Arjun vs T90 MBT

[ersakthivel]

^^

Report posts with foul language, and someone from staff will take action.

@skj, @Damian, @STGN, @militarysta

STGN's posts from 1398 onwards are worthless personal abuse,
This member
1. has no knowledge about drawings and dimensions,
2.and not an iota of idea about ARJUN's specs,
What is his purpose in this thread,
Ganging up with his like minded polish friends and abusing all other posters trying to engage in a debate,

SO please clean up the garbage.
If you let STGN and his friends to go on like this this thread will become a testing tool for artfully using foul language,

Guys like him are banned all over the forums in the net for trying to derail discussions when they have no point to argue,
by provoking the other guy with personal abuse.
So please warn him one final time and delete his posts from -1398 onwards

 

[militarysta]

IMHO STGN have right - he just proof how many times and how heavy in Arjun thema you did mistakes. His draws and photos are very good. And it's not his foult that You are unable to understand what some other users are trying to tell.

 

[ersakthivel]

IMHO STGN have right - he just proof how many times and how heavy in Arjun thema you did mistakes. His draws and photos are very good. And it's not his foult that You are unable to understand what some other users are trying to tell.

the following is your quote from ARJUN MBT thread,

I found draw from Kampfpanzer heute unf morgen in 1:72 scale on ARJUN and result is very close to STGN and Dejawolf job.

provide a link or provide the drawing.Not your certificate for dejawolf or STGN

or discuss the mistakes in the drawing.

 

[STGN]

@skj, @Damian, @STGN, @militarysta

STGN's posts from 1398 onwards are worthless personal abuse,
This member
1. has no knowledge about drawings and dimensions,
2.and not an iota of idea about ARJUN's specs,
What is his purpose in this thread,
Ganging up with his like minded polish friends and abusing all other posters trying to engage in a debate,

SO please clean up the garbage.
If you let STGN and his friends to go on like this this thread will become a testing tool for artfully using foul language,

Guys like him are banned all over the forums in the net for trying to derail discussions when they have no point to argue,
by provoking the other guy with personal abuse.
So please warn him one final time and delete his posts from -1398 onwards

Go back to post 1172 here you start with "personal abuse" against me and you haven't stopped yet if we are to follow your "personal abuse" definition. In fact this post by you contains "personal abuse" by that definition.
Here in 1346 you make a outright lie.
I have only given you a outright yet sober spoonful of you own medication.
STGN

 

[ersakthivel]

 

[ersakthivel]

same result as STGN:

You have estimated 360 mm as the diameter of the inner crew hatch circle in your photograph,

Lets port it to the drawing you used to develop 3D model down below,

This 360 mm measures exactly 8mm on the top view of the ARJUN diagram,

Now the total width of the turret on the hull front measures exactly 60 mm on scale,

So as per your pixel measurement 360 mm on the photo above should fit into the 8 mm inner crew hatch hole on the top view

That means as per your calculations each mm on the drawing should be scaled up to (360/8) =45 mm in real dimension.

Now if we apply the same scale to find out the width of the turret which measures 60 mm on hull front , then the hull width must be 45x60=2700 mm.

Dead wrong. The hull width is 3800 mm,

Just add this to the huge parallax error you made by wrongly placing a scribbled red box called vision block in front of Tc's face(in reality it is well left side of the TC), to arrive at a wrong conclusion for frontal turret armor space behind the main sight,


it shows where you stand in 3d modelling and pixel measurements.

What is in front of the TC's head is big white display unit , not the scribbled red box.

 

[ersakthivel]

"Garbage in = garbage out".
STGN

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-270.html#post667731
See you can read the post no -4040 in the above link--ARJUN MBT and determine for yourself what is garbage in and what is garbage out.

 

[ersakthivel]

First of all, that was a great effort, and I appreciate the hard work put in there.

There is, in my eyes at least, a serious flaw. Let me explain:

The height of point A is less than the height of point E. If line DE is on the horizontal plane, then the two circled angles will never be right angles, and ABCD would be a trapezoid. If ABCD were to be a rectangle, as depicted in the original image, then line DE is not on the horizontal plane.

Note, the hinge of the hatch door is above the roof of the turret. On the edges and the front, the turret slopes down outwards. These two premises justify that the points A, D, and E, cannot be on the same horizontal plane at the same time.

Either I am wrong, or @ersakthivel, @Damian, and @militarysta, all three of you overlooked this?

