Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[pmaitra]

? Where did I say something about T-72?

Sorry, my mistake, it was T-64. Still, a non-sequitur.

HESH - High Explosive Squash Head, ammunition developed to destroy vehicles without actuall armor penetration. Working Mechanism - Projectile warhead is filled with high ammount of plastic explosive in thin shell, upon impact plastic explosive "squash" on armor and explodes, this results in shockwave and vibration thag goes through armor structure and makes it's inner surface to spall injuring or killing vehicle crew or igniting ammunition or fuel. Due to ammount of explosive material such ammunition can have some effectivenes about structures but in general they are not more effective than HE or HEF ammunition in that role (HESH lack reall fragmentation effect due to thin shell, and also due to thin shell it can't penetrate armor or walls so simple spacing is effective solution to counter HESH).

You want to add something?

Good and yes. It is called HEP, or High Explosive Plastic round.

Rifling why do You ask me about rifiling? Ahh the old argument that rifled gun is more accurate than smoothbore gun.

It was and is true that a spinning round is more accurate than a non spinning one. Do you agree with that or not?

There are ways to make a round spin even if fired from a smoothbore, but that does not change the laws of physics.

So how the hell UK Challenger 1 tanks during CAT competitions lost to smoothbore guns armed tanks? Same with Challenger 2 during trials in Greece, smoothbore armed guns tanks were more accurate even at closer range than Challenger 2.

How do You explain that?

I am only trying to argue that T-90 and Arjun are not in the same class. I will ignore non-sequiturs, sorry.

Again where do You see something about T-72?

Scroll up.

Now, with your permission:

As for smoothbores, HESH etc. But smoothbores have analog to HESH, it is simple, non programmable HE, HEF and HEOR ammunition, that's all, and to make them even more deadly, someone get an idea to use programmable ammunition. Hey look in NATO even IFV's should have HE or HEI programmable ammunition ranging from 30mm to 40mm (for example 3P ammunition designed in Sweden for CV9040 IFV's).

Do please read what you wrote. You are confused between smoothbore and HESH. You don't compare smoothbore with HESH, you compare smoothbore with rifled gun. Actually, to be more correct, you compare a spinning projective with a non-spinning projectile.

Do read up a little on gyroscopes before you argue further on smoothbore or rifled guns. It will really help.

 

[Damian]

The Arjun has lesser armour than T-90.

It depends where, and how we understand that You know.

The reason it is heavier is because it has an extra 4th man which increases the size of the turret and hence more RHA is used.

Indeed, increased vehicle internal volume is not nececary a good thing in a long term shot. However designs with manned turret expired their long term modernisation capabilities.

Future belongs to such vehicles:

With crew isolated in heavy armored hull, unmanned turret and ammunition in isolated ammo compartment under turret.

Sorry, my mistake, it was T-64. Still, a non-sequitur.

Read it again and understand the point...

Good and yes. It is called HEP, or High Explosive Plastic round.

HESH is in British nomenclature, HEP is US nomenclature. Both HESH and HEP is one and the same type of ammunition.

It was and is true that a spinning round is more accurate than a non spinning one. Do you agree with that or not?

There are ways to make a round spin even if fired from a smoothbore, but that does not change the laws of physics.

No I do not agree because I'am not talking about small arms but a freeking tank gun that use completely different ammunition.

I am only trying to argue that T-90 and Arjun are not in the same class. I will ignore non-sequiturs, sorry.

And how I should talk with You? You completely ignore everything that do not fit in to Your silly fantasy...

Do please read what you wrote. You are confused between smoothbore and HESH. You don't compare smoothbore with HESH, you compare smoothbore with rifled gun. Actually, to be more correct, you compare a spinning projective with a non-spinning projectile.

I compare everything. And the final conclusion is allways the same. HESH is outdated not needed any more. Rifled gun is outdated and not needed any more, period.

Do read up a little on gyroscopes before you argue further on smoothbore or rifled guns. It will really help.

Yeah and both CR1, CR2 and smoothbore gun armed tanks use stabilization, so if rifled gun is in reality more accurate than modern smoothbore gun then still CR1 and CR2 should outgun tanks with smoothbore gun, why this never happend? Why both British tanks lost competitions against tanks armed with smoothbore gun?

