Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[Kunal Biswas]

ok...the video posted by sayareakd shows the clearest view yet of Arjun's ammo casket, I don't see any armored panels covering them as in the M1A2, so would the blow off panels be of any use - from what I can make out is that in case of ammo cook-off the blast would basically be directed in the crew cabin & some of it would be directed out via the blowoff panels, but that probably may not be enough to save the crew, or am I wrong here ?

That tank is a prototype, There are two Prototype of Arjun MBT MK-2..

These tanks are not Brand new tanks but earlier prototype modified..

 

[sayareakd]

ok...the video posted by sayareakd shows the clearest view yet of Arjun's ammo casket, I don't see any armored panels covering them as in the M1A2, so would the blow off panels be of any use - from what I can make out is that in case of ammo cook-off the blast would basically be directed in the crew cabin & some of it would be directed out via the blowoff panels, but that probably may not be enough to save the crew, or am I wrong here ?

check this
this is the compartment for ammo

Shot at 2012-05-25

this is the cover of ammo compartment which if i am not mistaken are blow of panels you can see the lock and unlock in previous pic.

Shot at 2012-05-25

here you can see it in action.

Shot at 2012-05-25

so the loader has to remove the lock, get the blow off panel out and take ammo out for loading into the gun.

other modern tanks have something like this


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

even m1a1 has got this


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

they have got metal anti blast door on the ammo compartment which prevent the blast to come inside crew compartment.

 

[sayareakd]

looks like US Army has similar system for its artillery ammo storage

 

[Damian]

Oh jeeez... You completely not understand what blow off panels is, do You?

Blow off panel as is name suggest, is meant to be blown off the tank in case of ammunition cook off to free pressure and fire away from crew. So what these small caps are mean to be blow off inside crew compartment, killing loader and later pressure and fire killing rest of crew and destroying vehicle? Briliant logic I must say...


Blow off panels are allways placed outside, acting as roof for ammunition magazines.

As for Arjun, sorry Kunal, more and more sources seems to proove that turret ammunition magazine is unprotected, not isolated, and is dangerous for crew. Even if these caps are used, they IMHO won't help much.

As for an artillery rounds photo above, nope, it is not the same, because these containers are used only for transportation on trucks and such things.

BTW as for M1A1/M1A2, sayareakd, not only M1 series got such ammunition storage system, but especially M1 series, as whole ammunition is stored that way in this tank.



Turret right and left ammunition magazines with their blast doors closed.



Drawing for loading procedure.



Ammo placement.



Drawing and photo of hull ammunition magazine with it's blast doors opened.

M1 hull ammuniton magazine blow off panel. Thanks to Grendel, user of IOH forums for photo.

Turret ammo magazines blow off panels.

 

[sayareakd]

@Damian i admit i am wrong.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

As for Arjun, sorry Kunal, more and more sources seems to proove that turret ammunition magazine is unprotected, not isolated, and is dangerous for crew. Even if these caps are used, they IMHO won't help much.

You are getting to the conclusion fast..

The one at expo was a Prototype, The one in the vid is a modified prototype..

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


This is Military Vehicle, It tested and have to pass through selection and observation..

There is huge blow up panel above which can be seen by anyone, It don't make any sense putting it there if it have no use..


If your logic is true, there would be no operational Arjun in IA then..

 

[Damian]

You are getting to the conclusion fast..

The one at expo was a Prototype, The one in the vid is a modified prototype..

Do we have any proof that it looks differently? No.

Do we have any proof that these vehicles are really prototypes or they do not represent the same standard like production vehicles? No.

So right now, from what we know, this look just like on photos. Unless You have a proof that it looks otherwise.

This is Military Vehicle, It tested and have to pass through selection and observation..

And? What this have to do with what we know and current conclusions?

There is huge blow up panel above which can be seen by anyone, It don't make any sense putting it there if it have no use..

How do You know it is a blow off panel? It might be a service hatch for easy maintnance, for example to easy take out of vehicle ammo racks without the need to take turret off from hull. These ammo racks are too big to be take out through crew hatches.

If your logic is true, there would be no operational Arjun in IA then..

And why not? There might be a problem with installing there isolated ammo compartment. It will increase size and weight of these part of turret. Increase complexity of turret internal systems, increase costs of vehicle, etc. etc. etc.

It might be just a compromise, especially knowing that Arjun tank program have it's troubles, so decision could be that vehicle will be fielded in such form.

If You will present a proof that turret ammunition magazine is isolated, then I will admitt it is, it will be a fact then. But as current sources indicates, turret ammunition magazine is not isolated from crew, it is not safe. Show me a proof it is different on production vehicles, then damn, I will apologize!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Do we have any proof that these vehicles are really prototypes or they do not represent the same standard like production vehicles? No.

And? What this have to do with what we know and current conclusions?

