Arjun vs T90 MBT

[STGN]

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.

First the turret is not 3.2 m in width as I have already shown. and just stating it out of thin air is not gonna make your calculations right.
Second As I have also shown, the turret is not symmetrical around the Arjun centerline so you can't just divide by 2 like that.
Third how do you measure center of crew hatch?
STGN

 

[Damian]

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.

This is lack of understanding from your end.

The LAHAT and 9M119 are shaped charge based weapons, which means that their penetration abilities are lower against composite armor, especially if this composite armor is protected with universal ERA.

Estimations for T-80U which have a slightly less protection than Pakistani T-80UD's, gives such protection for the front turret and front hull against shaped charge based weapons.

Collins Tank Protection Levels site estimations:

Turret: 960-1450
Glacis: 1080

ESim producer of Military AFV's simulators Steel Beasts give such protection against HEAT for turret and hull front of T-80U.

Turret - 560mm-1140mm vs HEAT
Hull - 380mm-1040mm vs HEAT

Note + Lower value is for weak zone or specific angle, higher value is protection for most of the surface.

Important, these are only estimations, they do not show exact protection level of vehicle, they only point out direction.

Which means LAHAT and 9M119 are completely ineffective against frontal protection of these tanks.

Other example, a source is very reliable (from Fort Knox). M1A1HA in 1991 survived a hit in the turret front from AGM-114 Hellfire missile which have estimated penetration capabilities of ~1,200mm RHA.

Modern MBT's protection against shaped charge warheads is much higher than protection against modern APFSDS ammunition fired from tank guns.

 

[ersakthivel]

Double post from other topick:


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.

What is the distance between the center points of crew holes on the arjun turret from draw from Kampfanzer heute und morgen. in 1:72 scale.?

 

[militarysta]

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.

You know, it's very difficult questione becouse:
a) they are many Arjun tank prototypes whit diffrent solutions (FCS)
b) we have four basic "T-90" tank:

1. Ob.188 - T-90 -cast steel turret -in fact Ob.184 (T-72B) on steroids.
2. Ob.188A1 - T-90A whit welded turret, mucht better protection, bud FCS is still not very good.
3. Ob.188A2 - T-90A whit good thermal imager (not AGAVA but Catherina-FC thales) an longer avaivble penetrator in modernisated carousell autoloader (max penetrator lenght about 740mm)
4. Ob.188M T-90MS noewes verison whit very modern FCS, Relikt ERA protection and other changes.

So this question is not so simple. For example - polish PT-91MZ was better in all aspects (without main armour of course) then T-90S for malesia trade. But the same PT-91MZ is whorse in all aspects (exept mobility) then T-90A (Ob.188A2).

