Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Mar 2010 09:54

Unbelievable

thats what it is

lets stop believing chaiwallahs

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Mar 2010 10:27

Chandrabhan, what year did the T-90s commander test Arjun?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Mar 2010 10:37

chandrabhan wrote:Sorry to dampen spirits but I met up with the Commander of the T90S regiment who participated in the trials and he had a different story to tell regarding the Arjun..
Engine gave away
Tracks weathered away
Just could not fire on target
Hose and pipes is a different story to tell as per him
No quality check
Vehemently against the induction of Arjun
Chandrabhan

indeed, everyone from the COAS to MajGen Gurdial singh were lying about the accuracy of the gun. and that was back in the 90's.
some of the issues he talks about belong to the 90's, the rest are plain incorrect.
______________________________________________
****A Blast From the Past****

I'll add more snippets over the next few days.

For those who continue to peddle the falsehood that
a) the arjun was CVRDE's idea, army had nothing to do with it
b) arjun trials were complete failures till 2007 etc

I'm appending some quotes, only from IA officers and I've avoided comments from DRDO officials since quite clearly, some people will argue they are not unbiased. anyway :

India-Today Nov 15, 1985

"the tank prototype weighs around 50 tonne, can do up to 70kmph, has a 120mm rifled gun and is said to be as good as any MBT in the world"

"The tank should be ready within the decade. It will be among the best in the world"
-- Gen AS Vaidya, COAS

".....three prototypes are already under trials : one at the laboratory, second in the
sands of rajasthan, third in the army's firing ranges at Balasore .... "

"..it incorporates everything the army's GSQR asked for, including night vision and the
ability to fire while on the move. it is comparable to the XM-1 abrams and the west german
leopard-II" -- Maj Gen RS Chawla, Director, Combat Vehicles Research.

Speaking of Gurdial Singh :

India-Today July 15, 1993

......the new army Chief, Gen BC Joshi, feels the criticism against the tank is a hangover from the past. "The tank is a winner. The major problems have been surmounted and others
that remain are lickable"

"...rank with US XM-1 in the bracket of top tanks in the world"
-- Lt Gen Ajai Singh Director-General, Combat Vehicles.

"What is indigenous about the tank is its design, which is tailored to meet our operational
requirements. Only those items which are restricted need to be indigenised"
-- Gen BC Joshi, COAS.

"Apart from the french leclerc Arjun is the only MBT in the world to have the
hydro-pneumatic suspension, which was insisted upon by the former army chief Gen K Sundarji.
The HSU gives the tank a speed of upto 70 Km per hourand a stable platform for firing as the
gun's tilt is reduced "

....In february the tank recorded 33 out of 36 hits on an average, including some while the
tank was moving. In june, firing from a stationary tank the average improved to 19 out of
20 hits with APFSDS ammunition. Maj. Gen Gurdial Singh, who is now with DRDO {I'm sure that makes him a traitor in chetak's book }, said :
" With Arjun achieving a hit probability of 95 %, its survivability is very high".
He also pointed out that the separation of the ammunition from the crew made the arjun very
safe. Last year, the entire crew of a T-72 tank was burnt alive when it caught fire during
an exercise.

My comment : The article also mentions that russia was offering the T-80 and if we fell for
it the arjun project will be thrown back by at least a decade. which is precisely what
happened.

______________________________________________

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 19 Mar 2010 11:44

thats what it is
lets stop believing chaiwallahs

I guess I would like to. But if a T-90s commander did actually say that, and that it was in fact
true, it would need to be dealt. Denial won't help us.

Hence the request for more data. Lets not shoot the messenger.

The more this issue drags, the more it becomes a game of psyops between Army and the DRDO.
To top it off, we have people on this forum who are just willing to go along with what the Army says.
Its just sad....

Ashish.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Mar 2010 12:18

again its all chaiwallah

Just the fact that he supposed claimed it could not shoot straight makes it a joke

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 19 Mar 2010 12:33

Surya wrote:again its all chaiwallah

Just the fact that he supposed claimed it could not shoot straight makes it a joke

Chaiwallah could be right.. It could not shoot straight because it was moving - so technically it was not shooting straight..

Known from previous trials that Arjun has very good Pk on the move.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 19 Mar 2010 13:18

I would be real surprised if so many defects would surface if it was to prove an equipment that has been rejected so many times for a variety of reasons.

It appears to be too juvenile to me!

