Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[militarysta]

if the scaling is not proper why are people posting it is a scaled drawing?
AFAIK scaled drawing means you can take measurements based on scale on it.
Have they changed the definition?

If you want :taunt1:


Scale 1:72 as I posted previous on photo.
Happy enought?

 

[Archer]

Still I am not enthusiast of such containers. Israelis use similiar solution and it won't help in case of direct hit in to ammunition magazine, it can however provide some protection against spall and some hot fragments in case of crew compartment penetration.

Merkava Mk2B after direct hit in to ammunition containers, similiar to thouse used in Arjun.

I need to ask, such containers are used to maintain vehicle costs lower and to not make vehicle more complex, because sliding armored doors for completely isolated ammunition compartment requires additional electrohydraulic or electric drive and space for doors to move as well as special racks, while such containers as less safe are definetely cheaper, simpler and save space.

Arjun ammunition containers however, should provide enough protection from fire, at least giving crew enough time to bail out, in times of war as well as in peace time, as far as I know, caseless ammunition used today, tends to be dangerous for crew in case of some accident types or inproper handling inside of turret.

Several of the Merkava containers are nowhere as heavily protected as those on the Arjun! They are a combination of FRP and alloy cases intended to mainly protect against light spall and delay the onset of combustion in the ammunition! Some of the Merkava rear hull ammo was even packed 2+ rounds to each case, with minimal separation between the rounds all in an alloy/FRP case! In the words of one armour designer, the Israelis just packed the tank with too much ammunition. Some of the casing was well thought out, but if you start piling around mortar rounds and also 120mm rounds and on top of it crew carry extra rounds into battle, stuff happens.

In contrast, the Arjun uses individual ballistic steel encased tubes, with a weakened turret zone right above the turret ammo placement for venting cooked off ammo. The designers resisted the temptation to compromise protection by stuffing in more rounds, even though total rounds carried is less than the Army's new standard T-7X tanks.
Another thing is each time a round is taken from the case by the loader, its just that one container open! In contrast, each time the Abrams hatch is open, all the ammunition within is exposed, till the loader initiates closure of the hatch. The time taken is another issue. A crewman who fought in ODS told me that his squad all used to carry an extra ready round or even a couple in their laps or beside the crew station, to have them available quick! So much for designers efforts as versus the reality of what people do!

So its all about tradeoffs.

Further, you need to know about the design choices re: Arjun and their context. If protection against light spall, and flame induced cookoff was all that was required, then that design was met way back in the 80's itself with wet stowage which was trialled and rejected for this more capable design.

As to why the hydraulic door design was initially rejected, it added more weight and complexity, and introduced yet another possible point of failure in a system the Indian Army was already worried was too complex for crews used to the simpler T-72. Whether it be the FCS or the engine or any other item, the mandate of the day was to make the Arjun as reliable as it gets. Ammo containerization has always been part of the Arjun.

In MK2, a new approach is being sought simply because the Army is more relaxed with regards to technology nowadays, even the average sowar has a mobile phone and often knows how to fix complex running gear, as India's educational standards have risen and so has the quality of tech savvy recruitment , and also because the Army is willing to accept higher costs and even more weight. The average soldier is no longer taken aback by digital displays or menus or push button instructions either. Times change.

A few years back, DRDO even evaluated, with a private partner, a semiautomatic loader design like on the Merk-4 - the technology now exists in India, with the burgeoning automotive industry to make all sorts of fancy items. The bigger issue is whether they are required, and whether simpler does the job.

Same with the ERA, its being added for a simple reason. The Army does not want to pull Arjuns out of the frontline if they get hit. ERA modules can be replaced on the field, and even if they are not, the baseline Kanchan remains. Claims of armor protection based on "pictures" are humorous. On the record, Army officers have long admitted the Arjun is the most heavily protected IA tank. In the same vein, many also point out that very protection limits its strategic mobility by virtue of a higher gross combat weight. And the Army has limited funds to upgrade its own infrastructure to compensate. So its not all roses.

The majority of improvements to the Arjun right now are around reliability and making design choices that improve on the MK1. For all those touting the Leopard and its superior this, superior that, do try and get hold of someone old at KMW. In the 80's the Leopard was desert trialled for India. It flopped, big time.

Its taken two decades for the German firms who supply subsystems to both the Arjun and the Leopard to work with Indian engineers and adopt their tech (often with Indian developed items, a true hybrid system f.e.) to work in Thar conditions. The Gun control system for instance kept failing, till Indian engineers developed a completely new GCS controller which replaced the original German analog one & was substituted successfully several years back.

There is no tank off the shelf which works well in Indian conditions. That is something the Indian Army is rediscovering as its issues with the much simpler T-90 show. The same methods are now being reapplied to the T-90 with EME working to solve persistent issues.

 

[Damian]

Several of the Merkava containers are nowhere as heavily protected as those on the Arjun! They are a combination of FRP and alloy cases intended to mainly protect against light spall and delay the onset of combustion in the ammunition! Some of the Merkava rear hull ammo was even packed 2+ rounds to each case, with minimal separation between the rounds all in an alloy/FRP case! In the words of one armour designer, the Israelis just packed the tank with too much ammunition. Some of the casing was well thought out, but if you start piling around mortar rounds and also 120mm rounds and on top of it crew carry extra rounds into battle, stuff happens.

In contrast, the Arjun uses individual ballistic steel encased tubes, with a weakened turret zone right above the turret ammo placement for venting cooked off ammo. The designers resisted the temptation to compromise protection by stuffing in more rounds, even though total rounds carried is less than the Army's new standard T-7X tanks.
Another thing is each time a round is taken from the case by the loader, its just that one container open! In contrast, each time the Abrams hatch is open, all the ammunition within is exposed, till the loader initiates closure of the hatch. The time taken is another issue. A crewman who fought in ODS told me that his squad all used to carry an extra ready round or even a couple in their laps or beside the crew station, to have them available quick! So much for designers efforts as versus the reality of what people do!

So its all about tradeoffs.

Further, you need to know about the design choices re: Arjun and their context. If protection against light spall, and flame induced cookoff was all that was required, then that design was met way back in the 80's itself with wet stowage which was trialled and rejected for this more capable design.

Containers are dangerous, Israelis and British experiences proves that, even if individual containers are used. I saw a photo of Merkava Mk4 after IED, individual containers didn't helped, ammunition was ignited by IED blast and not much was left from tank, some belly, side armor fragments and a bit of front hull. There are also known incients where Merkava Mk3 tanks that also use individual containers were hit in the hull rear with RPG's that cause ammunition cook off.

The only effective solution is complete ammunition isolation.

As to why the hydraulic door design was initially rejected, it added more weight and complexity, and introduced yet another possible point of failure in a system the Indian Army was already worried was too complex for crews used to the simpler T-72. Whether it be the FCS or the engine or any other item, the mandate of the day was to make the Arjun as reliable as it gets. Ammo containerization has always been part of the Arjun.

Blast doors can be operated by electrohydraulic or purely electric servomechanism, the latter one is simpler and safer, so I do not see a reason for these individual containers that are still dangerous.

