Talk:Arjun (tank)/Archive 1

Need to improve this page- divide it into different sections- mobility, propulsion, protection and armament like on other tanks. Sniperz11 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ashwamedh excercise and July comparative trials
Can somebody add information on this to the page? Kaushal mehta 12:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please use this. Very Comprehensive Chackojoseph


 * The project for development of Main Battle Tank, Arjun was completed in March 1995 with a total expenditure of Rs.305.60 crore, with delivery of 12 prototypes and 15 pre-production series of Arjun Tanks. Army has placed an indent of 124 MBT Arjun on Ordnance Factory Board/Heavy Vehicle Factory, and deliveries commenced.Chanakyathegreat 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gun is not 120mm, but T-72 125mm Gun, unless they plan to put 120mm at the later stage, in which case they should pont this out. 88.110.85.112 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:88.110.85.112, I hope you do read up more before editing... Arjun has its own gun, a 120 mm gun. Not the T-72 125 mm one. Sniperz11 14:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjun in Sanskrit
I guess the name Arjun is derived from Sanskrit. It would be great if somebody who knows the language inserts the name in Devanagari form. S3000 ☎  17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. T/@ Sniperz11 editssign 13:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arjun MBT.GIF
Image:Arjun MBT.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons?
Will there be any future comparisons especially between the Chinese-Pakistani equivalent? And we be any commentary regarding its' higher cost to other proven tanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.132.250 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source Comparsion chart is put below.

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Arjun Dead
It appears that Arjun project will come to an end. http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=41594 —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Never.http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/nailing-some-more-falsehoods-about.html Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I to think a blog has better information than established Indian newspapers? I think you are not being objective here.  According to many credible Indian news sources (the Hindu, the Indian Express, the Times of India, Business Standard, etc.), Arjun has many problems pertaining to its protracted development, cost over-runs, malfunctions, integration problems with its many imported components, numerous problems and failures during the latest trials.  These problems have been well documented by the aforementioned sources, and moreover, the problems cited came directly from the Indian Army.  My edits thus far used extensive direct quotes from these news sources with as little personal interpretation as possible.  Frankly your reverting to earlier edits that omitted the latest negative information is a sign that you are pushing your POV and of your unwillingness to admit that there are problems with the Arjun.  At first, I thought all this was funny because I didn't think I was spreading any information that was not true or lacked citations; but after reading your profile and seeing your repeated attempt to get India listed as a Great Power (and getting blocked in the process) in another Wiki article, it dawned on me that you possess a degree of insecurity about India's defense research capabilities (and India as a nation) and were trying as hard as you could to hide the bad news.  Please keep in mind that I am not trying to embarrass India, as I am an neutral military fan from America who is trying to make factual additions to Wikipedia articles.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with reporting the bad news, and you should appreciate this, as both India and America are democracies.  So, please ease your insecurities and let facts rule the day.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.153.141 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on the point that this information from the blog is not better. Ajai Shukla is a defense reporter like any other reporter of various newspapers and he writes for Business-standard as well as he is associated with reputed NDTV. Above all he is someone who worked in the Indian Army for a long time and knows the equipment/tactics better than any other reporters of the other reputed newspapers you quoted.

Some of the problems that the article has occured but not in the recent trials. The trial before the last one in which the renk gear box failed. The same gear box used in Leopard tank which is not a failure. The issue was sorted out and in the latest trials the tank has performed excellently. Also the reporter did get confused when he wrote about the barrel issues. It was not that of Arjun. That happened with the T-72 and Army men was killed in that incident. Don't know whether the same has happened with T-90.

I am also a person who believes in Truth being told. But I am not a person who will say Bin Laden in not a terrorist for the sake of being neutral.

No one is denying the fact that there was no issues. There were many. But the present tank is the one that has matured into a fighting machine by sorting out those problems. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps you should enlighten me with the latest news on Arjun test results (from both 2007 and 2008) and provide sources to back up your assertion that the Tank has worked out all of its kinks. I have cited at least four separate sources thus far on Arjun's VERY LATEST batch of problems, all occurring since Semptember 2007 up to the present moment.  If you claim that Arjun has worked out its problems, then cite Indian news sources that support your view (no blogs from an individual please but do cite official government assessments please).  Maybe the problems have been worked out since earlier this year (May, 2008), but I could not find any information supporting that.  Your source (http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm) does claim Arjun had performed well, but it was written in May of 2007.  The winter trials and the ongoing reliability trials have taken place starting SEPTEMBER, 2007 and are the latest trials the Arjun was put through.  It is from these LATEST trials that the many problems were found.  So obviously the Arjun, according to the LATEST results, is not performing up to the standards expected of it.  Moreover, your source claimed that the Arjun was "completely indigenous", which is just a lie and some kind of nationalistic chest-thumping.  How can your source claim that the tank was completely indigenous when the FCS, engine, transmission, LAHAT missile, and tracks are foreign?  Your source is not only NOT up-to-date, but it is also biased.   If you want to remove my edit, then you are responsible for providing info. to counter my latest information.  Until you do, I will revert to my version, which is based on the latest news I could find and extensively cited.  More more thing, what copyright violations were you referring to when you removed my latest edit?  It's a rather pathetic excuse, isn't it?  Like I said, I have cited all sources, and what copyright issue are you talking about?  Please Face the facts (directly from Indian sources).  There maybe some opaque Indian copyright laws that I am not aware of, but this article resides on the English version of Wikipedia, and I do not believe Indian laws apply here.

One more thing, I am not here to massage your inferiority complex about India. I am here to get the facts out. If you want to do nationalistic chest-thumping, start a new article (preferably in the Indian version of Wikipedia). Oh, I have an idea, under the Indian version of Wiki, you could say whatever you want about India being a Great Power without us Westerners object to you. So, yeah, building your delusional bubble somewhere else, and you might find more receptive ears there.

What you are doing is deliberate pov pusing and vandalizing the page. The edits that you make and the content did not match at all. You are warned from vandalizing the page. If you want to make changes get the accurate version read the report from the Ministry of defense at the PIB website.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The recently concluded trial was successfull no more bragging about Arjun MBT.... As you asked for the info here it is.