I maybe wrong!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Mar 2010 13:32

What we've not had too much debate here on the Arjun vs T-90n issue is that of a major difference in concept between the two that affects the operational doctrine.That is that Arjun belongs to the western line of tank design where a 4-man crew exists (loader extra),whereas the Russians prefer a 3 man crew with an auto-loader.Both have their plus and negative points.The T-series did not shield the crew from the ammo storage and as was learnt in Chechenya,"tanks could fly"! On the other hand,given the smaller size,weight and silhouette,the tank was more mobile,required a less pweorful engine,and cheaper to build and could carry a larger gun.New T-series concepts have a separate compartment with blast panels for the ammo.The larger western tanks like the Leopard ,Challengre,M-1 come in much heavier are larger targets and obviously costlier,especially now,when ERA has become de-rigueur.

With the majority of the inventory of the IA T-72s and now T-90s,it is easy to see why the IA perfers the T-series to the Arjun.The Arjun requires an extra crewman,adding to overal costs as far as personnel is concerned.With some future concepts indicating an even newer smaller turretless tank with a 3-man crw in an armoured capsule with an even larger gun of 152/155mm size,plus soft and hard kill anti-missile/shell capabilities,the "futuristic" tank probably excites in IA tank crew more enthusiasm than the Arjun.Can we have more on the pros and cons of each?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 19 Mar 2010 13:35

The issues are valid.

However, I have not understood how the Western design or Eastern design change tank employment in war?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Mar 2010 14:19

The Arjun requires an extra crewman,adding to overal costs as far as personnel is concerned.

Seriously?? In a million strong and grwoing army an extra 2000 personnel makes it prohibitive?? In this country we are adding battalions here and there.
Also at least those men do not have to worry their arm being ripped of by the autloader in that cramped space

New T-series concepts have a separate compartment with blast panels for the ammo.

Could we have a reference for this in the T 90??

The larger western tanks like the Leopard ,Challengre,M-1 come in much heavier are larger targets and obviously costlier,

All the major costs seem to be all the gizmos of FCS, Night sights, protection system. Once you factor them in (and they are mostly non Russian) -as you can see in the T 90 price - very little diff in price

niran · Post by **niran** » 19 Mar 2010 15:36

one point i have not seen jingos argue is that
T90 have to have their Gun aligned in straight line
before reloaded and then the Gun is moved to a firing
position, all the marketing video which shows T90 firing
in quick fire have the Gun in a single position, totally
unrealistic in real life IMVVHO, Arjun is loaded
irrespective of the Gun position, which makes Arjun
quicker to fire.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Mar 2010 20:57

Surya wrote:
New T-series concepts have a separate compartment with blast panels for the ammo.
Could we have a reference for this in the T 90??

Nah check the videos on Youtube for the Black eagle it already has longer chasis (7 wheels on each side just like Arjun, Abrams and other western tanks as against 6 on T family) , a larger turret (obviously due to separate compartment for ammo and a Leclerc style auto loader housed in the turret bustle not the carousel type as sported by T family). I will wait to see how much it weighs with ERA , ARENA and SHTORA .

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Mar 2010 23:31

A newbie question , Wouldn't tank battle be limited to restricted Western sector in Rajasthan and Punjab plains , considering T-90 enjoys advantage ( if not a very comprehensive one ) over PA T-80 and Al-Khalid ,wouldn't it be logical for IA to opt for T-90 over Arjun without tinkering too much with well established logistics of T-72 ?

Arjun being x times superior to T-90 will not make much difference , unless we plan to export Arjun in good numbers and plan to invade y country which requires numbers and quality.

So except for supporting indigenous effort ( which is a valid cause ) are there any dire compelling reasons to opt for 1000 Arjuns over say cheaper yet effective 1000 T-90's ?

Lets say building 1000's Tejas is still a very argument considering it can be effective in every sector of operation and not restricted to specific zone not to mention its export potential , compared to building 1000 Arjuns over T-90 ?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 19 Mar 2010 23:42

Austin,
Just to throw in a spanner, considering the large number of ATGMs and assorted anti-tank weaponry in the PA, would you, as the IA, be ready to use the T-90 and face lesser logistical issues or go for the "better protected" Arjun and face the hassles associated with inducting a new type?

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Mar 2010 00:03

Austin wrote:A newbie question , Wouldn't tank battle be limited to restricted Western sector in Rajasthan and Punjab plains , considering T-90 enjoys advantage ( if not a very comprehensive one ) over PA T-80 and Al-Khalid ,wouldn't it be logical for IA to opt for T-90 over Arjun without tinkering too much with well established logistics of T-72 ?

