Arjun vs T90 MBT

[ersakthivel]

This tread is a monstroity, when fanboys start to write and do not wait to others to answer, so I wonder if this is old good tactic of fanboys... to shout as loud as possible, to prevent any answer.

But first things firts.



Well definetly Decklander needs eyeglasses, if he do not see that behind side turret as he call them protrusions, there are storage boxes installed. If this is prototype, then it present final or near final production configuration for Mk1.

Seriously, I am not Indian and I know it better than him... what a shame.

Ok, na that second kid. The Arjun side turret armor thickness.

Many will ask, how to get a knowledge about tanks armor, without being in a tank personally, nothing more simple, you just need good exterior and interior photos.



Someone might ask, however, why on these photos like one of our dear fanboys said, there is space between man standing in hatches and the turret edge.



The real turret thickness is known, but what we have here? A simple storage boxes.

Now compare tha last photo and storage boxes placement, with photos above. And the answer is clear.

How are you so sure that the things marked in the red circle below and above the turret or same?

this is what kunal said about the stuff you circled in the red ink in the inside crew compartment--- What is marked in Interior photos is gunner periscope..

So now can you explain your arguments you posted in the red ink below the photo with kunal's clarification on the matter?

Are you so sure if the IA desired then these storage boxes cannot be converted into extra armored plates with more era tiles added for protection?

 

[ersakthivel]

These are blow off panels but cannot say the same about service hatch..

kunal these panels are behind the crew hole on the right hand side corner of the turret..
But in the assembly line photos the ammo storage seems to be at the center.
So blow off panels may be elsewhere or what?
Can you clarify on these points?
The assembly line photo is here below.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

also the ammo storage is in a very safe spot below the turret it seems and at the center of the tank hull.

So there is no way it can be hit from the front with a shot on turret side.

So arjun ammo is very well protected it seems.

There are two ammo storage places, one inside the chase and the other on the turret. The turret one is more exposed.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

The last box could be a tool box but the first one definitely has no hinges and is not a tool box.

As seen on this random picture.

 

[methos]

Now, let us assume the robot is the shell, and the obstacle is the armour, thus imparting a strong zone.

If we are to define a 30 degree attack angle from the medial axis of the turrent, it looks something like this:

Your idea might be correct to some extend, but it is not showing the weakly armoured part. The important thing is that for the frontal sector (+/- 30°) you do not use a fixed point - but the whole turret centerline - elongated if necessary. Any point on this line must be protected from -30° to +30° - this is not shown by your image, but correctly on others. Any place in the crew compartment is in danger, not only these located in front of the centerpoint of it's rear wall.
Furthermore photographs from the Arjun posted in this forum shows that the turret bustle is not isolated from crew compartment on currently fielded Arjuns - which means that the danger zone is greater as shown by Damian.

That is what I had asked him to explain as what happens if the arcs are parallel. he never replied to that and now he has muck on his face as your drawing clearly shows that the armour protrusions do provide frontal 60* protection to Arjun something which is impossible for people like Methos, Damian etc to digest.

You are wrong again. We are making our conclusions after looking for facts. You come up with some random idea, declare it fact and afterwards try to find - or invent - something to support you opinion.

 

[Damian]

@Godless-Kafir, it is nothing more than a tool box, if you will have opprotunity just hit it with a fist or hammer, I bet that it is empty inside.

@Damian one more thing, i dont think the orange zone is week. The gun mantel looks massive and has enough armor on it to with stand a frontal attack. Also the sights on the turret seem to be disconnected from the crew compartment and probably vented with blow off panels at the bottom.

Also how do we know they are not cammo latches like on Type-90 and not took box hinges? They could be armor blocks.

Gun mantle is allways a weak zone, you can't place there enough and dense enough armor, because then you will kill servomechanisms, this is a weak zone in all tanks.

As for main gun sight... oh this is good one a blow off panels for a place where is no ammunition, seriously do you know the purpose of blow off panels?

Actually you have made everyone here more aware of the arjun than we would have ever been, you have brought out some excellent points. Kudos for that.

However people have made some good observations to counter the discussion and i think they are valid to, i think you should look into it and give a second chance on details.

Thank you, however I will not take seriously "arguments" of people like the one with difficult nick. Seriously just look at him, he do not understand the discussion,if he can understand anything, and try to fight with me with complete BS. I can discuss with @pmaitra, not with a fanboy who thinks I want to "kill" Arjun MBT program.

As for that fanboy ersakthivel, I don't know if any discussion is possible with a person who claims to know about tanks more, but he do not know anything about them... it is just pointless to discuss with children.

