![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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.
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". [1] [2] [3]
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." [4] The army accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance. [5]
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)
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).
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."
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”.
Later, the MoD stated to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence that, “Arjun’s firing accuracy is far superior to the other two tanks”.
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."
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)
Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 13:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The Arjun tank was fielded during the exercise Ashwamedha in the deserts of Rajasthan. [6] The Army had no complaint about the Arjun tank and was satisfied with its performance during the exercise. [7]
By78 ( talk) 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
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. [2] The defense minister presented this report before the parliament, later published by Press Information Bureau Government of India (PIB). [8]
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". [9]
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". [10] Sabotage was suspected, but the Army rejected that any sabotage happened during the trials. [11] [12]
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" [13]
At present DRDO and the army are locked in an impasse over the further order for the Arjun, above the present 124. [14]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
My recent edits did the following:
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 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)
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)
Arjun Outranked T-90S in the trials. Puneetsoni ( talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) [15]
The link is here. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20100401.aspx Safn1949 ( talk) 02:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
Yes it is acceptable.Better than Ajai Shukla's only genuine report.-- Nuclearram ( talk) 20:25, 6 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)
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)
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)
The current edit is acceptable-- Nuclearram ( talk) 08:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
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.”
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)
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 a Arjun Mark-2?-- Nuclearram ( talk) 06:00, 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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisation_%28DRDO%29
Added -- Nuclearram ( talk) 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
link correction - http://www.drdo.gov.in/labs/cvrde/achieve.html -- 59.94.140.38 ( talk) 03:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
However, the new fire control system also frequently malfunctions when subjected to temperatures greater than 42 degrees Celsius.
Article used for ref is published in 1999. And from 1999-2010, a lot of changes have been made in Arjun. So removed line-:"However, the new fire control system also frequently malfunctions when subjected to temperatures greater than 42 degrees Celsius." Unless any article in 2010 have cited this problem in its article, do not mention in article as it must have been solved in past years as any of article have not mention this problem in any recent year.-- 59.94.136.85 ( talk) 09:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
A state-of-the-art simulator training centre was inaugurated at the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, to impart training to crew like driver, gunner and commander of the Arjun main battle tank.
http://expressbuzz.com/cities/chennai/simulator-to-train-battle-tank-crew/194430.html
-- 59.94.131.248 ( talk) 07:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
'capability to defeating' in the third paragraph should be 'capability to defeat' or 'capability of defeating'. Other errors may exist.
truthfulmushroom ( talk) 04:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The trials of Mark-II variant to be held in 2011. [20] Politicalpandit ( talk) 11:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest news on Arjun's developed variant MK II needs to updates.According to it,the new versions of Arjun will be in service by 2014. here's the reference link - http://www.domain-b.com/defence/land/indian_army/20110215_winter_trials.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5783994&c=ASI&s=LAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.158.32.112 ( talk)
Whenever I surf the net, I get tons of pages saying that the tank was retired since the army said it was useless. But most of these articles are from about 8 years ago, and most are written from an extremely biased point of view, can somebody confirm it? Anurag2k12 ( talk) 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Arjun mk2 production may go up to 300-400 tanks till 2020.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/fmbt-to-focus-on-weight-reduction-of-battle-tanks-says-drdo-chief/1055203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.163.204 ( talk) 06:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline
21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have updated the article with the following edit. As per Rahul Bhonsle, a retired Indian Army brigadier general and defense analist As of 2015, nearly 75 percent of the 124 tanks with the Army are grounded.Most of India's homemade Arjun Mark-1 battle tank fleet has been grounded because of technical snags and lack of imported components,nearly 55 percent of the value of the tank is imported components and those supplies have dried up. DRDO spokesperson expressed his view that if there is large number of tanks ordered then, there will be lesser issue of spares due to high indigenous content and less imports. [16] It got reverted by Bilcat. Why?
Also a new report about the praise for the Arjun by the Chinese military commander is added. This also has been reverted? Why is this?
