Talk:Arjun (tank)

What is going on?!

Just when I thought the new format was helpful in narrating the history of Arjun, Chanakyathegreat decided to inject his POV again. His edits moved sources around not according to chronological order but according to his agenda of POV pushing. This is getting ridiculous. Please, my fellow editors, closely read the sources Chanakya cites for various sections. Otherwise, he is getting away with whitewashing the article. Below, I have documented what he has done. For each problem section, I first quoted Chanakya's version; I then pointed out the problems in the form of replies.

July 2005

During the summer trials in 2005, it was reported that the Arjun had low accuracy, frequent break down of power packs and problems with its gun barrel", and "the tanks also had problems with consistency, recorded failure of hydropneumatic suspension units and shearing of top rolls" as well as a "deficient fire control system", "low speed in tactical areas", and "the inability to operate in temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius".

My rebuttal: Sources cited for this section are 1) http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw050921_1_n.shtml, 2) http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Arjun-tank-fails-winter-trials,-Army-Chief-writes-to-Antony/297768/ and 3) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/File_Defects_found_in_Arjun_tank_during_trial_Govt/articleshow/3012911.cms

The problem is that 2) and 3) do not belong in this section. Why? Because these two sources are about the trial results in 2008. What are they doing here under 2005 section? By78 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it has this historic information in it the information of the 2005 trials.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

NO they do NOT. Did you even read them? Where do they say about 2005 trial results? By78 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree here. Chanakya, you honestly expect us to believe a 2008 article talking about "the latest round of user trials" is going back three years without mentioning it? Please, if you want credibility, you have to do better than that. You can, just do it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Summer 2006

After trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." The army accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance.

My rebuttal: Sources cited are 1) http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm and 2) http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574

Neither source is from 2006, the year this subsection is concerned. Instead, 1) is from 2007 and 2) is from 2008. What is more, they raise more questions than answers. 1) states that "User Field Trial" report proves Arjun's accuracy and consistency was beyond doubt, but 2) states that it was not the "User Field Trial" but the "Firing Trial" that proves Arjun's accuracy and consistency. Accuracy and consistency have to do with a tank's firing performance, but not its other performance aspects.

Moreover, 1) is really questionable. The article claims that Arjun is completely "indigenous". How can it say that when the fire control system, the engine, the transmission, the LAHAT missiles, and even the tracks are all foreign made? This article is really shaky, in my opinion.

Indigenous because it's designed, developed and built in India. You know that many tech that go into the Super power U.S.A indigenous Abrams tech are from Germany and Britain.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

M1 is not a indigenous tank. Nobody here in the US has ever trumpeted it as an indigenous tank. Maybe you need to brush up on your English and relearn the definition of indigenous because, frankly, nobody else here has problems with this word. According to your definition (designed, developed and built in India), then Arjun is most definitely NOT a indigenous tank. Arjuns tracks, FCS, LAHAT missiles, engine, transmission are all foreign designed and foreign made. Not only did you not understand what indigenous means, but you even failed to apply your own definition correctly. Try harder next time. By78 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more troubling, 2) was written by "Ajai Shukla". Where have I heard of this name before? Oh yeah, Mr Shukla is a blog author. Chanakya tried to use Ajai Shukla's blog (http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/nailing-some-more-falsehoods-about.html) as a source, but it was rejected by consensus months ago. Now, Chanakya wants to use yet another piece written by "Ajai Shukla" as a source. Come on, I am seriously begin to think that all the good things said about Arjun actually came from no more than 3 people.

And they were the journalists on the ground. Do you think this is a mega event that news agencies from world over will flock to India to report about the Arjun MBT trials. Whether it is three or one it is enough and you have no right to call a journalist who works for a reputed news agency like NDTV and goes to the places where he need to be to collect the information as a blog author. He is a real journalist and not a journalist sitting in his office writing the stuff in imagination. He has got a nice blog as well. So what's your problem?

My problem is that he is a blog author. By78 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya ignored an important source (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arjun-main-battle-tanked/16589/1). Unlike Chanakya's sources, this source was written in 2006. It clearly states, based on the 2006 Trial Reports submitted to the government committee, nagging problems still dogged Arjun in 2006. I therefore added the content provided by this source, but without cutting out Chanakya's edit. Instead, I stated that conflicting accounts exist over the trial results of 2006. By78 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is written in 2006, only the content is from history.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your reply makes no sense at all. Care to elaborate? Indeed the apple is red, it's from the color. What? By78 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is from 2006, but the content is about the failures of the past.

It is after the 2006 summer trials that the Army report suggested that the "accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank was proved beyond doubt".[1] Remember that the report is not about just the gun but about the tank. So in the Summer trials no problem was found in the Arjun. It's plain simple.

Again, you did not read it carefully. Your source clearly states"Last June FIRING trials noted that the 'accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank was proved beyond doubt.'" Where did it say 2006 "Summer Trials" like you have been claiming? You do know that you are at the English version of wikipedia, right? Most editors here read English just fine, and apparently better than you can. By78 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What the link says is "accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank was proved beyond doubt." It uses Arjun tank. No problems were reported in the article as well hence the trial is a success. This is not what I say but the Army report is saying. Simple as that. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also note that: The MoD admitted this year to the Parliament's Committee on Defence that the "Arjun's firing accuracy is far superior to other two tanks."

