Arjun vs T90 MBT

[Decklander]

Ya sure ..

in post #349, I had discussed the evolution of cavalry from Alexender's times to classic tank battles of WW2.
One thing which emerges from the study of the two battles is that terrain and atmosphere have a decisive bearing on the outcome of the battle. In the battle of Stalingrad and Battle of Kursk it was clear that heavy tanks like Tiger and Panther were far superior to T-34 but when the ground became soggy, the heavy tanks got bogged down and light T-34 won hands down.
Same happened in the battle in 326BC. The elephants got bogged down, the chariots got bogged down, the long range archers cud not remain effective and finally the day was won by light cavalry for Alexender.

Now if we look at the lesson learnt from these and many such battles, we can say that a tank which is heavily protected has low ground pressure to operate in soft terrain, fast and agile in terms of mobility with targetting accuracy at long ranges and provides better detection ability to tank commander with least need for logistics is the ultimate tank which an army can have.
There are only two tanks which come good on all these parameters. Leopard-2 and Arjun.
Let us see on these parameters how does T-90 fare and square up with Arjun.
T-90 is no match in any of these departments.
So despite a better turret geometry, T-90 will be restricted in battle as compared with Arjun.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

IMHO, The people who raised such statement in Academy should also see the measurements, T-90S may look small but compare to Arjun MK-1 its not a large difference at least when we talk about its width and the height of both tanks, Its empty claim if someone suggest so..

To a large extent it is correct that due to its small size, lesser height T-90 has inherent advantage as it offer smaller target and so it is difficult to target and can easily hide behind obstacles/sand dunes which adds to its stealth operation.
Arjun on the other hand is big and taller than T-90, offer a big easy target and cant hide as well as T-90 behind sand dunes

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

It is true that Arjun is no doubt have exceptional capabilities in fact better than T-90S in some respect of accuracy and Mobility so does protection but we should never ignore the flaws also that need to be removed..

1. There are design flaws which inherited from LEO2A4 design, which are needed to be solved..
2. Rifled gun and FCS are fine, But what need is better ammo which only we can manufacture and cannot be imported except penetrators..

So based on these two examples and study of other such battles we can safely say that a tank which combines the speed of central asian horsemen, accuracy of Indian long range archers, mobility of Greek heavy cavalry and brute strength of Indian elephant is what is needed for creating an undefeatable tank.
there are only two tanks which meet these goals. Indian Arjun and german Leopard.I now throw open this debate to T-90 fanboys to prove me wrong that arjun despite its bigger size, heavier weight, rifled gun is inferior to T-90S tank. In this debate we will discuss existing and planned upgrades for both the tanks or we can confine the debate to what exists today.

 

[ersakthivel]

@Damian, you are a bloody fool. we are talking of Arjun MK1 which is first ever tank designed in India. Germans have taught the world how to make tanks and how to use tyhem in Battle. AND you are comparing Leopard 2 with MK1. Why dont you pls wait for one year for Arjun MK2? We will overcome this knowledge gap of 78 yrs with Germans next year. What have you got to say to it?
Does it make any sense to you that countries like US, UK, France, Israel & Germany also had to make mk1,mk2,mk3 etc to reach whr they are today? We are going to be as good as them with just the second model. If you want to compare Leopard with Arjun, than compare Arjun Mk2 with leopard mk2 and not Arjun MK1 with Leopard MK2.
The same shit I have ssen being written by people about LCA. What they do not realise is that we may arrived late but we have beaten them in many fields like use of composites and aerodynamics. While the world was still struggling with canards, we created LCA an RSS ac with no canards or tailplane with a higher and better ROT.

the most important thing in tank warfare is not how light weight your tank is
It is
1.having a high power to weight ratio to overcome obstacles in various sloped terrain,
2.Having the lowest possible ground pressure to move unhindered even in slushy terrain without getting stuck,
3.having the best possible firing accuracy on the move,
4.Having good armor protection
5.And having the infrastructure for net centric warfare(the ability to fire at a target that has been identified by other vehicles(UAVs or special forces)
6.Firing anti aircraft and anti heli missiles after receiving commands through datalink from other platforms.
7.And having the best possible crew protection mechanism by separate ammo storage safe from ammo cooking,

In all these features ARJUn is generations ahead of T-90 and nit picking with turret geometry based on insufficient info and wrong proportioned drawing wont change any of that.