“Army officials were curious to know about the new instrument, which was installed before the summer trials, which has been successful,”Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol. It's a consistent pattern with Chanakya. He likes to glorify India as a great nation and the Indian military as a powerful military. I happened to stumble over his edits at Indian Navy and was quite honestly saddened by the obviously patriotic India POV. sigh Nirvana888 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana, seems you love Personal attacks, too much. Be pragmatic. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana, Indian military is a powerful military. There must not be any doubt about that. Indian nation is a great nation, just like any other great pluralistic nation. You accuse me without thinking or realizing that when I edit Wikipedia, i do it with credible sources sticking with the Wiki rules. I had not only contributed to Indian Navy article but also contributed in my capability to the Naval pages of South Africa, Brazil, Israel, Japan, Pakistan etc.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Chanakya, you're misconstruing my statements. I never said India and its military aren't great. India has clearly come a long way in building itself and still has a ways to go. I have nothing against India and honestly could care less if you are patriotic about your own country (and honestly it's good that you are in my opinion). My point is that, just like with Great power and this article you only seem to consider the positive aspects and neglect the negative ones. On Wikipedia, we have to be fair and balanced when writing articles. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, no need to get too worked up. According to Chanakyathegreat, there indeed have been allegations of sabotage during the winter trials, and I have added the source provided by Chanakyathegreat to the article because the source appears to be credible. I think a lot of the confusion comes from Arjun's very painful development history and bureaucratic infighting and thus all this was difficult to follow. That being said, the indian army does insist that Arjun had many problems, and these problems ought to be covered by this article, regardless of allegations of sabotage. Furthermore, the sabotage allegations seem to be confined to the engine and transmission only, and this means Arjun still has problems with its guns, FCS, tracks, wheels, and the suspension system. Therefore, in my opinion, the article needs to mention possible sabotage AND the problems Arjun is alleged to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the difficulties the weapon system is having are highly relevant to the creation of a neutral quality article. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The link I provided is for the Successfull trial.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is rated B in quality. Don't tarnish the quality by your POV pushing. Anything need to be changed need to be discussed with the sources and a consensus need to be reached on what changes need to be made wheather the source is accurate, can we find the pib article of the same etc. Remember the article is not a forum to express your opinion.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Chanakyathegreat, a blog not considered a reliable source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  You also may want to take some of your own advice about POV pushing.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The tank trials are of various types. The ordinary trial was success full. Certain trials like the Accelerated User Cum Reliability Trials are conducted to find out what system fails at what time in the tank in its overall service. All tanks go through this Accelerated User Cum Reliability Trials and system failure is noted to find the overall time the parts will function before replacement. This trial was also conducted on the Arjun.. The various systems failure at various stages are tested in the grueling test. Don't consider this as a failure. It's common for all tanks. This is like testing a tyre till its failure to find out the time before its replacement.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wlll now explain the vandalism being done on this page. The original version "The Government sanctioned Rs. 15.5 Crore for the initial part of the programme in May 1974.[2] By 1995, DRDO spent Rs. 300 Crore on Arjun MBT program."

The vandalized version "DRDO had spent Rs. 300 Crore on Arjun MBT program, over-running initial budget by almost twenty folds (inflation not factored)."

And the truth From "project for design and development of Main Battle Tank with an outlay of Rs. 15.50 crores. The same was enhanced to Rs.305.60 crores due to changes in the General Staff Qualitative Requirements and cost escalations caused by inflation. "

Even inflation is factored in that. The vandals are pushing their own point by distorting the original facts and pushing their own POV which is incorrect. A pure vandalization of the page.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chanakyathegreat, I'm not going to waste my time and go through this mess, because quite frankly, I don't care. A consensus needs to be reached on the talk page before making any more changes like the above.  However, let's get one thing clear:  It's not vandalism.  You may not agree with the edits, but you must assume good faith.  An example of vandalism is adding the word, "sucks" after each mention of the Arjun MBT within the article or replacing the whole page with "poop" or something.  If anything, it's considered, peacock wording or WP:NPOV, which you seem to love to throw around yourself, yet don't want to admit when you're doing the exact thing.  Go back, truely read some of the links above, including WP:RS and WP:V, and that should get you at least started in the right direction. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chanakyathegreat, I will remove "inflation not factored" from the budget overrun section, because your source clearly contradicts it. But please stop reverting to your earlier edits.  Your sources are outdated and not reliable.  This article should reflect the latest state of development and be as factual as possible.  We are not here to sell the Arjun to a customer, we are here to inform people about the Arjun in an unbiased manner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, you are warned from vandalising the page. Any change need to be discussed and a consensus reached before making any change. Also stop showing your manners here.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you misread who said what above and aren't actually meaning to refer to me. Either way, from what I can tell;  consensus has been reached by everyone, but you.   Consensus doesn't have to be a unanimous decision.  Also, as I'm sure you've noticed, I've blocked you for violating 3RR.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, I've looked over your edits, and you haven't actually violated WP:3RR... yet. However, you are definitely edit warring, so a block is still justifiable. I'm going to give you another chance (w/o you even asking for it).  However... next time, I won't be as forgiving.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, please STOP your POV pushing.
Welcome back to Wikipedia, Chanakyathegreat. Please stop your POV pushing on Arjun MBT article. You had been warned before, and now after a break, you have come back and resumed vandalizing this article. This is unacceptable. I will not debate with you on your sources because a consensus had been reached weeks ago that they were no good. I will not debate with you again on why your view is outdated and that all up-to-date sources indicate the Arjun has many problems. If you cannot understand this and prefer nationalistic chest-thumping, then feel free expressing yourself at more appropriate venues. Wikipedia articles need to stick with facts, not sentimental claims not backed up by credible sources. As I have said before, you've been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No POV pushing buddy, just doing my editing from credible sources like ThaiIndian etc that you guys used to put some incorrect statements on the Arjun. I had not deleted the incorrect part in the article that has been added. Just doing my editing with credible sources. Also please don't revert such good edits. If you have any complaint, you can contact the Administrators. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hydropneumatic suspension
Which other tanks other than Arjun has this hydropneumatic suspension. Can anyone provide source?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)



Chally 2, Leclerc, Leopard 2, Type 90. Has the Abrams got it as well?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct Information
The version reverted by By78 with no sources "By 1995, DRDO had spent Rs. 300 Crore on Arjun MBT program, over-running initial budget by almost twenty folds." The correct version with source By May 05 2008, DRDO had spent 305.60 Crore on Arjun MBT program.Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release


 * According to your source, the initial budget was 15.50 crores, but the final spending ended up being 305.60 crores. 305.60/15.50 = 19.72.  Thus, I stated the budget overrun was to the tone of almost 20 times.  Simple math, right?  By the way, I have more to say about this particular source through my rebuttals. By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The production section with a lot of information and sources was totally removed by By78.

