Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Mar 2010 12:32

tsriram wrote:Sir,
the question is not about which is perfect but as you yourself say, which is better. Our primary aim to ensure safety of our soldiers under attack and enough firepower at their hands that they can attack enemy mbts from farther away and with a greater accuracy that they can safely pick them off (in an ideal situation say). With such criteria which is the better choice for the IA tank corps.

However, the choice isn't as simple as pitting the two tanks against each other and find out which one outlasts the other. We do have to take into account several things such as uptime, mtbf of various items on board, frequency of servicing, ability to procure spares and ability to make-do when denied spares and importantly avenues for future development and incremental betterment of the platform and upgrades. We have seen examples of the Arjun facing point blank rounds with nary a scratch so to speak which the T-90 just cannot face. Has such a trial been done? I am not aware but is it a definite possibility? Yes. The fact that there are enough examples of the T-90s offering lesser protection to the crew compared to the Abrams or the Merkava makes them a better choice in that respect, does it not? Given that the Arjun is borne out of a similar thought process and is arguably a similar product in this particular area, makes it a better choice. Where is the debate here?

Is the US giving a true account of the hits and damage sustained to the Abrams? Maybe, maybe not. We can take it account but we have our own tests to see for ourselves to compare the two tanks in contest.

I am totally in agreement with you that we have to be safe. And why not?

It costs money, it means the DRDO is appeased that they are not being abandoned, it means so many imponderables as what I mentioned in my CDM link, which I hope you have read.

All I understand, if you don't mind is that, let us get it and interim given the circumstances get whatever is available as per our pocket, get it!

This issue is such a mess, I cannot answer. But to believe in journalistic nonsense is another issue. Heard the interview on the Women's Bill with an Editor of a newspaper who is anti BJP? He can see nothing good. Not even that everyone across the board supported the Women's Bill.

I am apprehensive of journalist! They have to go with those who pay the money!

I maybe totally wrong.

To be frank, I want a Mercedez, but I have to satisfy myself with a Matiz!

Pay more taxes and have an Abram.

Are we ready?

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 10 Mar 2010 12:43

RayC wrote:There are pictures of the Georgia war and Russian tank burning.

To put the balance tight, may I append these pictures?

With due respect RayC, only the last image that you have provided is an M1. The first 3 are in fact Humvees and the 4th isn't even a land vehicle, it's the remains of what looks like an IrAF Su-7/22. So those in particular are entirely irrelevant images. I don't think you can claim that the images posted of destroyed T-72s/T-90s are entirely irrelevant to this thread and neither is the burning Abrams you've posted.

On the other hand sir, by your own link we are informed that:

However, on October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine, which was combined with other explosives (500 kg, including several 155 mm rounds) to increase its effect.

500 kgs - half a ton(!) sir. Absolutely no vehicle of any reasonable kind could survive that amount of explosive. And yet, out of a crew of four, we have 2 survivors, of which one was not wounded seriously enough to warrant a mention!

That is some measure of the levels of protection that the M1(possibly A2/TUSK) offers its crew members. There is no way in hell that the T-90 could achieve those levels, especially against IEDs, which an active defense/anti-kinetic projectile defense system such as SHTORA or ARENA (which the T-90's overall protection efficacy depends in a large part on) would be completely useless against. The same goes for upper hull/turret-mounted ERAs such as Kaktus/Kontact, unless the IED is a shaped charge that is mounted at a minimum of 3 feet off the ground.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2010 13:16

Surya wrote:Oh drat -

Sanky, berwal - where art thou

here you go my friends

http://cdm.ap.nic.in/casestudies/casevo ... 20T90s.pdf

1000Hp engine - cough cough not really 1000 HP

engine failed too

Ya Arrah!!!, bhat ees dees? You unwashed abdul hab ze courage to post somthing so blasphemous about ze "tank-al-rossee"...hain? how dare zoo? don't zoo know it is "tank-e-mard" and such news is YYY conspiracee onleee......may your camel have 10^1000000 lice...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 14:24

^^^^

Actually I read that report, all that it shows is that T 90s AUCRT were conducted and very professionaly by the Army and a factual report sent up -- where the reliability issues were not significant.

Interesting the T 90 AUCRT with its reports in 90s era and Arjun AUCRT with its known issues is in 2007 can be compared.

I thank Surya for backing up my claims with documentary support (I had posted it once long back -- 2 years back) once more.