That is not correct the T-80UD and Al-Khalid on paper are as much capable as the T-90 infact the Refleks GM was built and tested on T-80 and faced issues while integration with the T-90 , the TSP T-80UD is different from RU T-80's of Chechniya it has a separate ammo compartment in bustle and a 1200HP diesel engine (RU one had a gas guzzling GT engine) , Al-Khalid uses the same engine as T-80 UD , Sagem thermal sight (iirc same as Arjun) and same auto transmission as on French Leclerc ; there is nothing to choose between the three tanks specially when T-90 in IA service do not have SHOTORA or ARENA.

As for logistics argument well that sounds like a straw man being raised after the debate started for ;

1. Commonality with a 4 decade old design in terms of spares and
logistics while expecting the product makes to the state of the art league is unlikely .
T-90 was a stop gap T-72 upgrade for RuA and I don't see it any different in IA service.

2. The GSQR for MBT should have listed above as a requirement if that was the case.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Mar 2010 00:04

One can argue the other way as well considering that IA operates range of ATGM and 3rd gen Nag , plus new gen LCH to deal with PA armor why does it need another top expensive tank with additional logistic burden to deal with when it has a good enough one to deal with what ever PA throws ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Mar 2010 00:19

negi wrote:That is not correct the T-80UD and Al-Khalid on paper are as much capable as the T-90 infact the Refleks GM was built and tested on T-80 and faced issues while integration with the T-90 , the TSP T-80UD is different from RU T-80's of Chechniya it has a separate ammo compartment in bustle and a 1200HP diesel engine (RU one had a gas guzzling GT engine) , Al-Khalid uses the same engine as T-80 UD , Sagem thermal sight (iirc same as Arjun) and same auto transmission as on French Leclerc ; there is nothing to choose between the three tanks specially when T-90 in IA service do not have SHOTORA or ARENA.

Well the IA went for T-90 when PA decided to go for T-80 and the reason they gave is it was better than T-80 , Plus if I am not wrong the IA T-90 has a welded turret and similar french TI sights , its difficult to figure if T-90 is superior , equal or inferior to PA T-80 unless they do some trial and come to definitive conclusion , even assuming if its equal is that a big disadvantage ? Because lot of other things like training , tactics , logistics and weapons will come into play.

1. Commonality with a 4 decade old design in terms of spares and
logistics while expecting the product makes to the state of the art league is unlikely .
T-90 was a stop gap T-72 upgrade for RuA and I don't see it any different in IA service.

Well as long as IA is confident with T-90 viz a viz PA T-80/AL-Khalid series , who are we to dispute ?

And again Tank warfare is a very limited to specific geographical area assuming if a full scale war ever happens , its probably not worth the amount to opt for Top Notch tank and in numbers unless we plan to invade some x country , if good enough is fine and its cost effective.

2. The GSQR for MBT should have listed above as a requirement if that was the case.

Didnt they make those GSQR or rather seriously pursued with when PA was deciding to go for Abrams tank ? And at the time of cold war when large scale tank warfare was though as a real possibility with no overt nuclear weaponisation then ?

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 20 Mar 2010 00:21

ajay pratap wrote:one point i have not seen jingos argue is that
T90 have to have their Gun aligned in straight line
before reloaded and then the Gun is moved to a firing
position, all the marketing video which shows T90 firing
in quick fire have the Gun in a single position, totally
unrealistic in real life IMVVHO, Arjun is loaded
irrespective of the Gun position, which makes Arjun
quicker to fire.

to correct you..

Common Man Language:
The T-72/ T-90 autoloader design is horizontally auto-fed. The autoloader must crank the gun up three degrees above the horizontal in order to depress the breech end of the gun and line it up with the new shell. While auto-loading, the gunner can still aim because he has a vertically independent sight. With a laser range-finder and a ballistic computer, final aiming takes at least another three to five seconds, but aiming is pipelined into the last steps of auto-loading so it proceeds concurrently. The average rate of fire for this type of carousel automatic loader is quoted to be 8 rounds per minute. Trained T-72/T-90 crews don't find reloading much worse than loading other tank types; the separated cartridges are easier to handle.

