Arjun vs T90 MBT

[STGN]

Do you support DEJA WOLF's placement of vision block also?
Which according to me is well within the green shaded area drawn on ARJUN by PMAITRA.
That is the point of contention NOW,
It is by the wrong position of the( so called vision block)red box scribbled in ciside crew compartment picture that DEJAWOLF is justifying his 450 mm LOS thickness for arjun frontal turret armor behind Gunner's main sight cutaway.

This is a VERY INACCURATE representation of how I think the right side turret armour looks like from the side basicaly its like Leo2 but instead of box behind optics its a triangle with a chimney for the periscope. reason for this view is that internal shot of the commander the left seems to me to show a rather steep slope downwards going towards the "yellow" box. Is that agreeing with dejawolf, not sure?
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

i'm sorry to say that you are not a very reputable source.
here's a list of thing that you've been verifiably wrong about:
1. in post 638 you claimed a picture of an arjun was tank-ex. it was NOT, as can be verified by comparing the side hull sponsons.

See the arjun projected started life as a 40 ton tank project and if you have any doubt you can go to ARJUN thread in this forum and see the pictures posted by KUNAL and posts by ARCHER .

Even in this thread KUNAL posted some pictures of many different types of ARJUN prototypes.When the TANK -EX was made it had the same turret as ARJUN.At that time there was an extra storage box besides the crew hatch on the arjun turret side as well, which was subsequently replaced in production models of ARJUN.

If you have any doubt you can browse from page no-20 onwards in the same thread where I pointed this out to DAMINAN and he changed his drawing accordingly.

2. in the same post you claim the interior to be from an arjun. in later posts, you've claimed this interiot to be of the tank-ex...

Interiors are the same .Only the first storage box of TANK-EX turret was converted to armor block in the latter production versions of MK-1.

4. you claimed tool boxes to be armored. they were not, clearly showing strengthening extrusions in production models

There are some ARJUNs with tank-ex turrets with 3 storage boxes,whose pictures are all over the net, how can I refuse that?
In later production models one of the storage box was removed and armor block was added was my impression from the photos .

5. you believed the panels on the roof were blowoff panels, they are verifiably not.

Those service hatches can double up as blow off panel was mentioned in the debate between DAMIAN and KUNAL in ARJUN thread, I neither accepted it nor refuted it.What I think it is it can be upgraded as compartmentalized AMMO storage in MLU in ARJUn mk-1 s,
and it is a design feature in ARJUN mk-2.

This rudimentary storage in existing MK-1 s still have their own advantage over T-90 where the ammo is scattered in the floor ready to cook-off.
1.See since IMHO there is enough space for armor to avoid a direct hit on AMMO storage box as my estimates of side armor space shows that.
2.And since it is not directly exposed to any fire in crew compartment it is much safer than ammo arrangement in T-90.
3.It can easily upgraded as compartmentalized or canisterized in existing MK-1s if the army wants, which cannot be done in existing T-90s.

6. you believed a thin steel tube would be enough to stop the blast of a 120mm round.
7. you believed a picture that said "arjun" on the side of it was of tank-ex.

At that they were all prototypes of ARJUn with TANK-ex turret and some of them are inducted into army and later had their first storage boxes upgraded to armor is what is posted in this thread by many posters, not me, so naturally I believed that.

8. you believed hatches on arjun had the same space between them as on the leopard. they do not.

I never believed that, I advanced a photo for comparision, In fact I will be very thankful to you if you can post here what is the exact distance between the hatches of ARJUN.

9. you claimed the arjun hull was 10.64 meters long, this turned out to be wrong, it was 8 meters

Of course, I believed that the hull length posted in the open source did not includ the GUN FORWARD LENGTH. But once PMAITRS posted the drwaing I accepted that, did not question that,
By the same token if you give any proof for the placement of scribbled red box(vision block as per your notification) , which according to me is wrong , I will accept your version as well.
I still believe that if there are any flaws in ARJUN , it is the best time to expose it as MK-2 is entering design stages.I am not a nationalistic JINGO as some think I am. That's why I am asking you some source for the placement osf scribbled red box behind the gunner's main sight and the placement of gunner's seat in the extreme corner of the tank.

This placement is very much a mistake from your part as the top view photo of the crew hatch above Tank Commanders seat clearly shows the man before the Tank Commander sits just left of him,
nearer to the center and not in the extreme corner as implied by you in 3D drawings.
Just complete the crew hatch circle in the above picture and you can see for yourself that the right side edge of the TC's seat is right at the center of crew hatch circle and gunner sits a little bit left of him.
It is this error I am repeatedly pointing out is the reason for your mistake in side turret and front turret armor space estimate and once you correct it in the 3d model you posted below you can see my estimates are accurate.

