Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Sep 2013 10:25

^^ Standard anti-RPG grills seen on many types of tanks

T-72 Urban Warfare Upgrade Kit

http://imageshack.us/a/img600/5834/ib60.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img9/3846/r782.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img41/457/jhmt.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img844/752/nv0d.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img43/1764/csta.jpg

Modernised T-72

http://imageshack.us/a/img694/7417/iymy.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img59/1051/tx8j.jpg

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Sep 2013 10:30

Tigr Light Vehical

http://twower.livejournal.com/1127486.html

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 29 Sep 2013 10:43

Arjun MK-II P-1

source: http://idrw.org/?p=27347

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Sep 2013 11:32

Why is the Arjun mk 2 always shown with dozer blades monted in front of the hull. Why is the IA seeking to add additional weight on an already heavy tank.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Sep 2013 11:54

dozer blades are fixed on only the lead tanks which clear a path through mined areas, or sometimes special mine clearing vehicles are also used.
I have never seen any country put blades on all tanks. perhaps it is a lame attempt to raise issues about overweight and give poorer scores than desired.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Sep 2013 13:15

sameer_shelavale wrote:Arjun MK-II P-1

source: http://idrw.org/?p=27347

LOL at IDRW, flicked the pic from Aeromag

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Sep 2013 13:22

The ERA looks the same shape on the T-90s,etc.Is this shape becoming the common concept for ERA across MBTs?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Sep 2013 14:09

Not really...India has experience with K-5, so it has gone for an externally similar shape, but internal modules may be different. Rest of the world are following their own paths, some look similar, others don't...depends on a mix of weight, coverage and threat protection requirements. Many countries are using ERA to just protect against HEAT warheads.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Sep 2013 14:16

I cannot see much difference from mk 1 except they made the box shape on turret as angular one. This is Prototype 1. Lets see how production prototype looks like. I don't expect it to be fundamentally different. Probably at armour has been lightened at rear. They have slapped more attachments on the top.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Sep 2013 19:08

Photo Report on RAE 2013

http://topwar.ru/33889-russian-arms-exp ... eniya.html

A longish video on the demonstration event of RAE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCP7KgmwQG0

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 30 Sep 2013 04:55

Kanson wrote:Till Arjun matures to the specification of IA, there is lesser chances of influencing their already made decision in Tincan procurement.

Will that ever happen?

It's amazing how easily 235 tanks can be ordered with almost "NO QUESTIONS ASKED" and everything under sun is asked for a homemade product.

Any scoop on the recent Arjun trials?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 30 Sep 2013 05:05

No news at all. It is as if there is a full blackout by media. Arjun must be doing well.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Sep 2013 08:40

then they need a dedicated mine clearing vehicle.. have these focused robots to do the job.. make them in 1000s.

also, there is a high possibilities to standardize on reducing the size to 40 T +/-5t, two men, more sophistication and automation, net-centric to chq, etc..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2013 02:48

SaiK, Its the armor needed for protection in modern battle field that makes the tank so heavy. All others is fluff.
Non modern battlefield no need for that heavy a tank.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 01 Oct 2013 03:17

ranjan.rao wrote:
Kanson wrote:Till Arjun matures to the specification of IA, there is lesser chances of influencing their already made decision in Tincan procurement.
Will that ever happen?

It's amazing how easily 235 tanks can be ordered with almost "NO QUESTIONS ASKED" and everything under sun is asked for a homemade product.

Any scoop on the recent Arjun trials?

Its under the DRDO thread, posted by Pragnya.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Oct 2013 20:09

OK, spoke with an old buddy about Indian efforts in absorbing ToT for engines. The one he is very familiar with is on the civilian side of the fence: locomotive engines. Some years ago (I want to say around 7-8) the US company that provided the ToT gave India complete rights to manufacture everything and provided all the help needed. India is building these locomotive - even today. BUT, as he stated, India was not able to absorb a key technology - welding. As a result the US company - even today - supplies some 250 "shells" (engine blocks) (has been doing so for 4-5 years now - my friend's estimate) - each shell makes one locomotive engine (so, as he stated, the good news is that India has been building some 250 locomotives per year for freight hauling only).