Chacko wrote:Everybody leans towards money, even army men. Hence, on Arjun Tank project, everyone is apprehensive about every possibility. Hence the project is in news.

Chacko ; Rahul M called you a credible journalist -- as such, dont you think it is your duty to live up to that claim rather than make completely generic statement as above -- the above is completely context free, fact free insinuation.

Something like, "corrupt men exist in general, therefore they must exist in IA and thus Arjun is case of corruption" that is CLEAR UNCALLED FOR -- and if you have any sense of correctness you would delete it yourself.

Meanwhile -- considering that you have on the last two pages CLEARLY DISPLAYED a marked lacked of understanding of the concepts of
1) Engineering Design and User specification
2) Budget and MoD structure and responsibilities

I would like to strongly encourage you to actually take the trouble of educating yourself about the basics of the field you have a reputation in -- and till then please dont spread liberal insinuations while mixing up issues as varied as procurement issues with MoD to IAs role in Arjun evaluation.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Mar 2010 14:52

Jaeger wrote:
RayC wrote:There are pictures of the Georgia war and Russian tank burning.

To put the balance tight, may I append these pictures?

With due respect RayC, only the last image that you have provided is an M1. The first 3 are in fact Humvees and the 4th isn't even a land vehicle, it's the remains of what looks like an IrAF Su-7/22. So those in particular are entirely irrelevant images. I don't think you can claim that the images posted of destroyed T-72s/T-90s are entirely irrelevant to this thread and neither is the burning Abrams you've posted.

On the other hand sir, by your own link we are informed that:
However, on October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine, which was combined with other explosives (500 kg, including several 155 mm rounds) to increase its effect.
500 kgs - half a ton(!) sir. Absolutely no vehicle of any reasonable kind could survive that amount of explosive. And yet, out of a crew of four, we have 2 survivors, of which one was not wounded seriously enough to warrant a mention!

That is some measure of the levels of protection that the M1(possibly A2/TUSK) offers its crew members. There is no way in hell that the T-90 could achieve those levels, especially against IEDs, which an active defense/anti-kinetic projectile defense system such as SHTORA or ARENA (which the T-90's overall protection efficacy depends in a large part on) would be completely useless against. The same goes for upper hull/turret-mounted ERAs such as Kaktus/Kontact, unless the IED is a shaped charge that is mounted at a minimum of 3 feet off the ground.

To be true,I would not know since I have neither seen a Humvee or a M1 in proper shape or what would it would be in a burning configuration at the beginning or end of the show.

I just reproduced what a link stated.

My apologies.

However, even if one tank burns, I think that should be OK as would one tank burnt up in Georgia, what ?

My contention, nothing is safe!

Concrete bunkers are field artillery proof. I have seen them collapsing!

Therefore, I do not believe in technicalities that are trotted out (even though they are important). Or single pictures by interested parties, as the Gospel Truth. There are many reasons why tanks burn!

3.5 inch RL was touted that they could take out a known tank. I have seen then bounce off as a rubber ball in war!

Why? Don't ask me!

BTW did the Americans lose the Vietnam war? NO. They will trot out enough of reasons that they won but.....

Nothing against the Americans. They did best under the circumstances, but then what was the end result? Did they lose or win and what do the majority of military articles and analysis say?

Therefore, I am not too confident of the figures for M1 as being a very safe tank and the last word!

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 10 Mar 2010 15:53

RayC wrote: However, even if one tank burns, I think that should be OK as would one tank burnt up in Georgia, what ?

My contention, nothing is safe!

Concrete bunkers are field artillery proof. I have seen them collapsing!

Therefore, I do not believe in technicalities that are trotted out (even though they are important).

3.5 inch RL was touted that they could take out a tank. I have seen then bounce off as a rubber ball in war!

Why? Don't ask me!

I completely agree with you with reference to the fact that there is no 100% guarantee for anything - armour, active protection, ERA; there can be freak accidents and unforeseen circumstances, penetration from unprecedented angles (

) - all this and more.

However, I think enough and more posters have tried to explain that nobody is saying Arjun/Abrams/Western-style MBT of choice = 100% protection while T-90 = 0%. What we're saying is that in the absence of data on an MoD letterhead signed by Mr. Clean himself, based on freely-available open source information, the design philosophy represented by the Arjun (and other Western-style MBTs) offers greater levels of protection against current and potential threats than the philosophy represented by the T-90.

RayC wrote: BTW did the Americans lose the Vietnam war? NO. They will trot out enough of reasons that they won but.....