And why not? There might be a problem with installing there isolated ammo compartment. It will increase size and weight of these part of turret. Increase complexity of turret internal systems, increase costs of vehicle, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, we do have, Army tanks have unit and regt tag, these dont have so they are not army tanks rather Prototypes..

That is because with such serious flaw some tank or even small arm don't pass necessarily test and certificates to be in Military..

How do You know it is a blow off panel? It might be a service hatch for easy maintnance, for example to easy take out of vehicle ammo racks without the need to take turret off from hull. These ammo racks are too big to be take out through crew hatches.

Of-course i know what is blow up panels :/ , Service hatches are not welded..

If You will present a proof that turret ammunition magazine is isolated, then I will admitt it is, it will be a fact then

Than you can take your assumption as a fact..

OPSEC, Not now, may be in next 5 years..

 

[Damian]

Yes, we do have, Army tanks have unit and regt tag, these dont have so they are not army tanks rather Prototypes..

That is because with such serious flaw some tank or even small arm don't pass necessarily test and certificates to be in Military..

1) Ok, but how do we know that these vehicles do not represent current vehicles internal layout standard and configuration?

2) How do we know that there was a demand of isolated turret ammo rack? Maybe there wasn't such demand in requirements list?

Of-course i know what is blow up panels :/ , Service hatches are not welded..

Blow off panels are also not welded, how they would then blow off? They are bolted by small screws to the mounting points on turret roof. In many designs similiar way to mount service hatches can be observed.

Than you can take your assumption as a fact..

OPSEC, Not now, may be in next 5 years..

It is rather funny to make OPSEC from such simple, and known by a long time as ammo racks and isolated ammo compartments. By our current knowledge, it looks this way as on photos.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1) Ok, but how do we know that these vehicles do not represent current vehicles internal layout standard and configuration?

2) How do we know that there was a demand of isolated turret ammo rack? Maybe there wasn't such demand in requirements list?

1. Because these are prototypes with DRDO marking & As i mentioned above..

2. There are specs of MBT back in 70s so there is no mention of it on Internet, Secondly Arjun MK1 is Leo A4 influenced, the maker of Leo helped making Arjun..

Blow off panels are also not welded, how they would then blow off? They are bolted by small screws to the mounting points on turret roof. In many designs similiar way to mount service hatches can be observed.

Yes, but that depend what kind of metal used in welding..

To the right

It is rather funny to make OPSEC from such simple, and known by a long time as ammo racks and isolated ammo compartments. By our current knowledge, it looks this way as on photos.

Your current assumption is based on Prototypes not from Army tanks which are operational..

Well regarding Opsec, that how it is..

 

[Damian]

1. Because these are prototypes with DRDO marking & As i mentioned above..

2. There are specs of MBT back in 70s so there is no mention of it on Internet, Secondly Arjun MK1 is Leo A4 influenced, the maker of Leo helped making Arjun..

1) And You think that they are definetly, not even partially analog to the vehicles used by active army units?

2) So what, Italian C1 Ariete was also partially influanced by Leopard 2A4 and it dies not have even turret ammunition rack! Whole ammo is in the hull ammo racks.

Yes, but that depend what kind of metal used in welding..

To the right

And as we see, this panel is also mounted by bolting it to turret roof, not by welding, welded to turret is only structure with mounting points for blow off panel. Simple as that. Welding blow off panels have not much sense, it would be very difficult to weld them in such way that they would blow off when needed. Bolting is simpler, cheaper and while during normal exploatation bolts will hold panel in one place, they will not hold it when ammo start to cook off and pressure will be significant enough to blow off that panel.

Your current assumption is based on Prototypes not from Army tanks which are operational..

Well regarding Opsec, that how it is..

1) We don't have anything else. Some one will provide a photo of army tanks where it will proove that turret ammo rack is indeed isolated, then I will admitt it is, it will be a pure fact. Wholever current fact based on photos and video, suggest there is not turret ammo rack isolation.

2) Some OPSEC rules are idiotic.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1) And You think that they are definetly, not even partially analog to the vehicles used by active army units?

2) So what, Italian C1 Ariete was also partially influanced by Leopard 2A4 and it dies not have even turret ammunition rack! Whole ammo is in the hull ammo racks.

I am sure coz of the scale of the flaw we are talking about..

Its Italian not Indian :cool2:

And as we see, this panel is also mounted by bolting it to turret roof, not by welding, welded to turret is only structure with mounting points for blow off panel. Simple as that. Welding blow off panels have not much sense, it would be very difficult to weld them in such way that they would blow off when needed. Bolting is simpler, cheaper and while during normal exploatation bolts will hold panel in one place, they will not hold it when ammo start to cook off and pressure will be significant enough to blow off that panel.

As i said, Depends on the mental used, You can see how it is done, there are bolts and these are welded..

1) We don't have anything else. Some one will provide a photo of army tanks where it will proove that turret ammo rack is indeed isolated, then I will admitt it is, it will be a pure fact. Wholever current fact based on photos and video, suggest there is not turret ammo rack isolation.