As damian suggested the storage boxes on the side can be done away with and replaced by composite armor and thicker RHA plates along with extra ERA tiles.It can be done easily as ARJUn has lot of reserve power and high power to weigt ratio to carry some more extra armor on the sides .
Also the arjun being the platform that has the capacity to support 60+ ton weight in its suspension and superstructure design and even the higher powered APU(safely inside the turret ) capable of supporting net centric warfare is the platform of the future.

Tthe mk-2 arjun has containerisation of ammo thanks to the fact the mk-1 arjun has enough space and weight support to provide this feature.So you cannot write off mk-1 as some crude prototype.

 

[ersakthivel]

Penetrator or rod are only, acceptable terms. And no, sabot is only a filler between subcalliber penetrator and the gun barrel, not a projectile within projectile. Sabot litteraly means shoe.

As for shaped charge jet:

Shaped charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Shaped Charge



http://www.preterhuman.net/texts/te...ped Charge Concept, An Overview - Walters.pdf



So your source is wrong, as a more proffesional sources, says exactly, that this is not molten metal, this is not very hot, and neither is melting armor.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Baum.html

This source of yours actually do not say anything about melting.



Spall is general term used by AFV's designers, by armor designers, by ammunition designers, by AFV's crew members, and the whole community that is around AFV's topic.

this is the description of spall due to armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS)

The principle of the kinetic energy penetrator is that it uses its kinetic energy, which is a function of mass and velocity, to force its way through armour. If the armor is defeated, the heat and spalling (particle spray) generated by the penetrator going through the armor, and the pressure wave that would develop, would destroy the target.

Note here spall means just particle spray.


But the spall is primarily the effect of HESH rounds only
In anti-tank warfare, spalling through mechanical stress is an intended effect of high explosive squash head (HESH) anti-tank shells and many other munitions which may not be powerful enough to pierce the armor of a target. The relatively soft warhead, containing or made of plastic explosive, flattens against the armor plating on tanks and other armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) and explodes, creating a shock wave that travels through the armor as a compression wave and is reflected at the free surface as a tensile wave breaking (tensile stress/strain fracture) the metal on the inside. The resulting spall is dangerous to crew and equipment, and may result in a partial or complete disablement of a vehicle and/or its crew. Many AFVs are equipped with spall liners inside their armor for protection.

 

[Decklander]

IMHO, The people who raised such statement in Academy should also see the measurements, T-90S may look small but compare to Arjun MK-1 its not a large difference at least when we talk about its width and the height of both tanks, Its empty claim if someone suggest so..



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

It is true that Arjun is no doubt have exceptional capabilities in fact better than T-90S in some respect of accuracy and Mobility so does protection but we should never ignore the flaws also that need to be removed..

1. There are design flaws which inherited from LEO2A4 design, which are needed to be solved..
2. Rifled gun and FCS are fine, But what need is better ammo which only we can manufacture and cannot be imported except penetrators..

We need only penetrator tech and not the cartridge or the propellent as you may say. You are aware that these shells come in two parts.

 

[Damian]

A needle is more appropriate than a rod. It may not be acceptable to you, but that is not my concern.

Anything that penetrates is a penetrator, so even a jet of shaped charge (Munroe effect) penetrates and can be called a penetrator. Let's not play with semantics.

Sabot literally means shoe, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that a Sabot Round is a projectile within a projectile.

Etymology of Sabot: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sabotage

Source: Sabot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



My source does mention 'melting' quite explicitly, and my source is correct. You were wrong by saying 'melting' is nonsense.

Don't worry about melting point of copper. It changes under high pressure and kinematic dynamics. When shaped charge detonantes, it creates a momentary plasma, which acts like a fluid. Plasma is one of the 5 states of matter.




Spall is not a general term in tank ballistics, and that is why it is only used for HEP. There is possibility of error in transliteration of your sources.

Did you ever saw how penetrator really looks like? It is not a needle but a rod, literally.

The sharp tip on the front end is there only to provide aerodynamics. Even during computer modeling it is not considered as important for penetration, because each computer model for penetrator is literally a simple rod.

