Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[STGN]

@militarysta, @STGN, @ersakthivel, never followed this thread as too much discussion over just one point. But I think that the height in your pic where it is 578 mm(for Militarysta), it should be approx 630mm. This I get from 2 below drawings(ignore the techie terms as I'm not into much).

First one -

from here we get the height of turret where the man stand as approx 75 CM.

2nd one - from this we can deduce that the wrt the height of 75 CM the height at front is approx 627MM where you are mentioning 573mm.

I have also cut the part of image and put it next to standing Man in turret and it almost equals to the height of standing man realistically.

One problem with that drawing is that the length between those lines is incorrect it is not 10.64m more like 10.22m at least if we scale by the outside of the roadwheels which have a 66cm diameter. The line following the ground where the track pads stands, has the correct length of 10:64 if we use that scale. About 974 pix in your picture.
STGN

 

[STGN]

http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag8/ersakthivel/arjundimensions_zps60fd4213.png
According to the line drawing the height of the crew hatch cover is 50 mm exactly.

And in the following photo the ratio of the width of the crew hatch cover/ height of the crew hatch cover is 1.2.

So width of the crew hatch cover is 1.2 X 50= 60 mm .


http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag8/ersakthivel/realfinal_zps8ce02751.jpg

If the width of the crew hatch cover is close to 60 mm.Then if you apply 60 mm in place of the 55 mm in the picture below , You will surely get minimum 3200 mm as turret width at the axis joining the two crew hatch hole centers.

because even for a crew hatch width of 550 mm we get 3100 as the width at the turret center.

Already Kunal once posted that the width of the crew hatch cover standing vertical in this picture above is about 53 to 57 cms.

So there is no way for the turret width to be lower than the 3200 mm mark at the center of the turret.

http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag8/ersakthivel/rearturret_zps5837cfec.jpg

So now there is no way any one can dispute this,

SO the reason we wanted to know the turret width at the center is to prove the seating arrangement for the gunner and the TC as shown in the picture above.

So that is pretty much proved once for all. I consider it as my final reply in this dimension of turret width at the center of the crew hole .



http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag8/ersakthivel/rearturret_zps5837cfec.jpg

If you have any doubt this is the enlarged view of the crew hatch.

http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag8/ersakthivel/untitled_zps28c9f87a.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img4/8668/iwsb.png

So images like the one below have no real value in determining the width of the turret at it's center to determine the position of gunner's seat and Tc' seat and the side turret armor.
http://imageshack.us/a/img4/8668/iwsb.png

Look in the drawing you measure the 50cm height from the pivot point to the top of the hatch, but in the pictures you measure it from the top edge to the bottom edge of the hatch but you don't go down to the pivot point. You can't even see the pivot point in that photo.
Bravo, bravo! classic ersakthivel! But its nice to know that you now claim that the hatch is 60cm wide.
I take the liberty of assuming you made a mistake when you wrote 60mm and not 60cm.
STGN

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Pixal measurements is flawed when one is going for precious measurements, Its approx..

Also avoid, term such as BS and others, Gud for all..

 

[militarysta]

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

Just read the measurement of human head height measurement no- 14 from the above link. It says 232 mm for 50 percent of men.

Add 15 mm for the tanker's helmet it will come to 247 mm.

And to make matters much worse for you the driver's head is 2 meters behind the turret front face, because the turret is turned 90 degrees facing sideways.

So it appears much smaller than if the driver head is on the plane of the turret face. So if you add even 5 percent for the perspective enlargement it will come to 257 mm.

SO 257 mmx 2 driver head length space is 510 mm. You have marked it as 450 mm.

So clearly it is not possible also.

Read post number 5358 and clear all your BS from this thread.

There is nothing to explain - You just can't made simple mesurment:
1) you don't take perspective on hatch photo
2) you had choosen two diffrent hight on photo and on draw
3) yours "face" masurment are pontles couse error is to big. Using sucht factor Arjun turret width is equal to 2,4m - sucht big error is there.
4) you "assume" from nowhere some values - "50mm for this" + "20mm for that" + "5% for error" (LOL) to achive needed by ypou values. It's not mesurment is wishfull thinking.

Next proof that Arjun turret width is circa 2,7-2,85m:

Come and tell us that yours belloved only trully Arjun draw is inaccurate. In other way you must just admit that Arjun turret width (front) is circa 2,7-2,8m

As I said - face with this - Arjun front turret width is max 2,84 whit avarage values between 2,7 and 2,8m. Of course there is allways some error (@Kunal) but when I done dozen arjun turret width mesurment using draw, photo, and other and all values are less then 2.84m.

