Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

BR Main Site Feedback

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
krishGo
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 03 Feb 2017 04:24

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby krishGo » 05 Feb 2017 00:37

In my first avatar as 'KrishG', I was in the BR mainsite crew to work on the Indian Space section of the mainsite.

Shortly thereafter, I lost access to my account (story in forum feedback).

Is there any chance of getting back into the Mainsite crew ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47896
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby ramana » 21 May 2017 11:46

Here is some feedback.from a fauji
Please ruminate and think how you can individually make a change

I open a mil page on forum and the bile against fauj is just too much. Saala marein bhi hum, hathiyar bhi nahin Le sakte, decision kisi aur ka, paise ka baap koi aur, DPSU can't support what they sell, but gaali do fauj ko. Kabhi in logon ko North block or southblock me in file leke daurao phir pataa chalega how are the services managing. Idiots call us import passand. Try procuring from HAL. It is guaranteed that 03 chiefs will retire before HAL agrees. Fauj has a field reqmt, instead of saying no look elsewhere DPSU will jump and say look we will make it. 10 yrs later they will give a product with great specs but shoddy performance. It took 10 yrs of nursing the Dhruv by IA, before HAL got their act together. And Dhruv is a success story. BRF MIL FORUM is Engineer Rakshak Forum. Anyone else is not reqd there.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby jamwal » 21 May 2017 12:24

Not that I disagree with the officer above, but if he expects that army deserves no or less criticism, then he is wrong. Serving officers, NCOs etc have little choice or say in arms procurements and most of this process is handled by higher ranks which have little at stake unlike the servicemen who have to operate the weapon systems. A lot of posters here know next to nothing but still run their mouths (fingers) just like the DDMs. But not everything posted is wrong.


My family and circles have a number of servicemen, serving and retired. Not so much in my generation, but a few . Some are working as contractors supplying stuff to various defence units in different parts of country. Suprisingly, the amount of petty as well as large scale corruption in this sector is no less than civilian sector.

One distant relative was asked by a commander to supply some stuff for the duration of deployment in not so remote part of J&K. The value of order was in mid 4 figures per month. But in order to actually get the contract, the contractor was asked to give the unit commander Rs 500 per month. : After a while, it became too inconvenient for the contractor to visit the unit headquarters and pay 500 per month in person, he asked for an alternate way. The unit commander then asked him to deposit that 500 per month in his (commander's) wife's bank account instead. The 500 per month bribe stopped only after unit was transfered elsewhere and the supply stopped. :lol:

Please keep in mind, that it was not a 2 star general who are mostly criticised here for weapon procurement fiasco, but a mid ranking officer. You can call it a musharraf estimate, but if armed forces are buying Rs 100 worth of stuff, atleast Rs 20 are going to pockets . There are numerous such anecdotes which a lot of people can share which will not reflect well on the organisation.

Armed forces are not above scrutiny and valid criticism. There are a lot of bad apples in the armed forces and unfortunately their malice and incompetence gives a bad name to the whole organisation.


ramana wrote:
It took 10 yrs of nursing the Dhruv by IA, before HAL got their act together. And Dhruv is a success story. BRF MIL FORUM is Engineer Rakshak Forum. Anyone else is not reqd there.




Cry me a river. Every other big nation's armed forces work with the weapon developers closely to develop the weapons according to their specifications. Sure, take credit for Dhruv , I think IA and IAF deserve it. Maybe even for INSAS if it helps. But be ready to take the blame for Arjun, LCA, the current ongoing disaster of assault rifles and numerous others. MoD can't be blamed for armed forces fetish for changing weapon specs every month and asking for unobtanium based on brochure readings.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby nirav » 23 May 2017 01:26

ramana wrote:Here is some feedback.from a fauji
Please ruminate and think how you can individually make a change

I open a mil page on forum and the bile against fauj is just too much. Saala marein bhi hum, hathiyar bhi nahin Le sakte, decision kisi aur ka, paise ka baap koi aur, DPSU can't support what they sell, but gaali do fauj ko. Kabhi in logon ko North block or southblock me in file leke daurao phir pataa chalega how are the services managing. Idiots call us import passand. Try procuring from HAL. It is guaranteed that 03 chiefs will retire before HAL agrees. Fauj has a field reqmt, instead of saying no look elsewhere DPSU will jump and say look we will make it. 10 yrs later they will give a product with great specs but shoddy performance. It took 10 yrs of nursing the Dhruv by IA, before HAL got their act together. And Dhruv is a success story. BRF MIL FORUM is Engineer Rakshak Forum. Anyone else is not reqd there.


Thank you very much for posting this.
The gist of it is almost similar to what I've been protesting.

@Bharat Rakshak, we can't allow abusive words like "import pasand" to define our forces.

Jamwal Saar in his reply above wondered if the army officer wants no to less criticism of the army.

This is incorrect.

Criticism does not mean abuse.
We have BIG threads on piskology, narrative and what not where we ourselves take umbrage to the shaming of India on any and every small incident by the dhimmis.

Pray tell,how is the "criticism" in here any different from that of those India shaming dhimmis when posters lump the whole institutions of army,navy and airforce as import pasand ?

In another thread, the pakis buying additional aewc was used in a ridiculous way to resort to IAF& GoI bashing wrt AMCA !
It's almost psychotic ranting.
Zero discussion,zero value addition.

I'd like to call upon the moderators to have an open discussion on code of conduct for posting on the board and ensure strict adherence to it.

It is surprising to me that this important feedback by an actual army officer finds no takers for discussion.

One important thing people need to be reminded of,
India's armed forces do not exist for India's MIC.
India's MIC exists for the forces.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby nirav » 23 May 2017 01:32

jamwal wrote:


Cry me a river. Every other big nation's armed forces work with the weapon developers closely to develop the weapons according to their specifications. Sure, take credit for Dhruv , I think IA and IAF deserve it. Maybe even for INSAS if it helps. But be ready to take the blame for Arjun, LCA, the current ongoing disaster of assault rifles and numerous others. MoD can't be blamed for armed forces fetish for changing weapon specs every month and asking for unobtanium based on brochure readings.


The bold part is the exact problem with the forum.
Such things from senior posters influencing newbies and causing needless angst and thereby a negative narrative and hostility towards our own forces !
It's unacceptable.

Please quantify your statement with the exact month/months where weapon specs were changed.

If you can't, please refrain from posting such non sense.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby jamwal » 23 May 2017 14:28

Such things from senior posters influencing newbies and causing needless angst and thereby a negative narrative and hostility towards our own forces !
It's unacceptable.


Just in case, you didn't get it from my post on this thread or others, I don't agree with posters like you or rohitvats who claim that army can do nothing wrong and the organisation itself deserves no blame for current mess in arms procurement.

I also don't agree with other spectrum of posters like gyan who who everything but actual gyan and blame armed forces and everything else.

This is a complex issue with multiple stakeholders, long stories and different issues in different projects.
India's armed forces do not exist for India's MIC.
India's MIC exists for the forces.

Very true. But strong armed forces can't exist without a local MIC either. Don't just post one side of argument to win meaningless discussions of interwebs.



Please quantify your statement with the exact month/months where weapon specs were changed.




Will you be willing to do the same ? Just on top of my head, I can list the following incidents. There are many others, but will take some time to dig up:
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar talking on the sideline of India today conclave 2015 said that he was not happy with Armed forces repeatedly changing requirements in the weapons systems currently been developed by various Public sector units, he also said that he has ensured that no more last minutes changes will be entertained hence forth once staff requirement has been defined . Parrikar also said sometimes General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) laid down by Armed forces in the weapons systems to be developed in India seems like right out of ” Marvel comic Movies “, clearly hinting that Technologies requested in Indigenous weapons systems sometimes purely is absurd and not realistic in nature . with Former Army chief Bikram Singh sitting next to him hints were clearly pointed towards Indian army . Repeated changes in GSQR and unrealistic technology requested in the short time frame has been criticised by DRDO in past and many key projects like Arjun main battle tanks and LCA Tejas have seen delays due to repeated changes asked almost every time at last minute when weapons system is all set for production or enter user trials. Indian Defense analytics for long have criticized Indian military planners of drafting unrealistic General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) for local weapons systems, some have even had gone on to say that sometimes GSQR framed was heavily influenced by different military brochures of International defence manufacturers .

idrw.org . Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website http://idrw.org/parrikar-takes-dig-at-a ... s-systems/ . .

