Arjun vs T90 MBT

[ersakthivel]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Im back



Sure, accoding to exist analogy it's circa 300mm RHA for 2000m. And this value is comfirmed in data's.


Exept bad quality IMI and other clones made in India T-90S have 3BM42 APFSDS which circa 460-520mm RHA on 2000m.

So what is better? 300mm for Arjun 120mm or 460-520mm RHA for 3BM42 in T-90S?



Sure...650mm without technology base. As I said - India have not technology enought to produce sucht APFSDS. What more - now more important is ability to overpas modern ERA, or multilayerd armour then "stupid" stack of the RHA plates. Sucht rounds exist only in: Russia, USA, Germany/Swizterland, Israel, Maybe in UK (maybe).


It's impossible to hit direct wak spots on distance bigger then 300m. It's just impossible - there is always stabilistaion mehanism error, gun and ammo dispresion and others. In fact tank in main sight looks just like a dark spot or shape and gunner ALWAYS aim in to center point of the mass. On distance smaller then 300m it can choose when it want to aim - to center mas of the turret or aim to center mass of the hull.
Aiming and hitting on wak spots is bullshit over imagination and it's complelty false. No one known to me instruction allowed to sucht aktion.



In wet dream meybe. Only chanse to good ammo in india is Israeli licence. But nobody must do this - Indian Army haven't any good enogugh tchnologi in that case, so IA will buy even old APFSDS becouse IA have no choise. So it will buy KEW-A2, M332, or other ammo from middle 1990s.
.

In 300mm RHA for 120mm APFSDS Arjun ammo now.


300mm for 90. for 2000m Start to understand this.


No it's not able - no one tank is able to do this couse obvious way of FCS, gun and ammo working whit some ammo dispresion.




It will be not. Firstly - less then 600mm, secondly - without hight-tech. IA have no choice - any ammo will be better then no exist Arjun ammo and 3BM42 so IA will buy any western ammo or how-know - even for middle 1990s ammo like KEW-A2 or M332.

@Kunal Biswas @LurkerBaba @methos @Damian @militarysta @W.G.Ewald @Ray @pmaitra @arnabmit @Lidsky M.D. @Andrei_bt @p2prada @Austin @AUSTERLITZ @Rage @STGN @Dejawolf @Akim
@STGN @Keshav Murali
@Archer @maomao
@parijataka
@Somreet Bhattacharya @kushalappa@sayareakd @A chauhan
@TrueSpirit @Patriot @Payeng @rahulrds1 @rahulrds1 @Yusuf
@Decklander @Appolyon@Abhi9
@brahmos @sasi @Rahul Singh@Sridhar @nitesh @Draedevil @Godless-Kafir

@shuvo@y2k10 @Crusader53
@DivineHeretic

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-351.html

go to the above page in the Arjun MBT thread here. Most of what you and your friends arguments about the so called weakness of ARJUN turret behind main sight is conclusively proved wrong here.

 

[The Last Stand]

@ersakthivel,

Lidsky is now @hest.

 

[Dejawolf]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

well that's interesting. my figures were taken from hunnicutt. perhaps there's a difference between the rheinmetall gun and M256 in barrel pressure?

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

well that's interesting. my figures were taken from hunnicutt. perhaps there's a difference between the rheinmetall gun and M256 in barrel pressure?

Perhaps Hunnicutt's data was for an older, or in-development L/44 and these are for the in-service weapons?

How did he mention the weapon? "German 120 mm smoothbore gun" or "M256"?

If he explicitly mentioned M256 gun, I am wrong in the above speculation, or M256 has a slightly worser barrel.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

well that's interesting. my figures were taken from hunnicutt. perhaps there's a difference between the rheinmetall gun and M256 in barrel pressure?

I don't think soo - those data are taking from offcial manual - first is from Strv.122 instruction, second is...well I let this for myself
More or less for swedish L-44 used in Strv.122 we have:
working pressure - 672MPa
construction pressure (max) - 707MPa
For older german L-44 you have in "unkown" source bellow:
L-44 max chamber pressure: 670MPa (construction is unkown)
for L-55 the same value is circa 750-800MPa (construction in unkown)
What is more important. While older ammo have max pressure in chamber (those max 670MPa) and lower value in the barrel, then DM53 have complelty crazy values in barrel(!) more or less the bigest MPa value is achive in barrel not in chamber(!), so we have in case DM53 LKEII circa 700MPa in chamber for L-44 gun and 750-800MPa for L-55 gun, but while ago in first two meter of the barrel we have 880 (L-44) and 950MPa (L-55) while older ammo was in circa 500MPa level. Complelty crazy, but it's explaining fact that DM-53 can tore after one shoot circa 100-120g of the mettal from barrel...
More or less - top modern western Dm53 and propably Dm63 have bigger MPa pressure not in chamber but in first two meter of the barrel, and what is important too - muzzle MPa value is circa two times bigger - 300MPa vs 150MPa.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

go to the above page in the Arjun MBT thread here. Most of what you and your friends arguments about the so called weakness of ARJUN turret behind main sight is conclusively proved wrong here.

