IRGC Ground Forces to receive "Karrar" Main Battle Tanks
- Thread starter SOHEIL
- Start date
congratz IRGC .
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Read my comment carefully please. I said we are going through a transitional period which may make the Abrams obsolete. The Abrams is not going to be obsolete for decades, nor is the Karrar/T-90.
eagle2007
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 1
AmirPatriot,
That's definitely a fair point about standardization.
On a side note, those two images are of the same variant of Zulfiqar, they're just painted differently.
The early Zulfiqar's appearance/design isn't "bad", if you keep in mind that is was likely designed to give Iran a T-72-like tank (greater firepower than existing tanks & MUCH lower profile, making for a harder target to hit) to counter Iraq's armor in the days before the T-72S contract was a sure thing. The Zulfiqar was the post-war solution to the T-72 threat across the border. None of the existing tank fleet properly measured up to Iraq's T-72s during the war (whose numbers were comparatively small until the later years of the water). Once the T-72S contract was signed and the T-72Z/Safir-74/86 upgrades were developed, the Zulfiqar prototypes were out-moded. Instead of abandoning the design completely however, the tank was given a major redesign (though still showing some Patton roots), which should have paid off after the Russian reneged on the T-72S contract. What happened after that and why it didn't entered production then?
IMHO, the Karrar is likely a very recent design (say, less than 2 years old), so it likely isn't the cause. So that leaves problems with the later Zulfiqar's design, lack of necessary funds, or loss of political will/support t build it.
That's definitely a fair point about standardization.
On a side note, those two images are of the same variant of Zulfiqar, they're just painted differently.
The early Zulfiqar's appearance/design isn't "bad", if you keep in mind that is was likely designed to give Iran a T-72-like tank (greater firepower than existing tanks & MUCH lower profile, making for a harder target to hit) to counter Iraq's armor in the days before the T-72S contract was a sure thing. The Zulfiqar was the post-war solution to the T-72 threat across the border. None of the existing tank fleet properly measured up to Iraq's T-72s during the war (whose numbers were comparatively small until the later years of the water). Once the T-72S contract was signed and the T-72Z/Safir-74/86 upgrades were developed, the Zulfiqar prototypes were out-moded. Instead of abandoning the design completely however, the tank was given a major redesign (though still showing some Patton roots), which should have paid off after the Russian reneged on the T-72S contract. What happened after that and why it didn't entered production then?
IMHO, the Karrar is likely a very recent design (say, less than 2 years old), so it likely isn't the cause. So that leaves problems with the later Zulfiqar's design, lack of necessary funds, or loss of political will/support t build it.
PeeD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
The reason for the Zolfaghar saga is the T-72B (S).
From the late 80's to the mid-90's it was just THE economic solution for a very heavy armored high firepower tank.
When Iran got the production license it was clear that in any case it would be the better tank to produce than the Zolfaghar-1.
In terms of armor there are worlds between the T-72M/M1 and the B. The Zolfaghar-1 was a late 80's design to compete with the T-72M1 but it would have been foolish to produce it when the T-72S was available at the factory.
The creator of the Zolfaghar-1, the Army and the IRGC too just went for T-72S as a logical decision.
The team behind the Z-1 didn't give up their efforts and created a complete new design, the Zolfaghar-2. The hope was to outperform the T-72S but even in the case that it and the Zolfaghar-3 managed to perform better for a margin, what about the cost?
The T-72B is a highly effective and economical design and even if its gun and available ammo as well as optics are somewhat outdated today, its a near impossible task to design anything better at the same cost.
At 500k $ local production you can equip 10 units with a heavy armored tank for one Leopard-2 or M1A1, this thinking makes the difference. That's why a Zolfaghar-3 still could not win the hearts to replace the T-72S.
The Karrar did however and the efforts of the Zolfaghar design team also continue.
After more than 40 years Indians still can't get the Arjun into production for same reasons: How you want to economically beat the T-90?
From the late 80's to the mid-90's it was just THE economic solution for a very heavy armored high firepower tank.
When Iran got the production license it was clear that in any case it would be the better tank to produce than the Zolfaghar-1.
In terms of armor there are worlds between the T-72M/M1 and the B. The Zolfaghar-1 was a late 80's design to compete with the T-72M1 but it would have been foolish to produce it when the T-72S was available at the factory.
The creator of the Zolfaghar-1, the Army and the IRGC too just went for T-72S as a logical decision.