As for melting, did you even read the sources I provided? The most important one:

http://www.preterhuman.net/texts/te...ped Charge Concept, An Overview - Walters.pdf

Detailed discussions of the shaped charge concept and an extensive list of sources (too
numerous to list here) are available elsewhere, e. g., [1], [2], [3], [4]. This concept is not
well understood by people outside the warhead community. For example, the jet is not a
"cutting plasma", it is not a liquefied or molten metal jet, the cone does not impact the
armor intact, the jet temperature is not 20,000 C, and the density of the jet is not several
times that of steel, and the jet does not burn its way through armor, as reported in many
newspaper, TV, and even semi-technical journal articles. Some confusion may arise due
to the fact that shaped charge devices are sometimes called HEAT rounds. HEAT is an
acronym for High Explosive Anti-Tank and does not relate to thermal effects [4].

As for spall, as I said, spall is generated by all types of projectiles, not by HESH/HEP exclusively.

I think the only purpose of arguing with me is to argue, and to not agree with a non Indian person... why? If the reason is just to never agree with a white?

it may be a rare one off incidence and there may be any other factor behind it.

You make the most basic mistake, you do not allow shit to happen, but it happens.

See the so called spall has a remote chance of doing this to arjun which has some protection in mk-1 atleast( mk-2 has world's modern standard protection) compared to surefire chance of this happening in T-90.

Oh really, so perhaps we should do a tests? And if you are so sure, maybe during the test you will want to sit inside Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 to prove this? Besides this how do you know that Mk2 have worlds most modern standards? You have opportunity to sit inside and later go to other countries and compare with other tanks.

What is intersting is that T-72B tanks in Chechnya, on which T-90 is based, survived multiple hits and armor perforations without suffering ammunition cook off, even when hit with modern anti-tank weapons. Why? Because ammunition was stored very low in autoloader only, same applies for T-90. And there are known stories like a T-72B that had been immobilized for approx 30 minutes, had been attacked by insurgents, and not only survived, but also crew managed to start engine again and drive back to own lines. How do you explain this?

There are only two tanks which come good on all these parameters. Leopard-2 and Arjun.

Why only these two? What about M1A2? It have a low ground pressure, is damn well armord, and have very good firepower, on the same level as Leopard 2, yet is more survivable, also for crew. And Leclerc?

 

[pmaitra]

@Damian, I will use the term penetrator if you would like.

Did you ever saw how penetrator really looks like?

Hmmm, what do you think?

It is not a needle but a rod, literally.

Well, in simple terms, a rod is a cylinder, by definition, and if one side is made conical, it looks like a needle, and that is what a penetrator looks like.

 

[Damian]

Noone in history of the military technology, called kinetic energy penetrator a needle, it was allways penetrator or rod officialy, and unofficialy it was only compared to a dart or arrow, but a needle?!

What is is this, you want to create your own terminology?

 

[ersakthivel]

Did you ever saw how penetrator really looks like? It is not a needle but a rod, literally.

The sharp tip on the front end is there only to provide aerodynamics. Even during computer modeling it is not considered as important for penetration, because each computer model for penetrator is literally a simple rod.

As for melting, did you even read the sources I provided? The most important one:

http://www.preterhuman.net/texts/te...ped Charge Concept, An Overview - Walters.pdf



As for spall, as I said, spall is generated by all types of projectiles, not by HESH/HEP exclusively.

I think the only purpose of arguing with me is to argue, and to not agree with a non Indian person... why? If the reason is just to never agree with a white?



You make the most basic mistake, you do not allow shit to happen, but it happens.



Oh really, so perhaps we should do a tests? And if you are so sure, maybe during the test you will want to sit inside Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 to prove this? Besides this how do you know that Mk2 have worlds most modern standards? You have opportunity to sit inside and later go to other countries and compare with other tanks.

What is intersting is that T-72B tanks in Chechnya, on which T-90 is based, survived multiple hits and armor perforations without suffering ammunition cook off, even when hit with modern anti-tank weapons. Why? Because ammunition was stored very low in autoloader only, same applies for T-90. And there are known stories like a T-72B that had been immobilized for approx 30 minutes, had been attacked by insurgents, and not only survived, but also crew managed to start engine again and drive back to own lines. How do you explain this?

So the ammo arrangement in the T-90(laying them in a heap on the floor) is the best way to store ammo perhaps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why only these two? What about M1A2? It have a low ground pressure, is damn well armord, and have very good firepower, on the same level as Leopard 2, yet is more survivable, also for crew. And Leclerc?

A t-90 has just a few rounds in auto loader.
naturaly many rounds must be placed on the floor besides the one in the auto loader.

So placing the ammo in a heap under the feet of the crew is the best tactics for avoiding ammo cook-off!!!!!!
if not we should place all the shells on the outside like T-90 does and in the heat of the battle the crew should stop the tank and a member should climb out and fetch the shells into the tank one by one!!!!!!!!

 

[Damian]

A t-90 has just a few rounds in auto loader.
naturaly many rounds must be placed on the floor besides the one in the auto loader.

22 rounds in autoloader, rest in racks placed in crew compartment. Also remember that in case of Arjun, you also need to reload ready rack in turret with ammunition from storage rack in hull. Just like in Leopard 2, to do this, you need to rotate the turret to get access to storage rack. Which means tanks is completely defenceless.

So placing the ammo in a heap under the feet of the crew is the best tactics for avoiding ammo cook-off!!!!!!

No, it is not, neither I said so, I only pointed a fact, that in Chechnya T-72B tanks that had ammunition only in autoloader had significantly increased survivability, T-90 use exactly the same ammunition storage, so it is also truth for T-90.

if not we should place all the shells on the outside like T-90 does and in the heat of the battle the crew should stop the tank and a member should climb out and fetch the shells into the tank one by one!!!!!!!!

I completely do not understand this overreacted emotional nonsense.

 

[Decklander]

Indian army has fought some of the toughest and biggest tank battles after WW2 in Asal Uttar and Khemkaran where they were pitched against the Pattons with T-55s and Vijyanta Tanks. IA has learnt its lessons well from all such major battles and those lessons have been well applied in designing Arjun tank.
Pak Army has a doctrine of offensive defence. Which means they are tuned to use their lack of defensive depth by stationing their formations close to border for rapid deployment and to have more offensive elements than reserve formations. PA has only two major reserve formations called area reserve north also called mangla Corps for J&K and Punjab and Area reserve South for Rajasthan.
IA has a defensive deployment and has 10 Pivot corps also called Holding Corps and three strike corps. The job of these Pivot corps is to hold the PA formations and deny them breakthru till the strike corps reach their battle areas.
PA also has a series of defences all along Indian Border called ditch-cum-bund structures with multi layered defence network. These are basically a network of canals which act as anti tank obstacles which can be flooded to swamp the area to bog down advancing IA strike formations and behind them they have well fortified multi layered defences with extensive mine fields. PA uses the same tactics which were used by Russians in battle of Kursk and Iraqies against Americans in Gulf wars. They dig in their tanks and anti tank weapons in well fortified positions with strong arty support in areas ahead of these defensive formations. This means that any tank formation will need very gud long range accurate fire to take them out as they offer a very small target or they must be taken out by attack fighters/helos before the forward elements of the strike corps reach the engagement zone.
One part of Arjun armour which has not been shown in any pix is the iron mesh skirts which it will have around it during war. These iron mesh skirts provide best defence against RPG and such weapons to Arjun. These have been extensively tested in Afganistan by allied forces and have been very effective against even anti tank RPG shots as they make the RPG burst before it impacts the main tank. Same will also be attached to T-90 during battle. So we can say that both these tanks will have gud protection when they get into battle.
However, IA has found to their shock that Arjun is far better suited for classic tank battles against PA than T-90 and Cold Start Doctrine can be best employed using Arjuns than T-90. Why & How? Any guess guys?

 

[ersakthivel]

22 rounds in autoloader, rest in racks placed in crew compartment. Also remember that in case of Arjun, you also need to reload ready rack in turret with ammunition from storage rack in hull. Just like in Leopard 2, to do this, you need to rotate the turret to get access to storage rack. Which means tanks is completely defenceless.



No, it is not, neither I said so, I only pointed a fact, that in Chechnya T-72B tanks that had ammunition only in autoloader had significantly increased survivability, T-90 use exactly the same ammunition storage, so it is also truth for T-90.



I completely do not understand this overreacted emotional nonsense.

SO you want me to accept the nonsense that the shells in AUTO LOADER are more safe than the shells stored in separate ammo container.

And no so called spall or any other seep through explosion will affect the shells in auto loader.

If so what is the protection feature of the 22 shells loaded in auto loader compared to same 22 rounds in separate ammo compartment?

Damian this following post in done by you, post no-798---in the thread Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology in this forum.


http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-54.html

Better pic, I draw lines where armor is.
Do You know what is safe manouvering angles principle? In T-90S or any Russian and Ukrainian tank, under safe manouvering angles this means +/- 0-30 degrees from turret center line over frontal arc, it is impossible to hit side turret armor that is indeed thin, 70-80mm max thick RHA or CHA element.

On NATO tanks problem was solved differently, they just placed over turret sides thick composite armor, no less than 300mm thick, at +/- 30 degrees from turret center line, 300mm thick composite armor will be at least 1-2 times thicker for projectile attacking at such angle.

This is kunal's reply to you with the photo

The Blue are the Bulge of Extra Armour which is not present on LEO2A4, These Extra Buldge on both sides gives the total width of 3.2 meters, Without these Arjun may had same Leo2a4 Turret Width of 2.5m..

--This is your quote

 

[Damian]

However, IA has found to their shock that Arjun is far better suited for classic tank battles against PA than T-90 and Cold Start Doctrine can be best employed using Arjuns than T-90. Why & How? Any guess guys?

Terrain and hull down positions... the effectiveness of using terrain as cover depends mostly on + and - elevation levels of main armament, generally bigger tanks have more + and - elevation for main weapon. This is helpfull in defence and even offence. This was actually how NATO planned to fight with Soviets, use preparred and natural protected positions for tanks. Fire to enemy, then retreat on the reverse gear to the next position, and so on untill enemy loose capability for further advance, then counterattack, if possible at night or in difficult weather conditions and use thermal sights to your advantage.

SO you want me to accept the nonsense that the shells in AUTO LOADER are more safe than the shells stored in separate ammo container.

No, I am not saying this, because as experience from different conflicts points, both are unsafe, safe is only completely separated ammunition compartment with blow off panels. I only say that situation is not that bad as you try to show it.

And no so called spall or any other seep through explosion will affect the shells in auto loader.

Of course.

If so what is the protection feature of the 22 shells loaded in auto loader compared to same 22 rounds in separate ammo compartment?

Of course the latter is better, but Arjun do not have separated ammunition compartment, at least not in Mk1 variant.

However Russians designed a modified autoloader for T-72 and T-90 tanks, which have armored protection screens.

Standard autoloader, as you can see, sides of autoloader are exposed.

New one with protection screens.

Of course it is not perfect solution, but improves survivability. However all currently used MBT's all over the world are in this characteristic inferior to M1 Abrams series.

Besides this, there are different types of autoloaders. There are non isolated autoloaders like that in T-90, and there are autoloaders inside isolated compartments with blow off panels. I shown a proposed autoloader for M1 Abrams series that fits in to the current turret and is placed in the isolated bustle, where currently ammunition is stored. There is Leclerc with autoloader for 22 rounds and also isolated in turret bustle, Russian Object 640 prototype had such solutions as well as Ukrainian Object 478H.

--This is your quote

And? You mean width of vehicle? I don't get the point, it is only width, and it means only that something is unnececary big by increasing unnececary internal volume and thus increasing vehicle weight.

 

[Decklander]

@Damian, that is just one of the many reasons. A few days back there was an article in India in a which they stated that Arjun may not be used with strike corps. Actually the IA was quoted out of context. They wanted to deploy Arjun as part of Pivot Corps which now has specialised attack formations as part of new Cold Start doctrine.These ten corps can lauch offensive ops within 24-48 hrs in their battle areas and that has caused considerable fear in PA as during normal time their dug in defensive formation are not manned and they too need similar time to reach their defensive areas and lay mines for protection. Also by the time they are able to activate the DCB (ditch cum bund)defences, our tanks wud have already breached them and wud be engaging their third layer of defences beyond the DCB. Plus the IAF and attack helos with very strong offensive will provide complete air cover and close support to these attack formations of Pivot corps. Imagine that we can attack at ten different places with max force without waiting for the strike formations to be mobilised. At the same time, long range arty and IAF will engage the built up areas of PA irrespective of the cost and attrition involved. the strike formation after reaching the areas of these assualt groups will take over from them and beef them up. Its the area upto 25kms of our borders which we need to overcome in Pak after that we break out into open territory.

 

[ersakthivel]

And this is kunal's reply to you in post no--805
in the link ----http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-54.html

Dont twist it..

So your logic is the tank have more space inside the turret so manufacture decrease the Armour also this increase width of the turret but somehow its same Leoa4 turret`s width !?

It doesn't make any sense..




Those extras on side increase the Armour more than LEOA4 without any doubt, But LEOA4 overall Side Armour is better placed than Arjun..

So with this two photos you have decided on the side turret protection.
Now my point is

look carefully the crew hatches of both arjun and LEO -2 are roughly at the same position with respect to the centerline of the turret. Then how could arjun have a lesser side armor thickness than LEO?

Even for a rough measurement with just plain look the center line of the crew hatch is roughly at least 80 cms (800 mm) from the outer most side turret wall.How much of this 800 mm is the elbow room besides the crew hatch?
You are saying out of this 800 mm there is only 70 mm allocated for side turret armor plate.Are you sure?
Remember arjun was modeled on leo. Leo has close to 300 mm of RHA armor plate thickness in the same area.
Then how come arjun has just 70 mm despite having more turret space than leo.DO you think the CVRDE just failed to copy LEO side armor thickness here?
Any guess?
militarysta intervened at that point and said in post no-808

1. Leoaprd2A4 turret is less wide then Ajrun (Leo2A4 is less wide even T-72B
2. this has no effect on armour thickness, becouse in leo2A4 designed quite "thin" the interval of the crew. Simply the INNER width of the turret is small. So armour can be thicker then in other tanks with more space inside turret.

This is a stupid comment.
Both photos even seem to have the same magnification .Just look at the space above and sideways of the tank from photo border line.

SInce even in the above photos I posted both leo and arjun have crew hatches exactly at the same interval space.Then how do you decide that leo2A4 designed quite "thin" the interval of the crew..
It is hilarious that from that point on you and methos were writing in every forum possible that arjun failed to copy the LEO design in side turret armor .Is this professionalism or fanboyism?

 

[ersakthivel]

Terrain and hull down positions... the effectiveness of using terrain as cover depends mostly on + and - elevation levels of main armament, generally bigger tanks have more + and - elevation for main weapon. This is helpfull in defence and even offence. This was actually how NATO planned to fight with Soviets, use preparred and natural protected positions for tanks. Fire to enemy, then retreat on the reverse gear to the next position, and so on untill enemy loose capability for further advance, then counterattack, if possible at night or in difficult weather conditions and use thermal sights to your advantage.



No, I am not saying this, because as experience from different conflicts points, both are unsafe, safe is only completely separated ammunition compartment with blow off panels. I only say that situation is not that bad as you try to show it.



Of course.



Of course the latter is better, but Arjun do not have separated ammunition compartment, at least not in Mk1 variant.

However Russians designed a modified autoloader for T-72 and T-90 tanks, which have armored protection screens.

Standard autoloader, as you can see, sides of autoloader are exposed.

New one with protection screens.

Of course it is not perfect solution, but improves survivability. However all currently used MBT's all over the world are in this characteristic inferior to M1 Abrams series.

Besides this, there are different types of autoloaders. There are non isolated autoloaders like that in T-90, and there are autoloaders inside isolated compartments with blow off panels. I shown a proposed autoloader for M1 Abrams series that fits in to the current turret and is placed in the isolated bustle, where currently ammunition is stored. There is Leclerc with autoloader for 22 rounds and also isolated in turret bustle, Russian Object 640 prototype had such solutions as well as Ukrainian Object 478H.



And? You mean width of vehicle? I don't get the point, it is only width, and it means only that something is unnececary big by increasing unnececary internal volume and thus increasing vehicle weight.

My question is how is this auto loader safer than the arjun ammo compartment?
So until now no ammo in auto loader ever caught fire and cooked off in a blast and ripped the turret apart?

 

[ersakthivel]

Terrain and hull down positions... the effectiveness of using terrain as cover depends mostly on + and - elevation levels of main armament, generally bigger tanks have more + and - elevation for main weapon. This is helpfull in defence and even offence. This was actually how NATO planned to fight with Soviets, use preparred and natural protected positions for tanks. Fire to enemy, then retreat on the reverse gear to the next position, and so on untill enemy loose capability for further advance, then counterattack, if possible at night or in difficult weather conditions and use thermal sights to your advantage.



No, I am not saying this, because as experience from different conflicts points, both are unsafe, safe is only completely separated ammunition compartment with blow off panels. I only say that situation is not that bad as you try to show it.



Of course.



Of course the latter is better, but Arjun do not have separated ammunition compartment, at least not in Mk1 variant.

However Russians designed a modified autoloader for T-72 and T-90 tanks, which have armored protection screens.

Standard autoloader, as you can see, sides of autoloader are exposed.

New one with protection screens.

Of course it is not perfect solution, but improves survivability. However all currently used MBT's all over the world are in this characteristic inferior to M1 Abrams series.

Besides this, there are different types of autoloaders. There are non isolated autoloaders like that in T-90, and there are autoloaders inside isolated compartments with blow off panels. I shown a proposed autoloader for M1 Abrams series that fits in to the current turret and is placed in the isolated bustle, where currently ammunition is stored. There is Leclerc with autoloader for 22 rounds and also isolated in turret bustle, Russian Object 640 prototype had such solutions as well as Ukrainian Object 478H.



And? You mean width of vehicle? I don't get the point, it is only width, and it means only that something is unnececary big by increasing unnececary internal volume and thus increasing vehicle weight.

My question is how is this auto loader safer than the arjun ammo compartment?
So until now no ammo in auto loader ever caught fire and cooked off in a blast and ripped the turret apart?

 

[Damian]

So with this two photos you have decided on the side turret protection.
Now my point is
look carefully the crew hatches of both arjun and LEO -2 are roughly at the same position with respect to the centerline of the turret. Then how could arjun have a lesser side armor thickness than LEO?

Seriously, I hoped that perhaps, perhaps you are a human being, but now I see you are not.



Ok last time. First take a look at the interior photos, left side is Leopard 2 and right side Arjun Mk1. You can clearly see that a distance between hatch and turret side bulkhead is smaller in Leopard 2 than in Arjun Mk1. Now look at the exterior photos and take in to account what was said earlier, the space between hatch and turret side bulkhead.

But I suspect anything I will write is pointless.

My question is how is this auto loader safer than the arjun ammo compartment?
So until now no ammo in auto loader ever caught fire and cooked off in a blast and ripped the turret apart?

None is safe, do you understand this? By NATO standards both Arjun Mk1 and T-90S are deathtraps for crew.

And of course there were cases that ammunition stored in russian tanks autoloaders caught fire and cooked off, but when you put ammunition only to autoloader, you minimize that risk, simple as that.

 

[ersakthivel]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-55.html
And from the above page in the post no-817 you made the following comment.

Leopard 2A4 was introduced in second half of 1980's, it is not Leopard 2/Leopard 2A1 from 1979... This is the first thing, second Leopard 2/A1 have different armor than Leopard 2A4, and early Leo2A4's have weaker armor than late production Leo2A4's!

And how the hell nation that just recently builded it's own tank + it's own composite armor, so why India suddenly is better than Germany or any other big tank producer? What experience You designers have? What Data? Any real combat expereience with modern MBT's? Any reliabale tests?

Maybe more humility, not that "we are superpower" talk style.

So is this quote (how the hell nation that just recently builded it's own tank + it's own composite armor, so why India suddenly is better than Germany or any other big tank producer? What experience You designers have?)the basis of your estimation of arjun's side armor

 

[Damian]

So is this quote (how the hell nation that just recently builded it's own tank + it's own composite armor, so why India suddenly is better than Germany or any other big tank producer? What experience You designers have?)the basis of your estimation of arjun's side armor

No you little manipulator, the basis are photographs of the real thing.

You know what, DRDO should pay you, as their propaganda boy.

Besides this, do you even understand in english? The context of someones words? Or typical for propaganda boys, you will throw words out of context?