Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[STGN]

You are yet to post any detailed drawing based measurement to contradict your own 3.1 meter turret width on pixel based measurement.

Yes I have, this picture:

trumps this picture

Because it takes into consideration the distances between the lines measured and it uses the hull as a check to see if the hatch width is close to correct. the 3.089 picture dosen't do that which is why I improved it to be even more accurate and as I did that I found that 550mm was too wide and 530mm was too shallow.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

3. The line across the turret width signifies the plane of the standing vertical hatch cover nothing else.It is this plane that should be projected down on hull for projecting down the rectangle developed from the line across hatch cover to get the true measurement basic principle of perspective drawing as taught in Engineering colleges.It is in fact the cross sectional plane to be precise.

What the line and it's projection downwards shows is that the line across the hatch width, the blue rectangle developed from the line across hatch and the same blue rectangle copied and projected down on the hull are at the same vertical cross sectional plane, a basic requirement before comparing the measurements on them.

your's questioning of this basic principles means you should update your knowledge about perspective projection.

 

[ersakthivel]

Yes I have, this picture:

trumps this picture

Because it takes into consideration the distances between the lines measured and it uses the hull as a check to see if the hatch width is close to correct. the 3.089 picture dosen't do that which is why I improved it to be even more accurate and as I did that I found that 550mm was too wide and 530mm was too shallow.
STGN

The measurement of the hull width is meters behind the plane having the standing vertical hatch covers.

So no way you can determine at which exact point the hull width shows it's real 3875 mm to convert it into pixel ratios.

Just look at the front tip of the hull which also measures 3875 mm being covered by much shorter white line,
than the much longer white line across the hull at the bottom of the photo which also measures the same 3875 mm distance.

Now which one you take as reference to arrive at your pixel scale?

Remember the photographs of two parallel rails of the railway track.

tell me at which point you take exact pixel measurement to get the right scale?

Answer -At no point.

So for any logical comparison in perspective drawing we must know the values of at leas one of the object, that too perpendicular to the observer for comparison.

So what may be possibly correct is your second picture , where you used the known value of hatch cover dia perpendicular to the camera.

you know very well , that we got the hatch cover width by comparing it to the size of the human head of the Tc standing in front of the hatch cover from another photo.

So your original second photo measurement is correct and your next improvisation in first photo is not consistent with known principles of taking measurement on perspective planes.


your hull width pixel ratios won't qualify for this requirement.

How do you use the hull as a check to see the hatch width is correct?

Any explanations for finding 530 mm too shallow and 550 mm too wide?

So irrespective who did which picture first,

the second original picture trumps the first later improvised picture according to the principles of perspective drawing..

 

[STGN]

Once again I never said that turret width gets higher when hatch gets smaller.

Well you didn't say that was your personal belief but you did say that is what you calculation did which is true which is why it is incorrect to use. Which is what I was talking about so stop trying to change the subject.

If some people say the hatch cover is just 500 mm in width , according to this measurement technique the turret width is only going to increase,

What I said was if I arrive at 3100 mm width in a straight on by the following formula of

turret width in the picture (in mm) / hatch width in picture (in mm) multiplied by 550 mm(hatch cover width)

Really where did you say that?:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bTYxjnN_Mwo/UPaogo5msWI/AAAAAAAAAAw/egQjKcMZiRA/s640/Arjun.jpg
The shadow of the turret falls on the hull at the third blue line from the top.

it is the place where turret's side wall projection on the hull would fall.

The blue rectangle drawn on the TC's crew hatch cover represent s the true length of the hatch cover .

This rectangle is projected in the correct plane on the hull ,

found out by the downwards projection of the line joining the two hatch covers on the turret top,
to the top of the hull.

This is the perspective drawing as far as I know,

Width over track is 3540 mm.


About half of the crew hatch is enclosed between the red line an the blue line.

The red line indicates the track width border of 3540 mm. Because there needs to be some gap between the inner side of the side skirt and track edges.

That is about 0.50x550 mm=220 mm
3540-(220x2=440 mm)= 3140 mm is the width of the ARJUN turret.

There needs to be a correction factor for taking the same length turret width line which is situated at a depth of the close to 1.5 meter from hull plane . If we apply that the hull width is only going to increase, not decrease.

Because the fixed length rectangle on the hatch cover will measure less length if we bring it in front by 1.5 meters on the hull plane, nearer to the observer( in this case the camera )

Since my opponents here will not accept it as they don't have any idea about Perspective distortion, I haven't included it here.