If You ask about Arjun and T-90 (many variants) then IMHO:
a) Arjun have mucht better mobility. Engine, transmission, suspension and hull designe is far better then in all T-72/T-80 tanks. In fact Arjun have mobilit the same/very close to the western III gen MBT -so far far better then in estern T-xx tanks.
b) hull layout is better in Arjun then in all T-xx tank. Amunition rack in hull in Arjun is placed in best avaible place -like in Leo-2 or like mirror in Leclerc. Those rack is protected by quite thick front hull armour, and fuel tank. Each ammo is placed in separate contener so it have some kind of (not big, but always) protection against debrits. It's mucht mucht sefer then caruseel autoloader in T-72 famili + ammo placed in any free space in T-72 hull. So it another advantage of the Arhjun.
BTW: IMHO the best part of Arjun is hull -it's really vell developed.
c) turret is definetly not better then in T-90A whit welded turret (Ob.188A1-A2-MS) - LOS is smaller, and obvious weak places are on turret front. But for the other hand -Arjun turret is mucht better protected then T-72M1 Alejya turret, not even mentined those all old Type.59 and other chineese clones. But Arjun turret is not as good protected as pak. T-80UD and Ob.188A2 (T-90A) turret. Smaller LOS thickens, lack of ERA, not protected most of turret sides lenght.
Another think is question how good in kanchan armour But this is a diffrent story.
d) fire power. Well here is funny. It's seems that due to better sunspension, and slighty better gun Arjun shoud have better accuracy during move and stand then T-72M1 and...erly T-90A And Arjun FCS and stabilisatin mehanism shoud be better then T-72M1 and erly T-90A. But, later T-90A (Ob.188A2) have agian improved FCS and stabilisation. So here shoud be some ballance. Big disandvanteg of pak T-80UD and T-90A is lack of indepandend panoramic tank commander sight (like PERI) -so Arjun shoud have full hunter-killer capabiity and those both tank - not. This problem is solved in Ob.188A2 and Ob.188M.But ther raeal shity history is about ammo. Arjun 120mm ammo is obsolate and unabe to bite for +/-30. degree any modern tank. It's sad :/ In fact IMI 125mm ammo and 2BM42 is better then Arjun 120 avaible now ammo. For the other hand - pak 125mm colnes are not really better - ~460mm for 2000m give us simmilar value. But chineese ammo 125mm APFSDS is around 550mm RHA for 2000 so IA shoud suspect that kind of thread. Crew pretection after perforation dosen't exist in Arjun turret -no blow plates, no separate ammo, no spalllinear. In this one aspect T-90 have advantage becouse in T-xx turret there is no ammo in turret.
So overall Arjun is mucht better then T-72M1 Aleya, slighty better then T-90S (cast turret). But T-90A (Ob.188A2) is slighty better then Arjun, the same pak T-80UD -of course hull, mobility, ammo storage in hull is still beter in Arjun but turret protection, fire power is not. In fact maybe Arjun FCS will be newer then Ob.188A2 (and will be definetly better then pak T-80UD) but it can't bllance huge ammo problem and other questions.

 

[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 enlighten the simple enthusiasts with answer to one question,
What is the distance between the center points of crew holes on the arjun turret from any 3d model or drawing

 

[Damian]

please enlighten the simple enthusiasts with answer to one question,
What is the distance between the center points of crew holes on the arjun turret from any 3d model or drawing

It is irrelevant for the vehicle armor protection. As I said, Dejawolfs 3d model and STGN calculations are correct, so stop trolling.

 

[ersakthivel]

First the turret is not 3.2 m in width as I have already shown. and just stating it out of thin air is not gonna make your calculations right.
Second As I have also shown, the turret is not symmetrical around the Arjun centerline so you can't just divide by 2 like that.
Third how do you measure center of crew hatch?
STGN

What is the distance between the two thick blue dotted lines drawn by you?
This distance is the distance between the two crew hole centers.

See the turret is pointing straight at us, so error for angular projections is possible.
what is the ARJUn turret thickness with some proof?

 

[ersakthivel]

It is irrelevant for the vehicle armor protection. As I said, Dejawolfs 3d model and STGN calculations are correct, so stop trolling.

What is the distance between the center points of crew holes on the arjun turret from any 3d model or drawing .
It is just the distance between the thick blue dotted lines posted in my post 1288 above.
if you don't even answer this simple question what is the point of this thread?
What is the width of ARJUn's turret?
Does the Tc's seat right hand edge is located at the same point as the crew hole center or not?
Without answering the above questions any estimation of ARJUn armor is a mud headed assumption based on dimensionless 3d drawings.

I am seeking answers from you shows i am not a troll.
Why supposed tank professionals shy away from answering such a simple question?
I am not going to let go either.

 

[militarysta]

What is the distance between the center points of crew holes on the arjun turret from draw from Kampfanzer heute und morgen. in 1:72 scale.?

Between 122.4 and 126cm.

 

[DivineHeretic]

This is lack of understanding from your end.

The LAHAT and 9M119 are shaped charge based weapons, which means that their penetration abilities are lower against composite armor, especially if this composite armor is protected with universal ERA.

Estimations for T-80U which have a slightly less protection than Pakistani T-80UD's, gives such protection for the front turret and front hull against shaped charge based weapons.

Collins Tank Protection Levels site estimations:

Turret: 960-1450
Glacis: 1080

ESim producer of Military AFV's simulators Steel Beasts give such protection against HEAT for turret and hull front of T-80U.

