Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

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.
Post Reply
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Cyrano wrote:Rakesh saar
Please put a "Highly infectious Brochuritis Pathogen" hazard warning before posting such stuff :D

But you have to admit that it's very attractive pathogen. :rotfl:
jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jaysimha »

DRDO To Develop New Infantry Combat Vehicle With Crewless Turret
By ADITHYA June 21, 2022


Image
Tata Defence Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV)

Image
CVRDE 600hp engine (DRDO)
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Have been thinking about the firepower of the FICV. The requirements are asking for gun of 30 mm. Will this gun still be sufficient for meeting enemy armoured vehicles that can be expected to be in service by 2035 or 2040.

Especially when Russians have demonstrated a 57 mm cannon for ICV. Or the US is developing a 50 mm cannon for its future ICV.

Or the thinking is that any thing that requires a larger gun can be handled by 4 ready to fire nag missiles?
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

^^Pratyushji,

Is this a ICV to ICV firefight situation or a more nuanced discussion on how ICVs will be / are employed by IA and what threats they see thereof?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I am thinking about any contingency that may arise during the chaos of combat.

Not specifically ICV to ICV. I am asking if the 30 mm will still be able to get the job done. Or we need to go bigger. To say 40 mm or 50 mm.

I don't know any better.

Also i don't want to see a situation where the vehicle is ready for service and the army throws a fit saying that 30 mm will not cut it. We want 40mm or 50 mm. The whole program will suffer at that point in time.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Why not family of turrets with different options?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

With a crew less turret, it might just work.

But the IA is not asking for multiple options in terms of guns. That is what is worrying about the program.

Second, if we go for a bigger gun. How do we know that the army will not turn arround and say that the vehicle is not protected against its own guns.

I know that I am over thinking about the matter. But given how the army has acted over other programs. I don't have a lot of faith.
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

Different Turret options???
Will that turn out like MCIWS type running around the orchard and singing a duet!!
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Rsatchi wrote:Different Turret options???
Will that turn out like MCIWS type running around the orchard and singing a duet!!
No Rsatchi.

A MCIWS is different to a ICV turret is different to a Tank turret.

In this case if the base technologies are proved then mating a different gun to the turret should be a easier part of the challenge. The gun per see is not the challenge a I see it. A bigger gun with a different problem as then the weight of the turret is the only consideration which is a different problem i.e. the vehicle the turret is mated to comes into the picture.

In the case of a MCIWS, the challenge was for small weapon to fire multiple calibres of bullets in a rifle form factor with as little disruption to the soldiers when changing calibres while also being comfortable for the soldier to fire.

I personally believe a crewless turret is less of a challenge as we have done some much work on the turret of the arjun and have experience of integrating all manners of sensors on it as well as integrating an RWS / independent sights for the commander and gunner etc. So building blocks are there. Missle firing has been proven through the NAMICA prog.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:With a crew less turret, it might just work.

But the IA is not asking for multiple options in terms of guns. That is what is worrying about the program.

Second, if we go for a bigger gun. How do we know that the army will not turn arround and say that the vehicle is not protected against its own guns.

I know that I am over thinking about the matter. But given how the army has acted over other programs. I don't have a lot of faith.
No I am not saying that. What if the turret is designed such that the designer consider the option of different caliber main guns - almost like plug ins. There will have to be some mods to the loading mechanism etc but doable.

Here is an example of a RWS

https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/what-we-d ... n-systems/

Elbit immanned turret

https://elbitsystems.com/products/land- ... ed-turret/

They say configurable so need to explore the degree of flexibility
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

ks_sachin wrote:
Rsatchi wrote:Different Turret options???
Will that turn out like MCIWS type running around the orchard and singing a duet!!
No Rsatchi.

A MCIWS is different to a ICV turret is different to a Tank turret.
prog.
Sure that maybe true but IA GSQR keeps changing as many times as the Congi Ex Home Minister used to change his Bandgala Suit
Who knows there maybe a need for Moonlanding capability and firing excercise on the ‘Dark side of Moon’
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Rsatchi wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
No Rsatchi.

A MCIWS is different to a ICV turret is different to a Tank turret.
prog.
Sure that maybe true but IA GSQR keeps changing as many times as the Congi Ex Home Minister used to change his Bandgala Suit
Who knows there maybe a need for Moonlanding capability and firing excercise on the ‘Dark side of Moon’
ok. lets not attempt a crewless turret
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The windows on the sides of vehicle along with the firing ports. Do they lend the vehicle for operation in NBC environment?

