Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Yes, but the M26 had as much armour (and less armour-piercing power) as the Panther tank although the Panther was designed two years earlier. In a comparision M26 vs Panther the M26 will loose in all points. Compare the Tiger with tanks of it's own "generation" (designed and built in the same year) and it does not look so stupid, primitve from a later point of view, but as mobile as all other German tanks were at this time, if you exclude the ground-pressure. In the same year the U.S. type-classified the M6 heavy tank, which is inferior to the Tiger in terms of armour, firepower and mobility. Soviet heavy tanks were also never heavier armed than contemporary Axis heavy tanks.

I do not agree. Germans tended to design as I said, unnececary heavy and big vehicles, while the same or grater levels of protection could have been achieved with smaller and lighter vehicles by just reducing internal volume. It comes with some pay off like less crew comfort but in the end who had bigger problems with tanks? Definetly not Allies or Soviets.

As for M6, it was never fielded in reality and in US quickly T20 program for advanced and more modern medium tanks started. Many interesting developments were then achieved like automatic loading system from what it seems on drawings, used two sort of armored ammunition containers inside hull within turret basket.

As for Soviet tanks, IS-2 with it's 122mm gun didn't even needed to use armor piercing munitions, they were low quality, but on the other hand HE round from this gun was capable to do huge damage for even heavy German tanks.

Bullshit. The Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 were both great tanks (with the Leopard 1 being an export wonder beating all other tanks of it's generation), but the Panther and the Panzerkampfwagen IV were some of the best tanks of WW2. The Panther performed in terms of firepower, armour protection and mobility very close to the Centurion, which later was used as MBT.
The suspensions and the running gears of the German WW2 tanks were overcomplicated, but they did have some advantages over their enemies. In the end these advantages came at a too high prize by reducing the possible production.

Leopard 1 was good from automotive point of view and had relatively good FCS and firepower. However, it seemed to have preatty low protection. I understand why, but IMHO that decision was wrong, because tanks not only fights with ATGM carriers and such. Even at that times, more armor would help to survive hits of at least 100mm AP rounds still used back then by Soviets.

In the end for example T-55AM with BDD composite armor and it's relatively thicker basic armor had grater protection than any Leopard 1 tank variant.

As for Germans tanks as I said, in the general view they were not that grate, yet having some good points during WWII like main armament, sights. But this advantages were grately reduced by over all stupidity of these design where oversized vehicles with over weight had problems with reliability, a great concern when we see overall strategic situation during WWII and Germanys problems with supplies and overall logistic chain.

Ok to further explain:



This might help, however this is not perfect, and maybe I will need to work more on it later.

 

[Damian]

No, there is no forced RULE as such in gun-mantle design. The smaller it is then a projectile can get through the "gap" because there is no armour but in Arjun the Armour is fused with the gun, so nothing can get in if attacked. Which is a better design.

? I think You make a mistake, I am talking about size in width not in thickness.

Germans where never good? That is the first time anyone ever said that, the German tanks froze up in Russia during WW2 and that was the only reason they lost, the freezing was due to unexpected weather not because of poor design. The Russians knew the climate so they designed the tanks with better heater plugs for diesel and they also invented sloped armor but their tanks where not better.

Soviet tanks in many ways were better than Germans once, however I'am not talking here about small tragedy called T-34. In fact I think that Soviets should back then use KV-1 as their primary MBT, not T-34 that was indeed not very good design.

BTW Soviets were not first once that invented sloped armor, they were the first once that used extremely sloped armor on such scale.

In complete ignorance? So no consultant from Germany or Russia knew? Prove that they never knew.

From what we see it seems so. Tank have turret composite armor cavieties placement more typical or Soviet design while turret geometry typical for NATO designs, both won't work well with each other.

You mean Top View? Why dont you show me an example of this on the british Challenger? I cant draw on MSpaint, so if you can show me that would be nice. I also dont want that old Russian turret design with angles, i have seen that angeling and i dont know how that can be applied on Challenger or Leopard I want to see that on Challenger, so i can understand.

If You wait a moment I can do the same for several other designs, ok?

I dont think it can, it may topple if they fire on the run.