Technical Language:
Upon a gunner's command, the gun is brought to the loading angle (+3° from horizontal), and the transporter starts to rotate, bringing the cassette with the desired type of round into the loading plane. The cassette then rises until its lower tier (main round) is in the ramming line. The loader then rams the round into the chamber of a gun fixed in a loading angle and then returns to its original position. The cassette lowers bringing the propellant charge to the ramming line, and it is rammed into the chamber in a second cycle. The cassette returns to its original position on a transporter, while the gun is automatically moved to the remembered engagement angle. After the shot the stub base is caught by the extraction mechanism and in the next loading cycle gets ejected out of the tank through the hatch in the rear of the turret.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Mar 2010 00:24

austin, because the T-90 is only as good as the T-80, not better, or at any rate not by any significant amount.

even for argument's sake if we ignore the massive proliferation of infantry-held ATGMs in PA (which we can at our own peril) the T-80 and T-90 are both good enough to destroy each other, the T-90 doesn't give any advantage in this regard. you might want to have a look at fofanov's webpage which was quoted in this thread earlier about the protection levels of T-80 and T-90. let's not forget that the T-90 is basically a T-72 with T-80's gun/aiming systems and a coat of ERA. the arjun OTOH gives overwhelming superiority over the best the PA can field as well as better protection against ATGMs.

edit : if the advantage in MBT's does not transform to any tangible tactical benefits, why even have tanks then ?

Bheem · Post by **Bheem** » 20 Mar 2010 00:43

The army finds Arjun heavy at 57 tons but I wonder how they fought the 1965 & 1971 wars with 55 tons centurions

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 20 Mar 2010 00:49

Bheem wrote:The army finds Arjun heavy at 57 tons but I wonder how they fought the 1965 & 1971 wars with 55 tons centurions

Did they have a choice back then ?

51 tons to be correct

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 20 Mar 2010 01:28

putnanja wrote:Chandrabhan, what year did the T-90s commander test Arjun?

The trials were done by 71Armoured regiment and I was with the ex commander - Col A Singh(voluntary retirement). He was visited by his one time subordinate a LT Col, who has come back straight from the trials. His main grouse was that it was not a fair trial as

Arjun came with entire team of DRDO scientists

They continue to maintain/overhaul the machine during the trials

Finally the Engine gave away

He gave a very valid point -" Its true that Arjun's power pack can be changed in 3 hrs but how many will you carry to the battlefield"?

DRDO accused the IA of giving a not so trained unit to test Arjun which infuriated the Arjun command team

He said the Tank is too large and is a sitting duck in desert, has too much of space

Can not be transported(old grouse)

Does not fit our tank philosophy.

He even spoke about issues with armor and weight

He summarized by saying, "Individually it has all the best parts but there is no coordination" . Also refusd to give me any specific numbers as it was classified but told me that MOD will not force Arjun anymore on IA as it has been thrashed good enough.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Mar 2010 01:44

Thanks Chandrabhan. Was this from the latest trials in 2009/2010?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 20 Mar 2010 02:00

chandrabhan wrote: ...<SNIP>Does not fit our tank philosophy....<SNIP>.

That has to be qoute of the century......A product designed as per GSQR does not fit into the tank philosophy of Indian Army......

So, did the IA draw up the GSQR for the Armored Corps of the Republic of Timbuktu?

Rest of the qoutes are the usual poppycock.....armor issue? too much space

?..tsk tsk.....now we know why the IA will never order more Arjuns.....

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Mar 2010 02:07

too much space

the good colonel has a point ! real estate is costly these days, we shouldn't waste it, even on a tank.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 20 Mar 2010 03:21

Austin wrote: So except for supporting indigenous effort ( which is a valid cause ) are there any dire compelling reasons to opt for 1000 Arjuns over say cheaper yet effective 1000 T-90's ?

That would be wrong!

Arjun is Rs. 16.8 Crore and going down with scale.

T-90 is settling at Rs. 17.5 Crore, if it doesn't go higher.

From broadsword

No reasons were given for that delay. Nor did the Ministry of Defence (MoD) reveal the T-90’s ballooning cost, now a whopping Rs 17.5 crore. On November 30, 2006, the MoD told the Lok Sabha that the T-90 tank cost Rs 12 crore apiece. Parliament does not yet know about the 50 per cent rise in cost.

The MoD did not mention that these prices would rise when the supplementary contracts were negotiated. Nor did it reveal that India’s pared-down T-90s barely matched the performance of the Pakistan Army’s recently acquired T-80 UD tank, which India had cited as the threat that demanded the T-90.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 20 Mar 2010 03:50

rohitvats wrote:
chandrabhan wrote: ...<SNIP>Does not fit our tank philosophy....<SNIP>.

That has to be qoute of the century......A product designed as per GSQR does not fit into the tank philosophy of Indian Army......