Or I am overthinking about things.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

jaysimha wrote:CVRDE 600hp engine (DRDO)
in a Twin Turbo era CRDVE come up with Single Turbo that too in a "V" engine, sigh! just call Tata they have 600 HP twin turbo in line 4 DOHC engines in their stable.
Larry Walker
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 26 Nov 2019 17:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Larry Walker »

Pratyush wrote:The windows on the sides of vehicle along with the firing ports. Do they lend the vehicle for operation in NBC environment?
Or I am overthinking about things.
My understanding is that for NBC protection the air filters scrubber clean the air and then maintain an overpressure inside the cabin so that no air from outside can leak inside the cabin once over pressure is achieved.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

I wish Tatas / DRDO and Kalyani talk to each other to see of a 155 mm howitzer can be mated to this platform.

I am a little intrigued why this vehicle does not have a turret?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Re the 155 on the vehicle. Perhaps the suspension is not suitable to handle the shocks.

Re the turret on the vehicle. The vehicle has been demonstrated with a BMP turret in the past. Perhaps the IA did not selected the turreted version for this lot. In the next round perhaps they will.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by John »

ks_sachin wrote:
Rsatchi wrote: Sure that maybe true but IA GSQR keeps changing as many times as the Congi Ex Home Minister used to change his Bandgala Suit
Who knows there maybe a need for Moonlanding capability and firing excercise on the ‘Dark side of Moon’
ok. lets not attempt a crewless turret
What's wrong with crew less turret?
Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Nikhil_Naya »

***Paanwallah Alert***

A chaiwallah, who supplies chai to TaMo mentioned that there is a proto, which looks like the WhAP with tracks (instead of wheels) using similar suspension setup (Not T-Bar or anything) with a 75/100mm HV gun mounted on a turret.

please take this with a bucket of salt as it is 4th party info that I got. Trying to confirm with my usual sources
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

Try and dig deeper.

The vehicle could be a part of the FICV family based light tank.

In which case the gun should be 105 mm.
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ashishvikas »

VIDEO: Indian Laser guided ATGM test fired from Arjun main battle tank.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/154 ... Wg9tA&s=19
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

This is really precise. Wow! Good going by DRDO (?).
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by bala »

Reported by news media...

Indigenous ATGM test-fired from Arjun tank at Karakoram range
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 577310.ece
June 28, 2022
Trial established ATGM’s capability to engage targets from minimum to maximum range. The indigenously developed laser-guided Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) was successfully test-fired from Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Army at the Karakoram range on Tuesday. “In the test, the ATGM hit the bull’s eye with textbook precision and successfully defeated the target at minimum ranges. Telemetry systems recorded the satisfactory flight performance of the missile,” a Defence Ministry statement said.

Indigenously developed Laser Guided ATGM was successfully tested today from MBT Arjun. Missile hit the bull's eye with textbook precision. Trial has established the ATGMs capability to engage targets from min to max ranges.

The test was conducted with the support of the Armoured Corps Centre & School, Ahmednagar. The all-indigenous ATGM employs a tandem High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead to defeat Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) protected armoured vehicles, the DRDO said. The ATGM has been developed with multi-platform launch capability and is currently undergoing technical evaluation trials from 120 mm rifled gun of MBT Arjun, it stated.

Stating that engaging the targets at lower ranges is a challenge due to the dimensional constraints of tank launched ATGMs, the statement said it has been successfully accomplished by the ATGM for MBT Arjun.

“With the trial, the ATGM’s capability to engage targets from minimum to maximum range has been established. Earlier the trials have been successful for maximum range,” the statement said. Secretary, Department of Defence (R&D), and Chairman, DRDO, G. Satheesh Reddy, said the successful development of laser guided ATGM will enhance the fire power of MBT Arjun.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

John wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
ok. lets not attempt a crewless turret
What's wrong with crew less turret?
The worry from some posters is that the Army will change its GSQRs like how politicians change their suits etc...So was being sarcastic.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... S89_r8-Dew ---> The Arjun can now deal with most modern tanks (unless APS/countermeasure equipped). Missile can fight this by using non line of sight trajectories (or even hit a target behind an obstruction) with a third party laser designator (another tank, UAV, troops). Truly lethal.