Turret - 560mm-1140mm vs HEAT
Hull - 380mm-1040mm vs HEAT

Note + Lower value is for weak zone or specific angle, higher value is protection for most of the surface.

Important, these are only estimations, they do not show exact protection level of vehicle, they only point out direction.

Which means LAHAT and 9M119 are completely ineffective against frontal protection of these tanks.

Other example, a source is very reliable (from Fort Knox). M1A1HA in 1991 survived a hit in the turret front from AGM-114 Hellfire missile which have estimated penetration capabilities of ~1,200mm RHA.

Modern MBT's protection against shaped charge warheads is much higher than protection against modern APFSDS ammunition fired from tank guns.

You are correct that shape charge have lower penetration depth as compared to AFSPDS rounds when the target is protected with ERA. But you must also account for the fact that the LAHAT has tandem warhead which significantly reduce the effectiveness of ERA plating, assuming Pak does not put dual layer of ERAs that is. Also assuming that your data is correct, it does put India at a serious disadvantage, which means that our gunners and tank crews would have to deliberately target the weak spots, a very difficult job at long range. A solution, tjough not perfect and rather ad-hoc might be top attack missiles in the form of javelin or NAG, or even the israeli SPIKE version, whichever India inducts. I doubt any tank has top turret protection anywhere close to these levels.

 

[ersakthivel]

You know, it's very difficult questione becouse:
a) they are many Arjun tank prototypes whit diffrent solutions (FCS)
b) we have four basic "T-90" tank:

1. Ob.188 - T-90 -cast steel turret -in fact Ob.184 (T-72B) on steroids.
2. Ob.188A1 - T-90A whit welded turret, mucht better protection, bud FCS is still not very good.
3. Ob.188A2 - T-90A whit good thermal imager (not AGAVA but Catherina-FC thales) an longer avaivble penetrator in modernisated carousell autoloader (max penetrator lenght about 740mm)
4. Ob.188M T-90MS noewes verison whit very modern FCS, Relikt ERA protection and other changes.

So this question is not so simple. For example - polish PT-91MZ was better in all aspects (without main armour of course) then T-90S for malesia trade. But the same PT-91MZ is whorse in all aspects (exept mobility) then T-90A (Ob.188A2).

If You ask about Arjun and T-90 (many variants) then IMHO:
a) Arjun have mucht better mobility. Engine, transmission, suspension and hull designe is far better then in all T-72/T-80 tanks. In fact Arjun have mobilit the same/very close to the western III gen MBT -so far far better then in estern T-xx tanks.
b) hull layout is better in Arjun then in all T-xx tank. Amunition rack in hull in Arjun is placed in best avaible place -like in Leo-2 or like mirror in Leclerc. Those rack is protected by quite thick front hull armour, and fuel tank. Each ammo is placed in separate contener so it have some kind of (not big, but always) protection against debrits. It's mucht mucht sefer then caruseel autoloader in T-72 famili + ammo placed in any free space in T-72 hull. So it another advantage of the Arhjun.
BTW: IMHO the best part of Arjun is hull -it's really vell developed.
c) turret is definetly not better then in T-90A whit welded turret (Ob.188A1-A2-MS) - LOS is smaller, and obvious weak places are on turret front. But for the other hand -Arjun turret is mucht better protected then T-72M1 Alejya turret, not even mentined those all old Type.59 and other chineese clones. But Arjun turret is not as good protected as pak. T-80UD and Ob.188A2 (T-90A) turret. Smaller LOS thickens, lack of ERA, not protected most of turret sides lenght.
Another think is question how good in kanchan armour But this is a diffrent story.
d) fire power. Well here is funny. It's seems that due to better sunspension, and slighty better gun Arjun shoud have better accuracy during move and stand then T-72M1 and...erly T-90A And Arjun FCS and stabilisatin mehanism shoud be better then T-72M1 and erly T-90A. But, later T-90A (Ob.188A2) have agian improved FCS and stabilisation. So here shoud be some ballance. Big disandvanteg of pak T-80UD and T-90A is lack of indepandend panoramic tank commander sight (like PERI) -so Arjun shoud have full hunter-killer capabiity and those both tank - not. This problem is solved in Ob.188A2 and Ob.188M.But ther raeal shity history is about ammo. Arjun 120mm ammo is obsolate and unabe to bite for +/-30. degree any modern tank. It's sad :/ In fact IMI 125mm ammo and 2BM42 is better then Arjun 120 avaible now ammo. For the other hand - pak 125mm colnes are not really better - ~460mm for 2000m give us simmilar value. But chineese ammo 125mm APFSDS is around 550mm RHA for 2000 so IA shoud suspect that kind of thread. Crew pretection after perforation dosen't exist in Arjun turret -no blow plates, no separate ammo, no spalllinear. In this one aspect T-90 have advantage becouse in T-xx turret there is no ammo in turret.
So overall Arjun is mucht better then T-72M1 Aleya, slighty better then T-90S (cast turret). But T-90A (Ob.188A2) is slighty better then Arjun, the same pak T-80UD -of course hull, mobility, ammo storage in hull is still beter in Arjun but turret protection, fire power is not. In fact maybe Arjun FCS will be newer then Ob.188A2 (and will be definetly better then pak T-80UD) but it can't bllance huge ammo problem and other questions.

