# PA TANKS comparison with contempory tanks



## Manticore

i searched for top ten tanks and did not find alkhalid there.. i also dont know at which rank the alkhalid stand.


*please compare the specs of alkhalid with these tanks*
leopard,
t84,
t80 ud
t72
m84..
t90
type99
challenger etc


plz tell me where do our upgraded alzarar and alkhalid stand in the tank ranking and that if we have some newer variants coming up?


like the aircrafts, is there a 4th/ 5th gen category division in tanks aswell?

thanks

information regarding alkhalid tank is available here , which can be used for comparison
http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...nk-type-90-iim-mbt-2000-information-pool.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mav3rick

ANTIBODY said:


> i searched for top ten tanks and did not find alkhalid there.. i also dont know at which rank the alkhalid stand.. is it above or compareable to
> leopard,
> t84,
> m84..
> t90
> 
> plz tell me where do our upgraded alzarar and alkhalid stand in the tank ranking and that if we have some newer variants coming up?
> 
> 
> like the aircrafts, is there a 4th/ 5th gen category division in tanks aswell?
> 
> thanks



Yes there are generations amongst Tanks as well and Al-Khalid is considered a 3rd Generation Tank (The latest Generation of Tanks) comparable to most modern tanks. It is also rumored that a more advanced version Al-Khalid II has been under development for some time.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Super Falcon

but can al khalid have a kill over t90, leopard or abram for that matter plz reply


----------



## Moscow

The following is a comparison between the T-90S/ Bhishma MBT and the Pakistani Al Khalid. The T-90M, which the Indian Army will be receiving by the year's end is an improved version of the T-90 series with welded turret, V-92S2 engine and ESSA thermal viewer as opposed to the T-90S, which was a simplified export version with cast turret, R-173 radio, 1V528 computer and V-84-1 engine. 

Crew

AL-Khalid = 3
T-90S = 3

Combat Weight

Al-Khalid = 48,000 kg
T-90S = 46,500 kg

Engine

Al-Khalid = 1200 horsepower
T-90S = 840 horsepower

Maximum Speed

Al-Khalid = 72 km/hr
T-90S = 65 km/hr

Maximum Range

Al-Khalid = 450 kms
T-90S = 500

Vertical Obstacle

Al-Khalid = 0.85 m
T-90S = 0.85

Fording

Al-Khalid = without preparation 1.4 metres
T-90S = without preparation 1.2 metres

Trench

Al-Khalid = 2.7 m
T-90S = 2.8 m


Armament

Al-Khalid

(main): 1 x 125 mm gun 125mm Smooth Bore, Chrome Plated, Auto fret aged
Circular Carousel Type: (Cassette Type) 22 Rounds / Minute 6-8

FCS/GCS : Type: Image Stabilized (3rd generation director type stabilization), Optics: LASER protected (coaxial): 1 x 7.62 mm MG
(anti-aircraft): 1 x 12.7 mm MG
Smoke grenade dischargers: 2 x 6, can also lay smoke screen by injecting diesel into the exhaust outlets at the rear

GUNNER SIGHT : Type Integrated, Bi-axis Stabilized Day/Night, Tl, LRF
Magnification Dual, 3x &amp; 1 Ox
Field of View 20&#194;&#176; &amp; 6&#194;&#176;

COMMANDER SIGHT:
Type Panoramic,
Bi-Axis stabilized,

LRF, 2nd Generation IIT
Hunter-Killer Capability
Magnification 7.5x
Field of View 7 . 5
LRF : Type ND YAG
Range200 ~ 5000m
AUTO TRACKER: Tracking Error &lt; 0.1 mils Interfaced with Gunner Day Sight &amp; Tl


T-90S 

1 x 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun with 43 rounds.
...............1 x 12.7mm NSVT anti-aircraft gun with 300 rounds. [1]
...............1 x 7.62mm PKT co-axial machine gun with 2000 rounds.
...............1 x 5.45mm AKS-74 rifle, carried on storage rack, with 300 rounds.[2]

[1] The 12.7mm NSVT, mounted on the commander's contra-rotating copula which can be aimed and fired under complete armour protection, uses the PZU-7 machine gun sight and the 1ETs29 (with vertical stabilization) machine gun FCS (Fire Control System).

[2] The locally-produced 5.56mm INSAS Assault Rifle will likely be used instead.


Smoke Grenade Launchers: Mounted either side of the turret is a bank of six electrically operated 81mm smoke grenade launchers which are in a new low-angle configuration compared to those fitted to earlier Russian MBTs. The quick forming aerosol screening system comprises the four laser radiation sensors (two coarse and two fine receiving heads), the Type 902A Aerosol Forming Grenade Launch System dispensing 81mm 3D17 aerosol grenades and associated controls. The aerosol screening system detects laser illumination, determines its direction and type (laser range-finder or designator), generates warning signals, both audio and visual, and lays in automatic or semi-automatic modes, quick forming aerosol screens within three seconds at a distance of 50 to 80 metres from the tank. In addition, the tank can also lay its own smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust outlet located on the left side of the hull. 

The 2A46M smoothbore gun is stabilised (Zhasmin 2E42-4 system) in two axes and is fitted with a thermal sleeve. The gun tube can be replaced without a need for dismantling inside the turret. The gun can fire various ammunition including APFSDS-T (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot - Tracer), HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank), HE-FRAG (High Explosive Fragmentation) as well as shrapnel projectiles with time fuzes. In addition it can also fire a special HE-FRAG projectile that can be detonated over the target using the tank's fire-control system. Maximum rate of fire is at 7 rounds per minute. The gun can also fire the 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missile system. The range of the missile is 75 to 5000 metres and takes 14.2 seconds to reach maximum range. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5 km. Hit probability is over 80&#37;. The missile system fires either the 9M119 (3UBK14 weapon system) or the 9M119M (3UBK20 weapon system) missiles which have semi-automatic laser beam riding guidance and a hollow charge warhead. Missile weight is 23.4 kg. The gun's automatic loader will feed both ordnance and missiles.

Self-Protection

The hull and turret are protected by both conventional armour-plating and the latest generation Kontakt-5 ERA which provides protection against APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) and HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) type projectiles. In addition to being fitted to the hull and turret, ERA panels are also fitted either side of the hull front to provide lateral protection to each side of the driver's compartment. The tank also has NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) protection equipment. The TShU1-7 Shtora-1 countermeasures system is not fitted.

Fire Control & Observation

The T-90S has the 1A45T IFCS (Integrated Fire Control System) which is automatic, but has a manual override for the commander. The IFCS comprises the gunner's day/night fire-control system, gunner's IR sight or thermal imaging sight, and commander's day/night sight-observation system. The fire control system comprises day sight-rangefinder with missile guidance channel, armament stabilizer and ballistic computer. The system is used by the commander for gun and machine gun fire control.

Propulsion

The T-90S will be powered by a 1,000 hp V-92S2 four-stroke V-12 diesel engine. This new engine, fitted with a turbo-supercharger, offers impressive specific power and specific fuel consumption characteristics. The tank can carry up to 1600 litres of fuel in the main, armour plated fuel tanks and fuel drums. The tank is provided with a snorkel for deep fording (up to 5 metres of water) with equipment which can be deployed in 20 minutes. The mechanical transmission includes primary reduction gear, two planetary final gearboxes and two planetary final drives. The running gear features torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers at 1, 2 and 6 road wheel stations and tracks with rubber-metallic pin hinges.

Miscellaneous Information

A new track has been developed and tested for the T-90S that not only has a longer life but also has replaceable rubber pads that can be quickly removed. Standard equipment includes NBC protection, fire detection & suppression system, nose-mounted dozer blade and a deep fording kit. The tank is fitted with an air conditioning system for operations in high ambient temperatures.



link :-withheld

Reactions: Like Like:
19


----------



## Super Falcon

so which one u think is bettter


----------



## metalfalcon

@ Moscow.

According to your data Given above i have observed that Al-Khalid has a Slight Edge over T-90, Am i Correct in my Analysis ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sweetboy

moscow said:


> The following is a comparison between the T-90S/ Bhishma MBT and the Pakistani Al Khalid. The T-90M, which the Indian Army will be receiving by the year's end is an improved version of the T-90 series with welded turret, V-92S2 engine and ESSA thermal viewer as opposed to the T-90S, which was a simplified export version with cast turret, R-173 radio, 1V528 computer and V-84-1 engine.
> 
> Crew
> 
> AL-Khalid = 3
> T-90S = 3
> 
> Combat Weight
> 
> Al-Khalid = 48,000 kg
> T-90S = 46,500 kg
> 
> Engine
> 
> Al-Khalid = 1200 horsepower
> T-90S = 840 horsepower
> 
> Maximum Speed
> 
> Al-Khalid = 72 km/hr
> T-90S = 65 km/hr
> 
> Maximum Range
> 
> Al-Khalid = 450 kms
> T-90S = 500
> 
> Vertical Obstacle
> 
> Al-Khalid = 0.85 m
> T-90S = 0.85
> 
> Fording
> 
> Al-Khalid = without preparation 1.4 metres
> T-90S = without preparation 1.2 metres
> 
> Trench
> 
> Al-Khalid = 2.7 m
> T-90S = 2.8 m
> 
> 
> Armament
> 
> Al-Khalid
> 
> (main): 1 x 125 mm gun 125mm Smooth Bore, Chrome Plated, Auto fret aged
> Circular Carousel Type: (Cassette Type) 22 Rounds / Minute 6-8
> 
> FCS/GCS : Type: Image Stabilized (3rd generation director type stabilization), Optics: LASER protected (coaxial): 1 x 7.62 mm MG
> (anti-aircraft): 1 x 12.7 mm MG
> Smoke grenade dischargers: 2 x 6, can also lay smoke screen by injecting diesel into the exhaust outlets at the rear
> 
> GUNNER SIGHT : Type Integrated, Bi-axis Stabilized Day/Night, Tl, LRF
> Magnification Dual, 3x &amp; 1 Ox
> Field of View 20Â° &amp; 6Â°
> 
> COMMANDER SIGHT:
> Type Panoramic,
> Bi-Axis stabilized,
> 
> LRF, 2nd Generation IIT
> Hunter-Killer Capability
> Magnification 7.5x
> Field of View 7 . 5
> LRF : Type ND YAG
> Range200 ~ 5000m
> AUTO TRACKER: Tracking Error &lt; 0.1 mils Interfaced with Gunner Day Sight &amp; Tl
> 
> 
> T-90S
> 
> 1 x 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun with 43 rounds.
> ...............1 x 12.7mm NSVT anti-aircraft gun with 300 rounds. [1]
> ...............1 x 7.62mm PKT co-axial machine gun with 2000 rounds.
> ...............1 x 5.45mm AKS-74 rifle, carried on storage rack, with 300 rounds.[2]
> 
> [1] The 12.7mm NSVT, mounted on the commander's contra-rotating copula which can be aimed and fired under complete armour protection, uses the PZU-7 machine gun sight and the 1ETs29 (with vertical stabilization) machine gun FCS (Fire Control System).
> 
> [2] The locally-produced 5.56mm INSAS Assault Rifle will likely be used instead.
> 
> 
> Smoke Grenade Launchers: Mounted either side of the turret is a bank of six electrically operated 81mm smoke grenade launchers which are in a new low-angle configuration compared to those fitted to earlier Russian MBTs. The quick forming aerosol screening system comprises the four laser radiation sensors (two coarse and two fine receiving heads), the Type 902A Aerosol Forming Grenade Launch System dispensing 81mm 3D17 aerosol grenades and associated controls. The aerosol screening system detects laser illumination, determines its direction and type (laser range-finder or designator), generates warning signals, both audio and visual, and lays in automatic or semi-automatic modes, quick forming aerosol screens within three seconds at a distance of 50 to 80 metres from the tank. In addition, the tank can also lay its own smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust outlet located on the left side of the hull.
> 
> The 2A46M smoothbore gun is stabilised (Zhasmin 2E42-4 system) in two axes and is fitted with a thermal sleeve. The gun tube can be replaced without a need for dismantling inside the turret. The gun can fire various ammunition including APFSDS-T (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot - Tracer), HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank), HE-FRAG (High Explosive Fragmentation) as well as shrapnel projectiles with time fuzes. In addition it can also fire a special HE-FRAG projectile that can be detonated over the target using the tank's fire-control system. Maximum rate of fire is at 7 rounds per minute. The gun can also fire the 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missile system. The range of the missile is 75 to 5000 metres and takes 14.2 seconds to reach maximum range. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5 km. Hit probability is over 80%. The missile system fires either the 9M119 (3UBK14 weapon system) or the 9M119M (3UBK20 weapon system) missiles which have semi-automatic laser beam riding guidance and a hollow charge warhead. Missile weight is 23.4 kg. The gun's automatic loader will feed both ordnance and missiles.
> 
> Self-Protection
> 
> The hull and turret are protected by both conventional armour-plating and the latest generation Kontakt-5 ERA which provides protection against APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) and HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) type projectiles. In addition to being fitted to the hull and turret, ERA panels are also fitted either side of the hull front to provide lateral protection to each side of the driver's compartment. The tank also has NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) protection equipment. The TShU1-7 Shtora-1 countermeasures system is not fitted.
> 
> Fire Control & Observation
> 
> The T-90S has the 1A45T IFCS (Integrated Fire Control System) which is automatic, but has a manual override for the commander. The IFCS comprises the gunner's day/night fire-control system, gunner's IR sight or thermal imaging sight, and commander's day/night sight-observation system. The fire control system comprises day sight-rangefinder with missile guidance channel, armament stabilizer and ballistic computer. The system is used by the commander for gun and machine gun fire control.
> 
> Propulsion
> 
> The T-90S will be powered by a 1,000 hp V-92S2 four-stroke V-12 diesel engine. This new engine, fitted with a turbo-supercharger, offers impressive specific power and specific fuel consumption characteristics. The tank can carry up to 1600 litres of fuel in the main, armour plated fuel tanks and fuel drums. The tank is provided with a snorkel for deep fording (up to 5 metres of water) with equipment which can be deployed in 20 minutes. The mechanical transmission includes primary reduction gear, two planetary final gearboxes and two planetary final drives. The running gear features torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers at 1, 2 and 6 road wheel stations and tracks with rubber-metallic pin hinges.
> 
> Miscellaneous Information
> 
> A new track has been developed and tested for the T-90S that not only has a longer life but also has replaceable rubber pads that can be quickly removed. Standard equipment includes NBC protection, fire detection & suppression system, nose-mounted dozer blade and a deep fording kit. The tank is fitted with an air conditioning system for operations in high ambient temperatures.
> 
> 
> 
> link :-withheld


if the given information is true then al khalid is better than t-90s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saiko

Well nobody officially releases protection data but it is telling that Rheinmetall cancelled their 140mm gun project on the basis that the 120mm L55 was sufficiently strong (with the proper ammunition) to deal with all modern threats. They at the very least would likely have access to the Leopard 2 protection data (if not actual tanks available for testing).

Any tank with a modern main gun + quality APFSDS rounds will probably be able to take out any other tank frontally. At what range I'm not sure.. and the only real exception being the 1 shot immunity offered by heavy ERA plates. At the very least, the Russian Kontakt-5 ERA could stop the Rheinmetall 120mm L44, but only for one shot (although that's probably all that's needed since everyone is running around with silver bullets).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

moscow said:


> The following is a comparison between the T-90S/ Bhishma MBT and the Pakistani Al Khalid. The T-90M, which the Indian Army will be receiving by the year's end is an improved version of the T-90 series with welded turret, V-92S2 engine and ESSA thermal viewer as opposed to the T-90S, which was a simplified export version with cast turret, R-173 radio, 1V528 computer and V-84-1 engine.
> 
> Crew
> 
> AL-Khalid = 3
> T-90S = 3
> 
> Combat Weight
> 
> Al-Khalid = 48,000 kg
> T-90S = 46,500 kg
> 
> Engine
> 
> Al-Khalid = 1200 horsepower
> T-90S = 840 horsepower
> 
> Maximum Speed
> 
> Al-Khalid = 72 km/hr
> T-90S = 65 km/hr
> 
> Maximum Range
> 
> Al-Khalid = 450 kms
> T-90S = 500
> 
> Vertical Obstacle
> 
> Al-Khalid = 0.85 m
> T-90S = 0.85
> 
> Fording
> 
> Al-Khalid = without preparation 1.4 metres
> T-90S = without preparation 1.2 metres
> 
> Trench
> 
> Al-Khalid = 2.7 m
> T-90S = 2.8 m
> 
> 
> Armament
> 
> Al-Khalid
> 
> (main): 1 x 125 mm gun 125mm Smooth Bore, Chrome Plated, Auto fret aged
> Circular Carousel Type: (Cassette Type) 22 Rounds / Minute 6-8
> 
> FCS/GCS : Type: Image Stabilized (3rd generation director type stabilization), Optics: LASER protected (coaxial): 1 x 7.62 mm MG
> (anti-aircraft): 1 x 12.7 mm MG
> Smoke grenade dischargers: 2 x 6, can also lay smoke screen by injecting diesel into the exhaust outlets at the rear
> 
> GUNNER SIGHT : Type Integrated, Bi-axis Stabilized Day/Night, Tl, LRF
> Magnification Dual, 3x &amp; 1 Ox
> Field of View 20Â° &amp; 6Â°
> 
> COMMANDER SIGHT:
> Type Panoramic,
> Bi-Axis stabilized,
> 
> LRF, 2nd Generation IIT
> Hunter-Killer Capability
> Magnification 7.5x
> Field of View 7 . 5
> LRF : Type ND YAG
> Range200 ~ 5000m
> AUTO TRACKER: Tracking Error &lt; 0.1 mils Interfaced with Gunner Day Sight &amp; Tl
> 
> 
> T-90S
> 
> 1 x 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun with 43 rounds.
> ...............1 x 12.7mm NSVT anti-aircraft gun with 300 rounds. [1]
> ...............1 x 7.62mm PKT co-axial machine gun with 2000 rounds.
> ...............1 x 5.45mm AKS-74 rifle, carried on storage rack, with 300 rounds.[2]
> 
> [1] The 12.7mm NSVT, mounted on the commander's contra-rotating copula which can be aimed and fired under complete armour protection, uses the PZU-7 machine gun sight and the 1ETs29 (with vertical stabilization) machine gun FCS (Fire Control System).
> 
> [2] The locally-produced 5.56mm INSAS Assault Rifle will likely be used instead.
> 
> 
> Smoke Grenade Launchers: Mounted either side of the turret is a bank of six electrically operated 81mm smoke grenade launchers which are in a new low-angle configuration compared to those fitted to earlier Russian MBTs. The quick forming aerosol screening system comprises the four laser radiation sensors (two coarse and two fine receiving heads), the Type 902A Aerosol Forming Grenade Launch System dispensing 81mm 3D17 aerosol grenades and associated controls. The aerosol screening system detects laser illumination, determines its direction and type (laser range-finder or designator), generates warning signals, both audio and visual, and lays in automatic or semi-automatic modes, quick forming aerosol screens within three seconds at a distance of 50 to 80 metres from the tank. In addition, the tank can also lay its own smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust outlet located on the left side of the hull.
> 
> The 2A46M smoothbore gun is stabilised (Zhasmin 2E42-4 system) in two axes and is fitted with a thermal sleeve. The gun tube can be replaced without a need for dismantling inside the turret. The gun can fire various ammunition including APFSDS-T (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot - Tracer), HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank), HE-FRAG (High Explosive Fragmentation) as well as shrapnel projectiles with time fuzes. In addition it can also fire a special HE-FRAG projectile that can be detonated over the target using the tank's fire-control system. Maximum rate of fire is at 7 rounds per minute. The gun can also fire the 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missile system. The range of the missile is 75 to 5000 metres and takes 14.2 seconds to reach maximum range. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5 km. Hit probability is over 80%. The missile system fires either the 9M119 (3UBK14 weapon system) or the 9M119M (3UBK20 weapon system) missiles which have semi-automatic laser beam riding guidance and a hollow charge warhead. Missile weight is 23.4 kg. The gun's automatic loader will feed both ordnance and missiles.
> 
> Self-Protection
> 
> The hull and turret are protected by both conventional armour-plating and the latest generation Kontakt-5 ERA which provides protection against APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) and HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) type projectiles. In addition to being fitted to the hull and turret, ERA panels are also fitted either side of the hull front to provide lateral protection to each side of the driver's compartment. The tank also has NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) protection equipment. The TShU1-7 Shtora-1 countermeasures system is not fitted.
> 
> Fire Control & Observation
> 
> The T-90S has the 1A45T IFCS (Integrated Fire Control System) which is automatic, but has a manual override for the commander. The IFCS comprises the gunner's day/night fire-control system, gunner's IR sight or thermal imaging sight, and commander's day/night sight-observation system. The fire control system comprises day sight-rangefinder with missile guidance channel, armament stabilizer and ballistic computer. The system is used by the commander for gun and machine gun fire control.
> 
> Propulsion
> 
> The T-90S will be powered by a 1,000 hp V-92S2 four-stroke V-12 diesel engine. This new engine, fitted with a turbo-supercharger, offers impressive specific power and specific fuel consumption characteristics. The tank can carry up to 1600 litres of fuel in the main, armour plated fuel tanks and fuel drums. The tank is provided with a snorkel for deep fording (up to 5 metres of water) with equipment which can be deployed in 20 minutes. The mechanical transmission includes primary reduction gear, two planetary final gearboxes and two planetary final drives. The running gear features torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers at 1, 2 and 6 road wheel stations and tracks with rubber-metallic pin hinges.
> 
> Miscellaneous Information
> 
> A new track has been developed and tested for the T-90S that not only has a longer life but also has replaceable rubber pads that can be quickly removed. Standard equipment includes NBC protection, fire detection & suppression system, nose-mounted dozer blade and a deep fording kit. The tank is fitted with an air conditioning system for operations in high ambient temperatures.
> 
> 
> 
> link :-withheld




is there any way to find out the link? This is very interesting.


----------



## niaz

Never in the history of warfare, there has been a complete matching of the forces else no army will ever win. Also there are numerous cases where victory has depended upon luck more than any thing else.

In the WWII German tanks as well as tank commanders were definitely superior to the Russian T-34 and Russian tank commanders. However T-34 prevailed due to sheer numbers and that it was far more rugged and able to operate in the Russian winter which was bane of the German Panzers and Tigers.

Only way superiority of an equipment and people who operate it can be proven is in the battlefield. So far only the US Abraham, Challenger (Gulf War) and Israeli Merkava are battle proven. Neither T-90 nor Alkhalid have engaged each other in anger. 

The point I am trying to make is that discussion is purely theoretical and one cannot prove or disprove superiority of Alkhalid over T-90 by comparing the same on paper. All one can say is these two pieces of armour are roughly evenly matched.

Reactions: Like Like:
25


----------



## Moscow

@abu zolfikar the link cannot be posted sorry about that.

@superfalcon i guess al-khalid haas the edge on paper because as niaz said its only a threoritical comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

well the tanks may seem superior on paper, but then what is the deciding factor is the skills of the crew in confrontation and also the luck along with factors like ratio of engaging forces, air-cavalry operation concept etc 

point to be noted is that T-90 Bhishma taken by IA have not been taken with either Kontakt-5 or Shtora protection suites

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

the improved arjun version is pretty interesting though

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## niaz

hellfire said:


> the improved arjun version is pretty interesting though




My thanks to you are due the fact that Arjun verses Khalid is probably a better discussion point as T-90 is purely Russian. Arjun on the other hand is totally indigenous and Khalid also incorporates a lot of indigenous effort. 

IMO, on paper Arjun, if the engine and heating problems can be resolved, with better protection and 10 tons heavier, appears to be superior to Al Khalid. 

You might remember that M-1 Abrams was tested by PA during Zia time (Zia lost his life on the way back from the tests in Bhawalpur desert) and was rejected. Understand M-1 was found to be too heavy for our road bridges and for fighting on the mud flats of Punjab.

I am pretty sure that DRD must have taken all of this into consideration when designing Arjun. Nevertheless, I believe that whereas on the dry sands of Rajasthan desert; Arjun may prove more effective, on the irrigated soft mud plains of Punjab (Gurdaspur/Shakargarh are where Chowinda battle was fought) 55 tons weight of Arjun will be an impediment to its mobility. Al Khalid on the other hand is only 46 tons, therefore should score over Arjun in mobility if not in anything else.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S-2

*You might remember that M-1 Abrams was tested by PA during Zia time (Zia lost his life on the way back from the tests in Bhawalpur desert) and was rejected. Understand M-1 was found to be too heavy for our road bridges and for fighting on the mud flats of Punjab.*

Well, I guess under more functional stresses of battle from the Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Iraqi deserts to agricultural reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates valleys we've been able to employ the M1A2 (an even heavier version than you'd have likely tested under Zia which was, my guess, the base M-1 w/M-68 105mm cannon still).

As a defensive weapon falling back upon it's own log train in a Pakistani Punjab defense scenario, it may have been unbeatable. In the offense, as far as your log train and combat engineers will permit at speeds that truly shock. 

You've got to be able to bridge in the east to attack. Couldn't you today bridge a 70T capacity?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kasrkin

The US was trying hard to sell M1/A1 Abrams tanks to Pakistan. Production tanks were provided for trials and evaluation, which did not go well. It&#8217;s not just the weight problem that discouraged us (though the sands of Rajistan desert are probably some of the thinnest in the world), this deal would have tied Pakistan to the US spare parts pipeline for years to come (which given the US&#8217;s singular lack of loyalty as an ally, would have been problematic to say the least).

_Also the tank trial itself was a shambles. The 55-ton behemoth, designed for cleaner climes and hard surfaces of Europe and North America, did not fare too well in the desert of Tamewali. A film of the trials shows the tank trying to fire on the move and from a stationary position, surrounded by clouds of dust. But the movement of the tanks was seriously constrained by the fact that its engines sucked up the fine dust of Tamewali and clogged its filters, jamming the Chrysler turbine engines. The most pathetic sight was of the tank trying to climb up a dirt ramp built at the site, getting stuck, and then sliding sideways off the ramp like a drunken sailor. Clearly, this was not the tank for the Pakistan Army..._

In other accounts I&#8217;ve read about how the tank failed to hit even half of its targets&#8230;All observers concur that rejecting the offer was the right decision for Pakistan (as subsequent US imposed sanctions would prove beyond doubt).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hellfire

niaz said:


> My thanks to you are due the fact that Arjun verses Khalid is probably a better discussion point as T-90 is purely Russian. Arjun on the other hand is totally indigenous and Khalid also incorporates a lot of indigenous effort.
> 
> IMO, on paper Arjun, if the engine and heating problems can be resolved, with better protection and 10 tons heavier, appears to be superior to Al Khalid.
> 
> You might remember that M-1 Abrams was tested by PA during Zia time (Zia lost his life on the way back from the tests in Bhawalpur desert) and was rejected. Understand M-1 was found to be too heavy for our road bridges and for fighting on the mud flats of Punjab.
> 
> I am pretty sure that DRD must have taken all of this into consideration when designing Arjun. Nevertheless, I believe that whereas on the dry sands of Rajasthan desert; Arjun may prove more effective, on the irrigated soft mud plains of Punjab (Gurdaspur/Shakargarh are where Chowinda battle was fought) 55 tons weight of Arjun will be an impediment to its mobility. Al Khalid on the other hand is only 46 tons, therefore should score over Arjun in mobility if not in anything else.




you can open a new thread about the same ...... thetank arjun was junk till 2002-03 thence has tremendously improved...even the logistical profile ...... questions of mobility in plains of southasia as also transport and bridging etchave been adressed , the engine issue is resolved and the tank as a whole is quite good post 2006 ....... i shall look forward to a new post on same or may start one if its of interest


----------



## S-2

I'm sure you've made the correct choice for a variety of reasons.


----------



## saiko

S-2 said:


> *
> You've got to be able to bridge in the east to attack. Couldn't you today bridge a 70T capacity?*


*

Sure, that's possible. But I think it's rather impractical. The Abrams is actually even too heavy for most European bridges and during the Cold War key bridges were reinforced specifically to handle the load of the heavier Abrams versions. If you can't use any of the existing bridges but have to build your own bridge that can handle 70t of capacity on the go you are seriously hurting your offensive capabilities. And if Pakistan needs heavy pillboxes it would be far cheaper to buy cement from China .

70 ton tanks are for nations that are hyper-sensitive to casualties. It is really much more practical to use an autoloader to reduce the number of potential casualties in a tank and make sure you have a powerful gun + quality munitions. Keep some good armor on there with a keen eye on the law of diminishing returns. 

For a nation like Pakistan, the name of the game is cost effectiveness - the 20/80 rule. 20% of the cost, 80% of the effectiveness and that's precisely the direction Pakistan seems to be going with the Al-Khalid and JF-17, while building up embargo proof access to these weapons. If India wants to spend 80% more to get that last 20%, let them do so. It will be of marginal effectiveness in any war and they will blow their size advantage.

However, in some key areas, you can't follow the 20/80 rule. The software necessary to data link tanks (and other platforms) together... you want to spend the extra 80% of cost on, because that is a serious force multiplier.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S-2

*"If you can't use any of the existing bridges but have to build your own bridge that can handle 70t of capacity on the go you are seriously hurting your offensive capabilities. And if Pakistan needs heavy pillboxes it would be far cheaper to buy cement from China"*

So there we were in the spring of 2003, stuck between two of the world's great rivers and a vast agricultural, canal-laced network to traverse the many hundreds of kilometers to Baghdad on the roads and bridges of a underdeveloped nation employing the comparatively lighter armor of a Soviet client...

Ten days to close on Baghdad- about 450 kms, in a sandstorm, unknown terrain w/unreinforced bridges EVERYWHERE, against an opponent sometimes actually giving battle...for awhile...

Get my drift? 

There's a slight chance that you and others are working off comfortable narratives that may not reflect realities proven under conditions where people are shooting back.

We also have a modest jaunt of some considerable distance involving multiple corps around the flank of another large army some years before with essentially the same vehicle-in the thousands. 

Nobody missed the fight. 

Of course, Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Iraqi deserts just don't produce the incredibly fine, talcum-like powdered dust and sand unique to Pakistan... or Gowan Field, Idaho, 29 Palms, Ca...Bright Star in eastern Egypt...

I'm glad you like and have faith in your armor. Saiko, I think much of what kasrkin and you have suggested-in combination, makes sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## saiko

Here's a fun fact:

The US defence budget is 150 times larger than Pakistan's defence budget. 

So it's nice that the most lavishly equipped army in the world with the largest logistical trains can afford to build extremely heavy tanks and afford to have them collapse bridges (like in Al Faysaliyph) because they can pay the ridiculous premium of bringing anything they need anywhere.

The other 95% of the armies of the world have to be much more practical than that.

And of course, nevermind the fact that the buildup of the examples you are talking about took months and months and months. There's certainly something to that which led to the creation of the Stryker brigades.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S-2

Your arguments are understood and appreciated even if the tone, perhaps, isn't.

I agree that it's an advantage to my army to be able to show up as the visiting team on a distant battlefield in our accumulated weight and then be able to sustain combat assaults of hundreds of kilometers sustained from over 6,000 miles away that can render armies on their own terrain utterly null.

Yes, STRYKER is a reflection of our continuing pursuit of strategic and operational mobility. We value these assets as combat-multipliers in our view of conflict. 

Until the U.S. Army is posed with the dilemma of forced entry onto a high-intensity battlefield of a trained and prepared enemy, we won't know the absolute values of our investments here.

In the interim, that unknown is backfilled with the certainty of our strategic and operational overmatch that allows systems like the M1A2 to collapse bridges in "Al Faysaliyph [sic]"-and it will continue for the foreseeable future. 

Meanwhile, I marvel at the calm of a commander like LTC Terry Farrell, Cdr 3-7 Cav who recovered that vehicle and one more while re-orienting his squadron's column of 500 vehicles in a nighttime urban battle...

...and found another crossing for all of his other M-1A1 tanks. Tactical mobility now restored by his command presence and ingenuity, Lieutenant Colonel Farrell continued his attack north.

Gotta love it. 

Yup.


----------



## Hellfire

S-2 said:


> *You might remember that M-1 Abrams was tested by PA during Zia time (Zia lost his life on the way back from the tests in Bhawalpur desert) and was rejected. Understand M-1 was found to be too heavy for our road bridges and for fighting on the mud flats of Punjab.*
> 
> Well, I guess under more functional stresses of battle from the Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Iraqi deserts to agricultural reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates valleys we've been able to employ the M1A2 (an even heavier version than you'd have likely tested under Zia which was, my guess, the base M-1 w/M-68 105mm cannon still).
> 
> As a defensive weapon falling back upon it's own log train in a Pakistani Punjab defense scenario, it may have been unbeatable. In the offense, as far as your log train and combat engineers will permit at speeds that truly shock.
> 
> You've got to be able to bridge in the east to attack. Couldn't you today bridge a 70T capacity?



At the time the M1 was still in evoluton phases post-induction and as such was found to be failing in the conditions prevalent in south asia. no doubt lessons were learnt from the inaccuracies of firepower in these conditions and necessary changes made to suit the tank for operations in hot desert conditions vastly different from the cool climate of the european theater which was its once designated field of operations during the closing decade of cold war .......

also quoting the gulf war 1 as a proven philosophy is a judgemental error from my point of view ( no offence intended ) as the fact remains that by 1987 tanks were getting the DU mesh into the armor to strengthen the already strong armor on M1s which rendered the HEATs and HESHs held by Iraq useless and they hardly had any KE penentrator to fire ..... so overwhelming superiority against an ill prepared and ill equipped force. In Indo-Pak equations, the situations are quite different as neither country is a roll over or push over as various conflicts have demonstrated, a fact recognised by US also. The development of war philosophy in south asia is completely different from that for US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

The basic constraint on PA's side *maybe* financial reasons as also constraint in the industrial base and willingness of sharing of sensitive technology at times due to political reasons by foreign partners. Also the concept of DCB defences and high density population together with the extensive urbanisation of the south asian region on either side of border has led to reluctance of either countries to introduce bigger and heavier tanks as there is no space to employ staggering armor moves on large scale as also lack of mobility in taking over towns ...... one can always argue with development of urban survival kit for abrahms but the fact is no survival kit can last long once the tank is not able to maneuver in constricted spaces of narrow alleys and streets of south asian towns/cities. 

arjun was a decades old product which was ultimately done in in 2002 but due to the shock of loosing valuable r&d funding from GoI, DRDO woke with a start and by 2006 95&#37; of the problems were rectified. Only the FCS from Thales was problematic in operations over sustained temperatures of 50'C which too has been rectified ....... as for mobility BFAT carriages have been introduced as also bridging in form of Sarvatra class which is in 70 ton class ...... now the only hesitancy is in change of logistic plans for the arjun regiments which will eat into lot of money which IA wants to use to buy new gadgets ..... anyways am waiting if someone opens a specific arjun - alkhalid forum for discussion .......


----------



## S-2

*"also quoting the gulf war 1 as a proven philosophy is a judgemental error from my point of view ( no offence intended ) as the fact remains that by 1987 tanks were getting the DU mesh into the armor to strengthen the already strong armor on M1s which rendered the HEATs and HESHs held by Iraq useless and they hardly had any KE penentrator to fire..."*

That may be so. I'll take your word that Iraq went to battle without an adequate series of 100mm, 115mm, or 125mm kinetic penetrators. What it wouldn't answer is performance of sensors under varied conditions and accuracies (target hits vs. expenditure) for either side. Also relative detection and engagement ranges.

As to European climes, we remain an expeditionary army and were also in the mid to late 70s during the M-1s development. We request, test, and acquire equipment to meet the full contingent range of terrain and weather possibilities. The M-1 series needed to achieve combat overmatch wherever it might be deployed. 

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

S-2 said:


> *"also quoting the gulf war 1 as a proven philosophy is a judgemental error from my point of view ( no offence intended ) as the fact remains that by 1987 tanks were getting the DU mesh into the armor to strengthen the already strong armor on M1s which rendered the HEATs and HESHs held by Iraq useless and they hardly had any KE penentrator to fire..."*
> 
> That may be so. I'll take your word that Iraq went to battle without an adequate series of 100mm, 115mm, or 125mm kinetic penetrators. What it wouldn't answer is performance of sensors under varied conditions and accuracies (target hits vs. expenditure) for either side. Also relative detection and engagement ranges.
> 
> As to European climes, we remain an expeditionary army and were also in the mid to late 70s during the M-1s development. We request, test, and acquire equipment to meet the full contingent range of terrain and weather possibilities. The M-1 series needed to achieve combat overmatch wherever it might be deployed.
> 
> Thanks.




the whole doctrine of US war fighting is on employment of overwhelming forces and especially in Gulf War I on revamping and re-employing the airland battle concept to widen the scope of their air cavalry operations which were developed back in 1963-64 during vietnam era . 

The edge US had was in terms of DU enhanced armour + DU enhanced APFSDs with a strike range of assured kill at 3000m. In addition, the high kill ratio achieved was more due to poor training of the Iraqi army (a debatable point), lack of night fighting capability and thermal imagers and computerised FCS (which gives a better parameter in operations) in addition to lack of the required ammunition. also the bulk of Iraqi army had the inferior T-69s and only the republican guard had T-72s which were better were deficient for above reasons. It was like a grown up fighting a toddler.

One more point was - "highway of death". As most of the iraqi columns were on retreat just at the onset of air war, the allied air force had field day in mauling the best regiments on the highway to basra and establishing an armor superiority in terms of numbers also .......

no doubt the tank is formidable in reality though only has not had chance to be tested against a worthy adversary. anyways I guess we can stick back to topic

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## S-2

*"One more point was - "highway of death". As most of the iraqi columns were on retreat just at the onset of air war, the allied air force had field day in mauling the best regiments on the highway to basra and establishing an armor superiority in terms of numbers also ......."*

You just lost a lot of credibility with me sir. I was a U.S. Army artillery officer at this time. Neither our intel debriefs at the time nor open source info since has given any indication that iraqi columns_ "were on retreat just at the onset of air war..."_

That simply wasn't the case until allied forces crossed the berms into Kuwait. As the allies fought north, the Iraqis departed Kuwait City. THEN we created the bottleneck that became known as the "highway of death". As to best regiments? The BEST regiments were in the west as part of Talwakana and Medina fighting and getting their azzes kicked by VII Corps, XVIII Airborne Corps, the French and the Brits. Those were T-72s that died in large numbers-quickly and violently, and their crews were manned by the best that Iraq had to offer.

Pretty basic and easily-research moment in history. Sufficient on the ol' T.V. screen to lead Colin Powell and G.H. Bush to conclude we would be accused of "slaughter".

Most of your "best regiments" were civilian cars as it turned out and REMFs in soft-skinned vehicles like trucks-loaded down with half of Kuwait. They'd already taken the other half.

I've studied and trained to conduct artillery operations on an air-land battlefield. I instructed others to do the same. Your air-land battle musings are as poorly misrepresented as _"the highway of death_". 

Let's save that one for some other time, though, shall we?

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

S-2 said:


> *"One more point was - "highway of death". As most of the iraqi columns were on retreat just at the onset of air war, the allied air force had field day in mauling the best regiments on the highway to basra and establishing an armor superiority in terms of numbers also ......."*
> 
> You just lost a lot of credibility with me sir. I was a U.S. Army artillery officer at this time. Neither our intel debriefs at the time nor open source info since has given any indication that iraqi columns_ "were on retreat just at the onset of air war..."_
> 
> That simply wasn't the case until allied forces crossed the berms into Kuwait. As the allies fought north, the Iraqis departed Kuwait City. THEN we created the bottleneck that became known as the "highway of death". As to best regiments? The BEST regiments were in the west as part of Talwakana and Medina fighting and getting their azzes kicked by VII Corps, XVIII Airborne Corps, the French and the Brits. Those were T-72s that died in large numbers-quickly and violently, and their crews were manned by the best that Iraq had to offer.
> 
> Pretty basic and easily-research moment in history. Sufficient on the ol' T.V. screen to lead Colin Powell and G.H. Bush to conclude we would be accused of "slaughter".
> 
> Most of your "best regiments" were civilian cars as it turned out and REMFs in soft-skinned vehicles like trucks-loaded down with half of Kuwait. They'd already taken the other half.
> 
> I've studied and trained to conduct artillery operations on an air-land battlefield. I instructed others to do the same. Your air-land battle musings are as poorly misrepresented as _"the highway of death_".
> 
> Let's save that one for some other time, though, shall we?
> 
> Thanks.



no problem sir ..... i am sure your intel debriefs were as good as the ones which justified the invasion of Iraq again on March 20 2003 on the indisputable facts of WMDs 

and now your "intel" is faulty as per your own services admissions. when have you heard of the concept of telling the truth before war which is antithetical to justification of warin the first place?

do you know that Gen Norman Schwarzkopf, the allied commander, paid a visit to a place called National Defence Academy, Pune in India in the days leading upto the war? And do you know why the USAF ACs (C-130s) were stationed at Lohegaon airbase at the time? Because the plan was being broadly discussed with Gen K Sunderji, once Indian Army COAS as also one person on whose confidential report, the Senior Directing Staff at Command & General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth US had endorsed "this officer is fit to command NATO troops in any theater" in the days when India was considered pro-Soviet in good old days of Cold War. My father, who is IA and also an honor graduate from US Army Chemical School, Ft. McClellan (near Aniston) and given similar report by Col. John D Spence CM, Asst Commandant of the school before it was renamed and shifted to Ft. Leonard Wood, Mn. US, was also at the time present on these briefings. 

The concept was clear. Mobilisation had taken place, Iraq had dared to thumb its nose at world, Soviet Union was weak and no more able to support its "ally" and message had to be sent who the new boss of the day was......

hard intel about Iraqi units withdrawing as the deadline came to pass was there both with US and India, IA had close contact with Iraqi Army and PLO at the time with the officers being trained in India regularly, so info is not false. how else do you explain large number of troops caught in open when coalition forces had the clearest air superiority of modern history? even the biggest dimwit of the generals (and you will agree there have been whole loads of them for you also since Gen Joe Hooker let Gen Robert E Lee gather sufficient troops to give a thrashing by indecision to attack across potomac) would know not to move his troops in open in clear view en-masse to give target practice to USAF!!! The war began and whole "debriefings" are a white wash as always .......

as for air land battle concept ... yes we can discuss other time and forum ...... and i did say we have differing perception of the same here now from its original concept which was first given out by Mikhail Tukhachevsky in late 1920s and early 30s broadly speaking and implemented operationally in 1930s by a german officer ( i dont recall his name off hand) forgotten till US Army coined the term with introduction of FM 100-5 in 1982....I dont know of your military past, and this forum I generally am not getting into the technicals as am in a different line now ..... and I prefer keeping things simple .... so my "musings" may at times seem unprofessional and layman .... i prefer being simple.....

regards

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S-2

*"i am sure your intel debriefs were as good as the ones which justified the invasion of Iraq again on March 20 2003 on the indisputable facts of WMDs"*

Actually, you idiot, they were far better. Our sensors had ZERO problems identifying units moving into or out of theatre. Zilch.

*"...and now your "intel" is faulty as per your own services admissions. when have you heard of the concept of telling the truth before war which is antithetical to justification of warin the first place?"*

Gee whiz, hellfire, you're talking to the absolutely wrong guy here. I don't care what was there. I know these unassailable facts which you are permitted to digest IAW your abilities to absorb-

1.) An Iraqi fascist regime is utterly dismantled.

2.) Iraqi irridentist ambitions for conquest, twice demonstrated with Iran and Kuwait, is a non-issue for the forseeable future.

3.) The b'aath leadership is CRUSHED and it's leader and sons ground temperature.

4.) Kurdish and shia aspirations are unleashed and neither race lives under the suffrage of Sunni minority domination.

5.) All vestiges of WMD-past, present, and future-have been dismantled and effectively neutered for the foreseeable future. No more gas attacks upon Kurds, Iranians or anybody else. Fini.

6.) A democratic muslim/arab nation now possesses the opportunity to determine it's own future.

How #6 goes remains to be seen but I'm UTTERLY pleased with our efforts and bear no poor opinion of our strategic intelligence services. Hope that helps...

However, your red herrings aside, we're discussing TACTICAL and OPERATIONAL intelligence. My army, air force, and marines control those sensors and we had (and have) an unparalleled view of the modern battlefield, thank you very much.

*"do you know that Gen Norman Schwarzkopf, the allied commander, paid a visit to a place called National Defence Academy... Soviet Union was weak and no more able to support its "ally" and message had to be sent who the new boss of the day was......"*

Do you know that I could care less. So Schwartzkopf gave you a single briefing BEFORE the battle opened, eh? Big deal. Meanwhile, I didn't see any I.A. agency on any distribution list of intel I received.

Those usually come classified NOFORN (Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals/Governments/Non-US Citizens: US government classification control).

That means you and your I.A. buddies.

*"hard intel about Iraqi units withdrawing as the deadline came to pass was there both with US and India, IA had close contact with Iraqi Army and PLO at the time with the officers being trained in India regularly, so info is not false."*

JSTARS said otherwise and I trust them one hell of a lot more than you.

*"even the biggest dimwit of the generals (and you will agree there have been whole loads of them for you also since Gen Joe Hooper let Gen Robert E Lee gather sufficient troops to give a thrashing by indecision to attack across potomac)"*

You really know your American military history. Not that I'm asking you to but, please understand, I'd prefer that you not butcher it as you administer your "lessons".

That "dimwit" general to whom you refer is named HOOKER. Joseph Hooker. You refer to the Battle of Chancellorsville. It had NOTHING to do with the Potomac River.

*"...so my "musings" may at times seem unprofessional and layman .... i prefer being simple....."*

Indeed they are and there'd be little purpose to addressing those gaps in your education at this late date. I'm convinced you've no competency to address air-land battle. In point of fact, you seem to really want some type of discussion on the history of mechanized manuever theory. Far more broad an application and lacking specificity. 

When and where that thread appears, please allow a professional to direct the discussion, if you wouldn't mind?

Thanks.


----------



## Zarbe Momin

Al-Khalid tank had 48 tonnes Weight with 600 mm armour and Speed of 72 km/h, if we can compromise a little with speed and use Ceramic materials (composite matrix of laminated ceramic-steel-nickel alloy) like used in Merkava & more explosive reactive armor in front and on sides. A minor reduction in speed & minor increase in weight will provide more safety to crew and Al-Khalid tank would be the invincible tank of world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

*Actually, you idiot, they were far better. Our sensors had ZERO problems identifying units moving into or out of theatre. Zilch.*

Thanks for personalising your remark and blowing your cool. much appreciated and civilised approach i agree. Idiot is usually a mental retard with IQ way below 60 so you are kind of off here, tested 160 for that. was kind of too personal here. and right US had ZERO episodes of friendly fire incidents thanks to your "sensors". Arty units anyways stay far behind, even if you are with armored elements so I think you were a bit way off ...... 

*Gee whiz, hellfire, you're talking to the absolutely wrong guy here. I don't care what was there. I know these unassailable facts which you are permitted to digest IAW your abilities to absorb-*

i know am talking to the wrong guy .... you are too fixated in US politicians being righteous ALWAYS!!!!


*1.) An Iraqi fascist regime is utterly dismantled.*


to be replaced by a "democratic" government which rules pretty much the same way by miscarriage of justice. example is recent trial and guilty verdict for Tariq Aziz in a case that even International Human Rights watch groups have said as being unfair and without proof as the guy was not even in country at the time of said crimes. cheers to US!!!

*2.) Iraqi irridentist ambitions for conquest, twice demonstrated with Iran and Kuwait, is a non-issue for the forseeable future.*

lets see, now since when have you become pro-Iran? here wait, was not the country of Iran being bled while US provided arms to its enemies who were gassing its citizens? Now my history may be wrong as you have pointed out.

*3.) The b'aath leadership is CRUSHED and it's leader and sons ground temperature.*

the bush junior did what papa could not ..... destroyed the communal harmony in a nation which was one of the most advanced and tolerant societies of its time ..... nice way of fighting dictatorship!!!! now am sure you plan the same for China and Pakistan next time round? so whns the strike scheduled?

*4.) Kurdish and shia aspirations are unleashed and neither race lives under the suffrage of Sunni minority domination.*

Aspirations of Texans (original inhabitants) would be welcome too. dont see US doing that do we? Unfair now  Iran and Turkey still kick the Kurds around, when do you plan to invade these two nations for protection of rights of "poor" Kurds? 

*5.) All vestiges of WMD-past, present, and future-have been dismantled and effectively neutered for the foreseeable future. No more gas attacks upon Kurds, Iranians or anybody else. Fini.*

now where are the promised nukes as claimed by US in UN assembly to justify the war on Iraq? and again when are you invading North Korea and Iran? Those two nations are probably more dangerous right? And what about US still sitting on largest stockpile ever? we feel threatened as does the whole of Islamic world .... when do you "neutralise" them? 

*6.) A democratic muslim/arab nation now possesses the opportunity to determine it's own future.*

when is saudi arabia on your democratic list? lets see you invade that country to "instill" democracy where monarch is hated by people and islamists alike for autocracy and absence of basic freedom.

your morals have no ideals or basis sir.


*How #6 goes remains to be seen but I'm UTTERLY pleased with our efforts and bear no poor opinion of our strategic intelligence services. Hope that helps...*

be pleased....for US ensured millions of Iraqi children have no future, education gone, no scope for development, peace ..... great going sir


*However, your red herrings aside, we're discussing TACTICAL and OPERATIONAL intelligence. My army, air force, and marines control those sensors and we had (and have) an unparalleled view of the modern battlefield, thank you very much.*

agreed .... but what was fed to you, was scripted in halls of white house, not NSC or pentagon ....... and thats anything but tactical and operation info .... 

*Do you know that I could care less. So Schwartzkopf gave you a single briefing BEFORE the battle opened, eh? Big deal. Meanwhile, I didn't see any I.A. agency on any distribution list of intel I received.*


i-am-right. when thats the belief, one really cant see anything other than what one wants to see ........ 6 days was a long time for the briefing .... anyways yup big deal, the plans were being formulated there dear ....... ever heard of Op. Brasstacks? Suggest you read your own army's assessment of that exercise done by IA ..... its something of why the said gentleman was consulted ..... also IA is not the one to pass info to US .... US had own sources with same ...... and SIGINT-HUMINT teams of India in Afghanistan are providing intel to US on necessity basis for ops...... and its again need to know .... you get a hard brief and then you act not wonder where the source is, that is the liasion offrs task

*Those usually come classified NOFORN (Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals/Governments/Non-US Citizens: US government classification control).*

am not talking about US handing out info am I?



*JSTARS said otherwise and I trust them one hell of a lot more than you.*

good for you. 


*You really know your American military history. Not that I'm asking you to but, please understand, I'd prefer that you not butcher it as you administer your "lessons".* 

I know a fair bit of it. hooper was type mistake something i corrected then itself, read my post again ... it shall show time and date of correction. was reading of cricket so hooper (from west indies carl hooper)

*That "dimwit" general to whom you refer is named HOOKER. Joseph Hooker. You refer to the Battle of Chancellorsville. It had NOTHING to do with the Potomac River.*

I pointed out had corrected my spelling .... anyways ..... you are right where he lost, but he lost the initiative as he followed the retreating Gen Lee's army into Pennsylvania and he spent whole loads oftime waiting to prepare for his move after getting reinforcements from garrisson at Harpers Ferry (which the war department turned down) which if am not wrong is near abouts to Potomac river if you recall ...... this was his first mistake and second when he sat out the winters across rappahannock and rapidian rivers ...... for the said battle where even with greater numbers and superior deployment plan he lost ........

*Indeed they are and there'd be little purpose to addressing those gaps in your education at this late date. I'm convinced you've no competency to address air-land battle. In point of fact, you seem to really want some type of discussion on the history of mechanized manuever theory. Far more broad an application and lacking specificity. *

not looking for self styled lidell hart please ......
anyways your closing lines now ..... this was last on this line from my side ... have wavered off too much off the topic ...... wont happen hence
cheers ...... 

take care,

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## S-2

*"Arty units anyways stay far behind"*

Telling a former artillery officer my business now, are you? Shows, again, how little you know about air-land battle doctrine nor combat operations during DESERT STORM.

I doubt you'd know one thing about the M-110 203mm raids our marines ran north of the berm. More idiocy.

*"Idiot is usually a mental retard with IQ way below 60 so you are kind of off here, tested 160 for that."*

Sure-if you say so but your functional competency here hasn't registered a pulse yet.

*"lets see, now since when have you become pro-Iran? here wait, was not the country of Iran being bled while US provided arms to its enemies who were gassing its citizens? Now my history may be wrong as you have pointed out."*

You miss the point, Mr. 160 I.Q. THE POINT is that Saddam had a demonstrated bent to do so...against anybody having twice demonstrated a determination to invade shias and then sunnis while attempting to hold other sunnis (Saudi Arabia) at grievous risk. He was a demonstrated risk to the region's stability.

Your geo-strategic perspectives are mal-formed.

*"destroyed the communal harmony in a nation which was one of the most advanced and tolerant societies of its time ..... nice way of fighting dictatorship!!!!"*

That's a precious comment that needs to stand alone. So it shall on my post lest you later delete it for sheer lunacy.

*"Iran and Turkey still kick the Kurds around, when do you plan to invade these two nations for protection of rights of "poor" Kurds?"*

Really? Care to indicate Iran's actions against the KRG? I know that the Turks have raided northern Iraq twice since 2006...but they did so with our specific help.

*"and again when are you invading North Korea and Iran? Those two nations are probably more dangerous right?"*

Are you typically this dissembling? However you wish to argue the past I know you'll agree that shias, kurds, and, yes-even you, sleep more soundly at night knowing that any further ambitions to manufacture or use WMD harbored by Saddam and his minions have been irrevocably put to rest for the foreseeable future.

*"be pleased....for US ensured millions of Iraqi children have no future, education gone, no scope for development, peace ..... great going sir"*

Easy enough to view Iraq's progress in key indicators if you really wished. It's apparent that you don't and I'm not particularly eager to take on your education. Live in delusion as you see fit but that before and after data is pretty easily available.

$66B in their treasury this year. They've got a real chance which Iraqis didn't have before.

Thank you, Mr. 160 I.Q.


----------



## Tang0

Back to the M1. Comparisons to the Iraq war are probably not very applicable. Hellfire obviously had not a clue what was going on with "The highway of Death", and I will attribute that to youth and not actually being there. Also, some advice, don't argue the facts of the situation with someone who was there.

Nonetheless, comparing the IA or PA to Iraq in 1991 is a bad idea. The MIA1 and MIA2 were a generational gap above the T-72, they also enjoyed massive logistical support from the richest nation on earth, and the country which designed and manufactured those systems. All the statements hellfire made about lack of thermal imaging, GPS, depleted uranium KE penetrators, etc, is true. Not only was there a generational gap, the T-72 was deployed, manned, and equipped in such a way as to not be operating at its full battle capacity. 

The desert of Kuwait is a vast plane. Unless dust blocks your vision, in many places you can see until the curvature of the earth prevents you from seeing further. Pakistan does not fit that description very well at all. Anyone who has spent time in a mechanized unit can attest, it is hard to get more than 30 miles without a stoppage because maintenance forces a stop. This gets to be a problem when you don't have spare parts to fix things quickly...

Despite S-2 somewhat tongue-in-cheek comments about armored columns navigating Iraq, he probably has heard a story at least once or twice about an Abrams getting stuck in the mud. I know I sure have.. "and then the wolverine that came to pull it couldn't do it, and damn near gets stuck itself, and finally Major [X] says, "aww sh*t, destroy it, were going" they hit it with a couple of KE's, but it just dings it, so they drop some thermite grenades in it, and that still ain't good enough, so finally they end up dropping a JDAM on it..." Or so the story goes. 

All of that still does not address the cost of the thing (US$4.35 million), or it notorious fuel consumption (gas turbine engines don't idle well like diesels do), high cost per hour of operation (although much of that may be high US personnel costs) , etc. 

All of this I am sure was noted by the PA when they did operational testing. Is the M1A2 a diffrent beast than what they tested? Certainly. Does it make any more sense to purchase it now than it did then? Not so clear.


----------



## S-2

Auxilary Power Unit. Saves tons of fuel. Literally.

*"The desert of Kuwait is a vast plane."*

Not at 73 Easting or Medina Ridge. Vast? Yes. Lots of wadis though. You don't need much elevation deviation to create natural berms sufficient to hide a tank brigade. One contour line of elevation is enough to hide a unit until your well inside the kill envelope. McMaster crested a wadi in a sandstorm and took on the world behind the reverse slope.

*"Despite S-2 somewhat tongue-in-cheek comments about armored columns navigating Iraq, he probably has heard a story at least once or twice about an Abrams getting stuck in the mud."*

Only the Chally II can claim to be as fully tested as the M1. After that, it's all informed speculation subject to confirmation by combat.


----------



## Tang0

S-2 said:


> Only the Chally II can claim to be as fully tested as the M1. After that, it's all informed speculation subject to confirmation by combat.



Yes and no. Combat is the best testing possible. It is still situational. Operational live fire testing of actual specimens in "Field Like" conditions might very well be a better indicator of success than actual combat in a situation that is guaranteed not to be repeatable, along with entirely diffrent types of people behind the guns. 

Also, a tank with no spare parts and not enough fuel isn't much use, no matter how well it performs with spare parts and fuel. Course, spares and fuel could be a problem with any tank. 

So the PA is taking an educated risk. They are choosing an unproven system that theoretically meets their needs well compared to a proven system which does not meet all of their needs in a cost-effective manner. Do you take the devil you know, or face the great unknown? Tough call.


----------



## Hellfire

some interesting links 

cryan.com

Saddam 'poised to pull out of Kuwait' | World news | guardian.co.uk

Iraq 1990-1991 Killing Hope W Blum

We have so often decided the life to be either black or white....but ignore the shade grey

history is always re-written by the victorious.hussein knew he was done in when US hardened its stance, he knew he had no options left but to withdraw. but the monster was in motion and there was no quitting!!!


----------



## Tang0

*One more point was - "highway of death". As most of the iraqi columns were on retreat just at the onset of air war, the allied air force had field day in mauling the best regiments on the highway to basra*

Since you insist:
frontline: the gulf war | PBS

Where you will find recounting from people who were actually there: Iraqis, British clean up crews, and US pilots along with gun-cam footage. You will also get top US general's opinions on if the action was justified or not. Just so you know, the air war had been going on since Jan. 17th while "Highway of death" incident happened on February 26th. The clean up crew knew how long the bodies had been decomposing. Forensic evidence along with camera footage. Your statement was simply untrue, and nothing you can say will convince me or anyone else here otherwise. 

From the book "Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War" by Rick Atkinson, there is a quote by an Iraqi tank commander which I will paraphrase. "In 100 days of f-16s I lost 6 tanks, in 10 minutes of Abrams, I lost my entire command." I think that his entire command was around 50 tanks, but I don't have the book handy. 

If you still don't believe me, google "Highway of Death" See any T-72s in any of those pictures? I don't. Mostly soft skinned civilian vehicles. 

I agree with your earlier statements, I don't think the tank's gulf war combat record is necessarily a good way to judge its usefulness to the PA. Don't pretend to know more than you do though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

first of all i would like to thank you for your earlier post and trying to get conversation back to topic. its appreciated and you shall have full cooperation hence on. once again thank you

*One more point was - "highway of death". As most of the iraqi columns were on retreat just at the onset of air war, the allied air force had field day in mauling the best regiments on the highway to basra*


it was a point which served to highlight the fact that coalition forces hit massed retreating forces .... the incident is in late feb around 25th and not jan .... it was a point made to illustrate the fact that such large casualties *WILL NOT* happen until and unless there was a full retreat. If you recall, there was similar episode of casualties on Iraqi side in initial phases of strikes in January itself at the start of the war. things dont co-relate. howsoever well your target acquisition tech/JSTARs are developed, urban warfare negates such advantages and ANYONE who claims not so is deluding self. Every commander (and here was an army which had just concluded war with iran for over 8 years and knew how to fight in the terrain relatively welll enough) knows not to concentrate his forces at the time of onset of hostilities when even the TV reports indicated a massive buildup of air and naval assets across the region in the build up to war. So the charactrer of casualties and overall casualties just do not add up to an army which was determined to hold the ground ....... 

*Since you insist:
frontline: the gulf war | PBS*

that is even in non-conflict scenario between india pakistan across LC. there were snatch raids and attacks mounted without even declaration of hostilities and anyone caught sleeping was thoroughly disfigured. Its normal ..... and its a fact of war.


*Where you will find recounting from people who were actually there: Iraqis, British clean up crews, and US pilots along with gun-cam footage. You will also get top US general's opinions on if the action was justified or not. Just so you know, the air war had been going on since Jan. 17th while "Highway of death" incident happened on February 26th. The clean up crew knew how long the bodies had been decomposing. Forensic evidence along with camera footage. Your statement was simply untrue, and nothing you can say will convince me or anyone else here otherwise. *

mentioned only as example .... of retreating troops being attacked ... not saying army was thoroughly slaughtered in that attack and the highway is the only road connecting kuwaiti city with iraq ...... was unable to clarify my point I guess .......

*From the book "Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War" by Rick Atkinson, there is a quote by an Iraqi tank commander which I will paraphrase. "In 100 days of f-16s I lost 6 tanks, in 10 minutes of Abrams, I lost my entire command." I think that his entire command was around 50 tanks, but I don't have the book handy. * 

no denying the superiority of the DU armor and DU KE APFSDs employed by US ..... my point exactly ....

*If you still don't believe me, google "Highway of Death" See any T-72s in any of those pictures? I don't. Mostly soft skinned civilian vehicles. *

you do see a couple ... but majority of regular armor units had chinese T-69s and NOT T-72s (Lions Of Babylon)......which were held by the Republican Guards Unit which had withdrawn and were engaged inside Iraq .... my point is further proved ...... iraqis had begun withdrawl fearing a final attack and kept a brave face just to maximise their bargaining position ..... had they wanted to fight they would have tried to keep maximum republican guards in Kuwait

*I agree with your earlier statements, I don't think the tank's gulf war combat record is necessarily a good way to judge its usefulness to the PA. Don't pretend to know more than you do though.*

my whole point initially was that you can not use Gulf War 1 as a yardstick as the parameters of conflict were different. Indo-Pak scenario is different with neither side an easy pushover like Iraq, or fighting for a regime which is not liked by general people. 

in addition the war was more of psyops and media coup than victory .... i shall request you to go through this easily googled article ....

Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

add this to your other sources .... and you shall find some merit ... to what I have pointed out.

In addition being there does not mean knowing truth ... at every point I have justified my points (and been called idiot for the same) but if am so wrong, why not comprehensively prove points or disprove them? 

If you can apply the equation so easily to any battlefield and attribute your success to your superior equipment,JSTARs etc ... what is with Afghanistan? Why is US failing there? 

a very interesting read on how "revolution in military affiars" is changing the war fighting doctrine in sub-continet at a greater pace than anywhere else, on why US has still a lot to learn from both India and Pakistan on war fighting ......


http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/theses/Acosta03.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

the decision of PA not to induct M1 was I guess largely based more on the inaccuracies in the initial field trials in late 80s. Thereafter due to the F-16 episode, the idea was permanently dropped as this would have rendered PA at themercy of US for spares and supplies for a very important component of its defence - the armour which was tantamount to suicide. Also during 90s the US was unwlling to supply to PA (Indo-US relationships were in courtship period, thawed by refuelling facility given by India to US in gulf war 1). These factors were the main determinants of the decision.

I think it was a wise decision on PA's side. Apart from necessary infrastructure, the economics, the main problem of reliance on US in light of growing Indo-US friendship meant suicide. NOw PA can field a tank which it has built largely, and has the tech to improve, and have true independence on the equipment to be deployed 

can anyone really tell me what is going to be radically different b/w AK1 and AK2?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## S-2

*"In addition being there does not mean knowing truth ... at every point I have justified my points (and been called idiot for the same) but if am so wrong, why not comprehensively prove points or disprove them?"*

Why waste the time?

Let's get something straight. I WASN'T THERE. Never said I was. Tang0 did. 

I received intel dumps- INTSUMs, threat estimates, terrain analysis, and, finally, after-action reports. My unit was on orders to deploy to "_the mother of all battles_" once the first 10,000 or so dead G.I.s made it back to our horrified public. 

_Most of all I didn't need any of that to prove you wrong_. Nor did I need to have served in the military or even have been alive then. Your presentation of events surrounding the "highway of death" and American civil war history were a gross distortion-almost laughably so.

Easily researched but you chose laziness over diligence and presumed the worst of our poor minds. And was easily proven wrong. You're not justifying much of anything with me at this point, sir. 

As such, you were poorly served by your 160 I.Q and deserve my distrust and disdain until your discourse shows improvement. 

Thanks.


----------



## Super Falcon

for me arjun stands in the class of T 72 may be im wrong but no one seems to be interested in it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

Super Falcon said:


> for me arjun stands in the class of T 72 may be im wrong but no one seems to be interested in it



actually not ... it is more enroute in heavier classes ..... the armor is advanced and home grown composite, with more of western designing practices .... it has shown to hold true to protection from Israeli APFSDs in close ranges also ... and has more than adequate protection from tandem warheads being sported in ATGMs and projectiles like RPG-18s nowadays. The poor interest on side of IA is due to the fact that T-90S was inducted when Arjun failed to materialise in time leading to fulfilment of requirment of 1st line of armor till 2020 with T-72s (upgraded ones) forming 2nd line. So the logic of induction of new system that shall need eventual replacement beginning 2020 on is hinderance for IA which fails to understand that the same can be upgraded in various versions as the tech development progresses ...... also with addition of latest protection suites (they are under field trials) the category of the MBT is into M1 types with tech being radically upgraded and potentiated since 2006 making it suitable for deployment and formidable fighting veh.

the complaints of IA regarding logistics and transportation as also bridging equipment were also met with Indian railways introducing BFAT carriages and it can be transported by Tatra based transporters being held by IA. also Sarvatra class of bridge has been inducted in to combat engineers with 70 tonne capacity ........

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellfire

*Why waste the time?*

please dont. had earlier stated lets get back to topic and not diverge .... 


*Let's get something straight. I WASN'T THERE. Never said I was. Tang0 did. *

my reply was to tango, but you chose to reply on his behalf too I see .... and i thanked him for getting the thread back on course. i had mentioned earlier in my post reply to yours that the last lines are yours, for me the matter is over.

*I received intel dumps- INTSUMs, threat estimates, terrain analysis, and, finally, after-action reports. My unit was on orders to deploy to "the mother of all battles" once the first 10,000 or so dead G.I.s made it back to our horrified public. *

am sure you performed well as any officer of any armed forces in the world does, be it directly in line of fire or not, you played your part in the war effort and my hats off and salute to you for the same.....and this is not sarcasm but a respectful observation for a soldier doing his duty towards his country.

*Most of all I didn't need any of that to prove you wrong. Nor did I need to have served in the military or even have been alive then. Your presentation of events surrounding the "highway of death" and American civil war history were a gross distortion-almost laughably so.*

not so and i beg to differ. but lets agree not to agree shall we? and move on?


*Easily researched but you chose laziness over diligence and presumed the worst of our poor minds. And was easily proven wrong. You're not justifying much of anything with me at this point, sir. *

let it rest and get on with a meaninful discussion minding the fact that non-service members are also present 


*As such, you were poorly served by your 160 I.Q and deserve my distrust and disdain until your discourse shows improvement. *

you are most welcome .....to have your perceptions

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

hell fire seems like u have very good info on tanks i have one question for u i hope u answer them as a neutral dont think ur indian at the time u answer just answer what ur knowladge says to you and im eager to listen from u

AL KHALID VS ARJUN Answer
ALKHALID VS T90 Answer
T80UD VS ARJUN Answer
T80UD VS T90 Answer


----------



## Hellfire

Super Falcon said:


> hell fire seems like u have very good info on tanks i have one question for u i hope u answer them as a neutral dont think ur indian at the time u answer just answer what ur knowladge says to you and im eager to listen from u
> 
> AL KHALID VS ARJUN Answer
> ALKHALID VS T90 Answer
> T80UD VS ARJUN Answer
> T80UD VS T90 Answer



oh am all for neutrality

am waiting for someone to open arjun alkhalid discussion thread ... no vs this or that for we cant be sure on the abilities till actual fight ...
there was one thread opened by my fellow countryman but he put his foot into the mouth and got into PA bashing in intro itself ... am lookin for keen minded people to discuss ... not bash india or pakistan in discussion ...
that is toooooo stereotypical
shall be grateful if you open the thread and we can work the portion out in fair and objective manner ..... will await your call ....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LCA

Welcome

*DRDO scientists build a bridge with brains*

Prasad Kulkarni | TNN

Pune: Its the first such project in the world, claim scientists of the Research and Development Establishment (Engineers), a laboratory of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Pune. *The scientists are developing a lightweight, carbon fibre smart bridge, which will be strong enough to hold a fully loaded battle tank.
We have been working on the project for five years now and it has been successfully completed, *said Makarand Joshi, one of the scientists involved. The eight-member team includes scientists Giridhar Singh, Mayur Godbole, Rahul Harshe and technician Felix Barla, as well as other supporting staff.
*This is the only structure of its kind anywhere in the world, he proclaimed. The only other bridge that could be compared to this is the one in the US. That bridge is 13 meters long, but has been developed with the help of a private company, he said. The speciality of our bridge is that we have developed it entirely on our own. Our bridge is 5 metres long. We also plan to build a 24-metre bridge in the future.*
According to Joshi, part of the bridge is currently at the laboratory, while one part has been sent to the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL), Bangalore, for testing. After testing both parts, the bridge will be joined together in the Pune laboratory. Thereafter, the test of whether the bridge will withstand a fully loaded battle tank will be carried out. This is most likely to take place in July, said Joshi.
The bridge is made of carbon-epoxy materials and is 30% lighter than aluminium. The cost of building the bridge is almost the same as that of an aluminium bridge, but the expenses occurred on maintenance of the carbon composite material bridge will be lower, said Joshi. *The bridge weighs just 1.2 tonnes, but should be able to carry the load of a 70-tonne battle tank, he added.*
Explaining why it was called a smart bridge, scientist Mayur Godbole said, *This bridge can monitor itself. Fibre optic sensors have been embedded in the bridge to achieve this smartness. It can assess the weight/load on it and manage its durability accordingly. The bridge can also be operated by remote. There is no need to depute men at the bridge to monitor it.
*


*I think this will play a important role in the transportation of tanks like Arjun.*


----------



## Hellfire

LCA said:


> Welcome
> 
> *DRDO scientists build a bridge with brains*
> 
> Prasad Kulkarni | TNN
> 
> Pune: Its the first such project in the world, claim scientists of the Research and Development Establishment (Engineers), a laboratory of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Pune. *The scientists are developing a lightweight, carbon fibre smart bridge, which will be strong enough to hold a fully loaded battle tank.
> We have been working on the project for five years now and it has been successfully completed, *said Makarand Joshi, one of the scientists involved. The eight-member team includes scientists Giridhar Singh, Mayur Godbole, Rahul Harshe and technician Felix Barla, as well as other supporting staff.
> *This is the only structure of its kind anywhere in the world, he proclaimed. The only other bridge that could be compared to this is the one in the US. That bridge is 13 meters long, but has been developed with the help of a private company, he said. The speciality of our bridge is that we have developed it entirely on our own. Our bridge is 5 metres long. We also plan to build a 24-metre bridge in the future.*
> According to Joshi, part of the bridge is currently at the laboratory, while one part has been sent to the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL), Bangalore, for testing. After testing both parts, the bridge will be joined together in the Pune laboratory. Thereafter, the test of whether the bridge will withstand a fully loaded battle tank will be carried out. This is most likely to take place in July, said Joshi.
> The bridge is made of carbon-epoxy materials and is 30% lighter than aluminium. The cost of building the bridge is almost the same as that of an aluminium bridge, but the expenses occurred on maintenance of the carbon composite material bridge will be lower, said Joshi. *The bridge weighs just 1.2 tonnes, but should be able to carry the load of a 70-tonne battle tank, he added.*
> Explaining why it was called a smart bridge, scientist Mayur Godbole said, *This bridge can monitor itself. Fibre optic sensors have been embedded in the bridge to achieve this smartness. It can assess the weight/load on it and manage its durability accordingly. The bridge can also be operated by remote. There is no need to depute men at the bridge to monitor it.
> *
> 
> 
> *I think this will play a important role in the transportation of tanks like Arjun.*



severely doubt it ..... this is just a TD .... like Tank-X concept of DRDO .... evolution of the tech will take place .... for now arjun specific bridging equipment is sarvatra class ......


----------



## zraver

saiko said:


> Sure, that's possible. But I think it's rather impractical. The Abrams is actually even too heavy for most European bridges and during the Cold War key bridges were reinforced specifically to handle the load of the heavier Abrams versions. If you can't use any of the existing bridges but have to build your own bridge that can handle 70t of capacity on the go you are seriously hurting your offensive capabilities. And if Pakistan needs heavy pillboxes it would be far cheaper to buy cement from China .



So in Pakistan only one loaded truck at a time is allowed on a bridge? @ trucks would exceed 80 tons.



> 70 ton tanks are for nations that are hyper-sensitive to casualties. It is really much more practical to use an autoloader to reduce the number of potential casualties in a tank and make sure you have a powerful gun + quality munitions. Keep some good armor on there with a keen eye on the law of diminishing returns.



Hogwash. 3 man crews are for countries that would rather save a dollar than save a life. Contrary to myth, the frontal aspect of a Western MBT is not much bigger than that of a T-series and the slab siding actually reduces the area that has to be put under armor.

More importantly, 4 man crews greatly increase combat effectiveness and equipment readiness rates. Most T series tanks only have 2 men to do all the maintenance and care for the tank. The commander being busy with other duties. A Western MBT has 3 men for those same jobs, except of course they don't have to maintenance on the auto loader, just feed him. More people to do less work= more sleep.

Sleep, and the amount of it has a direct bearing on combat performance. A crew that is running on 4 hours a night will fight better for longer than a crew averaging 3 hours a night. 

The only drawback to 4 man crews are peace time personnel and training costs.



> For a nation like Pakistan, the name of the game is cost effectiveness - the 20/80 rule. 20% of the cost, 80% of the effectiveness and that's precisely the direction Pakistan seems to be going with the Al-Khalid and JF-17, while building up embargo proof access to these weapons. If India wants to spend 80% more to get that last 20%, let them do so. It will be of marginal effectiveness in any war and they will blow their size advantage.



vis a vis AK vs the Arjun should it ever go into production. the 4 man crew adds a huge combat advantage as critical as the gun/ammo combo.



> However, in some key areas, you can't follow the 20/80 rule. The software necessary to data link tanks (and other platforms) together... you want to spend the extra 80% of cost on, because that is a serious force multiplier.



So is the 4th crewmember. The Soviet Union went to the 3 man crew to reduce size (no longer applicable) and reduce peace time costs. It was not done for any other and thus still relevant reasons.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Munir

The jet engine of the A1 is terrible. I think they can make a missile to homes on that...

Reactions: Like Like:

2


----------



## Hellfire

Munir said:


> The jet engine of the A1 is terrible. I think they can make a missile to homes on that...



we are talking about tanks with gas turbine engines .... not aircrafts with jet engine ... remember?


----------



## zraver

hellfire said:


> we are talking about tanks with gas turbine engines .... not aircrafts with jet engine ... remember?



The Abrams still has a massive thermal bloom. You can diffuse it to an extent, but only to an extent.


----------



## Hellfire

zraver said:


> The Abrams still has a massive thermal bloom. You can diffuse it to an extent, but only to an extent.



while posting atleast one should have the basics right ..... kindly do read about the dimensions of the M1A series as also of the contemporary Soviet based tanks and please do elaborate on how there is a "massive" thermal image obtained with respect to T series of tanks or AK1.

Al-Khalid

Wt: 48 tonnes

Length: 10.07 M

Width: 3.50 M

Height: 2.40 M


M1 Abrams

Wt: 67.6 tonnes

Length: 9.77 M

Width: 3.66 M

Height: 2.44 M



T-90

Wt: 46.5 tonnes

Length: 9.53 M

Width: 3.78 M

Height: 2.22 M


Arjun

Wt: 58.6 tonnes

Length: 10.638 M

Width: 3.86 M

Height: 2.32 M


----------



## S-2

*"...while posting atleast one should have the basics right..."*

I'd be a bit more circumspect with Zraver, Mr. Arm-chair General 160 I.Q. M.D.

He used to be a pretty good M1A1 tank commander. Doesn't have as much time now that he's finishing up his history degree in the states.

Sorta an unusually bright guy as tankers go. I sincerely hope that you're not letting that huge I.Q. of yours again run rampant just when I was really enjoying your expositions on Kashmir.

If he replies (and we hope he does) you might get a nice de-classified lesson on thermal imaging (function of two inputs-target heat and sensor quality) and surface exposure as a function of slope.


----------



## Hellfire

Dear S-2

*"...while posting atleast one should have the basics right..."*

I meant what I said and it was meant for the post where you had jet engines being sought after by missiles instead of Gas Turbine Engine on M1 (the former being a derivative of the latter and latter of the ICE - Internal Combustion Engine) Now if by logical extension one was to write an ICE for M1, he would be laughed off the forum, come on be specific now that you know what the stuff on M1 is ..... and Jet Engines are conventionally associated with being used in Missiles, UAVs etc. Maybe wrong here....

*Sorta an unusually bright guy as tankers go. I sincerely hope that you're not letting that huge I.Q. of yours again run rampant just when I was really enjoying your expositions on Kashmir.*

Am glad you found them entertaining  dont have time to let that go running nowadays ... kind of stuck with workload 


*If he replies (and we hope he does) you might get a nice de-classified lesson on thermal imaging (function of two inputs-target heat and sensor quality) and surface exposure as a function of slope.*

oh sure am looking forward to a reply now that you have told me his background, it would be good and enlightening from someone who knows the stuff - as have this confounded thing called a Gamma Camera in Medical Diagnostics which I cant understand and the same is based on the principles of thermal imagery. 


Also would like to discuss the concept of Brayton Cycle and its efficiency parameters with respect to Otto & Diesel Engines as also the principle of thermal emission, reflection and transmission governing the laws of thermography (and their impact on imaging in battlefield scenario of deserts in South Asia) as also the concept of geothermal energy and parameters governing imagery with solid ground in desert as a background which has plenty of readioactive Potassium, Radon, Thorium and Uranium particles in sand. 

In addition I think the fact that the term more apt here would be thermal signature/image and not Thermal "Bloom" which is academically more associated with propogation of LASER ...... anyways will look forward to learning something new definitely ....


----------



## zraver

hellfire said:


> while posting atleast one should have the basics right ..... kindly do read about the dimensions of the M1A series as also of the contemporary Soviet based tanks and please do elaborate on how there is a "massive" thermal image obtained with respect to T series of tanks or AK1.
> 
> Width: 3.50 M
> 
> Height: 2.40 M
> 
> frotnal area= 8.4
> 
> M1 Abrams
> 
> Width: 3.66 M
> 
> Height: 2.44 M
> 
> frontal area= 8.9
> 
> T-90
> 
> 
> Width: 3.78 M
> 
> Height: 2.22 M
> 
> Area= 8.3
> 
> 
> Arjun
> 
> 
> Width: 3.86 M
> 
> Height: 2.32 M
> 
> area= 8.56



Total frontal aspect area (target) swing between the 4 is less than 1 meter- at 1000m that is not even a factor. However the Abrams and Arjun with the slab sides have a total area smaller than the T type AK and the T-90. l have less area than /. Thus for the same weight in armor in a given location the armor of the slab sided MBT's can be thicker.

The Abrams uses a turbine engine developed from a helicopter engine. Its exhaust is massive. Its a multi-fuel engine and can run anything up to jet fuel. Walk behind an M1 and you'll have the scars on your unprotected skin for life. The whole *** end of an Abrams gets hot. If you put the diffusers on to reduce the signature you risk causing grass fires (I've done it). IIRC the exhaust of the Abrams is like 1500 deg Fahrenheit. If there was an IR seeking anti-tank missile the Abrams would be an ideal target.

This is and the fuel consumption issue are offset to a great extent by the power on demand. The turbine is actually down rated from what it could do (3500+hp) this also improves reliability. The turbine is also very quiet. You wont hear an M1 until its within a couple hundred meters vs kilometer plus for many tanks depending on conditions. In an area where visibility is limited sound is very important. Add to that the Abrams superior thermal vision and it can see its enemy before it is noticed.

Also of note, no tank is very good at hiding its thermal signature except at two times a day when an un-run tank matches ambient temps. Tanks heat up at different rates and to different levels than natural materials. A sunny day that will heat a rock to 100 deg will heat a tank to 125 deg providing exceptional standout.

PS- S-2, I was just a crew member. M-60A3TTS (MOS 19E), M1IP, M1A1 (MOS 19K), (+ M1A2 sword project member for KSA post Gulf war). Did some time at Knox as a member of the 1ATB (cadre), also had the secondary MOS 63T (Bradley Hull Systems mechanic)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## S-2

*"I was just a crew member."*

No. You were an "_Army of one_"

I like your resume'. There's no B.S. there. You'd be technically expert and thus competent to comment.


----------



## zraver

S-2 said:


> *"I was just a crew member."*
> 
> No. You were an "_Army of one_"
> 
> I like your resume'. There's no B.S. there. You'd be technically expert and thus competent to comment.



Thanks, its been so long since I've been here people don't know me anymore.


----------



## zraver

hellfire said:


> Dear S-2
> 
> *"...while posting atleast one should have the basics right..."*
> 
> I meant what I said and it was meant for the post where you had jet engines being sought after by missiles instead of Gas Turbine Engine on M1 (the former being a derivative of the latter and latter of the ICE - Internal Combustion Engine) Now if by logical extension one was to write an ICE for M1, he would be laughed off the forum, come on be specific now that you know what the stuff on M1 is ..... and Jet Engines are conventionally associated with being used in Missiles, UAVs etc. Maybe wrong here....



Hate to pull you up short but......

The vast majority of missiles use rocket propulsion via a motor
The Abrams engine is functionally identical to that the powers jets and helicopters. All current engines used to power vehicles are ICE- that is combustion of fuel to create energy happens inside the engine.



> oh sure am looking forward to a reply now that you have told me his background, it would be good and enlightening from someone who knows the stuff - as have this confounded thing called a Gamma Camera in Medical Diagnostics which I cant understand and the same is based on the principles of thermal imagery.



gamma as in gamma ray based on the decay of particles inside the body and using the emissiosn of said particles to map/image the body? Ya sorry I understand it in principle but am not going to even try to go farther.




> Also would like to discuss the concept of Brayton Cycle and its efficiency parameters with respect to Otto & Diesel Engines



huh... Brayton cycle deals with turbine type engines not reciprocating.



> as also the principle of thermal emission, reflection and transmission governing the laws of thermography (and their impact on imaging in battlefield scenario of deserts in South Asia) as also the concept of geothermal energy and parameters governing imagery with solid ground in desert as a background which has plenty of readioactive Potassium, Radon, Thorium and Uranium particles in sand.



You like the big words.... simple answer steel heats up faster, gets hotter and cools off slower than any natural material. Thus excpet for 2 periods every day (if the tank is unmanned and not run) it will always be in contrast to the terrain around it. The amount of radon, uranium, thorium, unobtainium etc simple does not matter, only those things emitting IR energy do. As FLIR imporves so does the imaging ability. On the M1 targets looked like blobs. Imagery was actually better on the M60A3 with its TTS. However the modern systems on the current crop of M1A1D/M1A2 is much better and it is posible to distuinguish a great deal of detail even at long ranges.



> In addition I think the fact that the term more apt here would be thermal signature/image and not Thermal "Bloom" which is academically more associated with propogation of LASER ...... anyways will look forward to learning something new definitely ....



No and maybe. No-An Abrams that was sitting cold and fires up the motor will expell a stream of super hot exhaust gases out the back. This is a thermal bloom/plume/ My post was directed specifically to how the engine might make a target for an IR seeker missile or sensor. Maybe- thermal signture does indeed apply to a tank most of the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hellfire

*Hate to pull you up short but......*

ah thanks for the reply. And I dont take it as being pulled up short ...... its very informative 

*The vast majority of missiles use rocket propulsion via a motor
The Abrams engine is functionally identical to that the powers jets and helicopters. All current engines used to power vehicles are ICE- that is combustion of fuel to create energy happens inside the engine.*

my post was purely to do with intellectual basis for the same ...... while in general terms a gas turbine engine will normally be associated with vehicles, tanks (original in the British Conqueror in 1950s), yatch/ships (Sir Parsons contribution)etc .. traditionally the aeroderivative is the popular "Jet" which has evolved along lines as you so rightly pointed out with sub-classification of the whole tech into scramjet/ramjet/etc (something which are derivatives from the original jet and now extensively used in missiles as you rightly pointed out) and etc .... so normally one would not associate jet with a tank, that is all .....

*huh... Brayton cycle deals with turbine type engines not reciprocating.*

I know and so I posted this particular cycle in order that you may expand some more on this cycle which is the theoretical basis for the Gas Turbine Engine as also the relative efficiency and less thermodynamic loss to environment under this cycle with respect to Diesel engine (Diesel has lesser efficiency and greater thermodynamic loss in comparision to Brayton Cycle with entropy change in the whole reaction being similar) and its relative role in thermal signature of M1 Abrams ..... 


Its not the question of prelidiction for big words or not, that may be due to my background. I maybe mistaken but I think if we were to get into the very fabric of IR seekers and their search spectrum and their evolution and also into the advent of top attack ATGMs with all the additional surveillance techniques being evolved, the whole concept of a relatively larger thermal signature being a better target for a missile sounds a bit redundant as the fact that the sensors in munitions today are able to detect even the faintest of the IR signature renders all the above variety of tanks equally susceptible to IR guided munitions. Anyways thank you very much for this kindness in presenting new information for me. Thanks.


----------



## nightcrawler

New Indian Express, 12 October 2004 
Pak claim fires Army to test DRDO's Arjun against Russian T-90 
NEW DELHI: The Indian Defence establishment may not like to admit it but Pakistan President Musharraf's claim that their 
indigenous Al Khalid main battle tank is superior to the DRDO's Arjun tank has prompted Army headquarters to review the
latter's capabilities. The Army top brass have directed the Armoured Corps to compare the Arjun with the Russian-made T-90, 
through extensive trials beginning this month in the Mahajan ranges of Rajasthan. According to South Block sources, the five
Arjun production-series tanks, handed over by the DRDO in August, will be tested against the T-90s before any decision is 
taken on inducting more indigenous tanks. It is already clear that the missile-firing T-90, not the Arjun, will be India's main 
battle tank. Due to shortage of attack helicopters, the Army has to rely on tanks in case hostilities break out. The Army has
also instructed the DRDO to speed up production of Arjun tanks rather than handing them over in piece-meal basis. But before 
placing its next order, it will wait for the result of the Arjun versus T-90 tests this winter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellfire

nightcrawler said:


> New Indian Express, 12 October 2004
> Pak claim fires Army to test DRDO's Arjun against Russian T-90
> NEW DELHI: The Indian Defence establishment may not like to admit it but Pakistan President Musharraf's claim that their
> indigenous Al Khalid main battle tank is superior to the DRDO's Arjun tank has prompted Army headquarters to review the
> latter's capabilities. The Army top brass have directed the Armoured Corps to compare the Arjun with the Russian-made T-90,
> through extensive trials beginning this month in the Mahajan ranges of Rajasthan. According to South Block sources, the five
> Arjun production-series tanks, handed over by the DRDO in August, will be tested against the T-90s before any decision is
> taken on inducting more indigenous tanks. It is already clear that the missile-firing T-90, not the Arjun, will be India's main
> battle tank. Due to shortage of attack helicopters, the Army has to rely on tanks in case hostilities break out. The Army has
> also instructed the DRDO to speed up production of Arjun tanks rather than handing them over in piece-meal basis. But before
> placing its next order, it will wait for the result of the Arjun versus T-90 tests this winter.



Sir. The said article is very old and invalid as of today. The IA has modified aviation units for ATGM role with HAL Dhruv and Chetak/Cheetah suitably modified to carry ATGMs and plenty of these are operational ..... pure attack helicopter in terms of Mi-35 type is limited as of now with India likely to induct the HAL-LCH which is undergoing trials as of now ......


----------



## JK!

zraver said:


> Thanks, its been so long since I've been here people don't know me anymore.



Don't worry I still remember you dude though it really has been a while since you last posted here 

Always valued your ability to seperate fan boy lunacy and reality.


----------



## SEAL

The Indian Army had to invest $3.9 million to develop three rail cars to carry the new Arjun tank. The railways has classified the new tank as an ?over-dimensional consignment? requiring an increase of 150 per cent over normal transportation rates.


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Zraver sir,
I never expected to find you here. It is good to see you. Love your posts in WAB.


----------



## zraver

Thanks guys!


----------



## Tang0

zraver said:


> So in Pakistan only one loaded truck at a time is allowed on a bridge? @ trucks would exceed 80 tons.



I don't know if you have ever been to South Asia, but the roads are truly terrible. There are no 18 wheelers as exist in US, Canada, or Australia. 40 ton trucks would over time destroy alot of bridges in Pakistan. Also, I am an engineer, and I can assure you that moments created by point loads are very diffrent than those created by distributed loads. Trucks are much longer than tanks, and two of them would be split in such a way that the internal moments created in the bridge by 2 40 ton trucks would be much lower than 1 80 ton tank. How much lower depends on the largest span in the bridge and the precise position of the trucks.

As a tanker you probably know that drainage is an issue on roads where tanks pass often. It is hard to make culverts that won't collapse over time. The army corps of engineers spends lots of money trying to make roads that tanks won't just destroy. That is why they try to keep tanks off of the pavement when possible. 

You probably know all this already, but the post left the impression that most roads and bridges can handle tanks. Most can a couple of times, but extended use destroys them, and I think weight is an important concern.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maverick1977

Tang0 said:


> I don't know if you have ever been to South Asia, but the roads are truly terrible. There are no 18 wheelers as exist in US, Canada, or Australia. 40 ton trucks would over time destroy alot of bridges in Pakistan. Also, I am an engineer, and I can assure you that moments created by point loads are very diffrent than those created by distributed loads. Trucks are much longer than tanks, and two of them would be split in such a way that the internal moments created in the bridge by 2 40 ton trucks would be much lower than 1 80 ton tank. How much lower depends on the largest span in the bridge and the precise position of the trucks.
> 
> As a tanker you probably know that drainage is an issue on roads where tanks pass often. It is hard to make culverts that won't collapse over time. The army corps of engineers spends lots of money trying to make roads that tanks won't just destroy. That is why they try to keep tanks off of the pavement when possible.
> 
> You probably know all this already, but the post left the impression that most roads and bridges can handle tanks. Most can a couple of times, but extended use destroys them, and I think weight is an important concern.




learned from reliable source within PA that Pakistan army is integrating AT-6 with Al-zarrar tanks. So far the results have been excellent. Integration of AT-6 is done with italian Galileo Day and night tracking system for target acquistion from Al-zarrar tanks. high speed tests yeilded 47 direct hits out of 50 missiles fired. if you ask me these are excellent results, 94%+ hit rate from Alzarrar. All these results were conducted betwen the range of 500m till 5.5kms... Tests are done with both radio and IR based AT-6 missiles


Thanks for Ukranian engineers on grounds helping PA with AT-6 integration. One question i want to ask, why did PA choose AT-6 over AT 11 or other advanced anti tank ATGMs.. obviously al-zarrar doesnt have laser systems then... these missiles can be easily defeated by smoke screen and decoys

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Keysersoze

zraver said:


> Thanks guys!



Welcome back dude...hope the studying is going well.......
Would love your input over here....

http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangladesh-defence/17482-type-69-mk-ii-g-main-battle-tank-6.html

I was gonna PM you but you seem to have appeared anyway!


----------



## zraver

Tang0 said:


> I don't know if you have ever been to South Asia,



no



> but the roads are truly terrible. There are no 18 wheelers as exist in US, Canada, or Australia. 40 ton trucks would over time destroy alot of bridges in Pakistan. Also, I am an engineer, and I can assure you that moments created by point loads are very diffrent than those created by distributed loads. Trucks are much longer than tanks,



if they are longer, how are there no 18 wheeler types? Also the weight distribution is a function of ground pressure. Tanks put a lot more contact down on the road so the weight is not focused on a very narrow contact patch. Tires have a much smaller footprint and so wheeled viehicles often have higher ground pressures.




> and two of them would be split in such a way that the internal moments created in the bridge by 2 40 ton trucks would be much lower than 1 80 ton tank. How much lower depends on the largest span in the bridge and the precise position of the trucks.



Depending on the design, the bridge still has to be able to bear that 80 tons on one set of supports



> As a tanker you probably know that drainage is an issue on roads where tanks pass often. It is hard to make culverts that won't collapse over time.



Any road with heavy traffic has that problem if it is not paved.




> The army corps of engineers spends lots of money trying to make roads that tanks won't just destroy. That is why they try to keep tanks off of the pavement when possible.



Put rubber track pads on the tanks, and build a deep enough road bed with a thick enough road and the roads won't break down. Of course if you do that, and you face any risk of invasions your helping your enemy.



> You probably know all this already, but the post left the impression that most roads and bridges can handle tanks. Most can a couple of times, but extended use destroys them, and I think weight is an important concern.



1 or 2 good crossing points is enough. Tanks can ford minor obstacles, and any bridge that won't support them, wont support extended heavy military convoys either. Plus its safe to assume that any bridges will be targets and coming down anyway. My point was an MBT can function in the environment if the government wanted it to.


----------



## Hellfire

fox said:


> The Indian Army had to invest $3.9 million to develop three rail cars to carry the new Arjun tank. The railways has classified the new tank as an ?over-dimensional consignment? requiring an increase of 150 per cent over normal transportation rates.



can you provide a link for the claim about the investment figure you have quoted? do you know how much does redesigning of a FAT carriage to be upgraded to BFAT without change in the basic chasis cost Indian Railways?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BelligerentPacifist

Tang0 said:


> I don't know if you have ever been to South Asia, but the roads are truly terrible. There are no 18 wheelers as exist in US, Canada, or Australia. 40 ton trucks would over time destroy alot of bridges in Pakistan. ...



I think I may have seen some 18 wheelers in Karachi. The usual cargo load on a truck varies between 100 and 150 tons, since I've seen kaantay (weighing pads) for trucks with scales going upto 150t.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zraver

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I think I may have seen some 18 wheelers in Karachi. The usual cargo load on a truck varies between 100 and 150 tons, since I've seen kaantay (weighing pads) for trucks with scales going upto 150t.



The idea that a modern society could survive without trucks capable of carrying weights in-excess of 40 tons is ludicrous. There are single parts to some industrial and construction projects that weigh more than a tank, they have to be transported overland. 

http://blog.cleveland.com/world_impact/2009/02/large_Pakistan-Bridge-Feb3-09.jpg


----------



## BelligerentPacifist

I've seen bits of a gas powered electricity generation plant being transported somewhere along Makran. That truck was LONG, I believe I saw more than 50 pairs of wheels! That may seem ridiculous, but it was more of a road based train. Wretched luck of tarmac!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zraver

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I've seen bits of a gas powered electricity generation plant being transported somewhere along Makran. That truck was LONG, I believe I saw more than 50 pairs of wheels! That may seem ridiculous, but it was more of a road based train. Wretched luck of tarmac!



After I got out of the army I drove truck for a living for about 5 years. I liked to take country roads around big cities to avoid traffic. One time I am cruising along and suddenly up ahead a motorcycle cop makes me stop and pull off the road. I could see power crews working to loosen the power lines and eventually here comes this massive generator turbine on a similar set up. I think I counted 28 axes. Biggest thing I have ever personally move on land.


----------



## Hellfire

fox

something for you to go through to understand that the figure you quoted is BS at best ..... the R&D and infrastructure is NOT variable and the existence of such cars in Indian Railways is there .... only the designation varies for military purpose and hence namre of FAT and BFAT systems ..... will post specific links for these 2 if can find 

but for now you can go through list of existing flat cars in india as also their carrying capacity 

[IRFCA] Indian Railways FAQ: Rolling Stock - II


----------



## satishkumarcsc

zraver said:


> After I got out of the army I drove truck for a living for about 5 years. I liked to take country roads around big cities to avoid traffic. One time I am cruising along and suddenly up ahead a motorcycle cop makes me stop and pull off the road. I could see power crews working to loosen the power lines and eventually here comes this massive generator turbine on a similar set up. I think I counted 28 axes. Biggest thing I have ever personally move on land.



Wow...that must be a ROAD TRAIN


----------



## zraver

satishkumarcsc said:


> Wow...that must be a ROAD TRAIN



Nope, it had one puller and one pusher tractor but only 1 trailer plus the convoy of support vehicles and escorts. Road trains as I understand them have 4 or more trailers.