 

[The Last Stand]

Damn it, @ersakthivel,

Their work is a class apart from yours, simply because you refuse to take time with your images. Show us on the image how you came to conclusions about your measurements, rather than repeating the same thing several times. Show us how exactly you estimated above-stated crew hatch width, stop using ratios and head length and so on.

As @militarysta says, the error margin for your measurements are quite high, and you compensate with this and that for perspective distortion and the balance is out.

@Kunal Biswas,

One cannot be truly wrong if he does the same thing with 12 images and gets conclusive results that the width is <= 2.84 metres. Of course measurements have errors, but we can't be too far from the truth can we?

The thing bugging me is that neither you nor ersakthivel show us how you estimated the length, width of something before estimating the width and length of the turret. If you can show it, the debate is over.

Done and dusted, rather than dragging it along.

Let's finish this, once and for all.

 

[sayareakd]

Let's finish this, once and for all.

Just because they have good presentation does not mean that their measurements are correct.

Just wait for Feb 2014 i will prove it.

when we go to see Arjun tank, we just do this (take pics in front of it)

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Correct, There is a simple advice >>

1. Get on the real tank.
2. Take your measurements.
3. Post it here.
4. Will believe you.

Unless you do that, There is no value of those pictures here specially when one talking with me..

If one cannot believe its his problem, I have already told those measurements are wrong simple as that, one cannot swallow it, Is his problems related to his lack of knowledge and perhaps his false sense of superiority or inferiority complex..

"Done and dusted, rather than dragging it along."

@Kunal Biswas,

One cannot be truly wrong if he does the same thing with 12 images and gets conclusive results that the width is <= 2.84 metres. Of course measurements have errors, but we can't be too far from the truth can we?

The thing bugging me is that neither you nor ersakthivel show us how you estimated the length, width of something before estimating the width and length of the turret. If you can show it, the debate is over.

Done and dusted, rather than dragging it along.

Let's finish this, once and for all.

 

[militarysta]

Unless you do that, There is no value of those pictures here specially when one talking with me..

If one cannot believe its his problem, I have already told those measurements are wrong simple as that, one cannot swallow it, Is his problems related to his lack of knowledge and perhaps his false sense of superiority or inferiority complex..

Kunal, in teory it's hard to not agree whit you -the best mesurmend is this done whit mesure tape on real tank
But from the other hand - I had oportunities to mesure Leopard-2A4 tank. Firsly on photo and draw, then in real. What more -I was estimatous Leopard-2A4 armour thickenss as opposite to bullshits written on btvt or Andriej blog.
The resul was that:

when after mesure "real" Leopard-2A4 result was this:

As you can see:
30 vs 33cm (reality) error: circa 9%
82 vs 84cm (reality) error circa 2,4%
60 vs 65cm (relity) error circa 7,7%
40 vs 42cm (relity) error circa 4,8%

So this job is pointless?
The sam I had on T-80U and T-90A.
So meybe Arjun is no so uniqe and whit some error of course there is posibility to assume some values?
As you can see error was between 2.4 - 9% what give values wrong about 2 -5cm.
So bad result?

they are many posibilites to calculate whole tank knowing only one real dimension - it can be gun caliber, or other.
In Leo-2A4 the breaghtrought was picture when was visible whole L-44 Rh120 gun whit gun mantled mask on in:
http://i.imgur.com/idhxq.jpg
known lenght L-44 it was possible to calculate thickness of the gun mantled mask and after that rest was really easly -only suprise was turret side thickenss (thicker more then I suspected) but more or less - in ANY Tank case is possible to do the same. Only one question is - how many infos and good photots are able to find. And one -only single -real dimension.
Belive me -it works

 

[militarysta]

BTW: and look kow STGN and Dejawolf did their job in case Arjun. While Im a pure amatour whit some expiriens then thy are PRO and work as PRO.

 

[ersakthivel]

Look in the drawing you measure the 50cm height from the pivot point to the top of the hatch, but in the pictures you measure it from the top edge to the bottom edge of the hatch but you don't go down to the pivot point. You can't even see the pivot point in that photo.
Bravo, bravo! classic ersakthivel! But its nice to know that you now claim that the hatch is 60cm wide.
I take the liberty of assuming you made a mistake when you wrote 60mm and not 60cm.
STGN

Just extend the red vertical line below to touch the pivot point . The measurement I get for height in my Sony Vaio laptop computer is

60 mm for hatch height, and 50 mm for hatch width , So the ratio is correct at 1.2.

