Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

[NRao]

?????

For real?

March, 2013 :: India; T-72/90 Tank simulators tender

A $65 million tender has been addressed to several domestic companies, including private sector such as CAE, Alpha Design, Bharat BEL, Rolta, Tata and Zen.

The requirement is for 104 armored vehicle driving simulators, including 19 for the T-72 tanks and 85 for the T-90 tanks.

[member_22539]

Mr. Sanku, let me spell this out for you, apparently you have trouble when people ask you difficult questions. Do you have any source citing that BDL was responsible for the troubles of the Invar missile. Can you provide any link or article or something? Who told you that BDL was responsible with their faulty assembly and that the Russians were not responsible and that they did not provide defective missiles kits?

[member_22539]

?????

For real?

March, 2013 :: India; T-72/90 Tank simulators tender

A $65 million tender has been addressed to several domestic companies, including private sector such as CAE, Alpha Design, Bharat BEL, Rolta, Tata and Zen.

The requirement is for 104 armored vehicle driving simulators, including 19 for the T-72 tanks and 85 for the T-90 tanks.

Is that what the inside of a T-72/T-90 looks like. How pathetically outdated and physically uncomfortable can one system be. Is this what we give our soldiers to fight with?

[Pratyush]

Look,Arjun and the T-90 belong to two diff. philosophies.

SNIP.....

Who designed the Arjun to be what it is today and why?
How many actually know that the Arjun was meant to be 40 ton tank with a 105 MM main gun at the time of the inception of the project. That being the case how many iterations were there before the so called classic western heavy tank came into being. What was it that let the Arjun to grow from a 40 tn vehicle to a 60 ton vehicle. Also why have all those experiences which let to the 60 ton tank junked by the IA. In favour of the T 90. These are the the questions that have to be answered before we can place the debate in perspective.

We can debate why the Arjun is unsuitable for Indian use. But it is what it is because, the IA wanted it to be this way, and before it reached this state. It went through 3 separate Iterations before it reached this stage. One with 105 MM, one with 115 mm and one with 120 mm main gun. Which in turn meant that every time one design was perfected the IA revised the GSQR and the DRDO went back to the Drawing board. Resulting in delays and cost overruns.

Also to all those who say that it took 30 years to develop the tank. Please note that in the 30 year period the DRDO had developed 3 totally different designes in order to satisfy the IA. So the DRDO developed 3 tanks and not just one. If one looked hard enough at the Arjun project people would see just what had happened.

[Anujan]

^^^^^

So, to cut through the chase (and copy paste), a simple question:

If we have a Arjun MK1 (forget MK2) vs T-90 engagement scenario, which one would come out tops?



I think that's the only relevant metrics for us to consider. And we don't need to go all the way back to WWII or even the Gulf War. I do believe such a comparison exercise was done, na? Any idea what the result was?

Moral of the story is that Germany would have won WWII if they had imported tanks from Russia.

[NRao]

I would prefer not to visit the past. However, I cannot see any reason for India to buy anymore T-90 tanks from Russia, just no need to do so.

On problems encountered in India - has Russia made any efforts to help resolve them? Or have they contributed to them by being active participants in making the situation worse?

[arnab]

^^^^^

So, to cut through the chase (and copy paste), a simple question:

If we have a Arjun MK1 (forget MK2) vs T-90 engagement scenario, which one would come out tops?



I think that's the only relevant metrics for us to consider. And we don't need to go all the way back to WWII or even the Gulf War. I do believe such a comparison exercise was done, na? Any idea what the result was?

Moral of the story is that Germany would have won WWII if they had imported tanks from Russia.

And now Russia wants to import German Tanks What a topsy turvy world!

The most advanced weapon systems manufactured for Russia's ground forces are below NATO and even Chinese standards and are expensive, GF chief Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov said on Tuesday.

"The weapon models that are manufactured by our industry, including armor, artillery and small arms and light weapons, fail to meet the standards that exist in NATO and even China," he said at a session of the Defense and Security Committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament.

He said that Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million rubles (over $4 million) per unit.

"It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards [Germany's main battle tanks] with this money," Postnikov said

.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20110315/163016351.html

[NRao]

That Russian is not aware that India is subsidizing them. AND their bridges. (sorry left that little detail out.)