The team behind the Z-1 didn't give up their efforts and created a complete new design, the Zolfaghar-2. The hope was to outperform the T-72S but even in the case that it and the Zolfaghar-3 managed to perform better for a margin, what about the cost?
The T-72B is a highly effective and economical design and even if its gun and available ammo as well as optics are somewhat outdated today, its a near impossible task to design anything better at the same cost.
At 500k $ local production you can equip 10 units with a heavy armored tank for one Leopard-2 or M1A1, this thinking makes the difference. That's why a Zolfaghar-3 still could not win the hearts to replace the T-72S.
The Karrar did however and the efforts of the Zolfaghar design team also continue.
After more than 40 years Indians still can't get the Arjun into production for same reasons: How you want to economically beat the T-90?
eagle2007
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 1
PeeD,
True but that wasn't what I was getting at.
Why didn't Iran pursue the improved Zulfiqar design when the Russian stopped sending Iran T-72S kits/assembly components back in the early 2000s? Of the originally ordered 1000 units, most sources point to less than half being delivered when the contract was cut short by Russia (there's a lot of confusion out there because Iran also imported some T-72M1s and some folks try to throw those in as part of the 1000 T-72 contract though they were likely unrelated/separate contracts).
IMHO, the fact Iran has the ability today to do a good deal of the manufacturing for T-72s on it's own is NOT thanks to direct Russian assistance but the basic need to maintain a ~500 tank fleet WITHOUT their help. It is possible my assessment is wrong and the Russians quietly transferred more of the manufacturing processes to Iran after the original contract was publicly disavowed. Given the overall history of Russia-Iran arms contracts however, that seems unlikely to me.
Obviously the designs (T-72S vs Zulfiqar) are different and would require re-tooling if they planned to use the existing T-72 assembly facility but if you facing an uncertain future, why not go with a design you actively control and that's likely 90% as effective?
So in the case, I don't see the Zulfiqar and Arjun programs are remotely comparable. India has never been in the situation of NOT being able to purchase armor from abroad and has often be on the receiving end of technology transfer agreements with Russia (MiG-21/27, T-72, BMP-2, and now T-90 to name a few).
True but that wasn't what I was getting at.
Why didn't Iran pursue the improved Zulfiqar design when the Russian stopped sending Iran T-72S kits/assembly components back in the early 2000s? Of the originally ordered 1000 units, most sources point to less than half being delivered when the contract was cut short by Russia (there's a lot of confusion out there because Iran also imported some T-72M1s and some folks try to throw those in as part of the 1000 T-72 contract though they were likely unrelated/separate contracts).
IMHO, the fact Iran has the ability today to do a good deal of the manufacturing for T-72s on it's own is NOT thanks to direct Russian assistance but the basic need to maintain a ~500 tank fleet WITHOUT their help. It is possible my assessment is wrong and the Russians quietly transferred more of the manufacturing processes to Iran after the original contract was publicly disavowed. Given the overall history of Russia-Iran arms contracts however, that seems unlikely to me.
Obviously the designs (T-72S vs Zulfiqar) are different and would require re-tooling if they planned to use the existing T-72 assembly facility but if you facing an uncertain future, why not go with a design you actively control and that's likely 90% as effective?
So in the case, I don't see the Zulfiqar and Arjun programs are remotely comparable. India has never been in the situation of NOT being able to purchase armor from abroad and has often be on the receiving end of technology transfer agreements with Russia (MiG-21/27, T-72, BMP-2, and now T-90 to name a few).
PeeD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
The history of the T-72S in Iran is not very clear and I don't want to go into the details.
The T-72S is the backbone of IRIA and IRGC-GF armor and the numbers should be accordingly. Around 500 were made in Russia and the rest are license produced.
Iran is different than India, it acts much tougher in cases where a contract is broken.
So if Jelzins Russia stops proving parts, Iran has no problem to build them locally and reverse engineer the parts without technical documentation. In such cases they don't worry about what Russians or Chinese think.
Now there are critical parts such as engines, but these could have been bought as heavy machinery engines, at least after Putin got into office.
It could also be that Russians left them free hands to buy necessary parts by the producing subcontractors/factories, but stopping direct license cooperation.
It's possible that everything, down to the engine was reverse engineered or that Karrar is the product of a all-Iranian T-72S effort which later got upgraded to meet current requirements.
I would not go for a scenario where Iran stopped producing its 1000 locally made T-72S because political problems. From all we see Iran likely has 400 Russian made, 1000 local made T-72S + 300-400 T-72M/M1 with now the Karrar entering as production replacement.
