Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[ersakthivel]

the so called visible roof vision block (painted in red ) seems to be well left of the binocular like eyepieces in gunner's main sight.

So according to this schematic photo of the the gunner's main sight it is clear that the left hand side border of the turret front end main sight optics(colored in dark green ) is almost aligned in vertical line with the binocular like eye pieces on gunner's main gunner sight vision block.

The so called visible roof vision block painted in red lies left of the binocular like eyepieces of gunner's main gunner sight vision block.So what it is and whether it lies directly behind main sight needs some explaining.

Because according to the schematics of the gunner main sight instrument standalone photo anything that lies left of the binocular like eyepieces of gunner's main sight vision block cannot be right behind the gunner's main sight optical front end (colored in dark green) at turret front.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Have a look again, Your thinking lacks clarity..

The green slab in in arjun`s mantal, look again, turn the the green slab 180 degree to left and its a perfect fit..

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

The photo of the Gun and mantal taken decade ago, a prototype with no holes for mg etc..

No, it's defiently not from very simple two resons:
a) in "green slab" there is no gap for coaxial MG
b) in "green slab" there is no gap for reserve sight

Sorry but all evidences shown that what I posted: gun mantled mask in Arjun tank have nothing common whit those " green slab" it's just holder for static exposition,[/B.

 

[methos]

The green slab in in arjun`s mantal, look again, turn the the green slab 180 degree to left and its a perfect fit..

No. Just look at the part of the picture labelled with the number 1. It was taken in a factory and clearly shows that the green slab is not exisitent on the actual tanks, but just used for holding the gun.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

At least, Learn to read other posts before knee jerk comments..

For you the suggestion goes, ' read again than look again.. '

No. Just look at the part of the picture labelled with the number 1. It was taken in a factory and clearly shows that the green slab is not exisitent on the actual tanks, but just used for holding the gun.

 

[methos]

Either I have troubles with your writing style or - like the last time you used the term knee jerking - my answer is in the right context to your post.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Then you have not learned well and need to go back and complete that, before replying further posts..

like the last time you used the term knee jerking - my answer is in the right context to your post.

 

[methos]

Then you have not learned well and need to go back and complete that, before replying further posts..

Honestly I see the problem rather on your side. The first time you claimed I wouldn't read your post, the following happened:

1.) I say that Military-Today.com, a website where everybody can write articles, is not a reliable source, and point out that idrw.org has different, IMO better, information about the Arjun Mk 2
2.) You say "idrw copy news from other places and post" and that I should look for other sources, which you claim to have posted in the same thread (in fact you only posted an article from idrw.org and linked to Khlopotov's blog)
3.) I reply saying that MilitaryToday.com is a bad source, it is unreliable and unscientific.
4.) You post "My response was about idrw not military-today, try to read post properly at-least.."


So, in other words:
1.) Me: A is bad, B is better
2.) You: B is bad
3.) Me: A is worse
4.) You: My response was about B not A, try to read post properly at-least

If anyone has a problem with reading the forum posts in the correct context, it is you and not me. And here you just try to repeat the pattern from above:

1.) militarysta says that the Arjun's mantlet does not include the slab marked green in an image and provides a lot of images showing that.
2.) You say "The green slab in in arjun`s mantal, look again, turn the the green slab 180 degree to left and its a perfect fit.."
3.) I point out that you make a mistake by refering to a part of militarysta's photos
4.) You say "At least, Learn to read other posts before knee jerk comments.." & "For you the suggestion goes, ' read again than look again.. '"

So what is this? An attempted confusion tactic in order to stop people commenting on the topic when the discussion does not support your claims?

 

[pmaitra]

So, in other words:
1.) Me: A is bad, B is better
2.) You: B is bad
3.) Me: A is worse
4.) You: My response was about B not A, try to read post properly at-least

That's called objectivity.

What matters is that B is bad, regardless of whether it is better than A or not. Why bother about comparatives?

Now let me bring in a different context:

• Romulus: Hitler is bad, Stalin is better.
• Remus: Stalin is bad.
• Romulus: Hitler is worse.
• Remus: My response was about Stalin not Hitler, try to read post properly at-least.

