There is absolutely nothing in your post that defends your original claims that Carl-Gustav is 1942's technology and that lot of technological developments have taken place in this system, especially with the ammo, but it remains the same old system in IA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle
The Carl Gustaf was developed by Hugo Abramson and Harald Jentzen at the Kungliga Arméförvaltningens Tygavdelning (Royal Swedish Arms Administration) and produced at Carl Gustaf Stads Gevärsfaktori from where it derives its name. The weapon was first introduced into Swedish service in 1948 as the 8,4 cm Granatgevär m/48 (Grg m/48), filling the same anti-tank role as the U.S. Army's Bazooka, British PIAT and German Panzerschreck. Unlike these weapons, however, the Carl Gustaf used a rifled barrel for spin-stabilizing its rounds, as opposed to fins used by the other systems
Of course DRDO has neither been able to upgrade the weaponry nor ammunition of 84mmRL . You have any claim contrary to that ?
I never claimed that Mark III technology is indigenous.
I never claimed that India did not receive ToT.
My point was to tell the members that what remains with IA are, along with older systems, new systems, that are not the old technology of 1942, but relatively modern technology of 1991.
The topic how DRDO failed Indian Army. I presented CAG report to demonstrate how DRDO failed to upgrade the weapon technologically. If it is modern you can not claim credit for it.
I have also asked you to provide what new technology w.r.t. ammo India should have, and you have no answer.
II further quote the same CAG report in this regard.
Development of Electronic equipment for three types of ammunition
http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home.../2011_12/Defence_Services/report_24/Chap7.pdf
The DDRD in May 1985 sanctioned the above mentioned Staff project for 1.86 crore to be completed by May 1987. The GSQR envisaged as essential qualitative requirement of the equipment that the mean deviation of the equipment should not exceed 0.1 seconds; on firing it should be safe for up to 1 + 0.05 seconds and the equipment should be reliable up to 95 per cent of Air Burst and 99 per cent on percussion setting. Though initial PDC of the project was May 1987 user trials could be conducted only in December 1990. As the reliability and consistency of the equipment was poor during these trials, Army suggested further improvements and modifications before offering the electronic equipment for retrials.
In September 1991 Army HQ stressed that the equipment should achieve the results within +0.05 seconds deviation which were erroneously indicated as 0.5 sec in GSQR and should have consistency in height of burst. ARDE in October 1991 claimed that since the GSQR parameters regarding mean
deviation were achieved, the item be considered acceptable. Eventually, in May 1993, DRDO expressed its inability to achieve the time accuracies indicated by Army, but offered a modified equipment for user trials in 1994. However user trials were inordinately delayed. Phase-I trials of modified equipment were conducted in February and March 1996. The equipment did not perform satisfactorily during the trial but during Phase-II user trials conducted in September 1997 the equipment performed satisfactorily and met the GSQR requirements.
In the meanwhile Ministry of Defence in August 1997, entered into a contract with M/s Electronic Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) for supply of 21000 equipment from M/s Bulova Technologies, USA at a total cost of ` 12.13 crore. The imported equipment was trial evaluated along with DRDO equipment, in October 1997. Army HQ, in August 1998 indicated that the performance of the imported equipment was superior to the equipment developed by DRDO in terms of both reliability and technology. It recommended that the project be short closed as it was based on GSQR of 1984 vintage, and directed for generation of fresh GSQR. Finally, the project was closed in August 2003 with retrospective effect from December 1998 after incurring an expenditure of ` 1.88 crore. Army accepted imported equipment in the interim. While Army HQ did not respond to audit, Ministry in its reply claimed that electronic equipment had given performance of 94.88 per cent as per ARDE’s evaluation. Regarding consistent height of burst (HOB) by reduction in mean deviation, it stated that GSQR acceptance criteria for electronic equipment was only the timing accuracy and not the HOB. However, the fact remains that the fuze could not be developed by ARDE within the initial PDC of May 1987 and finally, its performance was found to be poor in terms of reliability and consistency leading to its import by the Users.
Initially, I owed your mistake the benefit of doubt, as an honest mistake, but after this post, I know you are deliberately misleading people.
Being judgemental may be your right but perceived ills and falsr accusations are not. I do not accept false accusations .
You should offer an apology for misleading people with false data, and accept that you are wrong, instead of obfuscating with your deviousness.
I AM MORALLY UPRIGHT TO OFFER APLOGIES WHERE IT DESRVE AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TEACH ME THAT. IN THIS CASE YOU ARE FORCING IT ON ME. IT IS RATHER YOU WHO SHOULD APOLOGISE.
As long as the sole motivation behind your posts is to bash DRDO, with correct or fabricated data, or as long as your motivation is to constantly find faults with Kunal and whine like a cry-baby and resort to emotional blackmail, or as long as you talk about extinct birds, you will be countered.
I have truthfully quoted form sources and not bashed any one on my opinion. It is rather you who is bashing a member due to your individual interest.
.