 

[ersakthivel]

There is nothing to explain - You just can't made simple mesurment:
1) you don't take perspective on hatch photo

There is no need to take perspective in hatch photo because the plane of the hatch is perpendicular to the camera and we get the height of the hatch cover at the plane of the hatch cover from the line drawing.

But you have arrived at the turret width of 2840 mm with one measurement.

What you fail to understand is the turret face is not perpendicular to the camera. If it is perpendicular to the camera no side turret portion will be visible.So you will get close to 10 percent lesser figure on the photo.

While the line drawn to mark the height of the turret is always perpendicular to the camera, the line drawn to mark the width of the turret is not perpendicular to camera. So if you adjust it for perpspective reduction then you will get a correct length

2) you had choosen two diffrent hight on photo and on draw
3) yours "face" masurment are pontles couse error is to big. Using sucht factor Arjun turret width is equal to 2,4m - sucht big error is there.
4) you "assume" from nowhere some values - "50mm for this" + "20mm for that" + "5% for error" (LOL) to achive needed by ypou values. It's not mesurment is wishfull thinking.

Next proof that Arjun turret width is circa 2,7-2,85m:

here too the turret and the hull are at a different depths from the camera. SO any comparison assuming the same scale for both of them is wrong and will give you a wrong measurement,

Come and tell us that yours belloved only trully Arjun draw is inaccurate. In other way you must just admit that Arjun turret width (front) is circa 2,7-2,8m

My beloved Arjun draw is accurate. What is inaccurate in your measurement technique is , you are comparing distances on two planes that are at different distance from the camera which is patently wrong and will give only a distorted measurement.

But I used my beloved Arjun draw to get the vertical height of the hatch cover at the cross sectional plane of the vertical hatch cover which is 500 mm with no perspective distortion.

And I compared it in a photo where both the height line and the width line of the hatch cover are at a same distance from the camera and are perpendicular to the camera. And I got a hatch cover width of 550 mm plus and a turret width at the center turret as 3100 mm plus.

just extend the red vertical line below to touch the pivot point . The measurement I get for height in my lap top sony vaio computer is

50 mm for hatch height, and 60 mm for hatch width , So the ratio is correct at 1.2.

That is what correct perpspective measurement for you.

As I said - face with this - Arjun front turret width is max 2,84 whit avarage values between 2,7 and 2,8m. Of course there is allways some error (@Kunal) but when I done dozen arjun turret width mesurment using draw, photo, and other and all values are less then 2.84m.

The plane of the turret is at least 2 meters in front of the plane of the hull from the camera. So your comparison only proves my point.

This 2.84 meter you say for the turret face has to be multiplied by a factor of 1.1 or more to get a correct length.

Analogy just look at the picture of close up shot of the railway tracks. Even though the distance between both the rails are same through out, it appears bigger at the base of the photo and shows up as smaller at the top of the photo.

That is why you will get something close to 3200 mm if you use the photo above, where the plane of the turret front plane is 2 meters in front of the driver and a perspective enlargement for the driver head height with takner's helmet comes comes to 260 mm

 

[ersakthivel]

Just extend the red vertical line below to touch the pivot point . The measurement I get for height in my Sony Vaio laptop computer is

60 mm for hatch height, and 50 mm for hatch width , So the ratio is correct at 1.2.

The measurement for the hatch width is 60 mm.
The measurement for the hatch height is 50mm.

In the previous post I just interchanged them

Just extend the red vertical line below to touch the pivot point . The measurement I get for height in my Sony Vaio laptop computer is

50 mm for hatch height, and 60 mm for hatch width , So the ratio is correct at 1.2.

 

[ersakthivel]

Just extend the red vertical line below to touch the pivot point . The measurement I get for height in my Sony Vaio laptop computer is

60 mm for hatch height, and 50 mm for hatch width , So the ratio is correct at 1.2.

The measurement for the hatch width is 60 mm.
The measurement for the hatch height is 50mm.

In the previous post I just interchanged them

Just extend the red vertical line below to touch the pivot point . The measurement I get for height in my Sony Vaio laptop computer is

50 mm for hatch height, and 60 mm for hatch width , So the ratio is correct at 1.2.

All their jobs in case of Arjun is wrong and it is being conclusively proved here. All of you and STGN and Dejawolf are no pro when it comes to getting correct dimensions from photos.