The US company has a newer technology - casting the entire "shell", so no welding. This technology - from what my friend could gather or feels - India has been able to absorb, but it will take a year or more to move the lines to the newer tech.

The person who was in India during the ToT has left his company and so we were not able to figure out any proper/reliable details about what may have gone wrong with the welding.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 01 Oct 2013 22:12

Indian Railways is one of the world's largest freight carriers across the harshest of environmental conditions.

General Motors Electro Motive Division has a strong partnership with Indian Railways. One of the few cases where ToT was successfully done
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/interna ... ia_emd.jsp
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/interna ... years.html

More reading
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/emd_index.jsp
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/interna ... _index.jsp
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/interna ... oducts.jsp
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/interna ... a_igbt.jsp
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/interna ... t46pac.jsp
http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/interna ... t46mac.jsp

And much better joint development than PAK-FA or LR-SAM
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... md-freight
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... nistry-emd

But military world is way different than the civilian world. And doesnt help the cause of tanks in any way.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Oct 2013 16:15

Another option for BMP-2 Upgrade from Czech and Slovakian consortium

Refreshed BVP upgrade readies for trials

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Oct 2013 10:55

Cross post from the arty thread.

Karan M wrote:TATA SED/DRDOs new Ballistic Computer for the T-90. Form and fit for a drop in replacement of T-90 BC, but based on the Arjun Ballistic Computer with its software/internal hardware.

Significance lies in the ammunition types mentioned for compatibility.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kV7lH7QT4O0/T ... 0S+MBT.jpg

AMK-339 is nothing else but 3BM42.
AMK-340A is IMI CL3254M
(AMK-340 was the dropped local round - supplanted by AMK-340A).

Also shows (under APDS) the Russian rounds prior to BM42 are also supported (till BM26). BM32 was DU and not available for export.

This is nice. But the basic question is what was the requirement to develop this FCS. Considering we have the full TOT for the T 90. Or is this a typo and it is intended for the T 72 Upgrade, considering that we are buying the T 90 barrel for the 72.

That brings another question to my mind. Will the Russians support the Integration of this FCS as a part of the t 72 upgrade, as in the past, they have tried to veto what upgrades can be executed for the T 72.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Oct 2013 16:42

Modified T-72 with additional protection kit for urban survival

http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/RAE-2 ... 3-08-L.jpg

More Pictures here http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/RAE-2 ... 345_wsv4X6

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 22 Oct 2013 17:24

Pratyush wrote:Cross post from the arty thread.

Karan M wrote:TATA SED/DRDOs new Ballistic Computer for the T-90. Form and fit for a drop in replacement of T-90 BC, but based on the Arjun Ballistic Computer with its software/internal hardware.

Significance lies in the ammunition types mentioned for compatibility.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kV7lH7QT4O0/T ... 0S+MBT.jpg

AMK-339 is nothing else but 3BM42.
AMK-340A is IMI CL3254M
(AMK-340 was the dropped local round - supplanted by AMK-340A).

Also shows (under APDS) the Russian rounds prior to BM42 are also supported (till BM26). BM32 was DU and not available for export.

This is nice. But the basic question is what was the requirement to develop this FCS. Considering we have the full TOT for the T 90. Or is this a typo and it is intended for the T 72 Upgrade, considering that we are buying the T 90 barrel for the 72.

That brings another question to my mind. Will the Russians support the Integration of this FCS as a part of the t 72 upgrade, as in the past, they have tried to veto what upgrades can be executed for the T 72.