It is obvious for all designers all over the world that rifled gun, and it's biggest asset, HESH are not needed any more, they are outdated technology. That's all, only some people try to defend them because as it seems some silly pseudo national pride, and lack of courage to make any constructive criticism of their beloved design. How this will end if war broke out? Yes exactly people that do not make any criticism and alternatives will have blood of tank crews on their hands.

Preatty bright perspective eh?

 

[pmaitra]

Even if I say I agree, what is it that you are trying to prove with this statement? The reason I ask is because this kind of nomenclature does not really exist anymore even if it used in verbal form.

That it is silly to compare T-90 and Arjun. Read my first post addressed to you, Damian and Nitesh.

Heavy tank does not mean a better tank. It just means the tank is heavy. So, it makes no sense to call it a heavy tank anymore.

Never said so, but again, not agreeing with you either. It is all subjective. I'm note sure why you brought this point because I never made such a claim, but I will respond. E.g.: Merkava is heavy and slow, but good for crew protection. There are too many parameters and you cannot just say 'better' and come to a conclusion.

You are confusing the terms because you are assuming the class effect is the same as that in aircraft. Like Heavy MKI, Light LCA, Medium Rafale. In aircraft it makes sense because the bigger the platform, the larger is the payload capacity and thus higher capability when it comes to range and avionics.

Again, you are inundating this discussion with too many unrelated arguments to drown my point. Please come to the point.

But this kind of difference is not present on the Arjun vis a vis T-90. The Arjun has lesser armour than T-90. It has a weaker gun. It has more or less the same ammo capacity, and a similar range. The reason it is heavier is because it has an extra 4th man which increases the size of the turret and hence more RHA is used.

T-90 and Arjun are very different, however, if it suits the import lobby, so be it.

I have said this earlier and I am saying it again, T-90 and Arjun complement each other. Let this be my salient point. Now, if I see this silly comparison between T-90 and Arjun, and spurious arguments that T-90 is better than Arjun, expect me to question that.

 

[Damian]

E.g.: Merkava is heavy and slow, but good for crew protection.

I completely disagree that is good for crew protection.Taking in to consideration that side hull and also side turret armor in most variants can be easy perforated by better HEAT warheads, ammunition storage system. Also front hull armor is incredibly weak protected compared to tanks with classic design with engine at rear. In fact such design can end with tank driver dead if powerfull enough HEAT or APFSDS projectile hit the right part of frontal hull armor.

T-90 and Arjun are very different, however, if it suits the import lobby, so be it.

Different in design does not mean they are in different class... And that lobby argument, strange logic, really.

 

[p2prada]

Damian,

First of all, you need to quit flattering yourself.

Secondly, you should understand what is HESH or HEP, a smoothbore and a rifled gun before randomly picking out terms and comparing them.

Thirdly, you should read a little bit more before you start arguing - and while you are at it, read the thread title. It's about Arjun!

Come back to me when you understand the terms that you have been using and arguing on for the last few pages.

Pmaitra, you should understand that these terms are all interrelated. The biggest reason for the existence of rifled guns is the ability of the gun to fire HESH. Nitesh started the debate on the need for HE and HEF rounds from Israel when Arjun already has the HESH round. What we are saying is that the round and the gun used to fire it is beyond obsolescence. So, it makes no sense to keep HESH around in the first place and to do that the Rifled gun on the Arjun needs to go.

However what needs to be understood is that Rifling has a short life, so firing APFSDS already kills the gun's life while HESH preserves the Rifling in the gun. Using HEAT and other rounds is worse for the rifled gun. However when we use Smoothbore, we cannot use HESH on it. But we can use APFSDS and HEAT, HE, HEF, HEOR and still preserve the life of the barrel for longer while giving superior performance compared to HESH.

Now I hope you understand why Rifling and HESH are interrelated and why it was brought into the discussion in the first place.

FYI, the life of Arjun's gun is good for 500 shots while T-90 is good for 1200-1500 shots at nominal temperatures while for the T-72 it is 1800 shots(it used to be 250 before we started to manufacture T-72s gun). The term we use is called EFC. Now, if we use a shell with a EFC rating of 1 then Arjun can fire 500 of them while T-90 can fire 1500 of them before the barrel needs to be changed. However, we should note that the EFC rating for APFSDS in a rifled gun is much higher than that of a smoothbore gun. So, this further decreases life of the rifled gun as compared to smoothbore. While using different types of shells the wear and tear further degrades the capability of the gun. Rifling is maintenance intensive as well.