If some people say the hatch cover is just 500 mm in width , according to this measurement technique the turret width is only going to increase,

So no can try to wiggle out saying that if the hatch cover width decreases the turret width will also decrease when we go for a staight on hatch cover measurement like the one below.
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4033/mx3i.jpg


Even if you take a worst case scenario of 3000 mm turret width, giving a very large margin of 140 mm for inaccuracies

1500mm is the distance between outer most side wall of arjun side turret and the turret center line,
1200 mm is the distance between the two crew hatch centers,
1200/2= 600 mm is the distance of Tc' seat edge from the turret center line,
So 1500 mm-600 mm=900 mm is the space available besides the crew hatch center and the outer most side wall of ARJUN turret,

But what is amusing is you are simply misquoting me obsessively.

Where did I misquote you?

what that red line is doing there is to indicate the possible position of the track edges at 3560 mm,

In other words you are just guessing here.

because it is logical in any machine design to extend the hull plate length by a few cms more than the edge of the track width to avoid brushing against the side skirt plates located close by.

If you have any doubt look at the picture below.

Notice the large gap between the inner side skirts and the track edge.

A blatant insult, when you need to jerk off about your common technical understanding get a room for your self.

STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

Well you didn't say that was your personal belief but you did say that is what you calculation did which is true which is why it is incorrect to use. Which is what I was talking about so stop trying to change the subject.

What I meant was if some intelligent guy like you who once said that the hatch cover measures 550 mm by comparing to human face width changes track later to sing like a parrot that i find this width too big or too shallow, this perspective projection will counter such too clever by half claims.

Really where did you say that?:



Where did I misquote you?


In other words you are just guessing here.

The guess is proved by the pictures i posted above. if you want to disprove it, post pictures to prove that hull plate stops at the edge of tracks with not even a minimum overhang of 6 or seven centimeters. Considering your monumentally stupid too shallow too big guess for hatch cover width it is infact a much more logically correct guess which is proved with pics.

if you have issue with it post counter point with right pictures.

A blatant insult, when you need to jerk off about your common technical understanding get a room for your self.

that seems like a much better prospect than giving serious logical explanations for some one of your monumentally nano millimeter stature with insatiable thirst for foul language ,who pops questions like why this line joining the hatch covers is at a different height .

STGN

So you stop this drivel about your very logical, intelligent counter questioning of the measurement technique if you have no technical points to contribute.

 

[STGN]

The measurement of the hull width is meters behind the plane having the standing vertical hatch covers.

So no way you can determine at which exact point the hull width shows it's real 3875 mm to convert it into pixel ratios.

No its not look at a picture of the side of a ARJUN the hatches are just in front of the second hinge after the armor skirts. also where did 3875 come from?

Remember the photographs of two parallel rails of the railway track.

tell me at which point you take exact pixel measurement to get the right scale?

Answer -At no point.

You can look at the picture to see where I did my pixel measurement. I scaled it by using the distance from the rear of the turret going forward then I use the edge of the ammo cover to find what the perspective distortion is. look at the left side and the top of the picture. I got the distance scale by using the photo I posted earlier about the height of the Arjun using the distance from the edge of roof to the bottom of the storage box. I didn't put it on the photo because it was already a mess of information. Even if the scale is off the relation between the measuring points is still the same.

So for any logical comparison in perspective drawing we must know the values of at leas one of the object, that too perpendicular to the observer for comparison.

So what may be possibly correct is your second picture , where you used the known value of hatch cover dia perpendicular to the camera.

you know very well , that we got the hatch cover width by comparing it to the size of the human head of the Tc standing in front of the hatch cover from another photo.

So your original second photo measurement is correct and your next improvisation in first photo is not consistent with known principles of taking measurement on perspective planes.

550 is not a known value its somebody's guess.
My first image is not correct because it fails to take into consideration the distance between the widest point and the hatch there is about 30cm between them.

your hull width pixel ratios won't qualify for this requirement.

Well that is your opinion. Not surprising since it doesn't support your erroneous claims. personally I find it comforting to know that I can get within 1,5 cm even if it is not perfectly perpendicular to the camera, something you only complain about when it is not you who are using pictures that are not 100% perpendicular to the camera. Numbers like that tells me that I am very close.

How do you use the hull as a check to see the hatch width is correct?

