Named in honor of General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque, the AMX Leclerc is a fourth-generation main battle tank in service with the French and United Arab Emirates armies. Designed as a replacement for the French Army's fleet of increasingly obsolete AMX-30 series tanks, initial development began in 1983.
Couple of interesting videos here.a couple of marine M1 fighting in the streets of falluja.using main cannons too.but lots of coax and turret 0.50cal fire (not sure of M1, but Leo2 carries 4000+ MG rounds)here a mixed patrol of bradley and hummers seems to come under fire. Bheem wrote:Lets face it.
T-90 orders, with spare parts, ammo, prodn & maintenance equipment and T-72 upgradation contract will all in all constitute around US$ 20 Billion over next 20-40 years. This means around US$ 4 to 5 Billion i.e.
20,000 to 30,000 crore of slush money would be involved. No peformance of Arjun can match it. Imagine T-90/72 lobby has Rs.
1000 crore to give away every yearSir, what you're saying is that it is imports lobby which is sabotaging the induction of Arjun Tanks in the Indian Army and decision makers in Army are doing it for their pockets are being lined. I will strongly suggest against making such accusations with out any corroborative evidence. Such a statement as you've made falls squarely in gross speculation territory and does no good to any one. While specific particulars cannot be alleged, we do know the 'reach' and 'power' of the natasha lobby dont we? A 'system' built up over 40 years does not crumble or get scared easily. And there is strong support in the PSU defence factories as their job is easier with imported assembly manuals and creates jobs.I dont think there is anyone in the political space to champion openly against morenatasha imports and investing more locally.
To some extent their hands are tied byour dependence on Rus for 'strategic' issues in the missile and SSN areas. Hersh wrote:Reg T72 Vs Arjun: Just to put things in perspective one of BR's tank gurusan ex-armyman pointed out that comparison between T72 and Arjun was moot since they were tanks in different class and T72 with its light weight had a different role.and hence fulfills a different objective of the army's war doctrine.So, now T-72 is a light tank? And hence, it has a different use in the Indian Army?
Hmmm.Let me guess, fly over the ditch-cum-bundh(DCB) defences of PA in Punjab and Shakargargh Sector (the whole tank, mind you.not the turret onlee).And Oh! Don't tell this to the Russians - they always thought that T-72 was their Main Battle Tank and they were going to pulverize NATO with their Tank Armies equipped with.horror of horror.T-72; these Russians, they had the gall to take on the Western Armor might with their 'Light Tanks'.But wait, did not Indian Army equip it's frontline Armored Brigade with T-72 from Sambha to Jodhpur?
Damn.I'm bloody confused. Rohitvats wrote:So, now T-72 is a light tank? And hence, it has a different use in the Indian Army? Hmmm.Let me guess, fly over the ditch-cum-bundh(DCB) defences of PA in Punjab and Shakargargh Sector (the whole tank, mind you.not the turret onlee).And Oh!
Don't tell this to the Russians - they always thought that T-72 was their Main Battle Tank and they were going to pulverize NATO with their Tank Armies equipped with.horror of horror.T-72; these Russians, they had the gall to take on the Western Armor might with their 'Light Tanks'.But wait, did not Indian Army equip it's frontline Armored Brigade with T-72 from Sambha to Jodhpur? Damn.I'm bloody confusedi thought the Ruski doctrine was to have the TFTA T80s as the MBT and SDRE T72s were to fill up the gap between two T80s. The main role of T72s were to act as cannon fodder and exhaust the western antitankdefenses, and follow (if any still left) the T80s. To crush the evil capitalist burgoiese west. Niran wrote.I thought the Ruski doctrine was to have the TFTA T80s as the MBT and SDRE T72s were to fill up the gap between two T80s.
The main role of T72s were to act as cannon fodder and exhaust the western antitankdefenses, and follow (if any still left) the T80s. To crush the evil capitalist burgoiese west.Sir, even by the Russian standards of warfare, the bolded part is over the roof top. Such theories are pure bunkum. As for the T-80 bit, you're actually write.GSFG Armor Divisions were mainly equipped with these. T-72 was more numerous with Motor Rifle Divisions. Now if you have air superiority and artillery support,MRLS with smart anti-tank rounds then there is nothing much best tank in the world can do for them.
So in the end it may be my system versus their system, rather then my tank versus their.Saar that also means that we don't need T-90 as we have ample of t72 tanks.But this theory is not true, Tanks are not yet absolute and wont be absolute in near future. Otherwise we would have ordered 1000 Anti-tank choppers instead of t-90.alsoifTank A Tank B in War Theater Wthen(Tank A + Fighterplane X + MRLS M + Artillery R) ( Tank B + FighterPlane X+ MRLS M + Artillery R) in War Theater Wso obviously Tank A will be the best choice. Army is the least corrupt organisation in our country.
Its hard to digest corruption (as latest army bashing in BR suggests), not professional rationale determined selection of t90 as our mbt. Still i have two questions for u Austin,What is the doctrine of Indian Army really w.r.t armoured thrusts, can u provide some links, its bewildering why the army still prefering t90 as its mbt. Since now Arjun seems to be the better tank, moreover its indegenous to our indigenous Antony Gonsalves.