VandeMataram ( talk) 03:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
HLGallon, has again reverted it without an explanation. VandeMataram ( talk) 05:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Arjun (tank). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Arjun (tank). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arjun (tank). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to be biased for Arjun/DRDO, as the enormous issues cited by the army are nowhere to be seen in this article. Rahul Bhonsle (brigadier) said, "The technical snags have reportedly led to much of the fleet remaining non operational, creating a void in the tank strength of the Indian Army." "Army officers say it is politics and not the tank's potential that is at work in the defence ministry, which last year placed orders with the Avadi Ordinance Factory to manufacture 124 Arjun tanks."
Instead, the article says, "the T-90 in comparative trials and performed well ... However ... the Indian Army has chosen instead to order 464 new T-90MS tanks for eight tank regiments ... undermining further procurement of the Arjun."
It leaves out the truth around the maintenance headache and how it is undermining the army. There is a reason the army decided to order more T-90s... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.33.30.140 ( talk) 06:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hai,
the subsection "2.3 Protection" of this article needs lot of editing. Many sentences are incoherent and/or incomplete.
//The new fire-control system enables the Merkava to shoot down helicopters and find and destroy armoured attack helicopters// this line mentions Israeli tank in Arjun's stead! Watchers please do the need full. Otherwise a very nice article.
Thanks and Regards
-Vijay (forgot my login!!) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
117.193.114.157 (
talk)
14:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It's corrected now Helios008 ( talk) 14:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Helios007:, I've personally requested you via edit summary and on your talk page, but it seems you don't care, I'm tired of you. This was the edit you made yesterday ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1033872601&oldid=1033833092) do you have any explanation for this?? let me make it clear @ Helios007: can you attend the A-class and GA-review and make necessary edit as the reviewer suggest? Can you @ I ame shears:? As I'm fed up with this! I've invested more than a week time to rewrite thisarticle from this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1029526066&oldid=1029022884) to this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1034011771&oldid=1034010901) I can't tolerate this anymore! It is pretty disappointing to see that my hard work go in vain. I'm DONE!!! - Echo1Charlie ( talk) 09:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |ref=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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.
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". [1] [2] [3]
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." [4] The army accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance. [5]
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)
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).
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."
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”.
Later, the MoD stated to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence that, “Arjun’s firing accuracy is far superior to the other two tanks”.
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."
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)
Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 13:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The Arjun tank was fielded during the exercise Ashwamedha in the deserts of Rajasthan. [6] The Army had no complaint about the Arjun tank and was satisfied with its performance during the exercise. [7]
By78 ( talk) 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
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. [2] The defense minister presented this report before the parliament, later published by Press Information Bureau Government of India (PIB). [8]
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". [9]
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". [10] Sabotage was suspected, but the Army rejected that any sabotage happened during the trials. [11] [12]
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" [13]
At present DRDO and the army are locked in an impasse over the further order for the Arjun, above the present 124. [14]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
My recent edits did the following:
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 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)
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)
Arjun Outranked T-90S in the trials. Puneetsoni ( talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) [15]
The link is here. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20100401.aspx Safn1949 ( talk) 02:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
Yes it is acceptable.Better than Ajai Shukla's only genuine report.-- Nuclearram ( talk) 20:25, 6 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)
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)
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)
The current edit is acceptable-- Nuclearram ( talk) 08:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
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.”
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)
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 a Arjun Mark-2?-- Nuclearram ( talk) 06:00, 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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisation_%28DRDO%29
Added -- Nuclearram ( talk) 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
link correction - http://www.drdo.gov.in/labs/cvrde/achieve.html -- 59.94.140.38 ( talk) 03:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
However, the new fire control system also frequently malfunctions when subjected to temperatures greater than 42 degrees Celsius.
