# T-80 and T-84 Main Battle Tanks Information pool



## Manticore

Recently I came across some work done by tanknutdave explaining the evolution of T80 and I decided to post the information here. A lot of members says that some of our t80ud have advanced features of the t84 which we can discuss later on. I will also post the link of the yugoslavian m84 due to the fact that they as well as the ukranians have helped us in manufacturing the alkhalid. Basically its just an info pool/dedicated t80 discussion thread









*The Russian T-80 Series*




> When the T-80 entered service in the former U.S.S.R in the late 1970&#8242;s, many NATO countries confused it as the T-72. It did have the same self loading carousel that reduced the crew size down to three men as used in the T-72 as well as the use of reactive armour on the turret, but mechanically it was a different tank.
> 
> The T-80 started out as an improved version of the highly successful T-64 and was designed and produced by the SKB-2 design bureau at the Kirov arm&#8217;s factory in Leningrad. One of the design improvements was the introduction of a gas turbine engine (the GTD-1000T and GTD-1000TF) and the T-80 was the first tank in the world to be fitted with one. One of the other improvements made was to the suspension system by using components from the T-72&#8242;s. The T-80 is a much smaller and lighter MBT than that of NATO countries MBT&#8217;s at the time and current one&#8217;s, weighting only 46 ton&#8217;s on average.
> 
> In 1985 the T-80 went through a major upgrade program at the SKB-2 arm&#8217;s factory in Leningrad. It received a new type of reactive armour called &#8220;Kontakt-5&#8243; and is able to withstand modern armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot rounds. Its former secondary weapon, a remotely controlled commanders MG was replaced with a pintle-mounted one and fitted with the Brod-M deep wading equipment. The biggest change was the replacement of the old gas turbine engines, which drank fuel at an alarming rate and limited its operational distance. It was fitted with the GTD-1250 three-shaft engine, with two cascades of turbo compression producing 1250hp and with its lightweight it has earn&#8217;t the nickname as the &#8220;flying tank&#8221; and was redesignated as the T-80U.
> 
> 
> Whilst the T-80U program was happening, the Morozov Design Bureau in Ukraine was developing a diesel-powered version, designated the T-80UD (&#8220;D&#8221; for diesel). It took on all the main improvements of the T-80U with a few exceptions such as keeping the secondary weapon, the commanders MG as remotely controlled. It is also able to fire from its 125mm 2A46 smoothbore main cannon the improved wire guided 9M119 Svir missile and of course not using a gas turbine engine. Instead it was fitted with a 1000-hp 6TD-1 6-cylinder multi-fuel two-stroke turbo-piston diesel engine, which gives it a far better fuel efficiency and a longer operational range than T-80&#8242;s with turbine engines.
> 
> Between 1987 to1991, roughly 500 T-80UD tanks were built at the Ukrainian Malyshev Factory, but when the wall fell in Germany and the U.S.S.R broke up, 300 of them were still at the factory and are more commonly seen in the Ukrainian Army rather than in the Russian Army.
> 
> The future of the T-80U & T-80UD is turbulent. It has had many upgrades and versions built. The Russian Army are moving towards using the T-90 after the T-80&#8242;s high fuel consumption and poor combat performance in the Two Chechnya Wars. Exports of the T-80UD have been slow, mostly due to Russia not supplying The Ukraine with turrets and technology, which was resolved by the development of domestic components. As a result Pakistan ordered over 300 of them between 1997 to 1999. With the development of domestic components and independence in tank building the Ukrainians have now developed an improved version of the T-80UD, designated the T-84 for export. The T-80 series are still in service with a number of countries including: Belarus, Cyprus and Russia.
> 
> T-80: the original production model, which was only produced in very small numbers.
> T-80B: was the first mass produced variant.
> T-80BK: was the command variant of the T &#8211; 80B. It was equipped added communications equipment.
> T-80BV: was the variant first fitted with Explosive Reactive Armour.
> T-80BVK: was the command variant of the T &#8211; 80BV. It was equipped added communications equipment.
> T-80U: was the variant that had the biggest overhaul. It saw changes to the secondary weapons, new engine decking, new armour, vision equipment and commanders&#8217; equipment.
> T-80UD: saw the replacement of the gas turbine engine with a diesel.
> T-80UK: was the command version of the T &#8211; 80U.
> T-80UE: was the same as the T &#8211; 80UK but without the command equipment. It did retain the Shtora-1 system (IR jammer to defeat guided missiles).
> T-80UM: saw the replacement of the diesel engine to a new 1250hp gas turbine.
> T-80UM1: has the Shtora-1 system fitted and the gas turbine beefed up.
> T-80UM2: was fitted with a new cast turret.
> BREM-80: is the T &#8211; 80&#8242;s armoured recovery vehicle.

















http://tanknutdave.com/the-russian-t-80-series/

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Manticore

*The Ukrainian T-80UD Main Battle Tank*



> Being a member of the former Soviet Union & a key industrial state, Ukraine built a number of tanks under licence during the Cold War period and one of these was the T-80. Seeing the problems the gas turbine engine caused for the Russian T-80U, the Ukraine further developed the vehicle (under the leadership of Nikolay A. Shomin) based on the Izdeliye 476 tank and the running gear of the T-80.
> In 1985 production begun at the State Enterprise Malyshev Plant (now known as Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau AKA KMDB) of the T-80UD (though a large numbers of the components were supplied by Russia), the key difference being the replacement of the gas turbine with a diesel engine, hence the &#8216;D&#8217; in its re-designation.
> 
> The new engine is the multi-fuel two-stroke turbo-piston 6TD-1 6-cylinder diesel, which generates 1000hp. It provides an increased range over the T-80U. The air inlet for the new engine allows air to be ducted from the least dusty part of the vehicle and the two parts to the air filtration system, the centrifugal pre-cleaners and the air cleaner casing, aid the vehicle in water fording to a depth of 1.8m (5m with fording equipment) and further increase its operational range in hot climates up to 1000km without the need to change filters. The top of the engine compartment is fitted with special heat insulation to reduce the heat given of by the engine, thus reducing its thermal signature.
> 
> The suspension is torsion bar which is covered with a skirt and the forward part is under ERA armour. To reduce dust kicked up by the vehicle, a large rubber matt is hung at the front of the vehicle. The vehicle has as standard, a very basic dozer blade so it can dig its self a scrape to lie up in, within 15-40 minutes depending on the type of ground. Anti-mine equipment can be installed, such as the KMT-6 plough-type system and KMT-7 roller-type system. The range of the vehicle can be extended with two additional fuel drums at the rear of the vehicle.
> 
> The vehicle uses composite armour and ERA in order to keep the weight of the vehicle down. The vehicle has a standard NBC system and fire detection/suppression system.
> 
> The main cannon is the 125mm KBA3 smoothbore cannon with a cal length of 48 and is fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor. The cannon uses two-part munitions and can carry 45 rounds (APFSDS, HEAT & HE-FRAG), 28 of these are kept in the vehicles autoloader, reducing the crew to three.
> 
> The vehicle is equipped with a guided missile system. A laser guided, tandem charge, ATM can be fired from the main cannon with an effective range of 5000m. It&#8217;s reported to be able to engage hovering helicopters and concrete emplacements.
> Russian tank cannons and their derivatives have a much poorer accuracy compared to Western tanks, hence the added ATM capability to increase the vehicles lethality. Some say it&#8217;s the quality of the main cannon, whilst others say the quality of the tank rounds are poor, or both.
> 
> The vehicle is able to generate its own smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel in the engine exhaust and is also equipped with a bank of four electrically operated smoke grenade launchers on either side of the turret.
> 
> For close encounters, the vehicle has a coaxial 7.62mm MG (controlled either by the commander or gunner) and a 12.7mm MG on the commanders cupola, which can be used in the anti-aircraft role. It can be elevated from -5° to +70° and traversed through +/-75° to the right and left of the vehicle longitudinal axis, or through +360° together with the turret. It can be controlled by the commander from within the vehicle, limiting his exposure to close quarter fire.
> 
> 
> Calibre
> 125 mm
> Type
> smoothbore gun
> Breech-block type
> semiautomatic with horizontal placement of the wedge
> Gun length
> 6678 mm
> Barrel length
> 6000 mm (L48)
> Normal recoil length
> 260 to 300 mm
> Maximum possible recoil length (STOP)
> 310 mm
> Initial pressure in the recuperator
> 59 to 62 kgf/cm2
> Number of recoil brakes
> 2
> Placement of recoil brakes
> symmetrical relative to the gun bore axis
> Number of recuperators
> 1
> Resistance to recoil
> 98000 kgf
> Gun weight
> 2500 kg
> Weight of gun recoiling part
> 1900 kg
> Muzzle velocity (when firing 3VBM17 &#8220;MANGO&#8221; armour-piercing round)
> 1700 m/s
> Maximum acceptable calculated gas pressure in charge chamber
> 6500 kgf/cm2
> Gas pressure in charge chamber (when firing 3VBM17 &#8220;MANGO&#8221
> 5660 kgf/cm2 (at t=15°C)
> Horizontal dispersion (APDSFS and HEAT at 2000m range)
> 0.2 mils
> Vertical dispersion (APDSFS and HEAT at 2000 m range)
> 0.2 mils
> The vehicle has a modern computer fire control system and sighting equipment:
> 
> 1V528-1 ballistic computer &#8211; uses inputs from the sensors measuring tank speed, crosswind speed, target range, and course angle, will other information has to be manually inputted such as ambient air temperature, charge temperature, barrel wear, ambient air pressure. It is also able to calculate when the high-explosive fragmentation projectile with controlled detonation should be detonated over the target. It also has fire gating capability. This means the main cannon will only fire when the misalignment between the line of sight and the gun bore axis is within pre-determined limits, after the gun firing button has been pushed. The fire gate size is adjusted when calibrating the fire control system after installing it in the tank.
> 
> Gunner&#8217;s 1G46 day sight, gunner&#8217;s TO1-KO1E night vision system &#8211; the sight is stabilised for line of sight and incorporates a laser range-finder and a missile guidance capability. For export models option, the Buran-Catherine-E thermal imaging sight can be fitted.
> Commander&#8217;s PNK-4S observation and sighting system &#8211; the sight is stabilised and has three channels: a day unity vision channel, a day channel with magnification of x8 and a night channel with magnification of 5.4x.
> PZU-7 anti-aircraft sight & 1ETs29 anti-aircraft machine gun mount control system &#8211; Used to control and engage the 12.7mm MG against hovering anti-tank helicopters.
> The Ukrainian Army of 2005, have 271 T-80UD&#8217;s and is also in service in Russia.














*Pakistani T-80UD*



> With the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine &#8216;inherited&#8217; a stock pile of 300+ T-80UD&#8217;s which were left at the Ukrainian factory. In 1996 Ukraine signed a deal to sell 320 of the vehicles to Pakistan. Some deliveries were made despite objections from Russia, who claimed the vehicle was in fact a Russian vehicle and refused to supply the Ukraine the parts to modernise the tank to the agreements promised standard. How ever the Ukraine had been developing their first tank to rely almost completely on indigenes parts, the T-84, so used parts from that vehicle to complete the production and delivery to the Pakistani Army in 1999, totalling 320 vehicles.
> 
> The following key support vehicles can also be supplied to provide the T-80UD MBT with technical and logistic support during its operational life:
> 
> armoured repair and recovery vehicle (based on the T-80UD chassis)
> armoured vehicle-launched bridge (based on the T-80UD chassis)
> tracked carrier with a carrying capacity of 12 t (its main sub-assemblies are similar to those of the T-80UD)
> various tank maintenance mobile workshops (based on the chassis of cross-country vehicles)
> 
> The T-80UD design has now been surpassed with the T-84.








http://tanknutdave.com/the-ukrainian-t-80ud-main-battle-tank/

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Manticore

*The Ukrainian T-84 Oplot Main Battle Tank*


> T-84 is Ukrainian upgrade of the T-80UD. New welded turret and Shtora-1 countermeasures suite, 1,200 hp (895 kW) 6TD-2 diesel engine.
> 
> T-84U is Ukrainian upgrade of the T-84. New armoured side skirts, turret-conformal Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour, auxiliary power unit, thermal imaging sight, satellite navigation, commander&#8217;s laser range-finder, muzzle reference system, and other improvements.
> 
> T-84 Oplot is T-84U with new western-style turret, but retaining the 125 mm gun. The Oplot tank features a new welded turret with separate crew and ammunition compartments with blowout panels on the ammunition compartment, a new bustle-mounted autoloader. A small number are in service with the Ukrainian Army.
> 
> The BM Oplot main battle tank is a tracked fighting vehicle that features a high firepower, reliable protection and high mobility.
> 
> The tank is intended to destroy all types of ground (floating) and low-flying low-speed ait targets under the conditions when the enemy fires back.
> 
> The vehicle can fulfil a wide range of combat missions under various climatic, weather and terrain conditions in the ambient temperature range of -40 to +55 degrees Centigrade, air humidity of up to 98% at temperature of +25 degrees Centigrade, height above sea level of up to 3000 m and with ambient air dust content available in real terrain conditions
> 
> FIREPOWER
> Main Gun - Model KBA-3 Calibre 125 mm
> Breech &#8211; type horizontal wedge-type, semi-automatic
> Elevation/depression &#8211; angles (up to rigid stops). from -4 to +15 degrees
> Horizontal aiming &#8211; (together with the tank turret) 360 degrees
> Elevation - 0.2 mrad (APFSDS, HEAT, R=2000 m)
> Azimuth - 0.2 mrad (APFSDS, HEAT, R=2000 m)
> 
> Coaxial machine gun &#8211; Model KT-7.62 (PKT) with removing powder gas
> Calibre &#8211; 7.62 mm
> Technical rate of fire &#8211; 700 to 800 rpm
> 
> Anti-aircraft machine gun system
> Control - remote
> Control modes &#8211; 1) automatic 2) stabilised in vertical plane
> Armament model &#8211; KT-12.7
> Calibre &#8211; 12.7 mm
> Ammunition feed &#8211; belt-type
> Technical rate of fire &#8211; 700 rpm
> Number of cartridges in a belt &#8211; 150
> Max firing range &#8211; at air targets 2000m / at ground targets 2000 m
> Firing (aiming) angles &#8211; elevation from -3 to 60 degrees / azimuth 360 degrees
> 
> LOADING SYSTEM
> 
> The loading system is a system intended to automatically load the main gun with ammunition of the available types and consisting of a conveyor, automatic loader and control system.
> 
> Type &#8211; electric hydraulic mechanical, with fixed loading angle
> Number of projectile &#8211; types 4
> Conveyor capacity &#8211; 28 rds
> Conveyor rotation &#8211; in both directions
> Conveyor rotation speed &#8211; 25-33 degrees per sec
> Loading cycle duration&#1089; &#8211; minimum 7 sec (if the conveyor turns through 1 step) / maximum 12.5 sec (if the conveyor terns through 180°)
> Loading cycle duration if using manual drives of the loading system &#8211; if the conveyor turns through 1 step within 1 minute / if the conveyor turns through 14 steps within 1.6 minutes
> 
> Removal of a used cartridge case stub with placing it into an empty loading tray without damaging air-tightness of the fighting compartment
> Round ramming type tandem-type ramming projectile and charge together) during one cycle
> Availability of back-up drives manual drives of conveyor, manual ammo feed mechanism, manual conveyor lock and manual gun lock
> Conveyor replenishment time (in replenishment mode) 15-20 minutes.
> 
> Control system of the loading system installed in the tank is intended for:
> 
> Ensuring control over operation of mechanical and hydraulic units of the loading system
> Ensuring control of the firing circuits of the main gun and coaxial machine gun
> Storing information about the rounds placed into the loading system conveyor
> 
> INTEGRATED GUN-AND-FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM (IGFCS)
> 
> The IGFCS ensures the following:
> 
> Automatic generation, with subsequent introduction into the armament control devices, of super-elevation and lateral lead angles, with taking into account various deviations of the real firing conditions from the standard ones
> Possibility for the commander to override the gunner and fire the main gun and coaxial machine gun from the commander&#8217;s station
> Firing the anti-aircraft machine gun from the commander&#8217;s station accurate aiming from 0.05 to 1 degrees/sec &#8211; maximum at least 3 degrees/sec Azimuth: &#8211; minimum within 0.05 degrees/sec -accurate aiming from 0.05 to 1 degrees/sec &#8211; maximum at least 3 degrees/sec
> 
> Laser range-finder &#8211; target ranging limits 400-5000 m
> 
> Time required for preparation of the first shot of the gun - if the tank is stationary - 10-12 sec / if the tank is on the move - 10-15 sec
> Gun firing range in all conditions of vehicle operation &#8211; APFSDS at least 2800m / HEAT, HE-FRAG - at least 2600 m
> 
> 1G46M gunner&#8217;s sight
> 
> Type &#8211; Optical aiming device with two-axis independent stabilisation of the field of view, with laser range-finder and laser channel for missile guidance
> Magnification &#8211; 2.7-12
> Field of view - 4-20 degrees
> Aiming angles of stabilised line of sight &#8211; elevation is -15 to +20 degrees / azimuth (8±1) degrees / together with the turret 360 degrees
> Speed of aiming of the line of sight Elevation minimum within 0.05 degrees per sec / accurate aiming from 0.05 to 1 degrees per sec / maximum
> at least 3 degrees per sec
> Azimuth &#8211; minimum within 0.05 degrees per sec
> Accurate aiming from &#8211; 0.05 to 1 degrees per sec
> Maximum &#8211; at least 3 degrees per sec
> Laser range-finder &#8211; target ranging limits 400-5000m
> 
> PTT-2 thermal sighting system
> 
> The system is intended to observe, detect, recognise and identify targets and to deliver aimed fire from the main and coaxial machine gun under all conditions of vehicle operation.
> 
> Type thermal &#8211; monocular (with built-in micro-monitor)
> Operational spectral wave band &#8211; 8-12 micrometres
> Fields of view &#8211; wide field of view 9×6.75 degrees / narrow field of view 3×2.25 degrees
> Electronic magnification - 1.5×1.12 degrees
> Operational ranges &#8211; Detection range (narrow field of view) at least 8000m / Recognition range (narrow field of view) at least 4500m / Identification range (narrow field of view) at least 2500 m
> 
> PNK-6 panoramic sighting system
> 
> The system is intended for:
> 
> 1 &#8211; detection, recognition and identification of ground and air targets by day and at night from the tank commander&#8217;s station
> 2 &#8211; target ranging by means of the laser range-finder
> 3 &#8211; designation of targets to the gunner
> 4 &#8211; firing the main gun and the coaxial machine gun from the commander&#8217;s station in the override more
> 5 &#8211; firing the anti-aircraft machine gun
> 6 &#8211; Technical characteristics
> 
> Field-of-view stabilisation independent, in two axes:
> 
> Aiming angles of the stabilised line of sight &#8211; Depression at least 15 degrees / Elevation at least 60 degrees
> Traverse - 360 degrees
> Magnification of the day vision channel &#8211; 1.2; 6; 12
> Field of view of the day vision channel &#8211; 30; 10; 5.5 degrees
> Field of view of thermal channel &#8211; Wide field of view 9×6.75 degrees / Narrow field of view 3×2.25 degrees
> Electronic magnification - 1.5×1.12 degrees
> Spectral range of the thermal camera &#8211; 8-12 micrometres
> Range of detection of a TANK-type target &#8211; Through the visual channel at least 5500m / Through the thermal channel in the narrow field of view at least 8000m
> Target ranging limits &#8211; 200-9500m
> 
> Main armament stabiliser
> 
> The main armament stabiliser ensures stabilisation and stabilised aiming of the armament in the vertical and horizontal planes.
> 
> Model 2E42M
> Elevation drive &#8211; electric-and-hydraulic
> Azumuth drive &#8211; electric-and-mechanical
> Minimum &#8211; within 0.05 degrees/sec
> Acurate aiming - 0.05-1 degrees/sec
> Quick traverse - 35-40 degrees/sec
> 
> Tank&#8217;s guided weapon system
> 
> The system is intended to fire a guided missile through the tank gun barrel. The aiming is carried out by means of the gunner&#8217;s 1G46M sight.
> 
> Guided missile round - Izd. 621, 3UBK14, 3UBK20
> Warhead type &#8211; HEAT
> Missile guidance system - semi-automatic, using a laser beam
> Max firing range &#8211; 5000m
> 
> TIUS-VM tank ballistic computer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type &#8211; analogue-and-digital, with built-in test system and digital monitoring of parameters, automatic generation of super-elevation and lead angles for all types of projectiles and coaxial machine gun, with taking into account all topographic, meteorological and ballistic parameters that affect the accuracy of firing, with automatic registration and storing the parameters of the integrated gun-and-fire control system in various modes of operation.
> 
> Parameters that are automatically taken into account by the computer &#8211; target range, own tank movement, target speed, crosswind speed, gun trunnion axis cant, angular speed of the target (in horizontal and vertical planes), target position angle, tank movement attitude angle, relative speeds of the tank, muzzle velocity of the projectile.
> 
> Parameters that are introduced into the computer manually &#8211; air temperature, charge temperature, projectile muzzle velocity deviation due to variations inherent to different lots of ammunition, atmospheric pressure, barrel wear, individual jump angle.
> 
> Wind sensor &#8211; The sensor is intended to measure the crosswind speed and provide the relevant information to the tank ballistic computer.
> 
> Type capacity-type
> Model DVE-BS
> Crosswind speed measurement range within 20 m/s
> Measurement error ±1 m/s
> 
> Tank speed sensor &#8211; The sensor is intended to measure the speed of tank&#8217;s own speed movement and providing the relevant information to the tank ballistic computer.
> 
> Tank speed measurement range at least 75 km/h
> Measurement error within 0.5 km/h
> 
> Turret attitude sensor &#8211; The sensor is intended to measure the angular position of the turret relative to the hull (turret attitude angle) and provide the relevant information to the tank ballistic computer.
> 
> Turret attitude angle measurement range at least 360 degrees
> Measurement error
> 
> Muzzle reference system &#8211; The system is intended to automatically measure the gun barrel bend and provide the relevant information to the tank ballistic computer.
> 
> Gun barrel bend measurement range (in vertical and horizontal planes) at least ±5 mrad
> Measurement step within 0.1 mrad
> 
> Anti-aircraft machine gun control system
> 
> The system is intended to:
> 
> 1. Ensure stabilisation and stabilised laying of the anti-aircraft machine gun in the vertical and horizontal planes
> 2. Automatically generate and introduce super-elevation and lateral lead angles with taking into account the deviation of the current firing conditions from the standard ones.
> 
> BALLISTIC PROTECTION
> Main armour protection multi-layer (composite) - anti-projectile, combined, multi-layer, against penetration of HEAT and APFSDS projectiles (adapted for installation of explosive reactive armour array)
> 
> Built-in anti-tandem-warhead explosive reactive armour (BATW-ERA) - intended to increase the tank&#8217;s level of protection against kinetic energy (APFSDS) and chemical energy ammunition (HEAT, HESH, HEP), including ammunition with tandem warheads.
> 
> The armour protection fitted with BATW-ERA ensures protection against:
> 
> 1. Hand anti-tank grenades, hand-held and stationary grenade launchers and recoilless guns (including ammunition with tandem warheads)
> 2. Anti-tank missiles of TOW-2, Milan and Shturm-S type
> 3. HEAT projectiles fired by 125 mm tank smoothbore guns
> 4. APFSDS projectiles fire by 125 mm and 120 mm tank guns
> 5. The BATW-ERA array consists of glacis module and side skirts installed on the tank hull, as well as modular elements placed on the outer perimeter of the front and side surfaces of the turret and containers installed on the turret roof.
> 
> The Nozh explosive reactive armour elements installed in special niches snap into action when hit by all types of hollow-charge warheads and sub-calibre armour-piercing projectiles.
> 
> The Nozh explosive reactive armour elements of the BATW-ERA do not detonate when hit by 12.7 mm bullets, 30 mm armour-piercing projectiles and shell fragments. The Nozh explosive reactive armour elements do not require any maintenance and are safe to deal with.
> 
> The Nozh explosive reactive armour elements are stored in containers or on the tank in heated premises or in the open air under a shed protecting them against precipitation and solar irradiation at temperatures from -50 to +55 degrees Centigrade. They can also be stored under the conditions of high humidity (100%) at temperatures of up to +35 degrees Centigrade.
> 
> The Nozh explosive reactive armour elements retain their qualities for 10 years, including storage in field conditions for up to 5 years and use on the tank for up to 3 years if the requirements for use, transportation and storage are met.
> 
> It takes the tank crew 2.4 to 2.6 hours to prepare the BATW-ERA array for combat operation within without the need to use any special contrivances (to do this, only the explosive reactive armour elements are to be installed).
> 
> Anti-mine protection
> 
> The anti-mine protection makes it possible to preserve the combat readiness of the crew and operability of the tank&#8217;s interior equipment in case an anti-tank mine explodes under the tank track (up to 10 kg TNT equivalent) or under the tank driver&#8217;s compartment bottom plate (up to 4 kg TNT equivalent).
> 
> Optronic countermeasures system
> 
> To improve the tank protectability, the Varta optronic countermeasure system is integrated in the tank.
> 
> The optronic countermeasure system provides:
> 
> 1. Confusing of the guidance systems of ATGM by putting out laser jamming covering the horizontal plane of ±18° relative to the main gun tube and ±2° in the vertical plane.
> 2. Jamming of the ATGM guidance systems that use laser illumination of targets, semi-automatic laser guided homing projectiles as well as artillery systems equipped with laser range-finders by activating the remote fast-deploying aerosol screens in a sector of ±45° relative to the main gun tube
> Optronic jamming station.
> 
> Aerosol screen laying system:
> 
> Mode of operation &#8211; Automatic, semiautomatic, manual
> System reaction time in auto mode &#8211; less than 0.5 s
> Qty of launchers - 12
> Grenade caliber &#8211; 80 mm
> Screen laying range &#8211; at least 50 m
> time for laying the screen - not more than 3 s
> effective screen duration - time 60 s
> 
> Crew&#8217;s collective protection system
> 
> The system ensures protection of the crew and interior equipment against effects of nuclear explosions, radioactive substances, toxic agents and biological warfare agents, as well as detection and suppression of fires in the crew compartment and power pack compartment
> 
> NBC protection system
> 
> PRHR-M1 radiation and chemical agents detector.
> 
> PRHR-&#1052;1 (RCAD) is designed for continuous check-up, detection, signalling and control using actuators of protection means:
> 
> &#8226;During intensive gamma- radiation (nuclear blast)
> &#8226;During gamma-radiation on the contaminated terrain followed by measuring the doze of radiation
> &#8226;During detection of poisonous vapors in the air as a result of enemy actions
> 
> The instrument provides light and audible signals in case of detection poisonous agents in the air or gamma-radiation on the terrain as well as it generates commands for switching blower on and shifting over the valve of filtering ventilation unit (FVU) in the filtering position.
> 
> The instrument provides light and audible signals in case of detection powerful gamma radiation as well as commands for engine shutdown, shifting over the valve of FVU in the filtering ventilation mode, switching off the blower if it was on, followed by switching it on in 30 to 50 s.
> 
> The instrument provides checking its electrical circuits by generation commands (or without command generation) to actuators.
> 
> Range of measuring power of gamma radiation exposure - doze 0.2-150 R/h
> Response time &#8211; Powerful gamma radiation within 0.1sec / gamma radiation of contaminated terrain within 10sec / detection the the air vapors of poisonous chemical agents (outside the vehicle) within 40sec.
> 
> Filter-ventilator unit
> 
> The filter-ventilator unit serves to clean external air from poisonous substances, radioactive dust, biological aerosols, to supply cleaned air into the crew compartment and create overpressure in it, as well as to ventilate the crew compartment during firing and fire fighting system comes into action.
> 
> Air consumption &#8211; via absorber filter at least 100 cubic metres per hour / bypassing the absorber filter at least 390 cubic metres per hour.
> 
> Filter-ventilator unit functions in 2 modes:
> 
> 1. Ventilation mode. In this case blower delivers the dust-free air to crew compartment passing by the absorber filter
> 2. Filtering and ventilation mode. In this mode the blower delivers the clean air to the crew compartment through the absorber filter

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Manticore

*The Ukrainian T-84 Oplot Main Battle Tank contin.... *



> [h=2]*Fire suppression system*[/h]The system with optical sensors and thermal sensors is designed for detection of fire sources in the crew compartment and power pack compartment and quick suppression, generation of commands for ventilation activation and removal thermal decomposition products from the crew compartment.Methods of activation - Automatically, vehicle mains is on / Manually, panel buttons of the driving compartment and power pack compartment
> Response time &#8211; Crew compartment, not more than 0.15s / Power pack, not more than 0.10s
> Fire suppression is exercised by filling the free space of the compartment with extinguishing compound where fire takes place.For this article proposed are the bottles of 2 litre capacity filled with fire-extinguishing compound Chladon 114B2 or other compound (as agreed) under pressure of 75 kgf/cm2. The bottles are equipped with high-acting heads and pressure alarms.To provide article survivability, the system has two bottles for each compartment (crew compartment and power pack compartment).[h=2]*Tank signature reduction means*[/h]*Dazzle painting*Dazzle is intended for decreasing visibility of a tank and distortion of its image. Dazzle painting used is of three colors. The main color is green, auxiliary color is yellow-gray and additional color is black. Desert color is also used for painting.*Natural camouflage clamps*Clamps for natural camouflage are intended for fastening on the tank branches, grass and so on. There are 24 clamps in the tank set.*Thermal insulation*Thermal insulation is intended for decreasing range and probability of tank detection with heat reconnaissance apparatus and high-precision home warheads.The thermal insulation consists of ETC top plate blowing channels and reflective screens.*Engine smoke generator*Engine smoke generator is intended for laying smoke screen with the diesel fuel. Fuel consumption 10 to 12 litres/min.[h=2]*CAMOUFLAGE COVER KIT*[/h]The camouflage cover kit is intended to reduce:1. The visual signature of the tank
> 2. The value of the tank&#8217;s effective surface of dispersion in order to decrease the distance of detection of the tank by means of radar-type detection stations and weapon guidance systems
> 3. The thermal irradiation of the heated outer surfaces of the tank in order to decrease the distance of detection of the tank by means of thermal imaging devices and to decrease the probability of &#8216;capturing&#8217; the tank by infra-red homing warheads of anti-tank weapon systems (anti-tank guided missiles, mortar projectiles, artillery projectiles)
> 4. Level of reduction of power of the signal reflected from the camouflaged vehicle (in the band of 0.8-4 cm) within 18 dB
> Reduction of probability of detection of the camouflaged tank by air-borne radar-type detection systems, at distances of 20 km or more (with the resolution on the terrain being 5-15 m), in comparison with the non-camouflaged tank at least by twice
> Reduction of probability of &#8216;capturing&#8217; the camouflaged tank by radar-type systems of weapon guidance, in comparison with the non-camouflaged tank at least by twice.
> 5. Probability of detection of the camouflaged vehicle on a airphoto (with the resolution on the terrain being at least 0.2 m) within 0.3
> Distance at which the camouflaged vehicle cannot be recognised visually at least 1,000 m
> Reduction of level of infra-red irradiation of the camouflaged vehicle, in comparison with the non-camouflaged vehicle at least by thrice
> Colours being used protective green, grey-and-yellow, black[h=2]*SELF-ENTRENCHING DEVICE*[/h]Self-entrenching device is intended for digging out individual trenches. It is mounted on the lower nose plate of the tank hull.Blade is designed for cutting the soil, its displacement, bracings for keeping the blade in operational state during soil cutting, guiding planks &#8211; for keeping bracings and for blocking the blade from rotation and the clamp serves for keeping the blade in the move.*Self-entrenching device can take two positions* - in stowing and in operation.1. In stowing, the blade is fastened with two clamps to the lower plate of tank nose.2. In operation position, the blade is lowered and when the tank moves forward, it cuts the soil by resting on the bracings. When tank moves backwards, the blade freely slips with its rear part along the soil surface without displacing the soil.[h=2]*INSTALLATION OF MINE CLEARING SYSTEM*[/h]The tank provides for installation of track mine-clearing system (TMC) that allows to pave the way for tanks across mine fields.To do that the tank hull is equipped with special weldings. Driver&#8217;s compartment provides place for connection to compressor and tank power supply for controlling the mine clearing system.Individual set of SPTA is used for its assembly and maintenance. This set makes it possible to carry out the said work by tank crew.[h=1]POWER PACK[/h]Power pack is a system of units and assemblies that includes the engine and its service system as follows: fuel system, air feed system, oil system, cooling system, exhaust and heating systems. Power pack is operational in the ambient temperatures from -40 to +55 degrees Centigrade.*Engine &#8211; *6&#1058;D-2 engine is a multifuel, 6-cylinder, double-stroke liquid cooled diesel engine.*Maximum output using diesel fuel* &#8211; 882 kW (1200 hp)
> *Max. torque at diesel fuel at engine -* crankshaft rotation speed at (1600±10) rpm 3135 N (320 kgf·m)
> *Rotational speed of the crankshaft at max. power* &#8211; 2600 rpm
> *Specific fuel consumption at maximum power mode 211-231 g/kW·h -* (155-170 g/hp·h)
> *Mass of the dry engine* - 1180/1240 kg
> *Dimensions* &#8211; length 1602mm / width 955mm / height 581mmThe engine is adapted for automatic transmission control. Regulator is equipped with the rack travel sensor of fuel pumps. Diesel has speed measuring device for recording the crankshaft rotational speed.In electro-mechanical rotational speed governor used is a special mechanism restricting fuel delivery in the range of speeds from 800 to 2000 rpm. Due to that we provide reduction of optical density of exhaust gases at starting and free acceleration modes.In this fuel apparatus used are nozzles with locking needle.The engine consists of crankshaft mechanism, crank cases, cylinders, shifting over mechanism, compressor, gas turbine and hang-up assemblies: starter-generator, water pump, air compressor TK-150, regulator, fuel priming pump, fuel filters, high pressure fuel pumps, oil centrifugal filter, air distributor and other units.Engine cylinders are arranged horizontally. Each cylinder has inlet ports and outlet ports. Inlet ports serve for blowing and filling the cylinders by air, outlet port provide exhaust gas withdrawal. Improved configuration of the inlet ports provides improvement of efficiency due to perfection of gas exchange process and mixture formation. Exhaust gases leaving the cylinders flow through the outlet collector to gas turbine.Each cylinder holds two oppositely moving pistons. When they move to each other as close as possible formed is combustion chamber. Each piston is connected with its own crankshaft by the connecting rod. These pistons making their reciprocal motion open and close inlet and outlet ports and carry out the function of gas distribution mechanism. In these pistons used are the improved needle bearing of the upper head of the connecting rod and making it possible to increase maximum burning pressure, service life and reliability.The compressor of inlet air provides improvement of the diesel parameter due to more efficient compression process attained by improved aerodynamics of flowing part.Gas turbine converts the energy of exhaust gases into mechanical energy for driving the compressor.The engine is mounted in the power pack compartment. Its installation does not require any adjustment. Axles of the engine crankshafts are arranged laterally to longitudinal tank axle.The engine is fastened in three places. Two yokes fasten it in the rear part and pivoting bearing fastens it in the front.[h=2]*Fuel system*[/h]1. Fuel tanks
> 2. Surge tank
> 3. Fuel distributing valve
> 4. External tank switch-off valve
> 5. Fuel priming pumps, fuel filling filter
> 6. Fuel pre-filter
> 7. Fuel fine filter
> 8. Centrifugal fuel pump
> 9. Fuel filling pump with a valve
> 10. Air separating tank
> 11. Reverse valve
> 12. Fuel gauges
> 13. Pipe-linesEngine fuel is stored in the fuel tanks with a total capacity of 1,140 litres.
> *The following fuel is used -* diesel fuel, jet engine fuel, petrol and mixtures of these type of fuel.The system ensures supply of fuel to the engine from either of the fuel tank groups separately or from both of the fuel tank groups simultaneously.The fuel system also ensures fuel supply to the auxiliary power unit, which is located on the right fender, by means of the pipe-lines going through the vehicle hull side.Fuel can be replenished through the filling necks of the fuel tanks, as well as by using the filling pump.*Capacity of the internal fuel tanks* &#8211; 575 lt
> *Capacity of the external fuel tanks* &#8211; 570 lt
> *Capacity of the additional fuel drums* &#8211; 380 (190&#1093;2) lt[h=2]*Air system*[/h]The air system of the engine is intended to remove dust from the air that comes into the engine. Air purification is performed in three stages with ejection-type removal of dust. The first stage of air purification is performed at a bunker provided with an inertia grid, while the second and third stages, at a two-stage cassette-type air cleaner.The system consists of an air cleaner with a dust removal ejector, air intake bunker with a inertia grid and ejector that removes dust from the inertia grid.*The air cleaner is a two-stage device:* The first stage ensures a preliminary removal of dust from air with the efficiency of 99.78 %. After going through the second stage of air purification, the air is purified with the efficiency of up to 99.85 %. The cassettes are the second stage of the air cleaner.[h=2]*Engine lubrication system*[/h]Lubrication system is intended for oil arrangement in the tank, oil supply to the engine, cleaning and cooling of the oil used in the tank.Engine lubrication system includes internal oil tank with intake filter; oil radiator; oil pump; priming pump; two exhaust pumps; centrifugal oil filter; oil-gauge, and pipelines.*Lubrication system* &#8211; circulating, performed on the dry crank case principle.A 105-litre oil tank is installed in the front part of engine compartment, between the bulkhead and the engine. Oil intake for engine supply is performed from the middle compartment, which is filled with oil from other compartments.The system is equipped with minimum oil pressure sensor.Cooling system Cooling system is liquid, high temperature system of closed type with forced circulation of coolant and ejection cooling of radiators, it is designed to provide thermal operation mode of the engine. Coolant priming through the engine (at engine crankshafts rotation speed 2600 rpm) is not less than 38 m3/hour. Refilling capacity &#8211; 94 litres. .[h=2]*Cooling system includes*[/h]1. Ejector
> 2. Engine water pump
> 3. Radiators
> 4. Surge tank
> 5. Steam-admission valve
> 6. Preheater with air-heater
> 7. Engine inner chambers
> 8. Cooling belts of gas duct joint
> 9. Engine water dump valve
> 10. Preheater water dump valve and pipe lines. Main engine cooling system is connected to the APU, which is located on the right fender and provides cooling for operating APU.Water radiators provide heat abstraction from coolant, and installed in the ejector box of engine compartment roof.The system is equipped with coolant max temperature indicator and coolant level indicator, which give signal, when the coolant reaches maximal temperature.The effectiveness of cooling system is regulated with the amount of gases, passing the ejector.[h=2]*Exhaust system*[/h]The system provides cooling outer airflow through radiators, using the energy of engine exhaust gases and exhaust gases release.The system includes compensator; gas duct; adapter, weld to the right side of the engine compartment roof, together with by-pass gas duct, receiver with nozzle device and ejector setting.To provide the cooling of the gas duct joint there are water sleeves with circulating coolant.[h=2]*Heating system*[/h]Heating system is the part of cooling system and is used to warm up the engine and the oil before engine start, as well as for keeping the engine ready to start at cold seasons.Warming up of the engine is performed with the help of warmed by preheater coolant. Exhaust gases of preheater warm oil in the engine oil tank.*Heating system includes* - preheater, engine oil tank flue tube and pipe lines.Preheater is used for coolant warming and providing its circulation through the cooling system pipes at engine warming up, and oil warming by engine oil tank exhaust gases.[h=2]*Engine starting system*[/h]Starting methods:
> *Main* &#8211; by electric starter from four storage batteries
> *Auxiliary* - by compressed air from air bottles
> *Combined* - electric starter from SB and compressed air simultaneously
> *From outer source* - electrical energy or compressed air of similar vehicle is used
> *Push starting used* - when there is no chance to start the engine with all the above mentioned methods
> Means to facilitate the starting[h=2]*REVERSIBLE (MULTIPLE REVERSE SPEED) TRANSMISSION*[/h]Reversible transmission is intended to increase the tank speed at forward motion and reverse movement. The enhanced gears of reverse movement provide when necessary quick change of position in combat conditions without tank turning.Reversible transmission consists of two gear boxes with coaxially attached reversible final drives.*Speeds at various gears:*Forward gears Reverse gears
> Number of gear Speed (km/h) Number of gear
> 1 8,4 Reverse 1 10,7
> 2 15,7 Reverse. 2 19,8
> 3 19,8 Reverse 3 25,0
> 4 24,8 Reverse 4 31,3
> 5 34,2
> 6 47,2
> 7 69,3
> Reverse 4,8[h=2]*COMPLEX MOVEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM*[/h]The complex movement control system (CMCS) is designed to ensure the tank mobility and controllability (=agility) under different road conditions as well as to minimize the driver&#8217;s fatigue.*The CMCS fulfills the following functions:*1. Tank take-off and forward/reverse motion
> 2. Automatic gear shifting depending upon road conditions
> 3. Smooth change of the tank turning radius
> 4. Manual (overriding) transmission control mode within 6 forward and 4 reverse gears
> 5. Locking in case of driver wrong actions
> 6. Built-in check of the movement control equipment*Technical characteristics of the CMCS:*1. Automated operation mode
> 2. Number of gear Speed (km/h)
> 3. Forward 1-7 0-69,3
> 4. Reverse 1-4 0-31,3
> 5. Manual control mode
> 6. Forward 1&#8230;6 0&#8230;69,3
> 7. Reverse 1&#8230;3 0&#8230;25,0[h=2]*RUNNING GEAR*[/h]Running gear consists of track mover and cushion system.Track mover with rear placement of drive sprockets consists of two idler wheels with track tensioning mechanisms, two sprocket wheels, two tracks, twelve road wheels, ten supporting wheels.Cushion system consists of twelve personal torsion suspensions and six hydraulic telescopic shock-absorbers.Idler wheel is made of cast steel / Track tensioner is crank-type, with hour-glass worm pair / Diameter of idler wheel is 514 mm.Drive sprocket consists of cast disc, two gear rings, attached with bolts and nuts, and restraining disc, that provides firm gearing of track with sprocket wheel.
> To provide firm gearing while moving along the marshland and alike road conditions, there is a sprocket wheel cleaner installed aboard the main battle tank.Diameter of sprocket wheel gearing 630mm.Road wheels are twodiscs with outer shock absorption made of high quality rubber, that allows tank to move on high speed for a long period of time. Discs of the road wheels are made of high-strength aluminium alloy, they are attached to the hub with the help of bolts, which allows to change them quickly when damaged.
> *Road wheel diameter* &#8211; 670mm
> *Width of road wheel tyre* &#8211; 170mmTrack with replaceable rubber pads includes parallel rubber-metal joint, rubberized running-track and removable rubber shoes; allows the tank to move on the asphalt road without damaging it. The removable rubber shoes are attached to the track grooves and locked with spring lock. Due to the customer requirements the SPTU can include steel grousers to enhance cohesion with the ground, when moving on ice or ground with low bearing capacity.
> *Number of track-links in the track* &#8211; 80pcs
> *Track step -* 164mm
> *Track width* &#8211; 580 or 600mmTrack support rollers are single-tyre, consist of rim with tyre made of high quality rubber, seals and fastening elements.
> *Track support roller* - outer diameter 225mm
> *Track support roller* &#8211; width 125mmTorsion bars are high quality, torsion strength is 14000 kgf/cm2, provide full suspension movement of 410 mm. Torsion bars are located from side to side, with mutual displacement 100 mm.
> Shock absorbers are hydraulic, telescopic, double-acting, installed on first, second and sixth suspensions. Shock absorbers use sealing made of heat-resistant rubber, that provide firm sealing at temperature up to 220°&#1057;. Besides, there is a heat restraint installed in the shock absorber, which prevents the shock absorber from heating higher than 220°&#1057;.Working stroke &#8211; 225mm
> Piston diameter &#8211; 90mm
> Piston-rod diameter &#8211; 40mm
> Maximum direct stroke resistance - 15 ton-force[h=2]*DEEP FORDING EQUIPMENT*[/h]Deep fording equipment (DFE) provides for negotiating the water obstacle up to 1.8 m deep without special preparation of the tank («Brod» mode) and water obstacles up to 5 m after installation of special removable assemblies of DFE («PH» mode), as well as engaging in combat after negotiating the obstacle without any special works that require the crew to leave the tank. DFE set includes removable and stationary assemblies.*Removable assemblies include:*1. Air supply pipe
> 2. Exhaust pipe with wire rope to disengage the lock
> 3. Nose bilge pump valve
> 4. Coax MG port sealing
> 5. Gun muzzle end sealing
> 6. Rope with caps for sealing the AIU intake valves of PRHR-M1
> 7. Back-up communication system, input with signal lamp. Air intake pipe is used for supply of air to the engine of the completely tight tank while moving under water.Exhaust pipe is used for exhausting the fumes to atmosphere while moving under water at the depth of 5 m to exclude penetration of water into exhaust channel when the engine is shut off.Nose bilge pump valve prevents the water from penetrating into the tank through the water discharge port with the inoperative pump.Signal lamp is used to mark the place of the tank while moving through the water obstacle in night conditions.The set of removable equipment is supplied to the tank in a separate box bearing the tank number.In view of using the DFE while negotiating the water obstacles at the distance of not more than a day&#8217;s range, the DFE removable equipment may be stowed on the tank.[h=1]OBSERVATION AND ORIENTATION DEVICES[/h][h=2]*Day vision devices*[/h]*TNPO-160 vision block* - Prism with heating of inlet and outlet windows*commander&#8217;s station* &#8211; 1 unit is installed and 1 unit is available in SPTA kit
> *driver&#8217;s station* &#8211; 3 units are installed in shaft and 1 unit is available in SPTA kit
> *Magnification* &#8211; 1
> *Field of view* &#8211; in elevation 5dg / in azimuth 36dg
> *Angle of vision in azimuth* - 78dg
> *Periscopicity* - 160mm*TNP-165A vision block &#8211; *Type Prism*Commander&#8217;s* &#8211; 2 in the hatch cover
> *Gunner&#8217;s* &#8211; 3 in the turret and 1 in SPTA kit
> *Magnification* - 1
> *Field of view* &#8211; in elevation 8dg / in azimuth 36dg
> *Angle of vision in azimuth* &#8211; 74dg
> *Periscopicity* &#8211; 165mmHydraulic pneumatic cleaning is designed for cleaning of vision devices and protection glass from mud by fluid and from dust and snow &#8211; by air.*TVN-5 driver&#8217;s night vision device* - Periscopic, binocular, with image intensifier of the 2nd generation
> *Number* &#8211; 1
> *Magnification* &#8211; 1x
> *Field of view* &#8211; in the vertical plane 27dg / in the horizontal plane 36dg
> *Distance of vision of the flat road* &#8211; in the passive mode at NNIL from 3·10 -3 to 5·10 -3 lx at least 180m / in the active mode at NNIL of at least 3· 10 -3 lx at least 80m.[h=2]*Orientation device*[/h]Type &#8211; directional gyro Model GPK-59[h=2]*TIUS-NM NAVIGATION SUPPORT SYSTEM*[/h]*The navigation support system (NSS) ensures the solution of the following tasks:*1. Determination of own coordinates X, Y and the bearing grid angle a in the rectangular coordinate system using the SN-3700 radio-navigation equipment (RNE);
> 2. Generation, transmission and receipt of commands with coordinates of destination points;
> 3. Gathering of information about subordinates location;
> 4. Input, storage and processing of route points (up to 50 pcs)and movement along the route, number of control points for each route up to 50;
> 5. Information, transmission and receiving of telecode (textual) messages via the radio channel;
> 6. Indication at the driver&#8217;s station of information of direction and value of angle of turn to the point of destination.*Accuracy (standard deviation) of the tank location coordinates determination when operating on the following systems signals:*1. GPS NAVSTAR 40 m
> 2. GLONASS 30 m
> 3. GPS NAVSTAR/GLONASS 20 m
> 4. Quantity of routes being set Up to 10
> 5. Quantity of control points for each route Up to 50
> 6. Gathering of information about the subordinate tanks location, transmission of destination points coordinates and textual information is provided in 7. The units up to the tank battalion level inclusive Yes
> 8. Time of transmission and receipt of information in digital radio channel and range of communication To be determined by specifications of standard means of communication.
> 9. Accuracy of presenting the current time (with allowance for the correction for the zone time) 1s
> 10. Time of readiness for operation, max &#8211; under the &#8220;cold&#8221; start 180s / under the &#8220;hot&#8221; start 15s
> Built-in control system &#8211; Yes1KPI commander&#8217;s information panel is designed for input by means of key-boards into the system of initial settings, codes, commands, requests, destination and control points coordinates, as well as telecode messages that are generated from the Russian language symbols or Latin alphabet and digital symbols on the display of alphabet-digital and graphic information, received or input from outside through the radio station or from navigation equipment. It is also used to set the status of the tank &#8211; the commander of the respective level (up to the battalion commander) or subordinate (linear) of the respective unit.*1KBI-N information unit provides for:*1. Reading of input data and commands from 1KPI panel keyboard and its processing
> 2. Exchange of information ans commands with NSS and radio station
> 3. Processing of information received from NSS and radio station*solution of tasks of:*1. Computing the current coordinates and directional angle
> 2. Receipt and transmission of commands with coordinates of point of destination
> 3. Gathering of information on location of subordinates
> 4. Input, storage and operation of route points
> 5. Receipt and transmission of telecode messages
> 6. Indication of angle of turn to the driver
> 7. Controlling the indicator (screen) of 1KPI panel (indication of information and command messages). 1KVI panel is designed for providing the information for the driver about the value and direction of the tank angle of turn to the point of destination.SN-3700 radio-navigation equipment provides for continuous monitoring of the tank coordinates, its route (only on move) and time according to radio signals of navigation space craft of GLONASS and GPS NAVSTAR via open codes at any point of the globe at any point of time and any meteo conditions.*Remarks:*1.The data on the own tank position, subordinate tanks, points of destination and route points are displayed on the screen of 1KPI in text of graphic format (at the discretion of the commander)
> 2.VHF radio stations are used in NSS for exchange of commands, navigation and telecode information via digital radio channel[h=1]COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT[/h]*VHF radio set* &#8211; Type VHF, Tx/Rx Model R-030U
> *Operation frequency band -* 30-110 MHz
> *Nominal output power* &#8211; 30 W (at reduced power 1 W)
> *Max. communication range in* - the cross-country 20-25 km
> *Transmitter operation modes* &#8211; 1.Fixed frequency / 2.Pseudo-random operation frequency tuning (POFT), average number of band tuning is 312,5 per secondModulation type 1.F3 &#8211; for fixed frequencies
> 2.F1 &#8211; for (POFT)
> Number of pre-fixed frequencies 1.For fixed frequencies &#8211; 16 frequencies
> 2.For POFT &#8211; 16 channels
> *Operation modes:*
> 1.Simplex
> 2.Semi-duplex
> 3.Duty reception
> 4.Simplex in one channel and duty reception in another channel*Transmitted information*:1.Analog (audio) information providing code conversion (technical concealment)
> 2.Digital information
> 3.Short alpha-numeric code messages
> 4.Individual, group and tone callsInformation transmission speed in the digital channel 1 200, 2 400, 4 800, 9 600, 16 000 bit/s
> Built-in test system Available, provides accuracy replacement up to typical component
> *HF radio set* &#8211; Type HF, Tx/Rx Model R-163-50K
> *Operation frequency band* &#8211; 2000-29999 kHz over a step of 1 kHz
> *Number of pre-fixed frequencies* &#8211; 16
> Communication range &#8211; vertical rod antenna 250km / inclined rod antenna 250km / dipole antenna 350km
> [h=2]*Crew intercom system*[/h]*Model* &#8211; AVSK-1
> *Number of subscribers* &#8211; 4, taking in view a socket of troop commander
> *Headset* &#8211; ShSh1[h=1]AUXILIARY POWER UNIT[/h]Diesel-electric auxiliary power unit is designed to supply power of tank users while at stop and with the main engine shut-off. The auxiliary power unit is arranged on the right fender in tight armoured box and connected to electrical, fuel and main engine cooling systems.*Components*Diesel 468A
> DC starter-generator
> Fuel consumption at max output mode, max 4 kg/hr
> Time of start of drive engine without pre-start preparation, max30s
> Continuous operation time, min 24hr[h=1]GENERAL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT[/h]*Type of scheme* &#8211; DC, single line (for emergency lightening &#8211; two line)
> *Mains voltage* &#8211; is 22.5 &#8211; 28.5 V
> *Mains protection system* &#8211; Automatic circuit breakers and fuses[h=2]*Storage batteries*[/h]*Type* &#8211; Lead-acid battery
> *Model* &#8211; 12S&#1058;-85
> *Quantity* &#8211; 4
> *Electric capacity of one battery* &#8211; 85 A·hr
> *Total electric capacity of batteries* - 340 A·hr
> *Rated voltage of a battery* &#8211; 24V*Relay-regulator Model* &#8211; RN505M1*Rotary junction box Model -* VKU-1*DC starter-generator Model* &#8211; SG-18-1S[h=1]DRIVER&#8217;S DIGITAL INSTRUMENTATION PANEL[/h]*The driver&#8217;s digital instrument panel is intended to control the tank&#8217;s systems:*1. Operation of the pre-heater
> 2. Main engine pre-starting and starting
> 3. Traffic lights operation
> 4. Emergency warning
> 5. Indication of current parameters of the engine and transmission
> 6. Protection of the engine against wrong actions of the driver during engine pre-starting and starting
> *Overall dimensions* &#8211; 640x390x235mm / Weight 22 kg*Components of the driver&#8217;s digital instrument panel:*1. Engine and transmission current parameter indication panel
> 2. Engine pre-starting and starting control panel
> 3. Air intake device pipe, bilge pump and directional gyro control panel
> 4. Traffic lights control panel
> 5. Fuel and oil level indication panel
> 6. Transmission control equipment protection and switching-on unitT*The driver&#8217;s digital instrument panel is connected to the vehicle mains (V/DC) and ensures the following:*1. Displaying information about the parameters of the vehicle with the aid of the current parameter indication panel (vehicle speed, vehicle mileage, engine crankshaft rotation speed, engine coolant temperature, engine oil temperature, engine oil pressure, transmission oil pressure, engine operation time, vehicle mains voltage, value of the currant in the circuit of charging/discharging the storage batteries)
> 2. Odisplaying information about the amount of fuel and oil available in the vehicle
> 3. Control of the actuating mechanisms (by means of using relevant buttons and toggle switches)
> 4. Automated procedure for preparation of the engine for starting
> 5. Control of the outer lighting/warning devices (headlights, marker lights, turning lights, horn signal)[h=1]AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM OF THE CREW COMPARTMENT[/h]The air conditioning system is intended to ensure crew comfort in the crew compartment by means of cooling, drying, heating and ventilating the air in the compartment.The air conditioning system consists of two air conditioners (one is installed in the tank hull, and the other, in the tank turret). This approach makes it possible to ensure efficient processing of air in both the driver&#8217;s compartment and the fighting compartment of the tank.Either of the air conditioners comprises a compressing-and-condensing unit, air processing unit, power unit, control panel, connecting pipes and electrical cables.The air conditioner is a steam-compressing unit, which is installed in the turret or in the hull of the tank and consists of two main units: compressing-and-condensing unit and air processing unit. The compressing-and-condensing unit is connected to outside air, while the air processing unit sucks in and then lets out the air of the crew compartment. The compressing-and-condensing unit is water-tight, so there is no need for any preparation of the unit before water obstacle crossing.Heating is ensured by installing electric heaters in the air processing unit.[h=1]TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS[/h]*Total weight* - 51ton&#8217;s
> *Crew* &#8211; 3
> *Power-to-weight ratio* - at least 18.2 kW (24.7 hp/t)
> *Specific ground pressure* &#8211; within 0.097 MPa (0.97 kgf/cm2)
> *Operating temperature* - range -40 to +55 °C
> *Main dimensions* &#8211; Length gun forward 9720mm / gun rearward 9750mm / hull 7075mm / Width without removable side skirts 3400mm / with *removable side skirts* &#8211; 4176mm
> *Length of track on ground* - 4290mm
> *Ground clearance* - 470-500mm
> *Track* - 2800mm
> *Operational data* (single tank in various terrain conditions)
> *Movement speed* &#8211; Average (on dry natural soil road) 40-45km/h / Maximum (on hard-surface road) 70km/h
> *In reverse gear* &#8211; Minimum 4.8km/h / maximum 31.3km/h
> *Fuel consumption per 100km* &#8211; on dry natural soil road 325-370lt / on hard-surface road up to 300lt
> *Cruising distance* &#8211; on dry natural soil road by using fuel from main fuel tanks 350km / by using fuel from additional fuel tanks 450km
> *Gradient* &#8211; 32 degrees
> *Side slope* &#8211; 25 degrees
> *Trench* &#8211; 2.85m
> *Obstacle* &#8211; 1m
> *Deep fording* &#8211; (without preparation) 1.8m
> *Crossing water obstacles by using deep water fording equipment* &#8211; depth 5m / width no limits
> *Ammunition for the main gun* - 46 (28 in automatic loader)
> *Gun ammunition types* - HE-FRAG, APFSDS, HEAT, GM
> *KT-7.62 machine gun* - 1250rds (250×5)
> *KT-12.7 machine gun* - 450 rds (150×3)
> *AKS submachine gun* - 450 rds
> *F-1 hand grenades* &#8211; 10
> *Aerosol grenades* &#8211; 12
> [/QUOTE
> 
> The Ukrainian T-84 Oplot Main Battle Tank | TankNutDave