The gunner and Tank commander should be moved atleast 300 mm towards the center of the hull as per the top view picture posted above.Am I making it clear to you/

If you do that this 300 mm space released will directly add to armor space, and then we can start some fruit full discussions about side turret armor space.

10. you believed the space from the gunners controls to the back of the commanders seat to be 60cm... really, 60cm for 2 people to fit in between?

Gunner's control is well left to the left hand of Commander and not directly in front is my contention.And due to the parallax you are mistaking it to be directly in front of the tank commander is my point of view,

And the big white display unit is right before the TC's head and this display unit is in line with the Gunner's main sight and not the scribbled red box called (vision blocks by you.)
See this is exactly the point of contention.Just give a source for the placement of vision blocks and we all will discuss it calmly.

11. you believed APFSDS rounds fired from rifled gun to have the same muzzle velocity as smooth bore guns.-false

I never stated that, ARJUN has a muzzle velocity of 1650 which was superior to CHallenger is my post.
Muzzle velocity is a direct function of chamber pressure and,
if the production model smooth bore leo and production model rifled arjun have same muzzle velocity then they can give same lethality to APFSD rounds is my post.

12. you believed rear portion of side turret to be 3-4 times thicker than it is in reality..

Where did I post ,please point out.

13. you believed tank-ex to not have the side turret armour extrusions of the arjun. it does.

tank ex has 3 storage boxes and latter production modelsARJUN has 2 storage boxes

and on top of being wrong, from the very first post i make in this forum, you've acted like a complete dick.

Who is a complete ----, can be decided by others, If you have any interest in true debate, please post your source for the placement of scribbled red box called vision block right behind the gunner's main sight or else you can at least refrain from giving good or bad conduct certificates to me.
That is none of your business.
If you have any interest in rational discussion alter the position of the Tc's seat and gunner's seat towards the center of the hull.
And give your accurate distance measurement between the radius of two crew hatches.
As per my calculation this distance the green shaded are is 1440 mm wide.
it is the same as the blue dotted lines in the picture below.

The total width of ARJUN turret measures 175 mm on scale in the screen.
The distance between the two blue dotted lines measure 65 mm.
SO 3200 mm is the turret width ,
then,
this blue dotted line covers a length of 1188 mm between them,
I have given a large error estimation of 260 mm and estimated it to be 1440 mm.
So if you have any doubt question this.

 

[ersakthivel]

The large error estimate of 200 mm is given in post no-1263 because ,
the green line drawn by STGN on the turret above cuts the Tc side crew hatch atleast 100 mm short of the center.
So this extra 200 plus mm makes up for that and based upon this I estimated the width of green carpeted area to be 1440 mm.

 

[ersakthivel]

the distance between the two crew hatch hole centers measure just 55 mm on scale.13

100 mm is the cross sectional distance measure on scale on the screen along the same alignment of the crew hatch center joining line.
While the TC's side has all side armor blocks and storage boxes fitted,
the other side doesnot have them.SO we can add 13 mm for that.
So the finished turret width along the same axis which joins the two centerpoint of crew hatch holes is 113mm.
SO if 113mm width on thescreen is equal to3220 mm the scale is 1:29.4955752
So the distance between the two centers of crew hatch holes is 1597 mm.
Is it agreeable?
3220/2=1610 mm is the distance between the turret center line of the arjun and the outermost wall of the turret.
1597/2=800 mm approx is the edge of the TC's seat from the turret center line of the arjun.

This is the exact point of the crew seat edge of tank commander.
So 1610-800 =800 mm width is is available besides each side of the seat till outer turret wall.
Of which 200 mm is the elbow room shown besides the commander in this picture.

So 800-200=600mm is available and placement of composite armor is possible here.
On the sides of production arjun turret till crew hatch center this whole 600 mm space is there for armor.
See in the crew hole picture posted above side turret wall curves in behind the Tc's seat.
So any width occupied by the storage boxes can be made up by this curvature.
Any clarifications?
Any argument from international tank experts and 3D max specialists and pixel measurement experts?

People with drawing software can just complete the crew hatch circle in the above photograph and it will be clear.

 

[ersakthivel]

Increasing knowledge is always enjoyable, I do not understand why you do not enjoy it?

By increasing knowledge about both, strong and weak sides of each design, it is far much easier to find a proper solution for improvements.

