MBT Modernization Program – A Step In The Right Direction

[Dazzler]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Gryphon]

New engine is a US$ 70-80 million upgrade and will come as part of a more comprehensive program in the future.

 

[Philip the Arab]

New engine is a US$ 70-80 million upgrade and will come as part of a more comprehensive program in the future.

From who? China?

 

[Dazzler]

New engine is a US$ 70-80 million upgrade and will come as part of a more comprehensive program in the future.

Ukrainian TD series might continue.

 

[Goenitz]

@Tipu7
can you point out both sites (commander and gunner) on Tank in pic? as I can see one only..
is there any tank where driver can see same display while driving?

 

[Sidacca]

PCB designs and boards are all done in house.

My brother is also part of PCB designs in a private company in Islamabad I-9 industrial area working for HIT

 

[Tipu7]

@Tipu7
can you point out both sites (commander and gunner) on Tank in pic? as I can see one only..
is there any tank where driver can see same display while driving?

T85 is a 2nd generation tank. It lacks dedicated Commander sight and thus the hunter killer capability is absent.

Ukrainian TD series might continue.

Is tank Hull even compatible with 6TD-01?

 

[iLION12345_1]

No sources given. (Not saying numbers are false, but until sources are given they’re treated as such to any reader who actually Knows about this stuff.)
The armor numbers quoted Don’t sound true and are incomplete (range and angle in many not given.) no modern western tank has that much armor, let alone a tank as light and old as Al-Khalid.

The last picture shows GPUs and Motherboards which have nothing to do With a tank.

I’ve never Seen a LWR mounted on an AK apart from when it has VARTA on it. If it’s somewhere on it please point it out, this one I’m actually curious about because Ive literally looked for it on an AK in person and couldn’t find it.

The AK doesn’t have commanders independent thermal sight. Another drawback when compared to modern tanks.
The AKs engine is sub-par, horsepower doesn’t matter here as much as torque, and it makes very little torque for its engine size when compared to similar engines (though the mobility is fine due to its light weight, it could have been much better.)
ERA coverage on the turret on AK is very minimal apart from some very recent pictures where there’s slightly more ERA mounted on the Cage armor on the turret sides.
A lot of AKs don’t even have ERA on the hull presently, though new ones do, older ones don’t even have mounts for ERA on the hull.

The maximum penetration of any round fired from the AK (the Naiza DU) is also average at best unless there’s a better shell it fires, but I can’t find any sources to it.

The truth is there’s very little information available about the AK in the first place and a lot of it is for the original variant which when quoted makes the tank seem worst than it is. I don’t blame anyone writing an article about the AK for that, but that’s how it is.

In short; The AK may be comparable to Indian tanks, apart from their newer T90s. But it’s not a “good” tank in the world of modern tanks and that seems to be the consensus among any enthusiast/expert/professional that looks at it from an unbiased POV. Articles about it are almost considered jokes in foreign Defence forums because of their bold claims and lack of sources. I hope there’s some way to gather sources for it.

 

[Dazzler]

T85 is a 2nd generation tank. It lacks dedicated Commander sight and thus the hunter killer capability is absent.


Is tank Hull even compatible with 6TD-01?

Have not seen the upgraded tank, but engine exhaust suggests it uses the same engine as Alzarrar. Its a chinese engine and not Ukrainian as i understand.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Have not seen the upgraded tank, but engine exhaust suggests it uses the same engine as Alzarrar. Its a chinese engine and not Ukrainian as i understand.

Any news about upgradation of T80UDs?

 

[Dazzler]

No sources given. (Not saying numbers are false, but until sources are given they’re treated as such to any reader who actually Knows about this stuff.)
The armor numbers quoted Don’t sound true and are incomplete (range and angle in many not given.) no modern western tank has that much armor, let alone a tank as light and old as Al-Khalid.

The last picture shows GPUs and Motherboards which have nothing to do With a tank.

I’ve never Seen a LWR mounted on an AK apart from when it has VARTA on it. If it’s somewhere on it please point it out, this one I’m actually curious about because Ive literally looked for it on an AK in person and couldn’t find it.

The AK doesn’t have commanders independent thermal sight. Another drawback when compared to modern tanks.
The AKs engine is sub-par, horsepower doesn’t matter here as much as torque, and it makes very little torque for its engine size when compared to similar engines (though the mobility is fine due to its light weight, it could have been much better.)
ERA coverage on the turret on AK is very minimal apart from some very recent pictures where there’s slightly more ERA mounted on the Cage armor on the turret sides.
A lot of AKs don’t even have ERA on the hull presently, though new ones do, older ones don’t even have mounts for ERA on the hull.

The maximum penetration of any round fired from the AK (the Naiza DU) is also average at best unless there’s a better shell it fires, but I can’t find any sources to it.

The truth is there’s very little information available about the AK in the first place and a lot of it is for the original variant which when quoted makes the tank seem worst than it is. I don’t blame anyone writing an article about the AK for that, but that’s how it is.

