Karrar MBT l Updates, News & Discussion

[PeeD]

@Arminkh

Yes pressure but also barrel length and the 2A46M-2 and -5 are 600mm shorter than the L/55. Westerners claim also the pressure of the L/44 is higher than the 2A46M.

As for the gun and ammo discussion. I doubt the Russian and Chinese would use the 125mm gun with its restriction to BM42 length APFSDS. Its well possible that the Chinese and at least the Russians with the T-90SM have modified the autoloader to use longer length projectiles.
Iran is producing BM42 since years, hence expect autoloader modification and new longer rod APFSDS to be developed sooner or later and Karrars being modified to use it. They intentionally just showed a HE round, so it might be even now the case.

Chinese seems to been successful in doing this modification.

 

[OldTwilight]

"Between a lower grade gun that Iran can produce locally and a higher grade one that needs to be imported, I would go with the local one every day."
Well you be sure to tell that to the tank crews who may have to face opponents equipped with the latest western tanks equipped with the latest version of the of the rheinmetall 120mm gun firing dm63s and a829a3/a4s,I`m sure it will be of great comfort to them as they shoot back with a 30 year old gun firing 30 year old ammo.

One of our commander said " we are OK with our modern t72s tanks and we don't need any upgrade for our modern tanks " .....
Don't worry about our crew members when our Commanders are thinking like this

 

[Fafnir]

According tot he chart that I posted, the chamber size of Iran's -2 variant is the same as -5 variant so both can use the same armament. And the -2 was built back in 90s not 80s.

No they cant not without modifications,the problem is not the chamber size its the length of the round that the t72 auto loader can take,thats the limiting factor here,without modifications you cant use the newer longer rounds like the 3bm-42m "lekalo" in the t72 auto loader,the alternative would be du rounds like 3bm-46 "svinets" or some home grown equivalent as these will fit in an unmodified t72 auto loader and pack a superior punch to the current tungsten 3bm-42 "mango",however as far as I know iran currently has no du rounds.
"the -2 was built back in 90s not 80s."
You`re right of course,technically its actually a 25 year old gun firing 31 year old ammunition,my mistake.

 

[PeeD]

It's not that easy. As said Chinese and especially Russians are not stupid to stick to the autoloader and the 125mm gun, this is a lesson I have learned

@Arminkh

The pressure difference of the 2A46M-2 to the L/44 is 450 bar (6500 bar vs. 6950 bar) according to my sources. While the length is of the -2 is 6m and that of the L/44 around 5,3m. The pressure benefit of the L/44 and the length benefit of the 2A46M-2 bring them close together in performance but the L/44 is still said to have the upper hand.

____________________________________________________________________________

The BM46 and the Chinese APFSDS have a length of 640mm while the Iranian BM42 has a length of 575mm, a difference of just 65mm.

Now Russians say that this is good enough and that such short rod penetrators are more robust and cant be defeated by advanced ERA and spaced armor like american 120mm M829A3, 925mm long rod penetrators. Then also accuracy and expected engagement ranges play a role. So they keep on using the gun and autoloader combo and Chinese and Indians seems to be fine too.

Chinese go as far as to claim that their 650mm lenght 125mm APFSDS round is able to penetrate 1000mm RHA. If Iran too developes a round with such a performance, there is no problem with the 125mm gun of the Karrar for now. Lesson is that penetrator length is not a magic parameter other factors and design requirements play a role too.

 

[Gothic]

more like tekrar

 

[TruthHurtz]

panasonic toughbook cf-19 on the right

 

[PeeD]

One advantage of the Karrar is that its RWS is 12,7mm compared to the 7,62mm of the PKM RWS of the T-90MS.

 

[PeeD]

Also expect to see that portion of Karrars which are upgraded T-72S/M/M1 to donate their turrets to T-54/55/Type-59/69 or/and M47/M48 or even M60 (only turret/gun/sights, not autoloader).

 

[PeeD]

Note the following.

The traditional weakpoint of the T-72B/S is its glacis protecting the hull. Its not weak per se but compared to the turret armor its weak.

Now late T-72B has the same glacis of Iranian T-72S and this went up to the T-90 which is expected to have the same glacis. The T-90M or T-90SM could have improved glacis armor but they could as well be the same as T-72B/S.

