Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

[Rahul M]

You may prefer the biggest/highest armored tank, but the merit of various trade-off in a equipment design is a reality, and it does result in mil equipment with different characteristics. And each have their merit.

and what trade-offs are these ? a tank formation has to move along with its support infantry and the supply chain has to keep up over 3-4 day cycles. on a good day a tank will move 50 km at most and all tanks these days carry a barrel of two of extra fuel. it has time enough to top up and move on.

more importantly you are taking on-road figures which is the unlikeliest situation. off road, the little more range T-90 has evaporates.

[Sanku]

Well, the fact remains the most commonly accepted data is what I have posted, if Chacko posts more current data, I am glad to be corrected, but it has to be more than Chacko quoting himself.

And folks, please spare me "your data is wrong" bit, this is published data from various sources all backing each other up. No conflicts.

These include cross country and on road numbers. It is also backed up by basic design principles.

[Karan M]

Well, the fact remains the most commonly accepted data is what I have posted,

What is "commonly accepted" - ok... Nine tenths of what is written on the internet about Arjun, about most military equipment is misleading without context or even inaccurate. Go on, tell us - what is the exact Firecontrol system, APU, radio, Navigation system used on the Arjun. Google, use the internet - tell us. Lets see what is commonly accepted, and remember, no errors and "chackos data" or forum post or blog post. Only from "commonly accepted" sources such as Janes, IPCS etc. Lets see accuracy of the commonly accepted data.

if Chacko posts more current data, I am glad to be corrected, but it has to be more than Chacko quoting himself.

You think Chacko quoted himself to come up with details like that in the link? You think he sat and worked out things like stabilization accuracy in elevation and azimuth, armor package, fuel tank capacities, track types, fuel tank protection..
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about.

And folks, please spare me "your data is wrong" bit, this is published data from various sources all backing each other up. No conflicts.

No. You spare us your "bits" and "pieces". So far, I have read only read absolute bunk from your end, including stuff like:

These include cross country and on road numbers. It is also backed up by basic design principles.

..what are these basic design principles? What are the actual details from your end, as versus copy pasting stuff from here and there and then argueing away?

Let me tell you, its one thing to be argumentative. Its another thing to waste everyones time by being somebody who argues on every darn thing under the sun, even when he/she has no real data at hand. Its your ego which is making you dismiss chackos data.

If you keep that aside, consider the possibility that its true & then start trying to understand what it means, then you might actually learn something about how freaking inferior the T-90 actually is and why its a bloody shame we purchased this tank.

Had we purchased an Indianized Leclerc, or a latest M1A2SEP block or even a Merkava-3 or a 4, it would be something which would given Arjun a tough challenge, but to buy a tank which has inferior specs in many critical parameters, and on top of its electronics dont work, its the biggest rip off of the Indian taxpayer & the Army guys who will actually use that equipment are the true victims.

BTW, heres something to make you even more happy, another commonly "unaccepted" bit of information. The great Russians refused us TOT for armor panels to build the darn tank, because of which OFB had to ask Midhani and DMRL to do the needful, which they did. And for the gun, "negotiations" had to be held, after we paid for TOT to begin with..

[Karan M]

You may prefer the biggest/highest armored tank, but the merit of various trade-off in a equipment design is a reality, and it does result in mil equipment with different characteristics. And each have their merit.

and what trade-offs are these ? a tank formation has to move along with its support infantry and the supply chain has to keep up over 3-4 day cycles. on a good day a tank will move 50 km at most and all tanks these days carry a barrel of two of extra fuel. it has time enough to top up and move on.

more importantly you are taking on-road figures which is the unlikeliest situation. off road, the little more range T-90 has evaporates.

Yeah, nobody goes on road. Even in peacetime, those tanks will destroy any road, sometimes even with rubber pads. In wartime, going on road = ambush. So its all off road. You said it about the Km. Only in the Thar that too, anywhere else both sides have such huge defensive lines that it'll be brutal war of attrition.

[Rahul M]

In the sense of question asked, IA uses mules in places where even mopeds dont get to. So does IA deserve donkeys?

We already have a few of them at high levels. And MoD is probably full of them

K

[Sanku]

Karan M, save your breath and instead show some numbers which are open source other than those by Chacko or which quote Chacko.

