Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[ersakthivel]

@Kunal Biswas posted the above picture many months before the whole discussion on turret width started . And he is correct. The needless disputing of his measurement for over 30 pages in this thread and the Arjun Vs T-90 thread by the guys @methos @Damian @militarysta backed by arguments from @Dejawolf is a pointless exercise and not based on any principles of Engineering drawing or perspective drawing.

I used the correct width of 550 mm for hatch for calculation, so it does not matter what width you or STGN used for that purpose.

The ratio of the ---- space on the ARJUN hull besides the turret side padlock covered with lock (27 mm on scale )/ hatch cover width (38 mm on scale ) is 0.7

0.7x550 mm=385 mm.on one side.

2x385 mm=770 mm on both sides,

frontal hull width(partial frontal side skirts included is my assumption) is 3860 mm.

Turret width =3860 mm-770 mm=3100 mm i.e 3.1 meters.

There are no errors here,Once again I am not commenting on his pixel measurement techniques ,

it is the simple ratio of spaces anybody can measure on any size of their computer screen or printouts.


It is final and agreed upon by STGN as well, now he is saying it is inaccurate is none of my business.

Which is further corroborated by the picture above.

the red line is where the tracks are leaving aside the side skirts,

the red line cuts the hatch into two i.e 550 mm/2=275 mm.

For both sides 275mm x2=550mm,

width over track is 3540 mm-550mm=3 meters.

The ratio of far hatch width/ the near ( blue rectangle placed ) hatch width is=0.85. this is due to perspective.

This is due to perspective distortion of distances, because the near hatch appears visually bigger compared to far hatch due to distance from the observer,

In the same way the rectangle placed on the hull should measure 0.85 times the actual dimension measured when it is placed on on the near hatch cover.

In the same way we should reduce the 275 mm length cut by the red line using 0.85 as factor .So it comes to 233 mm,

233mm x2=460 mm,

3540 mm-460 mm=3100 mm,

Again the same,

So since both measurements tally I have no doubt regarding this measuring technique, whatever you may post to counter this.

I also arrived at the same measurements based on the projection principle of perspective drawing in the page below.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-290.html

But some posters never agreed and the totally avoidable silly ,rancorous debate consumed more than 30 pages in Arjun MBT thread and the T-90 VS Arjun thread.

Before disputing someone else doggedly these posters who call themselves as defence professionals should have taken some basic lessons in perspective drawing.or could have asked any real pro to check my measuring principles based on perspective drawing.

SO the width of Arjun turret in the following model by @Dejawolf must be corrected to to 3200 mm to give a correct picture.

Because the space thus freed up will give a correct position of the gunner's seat to arrive at a correct LOS behind the armor.

 

[ersakthivel]

Instead of accepting my view point , this is the stock reply I got for the above argument in the previous post (in the quote).

no your estimate is 3.2m because that's the assumption kunal biswas made.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-45.html#post646023
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-44.html

as i've said for the past 2 months, 2.86m.

yes, i realized you were too stupid to understand it, so i found a much simpler method to show everyone what an imbecile you are..

the only liar here is you:

also:

so don't accuse me of misleading anyone here.

I don't really care about that mesurment. For me it's obvious that turret have circa ~2,84m width. And until hard proof will be found those value for me is base.


On photo there are clearly visible storage boxes not armour modules.

On previous photos given by me there is visible those aditional plate between storage boxes and turret side. So we have:
turret side (~60mm) those plate (propably 60mm thick) + storage box.
Of course it's avaible to replace those storage boxes by armour module - why not? But I didn't found even single clear enought photo whit that module.

put your stupid ruler on your stupid little monitor and measure it and see that the width is EXACTLY the same.

And the following reply takes the cake,ofcourse revised with new knowledge. What knowledge only God knows,

revised with new knowledge.
18+18+16 = 52
52*2 = 104
386-104 = 282cm

You just dont understand...check taht damm shuoes lenght...





Soilders shoe is circa 75px long.
In Dejawolf scale 50px ia equal 18cm
In teory (whit some margin of error) shoe lenght is 27cm what is full possible.
So what is Your problem whit shoeas on photo? Can You explain?

And until edge of the tank skirts we have "2x shoe lenght distance" so 27cmx2 = 54cm.
When we take offcial DRDO Arjun width - DRDO width - 3864mm and minus 540mm (left side) and next 540mm (right side) we have 2784mm (2,78m) turret width. Of course there is some error so IMHO turret width is circa 2,84m width.

Where is in your opinnion the mistake?

And we started measuring shoes and wrists and god knows what else!!!!!!!!!!

The debate ended up looking like four blind men describing their ideas about elephant based on their own perceptions.

 

[Twinblade]

The maroon rectangle measures 135 mm on scale.
The front turret height yellow rectangle measures 34mm on scale.

