You are still not getting the point that I was making, so let me rephrase it. This is not sloped armour. These are sloped "shells" which contain the actual armour- look at them as the containers in a manner of speaking. The actual internal armour arrays are what matter and in that the Arjun armour has been proven in live fire trials so there is no cause for worry!karthik wrote:I get it, but almost all the tanks in the world depend on sloped armor for weight reduction and increased strength(according to wait ratio that is) now our MBT alone stands out in the crowd, so to be conclusive do we dare say, it is better or equal to sloped armors in most Western tanks, or will it be getting carried away in the Indian 20/20 world cup style and Australia teaching us a bitter lesson in reality?!
Second: All the current tanks which use the "sloped armour" do it for different reasons.
1. The Abrams has that shape to maximize volume for when its armour array was developed (today they wouldnt need that amount of volume) and because richocheting was a component of anti-FSAPDS design. Both dont hold for us- the Arjun shape is sufficient and more for its Kanchan array (remember we have a decade of trials to prove it and the armour has been upgraded recently) and second, modern FSAPDS rounds have a flat trajectory (so they wont ricochet away on striking a sloped surface).
2. The Leo shape is on account of a new semi hollow wedge added to boost up the basic Leo2A4 protection with a quick array with layers of steel/alloy to degrade FSAPDS. Again, doesnt apply to us since we upgraded the basic Kanchan within the tank itself and dont need a quick fix upgrade!
3. Newer Chinese tanks with "wedge shapes" actually have those ERA bricks- again not applicable to Arjun because the Arjuns armour is passive not active and hence the blocks dont need to be angled to face the likely threat and react as such.
All in all, you are looking at the exterior shape- which is not the point. What counts: The internal armour array, ie the Kanchan which has been repeatedly upgraded to keep pace with metallurgy and machining advances in India.
Your information is mistaken in this case- the Leclerc and Japanese Type-90 both have hydrogas suspension. For that matter, if we see pics, so do the Korean K series MBTs.I understand the only other tank out there which had this type of suspension is the MBT-70 which was far ahead of its time but wasn't inducted into the Army for cost over run reason and the programme was shut down, which was also the path our Arjun was taking and would have taken, if they had not come up with the solution to these problems. So my question is do we again dare say conclusively that we have succeeded in something the Americans couldn't do with their Abrams M1? Then why don't the Americans who designed the system first not go for it?
Now to the second point, you are also comparing apples to oranges, the MBT-70 was a program, as the name suggests- from the 70's and manufacturing technology was a challenge then. For that matter it has taken us two decades to master this suspension as well, with Kirloskars now manufacturing it. Our initial units were actually imported from the US and they promptly flunked in the trials, with leakages. Also, IIRC what sunk the MBT-70 was its usage of concepts such as a forward facing gunner with a rotating turret and similar denovo ideas which all combined, made the tank unworkable.
Also, the M1 was designed in the 70's- always note that every designer has to mix new tech with conservative tech. If the US were to design a tank today, would they use torsion bars? I think not, they would pick the best available tech to proceed with.
So the US adopted what they were most familiar with and which was "idiot proof" - at the time, but it doesnt mean that it was automatically the best tech.
For example, in terms of technology, the Merkava Mk4 has several elements which are beyond the Abrams even- as its learning FCS and top attack armor! But on the other hand, the US has continually upgraded what it considers to be of key importance, ie the ammunition! So a tank developed later can have advantages over an earlier gen tank. OTOH, upgrades can reduce some of these advantages. Now for the US ammo is key, armour every decade or so or when they need to, and Battle management systems plus newer sensors, ie FLIR. But the rest works, so why mess with it!
So why did we adopt hydropneumatic suspension- well, for one it was definitely the technology of the future which modern designers were moving towards, and second, it had key advantages in terms of fire on the move ability plus allowing for greater depression for the gun from prepared positions (the tank can kneel on the ground) and crew comfort. The flip side is that its more expensive, much harder to design, develop and manufacture and finally would require new logistics.