Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Pazhassiraja]

I'm looking forward to see if this happen in the newer delivery models... The equipment seems to have been lifted above ERA on the right side. That'd atleast bring it up to acceptable levels.

View attachment 80075

Does Mark-1A have ERA/NERA tiles on the top for protection from top attack?

 

[Bleh]

Does Mark-1A have ERA/NERA tiles on the top for protection from top attack?

Do you see any?.. NERA was tested for NGMBT modular armoured only.
No armour can protect against top attack ATGM. There's just not enough room. Even though inch thick roof with ERA will give 500-600 mm protection total. Any ATGM will go through it comfortably. Only soft & hard APS can stop that from happening.

Practically roof can be made to stop 20-30mm autocannons from air... That's it.

 

[Pazhassiraja]

Do you see any?.. NERA was tested for NGMBT modular armoured only.
No armour can protect against top attack ATGM. There's just not enough room. Even though inch thick roof with ERA will give 500-600 mm protection total. Any ATGM will go through it comfortably. Only soft & hard APS can stop that from happening.

Practically roof can be made to stop 20-30mm autocannons from air... That's it.

I didn't see any. But I have seen the T90 and even some T72 having ERA tiles covering some part of the roof. So if they have, why Arjun Mark 1A doesn't - hence asked.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

NERA was developed by DRDO (2010-11) under the name dynamic passive armour. It was tested on frontal hull of Arjun MBT.

The first protype of Arjun MK1A was ready by 2012. So DPA(or NERA) predates the MK1A. But whether it is currently being used in Arjun MK1A under frontal or side ERA or on the top of turret is not known.

 

[Willy3]

Looks like our DRDO isn't making a Active protection system and old Swedish deal is also in cold storage.

Does APS are just puffed up jumlas with less practical implications in battlefield, or Army being clueless here ?

 

[Akula]

Looks like our DRDO isn't making a Active protection system and old Swedish deal is also in cold storage.

Does APS are just puffed up jumlas with less practical implications in battlefield, or Army being clueless here ?

DRDO is developing a APS. Someone has uploaded information about it.

 

[Bleh]

Looks like our DRDO isn't making a Active protection system and old Swedish deal is also in cold storage.

Does APS are just puffed up jumlas with less practical implications in battlefield, or Army being clueless here ?

Why does someone ask this again & again after every few days?.. Go read old posts this have been answeted in details multiple times.

But whether it is currently being used in Arjun MK1A under frontal or side ERA or on the top of turret is not known.

Is not... The ones on Mark1A tho. They were all explicitly labelled ERA.

 

[ersakthivel]

The massive opening in the frontal armor to mount the sights still makes me cringe. Why the hell did DRDO not reposition it above the turret like M1A2 or Leopard 2A7. Leaves a major vulnerability for the tank.

This has been discussed to death 5 0r 7 years before.

Kunal Biswas once stood on a Arjun and took a photo with camera case to show how thick the armour behind the main sight is,

I will try to post a link

Having sights above turret is no "Elegant" solution either.

Any sharpnel hit the sight exposed from all sides goes kaput and your tank becomes blind

 

[ersakthivel]

Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Very nice. You have worked hard for this one, I can see that. How much time did take for you to come up with this? He will dispute the length of the turret now. :troll: i just made an orthographic render of my existing 3d model, and hid a few parts. took me about an hour or so putting in all...

defenceforumindia.com

A long discussion" about massive main sight opening"


blast from the past

 

[Cactus09]

This has been discussed to death 5 0r 7 years before.

Kunal Biswas once stood on a Arjun and took a photo with camera case to show how thick the armour behind the main sight is,

I will try to post a link

Having sights above turret is no "Elegant" solution either.

Any sharpnel hit the sight exposed from all sides goes kaput and your tank becomes blind

So just 380mm protection behind the commander sights? Besides the absence of ERA in the significant front facing portion of the turret. I don't think that does any good to the protection. @Bleh had explained it in details not long ago.

 

[Bleh]

Bit of a anecdote, on exactly why we would need mine-ploughs (ideally built-in snorkeling kit like T-64 as well) on each & every tank!

So just 380mm protection behind the commander sights? Besides the absence of ERA in the significant front facing portion of the turret. I don't think that does any good to the protection. @Bleh had explained it in details not long ago.