Being nasty is not substitute for debate, all I have heard from you is how the whole world is crap expect this one data point. Yeah well. Sure fuel efficiency does not matter, how many Kms a tank can run before its engine runs out does not matter. What is the necessary supply train for each tank to run a distance does not matter. Time to trot out the cliche

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics

I hate trotting it out but what to do, sometime there is no option.

And learn some manners, being rude and hostile is not substitute for reasoned arguments with facts.

============

And to remind you, I am specifically asking for three data points
1) Fuel consumption on/off road
2) Number of km/hours that engine can run before conking out

I am specifically keeping it simple so that the discussion does not go all over the place.

Lets do these first, and NO arguing that fuel efficiency is not important is NOT same as discussing which tank "kitna deti hai"

Cheers...

[srai]

Pretty hilarious ... in the last few pages of this thread ... only Sanku has been defending the T-90 with a degree of fanaticism!

IMO, he will take his faith in the T-90 to his grave and no other data (or points) will convince him otherwise.

[Karan M]

Karan M, save your breath and instead show some numbers which are open source other than those by Chacko or which quote Chacko.

Why? Is Chacko a liar? Is he some sort of savant who came up with all those things on his own?

Being nasty is not substitute for debate, all I have heard from you is how the whole world is crap expect this one data point. Yeah well. Sure fuel efficiency does not matter, how many Kms a tank can run before its engine runs out does not matter. What is the necessary supply train for each tank to run a distance does not matter. Time to trot out the cliche

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics

Can you design an armoured regiments supply chain for us? If not, why all this posturing about amateurs and professionals and similar hilarious cliches?

You talk a lot about the word "debate", but do you even know what the word means, as versus just arguing for the heck of it? Lets get to the point.

Here you have details posted in the Frontier India link which are cent per cent accurate going by how they match up with other sources with info from the horses mouth. But you don't know this and won't accept this. Not only you not know this, you DEMAND, that you be given other sources. For what exactly? For your whimsy that you don't like Chacko?

If you were half as knowledgeable about this topic as you say you are - "look at the design details" etc etc, you should have already known all the details and should have been pointing US to new sources of information. But you can't and you haven't.

Chacko's link blows your claims out of the water. So, simple logic - deny it. Brilliant. But you have nothing in return.

Hello - you didnt even know the Arjun has had HESH since 2002, and here you are trying to teach us about details, about topics you have little clue about. Now you say logistics? Trying to talk up yourself as being a professional as versus the rest who are all amateurs?

I hate trotting it out but what to do, sometime there is no option.

Yes indeed, the other option would be to admit you were wrong, but you cant do that can you?

nd learn some manners, being rude and hostile is not substitute for reasoned arguments with facts.

So far, you have dismissed all reasoned arguments by denying whatever punctures your claims. Claimed outright falsehoods (HESH, fuel consumption etc), have no idea whatsoever of the topic under question..

Yeah you type fast, but is that "reasoned argument"? Then when you are shown you are wrong, do you admit you were mistaken & re-evaluate your argument? No - here you are, back again...so what you see as "rude and hostile" is "trotting it out, but what to do, sometimes there is no option"..

============

And to remind you, I am specifically asking for three data points
1) Fuel consumption on/off road
2) Number of km/hours that engine can run before conking out

LOL - the fuel consumption is already there in Frontier India link. If you had any idea of the topic, you'd also know of one other public report which has it.

Second, can you tell us the T-90s experience in Indian conditions?

Oh wait, you dismissed that link from the College of Defence Management as well..

So, no, you answer my questions from earlier and show us all why exactly your word should be taken over Chacko's. Tell us what FCS is on the Arjun, APU, radio etc. Lets have your commonly accepted answers from your commonly accepted knowledge. We'll all get to see how wrong Chacko, we all are, and how right you are.. Go on.

I am specifically keeping it simple so that the discussion does not go all over the place.

No, you are not keeping it "simple". You are trying to shape the terms of debate, into two tangential points so that you can somehow pretend that you were not mistaken and just arguing for the heck of it..

Lets do these first, and NO arguing that fuel efficiency is not important is NOT same as discussing which tank "kitna deti hai"

Whatever..

[Sanku]

I see no data points and a lot of bluster. Wake me up when you get the data.

This is why it is good to ask simple questions. Good night.'

reminder
================


And to remind you, I am specifically asking for three data points
1) Fuel consumption on/off road
2) Number of km/hours that engine can run before conking out

[Karan M]

Pretty hilarious ... in the last few pages of this thread ... only Sanku has been defending the T-90 with a degree of fanaticism!