2) Some OPSEC rules are idiotic.

In my view the conclusion is too early without necessarily photos which are hard to get, till then if you like to go with you theory its your view then..

Its important to have such OPSEC laws..

 

[Damian]

I am sure coz of the scale of the flaw we are talking about..

Its Italian not Indian

1) It is not a flaw, it is just design solution. You can have isolated ammunition compartment but this makes vehicle more bulky, heavy, more complicated, etc. etc. etc. Or You can make just a trade off and sacrifice crew survivability to make vehicle cheaper, simpler etc. etc. etc.

2) So what, Italian tank is a good example that being inspired by other design does not mean it will have all design solutions same. Arjun might be inspired by Leopard 2, but is not same, do You still remember side turret armor issues? So if Arjun do not have the same side turret protection as NATO tanks, it might be same thing in case of ammunition storage.

As i said, Depends on the mental used, You can see how it is done, there are bolts and these are welded..

No it not depends, neither these bolts are welded. Do I really need to explain such simple things? There is a turret roof, to this turret roof there is a mounting structure welded, this mounting structure is for blow off panel that is mounted to this structure by bolts. Simple as that.

In my view the conclusion is too early without necessarily photos which are hard to get, till then if you like to go with you theory its your view then..

Its important to have such OPSEC laws..

1) We have only such photos, more, one of photos is taken from Arjun Mk2 video presentation. So what, they started to test Mk2 without such important structural modifications?

2) OPSEC is important, however it is good if OPSEC is done smart, not the stupid way to make everything classified... British were also such super happy when they claimed that nobody, ever see Challenger 2 interior... untill one day, pitty I never saw faces of some of these guys.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Unlike with the Americans who need side armor for Urban conflict areas like in Baghdad or Afghanistan most of the Challenge the Arjun is going to face is in the Thar desert against pakistan on an head on battle with Pakistan Army tanks like the Chinese Al-Khalid. I dont see tanks even fielded against a War with China because that would be a mountainous region and tanks in mountains dont go well.

So for us we dont need side armor, we just see the Porki tank and fire.

 

[Damian]

Unlike with the Americans who need side armor for Urban conflict areas like in Baghdad or Afghanistan most of the Challenge the Arjun is going to face is in the Thar desert against pakistan on an head on battle. I dont see tanks even fielded against a War with China because that would be a mountainous region.

So for us we dont need side armor.

Didn't me and Methos allready explained that frontal protection is within 60 degrees arc and side armor is also responsible for frontal protection?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Didn't me and Methos allready explained that frontal protection is within 60 degrees arc and side armor is also responsible for frontal protection?

Didnt i already prove your comparison with that Chinese tank was biased and wrong? Either way you bring in great points, unless i really talk with a tank designer in HVF i would not know why many tanks around the world face similar design flaws.

 

[Damian]

Didnt i already prove your comparison with that Chinese tank was biased and wrong?

And I said that do to lack of tools angle was wrong, when I made drawing lines at the same angle, it didn't change much. Back to this drawing and compare them again.

Either way you bring in great points, unless i really talk with a tank designer in HVF i would not know why many tanks around the world face similar design flaws.

1) I hope that You take in to consideration that he might not say truth? We all know that not anyone will admitt they done something not in the good way.

2) Well it is not a design flaw per se, it is more a design solution, for making turret lighter or something like that. The real problem is in fact turret geometry that need to be designed with armor placement in mind.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

And I said that do to lack of tools angle was wrong, when I made drawing lines at the same angle, it didn't change much. Back to this drawing and compare them again.

Wrong as usual, whats new.

1) I hope that You take in to consideration that he might not say truth? We all know that not anyone will admitt they done something not in the good way.

2) Well it is not a design flaw per se, it is more a design solution, for making turret lighter or something like that. The real problem is in fact turret geometry that need to be designed with armor placement in mind.

There is probably enough slope in the armor cavity from the angle you drew. That is more than a 60 deg angles and that angle the armor will be very thick for incomeing rounds.

Also in case of war there is room for improvement in the turret, the tool boxes can be removed and ERA or others armors can be slapped on if required.

 

[Damian]

Wrong as usual, whats new.

You are also wrong many times... so in case of Your arguments I also can say You are wrong as usual?

There is probably enough slope in the armor cavity from the angle you drew. That is more than a 60 deg angles and that angle the armor will be very thick for incomeing rounds.

Not thick enough against modern ammunition when we consider it's thickness and fact it is simple RHA not composite.

Also in case of war there is room for improvement in the turret, the tool boxes can be removed and ERA or others armors can be slapped on if required.

Yes, however ERA effectiveness depends on main armor behind it, and composite armor modules need to be developed first.

 

[p2prada]

Damian,

I think you are right.

The red boxes show handles for lifting the cover.

So they can be, as you said, a maintenance hatch or may double up as maintenance hatch as well as blow off panels at the same time. It that is possible?