----------



## Tang0

BelligerentPacifist said:


> I think I may have seen some 18 wheelers in Karachi. The usual cargo load on a truck varies between 100 and 150 tons, since I've seen kaantay (weighing pads) for trucks with scales going upto 150t.



Really? Surprising considering the max allowable weight for most semi trailers in Europe and the US is around 60 tons. 

Modern bridges are mad made of steel, concrete or some combination thereof. Neither of these things usually fail in compression. Long metal beams buckle under compressive loads, but usually upright contiguous metal beams are not used as bridge supports. They fail because of high tensile or shear stresses that are generated by induced moments. Bridges in Albania had to be reinforced to move US armor. Bridges in Germany had to be reinforced during the cold war to move US armor. These are facts.

Anyway, this is all ancillary to the point. The diffrence between 47 and 67 something tons is not large enough to put that many more bridges out of the useful range to justify not choosing the M-1. They didn't want to be dependent on spares. The M-1 didn't have a combat record at the time. They made their choice. A tank's weight does effect how and where you can use it. More mass takes more energy to accelerate it. More weight implies more cost in materials to build it, more cost in fuel to move it, and yes, more cost in infrastructure. The M-1 is more expensive to build, maintain, and use than a t-90 or Al-Khalid. I don't know enough to for certain say it requires a larger logistical train, but I certainly would not be suprised. That was the original point.


----------



## zraver

Tang0 said:


> I don't know enough to for certain say it requires a larger logistical train, but I certainly would not be suprised. That was the original point.



Yes it requires a larger logistical train, its fuel guzzler. But it has its advantages as well. You can change out the entire power pack in 45 minutes (engine and transmission), the 4 man crew offers superior combat and maintenance performance over a 3 man tank with the same technology etc.


----------



## Tang0

The ability to change out most of the powertrain in 45 minutes is certainly nifty, but for that to actually be useful, you would need a spare engine and transmission to exchange it with... Which brings us back to the original point. I don't think you are going to get much argument that the T-90 or type 99 or whatever is a "better tank" than an Abrams. You will get plenty of argument that a T-90 or Al-Khalid has a better Performance/Cost ratio than an Abrams. A Mercedes is always going to outperform a Toyota, but is that last 20% worth the 4x price tag? Depends on how much money you have to spend, and if you are a skilled enough driver to take advantage of that last 20%.


----------



## zraver

Tang0 said:


> The ability to change out most of the powertrain in 45 minutes is certainly nifty, but for that to actually be useful, you would need a spare engine and transmission to exchange it with...



The US does



> Which brings us back to the original point. I don't think you are going to get much argument that the T-90 or type 99 or whatever is a "better tank" than an Abrams. You will get plenty of argument that a T-90 or Al-Khalid has a better Performance/Cost ratio than an Abrams. A Mercedes is always going to outperform a Toyota, but is that last 20% worth the 4x price tag? Depends on how much money you have to spend, and if you are a skilled enough driver to take advantage of that last 20%.



The latest Abrams is about twice the price of a T-90. But in some areas it is significantly more than 20%. The FLIR and battle management is the bes tin the world, much soother ride and a higher gunnery envelope 0-45km/h compared to about 12-25km/h for the type of suspension used on a T-90/Type 98, 25%-33% reduction in crew maintenance times per man.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tang0

zraver said:


> The latest Abrams is about twice the price of a T-90. But in some areas it is significantly more than 20%. The FLIR and battle management is the bes tin the world, much soother ride and a higher gunnery envelope 0-45km/h compared to about 12-25km/h for the type of suspension used on a T-90/Type 98, 25%-33% reduction in crew maintenance times per man.



Crew maintenance times are important, but a large part of that is mitigated by the fact that personnel costs in the PA and IA are significantly lower. Also, how much more specialized knowledge is required to work on an Abrams with its gas turbine engine vs. diesel engines? Diesel mechanics are a dime a dozen. Pakistan has the capability to manufacture diesel engines, can it make gas turbine engines? 

When purchasing equipment, it is just as important to look at the lifetime cost of ownership as the original output. How much more does that gas-guzzling Abrams cost over its lifetime? 

Thanks for all the info, and my questions are more than rhetorical, if someone could answer, I would like to know.


----------



## Hellfire

Tang0 said:


> Crew maintenance times are important, but a large part of that is mitigated by the fact that personnel costs in the PA and IA are significantly lower. Also, how much more specialized knowledge is required to work on an Abrams with its gas turbine engine vs. diesel engines? Diesel mechanics are a dime a dozen. Pakistan has the capability to manufacture diesel engines, can it make gas turbine engines?
> 
> When purchasing equipment, it is just as important to look at the lifetime cost of ownership as the original output. How much more does that gas-guzzling Abrams cost over its lifetime?
> 
> Thanks for all the info, and my questions are more than rhetorical, if someone could answer, I would like to know.



actually tango the rationale for heavier tanks not being introduced was cost of operating as you rightly pointed out rather any other factor. If you can get the same thing in a diesel variant then all the more better. in addition the fact that PA was forced into not accepting Abrams (retrospectively a great stroke of luck looking at the F-16 saga) due to its poor performance at trials played a key role in determining the tank deployments in south asia as to counter T-72s purchased by IA PA went for T-80s which subsequently led to IA dumping Arjun for T-90S as PA is the only country where IA may employ tanks in large numbers (Tibetian plateau also has few tank squadrons deployed by india in north sikkim) but that is very limited in scope of operations ....


----------



## Hellfire

mughaljee said:


> very informative discussion .



mughaljee you are welcome with inputs of your own .... yes its an eye opener as long as nationalistic BS is out


----------



## sweetboy

hellfire said:


> the improved arjun version is pretty interesting though



I only hear about arjun not seen this tank


----------



## zraver

Tang0 said:


> Crew maintenance times are important, but a large part of that is mitigated by the fact that personnel costs in the PA and IA are significantly lower. Also, how much more specialized knowledge is required to work on an Abrams with its gas turbine engine vs. diesel engines? Diesel mechanics are a dime a dozen. Pakistan has the capability to manufacture diesel engines, can it make gas turbine engines?
> 
> When purchasing equipment, it is just as important to look at the lifetime cost of ownership as the original output. How much more does that gas-guzzling Abrams cost over its lifetime?
> 
> Thanks for all the info, and my questions are more than rhetorical, if someone could answer, I would like to know.



Sorry my net died, so I only had limited access at school, I am back now.

Crew maintence times are not mitigated by crew costs. As I said when talking about the advantages of a 4 man over a 3 man crew the only benefit is personnel and associated costs not combat related. Crew maintenance times is a combat related field. Lets say a tank needs 8 man hours a day of labor to keep: fueled, working, camouflaged, briefed and armed, and that in combat ops the average tank runs for 16-18 hours. So for a 3 man crew who can only devote 2 men to the tasks we get them each working 4 more hours so the total time spent on mission, or supporting the mission is 20-22 hours a day. Add in the 4 hours of sleep assuming the crew will eat while it works adn you get 24-26 hours per crew per day. There is a problem 26 hours is more than a day. Even 24 is unrealistic because the crew needs some minimum of time for personal care other than sleep. For a 4 man crew with 3 working the time goes from 16-18 + 2.33 to 18.33/20.33 At the minimum there is at least enough time to get everything done. You can run on 3 hours sleep longer than you can run on no hours, even though your body and mind will break down. On a best case, 7.66 hours exist for crew care. They enter combat fresher with more sleep, better hygiene (and thus better morale and healthier) are more alert etc. This translates directly into combat performance.

As for the cost of the Abrams over its lifetime. I am not sure how you would quantify it. Assuming just the 10 years between rebuilds the tank was designed to go 5000 miles. As combat in Iraq proved it can do 5 times that, but that is not what was intended. 3 gallons to the miles= 15,000 gallons on fuel of $30,000-$60,000 in fuel costs and another couple grand in other POL costs.

However if we compare a T-72 type tank and a military with PPP equivalent life insurance. Every time an Abrams is destroyed but the crew walks away the US Army saves 1 million on the replacement cost in life insurances payments alone. Not counting the 50K- to 1 million per crew member in training and support depending on how long they have been in and what rank they are. lets says the average American crew costs 2 million. A T-72 that saved 15-30,000 on fuel costs but bar-b-ques its crew and cost the government the equivalent life insurance benefits and crew replacement costs is suddenly a lot more expensive.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Tang0

How does crew training compare? The Russians are famed for the ease of operation of their equipment, does this follow for tanks as well? 

Does anyone know anything about reliability and uptime? BAE Land Systems claims that the challanger 2 is "The most Reliable tank in the world" Products & Services - BAE Systems

Where are they getting their info? It seems to be marketing tripe, but is there any public source detailing tank maintenance for diffrent systems? 

zraver are you sure you aren't on General Dynamics marketing team? You are beginning to convince me.


----------



## Hellfire

Tang0 said:


> How does crew training compare? The Russians are famed for the ease of operation of their equipment, does this follow for tanks as well?
> 
> Does anyone know anything about reliability and uptime? BAE Land Systems claims that the challanger 2 is "The most Reliable tank in the world" Products & Services - BAE Systems
> 
> Where are they getting their info? It seems to be marketing tripe, but is there any public source detailing tank maintenance for diffrent systems?
> 
> zraver are you sure you aren't on General Dynamics marketing team? You are beginning to convince me.



tango I agree with zraver's assessment about the tank crew survivability aspect. it takes I think on an average about rs 10-12 lac to train a crew member today in IA and that means if we are to take just the training costs and not the maintenance to be paid out in case of fatalities (in terms of inputs to work obtained a purely economist jargon) then also its a whopping 32-36 lacs per tank which is a high price nevertheless.

also the survivability of T-series has been deemed suspect at best although Georgian conflict can be an eye opener in certain terms. T-80s suffered heavily in first chechen war and the cost of operating the tank to deriving advantage from it was a pathetically low figure.

introduction of features like blow out panels has enhanced crew survivability in terms of 'cook-off'


----------



## Penguin

Tang0 said:


> RAnyway, this is all ancillary to the point. The diffrence between 47 and 67 something tons is not large enough to put that many more bridges out of the useful range to justify not choosing the M-1. They didn't want to be dependent on spares. The M-1 didn't have a combat record at the time. They made their choice. A tank's weight does effect how and where you can use it. More mass takes more energy to accelerate it. More weight implies more cost in materials to build it, more cost in fuel to move it, and yes, more cost in infrastructure. The M-1 is more expensive to build, maintain, and use than a t-90 or Al-Khalid. I don't know enough to for certain say it requires a larger logistical train, but I certainly would not be suprised. That was the original point.



M1 (and Challenger and Leo 2) were all developed as high end products whose purpose, together with attack helicopters (AH-64) and ground attack aircraft (A-10), was to deal with a numerically superior but technically inferior Warsaw Pact tank force. They had to be better in order to kill more before being killed. 

In terms of investment and cost of an armor force, if you need say 5-6 of one tank like the T-90 to beat an opposing tank like a M1A2 (either because that's a better tank, or because artillery, helicopters and attack aircraft pick off your tanks before you can get to his) then what's more expensive, really?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zraver

Tang0 said:


> zraver are you sure you aren't on General Dynamics marketing team? You are beginning to convince me.



Nope, but I served in their product.


----------



## Arsalan

what do you people think about where do AlKhalid fall in the list of top tanks

the only short fall i can find out is its less armor, it have a super engine, superb gun and targeting system and good round firing speed and capacity!

it is alos good in both hilly and desert terrain so a good option for PA! 

so what do you guys think of this tank!?

it not only the russian T90 here but alos the lights of Abram, lepord and challenger!


----------



## Manticore

alkhalid2 might be a better comparison now

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

ANTIBODY said:


> alkhalid2 might be a better comparison now



i do not think the specs of AlKhalid II are public as yet, neither i know of any in existance!

do anyone have something about the spes of AlKhalid II!!
by the why when it is due for roll out??

i will really appreciate any response to this post!

regards!


----------



## TaimiKhan

Arsalan, i may be wrong, but i have a very strong feeling, the new version of Al Khalid II might be the new variant of Chinese tank as shown in the attached pics. Reason being, the chinese sources on their defence related websites are mentioning the turret of this new variant as similar to the MBT-2000 (Al Khalid) turret in design. 

If you look at the turret, its very identical to the Al Khalid turret, the chinese did not had the hunter-killer ability on their earlier latest tanks,but Al Khalid had it. So may be now chinese and pakistani latest tanks turrets & turrets capabilities might be same, while the power packages would be different suiting their own environments.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Super Falcon

arjun cant stand a chance even against old shermans


----------



## Mercenary

Arjun's biggest problem was its size...

The Indians foolishly made such a massive tank which required a massive engine to power it which caused the tank to overheat, and causing frequent breakdowns

Pakistan went for a better approach of building light tanks which can move faster but have enough range to take out Indian Tanks from a distance


----------



## Super Falcon

indians always have their minds in their legs thats why they do the silly mistakes and thats why their arjun,dhuv is struggling to make its mark in market


----------



## Jako

Super Falcon said:


> indians always have their minds in their legs thats why they do the silly mistakes and thats why their arjun,dhuv is struggling to make its mark in market



thank you for such nice words......true,pak force is the greatest,man,how can we bloody indians even think of facing the invincible al-khalid!!!......btw,def.pk is changing!!!....


----------



## TaimiKhan

Jako said:


> thank you for such nice words......true,pak force is the greatest,man,how can we bloody indians even think of facing the invincible al-khalid!!!......btw,def.pk is changing!!!....





Jako,i think Super Falcon didn't said as a scarcest remark. U do have to admit indian defence programs have faced lot of prblems during their development & even after development. 
And if indian defence manufacturers & designers had given it a proper thought, they might not had taken decades in manufacturing these systems & still facing problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jako

taimikhan said:


> Jako,i think Super Falcon didn't said as a scarcest remark. U do have to admit indian defence programs have faced lot of prblems during their development & even after development.
> And if indian defence manufacturers & designers had given it a proper thought, they might not had taken decades in manufacturing these systems & still facing problems.



agreed......but the 'mind betn legs' part annoyed me!!!....and most of the arjun's problems has been sorted out effectively.....regards

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

Jako said:


> agreed......but the 'mind betn legs' part annoyed me!!!....and most of the arjun's problems has been sorted out effectively.....regards



no dude,,, it was *mind in legs *and not *mind between legs*!! there is a hell of a difference! 
anyway let us get over with it and continue with some informative discussion!

regards!


----------



## Arsalan

taimikhan said:


> Arsalan, i may be wrong, but i have a very strong feeling, the new version of Al Khalid II might be the new variant of Chinese tank as shown in the attached pics. Reason being, the chinese sources on their defence related websites are mentioning the turret of this new variant as similar to the MBT-2000 (Al Khalid) turret in design.
> 
> If you look at the turret, its very identical to the Al Khalid turret, the chinese did not had the hunter-killer ability on their earlier latest tanks,but Al Khalid had it. So may be now chinese and pakistani latest tanks turrets & turrets capabilities might be same, while the power packages would be different suiting their own environments.




dont you think the turret was one point that was to be modified/upgraded for the AlKhalid II, i guess they were going for some thing like the turret of Abrams! not a bubble one!
all other things like the rnge, speed, targetting were fine enough with the AlKhalid I but still were to be upgraded and i dont think they will miss out the turret!
what do you think?

regards!


----------



## TaimiKhan

arsalanaslam123 said:


> dont you think the turret was one point that was to be modified/upgraded for the AlKhalid II, i guess they were going for some thing like the turret of Abrams! not a bubble one!
> all other things like the rnge, speed, targetting were fine enough with the AlKhalid I but still were to be upgraded and i dont think they will miss out the turret!
> what do you think?
> 
> regards!




Well, Pakistani tanks design has been influenced by the chinese, so whatever new modifications chinese do on their tanks, Pakistan will fully or adopt some of those modifications. 
Abram kind of turret, i dont think PA will adopt, as they are huge due to additional armor and its a 4 man turret, PA needs stealthier tanks, meaning having low visibility. 

If u see the new armor add-on on Al-Khalid & Al-Zarrar tanks, they were first employed by the Chinese on their latest tanks. Some ideas PA is taking from PLA & PLA is taking some of our approaches. 

Modifications to the turret could be better FCS, improvement in the Gun Stabilization, Additional Armor plating (pasted the video of the latest chinese tanks Type 98 and the new variant Type 99 both showed), better protection of ammunition, If u look at the chinese tank turret, it has become large enough in length & width, addition of APS , improvements in the speed of turret rotation, auto loading mechanism etc etc etc

A more powerful engine could be added. 

And the weight wouldn't be that far as Abrams, Leopard, Challenger 2, all 62 to 67 tons range, the chinese Type-99 latest variant around 54 ton, Al Khalid 1 only 48 ton, just an increase of 6 tons with much more added capabilities & protection.

My opinion which i strongly believe Al-Khalid II would be nearly similar to the chinese latest variant of Type-99 tank.


----------



## TaimiKhan




----------



## TaimiKhan

Usman Ansari takes a look at Pakistan&#8217;s indigenous main battle tank.

Due to the threat from its larger neighbour India, Pakistan continues to maintain a large fleet of MBTs (over 2,000), whilst elsewhere in the world their number is falling. The best tank currently in service is the indigenous Al-Khalid produced by Heavy Industries Taxila, (HIT). In terms of induction of new MBTs it is set to be one of the most significant MBTs in the coming decade. It is a development of the NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation), Type 90-II, which first made an appearance in 1990, and was itself a further manifestation of the Chinese requirement to field an MBT superior to the Russian T-72, (also India's main MBT). It featured substantial improvements in mobility, protection, and firepower over previous Chinese MBTs though still has a traditional MBT layout.


The Al-Khalid project is the culmination of a four part upgrade programme for Pakistan's MBT fleet. It entailed:

- Upgrade of the Type-59.

- Assembly and manufacture of the Type-69II.

- Co-production of the Type-85II.

- Production of an indigenous MBT design MBT 2000/Al-Khalid.


The Al-Khalid features a composite armour package over a welded hull. The hull front has lugs for additional armour, ERA plates and a self-entrenching mechanism. Some spare sections of track are also usually attached. A number of Pakistani companies offer detachable attachments such as track-width mine ploughs or 'rollers' (which have had some export success), compatible with the Al-Khalid but the self-entrenching mechanism seems to be the standard fit. The almost horizontal glacis plate is totally covered by large ERA plates. The driver is centrally seated under a one-piece hatch. He has use of three periscopes, the second of which can be fitted with a passive night sight.


The centrally located welded turret is similar to the Type-85 from which the Type-90II/Al-Khalid family is developed. The composite armour over the frontal arc is of modular assembly to enable replacement of damaged sections or simple upgrade to more a modern type as it becomes available. ERA plates are again added to the roof, front and sides to improve the armour and ballistic protection of the turret. The commander and gunner are seated on the right and left respectively. The commander has use of a 12.7mm with 500 rounds for AA use. There are six electrically fired grenade launchers for smoke and HE rounds, either side of the turret and a large stowage basket towards the rear, which usually houses the snorkel. A meteorological sensor is also fitted towards the rear of the turret roof to warn the crew if the tank is being 'lased' by an enemy.


The main gun is a 125mm smoothbore fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor mid way down the barrel. It is reported to have a life of 500 rounds and has an attachment at the base to facilitate a quick field change. It is fed by a Russian type carousel auto-loader that holds 22 separate loading rounds ready for use. The rate of fire is up to eight rounds per minute. A total of 39 HEAT, APFSDS-T, and HE-FRAG rounds are carried in a mission dependent ratio. The APFSDS-T will penetrate 460mm of RHA at 2,000m, which is unsatisfactory. A POF (Pakistan Ordnance Factories) developed DU round called 'Naiza' is thought to also be in service with the T-80UD/T-84 MBT fleet, but whether this has been adopted for use with the Al-Khalid has not been made public. A coaxial 7.62mm with 3,000 rounds is also mounted. Though Pakistan has purchased the AT-11 'Sniper' ATGM from Belarus for use with the PA T-80UD/T-84s it is not know if it can be fired from the Al-Khalid.


125mm ammunition characteristics.

Ammunition Type.


Muzzle Velocity.

APFSDS


1760 m/s

HEAT


850 m/s

HE-FRAG


950 m/s



For targeting the commander has use of a bi-axis stabilised panoramic sight whilst the gunner's bi-axis sight is roof mounted. Pakistan has recently imported 200 more modern Italian thermal imaging devices for the gunner, details of which are unavailable. The FCS is image stabilised and incorporates a laser range finder with the gunner's sight, crosswind, tilt and velocity sensor plus ballistic computer. Able to track targets whilst engaging others it also incorporates a Pakistani produced data-link to share information with other tanks in the formation. The commander can override commands to the main armament.


The engine, transmission and cooling system can be removed in thirty minutes for a quick field change. Though the British Perkins CV12-1200 (as fitted to the British Challenger series) was evaluated it failed to cope with the harsh conditions of the Pakistani desert. The engine eventually chosen was the Ukrainian 6TD-2 six-cylinder 1,200hp multi-fuel diesel as it was more compact and robust and is coupled to the French SESM-500 automatic transmission. The six dual wheels have rubber tyres and torsion bar suspension with the drive sprocket at the rear and the idler at the front. The track return rollers are usually covered by the side skirt, (the forward section of which can be covered with ERA plates). The rubber track pads are replaceable.


A full NBC system, crew bay and engine bay explosion/fire detection and suppression system, and infrared reflective paint are fitted as standard. It can lay its own smokescreen by injecting diesel into the exhaust at the rear.


A number of prototypes were made for evaluation and fall into four categories:


- Prototype 1: Chinese 125mm and auto-loader coupled to a Chinese FCS. The engine was a German MTU-396 diesel coupled to the LSG-3000 automatic transmission.


- Prototype 2: The same Chinese 125mm and auto-loader as 'P1' but coupled to a Western FCS. The engine was the Perkins 1200hp Condor diesel coupled to the French SESM-500 automatic transmission.


- Prototype 3: As 'P2' above but with a Ukrainian 6TDF diesel engine. This was type accepted into Pakistani service.


- Prototype 4: Designed primarily for export it has a NATO standard 120mm and Western FCS. It is powered by the German MTU-871/TCM AVDS-1790 diesel engine coupled to the LSG-3000 transmission.


Much emphasis is placed on agility and manoeuvrability. With a top speed of 70km/h and power to weight ration of 26.66hp/tonne it certainly fulfils that criteria. It also shares component commonality with the other MBTs in the PA arsenal (10 percent Type-59, 15 percent Type-69, and 20 percent Type-85), therefore helping to reduce running costs. Compared to the latest Western MBTs the Al-Khalid may lack their level of armour protection but is by no means under-armoured or unsuited for the modern battlefield. It's speed; agility and systems help ensure its survivability whilst its armament is powerful enough to deal with all potential opponents.


With 300 ordered for the PA production is currently running at fifty units per year but could easily be increased. The Al-Khalid has been heavily promoted in Pakistani defence shows such as IDEAS 2002, FUTURZ 2003 and IDEAS 2004 during the last few years which has seen the Al-Khalid and its stable mate the Al-Zarrar (an upgrade of the Type-59), receive much interest from potential customers. There has been considerable Saudi interest in the Al-Khalid during defence shows in Pakistan. The Saudis are looking to induct in the region of 100 new MBTs to replace their French AMX-30 tanks. Trials are to be carried out in Saudi Arabia in summer 2005 leaving HIT hopeful of it first MBT export order amid heavy lobbying in its favour. However, Ukrainian reluctance to supply the 6TDF diesel engine has meant the adoption of a German engine that does not generate the same high power/weight ratio as the Ukrainian one. For compatibility purposes the Saudis are likely to require a NATO standard 120mm main gun which can be supplied by POF. As it is in direct competition with other cheap export favourites such as the T-72 and T-80 series the unit price has to be competitive. Malaysia has already chosen the Polish PT-91 (a development of the T-72), rather than opt for the Al-Khalid.


Development is ongoing of the Al-Khalid II, (though the project name is actually 'Al-Khalid I'), which is targeted for production by 2008. It is unknown if there is to be any major change in the appearance of the tank. Key areas for improvement are said to be in the areas of armour protection by inclusion of more modern types of armour, and improved systems. This includes more efficient transmission system and modern night vision systems. A new electronic counter-measures fit is currently undergoing testing at HIT. Recently the possibility has arisen of using Ukraine's 6TD3 engine which generates 1500 hp though it remains to be seen if this shall be incorporated. Firepower is also to be upgraded if ongoing discussions for the Ukrainian 'Kombat' ATGM are successful. With a range of up to 5,000m it would give the Al-Khalid a useful reach against targets such as helicopters. Furthermore, an up-graded auto loader would enable the use of 'long-rod' ammunition as used by Western MBTs, as the Russian style unit cannot currently support them.


More details of developments are likely to be available during IDEAS-2006, as the bi-annual defence show is Pakistan's opportunity to be centre stage at a defence show.


With the Al-Khalid it finally looks like Pakistan has a tank capable of meeting both domestic and foreign needs enabling Pakistan to aim for a bigger slice of the lucrative global arms market.

An edited version of the above article appeared in the September 2005 issue of Classic Military Vehicle.



The Al-Khalid


----------



## TaimiKhan

Usman Ansari takes a look at Pakistans indigenous main battle tank.

Due to the threat from its larger neighbour India, Pakistan continues to maintain a large fleet of MBTs (over 2,000), whilst elsewhere in the world their number is falling. The best tank currently in service is the indigenous Al-Khalid produced by Heavy Industries Taxila, (HIT). In terms of induction of new MBTs it is set to be one of the most significant MBTs in the coming decade. It is a development of the NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation), Type 90-II, which first made an appearance in 1990, and was itself a further manifestation of the Chinese requirement to field an MBT superior to the Russian T-72, (also India's main MBT). It featured substantial improvements in mobility, protection, and firepower over previous Chinese MBTs though still has a traditional MBT layout.


The Al-Khalid project is the culmination of a four part upgrade programme for Pakistan's MBT fleet. It entailed:

- Upgrade of the Type-59.

- Assembly and manufacture of the Type-69II.

- Co-production of the Type-85II.

- Production of an indigenous MBT design MBT 2000/Al-Khalid.


The Al-Khalid features a composite armour package over a welded hull. The hull front has lugs for additional armour, ERA plates and a self-entrenching mechanism. Some spare sections of track are also usually attached. A number of Pakistani companies offer detachable attachments such as track-width mine ploughs or 'rollers' (which have had some export success), compatible with the Al-Khalid but the self-entrenching mechanism seems to be the standard fit. The almost horizontal glacis plate is totally covered by large ERA plates. The driver is centrally seated under a one-piece hatch. He has use of three periscopes, the second of which can be fitted with a passive night sight.


The centrally located welded turret is similar to the Type-85 from which the Type-90II/Al-Khalid family is developed. The composite armour over the frontal arc is of modular assembly to enable replacement of damaged sections or simple upgrade to more a modern type as it becomes available. ERA plates are again added to the roof, front and sides to improve the armour and ballistic protection of the turret. The commander and gunner are seated on the right and left respectively. The commander has use of a 12.7mm with 500 rounds for AA use. There are six electrically fired grenade launchers for smoke and HE rounds, either side of the turret and a large stowage basket towards the rear, which usually houses the snorkel. A meteorological sensor is also fitted towards the rear of the turret roof to warn the crew if the tank is being 'lased' by an enemy.


The main gun is a 125mm smoothbore fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor mid way down the barrel. It is reported to have a life of 500 rounds and has an attachment at the base to facilitate a quick field change. It is fed by a Russian type carousel auto-loader that holds 22 separate loading rounds ready for use. The rate of fire is up to eight rounds per minute. A total of 39 HEAT, APFSDS-T, and HE-FRAG rounds are carried in a mission dependent ratio. The APFSDS-T will penetrate 460mm of RHA at 2,000m, which is unsatisfactory. A POF (Pakistan Ordnance Factories) developed DU round called 'Naiza' is thought to also be in service with the T-80UD/T-84 MBT fleet, but whether this has been adopted for use with the Al-Khalid has not been made public. A coaxial 7.62mm with 3,000 rounds is also mounted. Though Pakistan has purchased the AT-11 'Sniper' ATGM from Belarus for use with the PA T-80UD/T-84s it is not know if it can be fired from the Al-Khalid.


125mm ammunition characteristics.

Ammunition Type.


Muzzle Velocity.

APFSDS


1760 m/s

HEAT


850 m/s

HE-FRAG


950 m/s



For targeting the commander has use of a bi-axis stabilised panoramic sight whilst the gunner's bi-axis sight is roof mounted. Pakistan has recently imported 200 more modern Italian thermal imaging devices for the gunner, details of which are unavailable. The FCS is image stabilised and incorporates a laser range finder with the gunner's sight, crosswind, tilt and velocity sensor plus ballistic computer. Able to track targets whilst engaging others it also incorporates a Pakistani produced data-link to share information with other tanks in the formation. The commander can override commands to the main armament.


The engine, transmission and cooling system can be removed in thirty minutes for a quick field change. Though the British Perkins CV12-1200 (as fitted to the British Challenger series) was evaluated it failed to cope with the harsh conditions of the Pakistani desert. The engine eventually chosen was the Ukrainian 6TD-2 six-cylinder 1,200hp multi-fuel diesel as it was more compact and robust and is coupled to the French SESM-500 automatic transmission. The six dual wheels have rubber tyres and torsion bar suspension with the drive sprocket at the rear and the idler at the front. The track return rollers are usually covered by the side skirt, (the forward section of which can be covered with ERA plates). The rubber track pads are replaceable.


A full NBC system, crew bay and engine bay explosion/fire detection and suppression system, and infrared reflective paint are fitted as standard. It can lay its own smokescreen by injecting diesel into the exhaust at the rear.


A number of prototypes were made for evaluation and fall into four categories:


- Prototype 1: Chinese 125mm and auto-loader coupled to a Chinese FCS. The engine was a German MTU-396 diesel coupled to the LSG-3000 automatic transmission.


- Prototype 2: The same Chinese 125mm and auto-loader as 'P1' but coupled to a Western FCS. The engine was the Perkins 1200hp Condor diesel coupled to the French SESM-500 automatic transmission.


- Prototype 3: As 'P2' above but with a Ukrainian 6TDF diesel engine. This was type accepted into Pakistani service.


- Prototype 4: Designed primarily for export it has a NATO standard 120mm and Western FCS. It is powered by the German MTU-871/TCM AVDS-1790 diesel engine coupled to the LSG-3000 transmission.


Much emphasis is placed on agility and manoeuvrability. With a top speed of 70km/h and power to weight ration of 26.66hp/tonne it certainly fulfils that criteria. It also shares component commonality with the other MBTs in the PA arsenal (10 percent Type-59, 15 percent Type-69, and 20 percent Type-85), therefore helping to reduce running costs. Compared to the latest Western MBTs the Al-Khalid may lack their level of armour protection but is by no means under-armoured or unsuited for the modern battlefield. It's speed; agility and systems help ensure its survivability whilst its armament is powerful enough to deal with all potential opponents.


With 300 ordered for the PA production is currently running at fifty units per year but could easily be increased. The Al-Khalid has been heavily promoted in Pakistani defence shows such as IDEAS 2002, FUTURZ 2003 and IDEAS 2004 during the last few years which has seen the Al-Khalid and its stable mate the Al-Zarrar (an upgrade of the Type-59), receive much interest from potential customers. There has been considerable Saudi interest in the Al-Khalid during defence shows in Pakistan. The Saudis are looking to induct in the region of 100 new MBTs to replace their French AMX-30 tanks. Trials are to be carried out in Saudi Arabia in summer 2005 leaving HIT hopeful of it first MBT export order amid heavy lobbying in its favour. However, Ukrainian reluctance to supply the 6TDF diesel engine has meant the adoption of a German engine that does not generate the same high power/weight ratio as the Ukrainian one. For compatibility purposes the Saudis are likely to require a NATO standard 120mm main gun which can be supplied by POF. As it is in direct competition with other cheap export favourites such as the T-72 and T-80 series the unit price has to be competitive. Malaysia has already chosen the Polish PT-91 (a development of the T-72), rather than opt for the Al-Khalid.


Development is ongoing of the Al-Khalid II, (though the project name is actually 'Al-Khalid I'), which is targeted for production by 2008. It is unknown if there is to be any major change in the appearance of the tank. Key areas for improvement are said to be in the areas of armour protection by inclusion of more modern types of armour, and improved systems. This includes more efficient transmission system and modern night vision systems. A new electronic counter-measures fit is currently undergoing testing at HIT. Recently the possibility has arisen of using Ukraine's 6TD3 engine which generates 1500 hp though it remains to be seen if this shall be incorporated. Firepower is also to be upgraded if ongoing discussions for the Ukrainian 'Kombat' ATGM are successful. With a range of up to 5,000m it would give the Al-Khalid a useful reach against targets such as helicopters. Furthermore, an up-graded auto loader would enable the use of 'long-rod' ammunition as used by Western MBTs, as the Russian style unit cannot currently support them.


More details of developments are likely to be available during IDEAS-2006, as the bi-annual defence show is Pakistan's opportunity to be centre stage at a defence show.


With the Al-Khalid it finally looks like Pakistan has a tank capable of meeting both domestic and foreign needs enabling Pakistan to aim for a bigger slice of the lucrative global arms market.

An edited version of the above article appeared in the September 2005 issue of Classic Military Vehicle.



The Al-Khalid

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaimiKhan

Friday, May 8, 2009
Al-Khalid: The evolving mailed fist of the Pakistani army

I&#8217;ve had, (and taken), the opportunity to sit in the Pakistan army&#8217;s Al-Khalid MBT a couple of times. My opinion is that it&#8217;s a pretty good tank with a decent level of mobility and firepower. Protection, for what it is, isn&#8217;t too bad. That is if you compare it with other &#8216;Eastern&#8217; MBT designs like the Russian T-90, Ukrainian T-84, and Chinese ZTZ-99.



No one is saying the Al-Khalid, (or any of the other tanks listed above), will rival something like the Challenger 2 when it comes to armour protection. I don&#8217;t think any &#8216;Eastern&#8217; tank can make so bold a claim. By virtue of its welded turret and modular composite turret &#8216;cheek&#8217; armour inserts however, ERA package, and other protection measures, I&#8217;d say the Al-Khalid isn&#8217;t doing too badly for what it is.



It&#8217;s a bit of a hybrid of systems from both the East and West, but it is built around a 125mm smoothbore and a Soviet/Russian style autoloader. In the 1990s when the auto-loader was coming into service, (installed in Type-85s and T-80UDs), some Pakistani armoured corps officers were very unhappy with the idea of an auto-loader. They considered it a gimmick, and losing one man in the crew would mean replenishing and refuelling the tank under combat conditions would take longer. No tank crew wants to be stood around motionless for too long, especially with the possibility of hostile aircraft arriving on scene, or a rain or artillery rockets or shells falling on them increasing for each minute they&#8217;re motionless.



Having an auto-loader does have its benefits however, namely being able to reload the gun while moving over rough ground at speed, and reducing the tank's profile. There&#8217;s also the speed at which rounds can be fired off. The first round in any engagement is crucial, but follow-up rounds, delivered accurately and at speed, can literally mean the difference between life and death.



I do have reservations about auto-loaders myself. Any hull/turret penetration could set off loosely stowed ammunition, (only 22 separate loading rounds &#8211; round plus propellant charge &#8211; are stored in the carousel style cassette in the bottom of the hull). The propellant is after all in semi-combustible cardboard cases. I suppose this is 'ammunition stowage' rather than the 'auto-loader' per se, but this is the weakness of all the above tanks. Bar that is the T-84, the latest variants of which have a bustle mounted autoloader in line with something like the French Leclerc. Even the American M1A2 Abrams, perhaps the most combat tested modern Western MBT around, may go this way if fitted with the automated XM-360 120mm cannon. It&#8217;s currently undergoing testing for XM-1202 Mounted Combat System. The XM-360 is lighter than but as powerful as the 120mm currently fitted to the Abrams. Fitted with a 27 round bustle mounted magazine/auto-loader, it certainly sounds like something the Abrams crews may welcome, (some of the above restrictions notwithstanding).



This is something I&#8217;d like to see in the Al-Khalid, in fact, I&#8217;d like something a little better. The Jordanians are busy fitting their Challenger II chassis&#8217; they obtained from the UK when the type was replaced by the Challenger 2, with the Falcon 2 unmanned turret. The turret was designed by British firm Claverham Limited for (or in conjunction with) King Abdallah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB). The ammunition (eleven or 17 rounds depending on number of drums fitted), is in the bustle like the new T-84, but the crew are now in the bottom of the hull. The turret is unmanned and therefore has a very small frontal cross section.



There is some debate as to whether having an autoloader that carries so few rounds is a good idea in a scenario when you may be faced with a massed enemy armoured column. That&#8217;s true, but I still think the Falcon 2 turret is the way to go. If a way could be devised for extra ammunition to be safely stored in the hull, and the autoloader replenished without having to get out of the tank, (i.e. through the bottom of the turret &#8211; it would be a hell of a tight squeeze, especially in a smaller hulled MBT, but I can safely say the number crews who would admit to wanting to stand around on top of tank feeding rounds into the auto-loader whilst hot metal was flying left right and centre, would be very small in number).



I don&#8217;t know if the Falcon 2 turret can be fitted to the Al-Khalid chassis. It is rather smaller than the Challenger II chassis, and it&#8217;s already a bit of tight squeeze inside the Al-Khalid. It is however roomier than a T-80UD, which in turn is, (I am led to believe) more spacious than a T-72. Now I&#8217;ve sat in a T-80UD, and to be honest when I was told beforehand that it was rather cramped, and you could only stretch one leg at a time in the turret, I thought the officer telling me this was joking. Considering one of the senior officers I met was rather tall (towering in fact &#8211; though with a stoop, which was explained in due course), I thought it an even bigger joke. When I actually shoehorned myself into the gunner&#8217;s seat however, (and though I&#8217;m not quite a skeleton in a durex, I am slim I must admit), I found it wasn&#8217;t a joke at all. Which means for a person to be comfortable in any way in a T-72, he&#8217;d have to be an anorexic dwarf!



For the Al-Khalid however, modernisation at present means something so drastic will have to wait. A new variant, the Al-Khalid-I, is currently undergoing testing at Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) having been developed by HIT&#8217;s &#8216;Advanced Armoured Research, Development and Integration Complex&#8217;. The improvements seem consist of: an improved engine, FCS, improved integrated battle management system (IBMS), improved sensors, side skirts, and track pads. Engine improvements may consist of a new more powerful type, or perhaps improvements to the existing Ukrainian 1,200hp 6TDF. Something has changed though because the engine deck appears to be shorter. The auto-loader has also been upgraded to be able to fire nine rounds a minute, and the Ukrainian &#8216;Varta&#8217; electro-optical jamming system is fitted. It bears more than a passing resemblance to the Russian/Ukrainian Shotra-1, and according to HIT, decoys ATGMs, and counters laser designators and range finders by causing false readings disrupting tracking.



Less information is known about the next stage of the modernisation programme, the Al-Khalid-II, but there is a strong possibility it may end up looking like the Chinese ZTZ-99 with a wedge-shaped modular armour package over the turret front, and other such modifications. The power-pack could be further upgraded to a 1,500hp unit, and further developments made to the sensors. The possibility of the Al-Khalid-II following the example of the ZTZ-99 is quite high due to Sino-Pakistani defence co-operation, and the fact that both Al-Khalid and ZTZ-99 share some design ancestry. Without anything coming out of HIT though, this is still speculation, albeit fairly well founded speculation.



I can exclusively reveal however, (unless you&#8217;ve heard elsewhere), that the Military Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (MVRDE), have taken the Al-Khalid chassis, and are adapting it as an Armoured Vehicle-Launched Bridge (AVLB) to replace the M-47M Patton based variant. Hopefully this heralds the start of a wholesale modernisation of engineering vehicle types away from the M-47M, Type-59, and T-55 to the Al-Khalid chassis. It would also be good to see the chassis become the basis for more 155mm self propelled artillery pieces (perhaps with a Turkish or Chinese 155mm), or some self propelled anti-aircraft types, but Pakistan isn&#8217;t made of money, so we&#8217;ll just have to wait and see.



Nevertheless, the Al-Khalid is evolving, and the day when the Pakistan Army&#8217;s tank fleet consists of small numbers of Type-85s, T-80UDs and a large number of Al-Khalids is slowly drawing nearer.


Usman Ansari


----------



## Arsalan

taimikhan said:


> Well, Pakistani tanks design has been influenced by the chinese, so whatever new modifications chinese do on their tanks, Pakistan will fully or adopt some of those modifications.
> Abram kind of turret, i dont think PA will adopt, as they are huge due to additional armor and its a 4 man turret, PA needs stealthier tanks, meaning having low visibility.
> 
> If u see the new armor add-on on Al-Khalid & Al-Zarrar tanks, they were first employed by the Chinese on their latest tanks. Some ideas PA is taking from PLA & PLA is taking some of our approaches.
> 
> Modifications to the turret could be better FCS, improvement in the Gun Stabilization, Additional Armor plating (pasted the video of the latest chinese tanks Type 98 and the new variant Type 99 both showed), better protection of ammunition, If u look at the chinese tank turret, it has become large enough in length & width, addition of APS , improvements in the speed of turret rotation, auto loading mechanism etc etc etc



yes we have been borrowing lot of technology from chines but the AlKhalid had some plus points that even the chines lack. on of them was the hunter killer sustem as you have mentioned. secondly the targetting and laser range finder was modified according to PA requirment as the tanks were to be opperated from cold northren region to the hot punjab and further in the dusty and desert part of sindh!.
my point with turret was not about its shape or design but of the armor it will have. actually most of us will like to have a better armor turret, not only this can be met by armor platings but the tank structure itself need some upgradation. the original armor was not good enough and the tank heavily relied on armor platings, yes they are equally good, rather more friendly to use but i guess the upcomming model must be a little more beefed up. but yes, i agree that PA must not compromise on the weigh of the tank as its being light and small was one of its strong points!



> A more powerful engine could be added.


that was included in the AlKhalid II spec, PA is wiling to go for an incresed HP engine. the current one is good enough for our requirment, giving speed of 75 Km/Hr and acceleartion of zero to 35 Km?hr in ten seconds, that is fair enough. even then the plan included an upgraded engine and tis to me indicates to a bit heavier tank in the making!



> And the weight wouldn't be that far as Abrams, Leopard, Challenger 2, all 62 to 67 tons range, the chinese Type-99 latest variant around 54 ton, Al Khalid 1 only 48 ton, just an increase of 6 tons with much more added capabilities & protection.



agreed!



> My opinion which i strongly believe Al-Khalid II would be nearly similar to the chinese latest variant of Type-99 tank.



i doubt it. it may have some feature that PA will be willing to adopt but the main upgrades were aimed at:
1. better armor
2. improved target accquiring ability
3. better stabilization of the Gun (there was no problems with the current system and the tank was able to hit moving targets while itself on the run wit a 99% first kill ratio and that was an amazing performance indeed!
4. counter measures were to be heavily upgraded

whatever it is like, i hope it will sort out the PA tank issues for a good 10 to 15 years time once it is inducted 

regards!


----------



## TaimiKhan

arsalanaslam123 said:


> yes we have been borrowing lot of technology from chines but the AlKhalid had some plus points that even the chines lack. on of them was the hunter killer sustem as you have mentioned. secondly the targetting and laser range finder was modified according to PA requirment as the tanks were to be opperated from cold northren region to the hot punjab and further in the dusty and desert part of sindh!.
> my point with turret was not about its shape or design but of the armor it will have. actually most of us will like to have a better armor turret, not only this can be met by armor platings but the tank structure itself need some upgradation. the original armor was not good enough and the tank heavily relied on armor platings, yes they are equally good, rather more friendly to use but i guess the upcomming model must be a little more beefed up. but yes, i agree that PA must not compromise on the weigh of the tank as its being light and small was one of its strong points!
> 
> 
> that was included in the AlKhalid II spec, PA is wiling to go for an incresed HP engine. the current one is good enough for our requirment, giving speed of 75 Km/Hr and acceleartion of zero to 35 Km?hr in ten seconds, that is fair enough. even then the plan included an upgraded engine and tis to me indicates to a bit heavier tank in the making!
> 
> 
> 
> agreed!
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt it. it may have some feature that PA will be willing to adopt but the main upgrades were aimed at:
> 1. better armor
> 2. improved target accquiring ability
> 3. better stabilization of the Gun (there was no problems with the current system and the tank was able to hit moving targets while itself on the run wit a 99% first kill ratio and that was an amazing performance indeed!
> 4. counter measures were to be heavily upgraded
> 
> whatever it is like, i hope it will sort out the PA tank issues for a good 10 to 15 years time once it is inducted
> 
> regards!





Well if u look at the details of Type-99 tank specially Type-99G, u will nearly find all the requirements u have mentioned & PA will just have to change or get an alternate or a better or to its requirments systems . U can see the Type 98 tank getting hit with a HJ-8 ATGM, the tank still stands pretty good. 

Plus rumors are that Chinese Type-99 is using Tungsten in its armor, which is one of the most dense material including DU, DU is used in the Abram Tank Armor & DU rounds. APFSDS rounds are made of Tungsten. 

HIT has already established Advanced Armor Research Center, which definitely would be looking at the armor side of AL Khalid.


----------



## wangrong

http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XODExMDkyNzY=/v.swf


----------



## wangrong




----------



## zraver

taimikhan said:


> No tank crew wants to be stood around motionless for too long, especially with the possibility of hostile aircraft arriving on scene, or a rain or artillery rockets or shells falling on them increasing for each minute theyre motionless.



Using an autoloader offers no real combat advantage. No matter how fast it can load a round other factors slow it down. Assuming the tank commander has to spend his time at briefings when the tank is not moving. A 3 man crew leaves only 2 men to do all the maintenance tasks if they do not post a guard. Checking track tension, refueling, checking fluids, rearming and other normal every day tasks. This means it takes longer and thus cuts into what precious time for sleep, self care and hygiene exists. A tired exhausted crew will not fight as good as one more fresh. For certain tasks, a 3man crew means 2 tanks have to stop to do it, or one tank has to be left behind for rear area support to move up. You are not going to change a track fast or easily with 3 men assuming the commanders present. Changing track sucks, but its easier with four men than three. With four you can have to men hoisting track, 1 man ground guiding and 1 man driving. Finally when all the tasks are done and the crew can grab some sleep, 3 men means longer shifts on watch than a 4 man crew.

As a final note, as technology advances especially in the areas of managing information a real danger is developing that the commander is going to be overworked. 20 years ago he had to monitor the radio, look for targets and direct his tank (commanders/leaders also had to direct their unit). Now he has to watch the battle management system, the threat receiver/warning system as well as the other tasks. His work load is going up. More on this later.





> Having an auto-loader does have its benefits however, namely being able to reload the gun while moving over rough ground at speed, and reducing the tank's profile. Theres also the speed at which rounds can be fired off. The first round in any engagement is crucial, but follow-up rounds, delivered accurately and at speed, can literally mean the difference between life and death.



See first, shoot first, win. The more alert crew has significant advantages. The longer you go without sleep, or the less sleep you get the more your body acts like its drunk in terms of coordination and reaction times. 





> I do have reservations about auto-loaders myself. Any hull/turret penetration could set off loosely stowed ammunition, (only 22 separate loading rounds  round plus propellant charge  are stored in the carousel style cassette in the bottom of the hull). The propellant is after all in semi-combustible cardboard cases. I suppose this is 'ammunition stowage' rather than the 'auto-loader' per se, but this is the weakness of all the above tanks. Bar that is the T-84, the latest variants of which have a bustle mounted autoloader in line with something like the French Leclerc. Even the American M1A2 Abrams, perhaps the most combat tested modern Western MBT around, may go this way if fitted with the automated XM-360 120mm cannon. Its currently undergoing testing for XM-1202 Mounted Combat System. The XM-360 is lighter than but as powerful as the 120mm currently fitted to the Abrams. Fitted with a 27 round bustle mounted magazine/auto-loader, it certainly sounds like something the Abrams crews may welcome, (some of the above restrictions notwithstanding).



Behind Armor effects (BAE) is a serious problem for tanks using hull based autoloader systems. There have been several cases where an Abrams took a penetration to the ammo compartment and the crew got out. Or the tank to a minor penetrating hit that did or did not wound the crew but did not set off the ammo since it was stored separately. Using a bustle storage system does increase the tanks side profile and thins out protection unless weight increases but overall it seems to be the way to go. if the crew is kept safe, then even if the tank is a total write off, you don't have to train another crew or lose that crews experience. Tanks are easier to replace than skilled crews.

Back to the impending overload of the tank commander. One advantage in converting the Abrams to an autoloader is that it keeps the 4 man crew. This leaves the crew fully staffed for non-combat tasks and lets the former loader become an assistant to the commander. Able to monitor systems and communications letting the commander fight his tank more effectively since 2 sets of eyes, ears and brains are seeing the information that is coming in.





> This is something Id like to see in the Al-Khalid, in fact, Id like something a little better. The Jordanians are busy fitting their Challenger II chassis they obtained from the UK when the type was replaced by the Challenger 2, with the Falcon 2 unmanned turret. The turret was designed by British firm Claverham Limited for (or in conjunction with) King Abdallah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB). The ammunition (eleven or 17 rounds depending on number of drums fitted), is in the bustle like the new T-84, but the crew are now in the bottom of the hull. The turret is unmanned and therefore has a very small frontal cross section.



Junk! The best sensor is still the Mk. I eyeball. its better at spotting missile launchers, helicopters popping over the top of buildings/hills, RPG teams popping out of a ditch etc. A manned turret on most tanks also offers the ability to engage infantry dismounts with suppressive fire even if the main gun and coax are not aimed at them via commanders/loaders machine guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TaimiKhan

Well the article was just posted for information purposes, not my views. anyhow. 



zraver said:


> Using an autoloader offers no real combat advantage. No matter how fast it can load a round other factors slow it down. Assuming the tank commander has to spend his time at briefings when the tank is not moving. A 3 man crew leaves only 2 men to do all the maintenance tasks if they do not post a guard. Checking track tension, refueling, checking fluids, rearming and other normal every day tasks. This means it takes longer and thus cuts into what precious time for sleep, self care and hygiene exists. A tired exhausted crew will not fight as good as one more fresh. For certain tasks, a 3man crew means 2 tanks have to stop to do it, or one tank has to be left behind for rear area support to move up. You are not going to change a track fast or easily with 3 men assuming the commanders present. Changing track sucks, but its easier with four men than three. With four you can have to men hoisting track, 1 man ground guiding and 1 man driving. Finally when all the tasks are done and the crew can grab some sleep, 3 men means longer shifts on watch than a 4 man crew.



Well, i guess u might not know how armor units work, in a typical armor unit there are approx 48 tanks plus recovery vehicles, around 120 to 140 per brigade. Lets suppose there are 48 tanks in a typical armor unit, 48*3= 144 personnel deployed on the tanks, now a typical army unit consists of 700 to 900 or 1000 personnel. Lets take a lower figure of 700, 144 minus 700 gives a figure of 556, 556 guys are there to do aaaaalllllllllllllllllll of the tasks u said, when tanks go in battle the supporting troops are behind them to look after all the emergencies u mentioned. When the tank guys sleep, tank commander goes for a briefing, , they don't do these things in the middle of the battle field, rather at the lunching areas, forward Squadron or Company or Battalion HQs, where the whole unit is assembled and those 556 guys perform all the tasks that u mentioned & many other tasks too. So having a tank crew of 3 doesn't brings any extra work on them, what matters is how they perform i battle. PA knows what it is doing, its a professional army, combat experience has made them learn lessons, the Al-Zarrar before upgrade had 4 guys i guess, but after auto loader installed in its up gradation 3 guys left. I hope I have amicably satisfied your above mentioned concerns. 




zraver said:


> As a final note, as technology advances especially in the areas of managing information a real danger is developing that the commander is going to be overworked. 20 years ago he had to monitor the radio, look for targets and direct his tank (commanders/leaders also had to direct their unit). Now he has to watch the battle management system, the threat receiver/warning system as well as the other tasks. His work load is going up. More on this later.



Battles of armor is not for long periods of time, battles starts, lot of action but then with passage of time tanks withdraw or take up the conquered position and start preparation for next assignments. Plans are already devised and tank commanders know what to do, as for battle management system, its a graphical presentation of the battle area and tank commander & battle commanders have a picture of where the tanks are, so there is no issue in its mgt, as before going into a battle the tank commander knows where is his and where he has to go. Battle commanders are sitting in their mobile command posts carriers and direct the tanks from there. Plus our new tanks have the hunter-killer capability, meaning tank commander identifies the target, passes it on to the gunner and tank commander starts searching for a new target. The threat warning things are automatic, when they detect a threat they themselves take an appropriate action, whether it be a laser defensive module or APS, no need for the involvement of the tank crew. 





zraver said:


> See first, shoot first, win. The more alert crew has significant advantages. The longer you go without sleep, or the less sleep you get the more your body acts like its drunk in terms of coordination and reaction times.



This i guess resolved in the first paragraph, PA is not stupid to send their guys lacking on sleep into battle. Plus in battle soldiers have to perform under extreme conditions, that what they are trained for.





zraver said:


> Behind Armor effects (BAE) is a serious problem for tanks using hull based autoloader systems. There have been several cases where an Abrams took a penetration to the ammo compartment and the crew got out. Or the tank to a minor penetrating hit that did or did not wound the crew but did not set off the ammo since it was stored separately. Using a bustle storage system does increase the tanks side profile and thins out protection unless weight increases but overall it seems to be the way to go. if the crew is kept safe, then even if the tank is a total write off, you don't have to train another crew or lose that crews experience. Tanks are easier to replace than skilled crews.



This i agree, bustle type auto loader more suitable, which we might see in next version of Al Khalid



zraver said:


> Back to the impending overload of the tank commander. One advantage in converting the Abrams to an autoloader is that it keeps the 4 man crew. This leaves the crew fully staffed for non-combat tasks and lets the former loader become an assistant to the commander. Able to monitor systems and communications letting the commander fight his tank more effectively since 2 sets of eyes, ears and brains are seeing the information that is coming in.



There is no news of an auto loader on Abrams, all major western tanks, Abrams, Leopard & Challenger have manual loaders, French Leclerc has auto loader. 
The hunter-killer capability given to al khalid is due to this tank, the gunner can also find & engage targets, while the tank commander can do his other work or find other targets while the gunner takes out the first target. 

Plus the main use of an auto-loader is the rate of fire, 10-12 rounds is a standard, which a human loader may not achieve, specially if the tank is moving at high speed on a tough terain. But an auto loader has no such issues, it can load the round, even at high speeds and the tank can fire. Try doing something delicate in ur car while on a rough road, u will see  . 

AL Khalid having hunter-killer capability needs a fast reloading system, reason being, while the gunner is engaging one target, the tank commander identifies the next one and he needs the gun loaded fast to engage it. If its moving on a rough terrain, which we do have a lot, the manual loader may not be able to load the gun in time, for which AK will have to slow down or come to a still making AK an easy target to shoot at by enemy tank. 




zraver said:


> Junk! The best sensor is still the Mk. I eyeball. its better at spotting missile launchers, helicopters popping over the top of buildings/hills, RPG teams popping out of a ditch etc. A manned turret on most tanks also offers the ability to engage infantry dismounts with suppressive fire even if the main gun and coax are not aimed at them via commanders/loaders machine guns.



Agreed, no need for this system for al khalid for the time being.


----------



## zraver

taimikhan said:


> Well the article was just posted for information purposes, not my views. anyhow.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, i guess u might not know how armor units work,



I don't? Damn, guess I didn't learn anything in my years as a U.S. Army tanker. Hint- thats why I wear the military professionals tag here.



> in a typical armor unit there are approx 48 tanks plus recovery vehicles, around 120 to 140 per brigade. Lets suppose there are 48 tanks in a typical armor unit, 48*3= 144 personnel deployed on the tanks, now a typical army unit consists of 700 to 900 or 1000 personnel. Lets take a lower figure of 700, 144 minus 700 gives a figure of 556, 556 guys are there to do aaaaalllllllllllllllllll of the tasks u said, when tanks go in battle the supporting troops are behind them to look after all the emergencies u mentioned. When the tank guys sleep, tank commander goes for a briefing, , they don't do these things in the middle of the battle field, rather at the lunching areas, forward Squadron or Company or Battalion HQs, where the whole unit is assembled and those 556 guys perform all the tasks that u mentioned & many other tasks too. So having a tank crew of 3 doesn't brings any extra work on them, what matters is how they perform i battle. PA knows what it is doing, its a professional army, combat experience has made them learn lessons, the Al-Zarrar before upgrade had 4 guys i guess, but after auto loader installed in its up gradation 3 guys left. I hope I have amicably satisfied your above mentioned concerns.



You could not be more off base if you turned 180 degrees from where you wanted go in the first place.

Those 48 or more tanks are divided into several companies which are dived into platoons. The entire battalion will normally have a frontage of several kilometers. However except for dedicated combined arms units like the Russian Motor Rifle regiment not all of a battalions tanks will be present. Some will be detailed off to mechanized infantry formations to create combined arms teams.

of the tanks that remain, platoon A cannot reliably count on people from platoon B to help. Even inside the platoon, help from another tank is unlikely because that crew has their own tasks to deal with. excepting of course task that require multiple crews like ramming the main gun. The only people there to do each tanks maintenance tasks is that tanks crew.

As for the tank commander going to briefing when the other guys sleep-when does the commander sleep then? There are only so many hours in a day. Crew takes care of the tank- Commander gets info, intel and orders and arranges for his crews needs. 

The only reason to go to a 3 man crew is peace time cost. training 3 men per tank is cheaper than training 4. same goes for pay and other costs. This lets governments have more tanks for the same cost, or the same number of tanks they used to have for less cost. The 3 man crew is not a combat adaptation.




> Battles of armor is not for long periods of time, battles starts, lot of action but then with passage of time tanks withdraw or take up the conquered position and start preparation for next assignments.



Again a clean miss. One of the biggest battles in recent memory was the battle of 73 Easting. While the guns were not fired in anger until 26 Feb. The battle effectively began on the 23 when VII moved out on a non-stop pace. The Iraqis began moving not long after that. By the time something like 8 divisions impacted on one another both sides had already been moving for days. Both sides suffered serious confusion in tryign to develop the battle and plans were ad hoc. The US/Uk had the advantage haivng practiced this type of mission before but it was not a case of pull plan X out of the folder and implement it.

More recently the US drive in to Iraq in 2003 saw sustained movement and combat for days at a time. The Us had to build in pauses to let its troops get rest and the equipment maintenance. But those were not nightly pauses, they were days apart and fighting or movement was constant. 

In Pakistan's own history the Battle of Asal-Uttar was a 2 day fight not counting movement to the battlefield. battles are not nice neat little 15 minute affairs. While a crew may only see combat for 15 minutes they are not sleeping and resting unless they are in deep reserve. Even local reserves need to stay fully manned and ready to go to meet the commanders needs.




> Plans are already devised and tank commanders know what to do, as for battle management system, its a graphical presentation of the battle area and tank commander & battle commanders have a picture of where the tanks are, so there is no issue in its mgt, as before going into a battle the tank commander knows where is his and where he has to go. Battle commanders are sitting in their mobile command posts carriers and direct the tanks from there. Plus our new tanks have the hunter-killer capability, meaning tank commander identifies the target, passes it on to the gunner and tank commander starts searching for a new target. The threat warning things are automatic, when they detect a threat they themselves take an appropriate action, whether it be a laser defensive module or APS, no need for the involvement of the tank crew.



Strike 3.

Battle management- the tank commander has to find targets for his tank, tell the driver what to do, tell the loader what to load, check to see if anther asset has added anything to the known enemy dispositions, report his own enemy contacts, record losses, monitor where artillery or air is about to be used, keep track of the pace of his own tank and the rest of the unit.... 

Hunter-Killer does not remove the commanders job in finding targets. With older tanks, the commander would see a target- call it out and slew the turret towards it until the gunner said he saw it. With only a single thermal system the commander only had the mk I eyeball. With 2 systems he can see farther, and with the aid of a computer can designate 1 target, and then beginning hunting for another. That way while he is hunting the gunner is killing hence hunter-killer and the fact that hunter-killer technology requires 2 sights that move independently of one another.

of course crews and commanders are going to fall back on training, but that doesn't change the fact that a 4 man crew is likely to be more rested than a 3 man crew.



> This I guess resolved in the first paragraph, PA is not stupid to send their guys lacking on sleep into battle. Plus in battle soldiers have to perform under extreme conditions, that what they are trained for.



The PA will send tired troops into battle, war removes the luxury of a 9-5 shift. Both sides are going to be tired, dirty, hungry and scared sh*tless. The 4 man crew has an edge in this environment. More sleep= better performance.


There is no news of an auto loader on Abrams, all major western tanks, Abrams, Leopard & Challenger have manual loaders, French Leclerc has auto loader. [/quote]

M1A3 on the way? - Military Photos




> The hunter-killer capability given to al khalid is due to this tank, the gunner can also find & engage targets, while the tank commander can do his other work or find other targets while the gunner takes out the first target.



see above



> Plus the main use of an auto-loader is the rate of fire, 10-12 rounds is a standard, which a human loader may not achieve, specially if the tank is moving at high speed on a tough terain. But an auto loader has no such issues, it can load the round, even at high speeds and the tank can fire. Try doing something delicate in ur car while on a rough road, u will see  .



if the ground is too rough for a human loader to laod, the gunner can't hit anyway. A lot of people think stab systems are magic that can deal with any rate of pitch/roll/yaw the tank experiences moving across terrain. It can't and never will be able to. The faster the tank goes, the more movement is magnified and the more the stab has to work. Add speed and rough terrain and accuracy goes out the window. Across your typical piece of earth if the gunner can hit the loader can load. In the Abrams there is a switch called EL-uncpouple (Elevation uncouple) that freezes the gun at zero elevation in relation to the hull while leaving the sights free to track. The loader reaches up and flips the switch, bumps the pressure plate with his knee grabs the specified round, loads it and flips the switch reengaging the main gun. A professional loader can do a round every six seconds, the average is a round every 8 to 10 seconds.



> AL Khalid having hunter-killer capability needs a fast reloading system, reason being, while the gunner is engaging one target, the tank commander identifies the next one and he needs the gun loaded fast to engage it. If its moving on a rough terrain, which we do have a lot, the manual loader may not be able to load the gun in time, for which AK will have to slow down or come to a still making AK an easy target to shoot at by enemy tank.



swing and a miss

If a human loader could not load the gunner is not going to hit. The loader still has to find the designated target, make sure its the right one, laz it for the range, select the proper ammo 9say if he had just used HEAt and now needs APFSDS) wait on the commanders order and then fire. Modern auto loaders do not speed up these criticla processes.


----------



## TaimiKhan

zraver said:


> I don't? Damn, guess I didn't learn anything in my years as a U.S. Army tanker. Hint- thats why I wear the military professionals tag here.
> 
> 
> 
> You could not be more off base if you turned 180 degrees from where you wanted go in the first place.
> 
> Those 48 or more tanks are divided into several companies which are dived into platoons. The entire battalion will normally have a frontage of several kilometers. However except for dedicated combined arms units like the Russian Motor Rifle regiment not all of a battalions tanks will be present. Some will be detailed off to mechanized infantry formations to create combined arms teams.
> 
> of the tanks that remain, platoon A cannot reliably count on people from platoon B to help. Even inside the platoon, help from another tank is unlikely because that crew has their own tasks to deal with. excepting of course task that require multiple crews like ramming the main gun. The only people there to do each tanks maintenance tasks is that tanks crew.
> 
> As for the tank commander going to briefing when the other guys sleep-when does the commander sleep then? There are only so many hours in a day. Crew takes care of the tank- Commander gets info, intel and orders and arranges for his crews needs.
> 
> The only reason to go to a 3 man crew is peace time cost. training 3 men per tank is cheaper than training 4. same goes for pay and other costs. This lets governments have more tanks for the same cost, or the same number of tanks they used to have for less cost. The 3 man crew is not a combat adaptation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again a clean miss. One of the biggest battles in recent memory was the battle of 73 Easting. While the guns were not fired in anger until 26 Feb. The battle effectively began on the 23 when VII moved out on a non-stop pace. The Iraqis began moving not long after that. By the time something like 8 divisions impacted on one another both sides had already been moving for days. Both sides suffered serious confusion in tryign to develop the battle and plans were ad hoc. The US/Uk had the advantage haivng practiced this type of mission before but it was not a case of pull plan X out of the folder and implement it.
> 
> More recently the US drive in to Iraq in 2003 saw sustained movement and combat for days at a time. The Us had to build in pauses to let its troops get rest and the equipment maintenance. But those were not nightly pauses, they were days apart and fighting or movement was constant.
> 
> In Pakistan's own history the Battle of Asal-Uttar was a 2 day fight not counting movement to the battlefield. battles are not nice neat little 15 minute affairs. While a crew may only see combat for 15 minutes they are not sleeping and resting unless they are in deep reserve. Even local reserves need to stay fully manned and ready to go to meet the commanders needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strike 3.
> 
> Battle management- the tank commander has to find targets for his tank, tell the driver what to do, tell the loader what to load, check to see if anther asset has added anything to the known enemy dispositions, report his own enemy contacts, record losses, monitor where artillery or air is about to be used, keep track of the pace of his own tank and the rest of the unit....
> 
> Hunter-Killer does not remove the commanders job in finding targets. With older tanks, the commander would see a target- call it out and slew the turret towards it until the gunner said he saw it. With only a single thermal system the commander only had the mk I eyeball. With 2 systems he can see farther, and with the aid of a computer can designate 1 target, and then beginning hunting for another. That way while he is hunting the gunner is killing hence hunter-killer and the fact that hunter-killer technology requires 2 sights that move independently of one another.
> 
> of course crews and commanders are going to fall back on training, but that doesn't change the fact that a 4 man crew is likely to be more rested than a 3 man crew.
> 
> 
> 
> The PA will send tired troops into battle, war removes the luxury of a 9-5 shift. Both sides are going to be tired, dirty, hungry and scared sh*tless. The 4 man crew has an edge in this environment. More sleep= better performance.
> 
> 
> There is no news of an auto loader on Abrams, all major western tanks, Abrams, Leopard & Challenger have manual loaders, French Leclerc has auto loader.



M1A3 on the way? - Military Photos





zraver said:


> see above
> 
> 
> 
> if the ground is too rough for a human loader to laod, the gunner can't hit anyway. A lot of people think stab systems are magic that can deal with any rate of pitch/roll/yaw the tank experiences moving across terrain. It can't and never will be able to. The faster the tank goes, the more movement is magnified and the more the stab has to work. Add speed and rough terrain and accuracy goes out the window. Across your typical piece of earth if the gunner can hit the loader can load. In the Abrams there is a switch called EL-uncpouple (Elevation uncouple) that freezes the gun at zero elevation in relation to the hull while leaving the sights free to track. The loader reaches up and flips the switch, bumps the pressure plate with his knee grabs the specified round, loads it and flips the switch reengaging the main gun. A professional loader can do a round every six seconds, the average is a round every 8 to 10 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> swing and a miss
> 
> If a human loader could not load the gunner is not going to hit. The loader still has to find the designated target, make sure its the right one, laz it for the range, select the proper ammo 9say if he had just used HEAt and now needs APFSDS) wait on the commanders order and then fire. Modern auto loaders do not speed up these criticla processes.



U win sir.


----------



## Arsalan

taimikhan said:


> M1A3 on the way? - Military Photos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U win sir.



a nice way to end it once and for all! 

however it was rally nice analysis by you! good inforamtive post friend, i agree with almost all of your points!
keep it up!

regards!


----------



## TaimiKhan

arsalanaslam123 said:


> a nice way to end it once and for all!
> 
> however it was rally nice analysis by you! good inforamtive post friend, i agree with almost all of your points!
> keep it up!
> 
> regards!




Thanks Bro, well what else could i have done ?? Zraver has been in the American military, i am talking in perspective to our requirements, what PA needs, he is bringing in the US military and its fighting concepts & requirements & wars things. I guess PA & US army doctrines of fighting are different, we get things to our needs. PA needed a 3 man tank, they got them, they are happy and are getting more & more of 3 man crews. U tell yourself do Armor Battles on our sides go non stop for days ??? A battles starts, but lasts sometime, then adversaries go to their rears, get rearmed, and other stuff and then come again face to face, its not that they are on the battle field 24 hrs facing each other and blazing their guns off. So many other things can be countered in his post, but no use as he is an american tank & doctrine expert, me looking at PA perspective. 
He quoted Iraq wars, they had complete air superiority, they decimated the iraqi armor & its military, what do u expect from the iraqis then, american tanks kept rolling for miles, no one to counter them. Our battles are different then american ones.


----------



## niaz

While the discussion above has been most informative, I would like to point out the size and weight limitations. Al Khalid is a much smaller and lighter tank compared to European tanks. With all the gadgets required in the modern warfare, there may not be enough room left for the 4th man inside the tank cabin. Therefore autoloader may be a necessity rather than a luxury.


----------



## TaimiKhan

An excellent video showing how the Russian, Chinese & western bustle type auto loader in tanks work.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zraver

taimikhan said:


> Thanks Bro, well what else could i have done ?? Zraver has been in the American military, i am talking in perspective to our requirements, what PA needs, he is bringing in the US military and its fighting concepts & requirements & wars things. I guess PA & US army doctrines of fighting are different, we get things to our needs. PA needed a 3 man tank, they got them, they are happy and are getting more & more of 3 man crews.



There are several reasons why Pakistan got a 3 man tank. However those reasons valid though they may be to Pakistans need, do not change the basic differences between a 4 man and 3 man crewed tank. 4 man v 3 man would be the same factors regardless of who since its a simple matter of what.



> U tell yourself do Armor Battles on our sides go non stop for days ??? A battles starts, but lasts sometime, then adversaries go to their rears, get rearmed, and other stuff and then come again face to face, its not that they are on the battle field 24 hrs facing each other and blazing their guns off.



Best guesstimates on the Indian "Cold Start" say the plan is to send units into Pakistan to engage and defeat the Pakistan Army before it can fully mobilize and get in among the Pakistani people near the border so that the nuclear threshold is not breached. Say heaven forbid war breaks out and suddenly 1000 Indian tanks with other supporting assets are tryign to force their way into Pakistan. If India could and indeed did beat Pakistan to the mobilization punch you would have far fewer Pakistani assets tryign to defend your country. They have to do the work of a larger force or risk Pakistans defeat which means the work load goes up. Even if they are not sititgn guns blazing (I never implied that) they will be doing other things besides sleeping. Fueling-arming- pre-combat checks- moving to the border, moving to critical sectors in case they need to be committed to battle to strop a breech or launch a counter attack, maintenance, falling back to avoid encirclement, moving up to threaten flanks, moving under cover and/or at night to avoid Indian air or rocket artillery, rearming after battle, repairing after battle, more fueling and maintenance- the list can go on and on depending on the situation. battles are fluid and the actual fighting is but a tiny part of the complex dance of events going on. Have you ever seen those complex gear/pendulum driven grandfather clocks? They are like a battle. The visible second and minute hands are the actual fighting. However if you look behind the clock face there are wheels within wheels and thousands of teeth that must mesh of the who thing breaks down.



> So many other things can be countered in his post, but no use as he is an american tank & doctrine expert, me looking at PA perspective.
> He quoted Iraq wars, they had complete air superiority, they decimated the iraqi armor & its military, what do u expect from the iraqis then, american tanks kept rolling for miles, no one to counter them. Our battles are different then american ones.



1991 was 100 hours of ground combat, plus a couple of days of immediate pre-war movement. Not long as wars go, but almost non-stop. Go back to my note on "Cold Start". If India beats Pakistan to the punch, unless those Pakistani assets that do get into the fight can blunt the Indian attack, Pakistan will see Indian tanks rolling for miles. In fact best open source materials say the Indian's depend on beating the Pakistani border and quick reaction units in order to deliver a defeat and avoid a nuclear war.

Do you think those outnumbered Pakistani units trying to defend thier nation will be able to find much time for sleep?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Patriot

Zraver, Mobility is not really an issue for Pakistan.Most of our assests are deployed right near the border because our country is very small so Army has deployed **** load of tanks etc near border and cold start doctrine won't work...trust me on this.It took India several WEEKS to mobilize last time in 2002 where as Pakistan Army mobilized within few days.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zraver

Patriot said:


> Zraver, Mobility is not really an issue for Pakistan.Most of our assests are deployed right near the border because our country is very small so Army has deployed **** load of tanks etc near border and cold start doctrine won't work...trust me on this.It took India several WEEKS to mobilize last time in 2002 where as Pakistan Army mobilized within few days.



Mobility is an issue, trust me on this. Unless of course you expect India to only attack where you have units and only with the same number of units so its a fair fight lol. Haivng 2000+ tanks along the border means zip, if you need them in sectors A-C and you only have 200 in that area.

As for India taking several weeks to mobilize. That was then, what about now? If the past was doomed to be the future, the Pakistan might as well give up now. She hasn't beat India yet so can't beat India. We both no the last war doesn't determine who wins the next won, skill, will and tools make that decision. Likewise India's slow mobilization last time, doe snot mean they will always mobilize slow. In fact Cold Start was designed to allow India to beat Pakistan to the punch while the rest of the IA get its act together.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Patriot

zraver said:


> Mobility is an issue, trust me on this. Unless of course you expect India to only attack where you have units and only with the same number of units so its a fair fight lol. Haivng 2000+ tanks along the border means zip, if you need them in sectors A-C and you only have 200 in that area.
> 
> As for India taking several weeks to mobilize. That was then, what about now? If the past was doomed to be the future, the Pakistan might as well give up now. She hasn't beat India yet so can't beat India. We both no the last war doesn't determine who wins the next won, skill, will and tools make that decision. Likewise India's slow mobilization last time, doe snot mean they will always mobilize slow. In fact Cold Start was designed to allow India to beat Pakistan to the punch while the rest of the IA get its act together.


I think blain2 can give you good analysis on this.Pakistan Army does know about cold start doctrine therefore they must have some doctrine to counter Cold Start..The only border where we don't have enough assests (tanks) to mobilize quickly is LOC where tanks are hardly used.Pakistan give up?What do you mean by that?We're not planning on invading India....The defenses are there so that Indians don't capture our main cities.We don't have strategic depth therefore it is necessaray for us to have large defenses near border...In 65 war we did not have enough assests but thankfully Air Force saved Lahore..We did learn a lesson and have deployed our assests near border areas so that mobilization can take place very quickly.Of course Indians think Pakistan will not be able to counter Cold Start Doctrine and they made stupid mistake by heavily publicizing it.They're in for a ugly surprise.Considering our border size with India we have more then enough assests to deploy quickly..Far quicker then India.70% of our Army is on Eastern Borders.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaimiKhan

zraver said:


> There are several reasons why Pakistan got a 3 man tank. However those reasons valid though they may be to Pakistans need, do not change the basic differences between a 4 man and 3 man crewed tank. 4 man v 3 man would be the same factors regardless of who since its a simple matter of what.
> 
> 
> 
> Best guesstimates on the Indian "Cold Start" say the plan is to send units into Pakistan to engage and defeat the Pakistan Army before it can fully mobilize and get in among the Pakistani people near the border so that the nuclear threshold is not breached. Say heaven forbid war breaks out and suddenly 1000 Indian tanks with other supporting assets are tryign to force their way into Pakistan. If India could and indeed did beat Pakistan to the mobilization punch you would have far fewer Pakistani assets tryign to defend your country. They have to do the work of a larger force or risk Pakistans defeat which means the work load goes up. Even if they are not sititgn guns blazing (I never implied that) they will be doing other things besides sleeping. Fueling-arming- pre-combat checks- moving to the border, moving to critical sectors in case they need to be committed to battle to strop a breech or launch a counter attack, maintenance, falling back to avoid encirclement, moving up to threaten flanks, moving under cover and/or at night to avoid Indian air or rocket artillery, rearming after battle, repairing after battle, more fueling and maintenance- the list can go on and on depending on the situation. battles are fluid and the actual fighting is but a tiny part of the complex dance of events going on. Have you ever seen those complex gear/pendulum driven grandfather clocks? They are like a battle. The visible second and minute hands are the actual fighting. However if you look behind the clock face there are wheels within wheels and thousands of teeth that must mesh of the who thing breaks down.
> 
> 
> 
> 1991 was 100 hours of ground combat, plus a couple of days of immediate pre-war movement. Not long as wars go, but almost non-stop. Go back to my note on "Cold Start". If India beats Pakistan to the punch, unless those Pakistani assets that do get into the fight can blunt the Indian attack, Pakistan will see Indian tanks rolling for miles. In fact best open source materials say the Indian's depend on beating the Pakistani border and quick reaction units in order to deliver a defeat and avoid a nuclear war.
> 
> Do you think those outnumbered Pakistani units trying to defend thier nation will be able to find much time for sleep?




Sir, as i said above, i say it again, u r the expert and definitely u know better about armored warfare. PA is very well aware of the Cold Start Doctrine and we have done our preparation, during PA largest ever exercise Zar-e-Momin way back in late eighties, 13 new concepts were designed, and this exercise main objective was countering the cold start kind of doctrines. PA is investing huge time, money & efforts in countering the indian cold doctrine thread. The numbers of tanks in PA has increased substantially, the Al Khalid & its future variants and upgrading of other tanks is a part of this exercise. 
Now, u r right Indian Armor forces are huge & PA can't match them 1 on 1. Plus they are sitting next to the border. 

Firstly, PA has a good communication & intelligence network. If indian forces move toward the international border, we will get indications, plus their cold doctrine thrust would be in the plain & desert areas of Multan, Bahawalpur, Rahim Yar Khan side of areas, where PA has plenty of forces deployed. Just like tanks are being upgraded, so have been the mechanized infantry battalions (MIB in PA terminology). 

2ndly, as said we can't match them 1 on 1, PA has made considerable efforts in the LAT & HAT units. Light Anti Tank & Heavy Anti Tank battalions. HAT battalions equipped with TOWs & Baktar Shikan ATGM, fixed positions, mobile carriers on M113 APC & jeeps platforms. When my dad was doing his Anti Tank course, i had asked the same question that indians have huge numbers, he replied we are ready for them and will make a graveyard of their tanks at pakistani soil. I was little at that time so took it as a patriotic comment, but after a few years, when came to know about the preparations PA has done, they will give indian armor a fight they will remember. 
So to counter indian cold start doctrine, PA has tanks and huge ATGM network. Plus, indian armor for the time being aren't that superior, their T-72 are well known, u sir urself know what americans made of iraqi T-72s, i read somewhere their T-72s are being upgraded with night fighting equipment now, not a very old article. 
Till they get their T-90s in huge numbers, we will be having upgraded Al Khalids, which aren't that far away. They sure will take on the T-90s.

Other operational issues faced by armor, u are spot on as u r the expert. I said what i knew about the working of our army, we have a limited offensive plans, so we think about that, we don't wana conquer india, they for sure wanna do, so let them come, in 1965 Battle of Chawinda war our foot soldiers strapped anti tank mines to their chests and lied down infront of the advancing indian tanks & stopped them, we will do that again. But indians won't be able to succeed in their cold start doctrine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zraver

taimikhan said:


> Sir, as i said above, i say it again, u r the expert and definitely u know better about armored warfare. PA is very well aware of the Cold Start Doctrine and we have done our preparation, during PA largest ever exercise Zar-e-Momin way back in late eighties, 13 new concepts were designed, and this exercise main objective was countering the cold start kind of doctrines. PA is investing huge time, money & efforts in countering the indian cold doctrine thread. The numbers of tanks in PA has increased substantially, the Al Khalid & its future variants and upgrading of other tanks is a part of this exercise.
> Now, u r right Indian Armor forces are huge & PA can't match them 1 on 1. Plus they are sitting next to the border.
> 
> Firstly, PA has a good communication & intelligence network. If indian forces move toward the international border, we will get indications, plus their cold doctrine thrust would be in the plain & desert areas of Multan, Bahawalpur, Rahim Yar Khan side of areas, where PA has plenty of forces deployed. Just like tanks are being upgraded, so have been the mechanized infantry battalions (MIB in PA terminology).



India too has its intel and plans. For the sake of what if- what if they do break the border open? I don't know the actual locations of units on either side. However, bear with me on this. Patriot said, "Pakistan's defenses are concentrated on the border." I think he makes a bit of a mistake. Of course there will be some tanks there, but most will be held back some distance. The bulk of the defenses will be infantry and ATGM's. Now, I don't doubt that those defenders will do their best to win, and if they can't win, to make the Indian victory as costly as possible. However military history and operational facts means the attacker has the edge. While the attacker does need 3-1 odds in conventional wisdom to overcome the defenders. The attacker gets to choose the time and place of the attack to achieve those odds.

Both sides are trying to sniff out the others plans and trying to counter what they think the other side is doing. For India this means sniffing out where they can achieve the superiority in arms to force the breach. The worst thing Pakistan could do is have its mobile reserves to close to the border, which is as bad as too far. The bulk of Pakistan's reserves will be concentrated some distance back for a couple of reasons.

1. If Indian arms force a rapid breach there is less risk of rapid encirclement

2. By pulling back say a day to several days travel instead of a bunch of little units close that might not be able to stop a penetration. That also leaves a bunch of other little units to far away to have any bearing on the battle. You instead have concentrations big enough to launch weighted counter-attacks that actually have a chance of achieving an objective. Imagine the border as the base of a triangle, a day or mores travel under combat conditions (threat of enemy air attacks, blown bridges etc) as the sides. Where those two sides come together is where you want your reserves. The closer you are to the border, the less border that unit can cover and so you need to have more smaller units to guard the border.



> 2ndly, as said we can't match them 1 on 1, PA has made considerable efforts in the LAT & HAT units. Light Anti Tank & Heavy Anti Tank battalions. HAT battalions equipped with TOWs & Baktar Shikan ATGM, fixed positions, mobile carriers on M113 APC & jeeps platforms.



In 1973 the ATGM's ripped the Israelis apart. It was a shock and a lot of people pronounced that the tank was dead. Of course Chobbam type armors and ERA put lie to that claim. In the most recent use of massed ATGMs, the 2006 Lebanon war, the results were surprising. The Israelis took less losses per missiles fired than they did in 73. Signifigantly so, modern armor is very well protected against ATGM's lacking a top down attack capability. Those anti-tank units will kill some Indians, but the chance of them stopping the attack is pretty remote. They are there to slow the pace of the Indian advance. They are performing a mission much like the Armored Cavalry Regiments of the US Army did on the inter-German and West German-Czechoslovakian borders- slow the pace of the enemy advance so that the armored units have time to fix the enemy intentions and then move to counter. This strategy was first developed by Germany in the wake of WWI when the Treaty of Versailles limited the size of the German Army and Poland was a real threat. What Germany came up with as a solution to its problem was the sue of Frei Korps (Volunteer units of WWI vets not bound by the treaty. The Nazi party had such a unit- the SA) on the border to develop an enemy attack and slow it down so the Heer (regular army) could then launch counter attacks. During WWII this tactic cost the Russians millions of losses. It wasn't enough to stop the Russians, they simple had too much weight. But that tactic cost them millions of lives. The US Army copied it post war.

Those Pakistani troops will do their duty, but don't expect too much from what is basically a suicide mission. The real guardians of Pakistan will be the mobile reserves. Not only will they have to finally stop the Indian advance, but if a political settlement is not forthcoming, will have to use force to eject the Indian troops from Pakistani soil.




> When my dad was doing his Anti Tank course, i had asked the same question that indians have huge numbers, he replied we are ready for them and will make a graveyard of their tanks at pakistani soil. I was little at that time so took it as a patriotic comment, but after a few years, when came to know about the preparations PA has done, they will give indian armor a fight they will remember.



No one denies that the border troops would do their best. Much like if you were out walking with your family and a gang of thugs attacked. I know I would tell my family to run and call the police, while I went down fighting to keep them safe. The border troops face that type of mission.




> So to counter indian cold start doctrine, PA has tanks and huge ATGM network. Plus, indian armor for the time being aren't that superior, their T-72 are well known, u sir urself know what americans made of iraqi T-72s,



A couple of points of note here. 

1. The US used the M829A1 (91) and M829A3 (03) rounds which Pakistan has no real equivalent. The Auto-loader in the AK/AZ is the same as on the T-72 and this imposes a maximum penetrator length under 600mm. This is going to limit performance.

2. Everyone is assuming the T-90's are going to the units detailed for the Cold Start mission. These tanks have much better protection than a T-72, both in terms of actual armor and in ERA. The Kontack-5 is no joke. It claims a reduction of 30&#37; in penetration values vs KE penetrators. At the Heide tests in Germany on former Soviet and East German equipment the K-5 was (rumored) able to take on the M829A1 which so devastated Iraq and render the T-72 invulnerable. This lead to the M829A2 and A3 series.

The latest Indian T-90's about to be entering service will have the Russian ceramic inserts replaced with India's own Kachan ceramic. The ERA has been upgraded to Kacktus HERA, and a swiss APS has been added. Those tows are not going to be that effective. The newest T-90's also have an improved autoloader capable of handling shells like the BM42M series which is a long rod penetrator design giving them superior gun power over the AK/AZ. Its going to be a contest of maneuver with the side with the most tactical and operational skill (getting the other guy where you want him so your tools of war can beat his tools of war) who wins.




> i read somewhere their T-72s are being upgraded with night fighting equipment now, not a very old article.



The T-72's are like the AZ tanks, not front line equipment.



> Till they get their T-90s in huge numbers, we will be having upgraded Al Khalids, which aren't that far away. They sure will take on the T-90s.



The latest T-90 is slower, but better protected and has a superior gun system (not sure if they have the rounds to make use of its potential)



> Other operational issues faced by armor, u are spot on as u r the expert. I said what i knew about the working of our army, we have a limited offensive plans, so we think about that, we don't wana conquer india, they for sure wanna do, so let them come, in 1965 Battle of Chawinda war our foot soldiers strapped anti tank mines to their chests and lied down infront of the advancing indian tanks & stopped them, we will do that again. But indians won't be able to succeed in their cold start doctrine.



If war comes, the Indians will break the border open, the real fight will be in how far they get before stopping (because of Pakistani force of arms or political pressure) and if they can be pushed out. Assuming anything else would leave Pakistan dangerously exposed. Your officers are professional and thus I feel pretty confident that they are not planning on a best case scenario, but a worst case situation. If you plan on meeting the challenge of a worst case situation, then if real life is easier- you win easier, if its harder you don't have as much of a gap between plans and reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Zulfiqar

Well i do agree with zraver but i want to add one thing.

Not every part of punjab or sindh is tank able. I don't know the present doctrine but in the early eighties my father(a sapper) was assigned the duty of checking the soil conditions(by collecting soil samples) of some sectors of punjab in order to see that which area can be used for tank warfare and which can't, especially during the monsoon rain season. I am sure the data has been upgraded every once in a while.


----------



## niaz

A concentrated combined arms armor attack ( say 300 state of the art tanks) at a narrow front will always be able to break thru anti tank defenses, one would need dedicated tank buster platform such as A-10 to counter such threat or similar number of tank units. Since India would always have numerical superiority, the danger of such a breakthrough exists.

I was under the impression that PA strategy of Offensive defense was specifically formulated to counter such a threat; mainly by pre-empting a thrust into Indian territory they a massed assault by our own strike corps. Thus PA also occupies some Indian territory thru numerical advantage at a weak spot. In Indo-Pak scenario, dont think any other strategy is realistically viable. (Even though in 1971 a planned attack by the 1st Armored Div in West never materialized and in 1965 a coward Div Commander botched up the thrust at Khem Karan.

IMO, in addition to the quality of weaponry, quality of leadership is of utmost importance. PA has long suffered by having quality leadership sidelined and mediocre officers promoted. Nosy Haiders book description of the PAF under AM Zafar Chaudhry is frightening. Even if half of what he has written is true, one wonders how such nincompoops such as Zafar Chaudhry or Zia ul Haq can reach such exalted positions in the Pakistan armed forces. Even the best quality armor with quantity would not overcome paucity of leadership.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hj786

Interesting discussion, thanks for giving us your valuable time and input Zraver. I just wanted to add a video of the Al-Zarrar autoloader (found on another forum, Pakistan Military Consortium :: www.PakDef.info, credit goes to "Rafi" for posting it):




Auto-loader shown re-loading the gun at 0:29.

EDIT: also posted in the general multimedia section by MuradK sahib.


----------



## Super Falcon

[url="http://


----------



## Dazzler

In my humble opinion, the autoloader shown in the above footage seems that of a T-80 ud instead of Al zarrar for a couple of reasons

1. Al Zarrar has semi-automatic loading system instead of fully automatic.

2. The formation was comprised of different mbts (you could see Al Khalid in the footage right at the begining) and the circular shape at the end of autoloader as well as loading mechanism was VERY similar to that of T-80 ud autoloader. 

Just my observation.


----------



## Dazzler

Check out the similarity

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

The T-80 ud is a formidable asset especially in Indo-Pak scenario since it is a further development of the high end T-64 that was developed in the 60's by USSR to counter contemporary western main battle tanks. T-64 was so technically advanced and complex (for that era) and expensive that the Russians decided to develop it under secrecy and only in small numbers. To complement the more advanced T-64, they developed the low end T-72. I am not saying that T-72 was an inferior tank in any way. Just that T-64 was a higher priority for Soviets and this was the reason why it was never exported (until 80's). The T-72 however, saw more development since it was massively developed and exported to so many nations. Many nations developed their own versions based on the T-72 such as Polish PT-91 series, Yugoslavian M84 series (includes Serbia, Croatia etc), Chinese Type 80 series etc. Initially the Indians were also a little curious about the T-80U and were looking for it but Pakistan bought it before they did hence their priority shifted towards T-90. I still believe that T-80 vs. T90S are to some extent comparable tanks however T-90S excels in some departments. The real threat to T90S is the Al Khalid and this is the reason why India no longer needs the T-90S anymore but more lethal T-90M Vladimir for which we have been developing The Al Khalid 1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Al Khalid Autoloader at work.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SSG VIPER

Jako said:


> thank you for such nice words......true,pak force is the greatest,man,how can we bloody indians even think of facing the invincible al-khalid!!!......btw,def.pk is changing!!!....



MAYBE UR RIGHTON UR OWN PRODUCTS LIKE ARJUNKSKY OR LCA MUSHKIL HAI YAAR STILL U CAN TRY


----------



## Manticore

1. type 99
2. Al-Khalid


SPECIFICATIONS
Crew: 3
Weight: 54t
Engine: 1,500hp liquid cooled diesel
Transmission: Mechanical, planetary
Track: Metallic with RMSh, with rubber-tyred road wheels
Suspension: Torsion bar
Radio: Receive/transmit, telephone, laser communications
Dimension: Length: 11.00m; Height: 2.20m; Width: 3.40m
Ground pressure: N/A
Cruising range: 450km, or 600km with external tanks
Speed: Max road 80km/h; max off-road 60km/h; average cross-country 35~40km/h; max swim N/A
Fording depths: 5m with snorkel
Main gun: 125mm smoothbore
Rate of fire: 8 rounds/min (autoloader), 1~2 r/min (manual load)
Elevation/Depression: N/A
Auxiliary weapon: One coaxial 7.62mm machine gun; one 12.7mm air-defence machine gun
Fire control: Laser rangefinder input, onboard computer, wind sensor, and control panel




SPECIFICATIONS
Crew: 3
Weight: 48t
Engine: Ukraine built 6TD 1,200hp liquid cooled diesel
Transmission: Mechanical, planetary
Track: Metallic with RMSh, with rubber-tyred road wheels
Suspension: Torsion bar
Radio: Receive/transmit, telephone
Dimension: Length: 10.07m; Height: 2.40m; Width: 3.50m
Ground Pressure: 26hp/t
Cruising Range: 450km
Speed: Max road 65km/h; max off-road 45km/h
Fording Depths: 5m with snorkel
Main Gun: Indigenous 125mm smoothbore, 39 rounds
Rate of Fire: 8 rounds/min (autoloader), 1~2 r/min (manual load)
Elevation/Depression: N/A
Auxiliary Weapon: One coaxial 7.62mm machine gun; one 12.7mm air-defence machine gun
Fire Control: Laser rangefinder input, onboard computer, wind sensor, and control panel


----------



## maverick1977

SO bottom line is that Pakistan needs to improve the ammunition is used on its tank to penetrate the new generation of Indian T90 tanks? 

Is there any work being done to make that improvment. if Pakistan gets most modern ammunication can they fire it from AK1s and T80UDS ?


----------



## TaimiKhan

maverick1977 said:


> SO bottom line is that Pakistan needs to improve the ammunition is used on its tank to penetrate the new generation of Indian T90 tanks?
> 
> Is there any work being done to make that improvment. if Pakistan gets most modern ammunication can they fire it from AK1s and T80UDS ?



Well it seems the AK-1 recently shown and made has new type of auto loader, which can hold the long rod ammunition, thus giving the fird rounds more velocity and penetration power, which the older russian designed auto loader could not support. 

So if this is true and the new auto loader is put into action, it would enable it to engage targets with good armor protection also, just like what the western ammo can do.


----------



## SBD-3

Super Falcon said:


> so which one u think is bettter



nop I would give both a fair tie


----------



## Super Falcon

AK 2 would be far more better than Abram,leopard and T 90 tank for sure because pakistan wants their military muscle have edge over any indian tank pakisan army wanna built invencible force of tanks into its muscle good thinking but against attack heli they also should have good defence too


----------



## Zarbe Momin

Abraham, Leopard are very good tanks, we should be optimistic that AK 2 could be compareable to these two but better than Abraham and Leopard is questionable *!!!!!*


----------



## maverick1977

taimikhan, i guess AK2 is under production, meanwhile we need to come up with new ammo for our existing tanks to make them faster than 1800m/sec and using cutting edge metallurgical and material technology to design a penetrator to get deep into tanks even if the are equiped with ERA. i guess get 2 different charges, one exploding the ERA and the other one still maintaing the speed above 1800m/sec to give it enough kinetic energy to penetrate the tanks.... 


any details on what 125mm tank Ammo PA uses and their specfications... ??


----------



## Dark Angel

self-delete


----------



## Dark Angel

S-2 said:


> *"i am sure your intel debriefs were as good as the ones which justified the invasion of Iraq again on March 20 2003 on the indisputable facts of WMDs"*
> 
> Actually, you idiot, they were far better. Our sensors had ZERO problems identifying units moving into or out of theatre. Zilch.
> 
> 
> Thanks.




*During the Battle of Phase Line Bullet, American M1 Abrams tanks in the rear fired in support of American troops facing dug-in Iraqi troops. American Infantry Fighting Vehicles were hit by fire from the tanks, resulting in two casualties *


----------



## Arsalan

maverick1977 said:


> *taimikhan, i guess AK2 is under production, *meanwhile we need to come up with new ammo for our existing tanks to make them faster than 1800m/sec and using cutting edge metallurgical and material technology to design a penetrator to get deep into tanks even if the are equiped with ERA. i guess get 2 different charges, one exploding the ERA and the other one still maintaing the speed above 1800m/sec to give it enough kinetic energy to penetrate the tanks....
> 
> 
> any details on what 125mm tank Ammo PA uses and their specfications... ??



sorry to say,
but,
NO!