Army still prefers to limit Arjun to deserts after the trials, Why t90 or even t72's is preferafable still in other terrains. (T34 vs Tiger in WW2??)Another confusing thing with Army is why the hell they wanted a western tank with their eastern doctrines.
Its worst project management after lca with bad blood running between army n drdo as its long term implications.What's the proffesional logic behind this philosophy, surely not everyone in army is corrupt or as dumb as we civilians assume.Again another topic, the new generation anti tank weopons, including heli missiles which we should take into account considering future threats, t90 is plastic can, fine, but can Arjun withstand the latest anti tank weopons.This topics are explained in detail here in BR, but unsatisfactorally, since arjun's original parameters are classified. My point is why we need so many tanks in this age at the cost of the numbers of anti tank weopons(Garud included).The third point is: lately i heard from someone, Defence Ministry trying to forge future partnership much in the established model of Navy- Drdo. Its probably in conceptual or skill building level.
Maybe after 10 yrs we can hopefully see, an Army's directorate with Drdo designing a tank, or an Air Force's directorate designing a UCAV with hal, Afterall the baby is supposed to be of both, not a step child to either. Any confirmations? Raye wrote:Army is the least corrupt organisation in our country. Its hard to digest corruption (as latest army bashing in BR suggests), not professional rationale determined selection of t90 as our mbt. Still i have two questionsMy opinion is least corrupt or most corrupt is not a relevant issue, rather then the guys who can influence are corrupt that matters, so even if the 1% of the Politican,DRDO, Babus, IA are corrupt and are at the right place in the evaluation and decision making loop the job is done, the rest 99% semi-honest are mostly irrelevant. Again another topic, the new generation anti tank weopons, including heli missiles which we should take into account considering future threats, t90 is plastic can,Plastic can Really? Based on some fan boy assessment of something that happened in Gulf warCan some one show me a picture of IA T-90 getting blown to pieces from rounds fired by Arjun or T-72, If not the picture can some one show me one statement from IA or DRDO which claim to have achieved such feat?Lets not get carried away by such unsubstantiated statements and then proclaim it as truth.It would be an interesting exercise if a single helina or even Nag is fired at T-90 and Arjun and have a good video of the same.
This topics are explained in detail here in BR, but unsatisfactorally, since arjun's original parameters are classified. My point is why we need so many tanks in this age at the cost of the numbers of anti tank weopons(Garud included).The parameters of Arjun and T-90 Bishma are classified, hence only MOD/GOI can make right assessment about its capability based on inputs from DRDO and IA.But yes generally speaking Shaped Charge Tandem Warhead should be effective in dealing with advanced armour seen on Arjun,T-90 and other MBT. Austin wrote:The parameters of Arjun and T-90 Bishma are classified, hence only MOD/GOI can make right assessment about its capability based on inputs from DRDO and IA.I don't quite get this. The MoD/GoI is made up of bureaucrats and politicians. They do not have the wherewithal to 'assess' complex weapon systems like a tank. The assessment has to be done by the IA's evaluation committees and their conclusions submitted to the MoD.
The GOI would be more concerned with the financial aspect after the IA has submitted its conclusions. So if hypothetically if the IA says that tank A is better than tank B by amount C (I'm simplifying this example of course) the GOI/MoD has to accept it. It may then decide to overrule the IA and go for Tank B because the advantage enjoyed by Tank A over B is not enough to warrant the extra cost.But in this case we already know from Ajai Shukla's article how the price of the T-90 was kept artificially low to make it seem that the Arjun was a lot more expensive. The GOI/MoD had no reason to refuse the IA's demand of choosing the T-90 over the Arjun.
The price obfuscation, the army's refusal to conduct comparative trials all the while adamantly maintaining that the T-90 was superior makes one think that there is something fishy about the whole affair. Nachiket wrote:I don't quite get this.
The MoD/GoI is made up of bureaucrats and politicians. They do not have the wherewithal to 'assess' complex weapon systems like a tank. The assessment has to be done by the IA's evaluation committees and their conclusions submitted to the MoD. The GOI would be more concerned with the financial aspect after the IA has submitted its conclusions.
So if hypothetically if the IA says that tank A is better than tank B by amount C (I'm simplifying this example of course) the GOI/MoD has to accept it. It may then decide to overrule the IA and go for Tank B because the advantage enjoyed by Tank A over B is not enough to warrant the extra cost.The logic, my dear freind, is lost on people who don't want to see the obvious. As for the role of Army specific to the T-90 deal. In reply to a question the Ministry of Defence stated that the T-90S Tanks were offered by Russia in December, 1997. A technical delegation was deputed to Russia in 1998 for conducting evaluation of the Tank. The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition.