This is Iranian style of dealing with license production, more so if its a serious military project like the formation of the heavy armor backbone of the whole military. Ever noted the many different T-72S tank camo? All different units.
The same story goes for the BMP-2, the AFV backbone of the military.
The T-72S is the backbone of IRIA and IRGC-GF armor and the numbers should be accordingly. Around 500 were made in Russia and the rest are license produced.
Iran is different than India, it acts much tougher in cases where a contract is broken.
So if Jelzins Russia stops proving parts, Iran has no problem to build them locally and reverse engineer the parts without technical documentation. In such cases they don't worry about what Russians or Chinese think.
Now there are critical parts such as engines, but these could have been bought as heavy machinery engines, at least after Putin got into office.
It could also be that Russians left them free hands to buy necessary parts by the producing subcontractors/factories, but stopping direct license cooperation.
It's possible that everything, down to the engine was reverse engineered or that Karrar is the product of a all-Iranian T-72S effort which later got upgraded to meet current requirements.
I would not go for a scenario where Iran stopped producing its 1000 locally made T-72S because political problems. From all we see Iran likely has 400 Russian made, 1000 local made T-72S + 300-400 T-72M/M1 with now the Karrar entering as production replacement.
This is Iranian style of dealing with license production, more so if its a serious military project like the formation of the heavy armor backbone of the whole military. Ever noted the many different T-72S tank camo? All different units.
The same story goes for the BMP-2, the AFV backbone of the military.
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Expert analysis, truly. You put @eagle2007 and @PeeD to shame.
Oh wait... did I say analysis? I meant pile of crap.
Arminkh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,036
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
Another troll begging for attention. Let him be.
eagle2007
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 1
PeeD,
But that brings up an important question: how many T-72s does Iran even have?
Per the folks at SIPRI (whose job it is to try and collect arms contract information from around the world and whose records go back to the 1950s), here is the breakdown of Iran's T-72s:
- 37 T-72M1s from Belarus (2000-2002)
- 104 T-72M1s from Poland (1994-1995)
- 422 T-72S1 from Russia (1993-2001), 122 delivered directly from Russia, remaining 300 as CKDKs assembled in Iran.
Total= 563 T-72s of all variants.
Now, SIPRI's numbers aren't always 100%, as that's an impossible task when it comes to tracking arms contracts.
The only reliable source (aka not forums, blogs, etc) that may contract did this is the folks at Forecast International.
FI makes a living on market analysis, which includes doing so on various military contractors. I've previously run across their archived reports concerning the French Tigre radar and it's use in Iraqi's AEW programs.
Today, I just found this report by FI from February 2013 concerning the T-72 family of tanks:
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=965
- Iran's assembly line for the T-72S opened for business in 1995
- This same assembly line shut down in 2012/This was the last active T-72 production line anywhere in the world, with the last Russian production line stopping in 1998
- Even though Iran's production line ran from 1995-2012 but..
- FI reports 538 total T-72s (regardless of variant) in Iranian service as of 2012
So while the FI reports states the T-72 production/assembly was active much later than the information at SIPRI suggests, the end results are quite similar (563 vs 538). Taken together, it potentially suggests the 300 kits that Russia delivered to Iran were what the production line was being used to build and that it took ~17 years to do so (coming out to ~17 tanks per year).
Now, open-source resources like SIPRI and FI can be wrong of course (state-secrets are hard to pry) but their similar end results and unique details would suggest they did their homework.
So is there evidence out there of more T-72s in Iran than reported by these two independent sources?
But that brings up an important question: how many T-72s does Iran even have?
Per the folks at SIPRI (whose job it is to try and collect arms contract information from around the world and whose records go back to the 1950s), here is the breakdown of Iran's T-72s:
- 37 T-72M1s from Belarus (2000-2002)
- 104 T-72M1s from Poland (1994-1995)
- 422 T-72S1 from Russia (1993-2001), 122 delivered directly from Russia, remaining 300 as CKDKs assembled in Iran.
Total= 563 T-72s of all variants.
Now, SIPRI's numbers aren't always 100%, as that's an impossible task when it comes to tracking arms contracts.
The only reliable source (aka not forums, blogs, etc) that may contract did this is the folks at Forecast International.
FI makes a living on market analysis, which includes doing so on various military contractors. I've previously run across their archived reports concerning the French Tigre radar and it's use in Iraqi's AEW programs.