----------



## Manticore

Leopard 2
Rank : 1
Country of Origin : Germany
Designer : Krauss-Maffei
Manufacturer : Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Maschinenbau Kiel

Specifications :
Weight : 62.3 tonnes
Length : 9.97 m (393 in) (gun forward)
Width : 3.75 m (148 in)
Height : 3.0 m (120 in)
Crew : 4
Armour : 3rd Generation composite; including high-hardness steel, tungsten and plastic filler with ceramic component.
Primary armament : 1 x 120 mm Rheinmetall, L55 smoothbore gun,42 rounds
Secondary armament : 2 x 7.62 mm MG3A1 ,4,750 rounds
Engine : MTU MB 873 Ka-501 liquid-cooled V-12 Twin-turbo diesel engine 1,500 PS (1,479 hp, 1,103 kW) at 2600 rpm
Power/weight : 24.1 PS/t (17.7 kW/t)
Transmission : Renk HSWL 354
Suspension: Torsion-bar suspension
Fuel capacity : 1,200 liters
Operational range : 550 km (340 mi) (internal fuel)
Speed : 72 km/h (45 mph)
Unit cost : US$4,508,353 



M1 Abrams
Rank : 2
Country of Origin : US
Designer : Chrysler Defense, General Motors
Manufacturer : General Dynamics, US

Specifications :
Weight : 67.6 short tons (61.3 t; 60.4 long tons)
Length :Gun forward: 32.04 ft (9.77 m)
Width : 12 ft (3.66 m)
Height : 8 ft (2.44 m)
Crew : 4
Armour : Chobham, RH armor, steel encased depleted uranium mesh plating
Primary armament : 105 mm M68 rifled cannon (M1), 120 mm M256 smoothbore cannon (M1A1, M1A2, M1A2SEP))
Secondary armament : 1 x .50-caliber (12.7 mm) M2HB heavy machine gun 2 x 7.62 mm (.308) M240 machine guns
Engine : Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine 1,500 shp (1,120 kW)
Power/weight : 24.5 hp/metric ton
Transmission : Allison DDA X-1100-3B
Suspension: Torsion bar
Fuel capacity : 500 US gallons (1,900 l; 420 imp gal)
Operational range : 289 mi (465.29 km)
Speed : Road: 42 mph (67.7 km/h), Off-road: 30 mph (48.3 km/h)
Unit cost : US$6.21 million (M1A2 / FY99) 



Challenger 2
Rank : 3
Country of Origin : UK
Designer : BAE Systems Land and Armaments
Manufacturer : BAE Systems Land and Armaments

Specifications :
Weight : 62.5 tonnes (61.5 LT; 68.9 ST)
Length : 8.3 m (27 ft 3 in), 11.50 m (37 ft 9 in) with gun forward
Width : 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in)
Height : 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in)
Crew : 4
Armour : Chobham/Dorchester Level 2 (classified)
Primary armament : L30A1 120 mm rifled gun with 52 rounds
Secondary armament : Coaxial 7.62 mm L94A1 EX-34 (chain gun), 7.62 mm L37A2 Commander's cupola machine gun
Engine : Perkins CV-12 Diesel 1,200 hp (890 kW)
Power/weight : 19.2 hp/t (14.2 kW/t)
Transmission : David Brown TN54 epicyclic transmission (6 fwd, 2 rev.)
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Operational range : 450 km (280 mi)
Speed : 59 km/h (37 mph), 40 km/h (25 mph) off road
Unit cost : US$7,921,000


----------



## Manticore

Merkava Mark IV
Rank : 4
Country of Origin : Israel
Designer : Israel Military Industries
Manufacturer : IDF Ordnance

Specifications :
Weight : 65 tonnes
Length : 9.04 m (29.66 ft): rear to muzzle, 7.60 m (24.93 ft): without gun
Width : 3.72 m (12.2 ft)without skirts
Height : 2.66 m (8.73 ft)turret roof
Crew : 4
Armour : Classified composite matrix of laminated ceramic-steel-nickel alloy. Sloped modular design.
Primary armament : 120 mm (4.7 in) MG253 smoothbore gun, capable of firing LAHAT ATGM
Secondary armament : 1 × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) MG, 2 × 7.62 mm (0.3 in) MG,1 × 60 mm (2.4 in) internal mortar
Engine : 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) turbocharged diesel engine
Power/weight : 23 hp/ton
Transmission : Renk RK 325
Suspension: Helical spring
Fuel capacity : 1400 litres
Operational range : 500 km (311 mi)
Speed : 64 km/h (40 mph) on road, 55 km/h (34 mph) off road
Unit cost : US $5 million 


K2 Black Panther
Rank : 5
Country of Origin : South Korea
Designer : Doosan group, Hyundai Rotem, Samsung Thales / Techwin, Agency of defence development,...
Manufacturer : Doosan conglomerate ( Infracore)

Specifications :
Weight : 55 tonnes (54 long tons; 61 short tons)
Length : 10.8 metres (35 ft 5 in) including gun, 7.5 metres (24 ft 7 in) chassis only
Width : 3.6 metres (11 ft 10 in)
Height : 2.4 metres (7 ft 10 in)
Crew : 3
Armour : Layers consisting of soft- and hard-kill anti-missile defense systems, ERA, NERA, modular
Primary armament : 120 mm (4.72 in.), 55 caliber smoothbore gun (40 rounds)
Secondary armament : 1× 12.7 mm (.50 caliber) K6 heavy machine gun (3,200 rounds),1× 7.62 mm (.30 caliber) coaxial machine gun
Engine : 4-cycle, 12-cylinder water-cooled diesel 1,500 hp
Power/weight : 27.3 hp/tonne
Suspension: In-arm Suspension Unit
Fuel capacity : 1,000 liters
Operational range : 450 kilometres (280 mi)
Speed : 70 km/h (44 mph) (road),50 km/h (cross country),(acceleration of 032 km/h [020 mph] within 7 seconds)
Unit cost : US$7.1 million 



Type 90
Rank : 6
Country of Origin : Japan
Designer : Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Manufacturer : Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Specifications :
Weight : 50.2 tonnes
Length : 9.755 m
Width : 3.33 m
Height : 2.33 m
Crew : 3
Armour : Modular ceramic/steel composite armour
Primary armament : Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun with automatic loader 35 rounds
Secondary armament : M2HB 12.7 mm machine gun 1,500 rounds, 7.62mm machine gun Type 74 2,000 rounds
Engine : Mitsubishi 10ZG 10-cylinder, two-stroke cycle Diesel 21500cc
Power/weight : 29.9 hp/tonne
Transmission : Mitsubishi MT1500 automatic transmission (4 forward gears, 2 reverse gears )
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Fuel capacity : 1,100 L
Operational range : 350 km
Speed : 70 km/h (acceleration: 0200 m in 20 s)
Unit cost : US$ 7.4 million


----------



## Manticore

Leclerc
Rank : 7
Country of Origin : France
Designer : Nexter
Manufacturer : Nexter

Specifications :
Weight : 54.5 tonnes
Length : 9.87 m (6.88 without gun)
Width : 3.71 m
Height :2.53 m
Crew : 3
Armour : Steel, titanium, NERA
Primary armament : GIAT CN120-26/52, 120mm tank gun, 40 rounds (1 round ready to fire in the chamber
Secondary armament : 12.7 mm coaxial M2HB machine gun, 1,100 rounds, 7.62mm machine gun, 3,000 rounds
Engine : 8-cylinder diesel Wärtsilä 1,500 hp (1,100 kW)
Power/weight : 27.52 hp/tonne
Transmission : Automatic SESM ESM500
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Fuel capacity : 1,000 liters
Operational range : 550 km, 650 km (400 mi) with external fuel
Speed : 71 km/h (44 mph)
Unit cost : &#8355; 29,000,000 in 


Type 99
Rank : 8
Country of Origin : China
Designer : Norinco
Manufacturer : Norinco

Specifications :
Weight : 58 tonnes
Length : 11.0 m
Width : 3.4 m
Height : 2.2 m
Crew : 3
Armour : Classified
Primary armament : 125 mm smoothbore tank gun, compatible with Chinese 140mm guns
Secondary armament : Type 85 heavy machine gun 12.7x108 mm commander's machine gun, 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun
Engine : Liquid-cooled diesel 1,500 hp (1,100 kW); 2,100 hp for Type 99KM
Power/weight : 27.8 hp/tonne; 28 hp/tonne for Type 99KM
Suspension: Torsion-bar suspension
Operational range : 600 km
Speed : 80 km/h (50 mph)
Unit cost : US $ 2,500,000 



T-90
Rank : 9
Country of Origin : Russia
Designer : Kartsev-Venediktov
Manufacturer : Uralvagonzavod

Specifications :
Weight : 46.5 tonnes (45.8 LT; 51.3 ST)
Length : 9.53 m (31 ft 3 in)
Width : 3.78 m (12 ft 5 in)
Height : 2.22 m (7 ft 3 in)
Crew : 3
Armour : Steel-composite-reactive blend
Primary armament : 125 mm smoothbore gun with ATGM capability; mainly 9M119 Svir
Secondary armament : 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun, 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun
Engine : 1,250 hp (919 kW) for V-96 12-cyl. diesel engine[
Power/weight : 26.9 hp/tonne (19.8 kW/tonne)
Transmission : Renk HSWL 354
Suspension: Torsion-bar
Operational range : 550 km (340 mi) (internal fuel)
Speed : 60 km/h (37 mph)
Unit cost : US $2.23 million


----------



## Manticore

K1 A1
Rank : 10
Country of Origin : South Korea
Designer : General Dynamics
Manufacturer : Hyundai Rotem

Specifications :
Weight : 60.1 short tons
Length : 9.71 m
Width : 3.60 m
Height : 2.25 m
Crew : 4
Armour : Composite
Primary armament : KM256 120 mm (32 rounds)
Secondary armament : 12.7 mm K6 HMG on right pintle mount for commander , 7.62 mm M60D on left pintle mount for loader
Engine : 10-cyl. water-cooled diesel MTU 871 Ka-501, 1200 hp (890 kW) at 2600 rpm
Power/weight : 22.0 hp/ton
Transmission : ZF LSG 3000 (Four forward, two reverse)
Suspension: Hydropneumatic at front, torsion bar at rear of the chassis
Operational range : 500 km
Speed : 65 km/h (road), 40 km/h (cross country)
Unit cost : 4,400,000,000 Won 


Type 90-II (MBT-2000 / Al Khalid)
Rank : 11
Country of Origin : China
Designer : Norinco, Factory 617
Manufacturer : Norinco (MBT-2000) , Heavy Industries Taxila ( Pakistan)

Specifications :
Crew: 3
Weight: 48t
Engine: Ukraine built 6TD 1,200hp liquid cooled diesel
Transmission: Mechanical, planetary
Suspension: Torsion bar
Ground Pressure: 26hp/t
Main Gun: Indigenous 125mm smoothbore, 39 rounds
Auxiliary Weapon: One coaxial 7.62mm machine gun; one 12.7mm air-defence machine gun
Operating range: 450km
Speed: Max road 65km/h; max off-road 45km/h
Unit Cost : US $2.23 million


PT-91
Rank : 12
Country of Origin : Poland
Designer : OBRUM
Manufacturer : Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Maschinenbau Kiel

Specifications :
Weight : 45.9 tonnes
Length : 6.95 m (9.67 with barrel in forward position)
Width : 3.59 m
Height : 2.19 m
Crew : 3
Armour : composite armour; front and side armor laminated; front, side and top armor behind Erawa-1/Erawa-2 ERA
Primary armament : 1 x 125mm 2A46M (D-81TM) gun (42 rounds)[
Secondary armament : 1 x 7.62mm PKT coaxial general purpose machine gun (2000 rounds)
Engine : 1000 hp (746 kW)
Power/weight : 21.9 hp/tonne (16.3 kW/tonne)
Transmission : Manual
Suspension: Torsion-bar suspension
Fuel capacity : 1,000 liters
Operational range : 550 km
Speed : 60 km/h
Unit cost : US$ 3.68 million 


New Arrivals : Arjun
Rank : N/A
Status : Last phase of designing
Country of Origin : India
Designer : CVRDE, DRDO, TATA Conglomerate
Manufacturer : Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai

Specifications :
Weight : 58.5 tonnes (57.6 long tons; 64.5 short tons)
Length : 10.638 metres (34 ft 10.8 in)
Width : 3.864 metres (12 ft 8.1 in)
Height : 2.32 metres (7 ft 7 in)
Crew : 4 (commander, gunner, loader and driver)
Armor : Steel/composite Kanchan armour.
Primary armament : 120 mm rifled tank gun, LAHAT anti-tank missile, HEAT, APFSDS, HESH Rounds
Secondary armament : HCB 12.7 mm AA MG, Mag 7.62 mm Tk715 coaxial MG
Engine : MTU 838 Ka 501 diesel, 1,400 hp (1,040 kW)
Power/weight : 26 hp/tonne
Transmission: Renk epicyclic train gearbox, 4 fwd + 2 rev gears
Suspension : Hydropneumatic
Ground clearance : 0.45 metres (1 ft 6 in)
Fuel capacity : 1,610 litres (350 imp gal; 430 US gal)
Operational range : 450 kilometres (280 mi)
Speed : 72 km/h (45 mph) Road, 40 km/h (25 mph) cross country
Unit cost : US$3.8M


*source- china daily*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## graphican

ANTIBODY said:


> K1 A1
> Rank : 10
> Country of Origin : South Korea
> Designer : General Dynamics
> Manufacturer : Hyundai Rotem
> 
> Specifications :
> Weight : 60.1 short tons
> Length : 9.71 m
> Width : 3.60 m
> Height : 2.25 m
> Crew : 4
> Armour : Composite
> Primary armament : KM256 120 mm (32 rounds)
> Secondary armament : 12.7 mm K6 HMG on right pintle mount for commander , 7.62 mm M60D on left pintle mount for loader
> Engine : 10-cyl. water-cooled diesel MTU 871 Ka-501, 1200 hp (890 kW) at 2600 rpm
> Power/weight : 22.0 hp/ton
> Transmission : ZF LSG 3000 (Four forward, two reverse)
> Suspension: Hydropneumatic at front, torsion bar at rear of the chassis
> Operational range : 500 km
> Speed : 65 km/h (road), 40 km/h (cross country)
> Unit cost : 4,400,000,000 Won
> 
> 
> Type 90-II (MBT-2000 / Al Khalid)
> Rank : 11
> Country of Origin : China
> Designer : Norinco, Factory 617
> Manufacturer : Norinco (MBT-2000) , Heavy Industries Taxila ( Pakistan)
> 
> Specifications :
> Crew: 3
> Weight: 48t
> Engine: Ukraine built 6TD 1,200hp liquid cooled diesel
> Transmission: Mechanical, planetary
> Suspension: Torsion bar
> Ground Pressure: 26hp/t
> Main Gun: Indigenous 125mm smoothbore, 39 rounds
> Auxiliary Weapon: One coaxial 7.62mm machine gun; one 12.7mm air-defence machine gun
> Operating range: 450km
> Speed: Max road 65km/h; max off-road 45km/h
> Unit Cost : US $2.23 million
> 
> 
> PT-91
> Rank : 12
> Country of Origin : Poland
> Designer : OBRUM
> Manufacturer : Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Maschinenbau Kiel
> 
> Specifications :
> Weight : 45.9 tonnes
> Length : 6.95 m (9.67 with barrel in forward position)
> Width : 3.59 m
> Height : 2.19 m
> Crew : 3
> Armour : composite armour; front and side armor laminated; front, side and top armor behind Erawa-1/Erawa-2 ERA
> Primary armament : 1 x 125mm 2A46M (D-81TM) gun (42 rounds)[
> Secondary armament : 1 x 7.62mm PKT coaxial general purpose machine gun (2000 rounds)
> Engine : 1000 hp (746 kW)
> Power/weight : 21.9 hp/tonne (16.3 kW/tonne)
> Transmission : Manual
> Suspension: Torsion-bar suspension
> Fuel capacity : 1,000 liters
> Operational range : 550 km
> Speed : 60 km/h
> Unit cost : US$ 3.68 million
> 
> 
> *New Arrivals : Arjun
> Rank : N/A
> Status : Last phase of designing*
> Country of Origin : India
> Designer : CVRDE, DRDO, TATA Conglomerate
> Manufacturer : Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai
> 
> Specifications :
> Weight : 58.5 tonnes (57.6 long tons; 64.5 short tons)
> Length : 10.638 metres (34 ft 10.8 in)
> Width : 3.864 metres (12 ft 8.1 in)
> Height : 2.32 metres (7 ft 7 in)
> Crew : 4 (commander, gunner, loader and driver)
> Armor : Steel/composite Kanchan armour.
> Primary armament : 120 mm rifled tank gun, LAHAT anti-tank missile, HEAT, APFSDS, HESH Rounds
> Secondary armament : HCB 12.7 mm AA MG, Mag 7.62 mm Tk715 coaxial MG
> Engine : MTU 838 Ka 501 diesel, 1,400 hp (1,040 kW)
> Power/weight : 26 hp/tonne
> Transmission: Renk epicyclic train gearbox, 4 fwd + 2 rev gears
> Suspension : Hydropneumatic
> Ground clearance : 0.45 metres (1 ft 6 in)
> Fuel capacity : 1,610 litres (350 imp gal; 430 US gal)
> Operational range : 450 kilometres (280 mi)
> Speed : 72 km/h (45 mph) Road, 40 km/h (25 mph) cross country
> Unit cost : US$3.8M
> *source- china daily*



Indians are not going to appreciate this analysis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ammyy

graphican said:


> Indians are not going to appreciate this analysis.



you need comment or want to burn the thread .... i dnt know whats the criteria to make any member senior member ????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## flanker143

this ranking is totally biased ..... not even worth commenting ....
dunno on what basis this ranking is being done !!!



> New Arrivals : Arjun
> Rank : N/A
> *Status : Last phase of designing*
> 
> *source- china daily*



this shows the credibility of china daily !!!!


----------



## Manticore

graphican said:


> Indians are not going to appreciate this analysis.



even our alkhalid is not in the top10 according to china daily-- but it was an informative old article --- i hope militery professionals can shed some light on the rankings in an unbiased fashion

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

CHIORNY ORIOL (BLACK EAGLE) Main Battle Tank

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/640.jpg

Quote:

A new Russian MBT named Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle) was shown for the first time at the second VTTV-Omsk-97 International Exhibition of Armaments, Military Equipment and Conversion Products held in September '97 in Omsk, Siberia region, Russia.

Until recently, there were hardly any details about the tank except for a couple of words and a poster on the Defendory 1998 held in Greece.

According to the information I have, this tank is being developed in cooperation with and for export to S.Korea and may even feature Korean thermal imagers. It will not be fielded with the Russian Army and seems to be entirely an initiative of Omsk Plant. It originates from the now-closed Nikolai Popov's design bureau at Leningrad Kirov Plant (LKZ) and is now developed by Alexander Morozov.

The tank is built on a T-80U chassis and will borrow most of its components including FCS from T-80U.

The most significant difference between the new tank and T-80 is the completely redesigned turret (at Omsk'97 a full-sized mock-up was presented) and the lengthened hull with 7 roadwheels per side.

The new turret will have a larger degree of protection than the current Russian MBTs. The steep slope of forward armor plates on the turret reflects designers' desire to maximize protection from APFSDS rounds in a duel situation, when tanks fight "face to face".

For additional protection, the tank is fitted with Kaktus ERA and the new Drozd-2 APS.

It was originally planned to install a 152 mm gun that is being developed for a future Russian MBT. However, since this tank is not going to be fielded with the Russian Army, it carries a 125 mm 2A46M-series gun.

Another innovation is a new automated ammo storage/loader, located in a turret bustle. It is separated from crew compartment by an armored bulkhead which greatly increases crew survivability. This design has several reasons. First, the Chechen war has shown that the carousel used in T-72/T-80/T-90 is too prone to ammo detonation when penetrated, invariably killing the crew. Second, adopted configuration also reduces Black Eagle's height by 400 mm by comparison with the T-80 (Perhaps a typo here, since this means that the tank is a mere 1.8 meters in height). Finally, horizontal ammunition arrangement in the turret bustle permits using longer (and therefore, more powerful) APFSDS rounds, unitary ammunition, simplified automatic loading process and increased rate of fire (expected to reach 10-12 rds/min).

Black Eagle's on-board information system monitors all essential systems of the vehicle, and permits automated data exchange with other tanks and headquarters.

The tank shall have a new 1200 hp 16-cyl. turbo-diesel engine and shall weigh around 50 tons.

VTTV-Omsk-99 exhibition have finally revealed the complete vehicle (referred by KBMZ as Item 640) without any netting. Several features became immediately apparent. It was apparent for the first time that the vehicle's hull is not taken directly from T-80U as was originally believed, but was significantly redesigned, the obvious change being the 7th roadwheel. It seems that most of the additional length has gone into the raised front hull protection and greater glacis obliquity. It also raises doubts if the tank indeed stays in Class 50. The active protection system appears to be Drozd, not Arena, derivative. Although the tank indeed carries the 2A46M maingun, it was stated that provision is made for installation of a new 152mm maingun. This implies that Omsk still hopes to win the hearts of the Russian military with this new tank.


----------



## Jigs

I though that list posted by ANTIBODY gave the pretty good round up of the tanks. You just can't beat the Leopard 2A6.


Also thought i would throw this in from this armor protection website these are non ERA equipped protection levels of the Arjun and Al-Khalid. 




Arjun Turret: 500-570mm
Glacis: 410mm	

Al Khalid	Turret: 645 mm
Glacis: 435-455mm


As far as tank tonnage to armor level goes the Arjun is pretty bad in this area. For example being 58 tons when you compare that to the Leopard 2A6 below which is 62.3 tons. 


Leopard2A6
Turret: 920-940mm
Glacis: 620mm

These are estimates btw since i am sure real numbers are most likely classified.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IND151

Super Falcon said:


> for me arjun stands in the class of T 72 may be im wrong but no one seems to be interested in it



*Arjun is much superior than t 72. *weight of t 72 is 41.5 tons. ARJUN weighs 58.5 tons and newer version will weigh more due to inclusion of era. *it fires sophisticated LAHAT ATGMs and its ground pressure is lower than al Khalid. *


----------



## Mani2020

IND151 said:


> *Arjun is much superior than t 72. **weight of t 72 is 41.5 tons. ARJUN weighs 58.5 tons* and newer version will weigh more due to inclusion of era. *it fires sophisticated LAHAT ATGMs and its ground pressure is lower than al Khalid. *



So you judge the superiority of a tank on the base of more weight lol?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xMustiiej70

weight means 99.9% of times bette protection.
but more critical parts of tank vs tank comparison is manouevrebility and firepower


----------



## IND151

Mani2020 said:


> *So you judge the superiority of a tank on the base of more weight lol?*



no sir i judge the superiority of a tank on the base of how sophisticated equipments it has got. *super falcon posted that Arjun comes in class of t 72*. i corrected him and showed differences between two and showed that *Arjun is far superior than t 72*. next time read my post completely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

Jigs said:


> I though that list posted by ANTIBODY gave the pretty good round up of the tanks. You just can't beat the Leopard 2A6.


Mighty ammo protection of Leopard 2:


----------



## mautkimaut

Jigs said:


> I though that list posted by ANTIBODY gave the pretty good round up of the tanks. You just can't beat the Leopard 2A6.
> 
> 
> Also thought i would throw this in from this armor protection website these are non ERA equipped protection levels of the Arjun and Al-Khalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arjun Turret: 500-570mm
> Glacis: 410mm
> 
> Al Khalid	Turret: 645 mm
> Glacis: 435-455mm
> 
> 
> As far as tank tonnage to armor level goes the Arjun is pretty bad in this area. For example being 58 tons when you compare that to the Leopard 2A6 below which is 62.3 tons.
> 
> 
> Leopard2A6
> Turret: 920-940mm
> Glacis: 620mm
> 
> These are estimates btw since i am sure real numbers are most likely classified.



AFAIK armour is classified for both the tanks.

How do you know.

Give source URL


----------



## GUNS-N- ROSES

niaz said:


> My thanks to you are due the fact that Arjun verses Khalid is probably a better discussion point as T-90 is purely Russian. Arjun on the other hand is totally indigenous and Khalid also incorporates a lot of indigenous effort.
> 
> IMO, on paper Arjun, if the engine and heating problems can be resolved, with better protection and 10 tons heavier, appears to be superior to Al Khalid.
> 
> You might remember that M-1 Abrams was tested by PA during Zia time (Zia lost his life on the way back from the tests in Bhawalpur desert) and was rejected. Understand M-1 was found to be too heavy for our road bridges and for fighting on the mud flats of Punjab.
> 
> I am pretty sure that DRD must have taken all of this into consideration when designing Arjun. Nevertheless, I believe that whereas on the dry sands of Rajasthan desert; Arjun may prove more effective, on the irrigated soft mud plains of Punjab (Gurdaspur/Shakargarh are where Chowinda battle was fought) 55 tons weight of Arjun will be an impediment to its mobility. Al Khalid on the other hand is only 46 tons, therefore should score over Arjun in mobility if not in anything else.



niaz bhai arjun has a very low weight to area ratio. so even if the weight is quite high at 55 tonnes, the weight per cm sqaure is less cas arjun is very wide hence in my opinion mobility will not be much affected. although, i think with less weight, al khalid might out perform arjun in sheer speed.


----------



## Jigs

mautkimaut said:


> AFAIK armour is classified for both the tanks.
> 
> How do you know.
> 
> Give source URL



These are estimates from a armor website. Which i said in the post none of these are actual values.


----------



## Jigs

500 said:


> Mighty ammo protection of Leopard 2:



What are you trying to point out ? Are you saying the Leopard 2 is not very well armored. Your only going to convince yourself if that is the case. The armor composition is great on the tank. I would be inclined to stick with it over what happened to the Merkava in Lebanon.


----------



## 500

Jigs said:


> What are you trying to point out ? Are you saying the Leopard 2 is not very well armored. Your only going to convince yourself if that is the case. The armor composition is great on the tank. I would be inclined to stick with it over what happened to the Merkava in Lebanon.


I showed that ammo protection of Leopard 2 is very weak. You can not believe clear pic and believe in forum boys estimates. Its up to you. I dont deal with beliefs.


----------



## Jigs

500 said:


> I showed that ammo protection of Leopard 2 is very weak. You can not believe clear pic and believe in forum boys estimates. Its up to you. I dont deal with beliefs.



Nor facts it seems. Showing me a picture of some hollowed out ammo compartment as the composition of the Tank doesn't back much if anything. Nor could you if you wanted considering its all classified. So it is better if you give it a rest unless your ok with playing the estimate game. Then your free to do so.


----------



## 500

Jigs said:


> Nor facts it seems.


Pic that I posted *is fact*.
Estimates by forum boys are not fact.

Here another fact:


----------



## xMustiiej70

to be honest i dont see antything on that picture?


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Leapord 2 is the ultimate tank right now...anyone wanna dispute it...then I am up for it...


----------



## Jigs

500 said:


> Pic that I posted *is fact*.
> Estimates by forum boys are not fact.
> 
> Here another fact:



No, It isn't. It tells nothing it could very well be a mock up at some defense exhibition. Please no need to fool yourself.


----------



## xMustiiej70

why not post a picture of a tank in real battle that has been shot or simple bullets were through???
this is just a mock-up or a piece of the tank disassembled without real combat exprience...
wtf?


----------



## 500

Jigs said:


> No, It isn't. It tells nothing it could very well be a mock up at some defense exhibition. Please no need to fool yourself.


Its not mock up.


----------



## mautkimaut

Jigs said:


> These are estimates from a armor website. Which i said in the post none of these are actual values.



Could you share the link?

because from what I have read, Arjun was able to withstand a direct hit from T-72,Now T-72 gun is very similiar to Al-Khalid, so if you can give a source which says other wise let me know


----------



## Jigs

mautkimaut said:


> Could you share the link?
> 
> because from what I have read, Arjun was able to withstand a direct hit from T-72,Now T-72 gun is very similiar to Al-Khalid, so if you can give a source which says other wise let me know



Tank Protection Levels


----------



## 500



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## alimobin memon

Arjun	
K-E
Turret: 500-570
Glacis: 410	
C-E
Turret: 650-830
Glacis:730
Al Khalid
K-E
Turret: 645 
Glacis: 435-455	
C-E
Turret: 1060 (1160 w/ERA)
Glacis: 540 (670w/ERA)

---------- Post added at 11:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------

AK ARMOUR IS BETTER THAN ARJUN ESTIMATES SAY!


----------



## IND151

Moscow said:


> The following is a comparison between the T-90S/ Bhishma MBT and the Pakistani Al Khalid. The T-90M, which the Indian Army will be receiving by the year's end is an improved version of the T-90 series with welded turret, V-92S2 engine and ESSA thermal viewer as opposed to the T-90S, which was a simplified export version with cast turret, R-173 radio, 1V528 computer and V-84-1 engine.
> 
> Crew
> 
> AL-Khalid = 3
> T-90S = 3
> 
> Combat Weight
> 
> Al-Khalid = 48,000 kg
> T-90S = 46,500 kg
> 
> Engine
> 
> Al-Khalid = 1200 horsepower
> *T-90S = 840 horsepower
> *
> Maximum Speed
> 
> Al-Khalid = 72 km/hr
> T-90S = 65 km/hr
> 
> Maximum Range
> 
> Al-Khalid = 450 kms
> T-90S = 500
> 
> Vertical Obstacle
> 
> Al-Khalid = 0.85 m
> T-90S = 0.85
> 
> Fording
> 
> Al-Khalid = without preparation 1.4 metres
> T-90S = without preparation 1.2 metres
> 
> Trench
> 
> Al-Khalid = 2.7 m
> T-90S = 2.8 m
> 
> 
> Armament
> 
> Al-Khalid
> 
> (main): 1 x 125 mm gun 125mm Smooth Bore, Chrome Plated, Auto fret aged
> Circular Carousel Type: (Cassette Type) 22 Rounds / Minute 6-8
> 
> FCS/GCS : Type: Image Stabilized (3rd generation director type stabilization), Optics: LASER protected (coaxial): 1 x 7.62 mm MG
> (anti-aircraft): 1 x 12.7 mm MG
> Smoke grenade dischargers: 2 x 6, can also lay smoke screen by injecting diesel into the exhaust outlets at the rear
> 
> GUNNER SIGHT : Type Integrated, Bi-axis Stabilized Day/Night, Tl, LRF
> Magnification Dual, 3x &amp; 1 Ox
> Field of View 20Â° &amp; 6Â°
> 
> COMMANDER SIGHT:
> Type Panoramic,
> Bi-Axis stabilized,
> 
> LRF, 2nd Generation IIT
> Hunter-Killer Capability
> Magnification 7.5x
> Field of View 7 . 5
> LRF : Type ND YAG
> Range200 ~ 5000m
> AUTO TRACKER: Tracking Error &lt; 0.1 mils Interfaced with Gunner Day Sight &amp; Tl
> 
> 
> T-90S
> 
> 1 x 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun with 43 rounds.
> ...............1 x 12.7mm NSVT anti-aircraft gun with 300 rounds. [1]
> ...............1 x 7.62mm PKT co-axial machine gun with 2000 rounds.
> ...............1 x 5.45mm AKS-74 rifle, carried on storage rack, with 300 rounds.[2]
> 
> [1] The 12.7mm NSVT, mounted on the commander's contra-rotating copula which can be aimed and fired under complete armour protection, uses the PZU-7 machine gun sight and the 1ETs29 (with vertical stabilization) machine gun FCS (Fire Control System).
> 
> [2] The locally-produced 5.56mm INSAS Assault Rifle will likely be used instead.
> 
> 
> Smoke Grenade Launchers: Mounted either side of the turret is a bank of six electrically operated 81mm smoke grenade launchers which are in a new low-angle configuration compared to those fitted to earlier Russian MBTs. The quick forming aerosol screening system comprises the four laser radiation sensors (two coarse and two fine receiving heads), the Type 902A Aerosol Forming Grenade Launch System dispensing 81mm 3D17 aerosol grenades and associated controls. The aerosol screening system detects laser illumination, determines its direction and type (laser range-finder or designator), generates warning signals, both audio and visual, and lays in automatic or semi-automatic modes, quick forming aerosol screens within three seconds at a distance of 50 to 80 metres from the tank. In addition, the tank can also lay its own smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust outlet located on the left side of the hull.
> 
> The 2A46M smoothbore gun is stabilised (Zhasmin 2E42-4 system) in two axes and is fitted with a thermal sleeve. The gun tube can be replaced without a need for dismantling inside the turret. The gun can fire various ammunition including APFSDS-T (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot - Tracer), HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank), HE-FRAG (High Explosive Fragmentation) as well as shrapnel projectiles with time fuzes. In addition it can also fire a special HE-FRAG projectile that can be detonated over the target using the tank's fire-control system. Maximum rate of fire is at 7 rounds per minute. The gun can also fire the 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missile system. The range of the missile is 75 to 5000 metres and takes 14.2 seconds to reach maximum range. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5 km. Hit probability is over 80%. The missile system fires either the 9M119 (3UBK14 weapon system) or the 9M119M (3UBK20 weapon system) missiles which have semi-automatic laser beam riding guidance and a hollow charge warhead. Missile weight is 23.4 kg. The gun's automatic loader will feed both ordnance and missiles.
> 
> Self-Protection
> 
> The hull and turret are protected by both conventional armour-plating and the latest generation Kontakt-5 ERA which provides protection against APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) and HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) type projectiles. In addition to being fitted to the hull and turret, ERA panels are also fitted either side of the hull front to provide lateral protection to each side of the driver's compartment. The tank also has NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) protection equipment. The TShU1-7 Shtora-1 countermeasures system is not fitted.
> 
> Fire Control & Observation
> 
> The T-90S has the 1A45T IFCS (Integrated Fire Control System) which is automatic, but has a manual override for the commander. The IFCS comprises the gunner's day/night fire-control system, gunner's IR sight or thermal imaging sight, and commander's day/night sight-observation system. The fire control system comprises day sight-rangefinder with missile guidance channel, armament stabilizer and ballistic computer. The system is used by the commander for gun and machine gun fire control.
> 
> Propulsion
> 
> *The T-90S will be powered by a 1,000 hp V-92S2 four-stroke V-12 diesel engine. This new engine, fitted with a turbo-supercharger, offers impressive specific power and specific fuel consumption characteristics.* The tank can carry up to 1600 litres of fuel in the main, armour plated fuel tanks and fuel drums. The tank is provided with a snorkel for deep fording (up to 5 metres of water) with equipment which can be deployed in 20 minutes. The mechanical transmission includes primary reduction gear, two planetary final gearboxes and two planetary final drives. The running gear features torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers at 1, 2 and 6 road wheel stations and tracks with rubber-metallic pin hinges.
> 
> Miscellaneous Information
> 
> A new track has been developed and tested for the T-90S that not only has a longer life but also has replaceable rubber pads that can be quickly removed. Standard equipment includes NBC protection, fire detection & suppression system, nose-mounted dozer blade and a deep fording kit. The tank is fitted with an air conditioning system for operations in high ambient temperatures.
> 
> 
> 
> link :-withheld



1000 hp engine has been already installed in T 90S tanks in indian army.


----------



## IND151

metalfalcon said:


> @ Moscow.
> 
> According to your data Given above i have observed that Al-Khalid has a Slight Edge over T-90, Am i Correct in my Analysis ?



al Khalid may have edge over T 90S. *but indian army has ordered T 90M from Russia, which is 50% more effective than T90s.* zravar has already proved T 90M is superior to al Khalid.


----------



## xMustiiej70

explain how its 50% more effective.
sounds like you need to explain this magic calculation


----------



## IND151

> posted by xMustiiej70
> explain how its 50% more effective.
> sounds like you need to explain this magic calculation


 *posted by zraver
*
http://www.defence.pk/forums/440485-post50.html






> Originally Posted by nightrider_saulat
> so in present situation we have al-khalid and t-85 tanks in our
> army to face-off against indian t-90bhishmas
> am i correct khan sahab?
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan -
> 
> Planned- AKII
> 1st rate- AK, T-80UD
> 2nd rate- AZ, T-85IIAP
> 3rd rate- Type 59 and 69 (reserve formations and infantry support)
> 
> India-
> 
> Planned- Arjun Mk 2
> 1st rate- T-90M
> 2nd rate- T-90S, Arjun
> 3rd rate- T-72
> 4th rate- Vijayanta, T-55 (reserve formations and infantry support)
> 
> *The newest T-90 version ordered by India is a beast. it has a Swedish APS, Kacktus HERA, uses Kachan ceramic inserts, the improved auto-loader, Israeli climate controls, and an improved French/Russian FCS, improved 2A46m5 L56 125mm gun with MRS.* Not sure when they will start rolling out in numbers. However they will outnumber the T-90S being second only to the T-72 in number of total systems of front line equipment (677 T-90M vs 310 T-90S or 124 Arjun)
> 
> *The T-90M is bad news for Pakistan. It gives India a tank that is arguably one of the best in the world. If India gets the newer Russian rounds like the 3BM42M/3BM46 etc so that gun power matches the tanks other strengths.....
> *
> *The T-90M threatens to throw the whole regional balance out of whack. It gives India the same type of technological edge on the ground that the IAF enjoys in the air. China doesn't really have a counter to offer, not even the latest Type 99.* Pakistan needs to start looking at ways she can defend herself that do not require a head to head win to achieve victory. These include political allies, technologies where Pakistan can jump ahead and stay ahead etc. India leads in numbers, tanks, planes and long range rocket artillery.
> 
> Some areas include getting the AH-64D Longbow. The Longbow can fire from behind cover using buddy laze meaning the hellfires can wreak hell without exposing the helicopters to the Indian ADA which includes dedicated anti-helo platforms like the Tunguska. Other options include the Eurocopter Tiger ARH or UHT which has the same capability. or the WZ10 but with the MMW FCS on a mast mount for the HJ-10 heavy ATGM.
> 
> With attack helicopters, Pakistan would need a better air defense net to keep the Indian fighters and fighter bombers at bay. The FC2000 does this to a great extent, and the MBDA 2000 will help over the direct battlefield. The SAM's also help even the odds in the air over Pakistan. India is unlikely to risk its SU-30MKI in a low level tactical role, or risk them to close up high in range of the FC2000. This gives the PAF the chance to keep the IAF busy. The PAF won't win, its a numbers game, but they should be able to let the attack helicopters work
Click to expand...


----------



## xMustiiej70

source????


----------



## xMustiiej70

nevermind found some sources.
look good but how effective is this aiganst al khalid II or will it boost the indian tank capabilities that much?


----------



## 500

ANTIBODY said:


> i searched for top ten tanks and did not find alkhalid there.. i also dont know at which rank the alkhalid stand.
> 
> 
> *please compare the specs of alkhalid with these tanks*
> leopard,
> t84,
> t80 ud
> t72
> m84..
> t90
> type99
> challenger etc


Too much tanks and too much modifications for each to compare.



> like the aircrafts, is there a 4th/ 5th gen category division in tanks aswell?


Here tank generations:

*1 gen:* 88-100 mm gun, 150-200 mm steel armor. (T-54/55, Centurion, M47/48).

*2 gen:* 105-115 mm gun, more thick steel armor. Active night vision, automatic fire supression systems, stereoscopic range finders, gun stabilization, mechanical ballistic computer.... (T-62, M60, Leopard 1, AMX-30)

*3 gen:* composite armor, 120-125 mm gun with APFSDS rounds, automatic FCS, laser range finders, thermal sight, protected ammo, high power to weight ratio (M1A1, Leopard 2, T-80, T-90, Challenger, Merkava 3, Type 99, Al Khalid, Arjun...)

*3+ gen:* independent thermal sight for TC (hunter kill option), battle management system, improved armor, fully electrical turret drive (M1A2, Leopard 2A5, Challenger 2, Merkava 4, Leclerc)

------------------

There are also tanks that fall in the middle. For example T-72 and Chieftain had powerful guns and armor, but had weak FCS and underpowered.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TaimiKhan

500 said:


> Too much tanks and too much modifications for each to compare.
> 
> 
> Here tank generations:
> 
> *1 gen:* 88-100 mm gun, 150-200 mm steel armor. (T-54/55, Centurion, M47/48).
> 
> *2 gen:* 105-115 mm gun, more thick steel armor. Active night vision, automatic fire supression systems, stereoscopic range finders, gun stabilization, mechanical ballistic computer.... (T-62, M60, Leopard 1, AMX-30)
> 
> *3 gen:* composite armor, 120-125 mm gun with APFSDS rounds, automatic FCS, laser range finders, thermal sight, protected ammo, high power to weight ratio (M1A1, Leopard 2, T-80, T-90, Challenger, Merkava 3, Type 99, Al Khalid, Arjun...)
> 
> *3+ gen:* independent thermal sight for TC (hunter kill option), battle management system, improved armor, fully electrical turret drive (M1A2, Leopard 2A5, Challenger 2, Merkava 4, Leclerc)
> 
> ------------------
> 
> There are also tanks that fall in the middle. For example T-72 and Chieftain had powerful guns and armor, but had weak FCS and underpowered.



Well Al Khalid had some of the already 3+ gen capabilities, hunter-killer capability, IBMS Rahbar, thus AK can be in between the 3rd & 3+ gen of tanks. 

But hopefully the AK-I would be a further improvement compared to the earlier model and has better specifications.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## alimobin memon

TaimiKhan said:


> Well Al Khalid had some of the already 3+ gen capabilities, hunter-killer capability, IBMS Rahbar, thus AK can be in between the 3rd & 3+ gen of tanks.
> 
> But hopefully the AK-I would be a further improvement compared to the earlier model and has better specifications.


ALKHALID
is 3rd gen


----------



## Mani2020

alimobin memon said:


> ALKHALID
> is 3rd gen



lol you should have concerned wikipedia


----------



## TaimiKhan

alimobin memon said:


> ALKHALID
> is 3rd gen



Read carefully what i wrote.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jigs

TaimiKhan said:


> Well Al Khalid had some of the already 3+ gen capabilities, hunter-killer capability, IBMS Rahbar, thus AK can be in between the 3rd & 3+ gen of tanks.
> 
> But hopefully the AK-I would be a further improvement compared to the earlier model and has better specifications.



A C4I system for the AK tanks would be a good option to put in. I have seen this more and more on newer tanks.

Similar to this

YouTube - Japan New 44ton MBT (Main Battle Tank) Type10 Tank Prototype (TK-X) Test - English News


----------



## Desert Fox

TaimiKhan said:


> Well Al Khalid had some of the already 3+ gen capabilities, hunter-killer capability, IBMS Rahbar, thus AK can be in between the 3rd & 3+ gen of tanks.
> 
> But hopefully the AK-I would be a further improvement compared to the earlier model and has better specifications.



a respected member on this forum (Blackblood i think it was) mentioned in early 2010 that Pakistan has already started serial production of Al-Khalid I.


----------



## TaimiKhan

SilentNinja said:


> a respected member on this forum (Blackblood i think it was) mentioned in early 2010 that Pakistan has already started serial production of Al-Khalid I.



Nops, as far as my last info, till a few months back, the PA had not yet even field tested the AK-1 (the one which we saw in the CJCSC's HIT visit), as it was short of funding. The plans to test it were to have been started at the end of 2010 or this year, the current update is not with me yet. But production has not started in 2010. 

Still time to get the AK-1 in full production.


----------



## TaimiKhan

Jigs said:


> A C4I system for the AK tanks would be a good option to put in. I have seen this more and more on newer tanks.
> 
> Similar to this
> 
> YouTube - Japan New 44ton MBT (Main Battle Tank) Type10 Tank Prototype (TK-X) Test - English News



AK has the Pak developed Rahbar IBMS which has been improved further. PA is going for net centric warfare capability which we saw in the latest field exercises Azm-e-Nau, but since we are cash strapped, things will move slowly. 

The Rahbar IBMS for the AKs was made by CARE Pvt Ltd, and it was rumored to get an export order from the UAE ground forces too, but did it materialize or not is not clear.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xMustiiej70

isn't also AlII in developing?
will this be an answer for arjun 2? or is AL I the answer?


----------



## Rajput Warrior

xMustiiej70 said:


> isn't also AlII in developing?
> will this be an answer for arjun 2? or is AL I the answer?



There is no arjun 2... AK-I is an upgrade for AK with more modern systems,armour,FCs and defence systems,gun,avionics,jammers,laser systems,side skirts etc.


----------



## xMustiiej70

so people are saying arjun is better then Al Khalid?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

xMustiiej70 said:


> so people are saying arjun is better then Al Khalid?



Lol... Only indian people r sayin tht.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## xMustiiej70

and that with arjun way heavier then AK?
LOL


----------



## Manticore

*The TK-X (MBT-X) project aims to produce the new Type 10 main battle tank, *to replace or complement the existing Type 74 and Type 90 main battle tanks that are currently in service with the Japan Ground Self Defense Force. 

120 mm smoothbore gun
Weight 44 tonnes (standard)
Length 9.42 m
Width 3.24 m
Height 2.30 m
Crew 3 (commander, gunner, driver)
Engine 4 stroke cycle 8 cylinder Diesel engine
1200hp/2300rpm
Power/weight 27 hp/tonne
* Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT).[4]
* Reverse speed is up to 70 km/h because of the CVT.
* Autoloader with crew of three (Commander and gunner in the turret, driver in the hull).
* Hydropneumatic Active suspension,[4] which allows it to adjust its stance and absorbs recoil when firing.
* C4I system.
* Turret mounted day/night 360° sight, which can be integrated with the "new Basic Regimental Command & Control System".[2]


----------



## Manticore

the top 15 list starts from here----- http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-f...omparison-contempory-tanks-10.html#post988980


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

well if you look at these tanks performance , one can be sure that they are best for our terrains..............


----------



## Manticore

*Al-Zarar" from the original Type-59:*

The main modifications include improvements to armament, ballistic and armor protection, the fire control system, mobility and GPS. The fire control system features semi-automatic loading, computerized image stabilization and thermal imaging for day and night combat.

&#8226; 25 mm smoothbore tank gun with an auto frettaged, chrome-plated gun barrel.
&#8226; Ability to fire APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS rounds as well as anti-tank guided missiles
&#8226; Ability to fire a Pakistani DU (depleted uranium) round, Naiza capable of penetrating 550 mm of RHA armour at a distance of 2 km
&#8226; Semi automatic loader
&#8226; Dual-axis stabilization system and thermal imaging sights for the commander and gunner
&#8226; Laser range-finder for accurate range information and ballistics computer to improve accuracy
&#8226; Improved gun control system is also fitted.
&#8226; Power to weight ratio of 18.3 hp/tonne
&#8226; Maximum speed of up to 65Km/hr
&#8226; Modified torsion bar suspension system to improve crew comfort.
&#8226; Modular composite armour and explosive reactive armour
&#8226; Pakistani ATCOP LTS-1 laser threat warning system. The ATCOP LTS-1 warns the crew when the tank is the target of a laser designator or a laser rangefinder.
&#8226; Smoke grenade launchers
&#8226; Automatic fire-extinguishing and explosion suppression system to improve crew survivability.

HIT rebuilt a tank by modifying 50 features of the old T-59. It incorporated some of the HIT's systems, originally developed for the Al-Khalid MBT.


----------



## Manticore

> http://www.defence.pk/forums/440655-post55.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/441364-post61.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/441394-post67.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/441435-post73.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/440485-post50.html
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/59581-post61.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/59604-post64.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/59614-post71.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/60896-post92.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/62773-post111.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/63241-post123.html
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/340589-post48.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/341097-post55.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/352715-post86.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/434543-post112.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/435265-post120.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/435333-post122.html
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/435566-post125.html
> 
> Guys I'm posting here some earlier posts from Zraver who is a Tank expert and served in Army.Please go through all his posts-1000VA





> Chinese Type-85 is not a copy of T72. It is much more capable than T-72. And Al Khalid is not based on Type-85. It is based on a much more enhanced version of it called Type-90-II.



hope this helps

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

*K2 Black Panther*

Currently the K2 is one of the most advanced main battle tank in the world, outclassing anything North Korea or China have. Furthermore it is the most expensive main battle tank to date, overtaking the Japanese Type 90 MBT.

Protection of the K2 is broadly similar to the M1A2 Abrams MBT considering that the K2 is significantly lighter.. It is worth mentioning that autoloader's is similar to that, used on the French Leclerc main battle tank.Turkey has successfully negotiated import or license production of the K2. The new Turkish Altay MBT will use some technologies of the K2 Black Panther MBT.





K2 Black Panther Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com


----------



## tanlixiang28776

Type 99A2

approximately 56 tons
equipped with new compact 1500 HP engine
unknown APS
much larger periscope
Much more armor.











K2 has nothing on this beast.

Been equipped for a while now. Pictures have been scarce.

New tank already in development.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

delete thy self


----------



## Manticore

2.ZTZ-99G&#65288;Type99G&#65289; MBT


----------



## Manticore

Anders
Prototype light tank
Anders might be based on the Swedish CV90120-T light tank.It is worth mentioning that a prototype Anders IFV version has already been developed.
Anders Prototype Light Tank | Military-Today.com


----------



## farhan_9909

i heard tat china is developing a 75 ton tank powered with 2100Hp engine

any one has more info?


----------



## SyedF

farhan_9909 said:


> i heard tat china is developing a 75 ton tank powered with 2100Hp engine
> 
> any one has more info?


 
The one with the big gun?


----------



## tanlixiang28776

farhan_9909 said:


> i heard tat china is developing a 75 ton tank powered with 2100Hp engine
> 
> any one has more info?


 
Just a rumor.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

ANTIBODY said:


> Anders
> Prototype light tank
> Anders might be based on the Swedish CV90120-T light tank.It is worth mentioning that a prototype Anders IFV version has already been developed.
> Anders Prototype Light Tank | Military-Today.com


 
Bad Idea. maximum armor protection against 25mm rounds. Would be swiss cheese against even modern IFVs.


----------



## Manticore



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Informative stuff by zraver .. but more than a few things in the AK are no longer Norinco
http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-forces/1171-al-khalid-type-99-comparison-7.html#post60896

The parameters in his first paragraph.. have long been surpassed.. 
The autoloader itself.. and its control system.. are far from the original norinco design.. the control system for the autoloader.. is solid state..reducing a lot of weight.. apart from being better in performance.

The muzzle is about to or should be on the way to be made locally....
Ammunition by the POF..(and one other establishment) is no longer based on the Chinese design. Stood there and received the briefing on it personally.

IBMS 2.0... is very very 2.0.. less said the better.
Im not sure about the new sights and laser tracker.. 
Even if I was.. lets keep quiet then.. 
Many of us privy to some stuff, even if not that much of a hidden fact.. get a little excited..and may or may not inadvertently.. end up compromising OPSEC.


I wonder if zraver is posting again..??.. 
would pm him and confirm if there is a change.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

AK is far superior to the old Norinco 90 II.

However systems on the new 99s,96Gs, 99Gs, 99A1s, and 99A2s are far superior and should incorporated into the AK2


----------



## Xurramawan

Al Khalid is a good tank .... as far as specifications are concerned, it surely matches to be one of the best available in international market. But that does not mean T-90 is any lesser. Since Pakistan army is already operating T-80 UD, which as far as shape and size is concerned is exactly alike.... and also in many specifications. T-90S is better in certain aspects which include the active protection system. 
Its a very difficult question to answer which is better .... In a tank battle, the crew training and integration is even more important than the tanks characteristics ... unless of course we go in direct combat with a T-90 ... we cant really say which one is better ..... 
as far as theoretical comparisons are concerned ... i dont see much of a difference ... both are equally matched .... for sure ...


----------



## Manticore




----------



## Manticore




----------



## Manticore




----------



## Zarvan

ANTIBODY said:


>


 
My first question is How good or bad is Indias Arjun Tank?
Secondly what are new features of Al-Khalid 1?


----------



## Obambam

tanlixiang28776 said:


> AK is far superior to the old Norinco 90 II.
> 
> However systems on the new 99s,96Gs, 99Gs, 99A1s, and 99A2s are far superior and should incorporated into the AK2


 
The armor seems decent here:


----------



## Jigs

Altay MBT


----------



## Jango

seems nice..


----------



## gcobrai

nice start for mock up


----------



## hindukush

tanks are cool...but if it was for me to decide...i would invest in cheap anti-tank missiles...wire guided.....i am sure in cost of tank 1000 of such missile systems can be purchased...i would then arm each and every house in villages and towns near border in an event of war with each one of these and then sit back and enjoy the fire-work.


----------



## abhishekayyagari

For all intents and purposes, the Arjun Mk2 main battle tank (MBT)currently under development since mid-2007--will be more expensive than the Arjun Mk1. But in terms of mobility, protection and firepower, the Mk2 variant will come closest to what Indian Army HQ wants: an MBT with highly enhanced crew protection and maximum survivability in high-intensity, fire-saturated combat environments. To achieve this, the Defence Research and Development Organisations (DRDO) Avadi-based Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) has roped in both Israel Military Industries (IMI) and Elbit Systems of Israel, with the former being responsible for improving the existing Arjun Mk1s design plus mobility and fuel consumption, redesigning and modifying the various components of the MBTs hull and turret, and providing consultancy for improving production-line processes. Elbit Systems, on the other hand, will enhance the MBTs firepower and its accuracy, and provide survivability systems and air-conditioning hardware. The existing Arjun Mk1 MBT, which was formally inducted into the Armys 75 Armoured Regiment on March 12, comes powered by a MTU 838Ka-501 diesel engine (rated at 1,400hp) coupled to a RENK RK-304A transmission, and can achieve a maximum speed of 70kph (43mph) and a cross-country speed of 40kph (25mph). A total of 124 Mk1 variants are on order, and will be followed by 124 Mk2 variants, which were ordered by Army HQ on May 17 last year. The Arjun Mk2 will incorporate a total of 93 upgrades, including 13 major improvements. Rollout of the first prototype will take place by this June, and by 2013, the first 30 production-standard Arjun Mk2s will roll out from the Avadi-based, Ministry of Defence-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF).

Work on developing the Arjun Mk2 began in the second half of 2007 soon after joint R & D contracts were inked between the CVRDE and the consortium of IMI and Elbit Systems. On October 31 that year, the CVRDE floated domestic and global expressions of interest for the co-development of a 1,500hp compact high specific power output diesel engine incorporating a state-of-the-art direct fuel injection system, digital electronic controls, turbo-charging, charge air cooling, safety controls and a pressurised multi-stage air-cleaning system; and for a hydro-kinetic automatic transmission with four forward and two reverse gears. Respondents to the CVRDE included Finland-based Wartsila (offering its V8X-1500 1,500hp hyperbar diesel engine coupled with either SESM of Frances ESM-500 transmission or US-based Detroit Diesel Allisons X-1100-3B transmission), US-based General Dynamics Land Systems offering the EuroPowerPack comprising MTU of Germany's MT-883 engine along with RENK's HSWL-295TM transmission, UK-based Perkins proposing its CV12 Condor diesel engine coupled to the ESM-500 transmission, and US-based Cummins offering a customised QSK-38 liquid-cooled, direct-injection engine coupled to the ESM-500. In late 2009, a combination of the QSK-38/ESM-500 powerpack was selected as the winner, following which Cummins India began customising this powerpack design. The ESM-500 automatic transmission, with five forward and two reverse gears, contains a planetary gearbox with shifting, steering and braking systems. It is also equipped with a hydrodynamic steering system, which allows different turning radii depending on engine speed and selected gear. The braking system contains of two stages. As a parking brake and for a speed of up to 35kph air cooled disk brakes are used. At higher speeds a retarder is used. In addition, the transmission is equipped with a power takeoff for the cooling fans of the powerpack. Also, a hydrokinetic retarder can slow the MBT down at a decelleration rate of 7 metres/square second (0.7g), which can be very useful at the last moment before it could be hit. Supplementing this powerpack will be an indigenously developed auxiliary power unit (APU), which will provide power when the MBT is on silent watch for battery recharging and night observation, with full systems operating while the main engine is shut down.

For ensuring MBT survivability, the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL)located in Kanchanabagh, Hyderabadhas developed a Mk2 variant of its Kanchan modular armour, which was made by sandwiching composite panels (ceramic, alumina, fibre-glass and nickel-alloy) between rolled homogenous armour (RHA) plates to defeat APFDS or HEAT rounds. At the same time, the DRDOs Pune-based Composites Research Centre (CRC) and the Research and Development Establishment, Engineers [R & D E(E)], have developed multi-layered multi-functional fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite hull/turret sub-structures at much lower weights in comparison with metallic counterparts. More than 40 per cent weight savings over steel hull structures have been achieved. Also developed for the Arjun Mk2 is co-cured composites integral armour (CIA), which comprises ceramic tiles and rubber sandwiched between two FRP composites layers. While the outer FRP composite layer acts as a cover and provides confinement, the ceramic layer provides primary protection against ballistic impact, and the inner FRP composite layer acts as the structural part as well as secondary energy absorbing mechanism. The rubber layer isolates stiff and brittle ceramic tiles from structural member.

The CVRDE, with IMIs help, has also redesigned the Arjun Mk1s turret to incorporate modular sloped armour fittings, and has developed a slat-armour package to protect the MBT against anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attacks. It functions by placing a rigid barrier around the vehicle, which causes the shaped-charge warhead to explode at a relatively safe distance. For protecting the Arjun Mk2 against tandem-charge RPGs and guided anti-tank missiles, the CVRDE and IMI have co-developed a lightweight non-energetic reactive armour (NERA) package, comprising tiles in which two metal plates sandwich an inert liner, such as rubber. When struck by a shaped-charges metal jet, some of the impact energy is dissipated into the inert liner layer, and the resulting high-pressure causes a localised bending or bulging of the plates in the area of the impact. As the plates bulge, the point of jet impact shifts with the plate-bulging, increasing the effective thickness of the armour.

For ensuring fool-proof protection against new-generation anti-armour guided-missiles, the Arjun Mk2 will incorporate both multi-threat warning sensors and an active protection system (APS). The former, supplied by Elbit Systems, comprises four E-LWS sensors that can detect, categorise and pinpoint laser sources, including rangefinders, designators, beam-riders, and infra-red illuminators. E-LWS also enables direction indication for all threats, as well as audio and visual warnings. It is immune to reflection, gunfire, lightning, fire and self-electro-optical operations. The Iron Fist APS, being supplied by IMI, uses two fixed radar sensors to detect potential threats and measures distance and trajectory for providing the APS fire-control system (FCS) with data for calculation of engagement plans. The FCS uses two ELTA Systems-built conformal, distributed radars and an infra-red sensor called Tandir, developed by Elbit Systems. When a threat is identified as imminent, an explosive projectile interceptor is launched toward it from either of the two twin-tube rotating launchers housing fin-stabilised launch cannisters. The interceptor, shaped similar to a small mortar bomb, is designed to defeat the threat even when flying in very close proximity. Iron Fist can handle multiple targets simultaneously with different intercept methods, including multiple countermeasures fired at two simultaneous threats at the same sector. Unlike other systems, the Iron Fist uses only the blast effect to defeat the threat, crushing the soft components of a shaped-charge or deflecting and destabilising the guided-missile or kinetic rod in their flight. The interceptor is made of combustible materila, and is fully consumed in the explosion. Without the risk of shrapnel, the Iron Fist APS thus provides an effective, close-in protection for MBTs operating in dense, urban environment. Finally, a mobile camouflage system has been developed and integrated into the Arjun Mk2 in collaboration with Swedens Barracuda Camouflage Ltd to reduce the vehicles signature against all known sensors and smart munitions.

For enhancing structural survivability and firing accuracy, the Arjun Mk2 will do away with the existing electro-hydraulic turret control system (which is susceptible to impact damage and can cause a fire hazard) and will instead use a totally electronic modular electric gun and turret drive stabilisation (EGTDS) system supplied by Elbit Systems. The EGTDS uses azimuth/elevation motor drives with extremely rapid response time, low-voltage power, stabilised modes of operation, and manual back-up drives in both elevation and traverse. A motor drive-control unit transforms the power supply into two 3-phase systems. These supply and control the servo motors for alignment, stabilisation and slave mode of the turret/weapon according to the input signals of the sensors, control handles and active sight. The system assures increased safety since it eliminates the need for the hazardous, highly flammable hydraulic fluids. In addition, it offers smooth tracking at all speeds for very heavy turrets and guns and at extreme turret gun positions, while low power consumption leads to low infra-red signature as well as low-noise levels.

The Arjun Mk2 will also incorporate a brand-new Elbit-designed Commanders panoramic sight (CAPS)--a dual axis stabilised line-of-sight, remote-operated, periscopic system for independent target acquisition, battlefield surveillance and main gun firing in a hunter-killer auto-track mode. The CAPS will use a SAGEM-built Matis-STD thermal imager that operates in the 3-5 micron bandwidth, while the gunners sight will employ a THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth. The Arjun Mk2s turret will also housed an integrated battle management system (BMS) designed by Elbit Systems (and licence-built by Bharat Electronics Ltd), which provides rapid communications networking between the tactical tank commander and his subordinate units. It will enable the tank commander to plan missions, navigate, and continuously update situational awareness. The system will also record data for operational debriefing by using a digital data recorder, which will record and restore sight images and observation data collected during missions. This data can be shared with other elements, using the same network with the BMS, to report enemy targets. Such a concept is rapidly becoming an essential part of the digitised land forces integrated battlefield concept, combining MBTs, anti-armour teams, and attack helicopters in combined arms operations.

The Arjun Mk2s loader will be able to load the 120mm rifled-bore main gun from a fully automated, fire-proof magazine, which will accommodate up to 10 ready rounds and deliver up to four types of ammunition types to the loader. In addition to APFSDS and HESH rounds, the Arjun Mk2 will make use of IMI-built APAM munitions designed to neutraliseespecially in urban built-up terrain--tank-killer squads lurking with lethal anti-tank weapons. The APAM uses the proven concept of anti-personnel munitions based on controlled fragmentation. It deploys sub-munition shrapnel at defined intervals, covering a wide lethal area against soft targets. Each fragment is shaped to have enough kinetic energy to penetrate conventional body armour, or other materials. Also going on board the Arjun Mk2 is the laser-guided LAHAT anti-armour/anti-helicopter round, whose Israel Aerospace Industries-built target designator will be integrated with the MBTs fire-control system. The tandem warhead-equipped LAHAT has a range of 8km when launched from a ground platform, and up to 13km, when deployed from high elevation. The missile has a 0.7 metre CEP when hitting its target at an angle of 30 degrees. Using the semi-active laser homing guidance method, LAHAT can be designated by the MBTs gunner or through external designation from ground, mobile, or airborne observers. Firing the round requires minimal exposure in the firing position, and can be directed through the CAPS by only maintaining line--of-sight during missile flight. The missiles trajectory can be preselected for either top attack (against MBT) or direct attack (against helicopter) engagement.

For improving crew comfort, the Arjun Mk2 will incorporate an Elbit Systems-supplied individual crew and equipment cooling system (ICECS), while will provide cooled and dried air from a special air conditioner to air-cooled overalls or vests. The air will naturally cool the upper torso of each crewman. Also being acquired from Elbit through a transfer-of-technology agreement for the MBT crew are regular/fire-resistant air-cooled overalls, NBC protected air-cooled overalls, and air-cooled compact vests. As for tank tracks, the Arjun Mk2 will, just like the Mk1, make use of Germany-based Diehl Remscheids DST 570V tracks, whose basic components, like the track links, sprocket wheels, guide wheels, running rollers, support rollers, running pads, traction aids, connectors, bolts, mono block-body with integral centre guide, rubberised track pads, and grouser, are all being licence-built by Larsen & Toubro.

Canada-based CAEs Bengaluru-based CAE India Pvt Ltd subsidiary is presently designing a comprehensive suite of Arjun Mk2 MBT training systems to enhance its combat effectiveness by offering systematic training in a real-time environment through advanced simulation techniques. Earlier, in 2009 CAE India Pvt Ltd had delivered the initial suite of Arjun Mk1 training systems to efficiently and cost-effectively train the driver, gunner and commander. CAEs suite of Arjun Mk1 training systems currently offers standalone training for the driver and gunner; turret-level training for the gunner and commander; integrated MBT-level training for the gunner, commander and driver; and troop-level training by networking Arjun Mk1 simulators to rehearse troop tactics, movement and joint operations. The Arjun Mk1s driver trainer provides ab-initio driving and procedural training to individual drivers. Mounted on a six degree-of-freedom (DoF) motion platform, the driver trainer emulates the MBTs interior cabin with all driver station controls. CAE is also developing a desktop-based Arjun classroom trainer for procedural and familiarisation training. CAE has also developed a comprehensive suite of Arjun Mk1 gunnery training devices to train personnel as they develop gunnery skills and rehearse for target identification, tracking, lasing, and firing drills. CAEs suite of gunnery trainers includes two separate types and levels of training devices. The desktop gunnery procedures trainer, also called the Agastya simulator, supports initial training in handling the gunner station and firing procedures. The trainee uses MBT-specific controls just like in the actual MBT for familiarisation and procedural training. The turret simulator replicates the interior of the gunner and commander stations of the MBT. Mounted on a six-DoF motion platform, the turret simulator features a 220-degree by 40-degree open-hatch visual display to provide trainees with the high-fidelity visual cues required for gunnery training.

All Arjun Mk1 training systems can be networked to provide initial and continuation training to the commanders, gunners and drivers at the individual-, crew-, and troop-levels. Along with developing individual skills, the driver and turret simulators create a team environment to support the development of crew teamwork, coordination and tactical skills, decision-making and planning, and crew communications. Through effective training and rehearsal of these skills, the crew can thus improve its proficiency in working as a team and as part of an entire troop during combat operations. The MBT training systems include CAEs Medallion-6000 visual system with a detailed and realistic external environment view of actual MBT operations, sound simulation system that produces sounds heard during MBT operations and in synchronisation with the motion and visual cues in the training device, simulation host system for software management and software sub-systems that simulate MBT behaviour in real-time operations, content rich geo-specific databases, instructor stations to conduct training exercises and offer evaluation solutions, interface electronic units (IEU) that provide links between MBT crew controls and simulation software, and networking to connect the Arjun Mk1 driving and turret simulators. The training systems provide instructors with an intuitive, easy-to-use interface that enables the set-up of lesson parameters and trainee exercises, monitoring of the progress of the exercise, and full exercise control. The instructor can select the scenario (including target designation), insert malfunctions, and record and replay the exercise. Furthermore, the instructor is able to access the same views as the trainee, such as control of own and enemy tracks. Gunners training exercises can be conducted both in plains and desert terrain to include bore sighting, calibration, static tank to static target, static tank to moving target, moving tank to static target, moving tank to moving target, and moving tank to moving target firing practices. The Arjun Mk1 training systems can also be fitted in air-conditioned ISO containers that can be easily transported to different training locations or in-theatre. They can also be modified with minimum adjustments for use with any infantry combat vehicle (ICV) gun, self-propelled artillery , present day tank guns and normal field artillery. The DRDO, meanwhile, has developed a software package called Visualisation with Enhanced Digital Elevation Model and Soil Profile Analysis for MBT Arjun Simulator (VEDSAR) to simulate the MBTs performance in different kinds of terrain. It uses data from ISROs Cartosat-1A remote-sensing satellite, and is helping in building a new project named Vehicular Interaction with Soil for Trafficability Assessment and Route-decision Aid (VISTAR), which will provide the Army with information on the shortest possible distance between two points, and the kind of obstacles present on the terrain.


----------



## abhishekayyagari

This is what is to be meant when talking about any contempory tank and arjun clearly satisfy that criteria being the state of the art


----------



## Manticore

^ what are the salient features of this long post?

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/106975-tank-designs-7.html


----------



## Manticore




----------



## Manticore

http:///t-90-s-is-a-dud-it-cant-fire-far-enough


----------



## Manticore



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Interesting thing in the above post to me is this...

ESM 500 transmission= already operational on Al-Khalid since 2005

Catherine FC= operational on AK since 2006-2007, SAGEM MATIS 3rd gen on AK-1. 

Before anyone clutch on to a Versus battle, just a few things i thought of. Thats it.


----------



## Manticore

ANTIBODY said:


> guys , need some correction -- this is my guess..
> 
> my guess--
> 
> type85-->Type 85-IIAP / Type 88 -->type90-->alkalid[type90-2] , type 96 [china] --> alkalid1 , alkalid2 , type 98, type99
> 
> 
> t62->t64->t80->t80ud/t84
> t62->t64->t72->t90 /T-72BU
> 
> 
> *i dont know which chinese tank was a version of which russian tank
> 
> *Russian T-54 Tank which was produced in China as Type 59A . The re-built, upgraded variant of the Chinese Type 59-2 tank with 54 modifications is Al-Zarrar tank ---- so now alzarrar can be compared to which tank?
> 
> *as the russians didnot allow russian tech [t80ud] to be transferred to pak , so ukraine used its t84 tech instead for pak
> 
> *both t64 and t80 were hightech tanks and not allowed for export for a very long time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Khalid main battle tank is a variant of the MBT-2000 with some modifications. It is powered by Ukrainian 6TD diesel engine, developing 1 200 hp. Pakistan acquired license to produce these tanks locally;
> 
> VN1A, further development of the Type 90-II line, designed specially for export. It has some improvements over the Al Khalid and was selected by Peru.


 
i would love to have some answers !
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/106975-tank-designs-8.html


----------



## Dazzler

ANTIBODY said:


> i would love to have some answers !
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/106975-tank-designs-8.html


Some confusion in the above.... 

We are talking about two different generations of tanks here. Second generation evolved into........
1. type-85> 85II> 85 III (85IIAP)> t-88> 88C> Type 96, finally 96G... 

2. Third generation began from Type-90> 90II> 90IIM> MBT2000. What is needed to understand here is, Type 90 is a third gen mbt that has off springs in shape of mbt 2000, AK, type 98, 99, 99A, 99G etc. Now type 96 is still a second gen tank that is heavily revamped version of baseline type 85-II, III and eventually ended up as the most advanced SECOND Generation Chinese MBT type 96G.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

ANTIBODY said:


> t62->t64->t80->t80ud/t84
> t62->t64->t72->t90 /T-72BU
> 
> 
> *i dont know which chinese tank was a version of which russian tank
> 
> *Russian T-54 Tank which was produced in China as Type 59A . The re-built, upgraded variant of the Chinese Type 59-2 tank with 54 modifications is Al-Zarrar tank ---- so now alzarrar can be compared to which tank?
> 
> *as the russians didnot allow russian tech [t80ud] to be transferred to pak , so ukraine used its t84 tech instead for pak
> 
> *both t64 and t80 were hightech tanks and not allowed for export for a very long time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Khalid main battle tank is a variant of the MBT-2000 with some modifications. It is powered by Ukrainian 6TD diesel engine, developing 1 200 hp. Pakistan acquired license to produce these tanks locally;
> 
> VN1A, further development of the Type 90-II line, designed specially for export. It has some improvements over the Al Khalid and was selected by Peru.


 
The Russian route goes like this....

High end was t-54> t-64>t-80> 80U

Low end became T-62> 72, 72M, 72S

The t-72BU, experimentally equipped with T-80 sights, auoloader, computer, became the basis of T-90 so one can say that in t-90, both high and low ends merged. 

Both Alkhalid and VT-1A are vastly improved variants of mbt 2000 but have very different equipment housed in them. AKs have mostly western/ indigenous whereas VT has all Chinese/ Ukrainian engine (same as AK)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore




----------



## Manticore

nabil , a question -- i started a thread on alkhalid on the serbian site -- they were asking if it was inspired by t72/t90 or t80 --- or what % from both , if its a hybrid


they are mostly inclined towards t72 , however i think more inspiration is of t80 after looking through the new design pics -- posted in the tank designs thread


----------



## Dazzler

the initial project that began by China was an inspiration by t-72 but as project continued and took a shape in Type 90IIm, it shared an inspiration from t-80 but not by much. However, Pak Army always admired the performance of t-80ud and wanted AK to be at least twice as good in most performance domains. A Russian analyst also highlighted this in his article that AK has many similarities with Ukrainian T-84 than Russian T-72. This was the reason why Pak went for Ukrainian engine, KBA-3 series gun because they liked their performance, accuracy and increased barrel life as compared to original Russian 2a46m-1 series barrels in baseline t-80Us. Apart of this, AK shares some other similarities with T-84 such as similar tracks, engine, missile control channel for Kombat ATGM etc. AK in present form (AK-1) is equally matched in general performance, battle field efficiency by Oplot, T-90M etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

History of Soviet tanks  T-72 difference from T-64/ T-80


Maybe this will explain that T-72 was not the only and not the best Soviet tank....


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 mobilization 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s versions.
The same story with armor  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 
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)







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s position.


What is T-72B fire control 

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 by eye (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  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






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

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

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

^source , ive posted the first post -- very long discussion below it, which i didnt read

History of Soviet tanks  T-72 difference from T-64/ T-80 at tanknet


----------



## Myth_buster_1

bit off topic but how many of u guys r playing world of tanks?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MrIndianSikh

this has already been stated but comparing the tanks on paper won't do any good the T90 nor the Al Khalid has been used in combat and there are many factors to consider in tank warfare such as the habitat in which the tanks are operated in for example the T90 has had issues operating in cold weather another factor that comes in is the skill of a tank crew i can tell you right now the armor and the APS on the T90 makes it one of the best tanks in the world the Al Khalid armor is not as good as the Konkat or Kaktus armor nonetheless comparing tanks can only be done when and IF the tanks are used in combat


----------



## Dazzler

MrIndianSikh said:


> this has already been stated but comparing the tanks on paper won't do any good the T90 nor the Al Khalid has been used in combat and there are many factors to consider in tank warfare such as the habitat in which the tanks are operated in for example the T90 has had issues operating in cold weather another factor that comes in is the skill of a tank crew i can tell you right now the armor and the APS on the T90 makes it one of the best tanks in the world the Al Khalid armor is not as good as the Konkat or Kaktus armor nonetheless comparing tanks can only be done when and IF the tanks are used in combat



How on earth you know AK armor not as good as Kontakt-5 or Kaktus??? Have you seen it getting blown during trials?? Please refrain from throwing your opinions on things you have no idea about. For your info, K-5 is already operational on our T-80uds since late 90s, it was among basic requirements by Pak Army. What AK and later AK-1 has, is superior to K-5. Go to ::GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL AND DEFENCE SOLUTIONS :: and see the ERA section where you will not find any info. This is due to a secrecy reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

here is a good info on mbt armor protection. Notice AK armor which is more than what people generally think.

Tank Protection Levels

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

So far, AK is the only mbt in sub continent having an automatic target tracking system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

A few errors but overall a nice compilation of Pakistani mbts......

HIT Al-Khalid

Notes: Also called the MBT-2000 (particularly during development), the Al-Khalid is touted as Pakistan&#8217;s first indigenous tank design, but is believed to incorporate much of its design from Type 90-IIs, Type 85s, and some other equipment supplied by China for analysis. Regardless of the origins of the Al-Khalid, it is essentially vehicle dissimilar enough to other tanks to be considered a new design, if not a completely independent one. The Al-Khalid was developed over the period from 1990-99, with production and fielding beginning in 2001. Most Western observers agree that the Al-Khalid is a surprisingly modern and effective design. Some 300 are in service with Pakistan, and they intend to being that total to 600. In addition, 22 Al-Khalids started being delivered to the Bangladeshi Army beginning in May 2008, and the Saudis are reportedly giving the Al-Khalid a hard look to supplement their M-1A2 Abrams tanks.

The design places the driver in the center front of the hull; he has a hatch which opens slightly upwards and to the left as to not interfere with turret rotation if the hatch is open. He has vision blocks giving him views to the right, left, and front; the frontal vision block can be replaced with an IR vision block. The gunner has his own hatch, as the Al-Khalid uses an autoloader instead of a loader crewmember, and has vision blocks that allow vision to the front, rear, and right side. The gunner is equipped with a full night vision suite, including a 2nd-generation thermal imager developed by France. The gunner also has an image intensification scope and a conventional telescopic sight; all of which are stabilized. The commander has his own thermal imager, image intensifier, and conventional telescopic sight, in a separate sensor head that gives the Al-Khalid a hunter-killer capability. The commander also has emergency controls for the main gun and coaxial machinegun. The Al-Khalid has a ballistic computer of French design, along with a laser designator of Chinese design.

The main gun is a version of the Chinese ZPT-98 gun, though the barrel has a length of 48 calibers. The gun is fed by an autoloader that has a capacity of 24 rounds, with additional ammunition being stored in the hull of the Al-Khalid. In addition to being able to fire indigenous and foreign 125mm rounds, the gun can also fire a Chinese license-produced version of 9M119 Reflecks (AT-11 Sniper) gun-launched ATGM. The autoloader is improved over that of the Al-Zarrar, able to handle newer long-rod penetrators. (ATGM rounds must be hand-loaded.) The laser rangefinder acts as a designator when the 9M119 ATGM is fired. The commander&#8217;s machinegun can be aimed and fired from under armor. On each side of the turret is a cluster of five smoke grenade launchers. The Al-Kalid has a feature found in most of the newest generation of tanks: a battle management system called Rabhar by the Pakistanis. This is a computerized system that not only monitors the state of the tank and feeds the appropriate information to the crew, but also plots the location of enemy and friendly units and keeps them updated as new information becomes available. It also passes orders from higher headquarters down and allows the commander to give orders to subordinate units, as well as providing any other intelligence and information the commander may require. This system also has GPS, with inertial navigation as a backup. The tank&#8217;s electronic systems are connected to large batteries for "silent watch" use.

In development, the Al-Khalid was powered by an MTU-396 diesel engine with a German LSG-3000 transmission. Germany placed an embargo on these items in the mid-1990s due to their stance on development of indigenous nuclear weapons, and this led to the Pakistanis fitting the Al-Khalid with a license-produced Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 1200-horsepower engine and a French SESM ESM-500 fully-automatic transmission. This engine had the virtue of being smaller than the German engine, yet provided the same 1200 horsepower. The Al-Khalid can carry auxiliary fuel tanks at the rear a la Russian/Chinese tanks, though in practice they are little used except in long road marches.

Armor protection is modular, allowing for quick battle damage repairs and improvement as more advanced armor becomes available or heavier armor is desired. Frontal armor is composite and of Pakistani design, with side armor being spaced; it is of a more modern design than that on the Al-Zarrar and lighter in weight. The turret front, turret sides, glacis, and hull sides have lugs for ERA. Attention was paid to land mine damage in the form of thickened floor armor. The ammunition is carried in armored bins, and virtually the entire vehicle has thick Kevlar anti-spalling blankets. The engine also has a thick bulkhead separating it from the crew compartment. An automatic explosion and fire suppression system is provided, and the crew has an NBC overpressure system; the engine compartment and ammunition bins have their own systems of the same sort. The Al-Khalid has a laser detection system that can automatically trigger smoke grenades to block the laser, and a radar warning system that can give the crew a chance to take evasive action.

Twilight 2000 Notes: Though the Pakistanis were able to field some Al-Khalids in the Twilight 2000 timeline, only some 50 or so were available for the Twilight War.

Price


Fuel Type


Load


Veh Wt


Crew


Mnt


Night Vision


Radiological

$510,579


D, A


800 kg


48 tons


3


24


2nd Gen Thermal Imager (G), Thermal Imager (C), Image Intensification (G, C), Passive IR (D)


Shielded

Tr Mov


Com Mov


Fuel Cap


Fuel Cons


Config


Susp


Armor*

140/98


30/18


1000+400


524


Trtd


T6


TF132Cp TS24Sp TS14 HF165Cp HS20Sp HR12

Fire Control


Stabilization


Armament


Ammunition

+4


Good


125mm ZPT-98 Gun, PKT, NSVT (C)


43x125mm, 6xAT-11, 4000x7.62mm, 750x12.7mm

*Floor armor for the Al-Khalid is AV 8.

HIT Al-Zarrar

Notes: The Pakistanis have long been users of the Chinese Type 59 tank; they also knew for quite a while that their Type 59s were not only obsolete, they were not keeping up with Indian tanks; there were, however, too many of them to simply scrap them. In 1990, the Pakistanis got together with a few foreign armament firms to upgrade their Type 59s to be able to be able to face more modern designs and at least have a chance to come out on the winning end of a fight. It would essentially give the Pakistanis a modern tank at a fraction of the cost (though the upgrade program ended up costing more real-life money than the Pakistanis thought it would). The development program started in 1990, but the sheer number of modifications (54 of them), coupled with a few budgetary problems and false starts at acquiring outright replacements for the Type 59 meant that the first upgraded Type 59, called the Al-Zarrar (Striker) was not fielded until early 2004. Some 800 of Pakistan&#8217;s Type 59s have been updated to the Al-Zarrar standard, and the Pakistanis also sell the Al-Zarrar upgrade as a kit for countries using the Type 59, T-54, or T-55. In addition to Pakistan, the Bangladeshis use the Al-Zarrar, having begun the upgrade of their Type 59s in 2008.

Virtually every area of the Type 59 is upgraded, enough so that the Al-Zarrar is essentially a new tank in an old tank&#8217;s skin. Improvements have been made to the key areas of protection, firepower, fire control, suspension, and mobility. One of the biggest upgrades is the main gun; the 100mm D-10T of the Type 59 has been replaced by a Pakistani version of the 2A46 and its autoloader. Most of the ammunition used in this gun is Pakistani-designed, but mirrors the ammunition used by the 2A46. The main gun is coupled with a modern fire control system built in Pakistan with the assistance of Krauss-Maffei of Germany. The main gun is now fully stabilized, with thermal imaging for the gunner that is accessible to the commander. The main gun also has a laser rangefinder, a ballistic computer, and a monitor to help the gunner search for targets and give him information about targets and the state of the main gun and its ranging components. The gunner&#8217;s hatch has vision blocks around it that give 180-degree vision (front, rear, and right side). The commander has, in addition to thermal imager access, his own IR vision and an image intensifier. The driver, on the front right side, has vision blocks that allow frontal vision and vision to both sides; one of these vision blocks can be removed and replaced by an IR vision block. The commander has an NSVT machinegun mounted on his cupola; this machinegun can be aimed and fired from under armor.

The Al-Zarrar uses a Pakistani-built version of a Chinese engine, a diesel engine giving 730 horsepower and also having a smaller size than the Type 59s engine. The transmission was also upgraded for the new engine and is semi-automatic. The suspension is improved with wider tracks, improved roadwheels and drive sprockets, and better shock absorption through a modified torsion bar system. Though the Al-Zarrar retains the ability to mount reserve tanks at the rear, in practice they are considered a combat hazard and are normally either not carried or jettisoned before battle.

The Al-Zarrar was originally to use a large amount of appliqué armor, but this was replaced in development with a modular armor suite, including composite armor on the glacis and turret front and spaced armor on the hull and turret sides. The floor armor has been dramatically increased as well. Lugs for ERA are found on the glacis, hull sides, turret front, turret sides, and the forward part of the turret roof. A Pakistani-designed laser threat warning system is also fitted; this lets the crew know if they are being targeted by laser designators and automatically fires smoke grenades to block the laser designation beam; 5 smoke grenade launchers are found on each side of the turret. Both the ammo bins and the crew compartments have automatic explosion and fire suppression systems.

Twilight 2000 Notes: In the Twilight 2000 timeline, development was greatly accelerated, and the first Al-Zarrars were available in late 1997 and first used in combat with Indian forces in early 1998.

Price


Fuel Type


Load


Veh Wt


Crew


Mnt


Night Vision


Radiological

$488,840


D, A


550 kg


40 tons


3


24


Thermal Imaging (G), Passive IR (D, C), Image Intensification (G, C)


Shielded

Tr Mov


Com Mov


Fuel Cap


Fuel Cons


Config


Susp


Armor*

124/87


27/16


1000+380


297


Trtd


T6


TF67Cp TS28Sp TR19 HF84Cp HS20Sp HR12

Fire Control


Stabilization


Armament


Ammunition

+3


Good


125mm 2A46 Gun, PKT, NSVT (C)


35x125mm, 3000x7.62mm, 500x12.7mm

*Floor armor for the Al-Zarrar is AV 8.

HIT Type 59MII

Notes: HIT (Heavy Industries Taxila) is the primary agency in Pakistan for the building, modification, and upgrading heavy military vehicles. One of their first tank projects, begun in 1979, was to being the Type 59 first to a like-new configuration, then to upgrade it. Most of this program resulted in the Type 59s being upgraded to the Al-Zarrar; the remainder were upgraded to a configuration called the Type 59MII.

The Type 59MII is based on the Chinese Type 59-II modification, but is not quite the same. For example, the Type 59MII has a more comprehensive night vision suite, and does not normally mount the searchlight of the Chinese tank. Fire control is a bit better, including a laser rangefinder and a ballistic computer. The commander has access to the gunner&#8217;s sights and has override controls for the main gun. Overall armor is a bit heavier and more advanced than a Type 59-II; the Type 59MII has side skirts, and there are lugs for ERA on the turret front, turret sides, hull front, and hull sides, as well as the forward third of the turret roof. Floor armor is also increased. The engine is the same as the Type 59-II, as is the coaxial machinegun, but the commander&#8217;s machinegun is an NSVT that can be aimed and fired from under armor. The Type 59IIM has an automatic fire and explosion suppression system, and the transmission is semi-automatic. The Type 59 also has an APU for silent watch. Four smoke grenade launchers are mounted on each side of the turret.

Price


Fuel Type


Load


Veh Wt


Crew


Mnt


Night Vision


Radiological

$496,584


D, A


500 kg


37 tons


4


14


Thermal Imaging (G), Passive IR (D, C), Image Intensification (G, C)


Shielded

Tr Mov


Com Mov


Fuel Cap


Fuel Cons


Config


Susp


Armor

101/71


22/13


815+380


261


Trtd


T6


TF53Sp TS13 TR11 HF66Sp HS11Sp HR9

Fire Control


Stabilization


Armament


Ammunition

+3


Fair


105mm L-7A2 gun, PKT, NSVT (C)


41x105mm, 3500x7.62mm, 500x12.7mm

*Floor armor for the Type 59MII is AV 6.


Pakistani Tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rockstarIN

nabil_05 said:


> So far, AK is the only mbt in sub continent having an *automatic target tracking system*.


 
What target tracking system is employed in AK?.


----------



## Dazzler

I do not know the exact nature but it is French origin along with ballistic computer which is also French. It is interfaced with Gunner's station and has supplemented AK's multiple target engagement capability to a great extent. You can check the brochure for more precise info on previous pages...


----------



## Manticore

Sad sam tek vidio ovo o tenku. Prvi sam stranac koji je vidio ovaj tenk. Dok sam radio u fabrici HRF pored Taxile. Sad se ova fabrika zove HIT. Tridesetak kilometara daleko od Islamabada. Ima nekoliko slika ovdje te fabrike. Ispala je velika frka i panika kad sam istrèao iz hale gdje sam radio na drugim tenkovima, iako je bilo strogo nareðeno da se sklonimo, jer æe naiæi "ne&#353;to".
Najveæi je fazon &#353;to u telefonskom imeniku Islamabada i okoline mo&#382;ete naæi brojeve telefona (lokale) iz fabrike HIT. Telefonski broj na liniji sklapanja kupole, na liniji kabla&#382;e, broj magacionera itd.

Odreðen dio slika na ovom dijelu je raðen u foto&#353;opu i nemojte vjerovati svim slikama.

Na nekoliko slika je isti tenk. Sa brojem 5. To je onaj broj &#353;to lièi na srce naopaèke. Da li to znaèi da ih nema vi&#353;e. Na slici, koja je najvjerovatnije slikana u Multanu, mjestu gdje je komanda oklopnih snaga, vidi se dva tenka na kojima su brojevi 3. Na prvom tenku je ta cifra druga. Prvi dio brojke je pokriven pakistanskom zastavom. Na zadnjem tenku u vrsti ta cifra je prva, drugi dio brojke je zaklonjen sa BDK-om. Znam da su moguænosti izrade tenka u Taksili veæe nekoliko puta nego u svoj biv&#353;oj SFRJ. Volio bih znati koliko su ih izradili.

Najobuèenije, naj&#353;kolovanije i najpametnije oficire, oklopnjake, koje sam sreo u &#382;ivotu sam sreo u oficirskom klubu u Multanu. U komandi oklopnih snaga Pakistana.
Mo&#382;e li ko da zamisli general pukovnika, komandanta oklopnih snaga Pakistana, koji doleti svojim privatnim avionom kojim sam pilotira, u pustinju Kandavala, u kojoj sam radio, razgovara sa mnom nekoliko sati o tenku, i nakon toga sjedne sam u tenk na mjesto vozaèa i ode sa tenkom u pustinju. Vozio ga je osam sati kroz pustinju po paklenom avgustovskom pustnjskom suncu gdje se veoma lako dobijaju plikovi na ruci ako se dodirne tenk.

Ovi snimci koji se mogu vidjeti su snimani u pustinji Tamavala, stotinjak kilometra daleko od Bahavalpura.

Nakon moje treæe posjete Pakistanu gdje sam radio na drugim tenkovima, na ovom njihovom tenku se pojavio isti meteosenzor kao na tenku M84, a koji se mo&#382;e vidjeti na nekim slikama. Veæ sam pisao kako su mi u hotelu &#352;alimar u Ravalpindiju obili torbu sa dokumentacijim. Unutra je bilo nekoliko hiljada dolara i &#353;eme tenka. Ni&#353;ta mi nije nedostajalo, ali se nekako brzo nakon toga pojavio isti meteosenzor na njihovom tenku. Vidi se na puno slika.

Pozdrav

Vlado

Pozdrav i za ekipu sa pakistanskog vojnog foruma èiji sam èlan i gdje se mogu naæi moji tekstovi. 

-----
Now I have only seen this on a tank. First I was a stranger who has seen this tank. While I worked in a factory next to HRF Taxi. Now this plant is called HIT. About thirty kilometers away from Islamabad. There are a few pictures here and factories. It turned out a big snort and panic when I istrèao the hall where I worked on other tanks, even though it was strictly ordered to be prone, as it will naiæi "something".
The largest was the thing that in the telephone directory, Islamabad and the surrounding area you can find phone numbers (bars) from the factory HIT. Telephone number on-line execution of the dome, on the line kabla&#382;e, no merchants, etc.

Certain of the pictures on this part was made in Foto&#353;op and do not believe all the pictures.

For some pictures of the same tank. With number 5 This is one of the lièi the heart naopaèke. Does this mean that they were no more. The painting, which was probably painted in Multan, where the command of armored forces, see the two tanks in which the number 3 The first tank is the second figure. The first part of the figures covered the Pakistani flag. On the last tank in the type of this figure is the first, the second part of the figures is sheltered from the BDK-infection. I know that the possibility of a tank in Taksili several times greater than in their former Yugoslavia. I would like to know how they were created.

Najobuèenije, best educated and brightest officers, armored vehicles, I have met in my life I have met in the officers' club in Multan. In command of armored forces of Pakistan.
Can not imagine who's Lieutenant General, Commander of the Armed Forces of Pakistan, who flies his private airplane pilot, which I, in the desert Kandavala, where I worked, talking with me for several hours on a tank, and then I sit in a tank driver in place and go with the tank in the desert. He drove it for eight hours through the desert by the infernal avgustovskom pustnjskom sun where very easy to get blisters on your hand if you touch the tank.

These recordings, which can be seen are shot in the desert Tamavala, hundreds of kilometers away from Bahavalpura.

After my third visit to Pakistan, where I worked on other tanks, in this their tanks appeared meteosenzor the same as the M84 tank, which can be seen on some pictures. I already wrote that I was at &#352;alimar Ravalpindiju bounced back in the bag with the documentation. Inside there were several thousand dollars and schedules tank. Nothing is missing, but somehow soon thereafter came the same meteosenzor in their tank. See the full picture.

Pozdrav

Vlado

Greetings and the team with the Pakistani military whose Board I am a member and where can I find my texts.







----------------------------
google translate regarding HIT and alkhalid
Al-Khalid tenk (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) :: MyCity Military


link provided so that someone can post a more accurate translation

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

Good post Haroon...

In the 90s when AK was in development, just before the Balkan war, we did have a close look at M-84 and PA seemed impressed by it to a great extent. Trials were occurred but then the war fell and deal was all but over. Then came the Ukraine saga when they came with an offer that was too good to be refused. Initially it was thought whether t-80ud might be an over kill as a stop gap, however, once it was inducted, it proved its worth to a great deal. What i really liked from Balkans was a development of M-84, also known as the M-91 Vihor MBT, upon which the Croatian M-95 Degman is based. Just one prototype was made before project abandoned. Sigh!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jihad

Perhaps a stupid question, and it may have slipped my mind.
But are the Al-Khalids being used against the insurgents right now?
I remember seeing a documentary about Pakistan's war on terror, and the tanks being used there against insurgents didn't look like the AK.


----------



## TaimiKhan

Jihad said:


> Perhaps a stupid question, and it may have slipped my mind.
> But are the Al-Khalids being used against the insurgents right now?
> I remember seeing a documentary about Pakistan's war on terror, and the tanks being used there against insurgents didn't look like the AK.


 
Al Zarrars have been used, with the older models in service with FC as well as Army formations. AZs are being used in lesser numbers, while the older versions in more numbers. 

No AKs have been used in the COIN operations, they are all deployed at the eastern border.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MilSpec

PA tanks and general defence in tank country will see massive Air Interdiction missions by IAF followed by fast moving armored attack including IFV's and tank killers (BMP1/2's Namica's and OT Skot) along with Tank columns of (T90M and T72M1), CAS support will be provided by Attack helos like ALH WSO, LCH, MI 28 and newer procurements (KAMOV/AH64D). 

IA and PA tanks are closely matched, superior tactics and better support for the armor will determine victory in the battle


----------



## Dazzler

so you think your IAF will have a clear sky to facilitate your interdiction? Why is it so hard for some to anticipate that Pakistan also has an air force/ army aviation? By the way, except for the last para, rest is off topic. Thread is about COMPARISON of Pak Tanks with contemporary tanks, not IAF *MASSIVE *interdiction assault on Pak.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TaimiKhan

nabil_05 said:


> so you think your IAF will have a clear sky to facilitate your interdiction? Why is it so hard for some to anticipate that Pakistan also has an air force/ army aviation? By the way, except for the last para, rest is off topic. Thread is about COMPARISON of Pak Tanks with contemporary tanks, not IAF *MASSIVE *interdiction assault on Pak.


 
@nabil: Yaar, bachoon ko kuch honay diya karoooo, akhir bachay hain, aisi batain tu karain gae hi. 

*@ everyone one else: But this doesn't means these bachay troll and derail threads *

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

I want every kid to have a certain degree of common sense thats all

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilSpec

nabil_05 said:


> I want every kid to have a certain degree of common sense thats all


 
Ok I am sorry about my post, What I stated was my understanding of Indian Military Doctrine...I did not discount any PA/PAF capability, I did mention air interdiction but not about the results , I am sure PAF/ PA aviation will do the necessary to counter it, i do not know what capabilities it possess so I wont speculate. PA tank capability whether you accept or not are primarily meant to face India. Also PA and IA tanks are closely matched in capabilities. So in my childish and humble opinion I thought it would be important to understand the engagement scenarios and environment in which they will fight each other. In last 16 pages I am pretty sure we have speculated enough about how many size/HP/armor/gun/etc. May be it might be helpful to understand what kind of formation will each Armour group contain to fight each other. 

