Arjun vs T90 MBT

[ersakthivel]

Kunal, those topic is for me less interesting the those:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-308.html
Im writing here only for great Dejawolf posts and job. But if You want to talk. Yes, I'm trying to respect Ajrun and india developers job but here it's impossible to do. It just danger for Indian Army and tank crews. Anyway:

It was disputed many many times. Soviet/Rusian/Ukrainian new welded turrets shape provide very good protection (and thick) on typical battelfield for +/-35 degree from longitiudal axis. ut they are weak in case near to 90. for turret sides hits. And rear-side-plates are only 80mm thick. But in India case -desert, long fields etc, when medium range will be at least 2000m then T-90A welded turret shape is not worse then western (M1, Leo-2) turret, and far far better then Ajrun turret whit obvious weak plase on front of the tank. It's madness! Huge mantle (114cm) and main sight zone.

And two estimatus made on russian forums for Ob.188A1/A2 (T-90A) (whit welded turret)

Compare this whit Ajrun...sorry - even if we put Kachan rmour in tat thickenss then overal protection shoud be better for 0. degree and simmilar on 30.degree.


IMHO after main sight is about 30-35cm armour monoblock (slighty thicker are then on dejawolf draw) it's ends before additionla small periscope .But it change nothing -it's still very weak point...



Sorry Kunal but it's not true.
In T-72, T-90, T-80 etc tnak You have one great advantage - noe main gun ammo in turret. So in that case soviet/russian/ukrinian tank turets are more sefer then other turrets. Becouse there is no ammo rack in turret. So yes T-90 is mucht sefer then Ajrun about turret case.
But lack of ammo rack in turret case that T-xx tanks have whole hull full of ammo. Amunition in caroussel autoloader is quite safe (as Chechenia battle proofs) but rest of ammo is stick in any space. And those ammo is huge danger. Ajrun have mucht better proected and placed hull ammo rack. So hull have mucht better protected amunition (and safer) the an T-xx tank.
But:
Clou: 70% hits on modern battelfield always have turret:

And Ajrun turret haven't blow out plates and separated ammo in other special "bunker". So in fact Ajrun have whorse ammo placmend then T-90...sorry -70% possibility of taken hit in turret. T-90 -no ammo in turret, Ajrun -unprotected ammo in turret + almoust non protected turret sides + weak zone after main sight + huge gun manteld mask (teh biggest known -114cm!).
It's suck when we consider all factors :/

Those above statistics were for the bygone era, when tanks used much lesser accurate FCS tech, so most of the hits were on the turret bottom and the sides.

Do you know the ARJUn can hit a suitcase size target from 2 km away?
It is only going to improve in the future. SO once T-90 swivels it's turret or make or if it is not at 90 degree angle from the enemy it's weak spot will be there to hit with accurate modern FCS.

So to take advantage of this supposedly state of the art turret design the commander of the T-90 should never steer his tank away from straight line path towards the enemy and SHOULD NEVER ROTATE HIS TURRET during the battle I suppose Is that realistic?

May be there are no ammo in the turret.But once the tank takes hit when it swivels it's turret the shell will pierce it through and cook off the ammo lying on the floor roasting the crew alive.

for your information the production version of arjun has almost the same fontal turret arrangement as the leo in the pic. you are once again using older 1990s version for comparision.

And in mk-2 it is going to go up many folds.

the one below is the production version.notice the first storage box being replaced by armor block and turret side protection touching the crew hatch sides same as leo.

 

[Dejawolf]

it is not neccesary.

In my opinion the distance marked in the top pic is at least twice more than distance marked in the bottom picture.

please tell us how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[ersakthivel]

it is not neccesary.
please tell us how you arrived at this conclusion.

if you post a drawing you give your assumption behind the dimensions. I have given the assumptions behind my conclusions and busted many of your assumptions behind your first attempt at ENGINEERING DRAWING IN you posted in the first post of yours in this thread..

 

[ersakthivel]

In fact Ajrun turret is not western whit protected sides by 30-40cm armour not estern whit no typical side armour. It's somthing diffent but whorse then typical western and typical estern -due to lack of side protection turret...
And here you have chanse to hit AFV and others in today battielfield:

and for last 4 big war:

in fact my studies are based on books writen by profesionalist and...tank manuals (German and Polish) sorry...


ABM and guided munition don't need sucht big mantled...it first, second: it's problem with those damm gun, not develoed...


