MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 07 Jul 2015 03:59

What is baffling is that Army writing specs for a super tank to develop from Arjun Mk-1 aka add weight and then turning full circle for a light tank?

Common sense would dictate lightening Arjun by lowering protection levels to get to the Light tank - maintain commonality and make 1000's of both versions >> Get Strong.

Arjun without composite armor+ERA is kind of where I am getting to. Any source for composite armor weight on Arjun.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 07 Jul 2015 04:01

My bad - should have done a basic search before posting above. Solution was on Wiki all the time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)

Pasting relevant parts -
Arjun tank hull and turret has been modified to achieve the target weight of about 55 tons from 59-64 tons. Elbit is helping to enhance its firepower and battlefield survivability and Israel Military Industries is helping to augment Arjun Mk II’s mobility, redesign its turret and hull and improve its production-line processes.[91] Protection was improved by using improved Kanchan armor, along with the locally developed explosive reactive armor modules in the turret.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 07 Jul 2015 05:25

vaibhav.n wrote:Armoured Regts have a trawl troop to neutralise enemy minefields.

What are the engg. parameters/obstacles for a portable ground penetrating radar to detect mines?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 07 Jul 2015 05:58

I have a question .....
Wikipedia lists 118 Mark IIs as ordered.

Is this order being executed and when is it slated for delivery and to which Regiments.
Last Arjuns were inducted I believe they replaced T-55s. Do we have any left over T-55 regiments ?

Can anyone point me to dates please.... thats about the only thing that will make me happy at this point

srin · Post by **srin** » 07 Jul 2015 07:58

Does Mk-2 have APS ? I see references to Iron Fist (er .. in the blog of PSG) , but nothing authoritative.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2015 08:20

vayu tuvan wrote:
vaibhav.n wrote:Armoured Regts have a trawl troop to neutralise enemy minefields.
What are the engg. parameters/obstacles for a portable ground penetrating radar to detect mines?

the latest japanese or korean tank allegedly has one inbuilt.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 07 Jul 2015 08:28

Another possibility (a trick) is to send expendable remote controlled bots which self sacrifice on the mines clearing the way for the column of tanks in their wake. Are the mines salted (placed randomly) or there is a pattern? Second is the trigger the weight of the vehicle? If not a path wide enough for tanks - one or two abreast to pass - by strafing with heavy gun shelling either with helos or armored vehicle mounted mc guns.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2015 09:42

Viv,you've become a crashing bore,with your personal attacks.I'm not going to respond to your blinkered and biased view anymore.You can rant and rave to the gallery as much as you want!

Sorry guys for bringing up the "A" word again in this td.,but read on and you will undrestand the context.
Scanning a few articles on the Armata family of vehicles,the Russians have developed a new AV,"Terminator",essentially an AV with ATGMs along with infantry,that fight alongside MBTs,not behind them.This has been made possible by better armour protection on the AV.If the IA develops a similar AV,we've had prototypes of the NAG carrier much earlier (where is it?) ,the problem of ATGM support for the MBTs may be resolved.In any case,where is the harm in inducting a first lot of A-2s without the missile firing feature? From various figs of the inventory given the IA has enough T-90s that can fight in concert with the Arjuns,1/2. Later incremental improvements will follow. As I've said in my posts, once Arjun made the grade the IA has to support it to the hilt and factor its induction into the armoured corps as much as possible. One report which I posted said that over 600 T-55s are still with the IA and an above post says that some of the T-72s are over 30 yrs. old. The older T-72s needn't be upgraded,money saved for brand new A-2s.The arguments against its induction are getting thinner and thinner each day with repeated goalpost shifting.

The Chinese are here trying to stir the pot.They may be genuinely impressed with the tank,but I sense more mischief behind their statement,sensing that there are divergent views/interests within the IA about the Arjun.

PS:I don't understand the desire to get a missile from the UKR,their military capabilities are in a sorry state today,where 5 of our AN-32s sent for upgrading "disappeared". So we reward them with this deal! Surely there are other east/west options? Isn't the NATO std. 120mm for a main gun?

PPS:Which NATO MBTs have missiles fired from their tank guns? From this xcpt.none! If Lahata has failed on the Arjun,then it would similarly fail for NATO tanks. Some info on NATO tank rounds.