Pratyush,

T-90S TOT is just in the name. the russians refused both barrel and armour tech because of which kanchan armour is the basic armour now on T-90 and reportedly (ref : Ajai shukla) even the barrel is OFB one.

whether this has been settled is unknown atleast to me.

as for the FCS, IIRC the T-90S FCS was not comatible with indian/israeli ammo and again help was refused by the russians. hence TATA SED has developed the FCS/Ballistic computer which will help fire indian/israeli ammo when they are put into service.

one more pic - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9ouR43erb-0/T ... C00251.JPG

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Oct 2013 19:35

Yeah, the Ballistic Computer needed to be updated for AMK-340A, russkies said the T-90 agreement did not include this and wanted more money (plus doing the firing trials). So TATA was asked to come up with a workaround.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 22 Oct 2013 21:36

tsarkar wrote:And much better joint development than PAK-FA or LR-SAM
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... md-freight
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... nistry-emd

Strangely this "much better joint development" project has no mention of what tech Indian side pitched up with (I won't even mention critical tech) if it was so. All the official mention's is,

"It has been been designed to set up new standards for crew comfort and safety. Among others the locomotive is fuel efficient as it is equipped with electronic fuel injection and emission control system. Besides it has heated ventilation air conditioning, collision protection system and an ergonomically designed driver seat," the official said.

But it has,

Designed jointly by the Railways and EMD, a US-based company, the locomotive has a provision of toilet for crew, a first in railways.

So pehle shauchalaya phir driver-alaya

pushkar.bhat · Post by **pushkar.bhat** » 22 Oct 2013 21:56

Sagar come on it's a basic necessity on a 8 hour shift..

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 22 Oct 2013 22:06

I have no objections to it, as a matter of fact toilets is our railways are like doorways to nasal hell. The bio toilet programme stands where today is anybody's guess and regarding our sanitation etiquettes the lesser said the better. OT let's move on.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Oct 2013 22:31

pragnya wrote:
Pratyush,

T-90S TOT is just in the name. the russians refused both barrel and armour tech because of which kanchan armour is the basic armour now on T-90 and reportedly (ref : Ajai shukla) even the barrel is OFB one.

Ajai Shukla has been regularly pulling stuff from his musharraff and passing it off. None of his statements have ANY backing from any official source whatsoever. It is all based on "sources"

OTOH -- even the OFB chief has accepted that the T 90 barrel tech transfer was completed by 2008. That is how T 90s are being made in India from raw materials. This is documented from official sources and has multiple corroborations.

-------------------------------------------------

As to why a T 90 FCS would aimed to be replaced by a local one ?

First of all do not that ToT does not automatically mean that OFB/DRDO also get understanding to "improve" the Tech. All it means is that "how to make the tank from blueprints" is given. ToT does not mean that 60 years of tank design experience and of its sub-components is passed over. That is NOT ToT. So ToT has happened DOEST NOT mean that DRDO/OFBs suddenly can develop T 99 based on T 90 (that is the hope, but OFBs seemed to have satisfied themselves with simply manufacturing work -- its a different question that even that minimum work is often called into question.)

Also the standing order for IA and DRDO et al has been to as far as possible replace imports through internal substitution where ever possible.

It appears that this is a window where they could try and replace the FCS with improved local one based on Arjun. The other alternatives would be
1) Improve the Russian FCS locally.
2) Ask Russians to improve the FCS.

Here they are attempting to replace a part of T 90 locally. Make it more MKIzed so to say. This has been done on many Russian imports in the past. Russians have typically been ok with it, sometimes lukewarm, and sometimes obstructionist, but overall ok.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Oct 2013 22:47

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Oct 2013 07:45

Sanku wrote:
pragnya wrote:
Pratyush,

T-90S TOT is just in the name. the russians refused both barrel and armour tech because of which kanchan armour is the basic armour now on T-90 and reportedly (ref : Ajai shukla) even the barrel is OFB one.
Ajai Shukla has been regularly pulling stuff from his musharraff and passing it off. None of his statements have ANY backing from any official source whatsoever. It is all based on "sources"

OTOH -- even the OFB chief has accepted that the T 90 barrel tech transfer was completed by 2008. That is how T 90s are being made in India from raw materials. This is documented from official sources and has multiple corroborations.

