Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

So according to you, whole world is wrong and that guy is right
.
the book I told you earlier talks about chobham and its development

 

[Damian]

Complete bollocks, you should use less internet, there is so much BS there.

For example armor protection calculations for Merkava Mk4. I never seen something more idiotic. Merkava Mk4 is one of the weaker protected tanks especially at hull front. Every tank with front mounted engine have weak front hull armor.

Calculations for T-90 are also idiotic. As ERA does not increase protection equivalent of armor in RHA, but just decrease by % penetration capabilities of armor.

And one more thing.... are you ----ing incapable to write posts in such a way that reading them is not painfull for eyes?

 

[Damian]

So according to you, whole world is wrong and that guy is right
.
the book I told you earlier talks about chobham and its development

Yes, he is right because he is a scientist that provides additional sources in bibliography of his work. Do you even have a scientific degree? I have one, and I see I talk with a poorly educated kid, that did not even finished high school.

And no, you did not talk about any book, you don't have any book, you did not read any book...

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Complete bollocks, you should use less internet, there is so much BS there.

For example armor protection calculations for Merkava Mk4. I never seen something more idiotic. Merkava Mk4 is one of the weaker protected tanks especially at hull front. Every tank with front mounted engine have weak front hull armor.

Calculations for T-90 are also idiotic. As ERA does not increase protection equivalent of armor in RHA, but just decrease by % penetration capabilities of armor.

And one more thing.... are you ----ing incapable to write posts in such a way that reading them is not painfull for eyes?

already deleted

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Pick the best modern MBT - Modern Armored Vehicles - World of Tanks official forum - Page 2
.
I think you should go there and debate cause he is one of more knowledgeable man of that forum, I don't find any thing wrong with his claims

 

[methos]

again I proved many times with confusion and one more time I am doing so

You did prove nothing. But I don't see much sense in arguing with somebody, whose only competence is citing Wikipedia articles and disputed media articles.

Titanium alloy plates are consider steel ? , Ceramic elements shall be boron carbide bricks and you are right there ..

Titanium is not better than steel in terms of protection (depending on alloy it offers less protection per thickness), it's main advantage is the low weight.
Boron carbide and Titanium both share two reasons why their usage in the Arjun is likely very limited: They are expensive as hell and the protection gain is very limited (Boron carbide requires 24% less mass than Aluminium oxide, but costs 10 times as much).

So according to you, whole world is wrong and that guy is right
.
the book I told you earlier talks about chobham and its development

Official documents from the British MoD which were declassified after the Cold War prove that "Chobham" armour does not work as suggested by Wikipedia or other badly informed websites.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

again I don't gonna give a shit to shitty post without reference
.
arjun beats T90 and that's truth .
.
again , titanium , boron oxide and ERA are not only composites but there are many and all are secret

 

[Warhawk]

@methos

The weight of Arjun MK II ie. 68 tonnes includes the weight of TWMP. The TWMP weighs 1.5 tonnes so without it the tank would weigh 66.5 tonnes

Also the ground pressure of Mk II is 13.4 psi which is still less than that of M1A1 if pmaitra's figures are correct.

 

[SilentKiller]

And this is PL-01 concept vehicle of the new medium tank "Gepard", this is based on the CV90 as the real prototype of the UMPGH platform is still in development, this vehicle only shows how more or less "Gepard" will look like in future.

Isn't for this tank too the turret is too exposed in front as with the case of arjun mk2?
I know its a medium tank but medium and MBT are classified as same weight class i guess.
Gunner FCS or sight is at same location.
If its a Auto Turret, its good for crew but considering the calculations shared on armor beyond such placed sights by few experts, armor is quite less behind them. So why are polish still continuing with such a design and not going with front design of say M1A1 or T90??

 

[methos]

again I don't gonna give a shit to shitty post without reference

I don't care about your inability to find references without them getting served to you on a silver platter. You don't have any sources other than news article not even backed by facts and Wikipedia. Wikipedia is pretty the worst possible source in existance, because everybody who is like you a mindless nationalist goes to the article about their favourite stuff and makes it look better. If you want, I can edit the Wikipedia articles and use them as reference.

arjun beats T90 and that's truth .