In short; The AK may be comparable to Indian tanks, apart from their newer T90s. But it’s not a “good” tank in the world of modern tanks and that seems to be the consensus among any enthusiast/expert/professional that looks at it from an unbiased POV. Articles about it are almost considered jokes in foreign Defence forums because of their bold claims and lack of sources. I hope there’s some way to gather sources for it.

Check the first post again. Sources can be clicked.

As for laser warning, it is there, you just had to check it properly. Alkhald does have commander independant sight which can be equipped with TI. in Alkhalid-1, it comes with a TI.
Defense sources dont think of it as a joke. They know it is a capable tank, but fanboys like you read little and shout a lot.

Any news about upgradation of T80UDs?

Eventually they will be upgraded with or without Ukrainians.

 

[Armchair]

No sources given. (Not saying numbers are false, but until sources are given they’re treated as such to any reader who actually Knows about this stuff.)
The armor numbers quoted Don’t sound true and are incomplete (range and angle in many not given.) no modern western tank has that much armor, let alone a tank as light and old as Al-Khalid.

The last picture shows GPUs and Motherboards which have nothing to do With a tank.

I’ve never Seen a LWR mounted on an AK apart from when it has VARTA on it. If it’s somewhere on it please point it out, this one I’m actually curious about because Ive literally looked for it on an AK in person and couldn’t find it.

The AK doesn’t have commanders independent thermal sight. Another drawback when compared to modern tanks.
The AKs engine is sub-par, horsepower doesn’t matter here as much as torque, and it makes very little torque for its engine size when compared to similar engines (though the mobility is fine due to its light weight, it could have been much better.)
ERA coverage on the turret on AK is very minimal apart from some very recent pictures where there’s slightly more ERA mounted on the Cage armor on the turret sides.
A lot of AKs don’t even have ERA on the hull presently, though new ones do, older ones don’t even have mounts for ERA on the hull.

The maximum penetration of any round fired from the AK (the Naiza DU) is also average at best unless there’s a better shell it fires, but I can’t find any sources to it.

The truth is there’s very little information available about the AK in the first place and a lot of it is for the original variant which when quoted makes the tank seem worst than it is. I don’t blame anyone writing an article about the AK for that, but that’s how it is.

In short; The AK may be comparable to Indian tanks, apart from their newer T90s. But it’s not a “good” tank in the world of modern tanks and that seems to be the consensus among any enthusiast/expert/professional that looks at it from an unbiased POV. Articles about it are almost considered jokes in foreign Defence forums because of their bold claims and lack of sources. I hope there’s some way to gather sources for it.

What's your source on the torque issue of the AK engine?

 

[Dazzler]

What's your source on the torque issue of the AK engine?

http://www.malyshevplant.com/en/content/6td

Gunner day sight with Thermal imager on the left. Also has independent laser range finder.

Commander's independent day/ night sight channels, with separate integrated laser range finder.

The tank has other goodies as well. Note that NONE of India's t-90s as of today have these. Only the MS has independent sights and hunter killer capability but they dont have those.

 

[Dazzler]

Alkhalid-1

Turret:
special armour module: 670mm LOS + backpplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS

Hull:
special armour module at least 670mm LOS + frontplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS


Hull + floor armor

1. Back plate

2. Composite+RHA armor plates

3. Front RHA plate

4. Thick floor armor

5. Roof plate

6. Front HHS steel plate

@iLION12345_1

For you.

 

[HRK]

To put Dazzler post in perspective and make it more clear for others to understand who criticize the armour protection of AK unnecessarily, I am attaching pics of AK Turret and Hull

Further I would request to those members to bookmark Dazzler post .....

Alkhalid-1

Turret:
special armour module: 670mm LOS + backpplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS

Front of AK Turret:
The hollow space is +650-670 mm and it is the place where special composite armour is inserted which offer better armour protection then RHA but lighter in weight

And below is the turret of AK from inside which shows the so called 'weakest spot' of AK Turret, plz observe the depth of opening for gun port of 7.62mm Machine Gun it is difficult to calculate the thickness but If observe carefully and compare it with the above attached pic then it appear that it is approximately 100-150mm less in thickness which mean its thickness at minimum is anywhere between 500-550 mm

below is the front of Turret after attachment of composite armour

Here kindly note these are the figures which are without any additional armour protection of ERA or slant space armour which add further protection to the tank turret ....

Hull:
special armour module at least 670mm LOS + frontplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS


Hull + floor armor

View attachment 626740

1. Back plate

2. Composite+RHA armor plates

3. Front RHA plate

4. Thick floor armor

5. Roof plate

6. Front HHS steel plate

@iLION12345_1

For you.

1- Back Armour Plate
2- Special Armour Cavity
3- Frontal Armour Plate
4- Driver Sitting Place

and If we go by the below attached pic then the value of front armour thickness of AK hull is almost +900mm without any additional armour or ERA