Same with the ERA, its being added for a simple reason. The Army does not want to pull Arjuns out of the frontline if they get hit. ERA modules can be replaced on the field, and even if they are not, the baseline Kanchan remains. Claims of armor protection based on "pictures" are humorous. On the record, Army officers have long admitted the Arjun is the most heavily protected IA tank. In the same vein, many also point out that very protection limits its strategic mobility by virtue of a higher gross combat weight. And the Army has limited funds to upgrade its own infrastructure to compensate. So its not all roses.

ERA does not prevent main armor damage, it will only decrease penetration capabilities of enemy projectile, but this projectile will still penetrate main armor.

There are avaiable photos from ERA tests on real tanks, there is allways damage to main armor.

The majority of improvements to the Arjun right now are around reliability and making design choices that improve on the MK1. For all those touting the Leopard and its superior this, superior that, do try and get hold of someone old at KMW. In the 80's the Leopard was desert trialled for India. It flopped, big time.

Not even a single reliable source says about Leopard 1 or Leopard 2 being tested in India, why should it be in the 80's? When India was one of the more reliable allies of Soviet Union, why NATO should send there a tank in which Soviet intelligence was interested?

There is no tank off the shelf which works well in Indian conditions.

How many foreing tanks did you tested in India? I didn't seen M1A2SEP, Merkava Mk4, Leopard 2A5/6/7, BM "Oplot" or Leclerc S3/SXXI tested in India, neither Challenger 2.

 

[STGN]

1.So are you disputing the basic fact that the hatch cover measures 3 times the size of the man standing in the crew hole? First of all where did I say that I disputed that? I am kinda worried if you think the width of the man is 3 times smaller than the hatch, well you say turret front is 3.2 meters so its not that difficult to understand.

2.it is basic calculation that the 3x150 mm= 450 mm for hatch cover. Since the crew man and hatch cover are on planes that are so close to each other perspective distortion is minmal. Right cause perspective is only negligible when you are doing the calculations. Besides how do you know that you are measuring his head and not his head plus head gear?

3.So you cannot dispute this since this arguments are supplied by you guys . No its your argument. I can be critical of you.

4.Or are you disputing the fact that the average human face measures 147 mm as posted by METHOS with authoritative surveys here? No.

5. Since the man in the crew hatch cover and the driver are going to have the same average facewidth supplied by you and methos (150 mm), why is the face of the gunner appears 20 percent larger than the crew man on the hatch? Where do you see the gunner? wait a minute... oh you think the gunner sits in the hull, why the change of position you used to think he sat in the middle behind the mantle:shocked:?

6. That's what perspective reduction of visual width(not real width),because both the planes are more than 3 meters apart. it is a simple fact. Again, gunner?

7.DOn't you know there is a vanishing point in all perspective drawings, where all measurements become zero or so small as the distance of the object from the observer is so vast? Yes I do, but apparently you don't really understand it when it dosen't suit your weird world

8.If you have any doubts please take a look at the picture of railway track, where both the rails appear to join at infinite distance.Wait a minute so perspective does have effect. that is apparently only when it doesn't show you wrong

9. Just take your pair of shoes, place one 2 meters away from the camera, place another 5 meters away, shoot a picture and compare it yourself. why don't you try that yourself you really need to.

10. So there is no technically feasible arguments are there for this measurement of turret width. ??

Atleast for arguments sake I accepted it and proceeded to give my method for measuring turret width which is fair and can be universally checked by any member here. WTF are you talking about

For somebody as incapable of judging distance and perspective as you this is so rich I am surprised anybody can swallow it. You are a strange person who can't admit that you are wrong and so has to go on this nonsense trolling campaign. It must be pretty clear to others that you have made so many different contradicting arguments that you are the inception of contradicting arguments, a contradicting argument within a contradicting argument within a contradicting argument within ....... you logic is this: If hatch=550 then turret =3.2, If hatch=450 then turret=3.2, if head is 200 then turret=3.2, if head=150 then turret=3.2, if pizza is half eaten the turret=3.2 ,if glass is half full then turret=3.2, if STGN post on forum then turret=3.2 and on and on... are you going to cry personal abuse now, give it up we know you are just trolling.
STGN

 

[militarysta]

Several of the Merkava containers are nowhere as heavily protected as those on the Arjun! They are a combination of FRP and alloy cases intended to mainly protect against light spall and delay the onset of combustion in the ammunition! Some of the Merkava rear hull ammo was even packed 2+ rounds to each case, with minimal separation between the rounds all in an alloy/FRP case! In the words of one armour designer, the Israelis just packed the tank with too much ammunition. Some of the casing was well thought out, but if you start piling around mortar rounds and also 120mm rounds and on top of it crew carry extra rounds into battle, stuff happens.

And quiz what You known about merkava containers
Find 5 difrences:
Merkava Mk.I:


Merkava Mk.III:

In contrast, the Arjun uses individual ballistic steel encased tubes, with a weakened turret zone right above the turret ammo placement for venting cooked off ammo. The designers resisted the temptation to compromise protection by stuffing in more rounds, even though total rounds carried is less than the Army's new standard T-7X tanks.

And Arjun conteiners:

Those older ones -defiently weak protected. It's far from any protection...
And newest - mucht better, but I doubt if they are really better then in Merkava Mk.III:

For all those touting the Leopard and its superior this, superior that, do try and get hold of someone old at KMW. In the 80's the Leopard was desert trialled for India. It flopped, big time.

Its taken two decades for the German firms who supply subsystems to both the Arjun and the Leopard to work with Indian engineers and adopt their tech (often with Indian developed items, a true hybrid system f.e.) to work in Thar conditions. The Gun control system for instance kept failing, till Indian engineers developed a completely new GCS controller which replaced the original German analog one & was substituted successfully several years back.

I love that BS like above. Leopard-2 components where tested since 1974 in USA desert and north Africa conditions. Not mentioned other tests.. And old Leo-2A3 (A4) are used in Chile whit no problem, the same in Singapore. And those Leo-2 are on 1984 level. But good story -respect for fairy tails how to poor germans need serious improvmend in 1980's when Leo-2 FCS was serious OPSPEC in third country (not even in NATO or beeing leopard-2 user).
And of course we are talking about EMES-15 whit WBG-X and RPP system. But OK serious OPSPEC EMES-15 was sent to India for trials whit WBG-X, RPP and other. Cool story bro!

 

[Archer]

And this is typical stupid talk to defend homland Industry. Amunition for Arjun is "excellent"? In compare to what -125mm 3BM22, 3BM15 -maybe in this case is indeed "excellent". Compare known photos Arjun FSAPDS whit other 125 and 120mm modern (lets say since 1990) APFSDS. Avaible for Indian Arjun ammo now is joke. Sorry.

Amazing humility there.. A DCAS of the IA stupid for voicing his actual first hand observations? Ah, ----- it. With people like you, civility only goes so far..

Lets see - he has done more in his life than you ever will, and has commanded more men than you likely have in your entire armed forces across all three services. Please don't make us laugh at your hubris.

