Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Kunal Biswas]

Your blue and red lines make no sense with respect to turret and tool boxes or any of them..

That`s why, One should get on a tank and get proper calibration and not run after just some pics on open net..

 

[Dejawolf]

Your blue and red lines make no sense with respect to turret and tool boxes or any of them..

That`s why, One should get on a tank and get proper calibration and not run after just some pics on open net..

how about this then:

 

[SilentKiller]

how about this then:

2 blue lines are incorrectly drawn, they are not parallel to each other with same width between them. if u look at far ends
Even the two red lines can be drawn to be viewed in different way. think about that too.
The way lines are drawn and used as point of proofs is highly improper and i do agree commenting on pictures is like saying without proper proof, its the real product that matters.
I believe you and others should come to defence expo in india (you are heartily invited) and there u can look on the real machine.
Its incorrect to make perception of something you are not using of haven't used. its similar to trying to learn how engine works or is maintained from books etc and not by actually working on engine.
You cannot even say that india cannot make such armor or good engines etc as u are making incorrect prospective, 20 yrs ago no one could have guessed that india would start leading in IT, Space, bio-tech etc. In NASA more than 20% (not sure of exact figure) are Indians, close to 40% doctors in US are indian, so we have brains and if we get proper exposure we can make anything which if not better but equivalent to what west can make.

Hope you guys understand and stop all this and try to discuss on something which might be relevant.

 

[Dejawolf]

2 blue lines are incorrectly drawn, they are not parallel to each other with same width between them. if u look at far ends
Even the two red lines can be drawn to be viewed in different way. think about that too.
The way lines are drawn and used as point of proofs is highly improper and i do agree commenting on pictures is like saying without proper proof, its the real product that matters.
I believe you and others should come to defence expo in india (you are heartily invited) and there u can look on the real machine.
Its incorrect to make perception of something you are not using of haven't used. its similar to trying to learn how engine works or is maintained from books etc and not by actually working on engine.
You cannot even say that india cannot make such armor or good engines etc as u are making incorrect prospective, 20 yrs ago no one could have guessed that india would start leading in IT, Space, bio-tech etc. In NASA more than 20% (not sure of exact figure) are Indians, close to 40% doctors in US are indian, so we have brains and if we get proper exposure we can make anything which if not better but equivalent to what west can make.

Hope you guys understand and stop all this and try to discuss on something which might be relevant.

the 2 blue lines are not measuring the same thing. first line is measuring turret glacis to stowage box angle, second blue line is measuring the side turret angle.

 

[STGN]

The bulge is very slight, It is not noticeable even over the tank..

Only if you are not paying attention to it.
STGN

 

[Dejawolf]

You cannot even say that india cannot make such armor or good engines etc as u are making incorrect prospective, 20 yrs ago no one could have guessed that india would start leading in IT, Space, bio-tech etc. In NASA more than 20% (not sure of exact figure) are Indians, close to 40% doctors in US are indian, so we have brains and if we get proper exposure we can make anything which if not better but equivalent to what west can make.

Hope you guys understand and stop all this and try to discuss on something which might be relevant.

well, that's exactly it, there's been a tremendous brain drain from india. most of the brightest indian scientists are all working in the united states.
corruption is also a pretty major influence. pay off the right people, and the best design doesn't neccesarily have to win.
could be the designers were busy looking after themselves. if you make a flawed design, you can "discover" these flaws later and fix them.
it's good for business, even though it's not neccesarily very good for india.

 

[SilentKiller]

well, that's exactly it, there's been a tremendous brain drain from india. most of the brightest indian scientists are all working in the united states.
corruption is also a pretty major influence. pay off the right people, and the best design doesn't neccesarily have to win.
could be the designers were busy looking after themselves. if you make a flawed design, you can "discover" these flaws later and fix them.
it's good for business, even though it's not neccesarily very good for india.

True Sir,

surely in coming future you would see reverse of this brain drain. but it doesn't means that there is no enough brains in india.
real problem we faced till 90's was that economy was not liberalized and not enough funds were released for such projects.
We have our share of problems, who hasn't. There are no private players involved in arjun development (right now but would like to at least in production, i think only few are involved) that due to corruption or favor one design is selected over the other. Moreover arjun was designed with help of germans in late 80's that's the reason it has its similarities with leopard 1 tank.
True Arjun Design might not be perfect or great but it doesn't make it any less than any other tank.
A home made car whether its made by Tata or BMW is much better than imported Ferrari's.
Reasons: Skill and knowledge is gained by it, less pressure on economy, gives jobs etc.
Arjun Mk1 - had its flaws but we will not manufacture any more Arjun Mk1's so what's the point of discussion on its design and flaws etc.
we have another version of the tank arjun Mk2 in race now and orders have already been placed on this version, so why isn't there any discussion on its design and flaws?
So, if something is found in mk2 or there is need to improve tank even further we can go for arjun mk3 or arjun mk4 and so on.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Still does not make sense to me, It might be your measurement practice which makes it more magnified..

The bulge is very slight, It is not noticeable even over the tank..

how about this then:

 

[ersakthivel]

Only if you are not paying attention to it.
STGN

The slope seems to be mostly in the back portion. Not in the front turret.

the width at the center of the crew hatch is more than 3 meters that's what counts in measuring the side turret thickness besides the commander's hatch.

And this measurement and model stuff is carried on too far. it is a pointless job to drag it on. there are many prototypes of ARJUN photos meant to evaluate various subsystems whose photographs are doing the rounds, each can pick and choose some obscure drawing and prototype photo to back his own point.

This model looks vastly different from the one in the photo you posted.
No chance of close to 200 mm variation in turret width if we look at the photo above.