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Manticore

*The M-84*

Yugoslavia was another country to licence build the Russian T-72. After the Yugoslavian Government secured the license the first prototypes were developed in 1982 for field testing and production began sometime in 1983. The first production vehicles were completed in 1984, hence the 84 in it&#8216;s designation. The principle improvements over the T-72 was an improved composite armour, a locally manufactured fire control system and a 12-cylinder water-cooled V46-6 diesel engine generating 780hp.

The M-84A
The M-84AB 
M-91 Whirlwind




M-84A4
The M-95 Degman
The M-84D
M-2001
The Yugoslavian (former) M-84 Series | TankNutDave








PAK tanks

http://i.imgur.com/KYyM2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DLVPy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7PgKt.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DXb4a.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/RVRck.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/RZIuB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Y7uEH.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/HvBhJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QmXbP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/18HAQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MAbm9.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SyuP5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Klgds.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bI1KG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Bklb8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VXypO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/V9YXc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JjYOo.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DZ1qL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/C2s5P.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/EU0O7.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/N1p5b.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4S10y.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4S10y.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Qb49Z.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NDIaD.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/HqvBC.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/38m5A.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/NdmE5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/IRL8b.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JKQuG.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MaK2c.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/i0XHB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Sw23k.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Jy6yE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vSZZP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bEDpJ.jpg
TYPE 69-II
http://i.imgur.com/QfKI4.jpg
Type-85-II
http://i.imgur.com/zdfHj.jpg
alkhalid
http://i.imgur.com/asHYh.jpg
Type-69II 
http://i.imgur.com/R60G6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/U1rCM.jpg

Type-85-II modified to T-85-III
http://i.imgur.com/XWm30.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YyTeT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Xl2kp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/S4AQc.png
http://i.imgur.com/WjbZ6.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Glrah.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4mRs7.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Ur9k9.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/NlDp6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3CSRA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Unlh3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DeeDi.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/HgbPI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bWtbt.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Ot51p.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CyInI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Qb29n.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FMYA6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FsFbx.jpg

type 59
http://i.imgur.com/LvPVB.jpg
alzarrar
http://i.imgur.com/BQfMy.jpg


ak
[http://i.imgur.com/HK1RK.jpg

az
http://i.imgur.com/X03HT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/lkLWD.jpg
type59
http://i.imgur.com/8v6A8.jpg
t80
http://i.imgur.com/r2NAo.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5P3Un.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VgOtL.jpg

These links have a considerable number of t80ud pics

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Manticore

A prototype of the T-80 (Re-292) with a 152mm gun and modular armor. From the little that is in early / mid 90s





T-80BV















Yard full of T-80B and T-80U/UD 





T-80BV








T-80U/UD




PT-76. 




BMP-1

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

T-80UD. 

T-80 in Yemen







> four vehicles, each with a different configurations,
> T-80UD Americans sold by Ukraine. The 4 copies came in different setsWe: 3 with APS and other equipment with air conditioning available. The agreement was signed a few years ago, but the appearance of the photos has a good discussion Caused Between Russians and Ukrainians, Who Have called clowns, traitors, accomplices and a long etcetera.














t80 east germany





T-80BV in the Far East

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

> A photo of a T-80UD Pakistani maneuvers. According andrei-bt.livejournal.com, thermal cameras these tanks were built in Ukraine










> Photo of a T-80 Cyprus. Apart Shtora system have Catherine-E thermal cameras








Modernization of T-80 in Russia 

After the disintegration of the USSR seemed that the development and modernization of the T-80 was over. One of the factories, with great influence, went to Ukraine, Leningrad closed shortly and the only one left, Omsk, entered into a long agony to go bankrupt in 2002. The design bureau was transferred to Uralvagonzavod, which makes the T-90. 

T-80 in the Factory Repair 61 (Sergei Vladimirovich, Ïàðòèçàíñêàÿ Áàçà (Ðàáîòàåò íà Invision Power Board)) 


Nonetheless, the T-80 remained an important carriage Russian armed in the military. After 1991 Russia retained most, with Ukraine and Belarus inherited a small amount. Production was remarkable, more than 5,000 copies in all versions. 
Russia operates three versions: 

- T-80B: latest version to be mass produced. Ride a 1A33 fire control, armor Kontakt-1 ERA and a turbine GTD-1100T. 
- T-80U: improved version with more armor and a GTD-1250 turbine for more power (since 1990). Your shot is higher (1st 45), but not mounted a thermal camera. 
- T-80UD: diesel version of the T-80U with a motor 1.000HP 6TD-1. 

In these versions, UD had no future. This car was produced in Ukraine and it was clear that Russia was not going to buy spare parts from a direct competitor. The number operated, although higher than Ukraine itself, was not very high. In fact operated with a single division, the 4th Armored Kantemirovskaya, famous for being deployed in Moscow during the 1991 coup. 

The T-80U were not very numerous, as it began during perestroika, and tank production was drastically reduced. The T-80B is the most common model, and a tank is much easier to modernize the T-72 because they have a modern fire control, including ballistic computer, wind sensor and other elements. 

In 2005 modernized versions officially entered service. They are called T-80uA and T-80EU-1 (not to be confused with the T-80UE 90. The T-80uA is a simple upgrade of U. The T-80UE-1 is somewhat more complex. When the T-80UD exhausted its useful life and are sent to stores / scrap, the tower were removed and mounted on a T-80BV. This way you can recycle a portion of the car. --translation







The modernization is focused on fire control and turbine. These models use a computer pass 1A45-1. The big news is the presence of a thermal imager pleated, French-Belarusian origin. This is a huge improvement because the vast majority of Russian tanks lacks these teams. At the same time, stabilization and precision is higher. Some recent photos show that they have received BMS control systems. 




BMS System in T-80



> Consider the results of tests performed by a prototype T-80 (Object 219), a T-64A and T-72:
> 
> - Average speed of 1.3 compared to T-64A/72.
> - Time to complete a 1000kms up 1.5 times lower.
> - After the march was a journey on a slope of 15 °, the Object 219 was two times faster.
> - Number of maintenance 5 times lower.
> - Habitability 2-3 times. The lower smoke and noise allowed to operate better with BMP, and the attack could be performed at twice the speed.
> - Effective fire distance 1.3 times.
> - Time to prepare the first shot 2.1 times lower.
> - Time to prepare the engine at low temperature 8-10 times lower.
> - Acceleration time 1.7 times less (does not say what speed).
> - Accuracy 1.3-1.5 times greater.
> - Time resupply 2.5-3 times lower. You can use helicopter fuel. The cost of the fuel is 1.5 times lower.
> - The time to change the engine / transmission is the third.
> - The length and complexity of maintenance is less than half.
> 
> More calculations performed by the Kirov plant, the defense ministry and the institute Minaviaproma:
> 
> - Probability of detection from the air 1.25-1.9 times lower.
> - Time out of the contaminated area four times lower.
> - Life of the motor 2 times greater.
> - Using 1.5 times lower specific metals.
> 
> The T-72/64A consumed 4.5 liters / kms. The Object 219 6.2 l / km. GTD clear that the turbine is 1.251.4 times more potent than 5TDF or V-46. The protection was higher by using steel BTK-1:
> 
> Item 219:
> Front tower: 500mm.
> Chassis Front: 380mm.
> 
> T-72/64A:
> Front tower: 410mm.
> Chassis Front: 305mm.
> 
> In any case, we must not take everything at face value. These will likely be designed to see the virtues of the turbines, but have many drawbacks: they are much more expensive, more complex materials used and have a much lower life. In a circuit but may be lower when tested the Indians T-80U of the need for support vehicles was 3 times greater than in the T-90. The Russians argue that most of the time the extra power from the turbine is not used. In short, there are reasons for and against, but we must not forget that the Soviets ended up with a diesel version of the T-80, the UD.
> 
> The data come from:
> 
> Andrei-bt -
> 
> See if someone can correct or add to the translation.
> 
> Greetings



T-84 with Kontakt 5 ERA




http://forum.milua.org//files/dfds_289.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Manticore

The T-84 is the latest Ukrainian development of the T-80 series, designed by KMDB in Kharkiv. A main design objective was to make Ukraine's arms industry independent of Russia's, after resulting difficulties in fulfilling a contract to supply T-80UD tanks to Pakistan. An external difference from earlier models is the new Ukrainian welded turret, replacing the T-80's Russian-built cast turret (some T-80s shipped to Pakistan were fitted with the T-84 welded turret, but lack other T-84 improvements)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

> The &#8220;Object 292&#8221; test vehicle was produced by the Kirov Special Machinery Plant (Special Machinery, Limited), and the scientists at VNIITransmash. On the chassis of the T-80U they installed a new turret, a 152mm cannon, and some other parts. The turret and cannon were installed and in 1991, experiments began at Rzhev Poligon. Positive results were achieved.
> 
> Ballistically, the smoothbore 152mm was far superior to the 125mm, though the chamber dimensions were not that much bigger. A new combat compartment was also developed, which could be installed on T-80 tanks without modifications to the main chassis structure







Tank turret with poured base, reinforced roof and front arc.














Niche to rear of turret with &#8220;ejectable&#8221; plates.

ÑÐ°Ð½Ðº ÐÐ±ÑÐµÐºÑ 292

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Manticore

t80u




t84

Contrary to the basic believe of the western and even Russian public T-72 is not a development of T-64A (the Soviet Main Battle Tank). T-72 vas development of Ural design bureau experimental tank that lost the competition to T-64 predecessor o. 430. That is why T-72 use the 22 rounds autoloader previously planned for modernized T-62. A completely different drivetrain and different turret.
The T-72 series itself was a &#8220;mobilization&#8221; tank of the soviet army. It was designed for mass production in war time in huge numbers.













T-72 predecessor o. 140 and 167







The most important threads of Soviet tank development before 1966

Basically the first automatic fire control and gun-lunched missile appeared on T-64B in 1976. Then it was installed on T-80. The automatic fire control was never installed on T-72 or it&#8217;s versions.
The same story with armor &#8211; while the T-64-s and T-80 was equipment with high cost composite armor the T-72 had the simplest possible sand rods and then reflecting plates which were much less valuable than advanced compositions of T-80U &#8230;
So the key idea is that T-72 was not the primary Soviet tank, it was exported worldwide to any nation possible. While no T-64 or T-80 was ever exported (After Soviet Union T-80U was exported to ROK, Cyprus and T-80UD to Pakistan)&#8230;







The most important threads of Soviet tank development after 1966

FIRE CONTROL

1-st T-72 and T-80/64 were equipped with different guns.
T-80/64 received newest guns much before T-72-variants.

T-64 fire control consists of (basic information)

Targeting complex 1A34
-laser sight 1G42 with block of shot permission 1G43 and tank ballistic computer 1V517.
The AUTOMATIC sensors of entering information are
Heel sensor 1B14
Wind sensor 1B11
relative bearing sensor
tank speed sensor

The following information is entered before combat manually is temperature of the air, type of ammunition batch, atmosphere pressure, charge temperature, air temperature, barrel wear.

In the automatic fire control the correction factor for target range, tank speed, target speed, wind are entered automatically. The gunner just puts the mark on the target and the gun is adjusted automatically to required position, the mark does not change it&#8217;s position.


What is T-72B fire control &#8211;

The automatic fire control was not installed on T-72.
Instead of ballistic computer the tank is equipped with ballistic corrector.
The correction factor for target range tank speed, target speed, wind are not entered automatically. The wind correction factor is measured &#8220;by eye&#8221; (until the last serial versions and T-72C).
The gunner puts the mark on the target measures the range with LRF, the mark moves lover depending on range &#8230; It requires more time then with automatic FCS.
Another diference of T-72B from T-64/80B is that T-72 can not fire guided missiles while moving&#8230;






placements of fire control elements inside the T-72B combat compartament

1 &#8211; executive cylinder of vertical drive VN
2 &#8211; Block for entering corrections
3 &#8211; guidance block for 9K120
4 &#8211; control block
5 &#8211; converter for 9K120
6 &#8211; electric module of 1A40-1
7 &#8211; round
8 &#8211; guided missile
9 &#8211; block for entering range
10 &#8211; horizontal drive GN
12 &#8211; electric machine booster
13 &#8211; 1K13 sight
14 - 1A40-1 targeting complex





> History of Soviet tanks &#8211; T-72 difference from T-64/ T-80 by Harkonnen

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

Main Battle Tank - T-80/T80U/T80UM/T-80UM1/T-80UM2

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Manticore

History of Russian tank development in the postwar period
ÐÑÑÐ¾ÑÐ¸Ñ Ð¾ÑÐµÑÐµÑÑÐ²ÐµÐ½Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ ÑÐ°Ð½ÐºÐ¾ÑÑÑÐ¾ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð² Ð¿Ð¾ÑÐ»ÐµÐ²Ð¾ÐµÐ½Ð½ÑÐ¹ Ð¿ÐµÑÐ¸Ð¾Ð´

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Manticore

All right guys, the thread is open. Ive posted the links and quoted the different data I had come across regarding the t-80ud. Now the forum has a dedicated t80ud thread as well as the ak info pool thread

happy posting

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Manticore

T-80UD MBT

The T-80UD MBT armament includes a 125mm gun, 7.62mm coaxial machine gun and 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun. The tank crew is also equipped with sub-machine guns, hand grenades and a signal pistol.

The main armament comprises a 125mm KBA3 smoothbore gun fed by a carousel-type automatic loader and fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor (bore evacuator). The main gun has a quick-replacement barrel which can be changed under field conditions without the need to remove the gun from the tank.

The number of rounds that T-80UD could carry is 45 two-piece rounds (projectile and charge), of which 28 rounds are placed in the automatic loader, with the remainder being stored at the driver's station and in the fighting compartment. Types of ammunition that can be fired by the gun include APFSDS (armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding sabot), HEAT (high explosive anti-tank), HE-FRAG (high explosive fragmentation) rounds and laser beam-riding guided missiles.

The specific feature of the tank is that it is fitted with a guided missile system to enable the main gun to fire a laser guided missile with a maximum range of 5,000 m. The missile consists of two parts. The first part includes a pusher and an equipment compartment with control surface device. The second part includes a sustainer engine and a tandem warhead. Both parts are stowed in the automatic loader in the same way as conventional ammunition.The two parts get united into one body in the gun bore at the moment of firing.

The missile can be fired while both the tank and target are moving. The tandem warhead enables the missile to defeat targets fitted with explosive reactive armour with a high degree of efficiency.

Although the primary role of the missile is to engage battle tanks operating at ranges beyond the effective range of the 125mm tank gun firing conventional ammunition, it can also be fired against other battlefield targets such as hovering helicopters and pillboxes.

The coaxial machine gun can be aimed and fired from either gunner's or commander's station.

The anti-aircraft machine gun is mounted on the commander's cupola and is intended for use in the ground/air and ground/ground roles being aimed and fired while remaining in the vehicle under full armour protection from the commander's station. The machine gun can be elevated from -5° to +70° and traversed through +/-75° to the right and left of the vehicle longitudinal axis, or through +360° together with the tank turret. The machine gun is fitted with a vertical stabilisation system providing stabilisation in the vertical angle range of -3° to +20°.
Fire Control System

The T-80UD is fitted with an advanced fire control system, and either the gunner or commander can lay and fire the main armament at stationary and moving targets while the tank is stationary or moving with a high first round hit probability.

The fire control system comprises a gunner's 1G46 day sight, gunner's TO1-KO1E night vision system, commander's PNK-4S observation and sighting system, PZU-7 anti-aircraft sight, 1ETs29 anti-aircraft machine gun mount control system, 1V528-1 ballistic computer with input information sensors, 2E42 armament stabiliser and other devices.

The gunner's 1G46 day sight has a two-axis stabilised line of sight and incorporates a laser range-finder and a missile guidance capability.

In the standard version the gunner has a TO1-KO1E sighting system with TPN-4E image intensification sight, but as an option, the Buran-Catherine-E thermal imaging sight can be fitted.

The commander's PNK-4S observation and sighting system comprises a commander's TKN-4S combined day/night sight and a gun position sensor. The commander's TKN-4S combined sight is stabilised in the vertical plane and has three channels: a day unity vision channel, a day channel with magnification of x8 and a night channel with magnification of 5.4x. A simple switch enables the commander to change from the daylight channel to the night (image intensification) channel and back again.

The commander's anti-aircraft sight enables the commander to engage air targets by using the anti-aircraft machine gun from within the safety of the turret.

In order to calculate ballistic corrections, the 1V528-1 ballistic computer automatically takes into account all the inputs from the sensors including tank speed, angular target speed, gun trunnion axis cant, crosswind speed, target range, and course angle. Additionally, the following parameters are manually input: ambient air temperature, charge temperature, barrel wear ambient air pressure and so on. The computer also computes the time when the high-explosive fragmentation projectile with controlled detonation should be detonated over the target.

The fire control system has a so-called fire gating capability, i.e., after the gun firing button has been pushed, the gun will only fire when the misalignment between the line of sight and the gun bore axis is within pre-determined limits. The fire gate size is adjusted when calibrating the fire control system after installing it in the tank.

To enable a broad sector of terrain to be observed, the crew members are provided with unity magnification periscope vision blocks.


T-80UD main battle tank with its ammo

Protection

The armour protection of the T-80UD, which includes advanced multi-layer armour and explosive reactive armour package for the turret and chassis, provides to the T-80UD a high level of battlefield survivability.

The T-80UD can disguise itself on the battlefield by laying a smoke/aerosol screen. Mounted on either side of the turret is a bank of four electrically operated smoke grenade launchers.

The T-80UD can lay its own smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel in the engine exhaust (i.e. by using so-called engine smoke emitter).

To reduce the thermal signature of the tank on the battlefield, the T-80UD power pack compartment top deck is fitted with special heat insulation.


Explosive reactive armour installed on the glacis plate 

Mobility

The T-80UD is powered by a model 6TD-1 6-cylinder diesel engine developing 1,000 hp.

The air inlet of the engine allows air to be ducted from the least dusty quarter and enables water obstacles to be crossed to a water depth of 1.8 m without preparation.

There are two parts to the air filtration system, the centrifugal pre-cleaners and the air cleaner casing. This enables the tank to be operated in hot and dusty conditions for up to 1,000 km without a change of filters and to carry out combat under radioactive conditions.

The suspension is of the torsion bar type with each side having six dual rubber-tyred road wheels with the idler at the front, drive sprocket at the rear and track support rollers.

The upper part of the suspension is covered by a skirt, the forward part of which is armoured (fitted with explosive reactive armour).

A rubber mat hangs at the front of the vehicle and this helps to keep down dust.


Fording without preparation and with preparation

Other Features

The T-80UD MBT standard equipment also includes an NBC system, provision for deep fording, fire detection/suppression system, radiation shielding and a dozer blade mounted under the front of the hull.

The NBC protection system protects the crew and inner equipment of the tank against the effects of nuclear explosions, radioactive dust, toxic agents and bacteriological materials.

The deep fording equipment enables the tank to cross water obstacles to a water depth of 5 m (1.8 m deep water obstacles can be crossed without preparation).

The fire detection/suppression system enables internal fires to be detected and suppressed in both crew compartment and power pack compartment.

The radiation shielding is designed in the form of liner fixed on both internal and external surfaces of the tank.

The dozer blade enables the tank to dig up a tank caponier within 15-40 minutes depending on the type of ground.

The T-80UD can be fitted with various types of mine-clearing system at the front of the hull including KMT-6 plough-type system and KMT-7 roller-type system. Two long-range fuel tanks and an unditching beam can be mounted at the rear of the hull.

The T-80UD MBT design and configuration can be changed to suit foreign customers' specific requirements.



Self-entrench device 



KMT-6 mine-clearing system

Support Vehicles

The following key support vehicles can also be supplied to provide the T-80UD MBT with technical and logistic support during its operational life:

armoured repair and recovery vehicle (based on the T-80UD chassis)
armoured vehicle-launched bridge (based on the T-80UD chassis)
tracked carrier with a carrying capacity of 12 t (its main sub-assemblies are similar to those of the T-80UD);
various tank maintenance mobile workshops (based on the chassis of cross-country vehicles)
Product Support

Throughout the operational life of the T-80UD MBT the KMDB and its sub-contractors provide users with the following product support:

training courses
training equipment
assistance and advice on equipment management
in-country support
scaling and supply of spare parts
post-design services
publications


Two-view general arrangement drawing of the T-80UD MBT

Participation in Comparative Evaluation Trials

The T-80UD MBT was demonstrated and subjected to trials in Pakistan in 1993 and 1995 to meet this country's re requirement for a new MBT.

In 1996 Pakistan placed a contract with Ukraine for the supply of 320 T-80UDs. The first batch of 15 vehicles was delivered early in 1997, with final deliveries taking place in late 1999.

The vehicles of the final batches incorporated many features of the T-84, including an all-welded turret and other improvements.



T-80UD MBTs are in service with the Pakistani Army

Status

The T-80UD main battle tank is now in service with Ukraine, Russia and Pakistan.

KMDB - T80UD Main Battle Tank















Self-entrench device 




KMT-6 mine-clearing system









Explosive reactive armour installed on the glacis plate

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Desert Fox

ANTIBODY said:


> All right guys, the thread is open. Ive posted the links and quoted the different data I had come across regarding the t-80ud. Now the forum has a dedicated t80ud thread as well as the ak info pool thread
> 
> happy posting



T-80UD is a good Tank. Is it possible for us to upgrade it to Oplot standard?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## farhan_9909

The Ak turret has many design flaws.and it need a turret similar to our t-80ud or olpot

cant we just make a deal with Ukraine to either design us or give us a tot for manufacturing and basing off the turret off t-80ud/Oplot on our Al khalid?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

t84





above t64bm with knife era?
Knife-2 = Duplet era? @Dazzler

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

ACTIVE DEFENCE SYSTEM «ZASLON»*/*Products*/*STE







BTVT Vehicles protection

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

T-84 "Oplot". It is variant of the T-84 with a modified turret. This main battle tank features a 120-mm standard NATO caliber main gun and automatically loaded ammunition storage placed in the turret instead of the hull. This version is completed with a great dimension side screens as well.




http://daarmy.npage.eu/t-84-series.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

Functions of explosive reactive armor «Duplet»

Explosive reactive armour modules «Duplet» are designed for protection of stationary objects and combat armored vehicles from armor-piercing shells, hollow charge hitting means and self-formed striking hollow-charge shells of &#8220;striking cannon-ball&#8221; type.

Application of explosive reactive armor «Duplet»

«Duplet» modules can be applied as part of built-in and mounted armor of tanks and light-armored vehicles.

If a grenade hits part of the combat vehicle protected with &#8220;Duplet&#8221; modules, fractures of the vehicle armor are excluded.

Installation of &#8220;Reactive armor&#8221; system with &#8220;Duplet&#8221; modules increases level of tank protection from hollow-charge and kinetic hitting means by 2-3 times.

Setup and operating principle of «Duplet» modules

«Duplet» modules can be replaced with &#8220;Contact&#8221; explosive reactive armor elements in proportion 1:2. One «Duplet» module is installed into a standard bed for installation of reactive armor of any construction instead of two 4S20 and 4S22 elements.

Decreased explosive effect of «Duplet» modules on the armor along with new construction of bed for installation of modules on the vehicle allows to upgrade survivability of explosive reactive armor by 2 times in comparison with &#8220;Contact&#8221; system.

Operation of «Duplet» system does not require special preparation before operation, maintenance and repair.

Installation of &#8220;Explosive reactive armor&#8221; «Duplet» modules increases level of tank protection from hollow-charge and kinetic shells by 1.5-2.5 when compared with best world analogues of explosive reactive armor like «Contact» and «Blazer».

Reactive armor based on «Duplet» modules favorably differs from the best world analogues in:

- Increased level of protection by 1,5 &#8211; 2,5 times;

- Ability to securely protect from all types of anti-tank means, primarily from armor-piercing subcaliber shells and self-formed striking submunitions of &#8220;striking cannonball&#8221; type;

- High reliability of elements operation;

- Protection from armor-piercing shells of small caliber guns;

- Security under fire of all caliber of bullets and fragmentation;

- Increased resistance to high temperatures and humidity.

- Generality of application on all types of combat vehicles;



Operation of «Duplet» modules

When the hollow-charge shell is approaching the vehicle, the cumulative stream initiates the elements inside the 'Duplet' module; each element is forming a directed stream of explosion fragments. Influencing the cumulative stream, the directed flows of explosion break the stream down into separate fragments, therefore damaging its integrity and continuity. This results in significant decrease and sometimes to full absence of armor-piercing effect of hollow &#8211;charge hitting means.

The explosive reactive armor based on ' Duplet ' modules installed on the basic tank, provides protection from 120 and 125 mm armor-piercing subcaliber shells from a distance of 100 m, hollow charge grenades, artillery hollow charge shells, anti-tank guided and unguided missiles, and subminitions of «striking cannonball» type.





Explosive reactive armor based on «Duplet» modules has been accepted to the arsenal of Ukraine.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## Manticore

FCS which are made in Ukraine




1-1A43U TANK SIGHTING COMPLEX
2-Buran-Matis
3-PNK-6

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Are the PA t-80uds fitted with the same FCS?


----------



## Dazzler

farhan_9909 said:


> The Ak turret has many design flaws.and it need a turret similar to our t-80ud or olpot
> 
> cant we just make a deal with Ukraine to either design us or give us a tot for manufacturing and basing off the turret off t-80ud/Oplot on our Al khalid?



A word of advise for you, dont buy too much of *** "experts" they are nothing but tank sim players with a fantsay of theoritical comparisons, not to mention their pixel measurements.  

Ukrainians appreciated AK turret design and suggested it may be the way it is. Unless you or anyone know the flaws of the turret, dont recommend things you have o idea about. We already have too much of Ukrainian involvement in AK and AZ projects but what we read on internet is just engine and transmission usually. In reality, tt goes all the way to armour and tank ammunition etc.

Thing about it, IF AK and Chinese turrets had such a flaw,,why on earth would they be persuing it, that too for multiple upgrades and batches (China, 99, 99G, A, A2 etc)? You think Both Chinese and Pakistanis are that stupid and a bunch of SIM fanatics know more? There is plenty of amour gone in it and the theory of 60 deg vulnerability is more of a fantasy UNLESS proven in the battlefield. 

All i saw was 60 deg protected turrets of T-72s, T-80BVs blown up into pieces by single HEAT or average APFSDS rounds.

I recommend you read Anderi bt and Lidsky M on that forum if you need real technical information. Rest are Polish born Yankee wannabees.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Are the PA t-80uds fitted with the same FCS?



Originally they were fitted with 1A46 mated with Buran imager but since 2005-06 it is known that TI is catherine fitted locally but, FCS the same or improved, is a mystery.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

ANTIBODY said:


> t84
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> above t64bm with knife era?
> Knife-2 = Duplet era? @Dazzler



Duplet is just a double layered Knife ERA which can be composed with all three generations of Knife

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

@Dazzler - Why would the Ukrainians help us 'that much' ? We haven't any money anyhow !


----------



## Dazzler

Armstrong said:


> @Dazzler - Why would the Ukrainians help us 'that much' ? We haven't any money anyhow !



the help is not a charity or noble cause but money has been among the causes. They have been warm towards us since the famous UD deal. Those were real crunch times of CIS states, particularly Ukraine.

No matter how a designer/ manufacturer you are, you still need recognition. Morozov was a brilliant designer but he was overshadowed by others such as Kastrev and Potkin. 

Thats why Ukrainians owe us something since it was the UD deal that made the Ukrainian industry famous as an independant tank/ armour manufacturer which was no longer under the shadow of former Soviet Union.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> All i saw was 60 deg protected turrets of T-72s, T-80BVs blown up into pieces by single HEAT or average APFSDS rounds.



Not going to restart this all over again,but t-72 monkey models,crewed by jokers,without ERA and being picked off at ranges by the FCS of m1a1 that they can't even respond at,nor do they have ammo to penetrate abrams is just a poor example and has nothing to do with turret geometry. Turret geometry is no good if opposition can penetrate ur frontal armour itself from ranges u can't respond.As for those lost to HEAT rpgs and ATGMS,even merkavas lost many,and even some abrams.Tanks are not suited for urban combat.Frontal armour was not penetrated.So really poor examples which have nothing to do with the turret geometry argument.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Not going to restart this all over again,but t-72 monkey models,crewed by jokers,without ERA and being picked off at ranges by the FCS of m1a1 that they can't even respond at,nor do they have ammo to penetrate abrams is just a poor example and has nothing to do with turret geometry. Turret geometry is no good if opposition can penetrate ur frontal armour itself from ranges u can't respond.As for those lost to HEAT rpgs and ATGMS,even merkavas lost many,and even some abrams.Tanks are not suited for urban combat.Frontal armour was not penetrated.So really poor examples which have nothing to do with the turret geometry argument.



You answered your own question regarding geometry friend.

Thanks for agreeing

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> You answered your own question regarding geometry friend.
> 
> Thanks for agreeing



I didn't agree.Because in a t-90 vs khalid duel,none will enjoy the advantages enjoyed by abrams over monkey t-72s.In such a close contest turret geometry is very useful advantage.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> I didn't agree.Because in a t-90 vs khalid duel,none will enjoy the advantages enjoyed by abrams over monkey t-72s.In such a close contest turret geometry is very useful advantage.