Rather was prooven there many times that you are comopletly wrong, and you are unable to mesure one dimesnsion properly mister "730mm long bar holder" or "600mm LOS behind main sight". Sorry you are no partner for discuss about this.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

‘We have not understated the range of Agni V. We as a nation don’t have to hide anything with respect to our capabilities’ - Indian Express


That was the interview given by the man who heads the organization which developed the 500 mm round. Now whether it is official or not is something up to you to decide,

Before babbling on read Kunal's poster which says officially Arjun has 500 mm RHA penetration rounds,

Sure, till now any cut-viev or DRDO ads shown 120mm ammo on circa 300mm level so sorry - you are writing about non existing now ammo.

And further bigger penetration ammo is being developed.

further...further...further not now.

If you have any technical knowledge please detail what are the different tech involved in penetrating a stack of Iorn plate, ERA and composite amor.

Yes, I had, and I post this many times here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/39363-tank-guns-ammunition.html
I post them many many facts, data, sources, etc. Just read this.

World over the standard used for measuring ammo effectiveness level is --- mm RHA thickness.

He he he not extatly, You dont hear about "NATO triple heavy targets" or other?

Both you and I don't know which round is capable of doing magic on ERA tiles and composite armor

Fact that You with your poor konwledges don't know something doesn't mean that I don't know something
M829A3, KEW-A3, M338, DM53, DM63, Sniviets-1 Sniviets-2, maybe CHARM3.

, And whether this magical ability is restricted to Russian , US rounds or also present in Arjun rounds under development.

All is based on avaible technology. In india is black hole in this thema.

Arjun has better gun accuracy to hit the weak spots.

In battelfield it's imposible - can you understad this or not? To hardo to understand how look tank in main sight from more then 400m? Jesus...

According to trials witnessed by senior army generals and posted on broadsword website , Arjun can hit a suitcase sized target from 2 Km distance.

and a 1$ coin from 1000m to...
More seriously - Britisch CR1 from BAOR was able to hit from 1km bottle of mineral water. I have heard about sucht case - tank was hold, bottle was hold, weather condition where perfect (middle temperature, no wind, etc). And what? Leopard-2A4 must go to the factory remont while ammo dispresion is bigger then 50cm on 700m. And what again?
Complelty difrent way is battelfield when target is moving, when your tank is ussali moving, when no always first shoot is taken from "cold barrel", while FCS is not calibrated and tested while erlyier, etc. This about hitting wak spots is bullshit and fairytails and no on etank on world is able to do that. Even Leclerc whit it's gorgeus FCS and gun.

According to MOD report submitted to a parliamentary standing committee on defence in 2009 itself ARJUN is the most accurate in on the move and on stationary firing in Indian Army stables which includes T-90 as well.

No my faule that T-72M1 Aleya have shit accuracy - they are not able to hit huge garage while moving - like other T-72M1 clones, T-90S seld to India had not supper accuracy 3BM42, and obsolate "jasmine" stabilisation (twice whorse then WNA-H22 in Leopard-2A4!), and poor and second quality barrels. So yes, Arjun can be "discover" in india as super-accurate tank. No it's not, just in IA have no other tank to tested this problem.