He's right on that... kinda. Like, a little bit.
There's no hole in the roof armour (meh) & the sight is well portered from sides. Those are some advantages.
But the gunner's sight is far too small & on the outer edges of silhouette. That huge but similarly thick mantlet at the middle however is much more of an headache.

I made this by editing an original photo, to emulate what a proper ERA layout over the front of Arjun would look like...

 

[ArgonPrime]

Lo and behold - the emperor (read mods) strikes again!!

 

[Pazhassiraja]

Bit of a anecdote, on exactly why we would need mine-ploughs (ideally built-in snorkeling kit like T-64 as well) on each & every tank!

View attachment 80240


He's right on that... kinda. Like, a little bit.
There's no hole in the roof armour (meh) & the sight is well portered from sides. Those are some advantages.
But the gunner's sight is far too small & on the outer edges of silhouette. That huge but similarly thick mantlet at the middle however is much more of an headache.

I made this by editing an original photo, to emulate what a proper ERA layout over the front of Arjun would look like...

View attachment 80241

Looks nice, but what could be the reason CVRDE has not thought in this manner? Where do you propose the laser designator's position in this case? What is the armour presently covering it?

 

[Bleh]

Looks nice, but what could be the reason CVRDE has not thought in this manner? Where do you propose the laser designator's position in this case? What is the armour presently covering it?

1. Possibly due prioritising on development of the fuck-load of new tech demanded on Mark1A/2.

2. On the gun mantle, look closer.

3. None. Its just a container, probably not even metal.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

One problem that is less talked about is in the Arjun side profile. At certain angles, the turret ring clearly visible from outside. It is there in Mark 1 (with or without storage box/side armour) and this problem has not been rectified in Mark 1A. The side armour on the turret does not cover the full height of the turret and leaves a gap there. A well placed shot (from even a RPG) there (shown in the picture) can be catastrophic to the tank.

Though this problem exists in many other tanks as well like Leopard, but not as big as Arjun's.

 

[Bleh]

One problem that is less talked about is in the Arjun side profile. At certain angles, the turret ring clearly visible from outside. It is there in Mark 1 (with or without storage box/side armour) and this problem has not been rectified in Mark 1A. The side armour on the turret does not cover the full height of the turret and leaves a gap there. A well placed shot (from even a RPG) there can be catastrophic to the tank.

Lol m8. If you've blundered into exposing your tank's (or turret's) flanks that much, then turret-ring should be the last of you concerns.

 

[shuvo@y2k10]

Lol m8. If you've blundered into exposing your tank's (or turret's) flanks that much, then turret-ring should be the last of you concerns.

Not in typical tank to tank engagements, but this vulnerability can be exploited mainly from soldiers/jihadis/irregulars carrying RPGs or similar projectiles.

Of course no tank can survive a typical modern APFDS fired at its side, since side cannot be as well protected as the front.

 

[ArgonPrime]

Lol m8. If you've blundered into exposing your tank's (or turret's) flanks that much, then turret-ring should be the last of you concerns.

Meanwhile, those panels on the turret side he has dubbed as side armor are nothing but storage beans, which means it ain't just the turret ring that's exposed but the entire sides as well and forget about RPGs/ RCL rifles, even 40mm auto cannon fire would be enough to make pancakes out of the crew.

 

[Bleh]

Meanwhile, those panels on the turret side he has dubbed as side armor are nothing but storage beans, which means it ain't just the turret ring that's exposed but the entire sides as well and forget about RPGs/ RCL rifles, even 40mm auto cannon fire would be enough to make pancakes out of the crew.

I think he meant the Mark1A... Noone still thinks Mark1 side modules are armour.



For everyone else; What I have deduced from studying the Mark1a photos is there were 3 layouts.

1st one is what we saw on Republic day & one Defexpo, with normal storage boxes inside & an armour module outside, attached very VERY VERY crudely.

2nd one is this... which I think is a large, single storage box that is strong enough to hold the armour block (with attachment points on it) effectively.

3rd is the version which was recently shared on twitter, where it looks like the armour, being completely welded to the main fighting compartment... It's possible in this the outer module is the storage box instea. I've seen a few photos with lids & warped body like sheet metal.

Also, note the above... On close observation that plate looks a lot like an ERA tile on the sides. I wonder if it may have been one in the oldest (then) Mark2 & the latter one a stopgap until it could be remodelled.

 

[Ghost hale]