Lets get to the point though...the firepower was excellent compared to what the Indian Army had circa 2003, wherein the best rounds it had were those on the Arjun! The Israeli rounds inducted were yet to be available in plenty & across the T-72 fleet, with penetration @ the 400-500 mm level, same as that on the Arjun! In contrast, Arjun's were firing on the move, achieving routinely high Pks with consistent results! Obviously they were happy!

Even today, in comparative trials, Arjun's outgunned the T-90s, so yes, as far as the IA is concerned, they remain happy..

Just check L ratio.

Which everyone knows has to be improved!

Part about accurate is the same interesting (lets say to be gentle) - it can be "excellent" in compare to the T-72M1 Aleya whit obsolate stabilisation mehanism, or erly T-90S when still not ver accurate mehanism was placed.

In fact even T-72BA whit new "Jasmine" stabilisation (~1999 Russia) have stabilisation error values twice worse then Leopard-2 whit WNA-H22 (1979). So yes, Indian army guys can be "dazzled" by something what is standard in NATO since erly 1980s. If Indian Army used only T-72 and erly T-90 "as modern" FCS and stabilisation then indeed andy other modern system can by takan as "tremendous" "excellent" ba bla bla.

Dude, you have a lot of book talk, because of which you mention all this but have no idea about how all this will fare in real world conditions in India which means all this Jasmine, that, is absolute rubbish. India experienced much the same when it acquired DRAWA-Ts which were utter shite in operational conditions and dropped for TISAS from Israel. An Israeli drop in sight with limited FCS capabilities was better..

What is this T-72BA and other stuff worth, when even the T-90s supplied to India have had issues operating in the Thar and continue to be outperformed by the Arjuns!

Of course, any modern system can be taken as tremendous, excellent etc provided it performs for the user- which is what is the point! Clearly, nuance escapes you!

The link was posted to clearly point out that as far as the IA was concerned, the Arjun was routinely performing at a high level, instead of what you think! That it somehow means the Arjun is the best in the world or some such thing.

Yes, becouse this is joke on middle 1970's level:
://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4074/indie1t.jpg[/URL]
I have that hope that You are not writing about another good joke:
http://imageshack.us/a/img692/7784/indie3.th.jpg[/URL]
Becouse this round is again funny.

Yes, its funny to you, because you think that patronizing statements equate to an argument. Unfortunately for you they don't, because the reality is that everyone who knows anything about the Arjun know's that the current round on the Arjun is the one developed for it in the 1980's and was not developed further....

There is no avaible photo of Indian ammo (pototype, demos, anything) better then erly 1980s' level in 120mm case.

Because development didn't continue...i mean, this is beyond stupid. It was posted in plain english for you, but clearly not enough..

About 125mm ammo:
http://imageshack.us/a/img145/7016/scan0078t.jpg
If this all then still it's not far better then 3BM42.[/QUOTE]

The same BM-42 which India is seeking to acquire en masse for the T-90s and T-72s, go figure. Guess why? Because at least they work to some level.

And the Indian round BTW, is being developed further go beyond the level achieved above.

In case you still cant comprehend, here it is. 120MM round , development stopped, pending orders for Arjun MK1 & series production. 125mm round ditto, pending Israeli TOT. DRDO develops 125mm further and comes up with the above which is dusted off and retrialled after IMI is blacklisted. Meanwhile Army asks for development restart and further improvement, ditto for Arjun after series production is cleared, comparative trials succeed and MK2 is ordered.

And here you are, "informing us" that the 120mm round on the Arjun is old/obsolete. Yeah. And the sky is blue, earth is a sphere...

And spare us that rubbish about super duper Polish rounds with German tech please...Poland has a long way to go.

For instance, the state of the stuff India has purchased from Poland, most of which has flopped, and has meant that even DPSUs don;t have the time of the day when Polish "collaborators" arrive with their gee whiz claims. ARVs - rubbish, electronics - unreliable and have to be reengineered, optics - ditto...list goes on & on... should I give details?

Bottomline, the Israeli kit - 5 times out of ten, works and when it doesnt, they make an effort to make it work. In contrast, your industry couldn't punch its way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to sticking around and making demanding customers happy. Till the day that happens, you can posture around on forums like these impressing people etc, but fact of the matter is that in the real world, customers buy the best, and Poland is nowhere there.

Customers like India have enough experience by now to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Damian]

India experienced much the same when it acquired DRAWA-Ts which were utter shite in operational conditions and dropped for TISAS from Israel.

Problems with DRAWA-T are known in Poland, and the reason of these problems were also detected. The FCS itself is good enough, the problem is to fully use capabilities of DRAWA-T you need to modernize stabilization system as well.

I suspect that Indian Army did the same as Polish Army did, cut costs and didn't modernize stabilization. We have probably the same problems with PT-91's that you have with your modernized T-72M1's with DRAWA-T installed.

Israelis modernized Georgian T-72's to T-72SIM1 standard and they also used DRAWA-T FCS, I didn't heard any complains about FCS and it's work, perhaps Israelis replaced also stabilization system.

To be more precise, DRAWA-T was developed for much more modified T-72 than it ended in form of PT-91, it was mainly because costs. In fact if not the cost issues PT-91 would probably look today more like T-90A or Indian T-90S with welded turret, than just a modernized T-72M1.

As far as i know, Czechs had similiar problems with their T-72M4Cz that have much more advanced FCS TURMS-T, seems it is more a problem with the currently used old turret and it's mechanical subsystems that are not well integrated with newer electronics and FCS.

And spare us that rubbish about super duper Polish rounds with German tech please...Poland has a long way to go.

Yes this is truth we have a long way ahead, just like India and probably 99% of nations over the world. Don't delude yourself, you just like us are years behind leading NATO countries, and in many aspects also behind Russia.

We have however more comfortable situation that we can and we do collaborate with our allies, and this gives good effects, however due to lack of funding or political will, it is somehow slow development.

ARVs - rubbish, electronics - unreliable and have to be reengineered, optics - ditto...list goes on & on... should I give details?

As far as I know, WZT-3 are good and reliable, only the last batch had some problems. As for electronics, it depends, you might have experience with our older developments, which was indeed problematic. Currently manufactured products are higher quality, some of them are purchased even by US military, and you don't want to say that US military is not demanding military eh?

But as you can see, we do not have any problem with criticism of our products, in fact criticism is good thing, it motivates to improve.

AFAIK BEML might soon sign a new deal on WZT-3 at much better terms because CEO of Bumar had been changed for a new person, younger and much better.

 

[Archer]

And quiz what You known about merkava containers
Find 5 difrences:
Merkava Mk.I:

As I said FRP/light alloy with dual rounds to a container..

Merkava Mk.III:
http://imageshack.us/a/img8/6656/merkamo3.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img94/5661/merkamo1.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img807/76/merkamo2.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img22/9833/markiiikont.jpg

Again, I'd take the ballistic steel encased Arjun containers over these..

nd Arjun conteiners:
http://imageshack.us/a/img585/2162/arjunwieowy.png[/IMG]
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6016/img0083iz.jpg[/URL]

Those older ones -defiently weak protected. It's far from any protection...][/quote]

Based on what, your expert opinion? Having conducted the relevant tests on it? Yeah right...