Although If you find that formations/support vehicles/tactics and Air support methodology has no relevance in Tank battles, then my bad


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

nabil_05 said:


> A few errors but overall a nice compilation of Pakistani mbts......
> 
> HIT Al-Khalid
> 
> Notes: Also called the MBT-2000 (particularly during development), the Al-Khalid is touted as Pakistans first indigenous tank design, but is believed to incorporate much of its design from Type 90-IIs, Type 85s, and some other equipment supplied by China for analysis. Regardless of the origins of the Al-Khalid, it is essentially vehicle dissimilar enough to other tanks to be considered a new design, if not a completely independent one. The Al-Khalid was developed over the period from 1990-99, with production and fielding beginning in 2001. Most Western observers agree that the Al-Khalid is a surprisingly modern and effective design. Some 300 are in service with Pakistan, and they intend to being that total to 600. In addition, 22 Al-Khalids started being delivered to the Bangladeshi Army beginning in May 2008, and the Saudis are reportedly giving the Al-Khalid a hard look to supplement their M-1A2 Abrams tanks.
> 
> The design places the driver in the center front of the hull; he has a hatch which opens slightly upwards and to the left as to not interfere with turret rotation if the hatch is open. He has vision blocks giving him views to the right, left, and front; the frontal vision block can be replaced with an IR vision block. The gunner has his own hatch, as the Al-Khalid uses an autoloader instead of a loader crewmember, and has vision blocks that allow vision to the front, rear, and right side. The gunner is equipped with a full night vision suite, including a 2nd-generation thermal imager developed by France. The gunner also has an image intensification scope and a conventional telescopic sight; all of which are stabilized. The commander has his own thermal imager, image intensifier, and conventional telescopic sight, in a separate sensor head that gives the Al-Khalid a hunter-killer capability. The commander also has emergency controls for the main gun and coaxial machinegun. The Al-Khalid has a ballistic computer of French design, along with a laser designator of Chinese design.
> 
> The main gun is a version of the Chinese ZPT-98 gun, though the barrel has a length of 48 calibers. The gun is fed by an autoloader that has a capacity of 24 rounds, with additional ammunition being stored in the hull of the Al-Khalid. In addition to being able to fire indigenous and foreign 125mm rounds, the gun can also fire a Chinese license-produced version of 9M119 Reflecks (AT-11 Sniper) gun-launched ATGM. The autoloader is improved over that of the Al-Zarrar, able to handle newer long-rod penetrators. (ATGM rounds must be hand-loaded.) The laser rangefinder acts as a designator when the 9M119 ATGM is fired. The commanders machinegun can be aimed and fired from under armor. On each side of the turret is a cluster of five smoke grenade launchers. The Al-Kalid has a feature found in most of the newest generation of tanks: a battle management system called Rabhar by the Pakistanis. This is a computerized system that not only monitors the state of the tank and feeds the appropriate information to the crew, but also plots the location of enemy and friendly units and keeps them updated as new information becomes available. It also passes orders from higher headquarters down and allows the commander to give orders to subordinate units, as well as providing any other intelligence and information the commander may require. This system also has GPS, with inertial navigation as a backup. The tanks electronic systems are connected to large batteries for "silent watch" use.
> 
> In development, the Al-Khalid was powered by an MTU-396 diesel engine with a German LSG-3000 transmission. Germany placed an embargo on these items in the mid-1990s due to their stance on development of indigenous nuclear weapons, and this led to the Pakistanis fitting the Al-Khalid with a license-produced Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 1200-horsepower engine and a French SESM ESM-500 fully-automatic transmission. This engine had the virtue of being smaller than the German engine, yet provided the same 1200 horsepower. The Al-Khalid can carry auxiliary fuel tanks at the rear a la Russian/Chinese tanks, though in practice they are little used except in long road marches.
> 
> Armor protection is modular, allowing for quick battle damage repairs and improvement as more advanced armor becomes available or heavier armor is desired. Frontal armor is composite and of Pakistani design, with side armor being spaced; it is of a more modern design than that on the Al-Zarrar and lighter in weight. The turret front, turret sides, glacis, and hull sides have lugs for ERA. Attention was paid to land mine damage in the form of thickened floor armor. The ammunition is carried in armored bins, and virtually the entire vehicle has thick Kevlar anti-spalling blankets. The engine also has a thick bulkhead separating it from the crew compartment. An automatic explosion and fire suppression system is provided, and the crew has an NBC overpressure system; the engine compartment and ammunition bins have their own systems of the same sort. The Al-Khalid has a laser detection system that can automatically trigger smoke grenades to block the laser, and a radar warning system that can give the crew a chance to take evasive action.
> 
> Twilight 2000 Notes: Though the Pakistanis were able to field some Al-Khalids in the Twilight 2000 timeline, only some 50 or so were available for the Twilight War.
> 
> Price
> 
> 
> Fuel Type
> 
> 
> Load
> 
> 
> Veh Wt
> 
> 
> Crew
> 
> 
> Mnt
> 
> 
> Night Vision
> 
> 
> Radiological
> 
> $510,579
> 
> 
> D, A
> 
> 
> 800 kg
> 
> 
> 48 tons
> 
> 
> 3
> 
> 
> 24
> 
> 
> 2nd Gen Thermal Imager (G), Thermal Imager (C), Image Intensification (G, C), Passive IR (D)
> 
> 
> Shielded
> 
> Tr Mov
> 
> 
> Com Mov
> 
> 
> Fuel Cap
> 
> 
> Fuel Cons
> 
> 
> Config
> 
> 
> Susp
> 
> 
> Armor*
> 
> 140/98
> 
> 
> 30/18
> 
> 
> 1000+400
> 
> 
> 524
> 
> 
> Trtd
> 
> 
> T6
> 
> 
> TF132Cp TS24Sp TS14 HF165Cp HS20Sp HR12
> 
> Fire Control
> 
> 
> Stabilization
> 
> 
> Armament
> 
> 
> Ammunition
> 
> +4
> 
> 
> Good
> 
> 
> 125mm ZPT-98 Gun, PKT, NSVT (C)
> 
> 
> 43x125mm, 6xAT-11, 4000x7.62mm, 750x12.7mm
> 
> *Floor armor for the Al-Khalid is AV 8.
> 
> HIT Al-Zarrar
> 
> Notes: The Pakistanis have long been users of the Chinese Type 59 tank; they also knew for quite a while that their Type 59s were not only obsolete, they were not keeping up with Indian tanks; there were, however, too many of them to simply scrap them. In 1990, the Pakistanis got together with a few foreign armament firms to upgrade their Type 59s to be able to be able to face more modern designs and at least have a chance to come out on the winning end of a fight. It would essentially give the Pakistanis a modern tank at a fraction of the cost (though the upgrade program ended up costing more real-life money than the Pakistanis thought it would). The development program started in 1990, but the sheer number of modifications (54 of them), coupled with a few budgetary problems and false starts at acquiring outright replacements for the Type 59 meant that the first upgraded Type 59, called the Al-Zarrar (Striker) was not fielded until early 2004. Some 800 of Pakistans Type 59s have been updated to the Al-Zarrar standard, and the Pakistanis also sell the Al-Zarrar upgrade as a kit for countries using the Type 59, T-54, or T-55. In addition to Pakistan, the Bangladeshis use the Al-Zarrar, having begun the upgrade of their Type 59s in 2008.
> 
> Virtually every area of the Type 59 is upgraded, enough so that the Al-Zarrar is essentially a new tank in an old tanks skin. Improvements have been made to the key areas of protection, firepower, fire control, suspension, and mobility. One of the biggest upgrades is the main gun; the 100mm D-10T of the Type 59 has been replaced by a Pakistani version of the 2A46 and its autoloader. Most of the ammunition used in this gun is Pakistani-designed, but mirrors the ammunition used by the 2A46. The main gun is coupled with a modern fire control system built in Pakistan with the assistance of Krauss-Maffei of Germany. The main gun is now fully stabilized, with thermal imaging for the gunner that is accessible to the commander. The main gun also has a laser rangefinder, a ballistic computer, and a monitor to help the gunner search for targets and give him information about targets and the state of the main gun and its ranging components. The gunners hatch has vision blocks around it that give 180-degree vision (front, rear, and right side). The commander has, in addition to thermal imager access, his own IR vision and an image intensifier. The driver, on the front right side, has vision blocks that allow frontal vision and vision to both sides; one of these vision blocks can be removed and replaced by an IR vision block. The commander has an NSVT machinegun mounted on his cupola; this machinegun can be aimed and fired from under armor.
> 
> The Al-Zarrar uses a Pakistani-built version of a Chinese engine, a diesel engine giving 730 horsepower and also having a smaller size than the Type 59s engine. The transmission was also upgraded for the new engine and is semi-automatic. The suspension is improved with wider tracks, improved roadwheels and drive sprockets, and better shock absorption through a modified torsion bar system. Though the Al-Zarrar retains the ability to mount reserve tanks at the rear, in practice they are considered a combat hazard and are normally either not carried or jettisoned before battle.
> 
> The Al-Zarrar was originally to use a large amount of appliqué armor, but this was replaced in development with a modular armor suite, including composite armor on the glacis and turret front and spaced armor on the hull and turret sides. The floor armor has been dramatically increased as well. Lugs for ERA are found on the glacis, hull sides, turret front, turret sides, and the forward part of the turret roof. A Pakistani-designed laser threat warning system is also fitted; this lets the crew know if they are being targeted by laser designators and automatically fires smoke grenades to block the laser designation beam; 5 smoke grenade launchers are found on each side of the turret. Both the ammo bins and the crew compartments have automatic explosion and fire suppression systems.
> 
> Twilight 2000 Notes: In the Twilight 2000 timeline, development was greatly accelerated, and the first Al-Zarrars were available in late 1997 and first used in combat with Indian forces in early 1998.
> 
> Price
> 
> 
> Fuel Type
> 
> 
> Load
> 
> 
> Veh Wt
> 
> 
> Crew
> 
> 
> Mnt
> 
> 
> Night Vision
> 
> 
> Radiological
> 
> $488,840
> 
> 
> D, A
> 
> 
> 550 kg
> 
> 
> 40 tons
> 
> 
> 3
> 
> 
> 24
> 
> 
> Thermal Imaging (G), Passive IR (D, C), Image Intensification (G, C)
> 
> 
> Shielded
> 
> Tr Mov
> 
> 
> Com Mov
> 
> 
> Fuel Cap
> 
> 
> Fuel Cons
> 
> 
> Config
> 
> 
> Susp
> 
> 
> Armor*
> 
> 124/87
> 
> 
> 27/16
> 
> 
> 1000+380
> 
> 
> 297
> 
> 
> Trtd
> 
> 
> T6
> 
> 
> TF67Cp TS28Sp TR19 HF84Cp HS20Sp HR12
> 
> Fire Control
> 
> 
> Stabilization
> 
> 
> Armament
> 
> 
> Ammunition
> 
> +3
> 
> 
> Good
> 
> 
> 125mm 2A46 Gun, PKT, NSVT (C)
> 
> 
> 35x125mm, 3000x7.62mm, 500x12.7mm
> 
> *Floor armor for the Al-Zarrar is AV 8.
> 
> HIT Type 59MII
> 
> Notes: HIT (Heavy Industries Taxila) is the primary agency in Pakistan for the building, modification, and upgrading heavy military vehicles. One of their first tank projects, begun in 1979, was to being the Type 59 first to a like-new configuration, then to upgrade it. Most of this program resulted in the Type 59s being upgraded to the Al-Zarrar; the remainder were upgraded to a configuration called the Type 59MII.
> 
> The Type 59MII is based on the Chinese Type 59-II modification, but is not quite the same. For example, the Type 59MII has a more comprehensive night vision suite, and does not normally mount the searchlight of the Chinese tank. Fire control is a bit better, including a laser rangefinder and a ballistic computer. The commander has access to the gunners sights and has override controls for the main gun. Overall armor is a bit heavier and more advanced than a Type 59-II; the Type 59MII has side skirts, and there are lugs for ERA on the turret front, turret sides, hull front, and hull sides, as well as the forward third of the turret roof. Floor armor is also increased. The engine is the same as the Type 59-II, as is the coaxial machinegun, but the commanders machinegun is an NSVT that can be aimed and fired from under armor. The Type 59IIM has an automatic fire and explosion suppression system, and the transmission is semi-automatic. The Type 59 also has an APU for silent watch. Four smoke grenade launchers are mounted on each side of the turret.
> 
> Price
> 
> 
> Fuel Type
> 
> 
> Load
> 
> 
> Veh Wt
> 
> 
> Crew
> 
> 
> Mnt
> 
> 
> Night Vision
> 
> 
> Radiological
> 
> $496,584
> 
> 
> D, A
> 
> 
> 500 kg
> 
> 
> 37 tons
> 
> 
> 4
> 
> 
> 14
> 
> 
> Thermal Imaging (G), Passive IR (D, C), Image Intensification (G, C)
> 
> 
> Shielded
> 
> Tr Mov
> 
> 
> Com Mov
> 
> 
> Fuel Cap
> 
> 
> Fuel Cons
> 
> 
> Config
> 
> 
> Susp
> 
> 
> Armor
> 
> 101/71
> 
> 
> 22/13
> 
> 
> 815+380
> 
> 
> 261
> 
> 
> Trtd
> 
> 
> T6
> 
> 
> TF53Sp TS13 TR11 HF66Sp HS11Sp HR9
> 
> Fire Control
> 
> 
> Stabilization
> 
> 
> Armament
> 
> 
> Ammunition
> 
> +3
> 
> 
> Fair
> 
> 
> 105mm L-7A2 gun, PKT, NSVT (C)
> 
> 
> 41x105mm, 3500x7.62mm, 500x12.7mm
> 
> *Floor armor for the Type 59MII is AV 6.
> 
> 
> Pakistani Tanks


 
didnt read the whole article ...... but a few corrections:
AK used a french gun(now indegenous) not chinese n bd army doesnt have AKs..but mbt-2000.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

i mentioned this at the beginning of my post . 

AK uses indigenous gun which has french assistance such as material, expertise,with better material, accuracy, increased shell velocity and barrel life etc. Overall a better gun than a standard 2a46m series as trials suggest, combined project between PSML and HIT. MBT 2000 has ZPT98 (type 98 gun) unlike the pervious type 90II gun which was a 2a46m caliber. ZPT 98 is a quality improvement over 2a46 in terms of chrome plating for increased barrel life, increased gun pressure and accuracy. Initial AKs were also equipped but then we sought help from Ukraine/ France to develop our own version with more lethality.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler




----------



## Dazzler

On GIDS site, they have hid the ERA specs, i wonder why it is even mentioned on the site if it is so secret?


http://www.gids.com.pk/prodetail.php?cid=66

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rafi

Integrated Battlefield Management System.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

I compared this BMS pic with the previous one and this seem very detailed, GUI is also much improved which suggests we have another version up and running. Also, AK-1 have started to be inducted since 2010
.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

nabil_05 said:


> I compared this BMS pic with the previous one and this seem very detailed, GUI is also much improved which suggests we have another version up and running. Also, AK-1 have started to be inducted since 2010
> .


 

As Santro Said in one thread. IBMS Version 2.0 is being developed....... and can you share the pervious BMS pic if you have?


----------



## Dazzler

with pleasure bro,,, here is the old version...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

nabil_05 said:


> with pleasure bro,,, here is the old version...


 
The updated one has a lot more features, what is cool is the system is in constant development - their will be a 3.0 - version in a couple of years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Agreed, level of detail is very elaborate, 3 dimensional, satellite imagery, providing a true pic of the whole situation. PA armored personnel must be delighted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

nabil_05 said:


> Agreed, level of detail is very elaborate, 3 dimensional, satellite imagery, providing a true pic of the whole situation. PA armored personnel must be delighted.


 
Delighted? bro they r HAPPY as HELL!

Talked to a major frm 9 horse... n he was singing praises abt AK.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

another angle,


----------



## Dazzler

visual comparison with Israeli BMS to be equipped on T-90M mbt....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

nabil_05 said:


> another angle,


 
You are still using XP .......... and can i have this IBMS too,


----------



## Dazzler

It is running on xp so i feel our IBMS is windows, linux compatible. Not sure how much cpu, ram it would require


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

nabil_05 said:


> another angle,


 
COOL... Now they can play Call of duty for free..lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

if anyone is wondering where these pics are being posted from..

INTEGRATED BATTLEFIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Category : Integrated Battle Field Management System (IBMS)
Manufacturer : GIDS/IDS
Detail


Integrated Battlefield Management System(IBMS) is designed for the operations of amour units in the field to meet the requirements of future battlefield. The user- friendly system provides battlefield awareness through comprehensive land navigation system based on GPS and digitized maps. It enables commanders in mission planning, modification and dissemination of plans, monitoring of battlefield at tactical and operational level, through safe and secure radio network. It facilitates integration of external sensors for data/information acquisition and showing it within the scope of C4I environments. IBMS also facilitates commanders in remote firing of AAMG by auto tracking the aerial and ground targets from inside the tank.
IBMS3

* Safe and secure information sharing through ad hoc networking of radios
* Remote operation of 12.7mm aamg from inside the tank
* Driver panel to facilitate driver to follow the correct route with the help of directional bars
* Auto target tracking for arial and ground targets
* Laser target indication to indicate location of the hostile elements and its engagement
* Rugged hardware to work in harsh environmental conditions based on military specifications











::GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL AND DEFENCE SOLUTIONS ::


----------



## Manticore




----------



## Jihad

Great videos!
However, i'm starting to despise the rock music that comes along with almost every Pakistani Army music video. 

There are much better songs out there...


----------



## Manticore

copyrite is a problem so we have to audioswap the songs -- otherwise i can post 200 melodic death metal songs that would make you swing in joy!


----------



## Dazzler

Credit to Xinhui at CDF, mbt 2000 for peru? notice the long rod ammunition as well as the missile! 







The missile in the pic is Chinese Refleks/ Sniper....


----------



## Manticore

nightcrawler said:


> What is this ??


What is this ??

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/106975-tank-designs.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

ANTIBODY said:


> What is this ??
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/106975-tank-designs.html



Seems like an APS system with a hard kill ability, mbt is Leo 2 Mod i believe

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

any picture of AK or AK1 with massive era


----------



## POST_HUMAN_WAR

Nevermind


----------



## Mav3rick

Can somebody tell me why they don't replace the antique anti aircraft gun with ANZA MK3 or ANZA MK4 air defense systems? The guns are useless against even attack Helicopters so what's the point?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

nabil_05 said:


> Not only cooled, but high quality thermal imagers
> 
> 2nd generation cooled TI= Catherine FC, Thetis (AK, AZ, T-85, T-80ud)
> 
> 3rd generation cooled TI= Sagem Matis (AK, AK-1)



*Nabil*, I have no idea what half of the things on this thread are and the other half I probably only heard so a noob question if you will : Is the Al-Khalid capable enough to stand her ground against some of the best Tanks out there ? And by best I'm talking about the Merkavas, the A1A2s, the T-90s, the Leo 2s ! Or are such comparisons ludicrous and that a Tank's effectiveness is determined by certain other dynamics - area of operations and the sort ? 

And 2) Have the Chinese inducted anything into their MBTs by the improvements that our boys came up with when customizing the MBT-2000 into the Al-Khalids for us ?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Armstrong said:


> *Nabil*, I have no idea what half of the things on this thread are and the other half I probably only heard so a noob question if you will : Is the Al-Khalid capable enough to stand her ground against some of the best Tanks out there ? And by best I'm talking about the Merkavas, the A1A2s, the T-90s, the Leo 2s ! Or are such comparisons ludicrous and that a Tank's effectiveness is determined by certain other dynamics - area of operations and the sort ?
> 
> And 2) Have the Chinese inducted anything into their MBTs by the improvements that our boys came up with when customizing the MBT-2000 into the Al-Khalids for us ?



Why dont u compare the specs urself....

Hint: AK beats T-90 hands down.

As for improvement... ive heard abt the chinese getting hunter killer for their new mbts which before AK wasnt present plus some imagery systems... nabil is the expert here though...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Armstrong

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Why dont u compare the specs urself....
> 
> Hint: AK beats T-90 hands down.
> 
> As for improvement... ive heard abt the chinese getting hunter killer for their new mbts which before AK wasnt present plus some imagery systems... nabil is the expert here though...



I tried but the benefits of having a 'cooled thermal imager' are as lost on me as asking an engineer to elucidate the importance of 'Sarbanex Oxley Law in relation to Corporate Governance' ! Mujhee nahin sammjh aa rahii keh baatiin kiya ho rahi hain, *wajja* (as Wasu says it )


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Armstrong said:


> I tried but the benefits of having a 'cooled thermal imager' are as lost on me as asking an engineer to elucidate the importance of 'Sarbanex Oxley Law in relation to Corporate Governance' ! Mujhee nahin sammjh aa rahii keh baatiin kiya ho rahi hain, *wajja* (as Wasu says it )



Hunter killer searches,locks n fires at targets when on the move..and can search and track several targets at a time... TIS and other imaging systems are for viewing long distance targets/magnification.. etc ... the indian t-90s even have flawed TIS and other systems in their t-90s... just for info.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bratva

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Why dont u compare the specs urself....
> 
> Hint: AK beats T-90 hands down.
> 
> As for improvement... ive heard abt the chinese getting hunter killer for their new mbts which before AK wasnt present plus some imagery systems... nabil is the expert here though...



Pakistani AK's have French Hunter killer systems... I guess

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ironman

nabil_05 said:


> Hunter Killer system is a capability that allows an mbt to look around 360 degree battlefield and track and engage enemy on earliest basis. This technology has been the focal point in modern western MBT philosophy and today all modern western, some easternbts have this capability. Soviet/ Russian and even early Ukrainian mbts lacked this function. T-72, T-80 and even T-90S does not have this but Chinese T-98/99 series DO have it. Hunter Killer consists of independent commander and gunner thermal imagers, laser range finders, and an auto tracking facility. This capability is further aided with an advanced Battle Management System, allowing the tank crew a more comprehensive battlefield awareness.
> 
> Regarding engaging Merks, M1A2s, i do not see any reason why AK cannot engage them with efficient HK and day night capabiliity with a powerful gun and ammunition, not to mention the missile firing ability with tandem warheads. This is why it is so important to see first-engage first and where panoramic sight and HK comes in to equation.
> 
> Chinese have been impressed by our thermal imager integration, efficient 6td2 engine and auto transmission, and BMS integration so early and they have opted for the same in their new 99A, 99B series, MBT 3000 series.
> 
> MBTs with Hunter Killer function:
> 
> AK, AK-1 series (PAK)
> Oplot, T-84U series (Ukraine)
> M1A2 series (US)
> Challenger2 series (UK)
> Merkava 3, 4 series (Israel)
> Leopard 2A,4,5,6 series (Germany)
> Type-90, Type-10 series (Japan)
> K1A1, K2 BP series (SK)
> T-90M (portable BMS device) (Russia)
> T-90MS (Russia)
> Leclerc (France)
> 
> Tanks without Hunter Killer
> 
> T-64, 72, T-80 and 90S series (Russia, Ukraine)
> 
> T-84 basic (Ukraine)




Hunter Killer .. the name itself reveals the meaning.. In this, the commander acquires the target (hunts) and pass it to the gunner(kills). basic principle of any modern tank. You can call your's 'True', 'Real' or anything you like but the fundamentals are same, only difference is you have installed more equipment to ease the job like gunner's independent TI, auto tracking etc.

Tidbit : In T-90, there is an option for commander to fire himself.. What do you need more ?


----------



## Dazzler

ironman said:


> Hunter Killer .. the name itself reveals the meaning.. In this, the commander acquires the target (hunts) and pass it to the gunner(kills). basic principle of any modern tank. You can call your's 'True', 'Real' or anything you like but the fundamentals are same, only difference is you have installed more equipment to ease the job like gunner's independent TI, auto tracking etc.
> 
> Tidbit : In T-90, there is an option for commander to fire himself.. What do you need more ?



What you posted is far from a tit bit and is a wellknown thing for many years, even t-72 has a Commander "overlay" function. This is by no means a new technology and has been around since the venerable T-64 mbt. And nowhere in my post did i degrade any mbt, just pointed out the absence of HK capability in Russian/ early Ukrainian mbts such as t-80U-ud, T-90S, A, and T-84 etc. What is an integral part of HK system is an all-round panoramic day/night sight for constant surveylance that aids the HK system. 

Note: One correction, the T-90M does not have a HK anc panoramic surveylance ability but MS covers it with ease.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ironman

nabil_05 said:


> What you posted is far from a tit bit and is a wellknown thing for many years, even t-72 has a Commander "overlay" function. This is by no means a new technology and has been around since the venerable T-64 mbt. And nowhere in my post did i degrade any mbt, just pointed out the absence of HK capability in Russian/ early Ukrainian mbts such as t-80U-ud, T-90S, A, and T-84 etc. What is an integral part of HK system is an all-round panoramic day/night sight for constant surveylance that aids the HK system.
> 
> Note: One correction, the T-90M does not have a HK anc panoramic surveylance ability but MS covers it with ease.



Yo have no idea what you are talking about.. for others, here is a link ..read all the comments by Vasiliy Fofanov a Russian tanker

TRISHUL: What's Wrong With The T-90S MBT's Fire-Control System?


----------



## Dazzler

ironman said:


> Yo have no idea what you are talking about.. for others, here is a link ..read all the comments by Vasiliy Fofanov a Russian tanker
> 
> TRISHUL: What's Wrong With The T-90S MBT's Fire-Control System?



Oh goodness, first read the TITLE of the posted link by Sengupta which states, "Whats WRONG with T-90 fire control system". Did you even bother to read? for your info, i have already read and posted this link on a previous AK forum, only if you could bother to read... In the same thread, Sengupta has praised AK for its HK and other systems and compared with Arjun, not T-90.


Regards

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## farhan_9909

well from an indian member i heard that There T-90 dnt have any LTS as of now..nor the latest ERA.

and he said apart from trishol you wont find any other source to prove the latest ERA claim


----------



## SEAL

farhan_9909 said:


> well from an indian member i heard that There T-90 dnt have any LTS as of now..nor the latest ERA.
> 
> and he said apart from trishol you wont find any other source to prove the latest ERA claim



Its possible, i saw Indian army documentary Indian T-90s don't even have air condition.


----------



## farhan_9909

yes no air condition as well

i forgot the APS as well

these things are just in the list bt nt present on t90 bhisma

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore




----------



## farhan_9909

ironman said:


> Yo have no idea what you are talking about.. for others, here is a link ..read all the comments by Vasiliy Fofanov a Russian tanker
> 
> TRISHUL: What's Wrong With The T-90S MBT's Fire-Control System?





> You may not like it, but a prime example of such systems optimisation is Pakistan's Al Khalid MBT project. I only wish India's MoD had done the same and worked with Uralvagonzavod to develop a T-90MKI, instead of the T-90S.



From the same source

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mav3rick

Guys.......Does Al-Khalid incorporate APU's to reduce idle heat signature and save fuel? And we have been hearing of Al-Khalid 2 since 2008-9, when will it actually be revealed? IDEAS 2012?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

Mav3rick said:


> Guys.......Does Al-Khalid incorporate APU's to reduce idle heat signature and save fuel? And we have been hearing of Al-Khalid 2 since 2008-9, when will it actually be revealed? IDEAS 2012?



Yet even the Al khalid I is nt official revealed to public.it was supposed to be revealed in 2008.

Though during a visit of a General to HIT.there we saw a tank Al khalid I written over it and the most notable feature was the side skirts..

Hope for the best
and i think if Prototypes(AKII.even Dawn reported that prototype AKII and AKIII) are really in HIT than it might be revealed as it is nt a top secret project

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

at least 2 batches of AK-1 already with Pak Army service, AK-2, 2 prototypes are known to be in existence and quite different than Chinese Type 99 or MBT 3000.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mav3rick

nabil_05 said:


> at least 2 batches of AK-1 already with Pak Army service, AK-2, 2 prototypes are known to be in existence and quite different than Chinese Type 99 or MBT 3000.



If so, why aren't they on display at various Military shows? Any idea if IDEAS 2012 would host them?


----------



## Dazzler

because there is not point in displaying an early prototype which is far from the final configuration, when inducted, the world will see it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## farhan_9909

I guess in the turret layout 
we should Corporate with turkey
the turret on atlay if placed on AK2 would look amazing as well as more well protected


----------



## DARKY

alimobin memon said:


> Alkhalid tank does not only have era , it has laser threat warning system and *active protection system too* ... Dont underestimate the tank However I have one question that Alkhalid AA gun can be operated from inside but i dont see the gun to be mounted on any rolling system rather than a small poll fixed :/ any one knows something about it ?



The ERA layout on Al Khalid doesn't cover the weak-zones completely... Besides the plates used are very thin and ineffective against any APFSDS round or Tandem Charge warhead rounds and CLATGM.

There is Laser paint warning system however *no* Active Protection system is present either in the Hard kill or passive kill department.


----------



## SBD-3

DARKY said:


> The ERA layout on Al Khalid doesn't cover the weak-zones completely... Besides the plates used are very thin and ineffective against any APFSDS round or Tandem Charge warhead rounds and CLATGM.
> 
> There is Laser paint warning system however *no* Active Protection system is present either in the Hard kill or passive kill department.


1-Have you even seen a live khalid tank? or you have operated one? or have you designed it? 
2-This is an information pool, if you like to have a debt on the issue, open a new thread.
Mods please do the cleaning.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

hasnain0099 said:


> 1-Have you even seen a live khalid tank? or you have operated one? or have you designed it?
> 2-This is an information pool, if you like to have a debt on the issue, open a new thread.
> Mods please do the cleaning.....



1.Have you seen each and every military equipment which you talk about ?.. Or is a criteria that only those people who have seen, Operated and designed Al Khalid can talk about it... or point out the flaws.

2. I am not debating on the issue I have just corrected a user on his post.


----------



## SBD-3

DARKY said:


> 1.*Have you seen each and every military equipment which you talk about ?*.. Or is a criteria that only those people who have seen, Operated and designed Al Khalid can talk about it... or point out the flaws.
> 
> 2. I am not debating on the issue I have just corrected a user on his post.


1-Thats why you dont find me on very select sections/threads on this forum, not everywhere......I hope it helps......
2-You should be able to back your definitive statements with approperiate proofs,else clearly state that its your opinon.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DARKY

hasnain0099 said:


> 1-Thats why you dont find me on very select sections/threads on this forum, not everywhere......I hope it helps......
> 2-You should be able to back your definitive statements with approperiate proofs,else clearly state that its your opinon.



1. Thats your opinion.. you must be a military service man to know more than those machine which you see live... and talk about it.
2. I showed the thin ERA tiles of Al Khalid(page 14-15).. I can mark out improper ERA covering(If you can't see for yourself.).
Besides No APS has been found on any Al Khalid under the service of PA till date.


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> You are shouting for nothing, you have been proven wrong on Nozh Era issue so better not make false claims again. Reason for thin ERA covering is the thickness of conventional armour on AK and AK-1. More than 700 mm on turret without ERA and more than 600mm around glacis. VARTA is already in ACTIVE service but they are not going to show it for your sake. 23rd March parade has not taken place for three years now otherwise you would have seen it.




Jingoism aside.

Lack of knowledge or false knowledge is harmful... both for one self and others.
When I proved there bis not Nozh ERA armor on any tank PA whatsoever means there isn't... you could not come with a single proof of even comparable ERA system on Pakistani T-80UD/Al Khalid tanks... while I showed you in picture that the ERA on T-80UD/Al Khalid is not Nozh.

The conventional armor on Al Khalid is NOT 700mm.... forget about glacis being 600mm not even M1A2/Leo2A6/Arjun have such a thick armor there.

VATRA is not an Active protection system(not hard kill neither soft kill)... It is a self protection Leaser jammer.. that too was only evaluated on Al Khalid... And is not there in service... Besides that using such a device makes the frontal armor weak as does shorta jamming eyes on T-90.

In-spite of all these Al Khalid doesn't become a bad tank... it still is a potent armor machine.


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> I can tell you with authenticity that 90% military discussions on many forums is nothing more than speculation and estimates. For example, fighter and other radar ranges vary to a great extent than what is publically known. The link i gave is a good estimation of plenty of information collected by the person in his own capacity, an effort worth appreciation. Neither do i have any issues with arguing with you but you keep raising issues that been discussed to death before. AK ERA thickness and protection levels and an absence of an APS? Bring something new at least because AK-2 is around the corner with plenty of eye candy.


 
The blogger you posted as link has simply exaggerated figures for certain MBTs(mainly Western).. and several wrong data posted.

As I said I don't know much about armor... however I can still point out at least 10 errors without even scrolling much of that page.

Thats the problem with you people you make an eye candy out of military equipment.. certainly that won't suppress the flaws it has neither it would negate it.

The main Armor thickness of Al Khalid is about 400mm... which If is ceramic based composite filling would amount to 600-650mm RHA on commander's side and 550-600mm RHA on gunner's side of the turret(considering it to be world class and not typical Chinese)... and thats the only two places where the armor is present on Al Khalid and the rest of it is RHA and steel... of varied thickness.
While the frontal armor(If has ceramic based composite filling).. would amount to 700-900mm for HEAT(depending on round) and the RHA equivalent or 50mm less for KE(depending on round).

ERA present is certainly crap(sorry if it hurts)... its only good against RPG-7 and HEAT rounds(vintage.. age old).. its of no use against both Tandem charge aswell as KE rounds.


----------



## Dazzler

It is not even funny anymore,, problem is that you love to dig the same trench over and over while protecting your ego. There is enough data on this very thread to satisfy your age old queries but you chose to argue on non issues still. One thick hide chap you are.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> It is not even funny anymore,, problem is that you love to dig the same trench over and over while protecting your *ego*. There is enough data on this very thread to satisfy your age old queries but you chose to argue on non issues still. One thick hide chap you are.



Make me untrue.... I showed you the photo+data and supported it with proper analysis from my side.
Do the same.. else don't make a baby cry of ego and what you have talked of before... all you have been doing is posting blogs and here and there half news which doesn't even make a Hint... and you make one out of it.


----------



## DARKY

TaimiKhan said:


> I hope next time you won't ask others to keep aside their jingoism before you put aside yours.
> 
> Here is an* operational AK* with the system which you just claimed was evaluated. This is an operational AK with a formation unit being displayed.
> 
> Now after this i would say you self delete your jingoistic posts trying to show as if you working at HIT or are the designer of AK.
> 
> And delete your self analysis posts which have no backing or technical support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...nk-type-90-iim-mbt-2000-information-pool.html




I know about this esteemed photo of Al Khalid tank.

Only If you did get why I said the word "Evaluated".. even this image would show you.
Al Khalid needs ERA protection to save its self against enemy fire... main armor is insufficient.

Now due to the turret design the ERA cover on Al Khalid is already not covering all of the frontal turret where the main armor is present.. specially the more vulnerable lower part.

Adding this would significantly increase the problems of the designers.. as evident from this photo where you have ERA all over the tank except the Turret.

Now except this photo there isn't any other photo of Al Khalid with shorta(Vatra) eyes... either they are still working on it or they have left it... its not a system which would provide much of a significant advantage in the battle field... against a full ERA cover on the turret.

I hope this answers you... or If you have any better reasoning or statement from some official of sort... would like to read that.

And this was only a part... there is not a single verification of the absurd claims made regularly on this thread about the Ukrainian Nozh ERA armor being used on Al Khalid or T-80UD of PA... neither do you have any thing which proves the thickness of the main armor to be of 700mm on turret and 600mm on glacis... not even RHA equivalent of those armor is as measured.


----------



## SQ8

DARKY said:


> I know about this esteemed photo of Al Khalid tank.
> 
> Only If you did get why I said the word "Evaluated".. even this image would show you.
> Al Khalid needs ERA protection to save its self against enemy fire... main armor is insufficient.
> 
> Now due to the turret design the ERA cover on Al Khalid is already not covering all of the frontal turret where the main armor is present.. specially the more vulnerable lower part.
> 
> Adding this would significantly increase the problems of the designers.. as evident from this photo where you have ERA all over the tank except the Turret.
> 
> *Now except this photo there isn't any other photo of Al Khalid with shorta(Vatra) eyes... either they are still working on it or they have left it... its not a system which would provide much of a significant advantage in the battle field... against a full ERA cover on the turret*.
> 
> I hope this answers you... or If you have any better reasoning or statement from some official of sort... would like to read that.
> 
> And this was only a part... there is not a single verification of the absurd claims made regularly on this thread about the Ukrainian Nozh ERA armor being used on Al Khalid or T-80UD of PA... neither do you have any thing which proves the thickness of the main armor to be of 700mm on turret and 600mm on glacis... not even RHA equivalent of those armor is as measured.



Maybe because there was none taken, your approach to disproving it is fairly ridiculous. 
If you have not seen a photo of it , it doesn't exist?
Very Childlike.. seeing is believing?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Oscar said:


> Maybe because there was none taken, your approach to disproving it is fairly ridiculous.
> If you have not seen a photo of it , it doesn't exist?
> Very Childlike.. seeing is believing?



I have a reasonable argument to support why such a photo was not seen again... on other PA tanks.
ERA here is more important than that fancy gadget... here.


----------



## Arsalan

nabil_05 said:


> It is not even funny anymore,, problem is that you love to dig the same trench over and over while protecting your ego. There is enough data on this very thread to satisfy your age old queries but you chose to argue on non issues still. One thick hide chap you are.



bro, isn't it better we PASS on this now? just assume you are in a rapid fire round and need to quickly move to next thing! 

The information is all available, the data is all provided by you, by many others on this very forum, i bet these men have read all this, they realize they were wrong but its just a matter of accepting this.
EGO is a hard thing to ignore,, lets move on!
 



TaimiKhan said:


> I hope next time you won't ask others to keep aside their jingoism before you put aside yours.
> 
> Here is an operational AK with the system which you just claimed was evaluated. This is an operational AK with a formation unit being displayed.
> 
> Now after this i would say you self delete your jingoistic posts trying to show as if you working at HIT or are the designer of AK.
> 
> And delete your self analysis posts which have no backing or technical support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...nk-type-90-iim-mbt-2000-information-pool.html


I bet Taimikhan, the image wont be visible to some members here!

Thanks for sharing!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Oscar said:


> these I worked on, so I can tell you their size.
> The Radio is about 10x15x7.. The autoloader/cooling/aircon/etc electronics are all solid state which comes in various shielding not exceeding 6x6x6. The mechanicals are a tight fit(you cannot move around much).
> Im looking for a video that shows the interior so that you can judge.
> I dont have a theory, I only see a tank.. make the radio.
> If you have expertise(say of five to ten years) in the field where you can say with authority(preferably a diploma or degree) in armoured vehicle engineering that it is impossible to do so.
> I would believe you.. till then.. Ill believe the other claim.
> Im just a judge here who has actually seen the thing and spoken to the people who make it..rather than be a couch potato critique
> 
> Here's a nice collection of Images to show you with various ERA fittings.



I have most of the photos in the video got a few more.. thanks for that.
All the Russian and Chinese MBT have small crew compartment same with Al Khalid the turret has been made bigger to accommodate latest electronic devices and cooling equipment.

A tank is not such a complex a thing that you can't understand it without diploma(and etc.)
I don't know much about armor and its composition... however most of the MBTs follow a general limit of upto what extent you can put armor in size with the turret.

If you were inside Al Khalid you would've noticed the Armor starts right beyond the Gunners sight,
from there you can make an estimated measure.... the blocks are of steel with composite fillings inside them.
Generally if the composite is 400-500mm thick(depending on quality) RHA equivalent would be about 600-650mm for KE round and 800-900mm for HEAT... which is very good... none of the KE rounds of IA can penetrate such armor from 2km... even the best ones used on T-90S.

However the ERA seen here is of concern... it is good if you are facing the HEAT rounds fired by T-72.. However for a tandem charge or KE round.. it's insufficient.

And as seen in the video most of the configuration(including the one which PA follows doesn't cover the lower part of turret where the hits are generally made on ERA equipped tank


----------



## v9s

I think DARKY is just fishing for info....let's not indulge him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

DARKY said:


> I have most of the photos in the video got a few more.. thanks for that.
> All the Russian and Chinese MBT have small crew compartment same with Al Khalid the turret has been made bigger to accommodate latest electronic devices and cooling equipment.
> 
> A tank is not such a complex a thing that you *can't understand it without diploma*(and etc.)
> I don't know much about armor and its composition... however most of the MBTs follow a general limit of upto what extent you can put armor in size with the turret.
> 
> If you were inside Al Khalid you would've noticed the Armor starts right beyond the Gunners sight,
> from there you can make an estimated measure.... the blocks are of steel with composite fillings inside them.
> Generally if the composite is 400-500mm thick(depending on quality) RHA equivalent would be about 600-650mm for KE round and 800-900mm for HEAT... which is very good... none of the KE rounds of IA can penetrate such armor from 2km... even the best ones used on T-90S.
> 
> However the ERA seen here is of concern... it is good if you are facing the HEAT rounds fired by T-72.. However for a tandem charge or KE round.. it's insufficient.
> 
> And as seen in the video most of the configuration(including the one which PA follows doesn't cover the lower part of turret where the hits are generally made on ERA equipped tank



Yes, but you need expertise on it to make a sure shot statement.. and this tank is a little complicated(electronically anyway).
I cant say for certain I noticed armour.. I can say for certain that it was CRAMPED. I hurt myself going in and coming out of it.
Again, I have little interest in Tanks as such.. so Im just being a judge of statements. 
I was told by the information provided to me that this tank can take KE and APFDFS rounds.. of what nature.. velocity etc.. I never bothered to ask or felt interested in. 
I do know what ERA is, and was told that it covers the tank..which was sufficient for my "tourist" status at the factory.

Now Im not sure where most of the hits are made, but it is slightly hard to believe that this relatively small area is always scored a hit upon from anything greater than 800 meters using projectile physics 
Just doesnt seem possible that you are suggesting a 90% hit on that area all the time and everybody else with years in armour in the PA ignored it.. not belittling you.. rather Im stumped that they missed it.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DARKY

Oscar said:


> Now Im not sure where most of the hits are made, but it is slightly hard to believe that this relatively small area is always scored a hit upon from anything greater than 800 meters using projectile physics
> Just doesnt seem possible that you are suggesting a 90% hit on that area all the time and everybody else with years in armour in the PA ignored it.. not belittling you.. rather Im stumped that they missed it.



Most of the hits are made on the weak section.. yes modern guns and FCS are capable enough to hit with a lot of accuracy... which is better with western type MBTs when stationary(better gun and fcs) or level terrain.... while in rough terrain Soviet tanks perform better(thanks to auto loader).

Weak areas.. where they generally hit.







The lower part of Al Khalid turret is not covered by ERA... your army uses a kind of desi method to save that area.... in exercises and war game simulations... there was photo also from a recent exercise.


----------



## Arsalan

DARKY said:


> I gave an estimated account of the armor thickness in my previous post.
> 700mm is about the thickness of frontal armor on M1A1/Leo2A4.. and I don't think the turret of Al Khalid is as big.. and heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Khalid turret is about half the size and weight.



Assumptions??

no fact or link to back up what you are saying?

No Offense bro but looking at the confidence you are posting these claims with, i was just a bit curious that you might come up with HIT official web link to confirm what you claim. I am a bit disappointed!


As for basing your ASSUMPTION that since AK weighs less then Abram so its Armour thickness is less, have you bothered looking at SIZE of tank? Weight of component? Crew compartment in Abram, its features/dimension/protection and that of AK's?

i just want to know that what you were saying was a Wild guess or a calculated one, i i know for sure that it was you GUESS and nothing more!


----------



## DARKY

arsalanaslam123 said:


> Assumptions??
> 
> no fact or link to back up what you are saying?
> 
> No Offense bro but looking at the confidence you are posting these claims with, i was just a bit curious that you might come up with HIT official web link to confirm what you claim. I am a bit disappointed!
> 
> 
> As for basing your ASSUMPTION that since AK weighs less then Abram so its Armour thickness is less, have you bothered looking at SIZE of tank? Weight of component? Crew compartment in Abram, its features/dimension/protection and that of AK's?
> 
> i just want to know that what you were saying was a Wild guess or a calculated one, i i know for sure that it was you GUESS and nothing more!



M1A1 has a 7 wheeled chassis hence there is extra space for the 4th crew.

Its turret weights about 24-26tons.
Has armor on all sides.

The armor on both Al Khalid and M1A1 starts beyond the gunners's periscopic sight.
To make a basic idea about the thickness of Armor here.

M1A1 in Afghanistan






Al Khalid at a Public demonstration.






No offense here but none of the Chinese designs have armor as thick as western design.
The weight of Al Khalid turret would come about 15-17ton.
It has less space due to 6 wheeled chassis and additional auto-loader(which also degrades protection.).

Would like to know where the ammo. is stored in Al Khalid.


----------



## Dazzler

DARKY said:


> Would like to know where the ammo. is stored in Al Khalid.



It has separate armoured ammunition storage panels where ammunition is stored unlike Soviet/ Russian MBTs especially t-72/90 & 80, where ammunition is spread all over the place. Again, all you have to do is to read this thread again to find queries of your questions.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> It has *separate armoured ammunition storage panels* where ammunition is stored unlike Soviet/ Russian MBTs especially t-72/90 & 80, where ammunition is spread all over the place. Again, all you have to do is to read this thread again to find queries of your questions.



I asked where are the ammo rounds stored.

And not weather there are any armored panel or not... I would come on that part also... But before that would like to know the position of extra ammo rounds in Al Khalid.

Soviet/Russian MBTs... all T-72B,BM/90A,MS/80BV,U,UM are much well protected as compared with Al Khalid... it would divert the topic hence lets stick to the ammo storage area on Al Khalid.


----------



## TaimiKhan

DARKY said:


> I asked where are the ammo rounds stored.
> 
> And not weather there are any armored panel or not... I would come on that part also... But before that would like to know the position of extra ammo rounds in Al Khalid.
> 
> *Soviet/Russian MBTs... all T-72B,BM/90A,MS/80BV,U,UM are much well protected as compared with Al Khalid...* it would divert the topic hence lets stick to the ammo storage area on Al Khalid.



Such kind of statements shows the intention and also tells us that its useless to argue since one side has already made up its mind about the thing which is being discussed.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Arsalan

DARKY said:


> No offense here but none of the Chinese designs have armor as thick as western design.
> The weight of Al Khalid turret would come about 15-17ton.
> It has less space due to 6 wheeled chassis and additional auto-loader(which also degrades protection.).
> 
> Would like to know where the ammo. is stored in Al Khalid.



AGAIN BOSS..
i repeat what i said earlier..

*Assumptions??

no fact or link to back up what you are saying?

No Offense bro but looking at the confidence you are posting these claims with, i was just a bit curious that you might come up with HIT official web link to confirm what you claim. I am a bit disappointed!

i just want to know that what you are saying was a Wild guess or a calculated one, I know for sure that it was you GUESS and nothing more!
*



DARKY said:


> I asked where are the ammo rounds stored.
> 
> And not weather there are any armored panel or not... I would come on that part also... But before that would like to know the position of extra ammo rounds in Al Khalid.
> 
> Soviet/Russian MBTs... all T-72B,BM/90A,MS/80BV,U,UM are much well protected as compared with Al Khalid... it would divert the topic hence lets stick to the ammo storage area on Al Khalid.


Bro, you have been here on PDF for quite some time. I thought you would have learnt all the tricks but you are still giving it away, over and over again!!!

In same post, on one hand you are asking a basic question about AK, confirming your knowledge about the system, on other hand, in same post, we have your twisted claim and conclusion to the discussion. AK IS NOT GOOD
Boss, when you are giving what you have made up in your mind at same time when inviting others for a discussion, this makes no sense yaar! 

At least you must have waited for someone to answer your question so after that you can say "BAD AK" as a conclusion, based on information provided by that member. 
Here in this case, you are making this clear that you are here for arguing for the sake or arguing and nothing more!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DARKY

TaimiKhan said:


> Such kind of statements shows the intention and also tells us that its useless to argue since one side has already made up its mind about the thing which is being discussed.


 
I can prove what I said with solid facts data any proper analysis.
It remains for the other party to decide weather or not they are ready to face the facts straight once for all.
I would be happy If you point out mistakes there in my analysis.
However I would only start(off course on the separate thread if you people insist.).. as for now I am only posting about Al Khalid.


----------



## DARKY

arsalanaslam123 said:


> AGAIN BOSS..
> i repeat what i said earlier..
> 
> *Assumptions??
> 
> no fact or link to back up what you are saying?
> 
> No Offense bro but looking at the confidence you are posting these claims with, i was just a bit curious that you might come up with HIT official web link to confirm what you claim. I am a bit disappointed!
> 
> i just want to know that what you are saying was a Wild guess or a calculated one, I know for sure that it was you GUESS and nothing more!
> *



There isn't any link either.. my assumption was based on comparative mass value in between M1A1 and T-90S turrets... M1A1 turret weights 22-25ton(depending on variant)... while T-90S turret weights about 15ton exactly.. hence a 17 ton figure must be close enough as Al Khalid doesn't have much armor space is needed to fill in electronics.

If you have any link which provides the mass of the turret on Al Khalid then please provide one.




arsalanaslam123 said:


> Bro, you have been here on PDF for quite some time. I thought you would have learnt all the tricks but you are still giving it away, over and over again!!!
> 
> In same post, on one hand you are asking a basic question about AK, confirming your knowledge about the system, on other hand, in same post, we have your twisted claim and conclusion to the discussion. AK IS NOT GOOD
> Boss, when you are giving what you have made up in your mind at same time when inviting others for a discussion, this makes no sense yaar!
> 
> At least you must have waited for someone to answer your question so after that you can say "BAD AK" as a conclusion, based on information provided by that member.
> Here in this case, you are making this clear that you are here for arguing for the sake or arguing and nothing more!!


 
Al Khalid is good no doubt... I say that here and again.

What I said about Soviet MBTs is what I can prove(In terms of protection)... Its not like making up the mind.. but what you know.
You might take it like its being used by PA as MBTs.. however I can prove that for Arjun too.. in spite of all that thick armor right on the front it is not as protected as Russian MBTs... and that's a solid fact.. no denying.

Russian/Soviet/Ukrainian MBTs are known for their excellent design... after Russian design only Isreali design on Merkava comes 2nd.


----------



## TaimiKhan

@Darky, with respect to protection of Russian tanks, no matter what article or analysis or youtube video you bring out, the war record of Russian tanks speaks contrary to what you just said. In whatever war, Russian tanks have been blown up with ease.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

TaimiKhan said:


> @Darky, with respect to protection of Russian tanks, no matter what article or analysis or youtube video you bring out, the war record of Russian tanks speaks contrary to what you just said. In whatever war, Russian tanks have been blown up with ease.


 
Sir G,

I don't want to go in details... I would give you an example of 2 Chechnya wars....

In the 1st war T-90 and T-72 both suffered heavily and destroyed in good numbers... thanks to Russian weapons like RPG-7,29,32... while in town any tank is vulnerable and from top and gaps.. even RPG-7 can be lethal... penetrations were made and tanks got destroyed thanks to the open ammo-present... If you know about GWI even M1A1 perished similar way... turret one place and hull another.

In the 2nd Chechnya war they don't carry extra ammo.. and only ammo in auto-loader was present.. again penetration were made on weak points by RPG(as would they do on any other MBT) as many as 9 hits.. the tank survives has repairs and again goes in to battle. 

Don't Bring monkey T-72 and T-62 models into equation.

Please read about T-95, Black Eagle, Object 187, Object 195, etc.. etc.. those are superior Russian designs which never came into production.


----------



## Dazzler

Darky, 


stop elaborate trolling once and for all, you have already ruined a fine information pool thread. Go ask your questions in relevant thread. Mods please take note!


----------



## Last Hope

Posted by Nabil.


> Special emphasis was given to protect the tank from* simultaneous RPG hits from various angles. The armor, initially developed with foreign assistance, was later modified and developed indigenously which can sustain many RPG hits.* This was validated during 2001, 2004, 2006 trials. AK Armor is considered better than that if the t-80ud (K-5) ERA. Reason is the availability of various technologies from China, France, Korea, Ukraine etc. Current armor as fitted on AK-1 is atleast twice as more efficient as previous version also validated during trials and lighter too



I don't think this is safe to be posted on a public forum. Even though this is nothing sensitive, the TTP and their supporters have access to internet and Al-Khalid is operational in the area. 

I hope you understand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Manticore

please continue comparative discussions here -- ive cleaned the info pool -- dont get confused by the title of the moved posts , this is the PA tanks comparison thread -- you can quote the info pool here if you need to

regards


----------



## farhan_9909

al khalid armour

do we use ceramic based armour such as chobham in al khalid

or China/ soviet based fused alumina or silica in our local armour

i heard that pak developed indigenous armour for al khalid with some help from Ukraine
but not much info is available

if any body has plz share

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

farhan_9909 said:


> al khalid armour
> 
> do we use ceramic based armour such as chobham in al khalid
> 
> or China/ soviet based fused alumina or silica in our local armour
> 
> i heard that pak developed indigenous armour for al khalid with some help from Ukraine
> but not much info is available
> 
> if any body has plz share



maybe this can help
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khalid_(tank)#Protection


----------



## IHK_PK

*THIS IS A LIST WITH military-today.com*

Top 10 Main Battle Tanks

Often we receive many questions which is the best main battle tank in the world. Which is the greatest modern MBT and why. Our Top 10 analysis is based on the combined score of protection, firepower, accuracy and mobility. All of the tanks mentioned here are incredibly powerful and devastating, however none of them have seen combat against each other during military operations yet. Analysis is based on specifications and available data. Crew training of the tank is also important, as performance of the actual tank depends from the crew performance.
Currently top 10 best tanks in the world are these:


Nr.1 Leopard 2A7 (Germany)

It is a recent version of the proven and successful Leopard 2 design. It has additional armor and updated electronics.
The Leopard 2A7 is well protected against conventional and urban warfare threats, such as RPG rounds and IEDs.
This tank has better accuracy and longer range of fire comparing with other tanks due to it's powerful gun and advanced fire control system.
This MBT is powered by a proven engine, developing 1 500 hp. Despite increase in weight vehicle has increased mobility due to improved suspension components. Cross-country performance is similar to other Leopard 2 series tanks.
The Leopard 2A7 is not yet in production. German plans to upgrade 50 to 150 Leopard 2 tanks to the 2A7 standard. Saudi Arabia ordered 200 of these MBTs.



Nr.2 K2 Black Panther (South Korea)

Currently the Black Panther is one of the most advanced main battle tank in the world, outclassing anything North Korea or China have. Furthermore it is the most expensive main battle tank to date.
This tank uses composite armor of undisclosed type and explosive reactive armor modules. The K2 is also completed with active protection and countermeasures systems. It's protection is broadly similar to the M1A2 Abrams, considering that the K2 is much lighter.
This new South Korean tank is armed with the latest German 120-mm gun, similar to that used on the Leopard 2A6 and 2A7. This tank has a very advanced fire control system with can spot, track and fire automatically at visible vehicle-size targets, even low-flying helicopters, without needing any input from a human operator. The K2 also uses advanced munitions.
The Black Panther is fitted with a powerful diesel engine. It is fast and has a state-of-the-art hydropneumatic suspension.
Currently this main battle tanks is not yet in series production. It might enter service with the South Korean Army soon.



Nr.3 M1A2 Abrams (USA)

The M1A2 has incredible technology and armor. Also this tank has seen combat.
The M1A2 offers significant protection against all well-known anti-tank weapons. This main battle tank uses advanced armor, reinforced with depleted uranium layers.
It's gun and accuracy are slightly inferior to that of the Leopard 2A7.
It's complex gas turbine engine offers good performance, but requires tremendous amount of maintenance, logistical support and is thirsty on fuel.
The M1A2 SEP is the latest version. Other tanks can be upgraded to this standard.
The M1A2 Abrams is in service with United States (over 1 500), Kuwait (218) and Saudi Arabia (373).



Nr.4 Challenger 2 (United Kingdom)

It is a very capable tank. The Challenger 2 has the latest Chobham armor and is one of the most protected MBTs in the world today. It offers very high level of protection against direct fire weapons
This British tank is armed with a very accurate 120-mm rifled gun. Maximum aimed range is over 5 km.
Engine of the Challenger 2 is less powerful than of it's Western rivals. Also it is not as fast as other MBTs. However this tank is famous for it's mechanical reliability.
The Challenger 2 is in service with United Kingdom (386) and Oman (38).



Nr.5 Merkava Mk.4 (Israel)

It is the latest Israeli development which is a further development of the Merkava Mk.3.
The Merkava Mk.4 is one of the most protected tanks in the world. This MBT has an unusual design with a front-mounted engine which gives the crew additional protection and chance to survive if the tank is knocked-out. All Merkava series tanks have a rear compartment which ca be used to carry troops and cargo under armor. It can carry up to 10 troops when ammunition is unloaded.
The Israeli tank is armed with indigenous 120-mm smoothbore gun. The Merkava Mk.4 is equipped with new fire control system, that includes some very advanced features. One of them is a high hit probability firing against low-flying helicopters using conventional munitions.
Mobility of the Merkava Mk.4 is rather average due to excessive weight, even though it is fitted with a powerful engine.
The Merkava Mk.4 is in service only with Israel (360), as this tank is not offered for export.



Nr.6 TK-X (Japan)

The TK-X or Type 10 is the latest Japanese development. It entered service in 2012. Currently it is one of the most advanced main battle tanks in the world.
This new lightweight MBT is more agile, however less protected than contemporary tanks.
It is armed with a 120-mm smoothbore gun, broadly similar to that of the Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 Abrams. It also has advanced fire control system.
This tank has great mobility due to it's impressive power-to-weight ratio, Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) and state-of-the-art hydropneumatic suspension.
The TK-X is in service with Japan (12). This tank is not available for export customers as far as Japan's laws do not allow export of military equipment.



Nr.7 Leclerc (France)

This French main battle tank entered service in 1992. A number of design features of the Leclerc were later used on other Western tanks.
The Leclerc has advanced composite armor with add-on modular armor.
It has a powerful gun and high hit probability against stationary and moving targets. Also it has a hunter-killer capability.
This tank has good mobility due to it's 1 500 hp engine and hydropneumatic suspension.
Currently it is in service with France (406) and United Arab Emirates (388).



Nr.8 T-90 (Russia)

The T-90 is currently the only tank produced in quantity in Russia. It is not as sophisticated as it's Western rivals, however it uses proven technology and is cost effective. Currently it is the most commercially successful main battle tank on the global market.
The T-90 has a small profile which makes it a harder target to hit. Significant drawback of the T-90 is that ammunition is stored in the main compartment, rather than a separate compartment with a blow-out panels.
The T-90 is not as accurate against long-range targets, however it can launch anti-tank guided missiles in the same manner as ordinary munitions.
Original version has poor power-to-weight ratio due to it's underpowered engine.
The T-90MS is a recent version with new armor, new engine, new gun, improved turret, updated observation and aiming system.
The T-90 is currently in service with Russia (approximately 700), Algeria (305), Azerbaijan (20), India (620), Turkmenistan (40) and Venezuela (50~100).



Nr.9 Oplot-M (Ukraine)

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine continued development of the T-80UD main battle tank. Their latest version is the Oplot-M.
The Oplot-M is fitted with explosive reactive armor of new generation. This MBT inherited from it's predecessor automatic ammunition loading system, however ammunition is stored in the main compartment, rather than a separate compartment with a blow-out panels.
The latest Ukranian tank is not as accurate against long-range targets as Western rivals, however it can launch anti-tank guided missiles in the same manner as ordinary munitions. The Oplot-M has a hunter-killer capability.
The Oplot-M completed Ukrainian Army trials and is due to enter service with Ukrainian Army.



Nr.10 Type 99 (China)

This Chinese MBT shows a mixture of Russian and Western influence in it's design and technology.
Like the Russian/Soviet tanks the Type 99 also lacks accuracy against long-range targets, however it is also capable to launch anti-tank guided missiles in the same manner as ordinary munitions.
Automatic loading system of the Type 99 was copied from the Russian/Soviet design. Hence it's drawback, as ammunition is stored in the main compartment, rather than a separate compartment with a blow-out panels. This MBT is fitted with unique active laser protection system, which uses a high-powered laser to disrupt missiles laser or infrared guidance signal, disable enemy observation optics and damage eyesight of enemy gunner. This active laser protection system can also be used against helicopters.
The Type 99 is fitted with a powerful engine and has good mobility.
The Type 99G is the latest version with some improvements.
Currently The Type 99 is in service only with China (approximately 200).


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> 22 stored in the carosel, rest are in the armoured bins at the back, side, no round is left exposed in the turret.



Its 24 as far as most of the posters show as stored in auto-loader... There is no armor bin at back side.

None of the tanks have ammo in Turret other than the ones who have specially designed bustle for that purpose.

There is no bustle in Al Khalid for ammo storage... and back side of the Hull contains engine... Only place remains near drivers cabin.. but too small to store rest of the 24-25 or 27 rounds... along with their charge... will leave no room for the driver.



farhan_9909 said:


> well the turret of AK is already bigger than the one on the t-90MS














Really ?


----------



## DARKY

An Interesting find Al Khalid might be using detachable armor module as found in Chinese ZTZ-99.






Note the yellow part is the armor and green part is hollow... one can see the bolts used to bind the hollow part to the main turret clearly... as in many other Al Khalid photos.

Here's how ZTZ-99 turret looks[al khalid turret might appear similar]






And here's the module used on the turret.






off course those extra ceramic tiles are absent on Al Khalid and instead ERA tiles are there.


----------



## Dazzler

saw it in from inside at 2 IDEAS expos, 2004, 2006, you can rant all you want. The so called Hollow part is filled with composite material.


----------



## farhan_9909

DARKY said:


> Its 24 as far as most of the posters show as stored in auto-loader... There is no armor bin at back side.
> 
> None of the tanks have ammo in Turret other than the ones who have specially designed bustle for that purpose.
> 
> There is no bustle in Al Khalid for ammo storage... and back side of the Hull contains engine... Only place remains near drivers cabin.. but too small to store rest of the 24-25 or 27 rounds... along with their charge... will leave no room for the driver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ?



yes really

in the above image AK only has a 2 tiles of thin era while the t-90ms has a massive era all over the turret

please post a picture of t-90ms without era

i still don't undertand why the Al khalid still has no massive era layout pictures?

the al zarar has era all over the turret and front but Al khalid at max has only 4 era tiles at max.

i mean it need massive era layout like on the russian tanks


----------



## DARKY

farhan_9909 said:


> yes really
> 
> in the above image AK only has a 2 tiles of thin era while the t-90ms has a massive era all over the turret
> 
> please post a picture of t-90ms without era
> 
> i still don't undertand why the Al khalid still has no massive era layout pictures?
> 
> the al zarar has era all over the turret and front but Al khalid at max has only 4 era tiles at max.
> 
> i mean it need massive era layout like on the russian tanks



Hence ?

Its still bigger... in size.

There are none... It has a bustle which makes it larger than the one on Al Khalid... besides that the hull also contains auxiliary power unit.

Perhaps because of the inability to develop safer ERA tiles like the K-5 and Designing proper arrangements.






Count them you'll find more than four.

Sure it does need something like K-5/Nozh/Dohzad etc... to be a safer tank... However Chinese couldn't develop such tiles in early days and now it has switched to Non-explosive ceramic tiles leaving all the investment on ERA to be done by Pakistani side[Which has not been possible due to low funds and improper metallurgical base] or chose the older ERA developed by them during early 90s... which is often seen on Al Khalid tanks.


----------



## Teeta

@Sergi

Ok, I'll be modelling my comparison on @AUz 's model. He opened a thread comparing Al Khalid with Merkava...

So here goes...

The advantage of one tank over the other is highlighted as "blue" ...

*Weight :*

*Al Khalid-1 : 48 tons*
Arjun-1 : 58.5 tons.

*Speed :*

Al Khalid-1 : 72 km/h
Arjun-1 : 72 km/h

*Main Armament :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 125 mm smooth bore gun*
Arjun-1 : 120 mm rifled gun

*Payload Capacity :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 49 rounds*
Arjun-1 : 39 rounds

*Engine :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)*
Arjun-1 : MTU 838 Ka 501 diesel 1,400 hp

*Power/Weight :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 26 hp/tonne*
Arjun-1 : 23.9 hp/tonne

*Armour :*

Al Khalid-1 : Composite armour, RHA, ERA
Arjun-1 : Steel/composite Kanchan armour. (_slight advantage_)

*Operational Range :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 500 km*
Arjun-1 : 450 km

*Protection :**

Al Khalid-1 : VARTA active protection system*
Arjun-1 : ??? (Couldn't found any- Tell me which APS is installed in Arjun and I'll edit appropriately)...

*ATGMs and rounds carried :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
- Can fire DU round Naiza too.*
Arjun-1 : LAHAT, APFSDS (Kinetic Energy) rounds, HE, HEAT etc

*Rate of Fire :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 8-9 rounds per minute.*

Arjun-1 : 6-8 rounds per minute.

-----------

Feel free to point out any mistakes I made. I used all the data from Indian forums/Wikipedia (verifiable only), Pakistani forums, defence journals etc ....

It is as neutral as it gets.

Al Khalid-I is clearly superior to Arjun-I and also, Pakistan Army has alot more Al Khalids than Indian Army has Arjuns..this fact tells that Al Khalid project was way more successful than Arjun project (As evident by history too. Arjun was over-weight, was rejected, had to undergo changes etc)..

Both tanks are equipped with state-of-the-art IBMS, thermal imagers, night visions, ballistic computers etc...

Al Khalid-1 is equipped with autoloader while Arjun-1 is loaded 'manually'. I also regard this as an advantage of Al Khalid-I..but this is debatable. I'm not gonna put my personal opinion in an objective comparison.

Al Khalid-I is superior to Arjun-I in *firepower* and *mobility.* Arjun might have _slight_ advantage when it comes to armor.


So, conclusion, Al Khalid-1 > Arjun-1



I hope now you know why, in my view, Al Khalid-1 is a superior tank.

Al khalid tank






Arjun tank

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Teeta

Ok, I'll be modelling my comparison on @AUz 's model. He opened a thread comparing Al Khalid with Merkava...

So here goes...

The advantage of one tank over the other is highlighted as "blue" ...

*Weight :*

*Al Khalid-1 : 48 tons*
Arjun-1 : 58.5 tons.

*Speed :*

Al Khalid-1 : 72 km/h
Arjun-1 : 72 km/h

*Main Armament :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 125 mm smooth bore gun*
Arjun-1 : 120 mm rifled gun

*Payload Capacity :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 49 rounds*
Arjun-1 : 39 rounds

*Engine :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)*
Arjun-1 : MTU 838 Ka 501 diesel 1,400 hp

*Power/Weight :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 26 hp/tonne*
Arjun-1 : 23.9 hp/tonne

*Armour :*

Al Khalid-1 : Composite armour, RHA, ERA
Arjun-1 : Steel/composite Kanchan armour. (_slight advantage_)

*Operational Range :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 500 km*
Arjun-1 : 450 km

*Protection :**

Al Khalid-1 : VARTA active protection system*
Arjun-1 : ??? (Couldn't found any- Tell me which APS is installed in Arjun and I'll edit appropriately)...

*ATGMs and rounds carried :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
- Can fire DU round Naiza too.*
Arjun-1 : LAHAT, APFSDS (Kinetic Energy) rounds, HE, HEAT etc

*Rate of Fire :*
*
Al Khalid-1 : 8-9 rounds per minute.*

Arjun-1 : 6-8 rounds per minute.

-----------------------------

Feel free to point out any mistakes I made. I used all the data from Indian forums/Wikipedia (verifiable only), Pakistani forums, defence journals etc ....

It is as neutral as it gets.

Al Khalid-I is clearly superior to Arjun-I and also, Pakistan Army has alot more Al Khalids than Indian Army has Arjuns..this fact tells that Al Khalid project was way more successful than Arjun project (As evident by history too. Arjun was over-weight, was rejected, had to undergo changes etc)..

Both tanks are equipped with state-of-the-art IBMS, thermal imagers, night visions, ballistic computers etc...

Al Khalid-1 is equipped with autoloader while Arjun-1 is loaded 'manually'. I also regard this as an advantage of Al Khalid-I..but this is debatable. I'm not gonna put my personal opinion in an objective comparison.

Al Khalid-I is superior to Arjun-I in *firepower* and *mobility.* Arjun might have _slight_ advantage when it comes to armor.


So, conclusion, Al Khalid-1 > Arjun-1


Al khalid tank






Arjun tank

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ANPP

Teeta said:


> @Sergi
> 
> Ok, I'll be modelling my comparison on @AUz 's model. He opened a thread comparing Al Khalid with Merkava...
> 
> So here goes...
> 
> The advantage of one tank over the other is highlighted as "blue" ...
> 
> *Weight :*
> 
> *Al Khalid-1 : 48 tons*
> Arjun-1 : 58.5 tons.
> 
> *Speed :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 72 km/h
> Arjun-1 : 72 km/h
> 
> *Main Armament :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 125 mm smooth bore gun*
> Arjun-1 : 120 mm rifled gun
> 
> *Payload Capacity :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 49 rounds*
> Arjun-1 : 39 rounds
> 
> *Engine :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)*
> Arjun-1 : MTU 838 Ka 501 diesel 1,400 hp
> 
> *Power/Weight :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 26 hp/tonne*
> Arjun-1 : 23.9 hp/tonne
> 
> *Armour :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : Composite armour, RHA, ERA
> Arjun-1 : Steel/composite Kanchan armour. (_slight advantage_)
> 
> *Operational Range :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 500 km*
> Arjun-1 : 450 km
> 
> *Protection :**
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : VARTA active protection system*
> Arjun-1 : ??? (Couldn't found any- Tell me which APS is installed in Arjun and I'll edit appropriately)...
> 
> *ATGMs and rounds carried :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
> - Can fire DU round Naiza too.*
> Arjun-1 : LAHAT, APFSDS (Kinetic Energy) rounds, HE, HEAT etc
> 
> *Rate of Fire :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 8-9 rounds per minute.*
> 
> Arjun-1 : 6-8 rounds per minute.
> 
> -----------
> 
> Feel free to point out any mistakes I made. I used all the data from Indian forums/Wikipedia (verifiable only), Pakistani forums, defence journals etc ....
> 
> It is as neutral as it gets.
> 
> Al Khalid-I is clearly superior to Arjun-I and also, Pakistan Army has alot more Al Khalids than Indian Army has Arjuns..this fact tells that Al Khalid project was way more successful than Arjun project (As evident by history too. Arjun was over-weight, was rejected, had to undergo changes etc)..
> 
> Both tanks are equipped with state-of-the-art IBMS, thermal imagers, night visions, ballistic computers etc...
> 
> Al Khalid-1 is equipped with autoloader while Arjun-1 is loaded 'manually'. I also regard this as an advantage of Al Khalid-I..but this is debatable. I'm not gonna put my personal opinion in an objective comparison.
> 
> Al Khalid-I is superior to Arjun-I in *firepower* and *mobility.* Arjun might have _slight_ advantage when it comes to armor.
> 
> 
> So, conclusion, Al Khalid-1 > Arjun-1
> 
> 
> 
> I hope now you know why, in my view, Al Khalid-1 is a superior tank.
> 
> Al khalid tank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arjun tank



Your above conclusion also lead another result-----
T90>M1.


----------



## Teeta

ANPP said:


> Your above conclusion also lead another result-----
> T90>M1.



It doesn't.

Go ahead and try. 

(Remember, I'm not comparing these tanks in isolation. I'm comparing these tanks in Indo-Pak scenario..Anyways, go ahead and try to show how T-90 is above M-1..lol...T-90S is even inferior to Al Khalid, forget about M-1)


----------



## DARKY

Teeta said:


> @Sergi
> 
> Ok, I'll be modelling my comparison on @AUz 's model. He opened a thread comparing Al Khalid with Merkava...
> 
> So here goes...
> 
> The advantage of one tank over the other is highlighted as "blue" ...
> 
> *Weight :*
> 
> *Al Khalid-1 : 48 tons*
> Arjun-1 : 58.5 tons. *[Arjun weighs more than 60tons mk2 would weight 63-67tons]*
> 
> *Speed :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 72 km/h
> Arjun-1 : 72 km/h *[you took the top speed which has got little to no effect on tank warfare]*
> 
> *Main Armament :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 125 mm smooth bore gun*
> Arjun-1 : 120 mm rifled gun *[Arjun Gun is L52 120mm rifled with 8400bars max chamber pressure which is the 2nd most powerful gun in service... Al Khalid gun would have max. chamber pressure of about 6000bars on the new gun perhaps... although HIT puts the figure around 5500bars on the old gun... Here Arjun gun can fire more powerful and larger rounds putting it at advantage against Al Khalid]*
> 
> *Payload Capacity :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 49 rounds*
> Arjun-1 : 39 rounds *[Arjun rounds are longer and heavier hence more effective than the 49 used on Al Khalid... the auto loader in Al Khalid can only hold 22-24 rounds hence it would have to stop to reload the rest of the round in auto-loader giving advantage to enemy for regroup.]*
> 
> *Engine :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)*
> Arjun-1 : MTU 838 Ka 501 diesel 1,400 hp *[Arjun uses the German engine which is more powerful at 1400hp I don't see how the Ukrainian 1200hp beats that]*
> 
> *Power/Weight :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 26 hp/tonne*
> Arjun-1 : 23.9 hp/tonne
> 
> *Armour :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : Composite armour, RHA, ERA
> Arjun-1 : Steel/composite Kanchan armour. (_slight advantage_) *[slight advantage ?... have you seen how thick the armor is present on Arjun ?]*
> 
> *Operational Range :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 500 km*
> Arjun-1 : 450 km *[No relevance whatsoever... No tank has ever gone more than 100km in a day at the battlefield]*
> 
> *Protection :**
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : VARTA active protection system*
> Arjun-1 : ??? (Couldn't found any- Tell me which APS is installed in Arjun and I'll edit appropriately)... *[There is no Varta on Al Khalid... all you have is an experimental model photo... besides that its not an APS but IR jammer which failed to jam western Leaser in two tests in different countries... other than that it leaves big weak spots on Al Khalid armor if used on it.]*
> 
> *ATGMs and rounds carried :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
> - Can fire DU round Naiza too.*
> Arjun-1 : LAHAT, APFSDS (Kinetic Energy) rounds, HE, HEAT etc *[The DU round used on Al Khalid are short... which have little advantage over Tungsten rods of same length... If you look for the latest Russian tungsten rounds you'll find them having better penetration than Nazia... coming to Arjun I repeat again that the rounds used are much bigger and longer... which would have more K.E.]*
> 
> *Rate of Fire :*
> *
> Al Khalid-1 : 8-9 rounds per minute.*
> 
> Arjun-1 : 6-8 rounds per minute. *[you cannot exceed 8-9 rounds per minute on Al Khalid while the loader in Arjun can do 10-12 If fresh... there have been instances where the loader did about 20 or so loading in one minute... however such is not possible in rough terrain... but here again Arjun uses a better suspension to overcome that shortcoming.]*
> 
> -----------
> 
> Feel free to point out any mistakes I made. I used all the data from Indian forums/Wikipedia (verifiable only), Pakistani forums, defence journals etc ....
> 
> It is as neutral as it gets.
> 
> Al Khalid-I is clearly superior to Arjun-I and also, Pakistan Army has alot more Al Khalids than Indian Army has Arjuns..this fact tells that Al Khalid project was way more successful than Arjun project (As evident by history too. Arjun was over-weight, was rejected, had to undergo changes etc)..
> 
> *The weight on Arjun Mk2 exceeds from that of Mk1 your point being ?*
> 
> Both tanks are equipped with state-of-the-art IBMS, thermal imagers, night visions, ballistic computers etc...
> 
> Al Khalid-1 is equipped with autoloader while Arjun-1 is loaded 'manually'. I also regard this as an advantage of Al Khalid-I..but this is debatable. I'm not gonna put my personal opinion in an objective comparison.
> 
> Al Khalid-I is superior to Arjun-I in *firepower* and *mobility.* Arjun might have _slight_ advantage when it comes to armor.
> 
> *Fire power wise and mobility wise Arjun stands superior to Al Khalid.... its mobility is better than most.*
> 
> So, conclusion, Al Khalid-1 > Arjun-1
> 
> 
> 
> I hope now you know why, in my view, Al Khalid-1 is a superior tank.
> 
> Al khalid tank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arjun tank



Besides that I wold like to point out the poor hardware on Al Khalid as evident from images floating around internet.











Note: The skirts are coming off in public display in front of the Guests and public... wonder what would happen in wartime.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Teeta

DARKY said:


> Besides that I wold like to point out the poor hardware on Al Khalid as evident from images floating around internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: The skirts are coming off in public display in front of the Guests and public... wonder what would happen in wartime.



Your WHOLE post is just "speculations" and nothing more. Just a good way to make indian kids happy. As it stands, Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun-1. I'm not even talking about Arjun-II, why are you bringing that in?

Stated "ROF" of Arjun is 6-8 rounds while you claim "Oh it can even fire 10-12"..Well any official source? Many things in Al Khalid-1 would also be classified..probably it can fire 14-16 rounds at ease? You know there is no end to speculations. So you can believe whatever you want, but according to the public authentic information, Al Khalid-1 stands superior to Arjun-1 with more firepower, better mobility, better pick-up rate (Al Khalid has superior power/weight ratio..) etc. Also, the excuse "Oh our rounds are longer hence we can carry less" is THE most childish thing I've ever seen. If you want to cry like that, I'll say it right now "Arjun is vastly superior to all tanks in the world"..I mean, c'mon....

Al Khalid carries way more rounds, has autoloader, can fire DU rounds and missiles, has better pick-up speed, has bigger canon, has superior operational range, is lighter and faster than Arjun.

Now these are the "facts" available out there...

We are all free to believe whatever we want though...

My conclusion still stands : Al Khalid-1 > Arjun.


----------



## ANPP

This thread introducing new style of comparison ----
just go on wiki, see few things about them & make a big comment.


*My conclusion still stands : Al Khalid-1 > Arjun.*


----------



## Lyrical Mockery

Teeta said:


> Your WHOLE post is just "speculations" and nothing more. Just a good way to make indian kids happy. As it stands, Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun-1. I'm not even talking about Arjun-II, why are you bringing that in?
> 
> Stated "ROF" of Arjun is 6-8 rounds while you claim "Oh it can even fire 10-12"..Well any official source? Many things in Al Khalid-1 would also be classified..probably it can fire 14-16 rounds at ease? You know there is no end to speculations. So you can believe whatever you want, but according to the public authentic information, Al Khalid-1 stands superior to Arjun-1 with more firepower, better mobility, better pick-up rate (Al Khalid has superior power/weight ratio..) etc. Also, the excuse "Oh our rounds are longer hence we can carry less" is THE most childish thing I've ever seen. If you want to cry like that, I'll say it right now "Arjun is vastly superior to all tanks in the world"..I mean, c'mon....
> 
> Al Khalid carries way more rounds, has autoloader, can fire DU rounds and missiles, has better pick-up speed, has bigger canon, has superior operational range, is lighter and faster than Arjun.
> 
> Now these are the "facts" available out there...
> 
> We are all free to believe whatever we want though...
> 
> My conclusion still stands : Al Khalid-1 > Arjun.



Why did you even asked others to correct your mistakes in that case?


----------



## farhan_9909

@DARKY
these are just thin metal plates

have a look at the side skirts of AK1

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Varunastra

Al khalid vs T-90 -

weight- 
ak-48 tonnes
*t-90-47.5 tonnes*

speed-
*ak-72 km/h*
t-90-65 km/h

main armament-
ak-125 mm
t-90- 125 mm

Armour-
ak-Composite armour, RHA, ERA
t*-90-3-three-tiered" protection systems, Steel-composite-reactive blend
vs APFSDS: 700&#8211;800 with Kontakt-5 = 830-950mm; vs HEAT: 780&#8211;1000 with Kontakt-5 = 1,350&#8211;1,650mm
*
operational range-
ak-500 km
*t-90-550-700 km*

protection-
ak- VARTA active protection system
*t-90- LEDS-150 Land Electronic Defence System.*

ATGMs and rounds carried :
ak-Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
- Can fire DU round Naiza too.

t-90- armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS), high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT-FS), and high explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) ammunition, as well as 9M119M Refleks anti-tank guided missiles. 

rate of fire-
ak- 8-9 rounds per minute.
*t-90- 9-10 rounds per minute*

Engine :

Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)

*T-90-1,250 hp (930 kW) for V-96 12-cyl. diesel engine
*
Power/Weight :

Al Khalid-1 : 26 hp/tonne
*T-90- 26.3 hp/tonne (19.8 kW/tonne) for V-96 12-cyl. diesel engine*

SO i will say that *T-90> al khalid*

now check this Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90


arjun-





al khalid-





t-90-

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Teeta

Lyrical Mockery said:


> Why did you even asked others to correct your mistakes in that case?



Well correct my "mistakes" but not by your speculations.

There is a difference my boy.

I haven't found anything stating Arjun's ROF to be somewhere around over 15... 

Al Khalid-1 carries way more rounds...and has more firepower...these are plain facts. Now to give excuses "Oh, but our rounds are longer" is just plain childish 

We used to do that in Cold-War era. No one will EVER accept that Soviets had a lead in some technologies over US. You guys are in same mode.

Pakistanis will always utter their product to be best, indians will do the same...

You both can learn from each other alot though...



UDAYCAMPUS said:


> Al khalid vs T-90 -
> 
> weight-
> ak-48 tonnes
> *t-90-47.5 tonnes*
> 
> speed-
> *ak-72 km/h*
> t-90-65 km/h
> 
> main armament-
> ak-125 mm
> t-90- 125 mm
> 
> Armour-
> ak-Composite armour, RHA, ERA
> t*-90-3-three-tiered" protection systems, Steel-composite-reactive blend
> vs APFSDS: 700&#8211;800 with Kontakt-5 = 830-950mm; vs HEAT: 780&#8211;1000 with Kontakt-5 = 1,350&#8211;1,650mm
> *
> operational range-
> ak-500 km
> *t-90-550-700 km*
> 
> protection-
> ak- VARTA active protection system
> *t-90- LEDS-150 Land Electronic Defence System.*
> 
> ATGMs and rounds carried :
> ak-Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
> - Can fire DU round Naiza too.
> 
> t-90- armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS), high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT-FS), and high explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) ammunition, as well as 9M119M Refleks anti-tank guided missiles.
> 
> rate of fire-
> ak- 8-9 rounds per minute.
> *t-90- 9-10 rounds per minute*
> 
> Engine :
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)
> 
> *T-90-1,250 hp (930 kW) for V-96 12-cyl. diesel engine
> *
> Power/Weight :
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 26 hp/tonne
> *T-90- 26.3 hp/tonne (19.8 kW/tonne) for V-96 12-cyl. diesel engine*
> 
> SO i will say that *T-90> al khalid*
> 
> now check this Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90
> 
> 
> arjun-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> al khalid-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> t-90-



What T-90 model did you use?

And don't make it a joke. So T-90 is 0.5 tons lighter than Al-Khalid and hence an "advantage"? Give me a freakin' break....

It should be atleast a difference of 10 tons! Learn how tanks are classified etc...

Also, your specs are just bs....specify which variant you are using. It seems that you have taken the 'best specs' of all variants and combined them into one! LOL.

Al Khalid is superior to T-90S (which is export version of T-90). And this fact is admitted by.......RUSSIAN POSTERS on this forum.

But India receives a bit 'upgraded' version of T-90S...so post the specs of that T-90 and we'll see...

T-90 would be superior to Arjuns offcourse, but are they superior to Al Khalids too? Can't say. It depends on what variant of T-90s you are using...

There is a reason your army is buying T-90s instead of Arjuns...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

alkhalid looks like a soviert era T72 or ukrainian T85 

cramped style WEAK ARMOUR 

arjun looks like you GERMAN & BRITISH TANKS like leopord & challenger

THE REASON THERE ARE 800+ T90s and only 150 odd ARJUNS is simple ARJUN arrived a decade later..

ARJUN & T90 will spearhead indian armour


----------



## farhan_9909

Storm Force said:


> alkhalid looks like a soviert era T72 or ukrainian T85
> 
> cramped style WEAK ARMOUR
> 
> arjun looks like you GERMAN & BRITISH TANKS like leopord & challenger
> 
> THE REASON THERE ARE 800+ T90s and only 150 odd ARJUNS is simple ARJUN arrived a decade later..
> 
> ARJUN & T90 will spearhead indian armour



and do you know why?

because Arjun was designed by krauss(germany directly)

arjun tank











now leopard2a4











arjun is more of an cheap copy of leopard 2a4 under license from germany


----------



## Storm Force

I would hardley call ARJUN cheap at $5m each

I BELIEVE YOUR alkhalids are costong around $1.5m each and the 1650 T90 that INDIA ARE LICENSE BUILDING are $3.5 m each

ARJUN carries twice the armour thickness of all other pak and indian tanks 

I WOULD SUGGEST ARJUN is the heavy calvery of the indian army. SOMETHING many armies in ASIA CANT AFFORD to buy and operate.






THAT LOOKS A BEAST

COMPARE ALKHALID 






arjun looks massive in comprison and FAR COSTLIER to buy i think

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Arjun is an export variant of German Leopard II specifically designed for Indian requirements.



Storm Force said:


> I would hardley call ARJUN cheap at $5m each
> 
> I BELIEVE YOUR alkhalids are costong around $1.5m each and the 1650 T90 that INDIA ARE LICENSE BUILDING are $3.5 m each
> 
> ARJUN carries twice the armour thickness of all other pak and indian tanks
> 
> I WOULD SUGGEST ARJUN is the heavy calvery of the indian army. SOMETHING many armies in ASIA CANT AFFORD to buy and operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT LOOKS A BEAST
> 
> COMPARE ALKHALID
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arjun looks massive in comprison and FAR COSTLIER to buy i think



Bigger is not always better. India should learn something from the outcome of WWII tank battles between ussr and germany. Germans had far superior tanks but still they were toasted by t34 and kv1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

Storm Force said:


> I would hardley call ARJUN cheap at $5m each
> 
> I BELIEVE YOUR alkhalids are costong around $1.5m each and the 1650 T90 that INDIA ARE LICENSE BUILDING are $3.5 m each
> 
> ARJUN carries twice the armour thickness of all other pak and indian tanks
> 
> I WOULD SUGGEST ARJUN is the heavy calvery of the indian army. SOMETHING many armies in ASIA CANT AFFORD to buy and operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT LOOKS A BEAST
> 
> COMPARE ALKHALID
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arjun looks massive in comprison and FAR COSTLIER to buy i think



arjun cost high because even the tracks are imported from germany

Mbt-2000 is just recently exported to bangladesh by china for each 4.5millions USD 
MBt-2000 has no western fcs,transmission,suspension,ukrainian engine,kombat atgm,new era,better gun, but still cost 4.5millions each


arjun is actually a german product under tot to india

124 arjuns tanks ordered in 2004 while delivered in 2011.very slow production

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

farhan_9909 said:


> and do you know why?
> 
> because Arjun was designed by krauss(germany directly)
> 
> arjun tank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now leopard2a4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arjun is more of an cheap copy of leopard 2a4 under license from germany



Arjun has nothing to do with Leo.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Teeta

Storm Force said:


> I would hardley *call ARJUN cheap at $5m each*
> 
> I BELIEVE YOUR alkhalids are costong around $1.5m each and the 1650 T90 that INDIA ARE LICENSE BUILDING are $3.5 m each
> 
> ARJUN carries twice the armour thickness of all other pak and indian tanks
> 
> I WOULD SUGGEST ARJUN is the heavy calvery of the indian army. SOMETHING many armies in ASIA CANT AFFORD to buy and operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THAT LOOKS A BEAST
> 
> COMPARE ALKHALID
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arjun looks massive in comprison and FAR COSTLIER to buy i think



$ 5 million per piece with this capability? Arjun doesn't seem so "indigenous" here......

Four every 4 to 6 Arjun tanks produced, Pakistan will produce 13 or 14 Al Khalid-1 tanks...

13 Al Khalid-1s vs 4 Arjuns? 

Complete victory for Pakistan here as long as project goes.

Al Khalid project is vastly successful as compared to Arjun project.


----------



## DARKY

Teeta said:


> Your WHOLE post is just "speculations" and nothing more. Just a good way to make indian kids happy. As it stands, Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun-1. I'm not even talking about Arjun-II, why are you bringing that in?
> 
> Stated "ROF" of Arjun is 6-8 rounds while you claim "Oh it can even fire 10-12"..Well any official source? Many things in Al Khalid-1 would also be classified..probably it can fire 14-16 rounds at ease? You know there is no end to speculations. So you can believe whatever you want, but according to the public authentic information, Al Khalid-1 stands superior to Arjun-1 with more firepower, better mobility, better pick-up rate (Al Khalid has superior power/weight ratio..) etc. Also, the excuse "Oh our rounds are longer hence we can carry less" is THE most childish thing I've ever seen. If you want to cry like that, I'll say it right now "Arjun is vastly superior to all tanks in the world"..I mean, c'mon....
> 
> Al Khalid carries way more rounds, has autoloader, can fire DU rounds and missiles, has better pick-up speed, has bigger canon, has superior operational range, is lighter and faster than Arjun.
> 
> Now these are the "facts" available out there...
> 
> We are all free to believe whatever we want though...
> 
> My conclusion still stands : Al Khalid-1 > Arjun.



I see its pointless arguing on this as you have made it clear that Al Khalid is better than Arjun no matter what----

8-6 rounds per minute is average.
It can be upto 15 rounds in a minute by a well built loader.... no the auto-loader can only do 8 rounds per minute... you can read about the limitations on fofanov's blog.

you are a moron and you are here to troll... Physics says that longer and heavier round imparts more K.E. and have better penetration levels... what two or three rounds of Al Khalid does can be done by a single round from arjun or two.
Most western MBTs too use longer rods specifically.

Auto-loader limits the size of round... more round on Al Khalid can be suicidal for the tank itself.. as they are stored in open.
Arjun too fires Lahat which has top attack capability.

They are not facts but your troll fantasies... yes you can eat whatever BS you want.



farhan_9909 said:


> @DARKY
> these are just thin metal plates
> 
> have a look at the side skirts of AK1



same rubber/low quality steel skirts no difference at all other than the design.


----------



## DARKY

farhan_9909 said:


> and do you know why?
> 
> because Arjun was designed by krauss(germany directly)
> 
> arjun is more of an cheap copy of leopard 2a4 under license from germany



another pathetic troll.. get a life.



Teeta said:


> $ 5 million per piece with this capability? Arjun doesn't seem so "indigenous" here......
> 
> Four every 4 to 6 Arjun tanks produced, Pakistan will produce 13 or 14 Al Khalid-1 tanks...
> 
> 13 Al Khalid-1s vs 4 Arjuns?
> 
> Complete victory for Pakistan here as long as project goes.
> 
> Al Khalid project is vastly successful as compared to Arjun project.



Going by your logic T-72 must be the best MBT around with over 25000+copies produced.
What a poor argument.


----------



## Teeta

DARKY said:


> I see its pointless arguing on this as you have made it clear that Al Khalid is better than Arjun no matter what----
> 
> 8-6 rounds per minute is average.
> It can be upto 15 rounds in a minute by a well built loader.... no the auto-loader can only do 8 rounds per minute... you can read about the limitations on fofanov's blog.
> 
> you are a moron and you are here to troll... Physics says that longer and heavier round imparts more K.E. and have better penetration levels... what two or three rounds of Al Khalid does can be done by a single round from arjun or two.
> Most western MBTs too use longer rods specifically.
> 
> Auto-loader limits the size of round... more round on Al Khalid can be suicidal for the tank itself.. as they are stored in open.
> Arjun too fires Lahat which has top attack capability.
> 
> They are not facts but your troll fantasies... yes you can eat whatever BS you want.





Why would I have an agenda to portray Al Khalid as superior? I just took the authentic available specs from both sides, and compared them, and Al Khalid-1 comes out to be superior than Arjun-1. As simple as that.

O.K lets put it in this way : "Average rate of fire" of Al Khalid-1 is superior to "Average rate of fire" of Arjun-1. Does this change anything now? Stop being a touchy kid.

I couldn't find the muzzle-velocity stats for Arjun..can you tell me what it this? Also, a *rifled* *120 mm gun* can fire "longer rounds" but a *smoothbore * *125 mm gun* can't? Oh c'mon! Autoloaders have limitations but they are a new technology in the tanks with obvious advantages. Autoloaders keep on getting improved. Al khalid-1 has an upgraded autoloader...

Unless you give me stats/facts of rounds used in both Al Khalid-1 and Arjun, you are just blabbering.

Al Khalid-1 and Arjun fire similar rounds, with Al Khalid-1 having the capability to fire DU rounds...it is just that Al Khalid-1 has more firepower as it carries more rounds, has autoloader, and a great FCS that allows it to fire more rounds per minute than Arjun...

Unlike you, I'm just talking on facts that I know.

Al Khalid-1 carries superior firepower and mobility than Arjun-1. 

A fact.


----------



## DARKY

Myth_buster_1 said:


> Arjun is an export variant of German Leopard II specifically designed for Indian requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> Bigger is not always better. *India should learn* something from the outcome of WWII tank battles between ussr and germany. Germans had far superior tanks but still they were toasted by t34 and kv1.



Hence over 2000 T-72M1 Ajeya to go with around 1000 T-90S Bheeshma.


----------



## Teeta

DARKY said:


> another pathetic troll.. get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> Going by your logic T-72 must be the best MBT around with over 25000+copies produced.
> What a poor argument.



T-72 is one of the most successful tank projects of history. Whats wrong? Do you even know anything about warfare?

Facts are simple : $ 5 million per one Arjun with this capability is just not "indigenous". Al Khalid-1s are a far more successful "project" for the reasons I already mentioned.

It is probably due to the fact that Al Khalid-1 is an indigenous Pakistani tank with alot of indigenous development. Also, the components that aren't indigenous comes from China/Ukraine etc...

While Arjun has more "foreign" parts to it and they also come from expensive sources (Like German Engine vs Ukranian Engine)...

Overall, Al Khalid tank is a far more successful project than Arjun tank (uptil now).


----------



## Kompromat

DARKY said:


> Hence over *2000* T-72M1 Ajeya to go with around *1000 *T-90S Bheeshma.



Leaving the Chinese border to the border police?


----------



## DARKY

Teeta said:


> Why would I have an agenda to portray Al Khalid as superior? I just took the authentic available specs from both sides, and compared them, and Al Khalid-1 comes out to be superior than Arjun-1. As simple as that.
> 
> O.K lets put it in this way : "Average rate of fire" of Al Khalid-1 is superior to "Average rate of fire" of Arjun-1. Does this change anything now? Stop being a touchy kid.
> 
> I couldn't find the muzzle-velocity stats for Arjun..can you tell me what it this? Also, a *rifled* 120 mm gun can fire "longer rounds" but a *smoothbore * 125 mm gun can't? Autoloaders have limitations but they are a new technology in the tanks. Autoloaders keep on getting improved. Al khalid-1 has upgraded autoloader...
> 
> Unless you give me stats/facts of rounds used in both Al Khalid-1 and Arjun, you are just blabbering.
> 
> Al Khalid-1 and Arjun fire similar rounds...it is just that Al Khalid-1 has more firepower as it carries more rounds, has autoloader, and a great FCS that allowes it to fire more rounds per minute than Arjun...
> 
> Unlike you, I'm just talking on facts that I know.



To troll.
You didn't compare available data... else you wouldn't have concluded.

Average applies for many factor... in a battle Al Khalid average rate can be as low as 0 if auto loader stops working... It doesn't give the proper picture of the rate of fire in different conditions... in battle there is no average.

Its around 1700m/s for KE rounds... offcourse the smoothbore can but the ato loader limits the size beside Al Khalid gun would brust if it tries to fire a heavy long rod... due to low max.. chamber pressure.
the size of the tank and the auto-loader desing of Al Khalid limits the length of rounds.

You can look on ARDE/DRDO sites for Arjun stats.

No they don't Al Khalid uses two piece ammo... you have no idea about what you are talking here.

You are jumping here and there and talking nonsense.



Aeronaut said:


> Leaving the Chinese to border police?



We cannot have tank running on the mountains... although some tanks are present in Leh... but they number only in 100... or even low.
Special light tanks would be used to run over Tibetan Pleatue... along with improved T-90s being ordered... that too would number only in 100s compared to over 3000 tanks for Pakistan border.


----------



## DARKY

Teeta said:


> T-72 is one of the most successful tank projects of history. Whats wrong? Do you even know anything about warfare?
> 
> Facts are simple : $ 5 million per one Arjun with this capability is just not "indigenous". Al Khalid-1s are a far more successful "project" for the reasons I already mentioned.
> 
> It is probably due to the fact that *Al Khalid-1 is an indigenous* Pakistani tank with alot of indigenous development. Also, the *components that aren't indigenous* comes from China/Ukraine etc...
> 
> While Arjun has more "foreign" parts to it and they also come from expensive sources (Like German Engine vs Ukranian Engine)...
> 
> Overall, Al Khalid tank is a far more successful project than Arjun tank (uptil now).



atleast stick to one version of the word indigenous.


----------



## Teeta

DARKY said:


> To troll.
> You didn't compare available data... else you wouldn't have concluded.
> 
> Average applies for many factor... *in a battle Al Khalid average rate can be as low as 0 if auto loader stops working.*.. It doesn't give the proper picture of the rate of fire in different conditions... in battle there is no average.
> 
> Its around *1700m/s* for KE rounds... offcourse the smoothbore can but the ato loader limits the size beside Al Khalid gun would brust if it tries to fire a heavy long rod... due to low max.. chamber pressure.
> the size of the tank and the auto-loader desing of Al Khalid limits the length of rounds.
> 
> You can look on ARDE/DRDO sites for Arjun stats.
> 
> No they don't Al Khalid uses two piece ammo... you have no idea about what you are talking here.
> 
> You are jumping here and there and talking nonsense.





I rest my case here. As I said, you are just coming up with "speculations" where enemy gets the worse while you gets the best...

Also, you just further consolidated my conclusion that Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun-1 as it carries more firepower and has superior mobility etc.

Muzzle Velocity of Al Khalid-1 too is superior to Arjun...There goes your "our rounds will do more damage bs"...

Actually, similar rounds fired from Al Khalid-1 might do more damage than they'll do when fired from Arjun...



DARKY said:


> atleast stick to one version of the word indigenous.



F-35, Boeing 787 has components, parts that aren't "indigenous" but still, I'd call these products as "U.S products" .....

Al Khalid-1 is Pakistan's indigenous effort. No?


----------



## DARKY

Teeta said:


> I rest my case here. As I said, you are just coming up with "speculations" where enemy gets the worse while you gets the best...
> 
> Also, you just further consolidated my conclusion that Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun-1 as it carries more firepower and has superior mobility etc.
> 
> Muzzle Velocity of Al Khalid-1 too is superior to Arjun...There goes your "our rounds will do more damage bs"...
> 
> Actually, similar rounds fired from Al Khalid-1 might do more damage than they'll do when fired from Arjun...



I have not even concluded... I am not the one who is saying Al Khalid is better than Arjun... and you say I speculating.

How ?

How does muzzle velocity alone makes Al Khalid rounds superior ? 

How exactly[120mm rifled vs 125mm smoothbore]... Arjun rounds can produce more than 6500bars chamber pressure which would blast the gun of Al Khalid.



Teeta said:


> F-35, Boeing 787 has components, parts that aren't "indigenous" but still, I'd call these products as "U.S products" .....



Then how Arjun is not indigenous and Al Khalid is ?


----------



## Kompromat

@DARKY I hope your generals are as naive as i think they are.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

I don't have time to correct your nonsense here... go and give a good read on both Arjun and Al Khalid and also western and soviet tank designs before coming for debate.


----------



## Teeta

DARKY said:


> Then how Arjun is not indigenous and Al Khalid is ?



It is India's indigenous effort too...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Aeronaut said:


> @DARKY I hope your generals are as *naive* as i think they are.



Much assured you can be on that part.. specially considering the recent developments near your border... with India.


----------



## Dazzler

t-90 without ERA, 















same composite inserts as T-72...







compare with M1...






