Dude for the last time, The sloped armour technology has been around since 1950s and by 1980s they had all the know how on angles. The Indian and German designers knew pretty well what they where doing. Look at the pic and let me know.
I'am not talking about sloping armor. You still do not understand safe manouvering angles principle.
Wider the better, a wider gun mantel only allows the designer to stock up more Armour behind the gunmantel. The Arjuns gun mantel is heavily armored and is as thick as the turret Armour.
You confuse width with thickness. The thicker the better yes, but width must be as small as possible.
For example let's take two gun mantle masks. Both have same thickness and weight but one is narrower, this means that narrower one have grater density of armor and with the same weight provides better protection as well still being weak zone, is much smaller and difficult to hit.
I get what you mean but i dont see any problem in the frontal arc. The armor is massive on the front and the sights placed in the turret only means that a tank is not going to get hit in the EYE. When a tank sees it is most probably going to hit the target before it hits them. I guess that is the school of thought that both Arjun and German Leopard depend on.
How would you explain the Germans haveing the same problem? Do you think the over engineering germans are not going to know that?
You have been discussing this in many forums, what did the Germans members tell you?
Germans were never that great in tank designing as they like to claim. For example Americans were able to crate medium tank, the M26 weighting 40 tons + with the same frontal protection as PzKpfw VI Ausf. H1/E Tiger, but American tank was smaller, more mobile, more reliable and simpler. Same goes for Soviets they created heavy tanks that were smaller, better armored, heavy armed, more mobile, reliable and simpler.
Germans during WWII tended to crate overcomplicated, in many way primitive, oversized and overweighted tanks. Their first really good tank was Leopard 2 yet still with many not very wise design solution.
You should take a closer look to KWS II upgrade program, where Leopard 2 turret was a bit redesigned, the main sight was raised and the old sight "window" was closed by welding there steel block. Still yet this leaves main sight vurnable to frontal hits because ~200mm steel block definetly will not stop a projectile and will be able to damage main sight making use of FCS difficult or even impossible at all.
I get that part but if you are really as unbiased as you claim then you should also not jump to conclusions at the drop of an hat, you should not come pacing in like you did on the first day even before you knew what the tank was all about. That was definitely hate speech when you keept insisting on wrong points like on the sights issue. I have posted a pic look at that and be unbiased, there is no one that is going to lose their crown here if we accept mistakes.
Like you see in the T-90 auto loader thread, i accept mistakes when there is one. Other wise i dont.
As I said, Arjun protection and especially turret design in this regard was done with complete ignorance about experience of other nations that are more experienced in tank designing.
Ok let's take it that way, try to find an Arjun drawing or photo from above, then draw a 60-65 degree frontal arc, the arc "tip" should be then placed behind turret. So both sides of turret will be exposed within 30-35 degrees from turret longitudinal axis. Ok then look how much side turret surfaces not protected by composite armor will be exposed to incoming fire from within vehicle frontal arc. This is principle of safe manouvering angles, and this is why vehicles turret need to provide good protection there.
This is achieved in two ways, or by placing there thick composite armor, or by playing with turret geometry and trying to "hide" turret side armor behind front armor within that frontal arc of 60-65 degrees.
Where in this video does it fire on the move while faceing the side? He says it does but i cant see that.
In this video it is not seen, but AFAIK US Army soldiers says that it can fire to the sides during movement. It is because M68A2 105mm gun is a modified variant of M68A1 with lower recoil.
Hmmm I wonder if M1128 could be armed with low recoil 120mm gun like XM360, that was also designed for vehicles within weight class of 20 tons, however tracked.
Well the IA does refill its shells in peace time.
I think US Army is not specially concerned, they have still huge stockplies of 105mm ammunition and need to use it, while M1 tanks use 120mm smoothbore with ammunition using semi combustible casings so they seems to not be worried.
I don't think that the American "forced" the British to release details of Burlington, first of all because I don't think that they would be able to "force" the Brittons politcally and secondly because the Brittons and the FRG did have a joint-venture for producing their FMBT (even though it failed). Still I have severe doubts that Burlington was shared with all NATO countries or that the majority of modern tank armours is based on it. E.g. the German Leopard 2: I think it is possible that at least the earlier models didn't include any types of ceramic armour. Why? Because based on patents and fielded vehicles I can see an pretty simple and linear way of armour development. The earliest German patents for special armour (spaced armour, folded armour made of different materials) date back to the interwar-period. With theMBT-70 polymeres were introduced as material in the spaced armour and with the Leopard 1A3 SHS and HSS, while the Leopard 1A1A1 featured NERA armour using rubber as important "energetic" material. So it could be possible that the early Leopard 2s featured armour made of polymers, steels of different hardness and rubber, which should be enough to offer 500 mm RHAe vs KE and 800+ RHAe vs CE for half the weight of the armour thickness in steel (and that would be better protection than Burlington offered on M1). If the armour looks like this remains unknown to a layman like me, but this matches at least some desciptions of the armour like Mehrfachschottung (Hilmes and Krapke), Beulblechpanzerung (Lobitz) or Panzerstahlstruktur-Kombination (Rößler & Köhler), but these terms do not exclude the possibilty of ceramics as part of the armour (there are also patents for ceramic armour from the 1970s and 1980s).
I would be carefull here You know. Burlington development also lead to use of polymers and other non metallic materials as well as reactive elements. And statements that Burlington offered less protection against KE threats might be very far from reality. Americans during tests reported that protection of XM1 and Leopard 2AV was comparable to being in favor of M1, same for British that said the same thing about M1A1 and Leopard 2A4.
You remeber the PDF with article of Pawel Przezdziecki? He made extensive research about Burlington development and it seems that indeed Burlington technology was transferred to Germany and later it was promoted to NATO countries (which ones, it is not know).
I think the main problem with Burlington armor is that there was not single Burlington armor but many different variants, from simple ones to more complex designs. And we don't even know which variant was used where and by whom.
The early Leopard 2 armor might be as well one of Burlington armor variants with different materials and structure design.