[quote]nd newest - mucht better, but I doubt if they are really better then in Merkava Mk.III:
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/59/arjunturretammo.jpg/][IMG]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1530/arjunturretammo.jpg

And your doubt is worth a tuppence, I'm afraid..

I11 love that BS like above. Leopard-2 components where tested since 1974 in USA desert and north Africa conditions. Not mentioned other tests.. And old Leo-2A3 (A4) are used in Chile whit no problem, the same in Singapore. And those Leo-2 are on 1984 level. But good story -respect for fairy tails how to poor germans need serious improvmend in 1980's when Leo-2 FCS was serious OPSPEC in third country (not even in NATO or beeing leopard-2 user).

Thanks for proving how much full of book learning and absolute sh!t you are. So the Leopard components were tested since 1974...blah blah blah...and all is well eh? Which is why MTU/Renk and a whole bunch of other suppliers had issues and had to deal with constant challenges to ruggedize the Arjun in the Thar...so much so that problems were only resolved to IA satisfaction a few years back...

Dude, you have no idea about any frick!ing thing India. You are just a loudmouth talking of OPSEC and this and that when you don't even have an idea about the manner in which India has had ties with several European nations despite NATO/MTCR and a whole lot of other restrictions and cartels. India's first fighter was led by Kurt Tank. When India wanted machinery to make the precision wings for a particular transport, HAL got German clearance. When India was scouting to make its own helicopter, it was MBB which was chosen. For the LCA, German firms almost pipped the French to the post...

And "old Leo" are used in Chile with no problem. Seriously, are you retarded? Do you think Chile is India? Does it have to operate buttoned up tanks in the heat of the day, with tank crews facing heatstroke and worse because of the nuke angle? When was the last time Chile conducted sustained armor ops?

BTW, has Poland even attempted something of the nature, apart from running around in Afghanistan, each time the Americans say run? Please..

Heard of something called system integration? Go look it up sometime. Best in the class equipment and subsystems, routinely underperform when put in a system of systems in an absolutely different environment. Something even the German vendors acknowledge and have worked towards, especially for India, since the Arjun does not have an AC or an equipment cooling system. Further, the fine sand in the Thar routinely screws up equipment.

And of course we are talking about EMES-15 whit WBG-X and RPP system. But OK serious OPSPEC EMES-15 was sent to India for trials whit WBG-X, RPP and other. Cool story bro!

Yeah, copy paste BS from Janes is supposed to be impressive. This jargon equipment that one, wink nod nudge. Impressive.

I get that English is not your first language. I get that you have a fervent desire to somehow prove the Leopard is the bees knees since you lot couldnt even afford to buy the new tank on your own and had to wait for German hand me downs, but please don't make me laugh. Care to point out where I said the tank was trialled in India? I didn't. For a specific reason, which I am not going to waste my time talking to you about, since you clearly know sh!te and have an attitude to match..

Next, if you weren't an absolute know-it-all yet know-nothing, you'd know that in the Cold War, India & Pakistan were locked in a secret arms race because of which political clearances were routinely obtained and given for equipment on a case to case basis. The M1 Abrams was flown to Pakistan, trialled and it flunked its firepower trials badly.

That is how much all these fancy toys from your beloved Germany or US or wherever are worth when deployed out of their country of origin and theater of original design...todays Abram after ODS/GW-2 may be different. But then again, nuance is not your strength is it?

 

[militarysta]

Lets get to the point though...the firepower was excellent compared to what the Indian Army had circa 2003, wherein the best rounds it had were those on the Arjun! The Israeli rounds inducted were yet to be available in plenty & across the T-72 fleet, with penetration @ the 400-500 mm level, same as that on the Arjun! In contrast, Arjun's were firing on the move, achieving routinely high Pks with consistent results! Obviously they were happy!

Even today, in comparative trials, Arjun's outgunned the T-90s, so yes, as far as the IA is concerned, they remain happy..

And what it change? Still Arjun have ammo on 3BM42 level. 1986. Still it's to low to made any serious damage on Pak. T-80UD or chineese ZTZ-96/98 in frontal +/-30. degree. But indeed greate progres -using ineffective ammo Arjun is able to hit (without bigger result) tank, when T-72M1 is unable (like most T-72M1 clones...).

Dude, you have a lot of book talk, because of which you mention all this but have no idea about how all this will fare in real world conditions in India which means all this Jasmine, that, is absolute rubbish. India experienced much the same when it acquired DRAWA-Ts which were utter shite in operational conditions and dropped for TISAS from Israel. An Israeli drop in sight with limited FCS capabilities was better..

And where is point? DRAWA-T is shit build for Saddam between 1987 and 1991 for saddams money for Iraq, and Drawa was based on stolen Cheftian Mk.5 FCS components. So...? What is so mirracle? Polish export ones FCS based on stolen half 1980's components and developed for Iraq in circa 1990 was beaten by mucht younger TISAS -ohohoho what a big problem The same Drawa-T fallen in compare to the EMES-15 from circa 1984. So..?

The link was posted to clearly point out that as far as the IA was concerned, the Arjun was routinely performing at a high level, instead of what you think! That it somehow means the Arjun is the best in the world or some such thing

Sure, and PT-9MZ was he best in the world or some such thing in Malysia becouse it won whit T-90S and T-80UD and polish mass media was excited about that..

rest later

btw:

For instance, the state of the stuff India has purchased from Poland, most of which has flopped, and has meant that even DPSUs don;t have the time of the day when Polish "collaborators" arrive with their gee whiz claims. ARVs - rubbish, electronics - unreliable and have to be reengineered, optics - ditto...list goes on & on... should I give details?

Yes you should

 

[Damian]

As I said FRP/light alloy with dual rounds to a container..

4 rounds per container.

And "old Leo" are used in Chile with no problem. Seriously, are you retarded? Do you think Chile is India? Does it have to operate buttoned up tanks in the heat of the day, with tank crews facing heatstroke and worse because of the nuke angle? When was the last time Chile conducted sustained armor ops?

Chile had hot climate and deserts, regular training operations are conducted. Leopard 2 was tested in difficult desert conditions, no problems found. Leopard 2's are used in difficult desert conditions in Afghanistan, no problems found.

BTW, has Poland even attempted something of the nature, apart from running around in Afghanistan, each time the Americans say run? Please..

11th Armored Cavalry Brigade is a constand readiness unit, they are training, well all the time, both winter and summer, as far as I know, they do not have any problems with Leopard 2's.

The M1 Abrams was flown to Pakistan, trialled and it flunked its firepower trials badly.

Story is a someones fantasy to be honest. Especially that there are no details, to make any conclusions.

And seriously, stop being so emotional, this is silly.