-------------------------------------------------

As to why a T 90 FCS would aimed to be replaced by a local one ?

First of all do not that ToT does not automatically mean that OFB/DRDO also get understanding to "improve" the Tech. All it means is that "how to make the tank from blueprints" is given. ToT does not mean that 60 years of tank design experience and of its sub-components is passed over. That is NOT ToT. So ToT has happened DOEST NOT mean that DRDO/OFBs suddenly can develop T 99 based on T 90 (that is the hope, but OFBs seemed to have satisfied themselves with simply manufacturing work -- its a different question that even that minimum work is often called into question.)

Also the standing order for IA and DRDO et al has been to as far as possible replace imports through internal substitution where ever possible.

It appears that this is a window where they could try and replace the FCS with improved local one based on Arjun. The other alternatives would be
1) Improve the Russian FCS locally.
2) Ask Russians to improve the FCS.

Here they are attempting to replace a part of T 90 locally. Make it more MKIzed so to say. This has been done on many Russian imports in the past. Russians have typically been ok with it, sometimes lukewarm, and sometimes obstructionist, but overall ok.

Sankuji

let your hate of Ajai shukla not color facts. when did Russia transfer the barrel/armour tech?? in 2008?? in 2008 this is what the then DRM said -

Russia to deliver T-90 gun barrel technology to India

Friday, Oct 24, 2008

With negotiation for transfer of technology for indigenous production of T-90 main battle tank (MBT) at an advanced stage, India on Wednesday said Russia will deliver the technical know-how for gun barrels for the tanks by this year-end.

The Russian side agreed to deliver the specification of T-90 gun barrels by December 2008, Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh told the Rajya Sabha in a written reply to question on the indigenous production of 1,000 T-90s from members.

Admitting that the non-delivery of T-90 MBT gun barrel specification was one of the major obstacles faced by India in indigenous production of 1,000 of these tanks, Singh said the issue of transfer of technology (ToT) was discussed between the two sides during the Indo-Russian Working Group on ship building, aviation and land system in August this year.

The minister said the ToT documents for most of the parts were already with India and some technical data regarding armour plates along with gun barrel manufacturing was awaited.

He said India had already developed armoured plates indigenously and the DRDO has come up with the 'Kanchan' explosive reactive armoured plates for tanks.

http://www.yourshipbuildingnews.com/new ... wsID=13723

mere promises and in nov 2011, this was the status. note it is direct quote not AS's interpretation.

The MoD has not responded to emailed questions about this issue. But when Business Standard asked MSN Rao, General Manager of HVF Avadi, how the T-90S was being built without these technologies, he confirmed: “We developed the tank gun indigenously in Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur, and the turret armour component in CVRDE (Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment), Avadi. This is still a sticking point between India and Russia.”

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2011/11/t ... ly-of.html

as to FCS, i don't want to repeat beyond what i said and end up in a repeated slugfest which so naturally happens here.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 23 Oct 2013 10:55

Will that ever happen?

It's amazing how easily 235 tanks can be ordered with almost "NO QUESTIONS ASKED" and everything under sun is asked for a homemade product.

Any scoop on the recent Arjun trials?

On the face of it, it seems that T-90 is a good tank, and costs less than Arjun.

While Arjun may be more survivable, overall utility may not be much different.

I think we must support army's decision to buy T-90.

I think though that Army needs a large number of lighter infantry carriers. The presence of water obstacles etc. and greatly improved anti-tank weapons reduces greatly the scope of tank warfare. The infantry's role has increased again, though with heavy calibre weapons.

member_27847 · Post by **member_27847** » 23 Oct 2013 10:55

deleted

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 23 Oct 2013 11:36

Garg wrote:
On the face of it, it seems that T-90 is a good tank, and costs less than Arjun.

While Arjun may be more survivable, overall utility may not be much different.

I think we must support army's decision to buy T-90.