IMO, he will take his faith in the T-90 to his grave and no other data (or points) will convince him otherwise.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/The ... ll+not+see

[Sanku]

Pretty hilarious ... in the last few pages of this thread ... only Sanku has been defending the T-90 with a degree of fanaticism!

IMO, he will take his faith in the T-90 to his grave and no other data (or points) will convince him otherwise.

Actually about 5000+ IA folks have faith enough in the system to put their life on line with it. And they have great things to say (yes I know all vodka and natasha only).

Considering the above, I find it slightly odd that the forum is behaving in a somewhat childish fashion; sure Arjun is a good tank, and nobody denies that. But T 90 does not have to be a bad tank for Arjun to be a good tank, quite the opposite actually.

[rgsrini]

Sanku,
Here is a comparison of cross country speed between T90 and Arjun.

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2010/02/t ... arjun.html

T-90 VS MBT Arjun--First Ever Comparative Trials !

Maximum Speed. [T-90]65 kmph on road and 35kmph cross country/ [ARJUN]75 kmph and 45 kmph cross country.

[Karan M]

I see no data points and a lot of bluster. Wake me up when you get the data.

The data is already there. The problem is you are too interested in yakking away whilst not admitting that the data is there and you might be wrong.

Talk, talk, talk - but wont check. Case in point - the HESH round, in service since 2002, easily available on the OFB website, would have taken you all of a few seconds of googling to find the answer. But your statement was that Arjun does not even have HESH & later, "oh my info is out of date"...yeah, like nine years out date!

Second, you have the data, but you will deliberately pretend not to see it. Its bizarre and ludicrous behaviour.

This is why it is good to ask simple questions. Good night.'

reminder
================


And to remind you, I am specifically asking for three data points
1) Fuel consumption on/off road
2) Number of km/hours that engine can run before conking out

http://frontierindia.net/dissimilar-com ... -90s-specs

Lets see - Mobility Performance.


Second point - again, you should know what features the Arjun has to prevent the engine from conking out, namely:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2117/ ... 113300.htm

With the help of a special filter system that keeps out dust, the tank can operate in the desert. Its cables and connections are protected from dust and it has a provision for deflogging the radiator and heat exchangers. Dr. Natarajan said: "The engine will never be shut down even in the most critical conditions. This addresses the heat transfer phenomenon... The tank, without air-conditioning, can dissipate heat." Arjun's design is modular, including that of the weapon system, turret and the power pack. "You can change the power pack in the field in 45 minutes. Elsewhere, it takes 14 hours," Dr. Natarajan said.

How much more do you require, even as you flog the incredibly misleading claims that the T-90 is somehow superior to the Arjun in the mobility & propulsion department. And the Russians were bragging about the T-90 engine even as the thing broke down in trials. 90% of what is written on Arjun in "commonly accepted media" is junk bar the rare 10% from the horses mouth above, yet you quote junk like IPCS over stuff which is accurate as in the frontier india link. Just to somehow salvage the performance of the T-90, which the Russians are not bothered about fixing and making your own nation jump through hoops..

Seriously, its bizarre..

[Karan M]

Actually about 5000+ IA folks have faith enough in the system to put their life on line with it. And they have great things to say (yes I know all vodka and natasha only).

Yes, the same IA Folks who served with the Vijayanta tank as well..famous for returning to the garage moment it rolled out of the shed...constant engine problems in the initial batches, still troublesome later. Moral of the story - just because the Army purchases something, and makes the "right noises" ("we'll fight with what we have") - does not mean things are hunky dory.
Especially when:

Considering the above, I find it slightly odd that the forum is behaving in a somewhat childish fashion; sure Arjun is a good tank, and nobody denies that. But T 90 does not have to be a bad tank for Arjun to be a good tank, quite the opposite actually.

Is the forum being childish, or are you being childish? In deliberately trying to ignore unpalatable facts?
Such as:
-T-90 still has issues with thermal imagers
-T-90 still has no AirCon or ECS
- Russians made a huge mess of TOT issue leading to Indian replacement of critical armor panels
- Tank has poorer FCS than integrated sights on western tanks/Arjun
- Tank has no defense system, not even the type being put on Arjun MK2
- Tank has severe design flaws with ammunition distributed all over tank
- Ergonomic issues

..the list is so huge its not even funny. But never mind, the IA motto is "Bash on Regardless" so all is well!!