Do I really need to repeat how NATO and Soviet Union was improving their designs? They done this by discussing, analising strong and weak sides of each design and finding alternative solutions. You can't improve without criticism.

The question is, if we, simple enthusiasts could find such weaknesses, what proffesional intelligence could find out. You should think about it. And this is just my hint, for a country and nation, that can definetely be called a possible close friend and ally to NATO in future. So do not treat our posts as offensive and threatening.

Please discuss and analyze my post no-1265, so that we can all improve our knowledge.

 

[ersakthivel]

This is a VERY INACCURATE representation of how I think the right side turret armour looks like from the side basicaly its like Leo2 but instead of box behind optics its a triangle with a chimney for the periscope. reason for this view is that internal shot of the commander the left seems to me to show a rather steep slope downwards going towards the "yellow" box. Is that agreeing with dejawolf, not sure?
STGN

Please discuss and analyze the calculations on My post no-1265.

 

[ersakthivel]

based on the new pictures posted by militarista, i'm going to have to reassess my side turret protection estimates.

it's clear to me now that the turret sides are not 80mm like i previously thought, but 60mm. thick.
and given that it's structural, i'd assume it's a bad idea to harden it, or it'd just end up cracking from stress. so probably just plain old RHA steel, 60mm thick.

Before posting another complicated 3d model without dimensions please point out any error in the calculations in my post no-1265

 

[Dejawolf]

Before posting another complicated 3d model without dimensions please point out any error in the calculations in my post no-1265

simply this: you've been wrong about everything else, so why should i even bother proving you wrong again?
and no, i'm not going to spend hours creating another 3d model, i've got better things to do right now.
whenever someone posts any REAL evidence, like actual measures of the tank, or pictures of the front turret armour from the inside, i'll be back and reassess the arjun values. until then, welcome to my ignore list.

 

[ersakthivel]

simply this: you've been wrong about everything else, so why should i even bother proving you wrong again?
and no, i'm not going to spend hours creating another 3d model, i've got better things to do right now.
whenever someone posts any REAL evidence, like actual measures of the tank, or pictures of the front turret armor from the inside, i'll be back and reassess the arjun values

So you are implicitly admitting that all your 3D models are wrong.And you don't have an iota of knowledge about the crew inside seating arrangement and any armor thickness.

. until then, welcome to my ignore list.

SO you don't have time to simply put a scale on the screen to check the right measurements that can be checked by anyone,
But spend hours creating 3 D drawings that has got the internal arrangement completely wrong and go on to argue for 10 pages!!!!!!!!

I know you will never check my measurements, because it is simply correct.

But you will embark on another drawing expedition based upon the blue lines in post no-1268 , that cannot be checked by any one!!!
Just a word of caution before expounding on your structural engineering knowledge,
the plates can be fixed on any mm thickness side wall,The bolts on the top give you no clue for the armor thickness of side wall behind.

If you have any doubts please look at the crew hatch photo you posted, which shows the side armor wall curving in after the end of Tc's seat.

Placing me on your ignore list won't help very much though, by now every one reading the posts here know your refusal to challenge my calculations is not the result of some ego clash.

They all would know your real intention behind not doing that.

 

[Austin]

I think it pretty much useless to debate if Arjun is better than Abrams or T-90 is worse or better than Arjun , we arnt going to fight NATO any day any time time soon and for the most likely enemy that Arjun and T-90 would face its more than suffice to meet those challenges considering both Tanks are going through its own respective upgrade program and newer indiginous ammo is developed.

The IA loves both the tank plus T-72 and It cant get more official than the Army Chief VK Singh commenting on the status of these tanks in an Interview by VKS to FORCE mid last year

What is the status on armour? Is T-90s the MBT now? What is being done about the large numbers of T-72 tanks which lack a night fighting capability? How many Arjun regiment will the army have, and are there plans to upgrade Arjun tanks?

By terming the T-90 tank as the main battle tank (MBT), the Indian Army implies that this tank is the future mainstay of the Indian Army, and is indicative of the volumes of this tank comprising the backbone of the mechanised forces. T-90 is a state of the art and highly capable weapon system, capable of survival in the most challenging environments.

The Indian Army has already addressed the issue of night blindness of T-72 tanks. A large number of tanks are now night-enabled. Measures are already in place to ensure speedy night enablement of the balance numbers. With this, we have ensured that the erstwhile issue of night blindness is addressed holistically, with our entire tank fleet capable of operations at night.