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-270.html#post667731

Please read my post number -4040 in the above link , and ask the other guys who are saying ARJUN turret measures only 2700 mm to post conclusive rebuttals sans personal abuse.

 

[Dejawolf]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-270.html#post667731

Please read my post number -4040 in the above link , and ask the other guys who are saying ARJUN turret measures only 2700 mm to post conclusive rebuttals sans personal abuse.

lol, we're not saying it measures 2700mm. we're saying it measures 2860mm.
i was using your measuring methods which caused this massive discrepancy, and it doesn't really help that measures on that image is off by at least 4 pixels due to the low resolution.

 

[Dejawolf]

You have estimated 360 mm as the diameter of the inner crew hatch circle in your photograph,

Lets port it to the drawing you used to develop 3D model down below,

This 360 mm measures exactly 8mm on the top view of the ARJUN diagram,

sigh.. i made a new and better drawing, where i wasted my time (3 hours vs 3 minutes) to make more accurate measures.

measure
16+16+8 = 40
perspective correction
40-3 = 37
multiply by 2
37*2 = 74
subtract from width over tracks
354-74 = 280 +/-7.5cm

 

[ersakthivel]

sigh.. i made a new and better drawing, where i wasted my time (3 hours vs 3 minutes) to make more accurate measures.

measure
16+16+8 = 40
perspective correction
40-3 = 37
multiply by 2
37*2 = 74
subtract from width over tracks
354-74 = 280 +/-7.5cm

What is the use of this drawing? you have already posted in ARJUN MBT thread that 1mm on the following top view measures 68.75 mm in real world.

Including the storage box turret measures 45 mm on scale.

The first storage box besides the crew hatch has already been convetred to armor module since 2008,

And after that the inner turret wall of arjun curves inside to offset shortage of space for armor from the following photo.

If you have any doubt you can measure it on the above picture.
SO 45x68.75=3093 mm more or less equal to 3200 mm as per kunal's claim if we take into account inaccuracies.

So now it is beyond doubt that arjun turret has close to 500 mm space for armor on turret sides. And how much has been utilized must be confidential

 

[ersakthivel]

sigh.. i made a new and better drawing, where i wasted my time (3 hours vs 3 minutes) to make more accurate measures.

measure
16+16+8 = 40
perspective correction
40-3 = 37
multiply by 2
37*2 = 74
subtract from width over tracks
354-74 = 280 +/-7.5cm

the yellow line which measures 16 cm on the crew hatch will measure much lesser width on the hull due to perspective distortion. How do you factor it with approximation?

 

[pmaitra]

the yellow line which measures 16 cm on the crew hatch will measure much lesser width on the hull due to perspective distortion. How do you factor it with approximation?

I think the inside diameter of the crew hatch measures approx. 16x3 cm, and the distance from the front armour to the beginning of the side-skirt measures approx. 16x3 cm.

Of course, there will be distortion, and the base of the crew hatch is more than 16x3 cm, but overall, with some approximation, the numbers look good to me.

What do you say?

 

[asianobserve]

This has got to be the most tedious measuring thread in the whole internet World. After this maybe we can measure the tolerances of particle colliders...

 

[sayareakd]

This has got to be the most tedious measuring thread in the whole internet World. After this maybe we can measure the tolerances of particle colliders...

all of them worked hard on this thread. So :thumb: to all

Wont be bad idea if drawings with both the measurements are made.

 

[ersakthivel]

I think the inside diameter of the crew hatch measures approx. 16x3 cm, and the distance from the front armour to the beginning of the side-skirt measures approx. 16x3 cm.

Of course, there will be distortion, and the base of the crew hatch is more than 16x3 cm, but overall, with some approximation, the numbers look good to me.

What do you say?

At the base of the turret the hull measures 113 mm.

On the same line the turret measures 97 mm.

Ratio is 1.165.

At the base of the turret say the hull measures 3640 mm (leaving 200 mm for the frontal partial side skirts)

The scale is 1 mm on screen measures 32 mm in reality.
So 97x32=3124 mm for turret width.

See we cannot take the frontal hull width for scale because the depth of the turret plane from the frontal hull plane will lead to perspective distortion.

So at the base of the turret the hull measures only 3640 mm if you take into account the partial frontal side skirts that are not there through out the hull length.


of course the measurements may vary from one computer screen to another . But you can arrive at the same conclusion if you follow the same methodology.

