Arjun vs T90 MBT

[Damian]

IMHO T-90A/S front turret protection would be around ~700-800mm, while T-90MS would be ~800-850mm as the chief designer said, of course what he said might not be truth, but it is official statement and the best thing we have. And it would be a nonsense if a improved tank with a lot of effort put in to armor protection improvements would have worse protection.

Besides this, ERA itself should not be modelled as a stright RHAe addition, it is casuing such effects like yaw, breakup in to smaller fragments etc. So IMHO closer to proper simulation is to not add much protection in RHAe to a tank, but rather decrease the penetration values of ammunition when it hits an ERA, so the main armor can stop what is left.

Besides this I seen a presentation from DM53 tests, Kontakt-5 had no significant impact on it's performance, DM53 go straight through it and T-80U turret armor + penetrate a witness plate placed behind.

 

[ersakthivel]

lol. i'm guessing you don't know what a pixel is. well, lemme give you a hint. that ruler you praised into the skies, was made up of pixels. in fact, each of the smallest accuracy lines had up to 3 pixels in it. so by measuring the pixels, and converting into the metric system, i'm able to measure far more accurately than you are.
but if i want to go real accurate, i import the picture into 3ds max, scale it so the proportions are exact, and then i can measure with an accuracy of 0.1mm.
in fact, 3ds max is a CAD drawing program, made by autodesk, the same people who create Autocad, THE SOFTWARE USED TO DESIGN THE ARJUN.

All drawing programs follow the same principle of drawing,just because it is a software you cannot say it will assume all correct values by itself.You need to give accurate nos for the angle and height of the observer, which sure you don't know,to get a dimensionally correct model.

The software package would have asked from which angle the photographs are taken?And what is the height at which the photo was taken to produce a dimensionally accurate drawing.

For which you would have given some random values.no software package will give you accurate results if you give photos of 3 different versions of a tank taken from 3 different periods of it's development and from unknown heigth from the ground and the angle of photograph and give you accurate dimensions.

Because photographs are perspective drawings not production drawing.One need to know the angle at which the photo was taken from a particular plane and the height from ground level it was taken.It is the most elementary lesson in any perspective drawing.

First lessons simply start from asking the student to give an accurate length of a straight line that is inclined at such and such angles from two different planes and its one edge such distance away from a perpendicular plane.So with out these accurate info no dimensionally correct drawings are possible.

I too used AUTOCADD during my college days.And did perspective drawing of various objects for my exams and solved problem of finding out the real length of the straight line whose one edge is suspended at x distance away from a perpendicular plane, at y degrees from another plane.Without these info you cannot plot the line accurately in another plane to determine it's true length,

For the drawings of complex objects it needs even more accurate info about the position of the observer .If you feed it random info you will get some models but they need not be dimensionaly accurate.

 

[ersakthivel]

you tried to make it SEEM like the position of the Guy in the turret was unknown, in a futile attempt to not seem like a complete dunce, although any person who has ever been inside of a tank will immediately recognize the commanders spot, and realize the commanders seat is positioned straight under the commanders hatch.
in this image you can see the commanders back rest through the commanders hatch:

Ofcourse I know that.But what is the name of the tank in that picture?

 

[ersakthivel]

urrrhhh... Tank-ex was 49 tons because it had a lighter T72 hull. Arjun is heavier because it has a larger, better protected hull with a more powerful engine.
as for not estimating mk.2 armor... you mean like this?

Another big bud headed assumption.How can the lighter hull of T-72 support the heavier turret, which can only optimally supported by a heavier ARJUN HULL designed especially for it.The ARJUN turret on T-72 must have been a striped down version with just enough weight that can be supported T-72 hull which is way lighter than ARJUn's hull.

So the armor placements and protection level of TANk-EX can no way be compared to ARJUn.If they are the same then TANK -EX would have been an ideal choice and would have been mass produced.

Statements like these only show your level of arguments to other guys.

 

[ersakthivel]

there's nothing to expose. i'm just going to sit back, and wait for the indian army to more or less confirm my figures.
sooner or later there's going to be an interior picture of the latest variant of the Arjun, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt, how wrong you are.
it's going to confirm the thin turret sides, the front turret weakspot, it's going to show there's no massive armor block on the loaders side like Kunal assumes..
even sweeter, maybe there's going to be some official figures that are actually LOWER than my estimates. after all i'm not entirely certain about that 1.25 multiplier for the steel. India had severe trouble with it's license production of T-90A...

That's a bunch of sweetheart statements that can brighten a valentines day

 

[ersakthivel]

you proved nothing. you drew a bunch of lines on a picture and told everyone to believe these lines were accurate.
you showed us no picture of the interior to confirm this to be accurate, so your "proof" is worthless.

