Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

[pragnya]

Its the same story every 3 months the same articles are re-posted and the game of "my understanding and facts and believes are truer than yours starts again".

oh yes. i agree they are recycled every 3 months as you rightly put. but isn't it strange 10 years post induction the issues remain?? isn't it ironic especially because they are our MBT?? won't it affect our preparedness with our adversaries right next door??

pragnya: if we want to show the power of google

you too can use the 'power of google' and show us if the issues have been resolved and that the T-90s no more have the problems the reports surmise??

and one would find 10 times more reports on Arjun failures on net lease look at them also, would would find all of them in the BR archives over last 10 years.

check the debate at hand. don't you think the links answered the questions which were being asked?? i know all these links are existing in the archive but why is that senior members ask such questions like 'isn't only 2 TIs conked out (no big deal)' when they have been debated to death in the past and are contrary to the reality as put out in the reports (not blog reports btw).

no one disputes that there were abosolutely no issues with Arjun in the past which is but natural for any new machine whether it is related to integration, qc or any other. point is they are progressively resolved as happened with Arjun as the last trials proved - accepted by even the IA.

however the issues with T-90s still hog the limelight post 10 years of induction and never seem to be resolved!!!

OTOH IMO even the resolution of Arjun's problems is 'redundant' at present because it is not IA's MBT but T-90S is!!! which is why resolution to T-90S issues are paramount. don't you think?? and can you post for us any report from media/mod wrt the resolution of T-90S issues so people can breathe with comfort and can say to themselves 'all is well'??

all your links are years old and recycled and come form unnamed, unofficial sources.

but they are relevant even today. btw can you show us the 'official way' wrt T-90 issues?? the last IA chief was on record saying our 80% fleet suffers from night blindness!!! is that too unofficial for you because the same media reported it??

The debate over Arjun vs T-90 is flawed my opinion:

it is not simply because both T-90S and Arjun were vying for same single space namely - IA's MBT.

- T-90 was contract was done in 2000-01. Today there are over 700 T-90 in IA arpprox.
- All the new contracts after the initial contact are the follow on of the 1st contract.
- The signing date of contracts are different as negotiation and contacts for manufacturing took time to do.
- (i believe the second 330 CKD contract after the 1000 to be manufactured in Avdhi is part of 1000 to accelerate the induction as avdhi took time to absorb the technology and 99% is not separate)
- Arjun production came back on track only around 2008 and order for 124 is still not complete.
- Arjun as a programme is back on track and MK2 is already in road-map.
- Now what more?

your last few points is what bothers lot of people here. why more T-90S now?? especially when the issues wrt engine output, TI, FCS, Design obsolescence, space related issues for future upgrades, tropicalisation etc... still remain and stare us in the eye?? even russian army refuses it and the Arjuns don't suffer from them!!!

besides won't it give us independance atleast wrt to tanks?? this is particularly important when one considers how Russia played spoilsport wrt TOT transfer of T-90S.

[d_berwal]

Officially the Army had no problems with the Vickers MBT, aka the Vijayanta either. It too was used in all the IA exercises and tests over many years. Unofficially, it was accepted to be a piece of junk, automotive reliability considered with thin armor, forced on the Army by senior decision makers.

who accepted that vijayanta was a piece of junk ?
was it a piece of junk when it was inducted or when it was de-commissioned?

[Sanku]

Avadi has underperformed on every small thing it was ever asked to do. Sure they can always come up with "reasons" of how X Y Z or the rest of the world is to blame for it, but that does not change it.

They underperformed to the same extent the Army BRD underperformed on Project Gulmohar (T-55 upgrade) and the T-72 Overhaul (which was taken up because Avadi was not able to deliver sufficient overhauls).

Torn shirt open fly argument. Blaming IA (whether or not accurate, I will not go there for the moment) is not relevant to whether Avadi lives up to the requirements that are asked of it.

Avadi should get in its head that IT is the one which is tasked with providing the core manufacturing and support infrastructure, IA does a lot of things which should have never gone it way anyway. It is for Avadi to know what is the technical environment and provide inputs to IA on what is feasible and what is not along with CVRDE not the other way around.

Why ask IA to do projects Gulmohar in the first place? Shouldn't this be done by Avadi? IA steps in to make do because they have no option, because other arms of GoI have not coughed up.

They might as well merge Avadi and MoD and every body else under the IA with officers of IA directly doing what is needed if this continues to be the case.

Read above. The Russians will not work with OFB to set up a detailed production line for timely availability of key assemblies and systems. They'd rather we be dependent on them for these items. Its simple commercial sense.

Its pretty simple; either
A) Avadi possess the necessary skills to do the job, including possessing the knowledge of environment. In which case they take it up and deliver end to end on the promised timelines.

Avadi does not have the necessary skills and so GoI pays up to whoever they need to pay up.

The issue is that Avadi does not possess the necessary skills and yet is tasked with items it can not deliver on.

That is crux.

[Austin]

KaranM , with due respect you tend to repeat the same stuff again and again in a long easy and say the same thing in different words , you seem to think Russians are bad at their design and say that with authority because you are patron of all russian Land System.

I have seen , read direct praises of T-90 from IA armored corp and thats good enough for me to trust what they say over any body out here and the needless noise created over other wise a excellent tank.

T-90 is not the perfect machine out there neither is Arjun but beyond the risk of detonation of loose ammo after penetration there is not much flaw in the design many western design including Leo runs the same risk , but chances are the crew would be dead post penetration.

In the end you are inclined to your own views but for me I would take IA armoured corps views over yours.

[d_berwal]

your last few points is what bothers lot of people here. why more T-90S now?? especially when the issues wrt engine output, TI, FCS, Design obsolescence, space related issues for future upgrades, tropicalisation etc... still remain and stare us in the eye?? even russian army refuses it and the Arjuns don't suffer from them!!!

besides won't it give us independance atleast wrt to tanks?? this is particularly important when one considers how Russia played spoilsport wrt TOT transfer of T-90S.

well why do you wanna do what you did to bofors?
(built the factory, paid for ToT and closed it)

The decision to go for T-90 was done in 2000-01 not now? we have paid for it and we will get it.

Arjun production is getting on line, Mk2 is in pipeline, what will you gain by stopping T-90 production?

[Sanku]

Its the same story every 3 months the same articles are re-posted and the game of "my understanding and facts and believes are truer than yours starts again".

oh yes. i agree they are recycled every 3 months as you rightly put. but isn't it strange 10 years post induction the issues remain?? isn't it ironic especially because they are our MBT?? won't it affect our preparedness with our adversaries right next door??