[Anujan]

Can russian bridges support the Leopard? Also I heard that Leopard torsion bar broke during trials?

[Baikul]

..........................

This is typical problem of knowing one small part of the puzzle -- the real tank battles that have been seen are WWII, and both the WW II tank and later tank scenarios were quite extensively discussed here on this thead and else where, and while the German heavies had all the shock and awe -- in the end, they were just to put it mildly, irrelevant on the battlefield --the real success through tanks came with Pz Mk IVs, T-34s, ........

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I admit to little knowledge not having done intensive reading on Arjun and the T-90 that some mauleners here clearly have done. I also admit to being inclined towards the Arjun MBT based on the little I know.

Those two caveats aside, on this specific issue I would not disagree with Sankuji- yet. WWII and WWI battles, strategy and tactics (even at a platoon level) are a hobby of mine and my reading coincides with what he has to say. Overall, Russian tanks in WWII were mostly individually superior to their German counterparts, except for rare and over-emphasized (IMO) exceptions such as the Tiger. Memoir after memoir, and several analyses of that era repeatedly mention how German tank firepower bounced off Russian armor, with only the 88mm flak gun being consistently effective when used in a ground artillery/ anti-tank role.

And yet Russian tank attrition rates, including those in tank on tank battles, were significantly higher all through the war. Briefly, this has been attributed to German tactical superiority combined with wireless communication and diverging roles of the respective tank commanders at the individual tank level.

Of course this argument becomes irrelevant in a few instances. One, if we're saying that one tank is so clearly superior to another that tactics become irrelevant as they won't make a difference. Two, we can and should change and improve the tactics according to the tank at our disposal. So there's no reason why the Arjun as a presumably superior tank wouldn't do even better with than the T-90 if the tactics are appropriately identified and implemented.

[Anujan]

In Battle of Asal Uttar, Pakis had superior tanks and superior numbers. We had superior tactics and command and made them downhill-ski.

In Battle of Longewala, it was essentially Infantry + 1 Jeep vs Armor. We had better dug-in position, courage and 4 Hawker Hunters. Pakis had bad information and co-ordination.

In Battle of Basantar, Pakis had superior number and quality. They imagined themselves to be horse-riding Gengis Khan in central asia, lined up their tanks in a straight line, yelled "Jeeeehaaaarrrrddd!!!!" and charged in a straight line in broad daylight. SDREs after the intial "WTF?!" picked them off one by one with ease. Like villains fighting Rajnikanth, the tanks arrived one by one, and got GUBO'ed. By the time SDRE Rajnikanths were done, they had dispatched more than sixty tanks!

Point is, tactics, communication, recon, co-ordination, air power and terrain matter in armored warfare. But given all these, superior equipment wins out.

Much of WWII analysis is also flawed, because it was total war. It was essentially one industrial complex pitted against another -- that is why the cost of equipment and the speed at which they could be churned out mattered. Massa essentially won the war by out-manufacturing Germany and capturing all Iron and Coal producing regions from Germany first. If we fight Pakis/Cheenis, how long would we fight them before things turned nuclear or even conventional missiles started raining down in our population centers? Thats why we need the best equipment to give the bloodiest nose in the shortest amount of time.

[Pratyush]

Careful, or you end up making tin canlovers point for them. That equipment doesnt matter

[Sanku]

.......

Thank you Baikul ji, I am in full agreement. I strongly endorse the following

So there's no reason why the Arjun as a presumably superior tank wouldn't do even better with than the T-90 if the tactics are appropriately identified and implemented.

The ONLY problem with Arjun, IMVHO has been that our MIC is not able to make them fast enough and well enough. This is a case where a good idea/design suffers because the execution and follow through has been wanting.

In the end, irrespective of however good Arjun is, if Avadi take years to build them, or gets crippled by "how to" whenever small changes are asked for, the equipment wont be ready for a real world role.

[Sanku]

If we fight Pakis/Cheenis, how long would we fight them before things turned nuclear or even conventional missiles started raining down in our population centers? Thats why we need the best equipment to give the bloodiest nose in the shortest amount of time.

No, to solve the above problem, we need different tactics, which is reply in kind, but that is OT for the thread. All I want to say is a tank or a a/c wont solve the problem that a cruise missile give you.