AK turret estimated...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Manticore

^T-90A/S turret composite armor looks similar to T-72B


Gur Khan attacks!:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

ANTIBODY said:


> Gur Khan attacks!:
> 
> T-90A/S turret composite armor looks similar to T-72B



*Doc* how in God's name do you have this much time on your hands !  

Koiii clinic wagheraa nahin hotaa agar hospital seh free ho jateiii hooo ! 

Khair nice find ! The T-90 was after all, or so I understand, an attempt by the Soviets to bring together the high-end (T-64s...was it ?) & the T-72s into one platform that provides value for money so I'm sure it looks similar to that ! 

What I do wonder is how does the T-90 Bhishma compares with the T-80UDs ?


----------



## Manticore

no part time clinic -- no emergency duties either 

actually it takes me 30 seconds to find and post this stuff and then I move away from the laptop for some hours and then come back again and post for a minute... I dont linger all the time!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

ANTIBODY said:


> no part time clinic -- no emergency duties either



 

Then I dunno what my Dad or the other Doctors in my family are up to working insane numbers of hours from 7-8 in the morning till 11 in the evening !


----------



## Manticore

depends on speciality and future aim -- i would be building a hospital so dont need to build reputation as a plastic sergeon and work in the evenings... rather I am learning more of hospital management in my free time ---- anyways lets come back to topic

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

@nabil_05 : Dude whats the comparison between our T-80UDs & the Indian T-90 Bhimshas ! 



ANTIBODY said:


> depends on speciality and future aim -- i would be building a hospital so dont need to build reputation as a plastic sergeon and work in the evenings... rather I am learning more of hospital management in my free time ---- anyways lets come back to topic



So does that mean I can't come to you for a rihinoplasty !  

Achaa yaar on topic hiii question pooochaa thaaa....what about the 'comparison' between a T-80UD & the Indian T-90 ? As far as I understand the T-80UD was a further development of the 'high-end' MBTs that the Soviets had whereas the T-90 was more of an attempt to incorporate 'high-end' techs into an evolution of the, seemingly 'low-end', T-72 ! So where would that place the T-80UDs with respect to the T-90 Bhimshas ?


----------



## Dazzler

Armstrong said:


> @nabil_05 : Dude whats the comparison between our T-80UDs & the Indian T-90 Bhimshas !
> 
> 
> 
> So does that mean I can't come to you for a rihinoplasty !
> 
> Achaa yaar on topic hiii question pooochaa thaaa....what about the 'comparison' between a T-80UD & the Indian T-90 ? As far as I understand the T-80UD was a further development of the 'high-end' MBTs that the Soviets had whereas the T-90 was more of an attempt to incorporate 'high-end' techs into an evolution of the, seemingly 'low-end', T-72 ! So where would that place the T-80UDs with respect to the T-90 Bhimshas ?









t-80...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

t-80u has more composite insert...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

@nabil_05 : Yaraa what is this ?  

I'm far from being a technical person so I can't appreciate what 'hit probability' at certain points of the tank entails; what I was seeking was a simple answer to the question : 

If the T-64 (I think) was the *High-End* of the Soviet MBTs & the T-72 was the *Low-End* of them ! 

And if the T-80s & the T-90s were a further development of those *High-Low* ideas respectively ! 

Then what follows ? Does that mean that the T-80 is still a *High-End* MBT when compared with the T-90 or did this *High-Low* mix either not exist at all or if it did exist, it was restricted to the T-64 & T-72 series !


----------



## Dazzler

high end = t-64 by morozov

low end = t-72 (ural) with some technology sharing with t-64 such as gun and ammo, not in optics and electronics

t-80 = high end and technologically complex product by kirov/ morozov

t-90 = t-72 hull with t-80 FCS, electronics and some of armour technology due to collapse of soviet union, economy no longer allowed to run parallel design bureaus any more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

t-80u...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

nabil_05 said:


> high end = t-64 by morozov
> 
> low end = t-72 (ural) with some technology sharing with t-64 such as gun and ammo, not in optics and electronics
> 
> t-80 = high end and technologically complex product by kirov/ morozov
> 
> t-90 = t-72 hull with t-80 FCS, electronics and some of armour technology due to collapse of soviet union, economy no longer allowed to run parallel design bureaus any more.



Thanks, mate I appreciate it ! 

Then why did India opt for the T-90s to counter our T-80s if the former was a derivative of the latter higher end product ?


----------



## Dazzler

Armstrong said:


> Thanks, mate I appreciate it !
> 
> Then why did India opt for the T-90s to counter our T-80s if the former was a derivative of the latter higher end product ?



they opted for what suited them better, similarity with t-72 and t-90 eases maintenance, logistics, also, Pak already had t-80s and knew them inside out.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SQ8

DARKY said:


> Hence over 2000 T-72M1 Ajeya to go with around 1000 *T-90S *Bheeshma.



Werent there a HOST of issues with this design.. in what is essentially a modified T-72 with T-80 tech?
Pretty well documented on how the IA was not happy with it.

Oh.. something for all to see.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dazzler

t-84 on left vs, t-90 on right....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Myth_buster_1

DARKY said:


> Hence over 2000 T-72M1 Ajeya to go with around 1000 T-90S Bheeshma.



Exactly, thats why Indian army prefers Russian tanks over heavy western tanks which will get bogged down in sand dunes. Sorry but Arjun is only better on papers.


----------



## 500

Armstrong said:


> @nabil_05 : Yaraa what is this ?
> 
> I'm far from being a technical person so I can't appreciate what 'hit probability' at certain points of the tank entails; what I was seeking was a simple answer to the question :
> 
> If the T-64 (I think) was the *High-End* of the Soviet MBTs & the T-72 was the *Low-End* of them !
> 
> And if the T-80s & the T-90s were a further development of those *High-Low* ideas respectively !
> 
> Then what follows ? Does that mean that the T-80 is still a *High-End* MBT when compared with the T-90 or did this *High-Low* mix either not exist at all or if it did exist, it was restricted to the T-64 & T-72 series !


*early 70-es:*
T-64A and T-72 had same exactly FCS.

*late 70-es:*
T-64B and T-80B got complex 1A33 FCS.
T-72A got more simple 1A40 FCS.

*middle 80-es:*
T-80U got complex 1A42 FCS.
T-72B remained with simple 1A40 FCS.

*early 90-es:*
T-72B got 1A42 FCS from T-80U and was renamed to T-90.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Gentelman

DARKY said:


> another pathetic troll.. get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> Going by your logic T-72 must be the best MBT around with over 25000+copies produced.
> What a poor argument.



sir he was talking by comparing weight,speed,fire power,type of rounds used etc
u get him wrong....
even Argun and AK are not 1:1 they r atleast 3:1 then how can India afford 4:11 ratio....
argun has semi auto transmission with manual gears while AK is automatic with auto gears....
AK-1 has improved armour.....
the speed of Ak made it real killer....
Arjun has issues with hitting moving targets...
well sir 125 mm smothbore tech is higher comparing to 120mm rifel of WW2.....
weight and speed of arjun degrades it...
and AK 1 has further improved engine with more hp.....n improved autoloader and chinees gun replaced with Pakistani self designed improved gun......
no offence


----------



## farhan_9909

@DARKY @500

Reality never changes..Arjun was designed by krauss maffei

please care to spend 10mins more on this subject.
Arjun has striking similarties with leopard2a4,reason because both are designed by same firm

Arjun Main Battle Tank - Army Technology

tank.net,indian journalist ajai shukla also claims the same and so does more dozens of referrence



> Design
> 
> The development of Arjun MBT began in March 1974. The tank heavily depends on foreign technology and equipment. Krauss Maffei, developer of the German Leopard 2 tank, provided the design assistance. Hence, the Arjun closely resembles Leopard 2A4 tank.


----------



## Jango

Oscar said:


>



The video is pretty damning to say the least. Positioning of the sights right in the middle of the armour giving a potential hole, and also the straight face armor rather than sloped is very embarrassing. Every tank now has sloped armor, and it is a basic design feature.

As the video maker asked, why o why???


----------



## Manticore

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



Pakistan army tanks other than al-khalid
credits to original uploaders as always
enjoy

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Manticore

t80/t90 side by side


some diagrams 
http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-warfare/106975-tank-designs-11.html

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DARKY

Oscar said:


> Werent there a HOST of issues with this design.. in what is essentially a modified T-72 with T-80 tech?
> Pretty well documented on how the IA was not happy with it.



The 1st models of T-90S were cast turret... low amount of composites... and cast design as on Pakistani T-80U.
The latter models were wielded turret design with much better protection levels as compared with T-80U.

Arjun have had certain issues with its design no-doubt... but the bad attitude of army and corruption towards its induction in armed forces is something which cannot be denied... hence these days they use a black box in the tank.


----------



## DARKY

nuclearpak said:


> The video is pretty damning to say the least. Positioning of the sights right in the middle of the armour giving a potential hole, and also the straight face armor rather than sloped is very embarrassing. Every tank now has sloped armor, and it is a basic design feature.
> 
> As the video maker asked, why o why???



There is a lot of armor behind the sight to go with it.... you can say the same about Leo 2 designs.
The Ceramic based armor design is the most effective when the armor is flat and not sloped... you see the same in latest tanks sch as Leo2A6...which has been a successful export.






Behind the NERA panels there is a flat main armor just like Arjun.
Even Russian tanks like T-80U[wielded turret] and T-90A/AM etc have flat armor just like Arjun.


----------



## farhan_9909

DARKY said:


> The 1st models of T-90S were cast turret... low amount of composites... and cast design as on Pakistani T-80U.
> The latter models were wielded turret design with much better protection levels as compared with T-80U.
> 
> Arjun have had certain issues with its design no-doubt... but the bad attitude of army and corruption towards its induction in armed forces is something which cannot be denied... hence these days they use a black box in the tank.



The Pakistani t-80UD were better protected than even later developed t-84..courtesy a polish member in a indian defence forumm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

500 said:


> *early 90-es:*
> T-72B got 1A42 FCS from T-80U and was renamed to T-90.



You got to be mentioning which T-90 you are talking about... this can mislead readers.
For example the wielded turret on T-90C/S comes from the Object 187 project... which was designed beat even 140mm western projectiles of that time... on the main frontal armor... aided with 2nd gen. ERA.






While the cast turret used on early T-90A/S/C models were influenced by T-72 buffalo.. or Object 172M-2M "Buffalo".


----------



## Jango

DARKY said:


> Behind the NERA panels there is a flat main armor just like Arjun.
> .



But can the Arjun have NERA plates like that in front of the ceramic armour? Considering that it has the sights placed right on the front beside the turret unlike the Leo2. The Leo 2 can have NERA plates to reinforce the ceramic design as there would be no sights, but the case is different with Arjun. NERA would obstruct the sights.

And could you kindly expand on the 'ceramic plates work best if flat/vertical' thing?

Note: I ain't any expert or have any much knowledge on tanks!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

farhan_9909 said:


> The Pakistani t-80UD were *better protected* than even *later developed* t-84..courtesy a polish member in a indian defence forumm



I don't care what some random member from xyz country says... you can decide yourself.











May be the Ukrainian govt. was not as smart as some random polish citizen... and developed a better tank.


----------



## DARKY

nuclearpak said:


> But can the Arjun have NERA plates like that in front of the ceramic armour? Considering that it has the sights placed right on the front beside the turret unlike the Leo2. The Leo 2 can have NERA plates to reinforce the ceramic design as there would be no sights, but the case is different with Arjun. NERA would obstruct the sights.
> 
> And could you kindly expand on the 'ceramic plates work best if flat/vertical' thing?
> 
> Note: I ain't any expert or have any much knowledge on tanks!!!



The sight is always there... a little differently placed on leo2A5 and 6 perhaps... here is the Leo2A4... and the modernized version.
















Arujn would not have NERA but ERA.






It would be a little difficult to position ERA in such a manner... however the weak spot hit probability is reduced manifolds.

Flat provides more volume for the different layers of ceramic, rubber, metal alloys, kevalar etc.. to act upon incoming projectile the more the volume the better effect they would have hence it is not sloped.

Neither am I any expert... you can know more from a metallurgical expert.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

DARKY said:


> There is a lot of armor behind the sight to go with it.... you can say the same about Leo 2 designs.
> The Ceramic based armor design is the most effective when the armor is flat and not sloped... you see the same in latest tanks sch as Leo2A6...which has been a successful export.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Behind the NERA panels there is a flat main armor just like Arjun.*Even Russian tanks like T-80U[wielded turret] and T-90A/AM etc have flat armor just like Arjun.



There are quite a few misconceptions regarding Flat v/s Sloping armor in the region of the mantlet. And most of them seem to be born out of a 'childish' belief that shells will bounce off like a ball off a sloping surface. The first determinant is the nature of the Armor. Historically Russian designs used cast steel turrets. That combined with their desire to achieve low silhouettes (in those days- the Mk.1 Eyeball was probably the only sensor available to tank-men) resulted in the trade-mark design which still persists. It also happened to be cheaper and easier to build. In case of composite Armor, it works as efficiently with a flat face. So there is simply no need to extend it to construct sloping sides- that is just a redundancy. Which adds to costs.

As is rightly explained here (even with pictures) the Leopard series of tanks have "bolted on" sections/segments which can be added. Much more efficient that way.

*Let us not forget that the keynote of Soviet tank design was to construct cheaper and easy to build tanks in vast numbers that could be operated by lesser (and lesser trained) crews. That design philosophy mainly continues with the Russians and has been susequently and whole-heartedly embraced by Ukrainian and Chinese (and consequently Pakistani) designs.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Capt.Popeye said:


> *Let us not forget that the keynote of Soviet tank design was to construct cheaper and easy to build tanks in vast numbers that could be operated by lesser (and lesser trained) crews. That design philosophy mainly continues with the Russians and has been susequently and whole-heartedly embraced by Ukrainian and Chinese (and consequently Pakistani) designs.*



Early soviet designs yes... later soviet designs no.
For example..
Object 187
Object 195
Object 640
Were to be the main soviet tanks... of the 90s and the new century.... read about them and you'll see what they were upto with these MBTs... one can only imagine their fire power.

I would not appreciate the Chinese way.... It has a lot of flaws... mainly due to blindly copying designs... and trying to make them modern... there are serious flaws in the main armor of ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid tanks.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

DARKY said:


> Early soviet designs yes... later soviet designs no.
> For example..
> Object 187
> Object 195
> Object 640
> Were to be the main soviet tanks... of the 90s and the new century.... read about them and you'll see what they were upto with these MBTs... one can only imagine their fire power.
> 
> I would not appreciate the Chinese way.... It has a lot of flaws... mainly due to blindly copying designs... and trying to make them modern... there are serious flaws in the main armor of ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid tanks.



The T-90s are cheaper and easier to build and operate than Arjuns for instance. That does not make them better or worse. Just cheaper and easier to build.

I did not at all talk about the fire-power. Soviet/Russian guns were always more robust and with greater "bang for the buck" than Western designs. Case in point the M-46 130 mm field gun was a bigger hitter than contemporary NATO designs, even of 155 mm caliber.


----------



## DARKY

Capt.Popeye said:


> The T-90s are cheaper and easier to build and operate than Arjuns for instance. That does not make them better or worse. Just cheaper and easier to build.
> 
> I did not at all talk about the fire-power. Soviet/Russian guns were always more robust and with greater "bang for the buck" than Western designs. Case in point the M-46 130 mm field gun was a bigger hitter than contemporary NATO designs, even of 155 mm caliber.



Oh yes they are but at present Equip T-90 with Kaktus type armor module like the one in photo and T-90 becomes a tough nut to crack... add APS like Arena and you have somewhat near invisible tank in battle field at relatively low cost.






Kaktus early version.






Arena APS.

This T-90 would have much better kill ratio before being shot down.. in a tank battle... and even If shot down It can survive thanks to additional armor and much superior design.


----------



## Varunastra

Teeta said:


> Well correct my "mistakes" but not by your speculations.
> 
> There is a difference my boy.
> 
> I haven't found anything stating Arjun's ROF to be somewhere around over 15...
> 
> Al Khalid-1 carries way more rounds...and has more firepower...these are plain facts. Now to give excuses "Oh, but our rounds are longer" is just plain childish
> 
> We used to do that in Cold-War era. No one will EVER accept that Soviets had a lead in some technologies over US. You guys are in same mode.
> 
> Pakistanis will always utter their product to be best, indians will do the same...
> 
> You both can learn from each other alot though...
> 
> 
> 
> What T-90 model did you use?
> 
> And don't make it a joke. So T-90 is 0.5 tons lighter than Al-Khalid and hence an "advantage"? Give me a freakin' break....
> 
> It should be atleast a difference of 10 tons! Learn how tanks are classified etc...
> 
> Also, your specs are just bs....specify which variant you are using. It seems that you have taken the 'best specs' of all variants and combined them into one! LOL.
> 
> Al Khalid is superior to T-90S (which is export version of T-90). And this fact is admitted by.......RUSSIAN POSTERS on this forum.
> 
> But India receives a bit 'upgraded' version of T-90S...so post the specs of that T-90 and we'll see...
> 
> T-90 would be superior to Arjuns offcourse, but are they superior to Al Khalids too? Can't say. It depends on what variant of T-90s you are using...
> 
> *There is a reason your army is buying T-90s instead of Arjuns*...



ya there is a reason , we are developing Arjun mk II which is a far potent beast ...it will complete trials within a few years and we are waiting for that.....T-90 will act as a stop gap measure as they are less costly and easy to build 

Arjun mkII-


----------



## SQ8

DARKY said:


> Early soviet designs yes... later soviet designs no.
> For example..
> Object 187
> Object 195
> Object 640
> Were to be the main soviet tanks... of the 90s and the new century.... read about them and you'll see what they were upto with these MBTs... one can only imagine their fire power.
> 
> I would not appreciate the Chinese way.... It has a lot of flaws... mainly due to blindly copying designs... and trying to make them modern... *there are serious flaws in the main armor of ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid tanks*.



Enlighten us..when you yourself claim to have no idea of metallurgy..
Since you were *not able to prove it by anything other than guesses* in your past attempts.

According to the video..there are MUCH more serious flaws in the Arjun.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## SQ8

Capt.Popeye said:


> There are quite a few misconceptions regarding Flat v/s Sloping armor in the region of the mantlet. And most of them seem to be born out of a 'childish' belief that shells will bounce off like a ball off a sloping surface. The first determinant is the nature of the Armor. Historically Russian designs used cast steel turrets. That combined with their desire to achieve low silhouettes (in those days- the Mk.1 Eyeball was probably the only sensor available to tank-men) resulted in the trade-mark design which still persists. It also happened to be cheaper and easier to build. In case of composite Armor, it works as efficiently with a flat face. *So there is simply no need to extend it to construct sloping sides- that is just a redundancy. *Which adds to costs.
> 
> As is rightly explained here (even with pictures) the Leopard series of tanks have "bolted on" sections/segments which can be added. Much more efficient that way.
> 
> *Let us not forget that the keynote of Soviet tank design was to construct cheaper and easy to build tanks in vast numbers that could be operated by lesser (and lesser trained) crews. That design philosophy mainly continues with the Russians and has been susequently and whole-heartedly embraced by Ukrainian and Chinese (and consequently Pakistani) designs.*



Yes, since all you have is composite armour.. not composite reinforced with ERA..which is where the sloping comes in.
The leapord 2A5 has sloped modular addon over its flat composite.. surely the Klaus cant be a redundant nut to do that.
Which is why I am curious as to what brilliant conclusion DARKY has reached through research on the characteristics of KE, HEAT rounds and a few pictures of demonstrations of the AK for public shows.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DARKY

Oscar said:


> Enlighten us..when you yourself claim to have no idea of metallurgy..
> Since you were *not able to prove it by anything other than guesses* in your past attempts.
> 
> According to the video..there are MUCH more serious flaws in the Arjun.









Note the bolts attached to the armor module on Al Khalid shows that part is hollow.... just like the modules used in ZTZ-99.






Here's what is the main turret.






Both designs being derived from Chinese designs... and the bolts used to attach them verify this.

This leaves a gap with air in the module... behind that there is no armor... although that would certainly stop a HESH but HEAT and KE ammo would penetrate go through the gap easily thanks to the spall effect... of these and modern ATGM with tandem warhead arrangement.

Now coming to the design part.. here is a rough drawing which shows why the design is faulty... this fault is also there in Arjun.
Before you conclude... I would like to mention here that in face to face armor engagements most hits come in the 60degree arc of tank from the front.

The yellow part is all over the front 60degree arc... the put the color on sides to point out specifically... now while in T-90 design you see that it covers up the weak spot quiet smartly it is not the case with Al Khalid... and certainly not with those hollow modules on the front too.






I know the measurements can be faulty... artists/photoshop experts can help me here.

I put that side skirt coming off to extroll the troll who were ranting about Al Khalid... I know they are weak and have little to do with crew protection.. other than disabling the tank from close ranges by RPG fire or infantry action.


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Myth_buster_1 said:


> bit off topic but how many of u guys r playing world of tanks?



im.......


----------



## Manticore

^ I have posted this above point and some others in the TT forum some time back.. these points are not new and are being raised on some fora for quite some time

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

Oscar said:


> Yes, since all you have is composite armour.. not composite reinforced with ERA..which is where the sloping comes in.
> The leapord 2A5 has sloped modular addon over its flat composite.. surely the Klaus cant be a redundant nut to do that.



Those modules are NERA panels the sloped things are empty steel plates which are layered with Rubbers and other elastic material in between to make up for NERA.. module... the shape is chosen accordingly as we have ERA sloped... those modules are hollow.

Arjun was supposed to be having similar NERA panels but army want Heavy ERA.


----------



## Manticore

the same 'source' however also says the same for arjun





ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DARKY

ANTIBODY said:


> the same 'source' however also says the same for arjun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting



The person who drew this drawing mistook the the armor block on the turret side of Arjun as storage box.






You can see the 1st side block is solid armor module and last two are storage box... the 1st block covers the crew hatch half way or so... ensuring protection in 60degree arc... which is absent on Al Khalid or ZTZ-99.

Those other two side boxes are just a weight saving measure and a similar solid Kanchan armor module like the 1st block can replace the two boxes.... for better protection during wartime.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Bill-2 top attack missile vs Russian t-80U with K-5 ERA..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> Bill-2 top attack missile vs Russian t-80U with K-5 ERA..



Epic FAIL... 

1.Russian T-80U don't use K-5 ERA.
2.The tank in the picture is a T-72... and not T-80U.
3.The hit was a luck one on the crew hatch... the most vulnerable and least protected part of any tank.
4.There is no ERA present on the crew hatch.

T-80 hull wheel is not uniformly spaced... as in T-72.. 1st few wheels have more space compared to last few.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

compare for yourselves excellent vedio somewhere near the indo pak border


----------



## 500

DARKY said:


> You got to be mentioning which T-90 you are talking about... this can mislead readers.
> For example the wielded turret on T-90C/S comes from the Object 187 project... which was designed beat even 140mm western projectiles of that time... on the main frontal armor... aided with 2nd gen. ERA.


1) I was talking about FCS.
2) T-90 uses same Kontakt-5 ERA as T-80U and T-72B(M).
3) Welded turret does not give much advantage over cast. Its mainly technology issue: during high rate production cast is cheaper, during low rate production welded is cheaper.


----------



## Dazzler

DARKY said:


> Epic FAIL...
> 
> 1.Russian T-80U don't use K-5 ERA.
> 2.The tank in the picture is a T-72... and not T-80U.
> 3.The hit was a luck one on the crew hatch... the most vulnerable and least protected part of any tank.
> 4.There is no ERA present on the crew hatch.
> 
> T-80 hull wheel is not uniformly spaced... as in T-72.. 1st few wheels have more space compared to last few.



Buddy, this is in Sweden, during a trial, you are right that its K-1 ERA not K-5.


----------



## DARKY

500 said:


> 1) I was talking about FCS.
> 2) T-90 uses same Kontakt-5 ERA as T-80U and T-72B(M).
> 3) Welded turret does not give much advantage over cast. Its mainly technology issue: during high rate production cast is cheaper, during low rate production welded is cheaper.



1. Okay but in that case too it uses the advanced version 1A45T... and not 1A45 Basic version.
2. I have doubts over this... may be a version modified for T-80U and T-80BV... but not the same as on T-90A/S/C (Object 188A1/188A2)... T-72B (Object 184) only use 4S20 Kontakt-1 ERA... *T-72BM/BU* were the ones with 4S22 Kontakt-5 ERA... *[the most advanced T-72 version which became (Object 188) or cast turret T-90.]*
3. A rolled armor will have increase in protection from 5 to 15 % compared to a comparable cast design... Besides making it more suitable for proper filling of ceramic based composite tiles.

While the gap between T-90 cast and T-90A/C/S is not much in time but the protection level is much wider.


----------



## 500

DARKY said:


> 1. Okay but in that case too it uses the advanced version 1A45T... and not 1A45 Basic version.


just minor modification.


> 2. I have doubts over this...


You should not. ALl serial T-90 have K-5.



> 3. A rolled armor will have increase in protection from 5 to 15 % compared to a comparable cast design...


But weaker at seams.


----------



## DARKY

500 said:


> just minor modification.
> 
> You should not. ALl serial T-90 have K-5.
> 
> 
> But weaker at seams.



Yes all T-90 have 4S22 Kontakt-5 ERA.

That is obvious but hitting those parts are not easy at long ranges... may be a lucky blow.
Besides computer wielding methods have increased the strength lately... one big disadvantage with cast designs are the hump which forms on turret top... providing weak spot there... pretty vulnerable from long distance too.


----------



## ANPP

Gentelman said:


> sir he was talking by comparing weight,speed,fire power,type of rounds used etc
> u get him wrong....
> even Argun and AK are not 1:1 they r atleast 3:1 then how can India afford 4:11 ratio....


We can buy more ARJUN, but question is that you really have so much money to maintain the ratio.



> argun has semi auto transmission with manual gears while AK is automatic with auto gears....


Manual gears give better performance than auto if crew is experienced. Automatic gears performed well crew is rokii in twice side & also reduce work load from the crew but since AK have dedicated man for driving.



> AK-1 has improved armour.....






> the speed of Ak made it real killer....
> Arjun has issues with hitting moving targets...


Not really. Arjun show upto 70% hit upto distance of 2km even in the speed of 30km/h, which consider better than T90. & also need to mention that ARJUN is also new for crew.



> weight and speed of arjun degrades it...


Weight doesnt degrade even give it better protection & as it out run the T90 in trials so mobility is also not the factor.



> and AK 1 has further improved engine with more hp.....n improved autoloader and chinees gun replaced with Pakistani self designed improved gun......


Arjun is also improving.


----------



## DARKY

Myth_buster_1 said:


> Exactly, thats why Indian army prefers Russian tanks over heavy western tanks which will get bogged down in sand dunes. Sorry but Arjun is only better on papers.



You are completely wrong here... T-72 and T-90 are perfect choice tank for invading forces... while Arjun type tanks are very good at taking out a far larger number of enemies in defensive role... Now there are many factors which support this... while considering Pakistan.

The sands of Thar is the perfect place for Arjun type tanks.... If Pakistan were Thar.... India would be having 2000 Arjuns... and no doubt Pakistan would've bought M1a1 tanks from US... the main problem here is that the deserts ends on borders and rest of Pakistan is Punjab with many rivers and streams flowing... tanks like arjun can get struck in mud more easily and the Bridges in Pakistan would surely collapse when 63 ton Arjun rides on them.

That is why you see Arjun Deployed only in Rajasthan and T-90S Bheeshma are deployed in both Rajasthan and Punjab.

T-90S in Punjab have digital camo suiting the terrain rather than the yellow T-90S in Rajasthan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gentelman

DARKY said:


> You are completely wrong here... T-72 and T-90 are perfect choice tank for invading forces... while Arjun type tanks are very good at taking out a far larger number of enemies in defensive role... Now there are many factors which support this... while considering Pakistan.
> 
> The sands of Thar is the perfect place for Arjun type tanks.... If Pakistan were Thar.... India would be having 2000 Arjuns... and no doubt Pakistan would've bought M1a1 tanks from US... the main problem here is that the deserts ends on borders and rest of Pakistan is Punjab with many rivers and streams flowing... tanks like arjun can get struck in mud more easily and the Bridges in Pakistan would surely collapse when 63 ton Arjun rides on them.
> 
> That is why you see Arjun Deployed only in Rajasthan and T-90S Bheeshma are deployed in both Rajasthan and Punjab.
> 
> T-90S in Punjab have digital camo suiting the terrain rather than the yellow T-90S in Rajasthan.



i love that cammo... its great...
well so much planning isnot good..
i.e getting on pak soil and unable to cross rivers..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gentelman

ANPP said:


> We can buy more ARJUN, but question is that you really have so much money to maintain the ratio.
> 
> 
> Manual gears give better performance than auto if crew is experienced. Automatic gears performed well crew is rokii in twice side & also reduce work load from the crew but since AK have dedicated man for driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Arjun show upto 70% hit upto distance of 2km even in the speed of 30km/h, which consider better than T90. & also need to mention that ARJUN is also new for crew.
> 
> 
> Weight doesnt degrade even give it better protection & as it out run the T90 in trials so mobility is also not the factor.
> 
> 
> Arjun is also improving.



u truely r a troll...
well Pak can buy and maintain required ratio as we always doo...
and yeahh u can buy..
bt u need to chk out no. of Arjuns u bought an AKs we have. .
this should disappoint u...
Ak has more pick up than Arjun than what transmission advantage r u talking about??
yeahh i know its can hit a target....
Ak can travel in 8 foot+ water....under water..
can Arjun??
i can bet Arjun can't even get outta mud...
well u can dream what u want but please don't make such odd arguments..
am no troll..
ask a sensible arny personnal..
he will tell u why ur army prefered a downfraded tank(T-90 which is out runned by arjun according to ur opinion) on Arjun since Arjun is best of best....
u will get the answer.
and u have money to induce Arjun? ?
soo plzzz induce atleast 150 Arjuns till 2014 plzzz..
we have around 300+ Aks....
and AK1 induction is also just being started...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ANPP

Gentelman said:


> u truely r a troll...
> well Pak can buy and maintain required ratio as we always doo...
> and yeahh u can buy..
> bt u need to chk out no. of Arjuns u bought an AKs we have. .
> this should disappoint u...
> Ak has more pick up than Arjun than what transmission advantage r u talking about??
> yeahh i know its can hit a target....
> Ak can travel in 8 foot+ water....under water..
> can Arjun??
> i can bet Arjun can't even get outta mud...
> well u can dream what u want but please don't make such odd arguments..
> am no troll..
> ask a sensible arny personnal..
> he will tell u why ur army prefered a downfraded tank(T-90 which is out runned by arjun according to ur opinion) on Arjun since Arjun is best of best....
> u will get the answer.
> and u have money to induce Arjun? ?
> soo plzzz induce atleast 150 Arjuns till 2014 plzzz..
> we have around 300+ Aks....
> and AK1 induction is also just being started...



........... & What exactly you want to say??????


----------



## Gentelman

ANPP said:


> ........... & What exactly you want to say??????



soo intelligent you are....
wowwww!!


----------



## DARKY

Gentelman said:


> i love that cammo... its great...
> well so much planning isnot good..
> i.e getting on pak soil and unable to *cross rivers*..



That has been the main concern over the years... you might find a whole array of different bridge laying platforms... in the IA to overcome the obstacle... so far.

Some analyst also suggest Pakistan deliberately flooding its fields to stop Indian advance.... which is quiet possible with all those canals flowing in Punjab... T-90 tanks are perhaps the best available solution here... a reason why T-72M1M is still being kept and has been upgraded to Ajeya standards.


----------



## DARKY

Gentelman said:


> Ak has more pick up than Arjun than what transmission advantage r u talking about??
> 
> Ak can travel in 8 foot+ water....under water..
> can Arjun??
> i can bet Arjun can't even get outta mud...
> 
> he will tell u why ur army prefered a downfraded tank(T-90 which is out runned by arjun according to ur opinion) on Arjun since Arjun is best of best....



Yes Al Khalid has better pick up... but tanks aren't going to play drag races.

Transmission and suspension of Arjun are among its best parts.






Note the stability of tank on those bumps.. something only Arjun can do... If you have seen the Arjun doing this in video.

Arjun too fords 6-8 foot water easily.






Its ground pressure is lower than the lighter T-72 due to its design.. the problem here is size and weight.

T-90S Bheeshma is certainly not a "downfraded" tank at all... Its protection is much better than any Tank in the region... only Pakistani T-80UD comes close... ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid are much behind them.

Arjun would subsequently be the better tank once they are slowly increased and mark2 comes out in good number till then T-90S is better tank and with the planned upgrades it would be even better.


----------



## SQ8

DARKY said:


> Yes Al Khalid has better pick up... but tanks aren't going to play drag races.
> 
> Transmission and suspension of Arjun are among its best parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the stability of tank on those bumps.. something only Arjun can do... If you have seen the Arjun doing this in video.
> 
> Arjun too fords 6-8 foot water easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its ground pressure is lower than the lighter T-72 due to its design.. the problem here is size and weight.
> 
> T-90S Bheeshma is certainly not a "downfraded" tank at all... Its protection is much better than any Tank in the region... only Pakistani T-80UD comes close...* ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid are much behind them.*
> 
> Arjun would subsequently be the better tank once they are slowly increased and mark2 comes out in good number till then T-90S is better tank and with the planned upgrades it would be even better.



Yes yes 

Repeat something false so many times that it becomes a truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Storm Force

Lovely looking TANK the ARJUN 

great for fighting in the THAR DESERT


----------



## Dazzler

DARKY said:


> Yes Al Khalid has better pick up... but tanks aren't going to play drag races.
> 
> Transmission and suspension of Arjun are among its best parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the stability of tank on those bumps.. something only Arjun can do... If you have seen the Arjun doing this in video.
> 
> Arjun too fords 6-8 foot water easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its ground pressure is lower than the lighter T-72 due to its design.. the problem here is size and weight.
> 
> T-90S Bheeshma is certainly not a "downfraded" tank at all... Its protection is much better than any Tank in the region... only Pakistani T-80UD comes close... ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid are much behind them.
> 
> Arjun would subsequently be the better tank once they are slowly increased and mark2 comes out in good number till then T-90S is better tank and with the planned upgrades it would be even better.



you need a break from forums really !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## My-Analogous

Storm Force said:


> Lovely looking TANK the ARJUN
> 
> great for fighting in the THAR DESERT



How much gallon of water it can take in thar?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Liquidmetal

so can someone explain why the T80UD was chosen when PA could have bought leopard or Abrams, both tanks are considered best in class and would have given PK a bigger punch, what does the T80 have that is better than the other options.


----------



## farhan_9909

DARKY said:


> Yes Al Khalid has better pick up... but tanks aren't going to play drag races.
> 
> Transmission and suspension of Arjun are among its best parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the stability of tank on those bumps.. something only Arjun can do... If you have seen the Arjun doing this in video.
> 
> Arjun too fords 6-8 foot water easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its ground pressure is lower than the lighter T-72 due to its design.. the problem here is size and weight.
> 
> T-90S Bheeshma is certainly not a "downfraded" tank at all... Its protection is much better than any Tank in the region... only Pakistani T-80UD comes close... ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid are much behind them.
> 
> Arjun would subsequently be the better tank once they are slowly increased and mark2 comes out in good number till then T-90S is better tank and with the planned upgrades it would be even better.



on such tiny bumps even i wont feel them on bicycle

i would rather show you what real bumps around the world are.
look how much bigger the bumps are and than watchout the suspension system of al khalid

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

M-1 was tested in Thar during 86-87, failed multiple times, powerpack, optics failed, engine heated. Leos were never opted for one reason, sanction prone west product. since 89, AK was in development, delays caused to look for a stop gap tank, went for Chinese type-85IIM and liked its capabilities vis-a-vis the t-72M of IA but Chinese could not fulfil the expected orders, stepped in the Ukrainian t-80ud, excellent tank in desert warfare. 

Aorak mk1 armour module...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## farhan_9909

nabil_05 said:


> M-1 was tested in Thar during 86-87, failed multiple times, powerpack, optics failed, engine heated. Leos were never opted for one reason, sanction prone west product. since 89, AK was in development, delays caused to look for a stop gap tank, went for Chinese type-85IIM and liked its capabilities vis-a-vis the t-72M of IA but Chinese could not fulfil the expected orders, stepped in the Ukrainian t-80ud, excellent tank in desert warfare.
> 
> Aorak mk1 armour module...



100% confirm pic of aorak mk1 era?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

farhan_9909 said:


> 100% confirm pic of aorak mk1 era?



yes, the MK.1 version, currently they are using 2nd or 3rd version, but specs are not known.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

T-80U with kaktus and...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

@nabil_05 : Yaraa did you read the posts by the two American fellows in this thread going back '09/'10 & the skepticism with which they greeted the assertion that the M1s could have failed the tests; they were Americans but they were also Military guys so they talked from experience too ! 

Secondly, yaraa the Type 85IIIs that we have how well do the compare with the Indian T-72s & T-90s & our T-80UDs & the Al-Khalid or even the Al-Zarrar ? 

Much obliged !

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Armstrong said:


> @nabil_05 : Yaraa did you read the posts by the two American fellows in this thread going back '09/'10 & the skepticism with which they greeted the assertion that the M1s could have failed the tests; they were Americans but they were also Military guys so they talked from experience too !
> 
> Secondly, yaraa the Type 85IIIs that we have how well do the compare with the Indian T-72s & T-90s & our T-80UDs & the Al-Khalid or even the Al-Zarrar ?
> 
> Much obliged !




type-85III should be better or on par with t-72, inferior to AKs, t-80ud and 90.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Donatello

nabil_05 said:


> type-85III should be better or on par with t-72, inferior to AKs, t-80ud and 90.




So what's the verdict? Pakistan Army holds the upper hand (today) in terms of Tanks technology?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gentelman

Liquidmetal said:


> so can someone explain why the T80UD was chosen when PA could have bought leopard or Abrams, both tanks are considered best in class and would have given PK a bigger punch, what does the T80 have that is better than the other options.



Abraham is best in class bt with much higher price....
and You can't rely on Europeans as sanctions can be waiting for u any moment and u can't then even have tank DU rounds or ammunition or spares..
and when anyone offered you Abraham??


----------



## tanlixiang28776

Would appreciate if for the sake of comparison we would use pics and specs of the newest version of the type 99, not the initial version from 2001.

baseline type 99

with ERA: 54 tons






type 99A

with new turret: 57 tons






type 99A2

all-new tank: 62 tons






and please do not use specs from the type 98

without ERA: 51-52 tons






If you want to compare then at least compare with the same generation stuff.

Don't take pics and specs from 2001 to compare with stuff that has yet to be produced..... ahem ahem Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gentelman

DARKY said:


> Yes Al Khalid has better pick up... but tanks aren't going to play drag races.
> 
> Transmission and suspension of Arjun are among its best parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the stability of tank on those bumps.. something only Arjun can do... If you have seen the Arjun doing this in video.
> 
> Arjun too fords 6-8 foot water easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its ground pressure is lower than the lighter T-72 due to its design.. the problem here is size and weight.
> 
> T-90S Bheeshma is certainly not a "downfraded" tank at all... Its protection is much better than any Tank in the region... only Pakistani T-80UD comes close... ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid are much behind them.
> 
> Arjun would subsequently be the better tank once they are slowly increased and mark2 comes out in good number till then T-90S is better tank and with the planned upgrades it would be even better.



u can't risk to put Arjun in water as these r not ur pools without mud and Arjun speed can't take it out from muddy areas.....
well speed and pick up plays imp role in modern tank battels....
u know nothing about tanks i suppose....
u can't launch a surprise attack with arjun and it will take too much time to take Arjun on front while AK can be deployed on front borders in moments...
and haw AK is much behind then T-90??
yeah T-90 armor is good than AK bt AK-1 armor can be compared with T-90.....
grow upppp buddy please..
go chk out AK imformation pool first...
and AK is more modern than T-80 UD....
well i will not reply to trolls like u...
if ur playing game like ur tanks r vetter than ok ignore facts...
u won now happy go boy play with ur tanks now....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DARKY

Oscar said:


> Yes yes
> 
> Repeat something false so many times that it becomes a truth.



Look I showed you why ZTZ99 and Al Khalid have poor protection... in my last post.
That module has empty space degrading armor and protection.

Plus the turret design isn't very good too... and I explained why... now add the extra ammo in plastic placed in the turret floor... yes offcourse T-80UD too have them but well protected.

I wonder what went wrong with PA... T-80UD was something like F-16 is to PAF.... Al Khalid is what JF-17 is.... and T-90S is no Su30MKI... The best option there was to stay with the Ukrainians and move to T-80UD evolution the T-84 Oplot/Yagtan... and IMO that would've been the Rafale.






No doubt the fire power, mobility and electronics and optics of Al Khalid are very good but protection the basic thing which defines an MBT.


----------



## DARKY

farhan_9909 said:


> on such tiny bumps even i wont feel them on bicycle



May be since you are a Pakistani and have very bubbly rear.

Read about Torsion-bars and hydro-pneumatic suspension before making ridiculous statements.
Sure you can make Al Khalid jump from the hill and into the pit... doesn't mean other MBTs have to do that too.


----------



## DARKY

Gentelman said:


> u can't risk to put Arjun in water as these r not ur pools without mud and Arjun speed can't take it out from muddy areas.....
> well speed and pick up plays imp role in modern tank battels....
> u know nothing about tanks i suppose....
> u can't launch a surprise attack with arjun and it will take too much time to take Arjun on front while AK can be deployed on front borders in moments...
> and haw AK is much behind then T-90??
> yeah T-90 armor is good than AK bt AK-1 armor can be compared with T-90.....
> grow upppp buddy please..
> go chk out AK imformation pool first...
> and AK is more modern than T-80 UD....
> well i will not reply to trolls like u...
> if ur playing game like ur tanks r vetter than ok ignore facts...
> u won now happy go boy play with ur tanks now....



Arjun regularly does that in various exercises and training drills.. I showed you the photo whats the point ?

[speed and pick up]Such as ?... keep in mind that the speeds here are similar.

I know more than you... about tanks... that I can say.

Have you seen Arjun cruising in the Deserts ?






If you have seen the full episode... in this one civilians get to ride T-90S, fire rounds and use Kornet ATGM... look for Arjun cruising... I would recommend the full video.

I showed that in previous posts.. go through.


----------



## DARKY

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Would appreciate if for the sake of comparison we would use pics and specs of the newest version of the type 99, not the initial version from 2001.
> 
> baseline type 99
> 
> with ERA: 54 tons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> type 99A
> 
> with new turret: 57 tons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> type 99A2
> 
> all-new tank: 62 tons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and please do not use specs from the type 98
> 
> without ERA: 51-52 tons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to compare then at least compare with the same generation stuff.
> 
> Don't take pics and specs from 2001 to compare with stuff that has yet to be produced..... ahem ahem Indians.



You see early ZTZ99 variants are not even worth talking about... there are big bumps on the turret top... exposing a lot of weak spot... here Al Khalid has left the early ZTZ-99 varient behind... Now there has been two design paths followed by Chinese industry... as we can see.

One with the wielded turret... which is no doubt better... and with that extra ceramic tiles on the turret adding to more protection.. surely better than Al Khalid.. and two with the cast turret design... hiding the weak spots on turret top by adding extra ceramic tiles... both are good and better as compared to Al Khalid and T-72M1M...[The name is somewhat like ZTZ-99AG and ZTZ-99A2G.. I guess... correct me here]

But the main weakness with that armor module still remains with that gap... for that a completely different turret design has to be made... which has wielded steel blocks which can be filled with composites and steel.. fully rather than air gap modules hanging on thin metal sheets.


----------



## Donatello

DARKY said:


> You see early ZTZ99 variants are not even worth talking about... there are big bumps on the turret top... exposing a lot of weak spot... here Al Khalid has left the early ZTZ-99 varient behind... Now there has been two design paths followed by Chinese industry... as we can see.
> 
> One with the wielded turret... which is no doubt better... and with that extra ceramic tiles on the turret adding to more protection.. surely better than Al Khalid.. and two with the cast turret design... hiding the weak spots on turret top by adding extra ceramic tiles... both are good and better as compared to Al Khalid and T-72M1M...[The name is somewhat like ZTZ-99AG and ZTZ-99A2G.. I guess... correct me here]
> 
> But the main weakness with that armor module still remains with that gap... for that a completely different turret design has to be made... which has wielded steel blocks which can be filled with composites and steel.. fully rather than air gap modules hanging on thin metal sheets.



Dear armchair troll master,

Al-Khalid will give you the opportunity to die for your country.

Regards,
A true Pakistani.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> type-85III should be better or on par with t-72, inferior to AKs, t-80ud and 90.





Donatello said:


> So what's the verdict? Pakistan Army holds the upper hand (today) in terms of Tanks technology?









Type 85 Main Battle Tank

Type 85 Main Battle Tank - SinoDefence.com



> The Type 85-II carried 48 rounds, including APFSDS, HEAT, and HEAT-FRAG. The *APFSDS with alloy core round can penetrate 150mm armour angled at 60 degrees at 1,000m distance. The hallow-charged HEAT round could penetrate 178mm armour angled at 60 degrees.* The High-Explosive round could produce a blast radius of 20m.





> *Fire on Move* Yes, up to 25 km/h. Depending on the road and distance to the target, *most crews may halt before firing*.



I mean seriously... BMP-3 does better and carries a few extra men inside too.



Donatello said:


> Dear armchair troll master,
> 
> *Al-Khalid will give you the opportunity to die for your country.*
> 
> Regards,
> *A true Pakistani*.




Since when you have gone this retard.
You were studying ECE isn't it ?

If educated people in Pakistan are becoming like this... the what can we say... get some life buddy.


----------



## DARKY

nabil_05 said:


> you need a break from forums really !



Just for a thought I wanted to compare T-72M1M Ajeya with Al Khalid and you would find some interesting points there... but I think that would invite more troll attacks like this.

I remember you were the one saying Russian haven't designed a turret as big as the one on Al Khalid.



nabil_05 said:


> you need a break from forums really !



Just for a thought I wanted to compare T-72M1M Ajeya with Al Khalid and you would find some interesting points there... but I think that would invite more troll attacks like this.

I remember you were the one saying Russian haven't designed a turret as big as the one on Al Khalid.


----------



## ANPP

Donatello said:


> Al-Khalid will give you the opportunity to die for your country.
> 
> Regards,
> A true Pakistani.



You told the truth why PA inducted these tank. Really cost effective while it give fighting assets for PA & also work as coffins for PA.
Real multi purpose, even used after destruction.

*Al-Khalid will give you the opportunity to die for your country.*


----------



## Dazzler

Type-85 III vs. T-72

T-72












Type-85

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

knife (nozh) armour detailed...









when impacted with a 120 mm penetrator (Giat/ Nexter)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## liontk

good day gentleman 

T-series in my opinion while formidable has had its share of setbacks especially the first chechen war really highlighted those differences. Now i am not saying the same applies to the new platform that they are working towards, i believe its based on the prototypes of t-95, however as of now based on opinions of most analysts and my canadian bias, i will propose that this thread consider the lethality of the artic reaper or wreath(strong fanboy alert) known to the world as Leopard A4. I think this tank should be considered in this thread as its always overlook, when in fact its on par with americanne M1A2 let alone the al-khalid 1,(its somewhat outdated however the al-khalid 2 does appears to be a promising successor to the al-khalid one, which is a unique tank as it is a mishmash of russè+some western technology, not alot of info on it atleast according to janes, may be the governments are hushush on it)

"While they are on the expensive side, the 120mm 
What sets the A6 apart, however, from the rest of the world's 120mm equipped tanks is its longer L55 120mm cannon. With an increase in 130cm in barrel length over previous L44 cannon (55 caliber vs. 44 caliber), projectiles fired from the L55 achieve higher muzzle velocities (and correspondingly higher levels of kinetic energy.) The L55 chamber has also been redesigned to accept more powerful, higher chamber pressure charges, which will impart even more velocity and kinetic energy on anti-tank munitions (current German KE rounds fired from the L55 achieve muzzle velocities in the 1,800 m/s range, while the M829A2 APFSDS-T rounds fired from the American M256 120mm cannon are in the 1,700 m/s range. (It should be noted that while the German rounds are faster, their LKE II DM53 KE rounds use a tungsten-based penetrator  (for environmental and political reasons, trust me depleted uranium is very bad for the local environment and has drastic effects on local populace that your trying to assist) which does not offer the same degree of penetration as the American 829A2, which uses a depleted uranium penetrator, whoppe do americanne always use depleted uranium.)"

source :credits to janes and some of my bias mixed with some fanboyishness, While my tone may undermine russè and thats due to gulf war , where m1a2 decimated them and now I know some pakistanie members will bring up the "monkey" model aspect , however then all i can say is first chechen-russe war.


----------



## Dazzler

Leopard 2-A5-A7 armour module...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shubhamkumar

Teeta said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> Go ahead and try.
> 
> (Remember, I'm not comparing these tanks in isolation. I'm comparing these tanks in Indo-Pak scenario..Anyways, go ahead and try to show how T-90 is above M-1..lol...T-90S is even inferior to Al Khalid, forget about M-1)



sir will u please tell me from when a 1400hp engine is not better than a 1200hp and the power to weight ratio u have mentioned is just opposite
so also in indo-pak scenario the ground pressure of arjun is lesser than al khalid
this means alkhaid will get bogged more often than the arjun


----------



## Teeta

shubhamkumar said:


> sir will u please tell me from when a 1400hp engine is not better than a 1200hp and the power to weight ratio u have mentioned is just opposite
> so also in indo-pak scenario the ground pressure of arjun is lesser than al khalid
> this means alkhaid will get bogged more often than the arjun



1400HP engine doesn't provide Arjun-1 with decent power/weight ratio. Arjun's power to weight ratio is less than 24 hp/ton, while Al Khalid-1's engine provides 26 hp/ton to Al Khalid-1, AND it is cost effective/less fuel consumption, so therefore, engine of Al Khalid-1 is an "advantage" over Arjun's engine.

And power to weight ratio I mentioned is opposite? You mean to say DRDO site of India is lying?

Al Khalid-1 is a 48 ton tank, it won't get "bogged down" in deserts/plains/mud etc. Arjun has way more chances of getting bogged down...

Ground pressure of Arjun is lesser than Al Khalid-1? Can I get the stats from any credible source?

Overall, Al Khalid-1 remains a superior tank to Arjun.


1 to 1 tank battle, Arjun might win.

136 Al Khalids vs 80 Arjuns? Al Khalids will be victors. Your Army knows this, hence they are upgrading T-72s, buying ton loads of new T-90S tanks from Russia, and developing Arjun-II tanks etc.

As of now, hypothetically, Pakistan's armor will defeat the attacking Indian armor.

Pakistan's T-85IIs are also superior to Indian's upgraded T-72s.
Pakistan's Al Khalid-1s are superior to both Arjun and T-90s of India.

Pakistan also has more quantity of modern tanks than India (Al Khalids, Al Khalid-1s, T-80UDs, T-85IIs)....

Not to mention, second line armor of Pakistan consisting of highly upgraded Type-59 Al Zaraars etc.

Here's one picture of "second line" tank of Pakistan Army






Do you see all the advance features? ERA, thermal imagers/gun sights, 125mm smoothbore gun etc.

Pakistan's paramilitary forces use this tank.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Teeta

Double-post


----------



## ANPP

Teeta said:


> Double-post



Common are you again joking???

You really need to see IA tank fleet. you are comaring 4500 tanks with 2500 tanks of PA.

On the 2nd line tank of PA, t72 are the 2nd line tank of IA, wanna compare them with al-zarara. All strike formations are now use the t90. We are operating more than* 600 t90 + 100 arjun*. How much in PA. 

Now come on to the tank mobility & tank protection-

T90 uses* 1250hp engine* & also has little lower weight compare to Ak, so its mobility is better, because twice of them use torsion bar suspension.

T90 use Kontakt-5 ERA. So Ak dont have any comparable ERA like that.

& also the electronic systems of t90m are better than Ak. So don't get wrong yourself buddy. T90 is much better than Ak.

Now although Arjun has lower weight to power ratio compare to these them ( although it not so much low & comparable to all world class tank), but it uses hydropnematic suspension system which give more stability to tank hence tank can be operated in much more speed which fire on move. So even AK & t90 may be able to achieve much more speed, but they need to reduce their speed if they are gonna fire.

Thats why Arjun was able to out run than t90, even has lower weight power ratio & higher weight.


----------



## datalibdaz

Its would be fair if you compare Al-Zarrar with Arjun...Not Al Khalid, its way ahead of Arjun.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ANPP

datalibdaz said:


> Its would be fair if you compare Al-Zarrar with Arjun...Not Al Khalid, its way ahead of Arjun.



Yes absolutly, when Arjun crush your front line armour than you will have only Al-zarrar.


----------



## Gentelman

ANPP said:


> Yes absolutly, when Arjun crush your front line armour than you will have only Al-zarrar.



first let Arjun reach to our frount line tanks....
and AK is serving as frontline tank...
yeahhh Arjun can crush our tanks if it managed to crawl near our tanks..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gentelman

ANPP said:


> Common are you again joking???
> 
> You really need to see IA tank fleet. you are comaring 4500 tanks with 2500 tanks of PA.
> 
> On the 2nd line tank of PA, t72 are the 2nd line tank of IA, wanna compare them with al-zarara. All strike formations are now use the t90. We are operating more than* 600 t90 + 100 arjun*. How much in PA.
> 
> Now come on to the tank mobility & tank protection-
> 
> T90 uses* 1250hp engine* & also has little lower weight compare to Ak, so its mobility is better, because twice of them use torsion bar suspension.
> 
> T90 use Kontakt-5 ERA. So Ak dont have any comparable ERA like that.
> 
> & also the electronic systems of t90m are better than Ak. So don't get wrong yourself buddy. T90 is much better than Ak.
> 
> Now although Arjun has lower weight to power ratio compare to these them ( although it not so much low & comparable to all world class tank), but it uses hydropnematic suspension system which give more stability to tank hence tank can be operated in much more speed which fire on move. So even AK & t90 may be able to achieve much more speed, but they need to reduce their speed if they are gonna fire.
> 
> Thats why Arjun was able to out run than t90, even has lower weight power ratio & higher weight.



T-90 is compareable to T-80UD of PA.....
and seriouslybu are going to transfer all ur 4500 tanks on pak border???
well T-90 is not much superior to AK....
and it is inferior than AK-1...
and Arjun?? lolzzz....
keep living in dreams...
well ask a sensible IA personal about Arjun...
he will tell u and clearify ur childish facts...
these are tanks boy...
not cranes that ur arjun will crush...
first let it come near...
i seriously doubt if having inferior 120 mm guns and infrerior speed ur arjun can even hit on round to AK....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Teeta

ANPP said:


> Common are you again joking???



No, Just stating plain facts as I understand it. 

I don't joke with indians. I am an American with some class.



> You really need to see IA tank fleet. you are comaring 4500 tanks with 2500 tanks of PA.



Idiot, next time, don't quote me because your post suggest that you have 0 technical knowledge of the subject being discussed.

BTW, Pakistan has some 3,400 tanks while India has some 3,500 tanks...while bulk of indian force comprises of junkard, usless boxes such as T-72s etc, Pakistani armor comprises of more advanced, modern tanks (Al Khalid, Al Khalid-1, T-80UD, T-85II etc).

Pakistan's armor will kick indian army's arse and your own commanders say so (remember, when indian commander said that indian armor doesn't even have night vision? lol..Hope situation is better now).


> On the 2nd line tank of PA, t72 are the 2nd line tank of IA,



They aren't, dumb citizen of a sh!thole nation. T72 is frontline indian tanks...it is described by indian army as such.

Go watch youtube where in one Indian program, indian Lt. Gen is explaining indian "armor"...the three main tanks, according to your general, are "Arjun, T-90s, and T-72(upgraded)" ..

indians don't have a very good second-line ...



> All strike formations are now use the t90. We are operating more than* 600 t90 + 100 arjun*. How much in PA.



You need to first learn English kid.

Secondly, Pakistan Army has somewhere around *400 to 500 Al Khalid/Al Khalid-1s, 320 T-80UDs, 300+ Type 85II (upgraded)...
*
now what poor gullible indian? 

(Not to mention HUNDREDS of second-line Pakistani tanks like Al Zarrars, Type-69II (Upgraded) etc etc...you second-line armor is a big joke infront of Pakistan's potent second-line armor.



> Now come on to the tank mobility & tank protection-



Why? I thought we were discussing armor strength? lol



> T90 uses* 1250hp engine* & also has little lower weight compare to Ak, so its mobility is better, because twice of them use torsion bar suspension.



Can't even comprehend..Improve your English skills. You don't know jack about technical aspects of tanks..so you're a waste of time.

I already showed in detailed post on how Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun-1...

If you want to discuss T-90 vs Al Khalid...lets make a detailed post like the one I made. Shooting arrows in air through your arse is easy...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## DARKY

What has been going on here... is there any self respect left for people from other side ?
I showed people why Al Khalid has poor protection... which is inferior to even T-72M1M Ajeya tanks of Indian Army... althogh I agree its fire power and mobility is better than them... however they fall back when it comes against Arjun and T-90.

The 1400Hp engine on Arjun is far better than the Ukrainian engine used on Al Khalid tanks... and to correct Indian members here.. the T-90S Bheeshma doesn't have 1250Hp engine.

As some one said about Guns.. I wold like to point out that both T-90S gun and Arjun Gun is far better than the one used on Al Khalid... both are longer barreled and fire more powerful and heavier projectiles thanks to better chamber pressure.

Coming down to fuel consumption... Arjun beats all the tanks in the region hands down.... It has APU which is used when the tank is not moving [in a battle the Tank doesn't move all the day... roughly it covers around about 80km-100km in best cases... the APU helps Arjun to keep its electronics working... and reduce the heat signature of the tank... at the same time Al Khalid and T-90S has to keep its engine running for powering its electronics all day... providing good resolution for IR cameras in the night.

Indian T-90S Bheeshma is slated for APU upgrade.

I read some person claiming inferiority of Russian tanks in Chechnya... I would like to correct you here that no T-90 tank was used there... only T-72B and M1M models were used... in 1st war they carry extra ammo other than auto-loader so the RPG hits would blow the ammo killing the crew... in the 2nd war they go without extra so only auto-loader has ammo... and the result was surprising as no T-72 was killed... even after multiple hits by RPGs on various parts... in cases as many as 9-12 hits on a single tank.


----------



## DARKY

Teeta said:


> No, Just stating plain facts as I understand it.
> 
> I don't joke with indians. I am an American with some class.



You are just a pathetic false flagger who is so ashamed of his mother country Pakistan... I remember Pakistanis calling themselves as Indians in US... you even beat them at the level of disrespect for your country.... I pity your class.



Teeta said:


> Idiot, next time, don't quote me because your post suggest that you have 0 technical knowledge of the subject being discussed.
> 
> BTW, Pakistan has some 3,400 tanks while India has some 3,500 tanks...while bulk of indian force comprises of junkard, usless boxes such as T-72s etc, Pakistani armor comprises of more advanced, modern tanks (Al Khalid, Al Khalid-1, T-80UD, T-85II etc).



And you are worse than zero.. you make retarded claims and take it to minus levels.
No Pakistan doesn't have more than 3000 Tanks... the only modern ones in PA are Al Khalid and T-80UD... Type 85III must no be even talked about... as BMP3 as IFV does better than that.. 

Before mocking T-72 you must know that Al Khalid is based on its design... and uses its auto-loader.. follows its hull layout... and have similar ammo-storage capabilities... I remember PA tank commanders has fire extinguishers installed inside to save themselves in case of ammo blows off on the floor... which is more of self assurance as once the ammo blows it will take the whole tank even If they put a fire brigade truck inside the hull. 

India has 2400 T-72M1M Ajeya, 1000 T-90S Bheehma and 124 Arjuns in service... compared to PA's 320 T-80UD[parts and spares problem... as its parts are Russian made.] and 300-600 Al Khalid which is basically inferior to T-72M1M Ajeya in terms of protection levels... we are not counting here Type 85III or Al Zarar as they are better called as target practice and should be better used as one by PA If they value their tank crews.



Teeta said:


> Pakistan's armor will kick indian army's arse and your own commanders say so (remember, when indian commander said that indian armor doesn't even have night vision? lol..Hope situation is better now).



I would like to see which commander said that... All T-90S and T-72M1M Ajeya have thermal aswell as Night vision along with Arjun.




Teeta said:


> They aren't, dumb citizen of a sh!thole nation. T72 is frontline indian tanks...it is described by indian army as such.
> 
> Go watch youtube where in one Indian program, indian Lt. Gen is explaining indian "armor"...the three main tanks, according to your general, are "Arjun, T-90s, and T-72(upgraded)" ..
> 
> indians don't have a very good second-line ...




What a moron.. you definitely are a sh!thole citizen and no doubt you are as dumb as it gets.

The 1000 or so T-90S Bheeshma are the front link tanks and the MBT of Indian Army Armored crops... they basically form the 3 strike division tasked in Rajasthan to break through enemy lines.

T-72M1M Ajeyas are the 2nd line... no doubt... their primary role is supportive... and to clear out mines of troops to move in... once the T-90S has taken care of enemy main armor along with Arjun.

So you see the 2nd line is better in protection as against PA's MBT Al Khalid.



Teeta said:


> You need to first learn English kid.
> 
> Secondly, Pakistan Army has somewhere around *400 to 500 Al Khalid/Al Khalid-1s, 320 T-80UDs, 300+ Type 85II (upgraded)...
> *
> now what poor gullible indian?
> 
> (Not to mention HUNDREDS of second-line Pakistani tanks like Al Zarrars, Type-69II (Upgraded) etc etc...you second-line armor is a big joke infront of Pakistan's potent second-line armor.



What a clown... Type 85III, Al Zarar, Type-69II etc..etc.. are worthless target practice tanks... It is unfortunate of PA keeping such tanks... The K.E. rounds from Arjun and T-90S can go right through the turrets of those tanks and land several Kms away... while they would have hard time locating a tanks beyond 1000m... specifically the reason PA based them at Punjab... however they got little to offer with their 100-300mm armor penetrating rounds.





Teeta said:


> Why? I thought we were discussing armor strength? lol



It seems you need to learn english well... mobility and protection both count as armor strengths.



Teeta said:


> Can't even comprehend..Improve your English skills. You don't know jack about technical aspects of tanks..so you're a waste of time.
> 
> I already showed in detailed post on how Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun-1...
> 
> If you want to discuss T-90 vs Al Khalid...lets make a detailed post like the one I made. Shooting arrows in air through your arse is easy...



It has been you who doesn't understand anything and wasting others time here... and has been making a circus of what should've been a good discussion.

I guess low IQ and moronic people like you should be barred from threads like this.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ANPP

T90m uses 1250hp engine. Initial t90 dont have them, but later were fitted.


----------



## ANPP

selfdeleted


----------



## Dazzler

Type-99

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

is there a type 96 tank with the merkava inspired turret?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## proka89



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alphacharlie

Gentelman said:


> T-90 is compareable to T-80UD of PA.....
> and seriouslybu are going to transfer all ur 4500 tanks on pak border???
> well T-90 is not much superior to AK....
> and it is inferior than AK-1...
> and Arjun?? lolzzz....
> keep living in dreams...
> well ask a sensible IA personal about Arjun...
> he will tell u and clearify ur childish facts...
> these are tanks boy...
> not cranes that ur arjun will crush...
> first let it come near...
> i seriously doubt if having inferior 120 mm guns and infrerior speed ur arjun can even hit on round to AK....



Evaluate on Competencies Not Compassion/Patriotism.


----------



## Alphacharlie

DARKY said:


> You are just a pathetic false flagger who is so ashamed of his mother country Pakistan... I remember Pakistanis calling themselves as Indians in US... you even beat them at the level of disrespect for your country.... I pity your class.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are worse than zero.. you make retarded claims and take it to minus levels.
> No Pakistan doesn't have more than 3000 Tanks... the only modern ones in PA are Al Khalid and T-80UD... Type 85III must no be even talked about... as BMP3 as IFV does better than that..
> 
> Before mocking T-72 you must know that Al Khalid is based on its design... and uses its auto-loader.. follows its hull layout... and have similar ammo-storage capabilities... I remember PA tank commanders has fire extinguishers installed inside to save themselves in case of ammo blows off on the floor... which is more of self assurance as once the ammo blows it will take the whole tank even If they put a fire brigade truck inside the hull.
> 
> India has 2400 T-72M1M Ajeya, 1000 T-90S Bheehma and 124 Arjuns in service... compared to PA's 320 T-80UD[parts and spares problem... as its parts are Russian made.] and 300-600 Al Khalid which is basically inferior to T-72M1M Ajeya in terms of protection levels... we are not counting here Type 85III or Al Zarar as they are better called as target practice and should be better used as one by PA If they value their tank crews.
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see which commander said that... All T-90S and T-72M1M Ajeya have thermal aswell as Night vision along with Arjun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a moron.. you definitely are a sh!thole citizen and no doubt you are as dumb as it gets.
> 
> The 1000 or so T-90S Bheeshma are the front link tanks and the MBT of Indian Army Armored crops... they basically form the 3 strike division tasked in Rajasthan to break through enemy lines.
> 
> T-72M1M Ajeyas are the 2nd line... no doubt... their primary role is supportive... and to clear out mines of troops to move in... once the T-90S has taken care of enemy main armor along with Arjun.
> 
> So you see the 2nd line is better in protection as against PA's MBT Al Khalid.
> 
> 
> 
> What a clown... Type 85III, Al Zarar, Type-69II etc..etc.. are worthless target practice tanks... It is unfortunate of PA keeping such tanks... The K.E. rounds from Arjun and T-90S can go right through the turrets of those tanks and land several Kms away... while they would have hard time locating a tanks beyond 1000m... specifically the reason PA based them at Punjab... however they got little to offer with their 100-300mm armor penetrating rounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you need to learn english well... mobility and protection both count as armor strengths.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been you who doesn't understand anything and wasting others time here... and has been making a circus of what should've been a good discussion.
> 
> I guess low IQ and moronic people like you should be barred from threads like this.



Beautiful Summary.

If you take into Account Akbars & Apaches (excluding Rudra and Mi17s armed with Shutrum) It will be Decimation.


----------



## sms

Gentelman said:


> first let Arjun reach to our frount line tanks....
> and AK is serving as frontline tank...
> yeahhh Arjun can crush our tanks if it managed to crawl near our tanks..



Arjun is too heavy if it reaches near your tanks, it won't need any ammo it will turn your tanks in to papad by just rolling over it.


----------



## AUz

Alphacharlie said:


> Beautiful Summary.
> 
> If you take into Account Akbars & Apaches (excluding Rudra and Mi17s armed with Shutrum) It will be Decimation.





indians again on mental-masturbation mode...

while reality is that indian armed forces are rusted piece of junk...their 'superior to al khalid' tanks keep on falling in the well...until few years ago, their tanks did not even have night fighting capability...

The irony is that Pakistan is f*cking indian interests in Afghanistan, Srilanka, indian ocean, Central Asia etc..while indians with big bad military can't do anything but see 

A nation with a billion people(!) has been completely squished in the useless, big landmass of central sub-continent..Pakistan holds all the strategic roots, key passes, access to Central Asia, access to warm waters etc etc...indians can only "influence" Nepal or Bhuttan (even Bangladesh is in trouble lmao!)...

but hey, indians are good at PDF and their super tank "analysis"....



sms said:


> Arjun is *too heavy* if it reaches near your tanks, it won't need any ammo it will turn your tanks in to papad by just rolling over it.





Exactly genius.

Its a useless piece of cr@p..another failed project just like tejas

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sms

AUz said:


> indians again on mental-masturbation mode...
> 
> while reality is that indian armed forces are rusted piece of junk...their 'superior to al khalid' tanks keep on falling in the well...until few years ago, their tanks did not even have night fighting capability...
> 
> Pakistan is f*cking indian interests in Afghanistan, Srilanka, indian ocean, Central Asia etc..while indians can't do anything but see.
> 
> A nation will a billion people(!) has been completely squished in the useless, big landmass of central sub-continent..Pakistan holds all the strategic roots, key passes, access to Central Asia, access to warm waters etc etc...indians can only "influence" Nepal or Bhuttan (even Bangladesh is in trouble lmao!)...
> 
> but hey, indians are good at PDF and their super tank "analysis"....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly genius.
> 
> Its a useless piece of cr@p..another failed project just like tejas



Excellent post from a senior member with >2K post under his belt!
Please care to explain how does it (your post) helps this discussion?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gentelman

sms said:


> Arjun is too heavy if it reaches near your tanks, it won't need any ammo it will turn your tanks in to papad by just rolling over it.



yeah Arjun is a bomb which will be dropped by your super duper tejas on PA tanks..
yeah If our buildizers imported from china reach near your tanls they too will urn your tanks into sheets.. They too wouldnot need any fire power..
Now it's your time to sleep and dream about Arjun...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alphacharlie

AUz said:


> indians again on mental-masturbation mode...
> 
> while reality is that indian armed forces are rusted piece of junk...their 'superior to al khalid' tanks keep on falling in the well...until few years ago, their tanks did not even have night fighting capability...
> 
> The irony is that Pakistan is f*cking indian interests in Afghanistan, Srilanka, indian ocean, Central Asia etc..while indians with big bad military can't do anything but see
> 
> A nation with a billion people(!) has been completely squished in the useless, big landmass of central sub-continent..Pakistan holds all the strategic roots, key passes, access to Central Asia, access to warm waters etc etc...indians can only "influence" Nepal or Bhuttan (even Bangladesh is in trouble lmao!)...
> 
> but hey, indians are good at PDF and their super tank "analysis"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly genius.
> 
> Its a useless piece of cr@p..another failed project just like tejas



I appreciate your views.

However, my Foe has forgotten reality and Trotted Away in Paranoia dipped in Illusion.

It is appropriate to speak with a Level Head who can Argue on Facts rather than Baseless- Rubbish. Anywase, Hearty Congratulations once again for Your Victory in 1965/71/99, Liberating Kashmir + Afghanistan and War on Terror.


----------



## Tacticool

What is the current status of alkhalid 2?


----------



## AUz

Abdul_Haseeb said:


> What is the current status of alkhalid 2?



Al Khalid-1 already matches/outperforms anything india has to put in the battle-field. When india gets something better than Al Khalid-1 then Al Khalid-2 will kick in...

For now, Al Khalid-1 is doing just fine

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## acetophenol

AUz said:


> *Al Khalid-1 already matches/outperforms anything india has to put in the battle-field*. When india gets something better than Al Khalid-1 then Al Khalid-2 will kick in...
> 
> For now, Al Khalid-1 is doing just fine



you are wrong AUz.


----------



## AUz

acetophenol said:


> you are wrong AUz.



No I'm not. 

indian tanks might have some advantage in one field (Like Arjun's little superior armor) but Al Khalid-1 would have advantages in other fields (like more rounds carried, superior fire power etc)....

Over-all, Al Khalid-1 matches/outperforms anything india has to offer...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## acetophenol

AUz said:


> No I'm not.
> 
> indian tanks might have some advantage in one field (Like Arjun's little superior armor) but Al Khalid-1 would have advantages in other fields (like more rounds carried, superior fire power etc)....
> 
> Over-all, Al Khalid-1 matches/outperforms anything india has to offer...



It would b nice if you give me some specs and prove your argument. (hope it won;t drive this thread in another direction)


----------



## Umair Nawaz

acetophenol said:


> It would b nice if you give me some specs and prove your argument. (hope it won;t drive this thread in another direction)



Right now as we speak its the best tank in SA until Arjun Mark 2 is introduced into yr army n yr t90s get their update.

For more info visit and go through this

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


----------



## Koovie

AUz said:


> No I'm not.
> 
> indian tanks might have some advantage in one field (Like Arjun's little superior armor) but Al Khalid-1 would have advantages in other fields (like more rounds carried, superior fire power etc)....
> 
> Over-all, Al Khalid-1 matches/outperforms anything india has to offer...



Wrong. Your statement is based on comparing figures from the internet, which are not even correct. Real war is a completely different situation though and the AK has never seen combat yet.

Its not only about numbers and figures(you really think BTW that all this data on the internet is exactly showing the capabilities and technical features etc..?), its also about logistics, ruggedness and much much more...


----------



## AUz

Koovie said:


> Wrong. Your statement is based on comparing figures from the internet, which are not even correct. Real war is a completely different situation though and the AK has never seen combat yet.
> 
> Its not only about numbers and figures(you really think BTW that all this data on the internet is exactly showing the capabilities and technical features etc..?), its also about logistics, ruggedness and much much more...



Al Khalid has seen intense war in probably THE toughest trains--Swat Valley against very well dug in Talibans with RPGs and other anti-tank weapons..

Same argument can be made for indian tanks..they haven't seen war ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umair Nawaz

farhan_9909 said:


> on such tiny bumps even i wont feel them on bicycle
> 
> i would rather show you what real bumps around the world are.
> look how much bigger the bumps are and than watchout the suspension system of al khalid



A real good video. This really answers enemy trolls.


----------



## AUz

acetophenol said:


> It would b nice if you give me some specs and prove your argument. (hope it won;t drive this thread in another direction)



Somebody already made that comparison...Let me copy-paste some information here...

So here goes...

The advantage of one tank over the other is highlighted as "blue" ...

*Weight :*

Al Khalid-1 : 48 tons
Arjun-1 : 58.5 tons.

*Speed :*

Al Khalid-1 : 72 km/h
Arjun-1 : 72 km/h

*Main Armament :*

Al Khalid-1 : 125 mm smooth bore gun
Arjun-1 : 120 mm rifled gun

*Payload Capacity :*

Al Khalid-1 : 49 rounds
Arjun-1 : 39 rounds

*Engine :*

Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)
Arjun-1 : MTU 838 Ka 501 diesel 1,400 hp

*Power/Weight :*

Al Khalid-1 : 26 hp/tonne
Arjun-1 : 23.9 hp/tonne

*Armour :*

Al Khalid-1 : Composite armour, RHA, ERA
Arjun-1 : Steel/composite Kanchan armour. (slight advantage)

*Operational Range :*

Al Khalid-1 : 500 km
Arjun-1 : 450 km

*Protection :*

Al Khalid-1 : VARTA active protection system
Arjun-1 : ??? (Couldn't found any- Tell me which APS is installed in Arjun and I'll edit appropriately)...

ATGMs and rounds carried :

Al Khalid-1 : Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
- Can fire DU round Naiza too.
Arjun-1 : LAHAT, APFSDS (Kinetic Energy) rounds, HE, HEAT etc

*Rate of Fire :*

Al Khalid-1 : 8-9 rounds per minute.

Arjun-1 : 6-8 rounds per minute.

-----------------------------

Both tanks are equipped with state-of-the-art IBMS, thermal imagers, night visions, ballistic computers etc...

Al Khalid-1 is equipped with autoloader while Arjun-1 is loaded 'manually'. 


As of now, Al Khalid-1 is the most superior tank present on the soil of Sub-continent...With India's up-gradation of T-90s, and induction of Arjun-II, things will change..and Pakistan will develop Al Khalid-II...and the game will continue just like always..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Koovie

AUz said:


> Al Khalid has seen intense war in probably THE toughest trains--Swat Valley against very well dug in Talibans with RPGs and other anti-tank weapons..
> 
> Same argument can be made for indian tanks..they haven't seen war ...



Well if you see low intensity conflicts as a benchmark consider this:

T 90s fought in the Chechen war against Chechen rebels. Some of them were also hit by several RPGs and other AT weapons with the result that they made it back to their bases on their own power.


And those one vs one comparisons are ridiculous anyways. Battles happen with a C3 structure, logisitics, intelligence, combat doctrine, crew training, AT weapons, air support, production rate etc... that makes up the entire package not whether the caliber is 5mm bigger or not!


----------



## acetophenol

AUz said:


> Somebody already made that comparison...Let me copy-paste some information here...
> 
> So here goes...
> 
> The advantage of one tank over the other is highlighted as "blue" ...
> 
> *Weight :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 48 tons
> Arjun-1 : 58.5 tons.
> 
> *Speed :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 72 km/h
> Arjun-1 : 72 km/h
> 
> *Main Armament :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 125 mm smooth bore gun
> Arjun-1 : 120 mm rifled gun
> 
> *Payload Capacity :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 49 rounds
> Arjun-1 : 39 rounds
> 
> *Engine :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)
> Arjun-1 : MTU 838 Ka 501 diesel 1,400 hp
> 
> *Power/Weight :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 26 hp/tonne
> Arjun-1 : 23.9 hp/tonne
> 
> *Armour :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : Composite armour, RHA, ERA
> Arjun-1 : Steel/composite Kanchan armour. (slight advantage)
> 
> *Operational Range :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 500 km
> Arjun-1 : 450 km
> 
> *Protection :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : VARTA active protection system
> Arjun-1 : ??? (Couldn't found any- Tell me which APS is installed in Arjun and I'll edit appropriately)...
> 
> ATGMs and rounds carried :
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
> - Can fire DU round Naiza too.
> Arjun-1 : LAHAT, APFSDS (Kinetic Energy) rounds, HE, HEAT etc
> 
> *Rate of Fire :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 8-9 rounds per minute.
> 
> Arjun-1 : 6-8 rounds per minute.
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> Both tanks are equipped with state-of-the-art IBMS, thermal imagers, night visions, ballistic computers etc...
> 
> Al Khalid-1 is equipped with autoloader while Arjun-1 is loaded 'manually'.
> 
> 
> As of now, Al Khalid-1 is the most superior tank present on the soil of Sub-continent...With India's up-gradation of T-90s, and induction of Arjun-II, things will change..and Pakistan will develop Al Khalid-II...and the game will continue just like always..





Umair Nawaz said:


> Right now as we speak its the best tank in SA until Arjun Mark 2 is introduced into yr army n yr t90s get their update.
> 
> For more info visit and go through this
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-army/22400-pa-tanks-comparison-contempory-tanks.html



*
Weight*
Al Khalid:48 Ton
T-90s Bheeshma:46.5 ton
Arjun:58.5 Ton
T-72 "Ajeya Mk1":43Ton
*Speed*

Arjun Mk1:70 km/hr
Al-khalid:70 km/hr
T-90s "Bheeshma":60 km/hr
T-72 "Ajeya Mk1":60km/hr

*Main Armament*

Al-khalid:125mm Smoothbore
T-90 "Bheeshma":125mm Smoothbore
Arjun : 120mm Rifled
T-72 "Ajeya mk1":120mm Rifled

*Payload capability*

Al khalid:39+10=49
Arjun:42
T-90 Bheeshma:43
T-72 Ajeya Mk1:44

*Engine*

Al khalid: 1200Hp
Arjun:1400Hp
T-90s Bheeshma:1000hp
T-72 Ajeya Mk1:780HP

*Power/Weight*

Alkhalid:25
Arjun:25.1
T-90:21
T-72:19

*Armour*

Alkhalid:Composite in Frontal Arc with optional ERA
Arjun:Kanchan
T-72 Ajeya:Composite with DRDO Era
T-90: Kontakt-5 K-5 explosive reactive armored plates+kaktus K-6&#8217; bolted explosive reactive armour 

*Range*

Al khalid:430 km
Arjun:450 km
T-72:460 km
T-90:550-720km

*Protection*
Al khalid:VARTA APS
Arjun:Ironfist/Trophy (not sure)
T-90:Swedish Saab's LEDS-150 active protection system 
T-72:Nil

*Ammunitions*

Alkhalid:Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
- Can fire DU round Naiza too.
Arjun: APFSDS (Kinetic Energy) rounds, HE, HEAT, High Explosive Squash Head (HESH), LAHAT missile,Semi Active Mission Homing Missile
T-90APFSDS), high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT-FS), and high explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) ammunition, as well as 9M119M Refleks anti-tank guided missiles.
T-72:FSAPDS/HEAT/HE

*Rate of fire*

all:8round per minute

_Note:T-72 "Ajeya Mk1" are being replaced by T-72 "Ajeya mk2". _

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umair Nawaz

acetophenol said:


> *
> Weight*
> Al Khalid:48 Ton
> T-90s Bheeshma:46.5 ton
> Arjun:58.5 Ton
> T-72 "Ajeya Mk1":43Ton
> *Speed*
> 
> Arjun Mk1:70 km/hr
> Al-khalid:70 km/hr
> T-90s "Bheeshma":60 km/hr
> T-72 "Ajeya Mk1":60km/hr
> 
> *Main Armament*
> 
> Al-khalid:125mm Smoothbore
> T-90 "Bheeshma":125mm Smoothbore
> Arjun : 120mm Rifled
> T-72 "Ajeya mk1":120mm Rifled
> 
> *Payload capability*
> 
> Al khalid:39+10=49
> Arjun:42
> T-90 Bheeshma:43
> T-72 Ajeya Mk1:44
> 
> *Engine*
> 
> Al khalid: 1200Hp
> Arjun:1400Hp
> T-90s Bheeshma:1000hp
> T-72 Ajeya Mk1:780HP
> 
> *Power/Weight*
> 
> Alkhalid:25
> Arjun:25.1
> T-90:21
> T-72:19
> 
> *Armour*
> 
> Alkhalid:Composite in Frontal Arc with optional ERA
> Arjun:Kanchan
> T-72 Ajeya:Composite with DRDO Era
> T-90: Kontakt-5 K-5 explosive reactive armored plates+kaktus K-6&#8217; bolted explosive reactive armour
> 
> *Range*
> 
> Al khalid:430 km
> Arjun:450 km
> T-72:460 km
> T-90:550-720km
> 
> *Protection*
> Al khalid:VARTA APS
> Arjun:Ironfist/Trophy (not sure)
> T-90:Swedish Saab's LEDS-150 active protection system
> T-72:Nil
> 
> *Ammunitions*
> 
> Alkhalid:Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS etc.
> - Can fire DU round Naiza too.
> Arjun: APFSDS (Kinetic Energy) rounds, HE, HEAT, High Explosive Squash Head (HESH), LAHAT missile,Semi Active Mission Homing Missile
> T-90APFSDS), high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT-FS), and high explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) ammunition, as well as 9M119M Refleks anti-tank guided missiles.
> T-72:FSAPDS/HEAT/HE
> 
> *Rate of fire*
> 
> all:8round per minute
> 
> _Note:T-72 "Ajeya Mk1" are being replaced by T-72 "Ajeya mk2". _



The following is a comparison between the T-90S/ Bhishma MBT and the Pakistani Al Khalid. The T-90M, which the Indian Army will be receiving by the year's end is an improved version of the T-90 series with welded turret, V-92S2 engine and ESSA thermal viewer as opposed to the T-90S, which was a simplified export version with cast turret, R-173 radio, 1V528 computer and V-84-1 engine. 

Crew

AL-Khalid = 3
T-90S = 3

Combat Weight

Al-Khalid = 48,000 kg
T-90S = 46,500 kg

Engine

Al-Khalid = 1200 horsepower
T-90S = 840 horsepower

Maximum Speed

Al-Khalid = 72 km/hr
T-90S = 65 km/hr

Maximum Range

Al-Khalid = 450 kms
T-90S = 500

Vertical Obstacle

Al-Khalid = 0.85 m
T-90S = 0.85

Fording

Al-Khalid = without preparation 1.4 metres
T-90S = without preparation 1.2 metres

Trench

Al-Khalid = 2.7 m
T-90S = 2.8 m


Armament

Al-Khalid

(main): 1 x 125 mm gun 125mm Smooth Bore, Chrome Plated, Auto fret aged
Circular Carousel Type: (Cassette Type) 22 Rounds / Minute 6-8

FCS/GCS : Type: Image Stabilized (3rd generation director type stabilization), Optics: LASER protected (coaxial): 1 x 7.62 mm MG
(anti-aircraft): 1 x 12.7 mm MG
Smoke grenade dischargers: 2 x 6, can also lay smoke screen by injecting diesel into the exhaust outlets at the rear

GUNNER SIGHT : Type Integrated, Bi-axis Stabilized Day/Night, Tl, LRF
Magnification Dual, 3x &amp; 1 Ox
Field of View 20Â° &amp; 6Â°

COMMANDER SIGHT:
Type Panoramic,
Bi-Axis stabilized,

LRF, 2nd Generation IIT
Hunter-Killer Capability
Magnification 7.5x
Field of View 7 . 5
LRF : Type ND YAG
Range200 ~ 5000m
AUTO TRACKER: Tracking Error &lt; 0.1 mils Interfaced with Gunner Day Sight &amp; Tl


T-90S 

1 x 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun with 43 rounds.
...............1 x 12.7mm NSVT anti-aircraft gun with 300 rounds. [1]
...............1 x 7.62mm PKT co-axial machine gun with 2000 rounds.
...............1 x 5.45mm AKS-74 rifle, carried on storage rack, with 300 rounds.[2]

[1] The 12.7mm NSVT, mounted on the commander's contra-rotating copula which can be aimed and fired under complete armour protection, uses the PZU-7 machine gun sight and the 1ETs29 (with vertical stabilization) machine gun FCS (Fire Control System).

[2] The locally-produced 5.56mm INSAS Assault Rifle will likely be used instead.


Smoke Grenade Launchers: Mounted either side of the turret is a bank of six electrically operated 81mm smoke grenade launchers which are in a new low-angle configuration compared to those fitted to earlier Russian MBTs. The quick forming aerosol screening system comprises the four laser radiation sensors (two coarse and two fine receiving heads), the Type 902A Aerosol Forming Grenade Launch System dispensing 81mm 3D17 aerosol grenades and associated controls. The aerosol screening system detects laser illumination, determines its direction and type (laser range-finder or designator), generates warning signals, both audio and visual, and lays in automatic or semi-automatic modes, quick forming aerosol screens within three seconds at a distance of 50 to 80 metres from the tank. In addition, the tank can also lay its own smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust outlet located on the left side of the hull. 

The 2A46M smoothbore gun is stabilised (Zhasmin 2E42-4 system) in two axes and is fitted with a thermal sleeve. The gun tube can be replaced without a need for dismantling inside the turret. The gun can fire various ammunition including APFSDS-T (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot - Tracer), HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank), HE-FRAG (High Explosive Fragmentation) as well as shrapnel projectiles with time fuzes. In addition it can also fire a special HE-FRAG projectile that can be detonated over the target using the tank's fire-control system. Maximum rate of fire is at 7 rounds per minute. The gun can also fire the 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missile system. The range of the missile is 75 to 5000 metres and takes 14.2 seconds to reach maximum range. The system is intended to engage tanks fitted with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as low-flying air targets such as helicopters, at a range of up to 5 km. Hit probability is over 80%. The missile system fires either the 9M119 (3UBK14 weapon system) or the 9M119M (3UBK20 weapon system) missiles which have semi-automatic laser beam riding guidance and a hollow charge warhead. Missile weight is 23.4 kg. The gun's automatic loader will feed both ordnance and missiles.

Self-Protection

The hull and turret are protected by both conventional armour-plating and the latest generation Kontakt-5 ERA which provides protection against APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) and HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) type projectiles. In addition to being fitted to the hull and turret, ERA panels are also fitted either side of the hull front to provide lateral protection to each side of the driver's compartment. The tank also has NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) protection equipment. The TShU1-7 Shtora-1 countermeasures system is not fitted.

Fire Control & Observation

The T-90S has the 1A45T IFCS (Integrated Fire Control System) which is automatic, but has a manual override for the commander. The IFCS comprises the gunner's day/night fire-control system, gunner's IR sight or thermal imaging sight, and commander's day/night sight-observation system. The fire control system comprises day sight-rangefinder with missile guidance channel, armament stabilizer and ballistic computer. The system is used by the commander for gun and machine gun fire control.

Propulsion

The T-90S will be powered by a 1,000 hp V-92S2 four-stroke V-12 diesel engine. This new engine, fitted with a turbo-supercharger, offers impressive specific power and specific fuel consumption characteristics. The tank can carry up to 1600 litres of fuel in the main, armour plated fuel tanks and fuel drums. The tank is provided with a snorkel for deep fording (up to 5 metres of water) with equipment which can be deployed in 20 minutes. The mechanical transmission includes primary reduction gear, two planetary final gearboxes and two planetary final drives. The running gear features torsion bar suspension with hydraulic shock absorbers at 1, 2 and 6 road wheel stations and tracks with rubber-metallic pin hinges.

Miscellaneous Information

A new track has been developed and tested for the T-90S that not only has a longer life but also has replaceable rubber pads that can be quickly removed. Standard equipment includes NBC protection, fire detection & suppression system, nose-mounted dozer blade and a deep fording kit. The tank is fitted with an air conditioning system for operations in high ambient temperatures.



link :-withheld

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...omparison-contempory-tanks.html#ixzz2OeFvXRRa

here r the specs from a russian member. i guess we will take this more authentic then yr claims abt t90.

Only arjun mark 2 will become more good then AK, AK1, but on the same time we have planned to introduce AK2, and upto 2017, the AK3.

Now it will be a new comparison b/w AK's new series n Arjun 2.


From ministry of defence production

Notice the Varta APS on the production variant of Al khalid

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kaykay

^^all Indian army T-90s are 1000hp and last 350 would be fitted with 1250hp engines....(almost 1650+350= 2000 tanks by 2020)


----------



## Tacticool

Are the tanks exported to Bangladesh and Morocco downgraded versions of AL-Khalid?
India and Bangladesh now have growing ties. Joint military exercises are being conducted. Surely they can inspect BD's MBT-2000s. How much extent this can harm Pakistan?
Are Saudis rethinking to buy Al-Khalid or at least invest on Al-Khalid 2?



AUz said:


> Al Khalid has seen intense war in probably THE toughest trains--Swat Valley against very well dug in Talibans with RPGs and other anti-tank weapons..
> 
> Same argument can be made for indian tanks..they haven't seen war ...


What are performance details of Al-Khalid in Swat? Was Al-Khalid ever hit by any anti-tank weapon there?


----------



## Tacticool

AUz said:


> Al Khalid-1 already matches/outperforms anything india has to put in the battle-field. When india gets something better than Al Khalid-1 then Al Khalid-2 will kick in...
> 
> For now, Al Khalid-1 is doing just fine


How many Al-Khalids have been upgraded to Al-Khalid 1 specs?


----------



## AUz

Abdul_Haseeb said:


> How many Al-Khalids have been upgraded to Al-Khalid 1 specs?



Around 300-400 until few months back.

Its not only a up-gradation, its like building a whole new tank almost (With new, upgraded BMS, Pakistani-made improve gun, improved auto-loader, installing APS, increasing round carrying capacity significantly etc etc)...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUz

Abdul_Haseeb said:


> Are the tanks exported to Bangladesh and Morocco downgraded versions of AL-Khalid?
> India and Bangladesh now have growing ties. Joint military exercises are being conducted. Surely they can inspect BD's MBT-2000s. How much extent this can harm Pakistan?



Al Khalid is based on MBT-2000s but is a significantly superior tank...There is no harm as such...Much of the electronics of Al Khalid is build in Pakistan..so indians won't have any clue about Pakistani tanks regardless..



> Are Saudis rethinking to buy Al-Khalid or at least invest on Al-Khalid 2?



I don't think so....Saudis have money to buy the best Western Tanks...




> What are performance details of Al-Khalid in Swat? Was Al-Khalid ever hit by any anti-tank weapon there?



Probably couple of RPG hits, they don't do much to the tank. Even Al Zarrars faced couple of RPG hits (Only 1 was destroyed in FATA though)...No Al Khalid was destroyed ...just 1 Al Zarrar...

*Here* is one of my thread comparing Al Khalid-1 vs the most latest Israeli tank Merkava IV ...

Al Khalid-1 does a good job in mobility and firepower, but in armour..Merkava IV just DOMINATES! To built tanks with very, very thick armor...you have to make tank very heavy...which isn't suitable in Pakistani conditions...

Al Khalid-2 will be a heavy tank still (50 ton+) ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tacticool

Does india made any contract with russia for new (latest upgraded) t-90M. Or is there any confirmation for up-gradation of current T-90S to t-90M?


----------



## k7x

farhan_9909 said:


> on such tiny bumps even i wont feel them on bicycle
> 
> i would rather show you what real bumps around the world are.
> look how much bigger the bumps are and than watchout the suspension system of al khalid





Why does the side coverings of alkalidh always crumple or fell apart.. No one seems to be asking or botherd about it. watch the armour plates on both side near the front wheels. 
3:00 to 3:15. I have seen another vidieo where it hangs in one hinge.. 

is it not that crucial ? does that area need less armour.. kind of mudgaurd or something?


----------



## Gentelman

k7x said:


> Why does the side coverings of alkalidh always crumple or fell apart.. No one seems to be asking or botherd about it. watch the armour plates on both side near the front wheels.
> 3:00 to 3:15. I have seen another vidieo where it hangs in one hinge..
> 
> is it not that crucial ? does that area need less armour.. kind of mudgaurd or something?



Al-Khalid was past Al-Khalid 1 is present and Al-Khalid 2 is future so talk about present or future rather than past...


----------



## kaykay

Abdul_Haseeb said:


> Does india made any contract with russia for new (latest upgraded) t-90M. Or is there any confirmation for up-gradation of current T-90S to t-90M?



India has ordered 350+ of the latest T-90SM with 1250HP engines with other upgrads and another 300 are speculated to be ordered soon that will make number as 2011+300=2311 T-90 tanks of all variant...and all T-90s In Indian service are already upgraded with 1000HP engines..


----------



## Gentelman

Koovie said:


> Wrong. Your statement is based on comparing figures from the internet, which are not even correct. Real war is a completely different situation though and the AK has never seen combat yet.
> 
> Its not only about numbers and figures(you really think BTW that all this data on the internet is exactly showing the capabilities and technical features etc..?), its also about logistics, ruggedness and much much more...



well showing exact capabilities!! 
That's point...
according to previous record IA have no record of hiding and specifications but all the project expected specifications are out when they are finalized.....
I just mean IA is not good in hiding comparing to their counterparts PA who just word and induce em....
i.e even now the specifications of AKs export version are out not the version in service....
No news about Abbabiel and Burraq UAV....
pakistani work on MRAP is in final stages i.e prototype is just near constructed and no specifications......
u can compare yourself...
I beleive that Arjun and LCA are not so failed projects but their announcement on specifications so early made them so and created hyper and pressure on DURDO...
I just mean it's too a factor...
It's out that Indians are working on a AWACS and a utility plane for troops(forget what it is called..:rofel: )etc etc...
lets hope these projects may be finalized in due date as per planning...


----------



## farhan_9909

k7x said:


> Why does the side coverings of alkalidh always crumple or fell apart.. No one seems to be asking or botherd about it. watch the armour plates on both side near the front wheels.
> 3:00 to 3:15. I have seen another vidieo where it hangs in one hinge..
> 
> is it not that crucial ? does that area need less armour.. kind of mudgaurd or something?



these are not just true sideskirts but rather think metal plates.

AL khalid I has thickened side skirts.if you want i can post the picture of Al khalid I


----------



## Tacticool

T-90S or T-90SM are export models. Can someone share are the export models always degraded versions?
Like T-72 sold world wide were degraded versions of soviet used models.
How much percent does T-90S or T-90SM lack behind the original t-90 in russian use?

What is difference between "smooth bore gun" and "rifled cannon"?
Which one is better?


----------



## Gentelman

Abdul_Haseeb said:


> T-90S or T-90SM are export models. Can someone share are the export models always degraded versions?
> Like T-72 sold world wide were degraded versions of soviet used models.
> How much percent does T-90S or T-90SM lack behind the original t-90 in russian use?
> 
> What is difference between "smooth bore gun" and "rifled cannon"?
> Which one is better?



rifled is used since WW2 and smooth bore is newer one... 
wel technical smooth bore has a slighter edge over rifled 
well I suppose T-90 sold to India are comparable to that russians are using...
I mean they are not downgraded.....


----------



## Tacticool

Gentelman said:


> rifled is used since WW2 and smooth bore is newer one...
> wel technical smooth bore has a slighter edge over rifled



Can you give technical information?


----------



## Gentelman

A rifled barrel will have
smooth, curving grooves cut
into. When you look down the
barrel, you will see the lines
that curve all the way around
the barrel.
It looks almost like the stripes
on a barber's spinning pole or
a candy cane.
What that does is makes the
bullet spin when it travels
through it. This spin along its
longitudinal axis imparts
stability...the same way a
football is stable in flight when
thrown with a tight spiral (or a
bicycle wheel is stable when
the bike is moving).
It makes it so the bullet will
have a consistent path when
fired through the gun. This is
what gives modern guns their
accuracy.
That is the only difference
between rifled and smooth
bore.
Smooth bore guns don't have
the rifling cut into them...



Abdul_Haseeb said:


> Can you give technical information?



smoithbore is cheap and compromises in accuracy but rifled give more accuracy bt with more weight.....


----------



## Gentelman

Abdul_Haseeb said:


> Can you give technical information?