"T-90 a good tank?" - debatable but is better than T-72 we have. So nothing against its acquisition.
"and costs less than Arjun" - not sure; if other bells and whistles now getting added are included in the cost, then it is marginal at best.

"While Arjun may be more survivable, overall utility may not be much different." - then why acquire T90? T72 upgrade is sufficient.

"I think we must support army's decision to buy T-90." - We do. We are against Army's decision not to induct Arjun in numbers

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Oct 2013 11:49

it has been proved the unit cost of T90 presented to parliament was deflated by leaving out the "extras" like engine, missile, road wheels and thermals now slowly being added in JF17 plug n pray style

after the whole circus is over and we reach the definitive stage it will be nearly the cost of a Arjun for sure. and eqn would change if comparable number (1000) of Arjun were ordered.

with 20/20 hindsight, our Deve gowda ji was right when he claimed in late 90s the t90 (then) was nothing more than a slightly upgraded t72.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Oct 2013 12:06

Singha wrote:it has been proved the unit cost of T90 presented to parliament was deflated by leaving out the "extras" like engine, missile, road wheels and thermals now slowly being added in JF17 plug n pray style

after the whole circus is over and we reach the definitive stage it will be nearly the cost of a Arjun for sure. and eqn would change if comparable number (1000) of Arjun were ordered.

with 20/20 hindsight, our Deve gowda ji was right when he claimed in late 90s the t90 (then) was nothing more than a slightly upgraded t72.

Singha, you missed out adding the cost of Basic Kanchan Armour, Barrel cost, TATA ballistic computer/FCS, AC/APU (if possible to add) besides the IA wants new commander's sight as the present one is far below their expectations!!

end of the day T-90S cost (which has already gone up substantially) may turn out to be more than Arjun if one takes into a/c the above cost!!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2013 12:18

pragnya wrote:
mere promises and in nov 2011, this was the status. note it is direct quote not AS's interpretation.

The MoD has not responded to emailed questions about this issue. But when Business Standard asked MSN Rao, General Manager of HVF Avadi, how the T-90S was being built without these technologies, he confirmed: “We developed the tank gun indigenously in Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur, and the turret armour component in CVRDE (Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment), Avadi. This is still a sticking point between India and Russia.”

Well the question is which OFB to believe then.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... es/350906/

India and Russia seem to have resolved a long standing concern over transfer of key technology for the T90 S Main Battle Tank (MBT). An understanding was reached during the latest round of an Inter Governmental Commission on military cooperation.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/fi ... 57906.html

Chennai: The first batch of India's indigenously built state-of-the-art T-90 main battle tanks, with features like protection from nuclear attack, were handed over to the Army on Monday at a function in Avadi near here today.

So when in 2009 OFB claimed that it was making T 90s entirely in India, was it lying? Or did the development of the Gun and armor happened overnight between lack of ToT in 2007 and T 90 manufactured in 2009?

Also IF the report that the barrels and turret armor is "Indian" then there are two distinct variants of T 90 in IA, one with Russian barrels and armor and one with Indian. Since the majority of T 90s are indeed made from CKBs or FBUs

How come this fairly important issue is not even reported ANYWHERE?

Net net, based on the fact that there are a plethora of reports saying TOT has happened and reports as back as 2009 saying that Indian T 90s are being made. I find it difficult to believe the claim by AS.

Either AS is misrepresenting things or OFB head needs to be asked far many more questions to explain the situation.

Since AS is shown to be consistently misrepresenting facts over a long period, and also is now consistently batting for US corporations, I would believe everyone else over AS right now.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2013 12:21

pragnya wrote: Singha, you missed out adding the cost of Basic Kanchan Armour, Barrel cost, TATA ballistic computer/FCS, AC/APU (if possible to add) besides the IA wants new commander's sight as the present one is far below their expectations!!

end of the day T-90S cost (which has already gone up substantially) may turn out to be more than Arjun if one takes into a/c the above cost!!

