Arjun vs T90 MBT

[ersakthivel]

is this the job of the blind man?

The shadow of the turret falls on the hull at the third blue line from the top.
it is the place where turret's side wall projection on the hull would fall.
The blue rectangle drawn on the TC's crew hatch cover represent s the true length of the hatch cover .
This rectangle is projected in the correct plane on the hull ,
found out by the downwards projection of the line joining the two hatch covers on the turret top,
to the top of the hull.
This is the perspective drawing as far as I know,

width over tracks for ARJUN is 3864 mm officvially,

If the side skirts are not included in the 3800 mm width of the hull the red line indicates that about half of the hatch cover length is the actual width besides the turret on the ARJUN hull.

IF the crew hatch measures 550mm it is about 275 mm.
SO the width of the turret is 3800 mm-(275x2=500 mm)=3300 mm,

If side skirts are included in the width about 3/5 th of the hatch cover length is the actual width besides the turret on the ARJUN hull.
That is about 0.60x550 mm=330 mm
3800-(330x2=660 mm)= 3120 mm is the width of the ARJUN turret.

Even if you take a worst case scenario of 2900 mm turret width,
1450mm is the distance between outter most side wall of arjun side turret and the turret centerline,
1200 mm is the distance between the two crew hatch centers,
1200/2= 600 mm is the distance of Tc' seat edge from the turret center line,
So 1450 mm-600 mm=850 mm is the space available besides the crew hatch center and the outer most side wall of arjun turrret,

If people agree on this point we can have an objective point.


people should also understand that STGN also agreed with my calculation of more than 3100 mm as turret width at the crew hatch center according to his pixel calculation,

lot of people who argue that ARJUN has that weak point or this weak point haven't even gone close to the tank to take a view, and still they don't know the width at the turret center and ground pressure per square inch,

Now he too is blind perhaps and DFI staffers should throw him out as well.

 

[ersakthivel]

I don't think so. The "fragments from random web" show everything clearly. The arguments in this thread will not end - but not because the lack of evidence, but rather because people are not interested in seeing them. If the photographs were ultra-HD panoramic photographs of the interior or close up photographs of the discussed parts of the tank, it wouldn't change anything, because photographic evidence is completely ignored by one side.
A few weeks ago, I had to provide a source that the hull length of a tank is not 10 m! That clearly shows that some people are trying to talk about stuff they have absolutely no clue. It shows also that some people never saw a tank IRL.

Some people here are extremely stubborn or like militarysta said: blind.
ersakthivel is one of these persons. When we were discussing the width of the Arjun turret, he came up with a dozen different ways to determine a dozen different values, but according to him all of these were correct. In one part of the discussion, he claimed that the hatch diameter was X mm and thus the turret would have a diameter of Y mm. When I told him that "X mm" was not a correct value, he simply used my value to come again to Y mm, despite that contradicting his previous "calculation". But hey, who needs logic when flaming with troll posts is also possible!

I think his way of ignoring logic and his long troll attacks are annoying, that's why I put him a few weeks ago were he belongs: in my Ignore List. Still he keeps replying to my posts, besides me not reading nor answering his posts. So unless the DFI staff takes any action or he adds all of the "stupid Westeners" to his ignore list, he will still continue to flame in numerous topics.




Show me a sinlge article from IA were they claim that Arjun is better than T-90 or the T-90 is a bad tank-. You won't find any of those, still you started the "Arjun vs T90 MBT" thread claiming that the Arjun is better. You also managed in your stubborness to ignore all arguments saying otherwise.

you once used an argument that since chinese average face width is 147 mm the arjun front turret measures well below 3000 mm.

The pixel measurement provided by STGN confirms what Kunal said and what I arrived at with the above calculation in the previous post. Now who should be thrown out of the thread by DFI staffers?

 

[ersakthivel]

well, whaddya know, i guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

it's probably more likely that the armour touches the back of the front vision block.
which would make the weakspot about 300mm thick.
i made a few assumptions and such about armour thickness, based on western design, and came up with this estimate for the weakened area:

vs APFSDS: 363mm
vs HEAT: 448mm

these assumptions are as follows:
the backing plate is the same thickness as on the leopard 2A4.
the backing plate extends all the way from turret ring to turret roof.
the backing plate is made of semi-hardened steel.(BHN 430-480)

however, if the backing plate is RHA steel, then the values would be as follows:
vs APFSDS: 303mm
vs HEAT: 448mm

and here's the formulas

composites = 80
airgap = 450
steel = 20+50+170
Cmp = composites*0.75
fbgl = composites*0.25

(Cmp*0.92)+(fbgl*0.4)+(steel*1.25)= 363.2
(Cmp*1.4)+(fbgl*0.6)+(steel)+(airgap*0.25) = 448.5

so basically, the weakened area would have the protection level of a 1960s tank.

