Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[venkat]

One of my friends told me that riding an Arjun is like riding a volvo!!! This happened more than a decade ago when Arjun was at its nascent stage of development!!!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Gathering Military information on Active Military vehicles without proper authorization is restricted If not War then foreign agents getting Ideas of copying it, About My home land India which is not at peace and we are in proper cold-war with one and Arm race with another..

You figure the rest..

Not to mention that this restrictions are ridiculous, are not meassuring armor thickness but just a vehicle width, so what's next, vehicle dimensions are also top secret?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re-uploading Pictures, I have to delete previous photos due to technical errors..

Arjun MBT : Exterior

 

[Kunal Biswas]

The Interior : Commander And Gunner

=============================================
=============================================

The Interior : Commander Controls

=============================================
=============================================

The Interior : Gunner

====================================================
====================================================

The Interior : Loader

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Electronic Panoramic Sight

================================================== ==
================================================== ==

The Interior : Driver

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Some Wallpapers As Bonus :

 

[JBH22]

@ Kunal redesigning the Turret will not give Arjun a lower silhouette on the battlefield plus it appears crew comfort is ahead of the T-series from the above picture.

 

[STGN]

The angle of your illustrations are ten times higher than the angles on the photo,
because in the photo the camera position is far higher and the so called distortion by you is negligible,
In your illustration the eye position is far lower than the camera.
SO your explanations are not needed to the topic in debate,

My illustration is correct as it is normal practice to take measurements on planes as close as possible.
If you have any doubt ask real drawing and design professionals, this matter is not as complicated as it seems,
since the camera is well above the tank the difference is minimal or negligible. If the camera was placed 1km high in the sky it wto state other wise is either ignoran

You are yet to answer my question about what is the width of the crew hatch cover in any way of measurement.

Right okay as you already don't believe me whats the point of arguing really. You can keep you position of turret being 2.9-3.2m wide what ever suits you best I don't really care anymore, hope it makes you happy. I can't explain it to you because you are unwilling and too set in your ways.
All the answered I have for you I have given you above. You owe me so many answers that I don't care to answer more of yours.
You can keep saying its 3.2 and I will keep my position, lets not talk ever again.
STGN

 

[rahulrds1]

Arjun MBT Series 3-D Visualization created by a 3-d graphics designer.

 

[Decklander]

276 pages of bullshit have been written by opponants of Arjun to prove their point. What they missed was the words of one of the designers of this tank who clearly mentioned the protection within 60* arc for this tank in that movie reproduced from Discovery channel.
If the designers know the importance of 60* arc for protection of a tank, who can expect them not to provide protection within that area?

 

[STGN]

It is a fact that width is + 3 meters, No one is allowed to take a tape and measure, I did with my hand..

Photos are secondary proof compare to People with first hand experience of measurement, No one here will come to you with tape and photo to prove his point ..

===================================

Continue discussion ..

I agree that the turret is ~3m(including storage boxes) wide just behind the crew hatches its the front we are discussing but your comment here stops any discussion because "if a murderer says no he didn't do it but picture shows him doing it then he is not guilty because pictures are inaccurate." as you have just made yourself "god" then there is no discussion to be had cause you "can't" be wrong.
STGN

 

[bose]

@ Kunal redesigning the Turret will not give Arjun a lower silhouette on the battlefield plus it appears crew comfort is ahead of the T-series from the above picture.

I would suggest for Arjun Mark - III, a re designed turret [Likes of leo], a smooth bore 120 mm main gun & a 1800 HP engine.

 

[STGN]

276 pages of bullshit have been written by opponants of Arjun to prove their point. What they missed was the words of one of the designers of this tank who clearly mentioned the protection within 60* arc for this tank in that movie reproduced from Discovery channel.
If the designers know the importance of 60* arc for protection of a tank, who can expect them not to provide protection within that area?

Opponants? you mean like Paki T80? I hope you don't see me as an opponent of the Arjun I think India should by as many as it likes.
Also he didn't really specify how the tank was protected around the 60 degree arc or how they applied that rule to the design. He just mentioned it.
STGN

 

[JBH22]

There may be disagreements but should be polite.