[rgsrini]

It is not at all surprising that Arjun has a higher speed, as it certainly has a higher power to weight ratio. (24 hp/tonne compared to 21.5 hp/tonne for T-90).

I have 2 noob question for Gurus.
1. Is it possible to extend Arjun's range by including an external fuel tank (just like an aircraft), that can be used during the initial stages and disposed of after the fuel is consumed.
2. Also, just like an aircraft, do we have refueling capabilities as part of our strategy/tool sets

This will eliminate the issue with the cruising range.

Added later: Did not notice all the details in Karan M's post. It appears that my first question is answered in the table.

[Karan M]

It is not at all surprising that Arjun has a higher speed, as it certainly has a higher power to weight ratio. (24 hp/tonne compared to 21.5 hp/tonne for T-90).

I have 2 noob question for Gurus.
1. Is it possible to extend Arjun's range by including an external fuel tank (just like a plane), that can be used during the initial stages and disposed of after the fuel is consumed.

These are simple(r) questions, so I can answer them:

Arjun & T-90 both have drums located behind the tank. See the chart above.
Also see:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 5/0603.jpg

2. Also, just like a plane, do we have refueling capabilities as part of our strategy/tool sets

This will eliminate the issue with the cruising range.

Not on the move refuelling, but there are petrol and lubricant supplies which move with the units.

[rgsrini]

Thanks Karanji. Hopefully, Sanku will change his views now, because Arjun is advantageous in almost everyother respect compared to T-90.

Mods: I also recommend that this comparison table, posted by Karan M, become a permanent fixture at the start of this thread for all noobs to review.

Also. Can some with access to Wiki, update the data to reflect the figures quoted by Karan M.

[sivabala]

Even without all these comparison tables, at any day Arjun's logistics trail is going to be a long one.Because, once the shooting match starts, the survival of tin cans will be in question. Hardly 50% may survive at the front. However, survivability of Arjun being much better and its swift action on front, our current logistics groomed for tin cans will have tough time to catch up with Arjun. There is no wonder logistics people are raising issues.
The logistics of a fighting force which treats its front as cannon fodder will always be easier than for one which keeps its front as cutting edge.

[Katare]

T90 is a lot more matured/evolved tank, in no way it is inferior to Arjun or any other tank in the world, IMHO. It just is in a different weight and size class than T series but pound for pound it kicks ass anywhere. Arjun on the other hand is new dawn for indian armed forces, Dawn is filled with hope but it isn't the brightest time of the day. It is a big stick with large kill zone and even longer kill shots. IA would take some time in accepting it, but it'll come around.

[Gurinder P]

cant wait for the 1500 power pack in Arjun mk II. Hopefully a bigger thappad to the T-72 variant will knock some sense into the Army. Probably wont though lol...

Which will also reduce the fuel efficiency further.

Just saying.

==========

PS> It is NOT a PROBLEM. Just highlighting how in real world design, tradeoffs work.

That is not always true, the Arjun with 1500 hp could have better fuel economy due to engine design upgrades with composites and electronic upgrades for fuel injection and oxygen mixtures.

A great example for this is my car vs. my fathers. I have a 2000 Acura TL with 225 HP 3.2L engine and it does 500km/tank city driving and my Father has a 2008 BMW 528I with sports package engine at 230HP 2.8L engine and that beast does 700+km/tank city driving.

Please do notice that technology evolves and the military is always at the forefront.

PS: Both fuel Tanks are around the same @ 50L

[RoyG]

T90 is a lot more matured/evolved tank, in no way it is inferior to Arjun or any other tank in the world, IMHO. It just is in a different weight and size class than T series but pound for pound it kicks ass anywhere. Arjun on the other hand is new dawn for indian armed forces, Dawn is filled with hope but it isn't the brightest time of the day. It is a big stick with large kill zone and even longer kill shots. IA would take some time in accepting it, but it'll come around.

err...this "a lot more matured/evolved tank" got its a** kicked by the Arjun during trials. So yeah, that would make it INFERIOR.

[SaiK]

No one is questioning T-90's ability or performance. It is all about when they (la sanku walahs) say Arjun is a pathetic tank and nothing compared to T-90s.

IA can't crap Arjun to make sure T90 is the best tank in the world! now who is asking for comparison, Arjun or T90? BTW, if DRDO do ask for comparison it is a fair question indeed since it is a home grown. It is like you have a genius kid at home, and people keep saying he is nothing compared to already existing nobel prize winners or Einstein.. what the heck? for a parent , his child is the best. On the same note, Arjun must be made the best.

Hence, it is a call to support arjun rather T90s. What Arjun lacks, is what that needs to addressed and not that it can be junked like 30 months of no production etc. Very very banana minds would do such a thing, imho.

[RoyG]

cant wait for the 1500 power pack in Arjun mk II. Hopefully a bigger thappad to the T-72 variant will knock some sense into the Army. Probably wont though lol...

Which will also reduce the fuel efficiency further.

Just saying.

==========

PS> It is NOT a PROBLEM. Just highlighting how in real world design, tradeoffs work.

sankujiiiiii......1500 engine can still be more fuel efficient than tin can super duper engine. Depends on design, material construction, tank weight etc...Moreover Arjun with its 1400 engine proved to be quicker than T-90 according to trial results obtained by livefist.

[GeorgeM]

cant wait for the 1500 power pack in Arjun mk II. Hopefully a bigger thappad to the T-72 variant will knock some sense into the Army. Probably wont though lol...

Which will also reduce the fuel efficiency further.

Just saying.

==========

PS> It is NOT a PROBLEM. Just highlighting how in real world design, tradeoffs work.

I wouldn't stretch it as a trade off. In fact I would think the other way. Fuel efficiency is not inversely related to hp. Also if you are talking about 'mileage', again increasing hp in several cases has in fact improved mileage. See Google chacha. Some engine manufacturers increase hp just to increase mileage. It depends on how the transmission ratio is, fuel delivery maps, etc. Arjun increasing hp by a 100 can no way be argued as reducing efficiency or mileage (liters per mile here) even in real world.

But if I am to speculate, I would think that even though heavier Arjun thumped T-90, additional 100 hp may be for some Power Take Off from transmission or to increase mileage. May be the gurus and chaiwalas can enlighten why they need additional hp.

added later: hp increase has nothing to do with fuel efficiency decrease. Fuel efficiency and mileage are different
added even later: speculating, tanks I think may be operating in roughly the same point of the hp to rpm curve as agricultural machinery (tractors/ combines etc), which is really far end of the curve (ie constant high rpm, lower hp than peak). May be that is the reason for increasing hp. Why I think this is becoz Russia in the post Soviet, Gorbachev era had converted some tanks to agriculture duty. They didn't convert a bus or truck, but tanks becoz of easy fit both technically and politically. The intended operating conditions of Arjun may have pushed the curve to the limit. Are they modifying tranny as well? anybody knows?

[Surya]

All the 100 km extra is meaningless if the engines conk out or the baktar shikhan or something blows its cuppola off.


It will never need those 100 extra km because it may never make it and I say this with sadness for the men who will pay the price.

[SaiK]

Taking logistics into account, having a lesser km to cover would be better than a higher one? So, from that perspective what is advantageous on the extra miles, actually is a disadvantage for say a forward located T90 that needs supplies and fuel desperately.

Those extra miles are highly debatable.

[Surya]

what does a BMP 2 travel to 600 km?

[Abhisham]

T-90 is already in service like it or not. It fits well with our exiting logistical base. Arjun definately is a superior tank but that doesn't make T-90 a bad tank.

The issue in IA has been lack of information on Arjun and lot of bad press throughout its early development cycle. I have heard many openions of the Arjun from people in the services from good to bad all depending on how much first hand experience they have had with Arjun.

The recent comparative trials was an eye opener for quite a few of the IA top brass and with the media finally portraying the Arjun in a positive light the general preception seems to be changing. Also with more regiments converting over to Arjun will help with the above cause.

There are enough T-55/T-72's that require replacement and Arjun production line has already been set-up which will get constant orders to keep it running. What needs to be seen is if the IA makes the monumental change in its current logistics to support the Arjun as a front line tank rather than making it part of a defensive formation. For this to happen the order numbers need to go up!

[chackojoseph]

You think Chacko quoted himself to come up with details like that in the link? You think he sat and worked out things like stabilization accuracy in elevation and azimuth, armor package, fuel tank capacities, track types, fuel tank protection..
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about...

You are right. If someone ever tells me Cos theta and Sine theta and such mumbo jumbo, I will faint.

Here is a comparison of cross country speed between T90 and Arjun.

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2010/02/t ... arjun.html

T-90 VS MBT Arjun--First Ever Comparative Trials !

Maximum Speed. [T-90]65 kmph on road and 35kmph cross country/ [ARJUN]75 kmph and 45 kmph cross country.

Cool! I will read that.

[Sanku]

Sanku,
Here is a comparison of cross country speed between T90 and Arjun.

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2010/02/t ... arjun.html

T-90 VS MBT Arjun--First Ever Comparative Trials !

Maximum Speed. [T-90]65 kmph on road and 35kmph cross country/ [ARJUN]75 kmph and 45 kmph cross country.

Thanks for that, that one post was more useful that all the useless fulminations that abound. Do note however that this blog does not back up what it says with references (and this data is pre-comparative trial estimate)

So

1) There are two set of numbers for Arjun/T-90 Cross country speed, knowing which is better is uncertain. However more established (more reliable numbers show slightly higher for T 90)

2) On fuel efficiency the numbers are still not available other than to say that--

1. Mobility Summer/winter- Fuel consumption varies/ Summer/winter-Accused of being fuel hungry.

[Sanku]

No one is questioning T-90's ability or performance. It is all about when they (la sanku walahs) say Arjun is a pathetic tank and nothing compared to T-90s.

I normally dont respond to posts whose IQ falls below the floor, but I will point out that of the complete nonsense you post, this has to take the cake. On the very page you posted I have written about 1000000000000 times that:

Considering the above, I find it slightly odd that the forum is behaving in a somewhat childish fashion; sure Arjun is a good tank, and nobody denies that. But T 90 does not have to be a bad tank for Arjun to be a good tank, quite the opposite actually.

I see a strong streak in some posters here to continue as a stuck record, irrespective what the other poster says or any real world data.

That really is sad.

[arnab]

Thanks for that, that one post was more useful that all the useless fulminations that abound. Do note however that this blog does not back up what it says with references (and this data is pre-comparative trial estimate)

So

1) There are two set of numbers for Arjun/T-90 Cross country speed, knowing which is better is uncertain. However more established (more reliable numbers show slightly higher for T 90)

2) On fuel efficiency the numbers are still not available other than to say that--

1. Mobility Summer/winter- Fuel consumption varies/ Summer/winter-Accused of being fuel hungry.

How can this post be 'useful' if at the end of it you are still 'uncertain' Re fuel efficiency - KaranM has provided a table which shows it. Regarding no 'references in the blog', I'm afraid it cuts both ways. There is no reason why T-90 brochureware data (or those put out by the army) should be considered any more reliable considering they do have an axe to grind. Second - the proof lies really in 'the dog did not bark'. Considering the army has been leaking like a sieve to point out the deficiencies of Arjun, why would they not correct information in the public domain about Arjun which was actually incorrect vis-a-vis T-90?

Added later: you also seem to be making a big production about the data being a 'pre-comparitive trail estimate'? Do you have the post-comparitive trial data? Isn't it entirely possible that in the post comparitive trials the Arjun did far better than the pre comparitive estimates (and the T-90 did worse than what it advertised?). Afterall the Arjun did comprehensively beat the T-90. That is not disputed

[Sanku]

PS> It is NOT a PROBLEM. Just highlighting how in real world design, tradeoffs work.

I wouldn't stretch it as a trade off. In fact I would think the other way. Fuel efficiency is not inversely related to hp. Also if you are talking about 'mileage', again increasing hp in several cases has in fact improved mileage. See Google chacha. Some engine manufacturers increase hp just to increase mileage. It depends on how the transmission ratio is, fuel delivery maps, etc. Arjun increasing hp by a 100 can no way be argued as reducing efficiency or mileage (liters per mile here) even in real world.

Thanks a whole bunch for a intelligent post. To restate, I am fully aware and have stated that HP is not the only criteria for mileage. There are various issues involved, including the technological generation of the engine+tranny.

However having said that, the rule of thumb in real world continues to be that more HP comes at the cost of more fuel use (cetrius paribus -- all OTHER conditions remaining same)

So yeah, perhaps not, but then most probably it will, since the tranny et al are not being changed.

==================

How can this post be 'useful' if at the end of it you are still 'uncertain' Re fuel efficiency - KaranM has provided a table which shows it. Regarding no 'references in the blog', I'm afraid it cuts both ways.

Because it attempts to answer the question that I had raised, on the issue of two different numbers, by providing information, and not by trying to shut up the person asking question by insulting them.

There is no reason why T-90 brochureware data (or those put out by the army) should be considered any more reliable considering they do have an axe to grind.

But dear Arnab, the above takes the cake!! We cant believe numbers by think tanks and IA etc, but can believe Chacko? Sorry boss -- I have seen this circular logic here --

P1 -- IA hates Arjun thats why its not taking it.
P2 -- But look at all this data
P1 -- Pah its from Army which hates Arjun.



If the starting article of faith become "Arjun is 1000000000000000000000^100000000000000000 times greater than T 90 only IA cant see that"; there is very little to discuss.

We are not discussing Tanks anymore, we are discussing religion then.

[arnab]

But dear Arnab, the above takes the cake!! We cant believe numbers by think tanks and IA etc, but can believe Chacko? Sorry boss -- I have seen this circular logic here --

P1 -- IA hates Arjun thats why its not taking it.
P2 -- But look at all this data
P1 -- Pah its from Army which hates Arjun.

Which think tank? And no data comprehensively makes a case for T-90 (I mean - 'mileage' of T-90 is better !! seriously - that is an operation decision making criteria for IA? ) Well in the interest of transparency all IA has to do is put out the post-comparitive data. And yes - if your 'prior' is - 'We did not make a huge **** up by ordering T-90 on a knee jerk manner and then following it up by ordering a 1000 more', obviously you would want to show your acquisition in the best possible light. Afterall, as long as the T-90 does not fire a shot in anger and only parades down Rajpath - who is going to know?

[Sanku]

Saw later:

Added later: you also seem to be making a big production about the data being a 'pre-comparitive trail estimate'? Do you have the post-comparitive trial data? Isn't it entirely possible that in the post comparitive trials the Arjun did far better than the pre comparitive estimates (and the T-90 did worse than what it advertised?). Afterall the Arjun did comprehensively beat the T-90. That is not disputed

Arnab; with respect to current data; that was posted by d_berwal some time back, talking about the perceptions of the two tanks by IA folks who have used it. Unfortunately that was pooh-pah'ed. That is on expected lines, viz Arjun has some better capabilities, which come by paying the cost of slightly higher maintenance and logistical chain.

Overall 19-20 with slightly different characteristics. Considering that this is consistent with the comparisons of tanks in the same generation with different weight classes (since WW II) I find it believable.

[Sanku]

I mean - 'mileage' of T-90 is better !! seriously - that is an operation decision making criteria for IA?

Yes logistics are a VERY important factor. They include FOL train.

) Well in the interest of transparency all IA has to do is put out the post-comparitive data.

Transparency to whom? BRF? That data is already be shared with ALL the stakeholders in IA, MoD and DRDO.

And yes - if your 'prior' is - 'We did not make a huge **** up by ordering T-90 on a knee jerk manner and then following it up by ordering a 1000 more', obviously you would want to show your acquisition in the best possible light.

Actually the knee jerk happened post Kargil; IA for its part had been asking for newer tanks since 1990s on urgent basis. So the knee jerk was not IA.

And thank got that there was knee jerk at least we got some new tanks.

Afterall, as long as the T-90 does not fire a shot in anger and only parades down Rajpath - who is going to know?

As I said perfect example of circular logic.

[arnab]

Saw later:

[Arnab; with respect to current data; that was posted by d_berwal some time back, talking about the perceptions of the two tanks by IA folks who have used it. Unfortunately that was pooh-pah'ed. That is on expected lines, viz Arjun has some better capabilities, which come by paying the cost of slightly higher maintenance and logistical chain.

Overall 19-20 with slightly different characteristics. Considering that this is consistent with the comparisons of tanks in the same generation with different weight classes (since WW II) I find it believable.

Oh - please! Some arbitrary numbes posted by an anonymous person quoting an anonymous chaiwallah on a discussion forum !! All the data posted by chacko and (other analysts) is backed by their names and affiliations. Therefore they are putting their credibility in line. That risk is certainly not being taken by d_brewal. So such comparisons are odious

[arnab]

Yes logistics are a VERY important factor. They include FOL train.

) Well in the interest of transparency all IA has to do is put out the post-comparitive data.

