Arjun vs T90 MBT

[militarysta]

I personally disagree with many of his armour estimates because there are various indicators showing that he used faulty thickness values and armour layouts for the Western tanks.

Nor do I.
Some values posted in Paul Lakowskis works are impossible. Im writig about Leopard-2 thema and T-xx tank.

 

[ersakthivel]

you can just measure them by scale on the screen .So it can be verified by every one.Pixel measurements are not needed.

Heads normally don't measure more than 200 mm .

SO 1000 mm space here is now confirmed.

If you take into account 600 mm at the most for the sight cavity total empty space is 1600 mm.

The turret hatch cover which represents seat back is situated 2500 mm from the turret front edge leaving aside the gun mantlet plate as per PMAITRA's drawing.

SO 2500 mm-1600 mm= 900 mm space available for armor behind the sight, provided the seat is placed smack under the crew hatch cover.

How come you arrive at a figure of 300 mm for the armor?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

More accurate >>

This is not the first time mentioned..

Maybe this would help:

.

Regarding Mantel, Its 220mm + 390-400mm thick..

 

[ersakthivel]

More accurate >>

This is not the first time mentioned..



Regarding Mantel, Its 220mm + 390-400mm thick..

If it is correct then the distance between the turret front and crew hatch cover opening must be 3.5 meters.Is that correct?

 

[ersakthivel]

it's a lot closer. i measured my own head length, and it was 25cm.
using this as basis, i measured the pixels, and converted to cm by taking the ratio.

so around 650mm between the 2 first red lines.

The scale measurement on the screen for the dark area covered by crew hole is 18 mm=550 mm in real life.

SO 30.55 mm in real life for each mm on the screen

If crew hatch has 550 mm width,

on the screen 55 mm is the scale measurement from the inside edge of the cut away hole for the sight to crew hatch cover .

So it works out to little 30.5 x550 mm=1680 mm .


The total length for the armor space is


1680 mm-1000 mm(internal empty space) =680 mm space behind the cut away hole for the sight is there for the armor.

Provided the crew hatch cover is at least 55 cm wide.

 

[Damian]

1,800mm thick armor is just immposible fantasy... I wonder how you would reload coax for example, not to mention to do other maintnance work, for example making PMCS to main gun recoil system, oh wait I get it, to do this soldiers will need to lift turret up and completely deinstall main gun yeah? This is the brilliant idea standing behind a 1,800mm thick armor?

Other, much more modern MBT's barely reach with their front turret armor thickness 950-1,000mm, and you want to put here nearly 2,000mm of armor? This is just hilarious!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Be on the tank, Come back with your own calculations..

And besides number give more closer look at the photo..

1,800mm thick armor is just immposible fantasy... I wonder how you would reload coax for example, not to mention to do other maintnance work.

Other, much more modern MBT's barely reach with their front turret armor thickness 950-1,000mm, and you want to put here nearly 2,000mm of armor? This is just hilarious!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I was focusing on the module, though did not focused much on that detail..

But it must be around 2.2ms at most..

If it is correct then the distance between the turret front and crew hatch cover opening must be 3.5 meters.Is that correct?

 

[Damian]

Be on the tank, Come back with your own calculations..

If I will have opportunity to meassure it, I will do it with pleasure.

 

[ersakthivel]

1,800mm thick armor is just immposible fantasy... I wonder how you would reload coax for example, not to mention to do other maintnance work, for example making PMCS to main gun recoil system, oh wait I get it, to do this soldiers will need to lift turret up and completely deinstall main gun yeah? This is the brilliant idea standing behind a 1,800mm thick armor?
Other, much more modern MBT's barely reach with their front turret armor thickness 950-1,000mm, and you want to put here nearly 2,000mm of armor? This is just hilarious!

Well I corrected my error.

The scale measurement on the screen for the dark area covered by crew hole is 18 mm=550 mm in real life.

SO 30.55 mm in real life for each mm on the screen

If crew hatch has 550 mm width,

on the screen 55 mm is the scale measurement from the inside edge of the cut away hole for the sight to crew hatch cover .

So it works out to little 30.5 x550 mm=1680 mm .


The total length for the armor space is


1680 mm-1000 mm(internal empty space) =680 mm space behind the cut away hole for the sight is there for the armor.

Provided the crew hatch cover is at least 55 cm wide.

I hope this finally settles the issue to the satisfaction of all.If there are any doubts people can measure it and check it themselves..

 

[ersakthivel]

I was focusing on the module, though did not focused much on that detail..

But it must be around 2.2ms at most..

Well I corrected my error.

The scale measurement on the screen for the dark area covered by crew hole is 18 mm=550 mm in real life.

SO 30.55 mm in real life for each mm on the screen

If crew hatch has 550 mm width,

on the screen 55 mm is the scale measurement from the inside edge of the cut away hole for the sight to crew hatch cover .

So it works out to little 30.5 x550 mm=1680 mm .


The total length for the armor space is


1680 mm-1000 mm(internal empty space) =680 mm space behind the cut away hole for the sight is there for the armor.

Provided the crew hatch cover is at least 55 cm wide.

I hope this finally settles the issue to the satisfaction of all.If there are any doubts people can measure it and check it themselves..

 

[Damian]

Well I corrected my error.

The scale measurement on the screen for the dark area covered by crew hole is 18 mm=550 mm in real life.