Hopefully everyone remembers that but I do like this thread so cheer up guys

 

[militarysta]

Very interesting film was posted here. And we have answer how big is LOS behind main sight. STGN have right, Dejawolf too -this small periscope is after armour cavity not inside. It's clearly visble on film. Apart that -some test Indian version of the Kontakt-1.
Photos:

Propably those photos will be usefull for STGN and Dejawolf becouse no one from previous users post the most interesting photos from interior...

els
btw: Those ERA will be not used on Arjun Mk.2 in India they are avaible mucht better solutions -like NERA pannels - there is one quite good pdf about Indian armour.

 

[ersakthivel]

Very interesting film was posted here. And we have answer how big is LOS behind main sight. STGN have right, Dejawolf too -this small periscope is after armour cavity not inside. It's clearly visble on film. Apart that -some test Indian version of the Kontakt-1.
Photos:

Propably those photos will be usefull for STGN and Dejawolf becouse no one from previous users post the most interesting photos from interior...

els
btw: Those ERA will be not used on Arjun Mk.2 in India they are avaible mucht better solutions -like NERA pannels - there is one quite good pdf about Indian armour.

See if you don't have the technical skills to explain anything, what is the point of this post?

See the gunner sits slightly left to the side of TC from this pic.So the position of the yellow box is directly in front of the gunner who is not sitting behind the main sight , in fact he is sitting well left and behind the frontal turret armor plane after the big gun mantle plate.

The black knob which is held by the Tc's right hand is directly behind the main sight. And the end of armor cavity in front of the Tc is much farther back than the end of armor cavity in front of the gunner at the yellow box(red scribbled box in dejawolf drawing.)

So any LOS measurement based on red scribbled box being directly behind the main sight is patently wrong. I have said it many times and no one has countered it.

 

[ersakthivel]

Let me try and cut it out in neon for you in the top picture the turret is tilted relative to the camera yet both sides measure the same if they where the same length the right(relative to the tank) side of the turret would be shorter due to the perspective. ergo the right side is the longest side and the turret is not symmetrical in width around the CL. As we can plainly see in the picture below the left side is shorter than the right side. Even if the turret is tilted ever so slightly towards the right. This is prof that the turret is not symmetrical. Unfortunately for me I think the only way I can convince you would be to go to a arjun tank and do the measurements with you, and even then I guess you would complain that we didn't know if the measuring tape was accurate enough.
Its kinda funny in a tragic way, this is almost like talking about colour to a colour-blind person. There is no way I could ever explain the color red to a person who can't see it. Luckily for you, you are not blind


STGN

The man's head is 3 times lesser than the width of the crew hatch cover .Do you agree or not?

Even if you give a face width of average military fit men as 170 mm. The hatch cover measures 3x170 mm=510 mm.
What is your opinion?

The driver's face is well infront of the turret frontal plate, So some distortion is possible if we base measurements on driver's face to compare turret frontal width.

But the crew man is actually standing with his back to the crew hatch cover, so no possibility of perspective error.

If you stick to the opinion that face width is less at 150 mm ,I have no problems , 3x150=450 mm.

So you can replace 0.5 m by 0.45 meter ,if you factor in perspective allowance for distortion it should come to 400 mm is my estimate .Because the same dimension line is brought forward to the hull from back where it will measure more distance for the same length.

So 80 percent(4/5 th ) of 400 is 320.
Lets say the frontal partial side on the hull skirts occupy 100 mm on each side . SO hull width at the middle is 3840-(2x100mm=200mm)=3640mm.
3640 mm-(2x320 mm=640 mm)=3000 mm for turret width.

If you insist on driver's face having a lesser width than 170 mm the turret width will only increase as per this calculation.

So it once again confirms that there is more than 400 mm space in arjun turret design for composite armor cavity, if you take into account that the first storage box was modified into armor block in latter production versions of ARJUn mk-1.

 

[ersakthivel]

Scale measurements using pixels have been done on multiple images, where sometimes the angle of the hull and the turret towards the camera is the same. They also sometimes did measure the hull size in the same plane as the turret (like STGN did).