Nothing against the Americans. They did best under the circumstances, but then what was the end result? Did the lose or win and what do the majority of military articles and analysis say?

Therefore, I am not too confident of the figures for M1 as being a very safe tank and the last word!

I'm afraid I don't quite catch your point here. Are you saying that because (in your perception) some Americans don't admit to being defeated in Vietnam, you find yourself unable to believe figures of the M1's protection levels? Seriously?

Nobody (at least not ME) is saying that American hardware is the be-all and end-all, and no one said it's the last word - certainly not me. Tank protection technology will keep evolving, as will the means to defeat it. However, as of now, and in the foreseeable future, the Arjun MBT incorporates features (such as separate ammo storage with blow off panels, greater weight of armour with higher PWR ration to compensate) that ensure it has a protection-level edge vis a vis the T-90.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Mar 2010 18:14

Sanku

Both you and berwal disbelieved our and media claimsof less than 1000 HP
(berwal pooh poohed it vehemently after all he has spoken to all t 90 regiments

)

well you have proof

This report is not EVEN the entire AUCRT - just a few highlights

but how can you claim less significant

2 out of 3 engines had problems

all 3 smoke generators broke down

all this in a tank which 60 plus percent commonality with existing tank used for 2 decades

And we did not not hear a peep of this but Arjun problems were tom tommed tothe media.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 18:40

Surya; I did not disbelieve that 1000 HP design engine did output exactly 100 HP. In fact the AUCRT it self says that the Russian test certification numbers were different.

Finally I dont see what problems are reported?

The fact that engine breaks down after 1000+ Km of straight running? But the AUCRT is precisely for that, to find out how many breakages happen in stress testing. The test objected is stressed till it breaks down?

The question is at what figures do test object 1 break down and how do you compare it with test object 2.

The question is also how many sub components show issues at what amount of usage.

The figures are telling.

Its NO ONES CLAIM that T 90 is heavenly chariot, just as no one claims that Arjun's armor can stop all kinds of weapons without a dent -- as folks have clearly mentioned the question is of scale, and JUST AS, Arjun's armor is better, the other reliability issues etc (in comparison to T 72s even) had stopped it from being ready for full fledged use till recently.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 18:44

--- edited ----

As per Mod instructions.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 10 Mar 2010 18:46

I have moved some posts to http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0&start=40.
please continue the discussion on corruption there.
Rahul.

EDIT : sanku ji, if you have a problem with anyone's opinions kindly report it. for the moment I suggest you edit that post out.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Mar 2010 19:14

I'm afraid I don't quite catch your point here. Are you saying that because (in your perception) some Americans don't admit to being defeated in Vietnam, you find yourself unable to believe figures of the M1's protection levels? Seriously

Though this could be OT, but since you asked.

To be frank,yes!

They are the masters of sales and hyperbole.

Just google and check on any military eqpt. They are the best and nothing ever like that was invented.

All Russian eqpt was inferior. The US eqpt was best.

Yet in the aftermath of the Iraq War, the US troops preferred AKs to their world best rifles!

But check the M 16 glossies - they are the world best.

However, check US military forums and blogs.

As far as the tradeoff that is required in Tank Technology designing vis a vis firepower, weight and mobility, I have already appended a link. Read it, in case you were in a hurry.

More armour with a powerful engine is fine, but that powerful engine will have to be heavier and so mobility is at stake.

If the M 16 is the world best, then why the AK 47s?

Patton was touted as the world best. What happened even with inferior Indian tanks including WW II Sherman?

It is the man behind the machine and good tactics that saves the day!

One is well aware of Iraqi Army, its tactics and it stand against the US onslaught.

I leave it for you to judge.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 19:37

Surya wrote:here you go my friends

http://cdm.ap.nic.in/casestudies/casevo ... 20T90s.pdf

1000Hp engine - cough cough not really 1000 HP

engine failed too.

What is glaring from the report is that the Army which accepted the T-90S "as is" with all the tourbles with engines, Sights, overheating etc with just one summer and winter trial and quick to order more no.s without solving all the problem is highly in contrast with the Arjun programme where Army keep insisting on solving all problem one after another with so many trials.