As far as Arjun tank is concerned, the Indian Army is looking at inducting a few additional numbers of MBT Arjun regiments in the future. The tank finally produced by DRDO is quite competitive and has come a long way. Upgradations and improvements to the MBT Arjun as a Mark- II version are underway. On successful completion of these improvements, the tank will meet the requirements of the Indian Army.

There are reports that during recent comparative field trials of Arjun and T-90s tanks, Arjun performed better. Is this correct, if so, in what areas? Is there a case for acquisition of more than two regiments of Arjun tanks?

There were no comparative trials but trials were conducted to gauge the operational validity, based on T-90 parameters being considered as the datum. The operational role has been validated and further procurements will be in consonance with this.

 

[militarysta]

Double post from other topick:

Okay since you have no intention of giving an answer to my questions ,STOP posting about armor thickness of ARJUN without answering these questions,

Of course I will not stop posting about armour thickness in Arjun, becouse your completly stupid and not conected whit armour LOS thema quetions have nothing common whit my own estimatous based on:
a) overal turret width
b) gun mantled mask width

If You are interestd I have Arjun draw from Kampfanzer heute und morgen. in 1:72 scale. They are very accurate draws (I check on Leopard-2A4, A5, A6 draws, and T-xx draws). And Arjun mesurmant made on this draw give:
turret width - 280-284cm
gun mantled mask whole width less then ~136cm

So in fact correct Arjun armour estimatosu is this:

Variant No.4 -
Values given by STGN - turret ~2,84m width:
frontal turret armour: 820mm LOS
armour block behind main sight: 400mm LOS*
turret sides at 30.: 460mm LOS
thin turret sides after boxes at 90: ~50mm thick
gun mantled mask 400mm LOS


*in case armour block behind main sight there is a option that here is 450-500mm los if periscope is inside armour cavity. IMHO avaible photos do not settle this clearly enought.





And whole Arjun program shoud be compare with Altay program and South Korea K1 program, and Al Chalid program. All those countries try to bulid their own first tank, whit some foregin support.

 

[JBH22]

so after 85 pages of this thread and with no clue about the technical discussion, can anyone finally tell me what's the outcome?

Arjun or T-90 which is better.

 

[Austin]

So in fact correct Arjun armour estimatosu is this:

Variant No.4 -
Values given by STGN - turret ~2,84m width:
frontal turret armour: 820mm LOS
armour block behind main sight: 400mm LOS*
turret sides at 30.: 460mm LOS
thin turret sides after boxes at 90: ~50mm thick
gun mantled mask 400mm LOS

And whole Arjun program shoud be compare with Altay program and South Korea K1 program, and Al Chalid program. All those countries try to bulid their own first tank, whit some foregin support.

If that is KE estimate then it sounds like quite good considering for Arjun Mk2 it will get better with ERA

 

[Austin]

so after 85 pages of this thread and with no clue about the technical discussion, can anyone finally tell me what's the outcome?

Arjun or T-90 which is better.

Since IA operates both you can find that answer posted at #1271 and given by none other then Army Chief

 

[Shirman]

so after 85 pages of this thread and with no clue about the technical discussion, can anyone finally tell me what's the outcome?

Arjun or T-90 which is better.

I guess its the matter of Individual conclusions and out-comes....:thumb:

For me Arjun mk1 with unmanned turret and smoothbore gun.........(in my dreams) which hopefully comes into reality

 

[DivineHeretic]

I guess its the matter of Individual conclusions and out-comes....:thumb:

For me Arjun mk1 with unmanned turret and smoothbore gun.........(in my dreams) which hopefully comes into reality

Unmanned turret brings with it a new set of challenges which must be adressed before it can be deployed in large numbers, the biggest one being the lower number of men available for maintainance of the tank, whereas today the tank has 4 crew men to do this job, an unmanned turret will remove two men. Secondly there will be reduced situational awarness and higher crew workload.

 

[Damian]

If that is KE estimate then it sounds like quite good considering for Arjun Mk2 it will get better with ERA

What Militarysta posted is not RHAe (Rolled Homogeneus Armor equivalent) protection values but the armor physical thickness (LOS - Line Of Sight).

Unmanned turret brings with it a new set of challenges which must be adressed before it can be deployed in large numbers, the biggest one being the lower number of men available for maintainance of the tank, whereas today the tank has 4 crew men to do this job, an unmanned turret will remove two men. Secondly there will be reduced situational awarness and higher crew workload.

Why remove two men? Just remove the loader.

But I agree that in case of Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 there is not much sense in doing this.