So what? A tank is not just about the accuracy of its guns. This point of your does not prove a thing, so stop flailing random quotes around without logic.By78 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And that that "MBT Arjun is specifically configured for Indian Army requirements, and the T-90 does not have some of the advanced features of MBT Arjun."Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but T-90 is a proven tank, fielded by the Russians. Where is Arjun after 36 years?By78 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fielded by Russians? You make me laugh. They have not introduced T-90 beyond 200 numbers or so. They are waiting for the Black eagle. I am not saying that the T-90 is such a bad tank. It's a cheap tank that can be mass produced and has good mobility and firepower and lacks in good armour protection, latest suspension systems, crew comfort, less space and reduced future upgradation. The T-90 is based on the T-72 tank.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, any more off-topic discussion about the merits of the T-90 and this whole thread is being archived and we start over. Stay on topic, both of you. First, as to this, why not "In 2007, Major General H.M. Singh, a director in charge of trial and evaluation, said that the last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt."? That's neutral and that's what it says. The point isn't to just make blanket statements and make a citation. Let's try to include both views, but make sure to give the names of the people spouting the views. Leave it to the reader to determine credibility. For this, we can add that as a source to the field trial report statement. While it is a blog, the other source adds credibility, at least here. By78, could you put a link on my talk page to the prior discussion about Shukla? Is the issue that he has been shown to be false before, or just a simple "he's a blogger so no"? However, to claim that it was put into service "based upon its driving and firing performance over the years" should mean the 2006 trials is a bit much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The current edit is like this "It was remarked by Major General H.M. Singh in 2007 that the Firing Trials of 2006 demonstrated "the accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." It's true that the H.M Singh did comment. But he was quoting from the Army report that was submitted by the Indian Army. Check the link[2] which says. "Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt." Here the user is the Indian Army and the report is by the Indian Army. The second link[3] which is more accurate. It says "In fact, the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance over the years. After firing trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." Now for the final and ultimate proof, the Ministry of Defense Goverment of India Annual report 2006-07[4] which says "After successful user validation trials during summer 2006 five tanks have been handed over to the Army in June 2006". Now the third link[5] can be disregarded since it's utterly wrong and says the Army says the trial failed whereas we have the Ministry of India report states that the trial was a success."Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The changes has been made to the first part of the Summer 2006 section according to Admin Ricky81682's proposal above. Now request the Admins to remove the edits based on this link[6] since it's incorrect and replace it with the Ministry of Defense Goverment of India Annual report 2006-07[7] edit "After successful user validation trials during summer 2006 five tanks have been handed over to the Army in June 2006".Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reject the proposal to remove the link [8]. It is not up to us to judge if it is correct. Furthermore, we do not know what user validation trials entailed. It is possible that many problems persisted whilst the tank still passed the trial under some other criteria. Keep in mind that problems cited in the link[9] still persisted until 2008. By78 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

---

By78, I am replying to your answer in the Summer 2006 section, since I am blocked from replying there. If possible please paste this below your comment. Since your reply that the link and the edits based on it cannot be removed in the section. I will point out that there is no mention of the Summer 2006 trial result in the article by Mr.Amitav Ranjan. Even though he knew about the trials, he never knew/got any information about the Summer 2006 trials and he is reporting about trials in 1997 etc (no mention of Summer 2006 trials).

How do you know the author did not have any information regarding Summer 2006 trials? Did you ask him? By78 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading what I wrote. I said even though he had information of the trials he never knew about the Summer 2006 trial result. OR I would also like to add that if had the information of the result, he never provided it in his article. Now you asked "Did you ask him?". Answer is you can read the article. It has no mention of the Summer 2006 trial result.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

He did mention about the 1997 trials etc and then writes correctly about the 2005 trials as "According to the Army’s latest trials, the decade-old problem of overheating persists. Two of the tank’s main subsystems, the fire control system (FCS) and integrated gunner’s main sight, which includes a thermal imager and laser range-finder, are rendered erratic and useless by the Arjun’s abnormally high peak internal temperature, which moves well beyond 55 degrees Celsius. This is in testimony to the Parliamentary committee."

The article by Amitav Ranjan was written at the end of 2006, well past the conclusion of the Summer 2006 trials. I am sure when he referred to the latest trial results, he was talking about the latest at that time, i.e. by the end of 2006. By78 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that the article appeared on 6th November 2006. That never makes the author to have any information of the Summer 2006 trial result. When did the Army release the report on the trial result? We don't know. But can only reach the conclusion that he never had those info with him OR atleast he never mentioned it in his article.

This claim is substantiated by another link from another article[10]. Which says "After a miserable failure in 2005, when the tank’s electronics proved utterly inadequate, the turning point came last year. In summer 2006, firing trials established, in the words of the army’s own trial team, that the “accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank was (sic) proved beyond doubt”.

This article is an OPINION piece by Mr. Shukla, a blog author. Furthermore, his opinion cites no sources, and it is just that, an opinion. Moreover, he said the FIRING trials proved the accuracy of the Arjun, not USER TRIALS, as you claimed. Basically, what Shukla is talking about is different from what you claim. By78 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your calling of a journalist as a blog author is a cheap trick. If you cannot prove anything then you start calling the journalist as bogus. That's unacceptable and against Wikipedia rules and how Wikipedia functions. If everyone start disliking journalists, there will be no articles left in Wikipedia. He is a journalist working for NDTV and Business-standard. Two major news agencies in India. Regarding the Firing trial, I never expect such reasoning from you. When do one conduct a firing trial? Please enlighten me about the firing trial being separate from a trial. If they do the firing trials separately what will they do during the trials. Maalish the tank? Provide substance to support your argument that the trial is different and firing trial is not part of the trial. If you believe that firing trial is part of the trial, then you are correct and you must also believe that the Arjun can fire accurately, since it was demonstrated during the trials. Now the whole trials being successful, here is the Ministry of defense report. about the trials in Summer 2006. It says [11] "After successful user validation trials during summer 2006 five tanks have been handed over to the Army in June 2006". Now don't say it's validation trial in summer 2006 and it's different from Summer 2006 trial. Both are the same. If you think otherwise, you must prove it. This is Wikipedia and here everything requires proof. And if you still argue that validation trial Summer 2006 is different from Summer 2006 trial without any proof, I will like to say that change the "Summer 2006" section heading to "Validation Summer 2006 trial". Forget all that just provide a single source that says Arjun failed the Summer 2006 trial. Then let's keep that Indian express link (that never speaks anything about the Summer 2006 trial result) alive with the edit. Else we have to remove it. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Later, the MoD stated to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence that, “Arjun’s firing accuracy is far superior to the other two tanks”.

What is your source for the above? Provide links please. I don't trust Shukla. By78 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem if you trust him or not. It's your problem. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia and its edit. Here we are supposed to quote from news articles. If there is any error in the content point it out and argue based on that. That's all.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This summer, the army raised another objection: the Arjun should be able to drive for 20 minutes in six feet of water. The CVRDE has managed that as well."