[arnab]

In the end, irrespective of however good Arjun is, if Avadi take years to build them, or gets crippled by "how to" whenever small changes are asked for, the equipment wont be ready for a real world role.

The only reason the T-90 is 'ready' for a "real world role" is because the IA accepted the shoddy half baked tank to begin with. If it had accepted the Arjun as it was in 2006, T-90 wouldn't have been a fait accompli for us and we would have had a better indigenous tank in the bargain.

[Sanku]

T-72 was introduced into production in 1973.

M1 Abrams was introduced into production in 1980.

A total of 3,273 M1 Abrams were produced 1979–85 and first entered U.S. Army service in 1980.

Thats a 7-year difference.

So this is all that you have to say? Of all the points. Again you are wrong. Just plain and simple wrong.

You have blindly assumed that the age of the tank is when it was first produced!!

Here when we say M1A1 was 20 years ahead, we are talking of the current level of tech in the equipment fielded.

The M1s in Iraq were not M1s of the 1979 era. They were M1A1s -- the older tanks were upgraded to M1A1 standards by 1991, and only M1A1 were being fielded. They had latest 90s tech.


OTOH Iraqi T-72s---

The Iraqis called their T-72 copies the "Lion of Babylon" (Asad Babil). These Iraqi tanks were assembled from "spare parts" sold to them by Russia as a means of evading the UN-imposed weapons embargo.

So yeah, latest 91 tech against tanks assembled from scrap on the sly. Of a 1973 model. Built in Poland.


Great victory for US psy-ops.

[Sanku]

Moral of the story is that Germany would have won WWII if they had imported tanks from Russia.

There are enough comedians on the thread, without you needing to lend your weight Anujan. Why not stay on the side of people making sensible on topic posts. God knows there are only a very small handlful in the middle on one random "aam means amrud" post champions.

[Sanku]

I have NOT defined what Battle of 73 Easting means.
It has been defined by historians who studied GW1.

Please, forget historians, your definition of the battle is to pick three lines out of context from wiki page detailing full battle.

[Misraji]

Have no clue what your rolling smilee is all about. Great Psyops and all.

According to Russian sources, an informal agreement was in place between the Iraqi government and a Polish company as early as 1982.[3] The deal comprised the assembly of 250 T-72Ms from imported hulls, in order to avoid the embargo.[3] However, the process actually consisted of final assembly of complete knock down kits, rather than a true production line. By September 1982, the Soviet Union started to provide other T-72 components covertly via Poland, to upgrade the Iraqi tanks. About 60 T-72s were lost in the war with Iran. By the time of the beginning of the production in the Taji factory, several hundred T-72s were in active service in the Iraqi Army. Nevertheless, the tanks were upgraded between 1989 and 1990.[3]
The steel plant in Taji, built by a West German company in 1986, manufactured steel for several military uses and met the standards to retrofit and rebuild tanks already on duty in the Iraqi Army, such as the T-54/55 and T-62. The first locally-assembled T-72 came off the production line in early 1989, after a license agreement was achieved with a Polish contractor to provide essential parts.[5]
The United Nations imposed an arms embargo following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, which soon limited the complex activity to the production of spare parts for the Lions and other tanks in the Iraqi arsenal.[5]
In most aspects, the Lion of Babylon is physically identical to the basic T-72M1.[6] The Iraqi T-72s were upgraded with the addition of laminated armor on the front slope and rear as protection against HEAT projectiles.[2] A few examples featured a laser rangefinder for its 125 mm smoothbore main gun. American military intelligence believed some of them also featured Belgian-made thermal sights.[7] These same sources claim the tank was also provided with a better track protection against sand and mud than the Soviet T-72, by reducing the original number of dampers.[8][9] Some of them carried a crude detachable pipe device made by the Iraqis in order to use the exhausts to blow up sand or dust to dig-in the tank.[10] It's widely known that the tank had some kind of electro-optical interference pods of Chinese origin.[11][12] As secondary armament, the tank mounted either the NSV or the DShK 12.7 mm machinegun and the coaxial 7.62 mm PKT common to all models of T-72.

That makes them more modern than M1A1, right?