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... S89_r8-Dew ---> Also note the low signature of the fire. And the accuracy of the terminal guidance. Less warning for the target, more protection for the firing tank and also less rounds required per engagement. Can engage low flying choppers, tanks - latter are primary targets though.

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... S89_r8-Dew ---> What's left of course, are orders. The Arjun fleet is not large by IA standards, at 242 MBTs, but British Army has 280 Challengers, across 5 regiments. French have 222 operational Leclercs (more stored). So the Arjun fleet is significant and should have a significant punch.

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... S89_r8-Dew ---> It's also true though that ATGMs are expensive assets and by virtue of their guidance, flight speed, remain vulnerable to a degree. The key aim for @DRDO_India should be to advance its FSAPDS program ASAP so the Arjun has a rugged, cost effective answer for most adversaries.

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... S89_r8-Dew ---> The Arjun is far more capable than the T-72 ammo wise, and in other parameters as well for both types. And they will hence likely form an armored spearhead, attached to either IABs or RAPIDs - won't sit around. So tip of the spear in desert.

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... S89_r8-Dew ---> The T series can't be replaced with the Arjun because they can't afford the engineering resources to change from the T-72 to the T-90. Much of that can be reused by the T-90. Even Pak infra meant for T-80, Al-Khalid can be used for T-72, T-90, but not Arjun. Budgetary issues.

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... S89_r8-Dew ---> So given that, where can the Arjun be used wherein it can operate with most effectiveness - desert. Not a question of fighting with what it has, that's the T-72. More like concentrating best in key areas, provided serviceability is sufficient.
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 360
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by pravula »

niran wrote:
jaysimha wrote:CVRDE 600hp engine (DRDO)
in a Twin Turbo era CRDVE come up with Single Turbo that too in a "V" engine, sigh! just call Tata they have 600 HP twin turbo in line 4 DOHC engines in their stable.
What’s wrong with a single turbo again? If two is better, why not 3 or 4 turbos? They would be 3 to 4 times better..no?
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Kersi D »

Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... S89_r8-Dew ---> The Arjun can now deal with most modern tanks (unless APS/countermeasure equipped). Missile can fight this by using non line of sight trajectories (or even hit a target behind an obstruction) with a third party laser designator (another tank, UAV, troops). Truly lethal.
YES, Arjun can deal with most modern tanks.

But can Arjun deal with the idiosyncrasies of Indian bureaucracy?
neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 853
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by neerajb »

pravula wrote:
niran wrote: in a Twin Turbo era CRDVE come up with Single Turbo that too in a "V" engine, sigh! just call Tata they have 600 HP twin turbo in line 4 DOHC engines in their stable.
What’s wrong with a single turbo again? If two is better, why not 3 or 4 turbos? They would be 3 to 4 times better..no?
Wanted to ask the same question to get more insight into it. Googled it and looks like single big turbo has more lag than two smaller turbos due to inertia but is able to provide a bigger boost to horse power. Twin smaller turbos are preferred where minimum lag is desired and real-estate is an issue (turbo housing and associated plumbing) like commuter cars but the power output is lesser than single big turbo. Drag cars use single turbo since spooling up is not an issue as they are already pushing their engines before the start.
jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jaysimha »

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1837753
Indigenously-developed Laser-Guided ATGM successfully tested by DRDO & Indian Army
Posted On: 28 JUN 2022 9:40PM by PIB Delhi

Image
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 360
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by pravula »

neerajb wrote:
pravula wrote:
What’s wrong with a single turbo again? If two is better, why not 3 or 4 turbos? They would be 3 to 4 times better..no?
Wanted to ask the same question to get more insight into it. Googled it and looks like single big turbo has more lag than two smaller turbos due to inertia but is able to provide a bigger boost to horse power. Twin smaller turbos are preferred where minimum lag is desired and real-estate is an issue (turbo housing and associated plumbing) like commuter cars but the power output is lesser than single big turbo. Drag cars use single turbo since spooling up is not an issue as they are already pushing their engines before the start.
That’s accurate. With twin, you can either make them serial or parallel, different sizes, etc. But it’s an engineering decision based on performance requirements. Saying Tata has an I4 with tt is well…
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Kersi D wrote:
Rakesh wrote: https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... S89_r8-Dew ---> The Arjun can now deal with most modern tanks (unless APS/countermeasure equipped). Missile can fight this by using non line of sight trajectories (or even hit a target behind an obstruction) with a third party laser designator (another tank, UAV, troops). Truly lethal.
YES, Arjun can deal with most modern tanks.