So many assumptions all right I won't question,

But has it ever bothered you what the close to 300 mm gap between the main sight edge and gun mantlet edge in ARJUN(not there in LEO) will do to your assumptions?

This distance means there is no need for an armored block for ARJUN , abutting the gun mantlet plate as it is in LEO-2 ,because the area abutting the gun mantlet plate is covered by thick arjun frontal turret armor .

The armored column in ARJUN turret interior can start 300 mm distance away from the end of the gun mantlet plate , because that is where the backside of the main sight is (right behind the orange FCS box ), not close to the gun mantlet plate as it is in LEO.

 

[militarysta]

So many assumptions all right I won't question,

But has it ever bothered you what the close to 300 mm gap between the main sight edge and gun mantlet edge in ARJUN(not there in LEO) will do to your assumptions?

This distance means there is no need for an armored block for ARJUN , abutting the gun mantlet plate as it is in LEO-2 ,because the area abutting the gun mantlet plate is covered by thick arjun frontal turret armor .

The armored column in ARJUN turret interior can start 300 mm distance away from the end of the gun mantlet plate , because that is where the backside of the main sight is (right behind the orange FCS box ), not close to the gun mantlet plate as it is in LEO.

There is no "300mmm" distance. It's bullshit. The lenght of those "bar" is easy to find - circa 52cm. The same lenght you have "put" in to gun mantled mask edge. The distance is less then 100mm to the window block main sight. More or less gunner is siting very close to the gun and direct after main sight (under turret roof vision block). And there is no way for 30cm space. It's even smaller then 10cm.
Again you haven;t idea about what you are writing.

 

[Dinesh_Kumar]

I have been reading the forum with great interest and good to see such active and engaging discussion.

Regarding Arjun vs. T-90,

I have no doubt that Arjun bettered it in many parameters when tested one-on-one, and for this we all can be justifiably proud.

But, is the Arjun the better option for the Army, is maybe also an important question.

See, in late 90s, the Pakis went in for the T-80 tank, which was better than what we had at the time, and something had to be done to restore parity.

The choice facing the Army was whether to wait for the mythical Arjun, or do something more practical.

I'm guessing that they thought along these lines:

i) Better tank with 60% commonality of T-72

ii) Can Fire on the Move

iii) Missile Firing capability

iv) Night Vision and TI

v) Same Infrastructure, logistics, Railways, bridges, trailer and tank transporter, Engineer Recovery Vehicle, EME Workshop knowhow as T-72 by and large, with additional improvements.

vi)Avadi can quickly take up production as largely based on T-72, indeed M2A46 Gun production issue was solved locally.

vii)Will have modern ERA Armour - (Kontact and Reflex, I think?)

The Arjun just did not have these advantages. And Warfare is about massed Armour Thrusts, supported by logistics which are effective and dependable.

My opinion only, on why T-90 was taken up in greater numbers.

If DRDO building Future MBT, pay attention to Army RFPs but also pay attention to above considerations.

 

[ersakthivel]

There is no "300mmm" distance. It's bullshit. The lenght of those "bar" is easy to find - circa 52cm. The same lenght you have "put" in to gun mantled mask edge. The distance is less then 100mm to the window block main sight. More or less gunner is siting very close to the gun and direct after main sight (under turret roof vision block). And there is no way for 30cm space. It's even smaller then 10cm.
Again you haven;t idea about what you are writing.

You don't even understand what the question is and proceed to give some incorrect answer.

The 300 mm distance is the distance between the edge of the main sight box and the edge of the gun mantlet plate behind the driver's head.

this distance is covered by thick turret frontal armor and there is no need for armor wall abutting the gun mantle plate edge(like in LEO) for ARJUN.

this distance is not there in the supposed to be ARJUN 3D model posted by Dejawolf below based on which he estimated some so called weakness behind main sight.

this 300 mm distance is about a 3/4 th of the crew hole dia shown in the model. Where is it present?

got it?

 

[militarysta]

The 300 mm distance is the distance between the edge of the main sight box and the edge of the gun mantlet plate behind the driver's head.

Which edge? Those on front "glass" main sight window box?

this distance is covered by thick turret frontal armor and there is no need for armor wall abutting the gun mantle plate edge(like in LEO) for ARJUN.

I completly don't understand you men.
We are talking about huge weak spot after main sight window block.

got it?