Any explanations for finding 530 mm too shallow and 550 mm too wide?

because I measure the distance on the correct plane across the hull and see if the numbers I get are close to the know numbers given by DRDO.
530mm gives a distance of 3798mm which is 6,6cm 1.7% off, 550 gives a distance of 3942mm which is 7,8cm 2% off, 540 gives a distance which is 1.1cm 0.2% off.

Yes the plane on the hull is not 100% accurate but due to the low perspective distortion on the picture it not far off and as a guide it will do.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

No its not look at a picture of the side of a ARJUN the hatches are just in front of the second hinge after the armor skirts. also where did 3875 come from?


You can look at the picture to see where I did my pixel measurement. I scaled it by using the distance from the rear of the turret going forward then I use the edge of the ammo cover to find what the perspective distortion is. look at the left side and the top of the picture. I got the distance scale by using the photo I posted earlier about the height of the Arjun using the distance from the edge of roof to the bottom of the storage box. I didn't put it on the photo because it was already a mess of information. Even if the scale is off the relation between the measuring points is still the same.


550 is not a known value its somebody's guess.
My first image is not correct because it fails to take into consideration the distance between the widest point and the hatch there is about 30cm between them.


Well that is your opinion. Not surprising since it doesn't support your erroneous claims. personally I find it comforting to know that I can get within 1,5 cm even if it is not perfectly perpendicular to the camera, something you only complain about when it is not you who are using pictures that are not 100% perpendicular to the camera. Numbers like that tells me that I am very close.


because I measure the distance on the correct plane across the hull and see if the numbers I get are close to the know numbers given by DRDO.
530mm gives a distance of 3798mm which is 6,6cm 1.7% off, 550 gives a distance of 3942mm which is 7,8cm 2% off, 540 gives a distance which is 1.1cm 0.2% off.

Yes the plane on the hull is not 100% accurate but due to the low perspective distortion on the picture it not far off and as a guide it will do.
STGN

Take a good look at the second picture below.

You have drawn two white lines and one red line across the ARJUN hull which measures a constant width all along it's length,

All three lines have different lengths yet they cover the same constant hull width.this is what perspective distortion for you,

Now which line represents the true scale length? Whatever is convenient to you perhaps,

Don't you see how illogical your statement that the hatch cover width is either 540 or 530 or 550 based on ratios taken from any of these lines?

it is totally wrong to say something about hatch width based on this pic where you don't know which of the three lines is a proper scale(in reality none of the three)

Who told you the red line closest to OBSERVER (camera here) gives the correct hull width of ARJUN?

Go and ask any second year mechanical student whether the length on the line closest to the camera is the true scale length,

I already told you the analogy of railway tracks to illustrate this erroneous scale taking,

We arived at a hatch cover width of 550 mm from multiplying the average face width of 190 odd mm or so provided by wiki by three times according to the Tc ' face infront of the hatch, which is the right way,DON'T YOU REMEBER?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_head


look at the image below we know the average face width of a human being, take it as a scale and get the hatch cover width.

It is correct.

The turret at the plane of crew hatch measures 5.6 times the crew hatch cover width, which is perpendicular to the camera, so no perspective distortion.

If we take 550 mm as crew hatch width then,

i.e 550x5.6=3080 mm,

No fancy rulers, no perspective factoring, just a bang on straight line measurement that can be checked by any body.

Same as my above post.

Still you don't see that/ Astonishing!!!!!!!!!!

Also the ratio of he length between the two edges of crew hatch /crew hatch width is 3.4.

So the distance is 3.4x550mm=1870 mm.

So 3100 mm is the width of the turret,

3100-1780=1230 mm/2=615 mm is the distance between the crew hatch edge and outer turret wall on one side available for armor cavity,

On the other side also another 615 mm is the distance between the crew hatch edge and outer turret wall on one side available for armor cavity,

I take this as my final confirmation of turret width as 3100 mm and I am closing the debate from my side on this matter,

 

[ersakthivel]

from the 615 mm in the above post you can deduct[ the width of storage boxes + 100 mm(space between the crew hole edge and inner turret wall of ARJUN) ]to arrive at armor LOS thickness for mk-1s.

For mk-2s the storage boxes are gonna be converted to armored modules , I read, so no problem with side turret protection.

 

[STGN]

Take a good look at the second picture below.

