Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[ersakthivel]

refuted:

this photo is a proof that your refutation is wrong.

Simply there is no way there can be a gap of 400 mm between the vertical hatch cover base and Tc's seat.

For your information the entire dia of the crew hole is just 450 mm. SO it is a laughable assertion to suggest that there is a gap of 400 mm between the base of vertical hatch cover and Tc's seat.

if the Tc stretches his hand he can touch the yellow box above the the gunner's head.

Do you think it is impossible for TC to just stretch his hand without leaning forward and touch the black eyepiece into which the gunner is looking?

No, He can easily do that.

That means the distance between the Tc's seat and the yellow box with red lines on it is just under a meter.

SO 2500mm(The distance of Tc sea from front )-(1000mm(distance between Tc's seat and the yellow box)+700 mm(mainsight)

gives around 800 mm as the LOS behind main sight for ARJUN composite armor.

No need for pixel measurement the whole arjun line drawing with dimensions on scale is there in the above post.
.

Just compare the distance between the front mantel plate and the next holding plate(looks same as mantel plate) in the photo and the 3D model.that is why you are getting such wrong measurements.

There is more than a meter of space in the original photo and not even 200 mm in his model.That is why all the wrong LOS thickness.

Measuring LOS thickness with such a patently wrong model is simply not technical at all.

 

[ersakthivel]

Dejawolf have right whit his Arjun LOS mesurment

All measurements are wrong, read the above post no-4720.

He has no idea about the internal arrangement of ARJUN crew compartment.

No need for pixel measurement the whole arjun line drawing with dimensions on scale is there in the above post no-4720

The reason is as follows

Just compare the distance between the front mantel plate and the next holding plate(looks like the mantel plate) in the photo and the DEJAWOLF job. there is more than a meter of space in the original photo and not even 200 mm in his model.That is why all the wrong LOS thickness.

Measuring LOS thickness with such a patently wrong model is simply not technical at all.

 

[Dejawolf]

this photo is a proof that your refutation is wrong.

No. this image proves me right. the hatch hinge in the line drawing is the same hatch hinge in the left of the picture.
and it has nothing to do with the red lines since i measured from the vision block.

 

[STGN]

All measurements are wrong, read the above post no-4720.

He has no idea about the internal arrangement of ARJUN crew compartment.

No need for pixel measurement the whole arjun line drawing with dimensions on scale is there in the above post no-4720

The reason is as follows

Just compare the distance between the front mantel plate and the next holding plate(looks like the mantel plate) in the photo and the DEJAWOLF job. there is more than a meter of space in the original photo and not even 200 mm in his model.That is why all the wrong LOS thickness.

Measuring LOS thickness with such a patently wrong model is simply not technical at all.

That thing holding the barrel in the photo is obviously not the mantel armor.

 

[Dejawolf]

simple comparison of locations of vision blocks:

now can you stop trolling?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@Damian, Can you enlighten about different generation of thermal sights ?, Its hard to find on open net..

 

[Dejawolf]

@Damian, Can you enlighten about different generation of thermal sights ?, Its hard to find on open net..

it deals with the resolution of the image. higher resolution means longer ID and detection ranges.
ID range for 1st gen thermals is about 1500-2000m or so ID range for 2nd gen thermals is around 4000m or so.
detection range for 1st gen is about 3km, detection range for 2nd gen is up to 7000-8000m possibly more.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1st generation and 2nd generation, Only ?

I heard there is 3rd generation thermal for tanks, Anywhere i can get some specs of it like some company makes it ? PDF or text ..

 

[ersakthivel]

simple comparison of locations of vision blocks:

now can you stop trolling?

However harder you may whine and moan, the truth is the base of the crew hole cover is exactly at the same point as that of the Tc's seat and this point is 2500 mm behind the front of the gun mantel plate. So no one needs your projection of vision blocks ..The reason is Tc is not sitting exactly side on either .

that's why the in the following photo where the Tc sit's exactly side on it is proved 2500-(700 for main sight+1000mm internal crew space) gives the same 800 mm as LOS thicknesss. Even if you factor in a large error allowance of 200 mm it is still 600 plus mm.

because the TC can just stretch his hand and touch the black eyepiece into which the gunner is looking at without moving in his seat.

So it cannot measure more than 1000mm. It is more accurate as this picture has Tc exactly side on and the gunner in his correct place.

That is why you are shying away from countering it, and keeping a stony silence over the distorted gun proportions of your drawing, which was pointed out not just by me, but many other members here as well.

 

[Damian]

1st generation and 2nd generation, Only ?

I heard there is 3rd generation thermal for tanks, Anywhere i can get some specs of it like some company makes it ? PDF or text ..

There is 3rd generation, but not widespread at this moment, nearest future might however bring bigger widepsread. For example within ECP modernization program M1 series will most likely receive new sights with better FLIR, such system might be even a direct descendant of the electrooptical and fire control system from the Future Combat Systems program.