Wik:

The United States developed its own kinetic energy penetrator (KEP) tank round in the form of an Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding-Sabot (APFSDS) round, using a depleted uranium (DU) alloy long-rod penetrator (LRP), designated as the M829,[50] followed by improved versions. An immediate improvement, known as the M829A1, was called the "Silver Bullet" after its good combat performance during the Gulf War against Iraqi T-55s, T-62s and T-72 tanks.[51] The M829 series centers around the depleted uranium penetrator, designed to penetrate enemy armor through kinetic energy and to shatter inside the turret, doing much damage within the tank.[52] In 1998 the United States military introduced the M829A2, which has an improved depleted uranium penetrator and composite sabot petals.[53] In 2002, production began of the ($10,000 per round) M829A3 using a more efficient propellant (RPD-380 stick),[54] a lighter injection-molded sabot, and a longer (800mm) and heavier (10 kg / 22 lb) DU penetrator, which is said to be able to defeat the latest versions of Russian Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor (ERA).[55] This variant is unofficially referred to by Abrams tank crews as the "super sabot".[56] In response to the M829A3, the Russian army designed Relikt, the most modern Russian ERA, which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5. A further improved M829E4 round with a segmented penetrator to defeat Relikt is under development since 2011 and was to be fielded as the M829A4 in 2015, but its procurement appears to be cancelled due to U.S. military budget cuts.

Both Germany and the United States have developed several other rounds. These include the German DM12 multi-purpose anti-tank projectile (MPAT), based on the technology in a high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead.[45] However, it has been found that the DM12's armor-killing abilities are limited by the lack of blast and fragmentation effects, and that the round is less valuable against lightly armored targets.[57] The United States also has a MPAT type projectile, known as the M830.[58] This was later developed into the M830A1, which allows the M1 Abrams to use the round against helicopters.[59] The M1 Abrams can use the M1028 canister round, which is an anti-personnel/anti-helicopter munition, packed with over 1,000 tungsten balls.[60] The United States Armed Forces accepted a new demolition round, called the M908 Obstacle Defeating Round, based on the M830A1 MPAT, but with the proximity fuse replaced by a hardened nose cap. The cap allows the round to impact and embed itself in concrete, then exploding inside the target and causing more damage.[61]

The Israeli Army introduced a new round known as the Laser Homing Anti-Tank (LAHAT) projectile.[2] Using a semi-active laser homing guidance method, the LAHAT can be guided by the tank's crew or by teams on the ground, while the missile's trajectory can be selected to either attack from the top (to defeat enemy armor) or direct attack (to engage enemy helicopters). Furthermore, the missile can be fired by both 105-millimeter (4.1 in) and 120 mm tank guns.[62] The LAHAT has been offered as an option for the Leopard 2, and has been marketed by both Israel Military Industries and Rheinmetall to Leopard 2 users.[63] Israeli Merkavas make use of a round known as the APAM, which is an anti-personnel munition designed to release fragmentation at controlled intervals to limit the extent of damage. Fragments are shaped to have enough kinetic energy to penetrate body armor.[64]

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 07 Jul 2015 10:13

nik wrote:What is baffling is that Army writing specs for a super tank to develop from Arjun Mk-1 aka add weight and then turning full circle for a light tank?

Common sense would dictate lightening Arjun by lowering protection levels to get to the Light tank - maintain commonality and make 1000's of both versions >> Get Strong.

Arjun without composite armor+ERA is kind of where I am getting to. Any source for composite armor weight on Arjun.

I have stopped using common sense fro all IA-Arjun and IAF-Tejas discussions !!!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 07 Jul 2015 10:14

vayu tuvan wrote:Another possibility (a trick) is to send expendable remote controlled bots which self sacrifice on the mines clearing the way for the column of tanks in their wake. Are the mines salted (placed randomly) or there is a pattern? Second is the trigger the weight of the vehicle? If not a path wide enough for tanks - one or two abreast to pass - by strafing with heavy gun shelling either with helos or armored vehicle mounted mc guns.