You have drawn two white lines and one red line across the ARJUN hull which measures a constant width all along it's length,

All three lines have different lengths yet they cover the same constant hull width.this is what perspective distortion for you,

Now which line represents the true scale length? Whatever is convenient to you perhaps,

Don't you see how illogical your statement that the hatch cover width is either 540 or 530 or 550 based on ratios taken from any of these lines?

it is totally wrong to say something about hatch width based on this pic where you don't know which of the three lines is a proper scale(in reality none of the three)

Who told you the red line closest to OBSERVER (camera here) gives the correct hull width of ARJUN?

Go and ask any second year mechanical student whether the length on the line closest to the camera is the true scale length,

I already told you the analogy of railway tracks to illustrate this erroneous scale taking,

We arived at a hatch cover width of 550 mm from multiplying the average face width of 190 odd mm or so provided by wiki by three times according to the Tc ' face infront of the hatch, which is the right way,DON'T YOU REMEBER?

I will try to explain a last time.
The white lines are use to out line the hull and to find out the angel to which the hull has turned relative to the turret so I can draw a line as straight across the hull as possible.it also points out that the armor skirts on this ARJUN model don't have the same length. And to find the location on the hull I look at pictures of the ARJUN from the side to see where on the hull I should place this line so its a close as possible to the plane of the hatch. So its at the six hinge from the front on the right side and behind the sixth hinge on the left side. These are the places that are beneath the hatch on the hull and very close to the same plane. NOBODY told me I figured it out myself, do you deny that from the side the sixth hinges from the front are very close to the same plane as the hatch? You don't need to be told by somebody ells what to think!!!
How can you complain about how my scaling is inaccurate and then just throw out any scaling and say that is better. the image with the 3.089 figure does not take into account any difference in distance, from the widest point and the hatch, in that image they are on the same plane which means that the turret comes out as wider than it actually is.
Yes it is not 100% accurate but that doesn't mean that there fore it is 100% wrong and should be discarded at once. no scaling is not better than slightly inaccurate scaling. I know and understand the railway analogy which is true, there just a few things to consider I am not trying to determine something kms apart this is only a length of under 3m. Having no scaling at all is not better than having scaling that is lets say 80% accurate maybe its a bit to small maybe its a bit over the actual scaling but no scaling at all is not better than slightly off scaling, you are not being logical here.
There is only 1cm difference between 540mm and 550mm and as the commander is sitting in the hole not on the hatch he is in front of and larger than the hatch so you need to scale, besides faces being very difficult to measure accurately when they are wearing tank helmets.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

I will try to explain a last time.
The white lines are use to out line the hull and to find out the angel to which the hull has turned relative to the turret so I can draw a line as straight across the hull as possible.it also points out that the armor skirts on this ARJUN model don't have the same length. And to find the location on the hull I look at pictures of the ARJUN from the side to see where on the hull I should place this line so its a close as possible to the plane of the hatch. So its at the six hinge from the front on the right side and behind the sixth hinge on the left side. These are the places that are beneath the hatch on the hull and very close to the same plane. NOBODY told me I figured it out myself, do you deny that from the side the sixth hinges from the front are very close to the same plane as the hatch? You don't need to be told by somebody ells what to think!!!
How can you complain about how my scaling is inaccurate and then just throw out any scaling and say that is better. the image with the 3.089 figure does not take into account any difference in distance, from the widest point and the hatch, in that image they are on the same plane which means that the turret comes out as wider than it actually is.
Yes it is not 100% accurate but that doesn't mean that there fore it is 100% wrong and should be discarded at once. no scaling is not better than slightly inaccurate scaling. I know and understand the railway analogy which is true, there just a few things to consider I am not trying to determine something kms apart this is only a length of under 3m. Having no scaling at all is not better than having scaling that is lets say 80% accurate maybe its a bit to small maybe its a bit over the actual scaling but no scaling at all is not better than slightly off scaling, you are not being logical here.
There is only 1cm difference between 540mm and 550mm and as the commander is sitting in the hole not on the hatch he is in front of and larger than the hatch so you need to scale, besides faces being very difficult to measure accurately when they are wearing tank helmets.
STGN

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/HeadAnthropometry.JPG

download the above page.

See the measurement number 3 --the breadth of the face measured across most lateral projections of the cheekbones

For 95 percent of men it is 150mm.

I took the face breadth number-3 in the chart because that portion of his face is clearly visible and this ratio can be checked by any member of this forum.

because his ears were covered by helmet i did not take that measurement I did not take measurement number 1 In the chart to avoid the confusion..