What is the distance between the center points of crew holes on the arjun turret from any 3d model or drawing .
It is just the distance between the thick blue dotted lines posted in my post 1288 above.
if you don't even answer this simple question what is the point of this thread?
What is the width of ARJUn's turret?
Does the Tc's seat right hand edge is located at the same point as the crew hole center or not?
Without answering the above questions any estimation of ARJUn armor is a mud headed assumption based on dimensionless 3d drawings.

Without even giving answers to these elementary questions that will determine the armor space available on ARJUN any comparision of which tank is better is meaningless.

 

[Damian]

You are correct that shape charge have lower penetration depth as compared to AFSPDS rounds when the target is protected with ERA. But you must also account for the fact that the LAHAT has tandem warhead which significantly reduce the effectiveness of ERA plating, assuming Pak does not put dual layer of ERAs that is. Also assuming that your data is correct, it does put India at a serious disadvantage, which means that our gunners and tank crews would have to deliberately target the weak spots, a very difficult job at long range. A solution, tjough not perfect and rather ad-hoc might be top attack missiles in the form of javelin or NAG, or even the israeli SPIKE version, whichever India inducts. I doubt any tank has top turret protection anywhere close to these levels.

Even without ERA, front protection of some modern MBT's, is far above capabilities of most if not all shaped charge weapons.

Javelin, NAG and Spike are solution indeed, but they are vurnable to artillery. The only solution is to rearm Arjun and purchase modern ammunition for it.

Without even giving answers to these elementary questions that will determine the armor space available on ARJUN any comparision of which tank is better is meaningless.

You are making fundamental mistake. You think that there is some space, it will definetely be used for armor, which might be, or might not be used for armor, some of this space is needed for vehicle internal components. Reconsider your claims.

I am seeking answers from you shows i am not a troll.
Why supposed tank professionals shy away from answering such a simple question?
I am not going to let go either.

Your question are irrelevant, and useless. This is why people are tired to answer all the time the same idiotic question.

 

[ersakthivel]

Between 122.4 and 126cm.

That is the same value I posted.
Does the Tc's seat right hand edge is located at the same point as the crew hole center or not?
to me it is right at the center point of the crew hatch, if you just complete the crew hatch circle you too can reach the same conclusion only.
In fact it finishes well left of the center point is my estimate.

 

[militarysta]

What is the distance between the center points of crew holes on the arjun turret from any 3d model or drawing .
It is just the distance between the thick blue dotted lines posted in my post 1288 above.

Dou you able to read simple post?
Distance between center points of two hatches is 122.4-126cm. They are slighty asemetric.

What is the width of ARJUn's turret?

Between 280 and 284cm.

Does the Tc's seat right hand edge is located at the same point as the crew hole center or not?

Transle this to avaible to understand please.

Without answering the above questions any estimation of ARJUn armor is a mud headed assumption based on dimensionless 3d drawings.

Im not based on 3D model, but my own job. IMHO dejawolf moel is more or less correct, but my own job give slight diffrent values.

[MOD: Ad-hominem removed.]