Ab bolo, Parrikar uncle corrupt hain, like Kejru does, :lol: Or maybe Parrirkar is abusing armed forces on BRF too.


http://www.defencereviewasia.com/articl ... -MBT-Arjun
Eight years after the project was sanctioned, the Army in 1982 changed its GSQR, requiring a fresh design to enable Arjun to perform as “a futuristic battle tank with advanced features”. The prototypes developed as per 1982 GSQR were however not up to army’s expectation, leading to further revision of GSQR in 1985. In consonance with the new GSQR, a consensus was arrived at in May 1987 by DRDO and the Army, under which the 12 MK-I prototypes based on imported propulsion units and seven MK-II prototypes with indigenous propulsion units were to be delivered for trial by June 1987 and June 1990, respectively. At the same time it was also envisaged that 23 MK-I pre production series (PPS) tanks would be delivered by the end of 1988 and the bulk production would start from 1990 onwards.



Between November 2007 and August 2008, it put two tanks of LSP to Accelerated Usage Cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT), covering more than 8000 km and 800 rounds of firing in each tank. (AUCRT is done primarily to assess the spare requirement for the entire life and the reliability of the tank). As brought by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence in April 2008, the tanks ‘performed poorly’ and encountered ‘four engine failures’. The problems noticed during AUCRT were though reportedly “solved immediately”, the Army wanted third party audit and certification by an internationally reputed manufacturer and a comparative trial with T-90 tanks. As per the MoD, the third party audit “confirmed that the MBT Arjun is an excellent tank with very good mobility and fire power characteristics suitable for the Indian desert”. The audit however provided some ‘inputs’ related to quality auditing, production and calibration procedures for further enhancing the performance of the tank.

Post-AUCRT, the Army put Arjun in a comparative trial with T-90 tanks from late 2009 to early 2010. Although an official declaration of the results was still awaiting as this issue went to press, the Indian media has given a verdict in favour of Arjun, noting that it “outperformed T-90 on every crucial parameter”.


https://iadnews.in/2017/03/arjun-series ... e-enemies/

By 2005, CVRDE and DRDO were confident that Arjun had successfully met army’s requirement and called for comparative trails with army’s favoured T-90 and T-72 tanks to prove Arjun’s might. This demand was met only in 2010, when a squadron each of Arjun and T-90 tanks were pitted against each other. True to the developer’s words, Arjun emerged victorious and army’s DGMF was squared in to opt for higher numbers.

With Arjun’s performance having decimated all reservations, the army decided to order an additional 124 Arjun tanks, but with rider conditions. The army raised a requirement with CVRDE for a more advanced and potent variant of Arjun. At least 15 major and 78 minor improvements were deemed necessary by DGMF to make Arjun, a true frontline MBT.



Did their best to scuttle local project in internal reports, but downhill skiing when 3rd party proves them wrong. just like aap wins every election in internal surveys and loses in actual polling. :lol:

Army also came up with broken torsion bars for Arjun tank a few years later.


The CVRDE put in a huge effort to heat-harden its electronics, which is something that bears fruit today. While the T-90 is now looking for air-conditioners, the post-2005 electronics in the Arjun can function flawlessly through 60 degrees.
In summer 2006, stringent firing trials by 43 Armoured Regiment established --- in the words of the army’s own trial team --- that the "accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank was proved beyond doubt".

Later that year, the MoD stated to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence that, "Arjun's firing accuracy is far superior to the other two tanks."

In summer 2007, when the army was being pressured to conduct comparative trials, the DGMF raised another objection: the Arjun should be able to drive for 20 minutes in six feet of water. By the end of 2007, the CVRDE managed that as well.

In the Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT), which was held in five phases over the first half of this year, the Arjun had problems in the transmission system (not the MTU engine as widely reported, but the Renk transmission) during the first three phases. Engineers from Renk GMbH, Germany came and fixed that and in the last two phases, which were the really tough, heavy desert, hot weather phases, the Arjun performed flawlessly.

The process of turning the corner has been a slow one, but it symbolises exactly why one should go for an Indian tank: each drawback was analysed by our engineers, fixed according to the users’ instructions, and then delivered back to the users without charging them a penny. Contrast that with the problems with the T-90’s electronics. Nobody is fixing that problem; instead, the Russians are trying to sell us air-conditioners. Added expense, and an inefficient solution compared to heat-hardening the electronics, the way the CVRDE did.


But the DGMF was quick to strike back. Barely three months after that report, the commanding officer of 43 Armoured Regiment, Colonel D Thakur, was confronted by then DGMF, Lt Gen DS Shekhawat. Several eyewitnesses have described to me how Colonel Thakur was upbraided by Lt Gen Shekhawat for “not conducting the trials properly”. Fortunately for Colonel Thakur, his brigade commander, Brigadier Chandra Mukesh, intervened and argued strongly that the trials had been conducted in accordance with procedure.


Now are you going to come up with muh army, muh haanar ? Everyone who doesn't do sashtaang pranaams to armed forces is a traitor or an idiot ?

The Indian Army wants the DRDO to fully redesign the Arjun Mk.II’s hull and turret structures and use newer materials to replace the conventional structure, in an effort to ‘achieve a reasonable reduction in weight, without removing any of the major improvements’. The Arjun Mk.II currently weighs 68.6 tons — a full six tons over the MK.I, owning entirely to the 73 improvements the Army demanded on the newer tank. The Army has stated, in no uncertain terms, that the 68.6 ton weight of the Arjun Mk.II is too much for ‘seamless application in semi-developed and developed sectors of the Western Front’.


We all know what were these requirements and the corresponding results and how weight excuse people reacted.

Another very idiotic argument is cheaper cost of T-90. Ofcourse you moron (not you nirav, just posters who bring it up) , a tank ordered in thousands will be much cheaper than 124.
How cheap is T-90 and why it is cheap ? Because it lacks proper armour protection, ari-conditioning, proper targeting system , weak propulsion and is actually more likely to get stuck on soft ground. Is this a logic which you and other fanboys are trying to protect ?






Any serious answer for what brilliant logic army used to call for multi-barrel rifles and how many such weapons exist in real world ?




https://www.livefistdefence.com/2007/04 ... lking.html
The 14th report of the Balasaheb Vikhe Patil-headed parliamentary standing committee on defence has vindicated THE WEEK’s reports (Feb. 19, 2006 and February 18, 2007) that the services are as much to blame for Defence Research and Development Organisation’s project delay. The committee has noted that many of DRDO’s difficulties are caused by the changing of the qualitative requirements (QR) by the services midstream, and the long and extended trials by them. Said a DRDO scientist to THE WEEK: “When it comes to imported systems, the services are willing to dilute their QR if the supplier can bring down the price. Why can’t they extend the same concession to systems developed by our own scientists?”



Parliamentary standing committee report

The Committee note the difficulties being faced by the DRDO while
interacting with the user. Some of these difficulties are changing of
GSQR midstream, long and extended trials which results in final
placement of orders after very long time. The Committee also note
that an indigenously developed product is subject to prolonged
exhaustive trials and evaluation, whereas imported products are not
subjected to the same evaluation but are readily accepted, whereas
performance of indigenously developed product are equally good as
the imported one.
The Committee, therefore, recommend that users
should promote the indigenously developed defence items in preference
to the imported ones and there should not be major changes in GSQRs.
DRDO should also follow concurrent engineering for development of
the products on a case-to-case basis according to the circumstances or
even they can have outsourcing to avoid the embarrassment and delay
in production at all level. From day one users and manufacturers
should be involved from top policy making decision to all other level.


The Committee note that the involvement of the users with DRDO/
Private industry is very limited. Due to this, the final products lack
the facilities and qualities as per technical and the requirement of the
user. The Committee as recommended in their Ninth and Eleventh
Reports of the Committee (14th Lok Sabha) further recommend that
representative selected by the user, for a specific project should have
adequate knowledge of the product to be produced and he must be
involved at the conceptualization stage of the project on a permanent
basis so that defects, if any may be rectified during production stage
itself and delivery of the product to the user may not get delayed for
a long time. In case, the user does not suggest corrective measures/
improvement whereas necessary and the product is not developed as
per GSQR, then the accountability may also be fixed on them in this
regard. The Committee also desire that there should be compulsory
financial participation of the users in the projects so as to increase
user involvemen




The Committee note that scores of projects with DRDO were
plagued by time and cost overruns and several projects were short
closed due to change in the GSQR by the user or due to technological
obsolescence. Some of the projects are showing significant time and
cost overrun. The Committee are of the view that the delays in
development of weapon systems, MBT Arjun, LCA II, Samvahak,
Samyukta, Sangraha, Integrated Guide Missile Development Programme
i.e. Prithvi, Akash, Trishul, Nag and Agni, Kaveri Engine for LCA etc.
not only has caused significant loss of revenue but also delayed the
timely procurement of weapon systems from foreign sources that were
27
needed to keep the forces fighting fit and modernised. The delays
cause suspicion on the capability of DRDO in the eyes of the users,
the common man and intelligentsia. The Committee do understand
that not every equipment can be developed by DRDO. The Committee,
however, desire that prior to taking a decision on the development of
a weapon system, DRDO should sharpen its foresight, whether it could
develop it within a fixed time frame and with available financial and
technical resources or not.