No, I can't understand your point - mark on photo about what magical 300mm you are writing, and how it makes difrence in armour protection.
We are still talking about quite big zone, whit weak protection, after main sight of the arjun - in deatails - main sight window block.

 

[ersakthivel]

Which edge? Those on front "glass" main sight window box?



I completly don't understand you men.
We are talking about huge weak spot after main sight window block.



No, I can't understand your point - mark on photo about what magical 300mm you are writing, and how it makes difrence in armour protection.
We are still talking about quite big zone, whit weak protection, after main sight of the arjun - in deatails - main sight window block.

I really don't believe that you don't understand what I am saying,the distance equal to the width of the driver's head between the turret front main sight box and the gun mantlet plate visible on the photo below.

Dejawolf's 3D model shows the leo-2 interior arrangement of turret front main sight box placed very close to the gun mantlet pivot.Not that of arjun

So there is no big weakzone very close to the gun matlet plate in ARJUN as is the case with the LEO.

So there is no need for a big armored block to start so close to the gun mantlet plate on the inside turret of ARJUN.

 

[Dejawolf]

I really don't believe that you don't understand what I am saying,the distance equal to the width of the driver's head between the turret front main sight box and the gun mantlet plate visible on the photo below.

Dejawolf's 3D model shows the leo-2 interior arrangement of turret front main sight box placed very close to the gun mantlet pivot.Not that of arjun

So there is no big weakzone very close to the gun matlet plate in ARJUN as is the case with the LEO.

So there is no need for a big armored block to start so close to the gun mantlet plate on the inside turret of ARJUN.

you're the one trying to impose a leo 2 interior arrangement on the Arjun, what with you saying there's a big armour block behind the sight, and sides being 200mm. there isn't.

 

[JBH22]

SO after 105pages and no clue about this thread, can someone tell me which is a better bet T-90 or Arjun MBT?

 

[Dejawolf]

SO after 105pages and no clue about this thread, can someone tell me which is a better bet T-90 or Arjun MBT?

they're about equal. Arjun has better mobility, T-90 has better ammunition. armour wise they both have large weakspots in the front turret, which with a bit of luck you'll hit eventually.

 

[ersakthivel]

they're about equal. Arjun has better mobility, T-90 has better ammunition. armour wise they both have large weakspots in the front turret, which with a bit of luck you'll hit eventually.

the debate is going on in ARJUN mbt thread .

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Every tank has weak-zones in frontal Armour and eventually it can be destroyed too..

 

[militarysta]

Every tank has weak-zones in frontal Armour and eventually it can be destroyed too..

Yes, of course - Leopard-2A0-A4 had weak point (650mm LOS) after main sight. In end of the 1980s those value was consider as to small to achive some protection level, so during KWS program Germans decided to put EMES-15 sight higher and added aditional armour cavity before main sight "doghouse". So right and left turret side have the same LOS: circa 840mm.
The problem is that in 2010 Arjun armour cavity after main sight is circa 315-350mm. it's to small value, and those plase shod be rebuild.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Good enough..

Yes, of course - Le

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

So before modernization nobody knew that the area behind the main sight was a weakness!!!!!!!!!!!

It took 50 years to know that perhaps,

What a great truth?

The simple fact is in the older days the APFSDS rounds were less penetrative, So the main sight stayed on below the roof level safe from fragments of surrounding explosion from three sides while protected from fragments from surrounding explosions from all three sides..

And it still stays on below the roof level in tank designs that have confidence in their composite armor, and turret plus crew compartment length long enough to have enough protection level behind the main sight,

They will go on the roof top once the GSQR protection level goes further up only, not till then.

Even if they go up on roof they will need better protection from three sides, simply placing a soap box type doghouse on the top of the roof aka BM OPLAT and saying my main sight position has no weakness is a sad joke.

It is a sitting duck and can be taken out by a simple trooper shot from all four sides. from a simple armor piercing bullets from a trooper. and the tank goes blind.



Considering that the placement of main sight below the roof level is 1000 times better if we consider the points posted in the last two posts in the last page,


So designers of leclerc , leo and arjun are no fools perhaps,

simply placing an unprotected main sight to be taken out with pie shooter like target practice is no genius main sight placement.

If penetration level increases in the neighborhood jacking the main sight up by few centimeters and putting a composite armor block in it's place is a routine improvisation in tank's life cycle. Not a major redesign.

Major redesign is developing a bigger muzzle velocity gun with higher caliber ,
along with higher penetration APFSDS rounds along with more better protected composite armor ,
and more powerful engine. Not jacking the main sight up by few inches.