''In 2004 the first 5 Arjun Tanks were given to the Indian Army in August 2004. The Indian Army has 124 Arjuns on order for two armored regiments. The first 15 tanks of the 124 have already been activated. Of the remaining 109 tanks, the Indian Army is currently putting the first five tanks from the production lines at Avadi, through accelerated build quality and reliability trials. The intent is to verify whether the Arjun production has stabilized, with the requisite quality and performance requirements. Upon successful completion, the remaining 104 tanks will be manufactured in batches. The first 14 of these had been handed over to the Indian Army for winter trials. The planned production rate is currently pegged at thirty tanks per year, with the Army requesting fifty per year as the ideal.''


 * I agree, your edit had a lot of information under the production section. Most other editor also agreed that your edit contained a lot of OUTDATED and NO-LONGER-VALID information.  Granted, the Arjun has been extensively tested, but it consistently underperformed.  This is the point you seem willing to ignore.  The source you provided to "prove" that Arjun is reliable has been contradicted by multiple media sources and especially by an official government press release (http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd), ironically cited by none other than YOU.  By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another source and information removed ''Arjun has been extensively tested, clocking 70,000 km, in addition to about 10,000 trial firings. Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said latest user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt. ''


 * Not again! We've gone over this before.  So, let me recite my previous argument: "Your source (http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm) does claim Arjun had performed well, but it was written in May of 2007. The winter trials and the ongoing reliability trials have taken place starting SEPTEMBER, 2007 and are the latest trials the Arjun was put through. It is from these LATEST trials that the many problems were found. So obviously the Arjun, according to the LATEST results, is not performing up to the standards expected of it. Moreover, your source claimed that the Arjun was "completely indigenous", which is just a lie and some kind of nationalistic chest-thumping. How can your source claim that the tank was completely indigenous when the FCS, engine, transmission, LAHAT missile, and tracks are foreign? Your source is not only NOT up-to-date, but it is also biased."  I will further help you understand by way of an example.  If I were to quote statistics on the illiteracy rate of India, I could state that 50% of Indians are illiterate.  BUT, this is old information from 10 years ago.  Today, only about 40% of Indians are illiterate.  Therefore, I should really cite the latest figures, not some old numbers from 10 years ago.  Do you understand me now?  If not, how about this then: one of your own sources from the Indian government (Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release) cites exactly the same set of problems as I have.  How do you explain this? By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above section was replaced with a report submitted by the army to the parliament.

''The Indian army has deemed Arjun's performance unsatisfactory in the winter trials that began in September, 2007, including at least four engine failures. Moreover, in the most recent "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" in 2008, the Arjun "was found to have 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 hydropenumatic 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". As a result of the aforementioned problems and citing growing need for a more advanced battle tank to satisfy the emerging needs of the future, the army has refused to order additional units beyond the first batch of 124. However, DRDO, the main developer of the Arjun, 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. Currently, DRDO and the army are locked in an impasse over the future of Arjun, and consequently, the prospect of Arjun's adoption remains uncertain at this point. ''

This was incorrect information provided by the army to the parliament. After this the ministry of defense suspected sabotage of the trials. It was incorrectly reported as engine failures. The Arjun tank uses a german engine used in Leopard tank. Then that tank must also fail. The actual problem was with gear Renk boxes which was fixed by a team from Renk.

And a deliberate attempt was made by By78 and certain admins to Vandalise the page with incorrect information.


 * Wow, army provided "incorrect" information to the Parliament. Can you prove this: that the army willfully fed the legislative branch of India falsified information?  Where is your source on this?  Do you expect any editor to ignore the official army assessment on the Arjun tank, seeing that the Indian army is the main customer of this product?  In your headlong rush to push your POV, you simply want to brush aside the entire report by the Army on Arjun's problems.  How objective is this?  Furthermore, your sources claim that "sabotage" was possible, and I have included this in the article.  However, the sabotage has to do with the engine only (according to your source).  Beyond the engine problems "due to alleged sabotage", Arjun still has major problems with fire control systems, tracks, main gun, and wheels.  How do you explain away these other problems?  Where are the sources claiming that these other problems were due to "sabotage" as well?  Why should any sane person exclude mentioning these other problems?  Moreover, according to one of your own sources, straight from the Indian government (Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release), clearly states these other problems not related to the power pack.  How do you intend to explain this? By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The other section that has extensive information and sources removed by By78 was

In the "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" in 2008, the Arjun tank was run 3000 km non stop not to judge its performance but to find the spare parts that the tank will require in its life time.


 * A good one. One of my sources (http://www.indianexpress.com/story/297768.html) clearly states that these failures occurred at 1000km, which was completely unacceptable to the Indian army.  If a tank can't last 1000km without major breakdowns, then the army is justified to reject it. By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was reported that the Arjun tank "was found to have 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 hydropenumatic 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". According to Lt Gen Dilip Bharadwaj, Army Director General (Mechanised Infantry) "Army will no more place orders for Arjun beyond 124 that was already contracted. That is because Army is now looking 20 years ahead and wants a futuristic MBT.


 * The above facts were first incorporated into the article by me, and I have never cut it out. Don't accuse me of something I did not do. By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The 5,000 km six month summer trial of Arjun MBT held till July 2008, demonstrated successfully the consistency of the gun and endurance of the Arjun MBT. In the trails held the MBT was able to hit targets the size of a suitcase at a distance of one kilometer.