Geometry is among a hundered factors but the lack of an efficient ammo is the most important factor. A Naiza fired from AZ can reath havoc on Arjun or T-90. Same applies for UD and AK. You cant fight a battle without bullets

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

@Dazzler - How would you rate the Al-Khalid, the Ak-1 & the purported Ak-2 when compared with the T-80 UD, the T-84 Oplot & the T-90S ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Geometry is among a hundered factors but the lack of an efficient ammo is the most important factor. A Naiza fired from AZ can reath havoc on Arjun or T-90. Same applies for UD and AK. You cant fight a battle without bullets



Naiza can't even penetrate either t-90 or arjun frontal armour even without ERA.U would need around 700 mm penetration to do that.
As for the sides just about any ammo can do that.
And oh,we have bullets.Thanks for posting the arjun ammo round pic.Couldn't find it myself.
And turret geometry is quite a bit more important than 'one of hundred factors',when neither side can penetrate others frontal armour,the one with more weakspots is much more vulnerable.


----------



## Dazzler

Armstrong said:


> @Dazzler - How would you rate the Al-Khalid, the Ak-1 & the purported Ak-2 when compared with the T-80 UD, the T-84 Oplot & the T-90S ?



In armour, FCS, battlefield situational awareness and firepower, AK (not AK-1) is twice as good as T-80UD.

The new composite armour tested on AK-1 is known to be astoundingly good, there is no one readiy to talk on it. All i know is that some new R&D went solely for this armour which proved its worth against 120/ 125 mm ammo. 

Before you question how they tested 120 mm ammo? Answer is; HIT makes guns from 105 to 203 calibres and fourth prototype AK had the 120 mm gun

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> In armour, FCS, battlefield situational awareness and firepower, AK (not AK-1) is twice as good as T-80UD.
> 
> The new composite armour tested on AK-1 is known to be astoundingly good, there is no one readiy to talk on it. All i know is that some new R&D went solely for this armour which proved its worth against 120/ 125 mm ammo.
> 
> Before you question how they tested 120 mm ammo? Answer is; HIT makes guns from 105 to 203 calibres and fourth prototype AK had the 120 mm gun



Was this 120 mm gun a new one or tech sharing with some country?Also will this gun go into AK-2?


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Naiza can't even penetrate either t-90 or arjun frontal armour even without ERA.U would need around 700 mm penetration to do that.
> As for the sides just about any ammo can do that.
> And oh,we have bullets.Thanks for posting the arjun ammo round pic.Couldn't find it myself.
> And turret geometry is quite a bit more important than 'one of hundred factors',when neither side can penetrate others frontal armour,the one with more weakspots is much more vulnerable.



I suggest you dont go there again 

First you need to understand that a DU is NOT tungsten and has more penetration values than advertised i.e. a 550 mm DU may penetrate a 570-80 mm armour because DU molten jet in excess of 2000 Deg Centigrade digs through the armour. 

Ragarding the T-90S armour estimates.. Fofanov again




> T-90 turret projection without Kontakt-5 could thus be 38cm x 0.92 + 43.5cm x 0.56 = 59cm KE (the free edge effect will reduce this further to 0.95 x 59cm or 56cm KE) and 38cm + 43.5cm x 0.79 = 72cm HEAT.
> 
> Kontakt-5 coverage seems to be about 50%.
> 
> Upper front turret is 5cm cast plus 5cm STEF at ~77-78°.
> 
> Glacis is 235mm thick with probably 105mm STEF and 30mm hard steel. The TE of STEF is 0.41 KE and 0.55 HEAT and the TE of hard steel is 1.34 vs KE & 1.3 vs HEAT. Thus the glacis should offer [3 x 1.34 + 10.5 x 0.41 + 11] / 0.38 =~51cm KE and [3 x 1.3 + 10.5 x 0.55 + 11] / 0.38= ~ 54cm HEAT armor. With Kontakt-5 the KE value is up 15-20cm KE and 40-50cm HEAT thus about 69±2cm KE and ~99±4cm HEAT.
> 
> Lower hull is 8-10cm at 64° = LOS thickness of 0.438 or 17-23cm KE and HEAT armor.



so T-90S is still vulnerable against Naiza



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Was this 120 mm gun a new one or tech sharing with some country?Also will this gun go into AK-2?



indigenously built by HIT under western pattern aka Rheinmetall 120 mm, how they got the know how, no idea. Surprisingly China has much more expertise in 120 mm smoothbore gun and one of the readings mentioned the German connection!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> I suggest you dont go there again
> 
> First you need to understand that a DU is NOT tungsten and has more penetration values than advertised i.e. a 550 mm DU may penetrate a 570-80 mm armour because DU molten jet in excess of 2000 Deg Centigrade digs through the armour.
> 
> Ragarding the T-90S armour estimates.. Fofanov again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so T-90S is still vulnerable against Naiza
> 
> 
> 
> indigenously built by HIT under western pattern aka Rheinmetall 120 mm, how they got the know how, no idea. Surprisingly China has much more expertise in 120 mm smoothbore gun and one of the readings mentioned the German connection!



1.Better not to repeat the same flawed arguments from ur side,But is see ur doing exactly that.First increasing penetration values at whim.
Second,U did the same thing again by taking t-72b armour estimate with cast turret from 1980s.
In case u are blind,IA t-90 uses new welded turret with 30-50% greater armour rating and more composites.
Second IA t-90 uses much heavier kanchan composites,which is why there is large weight difference between t-90A AND T-90M/S BHISMA.
And third in trials even without ERA IA t-90 withstood latest ukrainian rounds as well as KEW-A2 120 mm rounds with close to 650-700 mm penetration.So naiza is a baby doll to it.
Lastly thanks for info on the gun.


----------



## SQ8

AUSTERLITZ said:


> 1.Better not to repeat the same flawed arguments from ur side,But is see ur doing exactly that.First increasing penetration values at whim.
> Second,U did the same thing again by taking t-72b armour estimate with cast turret from 1980s.
> In case u are blind,IA t-90 uses new welded turret with 30-50% greater armour rating and more composites.
> Second IA t-90 uses much heavier kanchan composites,which is why there is large weight difference between t-90A AND T-90M/S BHISMA.
> And third in trials even without ERA IA t-90 withstood latest ukrainian rounds as well as KEW-A2 120 mm rounds with close to 650-700 mm penetration.So naiza is a baby doll to it.
> Lastly thanks for info on the gun.



I think the biggest issue is actually differentiating on how much the T-90 has changed from the T-72. 
After all, essentially the T-72(no matter how well improved) is still the cheapo end tank They were built for numbers to replace the horrible T-64. Oddly, India was given the M(monkey model) of the T-72 instead of the regular B variant..which essentially puts the Ajeya Mk2 no better. 

Now the T-90 taken on the T-80(possibly the deadliest tank for a while) traits and the following link might show its status in terms of armor.
T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

Oscar said:


> Now the T-90 taken on the T-80(possibly the deadliest tank for a while) traits and the following link might show its status in terms of armor.
> T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99



That does not make for a very good reading !


----------



## SQ8

Armstrong said:


> That does not make for a very good reading !



Not very detailed, but it does show pictorial proof for the results. 
It must also be said that the T-90 was developed on the lessons from the T-80.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Oscar said:


> I think the biggest issue is actually differentiating on how much the T-90 has changed from the T-72.
> After all, essentially the T-72(no matter how well improved) is still the cheapo end tank They were built for numbers to replace the horrible T-64. Oddly, India was given the M(monkey model) of the T-72 instead of the regular B variant..which essentially puts the Ajeya Mk2 no better.
> 
> Now the T-90 taken on the T-80(possibly the deadliest tank for a while) traits and the following link might show its status in terms of armor.
> T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99



Yes that was the welded armour variant tested and it performed very well.The original 310 exported to india and now in service are this tank variant.The next 330 and the now being license built 347 plus more are modified versions over this variant.
The variant dazzler keeps talking about is t-72b not t-90s which was a cast armour variant and also had much less composite armour and .IA never had this design and only earliest russian t-90 were of this type when t-90 was just a new name for attracting export.

As for t-72s u are spot on.IA was sold monkey models t-72Ms.They were limited upgraded/produced to t-72M1 standard during 90s it seems.CIA is the final attempt to modernize these tanks.


----------



## Dazzler

@AUSTERLITZ

lets take the discussion to this thread if you want to discuss IA in here please!!


http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-army/22400-pa-tanks-comparison-contempory-tanks-50.html
@Armstrong

forget DUs and APFSDSs, all you need is a good old RPG-29

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Shiji

Why is that where ever there is a thread about any equipment that Pakistan has people have to start comparing it with other stuff. For Example people here comparing the AK with the Arjun or T90. Well once and for all make it clear shall we?

*Arjun*


> &#8212;General Kapoor says Indian army does not posses ability to fight armoured combat in night
> &#8212;Army Chief shameful admission makes Defence Minister Antony chew his buts
> &#8212;India&#8217;s numerical tank supremacy over Pakistan eliminated by Armoured Corps&#8217; night blindness
> &#8212;India Arjun Tank eats dust while Pakistan Al-Khalid MBT remains a success story
> &#8212;India&#8217;s missile systems remain shady as nation celebrates 62nd Army Day
> Source




*T-72*
Well let's face it the T-72 is not that good of a tank considering it's performance in Iran-Iraq, Georgia and Ongoing Syria.
As you can see the bottom of the T-72 is hidden thus meaning that the RPG hits the turret which is directly facing the camera. And since that is the strongest point of the armour so we are forced to presume that the frontal turret armour isn't that strong enough to take a direct hit from an RPG-7.
[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvlYcFpiys[/video]

*T-90* 
Well that is a really impressive and sexy piece of machinery! What turns me on about the T90 is Sthora-I active protection system. It really works! Check the following video till the end to be amazed!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

Oscar said:


> Not very detailed, but it does show pictorial proof for the results.
> It must also be said that the T-90 was developed on the lessons from the T-80.



What I meant was that it doesn't make for a very good read from the Pakistani perspective in that the T-80 didn't fare as well as the T-90 & we're the ones operating the T-80s !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Shiji said:


> Why is that were ever there is a thread about any equipment that Pakistan has people have to start comparing it with other stuff. For Example people here comparing the AK with the Arjun or T90. Well once and for all make it clear shall we?
> 
> *Arjun*
> 
> 
> 
> *T-72*
> Well let's face it the T-72 is not that good of a tank considering it's performance in Iran-Iraq, Georgia and Ongoing Syria.
> As you can see the bottom of the T-72 is hidden thus meaning that the RPG hits the turret which is directly facing the camera. And since that is the strongest point of the armour so we are forced to presume that the frontal turret armour isn't that strong enough to take a direct hit from an RPG-7.
> [video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvlYcFpiys[/video]
> 
> The T-90, well that is a really impressive and sexy piece of machinery! What turns me on about the T90 is Sthora-I active protection system. It really works! Check the following video till the end to be amazed!



For arjun and night blindness old news.disagreed.
Agreed t-72 is nothing special.
Agreed these always end up in measuring contests.



Armstrong said:


> What I meant was that it doesn't make for a very good read from the Pakistani perspective in that the T-80 didn't fare as well as the T-90 & we're the ones operating the T-80s !



Pakistani t-80 has superior turret than the t-80 used in these trials,so don't get urself up.Though IA t-90s too have different turret than the one tested here except the first batch of 310.Its a good reference source though.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> @AUSTERLITZ
> 
> lets take the discussion to this thread if you want to discuss IA in here please!!
> 
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-army/22400-pa-tanks-comparison-contempory-tanks-50.html
> @Armstrong
> 
> forget DUs and APFSDSs, all you need is a good old RPG-29



But remember this test was done with rpg fired at a distance of just 40 metres.Thats difficult to achieve in conventional battlefield unless its urban environment or jungle.


----------



## Dazzler

@Armstrong

You have not read the first page of this thread perhaps? There is a world of difference between Russian t-80u and Ukrainian T-80ud.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Armstrong

Dazzler said:


> @Armstrong
> 
> You have not read the first page of this thread perhaps? There is a world of difference between Russian t-80u and Ukrainian T-80ud.



I couldn't understand half of what was said !  

I'm an Accounting & Finance student & the last time I studied Physics was in the A'levels, so all I thought the difference between the Russian & the Ukrainian T-80s was the Engine & some parts nothing that major !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

NOTE: this article is taken from another forum but is writtern well and has some not so wellknown info so enjoy it. All credit goes to the writer. 

NOTE 2: T-80ud is NOT the most advanced mbt in Pakistan Army. A wellknown fact but the author seems unaware of this.






> *The T-80UD main battle tank is currently the most advanced and best protected tank in Pakistan armed forces arsenal. Designed during the second half of 1980&#8217;is in KMDB (Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau) as alternative to T-80U (Object 219AS), the T-80UD (Object 478B) it was the most advanced tank fielded back then for Soviet forces.
> 
> Differences between T-80U and T-80UD are not big, however important. T-80U is powered by GTD-1250 Gas Turbine engine, generating 1,250HP, while T-80UD is powered by compact Diesel 6TD, generating 1,000HP. Another difference is tank commander cupola. T-80U have simpler cupola without heavy machine gun mount, HMG is mounted on simple pintle mounts (4) welded to turret roof in several positions. While T-80UD have more advanced cupola with remotely controlled HMG operated by commander from tank interior even when hatch is closed.
> 
> T-80UD
> T-80UD with full combat load
> 
> In 1993 to 1995 Pakistan army tested T-80UD during it&#8217;s pursuit to field a new MBT. The trial was a success and KMDB started to manufacture T-80UD in Malyshev Plant in Kharkiv.
> 
> (as a side note it is worth to mention that Malyshev Plant and KMDB design bureau are placed in the same industrial complex and closely cooperate).
> 
> In 1996 Pakistan Army decided to buy 320 T-80UD tanks. Contract was worth of $650 million. Ukraine provided tanks in two versions, standard Object 478B and new export version Object 478BE. After initial fielding of 15 vehicles, Russia claiming to have full rights to the vehicle, and wanting to keep close relationship with India, blocked whole deal because most parts for tanks like for example 2A46-2 125mm smoothbore guns were manufactured in Russia not Ukraine. This forced Ukrainians to do two things. First they taken completed T-80UD tanks from Ukrainian Army stocks with all spare parts and sold them to Pakistan. These tanks were not needed for Ukrainians because their primary MBT was T-64A and T-64B/BV and their future replacement was seen in upgraded T-64, the T-64BM and further upgrade to T-80UD design, the T-84 series. Besides this T-80UD tanks in Ukrainian Army stocks were pretty much new vehicles and mostly not used.
> 
> Second thing what Ukrainians did was to start manufacturing their own versions of tank parts manufactured in Russia. 2A46 series of 125mm smoothbore guns were replaced by their Ukrainian version KBA3 as well as Ukrainian made versions of PKT and NSVT machine guns, the KT-7,62 and KT-12,7. Unfortunately for Ukrainians, Russians also ceased to manufacture for them cast turrets, so KMDB was forced to use their newest development, welded turret from T-84 program.
> 
> T-80UD uses the advanced 1A45 fire control system (same is used in Russian T-90 tank) . It is divided in to several elements.
> 
> - 1G46 is a day sight that is stabilized in horizontal and vertical axis, and have laser range finder. 1G46 have basic wide 3,6x zoom for targets searching and close range engagements and narrow 12x zoom for identification and long range engagements.
> - 1V528 ballistic computer.
> - Several sensors like wind sensor, temperature sensor etc.
> - Pakistan T-80UD have thermal sight.
> 
> Protection.
> 
> The T-80UD protection is made from passive steel armor for side, top, belly and rear protection, as well as composite armor in cavities in hull and turret front. Contrary to the original T-80UD/Object 478B, the Pakistani version is improved Object 478BE with new turret, welded from rolled plates, not big cast elements. The Russian language sources says that a rolled armor will have increase in protection from 5 to 15 % compared to a comparable cast design, which means that even if the composite armor is same both in Object 478B and Object 478BE, the latter one will have turret armor stronger by these 5 to 15 %.
> 
> Additional frontal protection is achieved by installation of 4S22 Kontakt-5 heavy explosive reactive armor, that provides increase in protection against both kinetic energy and chemical energy projectiles.
> 
> Knife, Duplet ERA
> &#8220;Knife&#8221; and &#8220;Duplet&#8221; ERA modules, a possible replacement for 4S22 &#8220;Kontakt-5&#8243; used by Pakistani tanks. Also offered to India.
> 
> Ukraine developed more efficient ERA designated as &#8220;Knife&#8221; and it&#8217;s double layered version &#8220;Duplet&#8221;, there was also presented triple layer version. Modules of &#8220;Knife&#8221; or &#8220;Duplet&#8221; can replace 4S22 Kontakt-5, significantly increasing protection against APFSDS, HEAT and EFP threats. Currently however only Ukrainian tanks T-64BM &#8220;Bulat&#8221;, T-64E, T-84, T-84U, T-84 &#8220;Oplot&#8221;, T-84-120, T-84 &#8220;Yatagan&#8221; and T-84M &#8220;Oplot-M&#8221; use this type of protection.
> 
> 
> 
> Recently, Ukraine also offered upgrade for Indian T-90S, with elements from T-84M &#8220;Oplot-M&#8221; tank, like &#8220;Duplet&#8221; ERA, PNK-6 panoramic sight for commander, and 6TD-2 diesel. It is proposal worth to be considered by India.
> 
> We should remember that in the region, most potent kinetic energy projectiles in such countries like India, Pakistan or China, have penetration capabilities of approx ~500-550mm RHA at 2,000m at best (some types perhaps can achieve ~600mm), which means it is the late 1980&#8217;s and early 1990&#8217;s level, and could not be effective against frontal protection of T-80UD. Of course this works the other way as well, and Indian T-90S will also be relatively well protected against Pakistani projectiles and Arjun should be as well.
> 
> Another aspect of the vehicle protection are so called safe maneuvering angles, this term refers to designing vehicle frontal arc protection in such way it will be well optimized for increased protection and survivability within approx 60 degrees.
> 
> This is achieved different in different tanks. For example NATO tanks due to their big boxy turrets have very thick side armor protecting crew compartment, or in extreme case like M1 Abrams, not only crew compartment but also ammunition storage compartment in the rear turret bustle.
> 
> In some other tanks, turret sides are only partially protected, or non protected at all due to weight saving issues.
> 
> In Soviet Union this problem was also seen as very important to solve. Army requirements prevented from designing a tank with combat weight over 50 tons, which meant that both hull and turret needed to be as small as possible, it also meant some sacrifices, so the decision was made that turret side armor will be thin (approx ~70-80mm) but angled in a such way, that within the vehicle frontal arc, it will be completely covered by turret frontal armor.
> 
> As a important note, the same design features are in T-90S, because basically both T-80UD and T-90S in their most basic design concept are based on their common ancestor the T-64.
> 
> Firepower.
> 
> az125
> AZ autoloader and additional ammunition racks &#8211; a typical scheme for T-72 and T-90
> 
> 6ETS10
> 6ETs autoloader used by T-64, T-80 and T-84
> 
> 
> 
> T-80UD is using KBA3 125mm smoothbore gun, which is Ukrainian version of 2A46M-1. It can fire the same range of ammunition as other guns of the 2A46/D-81 family.
> 
> So, the firepower is comparable with Indian T-90S, and ammunition used in both tanks is interchangeable.
> 
> Both T-80UD and T-90S can fire Gun Launched Anti Tank Guided Missiles (GLATGM) like 9M119 and it&#8217;s Ukrainian analog Kombat. Range of this GLATGM&#8217;s is 5,000m max, which can be very useful in desert plains of the India-Pakistan border.
> 
> Mobility.
> 
> BM OPLOT
> BM &#8220;Oplot&#8221; &#8211; Apex of T-80UD evolution.
> 
> The original T-80UD was powered by 6TD-1 diesel engine that is evolution of T-64&#8217;s 5TD diesel. 6TD-1 power is 1,000HP that is a very compact engine, and for a T-xx series of tanks, is a quick replacement design compared to more traditional designs. It have also
> 
> more power than V-84 840HP and V-92 950HP, however V-96 provides power of 1,250HP but it was presented only as power source for T-90MS for now. Although
> 
> Ukraine offers new version of 6TD with higher power output like 6TD-2 with 1,200HP, 6TD-3 with 1,400HP and even more powerful variants still in development stage.
> 
> From Russian language sources, opinion about T-80 series suspension is very positive, for it&#8217;s characteristics it is considered as the best suspension designed for soviet tanks that were series produced.*





Armstrong said:


> I couldn't understand half of what was said !
> 
> I'm an Accounting & Finance student & the last time I studied Physics was in the A'levels, so all I thought the difference between the Russian & the Ukrainian T-80s was the Engine & some parts nothing that major !



congrats mate,we share the same background

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

alright gentz come to topic plz


----------



## Manticore

Guys, we already have the comparisons thread for the vs discussions. This thread is mainly for information regarding the ukranian tanks and perhaps some discussions on the 2 design philosophies leading to the T72/T90 and T80/T84.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Shiji

There should have been T-80s in the South Ossetian (Gerogion War) deployed by the atleast one of the contries, then we would have much more reliable data to use here. But I am not worried since Pakistan is not chasing any new contract or upgrades on its tanks means that the current fleet is reliable enough, well except for the T-59/69s. While India chases down new contracts, tries to salvage a sunk project and tries to correct the malfunction of it's tanks by doing massive upgrades.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Shiji said:


> There should have been T-80s in the South Ossetian (Gerogion War) deployed by the atleast one of the contries, then we would have much more reliable data to use here. But I am not worried since Pakistan is not chasing any new contract or upgrades on its tanks means that the current fleet is reliable enough, well except for the T-59/69s. While India chases down new contracts, tries to salvage a sunk project and tries to correct the malfunction of it's tanks by doing massive upgrades.




T-80ud is a good example of how to buy, maintain and upgrade a weapon system in a timely manner. Not only HIT completely overhauls the thing including the engine (rebuild and upgraded it) but has also upgraded optics, FCS, ammunition and armour where was deemed necessary.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SQ8

Dazzler said:


> The opposite to this is how India bought t-90 with different configurations and had multiple problems. Last i heard they are still not sure whether to go for T-90MS or not or just accommodate some subsystems and armour in their existing S and M inventory.



Lets avoid counter examples lest it ignites another spate of tit for tat posts that derail this thread.


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tacticool

Don't you think pakistani T-80s need an upgrade package?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Dazzler said:


> T-80ud is a good example of how to buy, maintain and upgrade a weapon system in a timely manner. Not only HIT completely overhauls the thing including the engine (rebuild and upgraded it) but has also *upgraded optics, FCS, ammunition and armour where was deemed necessary*.



Where can I find out more about that?


----------



## farhan_9909

Penguin said:


> Where can I find out more about that?



I know about a report from ministry of defence production

which mentioned the upgrade and assembling of engine and fcs of t-80ud

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Penguin said:


> Where can I find out more about that?



http://www.modp.gov.pk/gop/index.ph...scy5hc3B4P2lkPTUmYW1wO29wdD1wdWJsaWNhdGlvbnM=

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

notice ERA blocks on glacis armour on both tanks 

T-80UD







T-84

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Dazzler said:


> http://www.modp.gov.pk/gop/index.ph...scy5hc3B4P2lkPTUmYW1wO29wdD1wdWJsaWNhdGlvbnM=



Having trouble with this link in Chrome.


----------



## SQ8

Penguin said:


> Having trouble with this link in Chrome.



The link seems to have broken down recently.But it's working for me.. so Im taking a snapshot for you.

There were all the entries for T-80 from Years 2007-2012 (technically taken at end of fiscal year)







So this was *2008-2009*, so FCS is quite likely Fire control .. the rest I did not tag per year so I am not sure when.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

Penguin said:


> Having trouble with this link in Chrome.


An off and on problem with most pak links


----------



## Penguin

Manticore said:


> An off and on problem with most pak links


WOrks today. Funny, how that pub cover (year book index) is showing an Indian Delhi class destroyer...


----------



## SQ8

Penguin said:


> WOrks today. Funny, how that pub cover (year book index) is showing an Indian Delhi class destroyer...



Lol, The guys who do these things are robots for word. They search pakistani navy ship on google.. and photoshop the first picture they get without caring into the cover. But then again, they are essentially word doc clerks


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Penguin said:


> WOrks today. Funny, how that pub cover (year book index) is showing an Indian Delhi class destroyer...


 
Just some "_subliminal desires_" at play here........


----------



## Manticore

The T-80UD MBT standard equipment also includes an NBC system, provision for deep fording, fire detection/suppression system, radiation shielding and a dozer blade mounted under the front of the hull.

The NBC protection system protects the crew and inner equipment of the tank against the effects of nuclear explosions, radioactive dust, toxic agents and bacteriological materials.

The deep fording equipment enables the tank to cross water obstacles to a water depth of 5 m (1.8 m deep water obstacles can be crossed without preparation).

The fire detection/suppression system enables internal fires to be detected and suppressed in both crew compartment and power pack compartment.

The radiation shielding is designed in the form of liner fixed on both internal and external surfaces of the tank.

The dozer blade enables the tank to dig up a tank caponier within 15-40 minutes depending on the type of ground.

The T-80UD can be fitted with various types of mine-clearing system at the front of the hull including KMT-6 plough-type system and KMT-7 roller-type system. Two long-range fuel tanks and an unditching beam can be mounted at the rear of the hull.

The T-80UD MBT design and configuration can be changed to suit foreign customers' specific requirements.

KMDB - T80UD Main Battle Tank 1V528-1 ballistic computer – uses inputs from the sensors measuring tank speed, crosswind speed, target range, and course angle, will other information has to be manually inputted such as ambient air temperature, charge temperature, barrel wear, ambient air pressure. It is also able to calculate when the high-explosive fragmentation projectile with controlled detonation should be detonated over the target. It also has fire gating capability. This means the main cannon will only fire when the misalignment between the line of sight and the gun bore axis is within pre-determined limits, after the gun firing button has been pushed. The fire gate size is adjusted when calibrating the fire control system after installing it in the tank.
The Ukrainian T-80UD Main Battle Tank | TankNutDave
Army Guide - T-80UD, Main battle tank
T-80UD MBT
KMT-7 Plough & roller mineclearing combination

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hakan

Good news guys check out the thread for more details.

Ukrainian Defence Industry 'Unaffected' by Crisis with Russia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## doxan9

Son Zamanlarda, doğalgazın girmiş meydana geldiği anında her hanede kendinebir koltuk edinen kombi sistemleri, gelişmiş düzenekleri ve donanımları sayesindetek bir tuş ile tüm hanesi ısıtma ve ateş gibi su ihtiyacını karşılama özelliklerinigöstermekte olup, milyonlarca kullanıcıya erişmekte ve istek toplamaya da devametmektedir. Bu düzeneklerin emniyetli ve uzunca yıllar performansını ..


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zarvan

DESERT FIGHTER said:


>


Is this T-80UD


----------



## Dazzler

Zarvan said:


> Is this T-80UD



t-84

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

t-80ud armour protection estimated...




> May be interesting for Pakistaniu users
> 
> T-80UD hull composition and assumed protection:
> 
> hull composition:
> (for 0. degree)
> 66mm RHA
> gap for ERA on hull
> 135mm RHA
> 80mm ceramics
> 135mm HHS
> gap whit distanser
> 80mm ceramics
> 135mm RHA.
> 
> Protection is at least:
> 630-640mm vs APFSDS without ERA
> 750mm vs HEAT without ERA
> 
> Turret composition for 30 degre (perpendicular to the surface):
> 
> 98mm cast steel (HB270)
> 30mm air gap whit holders
> 25mm SHS or RHA plate
> 40mm ceramics
> 25mm SHS or RHA plate
> 40mm ceramics
> 50mm SHS or RHA plate
> 50mm HHS plate
> 190mm cast steel (HB270)
> 
> This layout give protection (for 30. degree):
> ~500mm vs APFSDS(!) without ERA
> ~550mm vs HEAT without ERA
> Those valuesa are for smaller LOS in turret front (550mm LOS) for 0. degree when LOS is the biggest (circa 700mm LOS) we had much greater protection:
> ~630mm vs APFSDS, without ERA
> ~700-750mm vs HEAT without ERA
> 
> For this values shoud be added protection given by ERA (Kontakt-5 and it's Ukrainian clone)
> +120mm RHA vs APFSDS in style like M829
> +500-600mm RHA aginst HEAT warhed
> Of course ERA shoud not be count as main armour for sevral obious resons:
> 1) HEAT warhed (SC) whit precursor will canceled ERA so it will be main armour vs main SC warhed
> 2) difrent APFSDS and HEAT warhed will be response in difrent way. In reaction whit ERA - for one (example: 3BM42,M829A1, or MILAN) ERA casette can reduce penetration abilities a lot , but for other cases (DM53, DM63) ERA will not reduce penetration at all. In other way ERA will help but whit marginal effect. So it's really fluent factor - depend on type of At-weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore




----------



## Wolfhound

Dazzler said:


> t-80ud armour protection estimated...


Are we planning any upgrade for the T-80ud?


----------



## Dazzler

Wolfhound said:


> Are we planning any upgrade for the T-80ud?



yep, BMS, FCS upgrade among other goodies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55




----------



## T-55

*Video test firing of the T-80UD of the T-80U*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

T-55 said:


>



Actually this is the infamous t-80BV that earned a bad reputation during Chechnya invasion.


----------



## T-55

*Test T-80UD in Pakistan*
*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## C130

interesting video of the swedes testing a loaned T-80U in 1993-4











T-80U simply outclassed both the centurion and strv 103. no contest. so much power.


the sound of a gas turbine engine is so so sweet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sulman Badshah

Pakistan is testing Oplot M 

@Dazzler

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

T-55 said:


>





C130 said:


> interesting video of the swedes testing a loaned T-80U in 1993-4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-80U simply outclassed both the centurion and strv 103. no contest. so much power.
> 
> 
> the sound of a gas turbine engine is so so sweet.


Pakistan Army doesn't use T-80.. We use T-80UD:




















Sulman Badshah said:


> Pakistan is testing Oplot M
> 
> @Dazzler
> View attachment 236513
> View attachment 236514
> View attachment 236515


3 more contenders --- !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inception-06

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Pakistan Army doesn't use T-80.. We use T-80UD:
> 
> View attachment 236773
> View attachment 236776
> View attachment 236777
> View attachment 236778
> View attachment 236779
> 
> 
> 
> 3 more contenders --- !



In which years we did induct the Type-85IIMP and in which years we did test the M-1 Abrahms Tank ? why in the Video there is always seen the chinese Type-85IIM withe T-80UD?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Ulla said:


> In which years we did induct the Type-85IIMP and in which years we did test the M-1 Abrahms Tank ? why in the Video there is always seen the chinese Type-85IIM withe T-80UD?



88 I believe that's when zia died.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kaonalpha

Sulman Badshah said:


> Pakistan is testing Oplot M
> 
> @Dazzler
> View attachment 236513
> View attachment 236514
> View attachment 236515


Yes you copied the photos I uploaded care to elaborate further regarding the oplot m ?


----------



## Sulman Badshah

kaonalpha said:


> Yes you copied the photos I uploaded care to elaborate further regarding the oplot m ?


sorry i didn't copied from you ... i take it from another friend



kaonalpha said:


> Yes you copied the photos I uploaded care to elaborate further regarding the oplot m ?


brother in which thread you have posted these first .. i'd like to follow your posts on that thread


----------



## kaonalpha

T-90 MS Main Battle Tank, Russia.



Sulman Badshah said:


> sorry i didn't copied from you ... i take it from another friend
> 
> 
> brother in which thread you have posted these first .. i'd like to follow your posts on that thread


----------



## Super Falcon

I think pak buy T 84 oplot in small numbers 300 will be enough dont go more than ghat


----------



## Zarvan

Super Falcon said:


> I think pak buy T 84 oplot in small numbers 300 will be enough dont go more than ghat


I think it would be lot more than 300


----------



## Super Falcon

Zarvan said:


> I think it would be lot more than 300


Whatever numbers but dont go in full throttle save some money for Armour Hunter MI 28 HAVOC in war we must need different type of Attack helicopters mostly with latest tech

Who ever has control in air has control over land Army should also induct air division make paf rely on only air superiority rol 20 to 30 JF 17 thunders should be inducted in Army for clise low air support destroy enemy armour and supprt machenism like armoured bridges since thunder is made in pak and will be cheap army thunder should be made some changes its airframe should be thicker like A 10 and with it its speed will decrease which we need for low air support role burden of PAF will be less


----------



## Zarvan

Super Falcon said:


> Whatever numbers but dont go in full throttle save some money for Armour Hunter MI 28 HAVOC in war we must need different type of Attack helicopters mostly with latest tech
> 
> Who ever has control in air has control over land Army should also induct air division make paf rely on only air superiority rol 20 to 30 JF 17 thunders should be inducted in Army for clise low air support destroy enemy armour and supprt machenism like armoured bridges since thunder is made in pak and will be cheap army thunder should be made some changes its airframe should be thicker like A 10 and with it its speed will decrease which we need for low air support role burden of PAF will be less


MI-28 is not coming at best in future we would have 40 Z-10 and 15 Viper and I think around 20 MI-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

I discard if i get MI 28 havoc out of any of these u mentioned


----------



## Sulman Badshah

Super Falcon said:


> I discard if i get MI 28 havoc out of any of these u mentioned


same havoc crashed today in an airshow

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

Bhai F 16 crashed many times yet we are buying it crash dosent mean it is failes machine APACHE also crashed in iraq yet many country buy them


----------



## Sulman Badshah

Super Falcon said:


> Bhai F 16 crashed many times yet we are buying it crash dosent mean it is failes machine APACHE also crashed in iraq yet many country buy them


thread is about tanks .. .you can discuss about helicopters in other threads and a whole dedicated thread on Pakistan army aviation


----------



## Super Falcon

Sulman Badshah said:


> thread is about tanks .. .you can discuss about helicopters in other threads and a whole dedicated thread on Pakistan army aviation


You open the issue i replied what is fuss if it was the u must not told me MI 28 crashed in paris as it is for tanks


----------



## Sulman Badshah

Super Falcon said:


> You open the issue i replied what is fuss if it was the u must not told me MI 28 crashed in paris as it is for tanks


Issue was opened by you ... see the comments .. you brought mi28 in the middle of T80,t84 thread


----------



## Super Falcon

Sulman Badshah said:


> Issue was opened by you ... see the comments .. you brought mi28 in the middle of T80,t84 thread


Yes i did but u said it crashed i replied than what if u think it is not liable it is not good to say it is crashed now it means its bad u never said in words but it was meant like that


----------



## Zarvan

@waz I think thread about T-84 should remain open because yes T-84 has a little bit of engine issues but what I have been told is it would be resolved soon as for T-90 MS coming for tests than if not for kickbacks their is no way Pakistan will go for T-90 MS. Oplot M would come @kaonalpha


----------



## waz

Zarvan said:


> @waz I think thread about T-84 should remain open because yes T-84 has a little bit of engine issues but what I have been told is it would be resolved soon as for T-90 MS coming for tests than if not for kickbacks their is no way Pakistan will go for T-90 MS. Oplot M would come @kaonalpha



I'm not sure how Ukraine is going to "resolve" it, considering they are cash strapped and funds for fixture and development are very tight. It seems to me they are trying to reassure themselves. 
Until we hear something concrete it should remain closed.


----------



## Zarvan

waz said:


> I'm not sure how Ukraine is going to "resolve" it, considering they are cash strapped and funds for fixture and development are very tight. It seems to me they are trying to reassure themselves.
> Until we hear something concrete it should remain closed.


We should keep discussing it may be change the title because we are looking for a Tank also developing AK-2. Ukraine has good experience with engines they would solve it they have done in the past also. So open the thread.


----------



## waz

Zarvan said:


> We should keep discussing it may be change the title because we are looking for a Tank also developing AK-2. Ukraine has good experience with engines they would solve it they have done in the past also. So open the thread.



Until they do the topic remains closed. I very much doubt the army can wait months and months on a promise.


----------



## Zarvan

waz said:


> Until they do the topic remains closed. I very much doubt the army can wait months and months on a promise.


They will wait but yes few more Tanks will also be tested but I think in the end it would be OPLOT M. As for topic change the title to probable Tank for Pakistan in future. Not just T-84 Oplot M discuss other Tanks also


----------



## waz

Zarvan said:


> They will wait but yes few more Tanks will also be tested but I think in the end it would be OPLOT M. As for topic change the title to probable Tank for Pakistan in future. Not just T-84 Oplot M discuss other Tanks also



Ok.


----------



## Super Falcon

As far as news coming oplog has failex the trials i hope zarvan knows better

So what left is Turkish Altay or uf we wait russian new tank is also be good option 

Recently russia signed major gas deal with pak know we can get more sophisticated weapons


----------



## Signalian

Russia has something like 6000 T-80 in reserve. A few hundred from that arsenal to PA should add a good punch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Andrei_bt

in Pakistan -

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Andrei_bt

T-84 firing tests (2000-s)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## alimobin memon

Andrei_bt said:


> T-84 firing tests (2000-s)


if thats t84 that means this tanks armour is penetrated by some other tank or missile can u please clearly explain what is this for my knowledge thanks in advance ?


----------



## Andrei_bt

it was not penetrated


----------



## Dazzler

Andrei_bt said:


> it was not penetrated



The photo suggests otherwise.


----------



## CHI RULES

Zarvan said:


> @waz I think thread about T-84 should remain open because yes T-84 has a little bit of engine issues but what I have been told is it would be resolved soon as for T-90 MS coming for tests than if not for kickbacks their is no way Pakistan will go for T-90 MS. Oplot M would come @kaonalpha


engine issues are not little bit if it struggles in Pak desert range then it is useless for that area. It may see limited use in Punjab areas. We need next gen Tank to compensate or AK fleet and it should be reliable.


----------



## Andrei_bt

Dazzler said:


> The photo suggests otherwise.



what it suggests?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Andrei_bt said:


> what it suggests?



Lower part of the frontal hull is penetrated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

Introduction of the Swedish delegation to the T-80U tank in the arrangement of the 4th Guards Tank Division in Alabino; 1993


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Sarge said:


> Russia has something like 6000 T-80 in reserve. A few hundred from that arsenal to PA should add a good punch.



Pak doesn't operate T-80..nor interested in buying second hand-obsolete t-80s either.. 

It's 2015.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Dazzler said:


> Lower part of the frontal hull is penetrated.


You can't really tell from this pic. See example below: you may just be looking at a deep gauge.


----------



## Signalian

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Pak doesn't operate T-80..nor interested in buying second hand-obsolete t-80s either..
> 
> It's 2015.


T-80 UD is a variant of T-80 so yes PA does operate T-80.. Not buying is another story.

2015 just means its time to let go of around 1000 T-59/69/85 and T-80 is better than all these.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Sarge said:


> T-80 UD is a variant of T-80 so yes PA does operate T-80.. Not buying is another story.
> 
> 2015 just means its time to let go of around 1000 T-59/69/85 and T-80 is better than all these.



Yes a variant with note in common with 84 than T-80.. Be it the gun,FCS,turret,era etc..

As for the old tanks... Isn't that why PA is testing T-99A2,MBT-3000,Oplot M etc!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Yes a variant with note in common with 84 than T-80.. Be it the gun,FCS,turret,era etc..
> 
> As for the old tanks... Isn't that why PA is testing T-99A2,MBT-3000,Oplot M etc!



T-84 is modernization of T-80 UD. T-80 UD developed from T-80 and stands between T-80 and T-84, as T-84 came later on.T-84 was further developed into Oplot etc. 
The basic difference of T-80 and T-80 UD is the diesel engine and T-80UD shares most of the T-80U's improvements, but can be distinguished from it by a different engine deck and distinctive smoke-mortar array and turret stowage boxes.

Replacing 1000 tanks is not a quick process. Even if T-99, Al haider etc is procured, it may take upto a decade to replace older tanks. A readily available option is T-80 in reserves with Russia. These can be acquired and then upgraded to PA T-80 UD standard. Upgrading a tank already in use is still faster as seen in the case of AZ rather than inducting new tanks in small batches as per factory output over a long period of time and then train crews on it. and Yeah AZ will also need to be replaced after the T-59 series are retired though not in near future. 

Secondly, if a war erupts,the option of faster addition of T-80 to add a punch to PA armour seems better rather than bring M-48 or T-59 from reserves to life in 2015 onwards and make up for losses. M-48 and older T-59 will find it tough to take on IA T-72/90. The Chinese T-90/96 is in service with PLA on which AK is based, so AK losses wont be replaced easily during the war. T-80 is an option that PA should always keep in hand. 

The best that PA has is around 1000-1300 AK, AZ and T-80 UD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Sarge said:


> T-84 is modernization of T-80 UD. T-80 UD developed from T-80 and stands between T-80 and T-84, as T-84 came later on.T-84 was further developed into Oplot etc.
> The basic difference of T-80 and T-80 UD is the diesel engine and T-80UD shares most of the T-80U's improvements, but can be distinguished from it by a different engine deck and distinctive smoke-mortar array and turret stowage boxes.





Not really kiddo.. The welded turret,KBA3 main gun,knife ERA,FCS,engine,composite and other armour in cavities n hill,secondary MGs, remote controlled HMG..etc all are different... The FCS used in the T-80UD (back than was the same one used by T-90)... etc etc!

... You can "Google"... Apart from that the T-80UDs were further upgraded by Pak... You can browse this thread for more..


Also kiddo Pak had originally bought T-80Us not the basic T-80 model... After Russia's cribbing all Russian equipment was replaced with (element/systems/armour/gun) of the T-84 program !




> Replacing 1000 tanks is not a quick process. Even if T-99, Al haider etc is procured, it may take upto a decade to replace older tanks. A readily available option is T-80 in reserves with Russia. These can be acquired and then upgraded to PA T-80 UD standard. Upgrading a tank already in use is still faster as seen in the case of AZ rather than inducting new tanks in small batches as per factory output over a long period of time and then train crews on it. and Yeah AZ will also need to be replaced after the T-59 series are retired though not in near future.
> 
> Secondly, if a war erupts,the option of faster addition of T-80 to add a punch to PA armour seems better rather than bring M-48 or T-59 from reserves to life in 2015 onwards and make up for losses. M-48 and older T-59 will find it tough to take on IA T-72/90. The Chinese T-90/96 is in service with PLA on which AK is based, so AK losses wont be replaced easily during the war. T-80 is an option that PA should always keep in hand.
> 
> The best that PA has is around 1000-1300 AK, AZ and T-80 UD.



Thanks for the advice.. I'm sure PA guys aren't sleeping.. Nor does it take a decade to actually get 1000 tanks ... Even AK has a production rate of around 40-50 annually.. Which was "stalled" by financial crisis in the past.

And nobody want dead beat T-80s... That's why they were testing new tanks.. Instead of getting more from Russian junkyards.


P.S; as if right now India has around 499-500 T-90s, & 1900 T-72s (only a few of them being upgraded with new imagery systems - as far as I know)...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Not really kiddo.. The welded turret,KBA3 main gun,knife ERA,FCS,engine,composite and other armour in cavities n hill,secondary MGs, remote controlled HMG..etc all are different... The FCS used in the T-80UD (back than was the same one used by T-90)... etc etc!
> 
> ... You can "Google"... Apart from that the T-80UDs were further upgraded by Pak... You can browse this thread for more..


Kiddo? i dont know why the senior member here thinks that newer members are kids. what sense do you get out of it discussion when you try to make it personal?

lets clear somethings out; senior in posts doesnt mean that the other member is younger to you in age. secondly, making it personal only gives an impression that you lack substance on the topic so are using cheap ways to convey your point.

I suggest you refrain from these ineffective tactics during our discussion and stop derailing it.. 

coming back to some sensible discussion now.

I did google and replied to you through online research. T-80 acquired from Russia can be upgraded by Pakistan and if this thread also holds that information just validates my already explained point. 



> Also kiddo Pak had originally bought T-80Us not the basic T-80 model... After Russia's cribbing all Russian equipment was replaced with (element/systems/armour/gun) of the T-84 program !