So, while we note that the HESH is no longer effective, we can also say that the only type of gun which can fire it is also obsolete. The gun's problems are further compounded by the fact that APFSDS and HEAT shells for Rifled guns are more expensive because of extra attachments like bearings to prevent the round from spinning and also the fact that it has very less life apart from being expensive to manufacture.

If we really need to use HESH, then we can use them from field guns which are more flexible in urban combat as compared to tanks. The HESH shells fired from 105mm cannons can be made to be bigger and more effective depending on the design. The British use a 29Kg HESH shell on field guns for this purpose. The Americans do the same as well. HESH is completely unnecessary on tanks.

 

[pmaitra]

It depends where, and how we understand that You know.

Sure, as long as it can help put down the Arjun without giving a convincing explanation. Only you and P2P understand, not everyone else.

Read it again and understand the point...

No need. My point is Arjun and T-90 are different.

HESH is in British nomenclature, HEP is US nomenclature. Both HESH and HEP is one and the same type of ammunition.

Tell me something I don't know.

No I do not agree because I'am not talking about small arms but a freeking tank gun that use completely different ammunition.

Two things, short and sweet:

• Spinning vs. non-spinning projectile.
• How a gyroscope functions.

Then come back and argue.

The laws of physics hold for both 7.62mm round as much as for 120mm round - hope this registers in your mind for the freaking umpteenth time.

And how I should talk with You? You completely ignore everything that do not fit in to Your silly fantasy...

Sorry, I am not trying to embarrass you. Calm down.

I compare everything. And the final conclusion is allways the same. HESH is outdated not needed any more. Rifled gun is outdated and not needed any more, period.

Such as, but not limited to, a pine tree and an ice-cream?

It is obvious for all designers all over the world that rifled gun, and it's biggest asset, HESH are not needed any more, they are outdated technology. That's all, only some people try to defend them because as it seems some silly pseudo national pride, and lack of courage to make any constructive criticism of their beloved design. How this will end if war broke out? Yes exactly people that do not make any criticism and alternatives will have blood of tank crews on their hands.

Not obvious to me. The only valid point you made in favour of smoothbore is life. Rifled grooves wear faster. Everything else is made up stories.

Preatty bright perspective eh?

Not from my reading.

 

[p2prada]

Good and yes. It is called HEP, or High Explosive Plastic round.

Now I am reminded of your Grammar post about anyways and sport. There is a difference between American and British nomenclatures and there are such subtle differences in Indian nomenclatures as well, like how we have our own acronym for AFSPDS or LEVCON for N-LCA.

It depends where, and how we understand that You know.

Future belongs to such vehicles:

Indeed.

Awaiting for news on Armata's design.

 

[pmaitra]

P2P,

I read your points with Nitesh, and I myself have my doubts how effective HESH will be against concrete fortifications. I was not even convinced by that picture he posted.

I see your point about rifling and HESH and also Damian's comment about conversion.

That is not my point. My point is T-90 and Arjun are not comparable. That's all.

 

[pmaitra]

Now I am reminded of your Grammar post about anyways and sport. There is a difference between American and British nomenclatures and there are such subtle differences in Indian nomenclatures as well, like how we have our own acronym for AFSPDS or LEVCON for N-LCA.

Yeah, true, and the term heavy armour (well heavy armor) is still used in the US.

That weight based classification is obsolete, yes, but that is because the world has moved onto modular design; but that is true does not mean all the tanks in the world are modular. No they are not. This is the point I was trying to make to Damian.

 

[Damian]

Sure, as long as it can help put down the Arjun without giving a convincing explanation. Only you and P2P understand, not everyone else.

Oh sorry then, I'am not responsible for Your education and capability to understand.

No need. My point is Arjun and T-90 are different.

Your understanding of the subject is limited You know.

Two things, short and sweet:

Spinning vs. non-spinning projectile.
How a gyroscope functions.

Then come back and argue.

The laws of physics hold for both 7.62mm round as much as for 120mm round - hope this registers in your mind for the freaking umpteenth time.

And in the same time in real tests and competitions this rifling supported also by gyro stabilization didn't give rifled gun any edge against smoothbore guns. No in fact tanks armed with rifled guns were last. How do You explain this? British crews are one of the best in NATO when it comes to training and experience, yet they failed to win these competitions. So it seems that something is not good with these rifled guns. And Challenger 2 use modern and very good FCS, so it is definetly not fault of FCS, stabilization etc. It seems that rifled gun just ----ed up, and is not better in terms of accuracy than smoothbore one.