So, did the IA draw up the GSQR for the Armored Corps of the Republic of Timbuktu?

.

niran · Post by **niran** » 20 Mar 2010 05:42

d_berwal wrote: Common Man Language:
The T-72/ T-90 autoloader design is horizontally auto-fed. The autoloader must crank the gun up three degrees above the horizontal in order to depress the breech end of the gun and line it up with the new shell. While auto-loading, the gunner can still aim because he has a vertically independent sight. With a laser range-finder and a ballistic computer, final aiming takes at least another three to five seconds, but aiming is pipelined into the last steps of auto-loading so it proceeds concurrently. The average rate of fire for this type of carousel automatic loader is quoted to be 8 rounds per minute. Trained T-72/T-90 crews don't find reloading much worse than loading other tank types; the separated cartridges are easier to handle.

Sir, in T90 the gunner can aim at whatever he likes, but to fire he has to wait until it is moved to firing position from loading
position, and in Arjun there is no need to move to a loading position, which IMHO saves few seconds, a very valuable
life saving enemy killing seconds, no?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Mar 2010 05:53

If the statements of the chaiwallas are true one shudders to think of how smart these chaiwallas are.

Not sure which is more horrifying

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Mar 2010 06:15

Speaking of Gurdial Singh

The Col Gurdiyal Singh I have alluded to is not the Gurdial Singh mentioned.

Col Gurdial Singh was a Lt Col in 1955 and so if he is a Maj Gen now, then there is something wrong.

One does not take over 40 years and more to move from Lt Col to a Maj Gen.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Mar 2010 06:20

kindly read the dates mentioned in the post.

added later : it is likely that he would have retired by that time, am I correct ?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Mar 2010 06:29

In 1970s later half when I was in the AHQ, it was already being discussed about incorporating hydropneumatic suspension and it was based on the Swedish S tank - the first MBT in the world to incorporate hydropnuematic suspension.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Mar 2010 06:36

Rahul M wrote:kindly read the dates mentioned in the post.

added later : it is likely that he would have retired by that time, am I correct ?

India Today 1985.

Means 30 years from 1955.

Maj. Gen Gurdial Singh, who is now with DRDO as per India Today quoted.

Something seriously wrong that it took 30 years to jump from Lt Col to Maj Gen!

Therefore, as I understand it should not be the same man and in 1955 Lt Col Gurdial had a daughter who was about 5 years older than me.

Personally, it makes no difference to me as to which tank is selected so long as it is the best that money can buy, with relatively less defects and gives a better bang for the bucks!

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 20 Mar 2010 08:06

putnanja wrote:Thanks Chandrabhan. Was this from the latest trials in 2009/2010?

Col A Singh had participated in the earlier trials and the Lt Col has participated in the latest trials - around a month back. He confirmed the problems persist with Arjun.
He also communicated that the decision to remove the AC was bad as it destroyed the efficiency of the Camera and other electronic equipment. He was praising the T90 ability to climb slopes at ease.

When i quizzed him on the safety aspect of crew in Arjun vs T90, he said Arjun is too big to be hidden anywhere easily and is a sitting duck. T90 has a very low silhouette. He said the georgia war pictures were mostly of T72.

One serous thing he spoke about was the ability of Paki ARS - Army reserve south. he said they are capable, very capable.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 20 Mar 2010 08:30

in Arjun vs T90, he said Arjun is too big to be hidden anywhere easily and is a sitting duck. T90 has a very low silhouette. He said the georgia war pictures were mostly of T72.

we seriously need an emoticon for retching.

sugriva · Post by **sugriva** » 20 Mar 2010 08:35

Govt. of India should create an armoured division in the BSF, armed with Arjun tanks. Express orders for 310 tanks Arjuns should be placed. Everybody will be happy. DRDO happy, as years of effort not wasted. Army happy at not having to use Arjuns. Nation happy that tin-cans will not be facing TSPA shoulder fired ATGMs. Forum-wale also happy that Arjun will be in use.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Mar 2010 09:31

Surya wrote:
in Arjun vs T90, he said Arjun is too big to be hidden anywhere easily and is a sitting duck. T90 has a very low silhouette. He said the georgia war pictures were mostly of T72.
we seriously need an emoticon for retching.

Whatever for?

Take an Avomin.

Silhouette matters.