"what is" in Leo-2A4?
Area behind EMES-15 have 65cm thick special armour cavity. Gun mantled mask is 93 width (not 114cm like in Ajrun) and gun mantled mask is 42cm thick not under 30cm like in Ajrun. In both cases Leopard-2A4 have mucht mucht better protection.


But we are agree that lack of any ammo in T-90 turret is better then have ammo without isolation in Ajrun turret? Yes or no?

About hull ammo - You replicate old myths about both Chechenia battle. During 1999 war only 14 T-72B tanks had tottal los. And Russian as fist where using insensitive ammo! (for the other hand those insensitive ammo had therrible problem whit accuracy -Im talking about HE-FRAG). And there was mirracle -those T-72BW can whindstand 2-3 hull perforation without "flying turrets". For the othe hand - ussaly crew was so injury that tank must escpae from battelfield. But it's diffrens story.


Yeay sure -it's plaing "snake" under turret roof.

With modern FCS giving phenomenal accuracy and range why are you still hung up on 40 to 60 year old stats that were arrived when tank FCS was at it's infancy and shooting at the front the only viable option of hitting the target?
Which bud head tank commander will use this phenomenal accuracy and range to repeatedly hit the frontal armor which is not vulnerable?

 

[Dejawolf]

if you post a drawing you give your assumption behind the dimensions. I have given the assumptions behind my conclusions and busted many of your assumptions behind your first attempt at ENGINEERING DRAWING IN you posted in the first post of yours in this thread..

yeah obviously inferior to your engineering drawings of the arjun...

 

[militarysta]

With modern FCS giving phenomenal accuracy and range why are you still hung up on 40 to 60 year old stats

First one was from this decade -that whit IFV. So you haven't right. They are not outdated.

that were arrived when tank FCS was at it's infancy and shooting at the front the only viable option of hitting the target?

It was never o only option, but tank crews and comanders are not stupid. Ussaly it's front to the enemy.

Which bud head tank commander will use this phenomenal accuracy and range to repeatedly hit the frontal armor which is not vulnerable?

Those "phenomenal accuracy and range" means that you can try hit whole tank at 2000m not single part (weak points).

Those above statistics were for the bygone era, when tanks used much lesser accurate FCS tech, so most of the hits were on the turret bottom and the sides.

so? what is your point?

Do you know the ARJUn can hit a suitcase size target from 2 km away?

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
LOL
yes of course: FCS error, gun error, amuniction distribution (accuracy) and stabilisation mehanism error will allowed to hit 50x50cm target
fairy tails.
BTW: men, I have a lot common whit tanks so don't wrote bullshit becouse it's funny -that BS you can post to peopels who haven't idea how work tank FCS and main arment. But thanks -it was quite funny!
Maybe only gun from fixed test station can hit, wit propper ammo, and after some test, that target at 2km. But it's nothing special -most tank gun can do this.

SO once T-90 swivels it's turret or make or if it is not at 90 degree angle from the enemy it's weak spot will be there to hit with accurate modern FCS.

modern FCS is not able to hit that size target from 2km when target is moving. You can only aim to the whole tank silhouette. Under 1100-1200m you are able to chose -trying to hit turret or hull, but when target is fast any normal gunner will be aim "center of the mass" of course whit some FCS "improvment"

So to take advantage of this supposedly state of the art turret design the commander of the T-90 should never steer his tank away from straight line path towards the enemy and SHOULD NEVER ROTATE HIS TURRET during the battle I suppose Is that realistic?

When there is no terrin cover then most important rule is beeing front to the enemy.
Turret is quite safe for +/-30 degree from the longitiudl axis, hull is abut +/-20 from it's longitiudal axis.

BTW: You haven't idea about tank tactisc, tank build, and tank warfare -aren't you? You try to make a discussion without knowledges.

 

[ersakthivel]

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
LOL
yes of course: FCS error, gun error, amuniction distribution (accuracy) and stabilisation mehanism error will allowed to hit 50x50cm target
fairy tails.
BTW: men, I have a lot common whit tanks so don't wrote bullshit becouse it's funny -that BS you can post to peopels who haven't idea how work tank FCS and main arment. But thanks -it was quite funny!
Maybe only gun from fixed test station can hit, wit propper ammo, and after some test, that target at 2km. But it's nothing special -most tank gun can do this.


modern FCS is not able to hit that size target from 2km when target is moving. You can only aim to the whole tank silhouette. Under 1100-1200m you are able to chose -trying to hit turret or hull, but when target is fast any normal gunner will be aim "center of the mass" of course whit some FCS "improvment"



BTW: You haven't idea about tank tactisc, tank build, and tank warfare -aren't you? You try to make a discussion without knowledges.