Because nothing has been done to address the really fundamental issues.

Our tank manufacturing and to an extent design infrastructure has no real investment and effort put in.

There has been some improvement in 2009-10 time frame by St Antony to make things better in terms of DRDO reorganization plan, however OFBs are untouched.

Expect same whine to continue for next 20 years at least.

[Karan M]

who accepted that vijayanta was a piece of junk ?
was it a piece of junk when it was inducted or when it was de-commissioned?

If you didn't even know this, one wonders - what do you really know of the true state of affairs? The Vijayanta was junk throughout! Its automotive (un)reliability was (in)famous, with the engine packing up, every now and then. In fact, even the armor was considered subpar by the 80's and the torrid engine performance meant it could not even be uparmored. About the only good thing in the tank was its gun which was used for upgunning the T-55s by the Army.

[Sanku]

your last few points is what bothers lot of people here. why more T-90S now??

T 90S is not now, its last order was in 2006 time frame, TWO years before Arjun passed the AUCRT.

Also T 90S can come from Russia providing some relief from Avadi related issues.

Also GoI plan since 2000 has been 50:50 mix of T 90 and Arjun/Indian family of tanks. This was a long term plan still being worked on. Nothing has changed.

[Austin]

Also GoI plan since 2000 has been 50:50 mix of T 90 and Arjun/Indian family of tanks. This was a long term plan still being worked on. Nothing has changed.

50:50 mix if you mean for the entire tank force , then its a very tall oder left to avadi and would be uneconomical.

If you have seen the reports pasted few pages back the plan is to have T-90 ,Arjun , Upgraded T-72 in quite big numbers and surprise even upgraded T-55 becuase it mentions we cannot afford to throw that away.

[Karan M]

KaranM , with due respect you tend to repeat the same stuff again and again in a long easy and say the same thing in different words , you seem to think Russians are bad at their design and say that with authority because you are patron of all russian Land System.

Austin, with all due respect, I repeat the same stuff, because you seem intent on refusing to understand the most straightforward of concepts when it comes to the topic. When it is pointed out to you, you either ignore it (e.g. ammo placement), come out with long winded replies which skirt the issue (FCS vs Sapsan - total apples to oranges), remain in denial (e.g. Thermal Imaging) by dismissing the source. I don't need to be the patron of all Russian land systems to realize the Russians are not the demi-Gods of weaponry who must and should not be criticized, the way you treat them as.

Therein lies the difference. I'll praise them when they come up with world class work (e.g. Su-30 MKI on the MMRCA thread) and skewer them when they try to shortchange India (the T-90 deal). You might want to consider though why your answers in contrast, are only all about "you are biased, board is biased, admins are biased".

Unlike you, the Russians do know that they have faults and are rectifying them. Problem is that we are not buying those rectified systems, which may or may not come about, we bought the junk ones, based on "good faith" assumptions that the problems would be fixed, but they weren't. The Russians are working in their national interest, its in our interest to protect ours. Merely calling your fellow citizens as biased, nationalist, does not a convincing argument make.

I have seen , read direct praises of T-90 from IA armored corp and thats good enough for me to trust what they say over any body out here and the needless noise created over other wise a excellent tank.

I daresay even if they criticize it, you would be the first to rush to the Russians defense and then point out the IA Armored corp is biased. You have already dismissed two ex IA sources about the Arjun vs T-90 issue, dismissed any & every comprehensive source as biased. Others are "bloggers" who "update wiki", and are "biased". Everyone is biased. Austin, is unbiased.

T-90 is not the perfect machine out there neither is Arjun but beyond the risk of detonation of loose ammo after penetration there is not much flaw in the design many western design including Leo runs the same risk , but chances are the crew would be dead post penetration.

Enough design defects have been listed out in my post already. Problem is you are stuck in denial about the topic. At least though, you have admitted the detonation of "loose ammo" aspect albeit misunderstanding the gravity of the issue again by conflating it with that of the Leopard! For your information, the Leopard ammunition is only in two spots, the hull and the turret. The turrets is protected by blow off panels. Again, the loader can choose to use up the hull ammo first in a combat situation and hence improve the tank's survivability. Being located in two positions, the enemy ammunition HAS to strike either one of these two positions to create a problem. In contrast, the T series tank ammunition is ALL over the place. Get inside a T-72 and have a look around. See the racks in the driver compartment, all over the turret. The entire crew is encased in CCC ammunition. If you think that is the same as on the Leopard, you are mistaken. The chances of an ammunition fire on the T-90 are much higher, because no matter where a round hits, draw a line through the tank, chances are there is a round next to the line of sight of the molten metal. If you think that's fine, really there is nothing more to say.

In the end you are inclined to your own views but for me I would take IA armoured corps views over yours.

Till the day an armour corps officer, who commanded a T-72 regiment, criticizes the T-90 tank and its acquisition, such as Ajai Shukla did. In which case he becomes - biased, a blogger out to get revenue, a DRDO supporter, unworthy of being quoted, unreliable etc. And you call everyone else biased.

[d_berwal]

who accepted that vijayanta was a piece of junk ?
was it a piece of junk when it was inducted or when it was de-commissioned?

If you didn't even know this, one wonders - what do you really know of the true state of affairs? The Vijayanta was junk throughout! Its automotive (un)reliability was (in)famous, with the engine packing up, every now and then. In fact, even the armor was considered subpar by the 80's and the torrid engine performance meant it could not even be uparmored. About the only good thing in the tank was its gun which was used for upgunning the T-55s by the Army.

- Tell me when was Vijayanta inducted in IA ?
- what were the expected enemy armor against Vijayanta?
- and there engine performance and Armour rating?
- have you ever been in a vijayanta?
- which automotive parts were (in)famous and (un)reliable (except engine over heating in desert environment, which was there in almost all the mbts of that era)

[tsarkar]

Every tank has its flaws. The Abrams gas turbine engine air filters clogged in both Gulf Wars, and it is only the extensive logistics footprint built up over months in Saudi Arabia and the mobility of US maintenance facilities that ensured the tanks were servicable.

Abrams did not have APU for silent watch mode. An APU was added before Iraqi Freedom, that drew fuel from main tanks. The APU was outside the hull and turret. During insurgent attacks, the APU, if hit, ignited, setting fire to fuel lines, then to fuel tank and then to engine resulting in mobility kills. There have been 2-4 Abrams losses when insurgents concentrated their firepower on the APU area in OIF. More during the insurgency. This was officially presented by TRADOC. The SEP package brought the APU under protection.