 * Another good one. Let's not confuse the readers here.  These so-called "Summer Trials" is actually just another name for the ongoing "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" (AUCRT).  My sources clearly states that it is during these AUCRT/Summer Trials that the problems with firecontrol, tactical speed, gun barrel, wheels, and tracks were uncovered.  I have edited the Arjun article to clarify that these "summer trials" are the same as the AUCRT.  Furthermore, again, according to the Indian government's own press release (Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release), as cited by none other than you, that many a problems have been uncovered during the summer trials; and this press release made NO mention of these so-called successful test results. By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. You are deliberately twisting the facts to push your own version. The AUCRT is not just the summer trial. There was the winter AUCRT trial in which the said issues were noticed and not during the summer trial. The report to the parliament was based on this trial. The second trial said to be more gruesome than the winter trials, was a success.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The DGMF is avoiding a comparative trial of the Arjun and the T-90 tanks. , even thought there is wider acceptance among the soldier who operate the tank and the officers who had witnessed the performance of the the Arjun tank. ''

Need to improve this page- divide it into different sections- mobility, propulsion, protection and armament like on other tanks. Sniperz11 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ashwamedh excercise and July comparative trials
Can somebody add information on this to the page? Kaushal mehta 12:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please use this. Very Comprehensive Chackojoseph


 * The project for development of Main Battle Tank, Arjun was completed in March 1995 with a total expenditure of Rs.305.60 crore, with delivery of 12 prototypes and 15 pre-production series of Arjun Tanks. Army has placed an indent of 124 MBT Arjun on Ordnance Factory Board/Heavy Vehicle Factory, and deliveries commenced.Chanakyathegreat 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gun is not 120mm, but T-72 125mm Gun, unless they plan to put 120mm at the later stage, in which case they should pont this out. 88.110.85.112 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:88.110.85.112, I hope you do read up more before editing... Arjun has its own gun, a 120 mm gun. Not the T-72 125 mm one. Sniperz11 14:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjun in Sanskrit
I guess the name Arjun is derived from Sanskrit. It would be great if somebody who knows the language inserts the name in Devanagari form. S3000 ☎  17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. T/@ Sniperz11 editssign 13:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arjun MBT.GIF
Image:Arjun MBT.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons?
Will there be any future comparisons especially between the Chinese-Pakistani equivalent? And we be any commentary regarding its' higher cost to other proven tanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.132.250 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source Comparsion chart is put below.

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Arjun Dead
It appears that Arjun project will come to an end. http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=41594 —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Never.http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/nailing-some-more-falsehoods-about.html Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I to think a blog has better information than established Indian newspapers? I think you are not being objective here.  According to many credible Indian news sources (the Hindu, the Indian Express, the Times of India, Business Standard, etc.), Arjun has many problems pertaining to its protracted development, cost over-runs, malfunctions, integration problems with its many imported components, numerous problems and failures during the latest trials.  These problems have been well documented by the aforementioned sources, and moreover, the problems cited came directly from the Indian Army.  My edits thus far used extensive direct quotes from these news sources with as little personal interpretation as possible.  Frankly your reverting to earlier edits that omitted the latest negative information is a sign that you are pushing your POV and of your unwillingness to admit that there are problems with the Arjun.  At first, I thought all this was funny because I didn't think I was spreading any information that was not true or lacked citations; but after reading your profile and seeing your repeated attempt to get India listed as a Great Power (and getting blocked in the process) in another Wiki article, it dawned on me that you possess a degree of insecurity about India's defense research capabilities (and India as a nation) and were trying as hard as you could to hide the bad news.  Please keep in mind that I am not trying to embarrass India, as I am an neutral military fan from America who is trying to make factual additions to Wikipedia articles.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with reporting the bad news, and you should appreciate this, as both India and America are democracies.  So, please ease your insecurities and let facts rule the day.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.153.141 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on the point that this information from the blog is not better. Ajai Shukla is a defense reporter like any other reporter of various newspapers and he writes for Business-standard as well as he is associated with reputed NDTV. Above all he is someone who worked in the Indian Army for a long time and knows the equipment/tactics better than any other reporters of the other reputed newspapers you quoted.

Some of the problems that the article has occured but not in the recent trials. The trial before the last one in which the renk gear box failed. The same gear box used in Leopard tank which is not a failure. The issue was sorted out and in the latest trials the tank has performed excellently. Also the reporter did get confused when he wrote about the barrel issues. It was not that of Arjun. That happened with the T-72 and Army men was killed in that incident. Don't know whether the same has happened with T-90.

I am also a person who believes in Truth being told. But I am not a person who will say Bin Laden in not a terrorist for the sake of being neutral.

No one is denying the fact that there was no issues. There were many. But the present tank is the one that has matured into a fighting machine by sorting out those problems. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps you should enlighten me with the latest news on Arjun test results (from both 2007 and 2008) and provide sources to back up your assertion that the Tank has worked out all of its kinks. I have cited at least four separate sources thus far on Arjun's VERY LATEST batch of problems, all occurring since Semptember 2007 up to the present moment.  If you claim that Arjun has worked out its problems, then cite Indian news sources that support your view (no blogs from an individual please but do cite official government assessments please).  Maybe the problems have been worked out since earlier this year (May, 2008), but I could not find any information supporting that.  Your source (http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm) does claim Arjun had performed well, but it was written in May of 2007.  The winter trials and the ongoing reliability trials have taken place starting SEPTEMBER, 2007 and are the latest trials the Arjun was put through.  It is from these LATEST trials that the many problems were found.  So obviously the Arjun, according to the LATEST results, is not performing up to the standards expected of it.  Moreover, your source claimed that the Arjun was "completely indigenous", which is just a lie and some kind of nationalistic chest-thumping.  How can your source claim that the tank was completely indigenous when the FCS, engine, transmission, LAHAT missile, and tracks are foreign?  Your source is not only NOT up-to-date, but it is also biased.   If you want to remove my edit, then you are responsible for providing info. to counter my latest information.  Until you do, I will revert to my version, which is based on the latest news I could find and extensively cited.  More more thing, what copyright violations were you referring to when you removed my latest edit?  It's a rather pathetic excuse, isn't it?  Like I said, I have cited all sources, and what copyright issue are you talking about?  Please Face the facts (directly from Indian sources).  There maybe some opaque Indian copyright laws that I am not aware of, but this article resides on the English version of Wikipedia, and I do not believe Indian laws apply here.