The Committee feel that DRDO should lay more stress on the
Project Management as in the Western industrialized countries, where
the R&D agencies only design and develop armaments technologies
and the military, as the user agency, has the highest stakes in such
weapon development projects, because it contributes directly to their
operational capabilities
.



The development of Main Battle Tank was started in Aug. 1972 as
per GSQR 326 at a cost of Rs. 15.50 crore. The GSQR was revised a
number of times and the final GSQR 467 for MBT Arjun was issued
in Nov. 1985 incorporating a number of technological and operational
changes.
The total cost of the project was revised to Rs. 280.00 crore
and the project finally was closed in March 1995 with a total
expenditure of Rs. 305.60 crore with delivery of 12 nos. of prototypes
and 15 nos. of Pre-Production Series of Arjun tanks. These tanks
underwent extensive field evaluation with the Army wherein
approximately 70,000 km. of mobility trials and 7000 rounds of main
armament were fired. The equipment was approved by Army and an
indent of 124 nos. of MBT Arjun was placed on Heavy Vehicle Factory/
Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) in March 2000. DRDO, in association
with DGQA and OFB, is fully involved in streamlining the bulk
production and early delivery of tanks to Army. All quality assurance
issues have been duly addressed and production is taking place as
per the production schedule finalized during the meeting of 5th Steering
Committee on Production of MBT Arjun.






http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defe ... nce_25.pdf



http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2013/04/h ... ength.html

The army and the IAF have inexplicably rejected incremental improvement. The army continues to oppose the Arjun tank, apparently willing to countenance nothing less than a perfect fighting machine. Ironically, it is willing to use the outdated T-72, even though the Arjun has outperformed the more modern T-90 tank in comparative trials. Every major army employs "spiral development" of weaponry, accepting into operational service a "Mark I" product, using it and providing feedback that allows the scientists to develop it into a Mark II. The Israeli Merkava tank is currently being developed into a Mark IV.






The committee has listed several instances of the services’ changing QR midstream, leading to delay in projects. The Army asked DRDO in September 2000 to develop an air-defence gun system for Rs 17.7 crore. Four months later, the vice-chief reported that the existing L-70 and ZU guns could be upgraded to a level superior to what the Army had asked it to develop. The new QR, issued in May 2001, was so different from the earlier one that DRDO had to short-close the programme after spending Rs 14.5 lakh.

In 1994, the IAF asked DRDO to develop an emergency floatation system for Mi-8 helicopters for Rs 75 lakh, when IAF was negotiating with FPT of the UK. As FPT could not meet the air-worthiness requirement, the system was imported from Kazan in Russia, and the indigenous development programme foreclosed after spending Rs 48 lakh. To DRDO’s credit, instead of throwing away the already-developed technologies, it employed them in the indigenous Advanced Light Helicopter.

In 1993, the IAF asked DRDO to develop a mobile balloon barrage system for Rs 45.99 lakh. By March 1998, DRDO was ready with the system. One and a half years later, the IAF reported that it no longer needed the system, as it was based on the 1980s operational philosophy.


I still can't make any head or tail of Nag project or are they even interested in it at all. Army wants Nag to hit targets behind LOS and at 45 degrees heat which no other missile can. I know Nag is not man-portable, don't bother typing that. During the failed trials, missile was tested at extreme temperature conditions and at edges of it's operational range. Was it a surprise it failed. Did they refuse to buy Knkurs or Milans after such testing or even made them undergo testing like this ?




I can't find the source right now, but when Bofors guns were selected the army officers who went to evaluate the system didn't even properly attend the trials. There were 2-3 other guns who were much better in printed specifications atleast but they were rejected. One of the officers who was actually on the evaluating team wrote that article a few years back and I remember sharing it here. TLDR was something like Bofors trials were rigged, testing was not done properly and deal was just pushed through with active collusion of army officers.



And ofcourse, how could I forget Tejas the famous 3-legged Cheetah. If you haven't done so already, pickup The Tejas Story by AM Philip Rajkumar and read how servicemen like him attached to defence development projects like Tejas and others were not considered for promotions.
He even had to convince one Air CHief to actually attend a major flight event, because the Air Chief didn't want IAF to be associated with the plane being developed in India.
https://bharatkarnad.com/2017/02/17/the ... -of-tejas/
The reason adduced for this sorry state of affairs by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is that the Indian defence industry has ‘largely failed to produce competitive indigenously- designed weapons’—a view the Indian military heartily endorses. But why is this so? Principally because the armed services obstruct indigenous arms projects from succeeding. The Tejas programme has progressed in fits and starts, and been delayed interminably, in the main, for two reasons. One, the Air Staff Requirements were changed numerous times on the plea of the IAF wanting an up-to-date plane. Thus, re-design and structural alterations became necessary, for example, when the IAF demanded installation of a refuelling probe after prototypes had already been built. It imposed significant time and cost penalties and hurt the delivery deadline. Two, the IAF insisted on a ‘finished product’ with all weapons trials and fitments completed and Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) and Final Operational Clearance (FOC) secured, before accepting it.
This is contrary to the procedure followed by all other major air forces. In the US, its newest joint strike fighter, the F-35, first entered squadron service with the US Air Force and the US Marines with technical refinements, structural modifications, and proper weapons and avionics integration being carried out on the basis of continuous feedback from frontline pilots after the plane’s induction. Some serious problems with the F-35, such as with the zero- zero ejection seat system, helmet-mounted sensors, avionics, and the F-135 power plant, are all being corrected even as the aircraft is flying around. This rigmarole is called ‘concurrency’, meaning induction and capability improvements happening simultaneously after the user-service has taken charge of the combat plane


The truly dastardly aspect is that the standard applied by the IAF to the LCA does not apply to imported aircraft. Thus, the Mirage 2000 inducted in 1985 flew unarmed for the next three years because the contracted weapons had not been delivered. It was political prompting alone that hastened the formation of the so-far-only-Tejas unit in the Air Force, the 45 Squadron with only a handful of LCAs, based in Sulur, Andhra Pradesh.



When LCA finally gets closed to mass production and subsequent induction, this is waht IAF comes up with:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/07/w ... p-all.html
IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, stated: “The final goal for all of us is not just the LCA Mark I, but the LCA Mark II. While our air warriors are fully geared up to induct and operationalise the two Mark I squadrons, IAF keenly looks forward to induction of four squadrons of LCA Mark II as the final version in its projected force structure.”





Seriously, I find this obsession to defend army very idiotic when there are so many evidennces to the contrary. A former air-chief is under probe for AW chopper scam. A serving army chief was pushed out of army and slandered when he disclosed the attempts to bribe him. Even when you see smaller scale corruption and gross incompetence people involved with armed forces so often, it becomes hard to take such fnaboyism infused arguments seriously.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby nirav » 23 May 2017 15:10

Thank you for your post.
I do understand the frustration that one sided fanboyism causes.it totally skews the 'discussion'.

I btw have never said, the forces are beyond criticism.
I however have strongly protested against the usage of derogatory language towards the forces.

Im also against callous remarks being made,which is why I asked you to quantify when and where did specs change on a monthly basis like you stated in your previous post.
It's nothing but wild exaggeration to just make your point.

I don't think anyone in here disagrees with the need for a strong MIC for having strong forces.

Why do people then keep a one sided criticism of the forces for projects of National importance?
Do operational needs and delivery in a time bound manner even figure or matter to people blindly criticising/abusing ?

I barely see any criticism or 'abuse' of DRDO/Ada/HAL on tareekh pe tareekh affecting re equipping the forces.

The whole point is in keeping the discussion 'civil'.
Why the adamance on continued abuse of the forces?