No. Arjun was trialed in comparision with the T-90 and did not beat it. It was considered more accurate, but that's all. About these trials I redirect you better to what p2prada has written in the "Arjun vs T-90 MBT"-topic.
By the Army's own words the trials were never ment as comparision between the T-90 and Arjun, they even mentioned it when announcing the trials. But apparently you don't even read the articles from which you posts links the whole time.
"Our aim is not to determine a winner in these trials, but to test the core strength of the tanks," a senior official of the Indian Army said, wishing anonymity" from your link to DID. Even the Indian Bussiness Standard source says that "the results are still officially secret". But hey, some patriotic Indian guy writes an article about some nationalistic Indian tank programme based on rumors and anonymous sources, and it is clearly a fact - not that it would be possible of him having his own patriotic/nationalistic motives ...

The claims about the results of the Indian trials have also been disputed by Russia and other countries... that a Indian tank "wins" trials in which not even a winner should be determined has a very strong political aftertaste.

What you are completely ignoring is the nature of these trials. These are user trials to determine the experience of the user's perspective. Such user trials are only testing a very limited amount of parameters: E.g. ballistic tests and armour penetration are not being tested.
A Leopard 1 also outruns and outguns a T-62 (or even a T-72), still it is a worse tank because of it's inability to penetrate modern armour arrays and very limited armour protection.

 

[methos]

Isn't for this tank too the turret is too exposed in front as with the case of arjun mk2?
I know its a medium tank but medium and MBT are classified as same weight class i guess.
Gunner FCS or sight is at same location.
If its a Auto Turret, its good for crew but considering the calculations shared on armor beyond such placed sights by few experts, armor is quite less behind them. So why are polish still continuing with such a design and not going with front design of say M1A1 or T90??

As you said, it is a remotely controlled turret. Placing the sight in front of the turret does not lead to a decrease in armour protection, because behind the turret is no crew compartment. By moving the sight up onto the turret roof, it would block the RWS and the commander's sight at some angles.

 

[SilentKiller]

Titanium is not better than steel in terms of protection (depending on alloy it offers less protection per thickness), it's main advantage is the low weight.
Boron carbide and Titanium both share two reasons why their usage in the Arjun is likely very limited: They are expensive as hell and the protection gain is very limited (Boron carbide requires 24% less mass than Aluminium oxide, but costs 10 times as much).

I am sure u r wrong on this one.
I have myself watch on History channel where a same weight doors of steel and titanium were used on a safe.
presenter used explosive placed inside the safe to blow out the doors, while steel door blew away and was severely damaged but titanium door remained intact (its steel hinges did gave away a bit).

Titanium is stronger than steel for equal proportion of weight. titanium is expensive though so its use remains limited.
i guess for same reason titanium so called tub is used in Mi-35 Hind and also on A-10.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

here is another contrast , one says the one which we refer as chobham have some awkward name ( which is quite funny, how polish scientist knows it and not a single reporter )
.
and other says official document says it doesn't work as all talks ( no reference )

.
so if you consider two statement one question availability of chobham and other says OFFICIAL DOCUMENT SAYS ABOUT HOW CHOBHAM WORKS DIFFERENTLY THAN ALL TALKS
.
@Damian tell of about your claim cause here @Damian says official documents of chobham and please @methos give reference so that this matter clears

 

[Warhawk]

WZT-3 assembled by BEMl based on T-72M1

WZT-2 based on T-55

Credits: BR

 

[methos]

I am sure u r wrong on this one.
I have myself watch on History channel where a same weight doors of steel and titanium were used on a safe.
presenter used explosive placed inside the safe to blow out the doors, while steel door blew away and was severely damaged but titanium door remained intact (its steel hinges did gave away a bit).

Titanium is stronger than steel for equal proportion of weight. titanium is expensive though so its use remains limited.
i guess for same reason titanium so called tub is used in Mi-35 Hind and also on A-10.

I did exactly say that it's main advantage is the low weight. However 100 mm Titanium will (depending on alloy) provide only as much protection as ~80 - 90 mm RHA. 100 mm Titanium will however weigh as much as 50 - 60 mm RHA.

When higher hardness steel or layered steel is used, things soon start to look different. HHS (high hardness steel) provides 30 - 40 % more protection than RHA, dual hardness steel or tripple hardness steel reach a thickness efficiency of 150 - 180 %.

so if you consider two statement one question availability of chobham and other says OFFICIAL DOCUMENT SAYS ABOUT HOW CHOBHAM WORKS DIFFERENTLY THAN ALL TALKS
.
@Damian tell of about your claim cause here @Damian says official enactments of chobham and please @methos give reference so that this matter clears

From one of many official reports:

The name "Chobham armour" was created by journalists. At first it was commonly refered to as (approximately) "new type of special armour developed in Chobham". Burlington is the official codename.
The working mechanism used for the "Chobham armor" article on Wikipedia has been pusblished already pre-1980. I own an book from 1978 describing "Chobham armor" as "layers of steel with ceramic tiles sandwiched inbetween". At this time the Cold War was at his peak! It would have been extremely stupid to officially mention anything about the armour's working mechanism to any sort of journalist/author, because of the Soviet spys.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

P2prada again a guy who never have a single reference and talks foolish
.
again , T90 have torsion bar and arjun have superior hydropnematic suspension , arjun have lesser ground pressure and speed of t90 is just 60-65 km/hr, tell of how t90 is more agile and mobilized than arjun
.
agree , arjun have better accuracy , but in battle a kill is a kill , any one tomorrow will say our tank lost to leopard cause we have inferior armour and accuracy .
.
fire power - don't know but as far the claim of p2prada is without reference no need to talk further @methos

 

[methos]

again , T90 have torsion bar and arjun have superior hydropnematic suspension , arjun have lesser ground pressure and speed of t90 is just 60-65 km/hr, tell of how t90 is more agile and mobilized than arjun
.
agree , arjun have better accuracy , but in battle a kill is a kill , any one tomorrow will say our tank lost to leopard cause we have inferior armour and accuracy .
.
fire power - don't know but as far the claim of p2prada is without reference no need to talk further @methos

Where are your references? Cannot see any...

The claimed speed on road has nothing to do with the actual speed a tank will achieve in cross country drive (even if the terrain is a desert). Basing any assessment on these theoretical values is typical Wikipedia nonsense.

That the fire power is worse is a a well known fact. Why didn't you watch the video of the interview? They clearly say that the penetration is much worse than that of the 1980s munition used on the T-90.

A hydropneumatic suspension is not better than torsion bar. Both the Germans and the Americans decided to not go for hydropneumatic suspensions when building the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams, despite having already fully functional ones developed. There were several fully functional prototypes of the Leopard 2 with hydropneumatic suspensions. But the torsion bar suspensions performed better.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

More like more protection per thickness at highest strength-to-density ratio much like in Grade 38 of titanium alloys ..

Don`t guess around provide evidence it may be less likely ..

T (depending on alloy it offers less protection per thickness), usage in the Arjun is likely very limited.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

If you can read someone else post there, Perhaps can also read the posted links back there ?

It is very well provided in both images and links about the trails so does performance ..

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

In case you are doing this on intentionally, You are trolling ..

No. Arjun was trialed in comparision with the T-90 and did not beat it. It was considered more accurate, but that's all. About these trials I redirect you better to what p2prada has written in the "Arjun vs T-90 MBT"-topic..

Where are your references? Cannot see any...

The claimed speed on road has nothing to do with the actual speed a tank will achieve in cross country drive (even if the terrain is a desert). Basing any assessment on these theoretical values is typical Wikipedia nonsense.

That the fire power is worse is a a well known fact. Why didn't you watch the video of the interview? They clearly say that the penetration is much worse than that of the 1980s munition used on the T-90.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

if you want to troll then do it somewhere else
.
torsion bar used by american and german cause it is cheap and low cost maintenance but actually hydropneumatic is more superior to torision bar in quality
.
Broadsword: Improving the Arjun's already great suspension
.
@methos