The Arjun Tank

C

Chrom

New Member
crobato said:
How is 1400hp pushing 58 tons more stressful than 800hp pushing 40 tons? The math don't seem to agree.
Click to expand...
Becouse in many cases weight simply matters on its own, regardless of hp/t or t/m2. Not only with artifical buildings like bridges or railcars - but also sand, mud, steep hills, etc also have particulary similar properties when they can withstand only so much weight in limited area. I will repeat - regardless of t/m2 on tracks.

P.S. But that is also not the point. We are comparing here 46t heavy T-90 with 1000hp engine (and possible even 1200hp engine if indians will opt for it) and about 60 tons heavy Arjun with 1400/1500 HP engine. As you see, real hp/t ratios are very close to eachover, and we cant say about definite one-side advantage.
 
Last edited:
K

kizilsungur

New Member
Arjun Original
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN.bmp/ARJUN-full.jpg

and my concepts....

Arjun 2 (for Forest Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition.bmp/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 3 (for Desert Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition.jpg/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 4 (for General Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition.jpg/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 5 MM (for Urban Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl.jpg/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl-full.jpg

Thanks :)
 
B

BlahBlahBlah1

New Member
Chrom said:
Becouse in many cases weight simply matters on its own, regardless of hp/t or t/m2. Not only with artifical buildings like bridges or railcars - but also sand, mud, steep hills, etc also have particulary similar properties when they can withstand only so much weight in limited area. I will repeat - regardless of t/m2 on tracks.

P.S. But that is also not the point. We are comparing here 46t heavy T-90 with 1000hp engine (and possible even 1200hp engine if indians will opt for it) and about 60 tons heavy Arjun with 1400/1500 HP engine. As you see, real hp/t ratios are very close to eachover, and we cant say about definite one-side advantage.
Click to expand...
The advantage is, like you said, T-90 is 46ton and Arjun is 60ton...
 
K

kizilsungur

New Member
BlahBlahBlah1 said:
The advantage is, like you said, T-90 is 46ton and Arjun is 60ton...
Click to expand...
Indians have only 18 Arjuns.

Meanwhile how is my concepts dude?

Arjun Original
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN.bmp/ARJUN-full.jpg

and my concepts....

Arjun 2 (for Forest Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition.bmp/ARJUN2KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 3 (for Desert Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition.jpg/Arjun3KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 4 (for General Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition.jpg/ARJUN4KzlsungurEdition-full.jpg
Arjun 5 MM (for Urban Combats)
http://kizilsungur.googlepages.com/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl.jpg/ARJUN_5_MM_Meskn_Mahl-full.jpg

Thanks :)
 
B

BlahBlahBlah1

New Member
kams said:
You don't have a clue to velocity of 120mm FSAPDS or it's accuracy and consistency (0.2 MSD) of the round yet you draw a conclusion that it's comparable to T-90.
Click to expand...
Velocity of "APFSDS" (at least I hope this is what you're trying to spell) don't matter as much as the quality of the round. Trying comparing Depleted Uranium and Tungsten
 
C

Chrom

New Member
BlahBlahBlah1 said:
The advantage is, like you said, T-90 is 46ton and Arjun is 60ton...
Click to expand...
But the weight by itself is NOT advantage, it is DISADVANTAGE!

The idea behind heaver tank is what it should have better firepower/armor/whatever than light tank. If it dont - then weight is pure defeciency what is not compensated by any corresponding advantage.
 
C

Chrom

New Member
BlahBlahBlah1 said:
Velocity of "APFSDS" (at least I hope this is what you're trying to spell) don't matter as much as the quality of the round. Trying comparing Depleted Uranium and Tungsten
Click to expand...
What is more funny, ammo actually matters for accuracy even more than a gun.
Besides, there are speculations what starting from about 1.800 m/s tungsten have better AP properties than DU. But that is for future guns and ammo's anyway. Right now DU is certainly best and cheapest option - if we disregard ecological unfluence of course.

I think this is the reason why USSR/Russia maintain both DU and Tungsten ammo lines in service.
 