What is your source for the above? Provide links please. I don't trust Shukla. By78 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the link already provided. I don't like him is not a valid argument. Provide substantial evidence to prove that Arjun MBT did not "drive for 20 minutes in six feet of water".Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

From the links provided to state that the Summer 2006 trials were a success (the link included the official version as well) it is quite clear that the Summer trials were a success. You replied that "It is possible that many problems persisted whilst the tank still passed the trial under some other criteria." I totally disagree with your point because there is nothing to substantiate your point "that there is some criteria". Speculation must not be there in Wikipedia pages and no POV must be put without evidence. Whatever criteria is there it must pass it to call the trial a success and the Arjun MBT has done that.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My "speculation" is not without reason. After all, if Arjun was problem free in 2006, then where did all the problems come from in 2007 and 2008? Why did the gun barrels chip, the rollers shear, the FCS act erratically, the tanks have low tactical speed, etc.? These are the problems listed for 2008. By78 (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

None of that happened in the trials. Only that the DGMF tried to sabotage the induction of the tank by providing a wrong report to the parliamentary committee. At that time everyone suspected that there were sabotage of the tank during the trials but later found out that the sabotage was with the report. They were taken to task for that. The only problem noticed was the Gear box problem in the latest trials. That got sorted out. Now why are we discussing about the latest trials. Let's not compare 2006 and 2008. I will address it later. Let's concentrate on Summer 2006 trials. The trials were a success and that must be, and only that must be there in the Summer 2006 section. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 2007

The Arjun tank was fielded during the exercise Ashwamedha in the deserts of Rajasthan. The Army had no complaint about the Arjun tank and was satisfied with its performance during the exercise.

Sources cited are 1) http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3097 and 2) http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3098

My rebuttal: Again, 2) does not support the claims made here. It clearly states "SO FAR, report sources, the Army has absolutely 'zero complaints' from the performance of the Arjun Tank in dusty, hot desert conditions in Rajasthan". "So far" is not the same as "in conclusion". So what eventually happened? I have added a source (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/File_Indian_Army_unsure_about_Arjun_tanks_role/articleshow/1994156.cms) that tells you precisely what happened in the end. It clearly states that 14 defects were found with Arjun during the 2007 exercise.

What Chanakya did here is just wrong. It's like someone covering a football game would announce, "so far, team A is up by 14 points over team B at the half. I hereby declare team A won the game by the final score of 10-0!".

By78 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

By78, the link Times of India article never claims about trouble during the trials. They are talking about the 14 defects that existed before and not during the exercise. All those list are cut and paste job from prior articles. Shoddy journalism. What the army said was this ""If improvements are required in the system, it will be pointed out (to the developers, Defence Research and Development Organisation)," the army chief maintained.

"We will draw lessons from the exercise on which area they (the Arjuns) can be best exploited," he added. "

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the problems existed till and during Exercise Ashwamedh. But it is not the way you put it. Those articles seems like a copy paste job from previous articles. Even though the problem may with something else only these problems get reported. But still there were problems so your edits can stay.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the agreement. By78 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I will appreciate you if you can get the correct problems that existed. It's not the ones as mentioned. It can only be minor ones. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By78, here is the link after the exercise and it says "Army has zero complaints".[12]Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AUCRT (2007-08)

Auxillary User Cum reliability trials (AUCRT) of the Arjun MBT was conducted from September 2007 to summer of 2008. In a report to the Parliamentary standing committee the Indian army deemed Arjun's performance unsatisfactory, including at least four engine failures. The defense minister presented this report before the parliament, later published by Press Information Bureau Government of India (PIB).

The Army wrote in the report that during the "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" (a.k.a winter trials) in 2008, the Arjun "was found to have failure of power packs, low accuracy and consistency, failure of hydropneumatic suspension units, shearing of top rollers and chipping of gun barrels".

The parliamentary committee to which the report was submitted pointed out that "There were clear factual inaccuracies in the army's deposition before the Standing Committee. The most glaring of them is the army's suggestion that it is carrying out trials on the Arjun's performance. The ongoing trials in Pokhran that the army is citing are Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT). In these, two Arjun tanks were run almost non-stop for 3,000 kilometres, not to judge performance, but to evaluate the tank's requirement of spare parts, fuel and lubricants during its entire service life". Sabotage was suspected, but the Army rejected that any sabotage happened during the trials.

My Rebuttal: Regardless if these trials are about Performance or Reliability, the PIB report clearly list the problems as "DEFECTS", not parts wearing out due to normal usage.By78 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Later the Army admitted that the report submitted to the Parliamentary committee was a mistake. According to the Indian Army "few minor snags were found with the gear box of the Arjuns and they were no engine failures as reported earlier and even the main gun of Arjun MBT performed exceptionally well in the trials"

My rebuttal: The source cited (http://www.idrw.org/2008/04/28/army_takes_a_uturn_on_arjun_tank.html) is a BLOG. What did we say about using a BLOG as authoritative source? By78 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

At present DRDO and the army are locked in an impasse over the further order for the Arjun, above the present 124.

My Rebuttal: In summary, there you go again, Chanakya. You keep clinging on the sabotage allegation, which was already mentioned in the previous edits. However, I state again, as documented by all the sources, that the unproven sabotage allegation was about the failed "gearbox" and NOTHING ELSE. This still leaves the problems with low speed, broken rollers, tracks, suspension, fire control system, gun barrel, low accuracy, etc. Stop leveraging the possible sabotage of the GEARBOX to discount all the rest of problems with Arjun. Your source (http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574) claims that there are factual inaccuracies with the PIB report, fine. But it does not say these other problems were fake, does it? It only says Army allegedly reported Reliability Trials as Performance Trials. However, nowhere in this PIB report does the Army characterized it as a Performance Trial. In fact, the only factual inaccuracy your source cites is the Army's mischaracterization of a GEARBOX failure as an ENGINE FAILURE, which again was already covered by previous edits as possibly due to sabotage. What more do you want?

Also, what about the other sources I provided about Arjun's problems during the Summer Trials? You managed to focus only on the PIB report, what about these other sources? Oh, I know what you did with them. Instead of taking them on point by point, you managed to shuffled them around so they now mysteriously end up in sections having to do with 2005 trial results and the section titled "Futuristic main battle tank (FMBT)"

At first, I was puzzled at how these sources on 2008 trial results mysteriously ended up in sections having nothing to do with 2008 trials results. Now, it became clear to me that you have sneaked around to scatter and bury them in other parts of the article to conceal them because you can't deal with the fact that they say something you do not want to acknowledge. You did this so you can exclusively cling onto the PIB press release, as you have always done, as a way to discredit all the latest criticisms on Arjun. Not cool dude, not cool. By78 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember that I had not removed the PIB link or contents of it like you remove.

