Indian Army Armored Vehicles

[cobra commando]

Gotta love the way the Mahindra 6x6 mpv looks, Big Brawny and Badass! good for muzzie hunting

 

[Dejawolf]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

@Dejawolf, I have a advice, Stop trolling ..

so saying the truth about the Arjun is trolling? yeah it hurts that Indian tank manufacturing isn't as great as you wish it was, but that is the truth.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

The issue with you is that you are comparing Apples with Oranges and consider to rant on that ..

so saying the truth about the Arjun is trolling? yeah it hurts that Indian tank manufacturing isn't as great as you wish it was, but that is the truth.

 

[pmaitra]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

so saying the truth about the Arjun is trolling? yeah it hurts that Indian tank manufacturing isn't as great as you wish it was, but that is the truth.

Yeah, we get it, you always speak the truth. We already have a thread for Arjun, so please post all Arjun related stuff there.

Link: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/9558-arjun-main-battle-tank-mbt-306.html


@Kunal Biswas, let's not have Arjun related discussion at multiple threads. Please move the appropriate posts there, and let's keep this dedicated to armoured vehicles other than Arjun, since Arjun has a dedicated thread (plus another one for pictures).

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

I have move these post here on purpose, these posts are comparison sake and this discussion will bring out not only turk tanks but paki as well as Chinese tank discussion with Arjun and other Indian tanks...
@pmaitra

 

[Dejawolf]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

The issue with you is that you are comparing Apples with Oranges and consider to rant on that ..

no it's apples and apples. i'm saying indian apples have worms in them, you're saying India will be able to sell them anyways, because chinese and pakistani apples have worms in them as well. but then you get offended when i say turkish apples have less worms than indian apples.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

No one said Indian apples dont have worms, and not a single member here said anything about Apples export unless you made that fact out of your arse ..

And no one offended about Turkish apple is better than Indian apple..

=========================

But it is indeed a troll intention to compare a 80s design apple with late 90s designed apple and that is a half licensed apple..

no it's apples and apples. i'm saying indian apples have worms in them, you're saying India will be able to sell them anyways, because chinese and pakistani apples have worms in them as well. but then you get offended when i say turkish apples have less worms than indian apples.

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

no it's apples and apples. i'm saying indian apples have worms in them, you're saying India will be able to sell them anyways, because chinese and pakistani apples have worms in them as well. but then you get offended when i say turkish apples have less worms than indian apples.

Since when did you become an apple merchant?
it has been made abundantly clear that only after going through grueling testing phase and after conforming to the IA GSQR ,that ARJUN was inducted in IA. SO where are the worms?

 

[Dejawolf]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

No one said Indian apples dont have worms,
And no one is offended about Turkish apple is better than Indian apple..

SO where are the worms.

i guess i agree, Ershaktivel is a nobody

=========================

But it is indeed a troll intention to compare a 80s design apple with late 90s designed apple and that is a half licensed apple..

if i'm not entirely mistaken, the Arjun was put into service in 2004, no? the arjun has been compared with base versions and upgraded versions of 1980s european tanks too, and here it compares poorly as well, mainly due to badly protected ammunition storage and inferior ammunition.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

That is because GSQR made as per need as per Armies and terrain.

If you think @Ershaktivel is wrong with his view then you have to talk to him, I respect his opinion so does yours..

------------------------------

Again your are showing you ignorance, Those Rounds you are calling Inferior, You dont have a clue about them, 300mm@2000ms so does 460mm@2000ms said about same ammo, figure out what angle they are talking about, So dont be so sure with half research..

if i'm not entirely mistaken, the Arjun was put into service in 2004, no? the arjun has been compared with base versions and upgraded versions of 1980s european tanks too, and here it compares poorly as well, mainly due to badly protected ammunition storage and inferior ammunition.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

BMP-2 modified ( 7 wheels ) based Command and Control Vehicle, that's my bike..

 

[cobra commando]

What's up with all the 'pink' in that BMP-2 ?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Lights and Camera effect, actual co-lour is mild brown..