There is/was a solution of tank mounted flailing chains beating a safe(?) path ahead of the tank. I don't know if is a contemporary solution or a WWII solution that did not work out.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 07 Jul 2015 10:25

Way back in the 1960s / 70s US Army used a anti tank missiles Shillelah which was fired form the tank gun. For reasons not know to me US discontinued this practise. Why ? Any ideas ?

Today except Israel no other "western" country uses tank-gun launched ATGM. Only Rodina has this system.
Any reason why Russia is following this path ?

What would be the advantages and dis-advantages of this system
K

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2015 10:43

There seem to be enough T-90s in service and planned to serve the "missile-firing gun " requirement.With the IA wanting such small qtys. of Arjuns,in "artisan batches" of a 100+ each time,what great diff. are 100+ missile firing Arjuns going to make on the battlefield? Now the IA might make this liability as an excuse to order lesser no of A-2s if push comes to shove by the MOD

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Jul 2015 12:11

Philip wrote:Viv,you've become a crashing bore,with your personal attacks.I'm not going to respond to your blinkered and biased view anymore.You can rant and rave to the gallery as much as you want!

'Blinkered', 'biased', 'rant', 'rave'... I'm pretty this is a response. And a personal one at that.

I admit, I may be biased towards an Indian product. Question is, why aren't you?

In any case,where is the harm in inducting a first lot of A-2s without the missile firing feature? From various figs of the inventory given the IA has enough T-90s that can fight in concert with the Arjuns,1/2. Later incremental improvements will follow. As I've said in my posts, once Arjun made the grade the IA has to support it to the hilt and factor its induction into the armoured corps as much as possible. One report which I posted said that over 600 T-55s are still with the IA and an above post says that some of the T-72s are over 30 yrs. old. The older T-72s needn't be upgraded,money saved for brand new A-2s.The arguments against its induction are getting thinner and thinner each day with repeated goalpost shifting.

You can add one more to that - cancel the 800 remaining T-90 orders and convert the production line to deliver supplementary Arjun tanks. Will allow for a greater degree of standardization, improve its upgrade prospects, reduce unit costs and provide the IA's front-line units with a superior weapon.

Add the 600 T-55 retirements and you potentially have 1,400 total orders which can even accommodate a Arjun Mk3 variant (maybe even a Mk4).

PS:I don't understand the desire to get a missile from the UKR,their military capabilities are in a sorry state today,where 5 of our AN-32s sent for upgrading "disappeared". So we reward them with this deal! Surely there are other east/west options? Isn't the NATO std. 120mm for a main gun?

The '5 An-32 missing' story has been rejected by both Antonov & the MoD. The factory where they're being upgraded (Repair Plant 410) is situated in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, far away from the fighting.

In case, if there's any doubt about the ATGM deliveries, we can defer the payment until verifying the dispatch-ready stocks in Ukraine. No financial risk involved. Why so emotional vis a vis Ukraine, Philip?

PPS:Which NATO MBTs have missiles fired from their tank guns? From this xcpt.none! If Lahata has failed on the Arjun,then it would similarly fail for NATO tanks. Some info on NATO tank rounds.

The LAHAT didn't fail anything. It performs its core function i.e. engaging enemy tanks at stand-off ranges, perfectly well.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 07 Jul 2015 17:57

Protecting the MBT Arjun - Kanchan Armour

And here are some fascinating discussions about the kanchan armor on BRF itself - Arjun and the kanchan

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 07 Jul 2015 18:57

Kersi D wrote:Way back in the 1960s / 70s US Army used a anti tank missiles Shillelah which was fired form the tank gun. For reasons not know to me US discontinued this practise. Why ? Any ideas ?

Today except Israel no other "western" country uses tank-gun launched ATGM. Only Rodina has this system.
Any reason why Russia is following this path ?

What would be the advantages and dis-advantages of this system
K

Most probably because they changed the way they used to tackle armored threat. They use aerial platforms to take care of armor threat, i.e. cobras/apache/A-10/UAVs/etc. Plus their man portable ATGMs are in ample supply.

US/NATO use MBTs for holding the ground and troop support for which their current firepower and armor is more then sufficient. By the time they reach their AOR, enemy is mostly flattened.

Why add more cost and complexity then you have other platforms to take care of same problem?

For us its still 1972, we still don't have good aerial support (integral air arm for IA) or good ATGMs. Everything next gen is still in pipeline.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 07 Jul 2015 21:02

Philip wrote:There seem to be enough T-90s in service and planned to serve the "missile-firing gun " requirement.With the IA wanting such small qtys. of Arjuns,in "artisan batches" of a 100+ each time,what great diff. are 100+ missile firing Arjuns going to make on the battlefield? Now the IA might make this liability as an excuse to order lesser no of A-2s if push comes to shove by the MOD

You are missing the point - anything Russian will likely stop in the tracks before firing a shot in a war with China. China has enough wherewithal and Russia has enough desperation to dance to any Chinese song. It's the ugly truth which India is realizing slowly as the smoke screen withdraws - How long can a badly managed 100+ million country claim to be a superpower or any power of sorts?

China and India were superpowers historically and will be ones in next 50 years just based on market size driven by 1+ billion population - Mean reversion in action.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 07 Jul 2015 21:25

India and China will never fight a true war.
There will be either a shadow war in some third country, or a border skirmish.

Now do we have enough deployed along the border to give a solid thappad in such a border skirmish?
Artillery that out guns and outnumbers them hain ji? The answer is no.

IA's fear of heavy tanks is from what the IA did to the Pakistani advance in 65 at Patton Nagar.
While the Paki tank brigade was resting for the night hidden in a sugarcane field, the IA flooded the field with water. The next day the Paki tanks were stuck in the soft mud and were taken out one by one.

The pakistanis have made a lot of water lakes in the areas adjoining the indus river, where they hope to delay and trap the IA's armour.

The problem with the light russian tanks is their sheer lack of armour protection - that's why they are lighter.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Jul 2015 21:54

nik wrote:You are missing the point - anything Russian will likely stop in the tracks before firing a shot in a war with China. China has enough wherewithal and Russia has enough desperation to dance to any Chinese song.

A lot of Russian maal in service with the military have already "stopped in their tracks". No need for war with China onlee.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2015 22:03

What is baffling is that Army writing specsight for a super tank to develop from Arjun Mk-1 aka add weight and then turning full circle for a light tank?

It is called Russian logic.

The Weight of the tank increases with ago too.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jul 2015 22:22

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:Viv,you've become a crashing bore,with your personal attacks.I'm not going to respond to your blinkered and biased view anymore.You can rant and rave to the gallery as much as you want!
'Blinkered', 'biased', 'rant', 'rave'... I'm pretty this is a response. And a personal one at that.

I admit, I may be biased towards an Indian product. Question is, why aren't you?

Good question that we MUST ask many in the IA and MoD. #RTI

Baikul · Post by **Baikul** » 07 Jul 2015 23:48

Viv S wrote:
vaibhav.n wrote:Viv,

Ideally the guy to start with would be BC Khanduri. Old guard but still highly respected, was the BJP's chief whip for LS till '04. This year Namo got him back on a committee in the Transport Ministry.

He presides over the Standing Committee on Defence and can summon everyone less the service chiefs from the VCOAS to the Defence Secretary.

His contact details:http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/Members/Bi ... ?mpsno=196

OR try Ram Madhav....he is the in-house defence affairs specialist with tremendous pull.
Cheers.

Would also like to request the others on the forum, well.. most others anyway, to perhaps take out 10-15 minutes from their day, to write a letter or two. Preferably handwrite it (I doubt the Sansad email accounts are checked with any frequency).

Maj Gen (Retd) B.C. Khanduri
7, K. Kamraj Lane,
New Delhi - 110 011
bc.khanduri@nic.in

Gen (Retd) V.K. Singh
36, Aurangzeb Road,
New Delhi - 110011
vksingh.mp@sansad.nic.in

Gen (Retd) Shankar Roy Chowdhury
FE-238, Sector-3
Salt Lake City
Kolkata
shankarc@sansad.nic.in

Ram Madhav
http://www.rammadhav.in/contact/

Most of these gentlemen are inundated by data and information, and the Arjun is only one part of the many issues that come before them. Then, there is every chance that the Arjun 'go-slowers ', if one can call them that, have made what appear to be convincing arguments to these individuals. You may send a letter or even better still, make a presentation or have a long conversation with them, and at the end of it they may turn around and say 'things are moving in the right direction', or 'Arjun has been given encouragement' or something equally bland. What then?

The challenge is to get through to these people in a meaningful way, to keep their attention and to hopefully get them aligned in favour of Arjun, aligned in the way that BR wants, and not just aligned in the "150 Arjun tanks is a good start my dear chap, let's see how things go in the future' sort of way.

I think the interaction or engagement that will accomplish the above needs to be very carefully thought through. How to engage, through what medium and how to keep their attention. Otherwise it has the potential to fizzle out.

I'm not trying to dampen anyone's enthusiasm, just bringing up a potential challenge. I am not an expert on matters military, or political or economic, nor do I have any aspirations in that regard, but in this particular case I particularly know what I'm talking about.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jul 2015 00:05

Baikul wrote:You may send a letter or even better still, make a presentation or have a long conversation with them, and at the end of it they may turn around and say 'things are moving in the right direction', or 'Arjun has been given encouragement' or something equally bland. What then?

One can only hope that integrity will meet drive in those individuals. Also, we shouldn't restrict ourselves to the three individuals on the list. Cast the net wide and if we're fortunate perhaps the right person may bring it up at the right time and start a conversation.

Also, worth writing to are the folks at CVRDE like Dr. P Sivakumar. I imagine they feel abandoned and a few morale boosting letters of support may lend to some stiffening of the spine.

The challenge is to get through to these people in a meaningful way, to keep their attention and to hopefully get them aligned in favour of Arjun, aligned in the way that BR wants, and not just aligned in the "150 Arjun tanks is a good start my dear chap, let's see how things go in the future' sort of way.

I think the interaction or engagement that will accomplish the above needs to be very carefully thought through. How to engage, through what medium and how to keep their attention. Otherwise it has the potential to fizzle out.

True. And if you have some suggestions/ideas do share.

I'm not trying to dampen anyone's enthusiasm, just bringing up a potential challenge. I am neither an expert on matters military, or political or economic, nor do I have any aspirations in that regard, but in this particular case I particularly know what I'm talking about.

I know. Fortunately, we have little to lose aside from a little bit of time. And given how much time we've spent on BRF, nobody should shy away from such a simple thing.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jul 2015 00:06

BTW just to add to the previous list.

Dr. P Sivakumar
The Director
Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE)
Avadi, Chennai - 600 054

combatvehicles@cvrde.drdo.in

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jul 2015 00:12

To the moderators, is it possible for us to have a dedicated thread - 'Support the Arjun' or 'Arjun - BRF campaign', which a compilation of possible actions people can take - letters, emails, Facebook, Twitter etc with a contact list in the opening post which can be updated as suggestion come in.

The rest of thread can be used for the BRFites who wish to participate in updating others on what they're doing/have done.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 08 Jul 2015 01:13

Does anyone have a tank battle (or even wartime use) scenario on our borders? I'm having a hard time visualizing a 1965 like dash to RahimYar Khan to split pakistan in 2 or whatever. Similarly, where would tanks be used against the PRC?

Baikul · Post by **Baikul** » 08 Jul 2015 08:45

Viv S wrote:One can only hope that integrity will meet drive in those individuals. Also, we should restrict ourselves to the three individuals on the list. Cast the net wide and if we're fortunate perhaps the right person may bring it up at the right time and start a conversation.

......True. And if you have some suggestions/ideas do share.

It's not just integrity and drive. It's what these people already know, or think they know.

I'm finding it hard to explain, but these people have access to more Arjun related information than the usual person and are also reluctant to talk freely of what's a military issue. So your strong opinions - which may be right- run the risk of being underestimated as those of a patriotic but uninformed enthusiast.

Mind you, the data they get may be biased, but it's hard to convince these people that you're right when (a) You 'only' have access to information in the public domain while (b) they have access to what is, or what they believe is, classified information.

Therefore I suggest that it be a multi- pronged exercise. BR folks write and encourage others to write in to these folk as 'concerned public'. That would target their political instincts. Simultaneously, someone who is an 'expert' should be identified who has the 'credibility' to approach these gentlemen on behalf of BR. Perhaps this individual could even lead a team of appropriate BR folk. This would help us to engage with them at a 'knowledge' level and make a better case. We may also learn a few things.