Because I do not post often nor regularily in this forum. I don't check it everyday and I don't think that replying to post older than a few days makes sense. You are making references out of context to the "Arjun vs T90 MBT" where I said everything necessary to understand my absence in this discussion, it just happened that the forum admins of this forum don't seem to allow me using the f-word as adverb, while many other members use it ad hominem. If you checked the mentioned thread prior the admins deleted my post, you would know why I don't post there.




You don't use an "universally accepted scaling technique" - many people here, including me, have shown you the limitations and faults of your technique. Since you only restrain your posts on this wrong technique this makes you by your definition an troll.




An important thing in disscussions which you seem to loose quite often, is the context. He didn't post that his face (the head seen from the front) is 250 mm; the human head is not shaped like a cylinder! It is longer than it's wide, unless you are a freaky mutant.




Maybe you should take a look at real values from other tanks to estimate the diameter of the crew hatches, instead of randomly inventing values.
In case of the M1 Abrams the commander's hatch has a diameter of 17 inches (432 mm), while the loader's hatch has an diameter of 19 inches (483 mm)! The average American is taller and wider than the average Indian, so why should the Arjun have 550 mm large hatches?

The man's head is 3 times lesser than the width of the crew hatch cover .Do you agree or not?

Even if you give a face width of average military fit men as 170 mm. The hatch cover measures 3x170 mm=510 mm.
What is your opinion?

The driver's face is well infront of the turret frontal plate, So some distortion is possible if we base measurements on driver's face to compare turret frontal width.

But the crew man is actually standing with his back to the crew hatch cover, so no possibility of perspective error.

If you stick to the opinion that face width is less at 150 mm ,I have no problems , 3x150=450 mm.

So you can replace 0.5 m by 0.45 meter ,if you factor in perspective allowance for distortion it should come to 400 mm is my estimate .Because the same dimension line is brought forward to the hull from back where it will measure more distance for the same length.
Even STGN confirmed this by his measurements in this thread once.and DEJAWOLF posted photographs to prove this.

So the width of the hull besides the turret on ARJUn is 80 percent(4/5 th ) of the crew hatch cover i.e 400mmx0.8= 320mm.

Lets say the frontal partial side on the hull skirts occupy 100 mm on each side . SO hull width at the middle is 3840-(2x100mm=200mm)=3640mm.

3640 mm-(2x320 mm=640 mm)=3000 mm for turret width.

If you insist on driver's face having a lesser width than 170 mm the turret width will only increase as per this calculation.

So it once again confirms that there is more than 400 mm space in arjun turret design for composite armor cavity, if you take into account that the first storage box was modified into armor block in latter production versions of ARJUn mk-1.

 

[ersakthivel]

I don't even want to comment these bollocks of yours. Keep in mind that whole world is laughing from people like you, as I shown your posts to other people.

Not to mention that neither you read with understanding my post, neither you are actually arguing with me but with your own fantasy. Perhaps in future, when you finally learn how to properly read in english, write in english and using quote option, then perhaps we will be able to discuss, for now however your post is nothing more than a babble.

Go to your primary school english teacher and ask her how may grammar mistakes you made in the above post.

 

[ersakthivel]

How can the vision block be in front of the gunner and not also in front of the commander? Are we back to the "gunner sits in the middle behind the mantel" argument again? In your post #4089 we can clearly see that the gunner sits in front of the commander.
STGN

The Tc himself is sitting not at the center of the crew hatch,
and slightly towards the right of the center is my guess from the above pic.

The gunner must be sitting slightly right(towards the center) of the Tc is my estimate. SO the yellow box which is right on top of the gunner's face must be located between the main sight and the gun barrel behind the frontal turret armor is my guess.

see in the top picture the right hand of the man standing on the crew hole is behind the main sight,
His left hand is behind the space between the main sight and the gun, considering the gunner sits at a slight offset from the TC the scribbled red box is not behind the main sight is my guess, that's all.

So we cannot use the yellow box(the scribbled red box in DEJAWOLF's drawing for estimating LOS thickness of armor behind the main sight is my idea.

In fact as per the above photo it is well left of even the gunner's head.

This shows the kind of spurious half baked photo measurement professionalism ,

far removed from reality, without even

knowing something so simple as parallax error,

exhibited here in this thread .

And the relentless drubbing of the ARJUN based on these false claims.

Further than that I have no arguments.