What's up with all the 'pink' in that BMP-2 ?

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

i guess i agree, Ershaktivel is a nobody



if i'm not entirely mistaken, the Arjun was put into service in 2004, no? the arjun has been compared with base versions and upgraded versions of 1980s european tanks too, and here it compares poorly as well, mainly due to badly protected ammunition storage and inferior ammunition.

And my guess that you are a novice in fathoming simple dimensions from production drawing and perspective views is not just a guess, it was proved after you scooted out of the discussion.

Anyone can post a cooked up 3d model with all the wrong dimensions and pretend he is a pro, but that doesnot mean every one else has to accept it.

people making thousands of half baked posts in forums across the net don't really have to assume they know everything and the other guy is a nobody.


Because i never consider people who reply in foul language when confronted with proof of their half baked views as experts or professionals. in fact this behaviour is the hallmark of true trolls.

 

[Dejawolf]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Trollbait.

how about you stay on topic?

 

[ersakthivel]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

how about you stay on topic?

Is the topic about finding worms in indian apples?!!!!!!!!!!

Is that what you want to discuss finding worms in apples?

You are an agricultural expert I suppose!!!!!

first learn what a civilized debate is all about , before calling other trolls. Sprouting spurious dimensionless drawings and cooked up 3D models and calling the other guy who exposes it as troll and using foul language is not debate. it is drunken brawl.

 

[ersakthivel]

You don't understand. Space avaible after main gun sight is equal to circa 60-65% turret front LOS. And depend on mesurment it has between 350mm LOS (STGN) or 450mm (my mesurment). It's to loow valiue to achie significant protection. It's obvious big gap.
The same huge, anormus gun mantled mask in Arjun -it has only circa 400mm thickness + "wedge" behind it. It's still mucht less then frontal armour. In T-90S whit welded turret you haven't sucht weak place - after gun mantled mask we have constans and quite big LOS -circa 840mm.


Very questionablle. Arjun thickes loss seems to be between 650 or 900mm LOS -based on diffrent mesurment. In T-90A you have circa 840mm.


Those "highjt penetration" will not give mucht without anty ERA abilities. So Israeli, USA, German or Russian how-know is needed.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-64.html

From the image above the back of the wedge shaped hole for the sight is at least 3 to 4 (lets take 3.5 as a mean)crew hatch length away from the back of the seat the man was supposed to be sitting(provided your assumption that crew hatch is right over the seat, which I doubt very much without any authentic source, any way some one like kunal can easily resolve this matter)

One crew hatch hole length is approximately 500 mm minimum I suppose.

So the total distance is 1800 mm.you deduct the 800 mm empty space you yourself admitted from your post. It leaves a space of 1000 mm for all kinds of placements like some small amount of space for instruments an d so on so reduce 400 mm for them(approximate, need heavy clarifications).

So in my very very humble opinion a space of 1000 mm is available for COMPOSITE ARMOR. am I RIGHT OR WRONG?

I don't say that this entire 100mm space is filled with composite armor. But there is a clear evidence of 1000 mm wide gap behind the main sight for the ARJUN frontal composite armor protection.

Even if you deduct 200 mm as large allowance for errors . it still has a bare min 800 mm.

Do you know what is the level of protection if composite armor is employed in the space of 1000 mm.

You would not have expected this blow back from old thread perhaps. Since you raised both your hands when pressed hard on this subject in the following link,

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-64.html


blabbering dejawolf job is right and STGN job is right , why are you reigniting the same flames of ignorance all over again?

The crewhole with the round outter ring must surely measure more than 700 mm.

So 3x700 mm=2100 mm(+200 mm left uncovered by the hole on the cutaway for the main sight)=2300 mm.

2300 mm-400 mm for cutaway=1900 mm.
1900 mm-800 mm (Dejawolf agreed it is the space between the vision block and the gunner sitting on the seat behind the main sight inside arjun crew compartment)
Still gives LOS of 900 mm space for the composite armor behind main sight.