But can Arjun deal with the idiosyncrasies of Indian bureaucracy?
If it meets modern tanks in battle.

If it is used as a spearhead.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Kersi D wrote:

YES, Arjun can deal with most modern tanks.

But can Arjun deal with the idiosyncrasies of Indian bureaucracy?
Good question, because the next attack on Arjun will come with a statement that the main gun is not a 120 mm smooth bore. Therefore, it will not be able to kill enemy tanks with KE rounds.

Or the fact that the battlefield needs a 130 mm smooth bore main gun and thus the Arjun is insufficient and we need an imported vehicle.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

ks_sachin wrote: If it meets modern tanks in battle.

If it is used as a spearhead.
https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... 6cXO2DPX9A ---> The Arjun is far more capable than the T-72 ammo wise, and in other parameters as well for both types. And they will hence likely form an armored spearhead, attached to either IABs or RAPIDs - won't sit around. So tip of the spear in desert.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Sirji,

Who is the firezstarter?

He says Arjun ammo is far more effective than t72 but then it should be more effective than the t90 as well yes.

The t90 has an updated gun but different ammo?

Arjun's ammo development RohitVats has expounded on in BRF. So like the development of the Arjun, ammo development has withered I am assuming.


We have moved from IABs and RAPIDS to IBGs. And I put it to you that rather than Armr our spearheads will be Army Aviation, IAF in ground support role and arty. They will be followed by Mech Inf supported by Armr. Our philosophy of Armr is in support of Inf and unlike the Amreekis. Hence HESH was such an important round for us and hence we went for Rifled gun on Arjun.

The fact that it was a struggle to get the Army to order even the second tranche of Arjuns is very reflective of what our armoured spearheads are going to be.

JMT
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

Army has issued a RFI for Light Armoured Multipurpose Vehicle (LAMV). Around 800 to be procured.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/am ... a9e2e05e7c
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by rohitvats »

ks_sachin wrote:
Kersi D wrote: YES, Arjun can deal with most modern tanks.

But can Arjun deal with the idiosyncrasies of Indian bureaucracy?
If it meets modern tanks in battle.
If it is used as a spearhead.
Arjun Regiments form part of Jaisalmer based armored brigade of 12 RAPID. So, rest assured, these will be most likely the amongst the first mechanized formations to go into Pakistan and heat of the battle. Let's wait and watch where the other two regiments are placed. Most likely in desert to keep all of them together for logistic reason.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

rohitvats wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: If it meets modern tanks in battle.
If it is used as a spearhead.
Arjun Regiments form part of Jaisalmer based armored brigade of 12 RAPID. So, rest assured, these will be most likely the amongst the first mechanized formations to go into Pakistan and heat of the battle. Let's wait and watch where the other two regiments are placed. Most likely in desert to keep all of them together for logistic reason.

Please post more often rohitvats.

Also I would be interested to know from you how the role of the RAPIDs changes now that we are implementing the IBG concept.

Regards

S
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/154 ... sdxe97AQ4Q ---> The RFI released for the procurement of light tank specifies the weight must not be more than 25T and currently no indigenous project within this weight category reported. And, there are only 3 feasible foreign offers can meet the need (2 offered) - Sprut SD, CV90-105, K21-105.

https://twitter.com/Aryan_warlord/statu ... sdxe97AQ4Q ---> Undertook a rudimentary analysis on the light tank requirement basis data from the Indian Army RFI released in 2009. Turns out the K21-105 & K21-120 tick more boxes than the Sprut SDM1. Moreover the K21 could be built at the @larsentoubro factory at Hazira, Gujarat.

Image
VickyAvinash
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 02 Oct 2017 07:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by VickyAvinash »

ks_sachin wrote:
Who is the firezstarter?

He says Arjun ammo is far more effective than t72 but then it should be more effective than the t90 as well yes.

JMT
I could be very wrong, however, it seems Firezstarter may be Karan M' s Twitter handle. Guessing only. In one of his tweets Indranil mentioned that he has been asking Firezstarter to write articles and for first time he wrote a rebuttal against an article favoring bunder over Tejas.
Post Reply