To Jauerback if one has a difference about an edit that edit can be reverted That s what I did since the PIB report is an incorrect report It s invalid Each and every edit or revert need to be measured in on it s merit of being valid or not Until By78 can prove that the PIB report is correct I will not revert to my version or his version but with the standard version that existed before this issue cropped up Be fair To By78 if your Ford car requires parts change after 1000 km run you can not complain to them that their product failed The specification says 1000 km and only thing that everyone using that car is supposed to replace the parts after the specified kilometers The PIB report was submitted to the parliamentary committee which found the report incorrect If you want your version you must have to prove that the PIB version is correct I am again submitting what the Committee has to say about the PIB report on which you are arguing From the article the standing committee to which the report was submitted says 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 In fact the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service based upon its driving and firing performance over the years After firing trials in summer 2006 the trial report written by the army said The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt 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