So, when I say that something is bad, I mean that thing is bad, and whether it is better than something else, is irrelevant, and unnecessary obfuscation. Frankly, I see this trend personally quite often among our European friends in these tank related threads - lack of objectivity, and unnecessary overloading of junk information.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

About Mantlet Issue, This diagram for clarity for the words which are spelled here before >>

@ersakthivel, @sayareakd and others who noted this in other threads..

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

Commonality with Leo2 gun / mantlet, assemble >>

Arjun and Leo have different assemble design ( Not by 100% ), But in sense of protection design they have commonality..

 

[Dejawolf]

About Mantlet Issue, This diagram for clarity for the words which are spelled here before >>

@ersakthivel, @sayareakd and others who noted this in other threads..

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

Commonality with Leo2 gun / mantlet, assemble >>

Arjun and Leo have different assemble design ( Not by 100% ), But in sense of protection design they have commonality..

utter nonsense. and this is why:

shape of mantlet in this external picture of arjun, and picture of the main gun are identical, even the couloration matches...
dark green thick part, then a trapezoidal cylinder connecting to the barrel shroud.
you can see the latches for the barrel shroud, and count them, exact same number, 3 with that ugly tube thing on the end, you'd only be able to see 2 latches,
and the mantlet would be completely flat on front, or there'd be a hole.
this is the ugly truth staring you right in the face. you might not like it, i don't care.
here's another ugly truth. in all the pictures i've seen of the arjun mk.2 in none of them this part has been up-armoured.

 

[militarysta]

About Mantlet Issue, This diagram for clarity for the words which are spelled here before >>


@ersakthivel, @sayareakd and others who noted this in other threads..

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

Commonality with Leo2 gun / mantlet, assemble >>





Arjun and Leo have different assemble design ( Not by 100% ), But in sense of protection design they have commonality..

You are wrong.
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.

Just destroy pixels value on draw and on photo.
You are wrong Kunal.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@Dejawolf, what is the difference between a square and a rectangle ( 2nd grade question ) ? something i believe not needed to explain in the diagram, but i was indeed wrong..

I believe design modification can take place but the basic design which i showed is same, which is explained in 6th photo of the diagram..

==================================
@militarysta, read the suggestion for methos, you are simple repeating his post..

1. I and you have no idea or saw the design, But at least i am not saying its a sqare size..
2. You don't have any picture of gun assemble of Arjun MBT unlike Leo2 posted below, what we have over net is fragments not facts..
3. Read the diagram as suggested to methos..

Pixals, design and other issues are well described in the diagram with writing for better understanding..

Give a better read..

utter nonsense. and this is why:

.

You are wrong.
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

Just destroy pixels value on draw and on photo.
You are wrong Kunal.

 

[Dejawolf]

@Dejawolf, what is the difference between a square and a rectangle ( 2nd grade question ) ? something i believe not needed to explain in the diagram, but i was indeed wrong..

I believe design modification can take place but the basic design which i showed is same, which is explained in 6th photo of the diagram..

==================================
@militarysta, read the suggestion for methos, you are simple repeating his post..

1. I and you have no idea or saw the design, But at least i am not saying its a sqare size..
2. You don't have any picture of gun assemble of Arjun MBT unlike Leo2 posted below, what we have over net is fragments not facts..
3. Read the diagram as suggested to methos..

Pixals, design and other issues are well described in the diagram with writing for better understanding..

Give a better read..

unbelievable.. how you manage to cling onto your opinions like that takes olympic champion levels of delusion.

this must be the cult of the arjun:

some very simple shape matching:

 

[Dejawolf]

these images show off the pivot point on the white block more clearly:

 

[Kunal Biswas]

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

I believe you are the one, living with your delusion and you are running around it..

You have no explanation for photo #6 with #1 respectively as shown by me, Your theory is all around photo no #2..

( Photo #2, Gun assemble can be of Tank EX not Arjun )

I cannot help you, if you cannot help yourself..

unbelievable.. how you manage to cling onto your opinions like that takes olympic champion levels of delusion.

this must be the cult of the arjun:

some very simple shape matching:

these images show off the pivot point on the white block more clearly:

 

[Dejawolf]

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

I believe you are the one, living with your delusion and you are running around it..