 

[pmaitra]

Your idea might be correct to some extend, but it is not showing the weakly armoured part. The important thing is that for the frontal sector (+/- 30°) you do not use a fixed point - but the whole turret centerline - elongated if necessary. Any point on this line must be protected from -30° to +30° - this is not shown by your image, but correctly on others. Any place in the crew compartment is in danger, not only these located in front of the centerpoint of it's rear wall.

Can you please explain with a diagram?

"The important thing is that for the frontal sector (+/- 30°) you do not use a fixed point - but the whole turret centerline - elongated if necessary." - I have not used any fixed point. I have used a line that is +/- 30° with the central axis that just about touches the convex corner of the armour. Given the front armour edge on the sides, there is only one way to draw the line on each side of the turret. How else would you draw it?

"Any point on this line must be protected from -30° to +30°" - Which line are you talking about? Did you mean line segment?

Furthermore photographs from the Arjun posted in this forum shows that the turret bustle is not isolated from crew compartment on currently fielded Arjuns - which means that the danger zone is greater as shown by Damian.

Please read and understand my post. The danger zone in the drawing by @Damian is greater than what it should actually be. Why? I have explained.

 

[Damian]

Can you please explain with a diagram?

"The important thing is that for the frontal sector (+/- 30°) you do not use a fixed point - but the whole turret centerline - elongated if necessary." - I have not used any fixed point. I have used a line that is +/- 30° with the central axis that just about touches the convex corner of the armour. Given the front armour edge on the sides, there is only one way to draw the line on each side of the turret. How else would you draw it?

"Any point on this line must be protected from -30° to +30°" - Which line are you talking about? Did you mean line segment?

Methos meant turret longitudinal axis.

Please read and understand my post. The danger zone in the drawing by @Damian is greater than what it should actually be. Why? I have explained.

Only if we assume that small fragments/edges of these protrusions can provide significant boost in protection, which is unrealistic calling it politely... in fact it is completely insane to belive that edges of protrusions can have any significant impact for the relatively modern ammunition, for example for that used by Pakistanis or Chinese.

I say more, these edges of side protrusions would have problems with ammunition from 1950's and 1960's.

As I said, composite armor have different working mechanism than homogeneus armor, the latter is just ineffective these days, however the composite armor demands completely different design solutions to work properly. You can't expect that a small fragment/edge of composite armor cavity - not the composite filler itself! - will have any significant impact on protection.

In fact even if you would somehow had a luck, and penetrator would deflect in such a way that it would hit sides of turret non protected by composite armor not by it's tip, but side, with such thin armor, it would probably change nothing.

And HEAT warhead would just detonate and the jet itself would go through it like a hot knife through butter.

You must realize that both Soviets and NATO had a very good reason why they designed turrets of their tanks these ways... and remember, the open conflict between NATO and WarPac would be literally a slaughterhouse, so both sides choose the best solutions to compensate many problems.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Arjun have ammo storage bins at chassis and a ten round bin in turret ready to fire..

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

I will also add few more points, Arjun & Leopard series have many similarities not just external but also very internal..

Presently Arjun MK-1 dont have blast doors, Which is on all Leo A4/A5/A6/A7 and on, Blast door will come with MK2 version of Arjun..

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

Two tank layouts tanks, Arjun MK1 & leo2 A4..

Arjun ammo containers are at back in chassis, Also their is ammo bin in turret but not Ammo in forward area as in leo 2..

kunal these panels are behind the crew hole on the right hand side corner of the turret..But in the assembly line photos the ammo storage seems to be at the center.So blow off panels may be elsewhere or what? Can you clarify on these points?

 

[Decklander]

@pmaitra,
No point teaching and wasting time on who consider themselves to be super intelligent. All this while they were arquing that Arjun is not well defended in 60* arc. once I challenged them, they came out with those confusing drawings to try an blunt my arguments. Now your drawing has conclusively proven them wrong, so now they will start some other stupid argument.
BTW, I sent this link to one of my coursemates from NDA who is shortly going to command an Armoured brigade. he went mad laughing their arguments and asked me not to spend time on them

So I will now move on to tactics part to prove my point that Arjun has decisive edge over T-90 in all types of terrain and and all kinds of war.

 

[Damian]

@pmaitra,
No point teaching and wasting time on who consider themselves to be super intelligent. All this while they were arquing that Arjun is not well defended in 60* arc. once I challenged them, they came out with those confusing drawings to try an blunt my arguments. Now your drawing has conclusively proven them wrong, so now they will start some other stupid argument.
BTW, I sent this link to one of my coursemates from NDA who is shortly going to command an Armoured brigade. he went mad laughing their arguments and asked me not to spend time on them

So I will now move on to tactics part to prove my point that Arjun has decisive edge over T-90 in all types of terrain and and all kinds of war.

