Abraham vs Al Khalid Battle Tank

[osama zafar]

So So :3

 

[Munir]

Why do Pakistanis insist on comparing their cheap Chinese knockoff with heavier MBT's?

A Heavy MBT would eat Khalid for breakfast.

Why do Indians compare their 35 years testplane LCA with 4++ gen western aircraft that are operational for 2 decades...

Let us be simple. USA builds nice stuff. One needs to have the very best to counter. Both have different roles. But I still think that US tank is one of the best. Surely it can beaten but it is superb power and superb weapon platform.

 

[SRBM2]

Seams like any idiot can get PDF Think Tank: Analyst rank when quoting some idiotic computer simulations numbers that have no physical credibility to even be considered.

 

[Inception-06]

Seriously are you sane

Ach wieso denn ? warst du jemals in der Armee hast du denn überhaupt eine Ahnung ?

 

[Rain]

next thread should be JF 17 vs F22 Raptor

 

[Penguin]

Wow you come up with a shitty site that is copied from Wikishmedia and uses Computer Simulation armor models?
No current MBT has ever been evaluated on its armor consistency and protection, those numbers are estimations by non experts for computer simulations.

Well, if that's your take, why don't you provide or come up with something better for the protection levels. There is no problem with estimations, so long as you estimate all vehicles by the same method and the method isn't biased towards one or the other vehicle or amor approach. If the estimate is off it will be of systematically i.e. for all and for all the same.

unfortunately, your quoted website is a tank sim inspired fantasy and refuted by many around the web.

Reality is, the two tanks are meant to fulfill desired roles they are designed for. It is not appropriate to compare apple with tomato.

Maybe so. Question is: do you have anything better? Surely, there are standardized methods to compare armor penetration capability for guns and ballistic protection levels for armored vehicles, including tanks/MBTs.....

See e.g. here Tank Protection Levels

Below I present a list of frontal armour estimations (RHAe) for wargamers.

Plz, take a look at the table in the following link, it would be much easier to read:http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm

"I" being BLACKEAGLE defence.pk ELITE MEMBER

 

[Penguin]

Clearly, I'm not the only one relying on estimates.

The armor protection levels and specific armor designs being projected for future threat vehicles drive the selection of the main armaments for next generation medium caliber platforms. The designs of these armors are usually based on the estimated protection level of the threat vehicle. This process is complicated by the fact that the level of equivalent armor protection, as expressed in terms of millimeters of rolled homogeneous armor, is a function of the projectile material, its geometry, impact velocity, and the method by which it is determined. Hence, the armor protection level assigned to an armor package is by no
means a unique number. The means by which the RHA equivalence is defined and how it will be used should be clearly understood before it is released as a protection level.

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/TB151159.pdf

Seams like any idiot can get PDF Think Tank: Analyst rank when quoting some idiotic computer simulations numbers that have no physical credibility to even be considered.

Seems like people with new recruit status know better and therefor think they have the right to go around insulting people randomly. Keep it up and see how long you last here..

CONCLUSIONS
The protection level of a threat vehicle cannot be defined by one RHA-e value; it de-
pends on several factors: penetrator material, penetrator geometry, target configuration,
RHA penetration, and the method and RHA baseline used. It has been shown that the
RHA-e for one medium caliber target evaluated with several projectiles can vary by more
than 100%. Even for an RHA target evaluated with one penetrator, the RHA-e can also
vary by more than 100%, depending on the method, the velocity, and the baseline used.

If only one value for the protection level is used, penetrators are designed to perforate
the maximum amount of RHA. Most actual armor is not monolithic RHA and consists of
many different materials and configurations. Therefore, the defeat mechanism is often
drastically different to perforate this armor than the deformation process for RHA pene-
tration. A penetrator designed to penetrate the maximum amount of RHA may not be the
optimum design for more complex armor designs.
The final use of the RHA-e should dictate which method is used to define the protec-
tion level. If the final use is the perforation range, the range at which the target is just per-
forated, the VL and the perforation baseline should be used. If a protection level and a
desired lethality are being computed, then the PR method and the penetration baseline
should probably be used. In this case, a baseline RHA-e must be established as a function
of velocity to clearly show how the projectiles are affected at different levels of over-
match.
Finally, whenever possible, the actual range targets and standard behind-armor letha-
lity methods should be used to accurately estimate the performance of a projectile against
a threat vehicle. Obviously, this is too expensive and time consuming for most applica-
tions. Therefore, all the points presented in this paper must be considered when RHA-e is
used as the threat protection level when future armaments for medium caliber platforms
are selected.

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/TB151159.pdf

But do we have an alternative we could use here?

 

[Penguin]

Ever wonder how that 300 RHA at 2km was esdtablished? Empirically or modelled?