--Ashish

[Misraji]

I have NOT defined what Battle of 73 Easting means.
It has been defined by historians who studied GW1.

Please, forget historians, your definition of the battle is to pick three lines out of context from wiki page detailing full battle.

Sigh. Wiki details the entire battle removing the Iraqi Blocking force.
That is NOT Battle of 73 Easting.

1. Map of Battle of 73 Easting
2. Paper on Battle of 73 Easting

How many more links are needed?

--Ashish

[Singha]

there is a persistent rumour that our T72M fleet was a monkey model export std with SAND in between the armour plates instead of whatever "secret" material the Rus army T72 used at the time. any truth to it?

[Sanku]

Mr. Sanku, let me spell this out for you, apparently you have trouble when people ask you difficult questions. Do you have any source citing that BDL was responsible for the troubles of the Invar missile. Can you provide any link or article or something? Who told you that BDL was responsible with their faulty assembly and that the Russians were not responsible and that they did not provide defective missiles kits?

First do you accept that only one batch of INVAR was faulty and the missile works and is being used and also imported and is now aimed at being manufactured in large numbers?

We will talk of the role of BDL/Russians later.

[Sanku]

Have no clue what your rolling smilee is all about. Great Psyops and all.

In most aspects, the Lion of Babylon is physically identical to the basic T-72M1.[6] The Iraqi T-72s were upgraded with the addition of laminated armor on the front slope and rear as protection against HEAT projectiles.[2] A few examples featured a laser rangefinder for its 125 mm smoothbore main gun. American military intelligence believed some of them also featured Belgian-made thermal sights.[7] These same sources claim the tank was also provided with a better track protection against sand and mud than the Soviet T-72, by reducing the original number of dampers.[8][9] Some of them carried a crude detachable pipe device made by the Iraqis in order to use the exhausts to blow up sand or dust to dig-in the tank.[10] It's widely known that the tank had some kind of electro-optical interference pods of Chinese origin.[11][12] As secondary armament, the tank mounted either the NSV or the DShK 12.7 mm machinegun and the coaxial 7.62 mm PKT common to all models of T-72.

--Ashish

This is the upgd of 1973 T 72?

Wonderful -- have no clue is right.

[Sanku]

Please, forget historians, your definition of the battle is to pick three lines out of context from wiki page detailing full battle.

Sigh. Wiki details the entire battle removing the Iraqi Blocking force.
That is NOT Battle of 73 Easting.

Please stop spreading more lies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

Battle of 73 Easting




See the topic
BATTLE
OF
73 Easting

All the stuff about combined arms, overall plans, air assault is there. APART from the two very scholarly articles I posted.

1. Map of Battle of 73 Easting
2. Paper on Battle of 73 Easting

How many more links are needed?

--Ashish

Do you even READ what you post?

You link says

The simulation of this tank-on-tank engagement from the 1991 war against Iraq was run by the Institute for Defense Analyses and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). The product was a learning tool for current and future soldier training, as well as historical analysis. It became a model for further work in the same genre.


It is not a paper on the battle, only deals with a limited part through simulation.


You a infinite capacity for being comically wrong and then trying to defend that wrong with more comedy, by posting random links which in no way substantiate your statement.

[member_22539]

First do you accept that only one batch of INVAR was faulty and the missile works and is being used and also imported and is now aimed at being manufactured in large numbers?

We will talk of the role of BDL/Russians later.

No we won't. You don't get to decide what to talk and what not. I asked you for a source for your grand talk. You have YET to give one. If you give a reputable source for your words, I am willing to eat crown and accept it.

[Misraji]

This is exactly what the link said

Two days into Operation Desert Storm the allied VII Corps had moved through southern Iraq towards the Kuwait border. The 2nd Cavalry Regiment had an initial encounter with 10 Iraqi tanks which were destroyed near longitudinal line 60 (Easting 60); they moved on until the bulk of the battle occurred at 73 Easting. The visibility was almost zero because of dust storms and nightfall. It was this battle which the simulation project portrayed.

The Battle of 73 Easting!!!!

--Ashish

[Sanku]

First do you accept that only one batch of INVAR was faulty and the missile works and is being used and also imported and is now aimed at being manufactured in large numbers?

We will talk of the role of BDL/Russians later.