US keeps a strict censorship on causalties & losses from Iraq/Afpak, hence these issues are not well documented.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

T 90S is not now, its last order was in 2006 time frame, TWO years before Arjun passed the AUCRT <SNIP>

[Sanku]

Also GoI plan since 2000 has been 50:50 mix of T 90 and Arjun/Indian family of tanks. This was a long term plan still being worked on. Nothing has changed.

50:50 mix if you mean for the entire tank force , then its a very tall oder left to avadi and would be uneconomical.

The important thing to note is that is a vision more than a plan, I do not claim on behalf of GoI that all details are worked out.

Yes, it was for the entire tank force, IIRC they also planned cutting down the total number of tanks but ensuring all tanks were top of the line. That is remove the T 55/T 72s altogether.

Also this is sort of "grand plan" over many years, so coupled with cutting down the number of tanks, the economics would be "okay" I guess (not sure)

Avadi though continues to remain the weak link.

If you have seen the reports pasted few pages back the plan is to have T-90 ,Arjun , Upgraded T-72 in quite big numbers and surprise even upgraded T-55 becuase it mentions we cannot afford to throw that away.

Yes, I saw that. Well I guess that the "Indian" way, make do the best possible without too many fundamental changes. Iterative fixes.

[Karan M]

- Tell me when was Vijayanta inducted in IA ?
- what were the expected enemy armor against Vijayanta?
- and there engine performance and Armour rating?
- have you ever been in a vijayanta?
- which automotive parts were (in)famous and (un)reliable (except engine over heating in desert environment, which was there in almost all the mbts of that era)

Why don't you look up the answers yourself instead of having to be spoonfed? Are they really unknown to you?

And yes, I have been in a Vijayanta. And nice "except" there in the last line - fat lot of good use the tank is when its engine packs up time and again.

Seriously, if you don't even know about the Vijayanta's horrible engine problems, which were legion, it calls into question what really you do know about the topic in general and explains your general "google has everything" approach to the Arjun topic. Clearly, some contacts and posturing on the topic apart, you lack context.

[Sanku]

<SNIP>

T 90S is not now, its last order was in 2006 time frame, TWO years before Arjun passed the AUCRT <SNIP>

I know quite funny.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

T 90S is not now, its last order was in 2006 time frame, TWO years before Arjun passed the AUCRT <SNIP>

I know quite funny.

Oh! the irony of it all........

[Karan M]

Every tank has its flaws.

Absolutely. The entire issue is that the flaws should be fixed, after open evaluation and analysis as you mention about the APU issue below..

Abrams did not have APU for silent watch mode. An APU was added before Iraqi Freedom, that drew fuel from main tanks. The APU was outside the hull and turret. During insurgent attacks, the APU, if hit, ignited, setting fire to fuel lines, then to fuel tank and then to engine resulting in mobility kills. There have been 2-4 Abrams losses when insurgents concentrated their firepower on the APU area in OIF. More during the insurgency. This was officially presented by TRADOC. The SEP package brought the APU under protection.

In contrast, our freaking reliance on Russian design data means they have us by the short and curlies over the T-90. Any radical solution cannot be implemented without their input (and they are least bothered now the warranty is over), even smaller efforts around simulators, replacing BCs come under protectionist pressure. We really really need to negotiate better.

[rohitvats]

^^^And the best part is, the a/c cooling unit is to placed outside the turret....!!!!

[d_berwal]

Why don't you look up the answers yourself instead of having to be spoonfed? Are they really unknown to you?

And yes, I have been in a Vijayanta. And nice "except" there in the last line - fat lot of good use the tank is when its engine packs up time and again.

Seriously, if you don't even know about the Vijayanta's horrible engine problems, which were legion, it calls into question what really you do know about the topic in general and explains your general "google has everything" approach to the Arjun topic. Clearly, some contacts and posturing on the topic apart, you lack context.

using a point to support an argument and not explaining your point is an art to be mastered! ( i am still a novice on this)
google has everything is whose approach can be seen by all from the arguments and links recycled over 1000s of pages on BRF.

And please tell me a MBT in last century that was produced whose engine did not pack up when it was tested in our desert condition.

[Karan M]

^^^And the best part is, the a/c cooling unit is to placed outside the turret....!!!!

Of which there is no certainty the AC will even work. The Thermal Sight is in its own exposed doghouse, and wonder of wonders whether reducing the temp inside the tank will even work on the detector assembly located in such a manner. And never mind that even the AC trials flopped.
http://www.bsl.co.in/india/news/india%6 ... ht/329796/

Meanwhile, the 310 T-90s, which have been delivered by Russia and introduced into service, are not battle worthy. The crucial Fire Control System (FCS), through which the tank fires at the enemy, has failed to function in Indian summers. An obliging Russian industry offered to sell India “tank air conditioners”, though no other tank in our inventory needs or uses air-conditioning.

The Russian air-conditioners were put through trials, during which the tank driver fainted from heatstroke. Now the MoD has floated a global tender for air-conditioning the T-90s.

Of course, does our Russian contingent admit this? No - its India's fault that we didn't order the T-90 with AC like the world class armour corp of Algeria did. Never mind the AC trials flopped. Yes, yes, by a biased author I know.

And this news is from a biased author. Unlike reliable blogs where the Russians advertise "new cooling".

[Karan M]

using a point to support an argument and not explaining your point is an art to be mastered! ( i am still a novice on this)

No sire, you are a past master at this approach, with your wink-nod-contacts-nudge-i know approach which you have extensively used on the Arjun / T-90 topic. It works most of the time, because folks tend to assume that it must be true. Others - a few - just roll their heads. But in which case, I do think that you should be already aware of the "point" when it has been clearly laid out that the Vijayanta's engine was unreliable and it was seen as such.

google has everything is whose approach can be seen by all from the arguments and links recycled over 1000s of pages on BRF.

Forgive me master, your google fu is stronger than my google fu. Respect.

And please tell me a MBT in last century that was produced whose engine did not pack up when it was tested in our desert condition.

Heh. And who said it was in "desert conditions" alone. Seriously, you really are unaware of the topic, arguments aside and with extensive knowledge plus google, it really should be no problems for you in finding out right, instead of having me use my pathetic google skills to help out.