Italian Centauro with 120mm gun can do that, IMHO M1128 Stryker MGS also, but turret modification to allow longer recoil path might be needed.

It is a terrible waste, offcourse their defense budget is 700billion..

Why waste? US Army do not see 105mm guns as good for the future, they will be retaired anyway, so it is better to fire them in training and military operations than spend even grater pile of money to utilize them.

 

[Damian]

Hope that this will explain more GK. However these drawings are not perfect, I probably not done these lines showing hit angles good enough and there might be some mistakes in that part. Hopefully You will forgive such clumsy drawing.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Hope that this will explain more GK. However these drawings are not perfect, I probably not done these lines showing hit angles good enough and there might be some mistakes in that part. Hopefully You will forgive such clumsy drawing.

Dude, what the hell? How is this different from Arjun? Thats the M1A1 and not the Challenger.

The Arjun as i pointed out has the same level of protection. I dont get whats the diffrence here?

 

[methos]

I do not agree. Germans tended to design as I said, unnececary heavy and big vehicles, while the same or grater levels of protection could have been achieved with smaller and lighter vehicles by just reducing internal volume. It comes with some pay off like less crew comfort but in the end who had bigger problems with tanks? Definetly not Allies or Soviets.

The Germans did not have any real problems with their tanks until the war turned against them and their ressources got raw. At the same time the Russians, the UK and to a very small degree the U.S. (in Northern Africa) did enocunter more (but not much) trouble with their tanks. The IS series of tanks, to which you probably are refering, is not better than contemporary Axis tanks. The Axis tanks were not perfect, but neither were the Soviet tanks. The IS series did have weak turret armour, not superior to Axis tanks. Hull armour is also not better, depending on which tanks you compare. And even the late war "brittle" steel (which is debatable, but I'm not so much into metallugry) is not inferior to the Soviet steel used on IS-2 and IS-3. The Tiger II was heavier and did have problems due to it's the weight with the mobility, but it was planned to some extend to use other engines. In terms of armour and firepower the Tiger II was superior to the IS-2 and somewhat also to the IS-3.

As for M6, it was never fielded in reality and in US quickly T20 program for advanced and more modern medium tanks started.

U.S. could do that because they did not have any needs for heavy tanks in 1941/2, but the Germans needed heavy tanks as fast as possible. This is also the only reason the 88 mm KwK was fitted into a Tiger, it was originally planned to use the better 75 mm KwK from the later Panther.

As for Soviet tanks, IS-2 with it's 122mm gun didn't even needed to use armor piercing munitions, they were low quality, but on the other hand HE round from this gun was capable to do huge damage for even heavy German tanks.

A 122 mm HE can cause havoc if it hits the right spots. But the IS-2 and IS-3 carried a third of the amount of ammunition a Tiger II carried, and due to the smaller mv and the inferior sights hitting was less probable. So a fully loaden IS-2 could knock out far less tanks than a Tiger II and was also more likely to miss. That's not what defines a good tank in my opinion.

Leopard 1 was good from automotive point of view and had relatively good FCS and firepower. However, it seemed to have preatty low protection. I understand why, but IMHO that decision was wrong, because tanks not only fights with ATGM carriers and such. Even at that times, more armor would help to survive hits of at least 100mm AP rounds still used back then by Soviets.

The "relatively good FCS" of the basic Leopard 1 was superior to that of the M60/M60A1, Chieftain, T-55, T-62 and the basic AMX-30 in terms of rangefinder magnification, meassurement range, gunner's sight and commander's sight. Later some upgraded tanks featured a better FCS, but the Leopard 1A4 was again fitted with the best NATO FCS enabling hunter/killer-engagements. 100 mm AP could defeat the turret, but the Soviets did not only have HEAT ammo capable of penetrating all tanks, but also had the T-62 with APFSDS (even the early one capable of piercing through anything bar the Chieftain) and three years later APDS for the 100 mm gun.

In the end for example T-55AM with BDD composite armor and it's relatively thicker basic armor had grater protection than any Leopard 1 tank variant.

The T-55AM with BDD also had a greater protection level than any AMX-30 variant, any M60 variant and even the basic Chieftains (without Stillbrew).

The Arjun as i pointed out has the same level of protection. I dont get whats the diffrence here?