Smoothbore give wider range of shells and rockets to be fired while rifled gun can fire just some types specific for rifled...
means smoothbore=rifled rounds+more 
while rifled=just rifled rounds...
smooth bore gives high muzzle velocity to shells and speed and penetrating power also increase of shells..
Rifled gives high accuracy...
Rifles examples=Arjun,Challenger etc
Smoith bore=M1 Abrahams,Al-Khalid etc..

The disadvatages of rifling a barrel is that
it makes it slightly harder to clean and it
makes it much harder to load a projectile
from the muzzle(the end the shot comes
out of) end (try ramming a shot into a
rifled muzzleloading rifle and you'll see
exactly what I mean).One of the reasons
that rifles were not used much during the
revolutionary war because it took far
longer to reload a rifle then a musket. Of
course, this is rather a moot point since
most (if not all)military arms have been
breechloaded(loaded from the trigger
end of the rifle) since the mid 1800's.

Projectiles fired from modern
smoothbores are fin-stabilized, which
provides the same benefits to accuracy as
the spin imparted by rifling.
so in present day warfare smoth bore is more good then rifled well if you are shooting a movie and you had to shot a scene of tank firing a round and you need that round to spin than rifled gun is necessary...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kaykay

Abdul_Haseeb said:


> T-90S or T-90SM are export models. Can someone share are the export models always degraded versions?
> Like T-72 sold world wide were degraded versions of soviet used models.
> How much percent does T-90S or T-90SM lack behind the original t-90 in russian use?
> 
> What is difference between "smooth bore gun" and "rifled cannon"?
> Which one is better?



Can't say about export version T90s of other countries but Indian variant of T-90s are as per or even better than their russian counterparts....Its just that initial 310 T-90S were lacking shotra passive/active protection systems but later ones are having all kind of techs with upgraded engines....again those Initial batch of T-90s are being upgraded with protection systems in a seperate contract.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Storm Force

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dBR4VHtFDlY/TmCrENOSYOI/AAAAAAAAASw/VGQWa3w7pKY/s1600/Arjun+Mk1+-2.jpg

LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MODERN WWESTERN DESIGNED ARJUN TANK & A RUSSIAN CHINEASE T SERIES T59/T62


----------



## Storm Force

COMPARE T90



OF INDIA 

NOW THE BIG DADDY 

INDENGIOUS INDIAN ARJUN BEAST


----------



## Fieldmarshal

the so called big daddy is past its retirment age and needs to placed in a old age care center aka a museum.


----------



## ExtraOdinary

Here comes big daddy version 2.0

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Inception-06

For each of this "Big" Elephants we have 10 sharp arrows called "Bakthar SHIKAN" _wire-guided anti-tank missile system_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uY6lMVcJeM


----------



## Zarvan

ExtraOdinary said:


> Here comes big daddy version 2.0


Big Daddy   the smaller daddy Arjun 1 resulted in complete disaster and now you bring the bigger disaster

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IndianArmy

Ulla said:


> For each of this "Big" Elephants we have 10 sharp arrows called "Bakthar SHIKAN" _wire-guided anti-tank missile system_



Are you serious. You going to counter a 3+ gen MBT with a near obsolete WW era technology. World has moved long and are looking beyond IIR and you seem to counter every threat with a wire-guided missile.



Zarvan said:


> Big Daddy   the smaller daddy *Arjun 1 resulted in complete disaster* and now you bring the bigger disaster



Could you shed more light on it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

IndianArmy said:


> Are you serious. You going to counter a 3+ gen MBT with a near obsolete WW era technology. World has moved long and are looking beyond IIR and you seem to counter every threat with a wire-guided missile.



Dont worry we have a laser guided anti tank missile also... not much is known about it... but here is news about it:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...cts-test-fireof-anti-tank-guided-missile.html


> Home » South Asia
> Pak claims test firing of new anti-tank missile
> Updated on Monday, December 06, 2010, 15:50
> Tags: Pakistan, anti-tank missile, test fired
> 
> 
> Islamabad: The Pakistan Army has carried out test firing of a new indigenous anti-tank missile from a site near Jehlum, about 100 kilometres east of the capital.
> 
> The test successfully met all trial parameters, Kyodo reported quoting a Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) press statement.
> 
> 'Daily Times' quoting Pakistani Army officials claimed that with the successful test firing at the Tilla range, "Pakistan has taken an edge over the rivals in conventional warfare".
> 
> Kyodo said Khan Research Laboratory, named after disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, developed an anti-tank missile in the early 1990s using a remote-controlled, wire-guided system with a 3,000-metre range*.But authoritative sources told Kyodo News the version of anti-tank missile tested yesterday is equipped with an automatic guidance system, without wires, and has a greater range.*
> 
> No additional information about the new missile was given.
> 
> Earlier media reports had said Pakistan acquired and modified a Chinese anti-tank missile which it has named Bakhtar Shikan.



Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...s-baktar-shikan-missiles-3.html#ixzz2PxiZXJTZ


----------



## IndianArmy

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Dont worry we have a laser guided anti tank missile also... not much is known about it... but here is news about it:
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...cts-test-fireof-anti-tank-guided-missile.html
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...s-baktar-shikan-missiles-3.html#ixzz2PxiZXJTZ



The answer is pretty much there in your source 


> Earlier media reports had said Pakistan acquired and modified a Chinese anti-tank missile which it has named Bakhtar Shikan.



Let more info come and then we shall decide on the expression.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

IndianArmy said:


> The answer is pretty much there in your source
> 
> 
> Let more info come and then we shall decide on the expression.



Never knew indian army was so bad at comprehending news... its a new missile... while Baktar shikan is a modified HJ-8 and is wire guided!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Ulla said:


> For each of this "Big" Elephants we have 10 sharp arrows called "Bakthar SHIKAN" _wire-guided anti-tank missile system_



LOLL, you are trumpeting "wire-guided missiles"? 

Seems like to counteract the "Big Elephants" you just have "Dinosaurs". TOW missiles are pretty much outdated now.


----------



## IndianArmy

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Never knew indian army was so bad at comprehending news... its a new missile... while Baktar shikan is a modified HJ-8 and is wire guided!



Indian Army can be bad for as long as the truth is hidden. Shed more info on the so called new missile, until then it is non other than the much hyped HJ-8.

Only one test and you guys claim you have it battle ready?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

IndianArmy said:


> Indian Army can be bad for as long as the truth is hidden. Shed more info on the so called new missile, until then it is non other than the much hyped HJ-8.
> 
> Only one test and you guys claim you have it battle ready?




Never knew HJ-8 was laser guided as the new missile...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndianArmy

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> *Never knew HJ-8 was laser guided* as the new missile...



Now we are on the same page


----------



## Capt.Popeye

IndianArmy said:


> Indian Army can be bad for as long as the truth is hidden. Shed more info on the so called new missile, until then it is non other than the much hyped HJ-8.
> 
> Only one test and you guys claim you have it battle ready?



When things are simply repackaged; then Tests are uncalled for.
Apart from that Tests cost money,
_Abhi mahengayee ka zamana, aur jaib bhi khaali.........kya karein Saieen_.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Zarvan said:


> Big Daddy   the smaller daddy Arjun 1 resulted in complete disaster and now you bring the bigger disaster



This is leopard 2.


----------



## Umair Nawaz

IndianArmy said:


> The answer is pretty much there in your source
> 
> 
> Let more info come and then we shall decide on the expression.



Dude u do realize that he has quoted this from indian sources who claim everything from pak is chinese copy.
But forgets thats how yr own abdul kalam stole the missile tech of agni from west.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alpha1

*Arjun 1 disaster
Arjun 2 disasterx2*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IndianArmy

Umair Nawaz said:


> Dude u do realize that he has quoted this from indian sources who claim everything from pak is chinese copy.
> But forgets thats how yr own abdul kalam stole the missile tech of agni from west.



I dont think our weapons are stolen, Dr. Abdul Kalam was the project director of ISRO's SLV-3 program before he joined the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program, which should make one understand that this technology was not alien to us. But some one sure has stolen or copied Korean and Chinese designs as it is questionable how a country could have developed a missile over night while its space agency is still in the dark. Chinese M-11 platform proved good for you guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umair Nawaz

IndianArmy said:


> I dont think our weapons are stolen, Dr. Abdul Kalam was the project director of ISRO's SLV-3 program before he joined the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program, which should make one understand that this technology was not alien to us. *But some one sure has stolen or copied Korean and Chinese designs as it is questionable how a country could have developed a missile over night while its space agency is still in the dark. Chinese M-11 platform proved good for you guys.*


So yr base is just an assumption.


----------



## IndianArmy

Umair Nawaz said:


> So yr base is just an assumption.



Even if it is my assumption, I gave you a reason why.


----------



## Umair Nawaz

IndianArmy said:


> Even if it is my assumption, I gave you a reason why.



This tech was not alien to us either.Do u know Pakistan was thrd Asian Country to have launched a Rocket into space in 63


----------



## IndianArmy

Umair Nawaz said:


> This tech was not alien to us either.Do u know Pakistan was thrd Asian Country to have launched a Rocket into space in 63



Are you by any chance talking about NASA's Rehbar series? Come on and Pakistan is yet to come out of it , whereas it was just recently when the students of IIST and VIT who launched their rockets into space.


----------



## Koovie

Alpha1 said:


> *Arjun 1 disaster
> Arjun 2 disasterx2*



Kiddo, Arjun MK1 is already in service and the MK2 has already been ordered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umair Nawaz

IndianArmy said:


> Are you by any chance talking about *NASA's Rehbar* series? Come on and Pakistan is yet to come out of it , whereas it was just recently when the students of IIST and VIT who launched their rockets into space.



Grow up. Mr indian army.


----------



## monitor

Alpha1 said:


> *Arjun 1 disaster
> Arjun 2 disasterx2*





Koovie said:


> Kiddo, Arjun MK1 is already in service and the MK2 has already been ordered.




The first Arjun Mk1A will roll off the MoD-owned and Avadi-based Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in July 2015, and enter service in early 2016. HVF will annually produce 30 Arjun Mk1As, meaning the last such MBT will be delivered by 2019.


----------



## Koovie

monitor said:


> The first Arjun Mk1A will roll off the MoD-owned and Avadi-based Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in July 2015, and enter service in early 2016. HVF will annually produce 30 Arjun Mk1As, meaning the last such MBT will be delivered by 2019.



There is no MK1 A only MK1 and MK2 (in development) The MK1 is in service with 2 regiments (+120 tanks)!


----------



## IndianArmy

Umair Nawaz said:


> Grow up. Mr indian army.



If it were not NASA's, SUPARCO should have developed modern rockets, why is it still stuck up with sounding rockets?


----------



## Umair Nawaz

IndianArmy said:


> If it were not NASA's, SUPARCO should have developed modern rockets, why is it still stuck up with sounding rockets?



LOL after yr last post i have came to understand yr maturity level. So i dont wanna waste my time with u anymore.


----------



## IndianArmy

Umair Nawaz said:


> LOL after yr last post i have came to understand yr maturity level. So i dont wanna waste my time with u anymore.



Pleasure is all mine. I dont mind if you cannot disprove my statements, but atleast you showed the courage to ignore it.


----------



## Inception-06

For those Indians which want undermine the effectiveness of the "Baktar Shikan", can you pls give some technical and strategic arguments, why this Missile can not do his mission against Indian Tanks ?

You have consider the short distance between the two Forces, when the war breaks out, allong the Border of both sides are kilometers of camouflaged trenches, Anti-Tank Bunkers,natural obstacles such as ditch and water, Minefields, river etc.forward observations Positions. So than come the firesupport of the Long and short Artillary, Air Force etc. of the Pakistani Forces. So know you have to explain me why in this fire Thunderstorm the effectiveness of the "Baktar Shikan" is not enough for the Indian Tank Corps or in a Indian Tank offensive ! It will be a hard fight for both side, plays not a rule Arjun or Alkhalid.


----------



## Storm Force

FOR SOME people until you you actually RAM THE PROOF down their throats they just dont accept it 

IF you want to COMPARE PAK TANKS TO contemporary THEN THIS IS THE BENCH MARK 

enjoy the VEDIO last bit will talk abouit MK2 tanks arriving soon.

[video]http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/244705-inside-out-arjun-main-battle-tank-discovery-channels-documentary.html#post4141877[/video]

[[video]http://vimeo.com/user17566395/arjun[/video]


----------



## PakEye

what is the Indian reaction about Al Khalid series tanks.


----------



## IndianArmy

Ulla said:


> For those Indians which want undermine the effectiveness of the "Baktar Shikan", can you pls give some technical and strategic arguments, why this Missile can not do his mission against Indian Tanks ?
> 
> You have consider the short distance between the two Forces, when the war breaks out, allong the Border of both sides are kilometers of camouflaged trenches, Anti-Tank Bunkers,natural obstacles such as ditch and water, Minefields, river etc.forward observations Positions. So than come the firesupport of the Long and short Artillary, Air Force etc. of the Pakistani Forces. So know you have to explain me why in this fire Thunderstorm the effectiveness of the "Baktar Shikan" is not enough for the Indian Tank Corps or in a Indian Tank offensive ! It will be a hard fight for both side, plays not a rule Arjun or Alkhalid.



Firstly, the Arjun Mk1A has a laser warning system that enables the MBT to take evasive action the moment it is illuminated by a laser beam. Javelin or even TOW or Baktar Shikan ATGMs will never be employed over open flat or even undulating terrain against MBTs, APCs & AIFVs. That&#8217;s why the IA employs LOHs & helicopter-gunships flying ahead of an armoured column so that they can detect & destroy dug-in infantry forces equipped with shoulder-fired or man-portable ATGMs, or direct the AIFVs to engage such ATGM ambushes with 4km-range Konkurs-M ATGMs. You will never ever come across an Indian armoured thrust in future that is not preceded by LOHs & helicopter-gunships. Scenarios given by you are long gone.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Inception-06

IndianArmy said:


> Firstly, the Arjun Mk1A has a laser warning system that enables the MBT to take evasive action the moment it is illuminated by a laser beam. Javelin or even TOW or Baktar Shikan ATGMs will never be employed over open flat or even undulating terrain against MBTs, APCs & AIFVs. That&#8217;s why the IA employs LOHs & helicopter-gunships flying ahead of an armoured column so that they can detect & destroy dug-in infantry forces equipped with shoulder-fired or man-portable ATGMs, or direct the AIFVs to engage such ATGM ambushes with 4km-range Konkurs-M ATGMs. You will never ever come across an Indian armoured thrust in future that is not preceded by LOHs & helicopter-gunships. Scenarios given by you are long gone.



This Helicopters can come in the range of MANPADS and AA Guns, so they are also not safe, and a laser warning system, is only a "Warning" it makes not 100% sure that the missile will not hit the target "It serves to increase the survival chances of a tank on the battlefield". 

And how many Helicopters the Indian Tank Corps of ca. 3500 Tanks needs the cover the Sky 24 hours ? I dont know, what I know that this Helis are not 100% safe frome the Pakistani Anza Manpad Series and the 12.7mm AA Gun ( not inlcuded the Type-56 37mm AA Gun, and which are in very high Numbers in service with the Pakistani Forces, most are from chinese stockpiles, which have deadly range for Helicopters) !

Secondly you have to consider that the Pakistanis are producing weapons like the 12.7mm AA Gun DShK, Bakthar Shikan, AnzaI and AnzaII over a period of ca. 20 years if not longer, so this weapons have been delivered to the front line troops in masses, and have been also UPGRADED. For the defensive-Forces of the Pakistan Army this weapons are enough to give the Enemy a hard fight and to crush the spearheads of any Indian Tank offensive. 

To the Discussion that the "Bakthar Shikan is outdated", Since the wire-guided missile Bakthar Shikan is not automatic, the actual probability of a Tank-hit is under combat conditions higher !

To your useless statement:"Scenarios given by you are long gone".........I can only say Dream Scenarios like yours will only happen on the table, reality on battlefield is not a PC-game.


----------



## farhan_9909

IndianArmy said:


> Firstly, the Arjun Mk1A has a laser warning system that enables the MBT to take evasive action the moment it is illuminated by a laser beam. Javelin or even TOW or Baktar Shikan ATGMs will never be employed over open flat or even undulating terrain against MBTs, APCs & AIFVs. That&#8217;s why the IA employs LOHs & helicopter-gunships flying ahead of an armoured column so that they can detect & destroy dug-in infantry forces equipped with shoulder-fired or man-portable ATGMs, or direct the AIFVs to engage such ATGM ambushes with 4km-range Konkurs-M ATGMs. You will never ever come across an Indian armoured thrust in future that is not preceded by LOHs & helicopter-gunships. Scenarios given by you are long gone.



well pakistani tanks does has laser threat warning system and most important varta soft kill aps as well

the LTS is locally developed by GIDS


----------



## Mitro

Its a very good missile system and cheaper i think PA is already developed 3rd generation of Baktar shikan with out wires i don't remember where i saw the picture .



Ulla said:


> For those Indians which want undermine the effectiveness of the "Baktar Shikan", can you pls give some technical and strategic arguments, why this Missile can not do his mission against Indian Tanks ?
> 
> You have consider the short distance between the two Forces, when the war breaks out, allong the Border of both sides are kilometers of camouflaged trenches, Anti-Tank Bunkers,natural obstacles such as ditch and water, Minefields, river etc.forward observations Positions. So than come the firesupport of the Long and short Artillary, Air Force etc. of the Pakistani Forces. So know you have to explain me why in this fire Thunderstorm the effectiveness of the "Baktar Shikan" is not enough for the Indian Tank Corps or in a Indian Tank offensive ! It will be a hard fight for both side, plays not a rule Arjun or Alkhalid.


----------



## surya kiran

Ulla said:


> This Helicopters can come in the range of MANPADS and AA Guns, so they are also not safe, and a laser warning system, is only a "Warning" it makes not 100% sure that the missile will not hit the target "It serves to increase the survival chances of a tank on the battlefield".
> 
> And how many Helicopters the Indian Tank Corps of ca. 3500 Tanks needs the cover the Sky 24 hours ? I dont know, what I know that this Helis are not 100% safe frome the Pakistani Anza Manpad Series and the 12.7mm AA Gun ( not inlcuded the 37mm AA Gun which have deadly range for Helicopters) !
> 
> Secondly you have to consider that the Pakistanis are producing weapons like the 12.7mm AA Gun DShK, Bakthar Shikan, AnzaI and AnzaII over a persiod of ca. 20 years if not longer, so this weapons are in have been delivered to the front line troops in masses. For the defensive part of the Pakistan Army this weapons are enough to give the Enemy a hard fight and crush the spearheads of any Indian Tank offensive.
> 
> To the Discussion that the "Bakthar Shikan is outdated", Since the wire-guided missile Bakthar Shikan is not automatic, the actual probability of a Tank-hit is under combat conditions higher !
> 
> To your useless statement:"Scenarios given by you are long gone".........I can only say Dream Scenarios like yours will only happen on the table, reality on battlefield is not a PC-game.



You are going to use MANPADS in plain terrain and expect them to be as effective as on mountainous? My friend, they will get picked up by the helos kms away! Also, are you aware of the roles assigned to the Mig 27s currently in anti tank warfare and what weapons systems they are supposed to deploy? There is nothing, I repeat, nothing in the Pak arsenal which can answer this system.


----------



## Inception-06

IndianArmy said:


> Javelin or even TOW or Baktar Shikan ATGMs will never be employed over open flat or even undulating terrain against MBTs, APCs & AIFVs.



The are many options for a Pakistani Tank destroyer to bring the Bakthar Shikan in a good, covered and camouflage firing position in a "open flat or even undulating terrain" to engage Indian armored vehicles.


----------



## Inception-06

surya kiran said:


> You are going to use MANPADS in plain terrain and expect them to be as effective as on mountainous? My friend, they will get picked up by the helos kms away!



How ? explain me how the super Helicopters have war-time to come and hold their firing positions kms away ? and how they can finde so fast this very good covered firing positions which are in trenches, tunnels, bunker under the earth and well camouflaged, hold and build by Soldiers which are trained in a professional Army.







surya kiran said:


> There is nothing, I repeat, nothing in the Pak arsenal which can answer this system.



If that is the case than, try to take the Azad Kashmir !


----------



## Inception-06

surya kiran said:


> are you aware of the roles assigned to the Mig 27s currently in anti tank warfare and what weapons systems they are supposed to deploy?



Indian Mig-27 can meet the air defence of the ground Troops, which includes, long and short-range AA Guns, MANPADS (AnzaI+AnzaII+AnzaIII+RBS70+FN-6), than the Air Defence Corps, which operates Systems like the SPADA and the Pakistan Air Force which uses the Jf-17.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Ulla said:


> Indian Mig-27 can meet the air defence of the ground Troops, which includes, long and short-range AA Guns, MANPADS (AnzaI+AnzaII+AnzaIII+RBS70+FN-6), than the Air Defence Corps, which operates Systems like the SPADA and the Pakistan Air Force which uses the Jf-17.



U forgot HQ-9..



Ulla said:


> Indian Mig-27 can meet the air defence of the ground Troops, which includes, long and short-range AA Guns, MANPADS (AnzaI+AnzaII+AnzaIII+RBS70+FN-6), than the Air Defence Corps, which operates Systems like the SPADA and the Pakistan Air Force which uses the Jf-17.



Plus AK also has the capability to fire missiles are low flying helis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A.Rafay

Storm Force said:


> FOR SOME people until you you actually RAM THE PROOF down their throats they just dont accept it
> 
> IF you want to COMPARE PAK TANKS TO contemporary THEN THIS IS THE BENCH MARK
> 
> enjoy the VEDIO last bit will talk abouit MK2 tanks arriving soon.
> 
> [video]http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/244705-inside-out-arjun-main-battle-tank-discovery-channels-documentary.html#post4141877[/video]
> 
> [[video]http://vimeo.com/user17566395/arjun[/video]



Is there a Discovery Channel Documentary of Pakistans Al-Khalid??


----------



## Slayer786

IndianArmy said:


> Are you by any chance talking about NASA's Rehbar series? Come on and Pakistan is yet to come out of it , whereas it was just recently when the students of IIST and VIT who launched their rockets into space.





> One of the most earliest and notable achievement of Suparco activities was its unmanned space flight programme that was recorded on 7 June 1961.[7][20] Suparco took research in the development of first solid-fuel expandable rockets, an assistance provided by the United States.[7] On 7 June 1962, Suparco landed a record achievement *when it had launched first unmanned solid-fuel sounding rocket and took its first initial space flight from the Sonmiani Terminal Launch.[21] The rocket was developed in a joint venture with air force in a team led by PAF's Air Commodore (Brigadier-General) WJM Turowicz.[7] Known as the Rehbar-I (lit. Teller of the way), Pakistan had secured its distinction as the third country in Asia and the tenth in the world to conduct successful spaceflight.*[7] The unmanned spaceflight mission continued under Turowicz, and according to Suparco, from the period 1962 till the partial termination of mission in 1972.



Source: Wikileaks.

Now it is typical of the indians to keep believing and telling lies about our missiles program, but the truth is that our scientists have worked hard in researching and developing our missile program.


----------



## IndianArmy

Slayer786 said:


> Source: Wikileaks.
> 
> Now it is typical of the indians to keep believing and telling lies about our missiles program, but the truth is that our scientists have worked hard in researching and developing our missile program.



I dint deny it. My only question is why hasnt SUPARCO come up with a next project in nearly 4 decades?



Ulla said:


> The are many options for a Pakistani Tank destroyer to bring the Bakthar Shikan in a good, covered and camouflage firing position in a "open flat or even undulating terrain" to engage Indian armored vehicles.



And the Examples are?



farhan_9909 said:


> well pakistani tanks does has laser threat warning system and most important varta soft kill aps as well
> 
> the LTS is locally developed by GIDS



Good For you, but how is it relevant to what you have quoted.


----------



## IndianArmy

Ulla said:


> This Helicopters can come in the range of MANPADS and AA Guns, so they are also not safe, and a laser warning system, is only a "Warning" it makes not 100% sure that the missile will not hit the target "It serves to increase the survival chances of a tank on the battlefield".



Modern attack helicopters are designed to dampen the IR signature produced by their turbines, facing the threat will provide much less IR signature . And MANPADS are defensive weapons.In any case, the anti-tank helicopter armed with ATGWs (Anti-Tank Guided Weapons) or anti-tank cannons is one of the biggest threats to a modern tank. The helicopter can position itself where it is not easily seen from a tank and then attack from any quarter, exposing the weaker parts of the tank's armor. The limited visibility from a closed-down tank also makes sighting a helicopter more difficult.



Ulla said:


> And how many Helicopters the Indian Tank Corps of ca. 3500 Tanks needs the cover the Sky 24 hours ? I dont know, what I know that this Helis are not 100% safe frome the Pakistani Anza Manpad Series and the 12.7mm AA Gun ( not inlcuded the Type-56 37mm AA Gun, and which are in very high Numbers in service with the Pakistani Forces, most are from chinese stockpiles, which have deadly range for Helicopters) !



LCH's Service ceiling is 6,500 m (21,300 ft) which Neither the Anza MKII's nor the Anza Mk-IIIs can reach by both range and Altitude



Ulla said:


> Secondly you have to consider that the Pakistanis are producing weapons like the 12.7mm AA Gun DShK, Bakthar Shikan, AnzaI and AnzaII over a period of ca. 20 years if not longer, so this weapons have been delivered to the front line troops in masses, and have been also UPGRADED. For the defensive-Forces of the Pakistan Army this weapons are enough to give the Enemy a hard fight and to crush the spearheads of any Indian Tank offensive.



The answer to your question, lies in the advantages India has over Pakistan in net centric capability.



Ulla said:


> To the Discussion that the "Bakthar Shikan is outdated", Since the wire-guided missile Bakthar Shikan is not automatic, the actual probability of a Tank-hit is under combat conditions higher !



The Fire and forget missiles have a maximum hit probability of 95% when the tank is on move. The Bakthar Shikan is not even close to having a hit probability of 40%



Ulla said:


> To your useless statement:"Scenarios given by you are long gone".........I can only say Dream Scenarios like yours will only happen on the table, reality on battlefield is not a PC-game.



Just because you dint understand what I meant doesent make the statement useless. If you dont understand me, ask your fellow defense experts, they will guide you on modern warefares

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gentelman

IndianArmy said:


> Modern attack helicopters are designed to dampen the IR signature produced by their turbines, facing the threat will provide much less IR signature . And MANPADS are defensive weapons.In any case, the anti-tank helicopter armed with ATGWs (Anti-Tank Guided Weapons) or anti-tank cannons is one of the biggest threats to a modern tank. The helicopter can position itself where it is not easily seen from a tank and then attack from any quarter, exposing the weaker parts of the tank's armor. The limited visibility from a closed-down tank also makes sighting a helicopter more difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> LCH's Service ceiling is 6,500 m (21,300 ft) which Neither the Anza MKII's nor the Anza Mk-IIIs can reach by both range and Altitude
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question, lies in the advantages India has over Pakistan in net centric capability.
> 
> 
> 
> The Fire and forget missiles have a maximum hit probability of 95% when the tank is on move. The Bakthar Shikan is not even close to having a hit probability of 40%
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you dint understand what I meant doesent make the statement useless. If you dont understand me, ask your fellow defense experts, they will guide you on modern warefares



Bro Baktar Shikn probablity is 80%+ which is in service in PA and an automatic version of Baktar Shikn is tested shortely whose probablity is 90%+ there is a thread running on that you can chek that out in Pakistan Army threads

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Foo_Fighter

pakeye said:


> what is the Indian reaction about Al Khalid series tanks.



I believe on 1 on 1 comparison with T90, Al Khalid does look a little tad better. However, max range is a certain advantage T90 has over Al Khalid which could be very crucial in the battle field. Also, Gunship support could tilt the battle in the Indian favor.


----------



## IndianArmy

Gentelman said:


> Bro Baktar Shikn probablity is 80%+ which is in service in PA and an automatic version of Baktar Shikn is tested shortely whose probablity is 90%+ there is a thread running on that you can chek that out in Pakistan Army threads&#8230;&#8230;



That is a static test probability you are talking about, which is exactly why I stressed the word *"when the tank is on move"*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

IndianArmy said:


> Modern attack helicopters are designed to dampen the IR signature produced by their turbines, facing the threat will provide much less IR signature . And MANPADS are defensive weapons.In any case, the anti-tank helicopter armed with ATGWs (Anti-Tank Guided Weapons) or anti-tank cannons is one of the biggest threats to a modern tank. The helicopter can position itself where it is not easily seen from a tank and then attack from any quarter, exposing the weaker parts of the tank's armor. The limited visibility from a closed-down tank also makes sighting a helicopter more difficult.



I was not writing about the threats of Indian Helicopters against Pakistani Tanks,but about the "Bakthar Shikan" against Indian Tanks ! Tell me how this Indian Helicopters can make sure 100% to eliminate from this heights and ranges:"LCH's Service ceiling is 6,500 mc" ca. 2000 Pakistani Anti Tank missile launchers which are made and ready for the Anti-Tank battle along the Border (Bakthar Shikan, TOW, Milan...) ? It is possible ? May be, but the price will be also high ! Get on and bring tactical and technical facts !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndianArmy

Ulla said:


> I was not writing about the threats of Indian Helicopters against Pakistani Tanks, but about the "Bakthar Shikan" against Indian Tanks ! Tell me how this Indian Helicopters can make sure 100% to eliminate from this heights and ranges:"LCH's Service ceiling is 6,500 mc" ca. 2000 Pakistani Anti Tank missile launchers which are made and ready for the Anti-Tank battle along the Border (Bakthar Shikan, TOW, Milan...) ? It is possible ? May be, but the price will be also high ! Get on and bring tactical and technical facts !



Go through the articles relating to Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses. If you still dont get it, I will be happy to explain you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

IndianArmy said:


> LCH's Service ceiling is 6,500 m (21,300 ft) which Neither the Anza MKII's nor the Anza Mk-IIIs can reach by both range and Altitude
> 
> The answer to your question, lies in the advantages India has over Pakistan in net centric capability.



In the Moment, when the Pakistanis Manpads can not reach the Indian Helicopters, which flys in the Air according to YOU 6 Km away......., so is it also difficult for the Indian Helis to reach and finde the well covered Pakistani Bakthar Shikans which are in Bunkers, villages along the Border, houses ....



IndianArmy said:


> Go through the articles relating to Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses. If you still dont get it, I will be happy to explain you.



Dont need to do that,to be come happy, BE HAPPY, I was in the service of the German Anti Tank Battalion, called "Panzergrenadier" till 2010, we are well educated about basic facts like this !





A selam my Pakistani Brothers and sisters !

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Gentelman

IndianArmy said:


> That is a static test probability you are talking about, which is exactly why I stressed the word *"when the tank is on move"*



Bro I don't know about tests of Anti tank in your country but here tests are done on both moving targets as well as stationary&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;
That's not other countries calculated % its calculated with live tests&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndianArmy

Ulla said:


> In the Moment, when the Pakistanis Manpads can not reach the Indian Helicopters, so is it also difficult for the Indian Helis to reach the well covered Pakistani Bakthar Shikans which are in Bunkers, villages along the Border, houses ....that mean very difficult to finde for a Pilot which flys in the Air according to YOU 6 Km away.......



Getting good intelligence to prevent anyone taking up a firing position is vital in the scenarios given by you,Failing that, detecting a missile launch and Taking countermeasures to prevent any adverse effect, you can always rely on the Integrated Defensive Aids Suite and besides the modern attack helicopters can take our the target with advanced Target acquisition and designation eqpt's before the MAN operating the PADS gets to lock on . 

But I am not arguing that Attack Choppers are invincible.


----------



## IndianArmy

Gentelman said:


> Bro I don't know about tests of Anti tank in your country but here tests are done on both moving targets as well as stationary&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;
> That's not other countries calculated % its calculated with live tests&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;



I am sorry, never came across an article where I could educate myself on BS being tested on moving target, can u help me with one??


----------



## Gentelman

IndianArmy said:


> I am sorry, never came across an article where I could educate myself on BS being tested on moving target, can u help me with one??



Soo you think anti tank missiles are tested on stationary targets like dumb bombs and unguided missiles??
I don't think soo
well you are getting outta topic 1st dragging helis and now these anti tanks 
well pak army thread about test of new anti tank missile help your self
and shouldnot be you a bit respectful??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndianArmy

Gentelman said:


> Soo you think anti tank missiles are tested on stationary targets like dumb bombs and unguided missiles??
> I don't think soo
> well you are getting outta topic 1st dragging helis and now these anti tanks
> well pak army thread about test of new anti tank missile help your self
> and shouldnot be you a bit respectful??



I am sorry gentleman, but where did I show Disrespect.


----------



## surya kiran

Ulla said:


> Indian Mig-27 can meet the air defence of the ground Troops, which includes, long and short-range AA Guns, MANPADS (AnzaI+AnzaII+AnzaIII+RBS70+FN-6), than the Air Defence Corps, which operates Systems like the SPADA and the Pakistan Air Force which uses the Jf-17.



Again. Read up on which is the armament. BL755 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plus the Jags have this...CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These will rain on any armoured formation of the PA. Now you can deploy all your anzas or whatever. A couple of these away and the damage is done. Now, do you understand?


----------



## farhan_9909

kombat atgm active with Al khalid has the capability against choppers as well.

Gun lauched ATGM


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

surya kiran said:


> Again. Read up on which is the armament. BL755 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Plus the Jags have this...CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> These will rain on any armoured formation of the PA. Now you can deploy all your anzas or whatever. A couple of these away and the damage is done. Now, do you understand?



https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...Xkc9H5L7FdEmNPALA&sig2=XrCvDMB9oeaZcGsCoLdc6g

https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...eq1MRY4kkuURFOoYA&sig2=6Srr3QVDiPWau0bGy8pRVQ

etc etc in service with Pak airforce... what makes u think we wont use them?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## surya kiran

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...Xkc9H5L7FdEmNPALA&sig2=XrCvDMB9oeaZcGsCoLdc6g
> 
> https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&...eq1MRY4kkuURFOoYA&sig2=6Srr3QVDiPWau0bGy8pRVQ
> 
> etc etc in service with Pak airforce... what makes u think we wont use them?



Who is debating on whether you have cluster amunitions or not? The poster pointed out the ANZAs and I have pointed out that ANZAs cannot take out anti armour capabilities of the air wings. The poster talks about missiles which are infra red homing based. Anybody with little information on countermeasures will tell you infra red homing does not work against the Apache because of the ALQ-144 which comes with it.

And if you are now going to compare HIJARA with the CBU-97? If I am not mistaken, these are gravity bomblets. They drop and do not have the capability to 'target and home in' on armour.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

surya kiran said:


> Who is debating on whether you have cluster amunitions or not? The poster pointed out the ANZAs and I have pointed out that ANZAs cannot take out anti armour capabilities of the air wings. The poster talks about missiles which are infra red homing based. Anybody with little information on countermeasures will tell you infra red homing does not work against the Apache because of the ALQ-144 which comes with it.
> 
> And if you are now going to compare HIJARA with the CBU-97? If I am not mistaken, these are gravity bomblets. They drop and do not have the capability to 'target and home in' on armour.



How about JDAMs?gbu-12s etc? also CBU-97 is a free fall unguided CBM.... Rest this thread was about tanks but helis or any jets..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## surya kiran

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> How about JDAMs?gbu-12s etc? also CBU-97 is a free fall unguided CBM.... Rest this thread was about tanks but helis or any jets..



CBU-97, if I am not mistaken is not unguided. And yes, when the chap was talking about helis and anzas, my point was till date no Apache with the system have mentioned has been lost to infra red homing. And Anzas are infra-red right?


----------



## Inception-06

surya kiran said:


> Again. Read up on which is the armament. BL755 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Plus the Jags have this...CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> These will rain on any armoured formation of the PA. Now you can deploy all your anzas or whatever. A couple of these away and the damage is done. Now, do you understand?



We were discussing only the defense-System Bakthar Shikan (in combination wit AA Guns and MANPADS) against Indian Tanks not about what "will rain"................get on BOYS !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

IndianArmy said:


> That is a static test probability you are talking about, which is exactly why I stressed the word *"when the tank is on move"*



check out this Video, they are testing Bakthar Shikan on moving Targets !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KFJd4wVV5I

Pakistan Army Air Defence units.
The day's activities involved live firing of several air defence weapons on the inventory of Pakistan Army. These included short range Surface to Air Missiles, shoulder fired weapons and Anti Aircraft guns. COAS appreciated the standards displayed by the weapon crews of different units of Army Air Defence. He emphasized the importance of air defence in today's warfare and the need to remain abreast with modern requirements as regards up-gradation of equipment, as well as training, to defeat a wide threat spectrum. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6XLHxUqJiY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=AqGMYaFcDWo&feature=endscreen

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Inception-06

Pakistani T-80UD Formations in action "exercise against India"

Battle Inoculation drills of Combat Group at Khairpur Tamewali - August 15, 2008 - YouTube

Battle inoculation drills of a Combat Group (Armour Regiment) were held at Khairpur Tamewali. The thrilling exercise of advance and encounter battle by Desert Hawks included support by elements of Machanized Infantry, Engineers, Air Defence and Artillery. Corps Commander Multan, Lieutenant General Sikandar Afzal while talking to troops informally, emphasized that there was no alternative to practical training as the experience gained during peace time pays rich dividends during war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

T-90MS still uses the same AZ series (T-72) autoloader...limiting long rod APFSDS usage..


Would the T-90 autoloader cut my arm --.avi - YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> T-90MS still uses the same AZ series (T-72) autoloader...limiting long rod APFSDS usage..
> 
> 
> Would the T-90 autoloader cut my arm --.avi - YouTube



And so does all PA tanks and chinese tanks.Except arjun series.Guess who has most potential for growth.


----------



## The Deterrent

surya kiran said:


> And if you are now going to compare HIJARA with the CBU-97? If I am not mistaken, these are gravity bomblets. They drop and do not have the capability to 'target and home in' on armour.



Actually the CBU-97 bomblets do not "home in", because they do not have any control surfaces. They are just very "smart" i.e. the skeets detonate the shaped-charge warhead IF they pass over an armored vehicle, otherwise they self-destruct.

The reason for the effectiveness is the very high kill ratio, the pretty smart distribution (frisbee-like coning motion of spinning skeets), which are 40 per system, and the wind corrected munitions dispenser.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Foo_Fighter said:


> I believe on 1 on 1 comparison with T90, Al Khalid does look a little tad better. However, max range is a certain advantage T90 has over Al Khalid which could be very crucial in the battle field. Also, Gunship support could tilt the battle in the Indian favor.



Al khalid has faulty turret geometry and its reactive armour coverage and quality is not t-90 standard.T-90 thus have good advantage in armour protection over khalid.But armour aside in mobility,electronics,firepower khalid can go toe to toe with t-90 anyday.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## surya kiran

AhaseebA said:


> Actually the CBU-97 bomblets do not "home in", because they do not have any control surfaces. They are just very "smart" i.e. the skeets detonate the shaped-charge warhead IF they pass over an armored vehicle, otherwise they self-destruct.
> 
> The reason for the effectiveness is the very high kill ratio and pretty smart distribution (frisbee-like coning motion of spinning skeets), which are 40 per system, and the wind corrected munitions dispenser.



Agreed. In my first bomb had mentioned about the bomblets, in the second post, should have mentioned about the skeets. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Umair Nawaz

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Al khalid has faulty turret geometry and its reactive armour coverage and quality is not t-90 standard.T-90 thus have good advantage in armour protection over khalid.But armour aside in mobility,electronics,firepower khalid can go toe to toe with t-90 anyday.





u keep on reminding yourself that.

u just cant digest the fact that we have a tank which is better then yr Russian tank.Even Russians in this thread have accepted that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> And so does all PA tanks and chinese tanks.Except arjun series.Guess who has most potential for growth.



Ahh innocence 

Saw this coming, Arjun has several issues which i will show you later. As far as AK and T-80ud are concerned, they use different autoloaders, in case of AK, it is a modified all electric unit, unklike the age old T-72 AZ one. 

Lastly, IA has some difficiencies in Tank APFSDS too, the longest shell they use is not more than 520 mm in penetration @ 2000 mm front on, where as, PA has longer penetrators. Example is Naiza1 (550 @ 2000 m, Naiza2 is in service for quite a while but not advertised, 650+ mm @ 2000 m and Sino-Pak Type II and Type M, both have 550, 620-650 mm penetration respectively).

Unless IA buys new APFSDS rounds or make their own AMK-340 series work better with T-72/ 90 instead of exploding inside the gun barrel, there is plenty to worry for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umair Nawaz

AUSTERLITZ said:


> And so does all PA tanks and chinese tanks.Except arjun series.Guess who has most potential for growth.



Pakistan uses self made autoloader...visit AK information pool.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Al khalid has faulty turret geometry and its reactive armour coverage and quality is not t-90 standard.T-90 thus have good advantage in armour protection over khalid.But armour aside in mobility,electronics,firepower khalid can go toe to toe with t-90 anyday.



LOL, prove how it is faulty so we could have an educated discussion. As far as i know, it has a decent composite armour packege approximately 650-700 mm without ERA, a reason why there is no heavy ERA coverage there, Thats why PA has 350+ of them in service with two versions. It has better electronics than your T-90S and M, when MS comes in iIA, it will be on par 

How is it better? Has environment control system, FCS is pretty advanced (French with indeginous HIT made ballistic computer) with auto tracking, 2nd and 3rd gen thermal imagers with hunter killer capability, datalink, advanced IBMS system. 





You forgot Arjun that has everything faulty from turret to engine to optics to gun to tracks to fire control system to name a few

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Umair Nawaz said:


> Pakistan uses self made autoloader...visit AK information pool.



Its still carousel type autoloader.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Ahh innocence
> 
> Saw this coming, Arjun has several issues which i will show you later. As far as AK and T-80ud are concerned, they use different autoloaders, in case of AK, it is a modified all electric unit, unklike the age old T-72 AZ one.
> 
> Lastly, IA has some difficiencies in Tank APFSDS too, the longest shell they use is not more than 520 mm in penetration @ 2000 mm front on, where as, PA has longer penetrators. Example is Naiza1 (550 @ 2000 m, Naiza2 is in service for quite a while but not advertised, 650+ mm @ 2000 m and Sino-Pak Type II and Type M, both have 550, 620-650 mm penetration respectively).
> 
> Unless IA buys new APFSDS rounds or make their own AMK-340 series work better with T-72/ 90 instead of exploding inside the gun barrel, there is plenty to worry for them.



Agreed about the innocence part.
As for ammo,we now make t-90 ammo not just buying it.Newer AP rounds were bought from russia along with second batch of t-90.And indigneously we already produce KE round with 610 mm penetration and are building one with 650-680mm mm penetration.
As for niaza2 it is said to be built for ak2 and its new loader which has not yet been revealed.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Its still carousel type autoloader.



It is modified to carry longer shells, all electric so now much faster reloading. Also, its Carousel can move both ways i.e. bi-directional reducing reloading time to a great extent did you know it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> LOL, prove how it is faulty so we could have an educated discussion. As far as i know, it has a decent composite armour packege approximately 650-700 mm without ERA, a reason why there is no heavy ERA coverage there, Thats why PA has 350+ of them in service with two versions. It has better electronics than your T-90S and M, when MS comes in iIA, it will be on par
> 
> How is it better? Has environment control system, FCS is pretty advanced (French with indeginous HIT made ballistic computer) with auto tracking, 2nd and 3rd gen thermal imagers with hunter killer capability, datalink, advanced IBMS system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot Arjun that has everything faulty from turret to engine to optics to gun to tracks to fire control system to name a few



Wait,need to find that page.



Dazzler said:


> But its Carousel can move both ways i.e. bi-directional reducing reloading time to a great extent did you know it?



But still limits size of rod.Unlike arjun which has enough space for potentially over 1000 mm long penetrator.AK/t-series design is dead end soon.Thats why russians move to armata.Now wait while i get the thread with turret geometry flaw things.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Agreed about the innocence part.
> As for ammo,we now make t-90 ammo not just buying it.Newer AP rounds were bought from russia along with second batch of t-90.And indigneously we already produce KE round with 610 mm penetration and are building one with 650-680mm mm penetration.
> As for niaza2 it is said to be built for ak2 and its new loader which has not yet been revealed.



Those newer rounds with Invar missile (Refleks version) nothing to hide here. PA already operates them along with Kombat from Ukraine. APFSDS rounds are a worrying part for IA. The best round they have is BM-42 Mango with maximum 500-520 mm penetration @ 2000 mm.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Those newer rounds with Invar missile (Refleks version) nothing to hide here. PA already operates them along with Kombat from Ukraine. APFSDS rounds are a worrying part for IA. The best round they have is BM-42 Mango with maximum 500-520 mm penetration @ 2000 mm.



No mango is standard cheap round.Indigeneous DRDO round has 610 mm and under development has 650-680mm round.
With new t-90M from 2009 in all probability new AP lekalo round is used.[650-700 mm]


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Wait,need to find that page.
> 
> 
> 
> But still limits size of rod.Unlike arjun which has enough space for potentially over 1000 mm long penetrator.AK/t-series design is dead end soon.Thats why russians move to armata.Now wait while i get the thread with turret geometry flaw things.




Unless you need a 800 mm penetrator which is unnecessary in the sub-continenet, these autoloaders work just fine. Its your tank ammunition that is the worrying part. And plz dont bring Arjuns mighty rifled cannon as it is already obsolete tech with much slow shell velocity resulting in less penetration of armour.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> No mango is standard cheap round.Indigeneous DRDO round has 610 mm and under development has 650-680mm round.
> With new t-90M from 2009 in all probability new AP lekalo round is used.[650-700 mm]



O bhai, Mango is not indigenous round, its Russian standard export APFSDS, license manufactured in India. And the one i mentioned is AMK-340 which is Indian round which bursted in Ajaya's turret.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

this thread will help you a great deal to have an insight into Al Khalid mbt..

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...nk-type-90-iim-mbt-2000-information-pool.html


----------



## Dazzler

unforttunately, even the best Russian rounds have penetration values between 600-650 mm, Svinets (42M) and Lekalo (44M, though not in Russian service, still trials occurring) 

125MM APFSDS ROUNDS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

At 11:02, see Boron carbide cutting in various sizes...... A hint of possible AK, AZ armour  


It must be remembered that HIT makes a variety of Carbides/ armour composition such as Aluminium carbide, Boron carbide and Silicon carbide to name a few.

Boron and tungsten carbide are used in Burlinton Armour composition, also known as Chobham armour.

Documentary: Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) & Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) - Pakistan Army - YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

apparently we have been usign Boron carbide since 1980s... in our nuclear program in particular

http://www.e-polymers.org/journal/papers/tyasin_170408.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Unless you need a 800 mm penetrator which is unnecessary in the sub-continenet, these autoloaders work just fine. Its your tank ammunition that is the worrying part. And plz dont bring Arjuns mighty rifled cannon as it is already obsolete tech with much slow shell velocity resulting in less penetration of armour.
> 
> 
> 
> O bhai, Mango is not indigenous round, its Russian standard export APFSDS, license manufactured in India. And the one i mentioned is AMK-340 which is Indian round which bursted in Ajaya's turret.



First go to this thread.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-w...tell-me-why-type-99-looks-soooooo-sexy-2.html
Page 2 ,my post post number 19 to get answer on flawed al khalid turret .

Now onto ammo,i'm not talking about mango when i say indigeneous ammo.We have mango and invar as standrad ammo on t-series and t-72 tanks have the OFB produced cartg 125 mm FSAPSDS round that burst once.
The new 125 mm round was developed from OFB mk-2 ,which itself had 500 mm and was developed from IMI israeli round clone.It has around 610 mm.

As for autoloaders,sure they are fine.FOR NOW.In future arjun has space for further development ,others no real growth potential.


----------



## Dazzler

Lad, i already mentioned the round, its Israeli CL-II series with 500 mm penetration, worse than BM-42 Mango. 

The one India manugacturing has had flaws in combustible charge and is being reworked its name is AMK-340










Invar is nothing but a renamed Reflex ATGM

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Lad, i already mentioned the round, its Israeli CL-II series with 500 mm penetration, worse than BM-42 Mango.
> 
> The one India manugacturing has had flaws in combustible charge and is being reworked its name is AMK-340
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invar is nothing but a renamed Reflex ATGM



Man thats the mk-2 round with 500 mm ,the new round had 610 mm.It was developed from this round.Also i think there's a tender ongoing for t-90 ammo currently.

Also i hope u are satisfied with the turret geometry flaws in al khalid argument?


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Man thats the mk-2 round with 500 mm ,the new round had 610 mm.It was developed from this round.
> 
> Also i hope u are satisfied with the turret geometry flaws in al khalid argument?



Again, the round is based on Israeli/ OFB CL-MII series round, has several issues with propellent since the parent company (IMI) was blacklisted for corruption charges, you guys are now in a mess since DRDO cant make the round work and only left bidders are asking a whopping 400 % increased rates for new rounds including Invar/ Refleks missile. 

Sigh!

On arguments, well, ameteur arguments really, less substance no evidence and too much bla bla 

Turret geometry covers 60 deg easily so no problem there, these theoritical arguments mean nothing. 

The user (PA) has tried and tested the thing hundreds of time they had no issues. Morocco, Bangladesh and recently Myanmar also bought MBT 2000s without any issues of turret geometry.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Again, the round is based on Israeli/ OFB CL-MII series round, has several issues with propellent since the parent company (IMI) was blacklisted for corruption charges, you guys are now in a mess since DRDO cant make the round work and only left bidders are asking a whopping 400 % increased rates for new rounds including Invar/ Refleks missile.
> 
> Sigh!
> 
> On arguments, well, ameteur arguments really, less substance no evidence and too much bla bla
> 
> Turret geometry covers 60 deg easily so no problem there, these theoritical arguments mean nothing.
> 
> The user (PA) has tried and tested the thing hundreds of time they had no issues. Morocco, Bangladesh and recently Myanmar also bought MBT 2000s without any issues of turret geometry.



DRDO already HAS produced that round.
AS usual in the end u couldn't resist trolling,chinese tank design philosophy is simply inferior,vulnerable to sloped exposed roof,Vulnerable to slant shots as angle is noobish and frontal arc doesn't cover sides,also ERA coverage is far less dense than t-90 and also has less composite armour than t-90,It was proven with diagrams but as a closet troll u lost the argument and resorted to 'theoritical arguments mean nothing'.LOL.
Have bangladesh,myanmar and and morocco faced enemy tanks in combat?


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> DRDO already HAS produced that round.
> AS usual in the end u couldn't resist trolling,chinese tank design philosophy is simply inferior,vulnerable to sloped exposed roof,Vulnerable to slant shots as angle is noobish and frontal arc doesn't cover sides,also ERA coverage is far less dense than t-90 and also has less composite armour than t-90,It was proven with diagrams but as a closet troll u lost the argument and resorted to 'theoritical arguments mean nothing'.LOL.
> Have bangladesh,myanmar and and morocco faced enemy tanks in combat?



First, that DRDO round i.e. AMK-340 is till NOT in service, cant you just google it if it is in service???

Problems is that you guys live in a dilusional world and cant swallow reality. I kept a polite tone all the way but i cant agree with crappy rhetorical stuff, sorry. 

2. Just because they didnt see tank battle does it make their Armies inferior or unaware of Tank usge in a warfare?? LOL 

Bring something more constructive and educational than we will talk.

Lastly, i will accept Chinese tank philosophy is inferior the day i see AK, Type-99s blwoing up the way T-72s during gulf and other battles around the world, till then, keep waiting

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> First, that DRDO round i.e. AMK-340 is till NOT in service, cant you just google it if it is in service???
> 
> Problems is that you guys live in a dilusional world and cant swallow reality. I kept a polite tone all the way but i cant agree with crappy rhetorical stuff, sorry.
> 
> Bring something more constructive and educational than we will talk.



Calling me delusional?Tell me is niaza 2 in service?Can u give me a single source except rumours of massive pentration of niaza 2?
And as for turret geometry and armour weakness u couldn't accept solid diagrams based on just geometry, no rhetoric,it just proves you were biased all along and had made up your mind and not really interested in open argument.Those diagrams are rock solid,no rhetoric in them..just math.Name what 'rhetoric u see in them?
First u go bring something constructive,then we might talk.I already laid down my argument with solid diagrams...u called it theoritical,bla bla,laughed then ran away calling it rhetoric without being able to point out any flaw in those diagrams.


----------



## Umair Nawaz

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Its still carousel type autoloader.



how do u knw?
R u a member of HIT?

Do u drive this tank?

r u part of its R&D setup?

First learn then comment.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Calling me delusional?Tell me is niaza 2 in service?Can u give me a single source except rumours of massive pentration of niaza 2?
> And as for turret geometry and armour weakness u couldn't accept solid diagrams based on just geometry, no rhetoric,it just proves you were biased all along and had made up your mind and not really interested in open argument.Those diagrams are rock solid,no rhetoric in them..just math.Name what 'rhetoric u see in them?
> First u go bring something constructive,then we might talk.I already laid down my argument with solid diagrams...u called it theoritical,bla bla,laughed then ran away calling it rhetoric without being able to point out any flaw in those diagrams.



Naiza 2 is already in service kiddo, for a few years, data is NOT available but sources say it is 650+ at 2000, could be more.

I am open to argument but you have too, seems like you are offended on something. 

The fact is, Indian Army is at the moment at a disadvantage in tank warfare for several reasons, no suitable APFSDS, substandard rounds exploding, Arjun has its own problems. Till these are rectified, things will remain the same. 

AMK 340







Specifications 

Weights: projectile with sabot and propellant charge : 19.3 kg
Muzzle velocity:1600m/s
Chamber Pressure :520 MPa

include more to this...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Naiza 2 is already in service kiddo, for a few years, data is NOT available but sources say it is 650+ at 2000, could be more.
> 
> I am open to argument but you have too, seems like you are offended on something.
> 
> The fact is, Indian Army is at the moment at a disadvantage in tank warfare for several reasons, no suitable APFSDS, substandard rounds exploding, Arjun has its own problems. Till these are rectified, things will remain the same.



As usual you are congratulating urself.
I am saying the OFB new round is now developed,ur saying based on old news its blown up.Ur saying niaza 2 is in service,i'm saying far from so ..and that its for al khalid 2..also doubt whether it would fit on existing loader.[probably reason why ak-2 is said to have new loader].None of us can give any solid official statement or pics as sources that depict their penetration.
It becomes ur word vs mine.

As for indian army disadvantage,lol.I just showed to you ur entire tank fleet has poor turret geometry inherited from chinese design.In a tank to tank battle while khalid would match t-90 in mobility and firepower it would be outmatched in armour due to its several weaknesses in this area.



Umair Nawaz said:


> how do u knw?
> R u a member of HIT?
> 
> Do u drive this tank?
> 
> r u part of its R&D setup?
> 
> First learn then comment.



Al khalid turret doesn't have enough space for western bustle type loader and also because we have seen pics of interior of khalid.All t-series and chinese mbts including mbt-2000 which is base of al khalid have carousel autoloader.
You need to find out about ur own tank some more before making premature comments,do u even know what is difference between carousel and bustle loader?


----------



## Dazzler

AK autoloader is deeply modified, here is your evidence, its very much a different version now, regarding Naiza-2, my source is not available on internet so you are free to believe or reject. You give me a source for AMK-340 mk-II?

AK has 1200 HP engine, SESM 500 auto transmission with Multiple Reverse speed transmission t-90 has 1000 hp engine and manual transmission, It has Boron based multi layered composite armour as per sources i shared, good luck in defeating it with current APFSDS or HEAT rounds. 

Turret armour is 650-700 without ERA, thats more than T-90 which has around580 mm at best without ERA.

For your turret geometry rhetoric, it is only important at relatively close ranges when you can SEE the damn thing. You arm chair generals have no clue of the battle field

GOSH!

Solid State Autoloader

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> AK autoloader is deeply modified, here is your evidence, its very much a different version now, regarding Naiza-2, my source is not available on internet so you are free to believe or reject. You give me a source for AMK-340 mk-II?
> 
> AK has 1200 HP engine, SESM 500 auto transmission with Multiple Reverse speed transmission t-90 has 1000 hp engine and manual transmission, It has Boron based composite as per sources i shared, good luck in defeating it with current APFSDS or HEAT rounds.
> 
> Turret armour is 650-700 without ERA, thats more than T-90 which has around580 mm at best without ERA.
> 
> Solid State Autoloader



link is not working.Post the pics and article.And i hope its not mere prototype but standrad new operational version as u say.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> link is not working.Post the pics and article.And i hope its not mere prototype but standrad new operational version as u say.



here you go... and its operational on AK and AK-1 both 


Modern warfare demands installation of robust control systems in main battle tank to enhance firepower and maneuverability. CARE has developed Solid State Autoloader for Pakistan Army main battle tank MBT Al-Khalid, replacing the Chinese Autoloader. The auto-loading mechanism consists of two subsections, the Motorized Mechanical Subsystem consisting of carousel magazine, hoister mechanism, ejection frame and window assemblies etc. Driven by several high power motors and solenoids along with mechanical proximity switches. The other part is the electric control subsystem, responsible for coordinated control of various operations carried out by the mechanical subsystem. 

The solid state Autoloader developed by CARE has eliminated the need for relay and utilizes the latest solid-state electronic devices to provide the control functionalities hence leading to most reliable system. 

Completely solid-state design with NO RELAYS

Design based on programmable logic, processor and FPGAs

100% compatible with Tank's existing mechanical design / mounting as well as the wiring harness and connectors

*Bi-directional carousal motion leading to substantial reduction in the maximum loading time for the farthest ammo*

Simultaneous display of the number of each ammo type (i.e. HE/HA/AP) present in carousel magazine along with the number of empty trays

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> AK autoloader is deeply modified, here is your evidence, its very much a different version now, regarding Naiza-2, my source is not available on internet so you are free to believe or reject. You give me a source for AMK-340 mk-II?
> 
> AK has 1200 HP engine, SESM 500 auto transmission with Multiple Reverse speed transmission t-90 has 1000 hp engine and manual transmission, It has Boron based multi layered composite armour as per sources i shared, good luck in defeating it with current APFSDS or HEAT rounds.
> 
> Turret armour is 650-700 without ERA, thats more than T-90 which has around580 mm at best without ERA.
> 
> For your turret geometry rhetoric, it is only important at relatively close ranges when you can SEE the damn thing. You arm chair generals have no clue of the battle field
> 
> GOSH!
> 
> Solid State Autoloader



FOR T-90 armour just plain rubbish.Don't know where u got ur value,Your probably quoting old cast armour value which was just upgraded t-72 from early 90s.Not welded armour value which gives 30-50% over cast armour value.t-90 armour without ERA is 750 mm .Add heavy ERA.
You have no idea as usual,there is no guarantee that in long range fights shots will come straight.They my come at any angle as both are moving or can come face to face at any angle,and with your exposed sloped roof,two sides and incomplete frontal ERA coverage far more vulnerable than t-90.Also if u compared diagrams the quantity of composite armour in chinesae design mbts is less than t-90 which packs all of its composite armour in solid arc.



Dazzler said:


> here you go... and its operational on AK and AK-1 both
> 
> 
> Modern warfare demands installation of robust control systems in main battle tank to enhance firepower and maneuverability. CARE has developed Solid State Autoloader for Pakistan Army main battle tank MBT Al-Khalid, replacing the Chinese Autoloader. The auto-loading mechanism consists of two subsections, the Motorized Mechanical Subsystem consisting of carousel magazine, hoister mechanism, ejection frame and window assemblies etc. Driven by several high power motors and solenoids along with mechanical proximity switches. The other part is the electric control subsystem, responsible for coordinated control of various operations carried out by the mechanical subsystem.
> 
> The solid state Autoloader developed by CARE has eliminated the need for relay and utilizes the latest solid-state electronic devices to provide the control functionalities hence leading to most reliable system.
> 
> Completely solid-state design with NO RELAYS
> 
> Design based on programmable logic, processor and FPGAs
> 
> 100% compatible with Tank's existing mechanical design / mounting as well as the wiring harness and connectors
> 
> *Bi-directional carousal motion leading to substantial reduction in the maximum loading time for the farthest ammo*
> 
> Simultaneous display of the number of each ammo type (i.e. HE/HA/AP) present in carousel magazine along with the number of empty trays



I din't get anything on new operational round or penetration here.Just a pak designed autoloader replacing chinese one that reduces loading time and is supposedly more reliable.Didn't even mention niaza 2 or anything.Its still carousel and can only hold limited length penetrator eventually.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> FOR T-90 armour just plain rubbish.Don't know where u got ur value,Your probably quoting old cast armour value which was just upgraded t-72 from early 90s.Not welded armour value which gives 30-50% over cast armour value.t-90 armour without ERA is 750 mm .Add heavy ERA.
> You have no idea as usual,there is no guarantee that in long range fights shots will come straight.They my come at any angle as both are moving or can come face to face at any angle,and with your exposed sloped roof,two sides and incomplete frontal ERA coverage far more vulnerable than t-90.Also if u compared diagrams the quantity of composite armour in chinesae design mbts is less than t-90 which packs all of its composite armour in solid arc.



LOL 

little correction, Cast or welded are turrets, not armour  Both tanks have welded turrets

I am talking about the composite armour stored within cavities inside the turret at the front, sides sometimes as in Western tanks ala Leo, M1.

AK has thick dense composite armour with multiple layers, making AP penetration more difficult. Can you share T-90s composite armour? ERA here is not included.

ERA is added as an additional armour layer or last ditch effort. If you are willing to listen, Turret angle is ONLY advantageous when you can see your enemy, not when enemy is 2 kms away from you, it makes a BG difference lad. Thats why they made sophisticated FCS and Night visions to kill it before it kills you, way before 

T-90 turret amour...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

As per Fofanov...


*Side turret ranges from 40-60cm thick near front thinning to ~ 15-20cm around back. This is probably half and half cast/STEF thus the KE armor is 0.66 while the HEAT armor is 0.77. The effective KE armor ranges from 40cm narrowing quickly to 26cm and 10-13cm around back. The HEAT armor ranges from 46-31cm near the front down to 15-12cm Around back. In the side and rear turret are mounted external storage boxes ~50cm thick that will offer a modicum of spaced armor, this may amount to an additonal ~13-15cm HEAT armor. Additionally K-5 is mounted around the front side of the turret.

The side hull is 6cm thick rolled steel but the lower side hull around the wheels is probably only 2cm thick; side skirts add 25 mm thick reinforced rubber [with steel?] plate plus 60cm airgap increasing the HEAT armor by about 15-17cm against 2nd gen and 26-28cm against 1st gen warheads. 

This rubber skirting is unlikely to add more than 1cm to the KE side armor, due to deflection. The fuel tanks along the sponsons should add 65cm x 0.1 KE and 0.3 HEAT or an additional 6-7cm KE and ~ 20cm HEAT armor. Over the front half of the side hull Kontakt-5 is mounted which probably adds ~30cm HEAT and at least 5 cm KE resistance.

The rear armor is unlikely to be more than 4cm but fuel tanks mounted there could offer 0.1 to 0.15 Te resistance to APFSDS and 0.34 resistance to HEAT. The HEAT armor would range from 3-4cm to as much as 18cm additional HEAT armor.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> FOR T-90 armour just plain rubbish.Don't know where u got ur value,Your probably quoting old cast armour value which was just upgraded t-72 from early 90s.Not welded armour value which gives 30-50% over cast armour value.t-90 armour without ERA is 750 mm .Add heavy ERA.
> You have no idea as usual,there is no guarantee that in long range fights shots will come straight.They my come at any angle as both are moving or can come face to face at any angle,and with your exposed sloped roof,two sides and incomplete frontal ERA coverage far more vulnerable than t-90.Also if u compared diagrams the quantity of composite armour in chinesae design mbts is less than t-90 which packs all of its composite armour in solid arc.
> 
> 
> 
> I din't get anything on new operational round or penetration here.Just a pak designed autoloader replacing chinese one that reduces loading time and is supposedly more reliable.Didn't even mention niaza 2 or anything.Its still carousel and can only hold limited length penetrator eventually.



in simple words, the carousel is made in HIT with increased width that fits the tank hull (700 mm) to make it work, they needed weight reduction so electric system was seeked. This combination provides dual advantage

1. longer rounds can be loaded in a smooth hassle free way, no more limb chopping or relay switching and

2. ginner has the ease of a faster, more digitized autoloader that can be operated with ease of maintenance

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

notice the round below with enhance penetration and longer lod...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

Layered composite armour not penetrated by APFSDS 125 mm shell...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

T-80ud composite armour is truely a mystery for me till today :O .....


A wellknown member has this to say about it...



> *Whey, T-80U armour structure is as I describe here, but T-80UD armour structure in new welded turret is diffrent -mucht more modern. Ukrainian guys don't even want to hear and talk about thos armour... More or less I know only that newest armour fot T-80UD consist:
> a) external cast steel turret and welded cavities in younger then 1994 tanks
> b) some kind of NERA
> c) eacht side (left and right) T-80UD turret consist some kind of the 3 modules place one next to the other- eacht build from tree layers propably RHA + ceramis + HHS plate. Those modules are separated by thin RHA plate
> d) afther that we have ceramisc again
> e) thick (80mm?) HHS plate whit hight HB
> f) and cast turret backplate, or backplate formed by welded cavity.
> 
> I have no idea if this descripsion is prooper or this is disinformation.*
Click to expand...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> LOL
> 
> little correction, Cast or welded are turrets, not armour  Both tanks have welded turrets
> 
> I am talking about the composite armour stored within cavities inside the turret at the front, sides sometimes as in Western tanks ala Leo, M1.
> 
> AK has thick dense composite armour with multiple layers, making AP penetration more difficult. Can you share T-90s composite armour? ERA here is not included.
> 
> ERA is added as an additional armour layer or last ditch effort. If you are willing to listen, Turret angle is ONLY advantageous when you can see your enemy, not when enemy is 2 kms away from you, it makes a BG difference lad. Thats why they made sophisticated FCS and Night visions to kill it before it kills you, way before
> 
> T-90 turret amour...



THIS IS THE OLD T-72B turret with much low amount of composites,old t-80 of soviet army had composites than this,the t-90 india uses has redesigned welded turret man.At least know what ur talking about.Fofanov's analysis is also of the t-72bm old turret one.
The welded armour has much more composites,infact in indian t-90 compoiste armour used is kanchan and also welded armour has 30-50% greater armour value rating.This drawing is of 1980s t-72b turret ,not current t-90.
Modern t-90 has frontal armour around 700-900mm.750 mm is around general,though armour thickness will depend somewhat on the angle and place of impact.To that ERA.
As for quantity of composite armour-




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Compare the 2 turrets ,the one on the right is chinese type turret,which despite size has very less composite armour[the black shaded area] and spread out,while t-90 turret concentrates all its composite armout in front and has much more.

As for the pic depicting vulnerable area in the underneath of hull,same applies to khalid as well,the sloping underbelly of hull is vulnerable for both.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> notice the round below with enhance penetration and longer lod...



I don't see much enhanced penetration or long rod here,seems like the same class short stubby monoblock round.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
This is a long penetrator round,the one u depicted is similar to the short one in this pic on the extreme left ,partially visisble.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> THIS IS THE OLD T-72B turret with much low amount of composites,old t-80 of soviet army had composites than this,the t-90 india uses has redesigned welded turret man.At least know what ur talking about.Fofanov's analysis is also of the t-72bm old turret one.
> The welded armour has much more composites,infact in indian t-90 compoiste armour used is kanchan and also welded armour has 30-50% greater armour value rating.This drawing is of 1980s t-72b turret ,not current t-90.
> Modern t-90 has frontal armour around 700-900mm.750 mm is around general,though armour thickness will depend somewhat on the angle and place of impact.To that ERA.
> As for quantity of composite armour-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> Compare the 2 turrets ,the one on the right is chinese type turret,which despite size has very less composite armour[the black shaded area] and spread out,while t-90 turret concentrates all its composite armout in front and has much more.
> 
> As for the pic depicting vulnerable area in the underneath of hull,same applies to khalid as well,the sloping underbelly of hull is vulnerable for both.



i am not talking about chinese turret, rather al khalid turret, shown you pics of tests above, can you show me some of T-90S's? 

Notice the armour coverage area in above T-90S with red and green, it is the IA version. Some modification must have taken place since then no argument in it. T-90 does not have 900 mm thickness, it never had and never will. 

Please think of the consequences of such thickness on the vehicle, its movement, power to weight ratio, mobility and poor crew? Think before boasting nonsense.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> I don't see much enhanced penetration or long rod here,seems like the same class short stubby monoblock round.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> This is a long penetrator round,the one u depicted is similar to the short one in this pic on the extreme left ,partially visisble.



thats because you do not know that a APFSDS round can be improved in multiple ways, such as weight reduction, improved metallurgy for penetrator etc. despite keeping similar dimensions. Polish did it with their Pronits, we did it too. Penetration can be increased as much as by 20-30%

Al khalid has multiple kevlar sheets and anti spall blankets throughout the vehicle, floor armour is 12-15 cm thick.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> in simple words, the carousel is made in HIT with increased width that fits the tank hull (700 mm) to make it work, they needed weight reduction so electric system was seeked. This combination provides dual advantage
> 
> 1. longer rounds can be loaded in a smooth hassle free way, no more limb chopping or relay switching and
> 
> 2. ginner has the ease of a faster, more digitized autoloader that can be operated with ease of maintenance



It is already known that Pakistan uses indigeneous autoloader for al khalid for quite some time now,yet so far u have given no proof or link of this niaza 2 that is operational and its great armour penetration.U posted the pic of an old stubby short penetratorround and tried to pas it off as 'enhanced penetrator' round.Just compare the type of round u posted to a real enhanced penetrator round i posted.Anyone can see what u posted is no new round with much increased penetration,its mango type round.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> It is already known that Pakistan uses indigeneous autoloader for al khalid for quite some time now,yet so far u have given no proof or link of this niaza 2 that is operational and its great armour penetration.U posted the pic of an old stubby short penetratorround and tried to pas it off as 'enhanced penetrator' round.Just compare the type of round u posted to a real enhanced penetrator round i posted.Anyone can see what u posted is no new round with much increased penetration,its mango type round.



so it comes down to this, you cant argue so deny my sources  Good job!

official link is not reliable for you and where is your mighty AMK-340 improved link?? 


for your info, AK has been tested with T-80ud during trials multiple times, speaks something about the vehicle. BUT, its of no use arguing with ignorant. 

The armour penetration pic above, is from a 125 mm APFSDS shell fired from Type-85III 

naiza 1... 550mm @ 5km







Type-IIM improved with longer tungsten rod @ 620-650 mm @ 2 km

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DilHaiHindushtani

Dazzler said:


> i am not talking about chinese turret, rather al khalid turret, shown you pics of tests above, can you show me some of T-90S's?
> 
> Notice the armour coverage area in above T-90S with red and green, it is the IA version. Some modification must have taken place since then no argument in it. T-90 does not have 900 mm thickness, it never had and never will.
> 
> Please think of the consequences of such thickness on the vehicle, its movement, power to weight ratio, mobility and *poor crew? Think before boasting nonsense.
> *
> 
> 
> thats because you do not know that a APFSDS round can be improved in multiple ways, such as weight reduction, improved metallurgy for penetrator etc. despite keeping similar dimensions. Polish did it with their Pronits, we did it too. Penetration can be increased as much as by 20-30%
> 
> Al khalid has multiple kevlar sheets and anti spall blankets throughout the vehicle, floor armour is 12-15 cm thick.




always want to see dreams and like to live in dreams.. who told you pak crews are best in the world and indian crews are poor.

just wake up and see reality.. That's all


----------



## Dazzler

Type-IIM ...




















DilHaiHindushtani said:


> always want to see dreams and like to live in dreams.. who told you pak crews are best in the world and indian crews are poor.
> 
> just wake up and see reality.. That's all




link to the improved AMK340 plzz

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

regarding kevlar and anti spall protection 



> In development, the Al-Khalid was powered by an MTU-396 diesel engine with a German LSG-3000 transmission. Germany placed an embargo on these items in the mid-1990s due to their stance on development of indigenous nuclear weapons, and this led to the Pakistanis fitting the Al-Khalid with a license-produced Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 1200-horsepower engine and a French SESM ESM-500 fully-automatic transmission. This engine had the virtue of being smaller than the German engine, yet provided the same 1200 horsepower. The Al-Khalid can carry auxiliary fuel tanks at the rear a la Russian/Chinese tanks, though in practice they are little used except in long road marches.
> 
> Armor protection is modular, allowing for quick battle damage repairs and improvement as more advanced armor becomes available or heavier armor is desired. Frontal armor is composite and of Pakistani design, with side armor being spaced; it is of a more modern design than that on the Al-Zarrar and lighter in weight. The turret front, turret sides, glacis, and hull sides have lugs for ERA. Attention was paid to land mine damage in the form of thickened floor armor. The ammunition is carried in armored bins, and virtually the entire vehicle has thick Kevlar anti-spalling blankets.
> 
> The engine also has a thick bulkhead separating it from the crew compartment. An automatic explosion and fire suppression system is provided, and the crew has an NBC overpressure system; the engine compartment and ammunition bins have their own systems of the same sort. The Al-Khalid has a laser detection system that can automatically trigger smoke grenades to block the laser, and a radar warning system that can give the crew a chance to take evasive action.



one more


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> i am not talking about chinese turret, rather al khalid turret, shown you pics of tests above, can you show me some of T-90S's?
> 
> *T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99
> On tests,remember thsi was t-90 1999 original welded turret.
> Indian t-90m is modified with different turret,kanchan composites,much heavier weight due to more armour.
> Al khalid's armour design is based on chinese inferior armourphilosophy and uses mbt 2000 as base,that analysis makes comparison between type 99 and t-90 composite armour distribution,now if u think PLA let pak use superior al khalid while itself chossing in type-99 then thats for u to believe.Al khalid turret in all probability provides inferior protection than type-99.*
> Notice the armour coverage area in above T-90S with red and green, it is the IA version. Some modification must have taken place since then no argument in it. T-90 does not have 900 mm thickness, it never had and never will.
> 
> *The red areas[downside of hull] are equally vulnerable in al khalid and just about any tank so its a moot point.As i said 700-900mm.In tanknet argument they generally agreed on around 750 mm without ERA in general for t-90 and 1000mm+ for abrams.
> The 900 mm is only for the instance where shell hits at an angle where it has to travel maximum distance through composite armour.So yeah its not realistic.*
> 
> Please think of the consequences of such thickness on the vehicle, its movement, power to weight ratio, mobility and poor crew? Think before boasting nonsense.
> 
> *I am boasting nothing,the t-72B weighed around 42tonnes.The indian t-90m bhisma weighs 50 tonnes,where do u think that weight went to?Armour.Mobility is still excellent,as proven by its excellent performance in mobility trials in malaysian jungles where it outperformed all competitors.
> As for power to weight ratio indian t-90 has upgraded engines for better PW ratio than base t-90.Also french electronics and as for crew comfort it has air conditioner.So we do think about our poor crew.*
> 
> thats because you do not know that a APFSDS round can be improved in multiple ways, such as weight reduction, improved metallurgy for penetrator etc. despite keeping similar dimensions. Polish did it with their Pronits, we did it too. Penetration can be increased as much as by 20-30%
> 
> Al khalid has multiple kevlar sheets and anti spall blankets throughout the vehicle, floor armour is 12-15 cm thick.



And what u think other modern MBts don't have kevlar shets and anti spall layers.Plz.
As for round,it is still a short stubby monoblock round that u posted and that type of round is not a long rod penetartor with 'enhanced protection' no matter how much u want to sell it.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> And what u think other modern MBts don't have kevlar shets and anti spall layers.Plz.
> As for round,it is still a short stubby monoblock round that u posted and that type of round is not a long rod penetartor with 'enhanced protection' no matter how much u want to sell it.



just show me the revolutionary AMK340 improved and T-90S turret armour test pics thats it 


Do you even know what is called a long rod penetrator?? 

Every round that has an APFSDS-T is classified as a long rod, its only a matter of what its maker calls it. For Russians, Mango and Svinets and Lekalo are long rods, for Yanks, 823-A2 and 3 are long rods and for Chinese, Type-IIs are long rods. 

Gosh !

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> regarding kevlar and anti spall protection
> 
> 
> 
> one more



You own pic says clearly max chinese penetrators have rod length around 560-580 mm.Also i doubt PA would have access to latest chinese round might even if they do,thats nothing awe inspiring.The rest of the pic states how lengthy projectiles can be fitted,not current length of operational APFSDS rounds.

Now onto armoured bins,even arjun/t-90 has that.Armoured bins,while a limited development on the previous horrible situation with soviet and chiense style mbts where ammo used to lie on the floor are not the same as seperate ammo compartment which abrams has.Even leopard doesn't have totally seperate ammo compartment like abrams.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> You own pic says clearly max chinese penetrators have rod length around 560-580 mm.Also i doubt PA would have access to latest chinese round might even if they do,thats nothing awe inspiring.The rest of the pic states how lengthy projectiles can be fitted,not current length of operational APFSDS rounds.
> 
> Now onto armoured bins,even arjun/t-90 has that.Armoured bins,while a limited development on the previous horrible situation with soviet and chiense style mbts where ammo used to lie on the floor are not the same as seperate ammo compartment which abrams has.Even leopard doesn't have totally seperate ammo compartment like abrams.



oh man you are so..... i will get back to you soon

on a side note: 580 mm rod (length of rod alone) can penetrate 600-630 mm armour easily if traveling at 1700 m/s or more.

I didnt say anything about armour bins though they are improved in most mbts incuding Russkies. Ammo is less likely to catch fire than it used to before. Only M-1 has a truely seperate ammo compartment. Rest has a mix of both. 

Agreed. 

Still waiting for those pics

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> just show me the revolutionary AMK340 improved and T-90S turret armour test pics thats it
> 
> 
> Do you even know what is called a long rod penetrator??
> 
> Every round that has an APFSDS-T is classified as a long rod, its only a matter of what its maker calls it. For Russians, Mango and Svinets and Lekalo are long rods, for Yanks, 823-A2 and 3 are long rods and for Chinese, Type-IIs are long rods.
> 
> Gosh !



Yes different countries have different standards i was talking along western standards for long rod.
As for ur upgraded niaza 2 that is operational vs my new DRDO round,it has come down to your word vs mine.U posted fake pic of short stubby upgraded 'enhanced pentrator' as supposed.Also there was no statement on its armour penetration or more importantly on whether its operational.
T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99
Here results of trials of t-90s armour.Scroll down page,t-90 pic shows areas where it was hit but not penetrated.Stood up against everything from kornet to rpg-29 pretty well.And this wasn't even the turret we use in bhisma.
As for indian tests on basis of which we chose t-90.
'' Semi-active baffle plates and ceramic layers with high tensile proprieties are employed in T-90 base Armour. Even more advanced Armour composition was implemented in the welded turrets of domestic T-90 and on export T-90 Bhishma for India. In several tests conducted in front of Indian delegation using latest foreign ammunitions (APFSDS) of the M829A2/KEW-A2 type conducted from 250 meters against T-90S devoid of the normal built-in explosive reactive armor (ERA) Kontakt-5 (K-5) resulted in the turret being completely impenetrable. This absolute resiliency to enemy fire resulted at the end, as one of the most crucial selling point for T-90 Bhishma MBT to India''


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> oh man you are so..... i will get back to you soon
> 
> on a side note: 580 mm rod (length of rod alone) can penetrate 600-630 mm armour easily if traveling at 1700 m/s or more.
> 
> I didnt say anything about armour bins though they are improved in most mbts incuding Russkies. Ammo is less likely to catch fire than it used to before. Only M-1 has a truely seperate ammo compartment. Rest has a mix of both.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Still waiting for those pics



Btw i am still waiting for the operational NIaza 2 round pic on your tank,with your penetration value.Not the fake pic u posted.That won't have anything more than 450-550 mm.
On armour bins agreed.
As for 600-630 mm yes thats quite possible for latest chinese rounds,its nothing really out of the world.The earlier pic u posted on the three chinese apfsds rounds,one on the right can have that value true.But i doubt standard PA tanks use the same round as the latest chinese round on the type-99.
The truth it seems to me is that no side in question here has any rounds like DM63/M29A3 [with near 900-1000mm penetration] that can penetrate frontal armour of these tanks which when covered with ERA/composite armour blocks.Key will be tactics,flanking and hitting weak spots as weak spots and flanks can be concievably penetrated by even standard niaza 1,mango 500-550 mm rounds.


----------



## Dazzler

I showed out the official brochure pic and really life rounds. The tests you are talking about are of Russian t80u ans t90 a viladmir. Get a life man your is t90s. An export version nothing more. And by the way, the test was to test k-5 armour on the two not the composite armour. 

Read differences between the two first then proceed.

Regarding naiza 2. I didn't show any pic of it. Your are getting a bit naughty now. Quoting me wrongly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

ThE truth is IA is at a disdvantage till they address their ammunition problems particularly. Afsds rounds. Their tank fleet is vulnerable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> I showed out the official brochure pic and really life rounds. The tests you are talking about are of Russian t80u ans t90 a viladmir. Get a life man your is t90s. An export version nothing more. And by the way, the test was to test k-5 armour on the two not the composite armour.
> 
> Read differences between the two first then proceed.
> 
> Regarding naiza 2. I didn't show any pic of it. Your are getting a bit naughty now. Quoting me wrongly.



The test is from 1999 man,.Read the date first.T-90 vladimir didn't even exist then.That test was between basic welded turret t-90 and t-80,and the test if u read carefully was done both with EAR and without ERA.
The second test that i posted was of indian t-90 version with upgraded armour that withstood KE rounds easily .Which was main selling point of the deal.If u read correctly,that t-90s on indian and russian ones are far better than other ones.Also idnian t-90 is not t-90s basic.Its modified t-90 s/m bhisma.You will see it is classified as different from t-90s basic export version.
The ones we are making now are t-90m bhismas with kanchan composite armour.

As for the round u showed it was a short stubby monoblock round,and even ofb mk-2 is equivalent or longer than that.You won't fool anyone with that fake pic as a 'enhanced penetartor'.It neither showed name as niaza-2 nor specified armour penetartion.I already showed what length would be compared to lekalo round which has rumoured 650-700mm penetration,near similar to what ur claiming with that tiny stubby round.Be realistic friend.



Dazzler said:


> ThE truth is IA is at a disdvantage till they address their ammunition problems particularly. Afsds rounds. Their tank fleet is vulnerable.



Congratulate yourself on ur 'dream reality' i guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Read history of t-90 you will know the difference. I am truely bored now. But here is ur reply, the test was for Russian army induction and to test the era protection. T-90s was only for export. Live on in ur dreams.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

well its true IA at the moment has no round in service with penetration more than 520-530mm

Pakistan on the other hand if we take the example of Usman ansari in 2004.had a 620mm APFSDS in testing in pof

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

> On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.
> 
> T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.
> 
> One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.
> 
> The following weapons were used:
> 
> Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
> RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
> RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
> RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
> ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
> Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
> Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
> Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
> Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
> APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)
> Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.
> The trials yielded the following outcome:
> 
> ATGLs
> T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
> No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
> T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
> Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
> ATGMs
> T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
> T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
> No other ATGMs could penetrate.
> APFSDS
> T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
> Without ERA, one round penetrated.
> T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.
> The following pictures show the locations of impacts by ATGL RPG-29 (in red) and ATGM Kornet (in black) against ERA-equipped vehicles. Which of these hits penetrated was not disclosed.










T-90A vladmir with SHTORA, show me any T-90S with this system






T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DilHaiHindushtani

I would like to know from all pakistani friends...

Why u always want to compare with India? 

My Simple Ans :- both have very different motive now we are looking china not pak, but *some people want self sanitisation like indian poorly trained and we are great. * jaise hum west se compare karte waqt jab haarne lagte ho to bolte hai, " we are great because hamari sanskriti, history aur log mahan hai." waisa hi kuch bhai app longo ka hai


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> T-90A vladmir with SHTORA, show me any T-90S with this system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Not t-90 vladimir u fool,in 1999 vladimir didn't exist.Its basic welded turret t-90a with shtora.In case u didn't know shtora can be fitted with any t-90 model,doesn't make that model a vladimir.
Vladimir came into being in 2009.This is ur knowledge on t-90.And ur asking me to look up t-90 history?

T-90 history is not a single one was lost in second chechnya ,survived seven rpg hits without any effect on one occasion.Unlike another certain russian tank.



farhan_9909 said:


> well its true IA at the moment has no round in service with penetration more than 520-530mm
> 
> Pakistan on the other hand if we take the example of Usman ansari in 2004.had a 620mm APFSDS in testing in pof



In testing even we have new round ,610mm one 125 mm.And 650-680 mm under development for arjun mk2.For standard operational rounds both sides have about 500-550 mm penetration rounds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Not t-90 vladimir u fool,in 1999 vladimir didn't exist.Its basic welded turret t-90a with shtora.In case u didn't know shtora can be fitted with any t-90 model,doesn't make that model a vladimir.
> Vladimir came into being in 2009.This is ur knowledge on t-90.And ur asking me to look up t-90 history?



Vladmir was introduced in 99 genius which by the way is much superior to your export version T-90S...... and the pic he posted... which you called t-72 chasis etc is a indian t-90s bhisma... as for ur so called AMK 340 ... do you know how big screw up it was?indian army had to destroy 150 million $ worth ammo... *thts 7 bln indian rs*..? and here you are claiming about mk-2 without any proof?also on indian t-90s there is no APS... forget shotra..



> T-90 history is not a single one was lost in second chechnya ,survived seven rpg hits without any effect on one occasion.Unlike another certain russian tank.



which at tht time was considered superior to t-90..and ukrainians further evolved it..




> In testing even we have new round ,610mm one 125 mm.And 650-680 mm under development for arjun mk2.For standard operational rounds both sides have about 500-550 mm penetration rounds.



Forget the guy... didnt i also post a source abt Naiza II with a penetration power of over 650mm? also the Tungston round @Dazzler posted had same or more penetration power... hell its older version had a penetration power of 550-560+..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Vladmir was introduced in 99 genius which by the way is much superior to your export version T-90S...... and the pic he posted... which you called t-72 chasis etc is a indian t-90s bhisma... as for ur so called AMK 340 ... do you know how big screw up it was?indian army had to destroy 150 million $ worth ammo... thts 6 bln indian rs..? and here you are claiming about mk-2 without any proof?also on indian t-90s there is no APS... forget shotra..
> 
> 
> 
> which at tht time was considered superior to t-90..and ukrainians further evolved it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the guy... didnt i also post a source abt Naiza II with a penetration power of over 650mm? also the Tungston round @Dazzler posted had same or more penetration power... hell its older version had a penetration power of 550-560+..



In russian service yes even t-90a model is called vladimir.
And later t-90m model is also called vladimir.
Only t-90ms is tagil.So confusion on my part.Accepted.
The t-90 model that took part in these trials were basic t-90A with welded turret and shtora fitted.These are same tanks that were fited minus shtora to india for first batch 310.

The indian t-90s is not the usual export model genius.Indian t-90s bhisma is different model to basic t-90s model with modified armour.This is the version that stood trials in idnia and performed excellently against KE penetrators that led to orders for 347 more and license production of 1000.
The ones rolling out of our factories t-90m bhisma use kanchan composites.

What i said t-72 chassis IS t-72b ,which was renamed as earliest versions of t-90.It has 1980s cast turret.
First indian 310 batch Indian t-90s have new welded turret that withstood these trials in 1999.Welded turret has 30-50% greater defense rating and way more composites.
The second batch of 347 and indigeneous manufacture t-90m bhismas are further modified in turrets and also use kanchan for the locally manufactured ones.This is why there is significant weight difference between t-72b/t-90cast turret and latest t-90m bhisma of around 8 tonnes which mostly went to armour and modified turret.
As for APS yes they don't carry shtora which disappointed in trails.LEDS-150 was selected and is being procured.

2.WAS.During cast turret era when t-72 was low end mbt and t-80 high end.After war russian army decided no more of it.They switched to t-90.And results of trials even with earlier version of t-90 proves t-90 has better armour.Sure ukraine upgarded it,as if t-90 was not upgraded.No one is standing still.

3.You people have blabbered on long enough about niaza 2 'enhanced penetrator' which is supposedly operational.All i got was a fake pic of short stubby monoblock round similar to mango.The only thing i have heard of about niaza 2 is its round under development for AK-2.Far from operational.For development even our new 125 mm round and new arjun round with 650-680 mm is under development for mk2.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

AUSTERLITZ said:


> The t-90 model that took part in these trials were basic t-90A with welded turret and shtora fitted.These are same tanks that were fited minus shtora to india for first batch 310.



Again something @Dazzler pointed out.. T-90S is not T-90A/Vladmir... T-90S is an earlier export version... 



> The indian t-90s is not the usual export model genius.Indian t-90s bhisma is different model to basic t-90s model with modified armour.This is the version that stood trials in idnia and performed excellently against KE penetrators that led to orders for 347 more and license production of 1000.
> The ones rolling out of our factories t-90m bhisma use kanchan composites.



India didnt order t-90m... only t-90s... probably "modified" because of the issues it faced in dessert conditions... 



> What i said t-72 chassis IS t-72b ,which was renamed as earliest versions of t-90.It has 1980s cast turret.
> First indian 310 batch Indian t-90s have new welded turret that withstood these trials in 1999.Welded turret has 30-50% greater defense rating and way more composites.
> The second batch of 347 and indigeneous manufacture t-90m bhismas are further modified in turrets and also use kanchan for the locally manufactured ones.This is why there is significant weight difference between t-72b/t-90cast turret and latest t-90m bhisma of around 8 tonnes which mostly went to armour and modified turret.



Dazzler has pretty much summed up everything..



> As for APS yes they don't carry shtora which disappointed in trails.LEDS-150 was selected and is being procured.



Been hearing tht since 2009... and the sources are blogs... yet after 4 years... nothing...



> 2.WAS.During cast turret era when t-72 was low end mbt and t-80 high end.After war russian army decided no more of it.They switched to t-90.And results of trials even with earlier version of t-90 proves t-90 has better armour.Sure ukraine upgarded it,as if t-90 was not upgraded.No one is standing still.



Not really... the basic t-90 n t-80 used the same gun,armour? etc... the major issue was the gas turbine engine... which wasnt fuel efficient or reliable... again you might wanna check out T-80UD specs..


> 3.You people have blabbered on long enough about niaza 2 'enhanced penetrator' which is supposedly operational.



He provided you sources... so did i... heck you wont even see Naiza 1 on POF website..



> All i got was a fake pic of short stubby monoblock round similar to mango.The only thing i have heard of about niaza 2 is its round under development for AK-2.Far from operational



Thts a new tungston round... not naiza II (which by the way is in service) ........and hope you know the older round had a penetration power of 550mm... and this one is 30+% improved... hence much more penetration power... as for short stubby etc... dazzler again answered you about it..



> For development even our new 125 mm round and new arjun round with 650-680 mm is under development for mk2.



Sure... with israelis out... and a disaster like AMK ... which cost you 7 bin rps in the past... im sure it is...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nishan_101

Only PA has some 600 Al-Khalid which are given some upgrades to be called Al-Khalid-Is. Though there are no news of AK-IIs only some suppositions.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Nishan_101 said:


> Only PA has some 600 Al-Khalid which are given some upgrades to be called Al-Khalid-Is. Though there are no news of AK-IIs only some suppositions.



Please dude dont post in such threads... ur welcome in stupid and funny or naswar thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keshav Murali

Dazzler said:


>



My work? I'm flattered! 

LOL, it looks crappy, let me remake it this weekend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keshav Murali

@Dazzler, nice work. You kicked @AUSTERLITZ 's *** pretty bad. I'm impressed. 

Let's make a few things clear here.

According to reliable BR sources and some link I forgot, T-90S (Yes, the export version) stripped of ERA stood impact from *KEW-A2* which has *certified* penetration of *660* mm at 2 km.

So, average penetration is bound to be 680 mm ± 20 mm at 2 km. Impressive protection.

But we can't verify such claims for the hull. It would never have such space for composite armour.

*Best Indian round for Arjun:* Unknown - That's how I'd describe it. The in-service designation-less round is disappointing, with certified penetration in the 400-420 mm range somewhere and average penetration as 460 mm at 2 km. We saw a new round (T-1A) at Defence Expo 2012, that was not sectioned. So it might be longer.

*Best Indian 125 mm round* Israeli rounds - two different ones, both *better* than Mango, with average penetration between 550-580 mm and certified penetration being 500 mm at 2 km. The Indian rounds perform similar to the Arjun's rounds.

Bear in mind that Rosoboronexport has been advertising *3BM44M* as "New High Performance APFSDS" with no designation for quite some time according to Vasily Fofanov. It is always an export option.

Don't forget that when the development of their best ends, Russians put up their second best to sale, and the second best in this case would be 3BM44M. So Russians have finished, or are going to finish the development of 3BM48 "Svinets-2" or whatever the hell it is.

Please carry on.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Keshav Murali

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Sure... *with israelis out*... and a disaster like AMK ... which cost you 7 bin rps in the past... im sure it is...



I just need to mention that the Ukrainians and the Polish are in. Ukraine was positively offering 3BM42 variants and Poland was offering Pronit and its indigenous 125 mm rounds which are as powerful as Type-IIM. 

Heady stuff.

Then there is the mysterious 125 mm round "Vityaz" with *"750 mm"* penetration.

*Yawns* 

People. They never cease to amaze.



Dazzler said:


> T-90A vladmir with SHTORA, show me any T-90S with this system



Russlanders don't export Shtora, since it is their very best APS for the moment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Again something @Dazzler pointed out.. export version of T-90A = T-90S.
> 
> *Only first batch order was for 310 T-90S which was basic T-90A welded,the one tested in 1999 minus shtora.All subsequent orders were for T-90M with modified armour,gun and electronics etc.If u go to any source giving variants of t-90 you will find T-90S and T-90M or T-90S bhisma as indian later variants are called to be different t-90 variants.*
> 
> 
> India didnt order t-90m... only t-90s... probably "modified" because of the issues it faced in dessert conditions...
> 
> *''In October 2006 MOD ordered additional 330 improved T-90M Bhishma developed by HVF with assistance from Uralvagonavod, Thales which supplied its Catherine-FC thermal sights and other companies.
> 
> A follow-up order for 347 T-90Ms was placed in December 2007. ''
> Your confusion may arise from the fact that in IA both t-90S and t-90M are called bhisma and are even used interchangeably.Only original 310 batch is base t-90S level.
> Modifications on bhisma include to turret armour composites,fire control system,french electronics,2A46-M-5 new rapira gun from the older 2A46M and air conditioning for desert.*
> 
> Dazzler has pretty much summed up everything..
> 
> *I disagree,he posted a diagram of t-72B turret from 1980s level armour and u try to pass that off as current t-90 armour level?LOL.
> *
> Been hearing tht since 2009... and the sources are blogs... yet after 4 years... nothing...
> 
> *True.There has been no concrete sources or updates on this,just that LEDS-150 was selected.
> *
> Not really... the basic t-90 n t-80 used the same gun,armour? etc... the major issue was the gas turbine engine... which wasnt fuel efficient or reliable... again you might wanna check out T-80UD specs..
> 
> *Yes u are in a way right,engine was main problem.But t-90 proved its protection ability in trials in 1999.Just like t-80UD is upgarded from t-80u ,t-90 is also not the same as it was in 1999.*
> 
> He provided you sources... so did i... heck you wont even see Naiza 1 on POF website..
> 
> *The discussion was never on naiza1.Everyone knows its operational.He claimed that naiza 2 was operational on PA tanks and IA had nothing comparable.I contended that its under development and possibly for ak-2,in which case we too have higher penetration rounds under development.So i asked him to show me naiza 2 with a statement from POF stating its penetration like naiza 1 pic.*
> 
> Thts a new tungston round... not naiza II (which by the way is in service) ........and hope you know the older round had a penetration power of 550mm... and this one is 30+% improved... hence much more penetration power... as for short stubby etc... dazzler again answered you about it..
> 
> *Tungsten round 30% improved penetration power over DU round without any increase in length?I am sry if i don't take u at ur word,perhaps if the rounds penetration was stated like that of common operational rounds are from POF?*
> 
> 
> Sure... with israelis out... and a disaster like AMK ... which cost you 7 bin rps in the past... im sure it is...



What you are sure of doesn't matter,we have got the tech from the israelis and are now modifying it ourselves with new rounds under development.As for disaster ,sure it happened due to administrative inefficiency..we have learned from it.won't happen again.Its not as if PA doesn't suffer from disasters,a rag tag outfit like TTP is running rings around it these days.Destroying ultra sensitive aircraft whenever they wish,freeing prisoners for fun ,killing civilians at will.We have all have our little failings from time to time.