You accept it or not?

can you quote any recent tank gun trials where the accuracy of gun with modern FCS was tested ,to buttress your point only he shilloute can be hit and a suitcase size tagret can't be hit?

what is the difference in accuracy for a moving target and stationary one from 2km distance with any source for modern FCS tanks?

"what is" in Leo-2A4?
Area behind EMES-15 have 65cm thick special armour cavity. Gun mantled mask is 93 width (not 114cm like in Ajrun) and gun mantled mask is 42cm thick not under 30cm like in Ajrun. In both cases Leopard-2A4 have mucht mucht better protection.

Any proof for the above statement for both arjun and leo?

 

[Damian]

Source - Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank 1982-1997 by Simon Dunstan, worth to read from page 16 about whole CAT competitions and failure of Challenger 1.

As for Challenger 2, it is a bit more tricky, I think that some newer books that are not published yet, will have more details. So for this you will need to wait.

IM very very HO the frontal armor of arjun would have been designed according to penetration level specs given in GSQR and not by looking at or not looking at the inside picture of another tank.

Agree, and this is why such flaw is present in turret design. Not to mention that as far as Indian sources says, there is no certainity that DRDO made ballistic tests for the whole tank, they could only test and present armor models, which is convieniant way to manipulate and lie the army.

So the corresponding marking on the top picture is wrong.That is why the guy who posted this pic is keeping quiet.

No, he is just smarter, and don't have time to discuss whole damn time with a fanboy incapable to deal with reality.

besides giving muzzle velocity to the APFSD ROUNDS what else can the gun do to increase the lethality of the round?

The reason rifling was invented was to give accuracy and range.

The reason people switched to smooth bores for the APFSD rounds is that it should not be spun,

not because the smooth bore has inherently more accuracy than rifles.With the invention of slip ring abdurator made of nylon rifled guns can fire APFSD round with ease without giving it any spin.

If this is the case old tanks should have smooth bore from the start .

Because rifling plays no part in APFSD rounds as the APFSD round flies like a finned arrow.

So if some gun scores over the other in APFSD round in some trials ,it boils down to which gun has the most modern FCS.That's all.It says nothing about smooth bore vs rifled contest.

Now with inventions like ERA the APFSD round can be countered.It is no magic bullet as people make it out to be.

1) Lethality of the penetrator may be increased by different methods, like increasing it's lenght to diameter ratio (M829A3 is ~800mm long and ~25mm in diameter), the penetrator design (there monoblock design, there are two part penetrators, there can be even multiple penetrators design). Important is also material from which penetrator is made.
2) The reason why USA switched from rifled to smoothbore, was that during trails of several different guns, both rifled and smoothbore, the German Rh-120 smoothbore was the most accurate and have the biggest armor penetration capabilities.
3) Many tests are static, and the gun is not even mounted in a tank, but on static test rig without FCS.
4) ERA can be defeated by new generation of APFSDS penetrators like M829A2, M829A3, M829A4, DM53 and DM63, only Because India does not design and manufacture such advanced designs, it does not make APFSDS obsolete, it only shows your poor knowledge in this subject. Actually ERA makes more obsolete HESH rounds... well HESH is a complete archaism today, because you can defeat it by simple and cheap spaced armor that can be attached to lighter vehicles or even structures. HEAT is a bit different story, but it also will be phased out and replaced by multipurpose programmable HE ammunition.

Well it is even difficult to answer for so many posts.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@Damian, I support your view regarding HESH but calling it totally absolite is not a right, Why >>

Type-96/98/99, T-72 exposed roof, T-59/54/55, M113, BMP-2, ZBD-97, WZ551, ZLC2000, ZBD2000, ZSD89 all these are not safe from HESH but some of them can endure direct HE..

HESH perhaps obsolete in other part of the world but still useful here, One may can get 10 HESH rounds at cost of one expensive Programmable HE round..

HESH is a better option than a Simple HE what most tanks use in this part of the world hence superior but inferior to advance Programmable HE rounds..

----------------------------------------

Its logical in economical sense and cleaver to utalised in absence of complex Armour in most MBT & IFV & APC around here..

 

[Damian]

Type-96/98/99, T-72 exposed roof, T-59/54/55, M113, BMP-2, ZBD-97, WZ551, ZLC2000, ZBD2000, ZSD89 all these are not safe from HESH but some of them can endure direct HE..