We are NOT against Army testing the product to its heart's content, but why two different rules for T-90S and Ajrun? Why Army, known for stickler for rules, is adopting two different standards ? IIRC, DRDO asked the same question to Army in the presence of MoD. If Army so insists , before 1996 onwards, on their MBT to have first shot hit probability as 90% and above which they demanded from Arjun before accepting them, why the same rule is not followed in T-90S which was tested and selected at later date from 1998 onwards. How there will be confidence in the top brass if they flout their own rules. It is not me alone telling this. Lt.Gen. Prakash makes that same accusation too and there are other precendents.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 20:04

RayC wrote:2. If one reads what I posted above, one would realise what makes one buy foreign eqpt and not wait years for indigenous eqpt to fill the void.
CASE STUDY: PLIGHT PATH
College of Defence Management
http://cdm.ap.nic.in/casestudies/casevo ... 20Path.pdf

Hope you have read the section "GSQR Vs Operational Requirement" on Page 9 before coming to any conclusion.
Hope I dont have to deliberate upon the relevance of discussing the GSQR in the case study of development and procurement of UAV.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 20:07

But check the M 16 glossies - they are the world best.

However, check US military forums and blogs.

Did it every occur to you, anyone on the world market accepted their products as "second best" whether is Russian, Sweedish or any other arms supplier?

Why create a strawman?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Mar 2010 20:15

Kanson,

I don't think you have to adopt an offensive tone if someone does not toe your line of think. When someone get hot under the collar, it is sure indication that he has lost the debate! I am sure you know that.

If you understood why I posted the CDM link, then I would not have to explain to you. I am sure you can understand that it is not the UAV that is being highlighted, but the process. I posted that to indicate how things work since from the debate one got the feeling that quite a few of us are tilting at windmills. Just to indicate how things work.

Yes, it requires no brilliance to realise that a seller would tout his product as the best, including a snakeoil seller.

I hope I have explained myself!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Mar 2010 20:24

You can home make AK-47 and mot M-16. hence AK-47 proliferates.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 20:29

Kanson wrote:
Surya wrote:here you go my friends

http://cdm.ap.nic.in/casestudies/casevo ... 20T90s.pdf

1000Hp engine - cough cough not really 1000 HP

engine failed too.
What is glaring from the report is that the Army which accepted the T-90S "as is" with all the tourbles with engines, Sights, overheating etc with just one summer and winter trial and quick to order more no.s without solving all the problem is highly in contrast with the Arjun programme where Army keep insisting on solving all problem one after another with so many trials.
.

There is no such thing in the report. Thats patently incorrect.

You have not read the report at all -- you keep parroting the same line irrespective of ANY DATA.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 20:35

^^ Anyone can read the report and come to their own conclusion..its doesnt need me or you for the interpretation..There are sections "recommendation" and "observation".
If you need more...
the news talk from the point of CVC report...One cant create a strawman that it is yellow journalism becoz its talks abt the CVC report..and exactly matches to the claim in the CDM case study. Fwiw, PNC was headed by Lt Gen Shamsher S. Mehta

Though the final deal for 310 T-90 tanks was signed in March '01, part of it was struck in May-June '99 after three tanks underwent peak summer trials in Rajasthan. It was followed up by further trials in October-November '99. The total purchase from Russia was worth $3 billion. "Based on these trials, army HQ prepared a general staff evaluation report recommending the induction of the T-90 tanks in December '99," says a ministry official. The price negotiation committee (PNC) headed by Lt Gen Shamsher S. Mehta, then deputy army chief, was responsible for selecting the tanks and giving his assessment report on field trials. Each tank was priced at $2 million (nearly Rs 10 crore).

While examining over 500 files relating to the defence deals, Vittal reportedly called for the dossier on the T-90 purchase when reports emanated of serious technical snags in the tank. Armoured corps personnel complained of the tanks having no "thermal imagers" and "night vision capability", getting "overheated" as well as failing to generate 1000 Horse Power (HP) as claimed by M/s RVZ Russia. The CVC's finding was that technical issues were ignored to serve 'vested interests'.

Right from the outset, the T-90 deal has generated a great deal of controversy. Former prime minister H.D. Deve Gowda and several other politicians alleged "foul play".

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 20:39

Kanson, dont jump around the question. You were claiming that the Army report proves something -- when questioned specifically -- you bring a outlook report?

Can you quote GOVT report -- instead of innuendo?

We have seen allegations for every purchase, including Barak and we know where that ended up. So media speculations and allegations are worthless and only credible sources should be used.