The differince is that the Arjun has a red-marked corridor where no armour is placed at the side of the crew compartment, whereas the "corridors" on Challenger and Leopard 2 where no armour is located do not lead to the crew compartment. Corridors are hereby the area where a 30°-off shot can hit the turret without having to deal with composite armour.

 

[Damian]

The Germans did not have any real problems with their tanks until the war turned against them and their ressources got raw. At the same time the Russians, the UK and to a very small degree the U.S. (in Northern Africa) did enocunter more (but not much) trouble with their tanks. The IS series of tanks, to which you probably are refering, is not better than contemporary Axis tanks. The Axis tanks were not perfect, but neither were the Soviet tanks. The IS series did have weak turret armour, not superior to Axis tanks. Hull armour is also not better, depending on which tanks you compare. And even the late war "brittle" steel (which is debatable, but I'm not so much into metallugry) is not inferior to the Soviet steel used on IS-2 and IS-3. The Tiger II was heavier and did have problems due to it's the weight with the mobility, but it was planned to some extend to use other engines. In terms of armour and firepower the Tiger II was superior to the IS-2 and somewhat also to the IS-3.

Germans did not have initially problems mainly because they used lighter and smaller vehicles. But at that time, Tiger and King Tiger were oversized and over weighted. IMHO if only Germans would rething some choices, Panther might be a perfect tank, yet they wasted that huge potential in that tanks.

As for IS series, IS-2 had comparable protection while IS-3 was superior in that regard. Especially for hull protection.

U.S. could do that because they did not have any needs for heavy tanks in 1941/2, but the Germans needed heavy tanks as fast as possible. This is also the only reason the 88 mm KwK was fitted into a Tiger, it was originally planned to use the better 75 mm KwK from the later Panther.

Sure, I understand the historic context, but Germans should rething many of choices they done. IMHO they could end in better situation.

A 122 mm HE can cause havoc if it hits the right spots. But the IS-2 and IS-3 carried a third of the amount of ammunition a Tiger II carried, and due to the smaller mv and the inferior sights hitting was less probable. So a fully loaden IS-2 could knock out far less tanks than a Tiger II and was also more likely to miss. That's not what defines a good tank in my opinion.

Sure, accuracy was a problem but think about that way. Soviets liked to charge, it was not very clever but casualties were not their concern, and it was difficult to stop such a charge of T-34's and KV's or IS's tanks. We need to remember that tank do not operates on it's own, but in a system.

IMHO Germans made their difficult situation on their own wish. If they only think more about logistics and problems with heavier vehicle in WWII times and then used technology.

The "relatively good FCS" of the basic Leopard 1 was superior to that of the M60/M60A1, Chieftain, T-55, T-62 and the basic AMX-30 in terms of rangefinder magnification, meassurement range, gunner's sight and commander's sight. Later some upgraded tanks featured a better FCS, but the Leopard 1A4 was again fitted with the best NATO FCS enabling hunter/killer-engagements. 100 mm AP could defeat the turret, but the Soviets did not only have HEAT ammo capable of penetrating all tanks, but also had the T-62 with APFSDS (even the early one capable of piercing through anything bar the Chieftain) and three years later APDS for the 100 mm gun.

Yes, and still IMHO both Chieftain and M60A1 were better protected and suited for a war that would be a slug fest. M60A1 had a bit thinner armor than Chieftain but also well ballistically shaped. Especially the turret front from it;s pure frontal aspect have well armored "chicks".

The differince is that the Arjun has a red-marked corridor where no armour is placed at the side of the crew compartment, whereas the "corridors" on Challenger and Leopard 2 where no armour is located do not lead to the crew compartment. Corridors are hereby the area where a 30°-off shot can hit the turret without having to deal with composite armour.

Indeed. Turret bustle can be sacrificed but crew compartment not protected within these corridors is something unthinkable.

The T-55AM with BDD also had a greater protection level than any AMX-30 variant, any M60 variant and even the basic Chieftains (without Stillbrew).