 

[freepretender]

Funny thing is that graphic is one of the early concept graphics of Japanese Type 10 MBT, not Arjun Mk2.

And you really needed to post exactly the same thing in 3 different topics? How exciting!

BTW, the author of this article says that Indian Army inducted T-70 tank... he means this?

Another reason why mass media journalists should not write about things they do not have a smallest idea about.

This is a merkava not Type 10. Type 10 has 5 wheel bogie but this has 6 wheel which belongs to merkava

 

[ersakthivel]

I think the inside diameter of the crew hatch measures approx. 16x3 cm, and the distance from the front armour to the beginning of the side-skirt measures approx. 16x3 cm.

Of course, there will be distortion, and the base of the crew hatch is more than 16x3 cm, but overall, with some approximation, the numbers look good to me.

What do you say?

Not to derail the thread but I am pretty certain the loaders hatch on the Abrams is way bigger than 45cm its more like ~62cm diameter and that is not counting the weld on, on newer versions.

Anyway I now know that the dimensions given in that picture is off by a few cm's at least, I was already iffy about it when I made it because it uses a shadow to determine turret width and I tried to correct the height of the non armoured skirts which was a weak method to go about it, now I think I have found a better way. Crew hatch is probable closer to 55cm than 50cm. But I need some free time to sit around and work on some different photos to get closer to accurate numbers and RL is busy.
STGN

I did not base my views on shadows alone, to draw a line on the hull to extend the turret plane downwards to meet the hull.
I factored in the length of the gap between the turret base plane and the hull top plane in the following photo.

look carefully the height of the turret is 25 mm on scale. The length of the gap between the turret bottom and the hull top is 5 mm on scale on screen.So the gap between the turret and the hull is 20 percent of the turret's height.
It was this 20 percent height of the turret that marks the shadow edge.

So lets for a moment accept that the width of the crew hatch is just 450 mm and the face width of the driver is just 150 mm and proceed further.


If some people have issues with shadows lets move to a simple measurement basis in which shadows play no part.

The turret frontal width measure 96 mm on scale on screen measurement,
The hatch cover measures 16 mm on scale.
So the ratio is turret width is 6 times the width of hatch cover.
Lets accept the measurement of 150 mm as face width.
SO the vertical crew hatch behind the tank man is 3 time's his face width. SO 3x150 mm=450 mm. is the hatch cover width as per this calculation , if we accept the opinion for face width as 150 mm, and 450 mm as width of hatch cover,

By the same ratios the turret width is 6 times that of crew hatch width.=6x450 mm=2700 mm.


This may appear to be correct on first look.

But the important difference for factoring in the perspective reduction of length due to the difference in depth of measurement planes is
The face width of the driver and the tank man standing in the hatch.
The face of the tank man standing in the hatch measures 4 mm.
The face of the driver measures 5 mm.

Since the estimate for the average face width is 150 mm accepting methos and STGN's views.

There is an apparent 20 percent reduction in measurable length of the face width due to the close to 3 meter difference in depth of both the measurement planes.

So in effect if we have to get the correct measurement of turret width in reality it must be increased by 20 percent to cater to the visual reduction of length . So 1.2 x2700 mm=3240 mm.



This is my final post regarding turret width measurement. I don't want to drag it any further .

 

[ersakthivel]

the yellow line which measures 16 cm on the crew hatch will measure much lesser width on the hull due to perspective distortion. How do you factor it with approximation?

Not to derail the thread but I am pretty certain the loaders hatch on the Abrams is way bigger than 45cm its more like ~62cm diameter and that is not counting the weld on, on newer versions.

Anyway I now know that the dimensions given in that picture is off by a few cm's at least, I was already iffy about it when I made it because it uses a shadow to determine turret width and I tried to correct the height of the non armoured skirts which was a weak method to go about it, now I think I have found a better way. Crew hatch is probable closer to 55cm than 50cm. But I need some free time to sit around and work on some different photos to get closer to accurate numbers and RL is busy.
STGN

I did not base my views on shadows alone, to draw a line on the hull to extend the turret plane downwards to meet the hull.
I factored in the length of the gap between the turret base plane and the hull top plane in the following photo.

look carefully the height of the turret is 25 mm on scale. The length of the gap between the turret bottom and the hull top is 5 mm on scale on screen.So the gap between the turret and the hull is 20 percent of the turret's height.
It was this 20 percent height of the turret that marks the shadow edge.