Not obvious to me. The only valid point you made in favour of smoothbore is life. Rifled grooves wear faster. Everything else is made up stories.

What made up stories? Read about CAT or Canadian Army Trophy competition where smoothbore armed tanks defeated tank with rifled gun.

Read about Greek Army trails fro new tank, and how smoothbore guns performed compared to rifled gun.

So now the reality is made up story?

Not from my reading.

Ignorant will be ignorant eh?

That weight based classification is obsolete, yes, but that is because the world has moved onto modular design; but that is true does not mean all the tanks in the world are modular. No they are not. This is the point I was trying to make to Damian.

What modular design?! There are currently semi modular and fully modular composite armors but there are no different modules with different protection levels and weight. Maybe in future but not now.

 

[pmaitra]

Oh sorry then, I'am not responsible for Your education and capability to understand.

At least be responsible for what you write.

Explain, instead of saying "I told you so," or "I understand."

Your understanding of the subject is limited You know.

I think you need to take physics and fluid mechanics.

And in the same time in real tests and competitions this rifling supported also by gyro stabilization didn't give rifled gun any edge against smoothbore guns. No in fact tansk armed with rifled guns were last. How do You explain this? British crews are on of the best in NATO when it comes to training and experience, yet they failed to win these competitions. So it seems that something is not good with these rifled guns. And Challenger 2 use modern and very good FCS, so it is definetly not fault of FCS, stabilization etc. It seems that rifled gun just ----ed up, and is not better in terms of accuracy than smoothbore one.

I don't care. You came back with a response so quickly means you have not quite understood gyroscopes and you are trying to win this argument by bringing in a whole lot of garbage.

What made up stories? Read about CAT or Canadian Army Trophy competition where smoothbore armed tanks defeated tank with rifled gun.

No need. I don't rely on stories. I rely on laws of physics, which you don't.

Read about Greek Army trails fro new tank, and how smoothbore guns performed compared to rifled gun.

How about I bring something totally unrelated and drown your argument?


Trojan Horse.

So now the reality is made up story?

Reality is reality, but our perspectives differ.

Ignorant will be ignorant eh?

If that's all you can come up with, sure.

What modular design?! There are currently semi modular and fully modular composite armors but there are no different modules with different protection levels and weight. Maybe in future but not now.

Whatever - T-90 and Arjun are different, got it?

Damian, I know you love tanks and are interested in it. Those people who actually do research on tanks (I don't) do a lot more mathematics and physics than collecting pictures. No offense, but, just some reality for you.

There is another point I could bring up to show why Arjun is better than T-90, but I think it is pointless.

 

[p2prada]

That it is silly to compare T-90 and Arjun.

Hmm. Why so?

I have said this earlier and I am saying it again, T-90 and Arjun complement each other. Let this be my salient point.

You need to be more clear. I can give you exact difference on why a Rafale and MKI can complement each other. But you will have to explain how two tanks with the same capabilities complement each other.

Now, if I see this silly comparison between T-90 and Arjun, and spurious arguments that T-90 is better than Arjun, expect me to question that.

The T-90 and Arjun are of the same generation and have the exact same capabilities. They are meant to be compared.

Now if we were talking about the Object 195 and Arjun/T-90 then we can say these tanks are not comparable because that would be completely unfair for Arjun or T-90. The word complement means that the deficiencies of one design is negated by the advantage of a different design, hence they complement each other. For eg: If we say the T-90 has a big gun while the Arjun had SAM capability, then we can say they complement each other because while the T-90 can kill tanks, the Arjun can take out aircraft. While this is a wild example, a better example would be that a ICV like a BMP complements a T-90 because the BMP can traverse through water easily and unload troops while the T-90 cannot. So, the deficiency of a T-90 is negated by the advantage of the BMP. Hence a complement.

That's how the word complement is used. Now saying the Arjun has lesser ground pressure while T-90 has greater ground pressure does not mean they complement each other simply because they do not make sense.

Now based on this if you can come up with an entirely reasonable definition of what you call complementing each other, then please be my guest.

 

[pmaitra]

Hmm. Why so?

Because they are not in the same class, but you and I do not agree on that, so the rest of your post, which is based on the premise which I do not acknowledge, is best left un-debated, IMHO.