What? Don't accuse me of something I did not do. I have never removed the PIB release. In fact, you are the one who has been keen to discredit it, but of course, the irony is that you were the one who first provided the PIB release as a source. By78 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IDRW.ORG is not a blog. It's a defence website like the Janes.

I am not aware that Jane's is a BLOG (sarcasm intended). In fact, IDRW.ORG is a BLOG having to do with defense industry.By78 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Army said the report was a mistake and indeed there was no trouble with the tank during the trials except the gear box.

Circular reasoning. IDRW.ORG, a BLOG, said the Army said the report was a mistake. If you are so insistent on this point, why not provide additional sources? By78 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out that there is no latest criticisms of the Arjun but we saw recently lot of praise for the Arjun for the tank it is.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a shocking news to me. Care to provide sources to back up this claim?By78 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

www.idrw.org is not a blog. If we believe your version, Janes and all newspapers will become blogs. I leave it to the Admins to decide.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Jane's does not have a blog format, with a calendar, and allows you to comment on the entries. If it did, it'd be a blog.By78 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Different path, shining path etc is not suitable for the heading, if it is about the FMBT put it that way.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is. FMBT is NOT. Why? Because the section also covers the additional orders of T-90, not just FMBT. Did you even read the section?By78 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the AUCRT. Remember it was you who insisted on a single AUCRT but now you want it to be separate. If you want two sections for the same AUCRT(winter and Summer), we can have it. I don't have any objections.

No, it was you who insisted on a single AUCRT section. You added AUCRT section where by 2007 Winter Trials and 2008 Summer Trials were merged. You have a disturbing pattern of attributing what you did to other people. What's next? Are you going to tell me that I was born in India? Do you not think that we can easily go back to history and see clearly it was you who used AUCRT? By78 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The section must be complete and clear. There must not be no confusion. There must be the links and edits about the problem reported by the Army, the parliamentary committee report and depending on the Admins opinion, the idrw.org link as well and the summer trials being successful.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this section must be clear and fair; then why did you keep trying to mess up the consensus version, which contained many approved sources? Stop using BLOGS. By78 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OH, would you please INDENT your replies?! If you don't know what INDENT means, use a dictionary. What does it take to get this simple point into your head? By78 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Chanakya, everyone knows what this is. The fact that you called it "updated" is enough for me. That is extremely disruptive and a complete misrepresentation of what you were doing. If you do another edit like that again, you will be blocked. Period. No more warnings about it. This game ends now. If you want something changed, you will discuss it and get consensus first. There has been enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion...

I suggest we go back to the previous, and still standing, agreement that Chanakya submit his changes for peer review before incorporating them into the actual article. I seriously do not have the time to fix his mess. By78 (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There should be a section for Critique having criticism regarding this tank due to its late delivery, weight, inaccuracy, transportation issues etc. as discussed at The Daily Mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.48.9.140 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

IDRW

I'm splitting into a separate section. There is no need for long arguments over 1000 topics simultaneously. In my view, IDRW is a blog. It is unreliable as a general matter. In contrast, Jane's Information Group has been around since 1898. Who exactly is the writer for IDRW? If you disagree, Chanakyathegreat, provide specific links with exactly what you want to say and we can discuss them BEFORE we put them in the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. IDRW is a blog. By78 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Around since 2000 B.C.E is not that matters. Whether it's a blog or a Defense related website is that matters. If it is a blog, I don't have any objections to the removal of section relating to the Army's accepting the PIB report as mistake. But the parliamentary committee view and the links that say summer trials are a success must be added. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please submit sources that say Summer Trials 2008 were a success. It's time for peer review. By78 (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Make it a separate section, By78. I don't want this section to divert off-topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First, one more comment without the proper formatting and I'm blocking you. I'm serious about this. You've been told multiple times and it is close to impossible to follow. My patience with this game is enough. Have enough respect for everyone else to not make their lives more difficult for no reason at all. Second, are you going to seriously claim that IDRW.org has existed in some form since 2000 BCE? Is your goal to simply go as far as you can without statements like that and see if they work or are you at all remotely serious about this? I'm not discussing anything else. Answer my question about the IDRW.org, not about whatever you are talking about. Any more off-topic discussions in this section will be ignored by me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your comment. Ok, if you agree that the IDRW is a blog, then it's unreliable and cannot be used as a source. If so, this thread can be closed and we can move on. Whatever else you want to include, offer a link as a new section and we'll discuss it there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Summer 2008 trials

Chanakyathegreat, ok, you said that you want "the parliamentary committee view and the links that say summer trials are a success" added. Please provide those sources in this section (and indent your comments properly). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[13] says Despite continuing criticism from the Army establishment, the Arjun has successfully completed a gruelling 5,000-kilometre summer trials in the Rajasthan desert.

Seesh. You keep posting the same old REJECTED BY CONSENSUS sources. Instead of a re-write of the consensus response, I will quote the response from before "REJECT (http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080712/808/tnl-arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-a.html). Why? Because this is the exact same article you presented more than two months ago (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-army-drdo_10070729.html). Just as it has been rejected by consensus more than two months ago, I reject it today. I hate to repeat the consensus opinion over and over again, but here it goes: this article has low verifiability because the bulk of the article states the opinions of an UNNAMED party "close to the DRDO". According to this unnamed source "close to the DRDO", the Arjun was successful during the latest trials. Hmmm, but I also have over a dozen named sources that say otherwise, from both the Indian media and official government report Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release. The real problem with you, Chanakyathegreat, is that you want to use the opinion of an unnamed source "close to the DRDO" as the official verdict, which is absolutely unacceptable. HOWEVER, I am willing to incorporate DRDO's direct views into the article, but the sources are hard to find, and you should help me on this." By78 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Who rejected it. You rejected it. No one has the right to reject anything in Wikipedia unless it is from some blog. Is this your blog that you want a link to be taken out because you don't like it. Remember that this is Wikipedia. What kind of argument your are placing. This comment is not made by any DRDO source but written by the journalist after investigation. No quotes are used in the statement that, Despite continuing criticism from the Army establishment, the Arjun has successfully completed a gruelling 5,000-kilometre summer trials in the Rajasthan desert.