You have no explanation for photo #6 with #1 respectively as shown by me, Your theory is all around photo no #2..

( Photo #2, Gun assemble can be of Tank EX not Arjun )

I cannot help you, if you cannot help yourself..

the explanation is the same it's always been. it's clearly an old prototype gun, the shape of the recoil absorber clamps doesn't match those of the interior pictures of the arjun. neither does the colour of the old prototype match the gun shown in the arjun interior.
you might not have noticed, but the prototype gun cradle is GREEN, while the cradle from the interior arjun pics it's white, like the #2 image.
i'd say it's more likely the prototype gun with the green cradle is the one for the Tank-ex.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Your thinking lack clarity and wrong ideas based on only picture 2..

A. TANK EX does not exists during early 90s, You have no idea about history..
B. You dont have any picture of Gun assemble of Arjun nor the thing you saw is of actually operational tank you fact based on fragments nor fact just as militarysta .

Simple, differentiate between square and rectangle, I cant believe i have to say this .. !

the explanation is the same it's always been. it's clearly an old prototype gun, the shape of the recoil absorber clamps doesn't match those of the interior pictures of the arjun. neither does the colour of the old prototype match the gun shown in the arjun interior.
you might not have noticed, but the prototype gun cradle is GREEN, while the cradle from the interior arjun pics it's white, like the #2 image.
i'd say it's more likely the prototype gun with the green cradle is the one for the Tank-ex.

 

[Dejawolf]

Your thinking lack clarity and wrong ideas based on only picture 2..

A. TANK EX does not exists during early 90s, You have no idea about history..
B. You dont have any picture of Gun assemble of Arjun nor the thing you saw is of actually operational tank you fact based on fragments nor fact just as militarysta .

Simple, differentiate between square and rectangle, I cant believe i have to say this .. !

does it change the fact that you're trying to tell me that an older version of the arjun tank gun in a test rig from 1985 is a more likely candidate than a more modern gun taken picture of in 2008?

i'm not thinking clearly? i'm not the one who's so in love with the arjun that it's impossible for me to see whats obviously there.
but you're totally in love with the Arjun. every time you see it you swell with national pride, and it makes you want to put flowers on it, and lovingly pat it.
listening to it's engine roar probably puts tears into your eyes, and as soon as someone comes and tells you the hard facts, you violently lash back.
it couldn't be! the arjun is NOT a mediocre tank! face it, the corruption of the indian army has managed to seep into the arjun tank program.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Without much going further into rash chit chat..

Your view of geometry is reverse than the rest the world see, hence wrong..

does it change the fact that you're trying to tell me that an older version of the arjun tank gun in a test rig from 1985 is a more likely candidate than a more modern gun taken picture of in 2008?

i'm not thinking clearly? i'm not the one who's so in love with the arjun that it's impossible for me to see whats obviously there.
but you're totally in love with the Arjun. every time you see it you swell with national pride, and it makes you want to put flowers on it, and lovingly pat it.
listening to it's engine roar probably puts tears into your eyes, and as soon as someone comes and tells you the hard facts, you violently lash back.
it couldn't be! the arjun is NOT a mediocre tank! face it, the corruption of the indian army has managed to seep into the arjun tank program.

 

[Dejawolf]

Without much going further into rash chit chat..

Your view of geometry is reverse than the rest the world see, hence wrong..

yeah well most people don't have an iq of 137, which is why i don't trust "most people" i'd rather trust the people who actually know what they're talking about.
here's another reason why your idea is ludicrous

go ahead, use a ruler or whatever to verify that the distances are the same. basically, the gun breech would have to be as long as the turret itself.

here's another image with less distortion:

anyone who's ever been inside of a tank would agree that this just doesn't work. the gun needs to recoil backwards,
it needs to elevate and depress. it depresses into the turret basket area, and elevates up to the roof, which is why the gun cannot stick further into the interior than the turret basket (around TC's hatch area) it also needs recoil area, which in the case of the arjun is handily combined with a stub catching basket. (not attached on the prototype gun)