I think that also Attica thermal sight for newest Leopard 2A7 is a 3rd generation.

 

[Austin]

Thales Thermal Sight Catherine-FC used in T-90s/Bhishma is an example of 2nd Gen Thermal Sight
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/Documents/CATHERINE_FC_–_Compact_Thermal_Imager/

Thales Catherine-XP used on T-90MS is an example of 3rd Gen Thermal Sight as it is based on QWIP Technology
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfoli...XP_–_Compact_High_Performance_Thermal_Imager/

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Got Some Information on Old FCS from 2006 defexpo ..

Back in those days, Arjun FCS looks like this ..

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

After 2008, Arjun looks like this with new FCS, There is no information about this FCS except that BEL produce this..

 

[Dejawolf]

Trolling, i was talking about Vision block widths

the TC is completely unimportant to the measurements, so why you insist on bringing in the commander is beyond me. All that matters is the vision blocks.
the red lines were measuring vision block widths, as i've stated in post #4722 and #4703 already. which you CHOSE TO IGNORE, which proves that you are a forum troll.

now could you take the VISION BLOCKS, measure from the VISION BLOCK, put the width of the VISION BLOCK into your shitty little formula, and measure from the VISION BLOCK marked in green, so you get the correct length to the front armour? i think not, because you're a troll, and the only reason you're doing this is to piss people off.

 

[militarysta]

All measurements are wrong,

No, all mesurmetn are more or less -whit some error - but they are accurate.
Smoke granades have 81mm cal, so smoke luncher have circa 85-86mm diamater, rest is rescaling this what is visible.
Dejawolf have right You are wrong.

The reason is as follows
Just compare the distance between the front mantel plate and the next holding plate(looks like the mantel plate) in the photo and the DEJAWOLF job. there is more than a meter of space in the original photo and not even 200 mm in his model.That is why all the wrong LOS thickness.

Measuring LOS thickness with such a patently wrong model is simply not technical at all.

:shocked:
LOOL
You just mistake holder from stand test station whit gun mantled mask.
This marked on green does not exist in tank:

it's only special "holder" to keep gun without gun mantled mask in one place.
Why it's so sure?
reson 1 - diamension "holder" and secodn plate are completly diffrent - diffrent hight difren width. In tank it has no sense
reson 2 - on all known interior photos we haven't sucht solution visible on photos
reson 3 - in "holder" there is no single hole for:
a) coaxial MG
b) reserve sight
reson 4 - barrel lenght. Barrel on those photo is visible without termic cover, but is visible fume extractor in half lenght between gun mantled mask and end of the barrel. No chech lengt on photo between barel, half of the fume axtractor and holder. Fume extractor shoud be in half way but on photo whit holder is not. Holder is moved in to fume extractor way, when on all real Arjun photos fume extractor is on half way. So again - holder is just holed and not gun mantled mask part.
So it can't be part of the gun mantled mask. It's really simple - gun mantled mask in Arjuin have some "X" thickenss (circa 400mm LOS) plus mounted plate (weige) behind it - whit two holes for coaxial MG and reserve sight, and others. Those plate is even visible on interior Arjun photos.
You just mistake "holder" whit gun mantled mask - it's not visible on gun photo becouse it has multilayerd structure and it's removed from test station. It's changed on this "holder" whit completly diffrent dimensions.

 

[ersakthivel]

the TC is completely unimportant to the measurements, so why you insist on bringing in the commander is beyond me. All that matters is the vision blocks.
the red lines were measuring vision block widths, as i've stated in post #4722 and #4703 already. which you CHOSE TO IGNORE, which proves that you are a forum troll.

now could you take the VISION BLOCKS, measure from the VISION BLOCK, put the width of the VISION BLOCK into your shitty little formula, and measure from the VISION BLOCK marked in green, so you get the correct length to the front armour? i think not, because you're a troll, and the only reason you're doing this is to piss people off.

If you know the basic mathematics well, there is nothing wrong in taking a point like the TC's seat , which lies exactly below the hatch cover as datum when taking measurement. You have placed those vision blocks without knowing where the boundaries of crew hole is located,like kinder garden kids placing blue and red blocks wherever they wish on a drawing.

And the reason I am choosing Tc's arm length to prove there is no more than 1000 mm crew space in front of him is,however hard you mat try to confuse others with your faulty 3D model , it will be impossible for you to claim that an adult's arm length will measure 1400 mm in real world.

Because other than the Tc and driver there is not a single thing in the crew compartment whose dimension we can be sure of to compare the distances.

That is why I chose the Tc's seat position which is unambiguously 2500 mm from the mantel plate as a measuring mark, which you won't be able to cast doubt about even if you make 100 budheaded refutations.