So the Arjun did successfully complete the trials. Simple as that.03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Chanakyathegreat (talk)

Also there is an attempt to link the Arjun and T-90 in terms of induction into service. This need to be delinked. From the above source "The T-90S and the MBT Arjun tanks are of different class. Both tanks have their own special features. The MBT Arjun has more power to weight ratio, hydro-pneumatic suspension for better ride comfort and a stable platform to fire on the move, better quality class of Gun Control System and Fire Control System etc.

No, T-90 and Arjuns cannot be delinked. All sources point to Arjun's diminished future due to the introduction of more T-90 units (1347 T-90s to be precise). Otherwise, why would there be 1300 more T-90s while the Arjuns are "capped" at 124? Stop ignoring the facts. More T-90s were ordered because Arjun was behind schedule and experiencing nagging problems. Don't take my word for it. The following sources all say the same thing: http://inventorspot.com/articles/russia_and_india_agree_transfer_key_technology_t90_tanks_18045, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/India-Plans-to-Cap-Arjun-Tank-Production-04984/, http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Jul52008/national2008070577076.asp?section=updatenews. Now, can you provide sources to back up your claim that Arjun and T-90 are in fact delinked? Furthermore, why would the Indian Army commence the development of a Futuristic Main Battle Tank (FMBT) at this juncture? Sources clearly state that Army wants to cap Arjun at 124, use T-90s as a stop gap, and focus on a new FMBT for the future. By78 (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The missile firing capability of Arjun was demonstrated during field trials. The T-90S tank has missile firing capability and lower silhouette. Tanks of both the class are required by the Indian Army."

How is the above relevant? How does the above titbit demonstrate that Arjun is now problem free? How about an example to demonstrate my reasoning: I have five kids, and I need a big Ford SUV to haul them to school and to soccer games. However, I also love sports cars, so I bought a BMW. My big Ford SUV has had five problems, but my BMW has remained problem free. Both vehicles are needed. Do you see where I am getting at? Just because I need two types of cars does not prove the Ford SUV is "flawless". Just because the article claims the Indian Army needs two main battle tanks (although this claim itself is dubious), it does not make any of the two flawless. By78 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we are not talking about flawlessness or perfectness. You did try to link the two to state that if there is T-90 there will be no Arjun. That's the reason you are putting this "different path" section. You are again trying to deviate from the subject. You can have your Ford car and BMW and both can be problem free as well.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You did not respond to my point at all. Furthermore, I never said there will be NO Arjun because Army ordered more T-90s. All I said was, the prospect for Arjun's widespread (and don't tell me 124 units can be called widespread) adoption is diminished. What is so controversial about this statement? If you object to it, then write to the editors of the sources I have listed and argue with them. By78 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also from another source[14]

"It was only a year ago, the 14th parliamentary report by the Ministry of Defence stated that, Arjun Tank Mark-II production will be taken up after the successful completion of the first order of 124 Arjun tanks. The same report stated that, “MBT Arjun is a 60-tonne class battle tank with state of the art opto-electronic power-packed control system, weapon management system and high performance suspension. It is a product unique in its class, specifically configured for the requirements of the Indian Army.". So both tanks will be inducted.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This source (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/07/25/stories/2008072550320800.htm), which is an OPINION (clearly stated on top of the webpage) written by a "former Member" of "ordnance factories", makes NO claim that Arjun's 2008 Summer Trial was a success. In fact, it cited the following regarding the Arjun, "the Defence Minister informed that Arjun was found to have low accuracy, frequent break-down of power packs and problems with its gun barrel in the recent accelerated user-cum-reliability trials. The tanks also had problems of consistency, recorded failure of hydro-pneumatic suspension units and shearing of top rolls." Also, I have this to ask about the author of this OPINION piece: who is this FORMER factory worker, and what is his connection to the Arjun project? What gives him the insight and up-to-date information on Arjun's 2008 Summer Trial results? What did we say about verifiability? I rest my case. By78 (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Report after exercise Ashwamedh which says the Arjun completed the exercise successfully.[15]Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This source (http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3142) is dated from MAY 5th, TWO-THOUSAND-SEVEN (5/5/2007). What is the source doing under this discussion section, which is titled "SUMMER 2008 TRIALS"? By78 (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you, Chanakyathegreat, have any verifiable source (not opinions, not sources from 2007 or earlier, not blogs, not forum postings, etc.) that claims 2008 Summer Trials were a success? Could you please at least provide an official government report of some kind that says the 2008 Summer Trials were successful? All we got from you so far are third hand sources connected to the DRDO (not from DRDO directly), a FORMER ordinance factory worker's opinion, and outdated sources from 2007 or earlier. You will have to do better than this before your edits are accepted. By78 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not have both? The army says they failed, sources close to the DRDO says they didn't. That actually seems more reasonable to me, and is probably closer to the truth. Assuming ANI here is the Asian News International, and we are getting it from Yahoo! News, so it is reliable that their source from DRDO says they succeeded. The fact that we don't know who the source is isn't that important. Some of the army citations simply say "the army", so why should we expect an individual to be named by DRDO? It's probably just a publicist anyways. By78, it is a reliable source that says an unnamed source close to the DRDO says they succeeded. That's clear. What else that means is up to the reader. They can determine from the rest of the history about what's going on. Is that a fair compromise? Also, consensus can change so please don't run with "it was rejected before and rejected now." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, Arjun's problems have been documented by the government and the Army, and in both cases, many NAMED people directly connected to those institutions expressed their misgivings about the Arjun. I understand DRDO holds a different point of view, and that is to be expected. However, the real problem is that none of the sources who side with DRDO actually comes from DRDO. I mean, where is DRDO's named sources on this? I am reluctant to admit third-hand accounts and former ordinance worker's opinions because they have low verifiability. We know where the Army stands on 2008 Summer Trials, because we've got the reports and the quotes from the generals and government committee members. But what do DRDO's spokesperson, project manager, or scientists have to say? Do we really want the article to say that on the one hand, government officials and the generals say one thing, and third-hand sources and an ordinance worker say another? This is why I have been asking for first-hand sources from the DRDO to back up the opposing view. Thus far, Chanakya has not provided a source with that, in my opinion, passes the verifiability threshold of wikipedia. However, I have been fairly accommodating, going so far as to even integrate into the article unproven sabotage allegations and DRDO's insistence on Arjun's viability. I would like to do more for DRDO's point of view, provided that someone can come up with some verifiable sources (I looked for them myself, but I could not find any). By78 (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I say we have to take what we can get. The source is reliable that an unnamed source close to the DRDO says they didn't. People can read what they will. The DRDO wouldn't seem to explicitly announce that they disagreed with the army's results, but that would look clearly stupid to say that you disagree with the buyer's test on your product. If we end up with "unnamed sources vaguely alleges DRDO had sabotage, did fine, succeeded" and "General this and the army clearly says this", that's fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We can take what we can get. I also think we need to adhere to Wikipedia's standard on verifiability. I have always been and will remain open to adding new, relevant information to this article. Despite Chanakya's questionable sources, I in fact added his POV on this matter, "DRDO, on the other hand, has insisted the tank was a viable choice for adoption and suggested the unsatisfactory performance of the engine during the winter trials was due to sabotage." If Chanakya can provide stronger sources, I have no problem with adding more on DRDO's take on this matter, provided the sources are verifiable. As of now, I am still waiting for those sources. I am pretty set on NOT accepting the opinions from "former ordinance factory worker" and third-hand sources regarding DRDO's view points. If DRDO had something to say and said it, then there ought to be better sources out there. Meanwhile, see this: (http://pib.nic.in/archieve/others/2008/apr/r2008042813.pdf) regarding what the government said about the Arjun project. I plan on incorporating it in the future. By78 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the biggest problem is a lack of details. Here's a simple one: on what dates where the trials run? That helps us say "the government said on XXXX, DRDO either said this first or responded" which makes the story clearer. I don't feel like running through all the articles but it's clearly possible to do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Except we have only sources that cite what the Army and the government said, but we have none from DRDO in response. We need those sources. I looked for them, but I have come up empty in the last hour or so. Will do more searches. By78 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