Place any type of ERA on the tanks roof and HESH is again obsolete.

In case of lighter platforms, Russians developed ERA that can be safely used on them, so again, no certanity that it will be effective. As for HE, HE actually can be more effective against ERA.

HESH perhaps obsolete in other part of the world but still useful here, One may can get 10 HESH rounds at cost of one expensive Programmable HE round..

As yourself how quickly situation can change, if you don't think ahead, you stay behind. And programmable HE ammunition is more effective against any type of threat, you can programm it in to armor piercing mode, delayed fuze mode, airburst mode, probably avaiable is also proximity fuze mode and of course standard contact mode. So you can use such ammunition against older tanks, lighter platforms, structures, air targets or infantry, also hidden behind obstacles, where HESH is useless.

Besides this, how much more expensive will be programmable HE? Even in Indian T-90S can be installed AINET system, which is only some changes in FCS, a programmer, and a cheap programmable fuze for round that replace conventional fuze, that's all.

HESH is a better option than a Simple HE what most tanks use in this part of the world hence superior but inferior to advance Programmable HE rounds..

I heard from a British guys that HESH is also not very good in dealing with infantry in the open, there is just not enough big shrapnel effect.

 

[ersakthivel]

Source - Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank 1982-1997 by Simon Dunstan, worth to read from page 16 about whole CAT competitions and failure of Challenger 1.

As for Challenger 2, it is a bit more tricky, I think that some newer books that are not published yet, will have more details. So for this you will need to wait.



Agree, and this is why such flaw is present in turret design. Not to mention that as far as Indian sources says, there is no certainity that DRDO made ballistic tests for the whole tank, they could only test and present armor models, which is convieniant way to manipulate and lie the army.

Do you think indian army would have given different protection level for the left side of the turret from the right side of the turret ?Strange reasoning if we go by your ideas.

No, he is just smarter, and don't have time to discuss whole damn time with a fanboy incapable to deal with reality.

His markings are wrong that is why he is keeping quiet and you are replying for it.

None of you have any technical education background to comprehend the ways of marking accurate co relation between parts of the same object in various angles or dimension .

But the vehemence with you all bite when pointed out is is quite amazing.

People who don't have technical education think that they can fool any one by some drawing and sprouting technical jargons.

But engineers are dime a dozen in india so these forms of wrong drawings will always be questioned and exposed.

1) Lethality of the penetrator may be increased by different methods, like increasing it's lenght to diameter ratio (M829A3 is ~800mm long and ~25mm in diameter), the penetrator design (there monoblock design, there are two part penetrators, there can be even multiple penetrators design). Important is also material from which penetrator is made.
2) The reason why USA switched from rifled to smoothbore, was that during trails of several different guns, both rifled and smoothbore, the German Rh-120 smoothbore was the most accurate and have the biggest armor penetration capabilities.
3) Many tests are static, and the gun is not even mounted in a tank, but on static test rig without FCS.
4) ERA can be defeated by new generation of APFSDS penetrators like M829A2, M829A3, M829A4, DM53 and DM63, only Because India does not design and manufacture such advanced designs, it does not make APFSDS obsolete, it only shows your poor knowledge in this subject. Actually ERA makes more obsolete HESH rounds... well HESH is a complete archaism today, because you can defeat it by simple and cheap spaced armor that can be attached to lighter vehicles or even structures. HEAT is a bit different story, but it also will be phased out and replaced by multipurpose programmable HE ammunition.

Well it is even difficult to answer for so many posts.

If ERA is defeated by new gen APFDS a new generation of era will evolve.it is always a battle between armor and the gun in MBTs.

The lethality of APFSD rounds have everything to do with the
1. length of the penetrator
2.and the technology behind the shell
3,accuracy of the FCS and
4.the muzzle velocity with which it is fired
and it has

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT WHETHER THE GUN FIRED IT WAS SMOOTH BORE OR RIFLED

IF A SLIP OBDURATOR TYPE TECH ENABLED AEJUN RIFLED GUN WITH ACCURATE FCS,

FIRES THE APFSD ROUND WITH NO SPIN AND SAME VELOCITY AS THE LEO

there is no difference in the level of lethality.
If there is any difference it all boils down to the penetrator tech in the shell.

India is developing it's first set of APFSD rounds for the arjun. So they can no way equal the round tech of latest NATo shells.

But with further development down the road india will catch up and it is happening as I posted the frontline magazine article saying newer lethal rounds are being developed for arjun MK-2.