I have one more suggestion that I can make that may be helpful; however for that I'd prefer if a BR mod can get involved and I'll email it to them and they can decide what to do with it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2015 09:03

Cosmo_R wrote:Does anyone have a tank battle (or even wartime use) scenario on our borders? I'm having a hard time visualizing a 1965 like dash to RahimYar Khan to split pakistan in 2 or whatever. Similarly, where would tanks be used against the PRC?

dault beg oldi is the only scrap of aksai chin we hold that is flat, rest of it our side holds the hills and where the hills end the cheeni landgrabbed aksai chin starts. if we can get armour through some valleys, there are rich pickings to be had in punching through the lines and disrupting the limited highways in the rear. if you recall vivek ahuja scenario, DBG is where they sent in armour against our lines. there might be other areas to the south where we hold flat lands adjacent to the border suitable for massing armour - check the locations of the ALGs..the rohtang tunnel when completed will enable us to reinforce this region in all weathers unlike the kargil-leh route that is closed in winter.

north sikkim and adjacent area is flat and amenable for tank/mech warfare. if a left hook from north sikkim lands up opp tawang front on the east, the inverted triangle of land between sikkim and bhutan with jelep la pass at the bottom is open to capture.

arunachal and uttarkhand does not have areas suitable for tank use is my impression.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jul 2015 09:09

GD Have something for you peruse in Newbie thread...

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 08 Jul 2015 10:16

Gagan wrote:Hey
I've seen Arjuns being transported by rail. Don't have pictures.

At defexpo in dilli, one JCO told me that the tank was wider than the railway carriage, so they had to make sure it was well placed, loading had to be carefully done.

But no major problems per him.

Careful loading done here

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 08 Jul 2015 13:03

Philip wrote:There seem to be enough T-90s in service and planned to serve the "missile-firing gun " requirement.With the IA wanting such small qtys. of Arjuns,in "artisan batches" of a 100+ each time,what great diff. are 100+ missile firing Arjuns going to make on the battlefield? Now the IA might make this liability as an excuse to order lesser no of A-2s if push comes to shove by the MOD

The Invar missiles brought from russia are duds.

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 037_1.html

A simultaneous crisis developed around the T-90S’s Invar missile, earlier cited as a clinching reason for buying the tank. But the Invar missiles that came were unusable and they were quietly returned to Russia. On March 2, 2006, Antony told Parliament, “The Invar missile on T-90 tank is not a failure. However, the completely knocked down kits received for assembly have been found to be defective.”

The army is too ashamed to admit the endemic corruption in its ranks which has led to a situation where front line tanks brought from russia have turned into white elephants incapable of being used in war while an humongous amount of money is spent to feed this beast.

The only hope for India remains the Arjun Tanks. If the army continues with its fascination for foreign maal then we are all doomed.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jul 2015 15:38

Baikul wrote:It's not just integrity and drive. It's what these people already know, or think they know.

I'm finding it hard to explain, but these people have access to more Arjun related information than the usual person and are also reluctant to talk freely of what's a military issue. So your strong opinions - which may be right- run the risk of being underestimated as those of a patriotic but uninformed enthusiast.

Well thing is, from all my interactions with army officers, I haven't found them to be a very well-informed group (less so in the IAF, and I was downright impressed with the Navy chaps). Within their ambit of responsibility, they're very competent, but the average BRFite is more aware when it comes to the bigger picture.

In any case, when it comes to Gen Roychowdhury, I doubt he'd require any convincing in the matter. As for Maj Gen Khanduri, I'm hoping he hasn't received anything but a cursory briefing on the matter, perhaps making him more receptive to a new argument. Gen V.K Singh is sadly a write-off when it comes to defending the Arjun, but well.. a letter can't hurt (even if its ignored).

Mind you, the data they get may be biased, but it's hard to convince these people that you're right when (a) You 'only' have access to information in the public domain while (b) they have access to what is, or what they believe is, classified information.

I get it. I really do. Not too long ago I was talking to a tankman and while he accepted the the T-90 had problems handling the heat, and absolutely refused to accept that the Arjun's electronics had been heat-hardened and was functioning perfectly well in the desert. It was the exact same I-am-an-insider-so-I-know-better philosophy.