One can criticise without abusing.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Karan M » 27 May 2017 01:45

ramana wrote:Here is some feedback.from a fauji
Please ruminate and think how you can individually make a change

I open a mil page on forum and the bile against fauj is just too much. Saala marein bhi hum, hathiyar bhi nahin Le sakte, decision kisi aur ka, paise ka baap koi aur, DPSU can't support what they sell, but gaali do fauj ko. Kabhi in logon ko North block or southblock me in file leke daurao phir pataa chalega how are the services managing. Idiots call us import passand. Try procuring from HAL. It is guaranteed that 03 chiefs will retire before HAL agrees. Fauj has a field reqmt, instead of saying no look elsewhere DPSU will jump and say look we will make it. 10 yrs later they will give a product with great specs but shoddy performance. It took 10 yrs of nursing the Dhruv by IA, before HAL got their act together. And Dhruv is a success story. BRF MIL FORUM is Engineer Rakshak Forum. Anyone else is not reqd there.


The emotion is valid and yes, there is no need for all the stuff about pasand this and that..

The one issue with the logical method alluded to above though, used by the services to get operational items in a jiffy, (say even three years and below) is the imports dont work either, because of OEM perfidy, and the way our system is structured.

And need equal hand holding and nurse maiding from the services, and then the contracts are also violated at whimsy by the OEM partner. So its not like imports are a panacea.

The concern is not "engineer rakshak" but more that against somebody like PRC, we can afford only x days of spares or whatever, that too after paying extortionate prices since the OEM knows we are in trouble and also, listening to all sorts of gyaan about our national will, culture and even the services get attacked. We can actually lose wars due to this, and its not just the dangers of over reliance on DPSUs like HAL.

The list of such ad hocism regarding imports is well documented by now. From T-90 FCS, ammo, radiator issues limiting deployment, malfeasance preventing TOT. From Su-30 serviceability in the 40-50% range and IAF having to work with Indian industry because Russian supplied kit didn't work any better (SAP EW pods)... the list goes on and on and on.

There clearly is no "easy way out" for any service to avoid working with industry for a decade plus for major inductions which will have many teething challenges in their first deployment.
Unfortunately, the valid points with regards to HAL (as mentioned above) will not disappear for private industry.

If we take the simpler Pinaka (simpler by far than an LCA), made almost entirely by private-DRDO consortium, the two titans L&T and TATA SED also had to face a huge learning challenge in meeting full requirements and needs. In return, our system gave them penny packet orders (a few regiments over a decade) & the program itself took a huge time. So clearly, private firms making a chopper vs HAL will also take a huge amount of support from all sides for their first few programs! And once they do so, its not like a pot of gold awaits automatically from the services or MOD or GOI to justify all the effort they took.

Now the question that needs be asked & is now obvious is that was it better to wait for a Pinaka with all its issues which were fixed, as versus importing an OTS system like Smerch, which even after import had many issues, and when trying to get it fixed, the Russians promptly came back with more demands.

So clearly, going for "quick fix" reports gives no answers either. And at the end of the day, hand holding for Dhruv still resulted in a world class chopper, LUH etc. What have all these imports done for us in terms of warfighting capabilities at short notice? Its rare any of them worked as they were promised.

Elta radar pods
Russian BVR missiles
Israeli Popeye PGMs
Russian ARMs
Russian tanks
Russian MBRL
American radars

The only occasional exceptions to above are mature systems imported "as is" without India specific customization.

So there really is no way without investing in our own MIC and long term planning. By all means privatize, but the challenges are huge and they too will not give the fauj or anyone a perfect solution at the first attempt.

I think the bigger issue - which the fauj itself has to fix or come to, it cannot be forced etc because it will create bad blood and also not be implemented whole heartedly, is the above is still better than just importing with cosmetic customization.

For instance its easily been a decade and a half since we got the T-90s underway. Its now that we are fixing radiators on the tank, getting ammo that works, new armor (sourced locally), yet to get ACs for the system and BEL, DRDO etc are working on new sights for the tank. So how exactly did it boost India's defence at short notice? We have spent a decade plus fixing somebody else's design and each time we do so, the one who made it, tries to arm twist us and force us into sub-optimal choices. The fauj or MOD needs to see how this pattern is repeatedly occurring and then on its own fix it. If that means FMBT with private sector, so be it. But again, taking an ARMATA and calling it Indian won't work. And that is a valid concern given how our procurement has been so far. Arjun is literally nowhere. By now, if Arjun was not the answer, fauj should have forced MOD to sanction a FMBT which meets their needs. The current GOI would support privatization too. But there seems to be no clear mandate within the fauj itself on what to do. We are seeing much the same saga with the rifles. Every other day, a report stating the next imports will solve all pending issues and INSAS is gone. The next day, OFB etc dust off some more units to trial with the Army. This lack of strategic clarity on what to procure and how is the real issue.

Ideally this should be a MOD-fauj thing. MOD says buy Indian. Fauj sets specs. MOD figures out logistics. But a complex mix of patronage politics, ad hoc weapons specs and corruption has derailed such basic planning and of course, this forum and any other should point this out. Because the way things are, its really dangerous for India if even waging a short conflict requires we send diplomats to beg other countries to sell us spares, listen to their meddling in our internal affairs and after all this, we buy stuff that simply does not work!

By now, we have to admit the reality, that a lot of our "fancy inventory" is just sitting idle for basic stuff like spares or mismatched performance versus claims. At least when we buy Indian, the fauj gets to work constantly with the local PSU wagehra to finally get the darn things to function. Now how many people who were constantly looking at how awesum the MiG-29Ks were, realized that their specs being great on paper apart, their serviceability was pathetic. Virtually, while the LCA was being tarred and feathered for not being super easy to maintain its proto form, we were inducting platforms whose systems were not working at all.

That's exactly what the above reports state. The fauj et al have to be assisted by MOD to fix tis and the vested interests in MOD etc who constantly get us half baked items at exorbitant rates need to be stopped.

This is beyond a civvi military divide but a factual issue that we will lose our sovereignty because the darn import nexus will ensure we don't get to use these systems effectively... and by constantly purchasing these we are throttling our own industry for today and for tomorrow.. we will remain a has been industrial power, while we purchase from the very folks who use it as leverage.
Last edited by Karan M on 27 May 2017 04:22, edited 4 times in total.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14454
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Karan M » 27 May 2017 01:58

nirav wrote:In another thread, the pakis buying additional aewc was used in a ridiculous way to resort to IAF& GoI bashing wrt AMCA !
It's almost psychotic ranting.
Zero discussion,zero value addition.

I'd like to call upon the moderators to have an open discussion on code of conduct for posting on the board and ensure strict adherence to it.


LOL, a few months back you busy abusing folks, left the forum in a huff and with full drama and here you are, back but still trying to engage in cloak and dagger politics and again trying to drag the mods into this rubbish.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7263&start=1920
Lets see:
viewtopic.php?p=2116896#p2116896
viewtopic.php?p=2116935#p2116935

Lets address your statements this time around.

Lets see in the above thread, I clearly posted that the Pakis buying additional AWACs from the same org promising us goodies is an issue and the only way out is to indigenize. Otherwise we risk being held hostage to the same tech being used against us.

But given how dysfunctional our system is, nothing much has moved on a key indigenization program. That was the sum crux of the argument, not that you would understand or even attempt to. After all, we both know why you are here.

If you don't like people on any discussion board, be an adult, use the ignore list and avoid them.

Don't constantly run after folks you don't like, stalk them, engage in such silly flamewars where you can't even convince with facts or data, on top of it all, constantly attempt to force mods to intervene for your personal ego.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby nirav » 27 May 2017 20:00

@ramana :

its eye opening, just the one line -
The emotion is valid and yes, there is no need for all the stuff about pasand this and that..
by a "respected" :roll: poster on a very genuine concern and feedback shared by a fauji and then go on and on about other things which are NOT relevant to whats being discussed.

Since rumination has been called for, id like to talk about the abysmal fauji/ex fauji to civilian ratio on this board.

why is it that ex faujis write on FB,Twitter appear on TV shows but do not participate on BR ?
One of the reasons could be the ones that participate end up getting schooled by desi brochure mugging experts.

i tried to dig up my old posts but was unable to find it.Maybe some posts got lost with the database corruption issue we had earlier.

i wanted to quote an old post of mine in which id written about hitting the streets and protesting against the IA for NOT inducting Arjun tank post the 'comparative trials'.
i was a lurker then,and even now. I also remember talking about setting up a BR NGO to actually try and see if we could protest and bring to light and make noise about some crucial defense related issue rather than just huffing and puffing on the forum.

ive read a lot of BR over the past decade and its clear that the 'respected' posters keep on having an antagonistic attitude wrt to the forces procurement and wilfully engage in abuse.

this is where self moderation and moderation come in. We ban users for personal abuse. why on earth would we have a lax policy on abusing the forces ? Its beyond my understanding.

all thats gained by having that policy is a mushrooming of people engaging in abuse and peddling of a false narrative with regards to the forces.

