Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool

[alimobin memon]

Hull and turret protection has been considerably improved

View attachment 883394

By observing this I couldn't see the improvement. Can u please elaborate.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Hull and turret protection has been considerably improved

View attachment 883394

I’ve confirmed with HIT officials multiple times. Al-Khalid and Al-Khalid-1 have entirely identical armor.

Is there something in the picture that backs your statement up?

 

[Dazzler]

I’ve confirmed with HIT officials multiple times. Al-Khalid and Al-Khalid-1 have entirely identical armor.

Is there something in the picture that backs your statement up?

Inserts have been optimized. Hint, type-85 composite inserts are similar.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Inserts have been optimized. Hint, type-85 composite inserts are similar.

Again. HIT has confirmed the armor is identical on Original AK and AK-1. I’d love to see or hear your sources.

 

[Dazzler]

Again. HIT has confirmed the armor is identical on Original AK and AK-1. I’d love to see or hear your sources.

Identical doesn't mean the same does it?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Identical doesn't mean the same does it?

 

[iLION12345_1]

Identical doesn't mean the same does it?

Maybe I should be asking for your dictionary before I ask for a source
What does it mean then?

 

[Dazzler]

View attachment 883780

Congratulations

 

[iLION12345_1]

Well I stand by what I said and what I’ve been told. AK has not received any changes to its armor or its inserts either during AKs own production run or in AK-1.

 

[Dazzler]

UG got improvements. I'll be surprised if ak1 didn't.
Backplates
Nera

 

[iLION12345_1]

UG got improvements. I'll be surprised if ak1 didn't.
Backplates
Nera

View attachment 883988

UG got the some of the composite Package From AK, and that too not all of them from what it seems.
I was surprised too, but they were adamant that they had not changed the armor at all, partially due to weight constraints.

I’ve seen composite armor packages from AK-1 in all it’s individual pieces, it looked just the same as AK. I don’t think it needs an upgrade though, in live armor testing the AKs turret without ERA could stop its own HEAT followed by its own APFSDS handily, which is impressive given how much the HEAT disturbs the chemical composition of the armor, and india doesn’t have ammo comparable to what the AK fires.

 

[DeusExAstra]

UG got the some of the composite Package From AK, and that too not all of them from what it seems.
I was surprised too, but they were adamant that they had not changed the armor at all, partially due to weight constraints.

I’ve seen composite armor packages from AK-1 in all it’s individual pieces, it looked just the same as AK. I don’t think it needs an upgrade though, in live armor testing the AKs turret without ERA could stop its own HEAT followed by its own APFSDS handily, which is impressive given how much the HEAT disturbs the chemical composition of the armor, and india doesn’t have ammo comparable to what the AK fires.

What kind of APFSDS was that? 125-I, I guess? And what distance was simulated? 2 000 m as usual?

 

[LeGenD]

Top attack ATGMs can be countered by systems like Trophy ,Zalson,AVEPS,Quick kill 2.0,Afghanit can also provide top attack protection against IR guided missiles like javelin and there are afew other APS which also provide protection against top attack and like it's always the case with almost every system they can be countered systems like RPG-30 are designed to counter APS ,Kornets can also be launched in tandem to counter APS systems although the accuracy maybe lower

Active Protection Systems (APS) vary in terms of capabilities.

Trophy APS intercepts for reference:

These intercepts were produced in 2011.

Trophy APS was pitted against Kornet in 2014 and defeated it just like any other:

Other solutions are more hype and less substance in comparison.

For example:

Russia Just Lost Its Most Advanced Operational Tank In Ukraine

The first confirmed loss of Russia's most advanced operational tank is another blow to the Russian Army's eroded image.

www.thedrive.com

Russian T-90M is equipped with the very best of Russian technologies including Afghanit APS* and armor protection package, but it was knocked out by an ATGM in a battle. Ukrainian forces use Stugna-P and Javelin ATGMs.

*This is true; Ukranian forces managed to capture another Russian T-90M unit in another battle and found it to be equipped with Afghanit APS.

Trophy APS offers 360 degree protection but Afghanit does not.

DU armor is pointless, for now. I mean, Uranium Matrixes is just one of many ways to get better KE/CE protection, you don't need it to make better armor packages)

Depleted Uranium (DU) is about twice as dense and hard than lead and even moreso than steel in its properties. Incoming projectile(s) loose much of its energy while trying to punch through a mesh created with DU. It is not pointless but Russians wouldn't understand.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Active Protection Systems (APS) vary in terms of capabilities.

Trophy APS intercepts for reference:

These intercepts were produced in 2011.

Trophy APS was pitted against Kornet in 2014 and defeated it just like any other:

Other solutions are more hype and less substance in comparison.

For example:

Russia Just Lost Its Most Advanced Operational Tank In Ukraine

The first confirmed loss of Russia's most advanced operational tank is another blow to the Russian Army's eroded image.

www.thedrive.com

Russian T-90M is equipped with the very best of Russian technologies including Afghanit APS* and armor protection package, but it was knocked out by an ATGM in a battle. Ukrainian forces use Stugna-P and Javelin ATGMs.