SO 30.55 mm in real life for each mm on the screen

If crew hatch has 550 mm width,

on the screen 55 mm is the scale measurement from the inside edge of the cut away hole for the sight to crew hatch cover .

So it works out to little 30.5 x550 mm=1680 mm .


The total length for the armor space is


1680 mm-1000 mm(internal empty space) =680 mm space behind the cut away hole for the sight is there for the armor.

Provided the crew hatch cover is at least 55 cm wide.

I hope this finally settles the issue to the satisfaction of all.If there are any doubts people can measure it and check it themselves..

You are making the most basic mistake, you think that there is armor of such thickness, but why should it be there?

So where will you place coaxial machine gun and ammunition for it? How you will make maintnance job easier for crew if with such thick armor, the only way to make maintnance job like PMCS (Preventive Maintnance Checks and Services) will be to lift turret off the hull and deinstall whole gun, this means not only barrel, but also the whole breach block.

You really think that this is so easy?

This is just ridiculous, at best Arjun Mk1 have ~800-850mm thick front turret armor over the left side, which is standard for most of today main battle tanks, over 1,000mm thick armor was estimated for the IV generation MBT's with unmanned turrets.

 

[Dejawolf]

you can just measure them by scale on the screen .So it can be verified by every one.Pixel measurements are not needed.

Heads normally don't measure more than 200 mm .

well, my head does. and he's wearing a padded helmet, which adds to head length.

If you take into account 600 mm at the most for the sight cavity total empty space is 1600 mm.

750mm:

The turret hatch cover which represents seat back is situated 2500 mm from the turret front edge leaving aside the gun mantlet plate as per PMAITRA's drawing.
SO 2500 mm-1600 mm= 900 mm space available for armor behind the sight, provided the seat is placed smack under the crew hatch cover.
How come you arrive at a figure of 300 mm for the armor?

350mm.
well, i based my measures on external line drawings, and double-checked with the Arjun factory photo, to make sure it coincided. i'm making the assumption the armour is in front of the external vision block. it's hard to get accurate measures from the interior, with the heavy perspective distortion, so it's more to reinforce that there is no armoured roof section above the gunner, like there is in the leopard 2A4.

but let's try and figure out the armour based on interior measures.
to give you an idea of the perspective distortion present:

these 2 vision blocks are the same width, however, due to perspective, the foreground vision block is 1.83 times wider than the background vision block.
we can assume the commanders head is inbetween these 2 vision blocks. so to find the vision block width inbetween the 2 vision blocks we take an average.
(220+120)/2. = 170 pixels.
now we can try and find the ratio between the width at the wall, and width at commanders head position, to hopefully find the true length from front of turret to rear of commanders cupola assembly.
120/170 = 0.705. so width at wall is about 70% of what it is at commanders head position.

now take the pixel width of commanders head, multiply by 0.706
162*0.706 = 114.372.

and now lets do the comparison again of compartment length and head pixel length.
415/114 = 3.62
we assume commanders head is 20cm as per your assumption, and add 2cm for helmet padding.
3.62*22cm = 79.64cm.

2500-(796.4*2+750) = 157.2mm.. whups! that seems a bit too thin. maybe the length between the periscopes is wrong.. or maybe the commander has a very small head?

 

[Shirman]

Ok So What @Damian @Dejawolf, @militarysta say is

Remove the God damn Turret and Fix it with Unmanned Rhienmetall type 120 mm Smoothbore low signature turret.

And @Kunal Biswas @ersakthivel and other Indian brothers say let the Turret and the tank be inseperable and is perfect......

And in that BREAKING NEWS...FMBT to focus on weight reduction of battle tanks, says DRDO chief - Indian Express
(DRDO Chief says FMBT to focus-on-weight-reduction of MBTs) LOOKS LIKE ITS NOT ONLY ME WHO HAVE GHENGIS KHAN TYPE MENTALITY.....

Guys seriously i mean last 10-15 sections of the thread has really revolved around this argument and debate. I think it would be more feasible to have unmanned turret in order to get rid of "extra spaces" and "Heavy Armour" leading to more weight......:thumb:

 

[methos]

 

[Damian]

Unmanned turret permitts to better use vehicle internal volume, reduce unnececary weight, and provide better protection. But also have drawbacks, like problems with situational awareness.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

No one said that anything perfect about Arjun..

Arjun is India`s first tank and full of flaws but very comparative and better than Indian made T-90S in various ways ( Proof and Links are there to support this )..

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

Discussing an issue have its own agreement and disagreements..

Part of the discussion..

And @Kunal Biswas @ersakthivel and other Indian brothers say let the Turret and the tank be inseperable and is perfect......

Unmanned turret is very good idea on MK3 or FMBT..

 

[Damian]

Unmanned turret is very good idea on MK3 or FMBT..

For Arjun Mk3 unmanned turret, means also new hull which in the end means new tank... which in the end means FMBT which will be a new tank.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Early 90s prototype..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Would be better, a more enhanced chassis probably shorter with 6 / 5 wheels but same tracks and wheel size of Arjun MK2..

Capable of mounting Armour addons + ERA, A very Armored chassis with a Unmanned turret..

But that is FMBT or Arjun MK3..

For Arjun Mk3 unmanned turret, means also new hull which in the end means new tank... which in the end means FMBT which will be a new tank.