So lets for a moment accept your argument that the width of the crew hatch is just 450 mm and the face width of the driver is just 150 mm and proceed further.


See since you have issues with shadows lets move to a simple measurement basis in which shadows play no part.

The turret frontal width measure 96 mm on scale on screen measurement,
The hatch cover measures 16 mm on scale.
So the ratio is turret width is 6 times the width of hatch cover.
Lets accept your measurement of 150 mm as face width.
SO the vertical crew hatch behind the tank man is 3 time s his face width. SO 3x150 mm=450 mm. is the hatch cover width as per this calculation , if we accept your opinion for face width as 150 mm, and 450 mm as width of hatch cover,

By the same ratios the turret width is 6 times that odf crew hatch width.=6x450 mm=2700 mm.


This may appear to be correct on first look.

But the important difference for factoring in the perspective reduction of length due to the difference in depth of measurement planes is
The face width of the driver and the tank man standing in the hatch.
The face of the tank man standing in the hatch measures 4 mm.
The face of the driver measures 5 mm.

Since as per your opinion the average face width is 150 mm .
There is an apparent 20 percent reduction in measurable length of the face width due to the close to 3 meter difference in depth of both the measurement planes.

So in effect if we have to get the correct measurement of turret width in reality it must be increased by 20 percent to cater to the visual reduction of length . So 1.2 x2700 mm=3240 mm.


Since I have accepted your measurement for face width as 150 mm and crew hatch cover width as 450 mm and did the calculation , there can not be any mistake in this.
This is my final post regarding turret width measurement. I don't want to drag it any further .

 

[ersakthivel]

Come on now you yourself said that if hull width is 3.864m then turret is close to 2.9 why do you have to go off the deep end again.
STGN

Not to derail the thread but I am pretty certain the loaders hatch on the Abrams is way bigger than 45cm its more like ~62cm diameter and that is not counting the weld on, on newer versions.

Anyway I now know that the dimensions given in that picture is off by a few cm's at least, I was already iffy about it when I made it because it uses a shadow to determine turret width and I tried to correct the height of the non armoured skirts which was a weak method to go about it, now I think I have found a better way. Crew hatch is probable closer to 55cm than 50cm. But I need some free time to sit around and work on some different photos to get closer to accurate numbers and RL is busy.
STGN

I did not base my views on shadows alone, to draw a line on the hull to extend the turret plane downwards to meet the hull.
I factored in the length of the gap between the turret base plane and the hull top plane in the following photo.

look carefully the height of the turret is 25 mm on scale. The length of the gap between the turret bottom and the hull top is 5 mm on scale on screen.So the gap between the turret and the hull is 20 percent of the turret's height.
It was this 20 percent height of the turret that marks the shadow edge.

So lets for a moment accept your argument that the width of the crew hatch is just 450 mm and the face width of the driver is just 150 mm and proceed further.


See since you have issues with shadows lets move to a simple measurement basis in which shadows play no part.

The turret frontal width measure 96 mm on scale on screen measurement,
The hatch cover measures 16 mm on scale.
So the ratio is turret width is 6 times the width of hatch cover.
Lets accept your measurement of 150 mm as face width.
SO the vertical crew hatch behind the tank man is 3 time s his face width. SO 3x150 mm=450 mm. is the hatch cover width as per this calculation , if we accept your opinion for face width as 150 mm, and 450 mm as width of hatch cover,

By the same ratios the turret width is 6 times that odf crew hatch width.=6x450 mm=2700 mm.


This may appear to be correct on first look.

But the important difference for factoring in the perspective reduction of length due to the difference in depth of measurement planes is
The face width of the driver and the tank man standing in the hatch.
The face of the tank man standing in the hatch measures 4 mm.
The face of the driver measures 5 mm.

Since as per your opinion the average face width is 150 mm .
There is an apparent 20 percent reduction in measurable length of the face width due to the close to 3 meter difference in depth of both the measurement planes.

So in effect if we have to get the correct measurement of turret width in reality it must be increased by 20 percent to cater to the visual reduction of length . So 1.2 x2700 mm=3240 mm.


Since I have accepted your measurement for face width as 150 mm and crew hatch cover width as 450 mm and did the calculation , there can not be any mistake in this.
This is my final post regarding turret width measurement. I don't want to drag it any further .