 

[Dejawolf]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

I don't think soo - those data are taking from offcial manual - first is from Strv.122 instruction, second is...well I let this for myself
More or less for swedish L-44 used in Strv.122 we have:
working pressure - 672MPa
construction pressure (max) - 707MPa
For older german L-44 you have in "unkown" source bellow:
L-44 max chamber pressure: 670MPa (construction is unkown)
for L-55 the same value is circa 750-800MPa (construction in unkown)
What is more important. While older ammo have max pressure in chamber (those max 670MPa) and lower value in the barrel, then DM53 have complelty crazy values in barrel(!) more or less the bigest MPa value is achive in barrel not in chamber(!), so we have in case DM53 LKEII circa 700MPa in chamber for L-44 gun and 750-800MPa for L-55 gun, but while ago in first two meter of the barrel we have 880 (L-44) and 950MPa (L-55) while older ammo was in circa 500MPa level. Complelty crazy, but it's explaining fact that DM-53 can tore after one shoot circa 100-120g of the mettal from barrel...
More or less - top modern western Dm53 and propably Dm63 have bigger MPa pressure not in chamber but in first two meter of the barrel, and what is important too - muzzle MPa value is circa two times bigger - 300MPa vs 150MPa.

hmm ok, i wonder where hunnicutt got his figures from.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

hmm ok, i wonder where hunnicutt got his figures from.

You know -technology and metalurgy is not hold in one place. While H. was writing his books value 630Mpa could be true. I give data from middle 1990s. So almoust 14 years later then Leo-2AV and XM-1 competition in USA...

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

You know -technology and metalurgy is not hold in one place. While H. was writing his books value 630Mpa could be true. I give data from middle 1990s. So almoust 14 years later then Leo-2AV and XM-1 competition in USA...

So my speculation could be correct?

Perhaps Hunnicutt's data was for an older, or in-development L/44 and these are for the in-service weapons?

How did he mention the weapon? "German 120 mm smoothbore gun" or "M256"?

If he explicitly mentioned M256 gun, I am wrong in the above speculation, or M256 has a slightly worser barrel.

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Rather was prooven there many times that you are comopletly wrong, and you are unable to mesure one dimesnsion properly mister "730mm long bar holder" or "600mm LOS behind main sight". Sorry you are no partner for discuss about this.

He takes two different places for the 108 cm and 133 cm values?

 

[militarysta]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

So my speculation could be correct?

yes, it's one of the posibilities

 

[militarysta]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

He takes two different places for the 108 cm and 133 cm values?

Rather te question is what point we will use to mesure something

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Sure, till now any cut-viev or DRDO ads shown 120mm ammo on circa 300mm level so sorry - you are writing about non existing now ammo.



further...further...further not now.


Yes, I had, and I post this many times here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/39363-tank-guns-ammunition.html
I post them many many facts, data, sources, etc. Just read this.


He he he not extatly, You dont hear about "NATO triple heavy targets" or other?



Fact that You with your poor konwledges don't know something doesn't mean that I don't know something
M829A3, KEW-A3, M338, DM53, DM63, Sniviets-1 Sniviets-2, maybe CHARM3.



All is based on avaible technology. In india is black hole in this thema.



In battelfield it's imposible - can you understad this or not? To hardo to understand how look tank in main sight from more then 400m? Jesus...

and a 1$ coin from 1000m to...
More seriously - Britisch CR1 from BAOR was able to hit from 1km bottle of mineral water. I have heard about sucht case - tank was hold, bottle was hold, weather condition where perfect (middle temperature, no wind, etc). And what? Leopard-2A4 must go to the factory remont while ammo dispresion is bigger then 50cm on 700m. And what again?
Complelty difrent way is battelfield when target is moving, when your tank is ussali moving, when no always first shoot is taken from "cold barrel", while FCS is not calibrated and tested while erlyier, etc. This about hitting wak spots is bullshit and fairytails and no on etank on world is able to do that. Even Leclerc whit it's gorgeus FCS and gun.


No my faule that T-72M1 Aleya have shit accuracy - they are not able to hit huge garage while moving - like other T-72M1 clones, T-90S seld to India had not supper accuracy 3BM42, and obsolate "jasmine" stabilisation (twice whorse then WNA-H22 in Leopard-2A4!), and poor and second quality barrels. So yes, Arjun can be "discover" in india as super-accurate tank. No it's not, just in IA have no other tank to tested this problem.

@Kunal Biswas has already posted this info. I don't know whether you know more about indian tank ammo than him or not.

He he he not extatly, You dont hear about "NATO triple heavy targets" or other?

See it is clearly written that "capable of defeating triple heavy NATO target at 5000 meters" in the poster above.

Rather was prooven there many times that you are comopletly wrong, and you are unable to mesure one dimesnsion properly mister "730mm long bar holder" or "600mm LOS behind main sight". Sorry you are no partner for discuss about this.

laughable blah blah. present a draw to prove your point or stop posting misleading info like this.Instead of posting ,"sorry you are no partner for discussion". If you have posted ,"I don't know anything about technical ,perspective drawings and taking measurements from side view or plan view, " I wouldn't bother you.