Russia also doesnt hold all basic models in reserve, but if it does hold just basic models, this gives PA more room to play around with upgrades. Just like i have mentioned before, PA modifies most of the standard weapons and equipment it acquires. i have already given example of AZ upgrade of T-59.



> Thanks for the advice.. I'm sure PA guys aren't sleeping.. Nor does it take a decade to actually get 1000 tanks ... Even AK has a production rate of around 40-50 annually.. Which was "stalled" by financial crisis in the past.
> 
> And nobody want dead beat T-80s... That's why they were testing new tanks.. Instead of getting more from Russian junkyards.


There is difference between an advise and suggestion, lol, i suggest you to google the difference. This is a discussion forum where the opinions are freely expressed and FYI, PA doesnt need to look here to wake or sleep on its decisions although that doesnt stop anyone from expressing views here.

You have yourself given an example the stalling of induction of AK's in PA which i will quote as an example that inducting 1000 tanks can take upto 10 years. Its better to take risk factor in account and be prepared for unforeseen circumstances




> P.S; as if right now India has around 499-500 T-90s, & 1900 T-72s (only a few of them being upgraded with new imagery systems - as far as I know)...



what you fail to realise is the depth in IA armour. Im not going to bloat on IA arnour, but quantity can take over quality.

lastly, i think i have repeated most of my points with reference from previous posts. i would appreciate if u come up with new points to take this discussion further on otherwise repeating some points portrays not budging from a stance.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Sarge said:


> Kiddo? i dont know why the senior member here thinks that newer members are kids. what sense do you get out of it discussion when you try to make it personal?
> 
> lets clear somethings out; senior in posts doesnt mean that the other member is younger to you in age. secondly, making it personal only gives an impression that you lack substance on the topic so are using cheap ways to convey your point.
> 
> I suggest you refrain from these ineffective tactics during our discussion and stop derailing it..
> 
> coming back to some sensible discussion now.
> 
> *I did google and replied to you through online research. T-80 acquired from Russia can be upgraded by Pakistan and if this thread also holds that information just validates my already explained point.*



And that research led to to claim that T-80UD were T-80s with T-80U improvements? That's a lot of research ... Just baseless claims.




> Russia also doesnt hold all basic models in reserve, but if it does hold just basic models, this gives PA more room to play around with upgrades. Just like i have mentioned before, PA modifies most of the standard weapons and equipment it acquires. i have already given example of AZ upgrade of T-59.



And why did PA upgrade em to AZ status? 

And why would PA spend hundreds of millions on useless junkyard tanks to replace their turrets,FCS,guns,armour,imagery systems,Jammers,Laser warning systems,auto loaders etc etc .. And yet get a 2nd tier tank. 

Instead of buying new generation tanks?





> You have yourself given an example the stalling of induction of AK's in PA which i will quote as an example that inducting 1000 tanks can take upto 10 years. Its better to take risk factor in account and be prepared for unforeseen circumstances



Yet somehow buying 3rd grade tanks,upgrading them may not face such hurdles? Aren't they more prone to Fuk ups than buying newer n advanced tanks to begin with!



> what you fail to realise is the depth in IA armour. Im not going to bloat on IA arnour, but quantity can take over quality


.

Night blind T-72s with bursting barrels n low penetration ammo or 124 "Arjuns" is hardly quality.. The only tanks which are worth it are the T-90s.. Which also face AK's & UDs..

For t-72s... AZ's & T-85 & 90s are enough for the time being.. (Till they are replaced by a new tank -- and AKII comes online).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> And that research led to to claim that T-80UD were T-80s with T-80U improvements? That's a lot of research ... Just baseless claims.


Thats your baseless assumption. Read again what i wrote in previous posts. 



> And why did PA upgrade em to AZ status?


Already explained.Read again what i wrote in previous posts



> And why would PA spend hundreds of millions on useless junkyard tanks to replace their turrets,FCS,guns,armour,imagery systems,Jammers,Laser warning systems,auto loaders etc etc .. And yet get a 2nd tier tank.
> 
> Instead of buying new generation tanks?


already explained.Read again what i wrote in previous posts




> Yet somehow buying 3rd grade tanks,upgrading them may not face such hurdles? Aren't they more prone to Fuk ups than buying newer n advanced tanks to begin with!


A third grade tank would be a T-59, not a T-80. Each and every tank in PA inventory has been upgraded from its basic form.



> Night blind T-72s with bursting barrels n low penetration ammo or 124 "Arjuns" is hardly quality.. The only tanks which are worth it are the T-90s.. Which also face AK's & UDs..
> 
> For t-72s... AZ's & T-85 & 90s are enough for the time being.. (Till they are replaced by a new tank -- and AKII comes online).


Under estimating enemy is your own opinion which i dont agree with.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Sarge said:


> Thats your baseless assumption. Read again what i wrote in previous posts.
> 
> 
> Already explained.Read again what i wrote in previous posts
> 
> 
> already explained.Read again what i wrote in previous posts


Quoted you below.




> A third grade tank would be a T-59, not a T-80. Each and every tank in PA inventory has been upgraded from its basic form.



That's why T-59s is being phased out with a new tank.. While you are stuck with your t-80 !



> Under estimating enemy is your own opinion which i dont agree with.



I'm not underestimating nobody ! But do tell us about the "quality" you were harping about.




....your useless and incorrect "research".


Sarge said:


> T-84 is modernization of T-80 UD. T-80 UD developed from T-80 and stands between T-80 and T-84, as T-84 came later on.T-84 was further developed into Oplot etc.
> *The basic difference of T-80 and T-80 UD is the diesel engine and T-80UD shares most of the T-80U's improvements*, but can be distinguished from it by a different engine deck and distinctive smoke-mortar array and turret stowage boxes.
> 
> Replacing 1000 tanks is not a quick process. Even if T-99, Al haider etc is procured, it may take upto a decade to replace older tanks. A readily available option is T-80 in reserves with Russia. These can be acquired and then upgraded to PA T-80 UD standard. Upgrading a tank already in use is still faster as seen in the case of AZ rather than inducting new tanks in small batches as per factory output over a long period of time and then train crews on it. and Yeah AZ will also need to be replaced after the T-59 series are retired though not in near future.
> 
> Secondly, if a war erupts,the option of faster addition of T-80 to add a punch to PA armour seems better rather than bring M-48 or T-59 from reserves to life in 2015 onwards and make up for losses. M-48 and older T-59 will find it tough to take on IA T-72/90. The Chinese T-90/96 is in service with PLA on which AK is based, so AK losses wont be replaced easily during the war. T-80 is an option that PA should always keep in hand.
> 
> The best that PA has is around 1000-1300 AK, AZ and T-80 UD.




Please stop acting smart .. Think before you post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Please stop acting smart .. Think before you post.


Mate, personal assumptions will get you nowhere. There is nothing wrong what i wrote.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Sarge said:


> Mate, personal assumptions will get you nowhere. There is nothing wrong what i wrote.



Really? Here is the reality... The first freakin page of this thread... Or even the pic of UD vs T-80 or T-80U

T-80 and T-84 Main Battle Tanks Information pool

Guess you need more "research".

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## punit

hmm so after the ground braeking sale of SU 35 to Pakistan .. russia gonna sale T90s MBT TO Pakistan as well !


----------



## Signalian

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Really? Here is the reality... The first freakin page of this thread... Or even the pic of UD vs T-80 or T-80U
> 
> T-80 and T-84 Main Battle Tanks Information pool
> 
> Guess you need more "research".



Mate i have seen them already and gone through this topic. You have no logical or technical or sensible replies to the points i had put forward regarding induction of reserve T80 from Russian and the discussion you had put forward, i have effectively replied it and now it has come down to T-80,T84,T-80U,T-80UD,Oplot...which I have also already explained to you, if you cant comprehend a simple thing, there is no use dragging this on in loops.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Sarge said:


> Mate i have seen them already and gone through this topic. You have no logical or technical or sensible replies to the points i had put forward regarding induction of reserve T80 from Russian and the discussion you had put forward, i have effectively replied it and now it has come down to T-80,T84,T-80U,T-80UD,Oplot...which I have also already explained to you, if you cant comprehend a simple thing, there is no use dragging this on in loops.




A) Ive already explained why junkyard T-80s are useless.

B)I've already showed you.. Your mistake regarding UD being ab improved T-80 with T-80U improvements..

C)Stop arguing for the sake of it.


----------



## Dazzler

At the most basic level, the soviet/ Russian version was the refinement of object 219, commonly known as the T-80, while the Ukrainians were tasked with the diesel version of this variant. Later, the Kharkov plant took a much different route with indigenous improvements to armour, FCS, apu, engine/ transmission, main gun, ammo and even optics were improved, replaced. 

The resulting tank was named as Object 478, while the Pakistani version is a further refinement of the said tank, the object 478BE. A word of advice, the t-80 has many variants much like the t-72/90. So it would be better to do some serious research before sharing false information that is widespread on the internet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

SHIBLI ELECTRONICS has been awarded a major contract for the UPGRADATION OF Eighty Eight “T-80 UD” Tanks 125mm with the Night Firing Systems. With Integration & Incorporation of the system, these main Battle will have full operational night capability. The Signing Ceremony of the contract was held in CWO Headquarter. - 


See more at: Shibli | Subject: Contract for the up-gradation of T -80 UD with Catherine FC Systems

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Windjammer

Pakistan defence electronics company SHIBLI ELECTRONICS has been awarded a major contract for the UPGRADATION OF Eighty Eight “T-80 UD” Tanks 125mm guns with the Night Firing Systems. With Integration & Incorporation of the system, these main Battle will have full operational night capability.
There are total 320 T-80UD tanks active in service with Pakistan Amy while remaining fleet will also be upgraded.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Falcon

Sarge said:


> what you fail to realise is the depth in IA armour. Im not going to bloat on IA arnour, but quantity can take over quality.



You must realize something, 

1) The offensive armour is always at a disadvantage, simply because it is exposed.

2) Armour does not necessarily need armour to defeat it. Anti-tank rockets / missiles can be sufficient to a very great extent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Indus Falcon said:


> You must realize something,
> 
> 1) The offensive armour is always at a disadvantage, simply because it is exposed.
> 
> 2) Armour does not necessarily need armour to defeat it. Anti-tank rockets / missiles can be sufficient to a very great extent.



My point is replacing war time losses in armour units.

3 squadrons in an armour regiment, 45 tanks. Say in a war the strength reduced to 35 after two days. To bring it to full strength again, quantity is required to replace losses. This armour regiment may be used as offensive , defensive, deception or flanking force, it cannot function fully without compromise unless its full strength.

PA already has smaller contingent of armour forces in its armoured divisions, 5 regiments. 4 of the armour regiments are in 2 brigades, the 5th regt is directly under div control or can be assigned to a brigade. In order to bolster the division strength, an independent armoured brigade group is attached with the armoured division in war time, but the best utilization of an independent armoured brigade group is to use it separately from armoured division ops so the enemy can keep guessing where it might show up on the battlefield.
IA armoured div has 7 regiments atleast in an armoured div plus other independent armoured brigades of the Corps.

To continue the tempo of an armoured thrust, tank replacements of same type become important too, if T-80 losses are replaced by Type-59 II then ammunition of 105mm and spare parts will become logistics burden. The other reserves are M48A5.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

Dazzler said:


> At the most basic level, the soviet/ Russian version was the refinement of object 219, commonly known as the T-80, while the Ukrainians were tasked with the diesel version of this variant. Later, the Kharkov plant took a much different route with indigenous improvements to armour, FCS, apu, engine/ transmission, main gun, ammo and even optics were improved, replaced.
> 
> The resulting tank was named as Object 478, while the Pakistani version is a further refinement of the said tank, the object 478BE. A word of advice, the t-80 has many variants much like the t-72/90. So it would be better to do some serious research before sharing false information that is widespread on the internet.



Glad you agree the refinement part. My point exactly, every tank in PA inventory is upgraded from its basic level. 
T-59 upgraded from basic level to T-59 II to AZ
T-85 upgraded from basic level to Type-85II to Type-85 III
M-48 upgraded from basic level to M-48 A5
T-69 upgraded from basic level to Type-69 II

Customizing or upgrading a T-80 from its basic level to UD standard is not impossible. Strip off the un necessary, put on the necessary items and get it going. Thats what PA has done already on all tanks. Getting a stripped off tank, putting in new diesel engine and other improvements is faster and cheaper especially if the same type is already in use.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Blue Marlin

oplot m factory

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## phantomrush

Ukraine can not build 49 tanks to Thailand for 6 years. Over the last 2 years they have sent 5 tanks.
About a hundred OplotM can we talk?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55

Autoloader of T-80

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Army research

Question is the pak army t-80 ud any good against arjun or t-90 statistically


----------



## princefaisal

Better to get only TOT of Oplot M tank from Ukraine


----------



## Beast

princefaisal said:


> Better to get only TOT of Oplot M tank from Ukraine


Thailand has give up buying more T-84 and opt for China VT-4. More or less show you how good and the production of Ukraine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Beast said:


> Thailand has give up buying more T-84 and opt for China VT-4. More or html show you how good and the production of Ukraine.


We bought T-80 from Ukraine and we really love it and even in AL KHALID many are Ukrainian parts including engine as for Thailand I think you don't know the latest news.
http://defence-blog.com/army/ukrain...-m-main-battle-tanks-for-royal-thai-army.html

@Dazzler @kaonalpha @DESERT FIGHTER


----------



## Kaavinsky

Thank you for these images sir.


----------



## Army research

Zarvan said:


> We bought T-80 from Ukraine and we really love it and even in AL KHALID many are Ukrainian parts including engine as for Thailand I think you don't know the latest news.
> 
> @Dazzler @kaonalpha @DESERT FIGHTER


 we do love in armoured corps in 90s the first to get t 80 they love it like literally love the exhaust out out of it and say its the best tank in the world better 
Than abrams the American tank as they tested it indoors of zia but can in defeat t 90 of India statistically or give it a challenge



Army research said:


> we do love in armoured corps in 90s the first to get t 80 they love it like literally love the exhaust out out of it and say its the best tank in the world better
> Than abrams the American tank as they tested it indoors of zia but can in defeat t 90 of India statistically or give it a challenge


I know some one who served in 80 90 2005 in armored corps with T 80

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Oleg

Hi, im new here. Nice forum you have, and after reading it i find that you are nice people. 

I know you need Oplot cause your already have fleet of T-80UD's. But consider looking at our modernized T-64E. Its very cost-effective tank. Personally i myself wish our ukrainian military ordered them instead of pricey Oplots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hell hound

Oleg said:


> Hi, im new here. Nice forum you have, and after reading it i find that you are nice people.
> 
> I know you need Oplot cause your already have fleet of T-80UD's. But consider looking at our modernized T-64E. Its very cost-effective tank. Personally i myself wish our ukrainian military ordered them instead of pricey Oplots.


welcome to the forum bro hope you enjoy your stay here


----------



## Dazzler

Beast said:


> Thailand has give up buying more T-84 and opt for China VT-4. More or less show you how good and the production of Ukraine.



Ukraine was the hub of soviet armor industry for almost a century. They know how to build and design an mbt from scratch. Dont compare apples with oranges.


----------



## Inception-06

Dazzler said:


> Ukraine was the hub of soviet armor industry for almost a century. They know how to build and design an mbt from scratch. Dont compare apples with oranges.




So you believe Ukraine Tank industry could deliver the Tanks which Thailand ordered years ago ?

I dont see anything wronge in this statement of the Member @Beast



Beast said:


> Thailand has give up buying more T-84 and opt for China VT-4. More or less show you how good and the production of Ukraine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Ulla said:


> So you believe Ukraine Tank industry could deliver the Tanks which Thailand ordered years ago ?
> 
> I dont see anything wronge in this statement of the Member @Beast



its not about their ability to deliver, rather the war has their resources stretched. The same country delivered 320 Object 478BEH to us under direr conditions, within three years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Oleg said:


> Hi, im new here. Nice forum you have, and after reading it i find that you are nice people.
> 
> I know you need Oplot cause your already have fleet of T-80UD's. But consider looking at our modernized T-64E. Its very cost-effective tank. Personally i myself wish our ukrainian military ordered them instead of pricey Oplots.



Sounds more like a sales pitch eh.. 

On a serious note, welcome to the forum. Hope youll have a great time here

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

some unseen pics...while the UD was being constructed..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55

"Maskirovka"




http://imgur.com/gallery/veFHwux

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler




----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> Bros
> Can you provide info about deployment pattern of tanks in Pakistan armory?
> There are two armored divisions and 9 armored brigades, which tank is operated by which division/brigade?
> As far as I know,
> 6th Armored division (1st Corp) Operate AlZarrar.
> 2nd Armored Brigade (XXX Corp) Operate AlZarrar.
> And perhaps armored brigades of XI & XII operate type59 ad type69 respectively.
> What about rest? Detail answer plz
> 
> @Dazzler @DESERT FIGHTER @Sarge @Ulla



are you making an ORBAT or something?

Just a word of caution, dont give out too much specific information even when you have knowledge of PA. 

I find some members (will not take names, but we all know them) excitedly giving the "first news" of something new happening and claiming to know this and that, where information is correct also, but probably its better to keep some specific things under cover. 

yar i know about a few deployments but i keep referencing wikipedia as source (even when i know some deployments are wrong) to avoid giving specific information and secondly having a source for back up when asked.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tipu7

Nah, making nothing.
Was just digging stuff after news of India adding 10 Regiments of T90MS & perhaps two regiments of Arjun Mk2 by 2020, in order to compare the strength gap .....


Sarge said:


> are you making an ORBAT or something?
> 
> Just a word of caution, dont give out too much specific information even when you have knowledge of PA.
> 
> I find some members (will not take names, but we all know them) excitedly giving the "first news" of something new happening and claiming to know this and that, where information is correct also, but probably its better to keep some specific things under cover.
> 
> yar i know about a few deployments but i keep referencing wikipedia as source (even when i know some deployments are wrong) to avoid giving specific information and secondly having a source for back up when asked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

OPLOT Tests.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zarvan

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> OPLOT Tests.
> 
> 
> View attachment 353388



Are they old tests or new ones with new engine ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom

November 19, 2016 it was announced that the name of the State Enterprise Plant VA Malyshev gave the Armed Forces of Ukraine 6 T-84 Oplot (product 478DU9) passed the factory for repair of their technical condition.
In June 2016 the Ministry of Defence signed a contract with the Kharkov enterprise "Malyshev Plant" in the restoration and partial modernization of the first generation of tanks "Oplot" Series T-84 received the Armed Forces of Ukraine back in 2001 year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Glavcom said:


> November 19, 2016 it was announced that the name of the State Enterprise Plant VA Malyshev gave the Armed Forces of Ukraine 6 T-84 Oplot (product 478DU9) passed the factory for repair of their technical condition.
> In June 2016 the Ministry of Defence signed a contract with the Kharkov enterprise "Malyshev Plant" in the restoration and partial modernization of the first generation of tanks "Oplot" Series T-84 received the Armed Forces of Ukraine back in 2001 year.



Pakistan tested OPLOT M a year ago. Overall Tank was great but new 1500 HP engine had issue. Ukraine promised that engine issue would be resolved by them soon and they would send OPLOT M back to be tested again so any idea when will OPLOT M return to Pakistan for testing ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom




----------



## Glavcom




----------



## salman darkknight

very good


----------



## Glavcom

Zarvan said:


> Pakistan tested OPLOT M a year ago. Overall Tank was great but new 1500 HP engine had issue. Ukraine promised that engine issue would be resolved by them soon and they would send OPLOT M back to be tested again so any idea when will OPLOT M return to Pakistan for testing ?



Tests of Pakistan appointed in 2017. By this time KMDB should make all voiced wishes for tank construction T-84 BM Oplot-P.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glavcom

Tank T-84 BM Oplot during the comparative military trials in Pakistan in 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Glavcom

Dazzler said:


> Around 70% of the tank is made inhouse while rest is imported.


Who can say what Pakistan need a T-84 MBT-3000 or if he produces Pakistan Al-Khalid tank?


----------



## Glavcom

Ukrainian T-84 BM Oplot

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glavcom

Beast said:


> Thai view VT-4 more superior than Ukraine OPLOT M and go for it, same as Iraq army.



Military-technical potential of tanks
the military-technical potential of Ukrainian T-84 BM Oplot-Т exceeds obsolete Russian demonstrator prototype tank T-90MS Tagil and Chinese export tank VT-4 (MBT-3000).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Glavcom said:


> Military-technical potential of tanks
> the military-technical potential of Ukrainian T-84 BM Oplot-Т exceeds obsolete Russian demonstrator prototype tank T-90MS Tagil and Chinese export tank VT-4 (MBT-3000).




I see no point in developing a weapon system and promoting it to the market when you cannot supply it in required numbers. 

For the same reason, Thailand canceled a pretty decent order.


----------



## Glavcom

Dazzler said:


> I see no point in developing a weapon system and promoting it to the market when you cannot supply it in required numbers.



Now comes the process of inclusion of T-84 tanks BM Oplot for the production of the state defense order for the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2017. Production capacity of the T-84 tanks Oplot-T production will only grow. On this of commitments Ukraine has not swerve. How would it be desirable to anyone.



Dazzler said:


> For the same reason, Thailand canceled a pretty decent order.


Understand correctly. Economically profitable to open and reopen node production line to the tank, if the order does not exceed 50 tanks on the contract. In this there is also the Thai wine. Personally, in my opinion, I think if you order from Thailand would be 150 tanks. All tanks were used for a long time Ukraine shipped.


----------



## Dazzler

Glavcom said:


> Understand correctly. Economically profitable to open and reopen node production line to the tank, if the order does not exceed 50 tanks on the contract. In this there is also the Thai wine. Personally, in my opinion, I think if you order from Thailand would be 150 tanks. All tanks were used for a long time Ukraine shipped.



For 49 tanks at 200 million, you got yourself a good deal at just over $4 million per mbt. Thailand is also not happy with the battery and had some other minor complains about the weapon system. The major issue is that you lost a customer that had planned to buy the mbt in big numbers. 

Thais were eventually looking for 200-300 pieces. It's a shame you lost a lucrative contract.


----------



## Glavcom

Dazzler said:


> For 49 tanks at 200 million, you got yourself a good deal at just over $4 million per mbt. Thailand is also not happy with the battery and had some other minor complains about the weapon system. The major issue is that you lost a customer that had planned to buy the mbt in big numbers.
> 
> Thais were eventually looking for 200-300 pieces. It's a shame you lost a lucrative contract.



Dazzler, you're right. But the people who make these tanks are ready to perform the contract. And they do everything possible to make this a party to perform the contract of Thailand.
Plus, now there is a preparation of production for the manufacture of tanks T-84 BM Oplot for the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2017 state defense order.
How can you not understand that there is no sense for Pakistan to move from a series of tanks "T-80UD" on Chinese tanks. Yes Chinese tanks are beautiful, do not argue. The quality of what? You're not going to fight beauty.
The second point. Rejecting Pakistan again from Ukraine. More return will be gone. This, too, you have to understand. So who will benefit from this then, if Pakistan will make a bet on the Chinese tank? Pakistan will win? No. Ukraine will lose? Of course not!
Ukrainian proverb says. "Old friend, is always better than two new friends."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

Glavcom said:


> Dazzler, you're right. But the people who make these tanks are ready to perform the contract. And they do everything possible to make this a party to perform the contract of Thailand.
> Plus, now there is a preparation of production for the manufacture of tanks T-84 BM Oplot for the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2017 state defense order.
> How can you not understand that there is no sense for Pakistan to move from a series of tanks "T-80UD" on Chinese tanks. Yes Chinese tanks are beautiful, do not argue. The quality of what? You're not going to fight beauty.
> The second point. Rejecting Pakistan again from Ukraine. More return will be gone. This, too, you have to understand. So who will benefit from this then, if Pakistan will make a bet on the Chinese tank? Pakistan will win? No. Ukraine will lose? Of course not!
> Ukrainian proverb says. "Old friend, is always better than two new friends."










Can T-80UD turn into New oplot BM

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom

monitor said:


> Can T-80UD turn into New oplot BM



Tank T-84 BM Oplot traces its history from the T-80UD "Birch", but this is two different machines. Two different machines both the tower and the hull.
But at the same time, T-80UD "Birch" can easily be easily upgraded to the level of the T-84 BM Oplot. Thus Pakistan could increase military-technical level of the T-80UD and Al-Khalid to military-technical level of T-84 tanks BM Oplot. By upgrading.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## princefaisal

Glavcom said:


> Military-technical potential of tanks
> the military-technical potential of Ukrainian T-84 BM Oplot-Т exceeds obsolete Russian demonstrator prototype tank T-90MS Tagil and Chinese export tank VT-4 (MBT-3000).


T-84 BM Oplot-Т armour protection is also better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom




----------



## Naif al Hilali

From The National Interest:

*This is Why Russia's T-80 Tank Is a Total Disaster*
S. K. Yeong 
August 11, 2015

The T-80 is a glaring lesson in why heavily-armored tanks can hide major weaknesses. Once considered a premium tank by the Russian military establishment, T-80s suffered savage losses to lightly armed guerrillas during the First Chechen War. The tank’s reputation never recovered.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The T-80 was the last main battle tank to come out of the Soviet Union. It was the first Soviet tank to mount a gas turbine engine, giving it a top road speed of 70 kilometers per hour and an efficient power-to-weight ratio of 25.8 horsepower per ton.

This made the standard T-80B one of the most nimble tanks to come out of the 1980s.

The Chechen rebels’ combat prowess–and poor Russian tactics–was more responsible for the T-80’s losses than the inherent design. Though, it did have one major flaw. But in the end, it was too expensive and guzzled too much fuel. The Russian military grew to favor the more economical T-72 series instead.

***

The T-80 was an evolution over its predecessor, the T-64. As the most modern tank design of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the T-64 was a departure from the Soviet penchant for simple armored vehicle designs, such as the T-54/55 and T-62.

For instance, the T-64 was the first Soviet tank to replace human loaders with mechanical autoloaders, reducing the crew from four to three. The T-64’s second trend-setting innovation was the introduction of composite armor, which layered ceramics and steel together to provide superior resistance compared to _only_ steel.

Further, the T-64 had lightweight, small diameter all-steel road wheels in contrast to the large, rubber rimmed ones on the T-55 and T-62.

The first mass produced variant, the T-64A, mounted the huge 125-millimeter 2A46 Rapira main gun, which was so popular that it came included on all subsequent Russian tanks … up to the T-90. Remarkably, the T-64A packed all of this potential into a petite 37-ton package–relatively light for a tank of this size.

But as marvelous as these innovations were, the T-64 had a sensitive 5TDF engine and unusual suspension–both prone to breaking down. As a result, the Soviet army deliberately assigned the tanks to units stationed close to its manufacturing plant in Kharkov.

Even worse, rumors circulated that the T-64’s new autoloader chomped off the arms of crew members who strayed too close. It’s a plausible scenario given the T-64’s tiny internal space.

While fixing the T-64A’s automotive maladies, the Soviets developed an interest in developing a new tank with a gas turbine engine. Gas turbines have high acceleration and an efficient power-to-weight ratio, can start quickly in cold weather without prior warm-up–a necessity in Russia’s frigid winters–and they’re lightweight.

On the downside, gas turbines guzzle fuel and have higher susceptibility to dirt and dust owing to their voracious air intake compared to conventional diesels.

The original base model T-80 didn’t enter active service until 1976–much later than planned. The Soviet tank industry had its hands full working out the T-64A’s kinks and gearing up for producing the T-72 as a cheaper backup option. At the same time, the Soviets were building more T-55s and T-62s for Arab allies which had lost _hundreds_ of tanks during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The early-model T-80s also had their problems. In November 1975, the USSR’s then defense minister Andrei Grechko blocked the tank’s production because of its wasteful fuel consumption and few firepower advancements over the T-64A. Five more months passed before Grechko’s successor, Dmitriy Ustinov, authorized the new tank to go into production.

The original T-80’s production line continued for two years–not long–as it was already outclassed by the T-64B tank, which featured a new fire control system that could fire 9M112 Kobra missiles from its main gun. More serious, the T-80 was nearly three-and-a-half times more expensive than the T-64A.

The T-80B succeeded the baseline model in 1978. As the most advanced “premium tank” in the East, the Soviets beginning in 1981 assigned most T-80Bs to its highest risk garrison–the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany.

Its high speed earned it the nickname “Tank of the English Channel.” In Soviet war game calculations, T-80Bs were able to reach the Atlantic coast within five days–assuming that they didn’t run out of fuel.

This new variant borrowed from the T-64. In addition to firing conventional sabot, shaped charge and anti-personnel fragmentation shells, the T-80B’s 125-millimeter 2A46M-1 smoothbore gun could launch the same 9K112 Kobra missiles.

Since this anti-tank guided missile was considerably more expensive than regular tank shells, the tank only carried four missiles compared to 38 shells. The missiles were intended to swat down attack helicopters or ATGM-capable vehicles beyond the range of the T-80B’s conventional gun rounds.

A co-axial 7.62 x 54-millimeter PKT and 12.7 x 108-millimeter NSVT Utes machine gun for the commander’s cupola rounded off the tank’s anti-personnel weapons.

While the T-80B boasted advanced composite armor, it had even greater protection through its Kontakt-1 explosive reactive armor, or ERA. Arranged in the same horizontal layers as late production T-72A tanks, ERA-equipped T-80Bs were called T-80BVs.

In 1987, the T-80U succeeded the T-80B in production, if not absolute numbers.

Externally, the T-80U mounted Kontakt-5 reactive armor. This was an improvement over Kontakt-1–which used an add-on array of explosive filled shingles. Instead, Kontakt-5 was a factory applied set of plates pointing forward to maximize the deflection angle of incoming rounds. Kontakt-1 was only useful against shaped charge warheads, while Kontakt-5 added resistance to kinetic energy sabot rounds as well.

Internally, the T-80U traded the T-80B’s 1A33 fire control system for the more advanced 1A45. The engineers swapped out the Kobra missiles with the laser-guided 9K119 Refleks guided missile–a more reliable, longer range and harder hitting weapon. T-80Us crammed in seven more rounds of 125-millimeter shells than the T-80B.

But the T-80U didn’t last long in production. Its new GTD-1250 turbine was still too fuel hungry and maintenance heavy. In its place came the diesel powered T-80UD. This represented the last T-80 variant to be produced in the Soviet Union. It was also the first of its kind to see action outside of a training school … if “action” meant blasting tank shells into the Russian parliament to settle the October 1993 constitutional crisis.

The December 1994 separatist war in Chechnya was the first action for the T-80 where the shooting was going both ways … and it was an epic disaster.

When rebels in Chechnya declared their country’s independence, Russian president Boris Yeltsin ordered troops to bring the former Soviet republic back to the fold by force. These troops took T-80Bs and BVs with them. The soldiers had never trained with the T-80 before. Ignorant of the new tank’s gluttony for fuel, they ran their engines dry while idling.

The Russian advance into the Chechen capital Grozny was a near massacre for the invaders–nearly 1,000 soldiers died and 200 vehicles were destroyed from Dec. 31, 1994, to the following New Year’s Day evening. As the most advanced vehicle in the Russian assault force, the T-80B and T-80BVs suffered horrific losses.

While impervious to direct frontal hits, dozens of these tanks were destroyed in catastrophic explosions, their turrets blowing off after sustaining multiple strikes from the Chechen rebels’ RPG-7V and RPG-18 rocket launchers.

It turned out–the T-80’s Korzhina autoloader had a fatal design flaw. The autoloader stored ready propellant in a vertical position, with only the tank’s road wheels partially protecting it. RPGs striking the T-80 in the sides _above _the road wheels were likely to set off the propellant, resulting in the tank’s explosive decapitation.

In this respect, the T-72A and Bs–which received the same kind of punishment–had a marginally higher probability of surviving flanking strikes because their autoloaders stored propellant in a horizontal position _below_ the rims of their road wheels.

A second major fault of the T-80, like previous Russian tanks, was minimal gun elevation and depression. The tank’s gun could not fire back at rebels shooting from upper story rooms or basements.

To be fair, T-80 casualties were more likely the fault of ill-prepared crews, inadequate training and disastrous tactics. Such was the haste of Russia’s rush to war that T-80BVs entered Grozny _without_ the explosive filler in their reactive armor panels, making the armor useless. It was even alleged that some soldiers sold off the explosive inserts to supplement their salaries.

The Soviet army had long forgotten the hard lessons of urban warfare from World War II. During the Cold War, only Spetsnaz commandos and the Berlin garrison had trained for serious city fighting. Expecting little resistance, Russian forces drove into Grozny with infantry buttoned up inside their BMP and BTR transports. Their commanders got lost because they didn’t have proper maps.

Since Russian soldiers were reluctant to exit their transports and clear buildings room by room, their Chechen adversaries–who knew the weaknesses of Russian vehicles from Soviet-era conscription–were free to turn the tanks and other armored vehicles into crematoriums.

It was easy for the Russian high command to blame the T-80’s design for the Chechen disaster–as opposed to clumsy operational planning and tactical inadequacies. But ultimately, it was a lack of _money_ which caused the cheaper T-72 to displace the T-80 as the preferred choice for Russia’s export sales and its post-Chechen wars.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia lost the T-80UD production plant in Kharkov to the newly independent Ukraine. The T-80U factory at Omsk declined into bankruptcy, while the Leningrad LKZ plant no longer made the earlier T-80BV.

For Russia to have three tank types–the T-72 (A and B), T-80 (BV, U and UD) and T-90 (a rebrand of the T-72BU)–made no financial or logistical sense. Each tank had the same 125-millimeter 2A46M gun and similarly performing gun-launched missiles. But they all had _different_ engines, fire control systems and chassis.

In simpler terms, these tanks offered commonality in capabilities but diversity in spare parts, rather than common spare parts and diversity of _capabilities_. Since the T-80U was far more expensive than the T-72B, it was only logical for a cash-strapped Russia to favor the T-72.

But Moscow continued to experiment with its T-80s, adding active protection systems–which use millimeter-wave radar to track incoming missiles before launching explosive countermeasures. The resulting T-80UM-1 Bars was revealed in 1997 but did not enter production, probably again because of budget cuts.

Russia did not use the T-80 during the Second Chechen War of 1999-2000, or the brief 2008 conflict with Georgia–as far as we know. T-80s have so far not joined the war in Ukraine.

_The author is a follower of various science fiction and modern warfare topics like small arms, armor, air power and Middle Eastern conflict._

_This piece first appeared in War Is Boring._


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom

Ukraine for $ 600 million.. Pakistan is modernizing tank park

During the visit of the Ukrainian delegation in Islamabad was an agreement that the domestic defense industry will take up the repair of a tank park Pakistan. Apparently, we are talking about the long-awaited start of the process of major overhaul and modernization set out in the 1998-2000 period. 320 T-80UD tanks.
A memorandum of cooperation was signed by the general director of the state company "Ukrspetsexport" Pavel Bukin and CEO of heavy industry HIT TAXILA Vadzhit Lieutenant General Hussein Saeed.

23 November, in Pakistan, agreement was reached that the Ukrainian military-industrial complex of the country will receive from the order worth more than 600 million. dollars. This is stated in the message Defense Ministry's press service.
"Arrangements relating to maintenance and modernization of tanks", - explained in the department.

According to the source, the signing of the documents took place with the participation of Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak, Pakistani Federal Minister of Defense Industry Rana Tanvir Hussain and Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleg Gladkovsky.


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom

T-84 BM Oplot-Т

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom




----------



## Glavcom




----------



## ali_raza

fantastic tank


----------



## khanasifm

The only sticking thing is it's elecoptical system it's too big and ugly

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mustafa erkan

For Electronics and optics Pakistan in talks with Turkey for Al- Khalid 2 .I think Pakistan will get engine and armour Technology from Ukraine and for others from Turkey.France Electronics optics will change with aselsan's if Pakistan accepts Turkish offers.


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JK!

@Glavcom in terms of bringing Pakistani T80UD tanks up to Oplot standards is that an upgrade offered by Morozov Bureau?


----------



## Glavcom

JK! said:


> @Glavcom in terms of bringing Pakistani T80UD tanks up to Oplot standards is that an upgrade offered by Morozov Bureau?


By updating the concept of T-80UD to the level of T-84 BM Oplot, State Enterprise "Kharkov Machine Building Bureau" Pakistan offers to bring the tanks T-80UD maximum capabilities of the T-84 BM Oplot.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ali_raza

Glavcom said:


>


is there anything moving on t84 coming to pakistan


----------



## JK!

From what I've read the Oplot would bring increased crew protection through seperate ammo compartments/bustle loaded ammo and blow out panels.

These are lacking in every Pakistani MBT at present.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

T-55 said:


> *Test T-80UD in Pakistan*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *


Some photos of testing T-80UD and Type 85 in Thar desert.
































http://477768.livejournal.com/4535224.html

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## HRK

> Published on Apr 13, 2015
> About the heroic labor of manual workers and employees of the plant and the name Malasheva KMDB. AA Morozov. *The film is about the execution of the contract with Pakistan for the supply of tanks T-80UD. *
> The film is called *"Contract of the Century" *has unique footage of manufacturing of tanks, as well as interviews with key participants in the events. Contract with Pakistan has become the most important event will allow the plant to survive in 90 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Readerdefence

T-55 said:


> Some photos of testing T-80UD and Type 85 in Thar desert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://477768.livejournal.com/4535224.html


Hi when they have been tested? 1995 that's what the pictures says


----------



## ali_raza

HRK said:


>


was the contract that big?



Glavcom said:


> By updating the concept of T-80UD to the level of T-84 BM Oplot, State Enterprise "Kharkov Machine Building Bureau" Pakistan offers to bring the tanks T-80UD maximum capabilities of the T-84 BM Oplot.


dude why t80 contract was called contract of century


----------



## HRK

ali_raza said:


> was the contract that big?
> 
> 
> dude why t80 contract was called contract of century



not that big only 320 in numbers ... but the timing of the contract was more important .... & if I am not wrong that was the first export of T-80UD from Ukraine that too at the much need time for the Ukrainian Tank Industry

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## T-55

Readerdefence said:


> Hi when they have been tested? 1995 that's what the pictures says


Yes pictures are from 1995 tests,Google translate from link:
A small selection of photographs taken during tests of tanks T-80UD and type 85 in the Thar desert, carried out within the framework of the tender for the main battle tank of the Pakistan Army; 1995 Year

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gryphon

Glavcom said:


> Tests of Pakistan appointed in 2017. By this time KMDB should make all voiced wishes for tank construction *T-84 BM Oplot-P*.



You mean Oplot modified for Pak requirements ?


----------



## Glavcom

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> You mean Oplot modified for Pak requirements ?



Yes

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

Glavcom said:


> Who can say what Pakistan need a T-84 MBT-3000 or if he produces Pakistan Al-Khalid tank?



Alkhalid series is going nowhere and will see more development in coming years. The Al haider mbt (whatever system is chosen under it) will complement the Alkhalid 1 and soon the Alkhalid 2, and will likely replace the 59s, 69s and perhaps some Alzarrars.



JK! said:


> From what I've read the Oplot would bring increased crew protection through seperate ammo compartments/bustle loaded ammo and blow out panels.
> 
> These are lacking in every Pakistani MBT at present.



Oplot doesn't have a separate ammo compartment either. They have the same autoloader as UD. Only yatagan, T-72-120 and T-55AG are offered with the option of a bustle mounted autolader.


----------



## Glavcom

Dazzler said:


> Alkhalid series is going nowhere and will see more development in coming years. The Al haider mbt (whatever system is chosen under it) will complement the Alkhalid 1 and soon the Alkhalid 2, and will likely replace the 59s, 69s and perhaps some Alzarrars.



Good. What are the main conceptual differences between Al-Khayder from Al Khalid. And Al Haider from Al Khalid 2? The main mission of Al-Hyder

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Glavcom said:


> Good. What are the main conceptual differences between Al-Khayder from Al Khalid. And Al Haider from Al Khalid 2? The main mission of Al-Hyder



To standardize the overall capability of entire mbt fleet. The Al Haider being an imported system will be of secondary importance which is not the case with Al khalid series.


----------



## Glavcom

Well, what role does the armed forces of Pakistan have from the very beginning on T-80UD, what are the main differences and similarities with the role of Al-Khalid MK.1?



Dazzler said:


> The Al Haider being an imported system will be of secondary importance which is not the case with Al khalid series.



The point is to buy an armament system so that it has a secondary role in front of Al Khalid.


----------



## Dazzler

Glavcom said:


> Well, what role does the armed forces of Pakistan have from the very beginning on T-80UD, what are the main differences and similarities with the role of Al-Khalid MK.1?
> 
> 
> 
> The point is to buy an armament system so that it has a secondary role in front of Al Khalid.



You don't get it don't you?

Read the post again. The idea is to get the obsolete fleet replaced with a quality weapon system. its called the systems approach. In the meantime, learning and adapting quality features from these weapon systems also continues. The multiple reverse speed transmission (t-84), powerful FCS with autotracking, hunter killer mode, panoramic sight, and battle management systems (leclerc, m1axx, Leopard2xx and so on) in Al khalid tank are prime examples of this approach.


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HRK



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glavcom




----------



## niaz

Understand one of the reasons of Western /NATO modern MBTs being larger and heavier than Russian or Chinese MBTs is due to the ammunition stored in a separate compartment whereas this is not so for the Russian /Chinese MBTs. Therefore lives of the crew in case of a hit/ fire inside the tank are at greater risk in these tanks.

Would appreciate knowing what is the case with Al-Khalid? Can anyone from the Armoured Corps clear this issue?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

niaz said:


> Understand one of the reasons of Western /NATO modern MBTs being larger and heavier than Russian or Chinese MBTs is due to the ammunition stored in a separate compartment whereas this is not so for the Russian /Chinese MBTs. Therefore lives of the crew in case of a hit/ fire inside the tank are at greater risk in these tanks.
> 
> Would appreciate knowing what is the case with Al-Khalid? Can anyone from the Armoured Corps clear this issue?



In Alkhalid, ammo is stored in the autoloader (22 rounds), while the rest are stored in armored ammo bins. Even most western mbts store ammo within the fighting compartment. The M1A1, A2 is only mbt that stores them in separate blowout panels. However, chances of an incoming ammo hitting the autoloader resulting in ammo cook off is quite minimal as they are quite well protected from the outside.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaimiKhan

Dazzler said:


> In Alkhalid, ammo is stored in the autoloader (22 rounds), while the rest are stored in armored ammo bins. Even most western mbts store ammo within the fighting compartment. The M1A1, A2 is only mbt that stores them in separate blowout panels. However, chances of an incoming ammo hitting and ammo cook off is quite minimal as they are quite well protected from the outside.



Well the devastation that has caused on the tanks including leopards & Israeli upgraded Sabra M-60 tanks in the Syrian conflict should make us think in having better armor capabilities or atleast start researching in options to better counter ATGMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Dazzler said:


> For 49 tanks at 200 million, you got yourself a good deal at just over $4 million per mbt. Thailand is also not happy with the battery and had some other minor complains about the weapon system. The major issue is that you lost a customer that had planned to buy the mbt in big numbers.
> 
> Thais were eventually looking for 200-300 pieces. It's a shame you lost a lucrative contract.


Thailand royal army had stopped inducting the Oplot M, cause they find out severe quality problem with it. They had signed a deal with China for supplying 50 units of VT4. Anyway, Ukraine is a good friend of China, good luck!

VT4 in Pakistan or Thailand?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

*REDESIGN AND CONTROL OF AUTOLOADER OF T-80UD TANK (Pakistan)*

*https://prezi.com/l81xzhoneulk/redesign-and-control-of-autoloader-of-t-80ud-tank/*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-55

T-80U underwater driving

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tbg Chengdu China

T64 and T80，always NATO‘s nightmare during the coldwar.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

TaimiKhan said:


> Well the devastation that has caused on the tanks including leopards & Israeli upgraded Sabra M-60 tanks in the Syrian conflict should make us think in having better armor capabilities or atleast start researching in options to better counter ATGMs.