Thehre are no length restrictions for APFSD rounds on rifled arjun gun as well as the slip band prevents spinning.

 

[Damian]

Do you think indian army would have given different protection level for the left side of the turret from the right side of the turret ?Strange reasoning if we go by your ideas.

I don't have anything against Indian Army and competence of it's officers, I have more issues with DRDO competence, or rather incompetence.

His markings are wrong that is why he is keeping quiet and you are replying for it.None of you have any technical background to comprehend the ways of marking accurate co relation between various angles or dimension is quite amazing.But people who dont have technical education think that they can fool any one by some drawing and technical slangs. But engineers are dime a dozen in india so these forms of wrong drawings will always be questioned and exposed.

From what I see, the only person that lacks education is you. Dejawolf made more detailed 3d models of modern AFV's than you imagine, this is why he works for ESim that is developed of the Steel Beasts simulators that are used by several armies over the world, so he know more about dimensions than you.

If ERA is defeated by new gen APFDS a new generation of era will evolve.it is always a battle between armor and the gun in MBTs.

India neither have such ERA, neither such APFSDS.

The lethality of APFSD rounds have everything to do with the
1. length of the penetrator
2.and the technology behind the shell
3,accuracy of the FCS and
4.the muzzle velocity with which it is fired
and it has

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT WHETHER THE GUN FIRED IT WAS SMOOTH BORE OR RIFLED

IF A SLIP OBDURATOR TYPE TECH ENABLED AEJUN RIFLED GUN WITH ACCURATE FCS,
FIRES THE APFSD ROUND WITH NO SPIN AND SAME VELOCITY AS THE LEO
there is no difference in the level of lethality.
If there is any difference it all boils down to the penetrator tech in the shell.

And the same mantra that have nothing to do with reality. Deal with reality, rifled guns are obsolete, whole world knows about it. Literally everyone switched to smoothbore guns, besides some countries that have a fetish to obscolence.

 

[Dejawolf]

well, whaddya know, i guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

it's probably more likely that the armour touches the back of the front vision block.
which would make the weakspot about 300mm thick.
i made a few assumptions and such about armour thickness, based on western design, and came up with this estimate for the weakened area:

vs APFSDS: 363mm
vs HEAT: 448mm

these assumptions are as follows:
the backing plate is the same thickness as on the leopard 2A4.
the backing plate extends all the way from turret ring to turret roof.
the backing plate is made of semi-hardened steel.(BHN 430-480)

however, if the backing plate is RHA steel, then the values would be as follows:
vs APFSDS: 303mm
vs HEAT: 448mm

and here's the formulas

composites = 80
airgap = 450
steel = 20+50+170
Cmp = composites*0.75
fbgl = composites*0.25

(Cmp*0.92)+(fbgl*0.4)+(steel*1.25)= 363.2
(Cmp*1.4)+(fbgl*0.6)+(steel)+(airgap*0.25) = 448.5

so basically, the weakened area would have the protection level of a 1960s tank.

 

[sayareakd]

well, whaddya know, i guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

it's probably more likely that the armour touches the back of the front vision block.
which would make the weakspot about 300mm thick.
i made a few assumptions and such about armour thickness, based on western design, and came up with this estimate for the weakened area:

vs APFSDS: 363mm
vs HEAT: 448mm

these assumptions are as follows:
the backing plate is the same thickness as on the leopard 2A4.
the backing plate extends all the way from turret ring to turret roof.
the backing plate is made of semi-hardened steel.(BHN 430-480)

however, if the backing plate is RHA steel, then the values would be as follows:
vs APFSDS: 303mm
vs HEAT: 448mm

and here's the formulas

composites = 80
airgap = 450
steel = 20+50+170
Cmp = composites*0.75
fbgl = composites*0.25

(Cmp*0.92)+(fbgl*0.4)+(steel*1.25)= 363.2
(Cmp*1.4)+(fbgl*0.6)+(steel)+(airgap*0.25) = 448.5

so basically, the weakened area would have the protection level of a 1960s tank.

your drawing is wrong go through this

 

[Damian]

your drawing is wrong go through this

Where wrong? As far as I can tell, every drawing will be wrong if it shows different conclusion about Arjun, than the official propaganda eh?

 

[ersakthivel]

I don't have anything against Indian Army and competence of it's officers, I have more issues with DRDO competence, or rather incompetence.

well the army was involved in this project from inception there is no way it would have passed the inspection.

