Arjun vs T90 MBT

[Dejawolf]

the green lengthy rectangular box just behind the turret frontal protrusion is not a tool box in mk-1
width of the turret is supposed to be 3.2 meters.Any source for 2.86 meter cailm?

yes it's a storage box. it's obvious by how it buckles and folds in certain pictures of the arjun. heavy armour doesn't buckle and fold, instead it has a rough surface. and in some prototypes it even has strengthening indentations. this makes it blindingly obvious that it is sheet metal. RHA steel doesn't need strengthening indentations.

as for the source for 2.86m turret width claim? that line drawing.
dunno if the line drawing is correct, i found it on this forum here, but the length width and height matches up nicely with the official figures. where did you get the 3.2m figure?

 

[ersakthivel]

lol. no. btw, the ammunition safety measures was part of the leopard 2 prototype back in 1979. it took indian engineers 32 years to figure out how it's supposed to work?
as for all your talk about sufficient armour.. no, it is not.

in that red area, it is vulnerable to RPG, ATGM, 100/120/125mm tank rounds. so is the leopard 2A4, however, it's ammunition is compartmentalized.
so a hit in that area isn't going to kill the crew and completely destroy the tank. oh and btw, if you squint, notice the ammunition storage doors on the mk.2 are the same as on the mk.1 so no, i think the ammunition storage on the Mk.2 is the same as on the mk.1

The door doesn't reveal anything about the side turret armor plate thickness is my humble opinion.It must have been welded on the whatever thickness side turret armor plate.Any proof for the contrary?

you obviously didn't understand what i was writing. like electricity,the hot expanding gases follow the path of least resistance. in the case of the leopard, it's through the thinner roof panel, simply because the ammunition blast walls and door is thicker than the roof.

on the Arjun, the cylindrical container of each round is more resistant, than the ammunition stub so the ammunition is vented INTO the turret interior where the crew is. the location is BAD, because even in a hulldown position, the turret ammunition is exposed. on a T-72 or T-90, at least the ammunition is down under the turret floor(if the crew doesn't store all the extra ammunition around the turret interior)

On the arjun there is supposed to be some armor plate protection for the turret side besides the ammo storage is what I understand. And it is going to be containerized in mk-2 .And as i said earlier it can be carried out as MLu for mk-1 as well.

I know you are discussing the turret ammo storage. But I was referring to the protection for main ammo storage in the hull cavity when I was posting about the crew cavity overhear pictures.

That was not the finished arjun mk-2.It is a mk-1 test bed undergoing trials with some internal mk-2 implements.You don't have to shout eureka here.And there will be era tiles all around outside of the armor in the finished version.That is why it is going to be heavier.

So this fck all dick all language is unnecessary.

That is why I said this discussion is superfluous as the so called tool boxes wont be there forever. And according to V.K.SARASWATH's interview the hull is going to be redesigned for mk-2
So give me a source for your arjun turret width calculation of 2.86 meters.I already know your drawing skills from the mistakes in your drawings in first post.

 

[Dejawolf]

So give me a source for your arjun turret width calculation.

above post. it's based on the line drawing, which apparently is from army-recognition webpage.

 

[ersakthivel]

yes it's a storage box. it's obvious by how it buckles and folds in certain pictures of the arjun. heavy armour doesn't buckle and fold, instead it has a rough surface. and in some prototypes it even has strengthening indentations. this makes it blindingly obvious that it is sheet metal. RHA steel doesn't need strengthening indentations.

If it is a storage box why there were no hatches and handles like those present on the boxes backside?
Look carefully the indentations are not on the first block after the side protrusion of the frontal armor.Only on the second and third storage boxes.

as for the source for 2.86m turret width claim? that line drawing.
dunno if the line drawing is correct, i found it on this forum here, but the length width and height matches up nicely with the official figures. where did you get the 3.2m figure?

from the picture posted below by kunal from the same forum .He comes from armed forces background is what I understand.