Active protection hard kill systems is what we may need. I am not sure how effective these can be in a full blown war with myltiple enemies engaging you and the tank coloumn being accompanied by friendlies but there seem to be other option really. Hit to kill systems will minimize that risk to accompanying friendlies but not eliminate it completely.


----------



## Glavcom

Main battle tank T-84 Oplot-P

http://glavcom.blogspot.com/2017/06/t-84-oplot-p-main-battle-tank-2.html?m=0

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

TaimiKhan said:


> Well the devastation that has caused on the tanks including leopards & Israeli upgraded Sabra M-60 tanks in the Syrian conflict should make us think in having better armor capabilities or atleast start researching in options to better counter ATGMs.



Hi,

can we have some information on the tank devastation in that conflict.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> can we have some information on the tank devastation in that conflict.


Plenty of videos showing T-72s,T-70s,Leopards,Abrams and Sabras and other T series tanks getting blown up by missiles like RPGs,TOWs and Baktar Shikans...

Turrets blown off,cook ups ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaimiKhan

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> can we have some information on the tank devastation in that conflict.


Sir ji, info meaning qualitative wise or quantitative wise ?

Quantity wise, by 2013 meaning 24 months into the conflict 20-25% syrian tank force was gone and now may be more then half of them. 


And for quality wise the net is full of videos showing syrian, iraqi, saudi and tutkish tanks being blown up. Only recently t-90s have shown to be taking hits but surviving them. Just in turkish ops for town of al bab i believe they lost somewhat 10 leopards.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> can we have some information on the tank devastation in that conflict.


T-90, Syria 






Turkish Leopard 2






Turkish Sabra upgrade

















Iraqi Abrams


----------



## Beast

Western claim their ammo blow off panel will save crew. See from the video how these M1A2 is cooked. You think the crew will be saved?

Some western bootlicker will then claim its export version with inferior armour and inferior system. Then I can say this about Iraq T-72 MBT during desert storm. The fact is how downgrade will these export version be? Thin sheet of paper? Or maybe Saudi is some idiots who accepted very sub par western equipment without asking?

Fact is ammo blow off panel will work only in small percentage of situation and hardly save lives while adding up enormous weight that eat up fuel and complicated engine issue.

Western product are most of the time overhyped and over rated. The fact western weapon looks good is just fanciful marketing and the inferiority complex of some Asian looking upon on western countries as invincible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

Beast said:


> Western claim their ammo blow off panel will save crew. See from the video how these M1A2 is cooked. You think the crew will be saved?
> 
> Some western bootlicker will then claim its export version with inferior armour and inferior system. Then I can say this about Iraq T-72 MBT during desert storm. The fact is how downgrade will these export version be? Thin sheet of paper? Or maybe Saudi is some idiots who accepted very sub par western equipment without asking?
> 
> Fact is ammo blow off panel will work only in small percentage of situation and hardly save lives while adding up enormous weight that eat up fuel and complicated engine issue.
> 
> Western product are most of the time overhyped and over rated. The fact western weapon looks good is just fanciful marketing and the inferiority complex of some Asian looking upon on western countries as invincible.



Truly said. 

US armour was always shown 'superior' in terms of technology in the aftermath of Gulf War. What 02 basic facts that are overlooked are:

1. T-72s were held by IRGs, which were mauled by concentrated and heavy aerial missions and very small percentage was able to actually engage with US one on one in direct combat with armoured/ground forces. The vast bulk was made up of mix of T-69/62/55 which was always a generation behind.

2. The most important aspect was the DU upgrade provided to US M1s just prior to start of combat operations upon assessment that the APFSDs held by IRG would be able to penetrate the US M1s at the time. It is a different matter that very rarely was there a classic tank battle between the two forces.


----------



## HRK

Glavcom said:


> Main battle tank T-84 Oplot-P
> 
> http://glavcom.blogspot.com/2017/06/t-84-oplot-p-main-battle-tank-2.html?m=0



can you plz tell the notable differences ???


----------



## Guddy

Indeed that is overwhelming and good figures and would be a good addition to our weapons


----------



## Rocky rock



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rocky rock

Sent from my SM-N915F using Defence.pk mobile app

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rocky rock



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rocky rock



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rocky rock



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Path-Finder

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882856953290117121

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Does it Have Active Protection system???? 

How good is it compared to T-90's??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Muhammad Omar said:


> Does it Have Active Protection system????
> 
> How good is it compared to T-90's??


Tests will tell everything


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Zarvan said:


> Tests will tell everything



So we Ordered 100 Oplot-P Tanks before testing???


----------



## Zarvan

Muhammad Omar said:


> So we Ordered 100 Oplot-P Tanks before testing???


We haven't ordered anything. OPLOT P and T-90 MS and VT 4 all three are coming to tests which ever will be best will come to Pakistan with TOT.


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Zarvan said:


> We haven't ordered anything. OPLOT P and T-90 MS and VT 4 all three are coming to tests which ever will be best will come to Pakistan with TOT.



T-90 MS???? Are you sure cause i think India too got T-90's MS they ordered 494 T-90 MS which cost them $2 Billion USD and you talking that Russia will give TOT of those Tanks?? IMPOSSIBLE


----------



## ziaulislam

next gen has to be one with active protection system


----------



## Zarvan

Muhammad Omar said:


> T-90 MS???? Are you sure cause i think India too got T-90's MS they ordered 494 T-90 MS which cost them $2 Billion USD and you talking that Russia will give TOT of those Tanks?? IMPOSSIBLE


Yes T-90 MS is also coming for trials and and VT 4 is also returning after changes and if we go for any Tank it would be at least 500 of the


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Zarvan said:


> Yes T-90 MS is also coming for trials and and VT 4 is also returning after changes and if we go for any Tank it would be at least 500 of the



well 494 T-90 MS Cost Indians $2 Billion how much will it cost us?? $3-4 Billion?

I don't think T-90's are coming 
it's gonna be VT-4 Vs Oplot-P


----------



## Zarvan

Muhammad Omar said:


> well 494 T-90 MS Cost Indians $2 Billion how much will it cost us?? $3-4 Billion?
> 
> I don't think T-90's are coming
> it's gonna be VT-4 Vs Oplot-P


Production in Pakistan would reduce the costs


----------



## Army research

Zarvan said:


> Production in Pakistan would reduce the costs


The Indians's have it , if we buy three hundred they will literally buy six hundred, stop your fanboy crap


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Zarvan said:


> Production in Pakistan would reduce the costs



Bhai Sahab i don't think T-90 MS will Every come cause our beloved neighbors already got them and We will most likely end up with Oplot-P or VT-4 

Even the Defense Secretary Lt. General (R) Zamir ul Hassan Shah is in Ukraine to promote military industrial relations. 

T-90 MS never gonna happen


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> Yes T-90 MS is also coming for trials and and VT 4 is also returning after changes and if we go for any Tank it would be at least 500 of the



Hazrat ahh The T90 is a T72 chassis! I am not mentioning anything new. So it is a heavily upgraded T72 and nations that had T72's can get the T90 as it is easy to migrate from 72 to 90.

The T80 chassis is arguably the best T series Chassis giving you massive potential with upgrades and personalising potential and already in use by Pakistan. 

Why in the bloody hell would you want T90 when Pakistan was never interested in T72?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> Hazrat ahh The T90 is a T72 chassis! I am not mentioning anything new. So it is a heavily upgraded T72 and nations that had T72's can get the T90 as it is easy to migrate from 72 to 90.
> 
> The T80 chassis is arguably the best T series Chassis giving you massive potential with upgrades and personalising potential and already in use by Pakistan.
> 
> Why in the bloody hell would you want T90 when Pakistan was never interested in T72?


I don't want it this is what news is that T-90 MS and VT 4 and OPLOT P are coming for trials


----------



## Viking 63

Why the heck we are even considering T-90?? my vote is for OPLOT!!


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> I don't want it this is what news is that T-90 MS and VT 4 and OPLOT P are coming for trials


share the news Hazrat!


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> share the news Hazrat!


There is no official announcement but those in Army are saying this also these reports of T-90 entering trials started in December 2016


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> There is no official announcement but those in Army are saying this also these reports of T-90 entering trials started in December 2016


----------



## AMG_12

Zarvan said:


> There is no official announcement but those in Army are saying this also these reports of T-90 entering trials started in December 2016


There's no T-90 in Pakistan. Are you sure your sources are "Pakistan Army" guys? Because the ones we usually talk to don't spread so much misinformation.


----------



## Zarvan

Game.Invade said:


> There's no T-90 in Pakistan. Are you sure your sources are "Pakistan Army" guys? Because the ones we usually talk to don't spread so much misinformation.


Right now no Tank is in Pakistan Tanks will arrive in next few days and go to Bahawalpur for tests. T-90 could be the Tank also along with VT 4 and OPLOT M.


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> Right now no Tank is in Pakistan Tanks will arrive in next few days and go to Bahawalpur for tests. T-90 could be the Tank also along with VT 4 and OPLOT M.


Hazraty you are a living version of the Sun news paper or similar type of sensationalist tabloid!!!


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> Hazraty you are a living version of the Sun news paper or similar type of sensationalist tabloid!!!


No I am not Russia is selling us MI-35 do you think it would have a issue selling us a Tank for GOD sake specially when are looking to get them in massive numbers


----------



## Army research

Zarvan said:


> No I am not Russia is selling us MI-35 do you think it would have a issue selling us a Tank for GOD sake specially when are looking to get them in massive numbers


Are you actually daft ? Mate mi 35 is god knows how old , not something that could give us technical superiority over our neighbours Apaches , unless India scraps all its t90 programs and buy leopards challengers or Abram's , no t90 and it would still be stupid to get it. Already existing base for t80 based platforms. This is a forum for educated people or those who are willing to learn. People tend to stop visiting threads because of you're fanboisim su35 and scars


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> No I am not Russia is selling us MI-35 do you think it would have a issue selling us a Tank for GOD sake specially when are looking to get them in massive numbers


Yes Hazrat, putting a tiny pressure on the brain can be helpful. First there is nothing solid to follow on. Secondly because they cleared sale of few copter does NOT mean other military hardware is cleared for sale!!

Thirdly tanks are NOT toys they are a serious piece of expensive war machine!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Army research said:


> Are you actually daft ? Mate mi 35 is god knows how old , not something that could give us technical superiority over our neighbours Apaches , unless India scraps all its t90 programs and buy leopards challengers or Abram's , no t90 and it would still be stupid to get it. Already existing base for t80 based platforms. This is a forum for educated people or those who are willing to learn. People tend to stop visiting threads because of you're fanboisim su35 and scars


MI 24 is old not MI 35 just like F 16 BLOCK 15 is old not F 16 BLOCK 60. I support OPLOT M not T 90 but T 90 would also come in Pakistan for tests and even VT 4


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> MI 24 is old not MI 35 just like F 16 BLOCK 15 is old not F 16 BLOCK 60. I support OPLOT M not T 90 but T 90 would also come in Pakistan for tests and even VT 4


Hazrat how about dropping the T90? Its *not* comming!


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> Hazrat how about dropping the T90? Its *not* comming!


What if it comes ????


----------



## TaimiKhan

Zarvan said:


> No I am not Russia is selling us MI-35 do you think it would have a issue selling us a Tank for GOD sake specially when are looking to get them in massive numbers


Well hard to believe. Russians wont sell. Impossible. 

Yeah if they are being brought in as testing benchmark that is something else.


----------



## Zarvan

TaimiKhan said:


> Well hard to believe. Russians wont sell. Impossible.
> 
> Yeah if they are being brought in as testing benchmark that is something else.


They are quite ready to sell weapons


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> What if it comes ????


there is not even 001% chance of that! Show us how it can possibly come. you are now just being snobby and arguing for the sake of arguing Hazrat.


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> there is not even 001% chance of that! Show us how it can possibly come. you are now just being snobby and arguing for the sake of arguing Hazrat.


There are lot of chances after that and if a person even after sale of MI 35 is saying that than I can only laugh at that person


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> There are lot of chances after that and if a person even after sale of MI 35 is saying that than I can only laugh at that person


 Yea and everyone is laughing at you surely a sand grain of humility exists within you Hazrat?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> Yea and everyone is laughing at you surely a sand grain of humility exists within you Hazrat?


YES it does and reports suggest that three Tanks are coming one of them is T 90. I want OPLOT to win but T90 is coming for tests


----------



## Army research

Zarvan said:


> YES it does and reports suggest that three Tanks are coming one of them is T 90. I want OPLOT to win but T90 is coming for tests


WHAT frikin reports sir ??? How come people in armoured corps not know of these 'reports' but you do ?


----------



## Zarvan

Army research said:


> WHAT frikin reports sir ??? How come people in armoured corps not know of these 'reports' but you do ?


I talked to COL who is infantry and he had no idea about Rifle trials and I can give lot of examples


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> YES it does and reports suggest that three Tanks are coming one of them is T 90. I want OPLOT to win but T90 is coming for tests





Zarvan said:


> I talked to COL who is infantry and he had no idea about Rifle trials and I can give lot of examples



@Arsalan @django @TheOccupiedKashmir you really need to see this!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> @Arsalan @django @TheOccupiedKashmir you really need to see this!!!


I had to sent a officer fighter helicopter details which in fact I took from this forum who was doing course at Quetta. If you think 650000 are made aware of every weapon procurement program than know it they are not


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> I had to sent a officer fighter helicopter details which in fact I took from this forum who was doing course at Quetta. If you think 650000 are made aware of every weapon procurement program than know it they are not


incredible  there is a reason why secrets act exists or am I wrong? That officer who you are in touch with isn't that a breach? but you will say no its not and its regular for military officers to keep in touch with members of a defence forum?


----------



## django

Path-Finder said:


> @Arsalan @django @TheOccupiedKashmir you really need to see this!!!


Bro I have a feeling it is fake news though somehow anonymous sources will suggest the all to familiar statement that the "T-90 was the best tank in trials"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> incredible  there is a reason why secrets act exists or am I wrong? That officer who you are in touch with isn't that a breach? but you will say no its not and its regular for military officers to keep in touch with members of a defence forum?


No Army things which they want really to remain secret are only told to very few people and eye is kept on them other things can be found out. If Army would have been so secretive the way some member here try to suggest than this forum would have been banned long ago



django said:


> Bro I have a feeling it is fake news though somehow anonymous sources will suggest the all to familiar statement that the "T-90 was the best tank in trials"


I Don't like T 90 I support OPLOT but if a Tank is coming for trials than I can't change story to please few .....


----------



## Path-Finder

django said:


> Bro I have a feeling it is fake news though somehow anonymous sources will suggest the all to familiar statement that the "T-90 was the best tank in trials"


maybe we will get to hear things like; 

tankers are very happy with T90. 
T90 manuals have been handed out.
Oplot & VT-4 blew up
T90 hit all the targets and others had bad accuracy
T90 passed in all terrains and all temperatures actually Oplot didn't do well in Summer trials



Zarvan said:


> No Army things which they want really to remain secret are only told to very few people and eye is kept on them other things can be found out. If Army would have been so secretive the way some member here try to suggest than this forum would have been banned long ago
> 
> 
> I Don't like T 90 I support OPLOT but if a Tank is coming for trials than I can't change story to please few .....


So the army officer couldn't use google or other search engines and you sent him details. Hell the army dosent have details of helicopters. That is a strange things.

Hazrat you are now resorting to name calling that weakens your already weakened case.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Muhammad Omar

@Zarvan Bhai the Thing is when the Last time Tanks came for trial such Humor spread on the Forum that T-90 MS are also coming for trials 

But in the end only VT-4 and Oplot-M came and were tested no picture of T-90 MS came even then and Both Oplot and VT-4 were send back as both had a problem Like Oplot had Engine issues and VT-4 had Turret related issues and was Jammed if i remember it correctly 

Even this time it's Gonna be Ukraine Vs Chinese Tank which gonna Come and take part in Trials

telling you India got those tans already no way no way Army gonna procure the same thing which India has cause that'll not give us any advantage

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> maybe we will get to hear things like;
> 
> tankers are very happy with T90.
> T90 manuals have been handed out.
> Oplot & VT-4 blew up
> T90 hit all the targets and others had bad accuracy
> T90 passed in all terrains and all temperatures actually Oplot didn't do well in Summer trials
> 
> 
> So the army officer couldn't use google or other search engines and you sent him details. Hell the army dosent have details of helicopters. That is a strange things.
> 
> Hazrat you are now resorting to name calling that weakens your already weakened case.


He wanted charts which explained helicopters weight and firepower and others I mean most of attack helicopters in one chart and there were best charts here on forum


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> He wanted charts which explained helicopters weight and firepower and others I mean most of attack helicopters in one chart and there were best charts here on forum



Hmmm you and your source's. He could only have obtained it from you. Highly unlikely Hazrat.


----------



## Blue Marlin

Muhammad Omar said:


> @Zarvan Bhai the Thing is when the Last time Tanks came for trial such Humor spread on the Forum that T-90 MS are also coming for trials
> 
> But in the end only VT-4 and Oplot-M came and were tested no picture of T-90 MS came even then and Both Oplot and VT-4 were send back as both had a problem Like Oplot had Engine issues and VT-4 had Turret related issues and was Jammed if i remember it correctly
> 
> Even this time it's Gonna be Ukraine Vs Chinese Tank which gonna Come and take part in Trials
> 
> telling you India got those tans already no way no way Army gonna procure the same thing which India has cause that'll not give us any advantage


hasn't anybody told you? india is buying the t-90ms and guess where there putting it?
http://www.janes.com/article/67082/...dered-t-90ms-tanks-along-border-with-pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> Hmmm you and your source's. He could only have obtained it from you. Highly unlikely Hazrat.


No he asked few other guys too but I am on internet all the time so I send him


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> No he asked few other guys too but I am on internet all the time so I send him


That is absolutely correct you are online 24/7


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Army research said:


> WHAT frikin reports sir ??? How come people in armoured corps not know of these 'reports' but you do ?


Hes got facebook friends. Dont you know?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Army research

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Hes got facebook friends. Dont you know?


Oh sorry forgot XD

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Blue Marlin said:


> hasn't anybody told you? india is buying the t-90ms and guess where there putting it?
> http://www.janes.com/article/67082/...dered-t-90ms-tanks-along-border-with-pakistan



i know they bought it 494 for $2 BIllion


----------



## Path-Finder

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883641318290927617

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883631332387151872
Hazrat @Zarvan you favorite tank is selling like hot cakes maybe Pakistan will buy them


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883641318290927617
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/883631332387151872
> Hazrat @Zarvan you favorite tank is selling like hot cakes maybe Pakistan will buy them


Are you insane or what because you are acting like one I support OPLOT but if T-90 is also coming for trials I can't change that to please 4 year old child.


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> Are you insane or what because you are acting like one I support OPLOT but if T-90 is also coming for trials I can't change that to please 4 year old child.


ah Hazrat saying childish things won't improve your tarnished reputation! I just said your favorite tank is selling well. more likely to see pigs fly then T90 come to Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blue Marlin

@galvacom @DESERT FIGHTER @Dazzler based on the new images will the oplot-p have the zaslon aps?


----------



## Arsalan

Path-Finder said:


> @Arsalan @django @TheOccupiedKashmir you really need to see this!!!





django said:


> Bro I have a feeling it is fake news though somehow anonymous sources will suggest the all to familiar statement that the "T-90 was the best tank in trials"


Russians are NOT playing ball. This have been confirmed by multiple sources both on and off this forum, as reliable as they come (second to Facebook friends only  ) Now if someone still want to keep talking about Su35, T90, AKs, Pantsir S-1, S300/350/400, TOR, Mi-28 etc etc, well i can do NOTHING but feel sorry for their sanity or the lack of it!!

A majority of these deals/offers were figment of imaginations and a couple of them though real never went through due to reluctance on part of Russians and something our fear of betrayal by them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Blue Marlin

Arsalan said:


> Russians are NOT playing ball. This have been confirmed by multiple sources both on and off this forum, as reliable as they come (second to Facebook friends only  ) Now if someone still want to keep talking about Su35, T90, AKs, Pantsir S-1, S300/350/400, TOR, Mi-28 etc etc, well i can do NOTHING but feel sorry for their sanity or the lack of it!!
> 
> A majority of these deals/offers were figment of imaginations and a couple of them though real never went through due to reluctance on part of Russians and something our fear of betrayal by them.


they will never play ball as long as if india is their largest buyer. urkraine turkey china and some european countries are the only good bet right now, heck possibly south korea too. so will the oplot-p have hard kill aps?


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Sine Nomine



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Super Falcon

If oplot offer trophy type anti missile system other wise better wait for altay


----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Glavcom said:


>


can u plz shed a bit of light on T-94?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sine Nomine

Signalian said:


> can u plz shed a bit of light on T-94?


*T 94*




*~1996
Production?
Medium tank*
*Weight: 41,3 tons
Length: m 
Width: m
Height: m
Armour: 125+ mm
Gun: 125 mm
Engine: gasturbine
Speed: - km/h
Tank: 1200 l
Crew: 3



The T-94 was first seen in the Ukraine in 1996. The long, low chassis looked like rumours and pictures taken secretly had indicated with a few exterior differences. (See T-94 drawing at bottom). On top of the hull is a casemate "turret" with a revolving automatic loading system for the 125 mm gun (a smaller calibre than expected). The crew is housed in the front of the hull, with the gunner operating through a TV camera. It is equipped with the Shtora-1 counter/measuring system for an exact distance to the target. Most vehicles are fitted with the Arena reactive armour system, ABC-protection and a coaxial machine gun. The T-94 is thought to be fast and effective but if it's still (2002) manufactured is questionable and it is said to be very expensive to produce.
https://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/t94.htm



 

 


*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

> A $650 million contract, signed in *August 1996*, to supply Pakistan with *320 T-80UD tanks within four years*, was a real breakthrough for the plant. _The Pakistan contract brought in revenue, provided jobs to unpaid workers still formally on the payroll, and brought back to work those who had quit. After the contract with Pakistan was signed, newspapers in Kharkiv overflowed with advertisements for jobs at the plant with salaries three times the *country's $90/month average*._ The Pakistan contract originated in and initially was run through Progress, a mediator company subordinate to the Cabinet of Ministers.
> https://web.archive.org/web/2004091...p/articles/mi_m2393/is_3_163/ai_69752067/pg_2


----------



## HRK

IF not posted earlier ......

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HRK




----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Glavcom




----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Path-Finder



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hacker J

Zarvan said:


> There are lot of chances after that and if a person even after sale of MI 35 is saying that than I can only laugh at that person



I might not be the right person to reply, but one if the reasons behind the mi 35 deal is disapproval of india of induction more mi35s and mi28s and instead going for apaches, hence actuly adding mi35 in pak inventory made sense from both pak and russian point of view.


----------



## HRK

> one if the reasons behind the mi 35 deal is disapproval of india of induction more mi35s and mi28s and instead going for apaches, hence actuly adding mi35 in pak inventory made sense from both pak and russian point of view.


so by this logic India must not have any issue *IF* some point in time Russia & Pakistan decide to conclude the deal for Su-35, as India is not Inducting Su-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## hacker J

HRK said:


> so by this logic India must not have any issue *IF* some point in time Russia & Pakistan decide to conclude the deal for Su-35, as India is not Inducting Su-35.



Bhai, from where did you said india is not inducting a Su-35 indian mainstay aircraft is su 30, which is also a variant of su 27 family as is the su 35. So they have a lot more in common than you think. Hence I dun see India will allow Su 35 sale (at least block as much as possible)
Similar questions were also raised among paf that if india goes for f 16 block 60 or 70 then paf *advantage* of f 16 block 50-52 will be almost reduced to zero although they will still be a potent aircraft.


----------



## Glavcom

*Rating TOP 10 the best tanks of the world for an independent evaluation of the Glavcom blog !*
*
http://glavcom.blogspot.com/2017/12/rating-top-10-best-tanks-of-world.html?m=0*


----------



## Andrei_bt

Oplot atank armor -









(in Russian)
http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/duplet.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Glavcom said:


> *Rating TOP 10 the best tanks of the world for an independent evaluation of the Glavcom blog !
> 
> http://glavcom.blogspot.com/2017/12/rating-top-10-best-tanks-of-world.html?m=0*



What's the criteria of rating you used?


----------



## Windjammer

*T85-IIAP Tanks being rolled out from HIT*
*




*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Windjammer said:


> *T85-IIAP Tanks being rolled out from HIT
> 
> 
> View attachment 452701
> *



Upgraded lot

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BetterPakistan

Windjammer said:


> *T85-IIAP Tanks being rolled out from HIT
> 
> 
> View attachment 452701
> *





Dazzler said:


> Upgraded lot



Isn't it upgraded to Type 85lll standard?


----------



## Inception-06

Dazzler said:


> Upgraded lot




New engine ?


----------



## araz

hacker J said:


> Bhai, from where did you said india is not inducting a Su-35 indian mainstay aircraft is su 30, which is also a variant of su 27 family as is the su 35. So they have a lot more in common than you think. Hence I dun see India will allow Su 35 sale (at least block as much as possible)
> Similar questions were also raised among paf that if india goes for f 16 block 60 or 70 then paf *advantage* of f 16 block 50-52 will be almost reduced to zero although they will still be a potent aircraft.


Your choice of words amazes me. How will a buyer dictate and by your logic not allow a seller to sell its wares to a third country? This is ridiculous and defies logic. There are other very cogent reasons for the Red bear not selling to Pak Lands but this is not it.
Secondly I have been wrong on many counts in my life but would venture that India will not buy the 16/bl.70 from the US. USA uses its weapons supply as an instrument of policy modulation which the Indian Government would never allow. The Gripen is a much better prospect as long as you are happy with their Volvo produced Engine. The IAF missed a trick in my view in not buying the whole supply line of the M2K in early 2000s. That was a bad mistake. The Frsnch were desperate for a sale but I suspect the Indian game tried to act too smart and lost out.
A

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Ulla said:


> New engine ?



Updated optics, fire control, and armor.



BetterPakistan said:


> Isn't it upgraded to Type 85lll standard?



That happened during 90s, more than 20 years ago. A lot has changed since then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

Dazzler said:


> Updated optics, fire control, and armor.
> 
> 
> 
> That happened during 90s, more than 20 years ago. A lot has changed since then.



How would you compare that Tank with the Al-Zarrar Tank, and how many T-85IIIM were imported and produced, how many are still in service ?


----------



## Cookie Monster

hacker J said:


> I might not be the right person to reply, but one if the reasons behind the mi 35 deal is disapproval of india of induction more mi35s and mi28s and instead going for apaches, hence actuly adding mi35 in pak inventory made sense from both pak and russian point of view.


It is a stupid reasoning. The buyer doesn't have much sway over the seller. Are India and China friends? Not at all...Does Russia sell to both India and China? Yes it does. The seller can sell to whomever it pleases. The reason most Russian defence equipment didn't find its way into Pak forces has more to do with the relationship Pak/Russia(USSR previously) have had. The relationship has just begun improving not too long ago. Also there's multiple other factors to consider like setting up a whole new infrastructure for maintenance and support, etc. since Pak has never operated Russian equipment. Usually buyers try to stick with the equipment they have already operated since it makes all the logistics of it much simpler and less costly not to mention the familiarity of trained personnel with the said equipment. For example it would be much easier for Pak to go for AH1Z as an upgrade to its cobras as compared to other similar helicopters from Russia. Another possible reason is that enemies try not to use the same equipment...India might consider not using F16s bcuz of Pak's years of experience with it and knowing it quite well could make it easier to counter.

In short all sellers only care about is selling...they can care less about the personal problems of the buyer. US has sold defence equipment to Israel and Arab nations, Russia sells to both India and China, and Europe has sold to India and Pak both. In fact if Pak had the money right now to buy a squadron or more of Rafale, the French would sell it in a heartbeat. Ur argument is flawed at best.


----------



## Dazzler

Ulla said:


> How would you compare that Tank with the Al-Zarrar Tank, and how many T-85IIIM were imported and produced, how many are still in service ?



AZ has better engine/ transmission and FCS as it was updated much later. Type-85s have had a lot of issues with their engines and transmission as well as maintenance. Around 250 are still in service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BetterPakistan

Dazzler said:


> That happened during 90s, more than 20 years ago. A lot has changed since then.



Are these type 85s somehow better than zarrars?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

BetterPakistan said:


> Are these type 85s somehow better than zarrars?



they use similar systems so shoud be simialr, though type 85 is a newer model while AZ is basically a type-59 revamped.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BetterPakistan

Dazzler said:


> they use similar systems so shoud be simialr, though type 85 is a newer model while AZ is basically a type-59 revamped.



any update about type 69ll ??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

BetterPakistan said:


> any update about type 69ll ??



may be retired soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BetterPakistan

Dazzler said:


> may be retired soon.



those type-59 m2s are still in service than why will PA retire type 69s?


----------



## Dazzler

BetterPakistan said:


> those type-59 m2s are still in service than why will PA retire type 69s?



Just two hundred were bought and the performance was just a fraction better than M2s. Last i heard they had about hundred or so in service. Some equipped with 100mm gun were given out to FC.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Basel




----------



## Glavcom



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler




----------



## BHarwana

Russia to modernize T-80 tanks of Pakistan. Contract to be signed soon. The Ukrainian made tank will are getting a total New style and tech improved engine and armor.





@Zarvan @Windjammer


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> Russia to modernize T-80 tanks of Pakistan. Contract to be signed soon. The Ukrainian made tank will are getting a total New style and tech improved engine and armor.
> View attachment 494147
> 
> 
> @Zarvan @Windjammer



Is this confirmed? Pakistani t-80UDs are essentially ukrainian t-84s (Objekt. 478DU) as they house several similar subsystems including armour, engine, transmission and welded turret. I dont think Ukrainians will be happy. Worst, the V series diesel engines are also installed in the Indian t-90S and are known for breaking down and have reliability problems.

If true, thats a bad sign. Not to mention, the AK series also relies on Ukrainian powerpacks/ transmissions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Dazzler said:


> Is this confirmed? Pakistani t-80UDs are essentially ukrainian t-84s (Objekt. 478DU) as they house several similar subsystems including armour, engine, transmission and welded turret. I dont think Ukrainians will be happy. Worst, the V series diesel engines are also installed in the Indian t-90S and are known for breaking down and have reliability problems.
> 
> If true, thats a bad sign. Not to mention, the AK series also relies on Ukrainian powerpacks/ transmissions.


Why not Ukraine?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

LKJ86 said:


> Why not Ukraine?



That's what i asked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

Dazzler said:


> Is this confirmed? Pakistani t-80UDs are essentially ukrainian t-84s (Objekt. 478DU) as they house several similar subsystems including armour, engine, transmission and welded turret. I dont think Ukrainians will be happy. Worst, the V series diesel engines are also installed in the Indian t-90S and are known for breaking down and have reliability problems.
> 
> If true, thats a bad sign. Not to mention, the AK series also relies on Ukrainian powerpacks/ transmissions.



It will be published today by some one I will post the link. My source quoted Russian source on the sidelines of 2018 exercises the upgrade was discussed. I will search if there is some news I will publish the link.


----------



## BHarwana

@Dazzler 

https://www.urdupoint.com/en/pakistan/russia-may-overhaul-ukrainian-t-80-tanks-for-417258.html

Other contracts of weapons sale are also expected.


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> @Dazzler
> 
> https://www.urdupoint.com/en/pakistan/russia-may-overhaul-ukrainian-t-80-tanks-for-417258.html
> 
> Other contracts of weapons sale are also expected.



Too early to speculate. They extent of upgrades/ overhaul not mentioned. Though i do find the UA package pretty decent.


----------



## BHarwana

Dazzler said:


> Too early to speculate. They extent of upgrades/ overhaul not mentioned. Though i do find the UA package pretty decent.


It is not mentioned here but from where I got news it is confirm the offer has been made and talks have taken place on the issue. It will take 2 to 3 months in the contract to be signed and modernization will also take place in Pakistan.


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> It is not mentioned here but from where I got news it is confirm the offer has been made and talks have taken place on the issue. It will take 2 to 3 months in the contract to be signed and modernization will also take place in Pakistan.



What about those 80 odd UDs upgraded with catherine FC thermal imagers by Shibli and some other local goodies, will they upgrade them too?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

Dazzler said:


> What about those 80 odd UDs upgraded with catherine FC thermal imagers by Shibli and some other local goodies, will they upgrade them too?


I have no info on how many tanks they will upgrade or what is the cost of the package. The decision came because the upgraded T-80 performed better than all at the games the tank stole the whole show that is what I heard. The upgrade will be equal to Russian latest package.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

https://news.ru/oruzhie/pakistan-prosit-rf-pomoch-s-kuplennymi-u-ukrainy-t-80/

This is in Russian language some Russian member can help translate this.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

Very very interesting where are these pics from boneyard of tanks which country i mean i seen these in call of duty game in modernwarefare one of the mission as sniper anyway i still think in todays war tgese T 80UD are not good enough pakistan army shoult think to buy a new tank but in small number


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> https://news.ru/oruzhie/pakistan-prosit-rf-pomoch-s-kuplennymi-u-ukrainy-t-80/
> 
> This is in Russian language some Russian member can help translate this.



Translation

Russian specialists in the near future may be engaged in the modernization of the T-80 tanks that Pakistan purchased in Ukraine. Islamabad announced its readiness to conclude an appropriate contract with Moscow.

_"We would like to upgrade armored vehicles to the present day. Since this is a Soviet military tank, Russia has all the possibilities for its modernization, "_ Anvar Noman, deputy head of the state military industrial corporation Heavy Industrues Taxila, told reporters on the fields of the Army-2018 forum.

Tank T-80 - the main battle tank, produced in the USSR, has been in service since 1976. Earlier News.ru wrote that Russia's modernization of the machine has been "Uralvagonzavod" .

Essentially, the t-80BVM is the latest upgrade offered enhancements in armour, fire control, Sosna U multichannel optics, auto tracker is a welcome improvement, and Relikt ERA elements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

These are the specifications of the package
Which Russia has done

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80bvm.htm


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> These are the specifications of the package
> Which Russia has done
> 
> http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80bvm.htm



Are you sure? That's the BVM package but it was the based on the t-80B version. However, the package can be applied to all known t-80 versions including those developed in Ukraine. 

It is the latest offering.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

Dazzler said:


> Are you sure? That's the BVM package but it was the based on the t-80B version. However, the package can be applied to all known t-80 versions including those developed in Ukraine.
> 
> It is the latest offering.


Pakistan has additional demands and team will visit HIT. Now I don't know weather the additional demand is to train our people in overhauling or addition to package. But this is confirm they are going for the package which Russia has on the minimum.


----------



## HRK

Dazzler said:


> That's what i asked.



we signed agreement with Ukraine during last IDEAS defence exhibition

Quote

Ukraine and Pakistan start the practical implementation of the agreements in defense industry aimed at expanding cooperation in armored vehicle production under the Pakistani T-80UD tanks upgrade program.

*State-run enterprise Ukrspecexport *said that at the 13th International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) 2017 (the United Arab Emirates), the top managers of the Ukrainian enterprise met with representatives of Armed Forces of Pakistan. *Ukraine and Pakistan signed two contracts to overhaul first five T-80UD tanks of the Pakistani Armed Forces (a pilot project) and to supply 88 tank sights to Pakistan.*

The contracts were signed as part of agreements confirmed in the memorandums of cooperation signed at the IDEAS 2016 (Pakistan) in November 2016 with the participation of Ukrainian Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak, the press service said.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/407144.html
Unquote

*if *the news is true than it mean the pilot project for the upgradation of 5 T-80UD tanks was not satisfactory (if the project has already executed) further its a sign to say goodbye to oplot tank

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

so no oplot for PA?


----------



## HRK

BHarwana said:


> @Dazzler
> 
> https://www.urdupoint.com/en/pakistan/russia-may-overhaul-ukrainian-t-80-tanks-for-417258.html
> 
> Other contracts of weapons sale are also expected.


seems fake news as the link which you have provided mention Sputnik news as a source wile there is nothing mention in Sputnik news in this regards
https://sputniknews.com/search/?query=Pakistan
https://sputniknews.com/search/?query=T-80

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

BHarwana said:


> https://news.ru/oruzhie/pakistan-prosit-rf-pomoch-s-kuplennymi-u-ukrainy-t-80/
> 
> This is in Russian language some Russian member can help translate this.



OK ....


----------



## Dazzler

HRK said:


> we signed agreement with Ukraine during last IDEAS defence exhibition
> 
> Quote
> 
> Ukraine and Pakistan start the practical implementation of the agreements in defense industry aimed at expanding cooperation in armored vehicle production under the Pakistani T-80UD tanks upgrade program.
> 
> *State-run enterprise Ukrspecexport *said that at the 13th International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) 2017 (the United Arab Emirates), the top managers of the Ukrainian enterprise met with representatives of Armed Forces of Pakistan. *Ukraine and Pakistan signed two contracts to overhaul first five T-80UD tanks of the Pakistani Armed Forces (a pilot project) and to supply 88 tank sights to Pakistan.*
> 
> The contracts were signed as part of agreements confirmed in the memorandums of cooperation signed at the IDEAS 2016 (Pakistan) in November 2016 with the participation of Ukrainian Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak, the press service said.
> https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/407144.html
> Unquote
> 
> *if *the news is true than it mean the pilot project for the upgradation of 5 T-80UD tanks was not satisfactory (if the project has already executed) further its a sign to say goodbye to oplot tank



Almost forgot that development. 

No idea what happened to the pilot batch of UDs but the sudden shift and interest in Russian armour somehow suggests that the pilot batch didnt go well and failed to satisfy the requirements? Just a guess on this matter.

However, there is a streak of events that army may be looking at Russian upgrades and enhancements. I doubt the authenticity of the news link though we have been looking at Russians for upgrades at least for the UDs.

@BHarwana might know more on this?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

wanglaokan said:


> so no oplot for PA?



No clue what happened to Oplot P trials. There was news that a revamped P version was to be tested. However, this is a separate contract involving upgrades for t-80UDs.


----------



## Path-Finder

I wonder if the Russians can produce the same engine Ukraine offers too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Path-Finder said:


> I wonder if the Russians can produce the same engine Ukraine offers too.



Nope, that will not be the case. 

The 4td, 5td and 6td series of diesel engines are exclusively made in Ukraine since the beginning. The Russian mbts have the V series diesel engines.


----------



## Path-Finder

Dazzler said:


> Nope, that will not be the case.
> 
> The 4td, 5td and 6td series of diesel engines are exclusively made in Ukraine since the beginning. The Russian mbts have the V series diesel engines.


damn, boxer engine is going to be better than straight or V type engines.


----------



## Dazzler

Path-Finder said:


> damn, boxer engine is going to be better than straight or V type engines.




Initial engines had questionable quality but later batches showed improved performance. The real challenge will be to put these in the desert where the UDs usually operate. The 6td showed excellent reliability and ran almost 3000 kms without breaking down during 93 trials and surprised many.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Path-Finder

Dazzler said:


> Initial engines had questionable quality but later batches showed improved performance. The real challenge will be to put these in the desert where the UDs usually operate. The 6td showed excellent reliability and ran almost 3000 kms without breaking down during 93 trials and surprised many.


Is there any hope for domestic engine? Possibly based on Ukrainian outlay


----------



## Dazzler

Path-Finder said:


> Is there any hope for domestic engine? Possibly based on Ukrainian outlay



None as far as i know, not in this category anyway. Developing these engines require considerable time and resources, not to mention the knowhow. We lack all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

@BHarwana 

The big concern is that the T-80BVM runs on gas turbine GTD 1250 engine. I dont think the gas turbine will last long in Pakistani deserts. 

A cause of concern.


----------



## BHarwana

Dazzler said:


> @BHarwana
> 
> The big concern is that the T-80BVM runs on gas turbine GTD 1250 engine. I dont think the gas turbine will last long in Pakistani deserts.
> 
> A cause of concern.


Gas turbine runs engines run good in desert. Look at M1 they have the same type of engine. Plus US tech went to Russia as well.


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> Gas turbine runs engines run good in desert. Look at M1 they have the same type of engine. Plus US tech went to Russia as well.



They are maintenance nightmares and smell fuel. The M1 has plenty of support with it, along with a spare engine if needed (US version), The fuel economy compared to a diesel engine is simply horrible. Russians call it the Arctic tank as gas turbines perform better in cold weather.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

Dazzler said:


> They are maintenance nightmares and smell fuel. The M1 has plenty of support with it, along with a spare engine if needed (US version), The fuel economy compared to a diesel engine is simply horrible. Russians call it the Arctic tank as gas turbines perform better in cold weather.



We already have T-80 with us and we are not buying them. They already have turbine engines in them. We are just upgrading them. We will get better fuel economy. Better compartments with for crew. Better armor, better guns, it will be brought to the par of T-90M. Russia it's self has 4000 of them. Instead of scraping them we are putting them to good use. This is not going to effect any of our other plans.
I don't think any thing is wrong in getting upgrade, we already have the tank it is not a new purchase for us.


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> We already have T-80 with us and we are not buying them. They already have turbine engines in them. We are just upgrading them. We will get better fuel economy. Better compartments with for crew. Better armor, better guns, it will be brought to the par of T-90M. Russia it's self has 4000 of them. Instead of scraping them we are putting them to good use. This is not going to effect any of our other plans.
> 
> I don't think any thing is wrong in getting upgrade, we already have the tank it is not a new purchase for us.




The t-80B was developed around a gas turbine engine producing 1250hp. The engine never performed well from the word go which is why they moved to the diesel engine to begin with. I am not saying we are going to replace the well performing 6tds of UDs but will the Ukrainians allow it when these engines had to be shipped for maintenance even during Soviet days? 

For the "betters" you mentioned, we are not getting some out of the world type deal. 

IF we get this upgrade, the t-80BVM package, is for the most part a t-80BV with some technology from T-80U, T-90MS minus the engine. The FCS is now 1a43T, the autotracking for maingun is there, but not the AA machine gun. The armour is pretty much the same, so is the cast turret, but adding Relikt ERA will enhance the protection. The tank has Kontakt 5 at the side so the side protection may be reduced. 

The upgrade should be decent but nothing extra ordinary. The welded turret should not be changed as our UDs have excellent turrets, much better than the cast ones installed in the BVMs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

Dazzler said:


> The t-80B was developed around a gas turbine engine producing 1250hp. The engine never performed well from the word go which is why they moved to the diesel engine to begin with. I am not saying we are going to replace the well performing 6tds of UDs but will the Ukrainians allow it when these engines had to be shipped for maintenance even during Soviet days?
> 
> For the "betters" you mentioned, we are not getting some out of the world type deal.
> 
> IF we get this upgrade, the t-80BVM package, is for the most part a t-80BV with some technology from T-80U, T-90MS minus the engine. The FCS is now 1a43T, the autotracking for maingun is there, but not the AA machine gun. The armour is pretty much the same, so is the cast turret, but adding Relikt ERA will enhance the protection. The tank has Kontakt 5 at the side so the side protection may be reduced.
> 
> The upgrade should be decent but nothing extra ordinary. The welded turret should not be changed as our UDs have excellent turrets, much better than the cast ones installed in the BVMs.



Obviously if we are paying money we will get something better than we already have and I think these tanks will serve our north west than eastern border. The main problem with T-80 was fuel and upgrading it will bring down that cost. Plus the main threat from west is RPG and new armor upgrade gives that protection. You are all focused on what we need in east but in the western front turbine engine will perform good. Plus tank is being used in middle east and desert is no issue for it. Syria got the upgrade of few T-80 as military aid from Russia. The upgraded tank did well there.