Also:
weight of T-72: 41500kg
weight of turret: 13000kg
weight of hull 28500kg

weight of tank-ex 47000kg
47000-28500 = 18500kg

weight of leopard 2A4 turret: 16000kg

seems to me the tank-ex turret is 2.5 tons heavier than a leopard 2A4 turret, so how to you explain your claims
that the tank-ex turret is inferior to the Arjun turret? at 2.5 tons heavier, and somewhat larger dimensions, it should have equal protection to the leopard 2A4.

So as per your estimate the massive difference of 11 plus tons of ARJUN over TANK EX is all there for the heavier engine and no component of it forms better armor.ANy basis?
If that is right then why was TANk-ex rejected?

 

[ersakthivel]

so are you implying that the Arjun Hull did NOT improve the armour, it did NOT receive a larger and more powerful engine, which requires a larger hull? how about you prove that the Arjun turret is heavier than the tank-ex turret? they have pretty much the same dimensions.. can you also say how many tons heavier the Arjun turret is compared to the tank-ex?

First you make grand BLAH BLAH statement that TANK -EX turret is same as ARJUn in weight and armor protection level without an iota of proof.If the other guy expresses a different opinion you will ask proof from him.Such a nice authentic way of debating, so that you can never lose.

If the turret of tank ex and arjun are same in protection level, weight and protection levels why was TANK -EX rejected?

 

[Damian]

Hull protection might be lower than in Arjun, as well as some other issues that might not be known to us, for example objections from UVZ, the original manufacturer of T-72 series, that could demand stop of such work that included extensive modifications to the product for which full rights belong to UVZ.

 

[militarysta]

well, there's already an official figure of 850mm vs KE,
but i've made an estimate for Esim:

the official 850mm figure is puzzling however. it basically means the russians are using standard RHA steel, and T-72B bulging armour still..
and also, this model is the russian T-90A, the T-90 Bhisma doesn't have the laser warning receivers.

Sorry but this is overestiated...
About T-90A and MS - during those funny presentation T-90MS the Russians carefully "directed" "leak information" when some engeener says to Putin that T-90MS have on turret:
~850mm RHA vs KE
~1200mm RHS vs HEAT
Of course, microphones "accidentally" captured it. And it leaked to the media.

Whole thing is one big PR-bullshit but ok, lets sey even that 850mm RHA is true (IMHO-lol)
If it's true we can seriously think about the resistance of earlier versions of T-90 ...
especially if truth is writing on NI STALII pages about Relickt and Kontakt-5 ERA.

Relikt give 1.5 more protection.
Kontakt-5 1.2 more protection.
Od course working hevy ERA depends on meny factors.
But:
It's looks funny when we realize that this values are for LOS thickest value (~880mm LOS for 0.).

If T-90MS with Relikt have 850mm vs KE then the T-90A with Kontakt-5 should have about 720-750mm RHA, and "nacked" T-90A turret should have about 600-650mm RHA.

And those values are for 0. degree fom the longitiudal axis when there is 840mm LOS. For diffrent angle it will be mucht less - more offten possible 650mm LOS (perpendicular to the turret at an angle of 30 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the tower) give us diffrent value.
The result is circa that:
In my personal opinion T-90A basick armour (without hevy ERA) is about:
for 840mm LOS about ~650mm RHA
for 650mm LOS about ~500mm RHA.

Of course in my opinnion russian havy ERA works on more sophisticated way, and you can not count it like "base armour" x1,5 etc., bt for the other hand -modern western APFSDS penetrator haven't probem whit russian ERA...

 

[ersakthivel]

IMHO T-90A/S front turret protection would be around ~700-800mm, while T-90MS would be ~800-850mm as the chief designer said, of course what he said might not be truth, but it is official statement and the best thing we have. And it would be a nonsense if a improved tank with a lot of effort put in to armor protection improvements would have worse protection.

Besides this, ERA itself should not be modelled as a stright RHAe addition, it is casuing such effects like yaw, breakup in to smaller fragments etc. So IMHO closer to proper simulation is to not add much protection in RHAe to a tank, but rather decrease the penetration values of ammunition when it hits an ERA, so the main armor can stop what is left.

Besides this I seen a presentation from DM53 tests, Kontakt-5 had no significant impact on it's performance, DM53 go straight through it and T-80U turret armor + penetrate a witness plate placed behind.

Well you can be guided by the chief designer's words for T-90.But when a bunch of retired generals say in TV interview ,that you cannot compare arjun with T-90 in level of armor and protectio because ARJUN is comparable to ABRAMS, LEO and LECLERC.It is worthless.But their words the penetration level of AFPDS rounds of arjun is lesser than T-90 is a gospel of truth you will lap it up.
SUch selective amnesia for inconvinent facts cannot be cured.

