Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[ersakthivel]

Armor Basics

The link has armor estimates for many MBTs, including that of leo.

A = Lower hull
B = Glacis
C = Front 1/3 side hull -------------------------------D = Front side turret Side Turret
E = Upper front turret ---------------------------- F =Rear Turret
G = Rear Hull ----------------------- H = side hull
J =Mantlet ------------------------- K = Weakened Zone
L = Front turret corners ------------------------- M = Side Turret


1.5.13.1 Leopard 2A1—A3 detailed armor estimation
A = 350mm KE & 520mm HEAT----------------------------------B = 350mm KE & 520mm HEAT
C =90–100mm KE & 500mm HEAT------------------------------D = 210mm KE & 290mm HEAT
E = N/AF = 70–90mm KE & 400mm HEAT-------------------G = 70mm KE & 400mm HEAT
H = 60–70mm KE & 370mm HEAT------------------------------J = 590mm KE & 810mm HEAT
K = 670mm KE & 1080mm HEAT--------------------------------*L = 570mm KE & 830mm HEAT
M = 210mm KE & 290mm HEAT*)

gun sight area is 610mm KE. & 890mm HEAT If leo has a Los thickness behind the main sigh as 890 mm. How come ARJUN which was modeled on Leo will have a LOS thickness behind main sight of 350 mm as claimed by some posters he



5.4.1 T-80U
A = 210mm KE & HEAT
B = 520mm KE & 570mm HEAT
C = 70–120mm KE & 210 – 260mm HEAT
D = 400mm KE & 510mm HEAT
E = 280–290mm KE & 370–410mm HEAT
F =110–140mm KE & 180–270mm HEAT
G = 60mm KE & 300–400mm HEAT
H = 70–120mm KE &~ 210 – 260mm HEAT
J =470mm KE & 730mm HEAT
K = 490mm KE & 520mm HEAT
L = 480mm KE & 640mm HEAT
M = 260mm KE & 340mm HEAT


1.5.4.2 T–80UM–1 with K–5


A = 240mm KE & 380mm HEAT
B =680–720mm KE & 960–1040mm HEAT
C = 90–140mm KE & 510 – 560mm HEAT
D = 420–640mm KE & 680–850mm HEAT
E = 350–390mm KE & 560–940mm HEAT
F =110–140mm KE & 180–270mm HEAT
G = 60mm KE & 300–400mm HEAT
H = 70–120mm KE &~ 210 – 260mm HEAT
J =560–580mm KE & 940–1060mm HEAT
K = 640–660mm KE & 1080–1120mm HEAT
L = 660–680mm KE & 1100–1140mm HEAT
M = 280mm KE & 340mm HEATK-5 coverage seems to be about 60%, the T-80 without K-5 looks a lot like the T-72BVwith K-1

1.5.5 General armor description: T-84

The T-84 uses the same hull as the T-80U, but features a new welded turret.The maximum armor thickness of this turret is probably similar to the T-80Ufront turret armor, which is reported to be 815mm thick and the insert isprobably similar to the T-90 with ~380mm LOS insert thickness suggested.The turret is welded and probably similar to the T-80UM with an insert of TE0.71 & 0.9. Based on the assumption of welded RHA plates,The angles on the T-84 seems close to the T-80 and therefore the 'T-80UM'K-5 numbers apply.

1.5.5.1 T-84 detailed armor estimation

A = 240mm KE & 380mm HEAT
B =680–720mm KE & 960–1040mm HEAT
C = 90–140mm KE & 510 – 560mm HEAT
D = 420mm KE & 680mm HEAT
E = 500–670mm KE & 740–1160mm HEAT
F =110–130mm KE & 270–350mm HEAT
G = 60mm KE & 300–400mm HEAT
H = 70–120mm KE &~ 210 – 260mm HEAT
J =620–640mm KE & 940–1060mm HEAT
K = 740–760mm KE & 1080–1120mm HEAT
L = 720–740mm KE & 1040–1080mm HEAT
M = 280mm KE & 340mm HEAT

 

[ersakthivel]

Whit all respect to Lakowski themself and his work - this is not very realible, and this version is far from truth.
Example:

No one diamension is correct in quoted tekst(!)

The same in case Soviet tanks, etc.

Those verion of "Armour Basics" is slighty old, and really not accurate.

LEO 2A5 has gun sight area is 900–920mm KE. & 1380mm HEAT according to armor basic . Do you agree or not?

Leo 2A1 has protection behind gun sight area is 610mm KE. & 890mm HEAT as per the website.

If leo has a Los thickness behind the main sigh as 890 mm. How come ARJUN which was modeled on Leo will have a LOS thickness behind main sight of 350 mm as claimed by some posters here?

 

[ersakthivel]

http://frontierindia.net/the-kanchan-armor#axzz2V3GETDMY

In 1980's the Kanchan composite had a composition of ceramic, alumina, fiber glass and some other such materials mixed. The RHA tried out had two thicknesses, i.e. a 350 mm plate and a 315 m plate. However these two plates had the same weight as a 120mm RHA. Hence it is said that Kanchan armor is more volume at same weight. The anti-tank munitions have problems in penetrating denser mass.
This is the time when the Russian Tank T-72 imported by Indian Army could not penetrate the Kanchan Armor protected Arjun Tank , with APFDS at point blank range. Subsequently, the debate took place if the Russians had supplied us with training rounds rather than the actual ammunition. As a side note, in January 2000 at Proof & Experimental Establishment (PXE), Balasore, Arjun tank armor defeated all available HESH and FSAPDS rounds including Israeli FSAPDS rounds.
Back to 1980's, after the T-72 incident, a 106 mm RCL gun was tried on the Arjun Tank. 106 RCL's were effective anti-tank weapons those days. It played havoc on enemy tanks in 1971 war. The Kanchan armor defeated that too.
Kanchan armor composition has undergone massive changes since 1980's. The volume of the RHA has been reduced to lesser mass because of better metallurgy. The composite has evolved too and it does not use the 1980's technology anymore

 

[militarysta]

Where the shit is mantle plate supposed to be there any idea?

I thought mantle plate must be in the plce where the dia of the gun doubles as per the production drawing above.So the static position holder you paint in green actually is the place the gun mantel plate is supposed to go.


See the yellow line on the small photo.

That line marks the distance between the mantel plate(static holding plate as per your view ) and back plate is my view.
It was this distance that was conveniently missing in the 3D model as pointed out by SAYRE and Kunal as well.

Sure:

Here is marked real gun mantled mask on Arjun
And if you want to discuss just destroy this values and estimatous.

 

[ersakthivel]

Sure:

Here is marked real gun mantled mask on Arjun
And if you want to discuss just destroy this values and estimatous.

For me this measurement of yours confirms that all your dimensions are wrong and you guys are simply shooting at the dark.

The photo is a perspective drawing with gun at an angle. The line drawing is a perfect side view with gun 90 deg to the observer.

How can you take dimensions from one and fix on another to justify the measurements?

If the measurements match then all your claims about ARJUN's LOS armor dimensions are wrong.

If the measurements match as you claim then the 3D model is wrong.

If you actually tilt the gun it will give a far larger gun length than in the photo which confirms that the 3D model is wrongly dimensioned.

 

[militarysta]

You agains don't understand. It's start to be boring.

1. Draw from side -as more accurate then photos, draw is used only for known ratio between fume exstractor lenght and lengt rest of the barrel between fume extractor and front gun mantled plate.
2. Konwing those ratio (3:16 to 1) is easly to find point when gun mantled have front plate - on photo this time. And prespective in included on that photo. What more - even if I had circa 10% error then still element marked on green is twice thick as real Arjun gun mantled mask! You are wrong again.

 

[Dejawolf]

For me this measurement of yours confirms that all your dimensions are wrong and you guys are simply shooting at the dark.

The photo is a perspective drawing with gun at an angle. The line drawing is a perfect side view with gun 90 deg to the observer.

How can you take dimensions from one and fix on another to justify the measurements?

If the measurements match then all your claims about ARJUN's LOS armor dimensions are wrong.

If the measurements match as you claim then the 3D model is wrong.

If you actually tilt the gun it will give a far larger gun length than in the photo which confirms that the 3D model is wrongly dimensioned.

here's another "shot in the dark"

 

[militarysta]

here's another "shot in the dark"

You may my day

BTW: had you any link to this image?

btw, again ratio between fume extractor lenght and lengt barrel between fume extractor and front mantel plate is at least 3,2 :1

 

[Dejawolf]

You may my day

BTW: had you any link to this image?

it's from indiatodayimages.com they had a bunch of other pictures, it's where i got the arjun hull drawing.

oh btw, uploaded a comparison picture as well

 

[militarysta]

it's from indiatodayimages.com they had a bunch of other pictures, it's where i got the arjun hull drawing.

oh btw, uploaded a comparison picture as well

More or les again - ersakthivel was vrong, completly, totally wrong.
Part marked on green here:

is not existing in real Arjun tank!

Gun mantled mask on Arjun is like on Dejawolf comparison picture - what is more accurate then my funny job here:

becouse I haven't those photo from indiatodayimages.com.

 

[ersakthivel]

You may my day

BTW: had you any link to this image?

btw, again ratio between fume extractor lenght and lengt barrel between fume extractor and front mantel plate is at least 3,2 :1

No one made your day. His model is dead wrong. He does not know arjun has a wider turret with gunner sitting left of TC,

Ask him to look at the top view of the LEO and ARJUN .

And ask him what is the gap between the two hatch holes of Leo and ARJUN.