Now come the interesting design difference of the Karrar: Its glacis ERA thickness is 4 x turret top ERA while the turret front and side ERA is 2 x turret top ERA.

So the Karrar designers were aware of this problem and used the available armor weight to improve the glacis which likely is the same as the T-72S/-B/T-90.

Now normal ERA can't be just stacked, but advanced modular design ERA can have capability growth. We also know that Iranian ERA has anti-tandem HEAT capability and there is no known ERA with that capability which also does not have a strong anti-KE capability.

Whether Iranian designers copied new Russian relict ERA which they got their hands on together via trail T-90SM or not. The 3 different performance level ERA on the Karrar is a indicator for sophistication.

The glacis weakpoint could well have been overcome by the thick (2 x turret) ERA which could have much higher stopping capability and thus offer a rather uniform frontal protection. If the overall ERA technology is at the same generation as relict but with varying strength (relict is as thick as the Karrar turret front ERA), the higher discrimination/numbers of tiles is another indicator for good design considerations (improved multi-hit capability, less collateral damage to tank and surrounding, but also some negative aspects).

 

[VEVAK]

Well he kind of has a point.

The scenario of tank against tank battle like those of WW2 are becoming less likely. Usually, tanks are killed using airborne attacks. The only case where Karrar is going to see a fist fight with another tank is if one of our neighbors attack us which is highly unlikely.

Even in 2003 more Iraqi tanks were killed using ground based ATGM's than Tanks!
Even against our neighbors, Iran's terrain is filled with mountains so even then Iran will use special forces using shoulder launched ATGM's & mines against any invading tank forces
You still need Tanks but the day where large tank battalions went up against each other are mostly over so the cannon doesn't matter as long as it can fire different types of advanced rounds
In a Tank vs Tank battle to have the greater advantage you will have to use advanced rounds that are as expensive as ATGM's so what's the point?

 

[Oldman1]

Even in 2003 more Iraqi tanks were killed using ground based ATGM's than Tanks!
Even against our neighbors, Iran's terrain is filled with mountains so even then Iran will use special forces using shoulder launched ATGM's & mines against any invading tank forces
You still need Tanks but the day where large tank battalions went up against each other are mostly over so the cannon doesn't matter as long as it can fire different types of advanced rounds
In a Tank vs Tank battle to have the greater advantage you will have to use advanced rounds that are as expensive as ATGM's so what's the point?

Large tank battles are not mostly over. No matter what people say. You want a large force of tanks to take on a country, the other country especially if powerful will try to respond with their own division or battalion of tanks. You can look at countries that have money and spent on large amount of tanks in case they have to fight. Whether invasion or defending.

 

[Arminkh]

Large tank battles are not mostly over. No matter what people say. You want a large force of tanks to take on a country, the other country especially if powerful will try to respond with their own division or battalion of tanks. You can look at countries that have money and spent on large amount of tanks in case they have to fight. Whether invasion or defending.

Well even then, use of choppers is way more efficient mean of destroying the enemy's tanks. And nowadays, it seems like strong countries have no appetite to go against another strong country. So again it will be tanks against infantry using ATGMs.

Take Iraq for example, most of Iraq's tanks were destroyed by helicopters. While both sides had sizable armored divisions, we didn't see a real tank battle.

Another good example is Israel war on Lebanon in 2006 where 52 Merkavas were damaged 22 of which were penetrated by ATGMs during 33 days of war. All that by an opponent that doesn't have any tanks and I'm inclined to say Hezbollah couldn't have done this using tanks as then the tanks would be targeted by Israel's airborne units.

 

[VEVAK]

Large tank battles are not mostly over. No matter what people say. You want a large force of tanks to take on a country, the other country especially if powerful will try to respond with their own division or battalion of tanks. You can look at countries that have money and spent on large amount of tanks in case they have to fight. Whether invasion or defending.

In the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's Saddam had 5 times the Tank Force, the element of surprise & started the war with a blitz attack! They had ~4000-5000 Tanks vs Iran's 1000 and yet in little over a year Iran with a smaller tank force and a smaller armored division kicked them out of Iranian soil! Saddam was also given ~$80 Billion USD to continue the war from US puppet states while Iran was under sanctions & every weapon embargo you can imagine
So I'm sorry but your wrong! Large Tank battles died when ATGM's were born!
Having Active Protection System just mean you have to fire more than 1 ATGM at each tank!