Don't use this image for analysis. The aspect ratio is wrong in this picture. You will always get a wider measurement.

Regards.

 

[ersakthivel]

Don't use this image for analysis. The aspect ratio is wrong in this picture. You will always get a wider measurement.

Regards.

Which aspect ratio?

The picture is a perspective drawing and the turret front is perpendicular to the camera. So dimensions on that front turret plane is real world value with no perspective distortion if we know the real world value of one dimension at that plane, here it is the turret height we know it to b3 584 mm..

In the above picture also we get a turret width/ turret height ratio of 5.55,

So if we multiply 5.55 x 584 mm= Still we get 3240 mm .

Is the picture above correct in aspect ratio?

 

[ersakthivel]

The yellow rectangle marks the position of the gun sledge measuring 250 mm minimum.

The blue rectangle is the gunner's seat horizontal position very close to the gun sledge as per photo below(for reference look at the width of the gun sledge and compare it with the gap between the gun sledge edge and the Gunner's seat edgeno way it is going to be more than 200 mm. But the Tc seat starts more than 500 mm away from the center line of the turret giving ample room for some lateral placement of seats rather than the strict one behind one arrangement .),

And the maroon rectangle marks the Tc's seat. So most of Tc's knee space goes over gunner's right shoulder. So there is no need for 680 mm knee and leg space between the Tc's seat back and the gunner's seat back , with gunner sitting well below Tc.

So this is the LOS behind the main sight rough idea of course.

After the end of the TC seat there is a distance of close to 300 mm between the edge of the Tc's seat and the start of the storage boxes.

Of this at least 100 mm vacant space is visible between the Tc seat right shoulder edge and the inner turret wall, Meaning a 200 mm space for a LOS 200 mm side armor behind the storage boxes. Of course this has to be checked for correctness.

 

[Twinblade]

Which aspect ratio?

The dimensions of the picture are distorted. The picture is not in its original height to width ratio. You can see the barrel is elleptical, for a picture taken from front, the barrel should be more or less circular. This indicates that the picture's aspect ratio has been altered. Try using a different front shot for measurements. You can compare it with pictures you posted in the posts that followed, the barrel is circular in them for more or less similar bearings of the gun barrel.

Regards.

 

[STGN]

Arjun Mk-I main battle tank technical data sheet specifications information description intelligence---Army Recognition---Army Recognition

The height of Arjun as per this army recognition website drawing is 2.32 meter.

The maroon rectangle measures 135 mm on scale.
The front turret height yellow rectangle measures 34mm on scale.

Measurement in mm may wary depending upon the screen size, But the ratio below is always correct ,

So the ratio of turret height/ tank height is (34/135)=0.25185.

So the height of the turret is =0.2585 x 2320 mm= 584 mm.


So the turret front armor block height is 584 mm.






In the following photo the same 584 mm represented by the yellow (turret front width)measures 18 mm on scale.

...

STGN

 

[The Last Stand]

STGN

What do you mean by this image sir?

 

[STGN]

What do you mean by this image sir?

Well look at the lines, then look at where he drew his lines, his method is clearly wrong as he tries to determine height of the turret storage box and then use that height as the height of the front turret. there is already a huge number of errors in his method but leave those aside. He then completely discard the fact that the front of the turret has a sloped roof. It is just a completely wrong method to determine any distance. And I think plainly obvious that he is wrong.
STGN

 

[STGN]

STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

Well look at the lines, then look at where he drew his lines, his method is clearly wrong as he tries to determine height of the turret storage box and then use that height as the height of the front turret. there is already a huge number of errors in his method but leave those aside. He then completely discard the fact that the front of the turret has a sloped roof. It is just a completely wrong method to determine any distance. And I think plainly obvious that he is wrong.
STGN

The line touches storage box top for determining the max height of the tank.

The angle of the photo is such that if you extend the same the maroon horizontal line at the turret top and you will see it touching the turret front top edge.

Tha's why I chose this photo.

The sloped roof doesnot shows up due to the angle .So what I measured in fact was the turret front face width below the slope not above the slope.

So no foul play here. you don't understand the bsic principles of taking measurements on a perpendicular plane in perspective views.

The reason I chose that photo was it was the latest from defexpo 2012. Not the museum piece line drawing you used in the following picture.

Arjun started life as a 105 m gun 40 ton tank in the early 80s. SO if you go by museum pictures and 1990s India today pictures, you can get whatever dimension you wish.

 

[ersakthivel]

The dimensions of the picture are distorted. The picture is not in its original height to width ratio. You can see the barrel is elleptical, for a picture taken from front, the barrel should be more or less circular. This indicates that the picture's aspect ratio has been altered. Try using a different front shot for measurements. You can compare it with pictures you posted in the posts that followed, the barrel is circular in them for more or less similar bearings of the gun barrel.