Tanks for Tomorrow

M3 High Silhouette Disadvantage

The Israeli Merkava was designed with a low hull and turret silhouette

The MBT-70 was designed with a low silhouette (low height), something which had not been addressed on the M60 whose high silhouette was considered a serious drawback. In fact the MBT-70 ended up so low, just over 6 feet (1.8 m) from the floor to the top of the turret, that there was no room for the driver in the main hull. Instead he was placed with the rest of the crew in the seemingly oversized turret, in a contrarotating cupola that was geared to keep him facing forward. If needed, the cupola could be turned around to face to the rear, allowing the tank to be driven "backwards" at full speed. A low silhouette was a very distinct feature of the roughly contemporary turretless Swedish Stridsvagn_103The Stridsvagn 103 or S-Tank is a Swedish tank. It is known for its unconventional design without a turret and the fact that aiming the main gun is done by moving the entire tank. General Characteristics Length:7. 04 m Width:3. 63 m Height:2. 43 m Weight:, or S-Tank.
Low Silhouette

It was a Joint German US project and because of huge cost overruns it was abandoned.

Notwithstanding, if Arjun silhouette is too high, then it is an error in formulating the GSQR.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Mar 2010 09:38

^ RayC Arjun silhouette (2.32m) is definitely smaller than the MBT-70 (2.43m) and Abrams (2.44m) . T-90's height is 2.22m (?) are people trying to say the obstacles or terrain in Rajashan and Punjab can only hide a tank measuring 2.22m in height but not Arjun which measures 10cm more ?

This is even more amusing than the straw man argument about load bearing capacity of Paki bridges which for some weird reason is capped at 46.5tonnes.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Mar 2010 09:44

negi wrote:^ RayC Arjun silhouette (2.32m) is definitely smaller than the MBT-70 (2.43m) and Abrams (2.44m) . T-90's height is 2.22m (?) are people trying to say the obstacles or terrain in Rajashan and Punjab can only hide a tank measuring 2.22m in height but not Arjun which measures 10cm more ?

This is even more amusing than the straw man argument about load bearing capacity of Paki bridges which for some weird reason is capped at 46.5tonnes.

I was only trying to indicate that countries are going in for lower silhouettes.

It has nothing to do with Arjun's specification or T 90's or any other tank.

You read too many things in a simple statement. I really cannot understand as to why?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Mar 2010 10:15

RayC wrote:
Rahul M wrote:kindly read the dates mentioned in the post.

added later : it is likely that he would have retired by that time, am I correct ?

India Today 1985.

Means 30 years from 1955.

Maj. Gen Gurdial Singh, who is now with DRDO as per India Today quoted.

Something seriously wrong that it took 30 years to jump from Lt Col to Maj Gen!

Therefore, as I understand it should not be the same man and in 1955 Lt Col Gurdial had a daughter who was about 5 years older than me.

Personally, it makes no difference to me as to which tank is selected so long as it is the best that money can buy, with relatively less defects and gives a better bang for the bucks!

actually it is India Today 1993. Surely if he was a Lt-Col in 1955 (that happens after more than a decade of service IIRC) he would have been long retired from the army by then, 38 years later ?
they way he has been mentioned, without any other identifier of post held etc makes it clear that the person is famous by his name alone. AFAIK that would mean him of the gurdial gun fame only.

chandrabhan wrote: He was praising the T90 ability to climb slopes at ease.

which is where such selective praises get problematic.
please check out the comparative specs regarding climbing slopes in the 2nd table.
http://frontierindia.net/dissimilar-com ... -90s-specs

When i quizzed him on the safety aspect of crew in Arjun vs T90, he said Arjun is too big to be hidden anywhere easily and is a sitting duck.

we all saw how that helped the T-72 in the gulf-war, against the even bigger than arjun abrams. which was the sitting duck then ?

btw, arjun has the lowest silhouette among 4man crewed tanks and the difference between arjun and T-90 is less than 4 inches. surely that makes a HUGE difference from 2 km away ?

T90 has a very low silhouette.

as compared to what ? arjun ? low silhouette yes, not very low in any sense of the word.
and it has very low protection levels as well.

He said the georgia war pictures were mostly of T72.

mostly, all were T-72's (and T-55's which we can ignore for this discussion). only two T-90's were fielded (one wonders why, the T-90 formations were situated in the vicinity IIRC) and those never came close to the frontlines.

what people forget is that those T-72's had same and in one case better protection level than the T-90 (which is after all nothing but a T-72, T-72BU to be exact) and they still ended up as death-traps.

p.s. it was again army's decision to get rid of the AC in arjun against DRDO's recommendations. the T-90 never had one in the first place.