*This is true; Ukranian forces managed to capture another Russian T-90M unit in another battle and found it to be equipped with Afghanit APS.

Trophy APS offers 360 degree protection but Afghanit does not.



Depleted Uranium (DU) is about twice as dense and hard than lead and even moreso than steel in its properties. Incoming projectile(s) loose much of its energy while trying to punch through a mesh created with DU. It is not pointless but Russians wouldn't understand.

Technology is only as useful as the owner is skilled. You could exchange the entirety of the equipment of the Russian and American forces while keeping everything else the same and Russia would still be losing just as bad in Ukraine. Because they don’t know what they’re doing.

What I mean to say is, I don’t think inferior tech is what’s holding the Russians back, we all know they can make good things, but their training, logistics, strategy and morale is so hilariously poor that it does not matter.

I would wager that the US army with Russian equipment would fare far better simply because of their better training and planning.

And then again, what good was American technology in Vietnam and both Russian and American in Afghanistan?

What kind of APFSDS was that? 125-I, I guess? And what distance was simulated? 2 000 m as usual?

I asked if that test was conducted with Naiza DU or 125-1, they said both, I did not ask about the distance, but I would assume either 1 or 2 KM. The trials were done with both APFSDS being fired first followed by HEAT and then the other way around.

 

[LeGenD]

Technology is only as useful as the owner is skilled. You could exchange the entirety of the equipment of the Russian and American forces while keeping everything else the same and Russia would still be losing just as bad in Ukraine. Because they don’t know what they’re doing.

What I mean to say is, I don’t think inferior tech is what’s holding the Russians back, we all know they can make good things, but their training, logistics, strategy and morale is so hilariously poor that it does not matter.

I would wager that the US army with Russian equipment would fare far better simply because of their better training and planning.

And then again, what good was American technology in Vietnam and both Russian and American in Afghanistan?

Training is definitely important but technology is crucial to fight and win BATTLES in modern warfare. Technology also helps reduce losses in BATTLES in modern warfare.

American military technology was largely mechanical in times of the Vietnam War (1965 - 1971) but much more advanced and sophisticated in times of the Persian Gulf War (1991). Respective outcome(s) are entirely different as well.

For perspective: the Dragon’s Jaw bridge located at Thanh Hoa was a high-priority target but it withstood repeated efforts to destroy it in a total of 871 sorties from both USAF and USN in several years (dumb bombs were completely ineffective). The FIRST smart bomb was put to good use by USAF in 1972. Guess the target: the Dragon's Jaw bridge in Thanh Hoa was taken out in 15 minutes in a single sortie. This mission was in connection with Operation Linebacker and brought Vietcong to the negotiation table with Americans. But Richard Nixon wanted to end the war by this time and ordered withdrawal of American troops from the region.

Iraq had prepared and fielded relatively larger and more sophisticated military machine than Vietcong in the 1970s. But Saddam Hussein did nothing to make battlefield situation difficult for Americans in 1990. The Battle of khafji was a bold move but TOO LATE for Iraq to achieve anything meaningful or buy time for political negotiations.

Military technology proved useful in Afghanistan as well. US-led forces were able to topple Afghan Taliban-led government and take over Afghanistan in 2 months, and did well in other BATTLES fought with Afghan Taliban in other times. American military losses in Afghanistan in terms of men and material are LOWEST for a long-lasting war in their history. Much lower than Pakistani military losses in connection to War on Terror as well.

War in Afghanistan was about dismantling Al-Qaeda Network in large part. Afghan Taliban was a secondary target and the door for negotiations with them was kept open. Pakistan convinced Americans to talk with Afghan Taliban. Americans were not trying to LEVEL Afghanistan or worse.

Military technology is showing its effects in Ukraine as well. Ukranian forces were NOT EQUIPPED to fight a war with Russia on their own. Russian forces had crippled Ukranian ICT infrastructure with cyber warfare and precision strikes in the early days of the war and Ukranians were as good as BLIND for a time but Americans came to their rescue. Elon Musk provided Ukrainian forces access to his state-of-the-art STARLINK system as a substitute for loss of Ukranian ICT infrastructure and Russians could do nothing about it - they FAILED to cripple STARLINK system (no country can cripple this system to be fair). Ukranian forces continue to receive increasingly sophisticated weapon systems from NATO as well. WE can clearly see battlefield effects of Javelins, Harpoons and HIMARS in Ukraine for instance. Ukrainian forces are also BRAVE and Zelenskky administration has a sound battlefield strategy to fight a war with Russia in the present.

Russian forces have suffered greater losses in Ukraine in a span of 7 months than in 10 years in Afghanistan. Hundreds of Russian OFFICERS are KIA in this war. More in this post:

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

Courage by itself is not sufficient. Troops need competent OFFICERS to lead them. Secondly, the sight of Russian tank tops flying around will not help Russian morale.