SO don't become a certifying authority. It is laughable proposition.

 

[ersakthivel]

There is nothing to explain - You just can't made simple mesurment:
1) you don't take perspective on hatch photo

There is no need to take perspective in hatch photo because the plane of the hatch is perpendicular to the camera and we get the height of the hatch cover at the plane of the hatch cover from the line drawing.

But you have arrived at the turret width of 2840 mm with one measurement.

What you fail to understand is the turret face is not perpendicular to the camera. If it is perpendicular to the camera no side turret portion will be visible.So you will get close to 10 percent lesser figure on the photo.

While the line drawn to mark the height of the turret is always perpendicular to the camera, the line drawn to mark the width of the turret is not perpendicular to camera. So if you adjust it for perpspective reduction then you will get a correct length

2) you had choosen two diffrent hight on photo and on draw
3) yours "face" masurment are pontles couse error is to big. Using sucht factor Arjun turret width is equal to 2,4m - sucht big error is there.
4) you "assume" from nowhere some values - "50mm for this" + "20mm for that" + "5% for error" (LOL) to achive needed by ypou values. It's not mesurment is wishfull thinking.

Next proof that Arjun turret width is circa 2,7-2,85m:

Come and tell us that yours belloved only trully Arjun draw is inaccurate. In other way you must just admit that Arjun turret width (front) is circa 2,7-2,8m

My beloved Arjun draw is accurate. What is inaccurate in your measurement technique is , you are comparing distances on two planes that are at different distance from the camera which is patently wrong and will give only a distorted measurement.

But I used my beloved Arjun draw to get the vertical height of the hatch cover at the cross sectional plane of the vertical hatch cover which is 500 mm with no perspective distortion.

And I compared it in a photo where both the height line and the width line of the hatch cover are at a same distance from the camera and are perpendicular to the camera. And I got a hatch cover width of 550 mm plus and a turret width at the center turret as 3100 mm plus.

just extend the red vertical line below to touch the pivot point . The measurement I get for height in my lap top sony vaio computer is

50 mm for hatch height, and 60 mm for hatch width , So the ratio is correct at 1.2.

That is what correct perpspective measurement for you.

As I said - face with this - Arjun front turret width is max 2,84 whit avarage values between 2,7 and 2,8m. Of course there is allways some error (@Kunal) but when I done dozen arjun turret width mesurment using draw, photo, and other and all values are less then 2.84m.

The plane of the turret is at least 2 meters in front of the plane of the hull from the camera. So your comparison only proves my point.

This 2.84 meter you say for the turret face has to be multiplied by a factor of 1.1 or more to get a correct length.

Analogy just look at the picture of close up shot of the railway tracks. Even though the distance between both the rails are same through out, it appears bigger at the base of the photo and shows up as smaller at the top of the photo.

That is why you will get something close to 3200 mm if you use the photo above, where the plane of the turret front plane is 2 meters in front of the driver and a perspective enlargement for the driver head height with takner's helmet comes comes to 260 mm

BTW: and look kow STGN and Dejawolf did their job in case Arjun. While Im a pure amatour whit some expiriens then thy are PRO and work as PRO.

You, STGN and Dejawolf are no Pros when it comes to taking correct measurements from drawings and perspective photgraphs.It is conclusively proved here by me

 

[STGN]

The measurement for the hatch width is 60 mm.
The measurement for the hatch height is 50mm.

In the previous post I just interchanged them

Just extend the red vertical line below to touch the pivot point . The measurement I get for height in my Sony Vaio laptop computer is

50 mm for hatch height, and 60 mm for hatch width , So the ratio is correct at 1.2.

All their jobs in case of Arjun is wrong and it is being conclusively proved here. All of you and STGN and Dejawolf are no pro when it comes to getting correct dimensions from photos.

SO don't become a certifying authority. It is laughable proposition.

You can't even see the pivot point so you are just guessing the length. Please man give it up.

You are wrong you know it but you are a coward and can't admit it so you keep on this crazy fantasy campaign making up numbers to seemingly make the turret front 3.2m we show you wrong and wrong, again and again because when you apply that number it doesn't fit with any other dimension on the tank we have shown this over and over and over again. Turret is around 3 meters wide about 60 cm behind the centre of the crew hatches it narrows in to around 2.84 at the front. You could stop blindly and senselessly believing in authority and open your eyes, I know you aint gonna do that cause you are scared and afraid. Its sad to see. If we apply your 3.2 number too the front suddenly the height of the front is 70cms, turret roof is at least 90cm over the lower edge of the front array the 3.2 number simply does not fit the front of the turret in any way. I am sorry but that is the truth as every photo show.