[d_berwal]

Heh. And who said it was in "desert conditions" alone. Seriously, you really are unaware of the topic, arguments aside and with extensive knowledge plus google, it really should be no problems for you in finding out right, instead of having me use my pathetic google skills to help out.

by avoiding to prove your point which you made to support your argument, i would believe that you have no data to support it, that why you are taking this new line of defense!!

i am not here to test my skill set, you made a claim and i am asking to prove that claim!
- if you cant prove it, pls say so
- and if you can then pls do so

[Sanku]

Col Shukla was also talking about cancelling MRCA just a little before the results were announced and many other such things. We know if pretty well I think.

[Austin]

Austin, with all due respect, I repeat the same stuff, because you seem intent on refusing to understand the most straightforward of concepts when it comes to the topic. When it is pointed out to you, you either ignore it (e.g. ammo placement), come out with long winded replies which skirt the issue (FCS vs Sapsan - total apples to oranges), remain in denial (e.g. Thermal Imaging) by dismissing the source. I don't need to be the patron of all Russian land systems to realize the Russians are not the demi-Gods of weaponry who must and should not be criticized, the way you treat them as.

Look that is the key thing what you call it as jugad , is the way it would work if you want to integrate a Western TI on T-90 , something the IA wanted 10 years back if I am not wrong.

You can call it jugad if you like , I would call it solution to a problem.

I said patron because you spoke with such authority as if every thing in Russian land system is bad.

Therein lies the difference. I'll praise them when they come up with world class work (e.g. Su-30 MKI on the MMRCA thread) and skewer them when they try to shortchange India (the T-90 deal). You might want to consider though why your answers in contrast, are only all about "you are biased, board is biased, admins are biased".

I would not deny that there is a pattern to show Arjun is good and because it is good T-90 is bad tank , thats the pattern I have seen over many years , truth be told both are good tanks with their own pluses and minuses , and I do not deny that I did say there is some bias in that but that does not mean admin or posters has been doing that in every thread , atleast at BRF this is the only thread I found such pattern may be I am wrong but I am entitled to my opinion , the admins would say and you would say that we are just pointing the faults and hence its not being biased , so it boils down to pov.

Unlike you, the Russians do know that they have faults and are rectifying them. Problem is that we are not buying those rectified systems, which may or may not come about, we bought the junk ones, based on "good faith" assumptions that the problems would be fixed, but they weren't. The Russians are working in their national interest, its in our interest to protect ours. Merely calling your fellow citizens as biased, nationalist, does not a convincing argument make.

I do not think T-90 is a junk unlike you who believe it is and many others , I am aware they are rectifying issues with T-90AM ( you can call it deep modernisation , its just a term or upgrade ) and personally I think we should adopt it if it improves fire power and safety , much like I am happy about the upgrade on Mk2 which improves safety of crew and fire power.

I daresay even if they criticize it, you would be the first to rush to the Russians defense and then point out the IA Armored corp is biased. You have already dismissed two ex IA sources about the Arjun vs T-90 issue, dismissed any & every comprehensive source as biased. Others are "bloggers" who "update wiki", and are "biased". Everyone is biased. Austin, is unbiased.

If you are talking of Shukla he has changed his stance isnt it , I have tried to get info from my own source who is reputed and known here but cannot name him for obvious reason and the answer i got regarding the trials is its result is closely guarded , so I can bet Shukla and other good people are merely speculating to get blog hits and what better then to nail down T-90 performance , and most other news are just cut and paste types on trials.

I dont think Russian systems are perfect , nor are the American , Indian or Israel ones , they all designed their system knowing what they want to do ,what they thought was the best approach and based on their strengths and weakness

If you think that is the same as on the Leopard, you are mistaken. The chances of an ammunition fire on the T-90 are much higher, because no matter where a round hits, draw a line through the tank, chances are there is a round next to the line of sight of the molten metal. If you think that's fine, really there is nothing more to say.

Leo 2 stores ammo in bustle and fighting compartment and if there is a penetration and spall fragment hits the exposed ammo in Leo 2 then it would explode but chances are the molten fragments would first kill the crew , the same effect will be seen in T-90 if the loose ammo is hit by spall or fragments and explodes.

If you just keep the ammo in the auto loader which is in well protected area and there are no loose ammo in fighting compartment then its much safer.

The other option is to move to a rear turret bustle to make it much safer for crew , but problem is Turret Bustle would not be as well protected and if it gets hit may be even by RPG-29 it would explode at best its a mission kill at worst the could may still die due to shock or fragment effect.

Till the day an armour corps officer, who commanded a T-72 regiment, criticizes the T-90 tank and its acquisition, such as Ajai Shukla did. In which case he becomes - biased, a blogger out to get revenue, a DRDO supporter, unworthy of being quoted, unreliable etc. And you call everyone else biased.

And then there are many existing serving armoured corps officer who says its an excellent tank , with due respect to Ajai he also has a blog to maintain , is a paid jurno for a newspaper doing his job.

[Austin]

Col Shukla was also talking about cancelling MRCA just a little before the results were announced and many other such things. We know if pretty well I think.

Buy JSF

[chackojoseph]

d_berwal sir,

Good to see you on defensive?

[Karan M]

by avoiding to prove your point which you made to support your argument, i would believe that you have no data to support it, that why you are taking this new line of defense!!

Lol- what avoiding? You want to be spoonfed? Sure, here you go. The Leyland L60 diesel was a horrible maintenance hog, affecting serviceability. It packed up under multiple conditions, whether desert or otherwise. As matter of fact, part of the reason, the T-55 picked up prominence in IA armor was because it was at least more rugged than that wonderful piece of equipment....heck, the Army even ran trials to reengine the tank but gave up because of cost, and because the units were on their way out already, with spares production winding down..
Now, with your extensive google fu & wink-nod-nudge means of information, please feel free to confirm all the above.

[d_berwal]

d_berwal sir,

Good to see you on defensive?

CJ i am not defensive, i am still saying the same just not repeating what has been already posted.

and asking some one to prove a remark on Vijayanta is not defensive i guess (hope so)

[d_berwal]

by avoiding to prove your point which you made to support your argument, i would believe that you have no data to support it, that why you are taking this new line of defense!!