Regards.

The gun barrel hole shows a perfect round in this photo. So all aspects are correct and still I get 3200 mm front turret width.

In the above picture also we get a turret width/ turret height ratio of 5.55,

So if we multiply 5.55 x 584 mm= Still we get 3240 mm .

Is the picture above correct in aspect ratio?

So no problem .

It is perfectly normal for the circle to show up as eliptical shape if the gun barrel is depressed lower than the height of the camera in perspective drawing type photo.

.That does not mean aspect ratio is wrong.

Just think about it.

Regards.

 

[ersakthivel]

What do you mean by this image sir?

He does not have a full length tank picture of the latest make perpendicular to the camera for any useful observation.

 

[STGN]

The line touches storage box top for determining the max height of the tank.

The angle of the photo is such that if you extend the same the maroon horizontal line at the turret top and you will see it touching the turret front top edge.

Tha's why I chose this photo.

The sloped roof doesnot shows up due to the angle .So what I measured in fact was the turret front face width below the slope not above the slope.

So no foul play here. you don't understand the bsic principles of taking measurements on a perpendicular plane in perspective views.

You stating this only shows that you have no Idea about what you speak, I mean this is on the level of "gunner sitting in front of the mantel". And you complain about not using correct plane perspective and stuff and then you do this, its hilarious ROTFL literally.

STGN

 

[STGN]

The line touches storage box top for determining the max height of the tank.

The angle of the photo is such that if you extend the same the maroon horizontal line at the turret top and you will see it touching the turret front top edge.

Tha's why I chose this photo.

The sloped roof doesnot shows up due to the angle .So what I measured in fact was the turret front face width below the slope not above the slope.

So no foul play here. you don't understand the bsic principles of taking measurements on a perpendicular plane in perspective views.

The reason I chose that photo was it was the latest from defexpo 2012. Not the museum piece line drawing you used in the following picture.

Arjun started life as a 105 m gun 40 ton tank in the early 80s. SO if you go by museum pictures and 1990s India today pictures, you can get whatever dimension you wish.

Oh you mean like you arbitrary selecting lines that go across the front of the turret and give vaguely fantasy fitting numbers. I clearly used no 105 mm prototype, not sure I even used any prototypes in the photos? and if I did then its surpricing how they all fit so well together its almost like the base structure has remained the same for quit a while.....
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

You stating this only shows that you have no Idea about what you speak, I mean this is on the level of "gunner sitting in front of the mantel". And you complain about not using correct plane perspective and stuff and then you do this, its hilarious ROTFL literally.

STGN

Sorry , You are not getting the point.

The maroon rectangle determines the maximum height of the tank for taking ratios with front turret face marked by yellow rectangle.

That's why I have drawn the maroon rectangle at the middle of the tank. It's base is in line with the blue steps in the middle of the turret.

The yellow rectangle measures the front face width of the turret,after the turret slope..

If you project a separate yellow projection lines from the yellow rectangle on to the turret front, it will exactly cover the front turret height after the slope.

there is no foul play on my part in not drawing the yellow projection line. It will interfere with the maroon horizontal projection line and then you will start claiming that I am measuring the lower frontal height of the turret with the intention to cheat.

Since this front turret slope is perpendicular to the face of the camera, no errors here.

Regards.

 

[Dejawolf]

took this age old image and did some tweaking. chassis width is undisputably ~2m wide.

turret is in zone where hull width in pixels is about 240-230 pixels.
this gives a turret/hull ratio of 1.37 to 1.43.
however, in order for turret to be 3.2m, the turret/hull ratio needs to be 1.57(210pixels), which is demonstrated in the picture with a green line.

 

[ersakthivel]

Oh you mean like you arbitrary selecting lines that go across the front of the turret and give vaguely fantasy fitting numbers. I clearly used no 105 mm prototype, not sure I even used any prototypes in the photos? and if I did then its surpricing how they all fit so well together its almost like the base structure has remained the same for quit a while.....
STGN

no fantasy. Just read the explanation above.

 

[ersakthivel]

took this age old image and did some tweaking. chassis width is undisputably ~2m wide.

turret is in zone where hull width in pixels is about 240-230 pixels.
this gives a turret/hull ratio of 1.43 to 1.37
however, in order for turret to be 3.2m, the turret/hull ratio needs to be 1.57(210pixels), which is demonstrated in the picture with a green line.

chassis is 3 more than 3 meters in front of the turret. Lot of perspective distortion creeps in.

Read the explanation in the above post 5336.

That's how simple genuine comparisons that can easily be understood by any one is made.

 

[Dejawolf]

Read the explanation in the above post.

this post has nothing to do with the above post.