If you have any sense of responsibility and correctness you should stop this hysterical insinuation process and rely on data.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 10 Mar 2010 20:45

Surya wrote:Sanku

Both you and berwal disbelieved our and media claimsof less than 1000 HP
(berwal pooh poohed it vehemently after all he has spoken to all t 90 regiments )

no i never disbelieved... i had just asked is 1400HP MTU gives u 1400HP output. ?

i know every engine is derated for preformance in THAR... even M&M jeep engine...

for that matter even T-72, T-55, Vijayanta and ARJUN engine gets derated... If you will read what i posted, i never said T-90 engine 1000Hp = 1000Hp...

In fact i had asked is 1400Hp = 1400HP

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 20:47

RayC wrote:Kanson,

If you understood why I posted the CDM link, then I would not have to explain to you. I am sure you can understand that it is not the UAV that is being highlighted, but the process. I posted that to indicate how things work since from the debate one got the feeling that quite a few of us are tilting at windmills. Just to indicate how things work.

I hope I have explained myself!

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 76#p836276
This is your first post on the link and you posted that with general remark. So i'm not bothered.

You came back with same link and talked abt 35 years and DRDO interaction...Previously the delays relating the GSQR were discussed as raised by you..and hope you should take notice of GSQR in related to delays in the development which was also cited as one of the reason for Arjun delay.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Mar 2010 20:50

err berwal

This was not about derating.

If it was then the Russians would have said under xyz conditions - and since the desert is our main area its meaningless to tout a 1000 HP engine which cannot produce that??

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 20:50

Sanku wrote:Kanson, dont jump around the question. You were claiming that the Army report proves something -- when questioned specifically -- you bring a outlook report?

Can you quote GOVT report -- instead of innuendo?

We have seen allegations for every purchase, including Barak and we know where that ended up. So media speculations and allegations are worthless and only credible sources should be used.

.

In the same tone, i ask you not to dance around the words...If you cant read the report, let you accept it. If CVC report is not credible then what else..

If you have any sense of responsibility and correctness you should stop this hysterical insinuation process and rely on data

Before making tall claim, back up you claim with data....

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 20:55

Kanson wrote: In the same tone, i ask you not to dance around the words...If you cant read the report, let you accept it. If CVC report is not credible then what else..

You have not posted the CVC report, you have posted some journo's take on what CVC ostensibly said.

Big difference.

And finally, I see you are going on the line of personal attack (bolded) and this is the second time you have tried that line. -- well since you can, perhaps you can tell us where exactly it says "problems" and what exactly?

Meanwhile, considering the level of language you use in your post, its far more likely that not being able to read is indeed the case -- for you.

Consider bumping up your language skills.

Before making tall claim, back up you claim with data....

And oh you dont realize -- you are the one making the claim -- what claim have I made?

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 10 Mar 2010 20:57

Surya wrote:err berwal

This was not about derating.

If it was then the Russians would have said under xyz conditions - and since the desert is our main area its meaningless to tout a 1000 HP engine which cannot produce that??

sirji with you logic, MTU/ DRDO says 1400HP engine... does it also give u hw much it gets derated in THAR... but actully on ground... in day time there will be 20% less power... soo why tout 1400HP engine ... its also meaningless.... which can only be produced under idel test conditions...

sir ji desert is not our main area.. where do u see desert in Punjab & J&K ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 20:59

d_berwal wrote:
Surya wrote:err berwal

This was not about derating.

If it was then the Russians would have said under xyz conditions - and since the desert is our main area its meaningless to tout a 1000 HP engine which cannot produce that??
sirji with you logic, MTU/ DRDO says 1400HP engine... does it also give u hw much it gets derated in THAR... but actully on ground... in day time there will be 20% less power... soo why tout 1400HP engine ... its also meaningless.... which can only be produced under idel test conditions...

There was specific discussion about it in various Govt reports, IA has an acceptable de rating % (10-20% I think dont remember exactly) in different conditions as a part of SOP (standard operating procedure) -- It was discussed that in the 1997 summer test the Arjun engine derated by more than 25%. This was one of the issues listed.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 21:10

Sanku wrote: You have not posted the CVC report, you have posted some journo's take on what CVC ostensibly said.

Big difference.

And finally, I see you are going on the line of personal attack (bolded) and this is the second time you have tried that line. -- well since you can, perhaps you can tell us where exactly it says "problems" and what exactly?

huh ?. I asked clearly you to go throu the CDM report "observation" and "recommendation" crealy in the first post. Have you ? why create strawman...I only said, in addition there a news item based on CVC report. You can able to read it right..Go back and check what different i said in the earlier post.