 

[SQ8]

The armour on the M1 is literally made of the proverbial adamantium. Sure the AK can get it, if the Abrams stands still and lets itself get hit in the same spot multiple times. The only possible way for an AK to get a Abrams would be to flank it and aim for the weaker spots. So the equation will boil down to speed , manoeuvrability and situational awareness.

With Armour even the AK-2 would lose out.

 

[Penguin]

The armour on the M1 is literally made of the proverbial adamantium. Sure the AK can get it, if the Abrams stands still and lets itself get hit in the same spot multiple times. The only possible way for an AK to get a Abrams would be to flank it and aim for the weaker spots. So the equation will boil down to speed , manoeuvrability and situational awareness.

With Armour even the AK-2 would lose out.

I.e. doctrine, tactics and lots of training.

 

[Mercenary]

Al-Khalid will get annihilated just like Saddam's tanks during the first gulf War.

 

[SQ8]

Clearly, I'm not the only one relying on estimates.

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/TB151159.pdf


Seems like people with new recruit status know better and therefor think they have the right to go around insulting people randomly. Keep it up and see how long you last here..


http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/TB151159.pdf

But do we have an alternative we could use here?

A similar issue comes in with RCS.. or rather any measure. Hence why these paper simulations serve only as a VERY VERY rough estimate on what will happen in combat. As such, the Abrams survived what were essentially second(or rather third or fourth) tier Russian-equivalent tanks.. and not the ones it was supposed to fight.

In combat, a lot of the Abrams "losses" were not losses at all. Essentially the tank ended up being unable to move by virtue of its tracks being out of commission or its optics or other systems disabled that made being in the tank a liability. Most(if not all) of these hulls are recoverable and can be refurbished to be used again.

The only true threat might be the newer tandem warhead equipped ATGMs and RPGs.. and perhaps segmented penetrator and DU rounds(the latter still defeated by built in DU in the Abrams hull).. again, these have never been seen in combat against the Abrams yet(except the Vampyr which did cause serious hull penetration and damage in Iraq).

I'm confused; how would those two tanks meet in battle? Arjun vs. AK makes more sense.

No idea where the idea came up. Except perhaps if the Saudis ever

Al-Khalid will get annihilated just like Saddam's tanks during the first gulf War.

Saddam's tanks were manned by idiots. Moreover, their tanks were lower grade models of what was already a second rate tank. But yeah, eventually you will see ratio's of 4-1 Abrams if crews of equal skill are taken and it is assumed that both have equal situational awareness and support. Ideal scenarios never exist.
In reality the AKs would find themselves at the receiving end of sensor fuzed munitions that fry the crews long before they get within a 100kms of any Abrams.

 

[Dazzler]

Al-Khalid will get annihilated just like Saddam's tanks during the first gulf War.

nope, saddam was an inferior model of export version t72M1, had abismal armour, low quality ammo and no onboard FCS, no thermal imager or even image intensiffication sights, not to mention the crew training was horrendous.

Ever wonder how that 300 RHA at 2km was esdtablished? Empirically or modelled?

Calculated figures by drdo "experts" against a rha armour block.

 

[SRBM2]

Well, if that's your take, why don't you provide or come up with something better for the protection levels. There is no problem with estimations, so long as you estimate all vehicles by the same method and the method isn't biased towards one or the other vehicle or amor approach. If the estimate is off it will be of systematically i.e. for all and for all the same.


Maybe so. Question is: do you have anything better? Surely, there are standardized methods to compare armor penetration capability for guns and ballistic protection levels for armored vehicles, including tanks/MBTs.....

See e.g. here Tank Protection Levels

"I" being BLACKEAGLE defence.pk ELITE MEMBER

Ohh yes great example, you have no facts so lets Estimate something with estimations by some computer simulation nerds for video games...Science does not work like that.
Methods to compare or estimate armor you need several factors to know and which non we know today since armor on Tanks is the only Top Secret factor of tanks. Unless you work as an engineer or weld those tanks yourself you will have zero credibility.
All those methods only work when you know the strength of materials and in what manner they are layerd, if you don't know them your estimations is worthless. You will have far better chance to estimate the armor by watching if some tanks were hit by specific weapon and penetrated or not and then base your estimations and tresholds, everything else is worthless.

Clearly, I'm not the only one relying on estimates.

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/TB151159.pdf


Seems like people with new recruit status know better and therefor think they have the right to go around insulting people randomly. Keep it up and see how long you last here..


http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/TB151159.pdf

But do we have an alternative we could use here?

Being old member of a forum and entitled with "Think Tank: Analyst" while posting garbage links with zero credibility since they are for computer simulations made by non experts, since real experts distance themselfs from estimations without knowing factors to avoid damaging their credibility, but yes keep up the great work posting such garbage, next i will come up with video game links as "credible" source...

 

[Mercenary]

So we clearly have a consensus that Abrams is a superior Tank to Al-Khalid.

What else is left to determine?