Destroyed Pak Army tank in Buner

[blain2]

but they do have RPG-18s I guess ..... equally effective with their tandem warheads .....

The tank (AZ) was taken out by a mine/IED (damage to the treads and sleeve can be clearly seen in the Al-Jazeera video).

No indications of any RPG hits.

Its quite possible that more tanks would be damaged/lost and it should come as no surprise to people. After all this is a war!

 

[Myth_buster_1]

hey blain nice posts... can u please answer my question.

 

[blain2]

hey blain nice posts... can u please answer my question.

Ammunition stowage is in the turret because the tank is overall an older design. The AZ upgrade adds about 50 or so major/minor upgrades but does not do away with the basic layout of the tank.

 

[Penguin]

Ammunition stowage is in the turret because the tank is overall an older design. The AZ upgrade adds about 50 or so major/minor upgrades but does not do away with the basic layout of the tank.

Type 59: Normally 34 single piece rounds are carried. Some in the center hull and turret area but to the right of the driver there is also space for ammunition stowage (as well as batteries and a small fuel tank).

The Al Zarrar upgrade gives the original Type 59 a Chinese 125mm gun with Soviet style carousel auto-loader like that on Al Khalid. AK this carriers 22 rounds of ammunition in the auto-loader, and the remaining 27 are stored near the driver and around the fighting compartment. In the loader, the 2-part munitions are arranged horizontally - underneath the turret near the vehicle floor. I.e. the are no rounds in the turret itself, except for the round in the breach. While the number of rounds may differ in AZ, stowage pattern will likely be similar to AK (and T-80UD). This arrangement is probably safer than the arrangement of single piece 100mm ammo in the original Type 59/T-54A. Nonetheless, this ammunition stowage arrangement leaves a lot to be desired in comparison to that found on NATO standard MBTs. There is little chance at all that the rounds stored in the fighting compartment can be stopped from exploding if the turret is penetrated.
It is a consequence of the Chinese choice for a soviet style 125mm gun and autoloader rather than a western style 120mm gun and human loader, which lead to choice for a 125mm gun on the Type 85 and eventually Al Khalid and Al Zarrar.

 

[RescueRanger]

A conical shaped; Splatter Charge IED can easily penetrate even the thickest armour.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Shaped bombs magnify Iraq attacks

 

[Penguin]

Couple of question about al-zarar

-where are ammunistions kept? in the turret or .....

Some next to the driver, the remainder in a caroussel autoloader at the bottom of the fighting compartment (underneath the turret).

Question is whether this is T72 style or T-80 style.

T-64 and T-80, T-72 and T-90 MBTs all employ an autoloader to load their 125mm 2A46/M main guns with the necessary 2-piece ammunition. However, their autoloaders are substantially different. The autoloader in T-72/T-90 is mechanical while that of the T-64/T-80 is hydraulic. Also, the placement of propellant charges varies. In a T-72/90 loader, the charges are placed horizontally on top of the horizontally stored main rounds, with the same directional orientation. In a T-64/80 loader, the charges are placed vertically with their stubs upwards on top and outside of the main rounds, which are horizontally with their fins outwards. The reason why T-80 inherits T-64's autoloader but T-72 doesn't is that T-72's hull is a bit narrower and T-64's autoloader wouldn't fit. So, a new one was designed from scratch during T-72 development. .

Opposite to a common belief the munitions carousel is well protected from above. Nevertheless, the extra rounds stored in the fighting compartment are very likely to ignite in this case, and of course the lower hull penetration is quite deadly. In other words, not the autoloader per se, but the whole notion of placing ammunition inside a fighting compartment makes the tank very susceptible to catastrophic fire if penetrated from virtually any angle.

 

[Penguin]

The tank (AZ) was taken out by a mine/IED (damage to the treads and sleeve can be clearly seen in the Al-Jazeera video).

No indications of any RPG hits.

Its quite possible that more tanks would be damaged/lost and it should come as no surprise to people. After all this is a war!

Rather than penetration, looks like the mine/EID shattered an external fuel cell and set the vehicle ablaze, leading to its loss.

By the way, aren't there supposed to be ERA-tiles around the turret front?

 

[Munir]

Rather than penetration, looks like the mine/EID shattered an external fuel cell and set the vehicle ablaze, leading to its loss.

By the way, aren't there supposed to be ERA-tiles around the turret front?

The fire was result of the IED and the rubber track parts. As soon as rubber was gone the fire ended. Not excessive damage cause the fuelcell is replaced easily. The track is a bit more work and probably they ook the armament (the top canon is removed) and moved on with the assault. It will probabl be repaired by engineers behind the assualt team.

 

[zraver]

The fire was result of the IED and the rubber track parts. As soon as rubber was gone the fire ended. Not excessive damage cause the fuelcell is replaced easily. The track is a bit more work and probably they ook the armament (the top canon is removed) and moved on with the assault. It will probabl be repaired by engineers behind the assualt team.

1. engineers don't repair tanks
2. at the very least the fuel tank and every torsion bar has to be replaced. They are very heat sensitive and is why burned out tanks sit so low.

 

[Penguin]

The fire was result of the IED and the rubber track parts. As soon as rubber was gone the fire ended. Not excessive damage cause the fuelcell is replaced easily. The track is a bit more work and probably they ook the armament (the top canon is removed) and moved on with the assault. It will probabl be repaired by engineers behind the assualt team.

MmmMmm, 'sounds like an eye-witness account alsmost. I suppose that's why the whole vehicle is burned out, eh, because the fire ended? There is little if anything left for a field repair team or shop to repair. Blah!

 

[UnKnOwN]

Ofcourse the army isn't going to use the newer, better tanks against the Taliban...why get them dirty? Tanks aren't designed for urban fighting and most the of tanks in the PK Army are designed for conventional warfare.

 

[Penguin]

Ofcourse the army isn't going to use the newer, better tanks against the Taliban...why get them dirty? Tanks aren't designed for urban fighting and most the of tanks in the PK Army are designed for conventional warfare.

Well, I don't know about that. Do consider that the Al Zarrar upgrade/rebuild is one of the most comprehensive that has been applied to T54/Type-59. While perhaps not as expensive as a new tank, it certainly wouldn't come cheap, which is why the army IMHO also wouldn't want to waste the Al Zarrars if any unupgraded Type-59s or Type-69s are available (and there are: about 1330 Type-59/69, as compared to some 320 AL Zarrar). In other words, I don't think the reasoning above applies. If anything the contrary.

 

[echo 1]

I think we need to get some arial drons in the area day and night and equip them with thermal and infer-red imaging so our guys can focus on hitting the people who actually need to be hit.

 

[echo 1]

The tank (AZ) was taken out by a mine/IED (damage to the treads and sleeve can be clearly seen in the Al-Jazeera video).

No indications of any RPG hits.

Its quite possible that more tanks would be damaged/lost and it should come as no surprise to people. After all this is a war!

I am just glad that they troops that were in side got out ok and at least the tank did its job by protecting the crew

 

[Mercenary_ali]

If this Abram TAnk can Be destroyed By Iraqi Mujahids then why cant a t85III be be PARTIALLY destroyed by a sooo powerful IED. Theres nothing soo ironic about this.


t85:http://www.********************/PakArmy/T85IIAP_MBT.html