.
it is the proper procedure to follow.

If IA asks CVRDE to modify ARJUN they will do it all by themselve, because they were the designers and they know the design philosophy behind every component and the conditions going to be faced by it.

The problems of T-90 were never solved by the russians, it still has no satisfactory solution of linking it's night vision to fire controls and provision of AC.So it is a laughable contention saying that the troubles were there only because of Indians.

When a new product goes into production there will always be some glitches due to implementing new documentation issues.it is no big deal. Even products that were fully inducted face this problem ,Recently after a few SUKHOI crashes few problems with FCS was isolated and being worked on. Does that mean every one has to laugh at sukhoi as a product. No way, all product has issues.

ARJUn was scrutinized intensely by Indian army and all problems were listed out and solved.

Only after IA was throughly satisfied in trials did ARJUN was inducted.People who peddle tank ex drawing as ARJUN will never understand this.

Also it was not for nothing comparitive trials were held and ARJUn's accuracy on the move firing and mobility were commended by both MOD and IA. It was listed as the best tank in IA stables in 2009 MOD report to parliament.It has big APU,net centric capability, fording , snorkelling, missile firing through the gun, all of which were there in ARJUN as per IA requirement.

With what source you are claiming ARJUN is not in the class of LEO is clear.Does leo-2 fires missiles through it's main gun?
On which parameter you call it will fall short of LEO,

Don't quote round penetration of ARJUNs ,It has been already discussed to death here. Once ARJUN is inducted in numbers rounds development will happen.Implementing a s simple slip ring obdurator tech on any standard western smooth bore ammo makes it usable in ARJUn. We can keep the same penetrator anyway irrespective it being made for smooth bore or not.

Since APFSDS rounds are sub caliber this slip ring obdurator implementation on them is no rocket science.Infact CVRDE is already using this tech in ARJUN's present APFSDS rounds.

Also the muzzle velocity of ARJUn too is world class. Once sufficient numbers are inducted local engine production and substitution of many foreign components with local components will start.
Only technologically challenged guys with no eng education back ground say it can't be done.

The most important problems that has to be solved in tanks are
1.protection,
2. Accurate FCS,
3. Power to weight ratio,
4. Lesser ground pressure per square inch for the tank to be used in wide areas,
5. net centric capability,
6.Armor,
7.reliability of components,
8. Ability to satisfy the GSQR.

In all the above criterians ARJUN met the IA expectations. then only it was inducted even in small numbers.

 

[The Last Stand]

Don't quote round penetration of ARJUNs ,It has been already discussed to death here. Once ARJUN is inducted in numbers rounds development will happen.Implementing a s simple slip ring obdurator tech on any standard western smooth bore ammo makes it usable in ARJUn. We can keep the same penetrator anyway irrespective it being made for smooth bore or not.

Since APFSDS rounds are sub caliber this slip ring obdurator implementation on them is no rocket science.Infact CVRDE is already using this tech in ARJUN's present APFSDS rounds.

IIRC we already use modified DM-53 sabot according to some article. @Kunal Biswas, was it true? Any source.

@militarysta

If we are using DM-53 sabot, the old round must not be in use right now. After all, the pictures available of old penetrator are from 97.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That was an offer long back, May be undergone trails ..

But presently it is not in service..

 

[The Last Stand]

That was an offer long back, May be undergone trails ..

But presently it is not in service..

I am over optimistic.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Arjun MBT Suspension Details >>

 

[Damian]

Use of such susension system was definetely one of the better, if not the best idea of your engineers.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

When it as introduce, It faced hell lot criticism as its need more maintenance, but latter when issued to Units..

The positive output from using these made the change of mind..

Use of such susension system was definetely one of the better, if not the best idea of your engineers.

 

[JBH22]

Use of such susension system was definetely one of the better, if not the best idea of your engineers.

What's the benefit over existing suspension used in T-80 or T-90?

 

[Damian]

What's the benefit over existing suspension used in T-80 or T-90?

Hydrogas suspension system is lighter by at least a single metric ton (or more today), it is also bolted to the hull and do not take space inside hull, it is easier to replace damaged unit, or deattache it for maintnance, than in case of torsion bars suspension system.

These are reasons why for example, Americans intend to replace torsion bars suspension system HSU with L3's Hydrogas suspension system in their M1 tanks.

 

[ersakthivel]

most western composite armour is designed to resist multiple hits. it's why the Ceramics are arranged in a honeycomb shape bolted between steel plates.

as for Arjun front turret estimates:

~735mm on loaders side, ~650mm on gun mantlet, ~620-910mm on gunners side, and a weakspot around the Gunners sight with ~360mm
arjun mk.2 add ~250mm KE and 500mm HEAT in the areas protected by ERA modules.

360 mm really? Look at the following set of your posts through which you arrived at this 360 mm LOS.

700mm



i'm basing it on the line drawing of the arjun.


i don't see why, but this is the seating arrangement:

and for what it's worth, leopard 2A4

Then what was discussed in the post number-931 in the following page,

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-63.html

And finally you are admittin that your model was just a rough sketch and nothing accurate about it in post no-938 in the following link,

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-63.html.

well, of COURSE it's a rough diagram, but it should be accurate to within 10cm or so.
the leopard diagram on the other hand is accurate to within 1cm.
I went inside it myself with measuring tape to get the accurate dimensions.
if you want go ahead and take measures of the real Arjun, and post them here.

if you have taken the line drawing given in the army recognition website accurately , there is no way for you to make so many mistakes.

well, to the back of the cupola ring yes, correct. 2500mm.


incorrect, it's 750mm

incorrect it's ~1400mm. you cannot fit 2 people within 60cm of space.

2500-(500+600) = 1400mm but i digress

correct formula:
2500-(1400+750) = 350

Cutaway for main sight 750 mm?? The cutaway for main sight seems equal to crew hole dia, Then are you implying that crew hole dia is 750 mm? The 1400 mm is also over estimate by a long stretch of imagination!!!!. So all your assumptions on which your 3D model is based are patently wrong.

So it is obvious that you are wrong by more than half a meter if you look at it any way. Am I right?

Can any of the guys who used to say that ARJUN has just 350 mm LOS thickness behind main sight all along explain this?

@militarysta ,@methos ,@Damian who supported your 3D model explain this?

Without any doubt I have mucht bigger expirience then You Even when we take into account the angle at which the picture was taken then it change nothing - there is no backplate in 2.18 "diameter of the hatch" or even visible on interior photo. In fact backplate on loaders side is in place where I pointed. And LOS after main sight is 450mm or 500mm in best case.

If DEJAWOLF is right why is close to 200 mm difference between both your estimates?
Dejawolf says it is 350 mm. You are saying 450 mm. In my opinion we can add both to arrive at 800 mm
Go to
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/5240-indian-army-armored-vehicles-51.html#post734143
read Post numbers -758 , 759, 760, 761. And see how the so called DEJAWOLF job is full of mistakes.
.

You can argue agains whole world, bud Dejawolf have right, and I have right. Arjun protection whit that turret have serious gaps: almoust non protected turrets sides and erea behin main sight.
And LOS value given by me are pretty close to the reality - you can't rescale any photos and even find backate on interior picutre, so please don't argue whit persons who are doing this mesurments quite offen. Dejawolf made it as PRO, Damian and I made it in more as a hobby, but im doing this for more then 5 yers. And most of my own mesurment are guite correct vide Leo-2, Merkava Mk.IV, CR2, M1A2, T-90A, T-72B, etc.

 

[ersakthivel]

yes, i didn't add all of the small details like i usually do, didn't make a texture, the TC hatch and loaders cupola only have the right size, but not the right shape, hatch hinges and such are missing etc.
all i did was make the walls match the line drawings as closely as i could, and then scale the model according to the official figures.



yes 750mm, if you measure from close to the gun to the back wall of the gunners sight, although it's 700mm in my model. 430mm if you measure from the outer side.
so as you can see it adds up.

As per the photo above the RATIO for the total length of the hull / cutaway for the main sight comes to 12 on the tank which stands at the right hand side of the man wearing black t shirt .

The total hull length I measured includes FITTINGS for fuel drums as well.

So 12x 750 mm=9000 mm.

That means the hull should have a length of about 9 meters.Which is wrong as per the following dimensional line drawing.

Because the total length of the ARJUN TANK hull is only 8.5 meters.



Any way it is not a big difference if we correct your main sight cutaway length as per this calculation it comes to around 700 mm
So 2500 mm-700 mm cutaway leaves 1800 mm space between the crew hatch and the cutaway for main sight.

Then as per the above image you have put six red lines from the head of the Tc to the red strings on the yellow box.How much does each red line section measures?

 

[Austin]

An interesting write up on Arjun and T-90 debate

The Arjun Saga

June 2012

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re-post Austin, Its the old farce article..

Its here somewhere in this thread..

An interesting write up on Arjun and T-90 debate

The Arjun Saga

June 2012

 

[ersakthivel]

about 18-20cm. also, the vision block measured is the commanders 3 o' clock vision block, so you need subtract 39cm, since it's approximately at the center of the hatch. and there's a small wedge between the sight cutout and gunshield about 50mm long, according to the drawing.

The distance between the seat of the Tc and redline like sripes holding the yellow box is 4.5 times the head size of the man sitting in the photo.

Back of the head should be taken as the end point of 2500 mm space because that's where the center of the seat lies.If we take back of the seat there will be errors as the seat is swiveled towards the photographer at an angle.

If you give 250 mm as the width of his head,

The 4.5 x 250 mm,it comes to 1125 mm.

SO 2500 mm- (700 mm+1125 mm) = 675 mm is the LOS thickness space available for composite armor behind the maim sight.

On other places the LOS thickness for ARJUN is 675 mm+700 mm(the main sight cutaway gap) = 1375 mm. SO you won't be having any problems with that, I suppose.

If the main sight is moved to tank top and replaced with composite armor plates then overall frontal LOS thickness for armor is 1375 mm, which is what once posted here.

SO ARJUN compares well with modern tanks in frontal protection.

 

[ersakthivel]

The reason you are getting all the mistake in LOS thickness calculations in the front is because of the mistakes in the proportion of the gun dimensions in your 3D modelling, which is pointed out by other members here as well.

 

[ersakthivel]

Are the comparison stats correct?

 

[ersakthivel]

It depicts the position of the gunner and the TC .If the TC stretches his hand he can easily touch the red stripes holding the yellow box. SO there is no way fro more than a 1000 mm space to be present there.

well, to the back of the cupola ring yes, correct. 2500mm.


incorrect, it's 750mm

incorrect it's ~1400mm. you cannot fit 2 people within 60cm of space.

2500-(500+600) = 1400mm but i digress

correct formula:
2500-(1400+750) = 350

@Dejawolf

So your above mentioned estimates are actually wrong.

SO 2500 mm- (700 mm+1125 mm) = 675 mm is the LOS thickness space available for composite armor behind the maim sight.

On other places the LOS thickness for ARJUN is 675 mm+700 mm(the main sight cutaway gap) = 1375 mm. SO you won't be having any problems with that, I suppose.

If the main sight is moved to tank top and replaced with composite armor plates then overall frontal LOS thickness for armor is 1375 mm, which is what once posted here.

SO ARJUN compares well with modern tanks in frontal protection.

No more than 1200 mm space , as there is no need to fit the gunner i the same sitting position as Tc

because the gunner sits a bit left of the Tc and well below the Tc's seat level, so not that much space is required.You can also see the main sight is to the right side of the gunner.Not in front of the gunner.