The designers in those countries are not morons, Damian. You would approach the usage of that term, to have not even realized the simple fact that designers design according to threat perception and user requirements.
If you don't even understand this basic fact then you have no business attempting to play expert-expert, and then thinking that your silly sarcasm would somehow pass muster. Guess what, it didn't. My dear Discovery Channel expert (since you so love the term), India went for the 120 mm rifled because it had a beautiful experience with the 105mm rifled on its Vijayanta, and because the Army asked for HESH.
If you had actually any idea of how devastating HESH rounds can be versus even fortified structures you'd understand. Because the Pakistanis were at the time putting pillboxes behind their first line of DCBs. As such it was essential the Arjun have a cost effective round it could lob in plenty, plus have a FSAPDS for its primary role against other tanks. So you didn't know this, congratulations. What you apparently also didn't know is the Arjun 120 mm rifled was a clean sheet design developed at the time with design consultancy with an European firm. They could have gone for a smoothbore, but chose not to, given the requirements and detailed input into design growth potential.
So, one - the whole world argument is arguably one of the most ridiculous you have made so far. And second, as usual, with zero knowledge of the context or what the Arjun gun has achieved in actual trials versus the T-90. Third, something about the real world, not book knowledge - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's rule number of 1 of prudent engineering practise. I am dismayed they didn't follow your gracious advise about the entire world (which in 90% of cases license produced existing designs from either the Soviet or German baseline as versus developing their own tailored to their requirements as India did), but then again, they lacked your scintillating knowledge, and of course, your decades of actual hands on engineering expertise in tank design.
Which of course you have, right?
Yup, NATO also have great experience with 105mm rifled guns, and what they done, 105mm rifled and rifled guns were seen as a thing of past, something with minimal growth potential, so everyone besides British that are traditionals, switched to smoothbores.
Of course Brits were talking that their guns were superior, in the CAT competitions tanks with smoothbore gun won and CR1 with rifled gun that was "more accurate" lost. Greece trails, CR2 with new suspension, FCS and gun (still rifled) is once again defeated by smoothbore guns armed tanks.
We can definetly say that CR2 is a good tank, British crews are well trained and hey, CR2 have the same suspension type like Arjun. But Yeah, Archer is probably right, who cares about independent trails with observers from several different countries, who cares that smoothbore armed tanks were superior in that trails... who even cares that HESH ammunition is outdated these days and that it's role can be taken by modern HE ammunition with programmable fuze (imagine a bunker hit by such round that do not explode outside but inside, effects will be much more devastating, or even old T-55 did You saw photos from US AMP HE ammunition? It made huge hole in T-55 turret and exploded inside). But who needs progress, let just stick with something that will be outdated more and more with each year.
As matter of fact, one of those "morons" who should "read all possible sources on the subject" was assigned to the engineering project which was to replace the L30 rifled, and referred to it as purely driven by economic requirements of long term ammunition sustainment.
Of course You will ignore the fact that L30 and it's KE ammunition have small growth potential, and it's far behind level represented by M829A3 or DM53, but yeah, who cares about that, who cares that UK needed a smoothbore gun wih longer service life, with better and cheaper ammunition produced in so many countries and many other advantages.
India is not in the business of buying licenses. The Arjun was & is about creating an entire ecosystem where India does not have to rely overmuch on continued support from external OEMs, their R&D, and their "licenses". India would rather work on its own systems and at best do JV's where it owns IP.
Yeah, and wonder when people like You start screaming why India is several decades behind someone else...
It is simple, do not reinvent the wheel, buy a licence, build it, make experience, find weak points in design, learn how to improve it, build Your own better design, it will be definetly more cost effective than building everything from scratch.
Damian's excuse for the Arjun is simple. He believes that the Indian Army didn't know what they where doing when they printed the QSR and handed it to DRDO. Ontop of that India possibly can't build a better tank that Russia's T-90 who have decades of experience.
I do not say that they were not knowing what they were doing, they were knowing perfectly what they are doing, but I am amazed how they ignored all designs made over the world, all experience, principals of tank desiginign etc. etc. etc.
Refuting this is simple, the Indian army asked for a rifled gun. I don't think the Indian army is stupid.
I doubt it is stupidity problem, rather lack of any alternative.
Japan doesn't have a lot of experience building tanks, but their Type 90 out performs the modern T-90 still! Thanks to international collaboration.
Do You tested both tanks against each other to make so hard statements Jat? Type 90 is not a bad tank, still I would not want to sit in it where on the other side there would be hords of even old T-80B's. Type 90 repeats design scheme of Leopard 2, and this means rather low survivability in case of armor perforation... well in fact too many tanks repeat that design scheme, and I don't really understand why, there are several better solutions.