Yes. So it shows that it is possible to create rather mobile, small, lighter vehicle with high or even higher degree of protection.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

I do not agree. Germans tended to design as I said, unnececary heavy and big vehicles, while the same or grater levels of protection could have been achieved with smaller and lighter vehicles by just reducing internal volume. It comes with some pay off like less crew comfort but in the end who had bigger problems with tanks? Definetly not Allies or Soviets.

As for M6, it was never fielded in reality and in US quickly T20 program for advanced and more modern medium tanks started. Many interesting developments were then achieved like automatic loading system from what it seems on drawings, used two sort of armored ammunition containers inside hull within turret basket.

As for Soviet tanks, IS-2 with it's 122mm gun didn't even needed to use armor piercing munitions, they were low quality, but on the other hand HE round from this gun was capable to do huge damage for even heavy German tanks.



Leopard 1 was good from automotive point of view and had relatively good FCS and firepower. However, it seemed to have preatty low protection. I understand why, but IMHO that decision was wrong, because tanks not only fights with ATGM carriers and such. Even at that times, more armor would help to survive hits of at least 100mm AP rounds still used back then by Soviets.

In the end for example T-55AM with BDD composite armor and it's relatively thicker basic armor had grater protection than any Leopard 1 tank variant.

As for Germans tanks as I said, in the general view they were not that grate, yet having some good points during WWII like main armament, sights. But this advantages were grately reduced by over all stupidity of these design where oversized vehicles with over weight had problems with reliability, a great concern when we see overall strategic situation during WWII and Germanys problems with supplies and overall logistic chain.

Ok to further explain:



This might help, however this is not perfect, and maybe I will need to work more on it later.

Are you calling the Composite armor as storage boxes?

Those thick brick like things that you high lighted in GREEN are not boxes but armor.

The one in the side marked in blue is what you think is storage box?

 

[Damian]

Nope, they are storage boxes. On all photos there are clearly visible openable covers and hinges.

Besides this, what would be a reason to make a turret with not fully modular front and partially side armor and rest with fully modular armor?

Here it is clearly visible that this is storage box.

 

[methos]

As for IS series, IS-2 had comparable protection while IS-3 was superior in that regard. Especially for hull protection.

Compared to what?
King Tiger had 233 mm LOS hull armour and 182-187 mm turret front armour with about 50% of the turret being covered with the mantlet (which means more than 50 mm thicker armour). IS-2 had way lower protection, while the IS-3 was comparable, unless you are comparing the older Tiger 1 with the latest Soviet tanks (IS-3).

Yes, and still IMHO both Chieftain and M60A1 were better protected and suited for a war that would be a slug fest. M60A1 had a bit thinner armor than Chieftain but also well ballistically shaped. Especially the turret front from it;s pure frontal aspect have well armored "chicks".

The Chieftains armour was still penetratable, it was not an invulnerable tank. Even though the Chieftain did have initally the worst FCS, being incapable of making use of the stronger gun, while being overall the worst tank in terms of mobility. The 120 mm gun also never received any good rounds, just a single type of APFSDS was developed, which in the end wasn't even stronger than late 105 mm APFSDS. If you would be sitting in a Chieftain during Cold War, you could wait until your enemy comes close, but defeating them (especially the T-64 and T-72 ) or outrunning was not very easy. Based on the "Burlington
files" at 800 - 1,200 m a 115 mm APFSDS (1970s level of technology) could penetrate a Chieftain, but the 120 mm APDS or HESH (APFSDS came in the 1980s) could not defeat a T-64 at 1,000 m or above. HEAT rounds from 100 or 115 mm guns will penetrate the armour at every aspect.
The M60A1 can be penetrated by 115 mm APFSDS and HEAT rounds, as well as 100 mm HEAT. Hull can even be penetrated by 100 mm APFSDS and maybe also APDS. So the greater protection of this tank compared to the Leopard 1 is only partial true, especially when we compare the M60A1 with later Leopard 1s with uparmoured turret, which then can resist a few threats which can disable a M60A1. Thicker armour is good, but not necessarily better.
Based on claims about the accuracy of T-55s, T-62s and NATO tanks against moving targets the best way to survive in a one-vs-one engagement would be to drive and stop only when your enemy is not going to fire. But if this works in reality is not known.

