Well you are the only one peddling some nth gen MBt model with no turret and all the crew members in hull with some drawings.Who is developing it?
For all practical purpose arjun is as per the latest design trends of modern MBTs in the world.
A design scheme for 4th generation MBT's that was world wide accepted by the biggest and most eperienced nations designing tanks, was to put crew in hull and use unmanned turret. Who is designed it? Americans and Germans developed advanced prototypes, but R&D was postponed due to collapse of Soviet Union, while Russians are currently developing such MBT under codename "Armata".
While the Arjun represents design scheme 42 years old.
MK-2 ARJUNs that are going to enter will have compartmentalized ammo storage.Even in mk-I the ammo storage is 10 times safer than T-90 despite all the faulty drawings you have posted here.
Why? Because you say so? As for 10 times safer, oh did you done any tests? Or perhaps calculated probability of hit in to more exposed turret bustle? You do not understand anything in tank designing.
So the rest of the couldn't master the auto loaders THAT WERE MASTERED BY russians according to you.
No, the problem was not autoloader per se, but how to design it so it could be placed in to isolated compartment. Actually the first nations that developed working autoloaders were Americans during WWII for T20 series of prototype tanks and Germans were also experimenting with them at that time, I think that French also had some ideas, though later they go for something tha can be called semi-autoloader that was simpler in design.
No one here wants to see your ASS.you can keep that safely in your pant.
See I can understand one thing clearly from the posts you have made here and in many other international forum on ARJUN.Yu will repeatedly post factually wrong statements regarding the non existent frontal 60 degree turret weakness and deny there is any protection for ammo storage in turret because they are situated right next to thinner storage bx but both claims have been proved to be factually wrong in this thread.
Proven wrong by who? By you? Hahaha you are so funny with this arrogance and ignorance of yours. Dejawolf made very good 3d models as well as detailed analisis, it is obvious that what you say is only your fantasy and wishfull thinking.
Well your typical denigrating comment about heavier tanks being repeated here again.Let me once again bet my two cents that tanks become heavier because
designers want a safe ammo compartmentalized storage ,
less fatigued four men crew tank ,
with more armor weight on turret front and sides to protect crew ,
with heavier engine for better power to weight ratio,
resulting in heavier tanks .
But Your recommended smaller MBT follows on the all the discarded design principles in western world like,
a truncated turret with protection only on frontal 60 degree is enough ignoring the vulnerability of hits on the thinner turret side ,
making the crew sit on ammo and placing ammo in auto loader where it is impossible to be protected from fire by compartmentalization,
having a lesser weight engine leading to lesser power to weight tanks
And you are crazily claiming this is the best solution for future.But the fact of the matter is not a single western tank major is designing any tank on the quixotic concept advanced by you.They all are making close to 60 ton tanks with all the features same as ARJUN.
It seems you are just naturally uncapable to comprehend what other peoples says.
Not to mention that this part of your post is just hilarious... a lesser weight engine having less power?
Where did you read so? Gas Turbines are typically 1-1,5 tons lighter than Diesels and provide same or even higher power. A MTU MB883 Diesel is smaller and lighter than it's predecessor MB873 and provides exactly the same power.
And the widely accepted in the biggest tank producers community, perspective tank design scheme was as I said, small unmanned turret, and crew in the hull. Americans calculated that such design with also heavy armor for turret, would weight 55 tons, reducing armor for unmanned turret would probably lead to 40-50 tons heavy design, with superior protection to any currently used MBT.
So you have absolutely no idea about tank designing.
So without any consultancy from them CVRDE bought engine and transmission from them according to you.Just google it and find it out.
They just bought a licence for engine and transmission. You even know what licence means? And I do not use google because google is mostly good for people that have poor education, and have problems with reading books or finding documents (even via internet).
Gas turbine is excellent if you can customize it for tank.Otherwise barring ABRAMS every other tank has rugged desiel engines that are rated as best.
Why customize? Every engine can be placed in most tanks if there is enough space in engine compartment, simple as that. There were T-64's used as test beds for gas turbines, even Leopard 2 had trails with gas turbine used in M1 during R&D phase.
Any source for the so called 400 HP power loss?AFAIK T-90 loses 100 hp because it is not optimized for indian desert conditions.If proper cooling is given there will be no power loss in any diesel engine.However hot the desert may be.You agree or not?Only jet engines have their performance degraded when they suck hotter air.Diesel engines need just proper water cooling.that's all.The problem is the T-90's engine was built for colder climates where this cooling was not needed.that was the reason for the power loss.
Militarysta had some access to the different engines characteristics.
I will ask him to send me that data, there was also data for 1500HP MB873 which is similiar engine to the MTU one used in Arjun, the power on sprockets provided by German engine was lower than 1000HP despite the fact that engine itself generates 1500HP, this is because every engine type have power losses on cooling on transmission. As any engineer that works with engines.
See this kind of PERSONAL I AM MY OWN SOURCE ARGUMENTS CAN NEVER BE COUNTERED.
Universally accepted truth is rifled gun fires more accurately that's why they were put in the first place.
If it is not why was the rifled gun put in challenger in the first place?in earlier decades?
Now every one is changing to smooth bore in NATO to standardize ammo .That's all.
It is funny because when Americans were making trails for different types of guns, be it smoothbore or rifled, the German Rh-120 smoothbore was the most powerfull and most accurate, despite the fact that there were British 110mm and 120mm rifled guns also tested by Americans (among them L11A5 used in Challenger 1).
So no, the generally accepted "fact" that rifled guns are more accurate is a myth. Also the proof for this are results of NATO trails where smoothbore armed tanks defeated tanks amed with rifled guns, even when fire control systems were comparable in performance.
But this problem is solved in ARJUN RIFLED GUN by rubber coating the APFDS rounds and chromium lining of the barrel which improves the accuracy range and barrel life significantly as per the discussion in the above forum between guys who are actually doing the work on the field,not pie in the sky posters like you.
Visit the above site for some home truth regarding the rifled gun on arjun in the discussion between the moderator- gf0012AUST and dabrownguy.I am sure you are no stranger to the site.
I do not care what was done in India, because much more experienced nations, that are designing and building tanks for a much longer time, and have better tanks than Arjun, transitioned to smoothbore guns. So their opinion is far more credible than opinion of a "noobs".
The reason IMHO is british didn't in invest in any further r&D on rifled gun as they are going to change in order to use standard NATO AMMO.While others are continually improving their FCS.
L30A1 is probably one of the most advanced if not the most advanced, high pressure rifled gun, and in the end the result was that a much older, smoothbore gun designed in Germany was still superior in accuracy. Besides this Challenger 2 use FCS that is derivative of the M1A2 FCS, which is one of the most advanced and precise FCS manufactured in the world. So both Challenger 2 and M1A2 in Greece had similiar FCS (same in fact) and Challenger 2 was far behind in accuracy during trails.
Think about this.