Ask him whether ARJUN has substantially more space between the hatche than the LEO?

If the answer is yes ask him what occupies the space in the crew compartment of ARJUN?
I will tell you. it is the gunner. That is why there is no need for an armored block above the head of the ARJUN gunner, because he is not sitting behind the Main sight.

There is a need for an armored block above the head of the leo gunner because he may probably be sitting more behind the main sight.

 

[ersakthivel]

You agains don't understand. It's start to be boring.

1. Draw from side -as more accurate then photos, draw is used only for known ratio between fume exstractor lenght and lengt rest of the barrel between fume extractor and front gun mantled plate.
2. Konwing those ratio (3:16 to 1) is easly to find point when gun mantled have front plate - on photo this time. And prespective in included on that photo. What more - even if I had circa 10% error then still element marked on green is twice thick as real Arjun gun mantled mask! You are wrong again.

Without even comprehending the angles involved you are giving a very hilarious explanation for your ignorance in engineering drawing.

Who taught you to compare a side on ratio to an angled ratio.

this looks like matching the unrelated ratios to arrive at an answer you already had your in mind

 

[Dejawolf]

No one made your day. His model is dead wrong. He does not know arjun has a wider turret with gunner sitting left of TC,

Ask him to look at the top view of the LEO and ARJUN .

And ask him what is the gap between the two hatch holes of Leo and ARJUN.

that's not a model, thats a picture from an indian factory.

 

[ersakthivel]

here's another "shot in the dark"

SO you are implying that this photo proves your model.

So the mantel plate starts just 200 odd mm behind the point were gun dia increase. That largely proves my point that front mantel plate which we take as datumn for measuring the distance of Tc seat is positioned at the same point as that of the so called stationary supporter in the green gun photo. So what the fuss?

Infact you are providing proof for your mistakes.

So what is the distance between the red ring you marked on the gun and the back plate?

And where did you mark the exact measurement in your 3D model?

Did you take measurement from this photo and make your 3D model?!!!!!!!!!!!!

shit , NO. You are making up for your erroneous gunner placement by scavenging for photos like this.

If this photo proves your model. Tell me the length of the gun from this photo. Tell me the distance between the mantel plate and back plate from this photo,

And PROVE that e you alloted the same distance between the backplate and the mantel taken from this photo to the gun in your 3D model.

any way thanks for the photo. The fit and finish looks superb. Only a few months before a few guys here were fretting and fuming that the russains found the stuff to be so out date in AVADI. But it looks sparkling perfect in the photo.

 

[ersakthivel]

the mighty ershaktivel, keyboard warrior and printer of T-shirts is speaking. HUSH you infidels, you non-believers in the almighty arjun, do not try and sway my opinions with mere facts!

This what I call troll language , unable to answer a technical question starting to reply in monkey gibberish.

If you mean to say that you took dimensions of the gun from this picture from india today prove it. Why speculating who prints t shirts? Do you wear them or not? The under ware you wear also might have been made by an infidel are you going to go without them for the rest of your life?

You made a wrong 3D model and now you are scavenging around the net for photos to deflect the attention. Who is infidel?

if you got the guts prove that the distance between the backplate and front mantel plate in the India today photo matches to scale the distance you plotted in your 3d Model.

Or keep silent for a while.

 

[Dejawolf]

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.

i believe you made this post? yes, compare the distance between the mantle plate and the next holding plate... LOL.

 

[ersakthivel]

that's not a model, thats a picture from an indian factory.

Militarista is a full monty when it comes to dimensions. Both you and me know it. Now prove that the gun length on india today is there in your 3D model

 

[ersakthivel]

i believe you made this post? yes, compare the distance between the mantle plate and the next holding plate... LOL.

How do you compare two dimensions that are at two different angles?

So you make the comparison and post where it was plotted to scale?

 

[ersakthivel]

Just compare the distance between the back plate

and gun mantel plate(the place where your stopped your green dotted line on the separate gun topview picture) in India Today picture to the distance in your dimensionless 3D mode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The distance in your picture is about one fourth of the distance in the photo!!!!!!!!!!!!

The distance between the front mantel plate and backplate in your 3D looks very small.

 

[Dejawolf]

Just compare the distance between the back plate

and gun mantel plate(the place where your stopped your green dotted line on the separate gun topview picture) in India Today picture to the distance in your dimensionless 3D mode!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The distance in your picture is about one fourth of the distance in the photo!!!!!!!!!!!!

The distance between the front mantel plate and backplate in your 3D looks very small.

sigh.

of particular interest is image 2 and 3.
i marked the backing plate of the gunshield in green.

image 2 shows the gun mounting from the side

image 3 shows the thickness of the wall in front of the TC and gunner. compare the wall thickness with distance between wall and TC armrest.

image 4 shows the thickness of the connection area between gun and turret.