 

[Oldman1]

Well even then, use of choppers is way more efficient mean of destroying the enemy's tanks. And nowadays, it seems like strong countries have no appetite to go against another strong country. So again it will be tanks against infantry using ATGMs.

Take Iraq for example, most of Iraq's tanks were destroyed by helicopters. While both sides had sizable armored divisions, we didn't see a real tank battle.

Another good example is Israel war on Lebanon in 2006 where 52 Merkavas were damaged 22 of which were penetrated by ATGMs during 33 days of war. All that by an opponent that doesn't have any tanks and I'm inclined to say Hezbollah couldn't have done this using tanks as then the tanks would be targeted by Israel's airborne units.

No, during the Gulf War it was the Bradley vehicles that did most of the damage to Iraqi's armored tanks. Not the Abrams. They are just in the front able to take the punishment, not so the Bradleys. But still its an armored vehicle, not infantry.

Just cause you point out infantry were used in Lebanon War of 2006 against Israeli tanks, means we should all ditched the tanks or expect no more large tank battles? I could use Chechen war against Russian tanks and claim its obsolete to expect tank vs tanks because Chechens don't have tanks and were able to inflict damage. That be like saying anti ship missiles made warships obsolete or SAMs system made fighters and bombers obsolete. There will always be conflict whether its large conventional warfare or guerilla warfare where sometimes the enemy doesn't have tanks and have to figure out a way to fight another way. Just like Syrian war. But as I have said, that doesn't mean tank vs tank large scale battles is dead. Just the situation where some enemies are too poor to able to have tanks. And I can point out countries like China, Russia, North Korea, India, etc, still spend money on tanks and are expected to fight large conventional battles.

In the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's Saddam had 5 times the Tank Force, the element of surprise & started the war with a blitz attack! They had ~4000-5000 Tanks vs Iran's 1000 and yet in little over a year Iran with a smaller tank force and a smaller armored division kicked them out of Iranian soil! Saddam was also given ~$80 Billion USD to continue the war from US puppet states while Iran was under sanctions & every weapon embargo you can imagine
So I'm sorry but your wrong! Large Tank battles died when ATGM's were born!
Having Active Protection System just mean you have to fire more than 1 ATGM at each tank!

Wrong, since the introduction of ATGMs, large tank battles have not died. When was ATGM introduced? How many large tank battles exist since then? When Egypt had Sagger missiles and inflict heavy losses on Israeli tanks, did that mean Egypt didn't need tanks anymore?

 

[Arminkh]

No, during the Gulf War it was the Bradley vehicles that did most of the damage to Iraqi's armored tanks. Not the Abrams. They are just in the front able to take the punishment, not so the Bradleys. But still its an armored vehicle, not infantry.

Just cause you point out infantry were used in Lebanon War of 2006 against Israeli tanks, means we should all ditched the tanks or expect no more large tank battles? I could use Chechen war against Russian tanks and claim its obsolete to expect tank vs tanks because Chechens don't have tanks and were able to inflict damage. That be like saying anti ship missiles made warships obsolete or SAMs system made fighters and bombers obsolete. There will always be conflict whether its large conventional warfare or guerilla warfare where sometimes the enemy doesn't have tanks and have to figure out a way to fight another way. Just like Syrian war. But as I have said, that doesn't mean tank vs tank large scale battles is dead. Just the situation where some enemies are too poor to able to have tanks. And I can point out countries like China, Russia, North Korea, India, etc, still spend money on tanks and are expected to fight large conventional battles.

I'm not saying Tanks are obsolete but they are offensive weapons not defensive ones. In my opinion, infantry is much more effective defensive weapon against tanks than tanks themselves.

Countries like US may like to use Tanks as defensive weapons but any budget conscious nation would use infantry and advanced ATGMs against a tank invasion.

You can see the same about Naval units. We are not going to see WW1 era battleship against battleship fight anymore. When it comes to naval defense, fighter jets and land fired missiles are more effective than destroyer against destroyer.