Still unlikely, in fact if the above is true (still unclear since only AS reports it), the T 90 will be cheaper still, because what would have happened is that Russian components are changed with Indian ones.

Arjun is expensive because 70% is western sourced components. Unless that is changed, Arjun will stay more expensive. If we have two identical systems one is to one, a product with more western components will be more expensive than one with more Indian/Russian but made in India ones.

Arjun's price will ONLY come down if it can produce its components in India, say under licences production or whatever. Not till then.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Oct 2013 12:28

When did Arjun get 70% western components?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Oct 2013 12:33

so we have the T90 -a supposedly finished product ordered in a hurry post kargil in 2000, still working out "TOT and teething issues" in 2013!
we could have done better by ordering a bunch of refurbished M1A1HA chassis from Khan's boneyards...they have some 5000 units in storage and keep overhauling and reusing as needed.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 23 Oct 2013 12:34

Sanku wrote:Well the question is which OFB to believe then.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... es/350906/

India and Russia seem to have resolved a long standing concern over transfer of key technology for the T90 S Main Battle Tank (MBT). An understanding was reached during the latest round of an Inter Governmental Commission on military cooperation.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/fi ... 57906.html

Chennai: The first batch of India's indigenously built state-of-the-art T-90 main battle tanks, with features like protection from nuclear attack, were handed over to the Army on Monday at a function in Avadi near here today.
So when in 2009 OFB claimed that it was making T 90s entirely in India, was it lying? Or did the development of the Gun and armor happened overnight between lack of ToT in 2007 and T 90 manufactured in 2009?

Also IF the report that the barrels and turret armor is "Indian" then there are two distinct variants of T 90 in IA, one with Russian barrels and armor and one with Indian. Since the majority of T 90s are indeed made from CKBs or FBUs

How come this fairly important issue is not even reported ANYWHERE?

Net net, based on the fact that there are a plethora of reports saying TOT has happened and reports as back as 2009 saying that Indian T 90s are being made. I find it difficult to believe the claim by AS.

Either AS is misrepresenting things or OFB head needs to be asked far many more questions to explain the situation.

Since AS is shown to be consistently misrepresenting facts over a long period, and also is now consistently batting for US corporations, I would believe everyone else over AS right now.

first you claimed TOT happened in 2008 which was negated by the DRM in oct 2008 and then in nov 2011, the GM, AVADI (where T-90S is manufactured) confirms it. quoting again from the link i gave above -

The MoD has not responded to emailed questions about this issue. But when Business Standard asked MSN Rao, General Manager of HVF Avadi, how the T-90S was being built without these technologies, he confirmed: “We developed the tank gun indigenously in Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur, and the turret armour component in CVRDE (Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment), Avadi. This is still a sticking point between India and Russia.”

still does not satisfy you. you ask instead - Well the question is which OFB to believe then.

why don't you make the effort and enlighten us all?? besides how are you quoting media when you are on record in the past (when similar debates happened) that you 'only' beleive in official MOD/standing commitee reports??

beats me!!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Oct 2013 12:40

Singha wrote:so we have the T90 -a supposedly finished product ordered in a hurry post kargil in 2000, still working out "TOT and teething issues" in 2013!
we could have done better by ordering a bunch of refurbished M1A1HA chassis from Khan's boneyards...they have some 5000 units in storage and keep overhauling and reusing as needed.

Even the original M1A1HA is better than the T-90 that we have in several respects. The T-90 deal was a farce.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Oct 2013 12:42

pragnya wrote: first you claimed TOT happened in 2008 which was negated by the DRM in oct 2008 and then in nov 2011, the GM, AVADI (where T-90S is manufactured) confirms it. quoting again from the link i gave above -

Correction I did not claim it. The world claims it. Numerous references exist.

Only AS claims otherwise.

I will pick the world over AS -- and if the AS claim is based on Avadi heads answer, he needs to be asked some hard questions on this
(heck he needs to be asked TONS of hard questions in any case whats a few more)