 

[ersakthivel]

How do we accept that the yellow lines drawn in the above drawing can help to determine the side wall thickness of arjun turret which is mounted on the hull with big overhang over the hull cavity?

 

[Dejawolf]

from the picture posted below by kunal from the same forum .He comes from armed forces background is what I understand.

well, if he went up and measured the turret width with measure tape i'll believe him.
but i dunno. i found this picture, and put some known measures on it:

3.86m is total hull width, 3.5m is width over tracks, 3.86m-3.5m = 36cm. 3.5m-36cm = 3.14m

 

[ersakthivel]

well, if he went up and measured the turret width with measure tape i'll believe him.
but i dunno. i found this picture, and put some known measures on it:

3.86m is total hull width, 3.5m is width over tracks, 3.86m-3.5m = 36cm. 3.5m-36cm = 3.14m

Don't you notice the so called first sorage box has no hatches ,locks and indentations and locks like the ones below.So in your estimation how much length storage boxes occupy on arjun side turret and how much length is armored?

And what prevents other storage boxes from being upgraded to armor in MLU?

 

[Damian]

And what prevents other storage boxes from being upgraded to armor in MLU?

Technically nothing, but the Army might prevent it. If my assumption is right that Kanchan is weight inefficent (if we look at vehicle size, armor placement and it's weight, it is very possible), then as I said earlier, such turret configuration was perhaps a trade off for better purely frontal armor protection for weaker front-side protection in exchange for reasonable weight. I think it is obvious for everyone that tank can't be too heavy, neither too light.

 

[ersakthivel]

Technically nothing, but the Army might prevent it. If my assumption is right that Kanchan is weight inefficent (if we look at vehicle size, armor placement and it's weight, it is very possible), then as I said earlier, such turret configuration was perhaps a trade off for better purely frontal armor protection for weaker front-side protection in exchange for reasonable weight. I think it is obvious for everyone that tank can't be too heavy, neither too light.

once again we dont know the protection level of kanchan armor with respect to it's weight to arrive at any conclusion.And it too must have undergone some R&D since it's introduction.

 

[sayareakd]

Technically nothing, but the Army might prevent it. If my assumption is right that Kanchan is weight inefficent (if we look at vehicle size, armor placement and it's weight, it is very possible), then as I said earlier, such turret configuration was perhaps a trade off for better purely frontal armor protection for weaker front-side protection in exchange for reasonable weight. I think it is obvious for everyone that tank can't be too heavy, neither too light.

Arjun MK-1 is made for tanks to tanks battle, that is as per GSQR.

 

[Damian]

once again we dont know the protection level of kanchan armor with respect to it's weight to arrive at any conclusion.And it too must have undergone some R&D since it's introduction.

Well if we know at least some of types of materials used in it's composition, we could make a simplified model of it's density and hardness by just adding a known density and hardness values of different materials toghether.

However to make more a more accurate model, we would ne someone good in physics and maths to calculate this data in conjuction with general vehicle size and weight.

Arjun MK-1 is made for tanks to tanks battle, that is as per GSQR.

You still do not understand the theory of vehicle armor protection do you?

I said it many times, to provide sufficent protection for tank vs tank combat, you need armor protection for the frontal 60 degrees arc, this was calculated during WWII where were tank battle like Prokhorovka you probably never imagined... literally meatgrinders.

I explained many times how this protection for 60 degrees is provided.

NATO tanks have such not different turret armor placement, because battles that were anticipated in case of war with WarPac, would mean, that a meatgrinder near Prokhorovka would look like childs playing in a sand pit compared to what both sides were preparing for during Cold War.

 

[Dejawolf]

Don't you notice the so called first sorage box has no hatches ,locks and indentations and locks like the ones below.So in your estimation how much length storage boxes occupy on arjun side turret and how much length is armored?

And what prevents other storage boxes from being upgraded to armor in MLU?

can you stop saying "so-called" storage boxes? please? it's extremely annoying, and it's blindingly obvious that they are storage boxes. they have latches, and they have hinges, and they sometimes have padlocks:

storage boxes are 25-28cm wide.

And what prevents other storage boxes from being upgraded to armor in MLU

nothing. except mobility is armour by itself. without extra armour, the Arjun has a power to weight ratio of 24hp/ton. which is almost as good as uparmoured leopard 2A6, and better than T-90A (21hp/ton) however, at 9 tons heavier, that drops down to 21hp/ton.
Al khalid has a power to weight ratio of 25hp/ton, and has the gearbox from leclerc, so it is capable of high reverse speeds and pivot turn.

 

[Damian]

So my theory about weight efficency seems to be close to truth, and might this be a reason for storage boxes.

 

[Dejawolf]

How do we accept that the yellow lines drawn in the above drawing can help to determine the side wall thickness of arjun turret which is mounted on the hull with big overhang over the hull cavity?

it's simple, use your eyes, look and compare, and construct an image of the turret in your head.
but i'd rather be looking at the blue lines, those are the ones that matter.
and if you still can't see it, let me spell it out for you:

 

[Dejawolf]

another thing precluding thick side armour on Arjun:

 

[Dejawolf]

did some more curmudgeoning around. i took the front turret outer armour plate on the Arjun, and the leopard 2A4 and compared them, making them both about 50mm thick. volume of the Arjun plate came to about 59200 ccm, and leopard front turret to about 45500ccm.
multiplying with iron density, that came to 465kg for the Arjun, and 356kg for the leopard.
note, that this is with turret width of 2.8m for arjun. if the turret is 3.2m wide, the front armour will be even heavier. you want your turret to be as narrow as possible ,while still making it comfortable for your crew, that way you'll reduce the volume of the front turret armour, which makes it possible to increase side turret armour, and maintain the same weight.
also, Arjun turret is about 20cm longer than leopard 2A4 turret. this might not seem like much at all, but lets assume side turret is 90mm thick, and roof is 20mm thick and made of iron. those 20cm will account for a weight increase of 0.3 tons compared to the leo 2A4.
can compare weight of Arjun and leopard turrets.
Arjun is about 18 tonnes, leopard 2A4 is about 16 tonnes.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

can you stop saying "so-called" storage boxes? please? it's extremely annoying, and it's blindingly obvious that they are storage boxes. they have latches, and they have hinges, and they sometimes have padlocks:

storage boxes are 25-28cm wide.


nothing. except mobility is armour by itself. without extra armour, the Arjun has a power to weight ratio of 24hp/ton. which is almost as good as uparmoured leopard 2A6, and better than T-90A (21hp/ton) however, at 9 tons heavier, that drops down to 21hp/ton.
Al khalid has a power to weight ratio of 25hp/ton, and has the gearbox from leclerc, so it is capable of high reverse speeds and pivot turn.

The first block is not a storage box the rest two may be because most of them are prototype tanks. We dont know if it changes from one prototype to another.

 

[Dejawolf]

The first block is not a storage box the rest two may be because most of them are prototype tanks. We dont know if it changes from one prototype to another.

yes, first block is not storage box, it's some sort of thin sheet metal. you can see how it buckles and leaves an uneven gap.
the other two ARE storage boxes.

 

[pmaitra]

can you stop saying "so-called" storage boxes? please? it's extremely annoying, and it's blindingly obvious that they are storage boxes. they have latches, and they have hinges, and they sometimes have padlocks:

storage boxes are 25-28cm wide.

I am sorry guys, but I have to agree with this. Those in the pictures are storage boxes. In the event they are filled with concrete blocks, it would be a different matter.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

yes, first block is not storage box, it's some sort of thin sheet metal. you can see how it buckles and leaves an uneven gap.
the other two ARE storage boxes.

Where does the first block buckle and on what do you base it to be thin?