 

[Damian]

Well you can be guided by the chief designer's words for T-90.But when a bunch of retired generals say in TV interview ,that you cannot compare arjun with T-90 in level of armor and protectio because ARJUN is comparable to ABRAMS, LEO and LECLERC.It is worthless.But their words the penetration level of AFPDS rounds of arjun is lesser than T-90 is a gospel of truth you will lap it up.
SUch selective amnesia for inconvinent facts cannot be cured.

Maybe in India weight have a meaning when it comes to protection, but in countries where tanks are builded for a much longer time, weight is not seen as decisive in terms of vehicle protection, which was discussed many times before.

In fact T-90A/S and T-90MS are seen in NATO as comparable in terms of overall frontal protection to the heavier NATO tanks, because weight does not come directly from armor weight but from the vehicle size which means how much armor is needed to protect internal volume, the more internal volume, the more armor surface needed and the tank is heavier, which does not mean it is better protected. Because protection depends on the armor characteristics and it's working mechanism.

But for the rest of the world, MBT is MBT, does not matter how much it weight. So T-90, M1, Leo2 or Arjun, for us, all are MBT, the same class of vehicle... but of course if someones preffer obsolete WWII classification that does not apply to the modern vehicles... well.

 

[militarysta]

And those value are impossible for Arjun turret. I understand that method of counting this is based on Lakowski works, and ESIM engine?
There is no possibility to 870-985mm vs KE in Arun. Sorry but India haven't technology to made armour on even 1990s. level. From who? Russians dont sell they own "special armour" developed for T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2) , older Ob.188 or T-90S have the same simple armour structure as Ob.184 (T-72B) whit NERA module.
In fact Arjun for that place have maybe 550-600mm RHA vs KE. Known Kanchan is simmilar to the polish CAWA-2 from 1990's. And India haven't possibility to buy/get quite modern western tank and just copy it's armour - like Poland do in case older Leopard-2A4 (1987).

EDIT: indeed Damian thanks for catch this

 

[Damian]

Known Kanchan is simmilar to the polish CERAWA from 1990's.

Not CERAWA-1 but CAWA-2, CERAWA-1 is different protection for lightweight vehicles.

 

[militarysta]

But when a bunch of retired generals say in TV interview ,that you cannot compare arjun with T-90 in level of armor and protectio because ARJUN is comparable to ABRAMS, LEO and LECLERC.

Sure, it's comparable to M1 from circa 1981-1984, Leopard-2A0 from 1980-1983, and Leclerc prototype from Swedish tank trials.
Im say this very seriously!
Each mentioned tank is about 400-550mm vs APFSDS and about 700-800mm vs HEAT. And that level for Arjun is fully possible.

.But their words the penetration level of AFPDS rounds of arjun is lesser than T-90 is a gospel of truth you will lap it up.

Becouse there is no other option when we compare 3BM42 and those funny 120mm ammo for Arjun. In fact it's look jak DM23...

 

[Dejawolf]

See the large difference in width and length of both turrets, Now you should realize how wrong your ideas can be..

large differences? looks about the same width to me...

Both gun, sight, and turret sides line up perfectly...
i don't assume you can name just how much wider the arjun turret is compared to the tank-ex turret? no?

No i dont know about weight of both turrets, Coz that is classified but its lighter than Arjun MK1 as told before..

so you don't know the weight of either turret, yet you claim to know one is heavier than the other..
how?

I told people coz i have a reputation here to count on, You are being a nut not to listen anyone and yelling at everyone, I told coz i been inside to most tanks in field and in shows most of you talk around here, that pic posted was first posted by me to him ages ago..

well great. so you can take pictures of tanks. i've taken pictures of tanks as well.

Now as i told before your calculations are wrong not accurate but estimations some of them which are way off, Your software may be most realistic to you coz that is your only way to do the job, But my options are way more than that..

oh yeah i heard you several times claim my estimations are not accurate. but i never really saw any conclusive evidence to prove otherwise. i never saw kunal biswas picture of the Arjun mk.1 showing that massive block of supposed armour on the loaders side of the turret. and if i do, i'll happily reassess my estimates.
but until then, my current estimates stand.

 

[Dejawolf]

IMHO T-90A/S front turret protection would be around ~700-800mm, while T-90MS would be ~800-850mm as the chief designer said, of course what he said might not be truth, but it is official statement and the best thing we have. And it would be a nonsense if a improved tank with a lot of effort put in to armor protection improvements would have worse protection.

T-90MS protection is improved. the ERA coverage has been vastly increased,

where before only the thickest portions of the armour had ERA, now the whole front turret is completely covered with ERA. side hull and turret has received a massive coverage boost as well, now the whole crew compartment is covered with ERA, compared to the pitiful side hull/turret coverage of the T-90A, and rear protection has been boosted as well with slat cages. post penetration survivability has been improved as well, with the stowage being moved to the outside.
but i doubt the armour composition itself has been changed between the 90A and 90MS.
there was a large change between the 90 and 90A however. instead of cast steel, with 0,9 TE bulging armour inserts, 90A has RHA steel with TE of 1.0 and bulging armour inserts, with only cast steel around the mantlet area.

so in conclusion, T-90MS improvement has been more about plugging weakspots, than increase armour of the thickest spots.