Lol- what avoiding? You want to be spoonfed? Sure, here you go. The Leyland L60 diesel was a horrible maintenance hog, affecting serviceability. It packed up under multiple conditions, whether desert or otherwise. As matter of fact, part of the reason, the T-55 picked up prominence in IA armor was because it was at least more rugged than that wonderful piece of equipment....heck, the Army even ran trials to reengine the tank but gave up because of cost, and because the units were on their way out already, with spares production winding down..
Now, with your extensive google fu & wink-nod-nudge means of information, please feel free to confirm all the above.

where did you copy - paste that from.

now read what you have pasted and put the following in context:
- Induction date of Vijayanta
- Production end date
- and the date of the article you have copy pasted from.
- look at the numbers of Vijayanta inducted and T-55 inducted
- compare Vijayanta with the Mbts in IA when it was inducted.
- compare Vijayanta with Mbts of opposition force when it was inducted.
- last look at the date last Vijayanta regt conversion to new equipment date.

if you can do all of this, you might get the logic. if you still dont get it pls let me knwo.

[chackojoseph]

d_berwal sir,

Good to see you on defensive?

CJ i am not defensive, i am still saying the same just not repeating what has been already posted.

and asking some one to prove a remark on Vijayanta is not defensive i guess (hope so)

Absolutely not. For long time I wanted to make a point to you sir. I understand they you were arguing on an existing event. You also said that Arjun is inducted and has a growth path. At the same time, (other than 3 of you and a Russian Quack), others were arguing more on a wider debate on possibilities, induction, features, policy etc.

Hopefully, you understand the POV and work on it. The rest of us won, when you say that "Arjun has been inducted and it has a growth path."

[Sanku]

Hopefully, you understand the POV and work on it. The rest of us won, when you say that "Arjun has been inducted and it has a growth path."

I dont get this desire to win debates? Who exactly said that Arjun should not be inducted and does not have a growth path? Not counting Col Shukla in early 2000 time frames?

I have been saying since 2006 and earlier that Arjun's induction or lack of it has only to do with Arjun's readiness and IAs assessment of the same (along with Avadi) -- there is no deep mystery or issue here. Everything is in public domain and is clear and transparent.

You guys are winning battles that no one is fighting for gods sake.

[d_berwal]

Absolutely not. For long time I wanted to make a point to you sir. I understand they you were arguing on an existing event. You also said that Arjun is inducted and has a growth path. At the same time, (other than 3 of you and a Russian Quack), others were arguing more on a wider debate on possibilities, induction, features, policy etc.

Hopefully, you understand the POV and work on it. The rest of us won, when you say that "Arjun has been inducted and it has a growth path."

CJ i have always said Arjun has growth path, I always said it Had problems which got solved, you can see that in my earliest posts.

but the debate always shifted to Arjun vs T-90 and tilted more towards emotions than logic.

My point was always its not T-90 or Arjun for IA PoV, hope you get it.

[Karan M]

Look that is the key thing what you call it as jugad , is the way it would work if you want to integrate a Western TI on T-90 , something the IA wanted 10 years back if I am not wrong.

You can call it jugad if you like , I would call it solution to a problem.

Heh, its a jugaad solution to a problem and you see nothing wrong in it because you have not even evaluated what others did to solve the issue. The Ukrainians for instance realized the 1G46 was obsolete and for their top end upgraded T-84 they offered the Sagem SAVAN-15 FCS with integrated thermals. India integrated the TI onto the IGMS. Basically, its not about west or east, its about the fact that all jugaad aside, the Russian solution did not work.

I said patron because you spoke with such authority as if every thing in Russian land system is bad.

And should I call you a Russian defender because you defend everything Russian, no matter how badly they screw up? What will it take for you to realize the T-90 by todays standards is a flawed piece of equipment and just because it is Russian it does not make it absolute? The T-90 has significant design flaws. These are not jokes. The tank has to be in service for 30 odd years and its already incapable of being rectified.
I spoke with authority because I know the topic because I made an effort to understand it. I did not approach it with a view = T90 defense = Russians good or Russians bad. Try looking at the topic from India's point of view sometime, with your Indian hat on, instead of accusing everyone else of being a nationalist or letting your liking for Russia dominate your POV. There is nothing wrong with liking Russia, heck I like Russia, but they have really shafted us on this deal, and its the reality.

I would not deny that there is a pattern to show Arjun is good and because it is good T-90 is bad tank , thats the pattern I have seen over many years , truth be told both are good tanks with their own pluses and minuses , and I do not deny that I did say there is some bias in that but that does not mean admin or posters has been doing that in every thread , atleast at BRF this is the only thread I found such pattern may be I am wrong but I am entitled to my opinion , the admins would say and you would say that we are just pointing the faults and hence its not being biased , so it boils down to pov.

As compared to the pattern that whenever the T-90 is criticized on valid grounds, you jump to its defense by accusing everyone else of bias and dismissing all others sources? Whats the pattern there? Lets leave all that aside. All this business of both are good tanks with own pluses and minuses would have worked if you were comparing a Leopard to an Arjun or a Leclerc to an Arjun or an Abrams to a Merkava. How can you even compare a tank with such significant design flaws such as the T-90 to designs which have significantly better subsystems and overall performance. Doesn't it speak volumes to you, that countries which can and do afford the best prefer to go for hand me down Leo2A4s and upgrade them, versus buying new T-90s. Seriously, you quoted Turkmenistan as an example. Turkmenistan???

I do not think T-90 is a junk unlike you who believe it is and many others , I am aware they are rectifying issues with T-90AM ( you can call it deep modernisation , its just a term or upgrade ) and personally I think we should adopt it if it improves fire power and safety , much like I am happy about the upgrade on Mk2 which improves safety of crew and fire power.

Great, so now we should buy the T-90 AM. Gawsh what logic. What happens to all our T-90S(M)s with malfunctioning electronics? Who pays for them? Who pays for the TOT for the T-90AM, and how many trials has it undergone. Austin, you speak of bias, but can't you see how deeply you buy into Russian PR right here?

If you are talking of Shukla he has changed his stance isnt it , I have tried to get info from my own source who is reputed and known here but cannot name him for obvious reason and the answer i got regarding the trials is its result is closely guarded , so I can bet Shukla and other good people are merely speculating to get blog hits and what better then to nail down T-90 performance , and most other news are just cut and paste types on trials.

Oh I see so Shukla is biased. Is Gulshan Luthra also biased? Are the submissions to the Standing Committee on Defense where the Arjun is repeatedly noted as a superior tank biased? All these confirm each other, and provide details the other doesn't. Please understand, the T-90 was outgunned. And its no surprise to anybody who knows how dated the tank is. If the Arjun faced up against a tropicalized Leopard 2A7 and made the same result, then even I would be surprised.
Boss, your contact is a journo who has made errors in the past (I will respect your wishes and not speculate more) but if I am correct, based on your own past posts, he wrote articles with significant goofups about at least 2-3 missile programs. Shukla & Luthra are both equally well connected guys with reputations to maintain, they don't give a fig about the Arjun otherwise. Its your bias that is having you dismiss these guys as "speculating" to get blog hits.