Transparency to whom? BRF? That data is already be shared with ALL the stakeholders in IA, MoD and DRDO.

And yes - if your 'prior' is - 'We did not make a huge **** up by ordering T-90 on a knee jerk manner and then following it up by ordering a 1000 more', obviously you would want to show your acquisition in the best possible light.

Actually the knee jerk happened post Kargil; IA for its part had been asking for newer tanks since 1990s on urgent basis. So the knee jerk was not IA.

And thank got that there was knee jerk at least we got some new tanks.

er.. milage is not logistics and if you look at the table provided by KaranM - it could not have had a critical bearing because there is not enough difference.

Re 'knee jerk' - why kargil? did we use tanks there? What was the hurry? Why didn't we send RFI / RFP to DRDO - especially when we actually have a home grown product, unlike in other cases we know?

Er - why should only the stakeholders know - why not the tax payer? Afterall were the so called deficiencies of Arjun leaked only to the stakeholders? Shouldn't we know how prepared our armoured divisions are? We hear that only 20% of out tanks are night-vision equipped even today. Why?

[Viv S]

I don't get it, fuel efficiency is important for 550 Km (Kuwait to Baghdad) but not 450? Whats the magic number where the counter flips?

And why are you assuming that Indian forces will take a straight line path? Also Arjun can get from Bikaner to RYK purely buy road, its road op range is 450 Km. So by road, in a shortest distance route Arjun ends up at RYK without fuel.

Clearly not enough. In fact almost certainly even T 90 would need refueling.

In the Indian scenario tanks wouldn't be expected to advance more than 50-100km a day tops. And while Bikaner is where the the corps is headquartered, the staging area for the thrust will be a good deal closer to the IB. RYK is 50km from the IB. Even assuming the brigade forms up 50kms inside friendly territory, that's still more than enough fuel for thrust towards RYK. And that's assuming that RYK even figures strongly in IA's newer strategy.

Arjun needs more maintenance per km run as per all available information. Please note I dont say that Arjun CANT do it. The question is whether T 90 has a little more advantage in that area -- yes it does.

Please share this 'available information'. And no empirical conclusions please.

The IA's recent thinking envisions multiple shallow strikes across a broad frontage; a deep strike is not the ONLY option available to India.

I am talking not of jhappad, but dismemberment. For that We will have to get to RYK. This has to be done.

Dismemberment with what final objective? Does the IA expect to be welcomed as liberators like they were in Bangladesh? How will the nuclear threat be neutralized? At what point will the army finally be withdrawn? Will the army ever be withdrawn (i.e will Pakistan be assimilated with the Union of India)? Before grandiose military plans are drawn up, the political objectives must be very clear.

[negi]

Even this debate on logistics is a rehash of old discussion we had somewhere in 2005-06, the truth is people have run out of FACTS and even excuses to defend the IA's decision making; hence clutching at straws and in this case a desperate attempt to raise a fig aka Logistics.

Firstly the question that needs to be asked is; is 'logistics' even a factor here ? For if it was a key parameter for the IA as far as it's T-72 replacement was concerned than why did it not have it listed as one of the requirements in the GSQR for the indigenous MBT ?

Secondly what do people who are liberally using the term 'logistics' are actually referring to ? Until T-90 deal was struck and related scewdriver giri kicked in what kind of 'logistical' base existed in India to support T-90 ? It's gun, engine, transmission and even the tracks are different from that of T-72 in Indian service so what is that qualifies as common 'logistics' ? Of course bright minds are free to come up with stuff like commander's 'hatch' which won't fit btw.

Yeah rounds from the old carousel would fit but what's the use , the whole idea behind the T-90 was to fit in a new carousel and a auto-loader to fire the longer APFSDS rounds.

Coming to crew training, it is again a big farce. For god's sake it's only a tank not a fighter AC and given the emphasis laid on automation in Arjun training shouldn't be an issue, if IA really thinks that is an issue then they better fight with bare hands or wooden clubs for that requires no training.

Finally if this logic indeed holds any ground then extending the same to the FMBT are we expecting a tank which will share same 'logistics' as the T-xx series ? , if the 'logistics' for 4 decade old tank were detrimental to selection of a MBT which is to serve as a mainstay of IA in 21st century then the powers that be can might as well extend the same logic to the FMBT which they plan to induct in the next decade.

Point is 'logistics' are procured or arranged for a 'platform' it's not the other way round.