In the photo below the ratio of

hatch cover width behind the TC/same distance no-3 of human face as mentioned above is close to 4.

So 4x150 mm=600 mm.

Thats why I accepted the crew hatch cover width as minimum 550 mm when it was mentioned once in this forum.

GOT IT?

 

[STGN]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/HeadAnthropometry.JPG

download the above page.

See the measurement number 3 --the breadth of the face measured across most lateral projections of the cheekbones

For 95 percent of men it is 150mm.

I took the face breadth number-3 in the chart because that portion of his face is clearly visible and this ratio can be checked by any member of this forum.

because his ears were covered by helmet i did not take that measurement I did not take measurement number 1 In the chart to avoid the confusion..



In the photo below the ratio of

hatch cover width behind the TC/same distance no-3 of human face as mentioned above is close to 4.

So 4x150 mm=600 mm.

Thats why I accepted the crew hatch cover width as minimum 550 mm when it was mentioned once in this forum.

GOT IT?

I understand what you are saying, you however make a mistake here the median(average) face is only 14,5cm wide.
95th percentile does not mean that 95% of men have a 15.5cm wide head rather it means that 95 percent of men have a smaller face than 15.5.
so 4x14,5 = 58 before factoring in perspective. that again gets us down around 53-54 using your "perspective estimate".
STGN

 

[Dejawolf]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/HeadAnthropometry.JPG

download the above page.

See the measurement number 3 --the breadth of the face measured across most lateral projections of the cheekbones

For 95 percent of men it is 150mm.

I took the face breadth number-3 in the chart because that portion of his face is clearly visible and this ratio can be checked by any member of this forum.

because his ears were covered by helmet i did not take that measurement I did not take measurement number 1 In the chart to avoid the confusion..

you just said 190mm...

 

[ersakthivel]

you just said 190mm...

that is with ear and the helmet included.

 

[The Last Stand]

you just said 190mm...

He was probably in a hurry, but 550 mm is still thrice of 150 mm. That stands, that is what he meant.

I'd prefer if you finish this "debate" off within the next 3 pages. All of us would.

 

[ersakthivel]

I understand what you are saying, you however make a mistake here the median(average) face is only 14,5cm wide.
95th percentile does not mean that 95% of men have a 15.5cm wide head rather it means that 95 percent of men have a smaller face than 15.5.
so 4x14,5 = 58 before factoring in perspective. that again gets us down around 53-54 using your "perspective estimate".
STGN

See. i don't want to drag this further. So let's close this debate on the length and width of turret forever and give other members a chance to carry on with some useful stuff.

As I am going to post most of the same material I already posted to rebut any counter point. it is too tiring and time consuming.nothing new is going to emerge out of this acrimonious debate.

we have taken entrenched positions and nothing we post is going to make the other member change his views.

And it is a fruitless enterprise as well.So I won't post anymore on this topic unless something substantially new stuff is posted.

And lets wait for kunal's posts from the defexpo-2014 before jumping the gun.So time to call it quits.

 

[STGN]

See. i don't want to drag this further. So let's close this debate on the length and width of turret forever and give other members a chance to carry on with some useful stuff.

As I am going to post most of the same material I already posted to rebut any counter point. it is too tiring and time consuming.nothing new is going to emerge out of this acrimonious debate.

we have taken entrenched positions and nothing we post is going to make the other member change his views.

And it is a fruitless enterprise as well.So I won't post anymore on this topic unless something substantially new stuff is posted.

And lets wait for kunal's posts from the defexpo-2014 before jumping the gun.So time to call it quits.

Okay fair enough I will not debate you.



For the record I have not taken an entrenched position, I have changed my position several times already and will do again if evidence changes.
STGN

 

[Dejawolf]

He was probably in a hurry, but 550 mm is still thrice of 150 mm. That stands, that is what he meant.

I'd prefer if you finish this "debate" off within the next 3 pages. All of us would.

fine, end of debate. i'm sick and tired of this.

 

[ersakthivel]

The view that positioning of the main sight under the roof of the turret gives raise to a weak spot is one of the most ill informed opinions peddled by people to simply score points,

just imagine a tank with main sight on the roof of the tank. It will be gone the moment a simple fragment from surrounding explosion hits the exposed sight on the roof.

But if the main sight is placed under the turret roof it is heavily protected from all three sides and exposed only in the front and that too when an opponent tank stands directly in front of the main gun and co axial machine guns, and has the time to take the aim and shoot accurately at the sight.