@Karan M - IGNORE ME.The feedback posted by ramana is NOT about you,nor me.
If possible, please make an attempt to keep it that way.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Marten » 27 May 2017 20:14

Nirav, could you point the posts where the forces are abused?

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby nirav » 27 May 2017 22:33

Marten ji,
i could.I dont quite understand the need for it and id like to ask you why do you want me to do that ?

Im reposting what Ramana saar has posted-a faujis feedback.Its pretty damning actually.

I open a mil page on forum and the bile against fauj is just too much. Saala marein bhi hum, hathiyar bhi nahin Le sakte, decision kisi aur ka, paise ka baap koi aur, DPSU can't support what they sell, but gaali do fauj ko. Kabhi in logon ko North block or southblock me in file leke daurao phir pataa chalega how are the services managing. Idiots call us import passand. Try procuring from HAL. It is guaranteed that 03 chiefs will retire before HAL agrees. Fauj has a field reqmt, instead of saying no look elsewhere DPSU will jump and say look we will make it. 10 yrs later they will give a product with great specs but shoddy performance. It took 10 yrs of nursing the Dhruv by IA, before HAL got their act together. And Dhruv is a success story. BRF MIL FORUM is Engineer Rakshak Forum. Anyone else is not reqd there.


I show off BRF dictionary to my friends. "Import pasand" however is a shameful word by members of BRF and is/was being used with gay abandon. It isbeing noticed.
Banning the word puts some decorum back,but the posters who use those words dont let up their one sided criticism of the forces. Its the same content, just that the word is carefully avoided.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Marten » 27 May 2017 22:57

Boss, when we say multiple instances of abuse, we as members must also watch out for the same and report these. I do. So, I asked specifics of abuse and import pasand type labels are in the same category as buck teeth scientists. Again, I ask because we keep saying ad hominems are common against the forces but what are these? Are they on the same lines as words such as Forum Gundagardi?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21713
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby SSridhar » 21 Jun 2017 08:50

nukavarapu, if you have not already done so, kindly send a mail to admn.brf@gmail.com

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Bala Vignesh » 13 Jul 2017 00:26

Sorry about the OT, Admins. Was looking for the forum feedback thread but couldn't find it inspite of searching. Would appreciate if you could tell me where should I post my feedbacks.
Thanks in advance

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby ArjunPandit » 18 Jul 2017 00:41

Regarding post

shiv wrote:
kvraghav wrote:American howitzer is here already and they are updated firing chart already without extended trials. Time for some generals children to get green card out of order in waiting queue.

I object to this statement because you are insulting a number of sincere and brave people while painting the corrupt. I have repeatedly pointed to admins that on BRF if I accuse you personally of corruption I will get a warning or a ban, but you can accuse senior armed forces officers of corruption and it is "Freedom of Expression"

That is why BRF works like an exclusive club where we are loyal to each other and consider ourselves superior to others bragging that we are ahead of curve. Outsiders including the armed forces are all fair game for libellous comments. The irony of course is that this forum and site were started by people who were fundamentally respectful and grateful to the armed forces. Not to mention that I was a loose cannon as an admin and would ban people for such comments. Let me boast that I gave up my admin post myself - to "fight from the outside" without scaring the shit out of people who would go out of their way to butter me up. It still happens. You see all sorts of insulting people going all soft, gooey and respectful with "admin-sir".

And we have now lost Rohit Vats because of this sort of stuff. Other ex armed forces people have expressed anguish at this but hey this is BRF. We are friggin ahead of curve.

hack thoo

on page viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6651&start=2880

Indranil wrote:^^^ The poster has been warned.

By the way, you are right. You have gone overboard with your latest post too. But I will let it slide this time.

You can help us by reporting the posts. In today's high volume traffic, it is unreasonable to expect moderators to read all the posts?

Indranil sir, I agree with shiv.
In light of Rudradev's Green or Shiv sir's oil drop model in strat forums. Similarly BRF posters can also be segmented.
1. Dark Green: Posters who actually contribute singificantly, their knowledge and insights are the stuff of legend. Based on my observation for last 5 years, many of them don't take BS (won't name them), some like Shiv/Ramana/Singha take care to train nanha mujhaids too. And then there are some like UB who are on a plane of their own.
2. Green: Good posters, might have bias/agenda, but know how to operate within the limits of forum.
3. Light Green: There are two kind of posters
a. Keyboard Jihadis: These posters merely post opinion, engage in mud fights over here. Off late across
b. Peacefuls: Posters come to read/learn mostly. Occasionally will chip in here & there (like me).

The question is who should be valued more on this forum?
People like The Dark green or the light greens: Rohit/Shiv/Tsarkar/KaranM/JayZ/UlanBatori/Singha/Khalsa (all other revered that I missed please pardon) are the lifeblood of this forum. Do we want to continue losing such people?

For past 2 months or so, I have been seeing so much mud slinging on forums. . Multiple threads have been locked, I myself was caught in one. May I request mods to try more heavy handed approach. I understand there is significant volumes and can't be expected to read all the forums. In such cases can mods prioritize for at least mil threads.
I am afraid if we dont do that, things will keep going south and we will be loosing valuable members.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Bala Vignesh » 18 Jul 2017 00:48

I second this post by ArjunPanditji. We need to consolidate and weed out folks who are just derailing the discussion by taking a (set of) post in a tangent.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Indranil » 18 Jul 2017 01:38

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
Indranil wrote:^^^ The poster has been warned.

By the way, you are right. You have gone overboard with your latest post too. But I will let it slide this time.

You can help us by reporting the posts. In today's high volume traffic, it is unreasonable to expect moderators to read all the posts?


Sure it's unreasonable to expect moderators to read all posts but when mods themselves display bias because of a lack of knowledge and even when data and facts are given a 100 times some mods choose to ignore it. This sets the tone for the completely uninformed posting we have seen. There are many reasons to be critical of the armed forces but not one has come up here. Why - complete lack of knowledge and and even stronger lack of desire to apply mind. Subtly egged on by some mods. Anyway it's up to the mods to decide how they want to play this. Your forum, your choice. There is some good work going on here and I wish you all the best.

Best wishes.

There are some serious allegations here.
1. If you point me to posts (through reports), then I can assure you that action will be taken.
2. If you ask me to stymie questions on IA/IAF/IN, my position is simple. I think questioning the armed forces should not be done in a cavalier manner because of the obvious respect they deserve. They are a professional force who know what they are doing. On the other hand, not questioning them at all is Lahori logic, literally speaking.
3. Moderator(s) are subtly egging on people who question the forces through non-action or posting in a biased fashion themselves. This is the most serious allegation of all. I can see your point. Personally speaking, I wanted to be a soldier and ended up being a scientist. So, I kind of feel and I speak up for both. But people on either side of the fences then complain that I am batting only for the other.

Personally, I don't like confronting people. Because, I believe grown-ups don't change views because of confrontation. But, that doesn't seem to work here. So probably, using the danda is probably the need of the hour.

Akshay Kapoor
BRFite
Posts: 1013
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 18 Jul 2017 02:20

Indranil,

I really didn't want to get into a debate because I have made my points many times. My intention is to cancel my account so it makes little sense for me to rehash the same points. Here is a summary - complete lack of knowledge of roles of forces, their decision making powers, financial powers, mandate, MOD functioning, tactics and military functioning. I could spend some time going through old posts and making those points again. But surely you have seen them before.

Yes there is bias and in your above response there is a very good example. In my post I have said there are many reasons to criticise the forces but not one has been used in the uniformed rants here. What I want is informed posting and not 'styming criticism' as you claim. The fact that you equate my requests for informed posting to styming criticism is sadly the bias I am alluding to.

You say you react appropriately to post reports. Sadly that's not true. I'll give you an example of my most recent post report. A worthy posts ' IAF has no doctrine, no vision and all the innovation they can do is attach a simple bomb to a wing or something '. I reported it and (and pls publish my post report here so all can see ) your reaction to the poster was 'this is uncalled for. PLease tone down'. I was saddened when I saw your reaction. Wow !! So in effect you are agreeing with him and just telling him - softly softly ! If so then state what the doctrine should be , why attaching a 'new bomb' is not innovative enough and what you would do. Would you need MOD approvals ? How would you get them ? How come we had op safed sagar , how come we won 71 and 65 despite having no doctrine ? What about training and gunnery skills. How would you change that ? What does Jagan think of the grand statement that IAF has no doctrine and is incapable of formulating one.