When are people going to replace other weak spots like the gun and the gun mantlet plate?

 

[Damian]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

You have problems with understanding reality, thus explaining you anything is a waste of time, as you are below comprehension capability of avarage human being.

I can only say you are very wrong. And the only purpose of your posts are trolling, and you try to make from Arjun some sort of super tank, which it is not.

Do not respond to my post, I avoid discussion with beings lesser than avarage human.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

I don't believe in responding to posts from people with juvenile maturity level.

I posted my views, everyone is free to troll on posing as experts as usual.

Why people get hurt with two simple posts reflecting the reality of battlefield?

Having a longer turret with extra armor block behind the main sight is a much better solution any day.

tanks with longer turrets like ARJUN can implement it any day with out any major re design.

Only tanks that don't have the internal space jack their main sight up letting it be a sitting duck target practice.


In LEO A-6 they solved this problem by having the bottom portion of the main sight in line with the roof plate which is no major redesign. It can be done on ARJUN as well if the IA asks for it in mk-2, It is no mighty redesign perhaps.

For example will they pop up the main sight in ARMATA like they did in T-90? A big no perhaps.

people can find the reason if they apply their mind to matter.Otherwise they troll on forever.

Jacking the main sight up by few inches and healing the cavity with a composite armor panel is a big R & D project perhaps.

Did I ban any one from the thread??

 

[Damian]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

I don't believe in responding to posts from people with juvenile maturity level.

I posted my views, everyone is free to troll on posing as experts as usual.

Did I ban any one from the thread??

Ok "genius", let's make a test ok? You will sit inside Arjun in a gunner seat, and we will make a ballistic test, for example with use of Nag ATGM, that will be placed in front of gunner sight and detonated. If you will survive by not loosing your head or having a hole in it, I will admitt you are right, and even kiss you in your ugly face.

So what, deal? You have enough confidence that you will not die?

Of course I am more than certain you would run away if we would have opportunity to make such test.

And before you make some stupid comment, I do not have confidence that such turret design as Arjuns provide enough protection in main sight area, thus I am more than certain me or anyone else would die, so I really do not want to participate in such test.

But you see, this is a difference, I base my posts on knowledge and logic, you are just like religious fanatic, you believe in some bollocks, mostly created by yourself.

This is why me or some other people on this forum, are above you.

Oh and BTW, about this completely idiotic pseudo argument that shrapnels are dangerous for sight placed on turret roof.

For your information, main sights placed on turret roof are not "naked", they had protection against such threats and small arms, in form of armored so called "doghouse", so small arms and shrapnels are dangerous only from the front, just like in case of sights placed in cut out of the front armor.

Oh you don't want to say that our forum "genious", the ultimate tank expert ersakthivel didn't knew this obvious fact?!

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Ok "genius", let's make a test ok? You will sit inside Arjun in a gunner seat, and we will make a ballistic test, for example with use of Nag ATGM, that will be placed in front of gunner sight and detonated. If you will survive by not loosing your head or having a hole in it, I will admitt you are right, and even kiss you in your ugly face.

So what, deal? You have enough confidence that you will not die?

Of course I am more than certain you would run away if we would have opportunity to make such test.

And before you make some stupid comment, I do not have confidence that such turret design as Arjuns provide enough protection in main sight area, thus I am more than certain me or anyone else would die, so I really do not want to participate in such test.

But you see, this is a difference, I base my posts on knowledge and logic, you are just like religious fanatic, you believe in some bollocks, mostly created by yourself.

This is why me or some other people on this forum, are above you.

First a fool like you must understand that NAG is a top attack missile designed to target the weaker roof plate and not the armor behind the main sight of ARJUN like a cruise missile going through a window with the help of a camera on the nose.


A missile is not an APFSDS round designed to wade through a 600 mm plus composite armor behind the main sight of ARJUN.

Why don't you sit in a BM oplat and let the arjun fire a parabolic round through the main sight?

what is the thickness of the roof plate in BM oplat below the main sight , will it stop a a tank round from getting through?

I am ten times certain that BM oplat will be dead twice over if it stands in front of ARJUN trying to hit through the non existent weak spot behind main sight.

So the odds are the same.that is the reality of the battle field, which was what I explained, So what got your goat then?

By the time taken taken for any tank to accomplish this ARJUN would have hit the weak spots in opponent tank which are much larger twice over.

I certainly won't like to kiss your face after that.

Will you survive?

So you can wind up your ugly talk and troll on as usual.

Your dim wit won't go through me on any day.

I can give it back twice as good as I receive.