By78, I did a mistake by posting the Ashwamedh exercise 2007 link also in this section. It is also being posted in the Ashwamedh exercise section, you can answer it there.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, I am not against listing the problems from the PIB link, the parliamentary committee comment, suspecting sabotage of the trials, army rejecting sabotage angle and the trials being successful (the gear box problem that occurred in reality, the Renk team inspection and sorting the problem must also be added after sabotage.. and before trials being successful).Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let go of the gearbox and the sabotage. They are right there in the article. Did you read it? They've been there for a while. What about the faults with deficient fire control system, the wheels, the tracks, the gun barrel, etc.? Sure, the gearbox's been fixed, whatever, but what about the rest? You still have not provided sources that back up your claim that these other specific faults have been fixed. This is the crux of the problem. By78 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Stay on topic. You claimed that summer trials were a success. Sources on that topic only. Successfully completing a test is not the same as completing the test successfully, especially since the army would clearly have higher standards than "just get the thing past the finish line." Anything else at this point is disruptive. And responses of "it's too complicated to actually find someone to call it a success so here's a tons of bits and pieces that together sounds like it is a success" will not work. That is called synthesis and is not allowed. Period. Last, you indent one further than the person you are responding to. Indenting the same as the person you are responding to again makes it impossible to follow. I only stopped indenting because we were too many indents down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

On topic. The report from the government of India about the AUCRT.Army gets its first armoured regiment of MBT Arjun. Quote Meanwhile, Army carried out the Accelerated Usage Cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT) in 5 phases on two tanks from Nov 2007 to Aug 2008 covering more than 8000 km and 800 rounds of firing in each tank. AUCRT is required for assessing the spares requirement for the entire life of the tank besides evaluation of reliability of tank. Each phase consists of 1000kms run and 100EFC (Approx. 160 rounds of APFSDS and HESH – Primary and secondary rounds) over a temperature range of -5 to 500C (Must be read 50 degree celsius). One of the main issues during AUCRT trials was the failure of the bearings of Transmission of M/s RENK, Germany, due to rise in lub oil temperature. However, this was immediately solved by modifying the software during AUCRT itself and the efficacy of the software was proved for more than 4000kms. However a comprehensive solution of modifying the bearing assembly by providing a special coating was carried out to take care of the temperature problem and the retrofitment of bearing assembly being carried out in all the tanks.

The outcome of AUCRT trials raised the confidence levels of the users over the reliability and endurance of MBT Arjun and they confirmed that the overall performance of the MBT Arjun during the stringent AUCRT trials was satisfactory and cleared the production tanks with minor modifications suggested during AUCRT, for induction. Both CVRDE and HVF along with DGQA agencies worked out methodologies to introduce all AUCRT modifications within shortest time frame and the next batch of 17 tanks were handed over to Army by 3rd March 2009.

As suggested by Army after AUCRT trials, Arjun tanks were subjected to rigorous trials and assessment by a third party audit (an internationally reputed tank manufacturer). After the extensive evaluation, the reputed tank manufacturer confirmed that the MBT Arjun is an excellent tank with very good mobility and fire power characteristics suitable for Indian desert. They also added inputs such as quality auditing, production procedures and refined calibration procedures for further enhancing the performance of MBT Arjun.

This perfectly matches with my argument and goes awry with the present edit sustained by a strange combination of vandals and Admins. The corrections will be made accordingly to the article.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Special prefragmented round under development paragraph removed

I removed the prefragmented round section here. I don't think that this random website is a reliable enough source for information on military projections. Also, statements about its possible use are highly speculative and are not necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. My two cents: not only is the website of dubious quality, but I found no mention of the prefragmented round at all. I also googled for alternative sources just to be sure, but I could not find any reliable ones to back the claim, thus I removed the claim. By78 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert of recent edits of Hohum by by78

My recent edits did the following:

• Reduced overlinking of dates according to MOS:UNLINKDATES
• Condensed various identical references using the name= tag format
• Removed a pdf on an IP address which isn't a reliable source, replacing it with "fact" tags.

by78's revert note was "The latest editing was unwarranted, broke many good links, and committed many tagging mistakes while adding abosolutely nothing to the article"

My edits didn't break links, nor cause tagging mistakes, and added quality to the article by removing duplication, disorganisation and unreliable sources. What is the consensus? Hohum (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly reinstated my previous changes Hohum (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, no cause for controversy here. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

POST BY (talk)

I thought I would add this link because it is relevant to this discussion.I don't pretend to have any knowledge of either of these vehicles as I was a crewman on the M60A1.http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20090825.aspx Safn1949 18:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

maiden regiment raised

i've added that the arjuns maiden regiment has been raised

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=2c989f63-5120-4d94-9d36-868a28d3b7d3 -Nuclearram 19:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

comparative trials between Arjun and Russian-origin T-90S

Arjun Outranked T-90S in the trials.Puneetsoni (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The link is here.http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20100401.aspx Safn1949 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

lolololololololol........