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

See it is clearly written that "capable of defeating triple heavy NATO target at 5000 meters" in the poster above.

NATO triple heavy targets have been defeated at 5000 metres by vintage 105 mm rounds. Your point being?

NATO armour targets were made to represent the T-10 heavy tank, an evolution of the IS series. Completely stupid comparing the armour of T-10 with modern tanks. Not to mention the fact that these armour targets were made for HEAT rounds, and not APFSDS.

I am telling you exactly what @militarysta and @methos have been saying all this while.

NATO armour targets are outdated.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

NATO triple heavy targets have been defeated at 5000 metres by vintage 105 mm rounds. Your point being?

NATO armour targets were made to represent the T-10 heavy tank, an evolution of the IS series. Completely stupid comparing the armour of T-10 with modern tanks. Not to mention the fact that these armour targets were made for HEAT rounds, and not APFSDS.

I am telling you exactly what @militarysta and @methos have been saying all this while.

NATO armour targets are outdated.

First get the context in which the post is made.

It is in response to @militarysta 's question of

Sure, till now any cut-viev or DRDO ads shown 120mm ammo on circa 300mm level so sorry - you are writing about non existing now ammo.


He he he not extatly, You dont hear about "NATO triple heavy targets" or other?

that post was made.

Don't intervene without even knowing the context at which the post is made.

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

First get the context in which the post is made.

It is in response to @militarysta 's question of

My answer is posted at a section of your post, You are assuming that NATO targets are tough to penetrate.

NATO triple heavy target is only ~115 mm of extra dense RHA(400 HB? - 270 is standard for measuring armour thickness) angled at 65 degrees, it can offer maximum of maybe 200 mm.

And Triple heavy target was made to represent Side hull of T-10.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

My answer is posted at a section of your post, You are assuming that NATO targets are tough to penetrate.

NATO triple heavy target is only ~115 mm of extra dense RHA(400 HB? - 270 is standard for measuring armour thickness) angled at 65 degrees, it can offer maximum of maybe 200 mm.

And Triple heavy target was made to represent Side hull of T-10.

First get the context in which the post is made.

It is in response to @militarysta 's question of

Sure, till now any cut-viev or DRDO ads shown 120mm ammo on circa 300mm level so sorry - you are writing about non existing now ammo.


He he he not extatly, You dont hear about "NATO triple heavy targets" or other?

I was not assuming that NATO triple heavy armor is hard to penetrate.Quote my post , If I had done that.

Till now you have complained only about short term memory loss, Now what you are doing is
"putting words into another person's mouth"

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

I was not assuming that NATO triple heavy armor is hard to penetrate.Quote my post , If I had done that.

Till now you have complained only about short term memory loss, Now what you are doing is
"putting words into another person's mouth"

Yes, I keep lying and putting words into your mouth. Keep running away from the fact that Arjun's ammunition is bad.

Darn, you are frustrating when you don't see the truth when it is staring in your face.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

yes, it's one of the posibilities

@Somreet Bhattacharya @kushalappa@sayareakd @A chauhan
@TrueSpirit @Patriot @Payeng @rahulrds1 @rahulrds1 @Yusuf
@Decklander@Appolyon@Abhi9
@brahmos @sasi @Rahul Singh@Sridhar @nitesh @Draedevil


@Kunal Biswas @LurkerBaba @ersakthivel @methos @Damian @militarysta @W.G.Ewald @Ray @pmaitra @arnabmit @Lidsky M.D. @Andrei_bt @p2prada @Austin @AUSTERLITZ @Rage @STGN @Dejawolf @Akim

According to the drawing above the base of the vertical standing hatch cover is at a distance of 2500 mm behind the turrret front tip (front face of the covering plate over gun mantle plate)

1.The red line marks the gun sledge end at 2100 mm turrret front tip (front face of the covering plate over gun mantle plate)
It also marks the back rest of gunner's seat.See that in the photo.

2.The yellow line marks the opening of roof top vision block inside crew compartment. And it is close to 500 mm infront of driver's seat back rest.This is the point at which the armor column behind the main sight cutaway stops in the crew compartment.This point lies at a distance of 1600 mm behind the turrret front tip (front face of the covering plate over gun mantle plate)

3.The green line marks the end of the main sight cutaway and it lies 700 mm behind the turrret front tip (front face of the covering plate over gun mantle plate). SO LOS behind the main sight is 1600 mm-700 mm=900 mm. approx