That's how the word complement is used. Now saying the Arjun has lesser ground pressure while T-90 has greater ground pressure does not mean they complement each other simply because they do not make sense.

This is a clear advantage for Arjun over T-90. Here's why:

T-90	Arjun
Cannot tackle low c.f.g. mulch or sand.	Can tackle low c.f.g. mulch or sand.
Will sink more into the sand and that will cause more wear and consequently frequent maintenance and replacement of wheels and tracks.	Will sink less and will have a longer life.
Tracks are more likely to come off as a result of wear.	Tracks are less likely to come off as a result of wear.
Will throw up too much dust, indicating to the enemy, "Hey, I'm coming. Keep your ATGMs ready!"	Will throw up less dust.

 

[methos]

Rifled guns and smoothbore guns have nothing to do with being able to handle powerful rounds or not. You can take a smoothbore gun and cut spiralling grooves inside it and make it a rifled gun.

When both tank guns support the same pressure you will still need more pressure (or propellant) to reach the same muzzle velocity with a rifled gun. Rifling increases the internal surface of the barrel (bore) by about 20 - 30%. This means 20 - 30% more friction -> less velocity.

HESH cannot be fired from smoothbore guns. As for bold. You cannot.

I think that it is technically possible to create some sort of round with spinning interior (i.e. the exact difference of the French Obus-G HEAT round), but the payload would decrease drastically, the amount of HE stored inside could be even less than that of a 105 mm HESH round. This is why everybody liking HESH chooses rifled guns.

As for the bold, I don't think you understand the concept of rifling. The HESH or HEP nomenclature has nothing to do with the projectile spinning.

HESH needs spin for spreading the HE on the surface of the target, a focused HE blast would create far less spell. Smoothbore rounds are typically stabilized with fins, which lead to a far lower spin ratio than rifled guns.

This is currently used APFSDS for Arjun? With what they want to fight with such ammunition? T-54's?! It seems to be shorter than 3BM42!

Based on a rough measurement it is slightly shorter than 50 cm, 3BM-42 Mango is 57 cm. German 120 mm DM23 is 51 cm long and the British L31 (only APFSDS used on Chieftain and Challenger during Cold War) is 52 cm long. 3BM-42 is from 1985, DM23 and L31 are from 1983. Given a muzzle velocity of 1,650 m/s it might be slightly stronger than DM23 (depending on diameter and construction details), stronger than L31 (which has a muzzle velocity of 1,500 - 1,550 m/s) but very likely worse than 3BM-42 (muzzle velocity 1,700 m/s). Not really enough for todays armour, penetrating older Type-69 and Al-Zarrars on 2,000 m might be possible, but for fighting T-80s and Al-Khalids the gunner needs to aim at weak points. On the other hand the Pakistani do not have better ammo for their 125 mm main guns, at least not good enough to fight Arjun or T-90 without aiming at weak points. Pakistani tungsten APFSDS is capable of penetrating 460 mm at 2,000 m, while being 55 cm long and pretty fast (more than 1,700 m/s). The DU round developed by them is probably equivalent to 3BM-32 Vant in performance.

It was and is true that a spinning round is more accurate than a non spinning one. Do you agree with that or not?

It was true in the 1960s. But in the 1970s the German 120 mm smoothbore gun prototypes managed to outperfrom 105, 110 and 120 mm rifled guns.

 

[pmaitra]

HESH needs spin for spreading the HE on the surface of the target, a focused HE blast would create far less spell.

Good point. I can agree with that.

It was true in the 1960s. But in the 1970s the German 120 mm smoothbore gun prototypes managed to outperfrom 105, 110 and 120 mm rifled guns.

Even if fired from smoothbore, rounds are often made to spin using fins for accuracy. As I said, spinning projectile will be more accurate than non-spinning ones. (Can you give more details about the German rounds? Why did they outperform?)

Again, it's about the spin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WvhPCtIFmY

 

[Damian]

At least be responsible for what you write.

Explain, instead of saying "I told you so," or "I understand."

I explained, You do not accept explanation, thats Your problem, not my.

I think you need to take physics and fluid mechanics.

To completely ignore reality, real tests results etc? No thank You, I will stay with my historic knowledge.

I don't care. You came back with a response so quickly means you have not quite understood gyroscopes and you are trying to win this argument by bringing in a whole lot of garbage.

God... Yeah, screw all real life tests.

Good approach, very "adult".

No need. I don't rely on stories. I rely on laws of physics, which you don't.