Even this lesser estimate because the later it was proved that the gunner seat is not in the center of the crew hole as wrongly shown in Dejawolf's drawing , but well right of the center .
So from where did you pluck your 350 mm LOS behind the main sight for composite armor claim?


But when countered it is not unusual for you guys to bluff and escape like the following passage,

yes, from the above picture, it is almost exactly 3.5 "crew hatch holes" from the ledge of the TC's hatch hole to the back where the GPS assembly starts.

however "crew hatch holes" are usually around 45-50cm in diameter,(it is 50cm on the leopard2) the 700mm figure is from one edge of the cupola periscope assembly to another, so that would be the diameter of the protective cupola ring assembly on top.
also, you forgot to take into account slope.

going by a figure of 50cm diameter for the crew hatch hole, measured on the picture, that's about 88 pixels. pixel distance from back of GPS assembly to front of vision block with slope accounted for is about 64 pixels.
so ratio between hatch hole and space between GPS/gnrvb would be
64/88 = ~0.727
0.727*50 = 36.4cm

See what a neat lie. The guy uses some strange pixel black magic to get out of this fraud.

He himself agrees the crew hole measures 500 mm.


So with the outter ring around crew hole the dia comes to around 750 mm min.

So 750x3.5= comes close to 2400 mm.

DEJAWOLF himself said that 800 mm is the distance between the seat of Tc and vision blocks inside arjun crew compartment.

So 2400 mm-800 mm=1600 mm.

So if you minus 500 mm for the main sight cutaway it is

1600 mm-500 mm=1100 mm LOS for composite armor thickness behind main sight.

 

[ersakthivel]

the drawing given by PMAITRA fixes the turret length as 4.8 meters.

The opening cover for the crew hatch stands opened vertically at 2300 mm from from the back of the turret according to the scale provided by PMAITRA.

So my statement that the crew hatch and the driver seat below is at 2400(2500 mm if we go by PMAITRA's scale for the turret considering the total length of the turret as 4800mm) mm from the back of the wedge shaped cut out on the frontal turrret provided for sighting instrument. So my determination as follows is correct

From the image above the back of the wedge shaped hole for the sight is at least 3 to 4 (lets take 3.5 as a mean)crew hatch length away from the back of the seat the man was supposed to be sitting(provided your assumption that crew hatch is right over the seat, which I doubt very much without any authentic source, any way some one like kunal can easily resolve this matter)

One crew hatch hole length is approximately 700 mm minimum for a well built man to enter I suppose.

So the total distance is 2400 mm.you deduct the 800 mm empty space you yourself admitted from your post. It leaves a space of 1600 mm for all kinds of placements like some small amount of space for instruments an d so on so reduce 400 mm for them(approximate, need heavy clarifications).

So in my very very humble opinion a space of 1200 mm is available for COMPOSITE ARMOR. am i RIGHT OR WRONG?

Do you know what is the level of protection if composite armor is employed in the space of 1200 mm.

After this all the black magic 3d max modelists became stone deaf!!!!!!!!!!!

So most of the argument based on false dimensioned drawings of @Dejawolf diagram that was advanced by our foreign guests @militarysta ,@methos ,@Damian like have already been proved wrong in

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-army/44522-arjun-vs-t90-mbt-65.html

thread here in this same forum,

The reason for these wrong claim is to some how establish that ARJUn did not have this or that and it is so bad and so on,,,,,,,,,

These guys regularly do these charity works in many forums across the net, But please so mercy on DFItes and spare them your dark light of knowledge.

So why restart it all over again?

 

[Dejawolf]

Re: Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

Is the topic about finding worms in indian apples?!!!!!!!!!!

Is that what you want to discuss finding worms in apples?

You are an agricultural expert I suppose!!!!!

first learn what a civilized debate is all about , before calling other trolls. Sprouting spurious dimensionless drawings and cooked up 3D models and calling the other guy who exposes it as troll and using foul language is not debate. it is drunken brawl.

says the guy who puts a ruler to his computer screen, and claims it's more accurate than the software used to design and build the arjun...

 

[Dejawolf]

more trollbait

a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.