Last edited:
A

aaaditya

New Member
BlahBlahBlah1 said:
Velocity of "APFSDS" (at least I hope this is what you're trying to spell) don't matter as much as the quality of the round. Trying comparing Depleted Uranium and Tungsten
Click to expand...
indian's term the apfsds(armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot) as the fsapds( fin stabilised armour piercing discarding sabot) both the terms are correct and mean the same.
 
B

BlahBlahBlah1

New Member
Chrom said:
But the weight by itself is NOT advantage, it is DISADVANTAGE!
Click to expand...
lol, I'm also trying to communicate that the extra weight is disadvantageous...

Chrom said:
The idea behind heaver tank is what it should have better firepower/armor/whatever than light tank.
Click to expand...
Abrams is a four man crew, the loader adds an entire row to the turret, lengthening the turret puts it around the weight it should be. In addition, it's not the weight that determines the armor/protection of the tank...for example, the Tiger I tank weighed around 57 metric tons, are you gonna tell me that it's better protected than T-90 because of the weight?

I don't see any proof that heavier tanks has better firepower. In fact, firepower has nothing to do with the weight. It's purely dependent on the gun/breech and the round.
 
B

BlahBlahBlah1

New Member
aaaditya said:
indian's term the apfsds(armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot) as the fsapds( fin stabilised armour piercing discarding sabot) both the terms are correct and mean the same.
Click to expand...
Well, this isn't India...my advice is that write your comments with universal terms that everyone since this forum also have people other than Indians.
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Tungsten needs additional muzzle velocity to have the same penetration performance as a DU round with less muzzle velocity, Tungsten long rod penetrators still have the issue of mushrooming or bending upon impact. Both Russia and the U.S use DU as a primary armor defeating round. With Germany designing the L55, they have given tanks with the likes of LEO`s, Challenger 2 and Black Panther the added punch needed for Tungsten projectiles. I would really be interested in knowing what the French are getting out of the Leclerc CN120-26 120mm maingun, there are some who will lay claim that Frances latest Tungsten long rod penetrator OFL 120 F1 will leave the tube at a muzzle velocity of 1790m/sec, not to shabby for a tank gun that measures 52 calibers.

Either way - The Indian military likes the potential that they have with the Arjun, the T-90 purchase was supposed to be a stop gap measure to help counter Pakistans latest MBTs. I find it rather interesting that countries who can afford to supply their militaries with the best tank technologies that are out there in armor protection seem to alway`s want to swing towards the laminated composite type armor protection.
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
aaaditya said:
indian's term the apfsds(armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot) as the fsapds( fin stabilised armour piercing discarding sabot) both the terms are correct and mean the same.
Click to expand...
Yes - other countries have used the same terms also.
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
BlahBlahBlah1 said:
lol, I'm also trying to communicate that the extra weight is disadvantageous...



Abrams is a four man crew, the loader adds an entire row to the turret, lengthening the turret puts it around the weight it should be. In addition, it's not the weight that determines the armor/protection of the tank...for example, the Tiger I tank weighed around 57 metric tons, are you gonna tell me that it's better protected than T-90 because of the weight?

I don't see any proof that heavier tanks has better firepower. In fact, firepower has nothing to do with the weight. It's purely dependent on the gun/breech and the round.
Click to expand...
Could you please clarify to me why weight doesn`t have any determination of a MBT`s armor protection level, please keep in mind that a M1A2 SEP comes in at a hefty 70 ton fully combat loaded.:)
 
B

BlahBlahBlah1

New Member
eckherl said:
Could you please clarify to me why weight doesn`t have any determination of a MBT`s armor protection level, please keep in mind that a M1A2 SEP comes in at a hefty 70 ton fully combat loaded.:)
Click to expand...
Tiger I tank=57ton
T-90=46.5ton

Now, are you telling me that Tiger is better protected than the T-90?

What matters is the material the armor is made out of.

Abrams has a four man crew. Adding an extra man behind the breech just about doubled the length of the turret. That is gonna add a lot of weight, but will not increase the protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top