But one thing we have working for us, at least vis a vis the civilian leadership (such as Shri Ram Madhav) is the CAG report, which makes it clear that the IA overtly tried to handicap a superior product to improve the prospects of a Russian one. It positively reeks of a UPA-era scam and that's how it needs to be presented.

All we need to do is generate enough of a buzz in the right quarters for the Raksha Mantri to put the brakes on the T-90 & this FRCV nonsense, and take a closer look at the facts. If we're fortunate that'll lead to a resurrection of the Arjun's fortunes (not unlike the INSAS).

Therefore I suggest that it be a multi- pronged exercise. BR folks write and encourage others to write in to these folk as 'concerned public'. That would target their political instincts. Simultaneously, someone who is an 'expert' should be identified who has the 'credibility' to approach these gentlemen on behalf of BR. Perhaps this individual could even lead a team of appropriate BR folk. This would help us to engage with them at a 'knowledge' level and make a better case. We may also learn a few things.

I have one more suggestion that I can make that may be helpful; however for that I'd prefer if a BR mod can get involved and I'll email it to them and they can decide what to do with it.

Agreed. Now all we need is for a Mod to volunteer or for the other Mods to corral one and frog-march him to the plank.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 08 Jul 2015 15:41

ramana wrote:GD Have something for you peruse in Newbie thread...

Ramanaji, could you discuss it with the other Mods and take a decision on the whole Arjun campaign thing (will need a dedicated thread with at least one volunteer Mod).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jul 2015 19:12

Viv S, I saw your proposal and let me tell you what I feel.

I don't think BRF should champion any one cause except soldier's welfare like the Quikclot type things.

Reason is we will get entangled in unknown mess.

Having said that I have no problem in BRF being a repository for facts that can be used by members.

I feel the current thread is doing its job of collating facts about the Arjun.

ramana

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 08 Jul 2015 19:16

^^^
Sensible and mature thoughts there, ramana. FWIW, i second that.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jul 2015 19:23

Singha wrote:..arunachal and uttarkhand does not have areas suitable for tank use is my impression.

OT, but can't we have a 2 person tank, half the weight, mountain climbing wala - 25T? may be it is too visionary and creative.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jul 2015 19:36

You want is an armored goat.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jul 2015 19:44

^bingo! darpa is almost there on that.

Uttam · Post by **Uttam** » 08 Jul 2015 19:48

In one of my flights in India I met with a mid-level office from the Army. Without giving any more details about his rank, etc. rest assured his position in the army gives him a unique position to examine many arms that are inducted. During the long discussion I asked him about Arjun, INSAS, Pinaka, etc.

He had a negative view about Arjun because of its size. He said it is a logistics nightmare. Of course, he didn't disclose a lot and I didn't ask for a lot more given that we had just met in the flight.

He was extremely positive about INSAS for its accuracy over longer ranges. Of course AK is great in terms of low maintenance but he preferred INSAS for its accuracy. He also said slight modifications in its design can me it as robust as AK.

He was also extremely positive about Pinaka and mentioned this weapon system has a lot of scope of further improvements. This he identified as the real weapon of future.

I am a novice when it comes to weapon systems and therefore I did not cross question him. There is nothing here that experts on this forum don't already know. I am just sharing what I was told during the conversation.

Baikul · Post by **Baikul** » 08 Jul 2015 19:57

Viv S wrote:....Agreed. Now all we need is for a Mod to volunteer or for the other Mods to corral one and frog-march him to the plank.

The Mods have spoken and it isn't going to be a BR led party.

Well, if you get this thing rolling and you're serious, really, really, I mean really serious, let me know. I'll suggest something that may help.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jul 2015 20:02

^^It is good that you don't reveal his identity here as his views are non-sequitur. He seems to be not reading Avadi folks repeated telling about ground pressure and how Arjun handles that with minimal around 0.84 npg/cm^2 while T90 is 0.94npg/cm^2.

This argument has gone insane.. be it NaMo rep or a hardcore IA person,.. if they can't understand ground pressure, please disband their views from this thread at the very least.