I dont think Russian systems are perfect , nor are the American , Indian or Israel ones , they all designed their system knowing what they want to do ,what they thought was the best approach and based on their strengths and weakness

Generic stuff Austin. Problem is the Russians best approach has significant concessions made on crew survivability & upgrade potential when it comes to the T series tanks. Heck, Vasiliy Fofanov who lives abnd breathes Russian armor would admit the T-90 is obsolete versus newer western platforms.

Leo 2 stores ammo in bustle and fighting compartment and if there is a penetration and spall fragment hits the exposed ammo in Leo 2 then it would explode but chances are the molten fragments would first kill the crew ,

Which is why it has a Kevlar spall liner. It is your assumption that a single shell in any other location would kill all the crew. Kill a crewmember, wound the rest, yes.
But in the T-90..

the same effect will be seen in T-90 if the loose ammo is hit by spall or fragments and explodes.

No, the exploding ammo would create a sympathetic detonation amongst other rounds and the entire crew perishes. These are NOT brass rounds. They are CCC rounds. Think heavy cardboard.

If you just keep the ammo in the auto loader which is in well protected area and there are no loose ammo in fighting compartment then its much safer.

But they don't. They don't go into battle with half the rounds. Who knows when they will get replenished.

The other option is to move to a rear turret bustle to make it much safer for crew , but problem is Turret Bustle would not be as well protected and if it gets hit may be even by RPG-29 it would explode at best its a mission kill at worst the could may still die due to shock or fragment effect.

Turret bustle is always a better option. Better a mission killed tank and alive crew, than a destroyed tank and no crew. See the difference between the Russian approach and the western one?

And then there are many existing serving armoured corps officer who says its an excellent tank , with due respect to Ajai he also has a blog to maintain , is a paid jurno for a newspaper doing his job.

You just stuck to the stereotype. Who can afford to speak more freely, a retd Army officer or one still in the services. And your comments about a blog and a paid journo only go to show the cognitive dissonance here. You dismiss everyone who doesnt say what you want them to say as biased, but are unwilling to believe that the fault may be at your end in terms of perception.

[Karan M]

where did you copy - paste that from.

Unlike you, I don't have to trawl the internet or Mphotos or assorted forums to copy paste what others say to make my arguments for me OR claim google has the answers. I posted that from my own awareness. See the difference. Try that sometime.

now read what you have pasted and put the following in context:
- Induction date of Vijayanta
- Production end date
- and the date of the article you have copy pasted from.
- look at the numbers of Vijayanta inducted and T-55 inducted
- compare Vijayanta with the Mbts in IA when it was inducted.
- compare Vijayanta with Mbts of opposition force when it was inducted.
- last look at the date last Vijayanta regt conversion to new equipment date.

if you can do all of this, you might get the logic. if you still dont get it pls let me knwo.

More authoritative sounding stuff trying to link tenuous data to some imaginary point.

Fact remains that from day one when the Vijayanta was inducted, the users complained about how unreliable the automotives were & as recent as the 80's and 90's, the Army procurement teams evaluating armor for procurement were told "don't let it be another Vijayanta". For the sake of letting bygone's by, I have not even posted some of the more "charitable" comments by tankers on what they thought of the tank and what its presence in the Army lineup should have been.

In fact, the Vijayanta became a byword for Russian armor operators to slam western designs! That you are even unaware of this & keep harping on copy paste (which you revel in doing, including all that from MP.net without even a by your while to the original source), just goes to show how thoroughly and totally unaware you are of this topic in reality.

[chackojoseph]

d_berwal sir,

As I said before, I always understood it. But, let me tell you my prespective. Arjun debates were emotional after a point when it were demonised. I appreciate what you said on Arjun. However, it appeares that rest of the crowd did not understand you on it or you failed to convey. Your posts appeared to convey different meaning. Your posts helped to trigger emotions on Arjun debate.

T-90 vs Arjun debate were very logical, even if they were emotional.

Your IA PoV also did not reflect as you mentioned. it was just one section of IA PoV and the negative one. I can show you enough examples of that. I know, it will trigger another debate, which I want to avoid at this stage. its not witch hunting. I have said something in prespective. I always wanted to tell you and Tsarkar that.

[Austin]

Heh, its a jugaad solution to a problem and you see nothing wrong in it because you have not even evaluated what others did to solve the issue. The Ukrainians for instance realized the 1G46 was obsolete and for their top end upgraded T-84 they offered the Sagem SAVAN-15 FCS with integrated thermals. India integrated the TI onto the IGMS. Basically, its not about west or east, its about the fact that all jugaad aside, the Russian solution did not work.

Its your point of view and I will leave it at that , I call it solution to a problem to call it a jugad , lets leave it there and agree to disagree

i spoke with authority because I know the topic because I made an effort to understand it. I did not approach it with a view = T90 defense = Russians good or Russians bad. Try looking at the topic from India's point of view sometime, with your Indian hat on, instead of accusing everyone else of being a nationalist or letting your liking for Russia dominate your POV. There is nothing wrong with liking Russia, heck I like Russia, but they have really shafted us on this deal, and its the reality.

Since you speak with authority I call you patron ( sorry not in a distasteful manner ) , I have rarely come across people who say that ....

I have my indian hat on and with the same Indian hat on and with the same indian army officer from armoured corps who vouch its a good tank , I will take their word.

Beyond that its your opinion verus IA officer and I would take theirs.

As compared to the pattern that whenever the T-90 is criticized on valid grounds, you jump to its defense by accusing everyone else of bias and dismissing all others sources? Whats the pattern there?

Depends on what you call valid and I have my right to criticise if I think its not a valid point , people have criticised me for saying that and its their right.

Great, so now we should buy the T-90 AM. Gawsh what logic. What happens to all our T-90S(M)s with malfunctioning electronics? Who pays for them? Who pays for the TOT for the T-90AM, and how many trials has it undergone. Austin, you speak of bias, but can't you see how deeply you buy into Russian PR right here?

Well who pays of T-72,T-90,Arjun , M2k etc etc GOI , how is upgrading a tank that offers better crew protection and firepower can be considered as biased PR.

Would you call the same done of Mk2 , T-72 a biased PR on behalf of russians for the latter.

Arnt you stretching things too far ?