Also front of the turret being 2 meters in front of the driver please why don't you look at at photo turret turned its clearly not 2 meters in front.
But go on embarrass yourself some more..
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

You can't even see the pivot point so you are just guessing the length. Please man give it up.

You are wrong you know it but you are a coward and can't admit it so you keep on this crazy fantasy campaign making up numbers to seemingly make the turret front 3.2m we show you wrong and wrong, again and again because when you apply that number it doesn't fit with any other dimension on the tank we have shown this over and over and over again. Turret is around 3 meters wide about 60 cm behind the centre of the crew hatches it narrows in to around 2.84 at the front. You could stop blindly and senselessly believing in authority and open your eyes, I know you aint gonna do that cause you are scared and afraid. Its sad to see. If we apply your 3.2 number too the front suddenly the height of the front is 70cms, turret roof is at least 90cm over the lower edge of the front array the 3.2 number simply does not fit the front of the turret in any way. I am sorry but that is the truth as every photo show.

Also front of the turret being 2 meters in front of the driver please why don't you look at at photo turret turned its clearly not 2 meters in front.
But go on embarrass yourself some more..
STGN

I should have mentioned that the turret face and the hull side are not on the same vertical plane.

But I don't know there are few half baked trolls who don't a kernel about perspective drawing. Don't troll on'

Any bud head will know that the turret face is deeper than the hull side in the photo and a factor 1.x should be multiplied to arive at the correct turret width.I already told you the analogy of photo of the railway track, but your trolling intentions won't let you accept it and instead blindly support a wrong claim and argue against a correct view point.

You can get the same ratio of 1.2 for hatchcover width/hatch cover height from the pivot.

So this photo would finally jam all trolling .

 

[ersakthivel]

If the hatch cover width from the base is 500 mm , Then we can get the same ratio of 1.2 for hatch cover width/hatch cover height from the pivot.

So the width of the hatch cover is finally above 55o mm and the width of the turret at at the base of hatch cover is 3200 mm.

According to the line drawing the height of the crew hatch cover is 50 mm exactly.

And in the following photo the ratio of the width of the crew hatch cover/ height of the crew hatch cover is 1.2.

So width of the crew hatch cover is 1.2 X 50= 60 mm .

So now there is no way any one can dispute this,

SO the reason we wanted to know the turret width at the center is to prove the seating arrangement for the gunner and the TC as shown in the picture above.

So that is pretty much proved once for all. I consider it as my final reply in this dimension of turret width at the center of the crew hole .

If you have any doubt this is the enlarged view of the crew hatch.

So images like the one below have no real value in determining the width of the turret at it's center to determine the position of gunner's seat and Tc' seat and the side turret armor.

@methos @Damian @militarysta @pmaitra @STGN @Dejawolf[/QUOTE]


So this is final and there can be no arguments over this.No human head is used. And only the line drawing was used.

The reason we are arguing over the width of the turret at the base of the hatch cover is to arrive at a proper seating position of gunner and the Tc. And the side turret armor thickness . So the width of the turret a the front has no role to play in this argument.

 

[pmaitra]

Excellent find. Like the way you put it. Very convincing.

 

[militarysta]

If the hatch cover width from the base is 500 mm , Then we can get the same ratio of 1.2 for hatch cover width/hatch cover height from the pivot.

So the width of the hatch cover is finally above 55o mm and the width of the turret at at the base of hatch cover is 3200 mm.

[/quote]
No it's not - from pivot center to the top hight of the hatch is 572mm so width of the hatch is circa 689mm. You even cant mesure some one dimenson on draw with ruler...

[quote]
So this is final and there can be no arguments over this.No human head is used. And only the line drawing was used.
.[/QUOTE]
And again you do it wrong. Innacurate. You even don;t see how big is error in your job. Let me show how poor you are doing your job:
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/45y2.jpg/][IMG]http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2795/45y2.jpg[/URL]

See? Magic - over 4m

 

[militarysta]

More or less on all avaibvle Arjun draw, and on photo mesurment turret front in circa 2.84m width. Only @ersakthivel little mistakes and creative counting give bigger value
As I said dozen of turret front mesurment whit using those draw give the same result:

Of course width on crew hatches is bigger couse Arjun turret shape:

And this is next thing to hard to understand for some person here...