Today, I just found this report by FI from February 2013 concerning the T-72 family of tanks:
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=965
- Iran's assembly line for the T-72S opened for business in 1995
- This same assembly line shut down in 2012/This was the last active T-72 production line anywhere in the world, with the last Russian production line stopping in 1998
- Even though Iran's production line ran from 1995-2012 but..
- FI reports 538 total T-72s (regardless of variant) in Iranian service as of 2012
So while the FI reports states the T-72 production/assembly was active much later than the information at SIPRI suggests, the end results are quite similar (563 vs 538). Taken together, it potentially suggests the 300 kits that Russia delivered to Iran were what the production line was being used to build and that it took ~17 years to do so (coming out to ~17 tanks per year).
Now, open-source resources like SIPRI and FI can be wrong of course (state-secrets are hard to pry) but their similar end results and unique details would suggest they did their homework.
So is there evidence out there of more T-72s in Iran than reported by these two independent sources?
PeeD
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,510
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
The SPIRI information is correct for the T-72S, I forgot the detail that some 300 of the 400 delivered tanks were in a disassembeld state and that the assembling of those was the first task of the T-72 factory to gain experience for license production.
After that the license production started about which SPIRI has no information because its not a direct export of a tank.
But how many they produced if 1000 or not nobody knows for sure. At this point I think that they made use of the 1000 number granted in the contract and produced for those suggested 17 years.
After that the license production started about which SPIRI has no information because its not a direct export of a tank.
But how many they produced if 1000 or not nobody knows for sure. At this point I think that they made use of the 1000 number granted in the contract and produced for those suggested 17 years.
AmirPatriot
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 4,156
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Thats interesting. I always thought Iran had got more of a TOT type deal. If they were knock down kits then the only way Iran could make more than the approximately 500 T-72s it has would be reverse engineering.
eagle2007
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 1
PeeD,
SIPRI does actually track license-assembly agreements to at least. In fact, depending on how you pull the data from their database, it actually puts all License-Agreements together by country selling them the license.
For example, I have in my records a report that shows ALL military imports to Iran from 1950-2016. It primarily lists items by Country of origin and then within each country, it lists whether items were just received or licensed for local manufacture/assembly.
Now, the problem with tracking such activity is, it's often that the exact details of such agreements is made public (depends of course, just look at how much we know about the Russia-China license agreements from the 1990s!)
Further, many license agreements don't have a set number of units that will be built and instead based on how many units they do build (for which the original party gets a regular "cut" effectively).
So while SIPRI does track this kind of activity, whether it's 100% accurate or not is hard to say. It's likely as accurate of data as they could find.
Speaking of which, I've been meaning to post this report (couldn't before since it was in the wrong format), but I'm going to start a new thread here shortly and post the report so y'all can see exactly what I'm talking about.
AmirPatriot,
All the "talk" I remember back in the early 2000s suggested it was a complete-knock-down-kit contract, with some complete units delivered first. That said, there aren't exactly a lot of reference material available on this or the related BMP-2 contract. Also, Russia can be very stingy when it comes to ToT contracts, with India being the only steady recipient of them.
I will however, do some serious digging to see if I can find any online archived news articles from the time & see if I can't find more info.
SIPRI does actually track license-assembly agreements to at least. In fact, depending on how you pull the data from their database, it actually puts all License-Agreements together by country selling them the license.
For example, I have in my records a report that shows ALL military imports to Iran from 1950-2016. It primarily lists items by Country of origin and then within each country, it lists whether items were just received or licensed for local manufacture/assembly.
Now, the problem with tracking such activity is, it's often that the exact details of such agreements is made public (depends of course, just look at how much we know about the Russia-China license agreements from the 1990s!)
Further, many license agreements don't have a set number of units that will be built and instead based on how many units they do build (for which the original party gets a regular "cut" effectively).
So while SIPRI does track this kind of activity, whether it's 100% accurate or not is hard to say. It's likely as accurate of data as they could find.
Speaking of which, I've been meaning to post this report (couldn't before since it was in the wrong format), but I'm going to start a new thread here shortly and post the report so y'all can see exactly what I'm talking about.
AmirPatriot,
All the "talk" I remember back in the early 2000s suggested it was a complete-knock-down-kit contract, with some complete units delivered first. That said, there aren't exactly a lot of reference material available on this or the related BMP-2 contract. Also, Russia can be very stingy when it comes to ToT contracts, with India being the only steady recipient of them.
I will however, do some serious digging to see if I can find any online archived news articles from the time & see if I can't find more info.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