----------



## BHarwana

@Dazzler do you recall 1995/1997 when Russia blocked the sale of T-80 to Pakistan? What we got was a compromise then. Now with upgrade we are getting a good boost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> Obviously if we are paying money we will get something better than we already have and I think these tanks will serve our north west than eastern border. The main problem with T-80 was fuel and upgrading it will bring down that cost. Plus the main threat from west is RPG and new armor upgrade gives that protection. You are all focused on what we need in east but in the western front turbine engine will perform good. Plus tank is being used in middle east and desert is no issue for it. Syria got the upgrade of few T-80 as military aid from Russia. The upgraded tank did well there.



Impractical

You cannot employ a 46 ton in the northern areas. As for the RPG, even an Alzarrar with modified armor can provide decent protection against it. Heavy tanks will not do well at such heights. 

Employing T-80 in Syria? never heard of it, though the t-90 did perform better against TOW and Kronets there.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> @Dazzler do you recall 1995/1997 when Russia blocked the sale of T-80 to Pakistan? What we got was a compromise then. Now with upgrade we are getting a good boost.



There a long story behind it but to cut it short, the Ukrainians had a huge armour industry for decades. In fact, the crown jewel of Soviet Union, the t-64, was a Ukrainian product. Essentially, they had the the modified t-80 in the works and had the first t-84 was available as early as 1987.

Where am i getting with this? Simple - when the Russians sanctioned Ukrainians, it turned to be a blessing in disguise as we got a much better T-80UD that had elements from the 84 including engine, turret and FCS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BHarwana

Dazzler said:


> There a long story behind it but to cut it short, the Ukrainians had a huge armour industry for decades. In fact, the crown jewel of Soviet Union, the t-64, was a Ukrainian product. Essentially, they had the the modified t-80 in the works and had the first t-84 was available as early as 1987.
> 
> Where am i getting with this? Simple - when the Russians sanctioned Ukrainians, it turned to be a blessing in disguise as we got a much better T-80UD that had elements from the 84 including engine, turret and FCS.


Okay good points so why are getting these upgrades now?
In your thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> Okay good points so why are getting these upgrades now?
> In your thinking.



For any or most of the following reasons:

- Russian offer performed better than the Ukrainian version (highly unlikely)

- Ukrainians could not perform the upgrades within the deadline

- Russians came with a better offer with slashed prices

- to fill the pockets of some higher ups perhaps

The worst part is that unlike Ukrainians, Russians have a habit of milking customers. See the Indian t-90 saga.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BHarwana

HRK said:


> seems fake news as the link which you have provided mention Sputnik news as a source wile there is nothing mention in Sputnik news in this regards
> https://sputniknews.com/search/?query=Pakistan
> https://sputniknews.com/search/?query=T-80




https://it.sputniknews.com/mondo/201808246408163-pakistan-russia-ammodernamento-t80/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BHarwana

Dazzler said:


> For any or most of the following reasons:
> 
> - Russian offer performed better than the Ukrainian version (highly unlikely)
> 
> - Ukrainians could not perform the upgrades within the deadline
> 
> - Russians came with a better offer with slashed prices
> 
> - to fill the pockets of some higher ups perhaps
> 
> The worst part is that unlike Ukrainians, Russians have a habit of milking customers. See the Indian t-90 saga.



The actual reason we are more Russian inclined now in foreign policy.

Secondly it is very easy to compare Ukrainian with Russian performance specs are out there.


----------



## Dazzler

BHarwana said:


> The actual reason we are more Russian inclined now in foreign policy.
> 
> Secondly it is very easy to compare Ukrainian with Russian performance specs are out there.



The first reason may be a possibility but the Ukrainians have more experience in upgrading the 80 series of mbts. it was their homegrown project and they know more about it than the Russians. 

Interestingly, all the upgrades on Russian t-80 variants are done by the company that develops and sells the t-90 and 72 variants. Back in the day, UVZ (Russia) and KMDB (ukraine) were arch rivals. The reason is simple, UVZ wants to treat the t-80 as a second Fidel to their products and this can be seen in the specs of both versions. 

Still, i hope the best comes out of it and the experts should ask for the best components for the UDs, IF such a deal is in the making.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ARMalik

Dazzler said:


> For any or most of the following reasons:
> 
> - Russian offer performed better than the Ukrainian version (highly unlikely)
> 
> - Ukrainians could not perform the upgrades within the deadline
> 
> - Russians came with a better offer with slashed prices
> 
> - to fill the pockets of some higher ups perhaps
> 
> The worst part is that unlike Ukrainians, Russians have a habit of milking customers. See the Indian t-90 saga.



There may be Political reasons as well, since Ukraine government was installed by the US, and with Pak - US relations not very good, I would not be surprised if the US played their hand to create issues between Pak-Ukraine deal which was signed only a few months ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

ARMalik said:


> There may be Political reasons as well, since Ukraine government was installed by the US, and with Pak - US relations not very good, I would not be surprised if the US played their hand to create issues between Pak-Ukraine deal which was signed only a few months ago.



Ukrainians are cash starved so they will not go that route and lose their biggest defense customer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

RTA T-84

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## JK!

Potential Russian T80 upgrades?

Let it be T80UM2 Black Eagle standard!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Eagle_(tank)


----------



## Andrei_bt

Ukrainian BM Oplot tank in details –
http://btvt.info/1inservice/bm_oplot.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

1995 Video of T-80 UD testing and trails

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> 1995 Video of T-80 UD testing and trails


It's been around for years.


----------



## HAIDER

all time best and battle or urban combat proven ..double click and enjoy the detailed view of this machine . @Dazzler


----------



## Andrei_bt

Tank (T-84) with compartments for 6 dismounts + 3 crew. Project was under development in 2000-s by KMDB.




http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/object488.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keysersoze

HAIDER said:


> all time best and battle or urban combat proven ..double click and enjoy the detailed view of this machine . @Dazzler


That tank looks a mess. The IR scope/headlights are gone. track covers are gone (More dust!)



HAIDER said:


> all time best and battle or urban combat proven ..double click and enjoy the detailed view of this machine . @Dazzler


Also I think that's a 72 edit thats deffo a 72. I don't think combat proven is th right word for the 72. It has a bad rep.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HAIDER

Keysersoze said:


> That tank looks a mess. The IR scope/headlights are gone. track covers are gone (More dust!)
> 
> 
> Also I think that's a 72 edit thats deffo a 72. I don't think combat proven is th right word for the 72. It has a bad rep.


But only machine along t55 modified battle proven in urban warfare. even L2 knock down by kurds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Inception-06

Rebuild of Tank T-80UD. Chief of Army Staff Qamar Javed Bajwa visited HIT in
2017. During the visit Army Chief inaugurated newly built T-80UD & Al Khalid
rebuild facility (Shop-1A) and formally initiated the commencement of T-80UD Pilot
rebuild programme. During pilot rebuild programme 5 tanks will be rebuilt in 2018-
19. Subsequently series rebuild of 315 tanks·T-BOUD will be carried out after
allocation of funds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

Considering the Ranges, Im guessing T-80 UD of 1st Armored Div were involved in this Ex, report from 2012.

*The Pakistan armed forces successfully experimented with the technique of jamming movement of tanks and using laser technology in modern warfare. ‘Enemy’ tanks were tracked and jammed through centrally controlled laser technology via wireless supervision and monitoring.*

https://tribune.com.pk/story/369592/muzaffargarh-ranges-kayani-witnesses-jamming-of-tanks/

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> Considering the Ranges, Im guessing T-80 UD of 1st Armored Div were involved in this Ex, report from 2012.
> 
> *The Pakistan armed forces successfully experimented with the technique of jamming movement of tanks and using laser technology in modern warfare. ‘Enemy’ tanks were tracked and jammed through centrally controlled laser technology via wireless supervision and monitoring.*
> 
> https://tribune.com.pk/story/369592/muzaffargarh-ranges-kayani-witnesses-jamming-of-tanks/


----------



## TsAr

Signalian said:


> Considering the Ranges, Im guessing T-80 UD of 1st Armored Div were involved in this Ex, report from 2012.
> 
> *The Pakistan armed forces successfully experimented with the technique of jamming movement of tanks and using laser technology in modern warfare. ‘Enemy’ tanks were tracked and jammed through centrally controlled laser technology via wireless supervision and monitoring.*
> 
> https://tribune.com.pk/story/369592/muzaffargarh-ranges-kayani-witnesses-jamming-of-tanks/


care to shed some light on the article.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZAC1

TsAr said:


> care to shed some light on the article.


soon will be shed in war. till then wait

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S-A-B-E-R->

Signalian said:


> Considering the Ranges, Im guessing T-80 UD of 1st Armored Div were involved in this Ex, report from 2012.
> 
> *The Pakistan armed forces successfully experimented with the technique of jamming movement of tanks and using laser technology in modern warfare. ‘Enemy’ tanks were tracked and jammed through centrally controlled laser technology via wireless supervision and monitoring.*
> 
> https://tribune.com.pk/story/369592/muzaffargarh-ranges-kayani-witnesses-jamming-of-tanks/



This is an old misreported article.

it was reported during an exercise where tanks used LASER TAG like system to hit each other in the exercise. 

The laser was detected by sensors on the tanks and would shut off the system depicting a hit.

the local reporters with there usual nonexistent understanding of military equipment misunderstood and then incorrectly reported the news.

there was a whole thread on it in 2012.

no such Lazer jamming technology exists.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## HRK

Inception-06 said:


> Rebuild of Tank T-80UD. Chief of Army Staff Qamar Javed Bajwa visited HIT in
> 2017. During the visit Army Chief inaugurated newly built T-80UD & Al Khalid
> rebuild facility (Shop-1A) and formally initiated the commencement of T-80UD Pilot
> rebuild programme. During pilot rebuild programme 5 tanks will be rebuilt in 2018-
> 19. Subsequently series rebuild of 315 tanks·T-BOUD will be carried out after
> allocation of funds.


HIT has decided to initiate in-house medium rebuild of 25 T-80UD tanks in 2020 ....

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## PakFactor

What knocked out the Turkish L2 tank, I thought they had heavy armor on it.


----------



## Type59

PakFactor said:


> What knocked out the Turkish L2 tank, I thought they had heavy armor on it.



Sides and rear are relatively thin armour. Turret front has the thickest armour, even hull front has less protection then turret.


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

L2 was never trialed. It was Turkish Altay that was trialed by PA


PakFactor said:


> What knocked out the Turkish L2 tank, I thought they had heavy armor on it.



More importantly Turks have offered subsystems for a new battle tank HIT was making.


----------



## Cookie Monster

@Signalian 
Is there a reason besides finances that PA has like 300+ T80UD, 250+ Type 85-IIAP, and various quantities of Al-Zarrar and Al-Khalid?

Wouldn't it be simpler to have just one type? Like Al-Khalid for example...PA can do a high/low mix with Al-Khalid I and Al-Khalid II.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Enjoy!

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Signalian

Cookie Monster said:


> @Signalian
> Is there a reason besides finances that PA has like 300+ T80UD, 250+ Type 85-IIAP, and various quantities of Al-Zarrar and Al-Khalid?


finances and circumstances



> Wouldn't it be simpler to have just one type? Like Al-Khalid for example...PA can do a high/low mix with Al-Khalid I and Al-Khalid II.


Yes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## niaz

Understand Alkhalid-II is turning out to be more expensive than the latest version of Chinese & Ukrainian tanks. It is probably because Al Khalid has too many imported components and the economy of scale.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Armchair

niaz said:


> Understand Alkhalid-II is turning out to be more expensive than the latest version of Chinese & Ukrainian tanks. It is probably because Al Khalid has too many imported components and the economy of scale.



This is a very dangerous and foolish line that PA is taking, if the above is true. MBTs are supposed to be simple, low cost and easy to mass produce. PA is going the route of the Tiger tank rather than the T-34. This blunder will cost Pakistan if there ever is a conventional war with India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

Armchair said:


> This is a very dangerous and foolish line that PA is taking, if the above is true. MBTs are supposed to be simple, low cost and easy to mass produce. PA is going the route of the Tiger tank rather than the T-34. This blunder will cost Pakistan if there ever is a conventional war with India.




Sir,

My information comes from what I read in the press. My comments were based upon the following article:

Quote

HIT has started production of Al-Khalid 2 tanks, Senate body told

BY ONLINE , (LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 30, 2017)







*—Committee recommends budget to come directly to ministry of defence production instead of routing through defence ministry*

*—Facility producing 18 tanks despite capacity of 50 tanks per year due to budget constraints*

ISLAMABAD: Senate Standing Committee on Defence Production on Thursday was informed that to overcome the challenges of modern times, the Heavy Industry Taxila (HIT) has commenced the preparation of the second generation of state of the art Al-Khalid 2 tanks.

The meeting of Senate committee was held at Parliament House, with Senator Lt Gen (retd) Abdul Qayyum in the chair, in which HIT Acting Chairman Brigadier Tahir Islam and Brigadier Nauman gave a detailed briefing on the performance, functioning and projects of the institution.

The meeting was told that HIT has the capacity to build 50 tanks, 50 Armed Personnel Vehicles (APC), and overhauling of 100 tanks per year. “HIT prepares tank with the cost of $30 million, whereas the price of Korean tank is $12 million. But the technical performance of Al-Khalid Tank is far better than the Korean one,” the committee was told.

The committee was also informed that performance-wise, Al-Khalid 2 would not be less than any of its contemporaries.

The committee was further told that renovation project of 108 tanks was started by HIT in 2015, whereas the second phase of the project would be kicked off in 2018. HIT has also announced to supply bulletproof jackets to all the members of the standing committee.

The committee appreciated the achievements and projects by HIT and recommended that the budget disbursement process to HIT may be made smoother and quicker to achieve greater viability and fast pace of work.

The committee was also told that the HIT has a capacity of 50 tanks per year but they are making 18 tanks on average due to budget constraints.

Committee chairman, while terming Al-Khalid Tank pride of the nation, praised the proposal of bringing an upgraded and progressive model Al-Khalid-2 in the industry to compete with constantly developing weaponry all around the world.

The committee strongly recommended that the allocation of budget to defence production industries should come directly to ministry of defence production from the finance division instead of routing through the ministry of defence, and bureaucratic delays should be removed. Committee chairman observed that the committee will push for this proposal by itself but HIT also needs to take the matter up regularly.

The committee was further told that HIT is not entitled to commercial activity on its own. It can only carry out commercial activities from the surplus capacity after fulfilling all kinds of defence needs of armed forces.

https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/20...uction-of-al-khalid-2-tanks-senate-body-told/

Unquote.

It is hard to believe the per-unit cost of $30-million. Even if we believe Wikipedia figure of $4.7 -$5.8-milion (2011 dollars) for the original version of Alkhalid.

"Thailand paid $7.1-miilion pr unit for VT-4 tanks in 2019."

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailan...o-buy-14-more-chinese-tanks-at-cost-of-b2-3bn

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Oplot tank costs a mere $4.7-million per unit in 2017 dollars.

https://en.hromadske.ua/posts/ukraines-tanks-are-so-good-its-own-army-cant-afford-them

"*Russian T-14 Armata tank will cost roughly 4-5 million dollars"*

by *Dylan Malyasov*

https://defence-blog.com/army/russian-t-14-armata-tanks-will-cost-roughly-4-5-million-dollars.html

Admittedly Pakistan cannot rely upon foreign military hardware, but at least we should have the capability of manufacturing similar equipment at equivalent cost. Even if Alkahid -2 costs $7-milion per unit to produce locally; an equally good Oplot or Type -99 is a better buy if it means saving of $200-million for 100 units! This explains why the Pak Army appears to have given up on Al Khalid-2.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Haris Ali2140

niaz said:


> Sir,
> 
> My information comes from what I read in the press. My comments were based upon the following article:
> 
> Quote
> 
> HIT has started production of Al-Khalid 2 tanks, Senate body told
> 
> BY ONLINE , (LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 30, 2017)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *—Committee recommends budget to come directly to ministry of defence production instead of routing through defence ministry*
> 
> *—Facility producing 18 tanks despite capacity of 50 tanks per year due to budget constraints*
> 
> ISLAMABAD: Senate Standing Committee on Defence Production on Thursday was informed that to overcome the challenges of modern times, the Heavy Industry Taxila (HIT) has commenced the preparation of the second generation of state of the art Al-Khalid 2 tanks.
> 
> The meeting of Senate committee was held at Parliament House, with Senator Lt Gen (retd) Abdul Qayyum in the chair, in which HIT Acting Chairman Brigadier Tahir Islam and Brigadier Nauman gave a detailed briefing on the performance, functioning and projects of the institution.
> 
> The meeting was told that HIT has the capacity to build 50 tanks, 50 Armed Personnel Vehicles (APC), and overhauling of 100 tanks per year. “HIT prepares tank with the cost of $30 million, whereas the price of Korean tank is $12 million. But the technical performance of Al-Khalid Tank is far better than the Korean one,” the committee was told.
> 
> The committee was also informed that performance-wise, Al-Khalid 2 would not be less than any of its contemporaries.
> 
> The committee was further told that renovation project of 108 tanks was started by HIT in 2015, whereas the second phase of the project would be kicked off in 2018. HIT has also announced to supply bulletproof jackets to all the members of the standing committee.
> 
> The committee appreciated the achievements and projects by HIT and recommended that the budget disbursement process to HIT may be made smoother and quicker to achieve greater viability and fast pace of work.
> 
> The committee was also told that the HIT has a capacity of 50 tanks per year but they are making 18 tanks on average due to budget constraints.
> 
> Committee chairman, while terming Al-Khalid Tank pride of the nation, praised the proposal of bringing an upgraded and progressive model Al-Khalid-2 in the industry to compete with constantly developing weaponry all around the world.
> 
> The committee strongly recommended that the allocation of budget to defence production industries should come directly to ministry of defence production from the finance division instead of routing through the ministry of defence, and bureaucratic delays should be removed. Committee chairman observed that the committee will push for this proposal by itself but HIT also needs to take the matter up regularly.
> 
> The committee was further told that HIT is not entitled to commercial activity on its own. It can only carry out commercial activities from the surplus capacity after fulfilling all kinds of defence needs of armed forces.
> 
> https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/20...uction-of-al-khalid-2-tanks-senate-body-told/
> 
> Unquote.
> 
> It is hard to believe the per-unit cost of $30-million. Even if we believe Wikipedia figure of $4.7 -$5.8-milion (2011 dollars) for the original version of Alkhalid.
> 
> "Thailand paid $7.1-miilion pr unit for VT-4 tanks in 2019."
> 
> https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailan...o-buy-14-more-chinese-tanks-at-cost-of-b2-3bn
> 
> Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Oplot tank costs a mere $4.7-million per unit in 2017 dollars.
> 
> https://en.hromadske.ua/posts/ukraines-tanks-are-so-good-its-own-army-cant-afford-them
> 
> "*Russian T-14 Armata tank will cost roughly 4-5 million dollars"*
> 
> by *Dylan Malyasov*
> 
> https://defence-blog.com/army/russian-t-14-armata-tanks-will-cost-roughly-4-5-million-dollars.html
> 
> Admittedly Pakistan cannot rely upon foreign military hardware, but at least we should have the capability of manufacturing similar equipment at equivalent cost. Even if Alkahid -2 costs $7-milion per unit to produce locally; an equally good Oplot or Type -99 is a better buy if it means saving of $200-million for 100 units! This explains why the Pak Army appears to have given up on Al Khalid-2.


IMO there has been mistake in reporting. Even with improved and imported equipment price is unrealistic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

niaz said:


> HIT prepares tank with the cost of $30 million, whereas the price of Korean tank is $12 million. But the technical performance of Al-Khalid Tank is far better than the Korean one,


This is ridiculous. 
The source, apparently, has failed to convery the information in appropriate way.



Cookie Monster said:


> @Signalian
> Is there a reason besides finances that PA has like 300+ T80UD, 250+ Type 85-IIAP, and various quantities of Al-Zarrar and Al-Khalid?
> 
> Wouldn't it be simpler to have just one type? Like Al-Khalid for example...PA can do a high/low mix with Al-Khalid I and Al-Khalid II.


The primary issue here is combination of finances & incompetency. Our military top brass has repeatedly failed to anticipate the buildup of threat across the border and therefore has come up with hasty short term countermeasures instead of a well thought long term policy.
For example, 280 T85 were bought on emergency basis to counter the threat of T72M which India displayed during Brasstacks. 320 T80UD were bought due to failures & delays in Al Khalid project. 
And once Al Khalid rolled out, Pakistan army has failed to develop it into sufficient numbers to meet up the armor requirements.



Armchair said:


> This is a very dangerous and foolish line that PA is taking, if the above is true. MBTs are supposed to be simple, low cost and easy to mass produce. PA is going the route of the Tiger tank rather than the T-34. This blunder will cost Pakistan if there ever is a conventional war with India.


We cannot take 'T34' line as India will always has more number of tanks. Pakistan needs capable tanks in sufficient numbers alongside large number of Anti tank forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Armchair

Not going the "T-34 route" means even fewer tanks than going "T-34 route". The argument seems illogical. It translates to "since the enemy is numerous, we will reduce our numbers further". 

When a family is going hungry, they don't buy a small quantity of meat, they go for a large quantity of roti, dal, sabzi and anda. 

XXXXXXX


To the quandry of a serious shortage of Tanks in the PA, here are a few thoughts:

1. T-84 seems to be doing well in PA service, perhaps a batch can be ordered from Ukraine's own stock. They seem eager to sell given the state of their economy. Second hand T-84s may help _if the price is right. 
_
2. T-72B from Russia long with the Russian new gen thermal sight (if they will sell any). The latter would lower the cost of the AK and AZ as the French thermal sight is expensive. 

3. Dummy tanks. Build a low cost dummy tank that can drive around and even move its turret (perhaps even fire something simple internally). These dummy tanks would give the appearance of numbers and lower the chances during war of real ones being hit. 

4. "Quantity has a quality all its own". A simple tank, let's call it Al-Simple

AL Simple Tank has a crew of 4, driver, commander gunner and loader. It uses a 500 hp diesel engine, a conversion from a truck engine to lower costs further. Thus, it's not the fastest tank, but can travel more than adequately to keep up with organic infantry. The gun is a 76mm low pressure gun, which surely won't be able to take out enemy tanks. 

Instead, to take out enemy tanks, Al Simple uses 8x ATGMs, quad packed on both sides of the turret. Al Simple also has a mortar system, to deal with entrenched enemy with indirect fire. The FCS of Al Simple uses a simple new generation thermal imager, which are now found commercially at minimal cost (see for instance, http://www.pard-tech.com/Products/Thermal-imaging-scope/2019/0424/297.html). 

Al simple's engine is up front, weapons storage next, and in the rear is the turret and rear opening hatch for the four crew. This allows Al Simple crew to easily escape and also accomodate 2x soldiers. 

Al Simple weighs 40 tons and uses a combination of ERA armor and steel spacing to defeat incoming ATGMs. Other than the frontal arc, Al Simple does not hope to survive direct SABOT or ATGM hits.

As you may have guessed by now, Al Simple is a simple tank. Its numbers allow the Pak infantryman to have something to count on other than artillery to support them in that crucial last 100 yards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Armchair said:


> Not going the "T-34 route" means even fewer tanks than going "T-34 route". The argument seems illogical. It translates to "since the enemy is numerous, we will reduce our numbers further".
> 
> When a family is going hungry, they don't buy a small quantity of meat, they go for a large quantity of roti, dal, sabzi and anda.


Pal, military affairs are too complex to be compared with such examples. 


Armchair said:


> 1. T-84 seems to be doing well in PA service, perhaps a batch can be ordered from Ukraine's own stock. They seem eager to sell given the state of their economy. Second hand T-84s may help _if the price is right._


There are no T80UD available in market. Ukraine has moved its entire T80 fleet from reserves to frontlines following crisus with Russia. 


Armchair said:


> 2. T-72B from Russia long with the Russian new gen thermal sight (if they will sell any). The latter would lower the cost of the AK and AZ as the French thermal sight is expensive.


Why you want to acquire an entirely new type of tank which itself is an upgraded T72 and costs as much as new one? Even T72B3 will be obsolete within a decade. 


Armchair said:


> 3. Dummy tanks. Build a low cost dummy tank that can drive around and even move its turret (perhaps even fire something simple internally). These dummy tanks would give the appearance of numbers and lower the chances during war of real ones being hit.


You are trolling, right? 


Armchair said:


> 4. "Quantity has a quality all its own". A simple tank, let's call it Al-Simple


Such quotes don't work every time and everywhere. 


Armchair said:


> AL Simple Tank has a crew of 4, driver, commander gunner and loader. It uses a 500 hp diesel engine, a conversion from a truck engine to lower costs further. Thus, it's not the fastest tank, but can travel more than adequately to keep up with organic infantry. The gun is a 76mm low pressure gun, which surely won't be able to take out enemy tanks.
> 
> Instead, to take out enemy tanks, Al Simple uses 8x ATGMs, quad packed on both sides of the turret. Al Simple also has a mortar system, to deal with entrenched enemy with indirect fire. The FCS of Al Simple uses a simple new generation thermal imager, which are now found commercially at minimal cost (see for instance, http://www.pard-tech.com/Products/Thermal-imaging-scope/2019/0424/297.html).
> 
> Al simple's engine is up front, weapons storage next, and in the rear is the turret and rear opening hatch for the four crew. This allows Al Simple crew to easily escape and also accomodate 2x soldiers.
> 
> Al Simple weighs 40 tons and uses a combination of ERA armor and steel spacing to defeat incoming ATGMs. Other than the frontal arc, Al Simple does not hope to survive direct SABOT or ATGM hits.
> 
> As you may have guessed by now, Al Simple is a simple tank. Its numbers allow the Pak infantryman to have something to count on other than artillery to support them in that crucial last 100 yards.


Pal your basic understanding about armored warfare is flawed. Though I appreciate the effort you are putting up, but you should read up more about the topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armchair

Tipu7 said:


> Pal, military affairs are too complex to be compared with such examples.
> 
> There are no T80UD available in market. Ukraine has moved its entire T80 fleet from reserves to frontlines following crisus with Russia.
> 
> Why you want to acquire an entirely new type of tank which itself is an upgraded T72 and costs as much as new one? Even T72B3 will be obsolete within a decade.
> 
> You are trolling, right?
> 
> Such quotes don't work every time and everywhere.
> 
> Pal your basic understanding about armored warfare is flawed. Though I appreciate the effort you are putting up, but you should read up more about the topic.



When someone's reply to an argument is "pal your basic argument is flawed" without explaining how or why, and writing one liners, I assume they are a 9 year old, so I am going to let you enjoy the weather and leave you to your own devices.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

Tipu7 said:


> This is ridiculous.
> The source, apparently, has failed to convery the information in appropriate way.


 

Agreed, in my opinion, the figure was most probably $13-million which was misunderstood as $30-million. This is reinforced by the fact that in the article it was compared to the $12-million Korean tank. I restricted myself to saying " It is hard to believe" because I prefer not to correct a written statement based on 'Guess'.

Nevertheless, Alkhaild -2 being more expensive to build than a JF-17 is hard to stomach. It also shows that except for a very few, our journalists do not believe in doing any research on the accuracy of the numbers quoted by them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

niaz said:


> Agreed, in my opinion, the figure was most probably $13-million which was misunderstood as $30-million. This is reinforced by the fact that in the article it was compared to the $12-million Korean tank. I restricted myself to saying " It is hard to believe" because I prefer not to correct a written statement based on 'Guess'.


I wonder what type of Korean Tank we are talking about here, and why? If it's Black Panther then wiser comparison will be between T90MS, T99A2 with AK2. And as far as I remember, the per unit price of AK was between 3-4.5 Cr during late Zardari era (when I worked briefly in HIT).


niaz said:


> Nevertheless, Alkhaild -2 being more expensive to build than a JF-17 is hard to stomach. It also shows that except for a very few, our journalists do not believe in doing any research on the accuracy of the numbers quoted by them.


Indeed, figures are misquoted. I have seen our people in media getting confuse between F7 aircraft and F7 Islamabad sector. So the information they convey is very much doubtful.

The price of AK2, IMO, depends how much comprehensively we will evolve from AK1 to AK2. Definitely, major changes will be there in domain's of powerplant, Turret layout, armor, munitions, Ballistic computers (etc) and sights. (PA has taken interest how Polish have developed PT16 from PT91). Therfore, in the presence of major upgrades, the price increment of AK2 program is justify able provided that we produce them in sufficient numbers.



Armchair said:


> When someone's reply to an argument is "pal your basic argument is flawed" without explaining how or why, and writing one liners,


There is no argument in your write up. 


Armchair said:


> I assume they are a 9 year old, so I am going to let you enjoy the weather and leave you to your own devices.


Hmmmm. You are wrong here too. My students usually age between 18-20 years, so naturally it's not possible for me to be 9 years old.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Tipu7 said:


> I wonder what type of Korean Tank we are talking about here, and why? If it's Black Panther then wiser comparison will be between T90MS, T99A2 with AK2. And as far as I remember, the per unit price of AK was between 3-4.5 Cr during late Zardari era (when I worked briefly in HIT).
> 
> Indeed, figures are misquoted. I have seen our people in media getting confuse between F7 aircraft and F7 Islamabad sector. So the information they convey is very much doubtful.
> 
> The price of AK2, IMO, depends how much comprehensively we will evolve from AK1 to AK2. Definitely, major changes will be there in domain's of powerplant, Turret layout, armor, munitions, Ballistic computers (etc) and sights. (PA has taken interest how Polish have developed PT16 from PT91). Therfore, in the presence of major upgrades, the price increment of AK2 program is justify able provided that we produce them in sufficient numbers.
> 
> 
> There is no argument in your write up.
> 
> Hmmmm. You are wrong here too. My students usually age between 18-20 years, so naturally it's not possible for me to be 9 years old.


Would there be self protection like Trophy?


----------



## Gryphon

niaz said:


> Sir,
> 
> My information comes from what I read in the press. My comments were based upon the following article:
> 
> Quote
> 
> HIT has started production of Al-Khalid 2 tanks, Senate body told
> 
> BY ONLINE , (LAST UPDATED NOVEMBER 30, 2017)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *—Committee recommends budget to come directly to ministry of defence production instead of routing through defence ministry*
> 
> *—Facility producing 18 tanks despite capacity of 50 tanks per year due to budget constraints*
> 
> ISLAMABAD: Senate Standing Committee on Defence Production on Thursday was informed that to overcome the challenges of modern times, the Heavy Industry Taxila (HIT) has commenced the preparation of the second generation of state of the art Al-Khalid 2 tanks.
> 
> The meeting of Senate committee was held at Parliament House, with Senator Lt Gen (retd) Abdul Qayyum in the chair, in which HIT Acting Chairman Brigadier Tahir Islam and Brigadier Nauman gave a detailed briefing on the performance, functioning and projects of the institution.
> 
> The meeting was told that HIT has the capacity to build 50 tanks, 50 Armed Personnel Vehicles (APC), and overhauling of 100 tanks per year. “HIT prepares tank with the cost of $30 million, whereas the price of Korean tank is $12 million. But the technical performance of Al-Khalid Tank is far better than the Korean one,” the committee was told.
> 
> The committee was also informed that performance-wise, Al-Khalid 2 would not be less than any of its contemporaries.
> 
> The committee was further told that renovation project of 108 tanks was started by HIT in 2015, whereas the second phase of the project would be kicked off in 2018. HIT has also announced to supply bulletproof jackets to all the members of the standing committee.
> 
> The committee appreciated the achievements and projects by HIT and recommended that the budget disbursement process to HIT may be made smoother and quicker to achieve greater viability and fast pace of work.
> 
> The committee was also told that the HIT has a capacity of 50 tanks per year but they are making 18 tanks on average due to budget constraints.
> 
> Committee chairman, while terming Al-Khalid Tank pride of the nation, praised the proposal of bringing an upgraded and progressive model Al-Khalid-2 in the industry to compete with constantly developing weaponry all around the world.
> 
> The committee strongly recommended that the allocation of budget to defence production industries should come directly to ministry of defence production from the finance division instead of routing through the ministry of defence, and bureaucratic delays should be removed. Committee chairman observed that the committee will push for this proposal by itself but HIT also needs to take the matter up regularly.
> 
> The committee was further told that HIT is not entitled to commercial activity on its own. It can only carry out commercial activities from the surplus capacity after fulfilling all kinds of defence needs of armed forces.
> 
> https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/20...uction-of-al-khalid-2-tanks-senate-body-told/
> 
> Unquote.
> 
> It is hard to believe the per-unit cost of $30-million. Even if we believe Wikipedia figure of $4.7 -$5.8-milion (2011 dollars) for the original version of Alkhalid.
> 
> "Thailand paid $7.1-miilion pr unit for VT-4 tanks in 2019."
> 
> https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailan...o-buy-14-more-chinese-tanks-at-cost-of-b2-3bn
> 
> Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Oplot tank costs a mere $4.7-million per unit in 2017 dollars.
> 
> https://en.hromadske.ua/posts/ukraines-tanks-are-so-good-its-own-army-cant-afford-them
> 
> "*Russian T-14 Armata tank will cost roughly 4-5 million dollars"*
> 
> by *Dylan Malyasov*
> 
> https://defence-blog.com/army/russian-t-14-armata-tanks-will-cost-roughly-4-5-million-dollars.html
> 
> Admittedly Pakistan cannot rely upon foreign military hardware, but at least we should have the capability of manufacturing similar equipment at equivalent cost. Even if Alkahid -2 costs $7-milion per unit to produce locally; an equally good Oplot or Type -99 is a better buy if it means saving of $200-million for 100 units! This explains why the Pak Army appears to have given up on Al Khalid-2.



US$ 3.0 million is erroneously reported as US$ 30 million here. That is for the basic AK. AK-II is not even in the prototype phase - but Norinco & HIT are at it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armchair

Just to get things on track here, Western Block tanks tend to cost between 5-10 million USD. Eastern block tanks 1-3 million USD. AK was supposed to cost about 1 million or less originally.

On a separate note, Russia has a lot of T-80 tanks that are out of service as Russia chose to standardize on the T-72 and derivatives (T-90). Pak could perhaps purchase these boneyard machines, put a Ukranian engine and other local fitments and increase the T-80 component by 500 at minimal cost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CrazyZ

Armchair said:


> Eastern block tanks 1-3 million


T90 costs from $4-7 million depending on variant. T-14 is 20-30% more. Eastern tanks aren't that cheap anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

Those are inflated prices with major kickbacks, spare parts, etc.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

niaz said:


> Agreed, in my opinion, the figure was most probably $13-million which was misunderstood as $30-million. This is reinforced by the fact that in the article it was compared to the $12-million Korean tank. I restricted myself to saying " It is hard to believe" because I prefer not to correct a written statement based on 'Guess'.
> 
> Nevertheless, Alkhaild -2 being more expensive to build than a JF-17 is hard to stomach. It also shows that except for a very few, our journalists do not believe in doing any research on the accuracy of the numbers quoted by them.


Bangladesh bought 44, mbt-2000s for around 3.68 million per tank in 2012.
The total contract was worth 162 million.
I dont think a tank costs us even 3-4 million let alone 30.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Armchair

Armata is not even yet in the export market FYI.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Bangladesh bought 44, mbt-2000s for around 3.68 million per tank in 2012.
> The total contract was worth 162 million.
> I dont think a tank costs us even 3-4 million let alone 30.



And prices in BD are inflated because of the highly corrupt procurement system. I know, I've worked in this field there. Average markup on any military product is minimum 50% over real price. Were I worked, we would markup by 48% minimum. And when certain people are involved that markup can go up much higher than that. 

Chinese tanks are supposed to be not more expensive than 2 million USD (ballpark figure). Not including spares.

Was just googling about about the T-80 and saw that South Korea wants to get rid of theirs. Russia has thousands that have been removed from service. If you take out the engine and put the Ukrainian diesel, you have a very low cost addition that does not bring in a new type of tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Armchair said:


> Armata is not even yet in the export market FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> And prices in BD are inflated because of the highly corrupt procurement system. I know, I've worked in this field there. Average markup on any military product is minimum 50% over real price. Were I worked, we would markup by 48% minimum. And when certain people are involved that markup can go up much higher than that.
> 
> Chinese tanks are supposed to be not more expensive than 2 million USD (ballpark figure). Not including spares.
> 
> Was just googling about about the T-80 and saw that South Korea wants to get rid of theirs. Russia has thousands that have been removed from service. If you take out the engine and put the Ukrainian diesel, you have a very low cost addition that does not bring in a new type of tank.



Theirs are Russian t-80U (Kirov's objekt 219A), whereas PA operates Ukrainian UDs (Morozov Objekt 478BE)




. 

They may look similar but are in fact two very different systems. Engine, main gun, ammo, FCS, optics and armor are all different.

Korean Us will become a maintenance nightmare.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gryphon

Dazzler said:


> Theirs are Russian t-80U (Kirov's objekt 219A), whereas PA operates Ukrainian UDs (Morozov Objekt 478BE)
> View attachment 617820
> .
> 
> They may look similar but are in fact two very different systems. Engine, main gun, ammo, FCS, optics and armor are all different.
> 
> Korean Us will become a maintenance nightmare.



There is no solution but ramping up AK-1 production. No UDs available anywhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Gryphon said:


> There is no solution but ramping up AK-1 production. No UDs available anywhere.


Are we upgrading the UDs?


----------



## Dazzler

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> Are we upgrading the UDs?



We asked Ukrainians to do so, a trial batch of four were upgraded but the cost was prohibitive. We have put catherine TI sights and some other improvements though.



Gryphon said:


> There is no solution but ramping up AK-1 production. No UDs available anywhere.



Agreed, the only way forward is to ramp up production of AK-1 by all means.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## HRK



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Path-Finder

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243942383634481152

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Waterboy



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ziaulislam

the army needs to indigenize to decrease cost and put money back into the economy
time to build a homegrown engine and transmission..its doable, or partner with another country as JV or at least a license production..just look at India its been doing that despite all the civilian red tape..that doesn't exist as army has a strong hold on the country here

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## niaz

Understand the selling price of Armata is about $4-milion per unit in 2019 dollars. That is if Russia is willing to sell it to you.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-t-14-armata-tank-amazing-there-big-problem-51022

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## syed_yusuf

Waterboy said:


> View attachment 621781
> View attachment 621782



r these upgraded t80u

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

syed_yusuf said:


> r these upgraded t80u


no

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Signalian said:


> 1995 Video of T-80 UD testing and trails


@ 33:00 wow look at that smoke screen! Did not know their was such a thing for tank protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Myth_buster_1 said:


> @ 33:00 wow look at that smoke screen! Did not know their was such a thing for tank protection.


Smoke screen can cover other tanks in the line. Tank also has smoke grenades as cover.

Reminds me, Tank can also have anti-personnel grenades.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Cookie Monster

ziaulislam said:


> the army needs to indigenize to decrease cost and put money back into the economy
> time to build a homegrown engine and transmission..its doable, or partner with another country as JV or at least a license production..just look at India its been doing that despite all the civilian red tape..that doesn't exist as army has a strong hold on the country here


Does that mean that rn Pak imports engines from Ukraine for the AK1 tanks? I was under the impression that Pak would be producing those engines under license since Pak is going to be making hundreds of AKs more(as well as those already made).

Ukraine has a lot to offer as far as tanks go...Pak should use this opportunity where Ukraine's defense industry is struggling...and get some benefits out of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Myth_buster_1 said:


> @ 33:00 wow look at that smoke screen! Did not know their was such a thing for tank protection.


there is always a mechanism whereby diesel is sprayed into the tank's engine exhaust, which then produces this smoke screen.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HAIDER

*Ukrainian tank spotted at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground*
by Dylan Malyasov






Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


A satellite image has recently emerged on military online forums showing what appears to be Soviet-era T-72 main battle tanks at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Grounds, one of the largest military installations in the world.

The military expert from Nowa Technika Wojskowa, Damian Ratka drew attention that the Ukrainian T-80U also stood in line with Soviet main battle tanks.

”Well look what I have found. At Yuma Proving Grounds, among many T-72’s stored there, I found one of the 4 purchased by the U.S. from Ukraine in 2004 T-80UD/T-84 tanks,” Ratka said on Twitter.


In 2003, the U.S. Government obtained four T-80UD main battle tanks from Ukraine. The four T-80UD tanks arrived at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center throughout December 2003 and January 2004.

The T-80UD is a Ukrainian variant of a T-80U main battle tank, fitted with a diesel engine in place of the high performance gas turbine. Also, this version of the tank is equipped with the Knife explosive reactive armour (ERA).

About 500 T-80UD tanks were built in the Malyshev plant in Kharkiv between 1987 and 1999. Pakistan, countering India’s adoption of the Russian T-90, bought almost 320 Ukrainian T-80UDs for its main armoured corps of the Pakistani Army.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243942381864525824
@Signalian


----------



## zectech

HAIDER said:


> *Ukrainian tank spotted at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground*
> by Dylan Malyasov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
> 
> 
> A satellite image has recently emerged on military online forums showing what appears to be Soviet-era T-72 main battle tanks at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Grounds, one of the largest military installations in the world.
> 
> The military expert from Nowa Technika Wojskowa, Damian Ratka drew attention that the Ukrainian T-80U also stood in line with Soviet main battle tanks.
> 
> ”Well look what I have found. At Yuma Proving Grounds, among many T-72’s stored there, I found one of the 4 purchased by the U.S. from Ukraine in 2004 T-80UD/T-84 tanks,” Ratka said on Twitter.
> 
> 
> In 2003, the U.S. Government obtained four T-80UD main battle tanks from Ukraine. The four T-80UD tanks arrived at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center throughout December 2003 and January 2004.
> 
> The T-80UD is a Ukrainian variant of a T-80U main battle tank, fitted with a diesel engine in place of the high performance gas turbine. Also, this version of the tank is equipped with the Knife explosive reactive armour (ERA).
> 
> About 500 T-80UD tanks were built in the Malyshev plant in Kharkiv between 1987 and 1999. Pakistan, countering India’s adoption of the Russian T-90, bought almost 320 Ukrainian T-80UDs for its main armoured corps of the Pakistani Army.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243942381864525824
> @Signalian



USA stealing Russian/Soviet technology to test and perhaps copy. IP thieves. They did this after WWII with Nazis technology. US likes to copy if they find out somebody has better technology than them. Shame those Amerikkans.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Waterboy

T 80UD in KPT.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## HRK

Waterboy said:


> T 80UD in KPT.
> View attachment 625868


KPT = Karachi Port Trust .... ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Waterboy

HRK said:


> KPT = Karachi Port Trust .... ???


Khairpur Tamewali. Weapons range and exercise area.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## syed_yusuf

Waterboy said:


> T 80UD in KPT.
> View attachment 625868


Is this the upgraded one with rws

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Waterboy

syed_yusuf said:


> Is this the upgraded one with rws


No.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Waterboy said:


> No.



But the machine gun can be operated with hatch closed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Waterboy

Dazzler said:


> But the machine gun can be operated with hatch closed.


All T 80s were built to operate with the hatch closed, hence all have 12.7 mm rws. Gun can be controlled by both the gunner and commander.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armchair

Gryphon said:


> There is no solution but ramping up AK-1 production. No UDs available anywhere.



The way I see it is buy T-80Us and switch the engines. Use the old engine as a generator. Korean Us are reasonable fighting machines, nothing else needs to be changed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Waterboy

T 80UD at weapons range.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Gryphon

Armchair said:


> The way I see it is buy T-80Us and switch the engines. Use the old engine as a generator. Korean Us are reasonable fighting machines, nothing else needs to be changed.