Meanwhile, considering the level of language you use in your post, its far more likely that not being able to read is indeed the case -- for you.

Consider bumping up your language skills.

So can i take this as personal attack as you claim..

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 21:13

Kanson post from CDM report to buttress your claim -- otherwise stop repeating assertions.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 21:25

^^ same recommendation i'm making to you...if you want to claim otherwise, then you can feel free to use the report and post whichever segment you like to buttress you claim or otherwise. I'm asking you for the nth time, dont play around with empty words.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Mar 2010 21:48

I meant main area for most of our push since all the DCBs and other fun stuff will slow down any massive armour movement in other areas.

But how come you did not voluntarily make a statement that yes its not 1000 HP under Xyz condition (which may also not be the case but we will give you more rope to hang yourself

) - you essentially scoffed at all of us - since your chaiwallas belonged to all T 90 regiments.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 21:48

Kanson wrote:^^ same recommendation i'm making to you...if you want to claim otherwise, then you can feel free to use the report and post whichever segment you like to buttress you claim or otherwise. I'm asking you for the nth time, dont play around with empty words.

So you couldnt find anything right?

BTW I am claiming there is NOTHING in the report which says that there is a problem with T 90, so here is the quote from it to back it up

.....

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2010 21:49

The T-90 procurement is a SHAM not because T-90 is basically an upgraded T-72 (3 decade year old design) , or the fact that its engine is derated in THAR (some reservation policy akin to Mandal commission ?) , or the fact that Catherine TI gets cooked in THAR for want of cooling and its armor defeated by man portable RPG-29(weighs 6-8kg) rocket (and we are being shown pics of Abrams blown up by IEDs weighing in excess of 100Kg)

. But simply because it was inducted without TRIALS and despite having serious ISSUES , so when someone says IA does not care if it is T-90 or Arjun as long as it is the 'BEST' is a FARCE being propagated on this board.

And to split hairs of unmentionables over the issues faced by T-90 vis a vis Arjun and what % of derating is allowed is not even funny .

It is IA's procurement process which is being questioned here and it has got nothing to do with the indifferent MoD or DRDO's alleged incompetence unless people here are suggesting that T-90 was pushed down IA's throat by the MoD.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 21:53

Arjun engine is turbocharged to have 1500 hp

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2010 21:54

Kanson dada please post the link too , although it might be rubbished as DDM.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 21:54

negi wrote:But simply because it was inducted without TRIALS and despite having serious ISSUES ,

If there were no trials where were the serious issues found? (you know despite means prior known data)

In Daily yellows letterbox?

Meanwhile there is still no proof for any and all allegations.

And Negi, please dont do this, take ONE little little peak at the MoD site, it clearly says who does procurement et al, please?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 21:56

Sanku wrote:BTW I am claiming there is NOTHING in the report which says that there is a problem with T 90, so here is the quote from it to back it up

.....

claim from empty quote becomes empty claim. From empty words to empty claims

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 Mar 2010 21:56

Second Negi. It IS the procurement process that is being questioned. There are issues with the process. This is a democracy though it seems from the posts of some that they would prefer a dictatorship where no act is questioned and the establishment is right no matter what.

Valid question marks have been raised in this thread that present the failure of the procurement process to get the BEST. Even now all efforts should be made to weed out the causes of the failure and correct the future procurement process as well as the MBT induction. We do not need thousands of upgraded T-72s.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Mar 2010 21:58

Kanson wrote:Sanku>> BTW I am claiming there is NOTHING in the report which says that there is a problem with T 90, so here is the quote from it to back it up

.....
claim from empty quote become empty claim?

Hmm I knew this would happen!

Let me try and explain -- Tell me how do you show NOTHING?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Mar 2010 21:58

negi wrote:Kanson dada please post the link too , although it might be rubbished as DDM.

Lets quote the BR itself

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 98#p186798

Lets see who denies that.

negi · Post by **negi** » 10 Mar 2010 21:58

Sanku maharaaj T-90 issues are being reported after the DEAL has been signed .

Since you all the time reported issues about Arjun based on 1997 trials , it might help the discussion to know that legendary T-90 which IA received was not even in production in 1997 (Iirc appeared first in 1999). It is bewildering to note that suddenly IA found a TANK to suit its needs built by someone who was completely oblivious to IA's GSQRs and all this without any TRIALS before the deal was signed .