I am not sure what you mean by SM , we have Bismha or export T-90S , they are planning to upgrade the T-90 but nothing final yet ,may be they wont for some time and stick with what they have.

Please understand, the T-90 was outgunned. And its no surprise to anybody who knows how dated the tank is. If the Arjun faced up against a tropicalized Leopard 2A7 and made the same result, then even I would be surprised.

I dont know if it was outgunned or out smarted what I know is trials result has not been made public and its statement of fact.

I know my contacts and what he knows and I know what he writes in a way he does , so leave that aside.

Generic stuff Austin. Problem is the Russians best approach has significant concessions made on crew survivability & upgrade potential when it comes to the T series tanks. Heck, Vasiliy Fofanov who lives abnd breathes Russian armor would admit the T-90 is obsolete versus newer western platforms.

Many would disagree with Vasiliy

Which is why it has a Kevlar spall liner. It is your assumption that a single shell in any other location would kill all the crew. Kill a crewmember, wound the rest, yes.
But in the T-90..

IF there is penetration the fragament would kill or badly injure the crew , if there is loose amo then it would explode , Kevlar spall liner can break up.

No, the exploding ammo would create a sympathetic detonation amongst other rounds and the entire crew perishes. These are NOT brass rounds. They are CCC rounds. Think heavy cardboard.

That effect would be seen in any ammo stored inside the crew compartment , it can happen to Leo 2 to challenger to T-90. Nothing exceptional about T-90.

Turret bustle is always a better option. Better a mission killed tank and alive crew, than a destroyed tank and no crew. See the difference between the Russian approach and the western one?

Turret bustle can explode and shock and fragement can kill the crew inside the tank. But its better then keeping ammo in crew compartment.

And your comments about a blog and a paid journo only go to show the cognitive dissonance here. You dismiss everyone who doesnt say what you want them to say as biased, but are unwilling to believe that the fault may be at your end in terms of perception

Paid Jurno means he gets paid for this job he is jurno for BS and gets paid like any jurno. Shukla has taken some interesting stand in the past and he has his own views on MMRCA but lets not go there.

[d_berwal]

d_berwal sir,

As I said before, I always understood it. But, let me tell you my prespective. Arjun debates were emotional after a point when it were demonised. I appreciate what you said on Arjun. However, it appeares that rest of the crowd did not understand you on it or you failed to convey. Your posts appeared to convey different meaning. Your posts helped to trigger emotions on Arjun debate.

T-90 vs Arjun debate were very logical, even if they were emotional.

Your IA PoV also did not reflect as you mentioned. it was just one section of IA PoV and the negative one. I can show you enough examples of that. I know, it will trigger another debate, which I want to avoid at this stage. its not witch hunting. I have said something in prespective. I always wanted to tell you and Tsarkar that.

so basically both of us want to say the same thing, but in different ways/ language/ etc.

i do agree IA PoV did not reflect the same earlier but it reflects it now.

[tsarkar]

My observations are as follows -

Firstly, why Russian?

Because in the earlier decades, our economy was stagnant. Our average economic growth rate was 3%, that western economists called “Hindu rate of growth”. Pakistan through 50's 60's and 70's got significant US monetary and military aid. So, we couldn't afford to buy the best stuff – or invest in R&D.

The situation became worse in 70's. Nixon and Kissinger allied with China, that under Zhou-en-Lai had already allied with Pakistan in 60's. We were politically cornered in the international arena. That is when Soviet aid came handy. They bartered ships and tanks for stuff like jute, tea and rubber. Also, they signed a mutual security pact in 1971, just before we went to war, and this pact helped us withstand 6th fleet bullying.

Next, on tanks. Those I've interacted on this issue in IA, always refer to T-series as medium tanks. They don't refer T-72/90 as heavy tanks. The IA is clear on T-series capabilities.

One factor that plays in IA's mind is deployability. We neither had infrastructure nor transport capabilities, hence getting tanks & other equipment into action was a challenge. Also, we did not have sufficient resources to “pre-position”. For example, US tanks used in GW1 were pre-positioned in Diego Garcia. The men flew from Europe and CONUS, the tanks were shipped from stocks in Diego Garica.

From the Indian perspective, even if our tanks are 60% as capable as the best tanks, deploying that 60% capability on field when required is better than having a 100% capable tank but not sufficient numbers or infrastructure to deploy them. I'll use the following examples -

1.Battle of Zoji-la, 1948

Skardu fell to Pakistani's on 14th August 1948, exactly one year after independence. It was imperative to dislodge the Pakistanis before winter. The 11 ton M5 Stuart tanks were way inferior to 26 ton T34, 30 ton Shermans or 57 ton Tiger!!! But the cavalry & engineers took the tanks there, and it outfought the entrenched Pakistanis. Could any other tank at that point in time done it? No. Hence the IA focus on deployability.

Good account here http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19 ... 50324.html

2.Battle of Chusul, 1962

Between the Chinese and Leh stood Chusul held by 13th Kumaon and AMX-13 tanks B squadron 20 Lancers flew in by An-12 transports. The AMX-13 weighed 13 tons compared to 50 ton Patton & Centurion tanks. The AMX-13 did not have a turret, but it did have two 6 round magazines that wrecked havoc on Chinese hordes. Chusul was the first Indian victory in the war. The Chinese suffered 1000 casualties for 140 Indians. They called a ceasefire. Ladakh was saved. Could any tank other than AMX-13 done it? No.

Good account here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-3/lns.html

3. Battle of Chamb, 1965

This is personal for me & rarely time passed when we didn't discuss this battle. My uncle (father's cousin) Major Bhaskar Roy was awarded MVC in this battle. The battle was as decisive as Longewala, but not recounted because we lost and the IAF majorly goofed up.

Major Bhaskar Roy commanded C squadron 20 Lancers at Chamb. With only 9 AMX-13, he held off two Pakistani Patton assaults. In the first attack, the Pakis lost 6 tanks and in the second attack the Pakis lost 12 tanks. Unfortunately the 4 IAF Vampires that arrived to provide CAS bombed our fuel & ammo trucks and our tanks ran out of both, allowing the Pakistani tanks to roll over. All 4 IAF Vampires were shot down by PAF Sabres shortly thereafter does not cover IAF with glory.

OT – After the disastrous Pathankot airfield losses, and the Chamb debacle, and Sikand landing Gnat in Pakistani airfield, I am not sure why IAF regards Arjan Singh so highly, making him Marshal of the IAF. Pathankot was a command failure with no CAP overhead.

Back to the issue, could any tank other than AMX-13 done it? No, here again deployability came to play.