I'm very sorry that I had to point this out. But you have bias and this is what has been encouraging posters who don't have your domain expertise of aerodynamics and avionics to post bullshit. You might remember some years or months ago I had complimented you personally on your posting integrity and deep knowledge. I genuinely respected that. In fact I have complemented moderators several times for doing a great job and it was with sadness but seriousness that I made my post above.

Indranil , bias is fine. Problem is not that - problem is complete lack of expertise, hunger for knowledge, Research effort of some posters. Expertise not opinions , research not rants should be the mantra.atkeast admins have to set the tone. All of you moderators and web masters must know procurement rules and regulations as mandatory. You must know something about tactics and ethos. You absolutely must know military history and you must get away from wiki.

Get Rohit back and get Deejay back. You can't afford to loose posters like them if you have to maintain any credibility as the leading defence affairs forum. Other great ones are Karan (we have had a bit of a debate recently but I have a lot of respect for him), Shiv sir, Ramanaji, JE, jays, Tsarkar sir. There are so many good people here. Why can't we just take our standards where they deserve to be. Be absolutely ruthless on quality. Enforce the rule that people must have basic knowledge before they come here. One chap asks on a thread 'is BSF under Home Ministry'. Come on guys be serious !!!
Last edited by Akshay Kapoor on 18 Jul 2017 03:11, edited 7 times in total.

Akshay Kapoor
BRFite
Posts: 1013
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 18 Jul 2017 02:30

Lastly Dhanush is the baby of a DG Arty fighting against inertia. Pls read up on that. There might even be a press article on that.

I have posted many times before the case on how army wanted to test Bharat Forge 52 and how Commandant arty school was requested by DG Arty to provide the testing facilities and how army got ****** by MOD. Also pls for gods sake read Tsarkar sirs post on testing and User acceptance testing.

You enforce these basic standards and I promise you I will give you offline 10 reasons to criticise the army. First is here - Gen Hanut Singh was passed over for Army Commander being labelled as a religious bigot by amongst other people Gen Vaidya. Gen Vaidya has two MVCs one not deserved in my view because of his lack of action in exploiting the breakthrough 17 Horse under had given. I'm taking 71 ops here as I'm sure you know. Gen Hanut was the finest general we have ever produced and he didn't make Army Comannder much less chief.
Last edited by Akshay Kapoor on 18 Jul 2017 03:22, edited 3 times in total.

Akshay Kapoor
BRFite
Posts: 1013
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 18 Jul 2017 02:43

One more thing. If you really think things are bad with our military then Request Brar to do an analysis of where Indian military is going wrong. He is a US expert and doesn't know much about our tactical situation but atleast he has deep domain expertise and credibility.
Last edited by Akshay Kapoor on 18 Jul 2017 02:49, edited 1 time in total.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby ArjunPandit » 18 Jul 2017 02:49

+infinity to akshay saar,
Akshay sir,
My personal request you not to leave! I can treat you with a cuban cigar the time we meet

Indranil sir,
To solve the this disease early, here are my few suggestions
1. Restrict the issuance of new ids
2. Longer time gap between application and approval say six months to one year. Make that public. If someone is too eager, he should spend time rather on forums.
3. Create a watch list e.g., in what forums do they post. Track them, If a newbie is posting too frequently in mil forums then most likely he/she's fighting rather than contributing. No. of words in a post can also be an indicator (not sure if current system allows so), Gods like rohit karan M post long posts and they are quite useful. While admin responsibilities may be restricted, these things can be delegated without even admin/mod roles. You can ask for volunteers amongst trusted people. The ids are anyways with you folks.
4. Treat deviants amongst new people with stronger danda. No mercy.
5. Lastly, is there any way that posts can be rated. That itself can separate chaff.
From my side, please expect higher reporting rates in immediate future (the least i can contribute).
************added in multiple edits****************************************************************
6. Make new joiners post upto say 100/200 posts only in newbie corner
7. Mail a do/dont list to new joiners in email (I sound like I am an HR gal)
8. make it mandatory for posts involving criticism of either forces/MoD/baboons to at least provide supporting details. Hypothetical claims like generals getting kids in USA, baboos getting bribes should be substantiated. if it can't be substantiated, then it should go to pakistan rather than BRF

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Indranil » 18 Jul 2017 06:04

Akshay sir,

Typically, I do not venture much outside LCA/missile/space thread to post or moderate. I don't know much about other fields to have an opinion. Having said that let me address your grievances, one by one.

1. You have to often repeat the same damn things again and again. Trust me sir, on the LCA thread at least, I have lost count of how many times I have explained the same thing again and again. I have exactly the same feeling as you. It is frustrating. Actually, I want to constructively criticize the program. Yet, most of the time I end up just rebutting the rubbish that is put up as "criticism". As a solution, we have made "gyan only" threads which are used for cataloging quality posts on a subject for future reference. I would very much like to create one for you.

2. You refer to a post of Vina where he condescendingly calls IAF strategyless, or something of that sort. You suggest that I went "soft" on him. I refute this. My modus operandi is quite simple. I tell people to behave once, and if they don't, then I act. If Vina would have continued on that line, I would have warned him (I have done that to him before). In contrast, look at the leeway I have given to posters who said a toothless scientist is a shame to India.

3. I wish moderators could have made the reports public. It is funny, how people "on both sides", think that leeway is only being given to the "other side". People go to great lengths because it is private. I was abused as recently as two days back.

4. Retaining quality posters: Every effort is made to do so, and we will continue to do so. By the way, I did not know that deejay left. When? [Added later: he is happily posting here sir]

5. Filtering new members: This forum can only sustain if we find quality newcomers. Sometimes, if you buff out the corners, you will find some reasonably good ones. But how do you know the good from the bad before you have gone through the pile of rubbish? But, I also take your feedback here. I probably would not be as lenient as before.

6. I have not uttered one sentence against the army with respect to artillery (and believe it or not, even Arjun). Frankly, because I do not know. The only actions I have taken with respect to this thread is warn users who have called the Army names before a report has been filed.

7. As to valid criticism of the Army, e.g. the case you submit. Most humbly, I am not knowledgeable about this field. So, I really do not have any comments.

8. I do not care for Brar's analysis on IA's capability or future path.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Indranil » 18 Jul 2017 06:08

ArjunPandit wrote:+infinity to akshay saar,
Akshay sir,
My personal request you not to leave! I can treat you with a cuban cigar the time we meet

Indranil sir,
To solve the this disease early, here are my few suggestions
1. Restrict the issuance of new ids
2. Longer time gap between application and approval say six months to one year. Make that public. If someone is too eager, he should spend time rather on forums.
3. Create a watch list e.g., in what forums do they post. Track them, If a newbie is posting too frequently in mil forums then most likely he/she's fighting rather than contributing. No. of words in a post can also be an indicator (not sure if current system allows so), Gods like rohit karan M post long posts and they are quite useful. While admin responsibilities may be restricted, these things can be delegated without even admin/mod roles. You can ask for volunteers amongst trusted people. The ids are anyways with you folks.
4. Treat deviants amongst new people with stronger danda. No mercy.
5. Lastly, is there any way that posts can be rated. That itself can separate chaff.
From my side, please expect higher reporting rates in immediate future (the least i can contribute).
************added in multiple edits****************************************************************
6. Make new joiners post upto say 100/200 posts only in newbie corner
7. Mail a do/dont list to new joiners in email (I sound like I am an HR gal)
8. make it mandatory for posts involving criticism of either forces/MoD/baboons to at least provide supporting details. Hypothetical claims like generals getting kids in USA, baboos getting bribes should be substantiated. if it can't be substantiated, then it should go to pakistan rather than BRF

You joined in March of 2017. You are in direct contradiction to most of your suggestions. :wink:

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby ArjunPandit » 18 Jul 2017 06:17

Completely agree, hope you get the spirit and not the letter and if the brf community agrees I will be fine with the decision

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1986
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Prem Kumar » 18 Jul 2017 09:27

Indranil: perhaps a way to improve the wheat-to-chaff ratio is to quarantine uninformed posters to the Newbie thread & have them graduate from there only when their post quality warrants it. It will free up Mod time from regular threads because the BS will go down. And you can spend a bit more time in the Newbie threads to identify valuable posters

I feel that a "quarantine" option gives mods a middle-choice between (tolerating useless posts) & (banning). People posting a lot of drivel may not be abusive & may not be deserving of a ban. But they still derail thread quality. The fear of quarantine will make posters think twice before ranting

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5737
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Indranil » 18 Jul 2017 10:26

shiv wrote:
negi wrote:People getting senti with forces lol ; what about the names we keep for IAS and Politicos ? Just because there is a perception that they are more corrupt does it mean we get touchy for one and not for others ? If people want to take a high moral ground there ain't no limit for getting high . I mean one could use same kind of lahori logic and defend INC too for I am sure there are some good folks there too . When someone makes a post about corruption in an institution why is it objectionable ? One has a right to be offended but then one should have an ability to take a stand which is consistent , to get offended when forces are put to question and then in every other post claim MOD sucks or how babus are responsible for all that ails India's MIC is hypocrisy .