From what I see, the only person that lacks education is you. Dejawolf made more detailed 3d models of modern AFV's than you imagine, this is why he works for ESim that is developed of the Steel Beasts simulators that are used by several armies over the world, so he know more about dimensions than you.



India neither have such ERA, neither such APFSDS.



And the same mantra that have nothing to do with reality. Deal with reality, rifled guns are obsolete, whole world knows about it. Literally everyone switched to smoothbore guns, besides some countries that have a fetish to obscolence.

Who works for whom is not the deciding criterian who offers a convincing explanation iis the point.

 

[Damian]

well the army was involved in this project from inception there is no way it would have passed the inspection.

Who said that bribes are payed only by foreigners?

Who works for whom is not the deciding criterian who offers a convincing explanation iis the point.

Dejawolf provides something that is worth to think, at least, you produce nothing more than a babble talk, propaganda and such amounts of nonsense trying to silence others by just shouting louder than they talk... this is your credibility, or rather lack of it.

 

[ersakthivel]

well, whaddya know, i guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

it's probably more likely that the armour touches the back of the front vision block.
which would make the weakspot about 300mm thick.

i made a few assumptions and such about armour thickness, based on western design, and came up with this estimate for the weakened area:

vs APFSDS: 363mm
vs HEAT: 448mm

these assumptions are as follows:
the backing plate is the same thickness as on the leopard 2A4.
the backing plate extends all the way from turret ring to turret roof.
the backing plate is made of semi-hardened steel.(BHN 430-480)

however, if the backing plate is RHA steel, then the values would be as follows:
vs APFSDS: 303mm
vs HEAT: 448mm

and here's the formulas

composites = 80
airgap = 450
steel = 20+50+170
Cmp = composites*0.75
fbgl = composites*0.25

(Cmp*0.92)+(fbgl*0.4)+(steel*1.25)= 363.2
(Cmp*1.4)+(fbgl*0.6)+(steel)+(airgap*0.25) = 448.5

so basically, the weakened area would have the protection level of a 1960s tank.

Please post a picture to prove that the gunner sits directly below the crew hatch to determine the starting point of red line in the arjun.

my guess for the distance between the two red lines you have marked is between 600 to 800 mm , considering a normal human's side dimensions to be in the range of around 300 to 350 mm.

So from which dimension are you subtracting this 800 mm space to arrive at the armor block thickness behind gunners sight?

Ofcourse before embarking on these calculations based on assumptions we need to know the exact position of gunner's seat with respect to crew hatch.

the one below is the leo pic.

the one below is the turret top of arjun.
You can discard your assumption and compare them properly with accurate pics

As many retards are implying i am no nationalistic tripe ,if you prove a point I will accept it.Highlighting the weakness at this stage of arjun program is good for every one involved.
The gunner's sight is going too be moved to the top in mk-2 as the whole turret is being redesigned for weight reduction,and that will be upgraded in mk-1 as well.

 

[sayareakd]

Where wrong? As far as I can tell, every drawing will be wrong if it shows different conclusion about Arjun, than the official propaganda eh?

Well you are so eager in proving yourself right that you cant see the obvious

if his calculation of one side is wrong then it is obvious that other side is also wrong since it has to be complete tank and not just one side.

he has not even take into consideration green length of tank gun.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

1. Yes Possible, But again its not the same with APC and IFV, Both have similar effect..

2. The advantage of Programmable HE are many but HESH does what its made to do, Its effective against bunker and infantry fortifications so does Light vehicles same as Programmable HE at cheap..

3. The fuse is expensive..

4. Shock effect = Brain damage and internal organ failure

1.Place any type of ERA on the tanks roof and HESH is again obsolete. In case of lighter platforms, Russians developed ERA that can be safely used on them, so again, no certanity that it will be effective. As for HE, HE actually can be more effective against ERA.

3. As yourself how quickly situation can change, if you don't think ahead, you stay behind. And programmable HE ammunition is more effective against any type of threat, you can programm it in to armor piercing mode, delayed fuze mode, airburst mode, probably avaiable is also proximity fuze mode and of course standard contact mode. So you can use such ammunition against older tanks, lighter platforms, structures, air targets or infantry, also hidden behind obstacles, where HESH is useless.

3. Besides this, how much more expensive will be programmable HE? Even in Indian T-90S can be installed AINET system, which is only some changes in FCS, a programmer, and a cheap programmable fuze for round that replace conventional fuze, that's all.

4. I heard from a British guys that HESH is also not very good in dealing with infantry in the open, there is just not enough big shrapnel effect.