India's Arjun tank

[joey]

 

[con]

Arjun on 3D

http://img254.imageshack.us/my.php?image=final1fj0.jpg

Nice!
I cant believe IA has problem with tank

 

[TexasJohn]

not intresting

Did not understand what you are trying to say...

 

[wonder_scorpio2006]

AWEEEEEEEEEEE Ugly !!!!! Plus what is up with the square design ? If they had given it a 45 degress angle it would not only be more protective but also look cool.

 

[con]

Well it is a Indian version of Leo 2A4.Hence the box design. Any guys wanna tell how much of a better protection a sloped armor gives compared to flat box design? However I think composite armor may not be as easy to "slope" compared to other form of armor.

 

[Keysersoze]

Well it is a Indian version of Leo 2A4.Hence the box design. Any guys wanna tell how much of a better protection a sloped armor gives compared to flat box design? However I think composite armor may not be as easy to "slope" compared to other form of armor.

Not easy to slope? Why would you say that? Take a look at the A5 variant. looks like the armour is sloped there.

 

[con]

Not easy to slope? Why would you say that? Take a look at the A5 variant. looks like the armour is sloped there.

Well I guess I might have meant "angled turret". If you compare the turret shape of Leo with that of Chally or M1A1 there seems to substantially change the way they are designed.

Leo has an angled perforated steel armor while Chally has a chobham composite,slightly sloped but flat front. Hence there seems to "some" reason for such a design. I might be wrong on this.

May be composites are better at absorbing direct hits at flat surfaces.Better distribution or force or are practically difficult to mould in to angular shapes

 

[TexasJohn]

Well I guess I might have meant "angled turret". If you compare the turret shape of Leo with that of Chally or M1A1 there seems to substantially change the way they are designed.

Leo has an angled perforated steel armor while Chally has a chobham composite,slightly sloped but flat front. Hence there seems to "some" reason for such a design. I might be wrong on this.

May be composites are better at absorbing direct hits at flat surfaces.Better distribution or force or are practically difficult to mould in to angular shapes

You are right. Different composites require different turret designs. The Kanchin armor in this case would take a frontal blow. Also, rarely is a tank on "fighting" terrain going to be on flat concrete but will be going up or down ruts, slopes etc. The enemy will only get a minimal chance at a "frontal" blow.

 

[Keysersoze]

Well I guess I might have meant "angled turret". If you compare the turret shape of Leo with that of Chally or M1A1 there seems to substantially change the way they are designed.

Leo has an angled perforated steel armor while Chally has a chobham composite,slightly sloped but flat front. Hence there seems to "some" reason for such a design. I might be wrong on this.

May be composites are better at absorbing direct hits at flat surfaces.Better distribution or force or are practically difficult to mould in to angular shapes

The only reason to slope armour, is to increase it's ballistic properties. And the A-6 variant has additional angled plates so I disagree.

 

[niaz]

There is so much research and development going on to develop pilot less aircrafts; is there any project to develop 'Robot' tank.

Main purpose of the tank in battle is to act like a battering ram and punch a whole in the enemy defences and then try to encircle enemy pockets.
Rather than spending so much on armour protection which makes the tanks heavy and thus less manouverable; conceptually, a highly mobile but light tank, remote controlled can work better. A concentrated attack by say 150 tanks ( a brigade) on a very strongly defended position, would sacrifice 100 tanks but by accepting such losses; could achieve the purpose of creating a gap in the enemy lines which could be exploited by the infantry. It would be cheaper both on money and manpower if such tanks were driven by robots.

Has any military planner thought about this concept. If not then why not?? or it is just a stupid idea.

 

[xaahil]

NIAZ - Has any military planner thought about this concept. If not then why not?? or it is just a stupid idea.

I think it can change the current defence layout... more dependable...

Good Idea!!!

 

[con]

is this a tank......i guess Suzuki has developed it...with the horse power of 20. indian donot disheart sometimes man made a great mistake....i think our G3 gun will be enough for it....on the whole good try indians babies...bull ****...

I recommend you please read through your post once. If you can understand then do explain it to me.

 

[TexasJohn]

I am waiting with bated breath for the translation myself!!!

 

[Keysersoze]

I am waiting with bated breath for the translation myself!!!

Why bother?

Anyway back to the Arjun.....It did make me wonder why they went for a large flat surface on the turret when it has very poor ballistic properties. the only way you can get decent protection from a surface like that is to add DU plates or similar which adds even more weight.

Chally one has sloped armour (as does chally 2) So it doesn't really compute with your theory that composites are harder to slope. Ceramics are produced in sheets so it would be very easy to slope it.

The glacis and turret front are the most vulnerable areas in a tank in a tank to tank battle hence they are the areas most heavily armoured. so the idea that tanks will be going up and down ruts etc is a false way of thinking. (because it will expose the underside and top of the tank wich is even more vulnerable)

 

[TexasJohn]

hmmm... well Key you may have a point there. Now I am going to be spending time trying to research the "flat surface" issue..