No we won't. You don't get to decide what to talk and what not. t.

Why because your lies got caught is it. Funny you lied trying to prove your point with a link which said exactly opposite of what you said.

Amazing.

And now trying to brazen it out, wah.

[Misraji]

This is the upgd of 1973 T 72?
Wonderful -- have no clue is right.

What you have bolded is only about thermal imagers. Not about the armor upgrade.
Nobody denies the armor upgrade.

The Iraqi T72 were an upgrade over 1973 T-72A models that you have been taking as benchmark so far.
The armor upgrade was performed circa 1989-90.

The M1A1 is an upgrade over 1979 M1 that arrived in service in 1985.

So you have 1989 T-72 vs 1985 M1A1. The point is?

--Ashish

[Sanku]

This is exactly what the link said

Two days into Operation Desert Storm the allied VII Corps had moved through southern Iraq towards the Kuwait border. The 2nd Cavalry Regiment had an initial encounter with 10 Iraqi tanks which were destroyed near longitudinal line 60 (Easting 60); they moved on until the bulk of the battle occurred at 73 Easting. The visibility was almost zero because of dust storms and nightfall. It was this battle which the simulation project portrayed.

The Battle of 73 Easting!!!!

--Ashish

The link says that it talks about a specific part of battle of 73 easting. It DOES NOT say, that it is a full and complete analysis of the battle. It does not say that it talks about the ORBAT during the time.

A PART DURING THE BATTLE. The simulation of this tank-on-tank engagement during the battle DOES NOT mean that the battle was only tank to tank engagement.

Sheesh.....

A wiki link, plus 2 articles have been posted which deal with the full battle of 73 easting. In complete context.

[Singha]

section 12.3.3 of this paper gives an assessment of armour use in the iran iraq war relatively evenly matched foes.
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/9 ... chap12.pdf

their training, support and doctrine lagged some 30 years behind the 1st line NATO forces engaged in the ODS. these khan-poodle units had been honing their skills for years in texas and germany in big scale exercises. they were the republican guard for khan and UK.

sure the iraqi T72 may not be at par with the soviet union best units, but more importantly their lack of overall training, doctrine, support arms ensured they could never win that fight. the debate could be about the degree of loss . wherever the Khan pressed his attack the iraqis got totally hammered and wiped off the map. where the khan wanted to slap them around but leave open a corridor in the rear for retreat they managed to drag themselves there until khan send his flying eagles to pound them on the road as well.
the bradleys firing bushmaster cannons were apparently able to shred anything they came across in light tank role - no troops but extra ammo...

I think its better to discuss tank vs tank in India-Pak-Cheen contest and in there we know the T99/Khalid is a good match for the upg-T72 and superior to the base monkey models we got in 1980s. the T99 variants look equivalent to the T90 as well.

can someone conclude with certaintly that a T90 regiment can soundly defeat a T99 or Khalid regiment in a stand up fight ?
because thats what we are looking at with the huge nos of T90 due in service they will 100% probability see heavy combat.

[Pratyush]

Singha, I hate to tell you that you are wasting your time. When it comes to the tin can it is a world beater and regardless of what you may tell someone, they are better then Arjun. The T 72 is like a borg cube compared to star fleet ship. It will destroy every thing it sets its sight to.

Tactics and individually capabilities are meaning less.

Actually, I blame Misraji, for starting this round of Arjun Vs tin can.

[Sanku]

The M1A1 is an upgrade over 1979 M1 that arrived in service in 1985.

So you have 1989 T-72 vs 1985 M1A1. The point is?

--Ashish

No you have 1973 T 72s, only the very limited armor upgd does not make it circa 1985. To be circa 1985, it would need to have all the tech of 1985. Including the armor of 1985.

M1A1 are NOT 1985 they are 1990

About 6,000 M1A1 Abrams were produced from 1986–92

The overall point? The Iraqi 72 and M1A1 belong to two wildly different generation.

Of course M1A1 was superior.

Heck even Bradely was far superior as a fighting vehicle to T 72s in that war.

The superiority is given, they are outranged in technology by 20 years and things like TIs, stablized guns and what not.

Also the Amercians had 1900 M1A1 in that theater, the Iraqi's had 500 T 72s of 73 vintage, rest were T of 60s vintage.