Keshav Murali said:


> I just need to mention that the Ukrainians and the Polish are in. Ukraine was positively offering 3BM42 variants and Poland was offering Pronit and its indigenous 125 mm rounds which are as powerful as Type-IIM.
> 
> Heady stuff.
> 
> Then there is the mysterious 125 mm round "Vityaz" with *"750 mm"* penetration.
> 
> *Yawns*
> 
> People. They never cease to amaze.
> 
> 
> 
> Russlanders don't export Shtora, since it is their very best APS for the moment.



Aren't polish and ukrainians in for new ammo tender?
Also what is the best russian APS shtora or arena?I thought drozd-2 and arena were pretty equal and quite advanced?Some reports say arena was selected even for south korean k2 black panther?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Keshav Murali said:


> According to reliable BR sources and some link I forgot, T-90S (Yes, the export version) stripped of ERA stood impact from *KEW-A2* which has *certified* penetration of *660* mm at 2 km.
> 
> So, average penetration is bound to be 680 mm ± 20 mm at 2 km. Impressive protection.
> 
> But we can't verify such claims for the hull. It would never have such space for composite armour.



If ERA is added to that protection would be around 900 mm?No PA/PLA round would be able to penetrate it frontally.Of course hull would have lesser,but thats true for all tanks including its adversaries.
Also do you not agree that chinese design philosophy tanks have more flaws and weakspots due to turret geometry than russian ones?


----------



## Manticore

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Its not as if PA doesn't suffer from disasters,a rag tag outfit like TTP is running rings around it these days.Destroying ultra sensitive aircraft whenever they wish,freeing prisoners for fun ,killing civilians at will.We have all have our little failings from time to time.



Please keep these discussions out of this thread

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Not t-90 vladimir u fool,in 1999 vladimir didn't exist.Its basic welded turret t-90a with shtora.In case u didn't know shtora can be fitted with any t-90 model,doesn't make that model a vladimir.
> Vladimir came into being in 2009.This is ur knowledge on t-90.And ur asking me to look up t-90 history?
> 
> T-90 history is not a single one was lost in second chechnya ,survived seven rpg hits without any effect on one occasion.Unlike another certain russian tank.
> 
> 
> 
> In testing even we have new round ,610mm one 125 mm.And 650-680 mm under development for arjun mk2.For standard operational rounds both sides have about 500-550 mm penetration rounds.





You are such a .... ah never mind 

The verison with welded turret IS the Vladimir code named T-90A, the one that came in 2009 is T-90MS TAGIL, NOT Vladimir !! I think you have reading problems :O

Tagil is export variant, vladimir is never exported and stands exclusively as a Russian mbt till 2012 when they refused to induct further T-90 anymore 

Shtora can be fitted to any variant agreed BUT it is not fitted on yours is it? Any pic or source of improved 120 mm Arjun round or is it also in thin air only??

No where did i claim your improved APFSDS is not in development, the thing is, till its developed and INDUCTED in service, situation remains bleek for IA mbt fleet. And i have not even begun to count Ajeya problems

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> @Dazzler, nice work. You kicked @AUSTERLITZ 's *** pretty bad. I'm impressed.
> 
> Let's make a few things clear here.
> 
> According to reliable BR sources and some link I forgot, T-90S (Yes, the export version) stripped of ERA stood impact from *KEW-A2* which has *certified* penetration of *660* mm at 2 km.
> 
> So, average penetration is bound to be 680 mm ± 20 mm at 2 km. Impressive protection.
> 
> But we can't verify such claims for the hull. It would never have such space for composite armour.
> 
> *Best Indian round for Arjun:* Unknown - That's how I'd describe it. The in-service designation-less round is disappointing, with certified penetration in the 400-420 mm range somewhere and average penetration as 460 mm at 2 km. We saw a new round (T-1A) at Defence Expo 2012, that was not sectioned. So it might be longer.
> 
> *Best Indian 125 mm round* Israeli rounds - two different ones, both *better* than Mango, with average penetration between 550-580 mm and certified penetration being 500 mm at 2 km. The Indian rounds perform similar to the Arjun's rounds.
> 
> Bear in mind that Rosoboronexport has been advertising *3BM44M* as "New High Performance APFSDS" with no designation for quite some time according to Vasily Fofanov. It is always an export option.
> 
> Don't forget that when the development of their best ends, Russians put up their second best to sale, and the second best in this case would be 3BM44M. So Russians have finished, or are going to finish the development of 3BM48 "Svinets-2" or whatever the hell it is.
> 
> Please carry on.



Thanks @Keshav 

You see i never refuted T-90S capabilities yar all i asked was a source or atleast a pic of the turret armour tests but was given nothing just bla bla 

3BM-44M Lekalo will be provided yep i saw sources of the deal. average penetration @ 2000 m, 0 deg is 600-650mm, @ 60 deg, its 300 mm.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Keshav Murali said:


> I just need to mention that the Ukrainians and the Polish are in. Ukraine was positively offering 3BM42 variants and Poland was offering Pronit and its indigenous 125 mm rounds which are as powerful as Type-IIM.


[/QUOTE]


The question remains are they in service ?



> Then there is the mysterious 125 mm round "Vityaz" with *"750 mm"* penetration.




Isnt Vitiaz a gun?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Vitiaz is new generation 125 mm gun and Baghira is 140 mm, both are in testing phase but have shown impressive values!




> Paul Lakowski a Gunner
> 
> Heres a quote from another board.
> 
> 
> quote:
> 
> The new 125mm gun, known as Vitiaz, is 6m long. When firing an APFSDS projectile, the muzzle velocity is 2,030m/s(!). This will penetrate 380mm of steel armour. Doesn't sound impressive, but this is at an angle of 60 degrees! Range at which this is achieved isn't given though.
> 
> The other gun is 140mm, known as Bagira, and is 7m(!) long. When firing an APFSDS projectile, the muzzle velocity is 1870m/s. This will penetrate 450mm of armour at a 60 degree angle!
> Compare this with the newer Russian 3BM-42 (not the newest M version) APFSDS projectile, which penetrates 230mm at an angle of 60 degrees. As you can see, the 140mm Ukrainian gun easily surpasses the current Russian 125mm gun in performance, and these penetration ratings would place it even quite a bit ahead of the 120mm NATO gun."
> 
> Ive been all over the web and still got nothing on this. Can u guys provide more information on these two beauties???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Umair Nawaz

AUSTERLITZ said:


> As usual you are congratulating urself.
> I am saying the OFB new round is now developed,ur saying based on old news its blown up.Ur saying niaza 2 is in service,i'm saying far from so ..and that its for al khalid 2..also doubt whether it would fit on existing loader.[probably reason why ak-2 is said to have new loader].None of us can give any solid official statement or pics as sources that depict their penetration.
> It becomes ur word vs mine.
> 
> As for indian army disadvantage,lol.I just showed to you ur entire tank fleet has poor turret geometry inherited from chinese design.In a tank to tank battle while khalid would match t-90 in mobility and firepower it would be outmatched in armour due to its several weaknesses in this area.
> 
> 
> 
> Al khalid turret doesn't have enough space for western bustle type loader and also because we have seen pics of interior of khalid.All t-series and chinese mbts including mbt-2000 which is base of al khalid have carousel autoloader.
> You need to find out about ur own tank some more before making premature comments,do u even know what is difference between carousel and bustle loader?



The picture were of Type 59.
 @Dazzler is the one with more knowledge on this.


----------



## Umair Nawaz

AUSTERLITZ said:


> link is not working.Post the pics and article.And i hope its not mere prototype but standrad new operational version as u say.



it is working with me.

Use proxy if not using and turn it off if u r. Then it will open.


----------



## Dazzler

Umair Nawaz said:


> The picture were of Type 59.
> 
> @Dazzler is the one with more knowledge on this.



leave him alone yar he had a tough day

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Dazzler said:


> Vitiaz is new generation 125 mm gun and Baghira is 140 mm, both are in testing phase but have shown impressive values!



Thts what im sayin... unless they want to change the gun barrel of their T-90S( which came out in 1996.... years before T-90A /Vladmir)....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

The question remains are they in service ?




Isnt Vitiaz a gun?[/QUOTE]

Not yet as tender ongoing,that was the question i disagreed on with dazzler on-is naiza 2 fully operational as he claims?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> You are such a .... ah never mind
> 
> The verison with welded turret IS the Vladimir code named T-90A, the one that came in 2009 is T-90MS TAGIL, NOT Vladimir !! I think you have reading problems :O
> 
> Tagil is export variant, vladimir is never exported and stands exclusively as a Russian mbt till 2012 when they refused to induct further T-90 anymore
> 
> Shtora can be fitted to any variant agreed BUT it is not fitted on yours is it? Any pic or source of improved 120 mm Arjun round or is it also in thin air only??
> 
> No where did i claim your improved APFSDS is not in development, the thing is, till its developed and INDUCTED in service, situation remains bleek for IA mbt fleet. And i have not even begun to count Ajeya problems




I confused it with the t-90M prototype that was unveiled in around 2009.They refused to induct t-90 as they have moved on to new generation armata which is in different league.
When did i say shtora is fitted on ours?Besides shtora-1 is a soft kill system,and supposedly failed in greek and indian trails.
Thats why we selected LEDS-150.
And this is the point,i never claimed u don't have high penetration rounds in development either-just ur claim that naiza 2 is operational.If its operational accross PA tank fleet,how hard can it be to get a pic.Usually in exhibitions standard ammo is displayed beside tank sometimes.



Umair Nawaz said:


> The picture were of Type 59.
> 
> @Dazzler is the one with more knowledge on this.



No type -99.ztz-99,where did u get type-59?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Thanks @Keshav
> 
> You see i never refuted T-90S capabilities yar all i asked was a source or atleast a pic of the turret armour tests but was given nothing just bla bla
> 
> 3BM-44M Lekalo will be provided yep i saw sources of the deal. average penetration @ 2000 m, 0 deg is 600-650mm, @ 60 deg, its 300 mm.




You never disregarded our armour capabilities?Several times u said IA is 'in a mess',at a disadvantage.I gave u a source of armour trials ,it had pis too of places where the tank was hit.You also made statements like this.

''Sigh!

On arguments, well, ameteur arguments really, less substance no evidence and too much bla bla

Turret geometry covers 60 deg easily so no problem there, these theoritical arguments mean nothing.

The user (PA) has tried and tested the thing hundreds of time they had no issues. Morocco, Bangladesh and recently Myanmar also bought MBT 2000s without any issues of turret geometry.''

Bla bla blaing evrything when u didn't have any proper answer to the wekaness in al khalid's turret geometry.

Throughout the thread i contended 3 things-
1]Your point that naiza 2 was in operational service and IA was in total disaadvantage.I said naiza 2 was still in development and we too had new high penetration rounds in development.
2]On the turret geometry and weakspots on chinese design tanks,which u tried to wish away.
3]That the design of t-90 u provided was of cast turret t-72B from 1980s,not current t-90.

That is all.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> You never disregarded our armour capabilities?Several times u said IA is 'in a mess',at a disadvantage.I gave u a source of armour trials ,it had pis too of places where the tank was hit.You also made statements like this.
> 
> ''Sigh!
> 
> On arguments, well, ameteur arguments really, less substance no evidence and too much bla bla
> 
> Turret geometry covers 60 deg easily so no problem there, these theoritical arguments mean nothing.
> 
> The user (PA) has tried and tested the thing hundreds of time they had no issues. Morocco, Bangladesh and recently Myanmar also bought MBT 2000s without any issues of turret geometry.''
> 
> Bla bla blaing evrything when u didn't have any proper answer to the wekaness in al khalid's turret geometry.
> 
> Throughout the thread i contended 3 things-
> 1]Your point that naiza 2 was in operational service and IA was in total disaadvantage.I said naiza 2 was still in development and we too had new high penetration rounds in development.
> 2]On the turret geometry and weakspots on chinese design tanks,which u tried to wish away.
> 3]That the design of t-90 u provided was of cast turret t-72B from 1980s,not current t-90.
> 
> That is all.




Mark my words based on facts, a tank is next to useless without effective ammunition particularly APFSDS, nit picking my words will lead to "nowhere" 

FACTS:

IA mbt fleet is in a mess thats TRUE whether you like it or not, i can share 50 sources and point several problems with each of IA mbt but i choose not to do so since it will be too much to swallow for you.

OFB was responsible for design, research and develop the APFSDS rounds for IA, both 120 and 125 mm. Unfortunately it is blacklisted so there goes the sole designer, now it is upto DRDO to get the job done and the world knows how they do their job. 

Thats why you see rounds busting, poor propellant and storage, and even plans for discarding thousands of APFSDS (15000 of them!!) due to substandard quality. Ammo reserves are dropping, IA spokesperson was worried for a right reason 

The best round IA currently has is Israeli CL-MII series with 520 mm penetration at 0 deg, at 2000 m maximum. Second is Mango, 500-520 at 200 m at 0 deg, 

The "unkown" improved AMK 340 is nowere to be seen, heck even the basic AMK-340 has loads of issues and is NOT yet i service.

Arjun round has loads of problems similar to Arjun itself so leave it there

Till IA gets its hands on Lekalo or Svinets 2, situation remains as it is i.e. bleak for them.

Why i say this? simple, current PA APFSDS ammo has better values at 2500 m (yes, 500 meter beyond 2000 )

Naiza = 550

Type-II basic-550-580

Type-IIM = 620-650 mm 

I exclude Naiza 2 for your convinience 


However, not only Naiza-2 is in service, it is standard DU ammunition throughout PAK mbt fleet. Since no internet source is available apart of Usman Ansari's article, i chose to leave it at that. 

There are atleast 2 more tungsten APFSDS round developed for 125 and 105 mm guns respectively. 

I suggest you go to this website

Defence Export Promotion Organization

Turret geometry is a theoritical aspect so lets leave it at that shall we? With all the glorified/ protected/ secured turret geometry of T-72, what did it achieve?? Zilch! 

I firmly believe IA commanders dont have a narrow field of view as you do or they will be looking for a 60 deg angle to HIT the AKs and T-80uds and get kicked in the process

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Umair Nawaz

AUSTERLITZ said:


> I confused it with the t-90M prototype that was unveiled in around 2009.They refused to induct t-90 as they have moved on to new generation armata which is in different league.
> When did i say shtora is fitted on ours?Besides shtora-1 is a soft kill system,and supposedly failed in greek and indian trails.
> Thats why we selected LEDS-150.
> And this is the point,i never claimed u don't have high penetration rounds in development either-just ur claim that naiza 2 is operational.If its operational accross PA tank fleet,how hard can it be to get a pic.Usually in exhibitions standard ammo is displayed beside tank sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> No type -99.ztz-99,where did u get type-59?


the pics u r talking about were posted in indian forum by Farhaan but were later told by Dazzler that they r of type 59 not of AK


----------



## Dazzler

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Thts what im sayin... unless they want to change the gun barrel of their T-90S( which came out in 1996.... years before T-90A /Vladmir)....



And you think if they went for it, Russians will be ok with this? Imagine a Russian T-90S with a Ukrainian main gun  

In that case, I can see them in greater pain than ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Al-Zarrar with Aorak ERA








Norinco Type-II M APFSDS RHA penetration @ the typical target under the fire range condition---RHA, 220mm thickness , angle of inclination: 60-70, and in this case, the angle is the 68 deg, no much difference with "international standard.. 

NOTE: this is a tungsten round, not a DU round

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

as per Janes, this is Type-I and II, not Type-IIM...


NORINCO 125 mm APFSDS-T rounds are separate loading munitions. They are loaded into the breech
surrounded, behind the sabot assembly, by an integral combustible propellant charge in a combustible
case and followed by a semi-combustible propellant case.
On both the 125-I and 125-II, a light alloy sabot assembly consists of a three-segment sabot and the
monobloc tungsten alloy penetrator rod forming the projectile. The penetrator rod and the sabot are
interfaced by a series of mating buttresses and the sabot is encircled by a plastic slipping obturator ring.
The 125-I penetrator rod has a diameter of 28 mm, is 554 mm long (length-to-diameter ratio
approximately 19.8:1) and weighs 4.03 kg. The penetrator rod has a light alloy windshield over the nose
and a light alloy six-finned fin assembly at the rear. It is assumed that the fin assembly contains a tracer
element. The 125-II projectile assembly weighs 7.44 kg, with the penetrator rod being 26 mm in
diameter.
The two-component propellant system is carried over from the design of the RFAS 125 mm
APFSDS-T. Both components are encased in what is described as a flammable nitrocellulose paper tube
impregnated with TNT which is totally consumed on firing. A steel stub case, weighing 3.4 kg and
containing the electrical primer, remains to be ejected after firing. The case is 140 mm long and has a
flange diameter of 171.9 mm.
Muzzle velocity of the 125-I is 1,730 m/s. Armour penetration against vertical armour at 2,000 m is
460 mm and direct fire range is more than 2,100 m. It has been stated that the projectile can penetrate
220 mm of homogeneous armour set at an angle of 61.5Âº at a range of 2,000 m, with `good after effects'.
At a range of 1,000 m dispersion is of the order of 300 Ã&#8212; 300 mm.
Muzzle velocity for the 125-II is 1,740 m/s. Armour penetration at 2,000 m is 600 mm.

Specifications
Weights:
projectile with propellant charge - 23 kg
projectile with sabot, 125-I - 7.37 kg
projectile with sabot, 125-II - 7.44 kg
projectile, 125-I - 4.03 kg
stub case - 3.4 kg
Lengths:
projectile with propellant charge - 672 mm
basic propellant assembly - 407 mm
projectile - 554 mm
Diameter of projectile:
125-I - 28 mm
125-II - 26 mm
Muzzle velocity:
125-I - 1,730 m/s
125-II -1,740 m/s
Operational temperature: -40 to +50ÂºC

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...t-2000-information-pool-34.html#ixzz2ag2tRFZy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Umair Nawaz said:


> the pics u r talking about were posted in indian forum by Farhaan but were later told by Dazzler that they r of type 59 not of AK



The pics i am talking about are the one comparing turret geometry of t-90 with type-99.


----------



## Dazzler

ukrainian Kombat ATGM in service with PA, modified to fit both autoloaders i.e. AZ (t-72) and MZ (T-80) 

armour penetration value is 750 mm BEHIND ERA..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Mark my words based on facts, a tank is next to useless without effective ammunition particularly APFSDS, nit picking my words will lead to "nowhere"
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> IA mbt fleet is in a mess thats TRUE whether you like it or not, i can share 50 sources and point several problems with each of IA mbt but i choose not to do so since it will be too much to swallow for you.
> 
> OFB was responsible for design, research and develop the APFSDS rounds for IA, both 120 and 125 mm. Unfortunately it is blacklisted so there goes the sole designer, now it is upto DRDO to get the job done and the world knows how they do their job.
> 
> Thats why you see rounds busting, poor propellant and storage, and even plans for discarding thousands of APFSDS (15000 of them!!) due to substandard quality. Ammo reserves are dropping, IA spokesperson was worried for a right reason
> 
> The best round IA currently has is Israeli CL-MII series with 520 mm penetration at 0 deg, at 2000 m maximum. Second is Mango, 500-520 at 200 m at 0 deg,
> 
> The "unkown" improved AMK 340 is nowere to be seen, heck even the basic AMK-340 has loads of issues and is NOT yet i service.
> 
> Arjun round has loads of problems similar to Arjun itself so leave it there
> 
> Till IA gets its hands on Lekalo or Svinets 2, situation remains as it is i.e. bleak for them.
> 
> Why i say this? simple, current PA APFSDS ammo has better values at 2500 m (yes, 500 meter beyond 2000 )
> 
> Naiza = 550
> 
> Type-II basic-550-580
> 
> Type-IIM = 620-650 mm
> 
> I exclude Naiza 2 for your convinience
> 
> 
> However, not only Naiza-2 is in service, it is standard DU ammunition throughout PAK mbt fleet. Since no internet source is available apart of Usman Ansari's article, i chose to leave it at that.
> 
> There are atleast 2 more tungsten APFSDS round developed for 125 and 105 mm guns respectively.
> 
> I suggest you go to this website
> 
> Defence Export Promotion Organization
> 
> Turret geometry is a theoritical aspect so lets leave it at that shall we? With all the glorified/ protected/ secured turret geometry of T-72, what did it achieve?? Zilch!
> 
> I firmly believe IA commanders dont have a narrow field of view as you do or they will be looking for a 60 deg angle to HIT the AKs and T-80uds and get kicked in the process



First rounds-the best rounds IA has are israeli and not 520 mm,550+.Larger penetrator round under development.
As for ur rounds,i went to the link u posted and in POF anti tank rounds section tungsten round gave 480-500 mm penetartion in official statement i think.
Nazia-550 mm-OK.
Type-II and Type-IIM- these are chinese rounds?TYpe-II is nothig special 550-580.
As for type-IIM-where did u get 620-650mm figure?Also since when does PA use latest chinese tank ammunition.
And even with that penetration even chinese type-IIm in PLA vs IA tank won't penetrate frontal armour of t-90,which withstood more at 2000m without ERA?So what 'bleak picture' u are trying to portray here.
As for naiza-2 u have for a long time kept babbling about this round that is in widespread service and not a single pic or exhibit info.Instead u posted a pic of short stubby round with old 80s style ring sabot penetrator and told this is enhanced penetrator.FAIL.

Turret geometry is perfectly important,ur trying to avoid it as u are exposed to the glaring flaws of khalid's design in this case.
As t-72 being zilch,do u expect anything from monkey models,without era,useless crews,cast turret against latest abrams.Turret geometry can't help if enemy penetrates frontal armour itself.Don't try to change subject .You have till now given not a single solid answer to refute those diagrams on the weak turret design of khalid.
You have been quite proficient in bringing up anything to diss IA tanks from same forum,and same discussion..but quietly ignored this bad flaw of chinese design tanks that was discussed in detail there.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> ukrainian Kombat ATGM in service with PA, modified to fit both autoloaders i.e. AZ (t-72) and MZ (T-80)
> 
> armour penetration value is 750 mm BEHIND ERA..



IA bought over 10000 AT-11C SNIPER (9M119M1 Invar-M),and license produce 25000.Invar-m bought by IA tanks has 850 MM behind ERA.Superior than kombat.
Also remember that HEAT warheads have 30% less actual penetration than their paper RHA values against modern composite armour.This applies to both sides



Dazzler said:


> And you think if they went for it, Russians will be ok with this? Imagine a Russian T-90S with a Ukrainian main gun
> 
> In that case, I can see them in greater pain than ever.



Agreed,vityaz will not be in IA armoured corps.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> First rounds-the best rounds IA has are israeli and not 520 mm,550+.Larger penetrator round under development.
> As for ur rounds,i went to the link u posted and in POF anti tank rounds section tungsten round gave 480-500 mm penetartion in official statement i think.
> Nazia-550 mm-OK.
> Type-II and Type-IIM- these are chinese rounds?TYpe-II is nothig special 550-580.
> As for type-IIM-where did u get 620-650mm figure?Also since when does PA use latest chinese tank ammunition.
> And even with that penetration even chinese type-IIm in PLA vs IA tank won't penetrate frontal armour of t-90,which withstood more at 2000m without ERA?So what 'bleak picture' u are trying to portray here.
> As for naiza-2 u have for a long time kept babbling about this round that is in widespread service and not a single pic or exhibit info.Instead u posted a pic of short stubby round with old 80s style ring sabot penetrator and told this is enhanced penetrator.FAIL.
> 
> Turret geometry is perfectly important,ur trying to avoid it as u are exposed to the glaring flaws of khalid's design in this case.
> As t-72 being zilch,do u expect anything from monkey models,without era,useless crews,cast turret against latest abrams.Turret geometry can't help if enemy penetrates frontal armour itself.Don't try to change subject .You have till now given not a single solid answer to refute those diagrams on the weak turret design of khalid.
> You have been quite proficient in bringing up anything to diss IA tanks from same forum,and same discussion..but quietly ignored this bad flaw of chinese design tanks that was discussed in detail there.




i think either you are lost or about to lose something in the upper floor :O

I dont have time to waste on the likes of you. You have been posting the same gibberish for last two pages instead of understanding anything.

LISTEN

you didnt see this?? the man calcuated the value of Type-IIM which is in service with Pak Army. Enlarge the pic and SEE the calculated values against each shell. 






You really have no idea what i said in previous pages do you? Go check them again, i dont have time to repeat the same story over and over. 

And please talk with evidence with me, i had no internet proof of Naiza-2 i dropped it, either way, you bring proof for AMK-340 rounds or they dont exist at all.

Turret geometry is a theoritical thing boy, i just see the rotting T-72s with best geometry. It makes no difference when your shell cant penetrate the basic composite armour anyway. 

By the way, Boron carbide composite is the hardest thing out there, integral part of M-1 and Challenger 2, include Leo-2 composite armour. Commonly known as Chobham or Burlington armour, Good luck in penetrating it with your shells

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Al-Zarrar with Aorak ERA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norinco Type-II M APFSDS RHA penetration @ the typical target under the fire range condition---RHA, 220mm thickness , angle of inclination: 60-70, and in this case, the angle is the 68 deg, no much difference with "international standard..
> 
> NOTE: this is a tungsten round, not a DU round



Is that AORAK era supposed to impress us?The ERA coverage is incomplete leaving gaps.Just two ERA plates placed in angle with each other,no real continous ERA arc.
As for international standrad..let's not get there USA and german DU rounds M29A3/DM63 would have around 900-1000 mm penetration.Neither indo/pak/china have anything approaching those stanrad.
Lets see which new round comes with russian armata.

As for DU round and tungsten round-Comment of the very guy whose diagram u posted of old t-72b armour to measure current t-90 armour.
'' DU advantage is only 10% max. And what is the most important - DU performs better only against cast steel or stack RHA plates, against modern multilayered targets WHA alloys perform better. And now we can ask what looks modern tank armour.

Modern WHA rods have adiabatic shear during penetration. So now there left only one DU advantage - it's guite cheap metarial.''


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Is that AORAK era supposed to impress us?The ERA coverage is incomplete leaving gaps.Just two ERA plates placed in angle with each other,no real continous ERA arc.
> As for international standrad..let's not get there USA and german DU rounds M29A3/DM63 would have around 900-1000 mm penetration.Neither indo/pak/china have anything approaching those stanrad.
> Lets see which new round comes with russian armata.
> 
> As for DU round and tungsten round-Comment of the very guy whose diagram u posted of old t-72b armour to measure current t-90 armour.
> '' DU advantage is only 10% max. And what is the most important - DU performs better only against cast steel or stack RHA plates, against modern multilayered targets WHA alloys perform better. And now we can ask what looks modern tank armour.
> 
> Modern WHA rods have adiabatic shear during penetration. So now there left only one DU advantage - it's guite cheap metarial.''



You re revealing new thnigs indeed 

DU is cheap material?? LOL

is this why every modern army in the world uses it? For your info, DU is the densest material among all forms of APFSDS shells, tungsten carbide is weak against DU, yes it is cheap because it is a byproduct of nuclear waste mostly. However, DU can reath havoc over any armour, the solution to protect your crew from DU, ask Americans. They use DU armour mesh in M1A1HA, only DU can protect against DU. Why? it is like cutting iron with iron.

DU has a horrible effect on tank crew, even a slightly penetrated turret or hull causes the crew a painful death. Toxic gases realse in an instance so crew has less chance of survival. 

It is sad really but this is what DU brings to the battlefield unfortunately

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> i think either you are lost or about to lose something in the upper floor :O
> 
> I dont have time to waste on the likes of you. You have been posting the same gibberish for last two pages instead of understanding anything.
> 
> LISTEN
> 
> you didnt see this?? the man calcuated the value of Type-IIM which is in service with Pak Army. Enlarge the pic and SEE the calculated values against each shell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no idea what i said in previous pages do you? Go check them again, i dont have time to repeat the same story over and over.
> 
> And please talk with evidence with me, i had no internet proof of Naiza-2 i dropped it, either way, you bring proof for AMK-340 rounds or they dont exist at all.
> 
> Turret geometry is a theoritical thing boy, i just see the rotting T-72s with best geometry. It makes no difference when your shell cant penetrate the basic composite armour anyway.
> 
> By the way, Boron carbide composite is the hardest thing out there, integral part of M-1 and Challenger 2, include Leo-2 composite armour. Commonly known as Chobham or Burlington armour, Good luck in penetrating it with your shells



A few things-
Since when is type-IIM ammo in PA service.
How did u get 620-650 mm penetration.
And when t-90 can withstand even more than that even without ERA,ur assertion that IA tanks are at total disadvantage is false.
Now onto turret geometry..for once and for all u LISTEN.Throughout this thread u have constantly tried to evade the glaring flaws in khalids armour that was discussed in detail in the same forum and threads by the same people from which u are posting ur material.Ur double standards are staggering....u cherry pick anything u can find for urself and completely deny the turret weakness exposed by the same people.Basically IT is I who don't have time to repeat same story to you,if u use those people and threads as ur sources for the material u are posting..and then denying turret geometry without a single counter argument or any logic to refute those diagrams mathematically.Because u can't..u know turret is flawed..so u are trying to evade the whole issue..while cherry picking material posted by same group of people.



Dazzler said:


> You re revealing new thnigs indeed
> 
> DU is cheap material?? LOL
> 
> is this why every modern army in the world uses it? For your info, DU is the densest material among all forms of APFSDS shells, tungsten carbide is weak against DU, yes it is cheap because it is a byproduct of nuclear waste mostly. However, DU can reath havoc over any armour, the solution to protect your crew from DU, ask Americans. They use DU armour mesh in M1A1HA, only DU can protect against DU. Why? it is like cutting iron with iron.
> 
> DU has a horrible effect on tank crew, even a slightly penetrated turret or hull causes the crew a painful death. Toxic gases realse in an instance so crew has less chance of survival.
> 
> It is sad really but this is what DU brings to the battlefield unfortunately
> 
> more on DU ..



Depleted uranium IS cheaper than machinized tungsten.LOL.
And yeah DU has toxic effect,but also for ur own crews there is health risk.
Don't try to compare ur selves to USA because USA armour tech is light yrs ahead.
Rest was posted already.


----------



## Dazzler

Unless your tanks cruise sideways  , 60 deg and beyond angle is a rare value and that too when you couldnt work in the front. Good luck in that 

Fofanov presents even weaker values for Russian tanks side on, infact, every tank has weaker side armour including M1, Leo-2 series and Challys, Even Merkava has been penetrated from sides. Turret side is a universal weak area for all tanks so please stop singling out Chinese weak turret from side. 


Oh, guess i missed this :O

T-90A vladimir, red and black spots represent penetration values. so much for impenerable turret...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

this is in Georgia conflict...turret ERA is K-5 but, nothing survived really

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Unless your tanks cruise sideways  , 60 deg and beyond angle is a rare value and that too when you couldnt work in the front. Good luck in that
> 
> Fofanov presents even weaker values for Russian tanks side on, infact, every tank has weaker side armour including M1, Leo-2 series and Challys, Even Merkava has been penetrated from sides. Turret side is a universal weak area for all tanks so please stop singling out Chinese weak turret from side.
> 
> 
> Oh, guess i missed this :O
> 
> T-90A vladimir, red and black spots represent penetration values. so much for impenerable turret...




As usual speaking without knowing,the red areas indicate where rpg-29s hit and black where kornet ATGMS ,they do not indicate penetrations.
The trials yielded the following outcome:

ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target. 
ATGMs
T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
No other ATGMs could penetrate. 
APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun. 


Now onto turret side,if u don't understand what ur talking about really u shouldn't.T-90s are not vulnerable to slant shots and also they concentarte composite armour in frontal arc unlike chinese tanks which have lesser composite armour despite bigger size due to flawed design in an attempt to blend russian and western tank design.Also chinese designs have bad exposed sloped roof only corrected in last model of type-99 to some extent.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
IF u can't understand what these images are saying,then there is no point.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> As usual speaking without knowing,the red areas indicate where rpg-29s hit and black where kornet ATGMS ,they do not indicate penetrations.
> The trials yielded the following outcome:
> 
> ATGLs
> T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
> No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
> T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
> Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
> ATGMs
> T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
> T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
> No other ATGMs could penetrate.
> APFSDS
> T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
> Without ERA, one round penetrated.
> T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.
> 
> 
> Now onto turret side,if u don't understand what ur talking about really u shouldn't.T-90s are not vulnerable to slant shots and also they concentarte composite armour in frontal arc unlike chinese tanks which have lesser composite armour despite bigger size due to flawed design in an attempt to blend russian and western tank design.Also chinese designs have bad exposed sloped roof only corrected in last model of type-99 to some extent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> IF u can't understand what these images are saying,then there is no point.



Oh GOD !!!!!!!!


i was the one who shared it cant u see? Fofanovs page? LOL


these images are estimates made by forum lurkers !!!! Dont you understand the difference ??

How old are you anyway?

for penetration, look at the lower picture.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> this is in Georgia conflict...turret ERA is K-5 but, nothing survived really



Again cherrypicking without knowing,first of all thats NOT t-90 its t-72BM.
Second of all turret wasn't penetrated ,tracks and side of hull.There are pics of abrams with tracks and side hull taken out.U can see intact k-5 plates.Tank was damaged and cerw unharmed except commander who was injured in leg.Know what ur are posting.
That was not t-90.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Again cherrypicking without knowing,first of all thats NOT t-90 its t-72BM.
> Second of all turret wasn't penetrated ,tracks and side of hull.There are pics of abrams with tracks and side hull taken out.U can see intact k-5 plates.Tank was damaged and cerw unharmed except commander who was injured in leg.Know what ur are posting.
> That was not t-90.



Argue all you want lad but T-72BM IS the T-90, some charecters like FCS, armour etc were adapted from T-80U but rest is the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Oh GOD !!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> i was the one who shared it cant u see? Fofanovs page? LOL
> 
> 
> these images are estimates made by forum lurkers !!!! Dont you understand the difference ??
> 
> How old are you anyway?
> 
> for penetration, look at the lower picture.



Kid ,just read the analysis done on the first pic...then ask urself if u understand word geometry..how old ARE you?Now if u have any concrete refutations to that ..fire away except my age,estimates.
Everything being talked about here is an estimate.Everything u and i have posted is an estimate.This is a public forum not live testing range.None of us have access to super secret info .


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Kid ,just read the analysis done on the first pic...then ask urself if u understand word geometry..how old ARE you?Now if u have any concrete refutations to that ..fire away except my age,estimates.
> Everything being talked about here is an estimate.Everything u and i have posted is an estimate.This is a public forum not live testing range.None of us have access to super secret info .



i am 35 by the way, you must be 18? 

for concrete evidence, please visit last 10 pages or AK info pool thread, otherwise better remain calm and accept the relaity 

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...nk-type-90-iim-mbt-2000-information-pool.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Argue all you want lad but T-72BM IS the T-90, some charecters like FCS, armour etc were adapted from T-80U but rest is the same.



Nope wrong again,t-72 has cast armour.Original end soviet era t-90 was cast turret t-72BU upgrade.Not the later welded armour redesigned turret variants.
The t-90 india uses moreover is modified turret with more composites ,much heavier weight[around 50 tonnes] than t-72bm 42 tonnes.
T-72BM is 80s upgrade.
And IA uses french electronics,thermal viewers.t-80U came second best in armour trials to even 1999 basic welded turret t-90.



Dazzler said:


> i am 35 by the way, you must be 18?
> 
> for concrete evidence, please visit last 10 pages or AK info pool thread, otherwise better remain calm and accept the relaity
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...nk-type-90-iim-mbt-2000-information-pool.html



Nope 25.Unless u can provide anything to refute those turret weakness diagrams,plz remain calm and accept reality.


----------



## Dazzler

Busted again 

T-90



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Nope 25.Unless u can provide anything to refute those turret weakness diagrams,plz remain calm and accept reality.




Ill be the last person on this earth who looks forward to satisfy you. 

Please have some sense man, for once


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Busted again
> 
> T-90




This the best u can do.I already said in earlier post original t-90 was t-72BU.From late 80s.
IA doesn't use that cast armour t-90s.IA uses 310 t-90S which new welded turret[with 30-50% greater armour rating and more composites] and the rest t-90m/s bhismas with further modifications to armour and kanchan composites.
Next time get a little more info about what ur talking abt.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Ill be the last person on this earth who looks forward to satisfy you.
> 
> Please have some sense man, for once



AS if u believe i will give in to your double standards and constant evasion,and give in to your satisfaction?

So are we destined to do this forever?


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> This the best u can do.I already said in earlier post original t-90 was t-72BU.From late 80s.
> IA doesn't use that cast armour t-90s.IA uses 310 t-90S which new welded turret[with 30-50% greater armour rating and more composites] and the rest t-90m/s bhismas with further modifications to armour and kanchan composites.
> Next time get a little more info about what ur talking abt.



LOOLLL  hahahaha

you are so embarrassed its not even funny, ok let me write few lines for you 



> The T-90 main battle tank, the most modern tank in the army arsenal, went into low-level production in 1993, based on a prototype designated as the T-88. *The T-90 was developed by the Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau at the Vagonka Works in Nizhniy Tagil. Initially seen as an entirely new design, the production model is in fact based on the T-72BM, with some added features from the T-80 series.*



by the way the source is on par your way of thinking, since my provided sources flew over your head i.e. Fofanovs and others 



AUSTERLITZ said:


> AS if u believe i will give in to your double standards and constant evasion,and give in to your satisfaction?
> 
> So are we destined to do this forever?



nope, i actually dont have time to even check the forum regularly but you made me stick to it 

Sometimes, a little reality check is necessary, if you dont accept it, there is no time to complain later


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> The T-90 main battle tank, the most modern tank in the army arsenal, went into low-level production in 1993, based on a prototype designated as the T-88. The T-90 was developed by the Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau at the Vagonka Works in Nizhniy Tagil. Initially seen as an entirely new design, the production model is in fact based on the T-72BM, with some added features from the T-80 series.
> 
> Sometimes, a little reality check is necessary, if you dont accept it, there is no time to complain later




Of course basic t-90 model is based t-72BU.Ur constant folly is trying to equate a model that evolved from t-72 in late 1980s to what it is today.
The first t-90s that were based on t-72BM used cast turrets and their armour is the diagram u gave a few pages back.
IA and any new russian t-90 uses welded turrets with 30-50% greater armour and much more composites and modified turret.
Indina bhisma also uses kanchan composites.The weight difference between ur t-72BM/early model cast turret t-90 and current IA t-90 is 42 tonnes vs 50 tonnes due to much more armour and electronics.

Sometimes a reality check is indeed necessary to uninformed people such as u who are oblivious .Thta why i have stuck around as well to enlighten u about the flaws in ur vaunted khalid and blow ur trolling on t-90.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Of course basic t-90 model is based t-72BU.Ur constant folly is trying to equate a model that evolved from t-72 in late 1980s to what it is today.
> The first t-90s that were based on t-72BM used cast turrets and their armour is the diagram u gave a few pages back.
> IA and any new russian t-90 uses welded turrets with 30-50% greater armour and much more composites and modified turret.
> Indina bhisma also uses kanchan composites.The weight difference between ur t-72BM/early model cast turret t-90 and current IA t-90 is 42 tonnes vs 50 tonnes due to much more armour and electronics.
> 
> Sometimes a reality check is indeed necessary to uninformed people such as u who are oblivious .Thta why i have stuck around as well to enlighten u about the flaws in ur vaunted khalid and blow ur trolling on t-90.



T-90 is a welded turret T-72 BM with T-80U electronics, gun, FCS and optics. The welded turret in T-72 BU resulted in T-90 A version, you see two different things here. Export T-90E and S (INCLUDING INDIAN S versions too) had a cast turret which was later changed on IA's request.

All my posts are in the context of Subcontinenet mbt battle, nothing more, i mentioned this in my initial posts but ................


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> T-90 is a welded turret T-72 BM with T-80U electronics, gun, FCS and optics. The welded turret in T-72 BU resulted in T-90 A version, you see two different things here. Export T-90E and S (INCLUDING INDIAN S versions too) had a cast turret which was later changed on IA's request.
> 
> All my posts are in the context of Subcontinenet mbt battle, nothing more, i mentioned this in my initial posts but ................



Exactly and welded turret is far different with 30-50% greater armour rating and much more composites.
Yes originally the first batch of 310 t-90s were supposed to be cast turret,but later changed at IA request.All IA t-90 have welded turrets.The first batch of 310 were direct export version of T-90A.But next batch of 347 and subsequent local manufacture were further modified and local versions use kanchan armour.
Thus when u see variants of t-90 u will see t-90s basic export version is seperate than t-90s bhisma of IA.

If all your posts were in context of subcontinent battle,bringing up t-72BM was meaningless as IA doesn't use it.You were taking a sneak potshot at t-90 and thought it would go unnoticed.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Exactly and welded turret is far different with 30-50% greater armour rating and much more composites.
> Yes originally the first batch of 310 t-90s were supposed to be cast turret,but later changed at IA request.All IA t-90 have welded turrets.The first batch of 310 were direct export version of T-90A.But next batch of 347 and subsequent local manufacture were further modified and local versions use kanchan armour.
> Thus when u see variants of t-90 u will see t-90s basic export version is seperate than t-90s bhisma of IA.
> 
> If all your posts were in context of subcontinent battle,bringing up t-72BM was meaningless as IA doesn't use it.You were taking a sneak potshot at t-90 and thought it would go unnoticed.



IF IA would be using it instead of trashy Ajeyas M1 as the CURRENT mainstay tank, they would be in a better shape today.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> IF IA would be using it instead of trashy Ajeyas M1 as the CURRENT mainstay tank, they would be in a better shape today.



We have AROUND 800-1000 t-90 and u think ajeya is our mainstay?Lol.
Ajeya is for numerical superiority over PA armour corps and to deal with al zarars and any older types save t-80ud and al khalid.
T-90 and arjun are our frontline tanks to deal with t-80 and al khalid.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> We have AROUND 800-1000 t-90 and u think ajeya is our mainstay?Lol.
> Ajeya is for numerical superiority over PA armour corps and to deal with al zarars and any older types save t-80ud and al khalid.
> T-90 and arjun are our frontline tanks to deal with t-80 and al khalid.



prove you claim of 1000 T-90s plz,

Arjun entered IA servce? Yuppy


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> prove you claim of 1000 T-90s plz,
> 
> Arjun entered IA servce? Yuppy



310 we got from first batch, around 330 came in mostly knocked down kits assembled in india.
We began local manufacture in 2009 ,from then continuing at about 50 tanks a year avg after initial tussle with russia for TOT was resolved.
Most internet sources give numbers around 900.Since numbers are gradually building up its nearing 1000.

As for arjun u seem to be completely ignorant of current situation.Arjun entered operational service waay back in 2009.2 armoured regiments of around 120 tanks are operational with western command.Infrastructure ahs been modified and special railway wagons now available.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Here indian army arjuns in various IA exercises like sudarshan shakti,shoorveer etc.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Arjun tanks in assembly line.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Railway wagon for transporting arjun.

Do your research before mouthing off about IA tank force,arjun has been operational for 4 yrs now ..


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> 310 we got from first batch, around 347 came in mostly knocked down kits assembled in india.
> We began local manufacture in 2009 ,from then continuing at about 50 tanks a year avg after initial tussle with russia for TOT was resolved.
> Most internet sources give numbers around 900.Since numbers are gradually building up its nearing 1000.
> 
> As for arjun u seem to be completely ignorant of current situation.Arjun entered operational service waay back in 2009.2 armoured regiments of around 120 tanks are operational with western command.Infrastructure ahs been modified and special railway wagons now available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> Here indian army arjuns in various IA exercises like sudarshan shakti,shoorveer etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> Arjun tanks in assembly line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> Railway wagon for transporting arjun.
> 
> Do your research before mouthing off about IA tank force,arjun has been operational for 4 yrs now ..



not interested in your fantasy numerical data, provide link, source to back this up or it never happened. Simple


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> not interested in your fantasy numerical data, provide link, source to back this up or it never happened. Simple



''T-90 Bhishma Main Battle Tank

A total of 800 T-90 tanks are present in service with Indian Army. 1000 more to be produced by Indian under license from Russia by 2020.
This from D.F.I's official page dated late 2012.
Wikipedia number is 907.
Ajay shuklas blog states around 150 locally built in around end 2011.And we recieved 310 first batch directly and next 330 in knocked down kits mostly for assembly.Latest batch of 347 being locally built now.
So most sources indicate a number between 800-1000 as i initially stated.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> ''T-90 Bhishma Main Battle Tank
> 
> A total of 800 T-90 tanks are present in service with Indian Army. 1000 more to be produced by Indian under license from Russia by 2020.
> This from D.F.I's official page dated late 2012.
> Wikipedia number is 907.
> Ajay shuklas blog states around 150 locally built in around end 2011.And we recieved 310 first batch directly and next 347 in knocked down kits mostly for assembly.
> So most sources indicate a number between 800-1000 as i initially stated.



you have between 1800-2000 Ajeyas in service last i checked  i called it mainstay for a reason 

800 is NOT 1000, definition of mainstay means most numerous thing/ product in inventory 
By all criteria, its Ajeya that is IAs mainstay. We are in 2013 not 2020 are we?

Talk in 2020 when T-90s/M/MS becomes the mainstay

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> you have between 1800-2000 Ajeyas in service last i checked  i called it mainstay for a reason
> 
> 800 is NOT 1000, definition of mainstay means most numerous thing/ product in inventory
> By all criteria, its Ajeya that is IAs mainstay. We are in 2013 not 2020 are we?
> 
> Talk in 2020 when T-90s/M/MS becomes the mainstay



Oh plz we don't have 1800-2000 ajeyas.We have only at max 950 odd upgraded ajeyas.
The rest are t-72m's without combat improved ajeya upgrade with tender was going on some time back.No update on current status of how many more have been upgraded.

T-90 is by far our frontline tank with arjun.T-72 and ajeya makes up the numbers that allow us to outnumber PA tank corps.As for 800 not being 1000,if u scroll back u will see that i said estimated 800-1000 in my first post itself on numbers.Also bear in mind that that was from late 2012,more tanks have been produced since then.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Oh plz we don't have 1800-2000 ajeyas.We have only at max 950 odd upgraded ajeyas.
> The rest are t-72m's without combat improved ajeya upgrade with tender was going on some time back.No update on current status of how many more have been upgraded.
> 
> T-90 is by far our frontline tank with arjun.T-72 and ajeya makes up the numbers that allow us to outnumber PA tank corps.As for 800 not being 1000,if u scroll back u will see that i said estimated 800-1000 in my first post itself on numbers.Also bear in mind that that was from late 2012,more tanks have been produced since then.



hmmm lets see..



> Now the economy is on an upswing and the Army has hence been allocated funds to pursue this critical modernization. The tank upgrade will proceed in stages. The upgradation has begun by bringing 250 tanks to the DRDO's (Defence Research & Development Organisation) 'Combat Improved' Ajeya standard. (The T-72M1 has been renamed 'Ajeya' in India).
> 
> Defence spokesman Col S D Goswami said: "At present the main stay in terms of the number of India's armoured regiments is the T-72 tanks followed by T-55 tanks. The T-90 and Arjun provide the cutting edge. However, by the end of the 11th plan, all T-55 tanks will be replaced by T-90 tanks.
> 
> The original Russian engine in T-72 tanks had performed well in all climatic conditions.




Upgradation of T-72 tanks begins in Jaisalmer - Times Of India

Nope you dont have 1800, correct, its 1700


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> hmmm lets see..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upgradation of T-72 tanks begins in Jaisalmer - Times Of India



In terms of numbers alone of course t-72 is our standard tank.But that doesn't mean its our frontline tank -those are t-90 and arjuns.

Our 800+ t-90 and 120 arjuns equal of PA tank corps 'mainstay' as u say-600 khalids and 320 t-80uds.Of course our numbers will grow faster .with both a thousand more t-90 and hundred plus arjun mk2 in order.
As for rest of it our 950 odd ajeyas can take on and have numerical advantage on the 275 odd type-85 and 400 odd al zarrars of PA.
The rest of our 1000 odd t-72s will have generational advantage over the numerous obsolete PA type-59 and type-69s,which are basically modified t-54/55s with 100 mm gun or 105 mm gun fitted.IA has retired t-55.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> In terms of numbers alone of course t-72 is our standard tank.But that doesn't mean its our frontline tank -those are t-90 and arjuns.
> 
> Our 800+ t-90 and 120 arjuns equal of PA tank corps 'mainstay' as u say-600 khalids and 320 t-80uds.Of course our numbers will grow faster .with both a thousand more t-90 and hundred plus arjun mk2 in order.
> As for rest of it our 950 odd ajeyas can take on and have numerical advantage on the 275 odd type-85 and 400 odd al zarrars of PA.
> The rest of our 1000 odd t-72s will have generational advantage over the numerous obsolete PA type-59 and type-69s,which are basically modified t-54/55s with 100 mm gun or 105 mm gun fitted.IA has retired t-55.



you are confusing two different words. 

Mainstay means most numerous whereas Frontline means top of the line or technologically most advanced

I asked about mainstay not frontline.

And since you intend rhetoric so hear this, your tanks may be equal BUT your ammunition is NOT

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> you are confusing two different words.
> 
> Mainstay means most numerous whereas Frontline means top of the line or technologically most advanced
> 
> I asked about mainstay not frontline.




If ur talking about numbers alone PA mainstay is type 59/69 variants with over 1000 in service and reserve.It is frontline tanks that matter.These tanks are near useless except infantry support role.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> you are confusing two different words.
> 
> And since you intend rhetoric so hear this, your tanks may be equal BUT your ammunition is NOT



In rhetoric,As for ammo btw u still haven't shown me either naiza 2 that is widely operational.
Answered on how u got 650 mm penetration for type-IIm or given any evidence that this latest chinese round is used by PA.
And even if it was,T-90 survived better ukrainian ammo in trails even without ERA,so u still can't penetrate it frontally.

As for armour being EQUAL,obviously as proven by the diagrams ur armour,ERA coverage and turret design are not equal of t-90.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> If ur talking about numbers alone PA mainstay is type 59/69 variants with over 1000 in service and reserve.It is frontline tanks that matter.These tanks are near useless except infantry support role.



you dont give up on your nonsense do you?

Atleast google something instead of unleashing crap

The least PA uses is Type-59M2, 




> HIT Type 59MII
> 
> Notes: HIT (Heavy Industries Taxila) is the primary agency in Pakistan for the building, modification, and upgrading heavy military vehicles. One of their first tank projects, begun in 1979, was to being the Type 59 first to a like-new configuration, then to upgrade it. Most of this program resulted in the Type 59s being upgraded to the Al-Zarrar; the remainder were upgraded to a configuration called the Type 59MII.
> 
> The Type 59MII is based on the Chinese Type 59-II modification, but is not quite the same. For example, the Type 59MII has a more comprehensive night vision suite, and does not normally mount the searchlight of the Chinese tank. Fire control is a bit better, including a laser rangefinder and a ballistic computer. The commander has access to the gunner&#8217;s sights and has override controls for the main gun. Overall armor is a bit heavier and more advanced than a Type 59-II; the Type 59MII has side skirts, and there are lugs for ERA on the turret front, turret sides, hull front, and hull sides, as well as the forward third of the turret roof. Floor armor is also increased. The engine is the same as the Type 59-II, as is the coaxial machinegun, but the commander&#8217;s machinegun is an NSVT that can be aimed and fired from under armor. The Type 59IIM has an automatic fire and explosion suppression system, and the transmission is semi-automatic. The Type 59 also has an APU for silent watch. Four smoke grenade launchers are mounted on each side of the turret.



Al-Zarrar



> HIT Al-Zarrar
> 
> Notes: The Pakistanis have long been users of the Chinese Type 59 tank; they also knew for quite a while that their Type 59s were not only obsolete, they were not keeping up with Indian tanks; there were, however, too many of them to simply scrap them. In 1990, the Pakistanis got together with a few foreign armament firms to upgrade their Type 59s to be able to be able to face more modern designs and at least have a chance to come out on the winning end of a fight. It would essentially give the Pakistanis a modern tank at a fraction of the cost (though the upgrade program ended up costing more real-life money than the Pakistanis thought it would). The development program started in 1990, but the sheer number of modifications (54 of them), coupled with a few budgetary problems and false starts at acquiring outright replacements for the Type 59 meant that the first upgraded Type 59, called the Al-Zarrar (Striker) was not fielded until early 2004. Some 800 of Pakistan&#8217;s Type 59s have been updated to the Al-Zarrar standard, and the Pakistanis also sell the Al-Zarrar upgrade as a kit for countries using the Type 59, T-54, or T-55. In addition to Pakistan, the Bangladeshis use the Al-Zarrar, having begun the upgrade of their Type 59s in 2008.
> 
> Virtually every area of the Type 59 is upgraded, enough so that the Al-Zarrar is essentially a new tank in an old tank&#8217;s skin. Improvements have been made to the key areas of protection, firepower, fire control, suspension, and mobility. One of the biggest upgrades is the main gun; the 100mm D-10T of the Type 59 has been replaced by a Pakistani version of the 2A46 and its autoloader. Most of the ammunition used in this gun is Pakistani-designed, but mirrors the ammunition used by the 2A46. The main gun is coupled with a modern fire control system built in Pakistan with the assistance of Krauss-Maffei of Germany. The main gun is now fully stabilized, with thermal imaging for the gunner that is accessible to the commander. The main gun also has a laser rangefinder, a ballistic computer, and a monitor to help the gunner search for targets and give him information about targets and the state of the main gun and its ranging components. The gunner&#8217;s hatch has vision blocks around it that give 180-degree vision (front, rear, and right side). The commander has, in addition to thermal imager access, his own IR vision and an image intensifier. The driver, on the front right side, has vision blocks that allow frontal vision and vision to both sides; one of these vision blocks can be removed and replaced by an IR vision block. The commander has an NSVT machinegun mounted on his cupola; this machinegun can be aimed and fired from under armor.
> 
> The Al-Zarrar uses a Pakistani-built version of a Chinese engine, a diesel engine giving 730 horsepower and also having a smaller size than the Type 59s engine. The transmission was also upgraded for the new engine and is semi-automatic. The suspension is improved with wider tracks, improved roadwheels and drive sprockets, and better shock absorption through a modified torsion bar system. Though the Al-Zarrar retains the ability to mount reserve tanks at the rear, in practice they are considered a combat hazard and are normally either not carried or jettisoned before battle.
> 
> The Al-Zarrar was originally to use a large amount of appliqué armor, but this was replaced in development with a modular armor suite, including composite armor on the glacis and turret front and spaced armor on the hull and turret sides. The floor armor has been dramatically increased as well. Lugs for ERA are found on the glacis, hull sides, turret front, turret sides, and the forward part of the turret roof. A Pakistani-designed laser threat warning system is also fitted; this lets the crew know if they are being targeted by laser designators and automatically fires smoke grenades to block the laser designation beam; 5 smoke grenade launchers are found on each side of the turret. Both the ammo bins and the crew compartments have automatic explosion and fire suppression systems.







> A Step Further: The Type 85-IIIM
> The Type 85-IIIM was designed from the outset for export to Pakistan. However, the Chinese Army is reportedly also using the Type 85-IIIM, and the Pakistanis rejected it after trials in the Pakistani deserts, where the new Chinese engine kept producing thick black exhaust that was highly visible from a long way off. The Chinese fixed the engine problem and improved several other areas of the Type 85-IIIM, but by that time, more advanced tanks were available from China, and they decided to forego the Type 85-IIIM. The Type 85-IIIM was therefore designed largely to Pakistani specifications; the Pakistanis never actually built the Type 85-IIIM indigenously, but most of their Type 85-IIAPs were rebuilt to Type 85-IIIM standards (without the heavily-smoking engine and with the subsequent Chinese upgrades). The Chinese model is called the Type 96 (though it was in service by 1993).
> The aforementioned engine is a supercharged V-12 diesel developing 1000 horsepower, and the exhaust problem has been solved (though a smoke screen can be laid by injecting diesel fuel into its exhaust). The complete powerpack (engine, transmission, and part of the suspension) can be removed in one piece, simplifying removal and replacement. The transmission is unusual; the driver can decide to drive the Type 85-IIIM in manual, semi-automatic, or fully automatic modes.
> Armor protection of the Type 85-IIIM has been further upgraded, and the turret front and side armor are modular and can be upgraded at a later date if desired. Lugs for ERA are also located on the glacis, turret front and part of the turret roof, and on the side skirts. The commander and the gunner both have fully stabilized gun sights, and the commander can fire (but not reload) his machinegun from under armor. The commander has a magnified day/night sight, and main stabilization has been improved along with the ballistic computer. The NBC system is still a collective system, with no overpressure system, and there is an external NBC agent detector which sounds a loud alarm inside the tank when an agent is detected and automatically turns on the NBC system. Radios have been upgraded; one short range and one medium-range radio of modern construction are standard. GPS is listed as an option, but rumored to be fitted to both the Type 85-IIIM and Type 96.





> Kharkiv Morozov T-80UD
> Notes: The Ukrainians have long thought the T-80 was an excellent tank, combining speed, firepower, and armor protection in a very fast-moving package. (The T-80 was Morozov&#8217;s idea, anyway.) However, Kharkiv Morozov thought that while, in its time, the T-80&#8217;s gas turbine was a good idea &#8211; it gave the T-80 excellent speed and mobility &#8211; they also knew that the gas turbine gobbled up prodigious amounts of fuel. While the T-80s gas turbine was much better than earlier Russian gas turbines, it was still a little unreliable and maintenance-heavy.
> Therefore, when the Ukrainians were modernizing their T-80Us, the first thing they changed was the powerpack. The engine was replaced with a 6TD-1 1000-horsepower turbocharged multifuel engine (and intended it to run primarily from diesel). The new engine also has other advantages &#8211; it has much more reliability, both in general and especially in hot, dry, dusty conditions. A new automatic transmission was installed to match the engine, and the driver&#8217;s controls are a simple steering T-bar and conventional gas and brake pedal. The suspension is an improved version of that of the T-80U, giving the T-80UD a smoother ride both on the road and cross country. Below the front hull is a hanging rubber mat that also helps keep down dust. The fuel tanks are self-sealing and have automatic explosion and fire dampening and suppression systems, as does the engine compartment itself. The Ukrainians also added a small gas turbine APU with a power output of 8kW.
> Of course, the Ukrainians did not stop with a mobility upgrade. The main gun was replaced with a 125mm KBA-3, which fires all 125mm rounds as well as the laser-guided 9K119M (AT-11 Sniper-B) ATGM. The KBA requires less maintenance, and what maintenance is done is easier to accomplish. The barrel of the KBA-3 can be changed without removing the entire gun, and the KBA-3 and its improved autoloader are more reliable than the 2A46M. Earlier versions of the T-80UD, did in fact use the 2A46M gun. The KBA-3s autoloader carries 28 rounds; six rounds are carried on each side of the driver in armored bins, and five more rounds are carried in an armored bin in the turret. The fire control system is virtually identical to that of the T-64BM (though a bit more advanced than the T-64BM, this is not quantifiable in game terms). As with other modern Ukrainian missile-firing tanks, the T-80UD has a separate laser designator for use with its ATGMs. The autoloader carousel and the ammunition stowage bins have armored exteriors.
> The commander&#8217;s machinegun is housed in an integrated cupola system that allows the KT-12.7 to be aimed and fired from inside the turret using its own auxiliary sights and laser rangefinder, and is stabilized in the vertical plane. The turret&#8217;s traverse mechanism, however, is limited to 75 ° left or right in of itself, though of course 360 °-rotation is possible with the help of the turret. The commander&#8217;s machinegun can be elevated to -5 °/+70 °. (It should be noted that the commander&#8217;s ballistic computer and laser rangefinder functions only to an elevation of +20 degrees; beyond that, a conventional coincidence rangefinder is used.) The commander has override controls for the main gun and coaxial machinegun. The commander&#8217;s machinegun may also be an NSVT at customer request; likewise, the coaxial machinegun may be a PKT.
> Compared to other former Soviet-based designs, the interior of the T-80UD is almost roomy. Inside the T-80UD&#8217;s fighting compartment are racks for AK-type weapons, pistols, and hand grenades for each crewmember, in addition to a signal flare pistol and several of three colors of flares. The crew is able to fit part of the personal gear inside, or extra machinegun ammunition boxes or a couple of main gun rounds can be put inside. In addition, the T-80UD has a decent-sized bustle rack and the turret and hull have several equipment boxes.
> Extra protection is provided by an upgrade to the frontal composite armor as well as appliqué armor, both in the form of standard add-on armor plates and stand-off armor plates. Like most other armored vehicles, the T-80UD can lay a thick, oily smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into its exhaust. The T-80UD has a cluster of four smoke grenade launchers on either side of its turret. Under armor, above the engine compartment, is a layer of insulation that helps dampen the IR signature of the engine (-3 to hit with IR-guided weapons and -2 to detect the T-80UD with IR viewers or thermal imagers). Lugs for ERA (usually the Ukrainian Nozh or Nozh-2, but customers may specify lugs for other types of ERA if desired) are found on the glacis, turret front, turret sides, and the forward third of the hull sides.
> 
> Pakistani T-80UDs
> In the early 1990s, Ukraine negotiated with Pakistan to fill Pakistan&#8217;s needs for newer main battle tanks; the Pakistanis chose the T-80UD, deciding to procure 320 of them. These T-80UDs were to have all been delivered throughout 1997. After the first 15 T-80UDs were delivered to Pakistan, the Ukrainians were suddenly forced to suspend shipments.
> The problem was the Russians. Perhaps the biggest customer for Russian military equipment is the Indians, and the Indians weren&#8217;t happy that the Pakistanis were getting tanks with main guns and fire control equipment almost as good as that on their new T-90Ss. At the time, the Ukrainians were fitting 2A46M main guns and Russian-built fire control equipment, as well as some other turret equipment that was Russian designed but built under license in Ukraine; the ERA that Ukraine was using at the time was also the Russian Kontakt series. The Russians refused to sell the Ukrainians any more tank components, and rescinded the licenses they had issued.
> The Ukrainians, however, were already well on their way to having a defense industry independent of Russia, and the boycott merely gave Kharkiv Morozov extra impetus to bring those components to fruit even faster. The Ukrainians kept the Pakistanis happy by delivering 20 more T-80UDs that had been drawn from an unfulfilled earlier export order, and between 1997 and 2002, the Ukrainians delivered 285 more T-80UDs.
> Sort of.
> The original T-80UDs delivered to the Pakistanis were in fact standard T-80UDs. The remaining T-80UDs, however, were not standard; the Ukrainians used the hulls and hull components of the T-80UD, but the turrets of these vehicles were actually the same as those installed on the T-84. In addition, the ERA lugs were modular and could take both Kontakt-series and Nozh-series ERA, as well as Pakistani-designed ERA modules. The Pakistanis also use PKTs and NSVTs on their T-80UDs of both types. It is rumored, but not confirmed, that some of the later shipments included the Varta system. So the Pakistanis ended up with tanks which were almost the equal of the T-84, and could stand up on the battlefield to the Indians&#8217; T-90Ss. The Pakistanis were happy with this.



now come down to numbers,

AK = between 350-400

AZ = 640-720

T-80ud= 320

T-85III= 310-350

Type-69IIMP= 250-350

Type-59M2= 700-800

approximately 2800 mbts out of which modern ones are 1750 + (all capable of firing DU rounds)



AUSTERLITZ said:


> In rhetoric,As for ammo btw u still haven't shown me either naiza 2 that is widely operational.
> Answered on how u got 650 mm penetration for type-IIm or given any evidence that this latest chinese round is used by PA.
> And even if it was,T-90 survived better ukrainian ammo in trails even without ERA,so u still can't penetrate it frontally.
> 
> As for armour being EQUAL,obviously as proven by the diagrams ur armour,ERA coverage and turret design are not equal of t-90.



WHERE IS THE MIGHTY AMK-340 UPGRADED????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> you dont give up on your nonsense do you?
> 
> Atleast google something instead of unleashing crap
> 
> The least PA uses is Type-59M2,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Zarrar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now come down to numbers,
> 
> AK = between 350-400
> 
> AZ = 640-720
> 
> T-80ud= 320
> 
> T-85III= 310-350
> 
> Type-69IIMP= 250-350
> 
> Type-59M2= 700-800
> 
> approximately 2800 mbts out of which modern ones are 1750 + are modern (all capable of firing DU rounds)
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE IS THE MIGHTY AMK-340 UPGRADED????



Read my post ..what do you think type-59 'variants' mean?What u think type-59m2 is a seperate tank or type 59 variant as i said.
On type-59 of PA.
''80 Type 59 tanks ordered in 1964 from the PRC and delivered between 1965 and 1966. 210 Type 59 tanks ordered in 1968 from the PRC and delivered between 1970 and 1972. 159 Type 59 tanks ordered in 1973 from the PRC and delivered in 1974. 852 Type 59 tanks ordered in 1975 from the PRC and delivered between 1978 and 1988. Around 1,300 Type 59s were in service in 1990, 1,200 in 1995 and 2000, 1,100 in 2002, 1,000 Type 59s and 80 Al-Zarrars (Type 59 upgrade) in 2005, 600 Type 59s and 300 Al-Zarrars in 2008, 1100 Type 59s and 400 Al-Zarrars in 2010. 600 Type 59s and 600 Al Zarrar's in 2012. ''

All ur type-59 and type-69 are mostly armed with 105 mm guns,obsolete armour totally and useless in modern tank to tank combat except infantry fire support.

So khalid 350-400 and t-80ud 320?Thats around 700 truly modern tanks against 800 plus t-90s and 120 odd arjuns.
And 300+ type-85III and 700 odd zarrars for 1000 odd second tier tanks to face off against our similar numbers of t-72 ajeyas.
That still leaves over a 1000 t-72s against which u have totally obsolete type59/69 variants.

Also WHERE IS THE MIGHTY NAIZA 2 upgraded thats fully operational throughout PA,also where is this latest chinese round that PA uses.Ur just making wishes in the air.And where will u hide the flaws of ur tanks turrets?


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Read my post ..what do you think type-59 'variants' mean?What u think type-59m2 is a seperate tank or type 59 variant as i said.
> On type-59 of PA.
> ''80 Type 59 tanks ordered in 1964 from the PRC and delivered between 1965 and 1966. 210 Type 59 tanks ordered in 1968 from the PRC and delivered between 1970 and 1972. 159 Type 59 tanks ordered in 1973 from the PRC and delivered in 1974. 852 Type 59 tanks ordered in 1975 from the PRC and delivered between 1978 and 1988. Around 1,300 Type 59s were in service in 1990, 1,200 in 1995 and 2000, 1,100 in 2002, 1,000 Type 59s and 80 Al-Zarrars (Type 59 upgrade) in 2005, 600 Type 59s and 300 Al-Zarrars in 2008, 1100 Type 59s and 400 Al-Zarrars in 2010. 600 Type 59s and 600 Al Zarrar's in 2012. ''
> 
> All ur type-59 and type-69 are mostly armed with 105 mm guns,obsolete armour totally and useless in modern tank to tank combat except infantry fire support.
> 
> So khalid 350-400 and t-80ud 320?Thats around 700 truly modern tanks against 800 plus t-90s and 120 odd arjuns.
> And 300+ type-85III and 700 odd zarrars for 1000 odd second tier tanks to face off against our similar numbers of t-72 ajeyas.
> That still leaves over a 1000 t-72s against which u have totally obsolete type59/69 variants.
> 
> Also WHERE IS THE MIGHTY NAIZA 2 upgraded thats fully operational throughout PA,also where is this latest chinese round that PA uses.Ur just making wishes in the air.And where will u hide the flaws of ur tanks turrets?




go sleep kid, you are a waste of time 




> Defence spokesman Col S D Goswami said: "At present the main stay in terms of the number of India's armoured regiments is the T-72 tanks *followed by T-55* tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> go sleep kid, you are a waste of time



Good if u have nothing else to add or answer.But who was i even talking to ..ur a guy who didn't even know arjun had been inducted waay back in 2009.And hear u were badmouthing IA tank corps.



Dazzler said:


> go sleep kid, you are a waste of time



That was 2011 kid.T-55 has been retired from IA and moved to reserve storage.Ur ignorance about indian tank forces amazes me,yet ur blabbering about our 'disadvantage'.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiat..._arjun-tanks-indigenous-main-battle-tank-t-90


----------



## Keshav Murali

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Aren't polish and ukrainians in for new ammo tender?
> Also what is the best russian APS shtora or arena?I thought drozd-2 and arena were pretty equal and quite advanced?Some reports say arena was selected even for south korean k2 black panther?



I don't know about the APS stuff. But Arena does *not* have a good reputation. Ask Andrei_bt or hest at home (  )



Dazzler said:


> 3BM-44M Lekalo will be provided yep i saw sources of the deal. average penetration @ 2000 m, 0 deg is 600-650mm, @ 60 deg, its 300 mm.



Maybe, we don't know which 3BM44 it is so far. But it is definitely up for export.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Isnt Vitiaz a gun?



Yes. But there are people running up and down claiming there is a "Vityaz" APFSDS.


----------



## Keshav Murali

Dazzler said:


> Thats why you see rounds busting, poor propellant and storage, and even plans for discarding thousands of APFSDS (15000 of them!!) due to substandard quality. A



73,000 actually. Destroyed in '03. Not now.



Dazzler said:


> this is in Georgia conflict...turret ERA is K-5 but, nothing survived really



T-72B variant.
@Dazzler, a few poor arguments from your side noticed - 1) Boron Carbide is not integral to Burlington.
2) Boron Carbide isn't the best - See methos's latest posts there.
3) The reason for using DU in the first place was its low cost, not effectiveness. Tungsten has been in use from the 1930's for AP rounds.

@AUSTERLITZ, don't get pissed, leave this to me if you are not able to handle it.


----------



## Keshav Murali

@Dazzler

The last T-55 in service are mine-clearing vehicles according to Kunal Biswas. And that's all.

The T-90's armour is much better than T-72B variants, any of them. Just because T-90 was based on the T-72BU prototype doesn't mean it is incompetent.

Last, and the least, Arjun is in service already. 119 for now. T-90? From what I know, we have the initial 300+ batch and the first knock-down kits of 300+ in service already.

*Yawn* You are better off asking Kunal Biswas in Arjun and T-90 matters. Get it off this thread please. Let's take it there.


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> @Dazzler
> 
> The last T-55 in service are mine-clearing vehicles according to Kunal Biswas. And that's all.
> 
> The T-90's armour is much better than T-72B variants, any of them. Just because T-90 was based on the T-72BU prototype doesn't mean it is incompetent.
> 
> *Yawn* You are better off asking Kunal Biswas in Arjun and T-90 matters. Get it off this thread please. Let's take it there.



Thanks for correcting the T-55 part (y)

Welcome to the party 

you can inform Kunal and company to argue as much as they want, most welcome

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> 73,000 actually. Destroyed in '03. Not now.
> 
> 
> 
> T-72B variant.
> @Dazzler, a few poor arguments from your side noticed - 1) Boron Carbide is not integral to Burlington.
> 2) Boron Carbide isn't the best - See methos's latest posts there.
> 3) The reason for using DU in the first place was its low cost, not effectiveness. Tungsten has been in use from the 1930's for AP rounds.
> 
> @AUSTERLITZ, don't get pissed, leave this to me if you are not able to handle it.



t-72bm aka object 187 turned into early t-90 with cast turret, t-72bu aka object 188 turned into t-90A with welded turret.


* Apart of low cost, Depleted Uranium by its nature, is much dense than tungsten or other carbides, on impact, it has more chance of penetrating the armour. 

* Boron carbide is extremely hard and brittle, but it is used as a component with other elements such as silicon aluminium hardened steel etc allowing much resilient composite module.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Notice the APFSDS at extreme left, appears similar to 3VBM-13 projectile with 3BM-32 assembly, named Vant, which is a DU round, penetration value for this round is 500 mm @ 2000 m @ 0 deg, 250 @ 60 deg

interesting!









http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/3vbm-13-125mm-apfsds-t-round

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

POF

125 mm above, 105 mm below..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Arjun APFSDS round...






seconf round from left, typeIIM  also visible other standard, older 125 mm APFSDSes

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

type-IIM claimed penetration of 1100 RHA thick armour... 










































> normally we can see 150mm ,180mm, 220mm, 250mm RHA targets at our shooting ranges....,in those academic papers of early 1990s we could find many test results on 150 or 180mm target...nowadays, 220mm and 250mm targets appear very often ...many other composite armor targets are also used , for example:204mm thickness Type681 composte armor target(80mmRHA+20mmRHA+glass fiber-reinforced plastic+corundum)....
> 
> the RHA targets in the range...it's not a pic of ours,but no much difference.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

Dazzler said:


> type-IIM claimed penetration of 1100 RHA thick armour...




What Pakistan Army tanks can fire this? And are we equipped with these rounds?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Donatello said:


> What Pakistan Army tanks can fire this? And are we equipped with these rounds?



Yes, but we manufacture them as per our requirements , they have a compatibility with T-80ud and AZ

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Keshav Murali

@Dazzler, nice images.

Does PA use 3VBM-13?

Also, 1100 mm penetration can be achieved by Type-IIM no problem, if the target is mild steel or steel that is at least 40-50% softer than normal RHA. militarysta explicitly stated on this penetration value on RHA - "Bull****"

And one Chinese kid was claiming 1100 mm was achieved on 270 BHN steel by a 105 mm HEAT round 

I'd advise you to take these claims with a packet of salt, rather than a grain.


----------



## Dazzler

no idea whether 3VBM-13 is in service with PA but it is shown in UD's arsenal so it could be there.

Regarding the 1100 mm penetration, i said "claimed", speaks something

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

trap holes in T-90MS aka thinner/ weaker armour protection

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Type-II, 3rd from above..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keshav Murali

@Dazzler, is the lower tank in the picture actually a T-90S?

Because the Indian T-90S's turret shape resembles the T-90MS shape shown very closely.






Also, all tanks have the same weak points frontally.

i.e. 

1. Gun Mantlet
2. Driver's hatch
3. Gap between hull and turret
4. Visible part of the roof
5. Exposed Gunner's sight modules

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> @Dazzler, is the lower tank in the picture actually a T-90S?
> 
> Because the Indian T-90S's turret shape resembles the T-90MS shape shown very closely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, all tanks have the same weak points frontally.
> 
> i.e.
> 
> 1. Gun Mantlet
> 2. Driver's hatch
> 3. Gap between hull and turret
> 4. Visible part of the roof
> 5. Exposed Gunner's sight modules




Second pic is of T-90S Bhishma of Indian Army, red outline indicates MS turret 

Generally, all tanks share pretty much similar vulnerable areas but it is apparent that the turret on T90S, M/ is more compart but in MS, it is oblungated to accommodate new electronics and to create more roomy interior. 

However, such a turret modification exposed it more than before and calls for a thicker armour/ ERA which unfortunately is not there, aiding to weaker parts more than M or S.

The thing is, an upgrade is suppose to reduce vulnerability, not to increase it fruther.

See post # 724


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Second pic is of T-90S Bhishma of Indian Army, red outline indicates MS turret
> 
> Generally, all tanks share pretty much similar vulnerable areas but it is apparent that the turret on T90S, M/ is more compart but in MS, it is oblungated to accommodate new electronics and to create more roomy interior.
> 
> However, such a turret modification exposed it more than before and calls for a thicker armour/ ERA which unfortunately is not there, aiding to weaker parts more than M or S.
> 
> The thing is, an upgrade is suppose to reduce vulnerability, not to increase it fruther.
> 
> See post # 724



But the upper roof area u painted red in t-90MS seems covered by relikt ERA?So how is that vulnerable?


----------



## Keshav Murali

Dazzler said:


> Second pic is of T-90S Bhishma of Indian Army, red outline indicates MS turret
> 
> Generally, all tanks share pretty much similar vulnerable areas but it is apparent that the turret on T90S, M/ is more compart but in MS, it is oblungated to accommodate new electronics and to create more roomy interior.
> 
> However, such a turret modification exposed it more than before and calls for a thicker armour/ ERA which unfortunately is not there, aiding to weaker parts more than M or S.
> 
> The thing is, an upgrade is suppose to reduce vulnerability, not to increase it fruther.
> 
> See post # 724



I think you didn't understand me or the photo. The T-90S turret shown doesn't seem to be a T-90S - the actual image, that is. And it is certainly not Indian Army, that's not their paint scheme.

And that is a propaganda photo by well known Soviet tank expert Andrei Harkonnen, he absolutely despises Russian tank designs. Gur Khan does this sort of stuff with T-64BM and T-80 variants.

T-90MS has better protection from what we know so far, and roof is better protected than in T-90S.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> But the upper roof area u painted red in t-90MS seems covered by relikt ERA?So how is that vulnerable?



Whatever ERA it has, the upper roof needs heavy Triple-Hardness RHA or Composite armour to stand impact from APFSDS rounds. It is a weak area whether or not it has Relikt, Kaktus, Kontackt and the what not.


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> I think you didn't understand me or the photo. The T-90S turret shown doesn't seem to be a T-90S - the actual image, that is. And it is certainly not Indian Army, that's not their paint scheme.
> 
> And that is a propaganda photo by well known Soviet tank expert Andrei Harkonnen, he absolutely despises Russian tank designs. Gur Khan does this sort of stuff with T-64BM and T-80 variants.
> 
> T-90MS has better protection from what we know so far, and roof is better protected than in T-90S.
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever ERA it has, the upper roof needs heavy Triple-Hardness RHA or Composite armour to stand impact from APFSDS rounds. It is a weak area whether or not it has Relikt, Kaktus, Kontackt and the what not.



I agree both Andrei and Gur Khan are at war for sure 

at the same time, the MS version despite its glorifications and increased side armour and better electronics and relikt instead of K-5 is yet another T-90 version.

It is too early to speculate on MS but some things are so evidently clear that it still uses AZ autoloader with same original speed as the T-90S heck they could have done atleast what Czeks did with their M4CZs i.e. improve the speed and save precious time. As per my observation SO FAR, Russians have presented Indians with yet another T-90 facelift which, though an improvement over the S and M.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> I agree both Andrei and Gur Khan are at war for sure
> 
> at the same time, the MS version despite its glorifications and increased side armour and better electronics and relikt instead of K-5 is yet another T-90 version.
> 
> It is too early to speculate on MS but some things are so evidently clear that it still uses AZ autoloader with same original speed as the T-90S heck they could have done atleast what Czeks did with their M4CZs i.e. improve the speed and save precious time. As per my observation SO FAR, Russians have presented Indians with yet another T-90 facelift which, though an improvement over the S and M.



As far as i know IA has rejected the t-90ms as a whole but incorporated parts of it along with DRDO modifications into our own upgrade package built to IA specifications.


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> I think you didn't understand me or the photo. The T-90S turret shown doesn't seem to be a T-90S - the actual image, that is. And it is certainly not Indian Army, that's not their paint scheme.




It is the IA T-90S Bhishma, see these


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> As far as i know IA has rejected the t-90ms as a whole but incorporated parts of it along with DRDO modifications into our own upgrade package built to IA specifications.



Could be but as per this article,, they are going for MS..




> By Wang Yang, Sina English
> The Indian army is pondering over the possibility to postpone trials of its home-made Arjun tanks to facilitate a larger order for T-90MS tanks from Russia, according to an article published on the Russian military-industrial complex website on Nov 26th.
> It&#8217;s reported that the Indian army will place a fresh order for purchase of 354 latest T-90MS tanks, which will be allocated to the six tank regiments deployed in the border region between China and India, including two tank brigades and a mountain strike corps.
> These new tanks will supplement the 1657 Russian T-90S, and 2414 T-72M tanks already deployed on the Pakistan border.
> The Indian army has also decided to purchase another 124 home-made Arjun tanks with an order for another 118 in the pipeline.
> Indeed, the Arjun tank -- developed in India by the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) -- outperforms the Russia-made T-90 in comparative trials.
> But the Indian army seems to insist that the 60-tonne Arjun is too heavy for the soft deserts in Punjab and the Kashmir region, implying that the Arjun tank will only be available for 4-6 of the army&#8217;s 65 tank regiments in the future.
> Being a new and upgraded version of the T-90S that India bought in 2001, the T-90MS is widely regarded as well suited for the extreme cold in the northern regions of India.
> The Arjun, in contrast, is designed to withstand the heat of the Indian plains, where the T-90S has repeatedly malfunctioned in high temperatures.
> According to a senior general who is still in service, the Indian army is &#8220;justified in deploying the T-90MS in the border region between China and India&#8221; and &#8220;it&#8217;s better to replace the old T-90S with Arjun in some high temperature areas&#8220;.




India to purchase T-90MS Tanks for deployment along Sino-Indian border - World News - SINA English

the sooner the better....




> Global Tender for India&#8217;s T-90 Tank Ammunition
> 
> The Indian Army is entering the global market for the purchase of unspecified number of ammunition worth $550 million for the Russian made T-90 tanks it operates. The ammunition being used by the Indian Army for the T-90 tanks was contracted along with the purchase of T-90 tanks in 2000.
> 
> While the Indian made ammunition for the T-90 tank has been rejected by the Indian Army due to technical faults, the price of the Russian made ammunition has been increased 300 per cent by the Russians.
> 
> The Indian Army has now decided to hunt in the international market for a variety of ammunition for the T-90 tanks, including the standard 330 grade ammunition and two other varieties for the T-90 tanks.
> 
> The tender is expected to be floated in December and is likely to be sent to Dhiel defence of Germany, IWI of Israel, Rosoboronoexport of Russia, BAE of United Kingdom, Bumar of Poland and Ukrainexport of Ukraine.
> 
> There were technical problems with the Indian made ammunition for the 125 mm gun of the T-90 tanks especially relating to packing and the rate of the fire. As such the Indian made ammunition has not been used for years, and is lying unused. The Indian Army has rejected the Indian made ammunition and has been using the Russian made ammunition only contracted along with the first contract of the Tank. The Russians want 300 per cent increase in price of the ammunition for extra supplies.
> 
> The purchase of the ammunition for the T-90 tanks is likely to be done on Urgent basis which would mean that the winners would be selected in the shortest possible time.




http://www.defencenow.com/news/882/global-tender-for-indias-t-90-tank-ammunition.html


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Could be but as per this article,, they are going for MS..



Acc to kunal biswas,t-90MS plan is scrapped.Instead.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
User-trials of a T-90S MBT equipped with IRDE-developed and BEL-built commander&#8217;s panoramic sight and driver&#8217;s uncooled thermal imager (derived from that developed for the Arjun Mk1A MBT) have just gotten underway.
The CVRDE-upgraded prototype of the T-90S has done away with the T01-K04 and substitutes it with the IRDE-developed and BEL-built commander&#8217;s panoramic sight (which houses a SAGEM-built MATIS-STD thermal imager operating in the 3-5 micron bandwidth), which has resulted in enhanced static visibility levels for both the gunner and commander.
In addition, the IV528-2 digital ballistics computer has given way to an indigenous solution developed by TATA Power Strategic Electronics Division, while the IRDE-developed driver&#8217;s uncooled thermal imaging night sight has replaced the TVN-5 night-vision device.
Furthermore, a DEAL-developed MMW-based IFF system has been installed for enhancing the MBT crew&#8217;s situational awareness.


''VRDE has already developed the APU, which too is now undergoing user-trials.''

Tank wraps have been indigenised.

From MS upgrade we will be taking the digitalized interior for the upgrade.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

And an APS will be added.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Acc to kunal biswas,t-90MS plan is scrapped.Instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> User-trials of a T-90S MBT equipped with IRDE-developed and BEL-built commander&#8217;s panoramic sight and driver&#8217;s uncooled thermal imager (derived from that developed for the Arjun Mk1A MBT) have just gotten underway.
> The CVRDE-upgraded prototype of the T-90S has done away with the T01-K04 and substitutes it with the IRDE-developed and BEL-built commander&#8217;s panoramic sight (which houses a SAGEM-built MATIS-STD thermal imager operating in the 3-5 micron bandwidth), which has resulted in enhanced static visibility levels for both the gunner and commander.
> In addition, the IV528-2 digital ballistics computer has given way to an indigenous solution developed by TATA Power Strategic Electronics Division, while the IRDE-developed driver&#8217;s uncooled thermal imaging night sight has replaced the TVN-5 night-vision device.
> Furthermore, a DEAL-developed MMW-based IFF system has been installed for enhancing the MBT crew&#8217;s situational awareness.
> 
> 
> ''VRDE has already developed the APU, which too is now undergoing user-trials.''
> 
> Tank wraps have been indigenised.
> 
> From MS upgrade we will be taking the digitalized interior for the upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> And an APS will be added.



You mean T-90S as of now is without an APU or is it a new one? What happened to Swed APS they shortlisted?

Rest of the developments as you mentioned seem to make sense i.e IF Kunal is right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> You mean T-90S as of now is without an APU or is it a new one? What happened to Swed APS they shortlisted?
> 
> Rest of the developments as you mentioned seem to make sense i.e IF Kunal is right.



Indigeneous APU.
LEDS-150 was selected,after that no one knows.But that was only for initial batch of 310.Rest will most probably have israeli APS.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Indigeneous APU.
> LEDS-150 was selected,after that no one knows.But that was only for initial batch of 310.Rest will most probably have israeli APS.



Indigenous APU is a good development but the Swedish APS is dwindling and as you said now they are looking at Trophy most likely, delays and delays..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

If this is the Indian ERA for Ajeya, sorry to say its too vulnerable since its just an obsolete Kontakt 1 !


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> If this is the Indian ERA for Ajeya, sorry to say its too vulnerable since its just an obsolete Kontakt 1 !



Yeah its k-1 type,but its very well covered throughout.Btw zarrar too has similar ERA with much less coverage.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
K-1 is much cheaper than k-5 and can be built indigeneously.


----------



## Dazzler

Zarrar has a pretty damn good composite armour buddy, thats why we dont see ERA too often. A composte that can withstand 7 rpg hits from different directions yet no ammunition cook off or turret blown and the crew remained unharmed is worth appreciation. Cant say the same about Ajeya though.

I was reading an article that Chinese were so impressed with Zarrar incident that they began to claim the composite as their tech. Some African delegation it was

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

this is new Al Zarrar with improved composite and side armour...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Zarrar has a pretty damn good composite armour buddy, thats why we dont see ERA too often. A composte that can withstand 7 rpg hits from different directions yet no ammunition cook off or turret blown and the crew remained unharmed is worth appreciation. Cant say the same about Ajeya though.



Any composite armour package should shake off old RPG models ,zarrar has a protective composite package with air gap over its basic cast armour.But ur right its not that ajeya is anything special,but base armour of ajeya is much more powerful than zarrar's, with 500 mm worth composite armour,but its cast armour not welded.
None of these tanks really have some advantage in armour with respect to each other.



Dazzler said:


> this is new Al Zarrar with improved composite and side armour...



Like the new armour skirts.


----------



## Shiji

The reason Al-Zarrar is so impressive:


> First attack was through improvise explosive devices which resulted in destruction of the tanks and afterwards Taliban started firing at them, they say that it was very difficult for them to access the direction of the fire and strength of the enemy. Soldiers involved in this fight say that it took us some time to estimate their positions and after that we started counter attack by sending our troops to surround them. Taliban felt the heat and started second part of the attack to scatter and destroy the advance party of Pakistan army, they launched one of their front end weapon against this small advance party; suicide bombers. Because of the magnitude of this attack, one can easily describe it as the largest suicide attack in Pakistan if not the largest in the world, mounted against a small force in shuch a limited time. This attack involved at least six different vehicles and three motor bikes filled with explosives and driven by suicide bombers within short span of time of only fifteen minutes...
> Crew of the destroyed Al-Zarrar MBT survived without injuries and tank was recovered as neither turret of chassis of Al-Zarrar MBT was penetrated which also proved the recent upgrade was successful


Source
And the reason T-72 is just a waste of your hard earned money:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Any composite armour package should shake off old RPG models ,zarrar has a protective composite package with air gap over its basic cast armour.But ur right its not that ajeya is anything special,but base armour of ajeya is much more powerful than zarrar's, with 500 mm worth composite armour,but its cast armour not welded.
> None of these tanks really have some advantage in armour with respect to each other. Like the new armour skirts.



Just one correction: AZ does not have a air gap in its armour. i attended Ideas 2008 and talked to the representative who clearly mentioned it has solid composite based armour insted of air gaps.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Shiji said:


> The reason Al-Zarrar is so impressive:
> 
> Source
> And the reason T-72 is just a waste of your hard earned money:



I overlooked the IED part. Thats very impressive for an upgraded Type-59 MBT considering how M-1 have been blown by these in Iraq and Afghanistan!!

GOSH :O

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shiji

And check the damage done to a T-72 just by one RPG-7 round that too to the frontal quarter of the turret.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

''Since then Pakistan army has been using its Al-Zarrar MBT for precision day night attack capability and recently we have been able to watch the video in which an Al-Zarrar tank was shown destroyed. Many claims have been made about the destruction of these tanks and how this will affect the moral of Pakistani army in Swat and FATA. But what was unknown until now was the fact how this tank was destroyed? It was part of small force at the front to make first contact with the militants along with force of around 35 personals of Pakistani army. It was ambushed from three sides of the mountainous road and has to face at least six suicide attack attempts within span of 15 minutes along with attacks through improvised explosive devices that were buried in their way. Crew of the destroyed Al-Zarrar MBT survived without injuries and tank was recovered as neither turret of chassis of Al-Zarrar MBT was penetrated which also proved the recent upgrade was successful. Survival of the crew form the destroyed Al-Zarrar MBT is also going to be a major moral booster for the crew as they will have more confidence in the crew protection capability of the tank. According to the soldiers participating in this furious battle fought in first week of this recent attempt by the Pakistan army to clear out the areas from Taliban militants, they were attacked from three sides by different militant groups that have divided themselves into smaller groups of four to five. First attack was through improvise explosive devices which resulted in destruction of the tanks and afterwards Taliban started firing at them, they say that it was very difficult for them to access the direction of the fire and strength of the enemy. Soldiers involved in this fight say that it took us some time to estimate their positions and after that we started counter attack by sending our troops to surround them. Taliban felt the heat and started second part of the attack to scatter and destroy the advance party of Pakistan army, they launched one of their front end weapon against this small advance party; suicide bombers. Because of the magnitude of this attack, one can easily describe it as the largest suicide attack in Pakistan if not the largest in the world, mounted against a small force in shuch a limited time. This attack involved at least six different vehicles and three motor bikes filled with explosives and driven by suicide bombers within short span of time of only fifteen minutes. Pakistani soldiers first gave them warnings to stop as they thought these were civilian vehicles, but later on they recognized the threat in time and started firing at them, most of these vehicles were destroyed but due to high speed these did at front line vehicles of this small military force. According to the commanding officer of this advance force, they were very fortunate that none of their troop involved in this operation was killed and all thirty five of them were able to survive this attack.''

No where does it describe anything about RPGs.Seven RPG?Just mentions bikes with explosives and suicide bombers,which shouldn't really bother a tank,unless they got under its belly.





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
As for solid composite armour,this pic clearly shows in the turret that its hollow package not solid .



Shiji said:


> And check the damage done to a T-72 just by one RPG-7 round that too to the frontal quarter of the turret.



Which video man?Saw a few killing t-72 with latest rpg-29 .


----------



## Keshav Murali

Dazzler said:


> I agree both Andrei and Gur Khan are at war for sure
> 
> at the same time, the MS version despite its glorifications and increased side armour and better electronics and relikt instead of K-5 is yet another T-90 version.
> 
> It is too early to speculate on MS but some things are so evidently clear that it still uses AZ autoloader with same original speed as the T-90S heck they could have done atleast what Czeks did with their M4CZs i.e. improve the speed and save precious time. As per my observation SO FAR, Russians have presented Indians with yet another T-90 facelift which, though an improvement over the S and M.



The autoloader is the extended version, same as the autoloader on new-build T-90A. Which can fire 3BM44M.


----------



## Keshav Murali

@Dazzler, 

T-90MS components are used to upgrade T-90S and new-build T-90S will be built to MS standard. And I meant





that the above image does not show a T-90S. (T-90C is T-90S in Russian, I know. Turret is different here, so I doubt that it is a T-90S) 

If it does show a T-90S, then India has received *only* T-90MS standard tanks.



Dazzler said:


> You mean T-90S as of now is without an APU or is it a new one? What happened to Swed APS they shortlisted?
> 
> Rest of the developments as you mentioned seem to make sense i.e IF Kunal is right.



Indigenous APU is in service on Arjun. LEDS-150 was shortlisted for T-90, we don't know what happened.

And, put more faith in Kunal, he is a serving member of the forces, not armchair Generals like us.


----------



## Keshav Murali

Dazzler said:


> If this is the Indian ERA for Ajeya, sorry to say its too vulnerable since its just an obsolete Kontakt 1 !



No, it uses different ERA, but still K-1 type with shaped charge initiation. We don't know if it is *linear* shaped charge like Noz or Duplet, but it should be way superior to K-1. It's not like we need the T-72 to stand up to DM-53 do we? 

According to 

1) EXPLOSIVE REACTIVE ARMOUR
2) DRDO::Life Sciences Engineering

This ERA reduces penetration of Milan 2 Tandem Warhead by *70%* Compare to Noz which reduces by upto 90%.
Gets initiated by a shaped charge jet. Does not have sympathetic detonation and is safe from damage when dropped or when tank is deep-fording. And weight penalty is less than 1.5 tons. This thing is supposed to have negated hits from 105 mm HESH and APFSDS and Milan 2.

Enough for me 



Shiji said:


> The reason Al-Zarrar is so impressive:
> 
> And the reason T-72 is just a waste of your hard earned money:



Yeah right. T-72M with pitiful 350 mm frontal arc protection which is hit on the side gets blown up. Compare that to Indian T-72M1 with Kanchan and K-1 ERA with 600 mm frontal protection, superior to T-72B.

Outclasses the Al-Zarrar.

What makes you think that the Al-Zarrar has a large enough armour cavity for thick integral composite armour?

T-54 is still T-54.

And Russland T-72B's took 5 or 6 hits from RPG-7 on the front hull before being struck on the side in Grozny. Without ERA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Keshav Murali said:


> No, it uses different ERA, but still K-1 type with shaped charge initiation. We don't know if it is *linear* shaped charge like Noz or Duplet, but it should be way superior to K-1. It's not like we need the T-72 to stand up to DM-53 do we?
> 
> According to
> 
> 1) EXPLOSIVE REACTIVE ARMOUR
> 2) DRDO::Life Sciences Engineering
> 
> This ERA reduces penetration of Milan 2 Tandem Warhead by *70%* Compare to Noz which reduces by upto 90%.
> Gets initiated by a shaped charge jet. Does not have sympathetic detonation and is safe from damage when dropped or when tank is deep-fording. And weight penalty is less than 1.5 tons. This thing is supposed to have negated hits from 105 mm HESH and APFSDS and Milan 2.
> 
> Enough for me
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right. T-72M with pitiful 350 mm frontal arc protection which is hit on the side gets blown up. Compare that to Indian T-72M1 with Kanchan and K-1 ERA with 600 mm frontal protection, superior to T-72B.
> 
> Outclasses the Al-Zarrar.
> 
> What makes you think that the Al-Zarrar has a large enough armour cavity for thick integral composite armour?
> 
> T-54 is still T-54.
> 
> And Russland T-72B took 5 or 6 hits from RPG-7 on the front hull before being struck on the side.



Does the ajeya upgrade add kanchan?Wow.
Didn't know that.Are u sure?


----------



## Keshav Murali

Dazzler said:


> I overlooked the IED part. Thats very impressive for an upgraded Type-59 MBT considering how M-1 have been blown by these in Iraq and Afghanistan!!
> 
> GOSH :O



Bombs on Backpacks of Suicide bombers are HE warheads with 8-9 kg explosive. An FT-17 would remain unharmed if such nonsense was blown up in front of it.

And what sort of HEAT warheads and explosives are available to militants for making proper shaped charges unless they took it from PA?

Compare that to modified 125 mm HEAT rounds used as IED, penetration in excess of 700 mm.

Totally different classes have been compared, I am warning you.

Nothing impressive.



Shiji said:


> And check the damage done to a T-72 just by one RPG-7 round that too to the frontal quarter of the turret.



All tanks are damaged. Not penetrated. I'd suggest you look at the damage done by 57 mm AT rounds to M46 Pattons in Korea. No penetration but severe damage. Half of the turret had a dent in it.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Does the ajeya upgrade add kanchan?Wow.
> Didn't know that.Are u sure?



DRDO said it. Not me. And Kunal Biswas confirmed it.

Damian was skeptical, of course.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

What's the weight of the ajeya?If kanchan was added won't the heavy composite armour increase the weight?


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> Bombs on Backpacks of Suicide bombers are HE warheads with 8-9 kg explosive. An FT-17 would remain unharmed if such nonsense was blown up in front of it.
> 
> And what sort of HEAT warheads and explosives are available to militants for making proper shaped charges unless they took it from PA?
> 
> Compare that to modified 125 mm HEAT rounds used as IED, penetration in excess of 700 mm.
> 
> Totally different classes have been compared, I am warning you.
> 
> Nothing impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> All tanks are damaged. Not penetrated. I'd suggest you look at the damage done by 57 mm AT rounds to M46 Pattons in Korea. No penetration but severe damage. Half of the turret had a dent in it.
> 
> DRDO said it. Not me. And Kunal Biswas confirmed it. Damian was skeptical, of course.