Also no one has opened the storage box and seen what it's width and length inside,

Already those storage boxes are converted to armor in mk-2 . So pretty useless debate as a whole.

 

[militarysta]

. So pretty useless debate as a whole.

Indeed -so meyby you will finally answer about my answer on your problem whit understand why Arjun have obvious small LOS after main sight.

Have you find any big mistake here:

?

 

[Dejawolf]

The slope seems to be mostly in the back portion. Not in the front turret.

the width at the center of the crew hatch is more than 3 meters that's what counts in measuring the side turret thickness besides the commander's hatch.

And this measurement and model stuff is carried on too far. it is a pointless job to drag it on. there are many prototypes of ARJUN photos meant to evaluate various subsystems whose photographs are doing the rounds, each can pick and choose some obscure drawing and prototype photo to back his own point.

This model looks vastly different from the one in the photo you posted.
No chance of close to 200 mm variation in turret width if we look at the photo above.


Also no one has opened the storage box and seen what it's width and length inside,

Already those storage boxes are converted to armor in mk-2 . So pretty useless debate as a whole.

oh i'm certain it's only an "obscure prototype" if it doesn't show what you want it to show.
At least one of the tanks in one of those pictures was a production tank.

 

[ersakthivel]

oh i'm certain it's only an "obscure prototype" if it doesn't show what you want it to show.
At least one of the tanks in one of those pictures was a production tank.

The tank in the picture won't suit your 3D model.So you will ignore it. Instead you will go to erly 1990s models which were towed to defence expos as your production model.And you will choose to ignore this tank .

 

[Dejawolf]

The tank in the picture won't suit your 3D model.So you will ignore it. Instead you will go to erly 1990s models which were towed to defence expos as your production model.And you will choose to ignore this tank .

LOL did you have to be this predictable? really...

 

[Dejawolf]

The tank in the picture won't suit your 3D model.So you will ignore it. Instead you will go to erly 1990s models which were towed to defence expos as your production model.And you will choose to ignore this tank .

so what in your criterias makes an arjun a new, and not old variant? did you invent "does not have angled turret sides" just now on the fly?
i'm sure even if i find one with that exact sight/paint job, you will still say it's a prototype because the sides are angled.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

It does not matter, all photos here are from prototypes only..

Only one from 2010 expo, which was operational one..

so what in your criterias makes an arjun a new, and not old variant? did you invent "does not have angled turret sides" just now on the fly?
i'm sure even if i find one with that exact sight/paint job, you will still say it's a prototype because the sides are angled.

 

[methos]

This is not a prototype:

Neither are these two:

 

[STGN]

The slope seems to be mostly in the back portion. Not in the front turret.

the width at the center of the crew hatch is more than 3 meters that's what counts in measuring the side turret thickness besides the commander's hatch.

And this measurement and model stuff is carried on too far. it is a pointless job to drag it on. there are many prototypes of ARJUN photos meant to evaluate various subsystems whose photographs are doing the rounds, each can pick and choose some obscure drawing and prototype photo to back his own point.

This model looks vastly different from the one in the photo you posted.
No chance of close to 200 mm variation in turret width if we look at the photo above.


Also no one has opened the storage box and seen what it's width and length inside,

Already those storage boxes are converted to armor in mk-2 . So pretty useless debate as a whole.

Yes also on the front portion.
No the width at the center of the crew hatches is not over 3m.
The model in my first slope illustration picture looks very much like the one in "your" picture.

There is ofcause a margin of error which is around 15mm on the resulting numbers of a 540mm hatch
Sorry for this information overload, but it pretty clearly shows you are wrong in your assertions.
Yes there are many prototypes of the Arjun but they are all build around the same base structure.
Do you have any proof for your assertion of armor side boxes on Mk2?
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

LOL did you have to be this predictable? really...

The basic criteria of determining the correctness of any dimensions on drawing or 3D model is ,

it must be consistent when checked with all available angles and with many different versions.

if it does not pass this test then

it does not represent the correct picture on the field.

 

[ersakthivel]

Indeed -so meyby you will finally answer about my answer on your problem whit understand why Arjun have obvious small LOS after main sight.

Have you find any big mistake here:

?

It is true only if the roof vision block pipe is positioned vertically , if it is slanted it is not correct. that is why you can not explain the vertical height of the roof vision block in the crew inside photo.

In this photo the top of the orange FCS box is not visible. But the roof vision block opening is visible.You haven't explained it till date.

So the arrangement for roof top vision block opening depicted in the photo below is simply inconsistent with reality. Which I have pointed out countless time. But your explanations is it is simply because of the angle of the camera, which is not correct explanation .

Also according to my measurements the inner armor wall behind the gunner's main vision block is more than 1400 mm behind the tip of the gun mantlet plate on the turret front. But you are consistently maintaining it to be at 1000 mm behind the turret front and erroneously arriving at 330 mm LOS thickness behind the main sight.

My estimate is it is more than 600 , And I explained it countless times.

The roof vision block in LEO-2 is located just 800 mm behind the turret tip.

But in ARJUN the roof vision block is located 1400 mm behind the turret gun front mantlet plate tip according to the PMAITRA's line drawing with dimensions.

Thats why the LEO needs the extra wall and ARJUN does not.

Also I have posted the bumpy inner turret wall of ARJUN with folds in the photos, indicating different LOS thickness acccording to the needs of IA for which you are yet to reply.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Partially correct..

1. Prototypes ( India today )

2. Prototype..

3. Production model..

----------------

Very confident assumptions, I see...

This is not a prototype:

Neither are these two: