Arjun vs T90 MBT

[ersakthivel]

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.



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.

Dont be a bud head and try to fool people with photos.

The arjun turret has 3.2 meter width. The leo has just 2.4 meter turret width.

Remember the crew hatches of both arjun and leo seems to be on the same distance from gun barrel in the above two photos I posted.

Then how the hell you are fooling people here that all the exra 800 mm is there in the bloody photo you posted above. This is direct con.

In that discussion kunal never accepted your figment of imagination.

Then mil;tarasia intervened and said just leave it at that.And you stopped saying that you are too tired for that.
Now you are reeling off the same con here again.

 

[Damian]

Dont be a bud head and try to fool people with photos.
The arjun turret has 3.2 meter width. The leo has just 2.4 meter turret width.
Remember the crew hatches of both arjun and leo seems to be on the same distance from gun barrel in the above two photos.
Then how the hell you are fooling people here that all the eatra 800 mm is there in the bloody photo you posted above. This is direct con.
In that discussion kunal never accepted your figment of imagination.
Then mil;tarasia intervened and said just leave it at that.And you stopped saying that you are too tired for that.
Now you are reeling off the sam,e con here again.

Are you ----in unable to understand the distance between hatch and turret side armor bulkhead inside and then comparing it to the distance of the hatch to the armor edge on the outside?

 

[pmaitra]

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?

I said I will use penetrator if you like, but surely you don't read before responding.

Also, I am surprised you are ok with rod but not needle.

 

[Damian]

Penetrator and rod are world wide accepted terminology for naming that part of APFSDS ammunition, simple as that.

 

[Decklander]

@Damian,
I fail to understand your reason for this kind of stupid arguments here and harping opn non issues. yesterday I posted pix of actual operational Arjun tanks which show clearly full length side armour on turret sides. I also told you that the sides of turret of Arjun MK1 in operation with actual tank regiments have equal or better protection than leopard MK2.
Why the hell are you still arguing on old photos and wrong info?
Do you have any data to contradict the pix which I posted here? If so pls share them. Arjun MK1 has full length side protection on its turret and also its track is covered for 60* arc.

 

[pmaitra]

Penetrator and rod are world wide accepted terminology for naming that part of APFSDS ammunition, simple as that.

A rod is a cylinder, with length and flat ends. The penetrator has one end shaped like a cone. Needle is more appropriate than rod. It's common sense. I also said I will use penetrator. Why are we wasting time on this silly little thing?

This needle vs rod discussion is over with me. I'd like to focus on something more important.

 

[pmaitra]

Moreover, I had asked @methos to post a diagram with two points on the central axis. He has since disappeared.

 

[Decklander]

@Damian & @methos,
can you please base your opinions and comments on PIX shown in post #384 of this thread. They are the real tanks in operation. Pls do not use old pix which are not even relevent today.
This thread was specifically started to discuss abilities in battle of the two tanks and not the armour. You guys are delibratly running away from a real debate of the capabilities of the two tanks as you know that you have no arguments to support T-90 in those fields.
PLS, PLS, PLS stop using old photos and base your arguments on real tank and not on PIX of prototypes.

 

[Damian]

@Decklander, tanks you showed on these photos have storage boxes on turret sides, how many times I need to repeat this? Do you even read other peoples posts?

Tank in the field, what we can see clearly are storage boxes, even hinges and handles to their doors are visible.

Another one, also clearly visible storage boxes.

What more you want? That to please you we will lie? That to please you we will contradict reality?

 

[redragon]

How many Arjuns IA has?

 

[Decklander]

@Damian, who gave you the idea that they are storage boxes? They are added armour on the sides and not storage boxes. How can you explain the added mass on side skirts on the front side which covers those very arcs which these so called boxes are covering? How can it be that a tank designer provides extra armour to the skirts but not to the Turret which has higher probability of being HIT. May be in Poland you design such tanks.

 

[Decklander]

@Decklander, tanks you showed on these photos have storage boxes on turret sides, how many times I need to repeat this? Do you even read other peoples posts?

Tank in the field, what we can see clearly are storage boxes, even hinges and handles to their doors are visible.

Another one, also clearly visible storage boxes.

What more you want? That to please you we will lie? That to please you we will contradict reality?

I do not know who gave you that information. May be jesus spoke to you. I have been told so by my coursemates from national defence Academy who had commanded these tank regiments. I specifically asked them this question and they told me that let the fools be fools. This Brig. of IA had earlier commanded a T-90 regiment and he swears by Arjun now. He is a convert now to Indian tank.

 

[pmaitra]

No one can tell for sure, but looking at the padlocks on the side in the picture @Damian posted, I'd go with storage boxes. These could be the first batch though.

Any recent pictures?

 

[Damian]

who gave you the idea that they are storage boxes? They are added armour on the sides and not storage boxes.

Oh seriously, so all the sudden, your designers are creating a fragile thin sheet metal armor, with cover doors on hinges, and you call this armor?

How can you explain the added mass on side skirts on the front side which covers those very arcs which these so called boxes are covering?

Side skirts are protecting only to +/- 15-20 degress for each side, it is not the same protection level as required for turret sides. And this is for all tanks.

How can it be that a tank designer provides extra armour to the skirts but not to the Turret which has higher probability of being HIT.

Maybe because "Kanchan" is weight inefficent, and to provide weight below 60 tons, they needed to sacrifice something, in this case turret side protection. Side skirts are much simpler and lighter, and still they cover in Arjun only 1/3rd of the hull sides, the rest what you see are thin sheet metal non ballistic skirts.

May be in Poland you design such tanks.

No we don't, in fact we designed a low profile turret, where protection is not really needed because crew sits below turret race ring.

I do not know who gave you that information. May be jesus spoke to you. I have been told so by my coursemates from national defence Academy who had commanded these tank regiments. I specifically asked them this question and they told me that let the fools be fools. This Brig. of IA had earlier commanded a T-90 regiment and he swears by Arjun now. He is a convert now to Indian tank.

I can say that I know Barack Obama in person, is anyone capable to check this? No, so probably I know Barack Obama in person and when we can, we drink a lot of Vodka togheter, I also know Ivan IV and Casimir III, they also like vodka!

You see how ridicoulus is your post?

Not to mention that you believe him, without any hand of salt, Did you seen these storage boxes/armor in person? Probably not, but I suppose that perhaps if they told you that this tank can fly, you would belive.

I heard thousands of such absurd stories from soldiers.

 

[Decklander]

The so called turret boxes are also the added armour. In earlier designs there was nothing here except for turret surface. This is additional armour which has been provided for beefing up the side protection. This is not thin iron plates. They are armour plates.

 

[Decklander]

The pix I posted and reproduced in post #384 clearly show that they are additional armour and those are the PIX of 2012 republic day Parade where the actual tanks from formation did the march past.

 

[Damian]

No one can tell for sure, but looking at the padlocks on the side in the picture @Damian posted, I'd go with storage boxes. These could be the first batch though.

Any recent pictures?

These padlocks are visible on many photos.

@Decklander, so prove that this is armor, show us photos of tanks you mention, show us these boxes opened, to see how thick their bulkheads are and what is inside.

You obviously don't do it, because it is only your fantasy.

Even a first look on this boxes gives idea that this is thin sheet metal, not armor.

 

[Decklander]

Pls have a relook at those pix. especially the one with a guy in blue uniform. There is added armour to side protrusions and than we have these storage boxes. This armour is in addition to to the side protrusions of the PIX that you have been using. That will show you the depth of these storage boxes. Actually these boxes are very shallow and its the armour plates which form these boxes. Its not tin which forms these boxes. In MK2 these are going to be replaced with full armour and ERA will be added as extra protection. Your point of lack of protection in 60* arc has been taken notice of by our designers and coxns made to ensure full protection. these boxes will be housed inside in MK2 to store APS ammo.

 

[Decklander]

Let me clarify further, The pix with P-18 written on the tank with many guys atop it and the one with a guy seated on the tank show that these side protusions have been expanded further back and after that we have these storage boxes.

 

[Damian]

Pls have a relook at those pix. especially the one with a guy in blue uniform. That will show you the depth of these storage boxes. Actually these boxes are very shallow and its the armour plates which form these boxes. Its not tin which forms these boxes.

I can show you storage boxes on M1A2 Abrams turret, they are also very shallow, being shallow or deep does not have anything to do with being or not being armor.

Besides this these boxes are exactly made from thin sheet metal plates, and if you will have opprotunity to take a closer look, you will see I am right.

In MK2 these are goinf to be replaced with full armour and ERA will be added as extra protection.

We will see, but if this will happen, then Arjun will be in this matter on the same level as other 3rd generation MBT's.

Your point of lack of protection in 60* arc has been taken notice of by our designers and coxns made to ensure full protection.

Oh so you finally admitt that I was right?

these boxes will be housed inside in MK2 to store APS ammo.

What behind ERA? No, this is not a good idea. ERA can't be placed on such thin surfaces, because ERA explosion will destroy it, this is why Russians needed to develop completely different type of ERA for BMP and BTR vehicles. It is better to locate storage boxes on the turret rear where hit probability is minimal.

Let me clarify further, The pix with P-18 written on the tank and the one with a guy seated on the tank show that these side protusions have been expanded further back and after that we have these storage boxes.

Protrusions were not expanded, there is no visible welding joints between old protrusion and the box after it.

If the vehicle itself do not have base armor as fully modular there is no sence to adding modular armor later. Not to mention that hanging armor module on the old storage box attachement point have no sence, you can loose whole armor module after single hit.

What is required is to get rit of these boxes, take welders, and weld there solid armor plates to create cavity for Kanchan armor.



The place marked in blue also should be covered by armor, not only the surface currently covered with storage boxes.