The PT-76 led our offensive in riverine Bangladesh and the T-72 has been airlifted to Ladakh and Sri Lanka.

Having said that, whenever deployed against other tanks in pitched battles, the AMX-13 faired very poorly. In this role, Centurions and T-55s excelled.

Hence my view that there is need for both Arjun and T-90's. The T-series has the advantage of deployability over Arjun, going where other tanks have difficulty going.

Also, there were still design deficiencies in Arjun until the Mk2 improvements were ordered. The Mk 1 commander has only a panoramic day sight and it was not interfaced with the FCS to hand over targets to the gunner for hunter killer capability. It is only Mk 2 that commander will get a day & night sight interfaced with FCS to hand over targets to gunner. T-90 had day & night hunter killer capabilities in its FCS from the start, and it was improved with Thales TI replacing the original Belarussian TI. CVRDE should have thought of it when other contemporary tanks had the feature.

[Karan M]

Its your point of view and I will leave it at that , I call it solution to a problem to call it a jugad , lets leave it there and agree to disagree

A solution works. What does one call a solution which does not work? Jugaad is charitable. You put a secondary sight shoehorning it into a tank because original cannot accommodate it, and then it doesn't work and overheats. And you cant solve it. Your solution for your first solution is also a failure, the ACs flop. So the customer now goes around asking for a WW RFP for somebody, somebody to solve the issue. What kind of solution is this?

Since you speak with authority I call you patron ( sorry not in a distasteful manner ) , I have rarely come across people who say that ....

I have my indian hat on and with the same Indian hat on and with the same indian army officer from armoured corps who vouch its a good tank , I will take their word.

Beyond that its your opinion verus IA officer and I would take theirs.

As long as they don't criticize the T-90 right. Moment they do, they become bloggers, wanting eyeballs to the website, unreliable etc. Officers who for obvious reasons speak off the record to the media (e.g. Tehelka, CNN-IBN, Janes etc) and go line and verse about the problems are dismissed by you as unofficial. Parliamentary Standing Committee etc say the Arjun is superior. That doesn't count.

So what exactly are you doing here - are you taking my opinion versus IA officers, or are you selectively picking and choosing only those opinions you want to hear? As long as they say what you want to hear, your mind accepts it. If they say the opposite, like Ajai Shukla did - they are dismissed!

Depends on what you call valid and I have my right to criticise if I think its not a valid point , people have criticised me for saying that and its their right.

Nobodies questioning your right to say anything. Whats being questioned is your logic, where everything Russian gets a get out of trouble pass with all expenses meal to a 5 star restaurant and a free trip to Vegas, even if the product sold is snake oil which is being clearly pointed out with cold logic!

Well who pays of T-72,T-90,Arjun , M2k etc etc GOI , how is upgrading a tank that offers better crew protection and firepower can be considered as biased PR.

Dodging the question here. You have a tank which does not work - the T-90. Which tanks TOT agreements have not been adhered to, despite us paying for them. Which we are still inducting despite the vendor not solving the problems. Your solution to that is to buy the NEXT product which is not even proven, is still in development, and again pay for everything? Meanwhile what happens to our existing T-90s which are already paid for and not working? How can you compare that to the Arjun or Mirage 2000. At least they work already!!

Would you call the same done of Mk2 , T-72 a biased PR on behalf of russians for the latter.

The MK2 is not a radical redesign of the Arjun, which just goes to show how a modular design can be iteratively upgraded! In contrast, the on paper T-90 AM - what is it coming with? Who pays for the TOT? Who solves the problems of the existing T-90s?
So your supplier shafts you with a lousy product, so you say OK, thanks, now give me the next one which you say you are making??

Arnt you stretching things too far ?

Aren't you? The T-90 itself doesnt work, now you want us to for the T-90 AM.

I am not sure what you mean by SM , we have Bismha or export T-90S , they are planning to upgrade the T-90 but nothing final yet ,may be they wont for some time and stick with what they have.

Our initial T-90s were S versions. Old cast turret. Later ones were M versions with the welded turret. I could have as well written S/M.
About nothing final - thats the problem. Nothings final. The tank is an evolutionary dead end without significant structural rework. Oops, the Russians own that design data.

I dont know if it was outgunned or out smarted what I know is trials result has not been made public and its statement of fact.

It has been made public, its a different matter altogether, you choose not to believe it.

I know my contacts and what he knows and I know what he writes in a way he does , so leave that aside.

If he commits elementary mistakes about connecting the K series missiles to other missiles, and just writes what he is told, does that not tell you he is not infallible? You are ready to dismiss Shukla, Indiastrategic on the flimsiest of grounds, but on this, you think that everyone has access to the same info..

Many would disagree with Vasiliy

I am sure that there are proponents of the flat earth society even today. Are they right?

IF there is penetration the fragament would kill or badly injure the crew ,

One round not hitting the hull ammo would kill the entire crew? This must be the FSAPDS equivalent of the Kennedy bullet. In contrast the problem is:

if there is loose amo then it would explode , Kevlar spall liner can break up.

T-90 has loose ammo all over the place. The Leopard does not..

That effect would be seen in any ammo stored inside the crew compartment , it can happen to Leo 2 to challenger to T-90. Nothing exceptional about T-90.

Again, deliberately missing the point, there is ammo ALL over the place in the T-90. Its far easier for any fragment to hit all those rounds versus just the one location where ammunition is vulnerable on the Leopard.

Turn around, round behind you, on the T-90. Nice design feature. On the Challenger, the penetrators and propellant charges are separated. The propellants are in armoured bins. Again, better protected than the T-90.

Turret bustle can explode and shock and fragement can kill the crew inside the tank. But its better then keeping ammo in crew compartment.

And how many Abrams crew members have died from the explosions and shock and fragments in the bustle. FYI, it is an armored bustle with armor separating the crew from the ammo. Thats the entire point of a bustle. Austin, you just reached for an argument here, any argument here.

Paid Jurno means he gets paid for this job he is jurno for BS and gets paid like any jurno. Shukla has taken some interesting stand in the past and he has his own views on MMRCA but lets not go there.

So now BS is paying for pro Arjun articles? All those BS editorials in the past sermonizing local MIC before Shukla joined must have been examples of their bias as well?

And what relevance do his views on the MMRCA have? Here we have an ex tanker who operated Russian equipment pointing out what is wrong, and all you have to go on is that he is a paid journo? Should he then subsist on air, like a yogi & only write pro Russian eqpt articles. Would that make him credible..