Recall that there are people with fathers and sons in the armed forces who visit this forum. It was these people as well as retired military folks who contributed immensely to these forums and still do in a situation where a lot of people live in la la land about the military. I am speaking from that perspective. If you like INC you should be doing the complaining about people cursing INC or Babus. This is a mil forum and not an INC/Babu forum

Don't agree with you hakeem.

1. How about those people who work in defense production units? Whose father have worked in defense production units? Haven't they contributed? Or is it fine to curse them because it is a military forum?

I don't think that is the question. The question is whether moderators are being selective lax towards people who have raised questions on the army? My view is that the moderators, especially me, have been lenient on both sides, and neither sides are happy. Okay, let's try being harsh on everybody. May be, you guys will like it then.

2. People have generated reports and moderators have not responded. You and me can have opinions, but the moderation queue does not lie. Currently, it is empty. It is impossible to please everybody all the time. No matter what you do, you offend the other side. Even you had problems, so did Rohit. Having more moderators will not solve this problem.

No more on this from me. It is unprecedented that three moderators have been directly asked to explain their stand!

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby JayS » 18 Jul 2017 12:13

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Indranil,

Why can't we just take our standards where they deserve to be. Be absolutely ruthless on quality. Enforce the rule that people must have basic knowledge before they come here. One chap asks on a thread 'is BSF under Home Ministry'. Come on guys be serious !!!


I have to say I completely agree with this. If BRF wants to remain a serious Mil forum and not stoop to a level where it becomes merely a place for gossiping/bitching, BRF needs to maintain quality at the expense of freedom to post anything. I lost count how many times I feel depressed (and feel like not to come back until the dust settles) to see junk posted over and over and over again in some threads and good posts, good discussions are just buried under the junk posts which literally do not contribute anything to the discourse. I don't understand why BRF has this penchant for keeping junk posts such as the one on the "bad teeth" of some scientist and all other posts which were replies to it. Why can't such posts be simply be deleted to keep the threads on topic and clean..?? I guess the moderator team has enough expertise to make out which posts are useless and can be deleted straightaway. I remember LCA thread used to have a warning for all newbies not to post uneducated junk (post it in newbie thread) or be ready to get striped naked by gurus. We need that for all threads and be enforced strictly (and not just for newbies).

(I would have suggested moving such posts to another threads, but that might be too much work for moderator team. I would personally like BRF to keep gems like "bad teeth" but if the work is too much then why not simply delete them.?)

There is nothing like Absolute Freedom/FOE. With that comes responsibility. But I am not in favour of banning things outright. BRF can separate out the serious discussion from the prejudiced/ignorant/uneducated opinions. Long time ago I had suggested a "Fight Club" thread on BRF so that all the belligerent people can go there and vent out their frustration/anger/whatever and others who think the poster being idiotic can strip him and kick him in da Musharraf. At least that will keep other threads clean and it will also keep the freedom part. Whoever feel its all junk can simply ignore the thread. And it will serve another purpose, which is important in some sense, it can bring up all the dark thoughts against all the organisations/establishments/people and they could be rebutted there or discussed if there is substance in it. If there is a feeling in public against AFs, for example, then it should be brought forth and examined for substance, rebutted properly and shown its proper place. But hat can be done in separate threads without polluting all the other threads.

Also there is no need for Mods to take it personally. I don't think its personal. We are all enough grown-ups to understand so much.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby JayS » 18 Jul 2017 12:18

Prem Kumar wrote:Indranil: perhaps a way to improve the wheat-to-chaff ratio is to quarantine uninformed posters to the Newbie thread & have them graduate from there only when their post quality warrants it. It will free up Mod time from regular threads because the BS will go down. And you can spend a bit more time in the Newbie threads to identify valuable posters

I feel that a "quarantine" option gives mods a middle-choice between (tolerating useless posts) & (banning). People posting a lot of drivel may not be abusive & may not be deserving of a ban. But they still derail thread quality. The fear of quarantine will make posters think twice before ranting


What to do when BRF-oldies post junk..?? Haan ji..?

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12905
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby negi » 18 Jul 2017 13:28

I have been around for a bit ; what happened on LCA thread was a petty incident which got blown out of proportions I mean look at what Mods did in the religion dhaga and then in nuke dhaga of yore in comparison Indranil just made an innocuous comment he just participated in discussion as an individual ; people took offence and they have right to be offended but I don't see any reason why adults cannot verbally battle it out instead of expecting some third chap to intervene or call for some moderation ; we live in a country where PM has been called a mass murderer and the IA general been compared to certain Dyer if people are going to cry and whine and throw in the towel then how are you going to defend what you stand for and if the fight is not worth fighting and one wants to leave why discuss about it any further ? I mean BRF is no big deal so obviously people can leave it any time however then we should reciprocate the same sentiment i.e. when people leave on their own why is it everyone else's issue ? Now again none of it would have happened if people are let to fight it out like adults in a pub/bar because you allow people to win or lose with respect but by meddling and intervening in a debate and putting an end to it you piss off many who think they had a valid point to make that is what we did in Religion dhaga and then in Nuke dhaga then with Stan and co in Economy forum and don't the Mods have a dhaga of their own under super-burkha why not go at each other there and settle things there . TO claim that someone disrespected the forces and hence people left is a bit too rich for I personally see many of us say things out of frustration some get warned some banned it's pretty straight forward , the MIL dhagas have nice epithets for babus , MOD and even the HAL so why cannot someone from other side of the fence have similar resentment .

As for those who have kith and kin in forces I would like to know who are these whiter than snow and more pure than gangajal who get hurt by comments on MIL forum ; some of us too have 3 generations in forces and over dozen from extended family in the IA alone none of this should even be a factor for having a relative in forces does not lend anyone any more credibility than someone who has no one in the forces.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby jamwal » 18 Jul 2017 17:33

Agree with Negi and to some extent Akshay ji.

There are some posters who post junk, i have done so myself. But asking for bans, posting limitations and similar restrictions is just like retarded Indian censor board. IMO, moderatrs are doing the thankless job pretty well. If you don't like someone's opinion, either type out a reply, report or just ignore it.

Just becuase you don't like someone's opinion, you don't get to ask for ban. It is not China or North Korea and posters not their citizens who have to follow a particular line of thought. Report if you find it against forum rules and leave it to moderators to take action. If the moderators themselves are bad, then leave and start your own forum.

People whine that Indians don't have feeedom of expression like in western countries and then cry for imposing censorships and bans whenever they do not agree with somebody's opinions.

Some people who are reminiscing over good old days just make me laugh. Same things happened years back too when I was a lurker 10-11 years back.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2017 20:31

Indranil wrote:
1. How about those people who work in defense production units? Whose father have worked in defense production units? Haven't they contributed? Or is it fine to curse them because it is a military forum?

I don't think that is the question. The question is whether moderators are being selective lax towards people who have raised questions on the army? My view is that the moderators, especially me, have been lenient on both sides, and neither sides are happy. Okay, let's try being harsh on everybody. May be, you guys will like it then.

2. People have generated reports and moderators have not responded. You and me can have opinions, but the moderation queue does not lie. Currently, it is empty. It is impossible to please everybody all the time. No matter what you do, you offend the other side. Even you had problems, so did Rohit. Having more moderators will not solve this problem.

No more on this from me. It is unprecedented that three moderators have been directly asked to explain their stand!

No this is not accusing the moderators of anything special but moderators play an important role and need to be woken up and asked every now and again.