 

[Archer]

Problems with DRAWA-T are known in Poland, and the reason of these problems were also detected. The FCS itself is good enough, the problem is to fully use capabilities of DRAWA-T you need to modernize stabilization system as well.I suspect that Indian Army did the same as Polish Army did, cut costs and didn't modernize stabilization. We have probably the same problems with PT-91's that you have with your modernized T-72M1's with DRAWA-T installed.

Basically Poland did a good show with DRAWA-T but when it came to actual trials in India, it performed poorly. My point was that even a drop in elbow sight worked better in Indian conditions than the DRAWA-T. The actual pointer was towards how rugged Indian systems need to be to meet Armed force requirements. India cannot afford to buy 10 of one type and 20 of another. As a result it expects a lot of unrealistic environmental ruggedization which a tank like Arjun meets and no Leopard or Abrams can off the shelf, they'll require many years of tinkering..

I

sraelis modernized Georgian T-72's to T-72SIM1 standard and they also used DRAWA-T FCS, I didn't heard any complains about FCS and it's work, perhaps Israelis replaced also stabilization system.

Not just that...it will also be that Georgia does not practise Corps level exercises with running equipment for days on straight...with heat conditions that can reach 45 degrees celsius under the shade. Plus, if the tanks are deployed to Leh, expect them to operate in -10 degrees centigrade consistently. This is the sort of stuff that routinely kills foreign gear.
What matters then is product development and support..

To be more precise, DRAWA-T was developed for much more modified T-72 than it ended in form of PT-91, it was mainly because costs. In fact if not the cost issues PT-91 would probably look today more like T-90A or Indian T-90S with welded turret, than just a modernized T-72M1.

As far as i know, Czechs had similiar problems with their T-72M4Cz that have much more advanced FCS TURMS-T, seems it is more a problem with the currently used old turret and it's mechanical subsystems that are not well integrated with newer electronics and FCS.

Which is what India has also discovered with trials on upgraded FCS for its Project Rhino. 5+ years of trials and counting..

Yes this is truth we have a long way ahead, just like India and probably 99% of nations over the world. Don't delude yourself, you just like us are years behind leading NATO countries, and in many aspects also behind Russia.

Look, think it throug. NATO designers have visited India and admitted India currently has one of the most active missile, avionics and radar design efforts in the world. At a seminar, an European missile house guy admitted that India's ballistic missile program places it ahead of most countries in NATO bar a couple, since the lead time for training a designer is a decade! And India currently has some 9 different ballistic/quasi ballistic missiles developed. Point is, we have the money and the threat perception to spend that money. And also the manpower. Poland lacks all three. And unless you turn into the next Israel, with a very business savvy MIC supported by the Govt and support from the US, you are not going to be in the league of China or India. Its a fact of life.

Which is what I posted in reaction to the outright hubris of a militarysta claiming an Indian DCAS was stupid, when he was posting about the frank facts regarding the Arjun. He didn't even read the entire article. The man points out multiple issues with the program circa 2003-05. This is the issue, y'all lack context regarding India and are busy commenting based on some imaginary framework!

We have however more comfortable situation that we can and we do collaborate with our allies, and this gives good effects, however due to lack of funding or political will, it is somehow slow development.

I am talking of the scale of efforts, not just the intensity.

As far as I know, WZT-3 are good and reliable, only the last batch had some problems.

They are neither very good or reliable and an ex Army chief has gone on record asking for the entire deal to be probed because of how badly the Armoured Corps has been let down by the purchase.

As for electronics, it depends, you might have experience with our older developments, which was indeed problematic. Currently manufactured products are higher quality, some of them are purchased even by US military, and you don't want to say that US military is not demanding military eh?

No, simply put they are very new gear and the electronics are not as much a problem (since lets face it, Indian services ask for crazy environmental ruggedization) as much as the fact that they were not designed as a weapons system at all. Basically feedback from user was straight about this. What this means is that so called JVs with Poland have all been stopped and instead India is working with countries like France and Israel which either have a very strong product feedback mechanism (France has a dedicated product development testing agency) and Israel has many soldiers embedded in their design teams.

 

[Damian]

Basically Poland did a good show with DRAWA-T but when it came to actual trials in India, it performed poorly. My point was that even a drop in elbow sight worked better in Indian conditions than the DRAWA-T. The actual pointer was towards how rugged Indian systems need to be to meet Armed force requirements. India cannot afford to buy 10 of one type and 20 of another. As a result it expects a lot of unrealistic environmental ruggedization which a tank like Arjun meets and no Leopard or Abrams can off the shelf, they'll require many years of tinkering..

Yeah, it actually confirms what I said, it was not a fault of DRAWA-T itself but stabilization systems. I don't know why, but original T-72M1 FCS works better with it's stabilization than DRAWA-T works with that old stabilization. Also as Militarysta said, DRAWA-T was based on British IFCS used in later Chieftain and Challenger 1 tanks, such FCS was good when firing stationary, but when firing on the move, there were problems with accuracy, DRAWA-T probably inherits such characteristics.

There were however modifications made to DRAWA-T, I don't know if newer variants were ever presented to Indian Army, perhaps not, also because T-72M1 and PT-91 are considered as obsolete in Polish Army, further work on DRAWA-T was probably abandoned and or we will make something western on licence, or new FCS will be designed.

Look, think it throug. NATO designers have visited India and admitted India currently has one of the most active missile, avionics and radar design efforts in the world. At a seminar, an European missile house guy admitted that India's ballistic missile program places it ahead of most countries in NATO bar a couple, since the lead time for training a designer is a decade! And India currently has some 9 different ballistic/quasi ballistic missiles developed. Point is, we have the money and the threat perception to spend that money. And also the manpower. Poland lacks all three. And unless you turn into the next Israel, with a very business savvy MIC supported by the Govt and support from the US, you are not going to be in the league of China or India. Its a fact of life.

But you forget about very significant differences here. We are not on our own, NATO works as collective security and cooperation basis. Which means that Poland as a part of LeoBen club, can benefit from it's collective developments, so when India struggle with Arjun, we can just purchase and Polonize improvement kits for Leopard 2 tanks. To be honest if we would have money and political will, we could bought whole licence from Germany and manufacture Leopard 2A7's on our own.

They are neither very good or reliable and an ex Army chief has gone on record asking for the entire deal to be probed because of how badly the Armoured Corps has been let down by the purchase.

This is strange, WZT-3 are completely based on T-72's, you should be able to properly maintain them on your own, as India have logistic base for T-72 series.

Polish Army nver had any issues with WZT-3.

 

[Archer]

4 rounds per container.

Irrelevant, the point remains, that these rounds are right next to each other and hence far more vulnerable.

Chile had hot climate and deserts, regular training operations are conducted.

Of what intensity? What are their "hot climate and deserts? In India we routinely hit 40 degrees + in several places and -10 in others, both of which are active military zones and the first is where our Army has the max impact on Arm War because of no DCB,

Leopard 2 was tested in difficult desert conditions, no problems found. Leopard 2's are used in difficult desert conditions in Afghanistan, no problems found.

This is what I mean by book knowledge. Tested. These same tests were done on T-90 prior to induction, when deployed over months, years, the problems become apparent. The Arjun has been tested over ten years to minimize these same issues.