Arjun outranking even a T-55 would be laughable,but a T-90 Arjun=Arjunkkkkk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.30.15 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyways it is the truth. This trial is significant for the Arjun tank as this trial gave it acceptance & recognition.Puneetsoni (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparative trials between MBT Arjun and T-90 tanks were held during 15 February to 12 March 2010, to evaluate the utilisation strategy by the Indian Army. The evaluation parameters were firepower, mobility, maintainability and medium fording. The trials were conducted in four phases.

Phase I: This was conducted at 180 Armoured Brigade, Bikaner. Acceleration, turning radius, stab performance, ergonomics, static fuel consumption, and serviceability and mean time to repair were checked for various subsystems of the tanks. Phase II: This was conducted at Hisar, Haryana. Check was made for medium fording capability. Phase III: This was conducted at Mahajan Ranges, Rajasthan. Bridge crossing, night driving, maximum speed on cross-country and on hard ground, tilt driving, firing of primary and secondary ammunition, firing at night with thermal imagers (TI), consistency, rate of fire, thermal signature, TI capability and firing of small arms and Air Defence (AD) Gun were compared. In this phase, approximately 100 rounds were fired and 150 km of mobility run was completed by each of the 14 MBT Arjun tanks. Phase IV:This was conducted at Ranjitpura, Rajasthan. Mobility in the desert and tactical cruising range were evaluated by running three tanks each for additional 150 km. MBT Arjun displayed its capabilities and successfully passed all the trials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakaviator (talk • contribs) 04:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

decision on the further order of the MBT Arjun tank

The decision on the further order of the MBT Arjun tanks would be based on the results of recently concluded comparative trials of MBT Arjun and T-90 tanks.

Certain components of MBT Arjun are imported based on the indigenous design of their configurations. The other systems are indigenously designed and produced.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Shri S Semmalai and Shri GS Basavaraj in Lok Sabha today.

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=60943 --59.94.128.198 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I want the following section to be added.

More orders

After the 2010 comparative trials with the T-90, the Army decided to place further orders for the Arjun Main battle tank. An order for 124 more tanks of the MK1 series has been placed with Avadi.Army Decides to Take 124 More MBT Arjun Bcs09 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove protection

Its been protected since last year. Also please change the spelling to defence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.220.163 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the wording suitable ?

Is the word triumph suited for this article?

-'the Army was impressed 'by Arjun's triumph against T-90 and placed an order for an additional 124 tanks on May 17 2010'

In my opinion this should be changed to 'the Army was impressed by Arjun's performance''' against T-90 and placed an order for an additional 124 tanks on May 17 2010' It seems more neutral.

The article features lot of irrelevant material in the article particularly in the trials and exercises section.I will attempt to shorten it. If changes to trials section is not acceptable then i will revert my changes

Thank you --Nuclearram (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Triumph was not used. The term used was "performed superbly"Bcs09 (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think superbly might be Ajai Shukla's own choice of wording.It also has a partial feel to it.

As such http://www.zeenews.com/news637896.html said by DRDO

--Nuclearram (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Ajai's report is the original report and only genuine report. The others are copycats. They copied from Wikipedia, your own POV. That's why the use of correct terms is so important.Bcs09 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Superbly" does not fit in to the article. According to the Business Standard article itself, the usage of the term superbly can, at best, be described as hearsay as there has not been any official communication and the guy has written the piece on the basis of feedback from some undisclosed sources. Shovon (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the official communication.[16] "After many years of trials and tribulations, the tank has now proved its worth by its superb performance under various circumstances, such as driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes, detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets and accurately hitting targets, both stationary and moving with pinpointed accuracy" the spokesperson said. Bcs09 (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

From the official source itself[17] "After many years of trial and tribulation it has now proved its worth by its superb performance under various circumstances, such as driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes, detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets, accurately hitting targets – both stationary and moving, with pin pointed accuracy. Its superior fire-power is based on accurate and quick target acquisition capability during day and night in all types of weather and shortest possible reaction time during combat engagements. "Bcs09 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have adjusted the section to show what was said, and by who. So there should be no argument. (Hohum ^@) 19:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit by Hohum is acceptable. Although Ajai Shukla's use of the word superb quoting from an unnamed source can be POV. BTW how is this a copycat of Ajai Shukla's four month old article ?The press release itself is two minths old.How is this my POV ? care to explain? http://www.zeenews.com/news637896.html ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuclearram (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

When it initially reported, the performance of the arjun was superb. Some reports even gave the statistics. I cannot find it now. It says while arjun was able to hit all it's target the T-90 failed miserably. Similarly in night firing Arjun excelled. So it was indeed a superb performance. Strangely someone added triumph (which indeed is correct) but instead of using the term superb you used the term satisfactorily. Recently this was picked up by some reporter and published it. That's the damage you done with your point of view. The Arjun's performance is superb and not just satisfactory.Bcs09 (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The official press release, which I added as an additional citation, is not unnamed. (Hohum ^@) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is acceptable.Better than Ajai Shukla's only genuine report.--Nuclearram (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's acceptable, but a person who has gone and got the report from the ground and various details of the trial which no official reports can publish (Official report cannot publish how the T-90 got busted by the Arjun etc, it will damage relationship, so they hide the complete picture and only report how Arjun MBT performed) is superior to the official reports.Bcs09 (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If an official reports describes how the Arjun tank performed, is it not sufficient for use as reference in Arjun tank? Or does it require to be written as passionately as Ajai Shukla's report and describe how the Arjun busted the T-90? I agree with the on-site detail it provides but the info should be added in an impartial manner.--Nuclearram (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend, The official report is necessary for the superb performance part. They have an obligation to hide details of Arjun being superior to T-90. But I don't think Wikipedians have such an obligation to anyone. We put the detail that Arjun performed better than the T-90. What's partial about it? Emotions be controlled. Look at the image used in the Falkland war article. Terms like Gotcha and our lads will not make it a lie. But in wikipedia we avoid terms like Gotcha, our lads, busted etc but providing those sources as it appeared in those newspapers.Bcs09 (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Look i have absolutely no problem with the word superb as long as it is made clear that this statement was said by so and so with the source being quoted as such.And that the article remains neutral in it's viewpoint. Even in the Falklands War article it has been made clear by that The Sun became notorious for its jingoistic and xenophobic headlines, including the 20 April headline "Stick It Up Your Junta!",and was condemned for the "Gotcha" headline following the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano But the word superb was used in the paragraph itself without clarifying who used it in the first place.--Nuclearram (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The present edit is perfect. No problem with that. Now for Ajai's report, reading the full article gives a hint about it. It's the observers who made that comment.Bcs09 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes current edit is perfect. It would be better if the article clarified who made the comment.Say for example:“Observers at the Arjun tank trials agreed it performance was superb” or that “The Ministry of defence press release reported the the Arjun performed superbly“ and so on. The present edit is giving the necessary detail and is much better than superb being simply added to the paragraph and hoping people will read the reference to get clarification.--Nuclearram (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant the edit by Hohum. It was an impartial one. No need to hide the information under the carpet, I mean within the quotes. Let that be visible to viewers. Bcs09 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The current edit is acceptable--Nuclearram (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Tank Buy, Missile Test Boost Indian DRDO