There is nothing wrong with my drawings, neither with @pmaitra drawings, you are the one of two persons here, who do not read what others write... or you are uncapable to read with understanding.

Not to mention that you do not have any knowledge on tanks design, so any argument about tactics used by tank formations is pointless because tactics are very closely connected to the tank design.

What @pmaitra wanted to point out is that protrusions edges could reduce slightly the weak zone, however he didn't take in to consideration how significant boost in protection it could give, against modern ammunition protrusions edges will not give any boost in protection for area not protected by composite armor. The penetration capabilities are just too big.

But you do not want to listen, I am perfectly sure that if engineers who actually designed tanks like Aleksander Morozov or Phillip Lett would say the same thing as I do, you would attack them in the same way as me. Which actually shows how huge ignorant you are.

 

[Damian]

Arjun have ammo storage bins at chassis and a ten round bin in turret ready to fire..

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

I will also add few more points, Arjun & Leopard series have many similarities not just external but also very internal..

Presently Arjun MK-1 dont have blast doors, Which is on all Leo A4/A5/A6/A7 and on, Blast door will come with MK2 version of Arjun..

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

Two tank layouts tanks, Arjun MK1 & leo2 A4..

Arjun ammo containers are at back in chassis, Also their is ammo bin in turret but not Ammo in forward area as in leo 2..

Kunal, it is not certain if Mk2 will have isolated ammunition compartment. Also seeing design of turret ammo racks I do not understand why there are any blow off panels, it is pointless because fire, pressure and every nasty effect of deflagrating ammunition will either way get inside crew compartment.

I have a question, there were any ballistic tests with Arjun, combat loaded with full ammunition load and fuel? With the goal of these tests to actually detonate ammunition and see what will happen?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

You should see the official specs of MK2, It puzzled me too before but i assume there was some reason that DRDO did not have the design for isolated ammo bin back in late 90s, Which is now available and will be implement on MK2..

I have no idea about the way tanks are tested in Indian conditions & such information is not for open internet..

Kunal, it is not certain if Mk2 will have isolated ammunition compartment. Also seeing design of turret ammo racks I do not understand why there are any blow off panels, it is pointless because fire, pressure and every nasty effect of deflagrating ammunition will either way get inside crew compartment.

I have a question, there were any ballistic tests with Arjun, combat loaded with full ammunition load and fuel? With the goal of these tests to actually detonate ammunition and see what will happen?

 

[Decklander]

@Damian,
This is my last reply to you. I never ever doubted the level of protection of T-90. I argued in favour of Arjun by pointing out the protrusions that even this tank has is well defended within 60* arc. The same was further reinforced by me by showing the pix of 2004 model which did not have these side protrusion. The addition of these side protrusions clearly show that Indian designers knew about it and moved to rectify this short coming. if you see the latest design of the turret of production MK1, you will see that it has been further beefed up on sides and the MK2 will have outstanding all round protection.
So all this while you tried to Kill arjun by stating that it is not protected within 60* frontal arc while T-90 is.
Pmaitra drawing clearly demolishes your argument. You have now started and opened another argument that beyond 60* arc Arjun turret is not well defended.
Anyway, the army guys who have operated both these tanks have better words for Arjun than T-90. The crew survivability in Arjun is far superior to T-90 as automatic fire fighting and other system are far better than russians. T-90SM has borrowed heavily from Arjun and has the best crew protection features of any russian tank built till date and yet it is below that of Arjun.
What have you got to say about crew protection levels of the two tanks.

 

[Damian]

You should see the official specs of MK2, It puzzled me too before but i assume there was some reason that DRDO did not have the design for isolated ammo bin back in late 90s, Which is now available and will be implement on MK2..

I can assume several reasons why Mk1 do not have safe ammunition storage.

1) Design is not mature and ready... which is strange for a solution known for a such long time and very simple also.
2) There was no requirement.
3) There is no space for such, just look how many different things, cables is in Arjun Mk1 turret, more than in probably any tank with overall design scheme similiar to western tanks.

As for Mk2, do you have any official and open source document that clearly says that Mk2 will have isolated turret ammunition compartment?

 

[Damian]

I never ever doubted the level of protection of T-90. I argued in favour of Arjun by pointing out the protrusions that even this tank has is well defended within 60* arc. The same was further reinforced by me by showing the pix of 2004 model which did not have these side protrusion. The addition of these side protrusions clearly show that Indian designers knew about it and moved to rectify this short coming. if you see the latest design of the turret of production MK1, you will see that it has been further beefed up on sides and the MK2 will have outstanding all round protection.

Arjun do not have good protection for 60 degrees frontal arc... not by worldwide standards. The photo from 2004 shows standard Arjun with protrusions clearly visible, I strongly recommend you to purchase eyeglasses if you do not see them. And Mk2 do not have allaround protection, as there is no such thing as urban survivability kit installed on it, only such uparmor kit can provide all around protection.