Some things that I say may seem hurtful - but they are not intended to insult anyone in particular. So I ask for pardon in advance but state my views frankly and emphatically

Once upon a time there were Forum guidelines. Where are they now? Has anyone checked?
In November 2016 a forum member on forum feedback thread said:
viewtopic.php?p=2066622#p2066622
shravanp wrote:Gurujan,
The guidline link seems to be broken. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/Guidelines.html


The link is still broken

In the days when the forum guidelines were accessible to people there used to be a reference to the "Charter of Bharat-Rakshak forums"

What the hell is the charter of these forums? What are the forums here for? Are these just chatrooms for timepass or is there some greater purpose? Does the forum have any goal or aim whosoever? It is called Bharat Rakshak and people refer to each other as Rakshaks. What are they Rakshaking?

Long ago I personally reached the conclusion that BRF has become just another chatroom and a cosy club or people who think they have some special insight into the defence of Bharat. But that is my viewpoint. It is easy to be a forum member. The best part about being a forum member is that anyone's posts can be ignored by putting them on the ignore list. Unfortunately Admins can't do that - but that is the admin's problem. I would have thought that a set of guidelines about who can be insulted and who cannot be insulted would be helpful. In fact neither forum members nor third parties should be insulted. But that is something that can be debated. Right now anyone can insult any third party, general, babu, or politician but not another forum member. I have already stated what I think of this.

An old old friend of mine who does not need BRF at all - given his level of knowledge and contacts (Krishna_J) requested me after the disk crash to see if his forum id could be restored. So what did I do?

I went to the first two threads on the top about membership and emailed on 1st March 2017
gentleman DAWT cadet YAT gmail DAWT com
"


The Forum handle was reinstated on 2nd June. A day over 3 months. If you guys are that busy surely you need more hands or new hands.

If the admin job is not easy it is OK to appoint more people and stop being an admin and live life like a mango Abdul. There no need for admins to stay on for decades. We all move on in life and life is much better as an Abdul member than admin on BRF. But those who stay on as admins need to be alert and responsive. With power comes responsibility as has often been stated on the forum

Finally a word about people who request that their handle be de-registered, like a man called nirav is asking for right now. If people do not want to stay on the forum why argue with them and make it an ego struggle? Just send them packing and be done with it. Why tell them "You stay off and I who have the power will not accede to your request" What sort of ego game is this?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby shiv » 19 Jul 2017 07:37

Although unwritten, the military forum was first started for the express purpose of celebrating Indian armed forces - for which there was no public platform in 1997, and to exchange information about the military. There were no political discussions allowed whatsoever. The single forum has since grown into something different and now we have forums to discuss anything.

Amazingly there is even a thread called "Achievements of Narendra Modi government: No discussions allowed". But with no discussions on an obvious politically oriented thread - the discussions spill over to the military forum. "Things are bad after Parikkar left" or "Rajnath Singh is a moron and needs to be sacked for what he said". "Some babu is a fool because he said xyz about Dokalam"

My dears - most of us guys are ignoramuses when it comes to military, politics and diplomacy. Most people don't have any clue about how many things work. But in this forum "Freedom of expression" allows such comments. These comments cannot be placed in the Modi government thread. And Mods are too busy to check every post. I think this farrago ( :) ) of excuses and rationalizations need a serious rethink.

BRF is to me like a headless monster with no policy or direction and it is not even as free as FB or Twitter because the admission rules are very strict.

"Paid email ids" are only for corporate people and western academia. Desis use Gmail. Most people do not have paid email. Admitting people with only paid email is an unnecessary barrier that are, guess what, based on admin workload. People with free email need to bend over backwards to get admission to this club and once on here there is no focus. It feels like an exclusive club to me. Difficult to get in, but once in you are elite and protected and able to "make policy" on defence and other issued and then go for a round of gossip on the private "for members eyes only" forum.

Free up membership. Let anyone join. But remove people who are trolls. This means more admin workload. It also means a very strict set of rules about what is allowed and what is not allowed. BRF is confused between FOE and lack of FOE. We allow some stuff and disallow some stuff with no guidelines. Guidelines and an iron hand to implement them is needed. BRF has also gone off its rocker with "graded punishments", One week for this. 2 weeks for that etc. And there is zero transparency about this. This obviously puts a burden on admins. Do away with that rubbish. Repeat offenders can be shown the door - but for that the forum needs rules and focus. Start a thread about rules and get forum feedback - but we will get feedback only from the select few we have admitted by our weird forum admission rules.

As regards suggestions that entry should be restricted to only those with some knowledge - no, that will not work. After all BRF now has 4 forums. Start a 5th forum called "Military veterans forum" and allow only military vets to post and maybe a few select others simply to pass on questions from aam abdul to the vets. If anyone wants to argue or curse let them do it on the other forums. Open up membership. Let BRF not be an exclusive club of privileged dodos and people who have entered by rank, age and influence

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby JayS » 19 Jul 2017 11:20

shiv wrote:As regards suggestions that entry should be restricted to only those with some knowledge - no, that will not work. After all BRF now has 4 forums. Start a 5th forum called "Military veterans forum" and allow only military vets to post and maybe a few select others simply to pass on questions from aam abdul to the vets. If anyone wants to argue or curse let them do it on the other forums. Open up membership. Let BRF not be an exclusive club of privileged dodos and people who have entered by rank, age and influence

I like the idea pretty much. There is so much from the AF's perspective that is missing from the narrative, that it causes mass scale ignorance and lack of knowledge for even those who want to learn. Such platform could fill that void. BRF could invite x-AF personnel to contribute there.

Can we have a similar forum for the other side as well..? I suppose its far more difficult to get people from the RnD side and even more so to make them talk on public forum. But could be tried.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby shiv » 19 Jul 2017 14:23

JayS wrote:Can we have a similar forum for the other side as well..? I suppose its far more difficult to get people from the RnD side and even more so to make them talk on public forum. But could be tried.

Right now I have a request from a retired CABS person to help write an article about indigenous AEW efforts. He thinks it's going up on Bharat Rakshak and it did not sink in that BR no longer entertains serious articles when I tried to tell him. There are so many portals that will grab such an article with enthusiasm. He doesn't need to come here. People such as these need to be nurtured and made to feel welcome. These people can enter any damn chatroom they want with their gmail or windows live id. They and their kids are probably all on Facebook and Whatsapp anyway. Any word they say gets 10,000 likes and shares. No way such people are going to navigate the hoity toity complexity of joining BR and then post along with a bunch of people who regularly show by the questions they ask that they have not bothered to read previous 2-3 pages and posts and simply post a comment or query. That is BRF and it is high time we acknowledge that the forum has become old, with old people and old ideas with people logging in daily hoping that something new and exciting comes up. Every few days someone says "What's new about the LCA" "Has mijjile been phyrred" or "Has gun been phyrred" or "What's new about xyz?" Oh - the usual corruption, Modi Sarkar has slowed down.

The young and dynamic people of the 1997 BRF who were in their 20s or 30s are in their 50s now or near there. Forget about fossils like me and my peers. We need new ideas and new blood. Above all we need vision about where these forums are heading. Armed forces people who did not know what computer &internet was in 1997 or were just joining the forces are now retired and online or senior officers with 20 years service. What are we doing to get them on here? Nothing. I would like to see people in the business (or retired thereof) log in and post not have to bother with catfights and trolling. If we want information we need to make some adjustments.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2614
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby JayS » 19 Jul 2017 16:07

shiv wrote: If we want information we need to make some adjustments.


Couldn't agree more. And we all know, without proper moderation any debate/discussion quickly spirals down to an imbroglio. If BRF needs quality material it needs to provide a proper platform where a civil debate can happen which would not end up in "tu tu main main".

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3961
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Rakesh » 19 Jul 2017 20:10

Hakeemji, you have brought forth some fantastic ideas. I am talking (action will be taken and changes will happen) with the admins and webmasters. Hang in there, for BR's sake.

Rajeev
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: New York

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby Rajeev » 19 Jul 2017 20:49

I always remember you as a moderator Shiv and then you relinquished the post in those years in early 2000s, didn’t you ? . I could be wrong or perhaps my memories are working overtime but somehow BRF is pretty much synonymous with your name :)))))) Also remember JEM and Ramana graduated to the moderator role after illustrious stints as general contributing members .

Some of the names I don’t see any more include Imtiaz ( legal luminary I think ) , Kaushal , Narayanan ( his legendary one liners were riots ) .. We had this perpetual skirmishes from Lazarus Rajput from pak deaf and dumb ..

Sorry I am off the track here from main issue in discussion here , don’t have much to contribute in that so apologies in advance

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33671
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby shiv » 19 Jul 2017 21:14

Ramana actually was on BRF just before I joined - under a different name

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: BR Main Site Feedback

Postby ArjunPandit » 20 Jul 2017 05:11

Shiv, JayS,
+108 to both of you folks


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests