What did i tell you to do? Who is the designer did you go learn or will you only come back with pointless shit?
Apart from the Merkava which other tanks has armour on the turret side? It is designed by the same Design Bureau that designed the Leopard 2A4, the Arjun is much larger than the Leo-2A4 the turret side is as protected as the German tank which is not much, both share latches on top for entry. I understand the protection is not good and i myself have pointed out on that. Its only the newer generation missiles that attack from the top, particularly becoz of this weakness in most tanks.
I wasn't aware of that. I know the Russians cannot very well afford it and I doubt India can now considering Arjun is being shoved down the Army's throat anyway, more or less, if the second order for 248 comes through. I can't think of any other country being able to fund the Obj 195 beyond India. I am talking about countries who Russia is comfortable sharing tech with. So, we are forced to call it a prototype until otherwise. Too bad.
Electronics do not have a large gestation period for development. What is not feasible now becomes a standard just two or three years later. We will never know if there are other bigger problems on the 195 so quickly. Who knows?
Please, it is time for you to shut up. You dont even know who the designer is, only the Arjun Mk2 will be refitted by DRDO the original design is by a German tank design bureau that designed the Leopard 2A4.
All NATO tanks do. Try to sell Arjun to any NATO country and it won't even pass initial requirements.
CVRDE is not German. Arjun is an Indian design. German help was most probably used in Armour and regular consultation. Nobody will help India in designing a tank even today.
Leo 2A4 has composite armour on the sides. Larger isn't necessarily good, even if you are comparing it to the A4.
Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger 1, Challenger 2, Leclerc.
Where vehicle is designed does not matter, K1 and K1A1 tanks are also designed in US by GDLS, company that bought Chrysler Defence where team that designed M1 Abrams worked, and some of these guys are probably working in GDLS up to this day or are mentors to current generation of designers working there. And hey, K1 and K1A1 are in terms of armor protection and crew survivability completely inferior to M1 series.
It's preatty funny that people are talking only about top attack ATGM's, and are not aware about safe manouvering angles principle and that side hull and turret armor not only protects vehicle from the pure sides, but also against hits from the frontal arc.
No, not all, C1 Ariete is an example how to not design a tank... but Italians can only blame themselfs for low funding, and making vehicle that in many ways is well below any NATO standards... You know that this is the only NATO tank that do not have even part of it's ammunition in isolated compartment or armored bins?
Leopard 2 have typical for European design, turret side composite armor over crew compartment, bustle is not protected by composite armor, AFAIK even Leclerc do not have composite armor over turret bustle. On the other hand, for example M1 Abrams have full turret sides lenght protected by composite armor. Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 do not store anything very important in turret bustle, this is why it is only covered by storage bins, while crew compartment is protected by composite armor.
Ah! My bad. Not such a good tank IMO. Arjun is better than this in some respects.No, not all, C1 Ariete is an example how to not design a tank... but Italians can only blame themselfs for low funding, and making vehicle that in many ways is well below any NATO standards... You know that this is the only NATO tank that do not have even part of it's ammunition in isolated compartment or armored bins?
Do we need to go as far as turret bustle? Arjun has this drawback, but it may not be a major obstacle in a tank vs tank battle within a smaller safe maneuvering angle, unless of course if it is compared to M1A2s or T-90s design.
Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger 1, Challenger 2, Leclerc.
So your saying an hit on the turret side will got go through the crew hatch? Sure that turret hatch cant be penetrated.
The point is you did not even know that. Stop pulling up bullshit to defend your argument. The size does matter in so far as how much armor it carries.
I know that, if that is new news to you i cant help it. The arjun wont have any safe maneuvering angles i am sure.
Moron it is safe to say i went to the Avadi tank factory to see when it had a test run on the grounds. You assessment is wrong about the armor, it is safe to say it is robust even after the kanchan armor there is enough on the inside. i was not allowed to photograph the t-90 or the Arjun on the inside for obvious reasons but chatting with the tank men i came to know it had taken direct hits of all the rounds. The composite armor did have a hole from APFSDS but they did not enter the hull.
The turret side is definitely a weakness but i am not sure it was built for urban or mountain combat where the turret is exposed to rocket attack. In that case even the Merakavs did not manage to survive a turret attack in the Lebanon conflict and they retreated. The sides and the front arc are extremely robust and you need to go see. Offcourse you cant but you have bragging rights because you talk of a lot of crap on the net.
There are couple of no nothing chaps on the net who go by arm chair criticism, i cant sit here and waste my time over the pissing contest.
It depends, for Americans it was somehwat nececity to also give enhanced protection over turret bustle.
A lot of our stuff is similar to already designed stuff. We aren't copying, but our designers aren't creative enough when they started off. The Chinese have the same problem, but people call it copying.
There is no German designer called Krauss. The person who created Krauss Co(George Krauss) was dead well before WW I. Krauss merged with another company called Maffei to create Krauss Maffei.
There is no point trying to prove Arjun is a sack of sh!t or otherwise. No matter how good Arjun is IA has already chosen it's future tank. The point is Arjun is not necessary and that's what even the DGMF was saying.
have you designed tank by yourself? i don't think so. people in DRDO are 100000x smarter and intelligent than internet keyword arm chair generals like you and me. people in DRDO know what they are doing. DRDO have more experience than anybody on this forum. granted, arjun may be still rough around the edges but they are working on it. so don't climb the creek of your ego called "i know everything" and blindly blame DRDO. you may have valid concerns regarding it's design and placement like you highlighted in your previous post. but there must be an explanation or a reason why tank turret is build that way. drdo knows all about tanks as we are operating tanks for past 70 years in all kind of terrain and weather and faced 3 full scaled wars. so please stop cursing DRDO
Size of armor cavity yes, not size of vehicle.
Oh so now You say that Arjun do not have any safe manouvering angles? Poor crews then.
? Can someone translate this?
even in the 1980s, the Kanchan armour defeated a 106 mm RCL gun which was tried on the Arjun Tank.
aren't we talking about Arjun MBT here
Armor ends where hatch ring starts. I will do one better photo from that video if there will be better shot and post it later.
Size of armor cavity yes, not size of vehicle.
Oh so now You say that Arjun do not have any safe manouvering angles? Poor crews then.
? Can someone translate this?
I explain once more, side armor is reposnible not only for attack from pure sides, for example 90 degrees from turret longitudinal axis, but also to protect vehicles from frontal attack that are within 60-65 degrees arc. It is called frontal arc of vehicle.
This drawing might explain, as we can see T-72B turret have very thin side armor, but within safe manouvering angles (60-65 degrees frontal arc of vehicle) these are completely covered by frontal armor. This is typical for any possible hit in tank vs tank combat on open ground.
1) What weight have to do with protection? Besides this it was not realesed to public to assume how heavy turret is. But comparing overall vehicle weight with other vehicles of comparable size, I assume it can be something similiar to Leopard 2, this means around 15 tons.
No, but I base my knowledge on observations, documents, literature of that subject. Analize all designs made by great designers like Alexander Morozov, General Israel Tal, Phillip Lett.
And only recently India started to design it's very first tank. Using tank and designing tank from scratch are completely different things. And I'am amazed that Indians do not curse DRDO, they should do that for the sake of designs quality and competetivness, even in Soviet Union Politbureau had it's way to achieve competetiveness by creating multiple design bureaus that will compete with each other to create the best vehicles possible. Having only one big organization creating such weapons means there are no competition, and nobody really cares.
Not impressive really, even old BDD armor installed on T-55 can do that.
Composite armor defeating HESH is nothing impressive, even simple only steel spaced armor can do that. As for APFSDS, what APFSDS ammunition was that? 3BM15? What Israeli ammunition was that? It is nice and all, but without details it is not worth much, especially that armor penetration values or estimations are known, and tested ammunition might be ineffective against any other modern tank, also T-90 or some more modern T-72 variants.
You are making here a wrong assumption. First, yes there are different types of ammunition, but there are also different variants and models of ammunition within one class. 125mm 3BM15 is APFSDS, as M829A3 is APFSDS, but M829A3 can penetrate much more armor and is less vurnable to ERA than 3BM15 or for example DM33.
And also about "Armata" and Object 195 and other vehicles. GK had some doubt about one issue, I provided explanation.