IIRC, the first 145× T-80UD's with PA came with Soviet 2A46M-1, cast turret and 1000hp Ukrainian diesel.

The remaining 175 came with KBA-3 (Ukrainian 2A46M-1 copy) and welded turret from T-84.

Your idea is good, only if pursued at a larger scale (500-1000 pcs).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

HAIDER said:


> *Ukrainian tank spotted at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground*
> by Dylan Malyasov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
> 
> 
> A satellite image has recently emerged on military online forums showing what appears to be Soviet-era T-72 main battle tanks at U.S. Army Yuma Proving Grounds, one of the largest military installations in the world.
> 
> The military expert from Nowa Technika Wojskowa, Damian Ratka drew attention that the Ukrainian T-80U also stood in line with Soviet main battle tanks.
> 
> ”Well look what I have found. At Yuma Proving Grounds, among many T-72’s stored there, I found one of the 4 purchased by the U.S. from Ukraine in 2004 T-80UD/T-84 tanks,” Ratka said on Twitter.
> 
> 
> In 2003, the U.S. Government obtained four T-80UD main battle tanks from Ukraine. The four T-80UD tanks arrived at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center throughout December 2003 and January 2004.
> 
> The T-80UD is a Ukrainian variant of a T-80U main battle tank, fitted with a diesel engine in place of the high performance gas turbine. Also, this version of the tank is equipped with the Knife explosive reactive armour (ERA).
> 
> About 500 T-80UD tanks were built in the Malyshev plant in Kharkiv between 1987 and 1999. Pakistan, countering India’s adoption of the Russian T-90, bought almost 320 Ukrainian T-80UDs for its main armoured corps of the Pakistani Army.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243942381864525824
> @Signalian


Or maybe try to figure out how to counter Pakistani T80UD

We(Pakistan) is definitely on American hitlist. To think otherwise would be madness.


----------



## HRK

Ahmet Pasha said:


> Or maybe try to figure out how to counter Pakistani T80UD
> 
> We(Pakistan) is definitely on American hitlist. To think otherwise would be madness.


If I remember correctly its an old story, US received Russian T-80 after fall of Berlin wall from Germany and T-80UD from Ukraine during late 90s or first half of 2000

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Gryphon said:


> IIRC, the first 145× T-80UD's with PA came with Soviet 2A46M-1, cast turret and 1000hp Ukrainian diesel.
> 
> The remaining 175 came with KBA-3 (Ukrainian 2A46M-1 copy) and welded turret from T-84.
> 
> Your idea is good, only if pursued at a larger scale (500-1000 pcs).



History of KBA3 smoothbore is interesting. Ukraine acquired license and gun blanks from Giat (now Nexter) in 1997. Blanks were made of high strength electroslag remelting steel (ESR). Essentially, the gun uses the same blanks used to manufacture Leclerc's 120mm gun. In general, the quality of KBA3 is on par with 2A46M-5. 

Pakistan also imported the same metal blanks from France for Alkhalid's main gun till we acquired the tech to produce them locally. Barrel life exceeds 1100 EFC which is remarkable. Both guns are 48 cal.

https://www.dawn.com/news/621771

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Armchair

Gryphon said:


> IIRC, the first 145× T-80UD's with PA came with Soviet 2A46M-1, cast turret and 1000hp Ukrainian diesel.
> 
> The remaining 175 came with KBA-3 (Ukrainian 2A46M-1 copy) and welded turret from T-84.
> 
> Your idea is good, only if pursued at a larger scale (500-1000 pcs).



Check out my article on Quwa about PA tanks. I've outlined that there are a number of sources from which PA could get them. The latter welded turrets were not asked for but PA got them because Ukraine were not able to source and had to go with their in production welded turrets. There are a bunch of sources for T-80s, all willing to sell possibly at bargain basement prices.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Waterboy

Sleeping Beasts.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## syed_yusuf

if camparing t80ud to t-90 of IA, which platform is better

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

syed_yusuf said:


> if camparing t80ud to t-90 of IA, which platform is better



Better than 90S, should be on par with 90M, not MS.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## syed_yusuf

Dazzler said:


> Better than 90S, should be on par with 90M, not MS.


is this the reason why PA is upgrading T-80
is AK on par or better than MS?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bossman

A lot of interesting activity going on at HIT. A whole bunch of containers being delivered. They are assembling something new, using a new facility not used for AK production or upgrading other tanks. Remember, although AK is an indigenous tank, we have also been assembling tanks since the T69. HIT could be locally assembling a tank of foreign origin along with producing the AK and upgrading other tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## mingle

Bossman said:


> A lot of interesting activity going on at HIT. A whole bunch of new containers being delivered. They are assembling something new, using a new facility not used for AK production or upgrading other tanks. Remember, although AK is an indigenous tank, we have been assembling tanks since the T69. HIT could be locally assembling a tank of foreign origin along with producing the AK.


VT-4 probably


----------



## Dazzler

syed_yusuf said:


> is this the reason why PA is upgrading T-80
> is AK on par or better than MS?


T90 or not, upgrading a 30 year old system makes sense.

Ak-1 should be equal to MS considering the featureset of both.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

Dazzler said:


> T90 or not, upgrading a 30 year old system makes sense.
> 
> Ak-1 should be equal to MS considering the featureset of both.


What about Ak-1 and Arjun MK1A?


----------



## Dazzler

Syed Hammad Ahmed said:


> What about Ak-1 and Arjun MK1A?


Not even in Frontline service



Bossman said:


> A lot of interesting activity going on at HIT. A whole bunch of new containers being delivered. They are assembling something new, using a new facility not used for AK production or upgrading other tanks. Remember, although AK is an indigenous tank, we have been assembling tanks since the T69. HIT could be locally assembling a tank of foreign origin along with producing the AK.



HIT had plans to move to robotics since 2015, may be it has something to do with that? Chief of tank manufacturing factory mentioned it in a program.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Lone Ranger

Dazzler said:


> HIT had plans to move to robotics since 2015, may be it has something to do with that? Chief of tank manufacturing factory mentioned it in a program.


Is there any plans to increase the production capacity?


----------



## Reichmarshal

Bossman said:


> A lot of interesting activity going on at HIT. A whole bunch of containers being delivered. They are assembling something new, using a new facility not used for AK production or upgrading other tanks. Remember, although AK is an indigenous tank, we have also been assembling tanks since the T69. HIT could be locally assembling a tank of foreign origin along with producing the AK and upgrading other tanks.


HIT is being retooled n upgraded so as to enhance its capability n increase its production capacity. The work is in its last stages.
That's wt the containers were for

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## PakFactor

HIT should be split and spread about the country concentrating total production here is counter productive during war time. Knocking this facility out would render a total loss of production and war time building.

@PanzerKiel

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

PakFactor said:


> HIT should be split and spread about the country concentrating total production here is counter productive during war time. Knocking this facility out would render a total loss of production and war time building.


I agree. Should also consider moving production facilities to interior Sindh, KP and Baluchistan, especially the latter two as they're away from the Indian border. 

Ideally, while HIT concentrates on manufacturing and assembly, a growing number of local SMEs from all over Pakistan take part in supplying inputs, i.e., steel, composites, electronics, engine parts, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## mikaal hassan

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> I agree. Should also consider moving production facilities to interior Sindh, KP and Baluchistan, especially the latter two as they're away from the Indian border.
> 
> Ideally, while HIT concentrates on manufacturing and assembly, a growing number of local SMEs from all over Pakistan take part in supplying inputs, i.e., steel, composites, electronics, engine parts, etc.



HIT needs to be run under a public and private partnership issue some bonds to raise money to upgrade and after that it needs to be self sufficient ..otherwise it will turn in to a white elephant because it lacks a long term vision it cant simply depend on army orders ..you never know like the VT4 MBT the army might say it is cheaper to get things off the shelf from anyone rather then produce it HIT ..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakFactor

mikaal hassan said:


> HIT needs to be run under a public and private partnership issue some bonds to raise money to upgrade and after that it needs to be self sufficient ..otherwise it will turn in to a white elephant because it lacks a long term vision it cant simply depend on army orders ..you never know like the VT4 MBT the army might say it is cheaper to get things off the shelf from anyone rather then produce it HIT ..



The private defense industry is only sustainable if the pipeline is full, hence turning it public might not be a good idea at this point. However, I like @Bilal Khan (Quwa) idea the best to concentrate on manufacturing and assemble and have the private industry supply the inputs of the product. We can are start by having HIT's smaller units be spun of, and have investors built up cash and launch it in the national and international market.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa)

KP Baluchistan would be the most ideal locations suited for this, rugged terrain (mountainous) whereas parts of Punjab and Sindhi are flat plain suitable for enemies making a quick thrust and knock out product.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bossman

PakFactor said:


> HIT should be split and spread about the country concentrating total production here is counter productive during war time. Knocking this facility out would render a total loss of production and war time building.
> 
> @PanzerKiel


It is happening. Bahawalpur has a M113 facility.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakFactor

Bossman said:


> It is happening. Bahawalpur has a M113 facility.



Still to close to the Indian border we need to shift West possibly KP or Baluchistan.


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

PakFactor said:


> The private defense industry is only sustainable if the pipeline is full, hence turning it public might not be a good idea. However, I like @Bilal Khan (Quwa) idea the best to concentrate on manufacturing and assemble and have the private industry supply the inputs of the product. We are start by having HITs small units be spun of.
> 
> @Bilal Khan (Quwa)
> 
> KP Baluchistan would be the most idea location suited for this rugged terrain (mountainous) whereas parts of Punjab and Sindhi are flat plain suitable for enemies to make a quick thrust and knock out product.


You can split HIT business lines further.

So, all wheeled applications can be a 'Khyber Heavy Vehicles' entity in KP. So, this entity can assemble 4x4 LAVs, 8x8 AFVs, trucks, etc. Obviously, the inputs should come from the local private sector.

Likewise, you can move the tracked APC/IFV line to Baluchistan. So, all of the Talha, Saad, Viper, etc vehicles can roll-out of an assembly line here, again, under a model like that of KP. 

And finally, HIT can focus on MBTs and, if we choose to get there, tracked SPHs. HIT can keep its gun forging plant and design/development facilities as well. So, it can be the HQ for the KP and Baluchistan facilities.

As for interior Sindh, you can look at setting up a SEZ focused on manufacturing inputs for military and heavy civilian vehicles alike. Invite the domestic private sector to invest in ventures that will manufacture key inputs (e.g., engine, transmission, gearbox, chassis, etc) on a turn-key basis.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## PakFactor

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> You can split HIT business lines further.
> 
> So, all wheeled applications can be a 'Khyber Heavy Vehicles' entity in KP. So, this entity can assemble 4x4 LAVs, 8x8 AFVs, trucks, etc. Obviously, the inputs should come from the local private sector.
> 
> Likewise, you can move the tracked APC/IFV line to Baluchistan. So, all of the Talha, Saad, Viper, etc vehicles can roll-out of an assembly line here, again, under a model like that of KP.
> 
> And finally, HIT can focus on MBTs and, if we choose to get there, tracked SPHs. HIT can keep its gun forging plant and design/development facilities as well. So, it can be the HQ for the KP and Baluchistan facilities.
> 
> As for interior Sindh, you can look at setting up a SEZ focused on manufacturing inputs for military and heavy civilian vehicles alike. Invite the domestic private sector to invest in ventures that will manufacture key inputs (e.g., engine, transmission, gearbox, chassis, etc) on a turn-key basis.



Very well put, and most importantly the development of Human Labor will be immense in the regions they operate, the jobs it'll create and the learning curve will allow individuals to develop ideas and better the defense industry.

How many times have we seen the employees themselves develop the next generation tech based on simple ideas they have after working on previous projects, etc.

But in war time you will have a force that is able bodied and ready, to assist the armed forces in production a sort of synergy.

SEZ is critical for liquidity purposes and I'm hoping Gwadar quickly comes online within the next 5-10 years as we need the injection of liquidity. This project has already been slowed down to many times, and it's almost bordering on negligence.


----------



## Armchair

I once biked (bicycle) from Islamabad to Taxila, and back. HIT is already in KP.


----------



## Reichmarshal

Armchair said:


> I once biked (bicycle) from Islamabad to Taxila, and back. HIT is already in KP.


HIT is in Punjab

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Lone Ranger said:


> Is there any plans to increase the production capacity?



Moving to robotics should improve the production rate tremendously. Take a hint from Norinco plant.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Bossman

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> I agree. Should also consider moving production facilities to interior Sindh, KP and Baluchistan, especially the latter two as they're away from the Indian border.
> 
> Ideally, while HIT concentrates on manufacturing and assembly, a growing number of local SMEs from all over Pakistan take part in supplying inputs, i.e., steel, composites, electronics, engine parts, etc.


There is already a lot of sub contracting by HIT.



Armchair said:


> I once biked (bicycle) from Islamabad to Taxila, and back. HIT is already in KP.


KP starts after the Indus.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## peagle

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> You can split HIT business lines further.
> 
> So, all wheeled applications can be a 'Khyber Heavy Vehicles' entity in KP. So, this entity can assemble 4x4 LAVs, 8x8 AFVs, trucks, etc. Obviously, the inputs should come from the local private sector.
> 
> Likewise, you can move the tracked APC/IFV line to Baluchistan. So, all of the Talha, Saad, Viper, etc vehicles can roll-out of an assembly line here, again, under a model like that of KP.
> 
> And finally, HIT can focus on MBTs and, if we choose to get there, tracked SPHs. HIT can keep its gun forging plant and design/development facilities as well. So, it can be the HQ for the KP and Baluchistan facilities.
> 
> whilst I agree with the point in the business sense of developing a core focussed business energy, I disagree with the notion of fragmented locations for sake of having a presence in each and every region, to show some kind of fairness? a business should be located where it makes business sense, combined with security considerations as these will be defence contractors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for interior Sindh, you can look at setting up a SEZ focused on manufacturing inputs for military and heavy civilian vehicles alike. Invite the domestic private sector to invest in ventures that will manufacture key inputs (e.g., engine, transmission, gearbox, chassis, etc) on a turn-key basis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

Shouldn't POF and PAC be split up as well then??


Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> I agree. Should also consider moving production facilities to interior Sindh, KP and Baluchistan, especially the latter two as they're away from the Indian border.
> 
> Ideally, while HIT concentrates on manufacturing and assembly, a growing number of local SMEs from all over Pakistan take part in supplying inputs, i.e., steel, composites, electronics, engine parts, etc.





Armchair said:


> I once biked (bicycle) from Islamabad to Taxila, and back. HIT is already in KP.


Did you miss the UET bus??

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

oplot-P after paint

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Dazzler said:


> oplot-P after paint


Its wss good tank but Pakistan opted for Vt4


----------



## truthfollower

Dazzler said:


> oplot-P after paint


Can we have same kind of video from Pakistan Army on tanks? And what kind of test oplot failed in Pakistan?

and why Pakistan went from American tanks in the start and now Russian design tanks from China

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Incog_nito

How many T-80/T-84s are available which PA can easily acquire with some upgrades?


----------



## jupiter2007

Incog_nito said:


> How many T-80/T-84s are available which PA can easily acquire with some upgrades?



1500 in storage in Russia as the reserve for Russian army. I am not sure if Russia will be willing to sell those and for what price. 
is there a need for T-80 tank? Aren’t we already working on multiple tank
Project?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Incog_nito

jupiter2007 said:


> 1500 in storage in Russia as the reserve for Russian army. I am not sure if Russia will be willing to sell those and for what price.
> is there a need for T-80 tank? Aren’t we already working on multiple tank
> Project?


I'm just talking about Ukrainian T80s


----------



## jupiter2007

Incog_nito said:


> I'm just talking about Ukrainian T80s



I am not sure If we are Pursuing additional T-80 tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## imranyounus

If HIT can develop a good upgrade package toT80 independently. Then buying them from Ukraine and upgrading them locally is good option. otherwise it's risky option could result in delays and unavailability of same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jupiter2007

imranyounus said:


> If HIT can develop a good upgrade package toT80 independently. Then buying them from Ukraine and upgrading them locally is good option. otherwise it's risky option could result in delays and unavailability of same.



HIT is busy with other upgrade projects..
Any update on T-85 upgrade?


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

HIT is only busy chasing it's own tail.


jupiter2007 said:


> HIT is busy with other upgrade projects..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Incog_nito

Do you think Pak Army is somehow serious in acquiring from current or past users some T-80s and T-84s to complement the current fleet?

As T-54/55s and Chinese derivatives are going in the hands of Paramilitary Forces and Border Security Forces.


----------



## Dazzler

T-80UD was the first MBT in PA with the ability to launch ATGM

Ours came with Reflex ATGMs

The ones circled are ATGMS

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Incog_nito

Is PA still interested in acquiring T-80s from Ukraine with some upgrades or not?
I'm asking the same question again as things have changed now with UCAVs and other weapons in war.


----------



## S10

T-84 Oplot is a good tank, overall on par with VT-4. It's also cheaper than VT-4. The problem is Ukraine's ability to deliver, as souring of relations with Russia crippled Ukraine's tank production in meaningful numbers. These are built with refurbished hulls from T-80UD.

For those of you that don't know, China's Type 99 actually has a bit of lineage with T-80. China imported about 50 units of T-80U in the early 1990's from Russia for armor design studies. Some of that design actually trickled down to the MBT-2000, which is the ancestor of VT-4. So in a way, you ended up buying T-80 nonetheless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

@PanzerKiel Any plans to upgrade T 80 locally may be with Turkey's help.

Reactions: Sad Sad:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Zarvan said:


> @PanzerKiel Any plans to upgrade T 80 locally may be with Turkey's help.


They were upgraded recently.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Zarvan said:


> @PanzerKiel Any plans to upgrade T 80 locally may be with Turkey's help.


They are already being upgraded, 80 in the first batch. The rest will be done too. The first few upgraded ones can be seen here at the back.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## KurtisBrian

are they being upgraded with some sort of active protection system to protect themselves against drone missile attacks?


----------



## Inception-06

iLION12345_1 said:


> They are already being upgraded, 80 in the first batch. The rest will be done too. The first few upgraded ones can be seen here at the back.



I thought it’s only a overhaul with minor local changes „upgrades“.


----------



## Reichmarshal

it is a major overall and upgrades, the cost of which is almost the same as a brand new tank

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

KurtisBrian said:


> are they being upgraded with some sort of active protection system to protect themselves against drone missile attacks?


No APS, Ukrainian Hard kill APS isn’t fully ready yet. Pakistan doesn’t have an APS on any of its tanks but if it ever needs it, the Chinese GL-5 can be bought an equipped on VT4s and AKs anytime.
Right now the priority is numbers so that’s not being considered. India doesn’t operate any APS either and Pakistan has better UCAVs.




Inception-06 said:


> I thought it’s only a overhaul with minor local changes „upgrades“.


Nope, major upgrades Afaik, our T80s are already basically early model T84s as they had welded turrets and other upgrades from T84 when they were delivered, in this upgrade they were given more parts from the T84.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tipu7

I presume the upgrades will be related to fire control systems, thermal imagers (3rd Gen), battle management systems, air conditioning, and possibly new munitions.
Just wondering, is it possible to replace 6TD-01 with 6TD-02 in UDs?



iLION12345_1 said:


> No APS, Ukrainian Hard kill APS isn’t fully ready yet. Pakistan doesn’t have an APS on any of its tanks but if it ever needs it, the Chinese GL-5 can be bought an equipped on VT4s and AKs anytime.
> Right now the priority is numbers so that’s not being considered. India doesn’t operate any APS either and Pakistan has better UCAVs.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, major upgrades Afaik, our T80s are already basically early model T84s as they had welded turrets and other upgrades from T84 when they were delivered, in this upgrade they were given more parts from the T84.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## HRK

Inception-06 said:


> I thought it’s only a overhaul with minor local changes „upgrades“.



official documents






last issued tender document

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inception-06

HRK said:


> official documents
> 
> View attachment 715871
> 
> 
> last issued tender document



Yes rebuild, which doesn't mean upgrade !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

Inception-06 said:


> Yes rebuild, which doesn't mean upgrade !


check the list of items required in PDF file attached in my post

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PanzerKiel

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1363896904535392259

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

PanzerKiel said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1363896904535392259


Ukrainian defense conglomerate signs $85mn contract with Pakistan

“We also discussed with the Pakistani side of new orders for delivery in the country Engine 6 TD1 and 6 TD2.”


Ukrainian defense goods manufacturer, Ukroboronprom has signed a contract with Pakistan worth over $85 million or PKR 13.63 billion.

As part of the IDEX-2021 international arms exhibition, which is currently underway in the UAE, a contract was signed between Ukroboronprom and Pakistan for the repair of a fleet of T-80UD tanks worth a total of $ 85.6 million.

As per details, this is Ukroboronprom’s first contract with Pakistan in 2021. Ukroboronprom is a conglomerate consisting of multi-product enterprises in various sectors of the defense industry of Ukraine.

"Our armored businesses constantly update their production capacity and improve technology that provides high-quality works and products,” said CEO Ukroboronprom Yuri Gusev. “We also discussed with the Pakistani side of new orders for delivery in the country Engine 6 TD1 and 6 TD2.”

In addition, Yuri Gusev met with Deputy Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. At the event, the state of implementation of joint projects was discussed and priority areas for future cooperation were identified.

"In the near future we will intensify bilateral military-technical cooperation between Ukraine and the UAE, " Yuriy Gusev stressed.

It is pertinent to mention that back in 90s, Ukraine demonstrated the tank to Pakistan, which was looking for a new main battle tank. The tank was tested in Pakistan and in August 1996 Pakistan decided to buy 320 T-80UD tanks from Ukraine for $650 million in two variants: a standard Ob'yekt 478B and export Ob'yekt 478BE.









Ukrainian defense conglomerate signs $85mn contract with Pakistan


“We also discussed with the Pakistani side of new orders for delivery in the country Engine 6 TD1 and 6 TD2.”



www.brecorder.com

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Inception-06

PanzerKiel said:


> Ukrainian defense conglomerate signs $85mn contract with Pakistan
> 
> “We also discussed with the Pakistani side of new orders for delivery in the country Engine 6 TD1 and 6 TD2.”
> 
> 
> Ukrainian defense goods manufacturer, Ukroboronprom has signed a contract with Pakistan worth over $85 million or PKR 13.63 billion.
> 
> As part of the IDEX-2021 international arms exhibition, which is currently underway in the UAE, a contract was signed between Ukroboronprom and Pakistan for the repair of a fleet of T-80UD tanks worth a total of $ 85.6 million.
> 
> As per details, this is Ukroboronprom’s first contract with Pakistan in 2021. Ukroboronprom is a conglomerate consisting of multi-product enterprises in various sectors of the defense industry of Ukraine.
> 
> "Our armored businesses constantly update their production capacity and improve technology that provides high-quality works and products,” said CEO Ukroboronprom Yuri Gusev. “We also discussed with the Pakistani side of new orders for delivery in the country Engine 6 TD1 and 6 TD2.”
> 
> In addition, Yuri Gusev met with Deputy Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. At the event, the state of implementation of joint projects was discussed and priority areas for future cooperation were identified.
> 
> "In the near future we will intensify bilateral military-technical cooperation between Ukraine and the UAE, " Yuriy Gusev stressed.
> 
> It is pertinent to mention that back in 90s, Ukraine demonstrated the tank to Pakistan, which was looking for a new main battle tank. The tank was tested in Pakistan and in August 1996 Pakistan decided to buy 320 T-80UD tanks from Ukraine for $650 million in two variants: a standard Ob'yekt 478B and export Ob'yekt 478BE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukrainian defense conglomerate signs $85mn contract with Pakistan
> 
> 
> “We also discussed with the Pakistani side of new orders for delivery in the country Engine 6 TD1 and 6 TD2.”
> 
> 
> 
> www.brecorder.com




T-80UD Development

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2


----------



## ghazi52

Type-85UG

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## iLION12345_1

ghazi52 said:


> Type-85UG
> 
> 
> View attachment 729144


Isn’t this the wrong thread for this one?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abid123

Would it not be better to buy 320 new T-84 Oplot M to replace the older T-80UD?


----------



## Primus

Abid123 said:


> Would it not be better to buy 320 new T-84 Oplot M to replace the older T-80UD?


They were tested and selected. The tank never came to fruition in the pak army because of the low production capacity of the Ukrainian manufacturers for the tank

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GriffinsRule

Abid123 said:


> Would it not be better to buy 320 new T-84 Oplot M to replace the older T-80UD?


Why would you want to replace T-80s before T-59 or T-69?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Abid123 said:


> Would it not be better to buy 320 new T-84 Oplot M to replace the older T-80UD?


Would cost a lot more, that way you’re paying for the Hull, the engine, the gun and so on, things that are the same between both tanks, apart from many other subsystems. We are inducting VT-4 because Ukraine had issues with Oplot deliveries as well (not that VT-4 isn’t a better tank, because it is). It’s better to upgrade the ones we already have and extend their lifespan. 


GriffinsRule said:


> Why would you want to replace T-80s before T-59 or T-69?


No Type 59s left to replace, not in active service for a couple of years now. (Excluding a few on the western border with FC).
About 200 type 69s in service with army and FC both, some of which are only for training, like the ones in Quetta school of tactics.
As of April 2020 there were 3 regiments of Type 69 (so about 130 tanks, plus minus few for training) left in the army, of which one is known to be on the western side, in Baluchistan. keep in mind this is before AK-1 and VT-4 induction.
The incoming VT-4s are being used to equip regiments that previously had Al-Zarrars (which will either be sent to the west or to other regiments that have Type 69s I suppose.)
maybe AK-1 is going to be used to replace type 69 too, though I have heard they are being used to raise new regiments, someone more knowledgeable can confirm that.

There is a common misconception, especially one that Indians tend to throw around that the majority of our tank fleet is still Type 59s and 69s, when in reality there is none of the former and very few of the latter in service, since even by conservative estimates we have over 2000 MBTs Excluding Those two.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> As of April 2020 there were 3 regiments of Type 69 (so about 130 tanks


We did see them in a recent exercise and that too of Bahawalpur corps, perhaps they are only with some of the Inf divs, but I hope that your figures are correct.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Desert Fox 1 said:


> We did see them in a recent exercise and that too of Bahawalpur corps, perhaps they are only with some of the Inf divs, but I hope that your figures are correct.


From last few exercises on ISPR, I believe one regiment in Sialkot, one in Lahore and maybe the ones in Quetta are separate and not part of a regiment (so means third regt in Bahawalpur), however I do believe these figures are correct, after all we wouldn’t be replacing AZs of 6 Div if we still had an urgency to replace these.
Many Regts have retired their Type 69 in the last few years, here in conversation with gryphon he too mentioned these same numbers for type 69, he mentioned around 170 total in army service. This was again before VT4/AK-1 induction, he did however mention that AK1 was being used to raise new regiments in the Bahawalpur-Okara and Pano-aqil areas.





As for type 59, if you’ve noticed they haven’t been seen in any exercises in the last few of years, there hasn’t even been new photos of them. They are all in reserve, if not been converted to AZ.

as I mentioned we easily have over 2000 MBTs in service excluding these two types, we don’t need many more considering we still have over 500 on order in the form of VT4 And AK-1 with 50 of each being added every year.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## GriffinsRule

iLION12345_1 said:


> From last few exercises on ISPR, I believe one regiment in Sialkot, one in Lahore and maybe the ones in Quetta are separate and not part of a regiment (so means third regt in Bahawalpur), however I do believe these figures are correct, after all we wouldn’t be replacing AZs of 6 Div if we still had an urgency to replace these.
> Many Regts have retired their Type 69 in the last few years, here in conversation with gryphon he too mentioned these same numbers for type 69, he mentioned around 170 total in army service. This was again before VT4/AK-1 induction, he did however mention that AK1 was being used to raise new regiments in the Bahawalpur-Okara and Pano-aqil areas.
> View attachment 744854
> 
> As for type 59, if you’ve noticed they haven’t been seen in any exercises in the last few of years, there hasn’t even been new photos of them. They are all in reserve, if not been converted to AZ.
> 
> as I mentioned we easily have over 2000 MBTs in service excluding these two types, we don’t need many more considering we still have over 500 on order in the form of VT4 And AK-1 with 50 of each being added every year.


I include Al-Zarrar in the T-59s as that is what they are really, with some cosmetic upgrades.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

GriffinsRule said:


> I include Al-Zarrar in the T-59s as that is what they are really, with some cosmetic upgrades.


Then I’m afraid you know nothing about them at all. You are a respected member, but that could not be further from the truth.

Al-zarrars gun and ammunition are modern, superior to any Indian tank currently in service, including the T90S, as they have obsolete ammo.
AZ fires the same Ammo as the AK.

Al-Zarrars TI sights are literally the same one used in AK And T90S, it’s FCS overall belongs to the same generation as AK and T90S, incl it’s MFDs for gunner and commander.
It falls behind in commanders sights though, so no hunter killer capability.

It has an upgraded engine, suspension, transmission, AC, LWR (don’t think any Indian tanks have those either), can be fitted with IBMS, has modern radios, assisted loading system, can fire ATGMs etc the list goes on.

The only thing I find to be unsatisfactory on it is the protection. It has composites on both turret and hull plus it has a good ERA package (same kind of ERA as AK). The issue is that due to weight limitations the ERA cannot be stacked as is it on AK which would improve its effectivenes a lot and the base armor can only be increased so much keeping in view the weight. That doesn’t make it a bad tank, rather it’s armor would still be adequate against anything but a T90S since Indian T72 tanks literally use BM17 projectiles from the 60s, while it’s ammo would go through Indian tanks like butter.
Other tanks are not the most common threat to tanks in a conventional war, it’s usually infantry anti-tank weapons, HEAT projectiles from RPGs, IEDs etc. no tank can really survive an ATGM without APS.

Keep in mind india operates close to 900 Stock T72s which are obsolete, if we have 800 AZs going against them then the AZ will come out on top every single time. It’s not even close to a Type 59 or even a T72.

However it has reached the end of its upgradeable life and will need to be retired as the 2030s start, judging by where the VT4s are going it seems the army already knows that. For now it’s more than enough for what we need to face.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## HRK

iLION12345_1 said:


> However it has reached the end of its upgradeable life and will need to be retired as the 2030s start


Fan boy in me always wish these tanks to be converted as remotely operated tanks rather then getting retired .... 

but is just a wish and we know not every wish come true .....

Reactions: Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

HRK said:


> Fan boy in me always wish these tanks to be converted as remotely operated tanks rather then getting retired ....
> 
> but is just a wish and we know not every wish come true .....


That would be a very cool concept, maybe a small number or IFV/Tank hunters can be created from the platform too, like the Russian Terminator system on T72 chassis. But again, just wishes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## GriffinsRule

iLION12345_1 said:


> Then I’m afraid you know nothing about them at all. You are a respected member, but that could not be further from the truth.
> 
> Al-zarrars gun and ammunition are modern, superior to any Indian tank currently in service, including the T90S, as they have obsolete ammo.
> AZ fires the same Ammo as the AK.
> 
> Al-Zarrars TI sights are literally the same one used in AK And T90S, it’s FCS overall belongs to the same generation as AK and T90S, incl it’s MFDs for gunner and commander.
> It falls behind in commanders sights though, so no hunter killer capability.
> 
> It has an upgraded engine, suspension, transmission, AC, LWR (don’t think any Indian tanks have those either), can be fitted with IBMS, has modern radios, assisted loading system, can fire ATGMs etc the list goes on.
> 
> The only thing I find to be unsatisfactory on it is the protection. It has composites on both turret and hull plus it has a good ERA package (same kind of ERA as AK). The issue is that due to weight limitations the ERA cannot be stacked as is it on AK which would improve its effectivenes a lot and the base armor can only be increased so much keeping in view the weight. That doesn’t make it a bad tank, rather it’s armor would still be adequate against anything but a T90S since Indian T72 tanks literally use BM17 projectiles from the 60s, while it’s ammo would go through Indian tanks like butter.
> Other tanks are not the most common threat to tanks in a conventional war, it’s usually infantry anti-tank weapons, HEAT projectiles from RPGs, IEDs etc. no tank can really survive an ATGM without APS.
> 
> Keep in mind india operates close to 900 Stock T72s which are obsolete, if we have 800 AZs going against them then the AZ will come out on top every single time. It’s not even close to a Type 59 or even a T72.
> 
> However it has reached the end of its upgradeable life and will need to be retired as the 2030s start, judging by where the VT4s are going it seems the army already knows that. For now it’s more than enough for what we need to face.


I know all the things you mentioned. You can read about them on here and wikipedia and various other websites, but at its core, its a tank from the 1960s that has been upgraded to the extent it can be, yet it is obsolete on the modern battlefield in terms of protection, firepower and survivability. They are akin to PAF Mirages. Seem to fit the bill for now but their age is showing and they are not up to mark. More like a solution to the problem of not being able to replace the large fleet with more modern tanks. So yes, they will support the heavier tanks and make up the numbers but going back to the original post I replied to, I would not retire T-80s or T-85s before these ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

GriffinsRule said:


> its a tank from the 1960s


But then Abrams and Leo are also from 70s and initially abrams used the same L7 gun as type59-II.


GriffinsRule said:


> Seem to fit the bill for now but their age is showing and they are not up to mark.


If they hadn't been upto the mark then PA wouldn't have equipped its elite and most important 6th armd div with these tanks. Also AZs would have been replaced by AKs if the army felt that their striking corps is not upto the task. And remember we did face escalations with India at that time.
Also AZ has had more then 53 upgrades which are not cosmetic like North Korea's, so it is almost a new tank.


GriffinsRule said:


> yet it is obsolete on the modern battlefield in terms of protection, firepower and survivability


No it isn't. @iLION12345_1 has explained it already. Its firepower is far better than most of the Indian tanks which is supplemented by the fact that tank ammunition used by PA is better then IA's. Again if PA thought that AZs don't have sufficient firepower to achieve the objectives assigned to 1corps then they would have certainly been replaced.
Another important thing is that we have to analyse the threats faced by PA by Indian armoured forces. Thus like AK, AZ might not be the best tank in the world but it is better then most in South Asia.


GriffinsRule said:


> I would not retire T-80s or T-85s before these ones.


Neither would the army. Especially since T80UD is the most well protected tank in PA and Type-85II has recently got UG upgrades.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Desert Fox 1 said:


> If they hadn't been upto the mark then PA wouldn't have equipped its elite and most important 6th armd div with these tanks.



There is an entirely different reasoning behind equipping our primary northern strike formation with older AZs instead of T80s or AKs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

PanzerKiel said:


> There is an entirely different reasoning behind equipping our primary northern strike formation with older AZs instead of T80s or AKs.


Terrain?
Also what I wanted to say was that if AZ wasn't a good tank then it would have been changed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

GriffinsRule said:


> I know all the things you mentioned. You can read about them on here and wikipedia and various other websites, but at its core, its a tank from the 1960s that has been upgraded to the extent it can be, yet it is obsolete on the modern battlefield in terms of protection, firepower and survivability. They are akin to PAF Mirages. Seem to fit the bill for now but their age is showing and they are not up to mark. More like a solution to the problem of not being able to replace the large fleet with more modern tanks. So yes, they will support the heavier tanks and make up the numbers but going back to the original post I replied to, I would not retire T-80s or T-85s before these ones.


I feel you misunderstand what a modern battlefield is. Our modern battlefield is not the modern battlefield of a USA vs Russia conflict. We use what works for us, not only do we not have unlimited money, it would simply be unwise to use something so expensive, yet so good, that it’s overpowered for our needs. I understand that in the greater global image, these are nearing obsoletion, but If our enemy is still so far behind, then that money is better used elsewhere. I personally would not compare these to mirages simply because imo the mirages aren’t much better than whatever india uses, apart from maybe old Mig 21s, meanwhile AZ is better than most of what india uses. It’s definitely not obsolete in terms of firepower, and protection is not as good as it could be, but as you say yourself, it is a solution, the best one we can get. However your points are valid, and I too hope that as things improve for us, this need to make compromises changes.


Desert Fox 1 said:


> But then Abrams and Leo are also from 70s and initially abrams used the same L7 gun as type59-II.


This is an important point to note, the difference here is that the abrams was designed with upgradability in mind, like the AK was, modularity was important, something that wasn’t present in type 59. Hence it can not be upgraded as much, but yes, that comparison can be made.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
3


----------



## Signalian

Abid123 said:


> replace the older T-80UD?


T-80UD is still top of the line that PA has.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## syed_yusuf

Signalian said:


> T-80UD is still top of the line that PA has.


I am not sure if this is valid any more. Ak1 and vt4 are better

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

syed_yusuf said:


> I am not sure if this is valid any more. Ak1 and vt4 are better


Protection wise.


----------



## Type59

Desert Fox 1 said:


> Protection wise.



Disagree. Base armour of al khalid is on par with T80ud. It has composite armour on turret too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> T-80UD is still top of the line that PA has.



It was years ago

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

AK-1 and VT-4 have surpassed it in nearly everything.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Signalian

Dazzler said:


> It was years ago


1at AD should replace it ASAP then, why would an elite division of PA still field it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Signalian said:


> 1at AD should replace it ASAP then, why would an elite division of PA still field it?



Because it’s also not a bad tank. It’s comparable to the original Al-Khalid.

The Al-Khalid-1 and VT-4 use third generation systems for basically everything, UDs are using mainly 1st and 2nd gen equipment (as in their FCS, ERA, Thermals and so on.)
I’d say these UDs are about as capable as our original AKs. However their armor and firepower is still very good.

Comparing a tank from the 90s to tanks that came after 2015 is unfair, it was the best of its time, but now it needs upgrades, which it does seem to be getting.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

iLION12345_1 said:


> Because it’s also not a bad tank. It’s comparable to the original Al-Khalid.
> 
> The Al-Khalid-1 and VT-4 use third generation systems for basically everything, UDs are using mainly 1st and 2nd gen equipment (as in their FCS, ERA, Thermals and so on.)
> I’d say these UDs are about as capable as our original AKs. However their armor and firepower is still very good.
> 
> Comparing a tank from the 90s to tanks that came after 2015 is unfair, it was the best of its time, but now it needs upgrades, which it does seem to be getting.


My point exactly, its not the right time to replace it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Signalian said:


> My point exactly, its not the right time to replace it.


Of course not, I don’t think anyone suggested that, it will remain potent for over a decade even without upgrades, especially considering what India uses. We just meant it’s no longer the best in PAs service.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bilal.

iLION12345_1 said:


> That would be a very cool concept, maybe a small number or IFV/Tank hunters can be created from the platform too, like the Russian Terminator system on T72 chassis. But again, just wishes


Something like Israeli Achzarit with the firepower of BTR-T.


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> 1at AD should replace it ASAP then, why would an elite division of PA still field it?



You kill first when you see first. 1G46+ PNK4 is good but nothing exceptional.
It only has armor going for it. Without upgrade, it'll struggle fulfilling the new doctrine. 1A45 was a decent FCS in the 90s but it lacks key functions such as AT, Hunter killer mode and has no integrated TI channel support in FCS. Hydromechanical stabilizer is good though. 

As for fielding it in 1st, it will make short work of Bhishmas even without upgrades hence no need to shuffle. Regardless of what anyone says, UD is more than enough for 90S.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

Dazzler said:


> As for fielding it in 1st, it will make short work of Bhishmas even without upgrades hence no need to shuffle. Regardless of what anyone says, UD is more than enough for 90S.


A tank needs to be compared against facing an enemy tank to show that its still potent ? Surely there must be other factors too why 1st AD fields UDs.


iLION12345_1 said:


> Of course not, I don’t think anyone suggested that, it will remain potent for over a decade even without upgrades, especially considering what India uses. We just meant it’s no longer the best in PAs service.


Post 526, i replied when UDs replacement was suggested.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2


----------



## SQ8

Signalian said:


> A tank needs to be compared against facing an enemy tank to show that its still potent ? *Surely there must be other factors too why 1st AD fields UDs.*
> 
> Post 526, i replied when UDs replacement was suggested.


I would think the same reason 9sq wasn’t allocated the block-52s. The regiment knowledge must be built around the UD and the ecosystem familar enough to not want to disturb the effectiveness of that force.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Signalian

@PanzerKiel 

AFAIK 1st AD deployed M-48s, did it transition to any other MBT before it got T-80 UDs?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Signalian said:


> @PanzerKiel
> 
> AFAIK 1st AD deployed M-48s, did it transition to any other MBT before it got T-80 UDs?


I think that it may have been equipped with type 59s considering its importance and objectives. Also if 23 inf div had type59s in 71 then an armd div must have been equipped by 59s till 94.
However, 19 lancers which was later equipped with T80UDs was equipped with M48s in the Somali operation(1993)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PanzerKiel

Signalian said:


> @PanzerKiel
> 
> AFAIK 1st AD deployed M-48s, did it transition to any other MBT before it got T-80 UDs?


T59s as well, and T34s in the its divisional recce regiment.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

Signalian said:


> A tank needs to be compared against facing an enemy tank to show that its still potent ? Surely there must be other factors too why 1st AD fields UDs.
> 
> Post 526, i replied when UDs replacement was suggested.



I don't feel the need to factor in other factors in a thread titled " information pool".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1 | Sad Sad:
1


----------



## Signalian

Dazzler said:


> I don't feel the need to factor in other factors in a thread titled " information pool".


Thats alright. 


In 1965, we saw 1st Armored Div facing Indian Infantry Div, while 6th Armored Div faced Indian 1st Armored Div., therefore, I feel a tank's role is much more diverse than just facing tanks. As for comparison or technological advancement, a tank's role can be viewed on not just the enemy forces it will face, but also on the terrain (desert and then urban areas) it will operate, the logistics line to support tanks advance, the formation (Strike or other, Div or Bde) under which its operating etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Curious question:

We got ACs in UDs? 🤔

I have heard both answers, Yes and No. 

If someone got a Pic, it will be good.

@PanzerKiel @Dazzler

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> Curious question:
> 
> We got ACs in UDs? 🤔
> 
> I have heard both answers, Yes and No.
> 
> If someone got a Pic, it will be good.
> 
> @PanzerKiel @Dazzler


This reminds me that during Zia's tenure, a massive cube of frozen ice was granted to tank crews since there were no ACs in MBTs.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

Signalian said:


> This reminds me that during Zia's tenure, a massive cube of frozen ice was granted to tank crews since there were no ACs in MBTs.


That trend is still there, both for armored regiments and MIBs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Raja Porus

Signalian said:


> This reminds me that during Zia's tenure, a massive cube of frozen ice was granted to tank crews since there were no ACs in MBTs.


Signal corps as well. That's why during exercises every one especially infantrymen would make "sangat" with signalians. 
I once met an infantry Lt Gen in CMH in a waiting room and he told me that they would envy the signal officers as they would have plenty of ice and usually had RKRs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Tipu7 said:


> Curious question:
> 
> We got ACs in UDs? 🤔
> 
> I have heard both answers, Yes and No.
> 
> If someone got a Pic, it will be good.
> 
> @PanzerKiel @Dazzler



Haven't seen one on a UD. Not sure if they plan it for upgrade.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tipu7

ACs should be among top priorities for UD upgradation. The crew comfort is a very critical variable of operational success, particularly in hot desert conditions. Otherwise, imagine your mind boiling within a metallic oven with 125mm gun and tracks. 

VT-4 and AKs are better in this aspect; they got ACs. 

In India, I guess T-90S (minus initial batches) and Arjun have ACs. 


Dazzler said:


> Haven't seen one on a UD. Not sure if they plan it for upgrade.





PanzerKiel said:


> That trend is still there, both for armored regiments and MIBs.