A very rare occurance in battle.

What will the Tc and the gunner in the target tank (with main sight below the roof of the turret) do till this rare incident happens. Sleep tight perhaps.

And even if the gunner and the Tc snooze around the round from the enemy tank should hit the main sight taking the straight line path of the bullet on the bottom half of the main sight. Because the top part of the main sight is protected by more than 2000 mm thick roof plate behind it.

because any round other than the enemy tank round won't get through even the lesser LOS armor behind the main sight.

It means that the enemy tank must accurately hit the 10 cm X 25 cm rectangle of the bottom portion of the main sight from a distance of close to 2 kms or 1km. What are the chances?

The same as the tank with main sight below roof level can hit the gun mantlet plate of the enemy tank with sights on the roof.

So no difference in survival possibility.

And most people who say that ARJUN has this flaw and that flaw haven't even seen a proper photograph of production model let alone the tank in reality.

Mr. Jayakumar said Arjun was the most tested battle tank in the world, as it had clocked 70,000 km, in addition to about 10,000 trial firings. Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt.

For a parabolic hit on the area behind the main sight , the chances are better for the tank with main sight below the roof level as there is every possibility that there will be some extra armor protection , like the longer turret composite armor length on ARJUN or extra armor block behind the main sight on LEO.

So the placement of main sight below the roof level as a major point of weakness is mostly a theory debate with no grounds in reality of battle field.

No enemy tank gunner will focus his aim on the tiny 10 X 20 cm bottom portion of the main sight of the tank , located at the top left corner of the tank,

Because the chances of his rounds missing this small choclate wrapper size target from 2 kms is 10 times more than hitting it.

If he does such a foolhardy job of firing 10 rounds on the same 10 x 20 cm sized target on the top left corner of the tank to get a kill, He will be hit 10 times by the enemy tank with main sight below the roof level tank and will be dead dog long before.

because the chances of one of those 10 rounds taking out his main gun and the mantle plate or the weakly protected turret side simply relying on turret geometry are 10 times greater.

So arguments that tanks like LEO and ARJUN can be taken out by bullet like straight line shots on the bottom 10 cm x 20 cm bottom portion of the main sight is a wet dream that can only happen when the gunner and Tc of LEO or ARJUN is sleeping soundly,

even then the sound of the missing round will wake them up is my very very humble opinion.

So IM very very HO the weak armor behind the main sight can be used to beat a tank in troll wars in open forums not in real wars on the battle field.

That's why designers choose a trade off of losing some armor behind the main sight to keep it safe from surrounding explosions that can cripple exposed main sights sitting like soap boxes above the roof top ,
that can be taken out by simple armor piercing bullets making the tank effectively blind in real war.

 

[Dejawolf]

The view that positioning of the main sight under the roof of the turret gives raise to a weak spot is one of the most ill informed opinions peddled by people to simply score points,

just imagine a tank with main sight on the roof of the tank. It will be gone the moment a simple fragment from surrounding explosion hits the exposed sight on the roof.

But if the main sight is placed under the turret roof it is heavily protected from all three sides and exposed only in the front and that too when an opponent tank stands directly in front of the main gun and co axial machine guns, and has the time to take the aim and shoot accurately at the sight.

A very rare occurance in battle.
.

you couldn't let it rest.... at 2km, because of dispersion, you'll be hitting a random location within a ~1m radius.
what tend to happend in real tank battles, and what tankers are trained to do, is to aim centrepoint, and fire until the target starts burning, or no longer returns fire.
one of those shots might hit the weakspot, and then it's over.
as for your 2000mm figure.. thats ludicrous. theres no tank in the world with a 2000mm thick roof protection.

 

[ersakthivel]

you couldn't let it rest.... at 2km, because of dispersion, you'll be hitting a random location within a ~1m radius.
what tend to happend in real tank battles, and what tankers are trained to do, is to aim centrepoint, and fire until the target starts burning, or no longer returns fire.
one of those shots might hit the weakspot, and then it's over.
as for your 2000mm figure.. thats ludicrous. theres no tank in the world with a 2000mm thick roof protection.

I already posted that it is a waste of time to discuss anything of significance with you guys,

If you have any point counter to my post address it to all members in general don't reply to me.

you don't understand the context of my post which is a reply to an obsessed member in this forum who keeps harping that the so called weakness behind the main sight is the only portion at which an enemy gunner will aim.

So you let it rest.