 

[ersakthivel]

No, all mesurmetn are more or less -whit some error - but they are accurate.
Smoke granades have 81mm cal, so smoke luncher have circa 85-86mm diamater, rest is rescaling this what is visible.
Dejawolf have right You are wrong.




:shocked:
LOOL
You just mistake holder from stand test station whit gun mantled mask.
This marked on green does not exist in tank:

it's only special "holder" to keep gun without gun mantled mask in one place.
Why it's so sure?
reson 1 - diamension "holder" and secodn plate are completly diffrent - diffrent hight difren width. In tank it has no sense
reson 2 - on all known interior photos we haven't sucht solution visible on photos
reson 3 - in "holder" there is no single hole for:
a) coaxial MG
b) reserve sight
reson 4 - barrel lenght. Barrel on those photo is visible without termic cover, but is visible fume extractor in half lenght between gun mantled mask and end of the barrel. No chech lengt on photo between barel, half of the fume axtractor and holder. Fume extractor shoud be in half way but on photo whit holder is not. Holder is moved in to fume extractor way, when on all real Arjun photos fume extractor is on half way. So again - holder is just holed and not gun mantled mask part.
So it can't be part of the gun mantled mask. It's really simple - gun mantled mask in Arjuin have some "X" thickenss (circa 400mm LOS) plus mounted plate (weige) behind it - whit two holes for coaxial MG and reserve sight, and others. Those plate is even visible on interior Arjun photos.
You just mistake "holder" whit gun mantled mask - it's not visible on gun photo becouse it has multilayerd structure and it's removed from test station. It's changed on this "holder" whit completly diffrent dimensions.

other than the smileys , i cannot understand a single statement in your post.

 

[militarysta]

other than the smileys , i cannot understand a single statement in your post.

I know you are unable to understand - You shown it previous.
Agian - slowly. Your argument that Dejawolf was wrong was:

Just compare the distance between the front mantel plate and the next holding plate(looks like the mantel plate) in the photo and the DEJAWOLF job. there is more than a meter of space in the original photo and not even 200 mm in his model.That is why all the wrong LOS thickness.

Measuring LOS thickness with such a patently wrong model is simply not technical at all.

But You where completly wrong. What was quite funny for me, becouse those yours " front mantel plate and the next holding plate(looks like the mantel plate)" is
"holder" to hold gun on one place in static exposition/test station (in your post you name this "front mantel plate") -and those element (marked by me on green) does not exist on Arjun tank. It's avaible only for sucht stand position.
And after that we have not mounted on gun gun mantled mask whit multialeryed armour (not on photo) and after that we have back plate when gun is mounted to the turret (in your post you name this as "next holding plate(looks like the mantel plate").
You just mxsed real "holding plate" in tank -where is munted gun to the turret whit "holder" to hold gun on one place in static exposition/test station (marked on green) and you even don't realize that there is no gunmantled mask whit multialyerd armour on those photo becouse it's not mounted on gun.
And that was quite funny, becouse you try to make argument against Deajwolf and STGN mesurment based on photo that you completly does not understand and interpretate completly worng.

 

[Dejawolf]

That is why I chose the Tc's seat position which is unambiguously 2500 mm from the mantel plate as a measuring mark, which you won't be able to cast doubt about even if you make 100 budheaded refutations.

[/B]

the point is: the TC seat is NOT 2500mm from the gunshield (not mantle plate) the headrest is somewhat ahead of the the back of the TC's hatch opening, right ahead of the TC hatch hinge, at a point that is hard to define. but close to 2250mm from the front of the gunshield. the TC's head, again is ahead of the TC's headrest, which is even further forward. the Vision blocks are much easier to place, and you can even measure the width of them in the line drawing,
or make a decent estimate of their width based on other pictures of the Arjun based on parts with known scales.

 

[SilentKiller]

@Dejawolf @militarysta what do you guys think on Arjun MK2 version as the armor has been improved in it.

 

[harish.kaks]

I know you are unable to understand - You shown it previous.

Agian - slowly. Your argument that Dejawolf was wrong was:

But You where completly wrong. What was quite funny for me, becouse those yours " front mantel plate and the next holding plate(looks like the mantel plate)" is
"holder" to hold gun on one place in static exposition/test station (in your post you name this "front mantel plate") -and those element (marked by me on green) does not exist on Arjun tank. It's avaible only for sucht stand position.
And after that we have not mounted on gun gun mantled mask whit multialeryed armour (not on photo) and after that we have back plate when gun is mounted to the turret (in your post you name this as "next holding plate(looks like the mantel plate").
You just mxsed real "holding plate" in tank -where is munted gun to the turret whit "holder" to hold gun on one place in static exposition/test station (marked on green) and you even don't realize that there is no gunmantled mask whit multialyerd armour on those photo becouse it's not mounted on gun.
And that was quite funny, becouse you try to make argument against Deajwolf and STGN mesurment based on photo that you completly does not understand and interpretate completly worng.

He is telling about your language...