 

[militarysta]

That is the same value I posted.

And what?

Does the Tc's seat right hand edge is located at the same point as the crew hole center or not?
to me it is right at the center point of the crew hatch, if you just complete the crew hatch circle you too can reach the same conclusion only.
In fact it finishes well left of the center point is my estimate.

Use central periscope to find those place. In fact values given here:
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.

are seems to be correct.

 

[ersakthivel]

Dou you able to read simple post?
Distance between center points of two hatches is 122.4-126cm. They are slighty asemetric.


Between 280 and 284cm.

The 122-124 cm is the distance between the two thick blue dotted lies in the photo above.

See this distance measures 55 mm on scale,
But the two blocks on the sides measure 45 mm each, a total of 90 mm.

If 55 mm on screen measures 122 cm inreal world,
then
90 mm on the same scale should measure 200 cms.
So the effective width of ARJUn turret is 3.2 metre.
Am I correct?

Transle this to avaible to understand please.


Im not based on 3D model, but my own job. IMHO dejawolf moel is more or less correct, but my own job give slight diffrent values.


Are you stupid? Stop trolling. You had simple answers. Your "estiatous" is extremly stupid and at least 3 users prooof that.

Please reply. I am not trolling. It is just a debate , few straight answers to few straight questions and everything will be over in a matter of an hour or two,

 

[militarysta]

Please reply. I am not trolling. It is just a debate , few straight answers to few straight questions and everything will be over in a matter of an hour or two,

OK, now im understan what You try to find. But sorry -it's not work in that way.
Line between two central hatches point is 122-126cm, gun mantled mask is about 136,8cm width on that draw, Both lines are asimetric. Arjun turret in thickes place is 280-284cm width, but on crews hatches side is about 230-234cm width (without toll boxes).

 

[STGN]

What is the distance between the two thick blue dotted lines drawn by you?
This distance is the distance between the two crew hole centers.

See the turret is pointing straight at us, so error for angular projections is possible.
what is the ARJUn turret thickness with some proof?

The distance between the blue lines is ~100cm which is the width of the mantel(mantel hole more likely). That is not the distance between the center of crew hatches, saying that is a failure to judge perspective. Distance between the center of hatches is ~130cm commander being ~70cm of CL an loader ~60cm of CL.
When you say turret thickness I guess you mean Armour LOS? I have no Idea, other than to guess its similar to the Leo2 because the design obviously brows heavily from that tank.
STGN

 

[DivineHeretic]

Even without ERA, front protection of some modern MBT's, is far above capabilities of most if not all shaped charge weapons.

Javelin, NAG and Spike are solution indeed, but they are vurnable to artillery. The only solution is to rearm Arjun and purchase modern ammunition for it.



You are making fundamental mistake. You think that there is some space, it will definetely be used for armor, which might be, or might not be used for armor, some of this space is needed for vehicle internal components. Reconsider your claims.



Your question are irrelevant, and useless. This is why people are tired to answer all the time the same idiotic question.

Actually artillery would be the least of the worries for an AT team. The artillery as it stands today is notoriously inaccurate. And in any case it is very difficult to spot an AT team and to target them with artillery guns stationed 20-30km away. And in the heat of war, it is unlikely that a commander would waste ammo on two men, whose location itself is difficult to mark, let alone the fact that they are highly mobile. Snipers and MG presents a much more real threat to AT team

But yes, to leave the tank buster role to extremely vulnerable AT teams is a humiliating situation for us. Arjun and the T90 must be improved as they are the spearhead of the offensive. Btw despite this shortcoming the situation on the ground overall is in our favour.

BTW you sure that Russia doesnt have effective AFSPDS rounds? Can anyone clarify this?

 

[militarysta]

BTW you sure that Russia doesnt have effective AFSPDS rounds? Can anyone clarify this?

They had: Swinec-1 and Åšwiniec-2 (or Lead-1 and Lead-2). Both have penetrator length simmilar to the DM53 LKE-II, penetration level shoud be close to the 650mm at 2000m. But both rounds need longerautoloader casette (able to put in 740mm long projectile) so only newes T-90A (Ob.188A2) are able take those rounds.