Al-Zarrar tanks Firepowerr

[Shabi1]

Still would prefer to get rid of this dalda sheet tank.

The Al-Zarrar is a light tank ideally suited for Pakistan's urban and counter terror combat needs. Pretty evident from my previous post that it can handle RPGs and IEDs. Advanced MBTs are not cost effective or suited for similar roles.
The tank that can replace the Al-Zarrar is possibly the Chinese VT-5 which is a very new platform still under maturity. It looks like what it would have looked if PA had decided to develop a Al-Zarrar 2. So we will have to just wait and see.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vt5.htm

 

[khanmubashir]

what about modernization of Bangladesh Army Type-59
@monitor

Bng didn't gave that contract to Pak instead they upgraded em via Chinese assistance

 

[Signalian]

Whats the use of practice firing in stationary position ? Dont you think that tanks are vulnerable while stationary

Every maneuver and tactic is practiced and mastered.

Not every scenario in war demands fire on the move, what will an MBT do if tracks are damaged and it cant move, will it not fire then?

Al-Khalid should be produced in mass numbers to replace Al-Zarrar. Al-Zarrar can be either stored to be used as a backup in wartime scenario in order to cover for battle losses or it can be deployed on western front. For eastern front in the face of T90s, only Al-Khalid and Al-Haider(whichever it ends up being) should serve as a high/low combo.

Western front is not Tank hospitable terrain. The geography is a good example to ambush Armored columns, which is why USSR used Mi-24 and Air assault forces (VDV) with good effect in Afghanistan.

Why do you think US deployed 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan and not 1st Armored Division?

The Al-Zarrar is a light tank ideally suited for Pakistan's urban and counter terror combat needs. Pretty evident from my previous post that it can handle RPGs and IEDs. Advanced MBTs are not cost effective or suited for similar roles.
The tank that can replace the Al-Zarrar is possibly the Chinese VT-5 which is a very new platform still under maturity. It looks like what it would have looked if PA had decided to develop a Al-Zarrar 2. So we will have to just wait and see.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vt5.htm

I wasn't expecting such an analysis from you, anyways:

Light MBT and a basic MBT are classified on basis of weight ? then 33-36 T and 44 T have a difference of 8-11 T. CV-90 is an IFV which ranges from 23 T to Light Tank of 35 T. More armor protection means a bigger engine to satisfy mobility requirements. Al Zarrar has limitations to be further upgraded including cost feasibility, the T-59 or for that matter, the T-55 was NOT designed as a light MBT where as VT-5 has been specifically designed as a light MBT. Then is the role of light MBT, recon or specific terrain operations, Al Zarrar's role is to be used in any kind of terrain, plains or hilly, even in the desert if required, though performance will not be on par with likes of T-80 UD or Al Khalid MBT.

Light Tanks are either suitable for air transport friendly, used in amphibious warfare or a certain type of geographical terrain, but Al Zarrar is being used in a significant Armored formation to lead the attack against the likes of T-90, T-72 etc, which a light MBT may not be envisioned to do.

PA is moving towards 125mm gun MBT, VT-5 105mm may not be desirable and also PA needs modern MBT for eastern front, not really a light MBT for Western front, lots of T-59 in inventory to be utilized.

Why would PA go for Al Zarrar 2 ? How much more can T-59 be upgraded? where can you see a significantly required improvement on Al Zarrar to make a new version?

 

[Cookie Monster]

Western front is not Tank hospitable terrain. The geography is a good example to ambush Armored columns, which is why USSR used Mi-24 and Air assault forces (VDV) with good effect in Afghanistan.

Why do you think US deployed 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan and not 1st Armored Division?

I'm aware that Pak's western border is rather mountainous but China has recently developed/tested/deployed a light tank for that very purpose...to operate in a mountainous terrain. Al-Zarrar is relatively light as far as tanks go...in any case, I didn't say that this is an order and that's how it must be. If that can't be done then Al-Zarrar can be stored and used in war time(on the eastern front) to make up for tank losses. The main point I was making is that Al-Khalid should be produced in large numbers along with Al-Haiders bcuz India has a sizable number of T90s and Pak needs better tanks.

 

[Shabi1]

Western front is not Tank hospitable terrain. The geography is a good example to ambush Armored columns, which is why USSR used Mi-24 and Air assault forces (VDV) with good effect in Afghanistan.

Why do you think US deployed 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan and not 1st Armored Division?

Both US and Russia failed in the same terrain whereas Pakistan has succeeded. Heliborn platforms are more effective but they don't have the staying power, which Pakistan got by using light tanks.

I would rather see Pakistan using Al-Zarrars against TTP/Afghani's rather than expend Al-Khalids and it's a complete rebuild so think it's a decent platform. It's also more heavily armored than a IFV so it has better survivability and doesn't suffer the same fate as US IFVs did against IEDs.

On the eastern front although the Al-Zarrar is equipped with the firepower and hunter killer capability to tackle T-72s and hold it's ground against the T-90s it's mostly a filler tank till they can be replaced. Spearhead would be T-80s and Al-Khalids. The new procurement trials will likely be to replace the Al-Zarrars in offensive roles on east. There is even news of PA Type-85APs getting upgrades as well. So PA might be using old platforms but at least on the eastern side they all have updated guns, ammo and targeting systems at par with new built tanks.

 

[xyxmt]

Whats the use of practice firing in stationary position ? Dont you think that tanks are vulnerable while stationary

it a video game

 

[Armchair-General]

The fire power (125 mm gun and Al-Khalid sub systems) and mobility got huge upgrade but armor protection is where it lacks. The hull armor is ok especially when combine with composite and ERA but turret armor is where it lacks. That whole boxy turret is actually only slat armor of 200 mm fitted around the original turret. This is ok against RPGs but tank rounds and shaped charges ill kill it.