I am skeptical too, is Kunal a DRDO rep?

As expected, you are embracing a denial mode so be it. What you need to understand is that AZ is still an upgraded t-59, from actual accounts, IEDs used in Wana and Waziristan are pretty powerful, enough to knock out any tank in the region.

Even an 8-10kg can blow a hole in the floor of an M-1. 

6 RPG hit is not a fantasy man it is soldiers account who was a part of the incident. 

SO i care about your warning? Nope

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Shiji

The composite armour pannel did it's job in the above given pic. About the RPG well there are many theories at how the AZ was destroyed considering that the panel is hit exactly at one spot shows that a directed antitank device was used and was specifically aimed and targetted at that pannel in question. There are rumours that it was also hit by a Carl Gustav, which won't surprise me for I my self witnessed tons of those RR's captured by the Army (Am from Swat). Considering that the tank protected its troops I would say that the AZ outdid itself and should not be compared to the rusty T-72.

I seriously personally hate the T-72 it's just a piece of iron that isn't good for anything my case in point.

IA To spend Billions on outdated T-72s

IA's malfunctioning T-72s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> @Dazzler,
> 
> T-90MS components are used to upgrade T-90S and new-build T-90S will be built to MS standard. And I meant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that the above image does not show a T-90S. (T-90C is T-90S in Russian, I know. Turret is different here, so I doubt that it is a T-90S)
> 
> If it does show a T-90S, then India has received *only* T-90MS standard tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Indigenous APU is in service on Arjun. LEDS-150 was shortlisted for T-90, we don't know what happened.
> 
> And, put more faith in Kunal, he is a serving member of the forces, not armchair Generals like us.



The above pic is of a T-90MS, not S or M, you should know the pic below it. Its BM Oplot


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> No, it uses different ERA, but still K-1 type with shaped charge initiation. We don't know if it is *linear* shaped charge like Noz or Duplet, but it should be way superior to K-1. It's not like we need the T-72 to stand up to DM-53 do we?
> 
> According to
> 
> 1) EXPLOSIVE REACTIVE ARMOUR
> 2) DRDO::Life Sciences Engineering
> 
> This ERA reduces penetration of Milan 2 Tandem Warhead by *70%* Compare to Noz which reduces by upto 90%.
> Gets initiated by a shaped charge jet. Does not have sympathetic detonation and is safe from damage when dropped or when tank is deep-fording. And weight penalty is less than 1.5 tons. This thing is supposed to have negated hits from 105 mm HESH and APFSDS and Milan 2.
> 
> Enough for me
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right. T-72M with pitiful 350 mm frontal arc protection which is hit on the side gets blown up. Compare that to Indian T-72M1 with Kanchan and K-1 ERA with 600 mm frontal protection, superior to T-72B.
> 
> Outclasses the Al-Zarrar.
> 
> What makes you think that the Al-Zarrar has a large enough armour cavity for thick integral composite armour?
> 
> T-54 is still T-54.
> 
> And Russland T-72B's took 5 or 6 hits from RPG-7 on the front hull before being struck on the side in Grozny. Without ERA.



K-1 is not sufficient in indo-pak scenario man, no ERA can even be termed as one if its not immune to sympathitic detonation so no rocket science here. IA does not operate T-72B, rather M which is nothing to be proud of unless there is evidence of Kanchan installed which will drastically increase the weight.

See the pic? right side armour is intact? get it? 

Armour was later removed

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Shiji

> Which video man?Saw a few killing t-72 with latest rpg-29 .
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...arison-contempory-tanks-50.html#ixzz2b1CGjEui


Post # 743


----------



## Dazzler

********.com - Pakistan Heavy Fighting in Buner (May 5)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Nishan_101

Dazzler said:


> K-1 is not sufficient in indo-pak scenario man, no ERA can even be termed as one if its not immune to sympathitic detonation so no rocket science here. IA does not operate T-72B, rather M which is nothing to be proud of unless there is evidence of Kanchan installed which will drastically increase the weight.
> 
> See the pic? right side armour is intact? get it?
> 
> Armour was later removed



Hm.. Seems that Al-Zarrar is not as effective as it looks. But I think now HIT should concentrate only on Al-Khalid-IIs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keshav Murali

Dazzler said:


> I am skeptical too, is Kunal a DRDO rep?



Nope. But he is a serving member of the Armed Forces, and he has probably forgotten more about Arjun than we know. 



> As expected, you are embracing a denial mode so be it. What you need to understand is that AZ is still an upgraded t-59, from actual accounts, IEDs used in Wana and Waziristan are pretty powerful, enough to knock out any tank in the region.
> 
> Even an 8-10kg can blow a hole in the floor of an M-1.
> 
> 6 RPG hit is not a fantasy man it is soldiers account who was a part of the incident.
> 
> SO i care about your warning? Nope



I am not embracing a denial mode. T-55M6 can do the same thing as Al-Zarrar, i.e. Nothing special. Which is what I am trying to say.

And M1 Abrams has the most belly armour in recorded history.

8-10 kg HE will do nothing. HEAT however, ......... 



Dazzler said:


> K-1 is not sufficient in indo-pak scenario man, no ERA can even be termed as one if its not immune to sympathitic detonation so no rocket science here. IA does not operate T-72B, rather M which is nothing to be proud of unless there is evidence of Kanchan installed which will drastically increase the weight.



I never said we operate T-72B, stop putting words in my mouth. I said T-72M Ajeya's protection is superior to T-72B. If Kanchan was really installed.

You people take HIT's words as Gospel, why can't we do the same for CVRDE's statements? 
@Shiji,

I don't care if you think T-72 is a rusty heap. It is still superior to T-54, and it shall remain so. Whether you accept it or not.

Enjoy your stay in Denial Land!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Keshav Murali

Nishan_101 said:


> Hm.. Seems that Al-Zarrar is not as effective as it looks. But I think now HIT should concentrate only on Al-Khalid-IIs



T-54 is T-54, whatever you do to it. Side does not have enough armour for composite elements to be added.

Al-Khalid II should be a number one priority right now, I don't know why there is no information being put out right now. 



Dazzler said:


> The above pic is of a T-90MS, not S or M, you should know the pic below it. Its BM Oplot








I didn't recognize the welded turret of the Oplot.

I've always been saying Oplot is superior to T-90 everywhere. No one listens to me


----------



## Shiji

> You people take HIT's words as Gospel, why can't we do the same for CVRDE's statements?
> 
> I don't care if you think T-72 is a rusty heap. It is still superior to T-54, and it shall remain so. Whether you accept it or not.
> 
> Enjoy your stay in Denial Land!



Since when did I quote anything from HIT? I showed you two examples of video/picture proof of comparrison between the two tanks. One is a T-72 that gets blasted away by a mere RPG-7V Or VL, while the other shows you proof that a HITs attempt at upgrading its old fleet of T's to a more modern configuration, Works!
Bullying me won't help you get over the fact that HIT's approach of upgrading/reverse engineering tanks works far better than your DRDO's obsolete attempts at creating an own equipment of which the Indians can be proud. If you can't get my hint then I should name the LCA, Arjun and Akash are a few examples. 
Then we hear statements such as "There is no problem with the Arjun rather the Army is at fault etc", so to show the world that DRDO is not a complete failure and keep DRDO happy, The IA accepts the delivery of 120+ Arjuns. Tell me which successful tank is bought in such a smaller number?
And about the T-72? Well common! Do you really want me to show you more proof about the primitive protection of the T-72 and its poor turret, hull integrity? Because believe me I can! I give praise where it is needed for example the T-90 now that is a hot piece of machinery. T-72 is just a rusty old piece of metal!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nishan_101

Keshav Murali said:


> T-54 is T-54, whatever you do to it. Side does not have enough armour for composite elements to be added.
> 
> Al-Khalid II should be a number one priority right now, I don't know why there is no information being put out right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't recognize the welded turret of the Oplot.
> 
> I've always been saying Oplot is superior to T-90 everywhere. No one listens to me



I think there might be working going on it. Also they should have manufactured about 700++ Al-Khalid I in the first place and then move towards Al-Khalid II production but I am sure its near completion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

@Keshav,

i really dont wanna burst the bubble but the fact is the whole Arjun saga is the best example of a badly undertaken project without having a clue of how or what was needed to be done...

I know this may be uneasy for some but these are the FACTS so look at it from an analytical perspect. The issues with Arjun were so basic its not even funny !!


PArt 1

Failed Tanks! Episode 16: The Arjun (Part 1 of 2) - YouTube



Part 2

Failed Tanks! Episode 16: The Arjun (Part 2 of 2) - YouTube

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Rare pic of HIT upgraded Type-59M2

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

indian 125 mm ammunition

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

@Dazzler ,still didn't give us a source on where 7 RPG's were fired as u originally claimed on zarrar...and posting old videos of arjun when it was still not in service.Arjun has been in service for 4 yrs now.
Also on K-1 ERA as keshav said if its 70% against milan 2 comapred to 90% for nozh then thats very good for a tier 2 tank.

Syrian Tank takes 3 RPG Shots And still Survives 03/22/2013 - YouTube
Here even syrian t-72M monkey model without ERA takes 3 shots from RPG and survives without damage,and protection of this monkey model 'M' to out t-72ajeya M1 with kanchan and ERA is laughable.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> @Dazzler ,still didn't give us a source on where 7 RPG's were fired as u originally claimed on zarrar...and posting old videos of arjun when it was still not in service.Arjun has been in service for 4 yrs now.
> Also on K-1 ERA as keshav said if its 70% against milan 2 comapred to 90% for nozh then thats very good for a tier 2 tank.
> 
> Syrian Tank takes 3 RPG Shots And still Survives 03/22/2013 - YouTube
> Here even syrian t-72M monkey model without ERA takes 3 shots from RPG and survives without damage,and protection of this monkey model 'M' to out t-72ajeya M1 with kanchan and ERA is laughable.



i am not going to go round in circles lad, i heard the firsthand account and news reports too. Will find the video to share with you.

However, you see the above pic of two apfsds rounds? notice something alarming about them? Dont tell me these are not the 125 mm OFB rounds currently in production

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> i am not going to go round in circles lad, i heard the firsthand account and news reports too. Will find the video to share with you.
> 
> However, you see the above pic of two apfsds rounds? notice something alarming about them? Dont tell me these are not the 125 mm OFB rounds currently in production



Yep those are standrad OFB rounds,there are isreali rounds and standard russian rounds available as well for 125 mm.We recently made a large purchase of new rounds too.Not sure about their penetration.
About t-72 i see that shut u up.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Yep those are standrad OFB rounds,there are isreali rounds and standard russian rounds available as well for 125 mm.We recently made a large purchase of new rounds too.Not sure about their penetration.
> About t-72 i see that shut u up.



they are TURMS upgraded verions so i see they survived three hits. Cool. see the image below







However, 

not all were upgraded to TURMS so rest is pretty pathetic to see........... all were succumbed to RPGS !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

And ofcourse we also made a purchase of 10000 invar-m off the shelf and 25000 under license as well.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> And ofcourse we also made a purchase of 10000 invar-m off the shelf and 25000 under license as well.





What a suggestion 

No army thought of that ever! 

Seriously though, no invar or Refleks or Kombat or Cobra or xyz missile can substitute to the most commonly and efficiently used round i.e . APFSDS. If IA is going to use ATGMS against PA APFSDS fleet, they will have to buy 1000000 more.
Not to mention that a HEAT rround (ATGM has a HEAT penetrator) can cause a tank barrel to wear out muc quickly so in effect IA will be more handicapped than they would have liked.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> they are TURMS upgraded verions so i see they survived three hits. Cool. see the image below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However,
> 
> not all were upgraded to TURMS so rest is pretty pathetic to see........... all were succumbed to RPGS !!!



Now u have truly revealed the noob in you.
First of all TURMS-T upgrade is for fire control system not armour noob.There is NO ADDITIONAL ARMOUR IN TURMS-T.


''Jane's Defence Weekly
August 6, 2003
By Alon Ben-David, JDW Correspondent, Tel Aviv 
The Syrian Armed Forces are upgrading a brigade of T-72 main battle tanks (MBTs) and have acquired some 1500 Kornet-E anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), intelligence sources in the region have told Jane's Defence Weekly.

Syria signed in 1998 a contract with Galileo Avionica of Italy - a wholly owned subsidiary of Finmeccanica - to upgrade 122 T-72 MBTs. The estimated value of the contract is some $200 million. The upgrade includes installing Galileo's Tank Universal Reconfiguration Modular System T-series tank (TURMS-T) fire-control system (FCS).TURMS-T is a modular third-generation computerised day/ thermal FCS especially developed for the fire-control modernisation/ upgrade of Russian-originated T-family tanks. The system includes gunner's and commander's stabilised sights (both with second-generation infra-red cameras) and a new turret-management computer and set of sensors, so that the gun stabilisation and accuracy is improved to the level of latest-generation tanks, even in move-to-move firing. The upgrade includes installing new armour and an attachment for the Russian KBP Instrument Design Bureau 9K119 Reflecks (AT-11) ATGM, which is fired through the T-72's 125mm smoothbore main gun. The armour and missile attachment are supplied by undisclosed subcontractors to Galileo. The upgrade programme began last year, with all of the systems now delivered to Syria. Installation of the systems is being conducted in-country, with about half of the T-72s modernised to date.''





Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Above is a turms tank,the tanks in the video don't seem to have the largeviewer on their roof side,so they possibly aren't even TURMS tanks...and even if they were there is no additional armour in turms.

As for succumbing to RPGs even merkava on occasion has done that in urban warfare let alone old t-72 monkey model armour.
But again u posted wrong pics,those tanks were knocked out due to explosion inside the tank as ammunition blew up and that blew up the turret itself,a common problem in soviet tanks.Not beacuse RPG penetrated frontal armour.In 2nd pic u can see frontal armour has not been penetrated.

Also do provide the video or links of zarrar taking rpg after rpg.I already have on t-72,even monkey model without ERA.Forget ajeya.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> What a suggestion
> 
> No army thought of that ever!
> 
> Seriously though, no invar or Refleks or Kombat or Cobra or xyz missile can substitute to the most commonly and efficiently used round i.e . APFSDS. If IA is going to use ATGMS against PA APFSDS fleet, they will have to buy 1000000 more.
> Not to mention that a HEAT rround (ATGM has a HEAT penetrator) can cause a tank barrel to wear out muc quickly so in effect IA will be more handicapped than they would have liked.



I nevre said substitute,it will complement our rounds.Don't try to put words in my mouth.my quote was-
''And ofcourse we ALSO made a purchase of 10000 invar-m off the shelf and 25000 under license as well.''
Thats a lot of missiles.Ad will do a lot of damage.
35000 rounds for a projected fleet of around 1700 t-90.Thats about 20 rounds per tank available.Given standard load will be about 6 ATGMS,thats 2 full reloads available for whole fleet as war attrition.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> I nevre said substitute,it will complement our rounds.Don't try to put words in my mouth.my quote was-
> ''And ofcourse we ALSO made a purchase of 10000 invar-m off the shelf and 25000 under license as well.''
> Thats a lot of missiles.Ad will do a lot of damage.
> 35000 rounds for a projected fleet of around 1700 t-90.Thats about 20 rounds per tank available.Given standard load will be about 6 ATGMS,thats 2 full reloads available for whole fleet as war attrition.



It will complement what? A 1500m/s dud?? or a 1600 m/s dud?

Just for your info, these OFB shells are 125 mm so theoritically their speed should have been much higher since the gun chamber provides better pressure somewhere around 51-610 bars, deoendng on the version though. T-90S has a good cannon in 2a46-M-1 and M-5, these shell are just not on par with their power. 

HIT made 105 mm L7 based on Brit tech shell goes at around 1650-1700 m/s

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> It will complement what? A 1500m/s dud?? or a 1600 m/s dud?
> 
> Just for your info, these OFB shells are 125 mm so theoritically their speed should have been much higher since the gun chamber provides better pressure somewhere around 51-610 bars, deoendng on the version though. T-90S has a good cannon in 2a46-M-1 and M-5, these shell are just not on par with their power.
> 
> HIT made 105 mm L7 based on Brit tech shell goes at around 1650-1700 m/s



Again these are local OFB rounds,we also use israeli and russian AP rounds.More powerful rounds are in development.
And we have advantage in armour protection over ur tanks.


----------



## Dazzler

Apparently Syrian Army also operates T-72As, never knew that, the one in video may be that one since A version has improved Dolly Parton thick composite armour which the M version lacks, infact, even S version lacks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Again these are local OFB rounds,we also use israeli and russian AP rounds.More powerful rounds are in development.
> And we have advantage in armour protection over ur tanks.




so should i laugh hard on this that after 15 pages of this thread this is what you came up with 

give me a single example of your superior armour protection so i could prove you wrong

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Apparently Syrian Army also operates T-72As, never knew that, the one in video may be that one since A version has improved Dolly Parton thick composite armour which the M version lacks, infact, even S version lacks.



Only the elite 4rth armoured division and parts of the republican guard use this tank.



Dazzler said:


> so should i laugh hard on this that after 15 pages of this thread this is what you came up with
> 
> give me a single example of your superior armour protection so i could prove you wrong



Already given multiple times on how our turrets are way better designed than ur flawed chinese designs,and our ERA way better coverage.
T-90 can take latest US exports kew-2 and latest ukrainian rounds without ERA ,what will ur babydoll naiza rounds do against it.And that was before we added kanchan that led to weight increase due to heavy composite armour.


----------



## Dazzler

OFB only produce these rounds so far with the same value i posted !! 

If there is any other round bring the proof otherwise accept the fact that these are just duds..


Regarding ammunition particularly AMK 340...





> The AMK340 have not been configured for the T90S yet crewmembers have been wounded - that actually refers to the T-72s.
> The T-90S's have not been configured for the round.
> 
> 
> a) Hybrid- Russian penetrator + OFB propellant (disaster, 88k rounds segregated, ultimately destroyed)
> 
> 
> b ) This one from the DRDO, productionized at the OFB Initial batches delivered alongside the Hybrid round, some batches found to also have problems and segregrated for rectification. But after problems sorted out, production restarted and by 2003 December, 1,30,000 rounds delivered. I dont remember how many of these rounds were rejected along with the hybrid batch, but if those have also been rejected rather than remanufacture- I wouldnt be surprised. The Army is well within its rights to have OFB make new rounds (hopefully of better quality) rather than tinker around with rounds which are messed up (propellant leakage in heat or whatever).
> 
> c) The M711 (most probably) of which 26,000 rounds were imported as an emergency measure during 1999, for the T-72 fleet. The Army found these rounds to be excellent and advised production of the same. The DRDO deposition noted that in terms of performance, these were equal to the above rounds, but would be inferior to the MK2 (then) in development. The MK2 is mentioned below (d).
> 
> d)Improved version of b ) with higher power propellant- and better penetration, mentioned in the MOD 2005-06 report.
> 
> e) IMI -OFB coproduction deal for 125mm ammo, signed after the T-90 deal was signed. This kind of leads me to believe that there were either issues with latest Russian ammo availability or that the IMI rounds performance was better. Anyways, this round is being manufactured now. HAPP manufactures penetrators, so if we go by logic- the IMI penetrators are also being manufactured locally and if they do manage to do it, then that could have a positive spin off on other tank rounds manufactured in India.
> 
> Alternatively, as mentioned in this thread- the other thing is that India negotiated for newer FSAPDS rounds than the original Israeli design procured/ ordered in 1999 & that involved renogiation. It would be interesting to see what TOT was provided, and the Israeli POV on whether HAPP/ OFB was able to succesfully absorb this.
Click to expand...




AUSTERLITZ said:


> Only the elite 4rth armoured division and parts of the republican guard use this tank.
> 
> 
> 
> Already given multiple times on how our turrets are way better designed than ur flawed chinese designs,and our ERA way better coverage.
> T-90 can take latest US exports kew-2 and latest ukrainian rounds without ERA ,what will ur babydoll naiza rounds do against it.And that was before we added kanchan that led to weight increase due to heavy composite armour.



the point being that they do operate two versions of T-72, the A being much better than M in armour.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Only the elite 4rth armoured division and parts of the republican guard use this tank.
> 
> 
> 
> Already given multiple times on how our turrets are way better designed than ur flawed chinese designs,and our ERA way better coverage.
> T-90 can take latest US exports kew-2 and latest ukrainian rounds without ERA ,what will ur babydoll naiza rounds do against it.And that was before we added kanchan that led to weight increase due to heavy composite armour.



there goes the fantasy parade, AGAIN.

Arjun has severe flaws anyone can see, an underpowered and obsolete gun, an optical sight where the armour should have been instead! And side armour is too thin which is covered by ammunition boxes. This is the start. I have not even counted the engine sue yet 

T-90S is a better tank in terms of armour and protection agreed but it is still a revamped T72 with 80's improvements. T-80 ud aka ob. 478 BE has new composite armour which the ukrainians have not yet disclosed as i said earlier.



> All is depend on context.
> 1. Indian Army haven't modern APFSDS and havent any APFSDS able to slighty overpas ERA armour. So Kontakt-5 on T-80UD is serious problem.
> 2. Basic T-80UD armour is quite good. LOS thickenss is smaller then T-80UD then in Arjun generally, but it doesn't means that armour is weaker.
> 3. Arjun have huge weak zones - gun mantled mask and main sight. It's more serious problem then in Leo-2A4.
> 
> More or less IMHO T-80UD is better armoured.



more here...




> Well - dozens of masurments Arjun -made on draws, photos. More or less im in one line in Dejawolf - Arjun Mk.I have serious flaws. The same whit grate respect to Indian industry and DRDO - Indian had serious problem whit make licenced T-90S, there is still lack many crusial components technology and I shoud belive that Idndian industry will be able made armour on top level? It's hard to belive IMHO. Of course Kanchan armour is still developed, etc etc.
> 
> But I can image in what way coud go developmend, without Russian, Israeli or other support. We haven't still any confirm that some country whit advanced armour sold how-know to India, so it's rather logical that Indian industry is developed Kanchan by it's own, but it's haven't any single modern armoured tank (sold to) in India to just copy it's armour.
> 
> For other hand - T-80U and UD is well known -even whit 80s armour composition, Konatkt-5 is well known -to, and T-80UD is ex-Soviet top level tank -in fact whit the most modern and danger family - mucht better then T-72/90S. Those tank was sold to Pakistan -in those top level (as for late Soviet tanks) an it's logicall that Pak engineers had acess to armour technology (coposition) and others. They just coud copy it, and in cooperation whit PRC put in Al-Khalid.
> 
> It's mucht mucht more comfortable situation then in India when indian industry is trying to developed it's own solutions. And have no "pattern" to copy it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

on IA APFSDS rounds ...



> A longer penetrator alone does not help much, because the 125 mm APFSDS rounds can also be made longer (the Indian Mk 2 APFSDS does not reach the autoloader's limit). The current 120 APFSDS used on the Arjun is obsolete, introducing a better one is important.
> 
> You cannot simply put more propellant into a tank gun. First of all there is no place for it (the breech cannot simply be enlarged) and secondly the efficiency decreases the more powder one use (especially on rifled guns). Using better propellant is an option, but the Indian tank gun does not seem to support as much pressure as other ones.
> Buying or developing a smootbore gun is required for making the Arjun tank competitive.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Of course but you are gain cherrypicking quotes that were comparing indian tanks with western levels.
As for underpowered gun,there has not been a single complaint about the gun by IA right from the start even with all other problems.
What engine issue,currrent engine is satisfcatory and its not for nothing its called desert ferrari.
Firstly side armour is weak for all,especially ur al khalid which is tiny compared to arjun.Also didn't get what u meant by ammo boxes.Proof or masturbation fantasy?
And there goes ur fantasy parade again,comparing t-90 with t-72.And our t-90s use kanchan heavy composite armour as well which has delighted IA with its performance and is being used wherever possible.

The thing is none of your rounds can penetrate t-90 even without ERA at range.
Forget arjun,arjun is western style design that has proven in IA trials match for t-90 in armour protection anyday.

Western tank design philosphy>russian tank design philosophy>chinese design philosophy....at least till now in terms of 1 to 1 tank quality.
Better start worrying about the gaping holes and flaws in your al khalid tank,its vulnerable badly.And when neither sides ammo can penetrate the others it is these weakspots and tactics that will matter.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Of course but you are gain cherrypicking quotes that were comparing indian tanks with western levels.
> As for underpowered gun,there has not been a single complaint about the gun by IA right from the start even with all other problems.
> What engine issue,currrent engine is satisfcatory and its not for nothing its called desert ferrari.
> Firstly side armour is weak for all,especially ur al khalid which is tiny compared to arjun.Also didn't get what u meant by ammo boxes.Proof or masturbation fantasy?
> And there goes ur fantasy parade again,comparing t-90 with t-72.And our t-90s use kanchan heavy composite armour as well which has delighted IA with its performance and is being used wherever possible.
> 
> The thing is none of your rounds can penetrate t-90 even without ERA at range.
> Forget arjun,arjun is western style design that has proven in IA trials match for t-90 in armour protection anyday.
> 
> Western tank design philosphy>russian tank design philosophy>chinese design philosophy....at least till now in terms of 1 to 1 tank quality.
> Better start worrying about the gaping holes and flaws in your al khalid tank,its vulnerable badly.And when neither sides ammo can penetrate the others it is these weakspots and tactics that will matter.



unless you have an eyesight problem, check you posts and my replies. Its all a learning process so no need to worry. We all learn, some the easy way so not so easy. 

The gun is not only underpowered but quality is seriously hampered for some unkown reason, there have been chipping of barrel and plenty of wear after few rounds without fulfilling the desired EFC of 500 rounds. It rarrely lasts that long. 

EFC 500 is already an obsolete value heck even early ZPT-98 had 900 EFC value. 

Judging from the flaws on Arjun, I would rate Indian tank design phiosophy as the lowest 

Gaping holes in Ak Khalid, another laughing bit form you 

I see plenty of weakzones in your Arjun as mentioned above but the only gaping hole you come up with is fantasy drawings made by some Sim players ::

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Here is the deal, regarding your mighty Kanchan armour, the only reliable source available talks about the developments undertaken in 1980s, rest of the sources quote that source allone. Show some recent pic or source atleast so we could judge its dynamics

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> Here is the deal, regarding your mighty Kanchan armour, the only reliable source available talks about the developments undertaken in 1980s, rest of the sources quote that source allone. Show some recent pic or source atleast so we could judge its dynamics



Quality/composition of new composite armour is NEVER open info,if u were serious u would know that.Rest assured its a heavy composite armour.If IA has chosen to use kanchan in our t-90 instead of the russian composite armour its after due consideration.We have also supposedly shared some of this tech with israelis.
The weight of kanchan composites is much more than russian composites,thats why indina t-90 are much heavier than t-90A.
As for development the armour used now is totally different from the one developed in 1980s.Kanchan armour is evolutionary development of 30 yrs and IA is very pleased with it.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Quality/composition of new composite armour is NEVER open info,if u were serious u would know that.Rest assured its a heavy composite armour.If IA has chosen to use kanchan in our t-90 instead of the russian composite armour its after due consideration.We have also supposedly shared some of this tech with israelis.
> The weight of kanchan composites is much more than russian composites,thats why indina t-90 are much heavier than t-90A.
> As for development the armour used now is totally different from the one developed in 1980s.Kanchan armour is evolutionary development of 30 yrs and IA is very pleased with it.



i showed a video where boron carbide tiles were being cut at HIT, another source was a paper about boron carbide use in pakistan nuke program since 80s. Boron carbide is the hardest material leving behind aluminium carbide and silica and others. Thats why the Burlington (chobham) and recently Altay mbt have been known to use it.

I also showed AK armour test pics with minimum APFSDS penetration. None of this exposed the composite armour as its all available on net. Unless Kanchan is another failure and a tall claim as usual

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> unless you have an eyesight problem, check you posts and my replies. Its all a learning process so no need to worry. We all learn, some the easy way so not so easy.
> 
> The gun is not only underpowered but quality is seriously hampered for some unkown reason, there have been chipping of barrel and plenty of wear after few rounds without fulfilling the desired EFC of 500 rounds. It rarrely lasts that long.
> 
> EFC 500 is already an obsolete value heck even early ZPT-98 had 900 EFC value.
> 
> Judging from the flaws on Arjun, I would rate Indian tank design phiosophy as the lowest
> 
> Gaping holes in Ak Khalid, another laughing bit form you
> 
> I see plenty of weakzones in your Arjun as mentioned above but the only gaping hole you come up with is fantasy drawings made by some Sim players ::



Those fantasy sim players were the same u have quoted periodically throughout the thread,u have given no refutation argument to those geometric diagrams and have constantly evaded that question like a coward.
Also there is no indian design philosophy.

From what i know even t-72 ajeya 2A46M series guns have 1500-1700 efc.Not sure on arjun's value.give me a source.
But EFC doesn't represent the power of the gun at all,it represents barrel life..so ur comment on on weak gun is total LOL.
In fire trials with t-90.
Arjun had 90% FRHP[hit probability] on 2.3m x 2.3 m target at 2000 m compared to t-90 85% FRHP on 3mx3m target at 1600m.
The gun is damn accurate and can pick off targets way out to range.It also has better ammo than 125 mm indian rounds.

So do worry about ur al khalid that is totally vulnerable,sloped turret roof,turret flank and ERA uncovered front turret area along with gun mantlet,lower hull,sides and rear where all tanks are vulnerable.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Those fantasy sim players were the same u have quoted periodically throughout the thread,u have given no refutation argument to those geometric diagrams and have constantly evaded that question like a coward.
> Also there is no indian design philosophy.
> 
> From what i know even t-72 ajeya 2A46M series guns have 1500-1700 efc.Not sure on arjun's value.give me a source.
> But EFC doesn't represent the power of the gun at all,it represents barrel life..so ur comment on on weak gun is total LOL.
> In fire trials with t-90.
> Arjun had 90% FRHP[hit probability] on 2.3m x 2.3 m target at 2000 m compared to t-90 85% FRHP on 3mx3m target at 1600m.
> The gun is damn accurate and can pick off targets way out to range.It also has better ammo than 125 mm indian rounds.
> 
> So do worry about ur al khalid that is totally vulnerable,sloped turret roof,turret flank and ERA uncovered front turret area along with gun mantlet,lower hull,sides and rear where all tanks are vulnerable.



unless you have a claim to refute what i quoted, please bring it

oh mann! who said the gun is not accurate?? afterall riflling is to increase accuracy so what the point? 

What i said is that rifle barrels are obsolete big time. They are slow and full of unnecessary wear and tear. 

Slowness restricts the penetration so Arjun is a big issue in hand unless you switch to smoothbore. India is the only country that has a modern tank with obsolete gun. With this gun, AK and UD have nothing to worry about. Not to mention the APFSDS they fire are already obsolete  

by the way, what APFSDS was tested on Arjun from point blank range can you name it?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dazzler

The only tank with one side frontal ERA only, so all we need to do is to aim at the optics and launch and KABOOMMM! ::

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> unless you have a claim to refute what i quoted, please bring it
> 
> oh mann! who said the gun is not accurate?? afterall riflling is to increase accuracy so what the point?
> 
> What i said is that rifle barrels are obsolete big time. They are slow and full of unnecessary wear and tear.
> 
> Slowness restricts the penetration so Arjun is a big issue in hand unless you switch to smoothbore. India is the only country that has a modern tank with obsolete gun. With this gun, AK and UD have nothing to worry about. Not to mention the APFSDS they fire are already obsolete
> 
> by the way, what APFSDS was tested on Arjun from poin blank range can you name it?



Rifle barrels may be dated,yes.But they are quite relevant in indo pak scenario as HESH is cheap round for knocking out numerous field fortifications,bunkers and pillboxes we have facing each other on the border.
As for muzzle velocity,muzzle velocity of latest american M2A9A3 is around 1500m/s.U think its a harmless round?




Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Thanks for the pic with penetration value listed.600 mm isn't bad at all with arjun's accuracy we will easily pick out and chomp on al khalids multiple weak spots.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> The only tank with one side frontal ERA only, so all we need to do is to aim at the optics and launch and KABOOMMM! ::



HAHAHA,what are u joker?
Arjun Mk1 doesn't even need ERA.
Thats NERA btw.Arjun has waay larger turret built in western style mbt to incorporate much more integral composite armour than al khalid chinese style mbt.
Does leopard/abrams/challenger use ERA in frontal arc?Nope,cause they rely on large amount of composite armour.Arjun DOESN'T NEED era,its secondary protection that beefs up its protection level even higher.You will find ERA only on that MK 2 prototype,MK1 doesn't even use ERA.Its huge turret has enough composite armour to shut down any enemy rounds in the neighbourhood.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Rifle barrels may be dated,yes.But they are quite relevant in indo pak scenario as HESH is cheap round for knocking out numerous field fortifications,bunkers and pillboxes we have facing each other on the border.
> As for muzzle velocity,muzzle velocity of latest american M2A9A3 is around 1500m/s.U think its a harmless round?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> Thanks for the pic with penetration value listed.600 mm isn't bad at all with arjun's accuracy we will easily pick out and chomp on al khalids multiple weak spots.



You know what? i am beginning to worry about your sanity now as you neither read nor comprehend my posts and keep repeating the same rhetoric after a few posts :O

First, the DRDO APFSDS pic that you put is already obsolete as it is neither in service. Look at the DAMN rod, its not small, its tiny! How on earth its gonna penetrate anything let alone armour. The rod is not even 500 mm i.e. its gonna die somewhere around 310-320 mm at best. Sigh

And please read something about HESH before you claim tall. On a composite armour, without ERA, HESH is already obsolete. There goes your hope 

And Arjun has not so many weakspots i cant even count but ket me try.

*The optics

*The side armour is so thin protected byt guess what? Yep, luggage or ammunition boxes.

*The turret is bare without armour or even decent composite 

*The mighty engine failed again in recent trials during a 1000 kms so there foes the powerpack.

*FCS is now newly designed means the basic one goes to the dustbin since its obsolete

*AND the might gun and ammunition, already explained about them so leave it



AUSTERLITZ said:


> HAHAHA,what are u joker?
> Arjun Mk1 doesn't even need ERA.
> Thats NERA btw.Arjun has waay larger turret built in western style mbt to incorporate much more integral composite armour than al khalid chinese style mbt.
> Does leopard/abrams/challenger use ERA in frontal arc?Nope,cause they rely on large amount of composite armour.Arjun DOESN'T NEED era,its secondary protection that beefs up its protection level even higher.You will find ERA only on that MK 2 prototype,MK1 doesn't even use ERA.Its huge turret has enough composite armour to shut down any enemy rounds in the neighbourhood.



The LOS of Arjun is not more than 380-400 mm lad, it NEEDS all the ERA it can get front on and all we see is an exposed optics, an open target for the enemy. Go and ask your experts how many flaws Arjun have. If you cant, just check the specs of Arjun MKII, all that has been added was NOT in the current version. 

Its sides are not even worth mentioning so leave it as is. Ammunition boxes add a worth of .5-1 cm value but thats enough for it 

Do more homework till evening i will come and check ok. 

Take care

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> You know what? i am beginning to worry about your sanity now as you neither read nor comprehend my posts and keep repeating the same rhetoric after a few posts :O
> 
> First, the DRDO APFSDS pic that you put is already obsolete as it is neither in service. Look at the DAMN rod, its not small, its tiny! How on earth its gonna penetrate anything let alone armour. The rod is not even 500 mm i.e. its gonna die somewhere around 310-320 mm at best. Sigh
> 
> And please read something about HESH before you claim tall. On a composite armour, without ERA, HESH is already obsolete. There goes your hope
> 
> And Arjun has not so many weakspots i cant even count but ket me try.
> 
> *The optics
> 
> *The side armour is so thin protected byt guess what? Yep, luggage or ammunition boxes.
> 
> *The turret is bare without armour or even decent composite
> 
> *The mighty engine failed again in recent trials during a 1000 kms so there foes the powerpack.
> 
> *FCS is now newly designed means the basic one goes to the dustbin since its obsolete
> 
> *AND the might gun and ammunition, already explained about them so leave it
> 
> 
> 
> The LOS of Arjun is not more than 380-400 mm lad, it NEEDS all the ERA it can get front on and all we see is an exposed optics, an open target for the enemy. Go and ask your experts how many flaws Arjun have. If you cant, just check the specs of Arjun MKII, all that has been added was NOT in the current version.
> 
> Its sides are not even worth mentioning so leave it as is. Ammunition boxes add a worth of .5-1 cm value but thats enough for it
> 
> Do more homework till evening i will come and check ok.
> 
> Take care



So i guess the statement there is lying.All POF statements are correct and all ours lying.Good going.And yes that round is old.No idea about penetration of current round.310-320 mm?
On ganza?You think anyone would even bother with 300 mm round on a modern tank?

Now onto ur expert opinion on arjun's weakpoints-
1.There is a armour block behind optics apparently.See the massive debate on this on ***.
This is a design feature present on leo2A4 as well.
2.Ammo boxes.Proof or more fantasy?
3.Without decent composite?What u think kanchan is for show and that huge turret hollow?As for empty,all western style MBt's have empty turret on front.
4.No such trials i'm aware of,again spamming bullshit i see.It has been operational since 2009.
5.Absolute bull.First 124 units have all sagem french origin FCS.New one israeli and BEL developed adopted not beacuse earlier was bullshit,but to increase indigeneous output.It has extreme high hit probability greater than .9Pk.
6.Yes ur failure on that has been well noted.

You can come back and check anytime.
But do take care to come back with some proof of refuting those shoddy design flaws in ur khalids.U have run away long enough.All PA tanks except t-80UD have turret design flaws.


----------



## farhan_9909

sometime when i look at arjun and than at leopard 2a4.i thank Krauss for designing a useless tank for india.which took them 4 decades to produce

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Keshav Murali

Shiji said:


> T-72 is just a rusty old piece of metal!



And T-54 isn't?



Dazzler said:


> @Keshav,
> 
> i really dont wanna burst the bubble but the fact is the whole Arjun saga is the best example of a badly undertaken project without having a clue of how or what was needed to be done...
> 
> I know this may be uneasy for some but these are the FACTS so look at it from an analytical perspect. The issues with Arjun were so basic its not even funny !!
> 
> 
> PArt 1
> 
> Failed Tanks! Episode 16: The Arjun (Part 1 of 2) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Part 2
> 
> Failed Tanks! Episode 16: The Arjun (Part 2 of 2) - YouTube



Posting Mike Sparks crap which makes no references, provides no sources, and trashes every tank in the world, while praising the M113 which can't even take a PG-7VR.

Keep going. 

This "Blacktail Defence" guy says M1A2 is underpowered and undergunned.

Trusting such people's words gives you no glory.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

farhan_9909 said:


> sometime when i look at arjun



Your signature itself reveals ur biased nature based on preconcieved notions.


----------



## farhan_9909

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Your signature itself reveals ur biased nature based on preconcieved notions.



my signature is old.

Those crying over that AK is a copy of type90IIM.which we even agree should also agree that krauss had designed you the Arjun

And has extremely striking similarities with the leo2a4

Or in short we can also say that Arjun not only is based on Leo2a4 but rather a upgraded variant of leo2a4

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

farhan_9909 said:


> my signature is old.
> 
> Those crying over that AK is a copy of type90IIM.which we even agree should also agree that krauss had designed you the Arjun
> 
> And has extremely striking similarities with the leo2a4
> 
> Or in short we can also say that Arjun not only is based on Leo2a4 but rather a upgraded variant of leo2a4



Yes structural design was based with krauss assistance,don't deny it at all as leo is a superb tank.
I was only mocking this comment of urs-
''i thank Krauss for designing a *useless* tank for india''


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Yes structural design was based with krauss assistance,don't deny it at all as leo is a superb tank.
> I was only mocking this comment of urs-
> ''i thank Krauss for designing a *useless* tank for india''



The basic Leo-2 shared the same optics weakness as Arjun, Krauss improved on it in later upgrades so you see the sight pushed backwards on the turret. Imagine a penetrator @ 1700 m/s hitting it and think of the fate of poor gunner. There is less armour behind the sight approximately 250-300 mm at best. Even a BM-13 can do the job. The sad part is, not only this has been overlooked by DRDO on Mk.1 but also on Mk. 2. 

Also, Leo 2 has much better side armour than Arjun and doesnt mount ammo boxes there, instead, there is a uniform composite armour cover going all the way to the back.

see the difference..

Leo 2A1













Arjun..














see the ammo boxes here ??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> And T-54 isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> Posting Mike Sparks crap which makes no references, provides no sources, and trashes every tank in the world, while praising the M113 which can't even take a PG-7VR.
> 
> Keep going.
> 
> This "Blacktail Defence" guy says M1A2 is underpowered and undergunned.
> 
> Trusting such people's words gives you no glory.



your trolling is admirable since you come here with this intention and consider yourself as a "dominant" in it.

Anyway, i have checked all the details given in the video by myself and they are accurate. the whole Arjun project is simply laughable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Keshav Murali

Dazzler said:


> see the ammo boxes here ??



Those are BO Panels.



Dazzler said:


> your trolling is admirable since you come here with this intention and consider yourself as a "dominant" in it.
> 
> Anyway, i have checked all the details given in the video by myself and they are accurate. the whole Arjun project is simply laughable.



I don't consider myself dominant, nor am I trolling.

Please present these accurate details, *if you can.*


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

With love from georgia:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> Those are BO Panels.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider myself dominant, nor am I trolling.
> 
> Please present these accurate details, *if you can.*



nothing personal mate just quoted a post of yours from another forum


----------



## Dazzler

Keshav Murali said:


> Those are BO Panels.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider myself dominant, nor am I trolling.
> 
> Please present these accurate details, *if you can.*



have you even seen how a blow out panel looks like?

Whole Arjun is a compliation of mistakes but will you admit it? Nope

The irony is, everyone in India including politicians, bureaucrats, DRDO officials and even public seems to know more about Arjun than the actual user, in this case, the Indian Army, whose is going to use the damn thing in the battlefield. Imagine the consequences of Arjun failing there? 

It is so evident that Arjun has multiple serious flaws, gunner sight is deep inside the main armour which reduces the armour thickness and makes the spot an evidet target, a rifled gun thats obsolete around the world, not to mention it fires shots at a meager velocity of just 1500-1600 m/s which is too less for penetration, an engine that tends to fail during trials even in most recent ones against t-90 it did the same despite all the tall claims and lastly an ammunition which is substandard and obsolete both by a long shot. I can count more flaws but lets leave it here.

Yes its true that too much of national pride is at stake in Arjun but nothing must be thrusted upon the military because its only gonna cause trouble for the nation.

Sad but true really

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tacticool

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> With love from georgia:



Are the destroyed tanks georgian or russian?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Abdul_Haseeb said:


> Are the destroyed tanks georgian or russian?



Russian..............

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

> T-72 tanks are facing problems with its ammunition as it sometimes bursts in the barrel and *200* such cases have been reported making the Army wonder whether its troops will be "afraid" to fire even after seeing the enemy.
> 
> "It (the T-72 ammunition) used to burst in the barrel. If it bursts in the barrel, then the firer is afraid to fire his own gun, which is not a correct thing. If he is afraid to fire his own gun, then even if he sees the enemy he will not fire," the Army has told a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence.
> 
> The Army informed the Government and the Parliamentary Committee that over a period of time, there have been 200 such accidents involving the ammunition and "it brings down the confidence of the firer, especially, with regard to tank ammunition."
> 
> In terms of the numbers, the T-72 tanks are the backbone of the Indian armoured fleet and have undergone several upgrades since their induction to be able to fight effectively in the battlefield.
> 
> The Army is also "concerned" over the ammunition used by its artillery called Krashnapov, which has been imported from Russia, and has failed to hit targets in high altitude ranges such as Kargil.
> 
> "They were supposed to meet certain height and temperature requirement, and they said that it is not meant for such high altitude areas. Now, this ammunition has been shifted in the plain areas because it was not working there satisfactorily," it said.
> 
> The Army said several meetings have been held with the vendors to resolve the issue but progress in this direction has been relatively slow.
> 
> Last year, former Army Chief Gen V K Singh had written a letter to the Prime Minister explaining to him the shortages of tank ammunition being faced by the force.




Ammunition bursts in T-72 tanks barrels cause concern for Army | Business Standard


----------



## Yogi

Dazzler said:


> Also, Leo 2 has much better side armour than Arjun and doesnt mount ammo boxes there, instead, there is a uniform composite armour cover going all the way to the back.
> 
> see the difference..
> 
> Leo 2A1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arjun..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see the ammo boxes here ??



This is leo 2A6, which as per my info is definitely an upgraded version over leo 2A1, can u see ur so called ''Ammo Boxes'' here...looks like the stupid Germans needs some tips from @Dazzler 






N congrts DRDO has acknowledged ur advice n here is Arjun Mk2 with an all around uniform composite armour.


----------



## Dazzler

Yogi said:


> This is leo 2A6 which as per my info in definitely an upgraded version over leo 2A1, can u see ur so called ''Ammo Boxes'' here...looks like the stupid Germans needs some tips from @Dazzler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N congrts DRDO has acknowledged ur advice n here is Arjun Mk2 with an all around uniform composite armour.



its very uniform i can see hmm






a single 9 mm round can penetrate the sight part man 


Go to google and type "blow-off panels in main battle tank" and see the difference berween a BOP and ammo boxes 

till then dont waste my time

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yogi

Dazzler said:


> its very uniform i can see hmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a single 9 mm round can penetrate the sight part man
> 
> 
> Go to google and type "blow-off panels in main battle tank" and see the difference a BOP and ammo boxes
> 
> till then dont waste my time



I expected a better come back from atleast u @Dazzler but looks like ur running outta arguments.


----------



## Keshav Murali

Dazzler said:


> have you even seen how a blow out panel looks like?



Yes. And it is bolted. Just like the one shown. Have you seen how an external ammunition box looks like? That is a blow-off panel, which is supposed to be above ammunition. Fact. I don't care whether you accept it or not.



> Whole Arjun is a compliation of mistakes but will you admit it? Nope



I do accept it. I have regularly stated that I would have rejected both Arjun and T-90S and bought only T-90MS standard tanks. You don't know me as well as you think 



> The irony is, everyone in India including politicians, bureaucrats, DRDO officials and even public seems to know more about Arjun than the actual user, in this case, the Indian Army, whose is going to use the damn thing in the battlefield. Imagine the consequences of Arjun failing there?



Really? Are you in the Army to confirm this? The Army rated Arjun above the T-90S. That's enough for me. Being armchair generals, we really can't accuse them of carelessness. Unless and until, you are in the Indian Army, I am not gullible enough to believe that they make choices without thinking.



> It is so evident that Arjun has multiple serious flaws, gunner sight is deep inside the main armour which reduces the armour thickness and makes the spot an evidet target, a rifled gun thats obsolete around the world, not to mention it fires shots at a meager velocity of just 1500-1600 m/s which is too less for penetration, an engine that tends to fail during trials even in most recent ones against t-90 it did the same despite all the tall claims and lastly an ammunition which is substandard and obsolete both by a long shot. I can count more flaws but lets leave it here.



Everything man makes has flaws. APFSDS rounds are not accurate enough to hit such a target at above 1 km. And the fact is, an exposed main sight on the above is vulnerable to Artillery fragments, autocannon rounds and even HMG rounds from the sides, which an integral turret-based one isn't. There are always two sides to a coin. 

The muzzle velocity is 1650 m/s. Not 1500-1600. Muzzle velocity doesn't matter too much if the penetrator is heavy enough to generate enough Kinetic energy.

Give me a source which says the engine failed during trials and I will stand corrected. You make such claims without sources and it is a source of irritation.



> Yes its true that too much of national pride is at stake in Arjun but nothing must be thrusted upon the military because its only gonna cause trouble for the nation.
> 
> Sad but true really



More than 70% of India doesn't know that a thing called Arjun exists. Not such a matter of pride.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Yogi said:


> I expected a better come back from atleast u @Dazzler but looks like ur running outta arguments.



where is your argumet in the first place man? 

See the evicent weakness in the Front armour, an area where most mbts have thickest armour chunk in a uniform manner, is where Arjun compromises. A gunner sight with mere 300 mm armour that can only be good against small caliber ammunition, NOT against tank shells let alone HEAT or HE-FS or even HESH since the cavity is big enough for these ammunition to cause trouble.

I dont believe in repeating the same data, just bother to look previsous pages. Blowoff panels and ammo boxes are two completely different things yar 

ok wait

see this? its a blow off panel of Abrams

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

t-90 without ERA, tests conducted in Russia.. notice penetration on hull and turret

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler

three 125mm rounds by three different companies are in service, two more rounds are not revealed..


1 ARDE p2 APFSDS, 620-650mm penetration @ 2000m







2 POF 125mm APFSDS, 460-500mm @ 2000m







3 NDC Naiza 1, 560+mm @ 2000m

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A1Kaid

Phase out the T-80UD, Type 85, and Al-Zarrar. Procure transfer of tech and licensed production of Altay MBT from Turkiye. Sell off most of the T-80's, Type 85s, and Al-Zarrar's to other countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

Dazzler said:


> three 125mm rounds by three different companies are in service, two more rounds are not revealed..
> 
> 
> 1 ARDE p2 APFSDS, 620-650mm penetration @ 2000m
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 POF 125mm APFSDS, 460-500mm @ 2000m
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 NDC Naiza 1, 560+mm @ 2000m





How effective are these in penetrating tank armor of contemporary tanks?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

A1Kaid said:


> How effective are these in penetrating tank armor of contemporary tanks?



should be effective in sub-continent

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Dazzler said:


> should be effective in sub-continent



U havent included Naiza II with 650mm pp..etc?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Totally wild penetration values given for short stubby rounds,650 mm?


----------



## Hammad Bin majid

Ofcourse my dear ALHAMDULLIALLAH Al khalid have these abilities

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

Moscow said:


> @abu zolfikar the link cannot be posted sorry about that.
> 
> @superfalcon i guess al-khalid haas the edge on paper because as niaz said its only a threoritical comparison.



If al khalid would have been batter than T 90, Pakistan would not have bought inferior T 80 to be used as Main battle tank against India.


----------



## Tacticool

Any news about alkhalid 2?


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Totally wild penetration values given for short stubby rounds,650 mm?



If you read the post, you would have known that ARDE, POF and PAEC are making 125 mm shells for PA mbt fleet, last one responsible for DU rounds only. 

Trust me, your IA mbt crew will not be laughing while facing them, but i will surely when they will fire OFB duds, oh wait, they wouldnt reach since they explode inside the turret. 





HariPrasad said:


> If al khalid would have been batter than T 90, Pakistan would not have bought inferior T 80 to be used as Main battle tank against India.



So called "inferior" T-80ud was bought as a stopgap when AK was yet to enter service i.e. during 90s. 

T-80ud is not the Russian object 478 (T-80U), but exclusive ukrainian object 478BE (UD) with a newly disigned turret having dual composite armour fillings seperated by HHS plate, even your T-90 cant match its composite armour protection level. 

Oh, why am I arguing with you anyway? 

UD turret









90S turret

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Nishan_101

I think PA & HIT should now concentrate on making the Al-Khalid-II and also I am hopeful that PA would have produced about 700+ Al-Khalid-Is.

Also POF, HMC & HIT should try to concentrate on JV with Germans on small, medium and heavy Arms & Artillery.


----------



## Dazzler

> I think PA & HIT should now concentrate on making the Al-Khalid-II and also I am hopeful that PA would have produced about 700+ Al-Khalid-Is.




what makes you think they are not? Recent consignment bought for "undisclosed" Ukrainian engines are an indication to that



> Also POF, HMC & HIT should try to concentrate on JV with Germans on small, medium and heavy Arms & Artillery.



Hmm, France, Korea, and Turkey already involved in arty, ammunition projects, we are making T-155 under license too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A.Muqeet khan

Dazzler said:


> what makes you think they are not? Recent consignment bought for "undisclosed" Ukrainian engines are an indication to that
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, France, Korea, and Turkey already involved in arty, ammunition projects, we are making T-155 under license too.



i know for a sure fact that AK-2 is being worked on. My Friends company was in the bid to create a software for some sort of management system. pak army also got an other improvement that was never seen before in any of its vehicles but he wouldn't tell me what that was.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

A.Muqeet khan said:


> i know for a sure fact that AK-2 is being worked on. My Friends company was in the bid to create a software for some sort of management system. pak army also got an other improvement that was never seen before in any of its vehicles but he wouldn't tell me what that was.



they were working on a new realtime datalink/ battle management software for AK-II's BMS, additionally it is likely to have more advanced vetronics integration and modified gun with increased chamber pressure and metallurgy (HMC variant but more powerful than previous AK gun) than AK, AK-1. 

Composite armour is already developed. IIRC, a prototype was tested with different configs and ammunition back in 2012 but work continues on AK-2. Due to extreme desert environment in Thar/ Rajhistan with neighboring India, AK-2 will not exceed 55 Ton weight mark. Remote weapon station already developed.

There are other goodies under the cover too but cant say further.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

@Dazzler *Bhai* - Where do we stand with our Man Portable ATGMs ?  

Kiyaaa aglii eik decade bhi wire guided hi kaam chalanaa haiii ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Armstrong said:


> @Dazzler *Bhai* - Where do we stand with our Man Portable ATGMs ?
> 
> Kiyaaa aglii eik decade bhi wire guided hi kaam chalanaa haiii ?




Baktar Shikan new variant completed, being tested with a MMW radar and a laser guidance, range more than 5km

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## RAMPAGE

Dazzler said:


> Baktar Shikan new variant completed, being tested with a MMW radar and a laser guidance, range more than 5km


Salam sir, plz tell me why are we not going for fire & forget guidance ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> Salam sir, plz tell me why are we not going for fire & forget guidance ?



we are working on it, BS new version is being tested with multiple options, also has a top attack mode, so does TOW-IIA

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RAMPAGE

Dazzler said:


> we are working on it, BS new version is being tested with multiple options, also has a top attack mode, so does TOW-IIA


no way  ........ is NDC working on it ?

btw are we developing a hardkill APS for al-khalid ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> no way  ........ is NDC working on it ?



yep, NDC is on it

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RAMPAGE

Dazzler said:


> yep, NDC is on it


i have a source there .... can u tell me where i can ask him to look for further details ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> i have a source there .... can u tell me where i can ask him to look for further details ?



i suggest let him work, dont bother him yar

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RAMPAGE

@Dazzler 

yaar i've been dying to know which variant is this !!!

any idea?


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> @Dazzler
> 
> yaar i've been dying to know which variant is this !!!
> 
> any idea?



its basic AK configuration


----------



## RAMPAGE

Dazzler said:


> its basic AK configuration


but the turret is different from the basic ak which is this  :







is the prototype of ak-2 ready ... if it is can you post a pic?


----------



## Dazzler

Baktar shikan is no longer just a Hj-8 derivative, they have formed it as a whole system that can accommodate different missiles including TOW, TOW-II etc. This is the case since Cobra modification. See this pic by @skybolt from Ideas 2012, its a Tow but with MMV guidance done locally, below is a BS missile with same guidance.








> but the turret is different from the basic ak which is this :undecided




turret is same, ERA module is thicker, its Aorak ERA










> is the prototype of ak-2 ready ... if it is can you post a pic?



I wish i had a pic, prototype was ready and being tested but overall, AK-2 is still under development.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dazzler

two-II B with same guidance

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## RAMPAGE

@Dazzler








the sloped roof makes it vulnerable to straight shots right ?

did they rectify this in ak-2 ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> @Dazzler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the sloped roof makes it vulnerable to straight shots right ?
> 
> did they rectify this in ak-2 ?



its not sloped, just the angle makes it look it that way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RAMPAGE

Dazzler said:


> its not sloped, just the angle makes it look it that way.


its definitely sloped :

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

Dazzler said:


> its basic AK configuration



With extra ERA-Plates on the front !


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> its definitely sloped :




nope its not, see the left mbt turret

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

Dazzler said:


> nope its not, see the left mbt turret


is this pakistani al-khalid ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

AK vs T-90S interior, big difference between the two..


t-90S







AK


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> is this pakistani al-khalid ?



mbt 2000 china, AKs are manufactured at HIT

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal.

@Dazzler, there were reports of a new hellfire type atgm being developed by NDC. Any progress there?


----------



## Mugwop

Anyone saw Gi-joe2? The tank with a elevating turret?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

Bilal. said:


> @Dazzler, there were reports of a new hellfire type atgm being developed by NDC. Any progress there?



no idea buddy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

Jessica_L said:


> Anyone saw Gi-joe2? The tank with a elevating turret?


You have interest in military equipment ??? 



Bilal. said:


> @Dazzler, there were reports of a new hellfire type atgm being developed by NDC. Any progress there?


What do you mean by hellfire type ??? our Baktar Shikan is an atgm and we also use it as a bunker buster !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> If you read the post, you would have known that ARDE, POF and PAEC are making 125 mm shells for PA mbt fleet, last one responsible for DU rounds only.
> 
> Trust me, your IA mbt crew will not be laughing while facing them, but i will surely when they will fire OFB duds, oh wait, they wouldnt reach since they explode inside the turret.



The barrel explosion problem is with older t-72s not t-90s .
And yes they are making 125 mm shells,short and stubby ones which u are passing off as 600-650 mm penetration .
You are so ridiculous u once gave penetration value of naiza 2 from a imaginery gaming site which creates future versions of current designs,it also had Indian mBT karna lol.


----------



## RAMPAGE

AUSTERLITZ said:


> The barrel explosion problem is with older t-72s not t-90s .
> And yes they are making 125 mm shells,short and stubby ones which u are passing off as 600-650 mm penetration .
> You are so ridiculous u once gave penetration value of naiza 2 from a imaginery gaming site which creates future versions of current designs,it also had Indian mBT karna lol.


Are you rejecting his penetration value or the official one ?


----------



## Bilal.

RAMPAGE said:


> You have interest in military equipment ???
> 
> What do you mean by hellfire type ??? our Baktar Shikan is an atgm and we also use it as a bunker buster !!!



Meaning gen 3 atgm. Baktar Shikan is 2nd generation atgm but with the upgrades dazzler is mentioning it can be called gen 2.5 atgm.


----------



## RAMPAGE

Bilal. said:


> Meaning gen 3 atgm. Baktar Shikan is 2nd generation atgm but with the upgrades dazzler is mentioning it can be called gen 2.5 atgm.


meri jaan he also said that NDC is working on a fire & forget variant of BS with a Top attack mode.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mugwop

> You have interest in military equipment ???


We all do! Mr rampage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

Jessica_L said:


> We all do! Mr rampage.


You calling me mister means that i haven't made a good impression. mind telling me what wrong i did ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mugwop

RAMPAGE said:


> You calling me mister means that i haven't made a good impression. mind telling me what wrong i did ?



Naw that's how we show respect in America. We use the word Mister more than Sir in High schools but If you don't like it I'll stick to Sir. Btw i heard you like historical figures like Ivan the terrible.Is that true?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

Jessica_L said:


> Btw i heard you like historical figures like Ivan the terrible.Is that true?


I like historical figures specially the ones with high ambitions.

It has nothing to do with their evil acts but i'd be lying if i said that impaling or using poisonous gas on victims doesn't fascinates me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mugwop

RAMPAGE said:


> I like historical figures specially the ones with high ambitions.



I guess we have something in common!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

RAMPAGE said:


> Are you rejecting his penetration value or the official one ?



Typically, he rejects everything he does not like

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> The barrel explosion problem is with older t-72s not t-90s .
> And yes they are making 125 mm shells,short and stubby ones which u are passing off as 600-650 mm penetration .
> You are so ridiculous u once gave penetration value of naiza 2 from a imaginery gaming site which creates future versions of current designs,it also had Indian mBT karna lol.




OFB ammuniotion = CRAPPY below average quality stuff, ask Kunal Biswas about them. 

Barrel wear of Ajeya is so rediculous, its pathetic, all they had to do was to replace the barrel to be compatible with new OFB shells. 

T-90 fires shells at below normal velocity i.e. 1500-1600m/s, not enough to achieve desired results, not to mention the shell itself is a DUD. Arjun shell, GOSH, it penetrates a MIGHTY 300 mm armour, the best it can do is type-59 

Type-2 = 550-560 mm

type-2M = 600-620 mm

ARDE P-2 (improvedType-2M) 125 mm shell, 630-650 mm

Naiza-1 = 550-560 mm

All published figures, nothing hidden here, Naiza 2 not published, i have seen it, my cousin at NDC says its 630-650 mm.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Dazzler said:


> OFB ammuniotion = CRAPPY below average quality stuff, ask Kunal Biswas about them.
> 
> Barrel wear of Ajeya is so rediculous, its pathetic, all they had to do was to replace the barrel to be compatible with new OFB shells.
> 
> T-90 fires shells at below normal velocity i.e. 1500-1600m/s, not enough to achieve desired results, not to mention the shell itself is a DUD. Arjun shell, GOSH, it penetrates a MIGHTY 300 mm armour, the best it can do is type-59
> 
> Type-2 = 550-560 mm
> 
> type-2M = 600-620 mm
> 
> ARDE P-2 (improvedType-2M) 125 mm shell, 630-650 mm
> 
> Naiza-1 = 550-560 mm
> 
> All published figures, nothing hidden here, Naiza 2 not published, i have seen it, my cousin at NDC says its 630-650 mm.



Ah yes,the omnipotent dazzler and his cousin,our poor tanks are stuck at 300 mm penetration while the mighty imaginery naiza with 650 mm penetration waiting to eat us.Pak army operational rounds are no bigger than 480-550 mm .So keep deluding ur fan following.


----------



## Dazzler

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Ah yes,the omnipotent dazzler and his cousin,our poor tanks are stuck at 300 mm penetration while the mighty imaginery naiza with 650 mm penetration waiting to eat us.Pak army operational rounds are no bigger than 480-550 mm .So keep deluding ur fan following.



thanks mate


----------



## Darth Vader

These kind of comparisons gets You no where unless you have the detailed info about the vehicle which are mostly kept secret ,
And in war its not only on the Tank , but also on the training of the crew , weapons , position , and little luck


----------



## Gentelman

RAMPAGE said:


> You calling me mister means that i haven't made a good impression. mind telling me what wrong i did ?


----------



## RAMPAGE

Gentelman said:


>


What's with you  ????


----------



## Gentelman

RAMPAGE said:


> What's with you  ????



you now want me to mention exact word which came in my mind about you Johny Bravo??


----------



## RAMPAGE

Gentelman said:


> you now want me to mention exact word which came in my mind about you Johny Bravo??


lol i was just being nice 

i'm not @Armstrong  !!!


----------



## Gentelman

RAMPAGE said:


> lol i was just being nice
> 
> i'm not @Armstrong  !!!



but you are also friend of Alpha &#8230;&#8230;
come on man I was not upto that thing I was just thinking about your logic about Mr&#8230;&#8230;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TeesraIndiotHunter

So now that india has revealed its most anticipated Arjun II tank, indian forums are a buzz. I was reading discussions on Arjun II and indians were going "OMG..it has thermal imagers...OMG, it has BMS and it commander can control UAVs from within..it is this and that and blah blah" ...and after reading for a while..I was like "Wait! Al Khalid-I already has all of them..how is Arjun II superior then?" Then I realized that actually, Pakistan might not even need to bring out its Al Khalid II..since Al Khalid-I pretty much matches Arjun II already..

So here is a basic comparison between the two tanks...The comparison is made by keeping in mind the terrain they'll operate in. For example, Al Khalid's lighter weight gives it an advantage in irrigated soils of Punjab, and desert sand of Sindh...If it was Urban Warfare, Arjun would have the advantage of being heavier than Al Khalid..but we all know that main terrains of confrontation are deserts and plains...Therefore, Al Khalid's weight is regarded as an advantage.

Note : Blue highlight = Advantage over the other tank

*Weight :*
*Al Khalid-1 : 48-49 tons*
Merkava IV : 66-68 tons.

*Speed :*
*Al Khalid-1 : 72 km/h*
Arjun II : 40-55 km/h

*Main Armament :*

Al Khalid-1 : 125 mm smooth bore gun
Arjun II : 120 mm rifled gun

*Payload Capacity :*

*Al Khalid-1 : 49 rounds*
Arjun II : 39 rounds

*Engine :

Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)*
Arjun II : 10 cylinder, V-90 turbo charged 1400 hp

*Power/Weight ratio :*

*Al Khalid-1 : 26 to 26.5 hp/tonne*
Arjun II : 20.1-21.5 hp/tonne

*Armour :*

Al Khalid-1 : Composite armour, and RHA, with ERA plate coating (right up there. very tough)
Arjun II : Improved kanchan armour, Russian-style ERA (slightly better)

*Operational Range :

Al Khalid-1 : 500 km*
Arjun II : 450 km

*Protection :

Al Khalid-1 : upgraded VARTA active protection system*
Arjun II : India still working on an indigenous one (?)

*ATGMs :*

Al Khalid-1 : Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper) etc (laser beam guidance, unstoppable since can't be detected due to laser beam guidance method--also, top-attack mode according to some sources.)

Arjun II : LAHAT (Top attack mode..very effective!)

*Types of rounds fired:*

*Al Khalid-I: APFSDS, HEAT-FS , HE-FS, Depleted Uranium round and KOMBAT ATGM*

Arjun II: FSAPDS, HESH, PCB, TB, and Lahat ATGM

*Rate of Fire:*

*Al Khalid-I: 9 rounds per minute.*
Arjun-II: 8 rounds per minute

=============================================================================================

Other than this, both Al Khalid-I and Arjun II have thermal imagers, panoramic sites for commanders, and Battlefield management systems...

Al Khalid-1's muzzle velocity is very damn good too...*superior to that of even Merkava IV*...but I didn't get states for Arjun II muzzle velocity or rate of fire..so can't say anything...

*Conclusion:* *Al Khalid-1 is right up there, if not superior, to Arjun II. Arjun sure has its advantages in heavier armour..but then Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun in mobility, speed, and firepower...*

My prediction is that we won't be seeing Al Khalid II any time soon since Al Khalid-I already pretty much neutralizes Arjun II.

Not to mention, Pakistan already deploys over 300 Al Khalid-Is while india has yet to induct Arjun IIs...

Things don't look that great for Arjun project...

(All the data for Arjun-II was taken from Indian forums and Indian experts on tanks in different defence forums.)

* Talk away...*

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## SrNair

TeesraIndiotHunter said:


> So now that india has revealed its most anticipated Arjun II tank, indian forums are a buzz. I was reading discussions on Arjun II and indians were going "OMG..it has thermal imagers...OMG, it has BMS and it commander can control UAVs from within..it is this and that and blah blah" ...and after reading for a while..I was like "Wait! Al Khalid-I already has all of them..how is Arjun II superior then?" Then I realized that actually, Pakistan might not even need to bring out its Al Khalid II..since Al Khalid-I pretty much matches Arjun II already..
> 
> So here is a basic comparison between the two tanks...The comparison is made by keeping in mind the terrain they'll operate in. For example, Al Khalid's lighter weight gives it an advantage in irrigated soils of Punjab, and desert sand of Sindh...If it was Urban Warfare, Arjun would have the advantage of being heavier than Al Khalid..but we all know that main terrains of confrontation are deserts and plains...Therefore, Al Khalid's weight is regarded as an advantage.
> 
> Note : Blue highlight = Advantage over the other tank
> 
> *Weight :*
> *Al Khalid-1 : 48-49 tons*
> Merkava IV : 66-68 tons.
> 
> *Speed :*
> *Al Khalid-1 : 72 km/h*
> Arjun II : 40-55 km/h
> 
> *Main Armament :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 125 mm smooth bore gun
> Arjun II : 120 mm rifled gun
> 
> *Payload Capacity :*
> 
> *Al Khalid-1 : 49 rounds*
> Arjun II : 39 rounds
> 
> *Engine :
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)*
> Arjun II : 10 cylinder, V-90 turbo charged 1400 hp
> 
> *Power/Weight ratio :*
> 
> *Al Khalid-1 : 26 to 26.5 hp/tonne*
> Arjun II : 20.1-21.5 hp/tonne
> 
> *Armour :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : Composite armour, and RHA, with ERA plate coating (right up there. very tough)
> Arjun II : Improved kanchan armour, Russian-style ERA (slightly better)
> 
> *Operational Range :
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 500 km*
> Arjun II : 450 km
> 
> *Protection :
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : upgraded VARTA active protection system*
> Arjun II : India still working on an indigenous one (?)
> 
> *ATGMs :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper) etc (laser beam guidance, unstoppable since can't be detected due to laser beam guidance method--also, top-attack mode according to some sources.)
> 
> Arjun II : LAHAT (Top attack mode..very effective!)
> 
> *Types of rounds fired:*
> 
> *Al Khalid-I: APFSDS, HEAT-FS , HE-FS, Depleted Uranium round and KOMBAT ATGM*
> 
> Arjun II: FSAPDS, HESH, PCB, TB, and Lahat ATGM
> 
> *Rate of Fire:*
> 
> *Al Khalid-I: 9 rounds per minute.*
> Arjun-II: 8 rounds per minute
> 
> =============================================================================================
> 
> Other than this, both Al Khalid-I and Arjun II have thermal imagers, panoramic sites for commanders, and Battlefield management systems...
> 
> Al Khalid-1's muzzle velocity is very damn good too...*superior to that of even Merkava IV*...but I didn't get states for Arjun II muzzle velocity or rate of fire..so can't say anything...
> 
> *Conclusion:* *Al Khalid-1 is right up there, if not superior, to Arjun II. Arjun sure has its advantages in heavier armour..but then Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun in mobility, speed, and firepower...*
> 
> My prediction is that we won't be seeing Al Khalid II any time soon since Al Khalid-I already pretty much neutralizes Arjun II.
> 
> Not to mention, Pakistan already deploys over 300 Al Khalid-Is while india has yet to induct Arjun IIs...
> 
> Things don't look that great for Arjun project...
> 
> (All the data for Arjun-II was taken from Indian forums and Indian experts on tanks in different defence forums.)
> 
> * Talk away...*



No one know about the complete technology systems of Arjun Tanks and it is still at development.So there is no comparison here.


----------



## Manticore



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Slayer786

Amazing instead of discussing on the topic, indians are uselessly arguing about other things. Stick to the topic.


----------



## TeesraIndiotHunter

sreekumar said:


> No one know about the complete technology systems of Arjun Tanks and it is still at development.So there is no comparison here.



Arjun isn't in development stages but testing stages.

Secondly, the specifications were taken from Indian sources...senior members..and people who are working on the project (some very senior Indian members here on this forum)...


----------



## TimeToScoot

> Look retardo,
> 
> If we go by this, then I can bullshit "Oh a country that can't even built toilets have a good tank now? haha what a joke! Arjunk is nothing more than a paper tiger with parts imported from cheap Russian black markets" blah blah..
> 
> You see, this is easy. So stop being an embarrassment and TALK substance.
> 
> Al Khalid-I is as Pakistani and Arjun is Indian, if not more. Stop trolling and crying.



Pakistan whose IT/Auto/Space/Hardware/Pharmaceutical industry are all ZILCH is suddenly making world class tanks while India which has made tremendous progress in all fields is struggling to make world class tanks and aircrafts. 

Sure. Lets talk substance!


----------



## SrNair

TeesraIndiotHunter said:


> Arjun isn't in development stages but testing stages.
> 
> Secondly, the specifications were taken from Indian sources...senior members..and people who are working on the project (some very senior Indian members here on this forum)...



DRDO always good for propogating false information.We have a sensational media here.They will exaggerated all things.
Just an example is Agni-5.I have a friend in DRDO.He told me DRDO told media cut down range.And actual range of Agni-5 is still classfied.He say he dont know real range ,because he is just a junior employee in DRDO.He cant get more about such things because he is a low level employee.
Similar goes to Arjun tank.When they reveal specs all of media spread that.But they will always maintain a secrecy in key systems.


----------



## jarves

TeesraIndiotHunter said:


> So now that india has revealed its most anticipated Arjun II tank, indian forums are a buzz. I was reading discussions on Arjun II and indians were going "OMG..it has thermal imagers...OMG, it has BMS and it commander can control UAVs from within..it is this and that and blah blah" ...and after reading for a while..I was like "Wait! Al Khalid-I already has all of them..how is Arjun II superior then?" Then I realized that actually, Pakistan might not even need to bring out its Al Khalid II..since Al Khalid-I pretty much matches Arjun II already..
> 
> So here is a basic comparison between the two tanks...The comparison is made by keeping in mind the terrain they'll operate in. For example, Al Khalid's lighter weight gives it an advantage in irrigated soils of Punjab, and desert sand of Sindh...If it was Urban Warfare, Arjun would have the advantage of being heavier than Al Khalid..but we all know that main terrains of confrontation are deserts and plains...Therefore, Al Khalid's weight is regarded as an advantage.
> 
> Note : Blue highlight = Advantage over the other tank
> 
> *Weight :*
> *Al Khalid-1 : 48-49 tons*
> Merkava IV : 66-68 tons.
> 
> *Speed :*
> *Al Khalid-1 : 72 km/h*
> Arjun II : 40-55 km/h
> 
> *Main Armament :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 125 mm smooth bore gun
> Arjun II : 120 mm rifled gun
> 
> *Payload Capacity :*
> 
> *Al Khalid-1 : 49 rounds*
> Arjun II : 39 rounds
> 
> *Engine :
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel 1,200 hp (with upgrade)*
> Arjun II : 10 cylinder, V-90 turbo charged 1400 hp
> 
> *Power/Weight ratio :*
> 
> *Al Khalid-1 : 26 to 26.5 hp/tonne*
> Arjun II : 20.1-21.5 hp/tonne
> 
> *Armour :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : Composite armour, and RHA, with ERA plate coating (right up there. very tough)
> Arjun II : Improved kanchan armour, Russian-style ERA (slightly better)
> 
> *Operational Range :
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : 500 km*
> Arjun II : 450 km
> 
> *Protection :
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : upgraded VARTA active protection system*
> Arjun II : India still working on an indigenous one (?)
> 
> *ATGMs :*
> 
> Al Khalid-1 : Kombat , 9M119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper) etc (laser beam guidance, unstoppable since can't be detected due to laser beam guidance method--also, top-attack mode according to some sources.)
> 
> Arjun II : LAHAT (Top attack mode..very effective!)
> 
> *Types of rounds fired:*
> 
> *Al Khalid-I: APFSDS, HEAT-FS , HE-FS, Depleted Uranium round and KOMBAT ATGM*
> 
> Arjun II: FSAPDS, HESH, PCB, TB, and Lahat ATGM
> 
> *Rate of Fire:*
> 
> *Al Khalid-I: 9 rounds per minute.*
> Arjun-II: 8 rounds per minute
> 
> =============================================================================================
> 
> Other than this, both Al Khalid-I and Arjun II have thermal imagers, panoramic sites for commanders, and Battlefield management systems...
> 
> Al Khalid-1's muzzle velocity is very damn good too...*superior to that of even Merkava IV*...but I didn't get states for Arjun II muzzle velocity or rate of fire..so can't say anything...
> 
> *Conclusion:* *Al Khalid-1 is right up there, if not superior, to Arjun II. Arjun sure has its advantages in heavier armour..but then Al Khalid-1 is superior to Arjun in mobility, speed, and firepower...*
> 
> My prediction is that we won't be seeing Al Khalid II any time soon since Al Khalid-I already pretty much neutralizes Arjun II.
> 
> Not to mention, Pakistan already deploys over 300 Al Khalid-Is while india has yet to induct Arjun IIs...
> 
> Things don't look that great for Arjun project...
> 
> (All the data for Arjun-II was taken from Indian forums and Indian experts on tanks in different defence forums.)
> 
> * Talk away...*


Your data is wrong if i am not mistaken.



Slayer786 said:


> Amazing instead of discussing on the topic, indians are uselessly arguing about other things. Stick to the topic.


lol so you want us to discuuss based on data which was made by a member himself.


----------



## Manticore

TeesraIndiotHunter - mind your language

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Unless someone can add to the discussion what has already NOT been discussed. There is no point in going on with copy paste bragging contests

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jarves

Oscar said:


> Unless someone can add to the discussion what has already NOT been discussed. There is no point in going on with copy paste bragging contests


Sir you deleted my posts but hasnt deleted his comparison table??


----------



## Jf Thunder

Oscar said:


> Unless someone can add to the discussion what has already NOT been discussed. There is no point in going on with copy paste bragging contests


i dont get your signature, was it not "La Illaha Ilallah"


----------



## chauvunist

shiv said:


> pakistan dont have money to get good tanks .. so it hardly matters !



That's why we are producing it Genius..Don't you see..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ACE OF THE AIR

What ever serves the purpose is best. It does not matter if it is the most advance or expensive one. The tactical advantage is based on how well the plan is executed, planning does help give a direction but it might fail if the execution is not done in the way it should have been done.


----------



## Neptune

How's Al-Khalid II when compared with Altay???

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luftwaffe

Neptune said:


> How's Al-Khalid II when compared with Altay???


 
Full specs are not known but it would still be less tonnage than Altay. AK2 await funding to make it an ultimate tank for PA.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Wel Indian Arjun looks alike like Germen Leopard tank isn't it....???






And Brahmos missile.... which Indian clain they made it... can any1 tell me about these please









\

Anyone know about these cause many Indian claim that those are made in India...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Slayer786

jarves said:


> Your data is wrong if i am not mistaken.
> 
> 
> lol so you want us to discuuss based on data which was made by a member himself.



So refute his facts and give your evidence instead of making useless arguments. Present some details of Arjun II and prove that it is a better tank than Al-Khalid 1.


----------



## HAIDER

Russian T54 is grand mother of Alkhalid. Its design and machine is based on Russian tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hakan

Muhammad Omar said:


> View attachment 21720
> 
> Wel Indian Arjun looks alike like Germen Leopard tank isn't it....???
> 
> View attachment 21721
> 
> 
> And Brahmos missile.... which Indian clain they made it... can any1 tell me about these please
> 
> View attachment 21722
> 
> 
> View attachment 21723
> \
> 
> Anyone know about these cause many Indian claim that those are made in India...


OOH Burn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## That Guy

Muhammad Omar said:


> View attachment 21720
> 
> Wel Indian Arjun looks alike like Germen Leopard tank isn't it....???
> 
> View attachment 21721
> 
> 
> And Brahmos missile.... which Indian clain they made it... can any1 tell me about these please
> 
> View attachment 21722
> 
> 
> View attachment 21723
> \
> 
> Anyone know about these cause many Indian claim that those are made in India...


The comparisons are relatively easy to answer. The reason for the similarities is because India may have gotten ToTs, or used queues from those particular systems and implemented them into their own systems. It could also be that they're collaborating with said developers to develop Indian versions with Indian parts and electronics, so again, this could explain the similarities. It's never as simple as someone copied someone else.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jarves

Slayer786 said:


> So refute his facts and give your evidence instead of making useless arguments. Present some details of Arjun II and prove that it is a better tank than Al-Khalid 1.


I already did but your moderators deleted my posts,the reason given has been quoted by me in post 886,Now i am not interested.


----------



## Thorough Pro

Yeah easy on the pomp and talk substance



TimeToScoot said:


> Pakistan whose IT/Auto/Space/Hardware/Pharmaceutical industry are all ZILCH is suddenly making world class tanks while India which has made tremendous progress in all fields is struggling to make world class tanks and aircrafts.
> 
> Sure. Lets talk substance!


----------



## TeesraIndiotHunter

jarves said:


> I already did but your moderators deleted my posts,the reason given has been quoted by me in post 886,Now i am not interested.



lol..Dude, this is what the official developers of Arjun-MKII tell us about the tank...






Weight: 68 ton

Maximum speed: 58km/h

Rounds: 39

and so on

Now, you tell me, how "I'm making stuff up" 

My post is very accurate...

Al Khalid-1 surpasses Arjun-II in firepower, speed, flexibility, and mobility...

Arjun-II has better armor

Both tanks are very equally matched over-all..If anything, Al Khalid-I is coming out to be superior



Neptune said:


> How's Al-Khalid II when compared with Altay???



We don't have Al Khalid-II out yet. It is on "stall" I guess.

Existing Pakistani tanks such as Al Khalid-I already matches latest Indian tanks like Arjun-II, if not surpass them.

So I don't know Pakistani planners will go ahead with Al Khalid-II as of now. If India comes with something better, we might bring Al Khalid-II to counter.

Altay looks sexy! Can I have complete specifications of the tank?

It is good to see Turkish military getting modernized, Mashallah! Wish you guys best of luck.


----------



## Zarvan

@Neptune nothing is known about Al-Khalid II in fact some even raise doubts that this kind of project even exists so nothing we know of Al-Khalid II yet @Aeronaut am I right ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Kaan said:


> OOH Burn



Burn....????

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

the original induction date of alkhalid 2 was 2017 IIRC, we are still in 2014. Also, in current scenario, AK, AK-1 are quite a handful in terms of general performance/ fighting capability.



Muhammad Omar said:


> View attachment 21720
> 
> Wel Indian Arjun looks alike like Germen Leopard tank isn't it....???
> 
> View attachment 21721
> 
> 
> And Brahmos missile.... which Indian clain they made it... can any1 tell me about these please
> 
> View attachment 21722
> 
> 
> View attachment 21723
> \
> 
> Anyone know about these cause many Indian claim that those are made in India...




stop posting offtopic stuff, these pics have nothing to do with the topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## godofwar

I read an article long back stating aeroplanes have made tanks obsolete and redundant in modern wars since tanks are sitting ducks for fighter aircraft and even gunships if enemy has air superiority.

That is the reason why most nations a prioritizing huge sums of money on air force and meager amount on developing better tanks.

Thoughts ?


----------



## TeesraIndiotHunter

godofwar said:


> I read an article long back stating aeroplanes have made tanks obsolete and redundant in modern wars since tanks are sitting ducks for fighter aircraft and even gunships *if enemy has air superiority.*
> 
> That is the reason why most nations a prioritizing huge sums of money on air force and meager amount on developing better tanks.
> 
> Thoughts ?



If the enemy has air superiority, your whole army is a sitting duck. Doesn't mean that having armies is worthless..

Each force has its own role..and they must fight in an integrated manner...

Tanks are very important for land forces...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Umair Nawaz

@500
go through this thread from beginning.


----------



## AsianLion

AK II has its own status, cannot be same as any other tank in its league. its the high end type of tank.

AK II is not MBT 3000/vt4.


----------



## Super Falcon

Agreed we need potent air force with complete air superiority in skies means hell of easy job for land forces war need to be won in skies than land


----------



## ptldM3

Dazzler said:


> Penetration value is vastly overestimated, the 42m barely reaches 560mm at 0 degree @ 2000 m but then, you are from Russia right.






Penetration levels are dependent on rod penetrator *density, velocity and mass*. The T-90 uses munitions with varying factors for the three criteria i have mentioned. There is no set number to how much a projectile should penetrate. There is countless sources claiming Russian 125mm APFSDS munitions having 650mm-750mm penetration at 0 degrees.







Dazzler said:


> Never did I say its FCS is bad or inaccurate but it is a basic system that works, doesn't offer anything significant as AK FCS does.





So then why claim the Al-Khalid is superior to the T-90 and then mention the T-90s fire control ballistics computer? The two tanks have never competed directly in field trials to come to any conclusion about how good, bad or basic the fire control computers are in terms of hit rate on either platform.







Dazzler said:


> The armour is good, should I mention its components on the forum?





No one know the exact composition of the T-90s armor besides the developers and a handful of other people in their countries respective defense departments. If you can give some detailed specifics about the armor that would be a first.







Dazzler said:


> And the gun is also good but max out at 2200m since the FCS does not support engagements beyond this, you see the hindrance here. And the interior is simply dreadful. I would take a type 59 interior any day over t90 and 72. There is no cooling, no ecs, no BMS, less than adequate space to even move your hand around.






Again, where did you get to go to sit inside a T-90? The Al-Khalid has a very small turret, its interior room is not much different from a T-90. There is an old rumor that you have to be a midget to fit inside a Russian tank something that Tom Clancy started. The T-90 is not the most roomy tank but the crew can move around just fine. Your other claim about cooling is false, *T-90s do have AC units*, some T-90s were sold without them upon customer request. I also do not know what you mean by ecs and bms but chances are good that what you said is not true.



CAG report reveals T-90 tanks are vulnerable to heat 'because they ...






> The Russian T-90 tanks bought by India were rendered vulnerable as components showed signs of degradation under extreme heat as they were bought without air conditioners, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) said in its latest report.
> 
> The CAG noted that t*he tanks were procured without the ACs, ignoring the recommendation of the field trial teams.*
> 
> *Most of these tanks are deployed in the Rajasthan desert and it was felt that air conditioners were not required as Indian commanders preferred to operate their vehicles with open cupolas*.









Here is a picture of a the T-90s gunner position. Granted this is a T-90MS but it is a T-90 nevertheless.

















Dazzler said:


> I can literally go on mate but keep it for later..
> 
> Lastly, none of this offtopic and both tanks were competing in the Saudi MBT tender once.





You can "literally" keep going but you will "literally" keep getting all of your information wrong. The T-90 was never in any Saudi tender and to the best of my knowledge Saudi Arabia has never even inspected a single T-90.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Altamimi said:


> It was tested by the Army in 2007 and it failed due to the extremely hot weather
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 210014
> View attachment 210015




The T-90 operates in hot Indian deserts, T-72s and other Soviet tanks also operate in the middle east, it is not optimized or built for it but it can still operate in hot conditions. Tanks do not just "fail" in the desert, they may have problems with engines but they do not fail at least not every single one.


----------



## Dazzler

ptldM3 said:


> Penetration levels are dependent on rod penetrator *density, velocity and mass*. The T-90 uses munitions with varying factors for the three criteria i have mentioned. There is no set number to how much a projectile should penetrate. There is countless sources claiming Russian 125mm APFSDS munitions having 650mm-750mm penetration at 0 degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then why claim the Al-Khalid is superior to the T-90 and then mention the T-90s fire control ballistics computer? The two tanks have never competed directly in field trials to come to any conclusion about how good, bad or basic the fire control computers are in terms of hit rate on either platform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one know the exact composition of the T-90s armor besides the developers and a handful of other people in their countries respective defense departments. If you can give some detailed specifics about the armor that would be a first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where did you get to go to sit inside a T-90? The Al-Khalid has a very small turret, its interior room is not much different from a T-90. There is an old rumor that you have to be a midget to fit inside a Russian tank something that Tom Clancy started. The T-90 is not the most roomy tank but the crew can move around just fine. Your other claim about cooling is false, *T-90s do have AC units*, some T-90s were sold without them upon customer request. I also do not know what you mean by ecs and bms but chances are good that what you said is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> CAG report reveals T-90 tanks are vulnerable to heat 'because they ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of a the T-90s gunner position. Granted this is a T-90MS but it is a T-90 nevertheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 210004
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can "literally" keep going but you will "literally" keep getting all of your information wrong. The T-90 was never in any Saudi tender and to the best of my knowledge Saudi Arabia has never even inspected a single T-90.



I am not in a mood the repeat myself, the interior pic is of a MS isn't it? Isn't that what instated in my post? The t-90 has addressed most of its problems in the MS version.

Regarding cooling and stuff, it is a fact that pre MS versions sold to different countries have serious problems with cooling as there is no standard ac fit in it. The Indian t-90 saga is a test case for that. Also, the peleng and essa sights are good but nothing to write home about.

Regarding the ammo, no one is discussing the anatomy of a penetrator mate but the end result. In fact, each test figures out 25 parameters and failing 15 out of the 25 will rule out the penetrator as a failure.till the bm-44, no Russian penetrator has crossed 600mm mark front on at 0 obliguity from 2000 meters. During tests, Pakistan also tested Ukrainian bm42 improved versions with new tungsten penetrator with 540mm value. Yes the length to diameter ratio is important but so is the material density and released velocity among other issues.

And the t-90 pre MS and M variant are pretty much known mate, and the Indians were even given early t-90s with old composite composition which infuririated them at best. Hence they are replacing them with kanchan inserts.

Regarding tests in Saudi Arabia, your claim is busted...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ArsalanKhan21

According to the Indian official reports T-90 tanks are vulnerable to heat 'because they don't have air conditioning' while in Al-Khalid air conditioning is standard. The Indians bought T-90 from Russia without air conditioning! The summer in South Asia lasts for nearly 10 months and that gives advantage to Al-Khalid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Dazzler said:


> *Regarding cooling and stuff, it is a fact that pre MS versions* sold to different countries have serious problems with cooling as there is no standard ac fit in it. The Indian t-90 saga is a test case for that. Also, the peleng and essa sights are good but nothing to write home about.





As the link i provided, *India requested that their t-90s not come with air conditioning* which they end up regretting. Russian T-90s's may not have air conditioning because it is not needed but it is available. The Algerian T-90s have air conditioning:




T-90 Main Battle Tank




> The tanks intended for Algeria (designated T-90SA) are mostly similar to the Indian ones, except that the kit includes laser sensors and anti-FLIR smoke grenades of Shtora EOCMDAS, an *air conditioner*







Dazzler said:


> Regarding the ammo, no one is discussing the anatomy of a penetrator mate but the end result. In fact, each test figures out 25 parameters and failing 15 out of the 25 will rule out the penetrator as a failure.till the bm-44, no Russian penetrator has crossed 600mm mark front on at 0 obliguity from 2000 meters. During tests, Pakistan also tested Ukrainian bm42 improved versions with new tungsten penetrator with 540mm value. Yes the length to diameter ratio is important but so is the material density and released velocity among other issues.







The bm-44 is almost *30 years old*. The thing you fail to acknowledge is that not only have Russian APFSDF improved but so has the T-90 cannon. Even T-72's can be upgraded with new T-90 cannons. The new cannon has *increased range*, with increased range comes *higher velocity*. With higher velocity you get *more penetration*. Do you even know what type of cannon the BM-44 was fired from? If the BM-44 was fired out of an old lower velocity 2A46M its penetration values will be lower then then what is possible with modern T-90 cannons.


Even if you ignore the fact that there are sources claim up to 800mm penetration from Russian 125mm munitions it hard do deny that their are newer and better APFSDF rounds that are fired from higher velocity cannons. Your information is out of date.






Dazzler said:


> Regarding tests in Saudi Arabia, your claim is busted...





You busted me.  I said that "to the best of my knowledge" Saudi Arabia has never examined the T-90. Implying that it is possible but that to my knowledge if have not heard of it. In any case in do not keep up with what the Saudis test or what their requirements are. I always had my doubts about the T-90 being chosen by the Saudis even if they were to inspect it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

ptldM3 said:


> As the link i provided, *India requested that their t-90s not come with air conditioning* which they end up regretting. Russian T-90s's may not have air conditioning because it is not needed but it is available. The Algerian T-90s have air conditioning:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-90 Main Battle Tank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bm-44 is almost *30 years old*. The thing you fail to acknowledge is that not only have Russian APFSDF improved but so has the T-90 cannon. Even T-72's can be upgraded with new T-90 cannons. The new cannon has *increased range*, with increased range comes *higher velocity*. With higher velocity you get *more penetration*. Do you even know what type of cannon the BM-44 was fired from? If the BM-44 was fired out of an old lower velocity 2A46M its penetration values will be lower then then what is possible with modern T-90 cannons.
> 
> 
> Even if you ignore the fact that there are sources claim up to 800mm penetration from Russian 125mm munitions it hard do deny that their are newer and better APFSDF rounds that are fired from higher velocity cannons. Your information is out of date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You busted me.  I said that "to the best of my knowledge" Saudi Arabia has never examined the T-90. Implying that it is possible but that to my knowledge if have not heard of it. In any case in do not keep up with what the Saudis test or what their requirements are. I always had my doubts about the T-90 being chosen by the Saudis even if they were to inspect it.




First, i am not going to buy the claim that indians requested to EXCLUDE the AC from the deal, as if they didnt know the temperatures soar up to 55 degrees in summers, didnt they know it? Makes no sense. 


The fact is that the Russians excluded several things as they wanted another contract to be signed, which the indians objected. Same was the case with ammo manufacturing for which the indians are paying the higher price now.

And please, there is no shell with 800mm penetration certified value in Russian inventory, including the Svinets. the autoloader is the limiting factor as it does not allow more then 740mm length for a penetrator. yes there were etstes with higher velocity guns but non of those are in service are they? The best is the M5 version on T-90 which is nothing but quality improvement over the previous improvements and higher barrel life reaching 700 EFC in 4*3*3 ration maximum.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZooZoo

Muhammad Omar said:


> View attachment 21720
> 
> Wel Indian Arjun looks alike like Germen Leopard tank isn't it....???
> 
> View attachment 21721
> 
> 
> And Brahmos missile.... which Indian clain they made it... can any1 tell me about these please
> 
> View attachment 21722
> 
> 
> View attachment 21723
> \
> 
> Anyone know about these cause many Indian claim that those are made in India...





Burn baby Burn...


----------



## Muhammad Omar

ZooZoo said:


> Burn baby Burn...



sorry m not Indian who burn LOL

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZooZoo

Muhammad Omar said:


> sorry m not Indian who burn LOL




One more time Burn

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Dazzler said:


> First, i am not going to buy the claim that indians requested to EXCLUDE the AC from the deal, as if they didnt know the temperatures soar up to 55 degrees in summers, didnt they know it? Makes no sense.





So now you choose to ignore *sources* that disprove you? My other source that *Algerian T-90s have air conditioning* must be a lie? It is no secret that T-90s have been exported with air conditioning units, you can choose to ignore the fact that India initially did not order AC on their tanks some 13 years ago but that does not change the fact that T-90s do come with AC units. You use outdated information and then when you are corrected you refuse to except sources that disprove you.







Dazzler said:


> And please, there is no shell with 800mm penetration certified value in Russian inventory, including the Svinets. *the autoloader is the limiting factor* as it does not allow more then 740mm length for a penetrator. yes there were etstes with higher velocity guns but non of those are in service are they? The best is the M5 version on T-90 which is nothing but quality improvement over the previous improvements and higher barrel life reaching 700 EFC in 4*3*3 ration maximum.





Auto loader is a limiting factor but both T-72B3 auto loaders and T-90SM auto loaders have been modified, as much as you brush aside the T-90MS you need to realize that standard T-90s will eventually be upgraded with T-90SM components, Russia is upgrading a lot of its tank fleet . Moreover, barrels have simply not only improved in barrel life but but also higerh *chamber pressure*, with that comes greater velocity and of course greater penetration. You are being very dishonest and bias with your argument, you are quoting the penetration value of a very an *old round* fired out of an *old* 2A46M while you very well know that new rounds have been developed and new higher chamber pressure canons have also been developed. This would be like me arguing the Abrams tank and quoting old figures while it used the 105mm gun.


----------



## Dazzler

ptldM3 said:


> So now you choose to ignore *sources* that disprove you? My other source that *Algerian T-90s have air conditioning* must be a lie? It is no secret that T-90s have been exported with air conditioning units, you can choose to ignore the fact that India initially did not order AC on their tanks some 13 years ago but that does not change the fact that T-90s do come with AC units. You use outdated information and then when you are corrected you refuse to except sources that disprove you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auto loader is a limiting factor but both T-72B3 auto loaders and T-90SM auto loaders have been modified, as much as you brush aside the T-90MS you need to realize that standard T-90s will eventually be upgraded with T-90SM components, Russia is upgrading a lot of its tank fleet . Moreover, barrels have simply not only improved in barrel life but but also higerh *chamber pressure*, with that comes greater velocity and of course greater penetration. You are being very dishonest and bias with your argument, you are quoting the penetration value of a very an *old round* fired out of an *old* 2A46M while you very well know that new rounds have been developed and new higher chamber pressure canons have also been developed. This would be like me arguing the Abrams tank and quoting old figures while it used the 105mm gun.



Actually the 740mm figure is for the upgraded AZ type autoloader. Blaming me for dishonesty hmm, let's see, which is the latest round being fired from which range and what penetration values it gave? The fact is that the MS has the SAME carousel as the M variant which means the length will remain same. The gun is also same, again, no improvement here. The real improvement is a new turret, FCS, rws, and armour. There is nothing drastic about these changes with the acception of FCS and armour. Gun+ shell combo will give similar values.
B3 even lacks a FCS mate all it has is optics and lrf for guidance. So much for upgrade

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dazzler

Quoting militarysta, the armour expert from another forum. The alkhalid 1 has estimated measured thickness of 800+mm for both turret and hull front armour. This makes it the most well protected tank in the subcontinent atleast. 


Turret 










> there is visible welding line when special armour cavity is ending. Frontplate is hard to see on those photo BUT it shoud be as I marked.
> More or less - circa 800mm for special armour + forntplate
> 
> Well Al Khalid-1 semms to be nice protcted tank:
> Turret:
> special armour module: 670mm LOS + backpplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS
> Hull:
> special armour module at least 670mm LOS + frontplate (100-150mm) = the same http://*********************/images/smilies/wink.gif



Hull..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AsianLion




----------