There was no hope for Iraqi's.

[Sanku]

sure the iraqi T72 may not be at par with the soviet union best units, but more importantly their lack of overall training, doctrine, support arms ensured they could never win that fight.

Thank you, we fully agree. I am glad to be in agreement

can someone conclude with certaintly that a T90 regiment can soundly defeat a T99 or Khalid regiment in a stand up fight ?
because thats what we are looking at with the huge nos of T90 due in service they will 100% probability see heavy combat.

Forget T 90, I would claim that the Chini's and the Paki's are well trained enough with competent armor that they wont be defeated soundly even with M1A1s.

Unless of course, US does the whole shock and awe, cuts off entire fuel+spare+food+medicine supplies through air superiority for 6 months and then attacks.

[Misraji]

Singha, I hate to tell you that you are wasting your time. When it comes to the tin can it is a world beater and regardless of what you may tell someone, they are better then Arjun. The T 72 is like a borg cube compared to star fleet ship. It will destroy every thing it sets its sight to.

Tactics and individually capabilities are meaning less.

Actually, I blame Misraji, for starting this round of Arjun Vs tin can.

Hey. Not fair. I did not even start on Tin-can vs Arjun.
I was commenting on the Battle of 73 Easting for which I had just performed some in-depth reading.
Every time I read about some such battle, my despair about the Tin-cans being in IA service increases by another order of magnitude.

Just got hold of the book "Warrior's Rage: The Great Tank Battle of 73 Easting".
That is going to another killer.

Anyway, thanks to Rohitvats Sir, I have been doing some digging about ORBATs and strategies.
A good way to do that is to read up older battles. Absolutely fascinating stuff.

--Ashish

[member_22539]

Why because your lies got caught is it. Funny you lied trying to prove your point with a link which said exactly opposite of what you said.

Amazing.

And now trying to brazen it out, wah.

I am always surprised at the level you will sink to. I simply asked for a source for whatever you said, i.e. BDL assembly is what caused the Invar missile to be defective and not the missile kits supplied from Russia. You have no source for this or for your assertion that all is now okay and the missile is currently being used by IA. Because i consistently ask for a source, you are enraging in sophistry now. Such schoolyard arguments won't let you off the hook. I asked for a source for your assertions and i insist you provide them if you want to continue to peddle your lies.

[Pratyush]

SNIP......
can someone conclude with certaintly that a T90 regiment can soundly defeat a T99 or Khalid regiment in a stand up fight ?
because thats what we are looking at with the huge nos of T90 due in service they will 100% probability see heavy combat.

The T 90 will kick a$$. As it is the best tank in the world. Better then any thing that has gone before it and will be better then any thing that will follow it for the rest of eternity. It needs no improvements, no new developments. Unlike the Arjun, that needed nearly a 100 improvements after 30 years of development, for it to be considered acceptable for the IA. Including over 5 tons of extra weight as add on protection.

Look at the T 90, it is perfect as is. Needs no add on protection. It top speed is 60 KPH. The Arjun after adding 5 tons will finally be able to keep up with the T 90. That is the level of superiority enjoyed by the T 90.

[Pratyush]

Hey. Not fair. I did not even start on Tin-can vs Arjun.
I was commenting on the Battle of 73 Easting for which I had just performed some in-depth reading.
Every time I read about some such battle, my despair about the Tin-cans being in IA service increases by another order of magnitude.

Just got hold of the book "Warrior's Rage: The Great Tank Battle of 73 Easting".
That is going to another killer.

Anyway, thanks to Rohitvats Sir, I have been doing some digging about ORBATs and strategies.
A good way to do that is to read up older battles. Absolutely fascinating stuff.

--Ashish

Just pulling your leg.

But you are right about the inadequacy of the Tin Can. Especially when compared to the Arjun.

[Misraji]

Just pulling your leg.
But you are right about the inadequacy of the Tin Can. Especially when compared to the Arjun.

... Yeah, yeah. Go pick on someone your own size.

--Ashish

[Pratyush]

How do you know you are not my size

[Misraji]

How do you know you are not my size

Easy. Your post count is ten-times larger.
You have been alive and eating lot longer than I have.

--Ashish