Signalian said:


> This reminds me that during Zia's tenure, a massive cube of frozen ice was granted to tank crews since there were no ACs in MBTs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> ACs should be among top priorities for UD upgradation. The crew comfort is a very critical variable of operational success, particularly in hot desert conditions. Otherwise, imagine your mind boiling within a metallic oven with 125mm gun and tracks.
> 
> VT-4 and AKs are better in this aspect; they got ACs.
> 
> In India, I guess T-90S (minus initial batches) and Arjun have ACs.


Application likho proper format mein, PK forward karay ga Nowshera school ko, wahan se GHQ bhej dengay 😁

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
3


----------



## Raja Porus

PanzerKiel said:


> That trend is still there, both for armored regiments and MIBs.


BTW what's their utility, I mean how are they used? Do they put it in their kameez like Pathan truck drivers  
Also isn't it difficult for tank crews to operate T80UDs in desert without AC. Do they have fans or something like that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Signalian said:


> Application likho proper format mein, PK forward karay ga Nowshera school ko, wahan se GHQ bhej dengay 😁


Application kon daikhta he bhai, Dharna ho ga Dharna...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Type59

Desert Fox 1 said:


> BTW what's their utility, I mean how are they used? Do they put it in their kameez like Pathan truck drivers
> Also isn't it difficult for tank crews to operate T80UDs in desert without AC. Do they have fans or something like that?



Russian t72's gunner have a basic fan, hence T80s should have one too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

Tipu7 said:


> Application kon daikhta he bhai, Dharna ho ga Dharna...


All non-AC tank regt officers and jawans will be there with you near the saat number gate of GHQ.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## syed_yusuf

Does PA uses t80ud or t84 ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

syed_yusuf said:


> Does PA uses t80ud or t84 ?


PA has two variants of T80UD. 478BE and 478BEh models.
35 478BE and 285 478BEH.

The BEh Models are pretty much the same as early T84 models as they got welded turrets and other upgrades, they’ve also had thermal sights added.
PAs UDs are apparently getting further upgrades, or at least rebuilds, which might bring them even closer to T84s.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

iLION12345_1 said:


> PA has two variants of T80UD. 478BE and 478BEh models.
> 35 478BE and 285 478BEH.
> 
> The BEh Models are pretty much the same as early T84 models as they got welded turrets and other upgrades, they’ve also had thermal sights added.
> PAs UDs are apparently getting further upgrades, or at least rebuilds, which might bring them even closer to T84s.


Bro, you got some solid information about PA , thanks for sharing

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Zarvan

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1424019050800324610

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## farooqbhai007

Good to see PA ending reliance on Ukr/Rus for tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CrazyZ

farooqbhai007 said:


> View attachment 887102
> 
> Good to see PA ending reliance on Ukr/Rus for tanks.


Local reverse engineering of T80UD components shouldn't be too difficult for spares parts to keep our current fleet rolling. Upgrades can be done with Chinese or Turkish components, IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ali_Baba

CrazyZ said:


> Local reverse engineering of T80UD components shouldn't be too difficult for spares parts to keep our current fleet rolling. Upgrades can be done with Chinese or Turkish components, IMO.



Why bother trying to reverse engineer parts? Why not sell teh tanks to the USA so that they can provide them to Ukraine and use the money to buy new VT-4s ??????

This is a perfect opportunity to get out of the dead end that is the T-80UD platform ... etc..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## PakFactor

Ali_Baba said:


> Why bother trying to reverse engineer parts? Why not sell teh tanks to the USA so that they can provide them to Ukraine and use the money to buy new VT-4s ??????
> 
> This is a perfect opportunity to get out of the dead end that is the T-80UD platform ... etc..



Not a bad option, but ask for the total amount upfront and direct deposit.


----------



## CrazyZ

Ali_Baba said:


> Why bother trying to reverse engineer parts? Why not sell teh tanks to the USA so that they can provide them to Ukraine and use the money to buy new VT-4s ??????
> 
> This is a perfect opportunity to get out of the dead end that is the T-80UD platform ... etc..


Ukraine doesn't need or want tanks. They want fighter AC and artillery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ali_Baba

PakFactor said:


> Not a bad option, but ask for the total amount upfront and direct deposit.



Exactly - perfect opportunity ...


----------



## iLION12345_1

CrazyZ said:


> Local reverse engineering of T80UD components shouldn't be too difficult for spares parts to keep our current fleet rolling. Upgrades can be done with Chinese or Turkish components, IMO.


Upgrades shouldn’t even be considered if replacement with VT-4 is an option, but given how many older types there are to replace, upgrades to the UD fleet are quite possible. Most likely with technology from the Al-Khalid-1. 
Pakistan already makes most of the spares for T80UDs, the war has forced them to start making whatever is left, especially powertrain components. 



Ali_Baba said:


> Why bother trying to reverse engineer parts? Why not sell teh tanks to the USA so that they can provide them to Ukraine and use the money to buy new VT-4s ??????
> 
> This is a perfect opportunity to get out of the dead end that is the T-80UD platform ... etc..


Because it’s not our war? because the sale price wouldn’t cover new purchases? Because we can’t trade 320 tanks for 100? Because building new tanks takes time? Because getting rid of 320 3rd Gen tanks in one sweep and waiting several years for replacements would put the PA in a vulnerable position? Because we have over a thousand older tanks to replace? At least consider the basic issues before just posting something like this…



Ali_Baba said:


> Exactly - perfect opportunity ...


Not even close.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## syed_yusuf

iLION12345_1 said:


> Upgrades shouldn’t even be considered if replacement with VT-4 is an option, but given how many older types there are to replace, upgrades to the UD fleet are quite possible. Most likely with technology from the Al-Khalid-1.
> Pakistan already makes most of the spares for T80UDs, the war has forced them to start making whatever is left, especially powertrain components.
> 
> 
> Because it’s not our war? because the sale price wouldn’t cover new purchases? Because we can’t trade 320 tanks for 100? Because building new tanks takes time? Because getting rid of 320 3rd Gen tanks in one sweep and waiting several years for replacements would put the PA in a vulnerable position? Because we have over a thousand older tanks to replace? At least consider the basic issues before just posting something like this…
> 
> 
> Not even close.



i think selling these tanks will not be a bad idea even if it leaves a gap of 300 tanks .. if not Ukraine, there are other countries like libya, iraq etc. can buy it .. we can wash our hands with these good but older generation tanks and not need to worry about them in the future.


----------



## Princeps Senatus

syed_yusuf said:


> i think selling these tanks will not be a bad idea even if it leaves a gap of 300 tanks .. if not Ukraine, there are other countries like libya, iraq etc. can buy it .. we can wash our hands with these good but older generation tanks and not need to worry about them in the future.


Nobody's gonna pay even half the original amount for 20 year old tanks - simply not worth it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Question is why to sell? Can we afford to fill out number with new ones

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

syed_yusuf said:


> i think selling these tanks will not be a bad idea even if it leaves a gap of 300 tanks .. if not Ukraine, there are other countries like libya, iraq etc. can buy it .. we can wash our hands with these good but older generation tanks and not need to worry about them in the future.


And what will you replace them with? Where will you find the money to replace them? How long will it take? How will we fill the gap left by 320 tanks while new ones come? Why sell 3rd Gen tanks when we have several hundred 1st Gen ones? You literally just ignored all the issues I raised and said the same thing again…

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

syed_yusuf said:


> even if it leaves a gap of 300 tanks ..


Giving an opportunity for India to conduct a Corps level Ex on border as PA 1st Armored Div loses all its MBTs in a single sweep.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2


----------



## Reichmarshal

I dont know where ppl come up with these bright ideas, like selling t 80ud.
HIT spend 100 of millions of dollars to retool n upgrade HIT for this purpose ( in addition to others)

T80ud has been undergoing complete overhaul with chinese/russian help for some time now....as even long before the war the Ukrainians wanted an arm n a leg with third rate quality parts.
So a few years ago it was decided to go for complete overhaul with chinese/russian help....before the russians attacked ukraine it was more russian n less chinese....right now I guess it would be more chinese n less russian

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

syed_yusuf said:


> i think selling these tanks will not be a bad idea even if it leaves a gap of 300 tanks .. if not Ukraine, there are other countries like libya, iraq etc. can buy it .. we can wash our hands with these good but older generation tanks and not need to worry about them in the future.


Oh yes, decommission one of the two armoured divs you have. Paksitan will be rendered almost toothless in the south.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## SQ8

iLION12345_1 said:


> And what will you replace them with? Where will you find the money to replace them? How long will it take? How will we fill the gap left by 320 tanks while new ones come? Why sell 3rd Gen tanks when we have several hundred 1st Gen ones? You literally just ignored all the issues I raised and said the same thing again…


But the earth is flat…



Reichmarshal said:


> I dont know where ppl come up with these bright ideas, like selling t 80ud.
> HIT spend 100 of millions of dollars to retool n upgrade HIT for this purpose ( in addition to others)
> 
> T80ud has been undergoing complete overhaul with chinese/russian help for some time now....as even long before the war the Ukrainians wanted an arm n a leg with third rate quality parts.
> So a few years ago it was decided to go for complete overhaul with chinese/russian help....before the russians attacked ukraine it was more russian n less chinese....right now I guess it would be more chinese n less russian


There is also a line up of workshops along GT road and other places where many of the powertrain are serviced for a lot of these first and third gen armored vehicles beyond LRUs.

Interesting way the PA has taken on vehicle servicing by employing this “cottage” industry

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Reichmarshal

SQ8 said:


> There is also a line up of workshops along GT road and other places where many of the powertrain are serviced for a lot of these first and third gen armored vehicles beyond LRUs.
> 
> Interesting way the PA has taken on vehicle servicing by employing this “cottage” industry


No I am talking about completele overhaul not periodic mentinance, its akin to mlu.it can only happen at HIT.....the tanks taken apart completely to the last nut n bolt n then put together completely.....if HIT choses it can even make quite a few upgrades....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Reichmarshal said:


> No I am talking about completele overhaul not periodic mentinance, its akin to mlu.it can only happen at HIT.....the tanks taken apart completely to the last nut n bolt n then put together completely.....if HIT choses it can even make quite a few upgrades....


Except a lot of that work was done at Bahawalpur and not HIT.
HIT did do most of the development for the localization and upgradation of the UD. (most, not all, plenty of it was done elsewhere too, NUST CEME comes to mind), but I don’t believe they did most of the rebuilding. The army did that itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

iLION12345_1 said:


> Except a lot of that work was done at multan and not HIT.
> HIT did do most of the development for the localization and upgradation of the UD. (again, most, plenty of it was done elsewhere too, NUST CEME comes to mind), but I don’t believe they did most of the rebuilding. The army did that itself.


No the whole overhaul is being done at HIT n no where else


----------



## iLION12345_1

Reichmarshal said:


> No the whole overhaul is being done at HIT n no where else


We’ve literally seen several photos of the rebuilds being conducted in army factories elsewhere. I’ve been to HIT enough times to know what happens there and doesn’t.

HIT didn’t do all of the R&D or the work for the T80UD overhaul.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2


----------



## farooqbhai007

iLION12345_1 said:


> We’ve literally seen several photos of the rebuilds being conducted in army factories in Multan. I’ve been to HIT enough times to know what happens there and doesn’t.


yep Bhawalpur is doing complete overhaul for T80s

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

farooqbhai007 said:


> yep Bhawalpur is doing complete overhaul for T80s


Was it Bahawalpur or Multan?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

iLION12345_1 said:


> Was it Bahawalpur or Multan?


Bhawalpur Workshop

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## PanzerKiel

farooqbhai007 said:


> Bhawalpur Workshop


Workshops locations have been so articulated so that equipment from Central or South Pakistan doesnt have to travel all the way to North Pakistan for processing. In this case, Bahwalpur workshop looks after the needs of equipment located in South Punjab and Northern Sindh. Sometimes, southern Sindh as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

PanzerKiel said:


> Workshops locations have been so articulated so that equipment from Central or South Pakistan doesnt have to travel all the way to North Pakistan for processing. In this case, Bahwalpur workshop looks after the needs of equipment located in South Punjab and Northern Sindh. Sometimes, southern Sindh as well.


isnt there a smaller new one being built in central sindh as well for tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

PanzerKiel said:


> Workshops locations have been so articulated so that equipment from Central or South Pakistan doesnt have to travel all the way to North Pakistan for processing. In this case, Bahwalpur workshop looks after the needs of equipment located in South Punjab and Northern Sindh. Sometimes, southern Sindh as well.





iLION12345_1 said:


> We’ve literally seen several photos of the rebuilds being conducted in army factories elsewhere. I’ve been to HIT enough times to know what happens there and doesn’t.
> 
> HIT didn’t do all of the R&D or the work for the T80UD overhaul.





farooqbhai007 said:


> Bhawalpur Workshop


Only for tanks (and apcs)? No arty?
Because last year I asked this about M109s.


Raja Porus said:


> But I wanted to ask why vehicles from south are sent to 502 as most of our mech/armd assets are concentrated in the southern Punjab

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farooqbhai007

Raja Porus said:


> Only for tanks (and apcs)? No arty?
> Because last year I asked this about M109s.


Gujaranwala does artillery , atleast towed ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Raja Porus said:


> Only for tanks (and apcs)? No arty?
> Because last year I asked this about M109s.


M109 upgrades and rebuilds were mostly done at HIT because they had the capable factory for it. Maintenance is done mainly at 502 and likely some at Gujranwala.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Reichmarshal said:


> No I am talking about completele overhaul not periodic mentinance, its akin to mlu.it can only happen at HIT.....the tanks taken apart completely to the last nut n bolt n then put together completely.....if HIT choses it can even make quite a few upgrades....


They have at ASRF
Improved 1g46 sights with new intensifiers
Upgraded 1a43 ballistic computer and associated sensors
Catherine fc integration is already well known.
Kba3s can all fire naiza and Chinese apfsds and HEAT rounds

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

iLION12345_1 said:


> M109 upgrades and rebuilds were mostly done at HIT because they had the capable factory for it. Maintenance is done mainly at 502 and likely some at Gujranwala.


Should start for SH-1 also.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Signalian said:


> Should start for SH-1 also.


SH-1 platform maintenance will likely be done at 502 workshop. The gun barrels are too new to need any maintenance for now but it should already be easily possible at HIT, they have the equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

iLION12345_1 said:


> SH-1 platform maintenance will likely be done at 502 workshop. The gun barrels are too new to need any maintenance for now but it should already be easily possible at HIT, they have the equipment.


The mobile workshops are an interesting concept with the manoeuvre formations. Maybe the ficus should change so local EME wksps can do it in the cantt, battery by battery.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

Signalian said:


> The mobile workshops are an interesting concept with the manoeuvre formations. Maybe the ficus should change so local EME wksps can do it in the cantt, battery by battery.


Depends on what needs maintenance. Most of the common stuff can be done within the regiment or Cantonment itself by the EME regt responsible for maintenance, there is recently a somewhat increased focus on this.
At the EME college in Rawalpindi they have two separate Mechanical equipment training dept and electrical equipment training depts with one of each of the vehicles PA operates (or its corresponding electrical parts), they’re also used to train army techs that will form said mobile workshops. 

If it’s a larger issue/repair they may be sent to the nearest major workshop like Gujranwala, Multan, Bahawalpur, Karachi etc. Plenty of artillery maintenance takes place at Gujranwala, Tanks at Bahawalpur. But for the newer equipment like SH-15 and VT-4 they might have to stick to 501/502/HIT until they can set up the necessary procedures to maintain these machines at other places (maybe they already have?). There’s currently a large amount of development and research work being done on the VT-4 of a certain nature, before we can entirely locally maintain it. 

For further away regiments RWP is sort of a last resort and HIT is simply the army outsourcing it’s work for when it needs their advanced equipment, like gun barrel maintenance or electrical rebuilds/upgrades.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

iLION12345_1 said:


> Depends on what needs maintenance. Most of the common stuff can be done within the regiment or Cantonment itself by the EME regt responsible for maintenance, there is recently a somewhat increased focus on this.
> At the EME college in Rawalpindi they have two separate Mechanical equipment training dept and electrical equipment training depts with one of each of the vehicles PA operates (or its corresponding electrical parts), they’re also used to train army techs that will form said mobile workshops.
> 
> If it’s a larger issue/repair they may be sent to the nearest major workshop like Gujranwala, Multan, Bahawalpur, Karachi etc. Plenty of artillery maintenance takes place at Gujranwala, Tanks at Bahawalpur. But for the newer equipment like SH-15 and VT-4 they might have to stick to 501/502/HIT until they can set up the necessary procedures to maintain these machines at other places (maybe they already have?). There’s currently a large amount of development and research work being done on the VT-4 of a certain nature, before we can entirely locally maintain it.
> 
> For further away regiments RWP is sort of a last resort and HIT is simply the army outsourcing it’s work for when it needs their advanced equipment, like gun barrel maintenance or electrical rebuilds/upgrades.


Its the experience from local wksps in cantts which can then be taken to the field wksps in the event of Exs or war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

Signalian said:


> Its the experience from local wksps in cantts which can then be taken to the field wksps in the event of Exs or war.


With the Russian-Ukrainian war I doubt Pakistan will buy anymore military stuff Ukraine.

We should work with China. That is just better,


----------



## Primus

MultaniGuy said:


> With the Russian-Ukrainian war I doubt Pakistan will buy anymore military stuff Ukraine.


I think that's the case with any nation. Early on in the war, Ukraine was seen using a Stugna P meant for an Arab country against a Russian tank.


----------



## MultaniGuy

Primus said:


> I think that's the case with any nation. Early on in the war, Ukraine was seen using a Stugna P meant for an Arab country against a Russian tank.


China already has the best of the Soviet technologies anyways.
We should work with them more closely.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

Primus said:


> I think that's the case with any nation. Early on in the war, Ukraine was seen using a Stugna P meant for an Arab country against a Russian tank.


Pakistan bought T-80UDs from Ukraine in the late 1990's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Primus

MultaniGuy said:


> Pakistan bought T-80UDs from Ukraine in the late 1990's.


Indeed

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Primus said:


> Indeed


We should have bought the T-84 Oplot blueprints from Ukraine.

Now this Ukraine-Russian war will make that impossible.


----------



## Primus

MultaniGuy said:


> We should have bought the T-84 Oplot blueprints from Ukraine.
> 
> Now this Ukraine-Russian war will make that impossible.


Im not too sure that Ukraine would have been willing to sell their latest blueprints to Pakistan despite the relations. Also Ukraine could barely make 1 of those tanks. Do you think Pakistan would've faired better in manufacturing the tank?

On top of that, Pakistan not getting the Oplots could be a good thing. Remember, Allah is the best of planners.

@iLION12345_1

Your input would be appreciated


----------



## MultaniGuy

Primus said:


> Im not too sure that Ukraine would have been willing to sell their latest blueprints to Pakistan despite the relations. Also Ukraine could barely make 1 of those tanks. Do you think Pakistan would've faired better in manufacturing the tank?
> 
> On top of that, Pakistan not getting the Oplots could be a good thing. Remember, Allah is the best of planners.
> 
> @iLION12345_1
> 
> Your input would be appreciated


Yes I agree with that Allah is the best of planners.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## CrazyZ

MultaniGuy said:


> We should have bought the T-84 Oplot blueprints from Ukraine.
> 
> Now this Ukraine-Russian war will make that impossible.


We already received a lot of help from the Ukrainians for the Al-Khalid tank. Personally I think the next evolution of Al-Khalid should abandon a carousel autoloader in favor western style autoloaders like French and Japanese tanks use. Ukraine developed prototypes of western style autoloaders.....that may be worth asking about.

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

CrazyZ said:


> We already received a lot of help from the Ukrainians for the Al-Khalid tank. Personally I think the next evolution of Al-Khalid should abandon a carousel autoloader in favor western style autoloaders like French and Japanese tanks use. Ukraine developed prototypes of western style autoloaders.....that may be worth asking about.


True, but with this Russian-Ukrainian war going on, we don't know how much of the technology is in good condition.

At least there is China.

I believe Pakistan bought some VT-4s from China.


----------



## iLION12345_1

MultaniGuy said:


> With the Russian-Ukrainian war I doubt Pakistan will buy anymore military stuff Ukraine.
> 
> We should work with China. That is just better,


Ukrainian defense industry has been on a steep decline since the early 2000s. We haven’t bought anything from them anyways, instead we’ve been having to localize things we bought from them because they’re unable to deliver spare parts even before the war. The war changed nothing for us.



MultaniGuy said:


> We should have bought the T-84 Oplot blueprints from Ukraine.
> 
> Now this Ukraine-Russian war will make that impossible.


No thanks. I’ve said it before, the oplot is NOT a good tank. It is grossly underpowered, cannot fire modern ammo, has the sillouhete of a skyscraper and isn’t reliable. The only thing in its favor is armor protection. We should be very glad Pakistan stayed away from it and went the VT4 route. The VT4 will help the PA in more ways than one in the coming years.



Primus said:


> Im not too sure that Ukraine would have been willing to sell their latest blueprints to Pakistan despite the relations. Also Ukraine could barely make 1 of those tanks. Do you think Pakistan would've faired better in manufacturing the tank?
> 
> On top of that, Pakistan not getting the Oplots could be a good thing. Remember, Allah is the best of planners.
> 
> @iLION12345_1
> 
> Your input would be appreciated


Thailand made the mistake of buying Oplot over VT4. They regretted it so much they ditched the order after only 1/3rd of the tanks were delivered and went for VT4 because not only was the tank unreliable, Ukraine just couldn’t deliver the tanks or their spares. If Pakistan ordered them, it would have been an order for over 400 tanks at the minimum. We’ve received hundreds of VT4s already, if we went with oplot we’d have about two dozen and then the order would have to be canceled due to the war.

Plus, regardless of VT4 or Oplot. The tank would have been made at HIT, but the parts need to come from the country of origin, with Ukraine we’d have shot ourselves in the foot. So clearly, Allah was the best planner in this case.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Love Love:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

CrazyZ said:


> We already received a lot of help from the Ukrainians for the Al-Khalid tank. Personally I think the next evolution of Al-Khalid should abandon a carousel autoloader in favor western style autoloaders like French and Japanese tanks use. Ukraine developed prototypes of western style autoloaders.....that may be worth asking about.


The next generation of Al-Khalid is not coming. Haider is the future. Al-Khalid might still receive incremental upgrades to the existing fleet that trickle down from the Haider, but no new production will take place for now. HIT will shift to Haider production.

China makes Bustle style autolaoders too for its new lighter tanks, but they’re not currently feasible for the larger MBTs. Though I don’t see why people keep complaining about them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GriffinsRule

iLION12345_1 said:


> The next generation of Al-Khalid is not coming. Haider is the future. Al-Khalid might still receive incremental upgrades to the existing fleet that trickle down from the Haider, but no new production will take place for now. HIT will shift to Haider production.
> 
> China makes Bustle style autolaoders too for its new lighter tanks, but they’re not currently feasible for the larger MBTs. Though I don’t see why people keep complaining about them.


What exactly is Haider though?


----------



## iLION12345_1

GriffinsRule said:


> What exactly is Haider though?


VT4 is Haider officially.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sayfullah

iLION12345_1 said:


> The next generation of Al-Khalid is not coming. Haider is the future. Al-Khalid might still receive incremental upgrades to the existing fleet that trickle down from the Haider, but no new production will take place for now. HIT will shift to Haider production.
> 
> China makes Bustle style autolaoders too for its new lighter tanks, but they’re not currently feasible for the larger MBTs. Though I don’t see why people keep complaining about them.


So no more AK2? No more new AK1’s being added?


----------



## CrazyZ

iLION12345_1 said:


> The next generation of Al-Khalid is not coming. Haider is the future. Al-Khalid might still receive incremental upgrades to the existing fleet that trickle down from the Haider, but no new production will take place for now. HIT will shift to Haider production.
> 
> China makes Bustle style autolaoders too for its new lighter tanks, but they’re not currently feasible for the larger MBTs. Though I don’t see why people keep complaining about them.


My main comment is that next generation of HIT tank production should replace the carousel autoloader with western style ones. The Russian style autoloaders are not safe if the tank is hit. This will require turret redesign. Based on what's going on in Ukraine......active protection systems are also a key advance for HIT. A 50 ton tank with western style autoloader and active protection is probably the global best in class tank and what HIT should strive for, IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

Sayfullah said:


> So no more AK2? No more new AK1’s being added?


No and No, for now.
but that does not mean the AK fleet will remain as is.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

CrazyZ said:


> My main comment is that next generation of HIT tank production should replace the carousel autoloader with western style ones. The Russian style autoloaders are not safe if the tank is hit. This will require turret redesign. Based on what's going on in Ukraine......active protection systems are also a key advance for HIT. A 50 ton tank with western style autoloader and active protection is probably the global best in class tank and what HIT should strive for, IMO.


Now let’s come back to reality. The next generation of tank produced at HIT is the VT4. 
Of course we can wish for all those things but they’re not so easy to accomplish as said. 
HIT doesn’t have the money, manpower or expertise to design and produce its own tanks. HIT is reliant on Chinese designs that it produces locally, and China isn’t making such a tank either. 

Even China has only recently gotten into modern APS systems and they’re not battle proven yet, so what chance do we have? 

Lastly, the Caroursel autoloader isn’t the main problem. You hit a tank with an autolaoder in the bustle and it’ll go up too. It’s about protecting the ammo and isolating the crew, wherever they’re located. It might be smarter to design a system that can protect the carousel better?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Princeps Senatus

CrazyZ said:


> We already received a lot of help from the Ukrainians for the Al-Khalid tank. Personally I think the next evolution of Al-Khalid should abandon a carousel autoloader in favor western style autoloaders like French and Japanese tanks use. Ukraine developed prototypes of western style autoloaders.....that may be worth asking about.


carousel autoloader is least of AK's worries, we need to move on and work on a new design

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

iLION12345_1 said:


> Ukrainian defense industry has been on a steep decline since the early 2000s. We haven’t bought anything from them anyways, instead we’ve been having to localize things we bought from them because they’re unable to deliver spare parts even before the war. The war changed nothing for us.
> 
> 
> No thanks. I’ve said it before, the oplot is NOT a good tank. It is grossly underpowered, cannot fire modern ammo, has the sillouhete of a skyscraper and isn’t reliable. The only thing in its favor is armor protection. We should be very glad Pakistan stayed away from it and went the VT4 route. The VT4 will help the PA in more ways than one in the coming years.
> 
> 
> Thailand made the mistake of buying Oplot over VT4. They regretted it so much they ditched the order after only 1/3rd of the tanks were delivered and went for VT4 because not only was the tank unreliable, Ukraine just couldn’t deliver the tanks or their spares. If Pakistan ordered them, it would have been an order for over 400 tanks at the minimum. We’ve received hundreds of VT4s already, if we went with oplot we’d have about two dozen and then the order would have to be canceled due to the war.
> 
> Plus, regardless of VT4 or Oplot. The tank would have been made at HIT, but the parts need to come from the country of origin, with Ukraine we’d have shot ourselves in the foot. So clearly, Allah was the best planner in this case.


Thanks for your input.


----------



## CrazyZ

Princeps Senatus said:


> carousel autoloader is least of AK's worries, we need to move on and work on a new design


Agreed. New design is required.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Princeps Senatus said:


> carousel autoloader is least of AK's worries, we need to move on and work on a new design


The VT-4 has the same basic design as the AK series with marginal improvements. Of course a new design is the best way forward, but it’s not possible with the current funding, supply and logistical constraints. The VT-4 is the best option for the PA and HIT currently, especially if they can get a Top-attack protection capable hard kill APS for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> HIT will shift to Haider production.


Will AK production line be shifted to VT4? Also will there be an extension of HIT to produce more VT4s or the production capacity will remain 50 as was in the case of AK?


----------



## Signalian

iLION12345_1 said:


> The VT-4 has the same basic design as the AK series with marginal improvements. Of course a new design is the best way forward, but it’s not possible with the current funding, supply and logistical constraints. The VT-4 is the best option for the PA and HIT currently, especially if they can get a Top-attack protection capable hard kill APS for it.


Other accompanying armored vehicles are required too.


----------



## iLION12345_1

Raja Porus said:


> Will AK production line be shifted to VT4? Also will there be an extension of HIT to produce more VT4s or the production capacity will remain 50 as was in the case of AK?


Not will, already has. VT4 Assembly is already happening at HIT. Will switch Production soon. 

there is an extension happening at HIT, but not of the tank manufacture line for now, 50 is more than enough, will likely not be running at that capacity any time soon due to parts deliveries. That’s why the first batches came from China.

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> Not will, already has. VT4 Assembly is already happening at HIT. Will switch Production soon.
> 
> there is an extension happening at HIT, but not of the tank manufacture line for now, 50 is more than enough, will likely not be running at that capacity any time soon due to parts deliveries. That’s why the first batches came from China.


Will we continue importing VT4s along with production to speed up the replacement?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Raja Porus said:


> Will we continue importing VT4s along with production to speed up the replacement?


For now. I’ve already talked about the numbers and how they will be received in a post elsewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja Porus

iLION12345_1 said:


> For now. I’ve already talked about the numbers and how they will be received in a post elsewhere.


What would be the fate of AZs? Can they support AVLBs?


----------



## iLION12345_1

Raja Porus said:


> What would be the fate of AZs? Can they support AVLBs?


They won’t be retired anytime soon. There’s hundreds of older models to retire, you can make an AVLB or a minesweeper out of the hulls but the hulls themselves are so old at this point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

CrazyZ said:


> My main comment is that next generation of HIT tank production should replace the carousel autoloader with western style ones. The Russian style autoloaders are not safe if the tank is hit. This will require turret redesign. Based on what's going on in Ukraine......active protection systems are also a key advance for HIT. A 50 ton tank with western style autoloader and active protection is probably the global best in class tank and what HIT should strive for, IMO.


The VT-4 is a decent design to fill the current gap, but new top-attack threats should make us learn the lessons of the Ukraine war and at least modify the design to add some changes as on the proposed T-90 modification by some Russian tank factory students. The Abrams-X should be studied for the next generation tank after the Al-Haider, but more so the South Korean K2 Black Panther / Turkish Altay tank. Going full remote operated turret could be a disaster with future weapons. Giving the driver some control of the tank may also be a way to prevent the tank being knocked out if the crew in the turret are incapacitated.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588917512808591362

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CrazyZ

FuturePAF said:


> The VT-4 is a decent design to fill the current gap, but new top-attack threats should make us learn the lessons of the Ukraine war and at least modify the design to add some changes as on the proposed T-90 modification by some Russian tank factory students. The Abrams-X should be studied for the next generation tank after the Al-Haider.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588917512808591362


VT4 hull is mechanically far ahead of T-90. T-90 has a very slow reverse speed. It is being outperformed by T-80/T84 series in the current Ukraine conflict. VT hull with a redesigned turret that includes a turret bustle autoloader is what should come out Al-Haider project, IMO.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

CrazyZ said:


> VT4 hull is mechanically far ahead of T-90. T-90 has a very slow reverse speed. It is being outperformed by T-80/T84 series in the current Ukraine conflict. VT hull with a redesigned turret that includes a turret bustle autoloader is what should come out Al-Haider project, IMO.


I would hope they could have the ammo stored behind the turret in a compartment with blowout panels; a rear bustle auto loader. Not only is it safer for the few, but longer projectiles can be utilized, increasing the ability for the tank to use longer range anti-tank missiles or high velocity projectiles to penetrate next generation armor/thicker armor.

P.S. the leak about the VT-4 that came out this year revealed the turret is indeed very capable, and the ammo is also decent against Abrams level armor.

2nd P.S. I hope they adopt a hybrid Diesel-electric engine to allow the tank to need less fuel and manage its heat signature, as well as sprint in silent mode when needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

CrazyZ said:


> VT4 hull is mechanically far ahead of T-90. T-90 has a very slow reverse speed. It is being outperformed by T-80/T84 series in the current Ukraine conflict. VT hull with a redesigned turret that includes a turret bustle autoloader is what should come out Al-Haider project, IMO.


Not happening, not possible to do either. The auto-loader is not the problem. APS is a better solution and PA is already working on that.
Haider (not Al-Haider) is what we already see in the PA, the VT4s. No more changes for now or the near future, but we will see upgrades to them eventually as part of the Haider program. (Which mind you PAs VT-4s are far different to the VT4s being exported to other nations).


----------



## iLION12345_1

FuturePAF said:


> I would hope they could have the ammo stored behind the turret in a compartment with blowout panels; a rear bustle auto loader. Not only is it safer for the few, but longer projectiles can be utilized, increasing the ability for the tank to use longer range anti-tank missiles or high velocity projectiles to penetrate next generation armor/thicker armor.
> 
> P.S. the leak about the VT-4 that came out this year revealed the turret is indeed very capable, and the ammo is also decent against Abrams level armor.
> 
> 2nd P.S. I hope they adopt a hybrid Diesel-electric engine to allow the tank to need less fuel and manage its heat signature, as well as sprint in silent mode when needed.


Again, not happening, go design an entirely new tank if you want that, we don’t have the funds or the R&D for it, and China doesn’t have a need or an interest for it (yet). 

VT-4 is already outperforming any other MBT in South Asia by a massive margin, of course the lead needs to be built up even further, but not with stupidly unrealistic demands like this. That’s like saying “I want a V8, sports suspension and racing tires in my mehran but I want it to be good off road”

I wouldn’t blindly trust those leaks. The VT-4 has good armor, especially up front, but the side and rear armor is not that good. An APS fixes all of those things and that is exactly what the PA will get for it, it’s better to not be hit at all than to be hit and hope your armor holds, it’s cheaper and more reliable than redesigning the entire tank. 

The ammo the VT4 fires is definitely very good for the south Asian region, but it’s nowhere near what Russia, Germany and America currently make, even the best Chinese ammo is a generation behind Russian, German and American stuff because they are yet to upgrade their autoloaders. Neither China nor Pakistan has any long-rod penetrators in service. 

And please, a hybrid electric engine? I mean no offense but do a tiny bit of research before just making unrealistic demands. Where will you put the massive batteries? Where will you put the massive electric motor? How will you service that on the battlefield? 

All of you people just keep having unrealistic expectations from everything the PA/PAF/PN purchases, and I don’t mind that as long as you keep it out of the technical threads. Why are there dumb VT4 design ideas in the T80 information pool?

PA doesn’t have the funds to purchase and design the best of everything, they manage their funds-performance ratio in such a way where they can get something that’s somewhat better than what india has while at the same time getting enough numbers, if they just started buying the best of everything or redesigning it they’d be left with half a dozen tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Bilal.

iLION12345_1 said:


> Again, not happening, go design an entirely new tank if you want that, we don’t have the funds or the R&D for it, and China doesn’t have a need or an interest for it (yet).
> 
> VT-4 is already outperforming any other MBT in South Asia by a massive margin, of course the lead needs to be built up even further, but not with stupidly unrealistic demands like this. That’s like saying “I want a V8, sports suspension and racing tires in my mehran but I want it to be good off road”
> 
> I wouldn’t blindly trust those leaks. The VT-4 has good armor, especially up front, but the side and rear armor is not that good. An APS fixes all of those things and that is exactly what the PA will get for it, it’s better to not be hit at all than to be hit and hope your armor holds, it’s cheaper and more reliable than redesigning the entire tank.
> 
> The ammo the VT4 fires is definitely very good for the south Asian region, but it’s nowhere near what Russia, Germany and America currently make, even the best Chinese ammo is a generation behind Russian, German and American stuff because they are yet to upgrade their autoloaders. Neither China nor Pakistan has any long-rod penetrators in service.
> 
> And please, a hybrid electric engine? I mean no offense but do a tiny bit of research before just making unrealistic demands. Where will you put the massive batteries? Where will you put the massive electric motor? How will you service that on the battlefield?
> 
> All of you people just keep having unrealistic expectations from everything the PA/PAF/PN purchases, and I don’t mind that as long as you keep it out of the technical threads. Why are there dumb VT4 design ideas in the T80 information pool?
> 
> PA doesn’t have the funds to purchase and design the best of everything, they manage their funds-performance ratio in such a way where they can get something that’s somewhat better than what india has while at the same time getting enough numbers, if they just started buying the best of everything or redesigning it they’d be left with half a dozen tanks.


Completely off topic: just noticed GIDS marketing body armour based on UHMWPE material. This may have application in the future for vehicle light weight armour package.


----------



## LeGenD

FuturePAF said:


> I would hope they could have the ammo stored behind the turret in a compartment with blowout panels; a rear bustle auto loader. Not only is it safer for the few, but longer projectiles can be utilized, increasing the ability for the tank to use longer range anti-tank missiles or high velocity projectiles to penetrate next generation armor/thicker armor.
> 
> P.S. the leak about the VT-4 that came out this year revealed the turret is indeed very capable, and the ammo is also decent against Abrams level armor.
> 
> 2nd P.S. I hope they adopt a hybrid Diesel-electric engine to allow the tank to need less fuel and manage its heat signature, as well as sprint in silent mode when needed.


1. Abrams type design needed.

2. Ambitious assessment.









Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool


In the base model Al Khalid, The gunner has a second generation thermal sight (Catherine FC) along with his normal day sight. The commander has an independent, stabilized and magnified day and night panoramic sight with second generation IIT (night vision) but no thermal sight of his own. He can...



defence.pk





3. Abrams type design needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## iLION12345_1

LeGenD said:


> 1. Abrams type design needed.
> 
> 2. Ambitious assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool
> 
> 
> In the base model Al Khalid, The gunner has a second generation thermal sight (Catherine FC) along with his normal day sight. The commander has an independent, stabilized and magnified day and night panoramic sight with second generation IIT (night vision) but no thermal sight of his own. He can...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Abrams type design needed.


An abrams type design just doesn’t work for the PA, because 4 man crews lead to much larger tanks, larger engines, more fuel consumption, so on. US can handle the logistical issues that come with an abrams, Pakistan cannot. It’s significantly harder to entirely isolate ammo from the crew in a tank with an auto-loader, much easier to do in manual loaders. 

A better example would be a Japanese Type 10, it uses an auto loader while also having isolated ammo thanks to a bustle loader and very clever packaging. It keeps the small size/silhouette and light weight that PA prefers.

An even better and actually achievable first step would be to put the extra ammo that’s not in the carousel into a bustle behind the turret that’s isolated from the crew and give it blast panels. 
While at the same time increasing the armoring and protection of the carousel. These are the two steps Russia took in the T90M to make it less prone to ammo explosion, and it seems to work fairly well, certainly better than the existing setup, especially once paired with something like a GL-6 APS. 

Keep in mind, the largest culprit of ammo cook off in Russian tanks is not the ammo in the carousel, the carousel is fairly hard to hit given its situated in the lower-center of the tank, it’s the ammo lying about in the crew compartment that’s not protected in any way, while VT-4 and AK take basic steps to protect said ammo, they’re clearly not enough to prevent explosions, hence something like the T90MS setup is a good achievable step.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FuturePAF

LeGenD said:


> 1. Abrams type design needed.
> 
> 2. Ambitious assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool
> 
> 
> In the base model Al Khalid, The gunner has a second generation thermal sight (Catherine FC) along with his normal day sight. The commander has an independent, stabilized and magnified day and night panoramic sight with second generation IIT (night vision) but no thermal sight of his own. He can...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Abrams type design needed.


Perhaps something like the Turkish Altay?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kingQamaR

VT4 52 tonnes isn’t massive at all for an entire MBT.what’s the thickness of frontal armour


----------



## CrazyZ

iLION12345_1 said:


> Not happening, not possible to do either. The auto-loader is not the problem. APS is a better solution and PA is already working on that.
> Haider (not Al-Haider) is what we already see in the PA, the VT4s. No more changes for now or the near future, but we will see upgrades to them eventually as part of the Haider program. (Which mind you PAs VT-4s are far different to the VT4s being exported to other nations).


If the carousel autoloader is to be kept then extra ammunition is best stored in the turret bustle behind blast panels (T-90M is this way).......or the turret should be unmanned (like Abrams X).


----------



## iLION12345_1

CrazyZ said:


> If the carousel autoloader is to be kept then extra ammunition is best stored in the turret bustle behind blast panels (T-90M is this way).......or the turret should be unmanned (like Abrams X).


Which is exactly what I said, the former method is still somewhat feasible down the line for the VT4, the latter is not. The ammo is not stored in the turret, it’s stored in the hull.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## iLION12345_1

kingQamaR said:


> VT4 52 tonnes isn’t massive at all for an entire MBT.what’s the thickness of frontal armour


Thickness and layout is unknown.

Both turret and Hull frontal protection exceeds 800MM of armor against BTA-4 when equipped with FY-II. With FY-IV it would be higher, exceeding 900-950MM, against Indian BM-42 1000MM+. 

(The source for this is leaks and Thai trials, where the frontal armor of VT-4 was rated at 8xx MM for both turret and hull frontally when hit with BTA-4. We also know that FY-IV reduces the penetration of APFSDS rounds by 30-35%, so factoring that we can assume 900-950MM). 

Keep in mind these are largely meaningless and _*extremely *_rough guesstimates. Real life scenarios have far too many factors to just explain a way with numbers like these.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kingQamaR

iLION12345_1 said:


> Thickness and layout is unknown.
> 
> Both turret and Hull frontal protection exceeds 800MM of armor against BTA-4 when equipped with FY-II. With FY-IV it would be higher, exceeding 900-950MM, against Indian BM-42 1000MM+.
> 
> (The source for this is leaks and Thai trials, where the frontal armor of VT-4 was rated at 8xx MM for both turret and hull frontally when hit with BTA-4. We also know that FY-IV reduces the penetration of APFSDS rounds by 30-35%, so factoring that we can assume 900-950MM).
> 
> Keep in mind these are largely meaningless and _*extremely *_rough guesstimates. Real life scenarios have far too many factors to just explain a way with numbers like these.



Very good information…. Keep up the the good work bro

Just one final thing. I noticed on some videos I watched when smoke pops out from VT4 tank gun when it fires a shot . Unlike its western tanks no smoke comes out of their gun when they fire. 

Is their a reason for this, thanks.


----------



## time pass

Can anyone furnish the inventory of the following:

AK & AK1
VT4
Haider


----------



## Signalian

LeGenD said:


> 1. Abrams type design needed.
> 
> 2. Ambitious assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool
> 
> 
> In the base model Al Khalid, The gunner has a second generation thermal sight (Catherine FC) along with his normal day sight. The commander has an independent, stabilized and magnified day and night panoramic sight with second generation IIT (night vision) but no thermal sight of his own. He can...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Abrams type design needed.


USA purchased a few T-80s for evaluation against M1 Abrams

Reactions: Wow Wow:
2


----------



## alimobin memon

Signalian said:


> USA purchased a few T-80s for evaluation against M1 Abrams


What was the conclusion ? did T80 fared well against M1 Abrams and what variant of Abram ?



Signalian said:


> USA purchased a few T-80s for evaluation against M1 Abrams


What was the conclusion ? did T80 fared well against M1 Abrams and what variant of Abram ?


----------



## syed_yusuf

Signalian said:


> USA purchased a few T-80s for evaluation against M1 Abrams


which M1 version?


----------



## Signalian

Not bought, sorry.

Also in 1992, the UK bought a number of T-80U tanks for defence research and development through a specially created trading company intended to deliver these to Morocco, offering five million USD each.

After being evaluated on their proving grounds one was transferred to the US, tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground (and later four Ukrainian T-80UD MBTs). Weak spots and flaws were duly noted. This was officially confirmed in January 1994 by the MOD.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

T-80UD tank somewhere in the Pakistan Army Southern Command AOR

Reactions: Love Love:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE said:


> T-80UD tank somewhere in the Pakistan Army Southern Command AOR


KTP, Southern Punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