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2010/05/20/03.xml&headline=Tank%20Buy,%20Missile%20Test%20Boost%20Indian%20DRDO

Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony, a staunch campaigner for indigenous military programs, said that the army’s decision to induct more Arjuns was its own, and signals that the tank is finally “coming of age.”When asked whether DRDO was disappointed with the number of tanks ordered, which was less than some had expected, the official says: “Let’s wait and see. The product will speak for itself.”

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/05/21/Future-of-Indias-Arjun-tank-looks-secure/UPI-94101274452185/

Future of India's Arjun tank looks secure

NEW DELHI, May 21 (UPI) -- The future of the controversial Indian-made Arjun tank has been secured after the army placed an order for another 124 units.

PLZ add the info in article--59.94.130.126 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC).

Added--Nuclearram (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

* Army wants laser-based weapons on its futuristic tanks

Looking to strengthen its armoured capabilities, the Indian Army wants its futuristic Main Battle Tank to be equipped with high-powered lasers for taking on enemy rockets, aircraft and electro-optical sensors.

"High/medium-energy level laser is expected to be a lethality option against rockets, air vehicles, light ground vehicles, antennas of armoured vehicles and electro-optical sensors," the Army stated in its long-term technology plans submitted to the Defence Ministry.

Officials said concerned DRDO labs are already working in this direction and developing the capability.

They added that these capabilities might be deployed on the Arjun Mk-II project, which was recently cleared by the Defence Ministry after the Army decided to place orders for another 124 Arjun MBTs with the DRDO.

http://www.ptinews.com/news/664700_Army-wants-laser-based-weapons-on-its-futuristic-tanks

Please consider it to add to article in upgrade section.--59.94.133.123 (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How is laser based weaponry destined for Arjun mark-2 relevant for this article?--Nuclearram (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there another article for Arjun Mark-II? Bcs09 (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Arjun Mark-2?--Nuclearram (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes.Bcs09 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it exists yet,except on paper? I think we can add the Mark-2 info in the variants section.What do you think?--Nuclearram (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Mark-II or MKII is the further deveopment of the Arjun MK1. No further information is available except that it will feature Battlefield Management System etc. This link[18] has detailed information on the recently conducted trials. If it can be added, that will be better. Also the latest acceptance of the Barracuda Mobile camouflage system for the Arjun need to be included.Bcs09 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Arjun tank improvement

[19]

• Fiber Optic Gyro (FOG) : An indigenous Fiber Gyro based 3 axis Sensor Package Unit (FSPU) has been developed and successfully flight tested in Nag control flight. A FOG based 2 axis sensor Package Unit has also been indigenously developed and fitted in Main Battle Tank, Arjun and passed field trials.

• Mobile Camouflage System (MCS) : As part of the project ‘Development of Defensive Aids System’, the MCS has been developed, integrated in MBT Arjun and conducted the performance Evaluation Trial.

• Advanced Laser Warning Countermeasure System (ALWCS) : First prototype of the Interface box for Fire Control System with Advanced LWCS has been developed and demonstrated. Verification Test on interfacing of ALWCS with Integrated Fire Control System has been carried out. ALWCS has been integrated on MBT Arjun and Limited Performance Evaluation and integrity trials Phase-I were conducted during April/May 2009 and Phase-II trails were conducted in August 2009. Development of Mobile Test and Instrumentation System and Mobile Power Distribution and Generation has also been completed.

These information need to be added to the article.Bcs09 (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Added--Nuclearram (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

PLz add ref before someone adds citation needed in addition in protection and upgrade section.--59.94.143.235 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

reference added--Nuclearram (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ADD template at bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisation_%28DRDO%29

Added --Nuclearram (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Content

There is no source for the section (Initial plans and dev.) claiming the Arjun design was obtained from Krauss Maffei, and no source for the imported FCS, gun barrel claim either. The links 9 doesn't work and link 10 doesn't substantiate any of these claims.

Also, the source for the supply of the FCS in the 'Fire Control System doesn't say anything of the sort.

Request the admin to edit that part out.

Vnomad (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Commentary

This was at the top of the main page, since it was obviously commentary by someone who doesn't know how to edit Wikipedia or how the discussion page works, I removed it and repasted it here:

Ealier part ofthe histoty of development ARJUN MBT is a cooked up story and most of it is a secondhand information -Brig Gurbux Singh Retd. !

Jimindc (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

update BHIM - T6 status

CVDRE has updated its Bhim-T-6 status A state-of-the-art 155mm Self Propelled gun named BHIM has been developed by CVRDE by integrating the T6 turret of M/S LIW, South Africa onto the Arjun derivative chassis system. After successful field trials, Army has recommended induction of this equipment into service. M/S BEML has been nominated as the nodal agency for the production of 100 nos. of BHIM. M/S BEML is to manufacture BHIM chassis and integrate with T6 turret.

link:http://www.drdo.gov.in/labs/cvrde/achieve.html--59.94.131.119 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)