(Role of the Army - Look at the beauty; T-90 were recommended to induction into IA after evaluating them in Russian conditions. How come IA did not then talk about the need for the tank to prove itself in Indian conditions? That so and so subsystem should work in Indian Thar in 60 degree temperature?) In December 1998, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the proposal for acquisition of 124 fully formed Tanks and 186 Semi Knocked Down (SKD) and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Tanks. (Role of GOI - tank approved on recco of Army). The Price Negotiation Committee (PNC) recommended that the Tanks should be tried in Peak summer conditions in India. (This is the beauty. PNC asking the IA to conduct the trials of T-90 in Indian Army.
Why did IA not see it necessary to trial the tank in Indian conditions? The same Army, which has made Arjun jump through hooplas time and again).Three T-90S Tanks were tried in Rajasthan during May-July 1999. Protection trial of the Tanks were also held in Russia during October-November 1999 which were witnessed by technical delegation from India. Based on these trials the Army headquafters prepared a General Staff Evaluation Report and recommended the induction of T-90S Tank into the service. (Again, the IA giving the inputs to the GOI) At present PNC is continuing its negotiations with the supplier M/s RVZ of Russia.The latest set of arguments, red herrings actually, don't have legs to stand upon. Nachiket wrote:I don't quite get this.
The MoD/GoI is made up of bureaucrats and politicians. They do not have the wherewithal to 'assess' complex weapon systems like a tank. The assessment has to be done by the IA's evaluation committees and their conclusions submitted to the MoD. The GOI would be more concerned with the financial aspect after the IA has submitted its conclusions. So if hypothetically if the IA says that tank A is better than tank B by amount C (I'm simplifying this example of course) the GOI/MoD has to accept it. It may then decide to overrule the IA and go for Tank B because the advantage enjoyed by Tank A over B is not enough to warrant the extra cost.Yes the primary technical assessment and evaluation is done by Defence Folks this case IA and the result is submitted to MOD, they are further vetted by Finance and all said and done it finally goes to CCSA which takes a final view on any procurement matters.
But in this case we already know from Ajai Shukla's article how the price of the T-90 was kept artificially low to make it seem that the Arjun was a lot more expensive. The GOI/MoD had no reason to refuse the IA's demand of choosing the T-90 over the Arjun. And why should IA not recommend T-90 and GOI not accept that recommendation if both think it has merits and is vital for Indian National Security?
Because some folks on BR or Mr Ajai Shukla does not like it or has some different opinion over what IA and GOI thinks?So if the current round of 'successful' trial does not come up with a matching response of '1000 Arjun Tanks' from GOI, will some one then blame the IA for manipulating the trials because GOI did not order 1000 Arjun's over 1650 T-90's? Austin wrote: And why should IA not recommend T-90 and GOI not accept that recommendation if both think it has merits and is vital for Indian National Security? And as for the induction of Arjun, it is the Army which will reccomend the induction of Arjun - like it did for T-90, and the GOI will act on that. The fact that you've trying to spread the blame around will not make this reality go away.nor the fact that IA has never ordered Arjun.Really are you privy to the recommendation of IA, are you privy to DRDO views on the recommendation, are you privy to CCSA meeting and mom and what let GOI to approve this big purchase, are you privy to the trials of T-90 and merits of trials and the demerits of T-90 as submitted by IA.Most here have a single minded agenda IA did not order Arjun blame the IA.
All flaws rest with IA because it recommended T-90, do not blame any one except the IA, why because they are incompetent to understand what they need and manipulated the trials.Unfortunately the debate on Arjun has degenerated to blaming IA and this is something unfair and unwise. ManishSharma wrote:Hmmmm!
So when Bharat (Cabinet + MoD + IA) decides to buy C 17s from US its a fishy decision. But when same Bharat decides to buy T-90 by just. Just sending a committee watching it perform in Russia without any competition and without testing in Bhartiya conditions, while grinding Arjun in test after test rigourosly in Bhartiya conditions then it is justified?BTW thats precisely why no one who has opposed the C17 has remotely worried about IAFs role.Similarly of T 90 the matter goes beyond IA thats it. Its just that in case of T 90 the same reasons that make C 17 fishy cant be applied.In fact when T 72s were first inducted it was a political decision mostly (like it would be if C 17s are gotten in).
@ Austin on April 20.' No one organization is faulty, if there is fault its a systematic failure.so fault starts from DGMF and goes straight up towards CCSA and every thing that comes in between.Its a systematic failure not an individual or a specific organisation failure.' Hi Austin,Without going into the merits of the case of either side.In the above paragraph of yours, my understanding is that you do mean to say that there was a systemic failure. You have written - 'if there is fault its a systematic failure.' You have not written 'if there is a systematic failure'.
My understanding therefore would be that you did mean to say there was a systemic failure!Do correct me if I am wrong.Best regards.
Steel Beasts is more than just another modern tank simulation screen shots. This design effort accurately models real-world conditions and tactics in a way that doesn't overwhelm the novice with a zillion key combinations and an over-the-top interface.
Steel Beasts is more than just another modern tank simulation screen shots. This design effort accurately models real-world conditions and tactics in a way that doesn't overwhelm the novice with a zillion key combinations and an over-the-top interface.