One more thing, I am not here to massage your inferiority complex about India. I am here to get the facts out. If you want to do nationalistic chest-thumping, start a new article (preferably in the Indian version of Wikipedia). Oh, I have an idea, under the Indian version of Wiki, you could say whatever you want about India being a Great Power without us Westerners object to you. So, yeah, building your delusional bubble somewhere else, and you might find more receptive ears there.

What you are doing is deliberate pov pusing and vandalizing the page. The edits that you make and the content did not match at all. You are warned from vandalizing the page. If you want to make changes get the accurate version read the report from the Ministry of defense at the PIB website.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The recently concluded trial was successfull no more bragging about Arjun MBT.... As you asked for the info here it is.

“Army officials were curious to know about the new instrument, which was installed before the summer trials, which has been successful,”Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol. It's a consistent pattern with Chanakya. He likes to glorify India as a great nation and the Indian military as a powerful military. I happened to stumble over his edits at Indian Navy and was quite honestly saddened by the obviously patriotic India POV. sigh Nirvana888 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana, seems you love Personal attacks, too much. Be pragmatic. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana, Indian military is a powerful military. There must not be any doubt about that. Indian nation is a great nation, just like any other great pluralistic nation. You accuse me without thinking or realizing that when I edit Wikipedia, i do it with credible sources sticking with the Wiki rules. I had not only contributed to Indian Navy article but also contributed in my capability to the Naval pages of South Africa, Brazil, Israel, Japan, Pakistan etc.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Chanakya, you're misconstruing my statements. I never said India and its military aren't great. India has clearly come a long way in building itself and still has a ways to go. I have nothing against India and honestly could care less if you are patriotic about your own country (and honestly it's good that you are in my opinion). My point is that, just like with Great power and this article you only seem to consider the positive aspects and neglect the negative ones. On Wikipedia, we have to be fair and balanced when writing articles. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, no need to get too worked up. According to Chanakyathegreat, there indeed have been allegations of sabotage during the winter trials, and I have added the source provided by Chanakyathegreat to the article because the source appears to be credible. I think a lot of the confusion comes from Arjun's very painful development history and bureaucratic infighting and thus all this was difficult to follow. That being said, the indian army does insist that Arjun had many problems, and these problems ought to be covered by this article, regardless of allegations of sabotage. Furthermore, the sabotage allegations seem to be confined to the engine and transmission only, and this means Arjun still has problems with its guns, FCS, tracks, wheels, and the suspension system. Therefore, in my opinion, the article needs to mention possible sabotage AND the problems Arjun is alleged to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the difficulties the weapon system is having are highly relevant to the creation of a neutral quality article. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The link I provided is for the Successfull trial.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is rated B in quality. Don't tarnish the quality by your POV pushing. Anything need to be changed need to be discussed with the sources and a consensus need to be reached on what changes need to be made wheather the source is accurate, can we find the pib article of the same etc. Remember the article is not a forum to express your opinion.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Chanakyathegreat, a blog not considered a reliable source. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  You also may want to take some of your own advice about POV pushing.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The tank trials are of various types. The ordinary trial was success full. Certain trials like the Accelerated User Cum Reliability Trials are conducted to find out what system fails at what time in the tank in its overall service. All tanks go through this Accelerated User Cum Reliability Trials and system failure is noted to find the overall time the parts will function before replacement. This trial was also conducted on the Arjun.. The various systems failure at various stages are tested in the grueling test. Don't consider this as a failure. It's common for all tanks. This is like testing a tyre till its failure to find out the time before its replacement.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wlll now explain the vandalism being done on this page. The original version "The Government sanctioned Rs. 15.5 Crore for the initial part of the programme in May 1974.[2] By 1995, DRDO spent Rs. 300 Crore on Arjun MBT program."

The vandalized version "DRDO had spent Rs. 300 Crore on Arjun MBT program, over-running initial budget by almost twenty folds (inflation not factored)."

And the truth From "project for design and development of Main Battle Tank with an outlay of Rs. 15.50 crores. The same was enhanced to Rs.305.60 crores due to changes in the General Staff Qualitative Requirements and cost escalations caused by inflation. "

Even inflation is factored in that. The vandals are pushing their own point by distorting the original facts and pushing their own POV which is incorrect. A pure vandalization of the page.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chanakyathegreat, I'm not going to waste my time and go through this mess, because quite frankly, I don't care. A consensus needs to be reached on the talk page before making any more changes like the above.  However, let's get one thing clear:  It's not vandalism.  You may not agree with the edits, but you must assume good faith.  An example of vandalism is adding the word, "sucks" after each mention of the Arjun MBT within the article or replacing the whole page with "poop" or something.  If anything, it's considered, peacock wording or WP:NPOV, which you seem to love to throw around yourself, yet don't want to admit when you're doing the exact thing.  Go back, truely read some of the links above, including WP:RS and WP:V, and that should get you at least started in the right direction. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chanakyathegreat, I will remove "inflation not factored" from the budget overrun section, because your source clearly contradicts it. But please stop reverting to your earlier edits.  Your sources are outdated and not reliable.  This article should reflect the latest state of development and be as factual as possible.  We are not here to sell the Arjun to a customer, we are here to inform people about the Arjun in an unbiased manner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, you are warned from vandalising the page. Any change need to be discussed and a consensus reached before making any change. Also stop showing your manners here.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you misread who said what above and aren't actually meaning to refer to me. Either way, from what I can tell;  consensus has been reached by everyone, but you.   Consensus doesn't have to be a unanimous decision.  Also, as I'm sure you've noticed, I've blocked you for violating 3RR.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, I've looked over your edits, and you haven't actually violated WP:3RR... yet. However, you are definitely edit warring, so a block is still justifiable. I'm going to give you another chance (w/o you even asking for it).  However... next time, I won't be as forgiving.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, please STOP your POV pushing.
Welcome back to Wikipedia, Chanakyathegreat. Please stop your POV pushing on Arjun MBT article. You had been warned before, and now after a break, you have come back and resumed vandalizing this article. This is unacceptable. I will not debate with you on your sources because a consensus had been reached weeks ago that they were no good. I will not debate with you again on why your view is outdated and that all up-to-date sources indicate the Arjun has many problems. If you cannot understand this and prefer nationalistic chest-thumping, then feel free expressing yourself at more appropriate venues. Wikipedia articles need to stick with facts, not sentimental claims not backed up by credible sources. As I have said before, you've been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by By78 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No POV pushing buddy, just doing my editing from credible sources like ThaiIndian etc that you guys used to put some incorrect statements on the Arjun. I had not deleted the incorrect part in the article that has been added. Just doing my editing with credible sources. Also please don't revert such good edits. If you have any complaint, you can contact the Administrators. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hydropneumatic suspension
Which other tanks other than Arjun has this hydropneumatic suspension. Can anyone provide source?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)