However a redesign of turret and replacing rifled gun with smoothbore, will make from Arjun far more potent machine. It will also give opportunity for India to aquire some types of NATO made APFSDS ammunition designed to defeat composite armors protected by universal ERA. Look at the Pakistan T-80UD's, currently neither T-90S, neither Arjun with current gun and ammunition, are capable to defeat them firing at their frontal arc protection. Al Khalid and Chinese ZTZ-99 are also probably immune to currently used ammunition in India.

Germany allready offers a completely licence for Rhinemetall Rh-120/L55 120mm smoothbore gun, and should not make any problems with exports of DM53 or DM63 APFSDS ammunition.

USA also offer rather potent KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 ammunition, especially the latter one, based on M829A2, should have anti ERA capabilities. However both Germany and USA does not offer standalone penetrators for export to be assembled in different sabots and propelant casings for use in different types of guns than NATO standard 120mm smoothbores, so to use this ammunition you need a 120mm smoothbore.

Of course besides the Rhinemetall gun and it's licence versions, there are other NATO standard 120mm smoothbores, like the French CN-120/26 from Leclerc, and for example Ukrainian solutions.

So India have a plenty of options to purchase modern tank guns and ammunitions that are designed to defeat composite armors + ERA. This should be especially important for India, because due to it's relative simplicity, low costs and low risks, universal ERA is attractive solution for many countries to improve protection of their combat vehicles to the level, above capabilities of most ammunition types used around the world, and up to this day, only USA and Germany have ammunition specially designed to defeat such threats.

 

[Shirman]

Unmanned turret brings with it a new set of challenges which must be adressed before it can be deployed in large numbers, the biggest one being the lower number of men available for maintainance of the tank, whereas today the tank has 4 crew men to do this job, an unmanned turret will remove two men. Secondly there will be reduced situational awarness and higher crew workload.

Even last time @ Damian had raised this issue ,

I asked this problem and they told me that Elbit systems of isreal have developed some miniature cameras to cope up with any " situational awareness" scenario

Also even @ Kunal sir posted some pics of elbit COAPs sight which i think might be a better ac-compliment to any unmanned turret of the future....

heres the link :-http://vimeo.com/channels/tadmit

Look at the last video labelled ELOP COAPS..........

 

[Damian]

Indeed, the small wide field of view cameras might be solution to the situational awareness problems, + some other types of sensors.

IMHO this is rather a question of when technology will be mature enough not if.

 

[DivineHeretic]

What Militarysta posted is not RHAe (Rolled Homogeneus Armor equivalent) protection values but the armor physical thickness (LOS - Line Of Sight).



Why remove two men? Just remove the loader.

But I agree that in case of Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 there is not much sense in doing this.

However a redesign of turret and replacing rifled gun with smoothbore, will make from Arjun far more potent machine. It will also give opportunity for India to aquire some types of NATO made APFSDS ammunition designed to defeat composite armors protected by universal ERA. Look at the Pakistan T-80UD's, currently neither T-90S, neither Arjun with current gun and ammunition, are capable to defeat them firing at their frontal arc protection. Al Khalid and Chinese ZTZ-99 are also probably immune to currently used ammunition in India.

Germany allready offers a completely licence for Rhinemetall Rh-120/L55 120mm smoothbore gun, and should not make any problems with exports of DM53 or DM63 APFSDS ammunition.

USA also offer rather potent KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 ammunition, especially the latter one, based on M829A2, should have anti ERA capabilities. However both Germany and USA does not offer standalone penetrators for export to be assembled in different sabots and propelant casings for use in different types of guns than NATO standard 120mm smoothbores, so to use this ammunition you need a 120mm smoothbore.

Of course besides the Rhinemetall gun and it's licence versions, there are other NATO standard 120mm smoothbores, like the French CN-120/26 from Leclerc, and for example Ukrainian solutions.

So India have a plenty of options to purchase modern tank guns and ammunitions that are designed to defeat composite armors + ERA. This should be especially important for India, because due to it's relative simplicity, low costs and low risks, universal ERA is attractive solution for many countries to improve protection of their combat vehicles to the level, above capabilities of most ammunition types used around the world, and up to this day, only USA and Germany have ammunition specially designed to defeat such threats.

It is not true that we dont have anything that can tear through the skin of the T80s. The Israel built Lahat missile is fired from the main gun of our T90 and the Arjun and boasts of a range of 8km and armor penetration of about 800mm Rha, not to mention the Invar bought from Russia, with 750-900mm Rha penetration with range of 4000-5000 km. So we are covered as far as Anti armor munition is covered. Of course we could do with more and better.