11th Armored Cavalry Brigade is a constand readiness unit, they are training, well all the time, both winter and summer, as far as I know, they do not have any problems with Leopard 2's.

Send them to Indian and not European conditions and then see..

Story is a someones fantasy to be honest. Especially that there are no details, to make any conclusions.

Yet another example of how little you Polish lot know about other countries yet see fit to preach! Sigh!

Do you even know of Zia Ul Haq?

He was flying back from that ill fated demo on August 17, 1988 when his plane crashed. There is ample information about it, and even a quasi satirical book written about it.

And now please dont backtrack saying you were referring to the Leo or whatever...!

And seriously, stop being so emotional, this is silly.

Damian, you are in no position to give anyone advice. You are all too frequently rude and abusive and judged on your own scale, far too emotional. Heck, judging by your posts, you are probably half my age & are yet to experience life with its challenges & ups and downs. Need I pull your own posts from this thread?

We don't need you or your ilk to give us advice. There are many of us who have observed far more than you about Indian and related programs, written about them and have gone this path a long time back.

People don't get remembered positively for being the way you guys are right now. You want to understand them, fine, we will provide what information we can, given obvious reasons.

 

[Damian]

Irrelevant, the point remains, that these rounds are right next to each other and hence far more vulnerable.

But there was one significant difference, propelant cases, 105mm used metal cases, which makes such ammunition safer on it's own, 120mm use combustible cases, this is less safe.

Of what intensity? What are their "hot climate and deserts? In India we routinely hit 40 degrees + in several places and -10 in others, both of which are active military zones and the first is where our Army has the max impact on Arm War because of no DCB,

It doesen't change a thing, desert is a desert. Americans were operating their tanks in deserts constantly, both homeland and overseas, no problems were noted. It is unfair to make India's conditions as something unique, it is not.

This is what I mean by book knowledge. Tested. These same tests were done on T-90 prior to induction, when deployed over months, years, the problems become apparent. The Arjun has been tested over ten years to minimize these same issues.

But practical, combat use of Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 proved that there were no problems with designs in difficult desert conditions.

Send them to Indian and not European conditions and then see..

They would perform fine, our crews are considered as one of the best tank crews serving on Leopard 2's in Europe, as per competetive trails performed by LeoBen club.

Yet another example of how little you Polish lot know about other countries yet see fit to preach! Sigh!

Do you even know of Zia Ul Haq?

He was flying back from that ill fated demo on August 17, 1988 when his plane crashed. There is ample information about it, and even a quasi satirical book written about it.

And now please dont backtrack saying you were referring to the Leo or whatever...!

Still a fairy tale to be honest, especially that no details are known, in any high quality publication written in any country about M1, I have even some Russian publications about M1, nothing there and I am sure Russians would not hesitate to inform us about such event.

Damian, you are in no position to give anyone advice. You are all too frequently rude and abusive and judged on your own scale, far too emotional. Heck, judging by your posts, you are probably half my age & are yet to experience life with its challenges & ups and downs. Need I pull your own posts from this thread?

We don't need you or your ilk to give us advice. There are many of us who have observed far more than you about Indian and related programs, written about them and have gone this path a long time back.

People don't get remembered positively for being the way you guys are right now. You want to understand them, fine, we will provide what information we can, given obvious reasons.

Of course I am rude, especially for people that constantly are making propaganda of success, not real discussion with any reasonable arguments, and do not listen any criticism.

Do you see the difference? When we say something is wrong, we are constantly attacked, when you say something is wrong with our developments, we say, hell yeah it is wrong, we know that, and more, we even know what is wrong and what is needed to be improved.

 

[Archer]

Yeah, it actually confirms what I said, it was not a fault of DRAWA-T itself but stabilization systems. I don't know why, but original T-72M1 FCS works better with it's stabilization than DRAWA-T works with that old stabilization. Also as Militarysta said, DRAWA-T was based on British IFCS used in later Chieftain and Challenger 1 tanks, such FCS was good when firing stationary, but when firing on the move, there were problems with accuracy, DRAWA-T probably inherits such characteristics.

There were however modifications made to DRAWA-T, I don't know if newer variants were ever presented to Indian Army, perhaps not, also because T-72M1 and PT-91 are considered as obsolete in Polish Army, further work on DRAWA-T was probably abandoned and or we will make something western on licence, or new FCS will be designed.

Point remains that something developed in Poland and inducted in your army flunked badly when sent to another nation namely India for trials...a cautionary tale regarding all these stories of uber competent Germans or Americans and their fancy gear...that stuff often fails in India and with good reason. Never designed for our purposes or misleadingly sold..or with tech limitations when actually inducted beyond 1-2 month trials which cannot check everything that operational units face...

But you forget about very significant differences here. We are not on our own, NATO works as collective security and cooperation basis. Which means that Poland as a part of LeoBen club, can benefit from it's collective developments, so when India struggle with Arjun, we can just purchase and Polonize improvement kits for Leopard 2 tanks. To be honest if we would have money and political will, we could bought whole licence from Germany and manufacture Leopard 2A7's on our own.

Which is the exact issue you guys don't get. You remain dependent on NATO and its up to you whether you want that to occur, we don't. Which is why we struggle, persevere and persist with our own programs!
Which is where you also completely miss the darn point when you quote xyz will supply you this and take it. Yes they will Today. Like I mentioned, we now have the money to swing the best gear from most nations. But what if a Green party gets into power which wants India to sign the CTBT? Or if some guy decides that arms exports are bad...
Sorry, but its a mugs game.
Think about this. In the decade since we last worked with Poland, where both sides worked on passive/slotted array antenna's, India has moved completely to AESA. There are now 2 AESAs developed, both JVs, two local - 1 in service, 1 AWACs in development, four more in advanced development...
Can you point to how many operational AESAs Poland has?

Think please. So far in this "conversation" - I have seen y'all automatically assume that Indian designers don't know much, they lack experience/knowledge, this that....all that is fine. Do you think they have stood still even if what you said was true?

India has a working BMD system, it has missiles that can hit 5k km (publicly) away, and yet you think they need to be told what to do by a bunch of guys on the net...
Thats not being emotional....its telling you how you lot are missing the woods for the trees...

This is strange, WZT-3 are completely based on T-72's, you should be able to properly maintain them on your own, as India have logistic base for T-72 series.

Polish Army nver had any issues with WZT-3.

Well then, the Polish Army is not using their WZT-3s in Indian conditions, because one of the gripes against WZT-3 was poor system engineering leading to bad reliability! And that was not for the T-72 part clearly because that is proven, warts and all..

 

[Damian]

Point remains that something developed in Poland and inducted in your army flunked badly when sent to another nation namely India for trials...a cautionary tale regarding all these stories of uber competent Germans or Americans and their fancy gear...that stuff often fails in India and with good reason. Never designed for our purposes or misleadingly sold..or with tech limitations when actually inducted beyond 1-2 month trials which cannot check everything that operational units face...

Or perhaps you have unrealistic requirements. Don't start to blaming other before you check you done everything properly.