Chally 2, Leclerc, Leopard 2, Type 90. Has the Abrams got it as well?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct Information
The version reverted by By78 with no sources "By 1995, DRDO had spent Rs. 300 Crore on Arjun MBT program, over-running initial budget by almost twenty folds." The correct version with source By May 05 2008, DRDO had spent 305.60 Crore on Arjun MBT program.Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release


 * According to your source, the initial budget was 15.50 crores, but the final spending ended up being 305.60 crores. 305.60/15.50 = 19.72.  Thus, I stated the budget overrun was to the tone of almost 20 times.  Simple math, right?  By the way, I have more to say about this particular source throughout my rebuttals. By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The production section with a lot of information and sources was totally removed by By78.

''In 2004 the first 5 Arjun Tanks were given to the Indian Army in August 2004. The Indian Army has 124 Arjuns on order for two armored regiments. The first 15 tanks of the 124 have already been activated. Of the remaining 109 tanks, the Indian Army is currently putting the first five tanks from the production lines at Avadi, through accelerated build quality and reliability trials. The intent is to verify whether the Arjun production has stabilized, with the requisite quality and performance requirements. Upon successful completion, the remaining 104 tanks will be manufactured in batches. The first 14 of these had been handed over to the Indian Army for winter trials. The planned production rate is currently pegged at thirty tanks per year, with the Army requesting fifty per year as the ideal.''


 * I agree, your edit had a lot of information under the production section. Most other editor also agreed that your edit contained a lot of OUTDATED and NO-LONGER-VALID information.  Granted, the Arjun has been extensively tested, but it consistently underperformed.  This is the point you seem willing to ignore.  The source you provided to "prove" that Arjun is reliable has been contradicted by multiple media sources and especially by an official government press release (http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd), ironically cited by none other than YOU.  By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another source and information removed ''Arjun has been extensively tested, clocking 70,000 km, in addition to about 10,000 trial firings. Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said latest user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt. ''


 * Not again! We've gone over this before.  So, let me recite my previous argument: "Your source (http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm) does claim Arjun had performed well, but it was written in May of 2007. The winter trials and the ongoing reliability trials have taken place starting SEPTEMBER, 2007 and are the latest trials the Arjun was put through. It is from these LATEST trials that the many problems were found. So obviously the Arjun, according to the LATEST results, is not performing up to the standards expected of it. Moreover, your source claimed that the Arjun was "completely indigenous", which is just a lie and some kind of nationalistic chest-thumping. How can your source claim that the tank was completely indigenous when the FCS, engine, transmission, LAHAT missile, and tracks are foreign? Your source is not only NOT up-to-date, but it is also biased."  I will further help you understand by way of an example.  If I were to quote statistics on the illiteracy rate of India, I could state that 50% of Indians are illiterate.  BUT, this is old information from 10 years ago.  Today, only about 40% of Indians are illiterate.  Therefore, I should really cite the latest figures, not some old numbers from 10 years ago.  Do you understand me now?  If not, how about this then: one of your own sources (Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release) cites exactly the same set of existing problems as I have.  How do you explain this? By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above section was replaced with a report submitted by the army to the parliament.

''The Indian army has deemed Arjun's performance unsatisfactory in the winter trials that began in September, 2007, including at least four engine failures. Moreover, in the most recent "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" in 2008, the Arjun "was found to have 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 hydropenumatic 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". As a result of the aforementioned problems and citing growing need for a more advanced battle tank to satisfy the emerging needs of the future, the army has refused to order additional units beyond the first batch of 124. However, DRDO, the main developer of the Arjun, 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. Currently, DRDO and the army are locked in an impasse over the future of Arjun, and consequently, the prospect of Arjun's adoption remains uncertain at this point. ''

This was incorrect information provided by the army to the parliament. After this the ministry of defense suspected sabotage of the trials. It was incorrectly reported as engine failures. The Arjun tank uses a german engine used in Leopard tank. Then that tank must also fail. The actual problem was with gear Renk boxes which was fixed by a team from Renk.

And a deliberate attempt was made by By78 and certain admins to Vandalise the page with incorrect information.


 * Wow, army provided "incorrect" information to the Parliament. Can you prove this: that the army willfully fed the legislative branch of India falsified information?  Where is your source on this?  Do you expect any editor to ignore the official army assessment on the Arjun tank, seeing that the Indian army is the main customer of this product?  In your headlong rush to push your POV, you simply want to brush aside the entire report by the Army on Arjun's problems.  How objective is this?  Furthermore, your sources claim that "sabotage" was possible, and I have included this in the article.  However, the sabotage has to do with the engine only (according to your source).  Beyond the engine problems "due to alleged sabotage", Arjun still has major problems with fire control systems, tracks, main gun, and wheels.  How do you explain away these other problems?  Where are the sources claiming that these other problems were due to "sabotage" as well?  Why should any sane person not mention these other problems?  Moreover, one of YOUR OWN sources, straight from the Indian government (Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release), clearly enumerates these current problems that are NOT related to the power pack.  How do you intend to explain this? By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The other section that has extensive information and sources removed by By78 was

In the "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" in 2008, the Arjun tank was run 3000 km non stop not to judge its performance but to find the spare parts that the tank will require in its life time.


 * A good one. One of my sources (http://www.indianexpress.com/story/297768.html) clearly states that these failures occurred within 1,000 km, which was completely unacceptable to the Indian army.  If a tank can't last 1,000 km without major breakdowns, then the army is justified to reject it.  Again, I have to bring up YOUR OWN source (Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release), which clearly states that these problems are "defects". By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It was reported that the Arjun tank "was found to have 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 hydropenumatic 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". According to Lt Gen Dilip Bharadwaj, Army Director General (Mechanised Infantry) "Army will no more place orders for Arjun beyond 124 that was already contracted. That is because Army is now looking 20 years ahead and wants a futuristic MBT.