 

[Damian]

Compared to what?
King Tiger had 233 mm LOS hull armour and 182-187 mm turret front armour with about 50% of the turret being covered with the mantlet (which means more than 50 mm thicker armour). IS-2 had way lower protection, while the IS-3 was comparable, unless you are comparing the older Tiger 1 with the latest Soviet tanks (IS-3).

First things first, we are talking about IS-2 with initial hull or IS-2 with later hull that offered better protection? IS-2 IMHO was better than Tiger 1 in that regard.

IS-3 being comparable to King Tiger? IMHO better as a whole in terms of protection. Turret was allmost all around ~200mm thick if I remember correctly (need to check it) and front hull was well shaped.

The Chieftains armour was still penetratable, it was not an invulnerable tank. Even though the Chieftain did have initally the worst FCS, being incapable of making use of the stronger gun, while being overall the worst tank in terms of mobility. The 120 mm gun also never received any good rounds, just a single type of APFSDS was developed, which in the end wasn't even stronger than late 105 mm APFSDS. If you would be sitting in a Chieftain during Cold War, you could wait until your enemy comes close, but defeating them (especially the T-64 and T-72 ) or outrunning was not very easy. Based on the "Burlington
files" at 800 - 1,200 m a 115 mm APFSDS (1970s level of technology) could penetrate a Chieftain, but the 120 mm APDS or HESH (APFSDS came in the 1980s) could not defeat a T-64 at 1,000 m or above. HEAT rounds from 100 or 115 mm guns will penetrate the armour at every aspect.
The M60A1 can be penetrated by 115 mm APFSDS and HEAT rounds, as well as 100 mm HEAT. Hull can even be penetrated by 100 mm APFSDS and maybe also APDS. So the greater protection of this tank compared to the Leopard 1 is only partial true, especially when we compare the M60A1 with later Leopard 1s with uparmoured turret, which then can resist a few threats which can disable a M60A1. Thicker armour is good, but not necessarily better.
Based on claims about the accuracy of T-55s, T-62s and NATO tanks against moving targets the best way to survive in a one-vs-one engagement would be to drive and stop only when your enemy is not going to fire. But if this works in reality is not known.

1) Yes Chieftain was not perfect.

2) T-64 and T-72 is a bit overkill don't You think?

3) M60A1 was also penetrable but yet more armor gived it chances to survive, especialy at more extreme hit angles. I think Dejawolf made few years ago 3D model if M60A1 turret with armor estimates that takes in to account armor angle at respective angle, and it was impressive.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Nope, they are storage boxes. On all photos there are clearly visible openable covers and hinges.

Besides this, what would be a reason to make a turret with not fully modular front and partially side armor and rest with fully modular armor?


Here it is clearly visible that this is storage box.

I would ask you the same question, why on earth would they have storage boxes there?

The same goes for A1M1 which has armor block on the side. The AMX-56 also has blocks but it is completely that way.

The Kanchan armor has defeated HESH and FSAPDS rounds, that includes the Israeli FSAPDS rounds. So what is there to worry?

As for the hatch in the hull the angle is not vulnerable to any direct attack. It also has inner armor plates once the hatch is closed. Your could see the pictures.

 

[Damian]

The hinges are probably for storing armor plates.

The same goes for A1M1 which has armor block on the side. The AMX-56 also has blocks but it is completely that way.

? M1A1 (or M1 series in general), and Leclerc also had storage boxes on turret sides.

If I find opened M1's storage boxes photo I will show You.

This is some armor plate, not Arjun side turret storage boxes.

The Kanchan armor has defeated HESH and FSAPDS rounds, that includes the Israeli FSAPDS rounds. So what is there to worry?

Maybe because there is no Kanchan armor over discussed area?

The hinges are probably for storing armor plates.

Nope, this don't work that way. This is obviously too delicate structure to store armor inside, and the question is, why modular armor only over there and not over whole turret?

It would be completely without sense.

As for the hatch in the hull the angle is not vulnerable to any direct attack. It also has inner armor plates once the hatch is closed. Your could see the pictures.

? You mean driver hatch? Driver hatch and any hatch is allways weak zone in all tanks.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Maybe because there is no Kanchan armor over discussed area?

How is that logical for a production variant tank? Would the designers not even know that?

Nope, this don't work that way. This is obviously too delicate structure to store armor inside, and the question is, why modular armor only over there and not over whole turret?

It would be completely without sense.



? You mean driver hatch? Driver hatch and any hatch is allways weak zone in all tanks.

I am not sure why they would store modular armor the Kanchan is called as gold modular composite armor. The armor remains a secret but how could you say that the tank designers would not fortify the side? After all the side is most prone to attacks.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

More over why would they use ERA or NERA on storage boxes?

 

[Damian]

How is that logical for a production variant tank? Would the designers not even know that?

I am not sure why they would store modular armor the Kanchan is called as gold modular composite armor. The armor remains a secret but how could you say that the tank designers would not fortify the side? After all the side is most prone to attacks.

1) Composite armors can be seen in two forms, fully modular replacable modules, or more common and widespread semi-modular design, why semi modular? Because due to composite armor design and nature, composite filler can be replaced without need to replace whole armor section. You ust cut off top cover plate, take our old filler and put in new one, then put cover plate on it's place and weld it. However there are some types of composite armor where their replacement is not possible.

2) It is possible that Arjun designers did not know about such issues, or they not wanted to place composite armor for weight issues. It might be their decision to sacrifice protection over there to safe some weight, saved weight might have been used elsewhere, like ammo storage, engine and transmission, or even to reinforce hull or turret front armor with more material... or might have not be used at all, and vehicle is just lighter.

More over why would they use ERA or NERA on storage boxes?

I do not see ERA or NERA placed over storage boxes, cassettes are placed over solid composite armor cavieties, while old storage boxes seems to be replaced by new type.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

1) Composite armors can be seen in two forms, fully modular replacable modules, or more common and widespread semi-modular design, why semi modular? Because due to composite armor design and nature, composite filler can be replaced without need to replace whole armor section. You ust cut off top cover plate, take our old filler and put in new one, then put cover plate on it's place and weld it.

That is stating the obvious but as i said the Armour technology is a secret, you can learn about everything on Indian defense but so far since i started reading defense forums like Bharat Rakshak in 1998 till now i have never heard much about Kanchan. I guess that is perhaps an disadvantage for my argument because it has always remained a secret. I am however very sure your concerns would have been addressed by the designers.

2) It is possible that Arjun designers did not know about such issues, or they not wanted to place composite armor for weight issues. It might be their decision to sacrifice protection over there to safe some weight, saved weight might have been used elsewhere, like ammo storage, engine and transmission, or even to reinforce hull or turret front armor with more material... or might have not be used at all, and vehicle is just lighter.



I do not see ERA or NERA placed over storage boxes, cassettes are placed over solid composite armor cavieties, while old storage boxes seems to be replaced by new type.

Did not know kids stuff? The point you bring in is totally basic, anyone with half a brain could see that the arjun wont take a hit from the side and adequate protection should be given. Why is that such a complex thing that they wont know if they designed an whole tank? Is that not an honest question to ask oneself? They know to design an armor but they just make a tin foil for the side?

I think you have never meet any of these scientist working in DRDO, When i was in aero india even the Junior Scientist-B where extremely knowledgeable and they where able to answer everything i wanted to know about fighter jets. I am more of an Fighter jet junkie than a tank junkie, i am a Fighter jet fan and i visit sites to read about aircraft's not much about tanks. To me these guys did sound very intelligent.

To question the intelligence on such a basic thing as side armor protection would be meaningless.

 

[Damian]

That is stating the obvious but as i said the Armour technology is a secret, you can learn about everything on Indian defense but so far since i started reading defense forums like Bharat Rakshak in 1998 till now i have never heard much about Kanchan. I guess that is perhaps an disadvantage for my argument because it has always remained a secret. I am however very sure your concerns would have been addressed by the designers.

Sometimes some things are not adressed by designers. Remember that Arjun is first tank designed in India and designers are still learning, while many other nations have grater experience.

Did not know kids stuff? The point you bring in is totally basic, anyone with half a brain could see that the arjun wont take a hit from the side and adequate protection should be given. Why is that such a complex thing that they wont know if they designed an whole tank? Is that not an honest question to ask oneself? They know to design an armor but they just make a tin foil for the side?