Besides this, ERA itself should not be modelled as a stright RHAe addition, it is casuing such effects like yaw, breakup in to smaller fragments etc. So IMHO closer to proper simulation is to not add much protection in RHAe to a tank, but rather decrease the penetration values of ammunition when it hits an ERA, so the main armor can stop what is left.

yes, and yaw is the most devastating effect. a yaw of as little as 2 degrees is enough to decrease penetrating power by as much as 27% on subsequent plates.
I agree. in reality, ERA is a % reduction of penetration power. however due to how SB works, we'd have to estimate the RHAe value of the ERA tiles based on an average penetrator length. but fofanov did that for us, so eh. in the next version of SB, we've corrected a major flaw in the way SB deals with ERA.
previously, SB didn't take into consideration whether a warhead was tandem or not, so tandem warheads received unrealistically high penetration values to compensate their ability to penetrate ERA. this has been fixed in the recent version, so tandem warheads should have realistic values now, and be able to penetrate ERA.

Besides this I seen a presentation from DM53 tests, Kontakt-5 had no significant impact on it's performance, DM53 go straight through it and T-80U turret armor + penetrate a witness plate placed behind.[/QUOTE]
DM-53 is estimated to penetrate 840mm.
T-80U turret estimate is about 750mm vs KE with kontakt-5, so in Steel beasts, DM-53 would go straight through T-80U turret with 100mm overmatch, and penetrate the witness plate behind it.

 

[pmaitra]

@Dejawolf, @Damian, @ersakthivel, y'all might find this interesting: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/economy-infrastructure/46265-titanium-titan-amongst-metals.html

 

[ersakthivel]

Hull protection might be lower than in Arjun, as well as some other issues that might not be known to us, for example objections from UVZ, the original manufacturer of T-72 series, that could demand stop of such work that included extensive modifications to the product for which full rights belong to UVZ.

With what kind of authoritative source you argue all the extra 11 plus ton weight of the arjun tank over the TANK EX is concentrated on the hull and not a couple tons form part of better arjun turret??

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Don't confuse fact to pass your opinion..

You have completely ignored the distance of the camera from the turret of both tanks, Enlarging one and minimize one and hence they all look same..

======================================

Why you missed this one, Guess you just want to push your view ..

large differences? looks about the same width to me...

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

If you dont like to listen, its your choice..

oh yeah i heard you several times claim my estimations are not accurate. but i never really saw any conclusive evidence to prove otherwise. i never saw kunal biswas picture of the Arjun mk.1 showing that massive block of supposed armour on the loaders side of the turret. and if i do, i'll happily reassess my estimates.but until then, my current estimates stand.

 

[ersakthivel]

Maybe in India weight have a meaning when it comes to protection, but in countries where tanks are builded for a much longer time, weight is not seen as decisive in terms of vehicle protection, which was discussed many times before.

In fact T-90A/S and T-90MS are seen in NATO as comparable in terms of overall frontal protection to the heavier NATO tanks, because weight does not come directly from armor weight but from the vehicle size which means how much armor is needed to protect internal volume, the more internal volume, the more armor surface needed and the tank is heavier, which does not mean it is better protected. Because protection depends on the armor characteristics and it's working mechanism.

But for the rest of the world, MBT is MBT, does not matter how much it weight. So T-90, M1, Leo2 or Arjun, for us, all are MBT, the same class of vehicle... but of course if someones preffer obsolete WWII classification that does not apply to the modern vehicles... well.

Other than russsia which builds

smaller three men crew truncated turret tanks,
which rely on turret geometry ,
and unsafe storage of ammo ,
following the world war II philosophy of cheaper lesser weight more in number tanks according to the T-series philosophy ,

every other major tank producing country has,
near 60 ton four men crew well protected,
safe ammo storage tanks .

So weight does have meaning of overall protection level of the tank ,if you take everything into account like,
safe ammo storage,
heavier armor all around(instead of relying on obsolete statistics from lesser accurate lesser range FCS guns of world war two tanks) ,
costlier tanks that guaranties crew safety.

Why heavier tanks with much more internal volume are being built by some western nations,if 3 men crew , auto loader based lesser weight tanks can give the same level of protection and safe ammo storage of upto 45 rounds inside the hull?

They sat 4 men crew results in lesser fatigued crew which results in higher morale troops using better protected safer ammo storage tanks has a decisive implication in long drawn battle battles.

There are two different tank design schools out there.both are churning out products, Each school believes their design principles are better.