Article used for ref is published in 1999. And from 1999-2010, a lot of changes have been made in Arjun. So removed line-:"However, the new fire control system also frequently malfunctions when subjected to temperatures greater than 42 degrees Celsius." Unless any article in 2010 have cited this problem in its article, do not mention in article as it must have been solved in past years as any of article have not mention this problem in any recent year.-- 59.94.136.85 ( talk) 09:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
A state-of-the-art simulator training centre was inaugurated at the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, to impart training to crew like driver, gunner and commander of the Arjun main battle tank.
http://expressbuzz.com/cities/chennai/simulator-to-train-battle-tank-crew/194430.html
-- 59.94.131.248 ( talk) 07:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
'capability to defeating' in the third paragraph should be 'capability to defeat' or 'capability of defeating'. Other errors may exist.
truthfulmushroom ( talk) 04:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The trials of Mark-II variant to be held in 2011. [20] Politicalpandit ( talk) 11:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest news on Arjun's developed variant MK II needs to updates.According to it,the new versions of Arjun will be in service by 2014. here's the reference link - http://www.domain-b.com/defence/land/indian_army/20110215_winter_trials.html
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5783994&c=ASI&s=LAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.158.32.112 ( talk)
Whenever I surf the net, I get tons of pages saying that the tank was retired since the army said it was useless. But most of these articles are from about 8 years ago, and most are written from an extremely biased point of view, can somebody confirm it? Anurag2k12 ( talk) 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Arjun mk2 production may go up to 300-400 tanks till 2020.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/fmbt-to-focus-on-weight-reduction-of-battle-tanks-says-drdo-chief/1055203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.163.204 ( talk) 06:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline
21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I have updated the article with the following edit. As per Rahul Bhonsle, a retired Indian Army brigadier general and defense analist As of 2015, nearly 75 percent of the 124 tanks with the Army are grounded.Most of India's homemade Arjun Mark-1 battle tank fleet has been grounded because of technical snags and lack of imported components,nearly 55 percent of the value of the tank is imported components and those supplies have dried up. DRDO spokesperson expressed his view that if there is large number of tanks ordered then, there will be lesser issue of spares due to high indigenous content and less imports. [16] It got reverted by Bilcat. Why?
Also a new report about the praise for the Arjun by the Chinese military commander is added. This also has been reverted? Why is this?
VandeMataram ( talk) 03:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
HLGallon, has again reverted it without an explanation. VandeMataram ( talk) 05:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Arjun (tank). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Arjun (tank). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arjun (tank). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to be biased for Arjun/DRDO, as the enormous issues cited by the army are nowhere to be seen in this article. Rahul Bhonsle (brigadier) said, "The technical snags have reportedly led to much of the fleet remaining non operational, creating a void in the tank strength of the Indian Army." "Army officers say it is politics and not the tank's potential that is at work in the defence ministry, which last year placed orders with the Avadi Ordinance Factory to manufacture 124 Arjun tanks."
Instead, the article says, "the T-90 in comparative trials and performed well ... However ... the Indian Army has chosen instead to order 464 new T-90MS tanks for eight tank regiments ... undermining further procurement of the Arjun."
It leaves out the truth around the maintenance headache and how it is undermining the army. There is a reason the army decided to order more T-90s... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.33.30.140 ( talk) 06:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Hai,
the subsection "2.3 Protection" of this article needs lot of editing. Many sentences are incoherent and/or incomplete.
//The new fire-control system enables the Merkava to shoot down helicopters and find and destroy armoured attack helicopters// this line mentions Israeli tank in Arjun's stead! Watchers please do the need full. Otherwise a very nice article.
Thanks and Regards
-Vijay (forgot my login!!) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
117.193.114.157 (
talk)
14:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
It's corrected now Helios008 ( talk) 14:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Helios007:, I've personally requested you via edit summary and on your talk page, but it seems you don't care, I'm tired of you. This was the edit you made yesterday ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1033872601&oldid=1033833092) do you have any explanation for this?? let me make it clear @ Helios007: can you attend the A-class and GA-review and make necessary edit as the reviewer suggest? Can you @ I ame shears:? As I'm fed up with this! I've invested more than a week time to rewrite thisarticle from this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1029526066&oldid=1029022884) to this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1034011771&oldid=1034010901) I can't tolerate this anymore! It is pretty disappointing to see that my hard work go in vain. I'm DONE!!! - Echo1Charlie ( talk) 09:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite press release}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |ref=
(
help)