Which is the exact issue you guys don't get. You remain dependent on NATO and its up to you whether you want that to occur, we don't. Which is why we struggle, persevere and persist with our own programs!

No you again make mistake. We are not dependant, we have our own industry, but we use benefits of being inside a bigger alliance, cooperating. 10 smaller countries can do the same or even more than 1 bigger one.

Think about this. In the decade since we last worked with Poland, where both sides worked on passive/slotted array antenna's, India has moved completely to AESA. There are now 2 AESAs developed, both JVs, two local - 1 in service, 1 AWACs in development, four more in advanced development...
Can you point to how many operational AESAs Poland has?

We do not have aerial radars, but we have several very good land based radars, for example artillery radar Liwiec, and some other types, a high quality equipment I must say, but the priority is Polish Army as customer, this is why it is not shown around the world much.

Think please. So far in this "conversation" - I have seen y'all automatically assume that Indian designers don't know much, they lack experience/knowledge, this that....all that is fine. Do you think they have stood still even if what you said was true?

Well it is truth, compared to more experienced nations, nothing wrong with that, I can say exactly the same about our designers, and I have no problems with such truth.

Well then, the Polish Army is not using their WZT-3s in Indian conditions, because one of the gripes against WZT-3 was poor system engineering leading to bad reliability! And that was not for the T-72 part clearly because that is proven, warts and all..

What was poorly engineered? Lack of AC was reason? Something else? I really do not see much that can be ----ed up in simple T-72 based ARV in terms of reliability.

 

[Archer]

But there was one significant difference, propelant cases, 105mm used metal cases, which makes such ammunition safer on it's own, 120mm use combustible cases, this is less safe.

Thats an academic difference, because the Arjun was designed with the Vijayanta as a base, yet this requirement was raised. Yes, the CCCs are more vulnerable, but protection is required even so...which is why wet stowage was required for even brass cased rounds way back in WW2.

It doesen't change a thing, desert is a desert. Americans were operating their tanks in deserts constantly, both homeland and overseas, no problems were noted. It is unfair to make India's conditions as something unique, it is not.

Oh man...this is what I mean by the fact that you guys seriously need to look at operational context seriously... Desert is a desert, seriously? You think Iraq is the same as India? The sand is the same, the dunes are the same, the weather is the same, operational conditions are the same? You think one jungle is the same as any jungle? You think Indian soldiers who come out from IA High ALt/cold training can go out and operate in Canada against Inuit trackers, after all snow is snow right?

Its anything but!!

How America will use its stuff is only of limited use to us! Only now, after their Afghan stuff are they finding something similar, but not exact. In India, equipment breaks because we use it harshly - we dont do simulators much, and our operational tempo is very high, in environments the US just doesnt care about - and the US is all about expeditionary train for all conditions warfare... And we dont have the money to replace it.

Just look at the number of trucks being scrapped by the US in terms of recapitalization....what a waste of money. The US is headed for disaster with such profligacy!!

To give you more examples - Lama developed by Alouette for India for high alt. ALH developed by India to IA/IAF reqs is now the only helicopter in the world that can beat the Lama! Why the heck hasnt the US with Sikorsky or what not done better? Because they dont maintain pickets at Siachen, thats why.

When was the last time, the US waged a full infantry war at heights like Kargil against an entrenched enemy? Tora Bora was a walk in the park in comparison..

BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR: Volume 3(6)

Stuff which would have European politicians murdered is de jure still in India. We have a hot border with Pak and an unhappy one with PRC, they keep pushing..

India practises intensely as a result. For you the Cold War ended and your militaries are seeking a reason to convince politicos of their need.

India is different...

But practical, combat use of Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 proved that there were no problems with designs in difficult desert conditions.

Of all these only Abrams can claim to have seen actual proper sustained combat. Chall2 limited, and per the Brit commander in ODS, Chall 1 was a flop.
And the US does expeditionary warfare routinely, yet their kit when they come to India, does not always work out...eg MMRCA trials...F-16/F-18..

They would perform fine, our crews are considered as one of the best tank crews serving on Leopard 2's in Europe, as per competetive trails performed by LeoBen club.

In Europe.
Does the Polish Army have something like this planned? You are lucky.. we face terrorism and dont know what to do next..
Cold Start (military doctrine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still a fairy tale to be honest, especially that no details are known, in any high quality publication written in any country about M1, I have even some Russian publications about M1, nothing there and I am sure Russians would not hesitate to inform us about such event.

You are not being honest, you are being ignorant and deliberately so. This is the exact problem with you lot that we face on this board because of which folks who do know a bit wont engage with you, and as a result you are left with the younger lot whom you then attempt to browbeat.

Then you claim they are not upto your lofty standards and continue to be rude to them..

Zia Ul Haqs death and the M1 trials in Pakistan are well known and long reported. By denying these and even refusing to admit that these occurred you do yourself no favours...which is what brings us to the basic problem about how you all engage on the board..

f course I am rude, especially for people that constantly are making propaganda of success, not real discussion with any reasonable arguments, and do not listen any criticism.

Hardly. Discussion which takes place in a collegial atmosphere is one thing. You lot are unwilling to learn even when pointed to sources, engage in verbal attacks and back and forth and then come out with such ridiculous claims " propaganda of success".

First who exactly are you to deny anyone the right to be proud of any success? What have you done in your life? What have you achieved? In business, in academics, in anything?

Do you not even see the amount of hubris you carry when you behave like this? First you dictate the terms of engagement - make sweeping, rather obnoxious statements, about what defines success and what not. Refuse to look at program history. Apply some Euro centric framework which is irrelevant to India (import everything), use speculation as a means to determine the truth (pics, this, that - one chap is using the anodyne phrasology given since the early 90s to determine armour specs!)...

and then when somebody disagrees, your reaction is to constantly attack them.

Its offensive and let me tell you, is a recipe for failure in the real world. Nobody who wishes to be successful behaves like this, unless you think that you are the next Steve Jobs and can get away with it. Megalomania is not success.

If developing weapons systems was so easy, everyone would do it. But they dont.

Do you see the difference? When we say something is wrong, we are constantly attacked, when you say something is wrong with our developments, we say, hell yeah it is wrong, we know that, and more, we even know what is wrong and what is needed to be improved.

Actually you don't!

If you did, your products for instance would succeed in markets like India.

But they aren't.

You guys post about how the Israelis gypped Poland and how you are better off now.

But the fact of the matter is that in demanding environments they succeed and you dont.

Your talk of how great you are and accept your wrongs is incorrect I am afraid. If you did do that, we wouldnt be having this conversation because you would not reply rudely to anyone.

So far i went out of my way to be civil to the likes of militarysta and you. But the fact is I have no incentive to do so when what I (and other posters get here) is rudeness in turn.

What you guys dont get is that you are in one of the younger Indian forums on the net. Try this attitude with some of the others where older professionals (civil and military) post and you'd then quickly realize how good you have it here.

Where people both put up with your obnoxious angry young man persona and also, the moderators let it be..

But its not a recipe for good discussion.