 

[The Accountant]

it a video game

Lolz .. and somebody already started justifying, trainings while standing still ...

 

[Signalian]

Both US and Russia failed in the same terrain whereas Pakistan has succeeded.

Pakistan Army had the advantage of fighting inside its own territory, which US and Russia don't and didn't have. This helped in prepping,identifying and cornering the enemy easily while also keeping PA safe from ambushes. The locals also provided valuable information where as mingling in the population was easy too which again helped the Pakistan Army.

Heliborn platforms are more effective but they don't have the staying power, which Pakistan got by using light tanks.

Infantry has the staying power by holding the ground, not tanks.

I would rather see Pakistan using Al-Zarrars against TTP/Afghani's rather than expend Al-Khalids and it's a complete rebuild so think it's a decent platform. It's also more heavily armored than a IFV so it has better survivability and doesn't suffer the same fate as US IFVs did against IEDs.

On the eastern front although the Al-Zarrar is equipped with the firepower and hunter killer capability to tackle T-72s and hold it's ground against the T-90s it's mostly a filler tank till they can be replaced. Spearhead would be T-80s and Al-Khalids. The new procurement trials will likely be to replace the Al-Zarrars in offensive roles on east. There is even news of PA Type-85APs getting upgrades as well. So PA might be using old platforms but at least on the eastern side they all have updated guns, ammo and targeting systems at par with new built tanks.

The survivability or performance of AZ isn't an issue.

Lolz .. and somebody already started justifying, trainings while standing still ...

Somebody was kind enough to teach you something you had no idea about however instead of gratitude, you mocked. Welcome to ignore list.

 

[HAIDER]

The Al-Zarrar is a light tank ideally suited for Pakistan's urban and counter terror combat needs. Pretty evident from my previous post that it can handle RPGs and IEDs. Advanced MBTs are not cost effective or suited for similar roles.
The tank that can replace the Al-Zarrar is possibly the Chinese VT-5 which is a very new platform still under maturity. It looks like what it would have looked if PA had decided to develop a Al-Zarrar 2. So we will have to just wait and see.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vt5.htm

A good info about T59 . Seems still a successful frame in hot terrain .

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/China/Type-59.php

Type 59 MBT, early production, 1958.

Congolese Type 59 in operations, 1980s.

Modernized North Korean Type 59 in parade, with MANPADS “Igla” FCS, 1980s.

Chinese Type 59-I, in the 1970s. This version had an improved type 69 gun with a laser rangefinder, and other improvements.

Chinese Type 59-I, with rubber side skirts in the 1980s.

On the North Korean frontier, in winter camouflage.

Late Type 59-I, 1990.

Type 59T with its thermal sleeve, location unknown.

Pakistani Type 59-Is stationed at the government installation in Hayatabad near tribal areas, june, 30, 2011

Possibly Iranian Zafir-74 (standard T72Z upgrade for Type 59s) with the 105 mm M68 (Royal ordnance L-7), Slovenian FCS, upgraded engine and ERA.

Type 59-II (factory designation WZ-120B) in the 1980s, equipped with the Austrian-based L7 (Royal Ordinance) 105 mm gun.

Iraqi Type 59-II, 1991 first gulf war

Type 59 IIA (apparently without thermal sleeves), 1980s.

Chinese Type 59-IIA upgraded in the 1990s.

Upgraded Chinese Type 59 IIA with thermal sleeves and new FCS, 2000s.

Chinese Type 59G, the very latest version of the type, here in the Tanzanian army.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

A good info about T59 . Seems still a successful frame in hot terrain .

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/China/Type-59.php

Type 59 MBT, early production, 1958.

Congolese Type 59 in operations, 1980s.

Modernized North Korean Type 59 in parade, with MANPADS “Igla” FCS, 1980s.

Chinese Type 59-I, in the 1970s. This version had an improved type 69 gun with a laser rangefinder, and other improvements.

Chinese Type 59-I, with rubber side skirts in the 1980s.

On the North Korean frontier, in winter camouflage.

Late Type 59-I, 1990.

Type 59T with its thermal sleeve, location unknown.

Pakistani Type 59-Is stationed at the government installation in Hayatabad near tribal areas, june, 30, 2011

Possibly Iranian Zafir-74 (standard T72Z upgrade for Type 59s) with the 105 mm M68 (Royal ordnance L-7), Slovenian FCS, upgraded engine and ERA.

Type 59-II (factory designation WZ-120B) in the 1980s, equipped with the Austrian-based L7 (Royal Ordinance) 105 mm gun.

Iraqi Type 59-II, 1991 first gulf war

Type 59 IIA (apparently without thermal sleeves), 1980s.

Chinese Type 59-IIA upgraded in the 1990s.

Upgraded Chinese Type 59 IIA with thermal sleeves and new FCS, 2000s.

Chinese Type 59G, the very latest version of the type, here in the Tanzanian army.

AZ upgrade model;

 

[HAIDER]

Still keep going ... a proven machine for Urban and close combat zone ...

 

[MZ-PDF]

Amazing!

 

[Basel]

This tank is obsolete ,you need to buy new tanks

In India Pakistan war scenario its not obsolete, it can still be used effectively with other assets, it is comprehensively upgraded with good NCW and night fighting capabilities.

Still would prefer to get rid of this dalda sheet tank.

Al-Haider project is specifically for replacing older tanks which includes this version too.

 

[HANI]

awesome