You are pretty far from the mark because I have spoonfed you before and I saw what the result was. And no, I dont care a fig about the Polish guys, if like you, they cannot be bothered about keeping a civil tongue in their head. The teenager comment seems to have hit pretty close to the mark.
No you haven't. The only thing I learnt from you is that the Mk2 shell is from 1995 or else there are enough reasons to indicate you are the one who does not understand even trivial things.
About the armor & ammo - sorry, no spoonfeeding - there is ample evidence out there but I am not going to do *your job* for you by collecting it. The Arjun is intended for war. Not for your "extraordinary caliber" to figure out.
Spoonfeeding. Hardly. The fact is you don't have this information. The best information you have gotten is how a regular journolist gets info on weapons development. Stand around for hours in the sun, once doors open you flood inside the hangar, go over to the first stall you have an interest in, catch the first stall guy you see and ask "Sir, which is better - T-90 or Arjun?" That poor bloke will talk about how the Arjun is the king of tanks and voila that's the answer you give on a forum. No data to back it up, only a running mouth.
I am not a journo and neither am I dependent on military research for my livelihood. So, it is not a job for me. It is you who claims an extraordinary calibre of finding info by talking to developers. And no the Stall guys are almost never the actual developers of the platform. Lastly, they will never tell you the reason on why the Arjun is superior. Pictures are our best bet. The reason you say the Abrams is better followed by the Leo, CR and the rest is simply because independent groups from Europe study those benchmarks and rank them by studying open source information. It's not like you have created benchmarks of your own.
What I will say is this. And this has been confirmed by multiple sources, both user and developer.
- The Arjun is more heavily armored and protected than the T-90.
This is your conclusion. Only data can prove it and we don't have it.
- The Army's then DGMF made a public deposition that this should not matter, because the Arjun is a heavy MBT and the T-90 is a medium MBT. Being in different classes, they contended it was unfair to the T-90 to be expected to be as heavily armored as the Arjun. The Parliamentary Committee accepted this, but also pointed out that as the Arjun was developed to the Armys GSQR as a tank killer, which the Army accepted.
As a typical journolist you have misquoted the Generals words. The fact that the talk of Heavy and Medium MBT was never related to the armour. The T-90 as it stands has superior armour to the older Leos, the Merkava Mk3, M1A1 and the Challenger 1 even though all the other tanks are heavy tanks. Size has never been an indication of armour protection. This is one of the biggest misconceptions in India when it comes to comparing the T-90 to other heavy MBTs.
- In the last armor trials, the Arjun (and its armor arrays) were fired against using a variety of state of the art ammunition, at a variety of service ranges (including unrealistic ones) to overmatch even predicted threats. The Arjun cleared every one. These results were what led to statement 1, that for tank to tank warfare, the Arjun is more heavily armored than the T-90.
The IMI Mk1 and Mk2 weapons are not state of the art. The Russian supplied AMK-38 and AMK-39 are also not state of the art. The indigenous AMK-40A shells which were scrapped for faulty layering of propellents was a more powerful shell compared to all the 4 shells mentioned above. It had a 7.85Kg projectile with a 2 Kg Sabot.
The first batch of AMK-40A shells which were scrapped was DRDO's fault and not Russia's as you are trying to potray it. Take any shell from any country, if you do not layer it properly the shell will freeze on leakage. It is a very simple fact. The very fact that the same propellent was used to make a fresh batch of AMK-40A shells is proof that the Russian propellent was as good as any.
New requirements were placed as far back as in October, 2010 for newer shells which had the same penetrator designation as the Russian 3BM42 and also the indigenous AMK-40A shell with the Romanian CL3254M designation which is a modified IMI Mk1 shell. They are as follows;
http://www.ciidefence.com/pdf/RFI/RFI-Procurement-FSAPDS-AMN.pdf
Read page 3 and 7 for specs of both shells.
But it suffices to say none of these shells will dent the Pakistani T-80UD and neither will it a T-90.
Guess what the 3BM42M is a superior shell to all the 4 mentioned. It is highly possible we may not have negotiated for it properly or the shell manufacturing may have seen some problems.