 

[Archer]

Or perhaps you have unrealistic requirements. Don't start to blaming other before you check you done everything properly.

Yes they often are unrealistic, they apply to all our gear, Indian or foreign. Which is what makes the Indian industries job harder...which is the point, walk a mile in their shoes...like I said, you guys lack total context of how tough things can get in India from the MIC perspective...heck, Indian users are going to get a wake up call soon given the way they are importing and product support is going to become an issue...

No you again make mistake. We are not dependant, we have our own industry, but we use benefits of being inside a bigger alliance, cooperating. 10 smaller countries can do the same or even more than 1 bigger one.

Semantics. Can you make ballistic missiles? Can you design AESA radars? Can you make your own AEW&CS? If not, you are dependent and intend to remain so. We don;t and have already moved far ahead.. thats the point. So before somebody like militarysta condescends about an Indian VCAS understand...that man held and commanded more operational power in his career than whole of Poland has had in its recent 20th century history...a million strong army with 4k tanks and nuke capability speaks for itself. Net, less hubris please.

We do not have aerial radars, but we have several very good land based radars, for example artillery radar Liwiec, and some other types, a high quality equipment I must say, but the priority is Polish Army as customer, this is why it is not shown around the world much.

And that equipment still is not upto scratch for Indian needs. Its been repeatedly offered and repeatedly rejected. Lets keep it at that..and your GB radars are all PESA/Slotted Array...which is why i pointed it out. Because you see, in 1950-1990, you were much ahead of us. You had a radar design and development capability and several operational systems. Now we are ahead and will remain so, unless you ramp up significantly. Therein lies the point..

Well it is truth, compared to more experienced nations, nothing wrong with that, I can say exactly the same about our designers, and I have no problems with such truth.

What are more experienced nations? Do you understand the tech development curve? Countries/companies may stagnate. One so called more experienced nation per the internet, in reality..has no ability today to make long range missiles. Because they, like you, went to a bigger country for an alliance, and lost that ability. It will take a decade to test, validate, by which time where do you think India/China will be?
In this race, India & China are running and they are progressing fast, this stuff of more experience only counts to a point.

What was poorly engineered? Lack of AC was reason? Something else? I really do not see much that can be ----ed up in simple T-72 based ARV in terms of reliability.

All the engineering items and fitments needed to be revised, systemic reliability issues in Indian operational conditions..

 

[Damian]

Of all these only Abrams can claim to have seen actual proper sustained combat. Chall2 limited, and per the Brit commander in ODS, Chall 1 was a flop.

Both M1 and Challenger 2 saw extensive combat in Iraq, M1 of course more due to situation. Leopard 2 seen extensive combat in Afghanistan. As for that British commander, you have any source, or this is again another unsupported claim by any reliable source?

You are not being honest, you are being ignorant and deliberately so. This is the exact problem with you lot that we face on this board because of which folks who do know a bit wont engage with you, and as a result you are left with the younger lot whom you then attempt to browbeat.

Then you claim they are not upto your lofty standards and continue to be rude to them..

Zia Ul Haqs death and the M1 trials in Pakistan are well known and long reported. By denying these and even refusing to admit that these occurred you do yourself no favours...which is what brings us to the basic problem about how you all engage on the board..

There is not even a single credible source mentioning this, I have probably all credible high quality books about M1 with Richard Hunnicutt book at the top of this, in none of them such trails are mentioned.

And these books are written by Russian, American, even German authors, none of them says so, sorry for me this story is a fairy tale.

As for the rest, I do not agree with you, as you are not objective, neither you have more recent informations.

Semantics. Can you make ballistic missiles? Can you design AESA radars? Can you make your own AEW&CS? If not, you are dependent and intend to remain so. We don;t and have already moved far ahead.. thats the point. So before somebody like militarysta condescends about an Indian VCAS understand...that man held and commanded more operational power in his career than whole of Poland has had in its recent 20th century history...a million strong army with 4k tanks and nuke capability speaks for itself. Net, less hubris please.

Why the hell we need ballistic missiles?! :shocked:

And that equipment still is not upto scratch for Indian needs. Its been repeatedly offered and repeatedly rejected. Lets keep it at that..and your GB radars are all PESA/Slotted Array...which is why i pointed it out. Because you see, in 1950-1990, you were much ahead of us. You had a radar design and development capability and several operational systems. Now we are ahead and will remain so, unless you ramp up significantly. Therein lies the point..

Economy sometimes is a bitch, contrary to many other countries we actually try to not stretch our budget too much, however there is currently program to improve situation through cooperation with whole NATO.

What are more experienced nations? Do you understand the tech development curve? Countries/companies may stagnate. One so called more experienced nation per the internet, in reality..has no ability today to make long range missiles. Because they, like you, went to a bigger country for an alliance, and lost that ability. It will take a decade to test, validate, by which time where do you think India/China will be?
In this race, India & China are running and they are progressing fast, this stuff of more experience only counts to a point.

But you do not understand that many nations do not see need for long range missiles, not to mention that it is very expensive to design many weapon systems alone. Collective defense is better idea, especially that many more expensive weapon systems can be made by USA and then sold to us if nececary. If you are in collective defense you do not need to make everything on your own, not immidietely at least.

All the engineering items and fitments needed to be revised, systemic reliability issues in Indian operational conditions..

Why this was not pointed out to Bumar during trails? We could then develop variant for India exclusively.

 

[ersakthivel]

If you want :taunt1:


Scale 1:72 as I posted previous on photo.
Happy enought?

I am very happy.

But the only problem is you can make nothing out of a drawing that does not have dimensions.
Such drawings are never accepted for any serious purpose,

My computer screen has a width of 413 mm and a height of 235 mm.
Since the inner circle of the crew hatch circle ,measures 10 mm horizantal and 10 mm in vertical directions , there is no magnification error in my screen.It has properly reproduced the circle.

Any way since you have the drawing ,

From this drawing please give me
1.Hull width(whether it includes partial frontal side skirts or not?)
2.the ratios of frontal hull width/turret width(including storage boxes)
3.Inner hatch cover dia/frontal hull width.

See the length of 100 mm on my screen equals 73 mm on the scale you put on your drawing.
Turret width measures 56 mm on my computer screen.I have included storage boxes in measurements.
So as per your scale it should measure 56x0.73=42 mm on your scale.

Also the inner hatch measures exactly 10 mm on my computer screen.
So it should measure 7.3 mm on the scale you placed on the drawing.
By further factoring in the scale of original drawing ,the real measurement of hatch inner hole is, 7.3x72=525 mm.
So this must be the real width of the hatch cover.

Are you agreeing with these measurements?

So 42 scaled upto 1:72 scale of the original drawing comes to around 2943 mm as turret width.
So turret width is 3 meters ,provided your drawing and scale are genuine.
But I don't know whether it is a rough schematic dia or actual scaled down production drawing ,
Because all properly scaled drawings should have dimensions marked on the drawing. It is a rule in professional drawing .

If I submit any scaled drawing that has no properly marked dimension even in my bachelor's degree time , I would be ridiculed by my peers and professor.