 * The above facts were first incorporated into the article by me, and I have never cut it out. Don't accuse me of something I did not do. By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The 5,000 km six month summer trial of Arjun MBT held till July 2008, demonstrated successfully the consistency of the gun and endurance of the Arjun MBT. In the trails held the MBT was able to hit targets the size of a suitcase at a distance of one kilometer.


 * Another good one. Let's not confuse the readers here.  These so-called "Summer Trials" is actually just another name for the ongoing "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" (AUCRT).  My sources clearly states that it is during these AUCRT/Summer Trials that the problems with firecontrol, tactical speed, gun barrel, wheels, and tracks were uncovered.  I have edited the Arjun article to clarify that these "summer trials" are the same as the AUCRT.  Furthermore, again, according to the Indian government's own press release (Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release), as cited by none other than YOU, that many problems have been uncovered during the summer trials; and this press release made NO mention of your so-called successful test results. By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The DGMF is avoiding a comparative trial of the Arjun and the T-90 tanks. , even thought there is wider acceptance among the soldier who operate the tank and the officers who had witnessed the performance of the the Arjun tank. ''


 * How is this relevant? I will demonstrate my argument by way of an example again:  Yugo is a horrible car.  It was exceptionally unreliable.  However, Yugo did have a fan club with quite a few members.  Still, this does not change the fact that Yuko is no match for Honda or Toyota, which always perform above expectations.  Now, let's suppose that you were the designer and builder of Yugo, and you would like to convince me to buy a Yugo instead of a Honda.  You tell me that Yugo has quite a few fans; but I point out that Yugo has been proven unreliable.  You insist that I test drive both Yugo and Honda across the entire length of the United States to compare their reliability and performance.  I decline because it'd be a waste of time to compare the two, seeing the gulf of their respective reliability records.  Since I am the customer, I have the right to reject your ridiculous request for a cross-country comparison.  Furthermore, since I am the customer, it is I, NOT you, who gets to decide which product is right for me. By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope this much information is enough to understand what happened.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No kidding! You indeed successfully showed what had actually happened: you have carefully weaved your own narrative using my sources.  However, you should not have counted on me not carefully reading them to point out that your narrative is simply POV pushing and selective reading.  Your POV pushing can be best summed up by this succinct example: you cited Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release to correct my alleged bias on Arjun's budget overrun, but according to this very source, Arjun's latest trial results show the following problems: failure of power packs, low accuracy and consistency, failure of suspension units, shearing of top rollers, and chipping of gun barrels.  But you chose to selectively ignore these cited problems in your edit.  You can't have the cake and eat it too.  Nonetheless, I thank you for lending me more ammunition.  I have since incorporated this source of yours into the Arjun article to further showcase Arjun's many problems.  By78 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What you mean by your source and my source. A source is a source and information from it is used to edit Wikipedia. Again you are accusing me of POV pushing when I provide the soruces and you remove it and vandalize the article. First let me make it very clear. You don't know anything about the issues even after reading the articles, you have not understood what the issue is and just keep on reverting the articles. Let me explain it in simple terms for you to understand. The sources from PIB was provided by me and not by you, showing my credibility.


 * Is it the same credibility that led you to use the first half of the press release to support your point but ignore the second half (which enumerates all the defects)? By78 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shows how I value accuracy than you.


 * Indeed ;) By78 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I had submitted the report from PIB of the tank budget but also about the submission of report by the Army to the parliament in which the issues in the winter trials were said to have occured. This was the report that was read out by Shri. A.K Anthony in Parliament. The whole links that you posted is based on this report to the parliament by the Army. This is also not an ordinary trial like a trial conducted to find the spare parts that the army will require to keep the Arjun tank fighting fit in its lifetime. Similar tests are conducted for all tanks and when systems fail at the planned time, they measure the requirement of spare parts is according to the plan. It was during this trial that the sabotage was suspected, since the report said of engine failures.


 * You are WRONG. The sabotage allegation was made about the engine failures during the WINTER TRIALS.  There were no allegations of sabotage for the subsequent Accelerated-User-Cum-Reliability trials.  What are you trying to pull here with your Indian Logic?! By78 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In reality it was the same engine in Leopard tanks. But the real issue was with the Renk gear boxes. The renk officials came analyzed the problems and it was sorted out. The next step is ordinary trials held in july 2008. This was an ordinary trial and in this trial the Arjun performed perfectly. During this trials the consistency of the tank was proved.