Yeah right, stories, well documented tests and competitions in all related to subject books and military press articles, yeah, good "argument".

How about I bring something totally unrelated and drown your argument?

Ah so now performance of rifled gun and it's ammunition against smoothbore gun and it's ammunition is not related to discussion about performance of rifled gun and it's ammunition against smoothbore gun and it's ammunition. No shit mate!

Reality is reality, but our perspectives differ.

Maybe because I live in real reality, not that alternative one where MBT is separated in to medium and heavy tank and... gosh, what a mess You done!

Whatever - T-90 and Arjun are different, got it?

In details of design yes but they are in the same ----ing class! Got it?

Damian, I know you love tanks and are interested in it. Those people who actually do research on tanks (I don't) do a lot more mathematics and physics than collecting pictures. No offense, but, just some reality for you.

Mathematic and physics are shit worth in this subject if someone ignore history for example, and other knowledge. Also collecting pictures is important, to find interesting details and make analyses.

But as You said, You are not interested in subject so why You even talk about things You do not have any knowledge?

There is another point I could bring up to show why Arjun is better than T-90, but I think it is pointless.

Because it's Indian made, yeah we get it.

 

[p2prada]

@pmaitra,

That import lobby comment was entirely unnecessary. I have always stated I am not a supporter of imports, rather I am a supporter of getting the right equipment the right way. I have always stated that I support the service's decisions. If they import the T-90 then I support their decision, the same had they rejected the T-90 and gone for Arjun. Similarly, had IAF shortlisted Super Hornet and Mig-35 over Rafale/Typhoon then I would still have supported IAF's decision. I will, by principle, never support a defence company, be it indigenous or foreign. The Army is not out to make money now is it? The defence contractor is.

What we need to learn is why the decision was taken in the first place. That's when you get to know if the decision was right or wrong. If you look at it from any angle, supporting the Arjun is entirely wrong simply because we are not yet up for it. We are a third world nation with third world industry building a first world military because our geopolitical situation demands that from our military. So, it is logical to expect the Army will look at making the right decisions rather than political ones. Now once we are able to identify the difference between the right decision and the political decision it gets easier to come to terms with the decisions that the forces have been making.

Unlike the defence corporators, the services always follow rules and protocols which are really hard to get around. So, when they take decisions they almost always make the right one. There are certainly times when some decisions go wrong, like the Gorky saga or the problem with French LGBs during Kargil war. But then the world is not perfect. So, making unintentional mistakes can be allowed. But making an intentional mistake is inexcusable.

 

[pmaitra]

Mathematic and physics are shit worth in this subject if someone ignore history for example, and other knowledge. Also collecting pictures is important, to find interesting details and make analyses.

I get it.

It was my mistake, I overestimated you.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra,

That import lobby comment was entirely unnecessary. I have always stated I am not a supporter of imports, rather I am a supporter of getting the right equipment the right way. I have always stated that I support the service's decisions. If they import the T-90 then I support their decision, the same had they rejected the T-90 and gone for Arjun. Similarly, had IAF shortlisted Super Hornet and Mig-35 over Rafale/Typhoon then I would still have supported IAF's decision. I will, by principle, never support a defence company, be it indigenous or foreign. The Army is not out to make money now is it? The defence contractor is.

What we need to learn is why the decision was taken in the first place. That's when you get to know if the decision was right or wrong. If you look at it from any angle, supporting the Arjun is entirely wrong simply because we are not yet up for it. We are a third world nation with third world industry building a first world military because our geopolitical situation demands that from our military. So, it is logical to expect the Army will look at making the right decisions rather than political ones. Now once we are able to identify the difference between the right decision and the political decision it gets easier to come to terms with the decisions that the forces have been making.

Unlike the defence corporators, the services always follow rules and protocols which are really hard to get around. So, when they take decisions they almost always make the right one. There are certainly times when some decisions go wrong, like the Gorky saga or the problem with French LGBs during Kargil war. But then the world is not perfect. So, making unintentional mistakes can be allowed. But making an intentional mistake is inexcusable.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be accusatory.

It's just that I do not agree with this putting T-90 and Arjun on the same pedestal. Each has its own weaknesses and strengths. That was my point from the beginning.

 

[Mad Indian]

So One on One, Which will win?

And Also , Which will come on top if T-90 vs Al-khalid and Arjun vs Al-khalid?

Please answer my small question, in between your fights..