It only prooves you do not have even smallest idea about protection of such vehicles like tanks.

So all this while you tried to Kill arjun by stating that it is not protected within 60* frontal arc while T-90 is.

Where did I tried to "kill" Arjun? Are you nuts?

Oh what do I say, of course you are nuts if you say such things.

Pmaitra drawing clearly demolishes your argument. You have now started and opened another argument that beyond 60* arc Arjun turret is not well defended.

Well it seems not only you do not understand what I write and draw, but also you do not understand what pmaitra write and draw.

Anyway, the army guys who have operated both these tanks have better words for Arjun than T-90.

Oh seriously, you have of course a credible source they say so, from their own free will?

The crew survivability in Arjun is far superior to T-90 as automatic fire fighting and other system are far better than russians.

Well guess what, fire extuinguishing system will not extinguish ammunition fire, it is just immposible, this is why NATO aimed to isolate at least part of ammunition, Americans were such concerned with this problem, that they actually isolated whole ammunition load from crew, not only part of it.

T-90SM has borrowed heavily from Arjun and has the best crew protection features of any russian tank built till date and yet it is below that of Arjun.

And you have a credible goverment source of course.

So you want to say that 4S23 "Relikt" was designed in India? No, because it was designed in NII Stali, as replacement for 4S22 "Kontakt-5", slat armor or "reshetka" as Russians name it, was also not designed in India. Or maybe "Kalina" FCS was also designed in India? While in fact it was designed in Bellarus and Russia. So what you will invent next? That maybe tank itself was designed first in India?

What have you got to say about crew protection levels of the two tanks.

By NATO standards, both tanks the T-90S and Arjun Mk1 have non existing crew protection after armor perforation, both will most likely end as burning coffins for crew.

 

[Decklander]

@Kunal,
It is correct that MK1 does not have blowout panels and they are being fitted only in MK2. It is not present even in T-72s and were first introduced in T-90S. Even earlier T-90 did not have them. So maybe this design feature was missed by indian designers. T-90S & T-90SM both have them as standard fit.

 

[Damian]

T-90S and T-90MS do not have blow off panels, neither isolated ammunition compartment... do you even know how ammunition is stored in these tanks?

In fact T-90 series are modified T-72 series, so they use the exactly same ammunition storage scheme. Only T-90MS have some part ammunition that was previously stored in crew compartment but outside autoloader, moved to armored ammo box bolted to the turret rear.

This is how this storage looks like.

In T-90MS the ammunition stored outside autoloader was moved to this box:

But this box is completely isolated from crew, and to reload ammunition, tank needs to withdraw from battle, and crew must go outside to reload autoloader.

There are however no blow off panels in these tanks, the only tanks that have confirmed blow off panels for their safe ammunition storages are:

M1 Abrams series (whole ammunition stored safely in isolated ammunition compartments with blow off panels - for M1/M1IP this is 44 rounds in turret bustle, 8 in hull + optional 3 in armored box on turret basket floor, for M1A1/M1A2 series it is 34/36 in turret bustle + 6 in hull magazine), Leopard 2 (15 rounds stored in isolated ammunition compartment with blow off panel + 27 stored in simple rack in hull left to the driver), Leclerc (22 rounds in turret bustle isolated ammunition compartment with blow off panel + 18 in hull right to the driver, non isolated), Merkava Mk4 (10 rounds stored safely, rest in the hull rear, non safe), Altay (some part of ammunition in safe storage at the turret rear, rest stored unsafe in hull), Type 90 (probably similiar scheme to Leclerc), and K2 (similiar scheme to Leclerc). Other Main Battle Tanks around the world do not have such storage system - of course I do not mention prototypes.

 

[pmaitra]

Methos meant turret longitudinal axis.

Thanks for responding.

The line is infinite. Obviously @methos meant a line segment. I am interested to know which two points on this line define that line segment. I have asked @methos to provide a diagram with these two points, but you may provide the same.

 

[Damian]

@pmaitra, the point is to provide more or less same protection level, for turret 60 degrees frontal arc, I will show this on example of the M1A2.

I know the drawing is not perfect. But the arc is drawn allways from the turret rear bulkhead, allways. Because at 60 degrees, both turret front and sides are exposed to enemy fire. Of course these 60 degrees are also meassured from turret longitudinal axis.



Dunno if this explains the point, if I am not capable to explain this, perhaps methos is.

And there is possible to make interesting observation. If we estimate the side turret armor of the M1A2 as ~360-400mm thick at 90 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, at 30 degrees the armor thickness will increase to ~720-800mm, and we estimate that at 30 degrees, the front turret armor will also be around ~800mm.