I think you have never meet any of these scientist working in DRDO, When i was in aero india even the Junior Scientist-B where extremely knowledgeable and they where able to answer everything i wanted to know about fighter jets. I am more of an Fighter jet junkie than a tank junkie, i am a Fighter jet fan and i visit sites to read about aircraft's not much about tanks. To me these guys did sound very intelligent.

To question the intelligence on such a basic thing as side armor protection would be meaningless.

It is not question about IQ level, but experience, as I said, Arjun is first tank designed in Your country, and India really didn't have a teacher that could say things or two about this or that.

Or it was a choice to sacrifice protection there due to some reason we still don't know, but if I would place a bet here I would say weight was a reason. IMHO the goal was not to go over 60 tons back then, even 2 or 4 tons of weight saved can be good to not go overweight, we need to remember that many elements of tanks are very heavy.

You know how heavy are tracks with replaceable rubber pads? Approx 2 tons each, this gives approx 4 tons for tracks only!

If You replace tracks with lighter ones, it might end up with tracks with very low service life, increasing operational costs and reducing vehicle combat rediness. This is one of many issues and problems that designers need to overcome. Sometimes You sacrifice protection, sometimes desicion is made to screw weight limits (still trying to end with rather "healthy" weight).

You know that designing a good tank might be much more difficult than desining a good aircraft.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Sometimes some things are not adressed by designers. Remember that Arjun is first tank designed in India and designers are still learning, while many other nations have grater experience.



It is not question about IQ level, but experience, as I said, Arjun is first tank designed in Your country, and India really didn't have a teacher that could say things or two about this or that.

Or it was a choice to sacrifice protection there due to some reason we still don't know, but if I would place a bet here I would say weight was a reason. IMHO the goal was not to go over 60 tons back then, even 2 or 4 tons of weight saved can be good to not go overweight, we need to remember that many elements of tanks are very heavy.

You know how heavy are tracks with replaceable rubber pads? Approx 2 tons each, this gives approx 4 tons for tracks only!

If You replace tracks with lighter ones, it might end up with tracks with very low service life, increasing operational costs and reducing vehicle combat rediness. This is one of many issues and problems that designers need to overcome. Sometimes You sacrifice protection, sometimes desicion is made to screw weight limits (still trying to end with rather "healthy" weight).

You know that designing a good tank might be much more difficult than desining a good aircraft.

So what your saying is they did not know the GREAT science that a tank may get hit in the side? Why should any need experience to know a tank will get hit on the side? You think the designer would not know a tank will get hit on the side? How lame is that, come one man you could do better than that.

Also when the armor was tested in 2000 they hit the side.

 

[Damian]

So what your saying is they did not know the GREAT science that a tank may get hit in the side? Why should any need experience to know a tank will get hit on the side? You think the designer would not know a tank will get hit on the side? How lame is that, come one man you could do better than that.

I only write about possible explanations.

Also when the armor was tested in 2000 they hit the side.

Where they hit? Over that small side turret cavity or where I marked weak protection and corridors leading to certain penetration? And what they used to hit it there?

And what they mean they hit the side armor? Turret? Hull?

For example if they would claim that side hull armor protected against hit from 120mm or 125mm gun then I would say they lie, because side hull armor is in all modern tanks 80mm max thick.

Do not belive in anything manufacturer will say.

 

[pmaitra]

I do not agree. Germans tended to design as I said, unnececary heavy and big vehicles, while the same or grater levels of protection could have been achieved with smaller and lighter vehicles by just reducing internal volume. It comes with some pay off like less crew comfort but in the end who had bigger problems with tanks? Definetly not Allies or Soviets.

I strongly support Damian here. More complicated and sophisticated does not mean better. T-34 is a legend, so is the Kalashnikov. Their biggest strength is simplicity.

It applies almost everywhere. Despite being several times more complicated, technologically advanced, and sophisticated than the Soyuz, the Space Shuttle is still a very inferior passenger space vehicle compared to the Soyuz.

Even in statistics and machine learning, there is a concept called Occam's Razor. Read a little about it. I have put the salient point below:

"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

So, I would postulate:
If two competing tanks or rifles or space vehicles make or display exactly the same performance, the simpler one is better.