 * You are trying to mislead again. What do you mean by "ordinary trial"?  The only trial during this time was the Accelerated-User-Cum-Reliability Trials (a.k.a. Summer Trials), which started in May.  There is NO "ordinary trial" as you mentioned.  Besides, the Summer Trials uncovered a host of defects, but you chose to ignore it.  Until you cite sources supporting that Arjun has been deemed problem free (free of any problems with any sub system) by the Indian Government, I will continue to stand by my edit.  If all the kinks had been worked out, then why did the PIB press release list "defects"?  Why not just say such and such parts need replacing after such and such number of hours or miles?  My source clearly points out that engine failures occurred within 1000 km.  Now, tell me that 1000 km without engine failure is a standard good enough for India.  Tell me that, and I will laugh and commend you.  What about the fire control system malfunctioning as soon as temperature rises above 50 degrees?  Does the entire system need to be replaced as soon as, oh no, the temp. rises past certain threshold?  Your point of view does not make sense.  I will use an example to illustrate again:  say I want a Ford Focus, which has a bumper to bumper warranty for 30,000 miles.  Now, let's say the engine, the transmission, and the satnav all fail before 1000 miles.  I call Ford, and Ford would replace all these parts free of charge because they are considered defective because they were expected to last more than 30,000 miles.  Now, according to your point of view, Ford would just say, "well, tough luck.  All parts need replacing eventually.  We were curious to find out when these parts would fail.  That they failed under 1000 miles is just unfortunate, but at least we learned how frequently the parts need to be replaced.  You should have just expected the car to last 1000 km and no more.  Oh by the way, do not drive your car if outside temperature is above 50 degrees."  You see what I am getting at?  By78 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Now what is your problem. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this a question? If so, use a question mark next time.  All you have done in your latest rebuttal was clinging to a minor point by way of outright whitewash and lies.  Since I have debunked your latest round of myth, would you care of try again at the other rebuttal points I have raised?  Or is Delhi/Bangalore/Mumbai/wherever you live too hot for you to continue? By78 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What have you explained what have you debunked. Nothing. You just vandalized the page. Be civilized in discussions.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Chanak, I see clear reasoning on By79's part. You haven't contributed much to this discussion except to throw around more accusations and have yet to address his points.  But, you are at least trying.  So... keep trying, but you have a ways to go.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, Kindly explain what reasoning. Just reverting and saying another nail in the coffin. Is this what you call reasoning. If you think that the links are the problem, you are mistaken, these are already there in the edition that I edit. I was the one who added it. Now I am talking about other edits that I made which was blanked by By78 with comments like another nail in the coffin. How is it reasoning in Wikipedia. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Kindly show where I said, "another nail in the coffin". All the reasoning that you have yet to address (and apparently even read) is right above you.  I'm done with trying to explain anything further with you.  However, I will continue to montior this page to ensure that consensus is reached before any major edits take place... especially by you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I had not said that it was you who made those comments. I had said that it was By78 who is doing these kinds of unruly things. Already he is trying to divert discussion and hurling accusations against me. He wants me out of Wikipedia and is upset about that he cannot vandalize the page. He had made another comment like " By the way, you have not responded to my question asking why you have returned to Wikipedia after swearing to quit contributing forever. So, are you a man/girl of your words or not?".

I will contribute to Wiki to uphold the Truth.

Now, Jauerback I am upset with you only because you are indulging in Anti-Wiki activities like supporting vandalism, supporting accusation of a person, preventing him from editing Wiki and supporting blanking his good edits. These are against basic Wiki rules and the freedom that Wiki gives to each editor. Instead of blocking the bad guys you are blocking the good guys. Hopes you understands your responsibilities and act accordingly in support of a NPOV in Wikipedia. Also I would like to reming you that NPOV is not accusation, hatred and disrespect against a nation and the products that that nation makes. The deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of Arjun MBT has been exposed with credible links and explanations. Hopes that helps.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct info new section
Detailed explantion has been provided and By78's apprehension about the summer/winter trials has been explained to him. If there is any further question to be asked it can be put here. I will be making editions to the page and any questions or apprehension can be expressed here and that will be explained in detail. Also please keep this section civilized and only on questions and details of Arjun MBT. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Do not make any changes without consensus. This is the crux of your problem.  You need to build consensus, which you have failed miserably. 2.  Please see WP:VANDALISM.  I have told you about this before, yet you keep throwing this word around incorrectly.  There has been no vandalism to this page, including by you.  3.  You haven't addressed anything, yet YOU are the one who continues to push a POV with outdated sources and misinterpreting them.  By78 has laid out detailed reasoning on this talk page on why your information is incorrect, yet all you can focus on is an edit summary that he made.  4.  The block you were given my me was admittedly done incorrectly, because you hadn't violated WP:3RR (yet), but you were well on your way.  I ended your block a few minutes later (which I guess you didn't notice).  If either of you violates 3RR, I have no problem issuing a block to either of you.  5.  Stop telling me how and what an admin is supposed to do and how to behave, because you apparently don't know basic Wiki rules, much less the fine details.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, no accusation. Can you provide what was that I vandalized and why. I will explain it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your current edit did not give the detail. I will try to explain. 1.Do not make any changes without consensus Ans:Consensus if there is a counter viewpoint and he presents it correctly, I will be happy to accept it. Only revert happens. Reason not given.

2. Please see WP:VANDALISM. I have told you about this before, yet you keep throwing this word around incorrectly. There has been no vandalism to this page, including by you. Ans:There is a difference b/w history and present. Please check it. Now I want to contribute without deleting anything of the former by By78. The edits are sourced from latest info but it gets reverted and blanked. Why?

3. You haven't addressed anything, yet YOU are the one who continues to push a POV with outdated sources and misinterpreting them. By78 has laid out detailed reasoning on this talk page on why your information is incorrect, yet all you can focus on is an edit summary that he made. Ans: The latest edits that I made are from latest reports. But you cannot delete historical things that has happened. At a particular date certain issue must be reported that must not be there in today reports. So those information and links also must be there. Regarding the edit summary, you can check it. I had provided sources. Remaining is. Please check it out.

4.The block you were given my me was admittedly done incorrectly, because you hadn't violated WP:3RR (yet), but you were well on your way. I ended your block a few minutes later (which I guess you didn't notice). If either of you violates 3RR, I have no problem issuing a block to either of you.

Ans:I had noticed those historical things. Why I had to report you was not because of that. It's because of the latest issue and you are following it from the historical perspective which is incorrect.

5. Stop telling me how and what an admin is supposed to do and how to behave, because you apparently don't know basic Wiki rules, much less the fine details. Ans. Atleast the basic is one can edit by providing sources. But I don't know why I am not allowed to do that. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has any apprehension about my edits and anyone felt that any particular information about the Arjun MBT that has been edited by me is incorrect, it can be put here. If it is correct I will accept it, If it is incorrect, I will try to correct it. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it, but I won't bother trying to explain anything further. By the way, you didn't "report" me, because there is nothing to report on.  You only succeeded in drawing more attention to your own issues, which goes back to my first point: you just don't get it.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What you meant is if there is more vandals, page can be vandalized or the vandalized version stays. Or the accuracy or content is not important if there are five people who say revert against one person who make an accurate edit. I understand it. Since this is the Arjun MBT talk page lets stick to the topic. If you have any objections to the content or can provide source to state that my edits were wrong, I will accept it. Otherwise please don't try to revert the good edits or support such reverts.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting
The following is the B-class article that exited before the current edits. At present there are two version, one by me and one by By78 (reverted to By78 version by Admin Jauerback until issue sorted out). Users can read it and vote for which version must stay. If you have multiple opinion like the Original version (or) By78 version must stay can vote for both. Brief explanation can also be provided.Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)