Numbers of New Tanks in army

[Keysersoze]

No ... there is no such thing .. you have to understand that Pakistan's Tank Progm is an of shoot of Eastern block tank design, mainly Russian designs ... This school of thought believes in low silhouettes and lt wt tanks .... in this category, anything lesser than 50 tons is a Medium tank, whereas in the western block, Medium tanks go upto 60 tons, which by Russian definition is Heavy tank (such as T-10 of WWII). Autoloader is the main reason by which low signature tanks have been developed. but the magazine in the auto loader accommodates a ltd no of rounds say ... 20 out of the main gum ammo of 46 ( i am not talking of any specific tank) the rest of the ammo has to be stowed inside the fighting compartment. separate compartment is not a viable option in these tanks since there is no room for the crew to stand and load the ammo into the magazine. therefore the ammo is stowed all around them in such a manner that the magazine can be reloaded w/o getting into much fuss and while remaining seated on the station. The advantages of this design is much smaller size tanks, specially in ht, lighter, with higher rate of fire (a tank fitted with auto loader can deliver 6-8 or even higher at times, projectiles in one minute) unlike the one with manual or semi-auto loading method (mostly depending on the loader's proficiency) i.e. 4-6 rds / min.
any further query

Yes, you have gone over old ground here. You have however failed to point out the inherent problem of having ammunition stored in the fighting compartment.
You are also unaware of the black eagle program which HAS provided a Russian designed tank with ammo compartment and blow out panels (with a 120mm gun).
Any further query?

 

[Iceman]

what made you think i am not aware of the Russian Balck Eagle Progm.... the since ever the Russians have been following the design that i made a mention of ....this is the first time they are experimenting with the idea of separate stowage compartment for ammo, with a blast shield in b/w. But that still does not deviate the subj from the fact that the basic tank designs are categorized in eastern and western blocks.
Now the inherent problems of having ammo stowed in the fighting compartment .... well, to be honest, None except the fact that if you get a bad hit, the crew has very little chances of survival. But the advantages it offers, sorta overcome the short comings. The tank crew is really not of a much use w/o a tank anyways ....
The reloading time is much shorter since the ammo is right in front, behind, above and below the gunner and the commander. Plus, if there is no time for loading up the ammo, then there is a manual method of loading as well .... which demands the loading cassettes to be brought up, projectile and the cartridge case and ram it into the chamber with a hydraulic rammer. I personally prefer the 3 man crew over the 4 man, because of better crew integration, smaller target and my personal favourite, separate cartridge and projectiles

NOW ... any more queries ????

 

[Keysersoze]

what made you think i am not aware of the Russian Balck Eagle Progm.... the since ever the Russians have been following the design that i made a mention of ....this is the first time they are experimenting with the idea of separate stowage compartment for ammo, with a blast shield in b/w. But that still does not deviate the subj from the fact that the basic tank designs are categorized in eastern and western blocks.
Now the inherent problems of having ammo stowed in the fighting compartment .... well, to be honest, None except the fact that if you get a bad hit, the crew has very little chances of survival. But the advantages it offers, sorta overcome the short comings. The tank crew is really not of a much use w/o a tank anyways ....
The reloading time is much shorter since the ammo is right in front, behind, above and below the gunner and the commander. Plus, if there is no time for loading up the ammo, then there is a manual method of loading as well .... which demands the loading cassettes to be brought up, projectile and the cartridge case and ram it into the chamber with a hydraulic rammer. I personally prefer the 3 man crew over the 4 man, because of better crew integration, smaller target and my personal favourite, separate cartridge and projectiles

NOW ... any more queries ????

It's funny but when we get serious tankers onhere they rubbish pretty much most of what you have said. (We have had this discussion ad naeseum)

Now two piece ammunition which apparently you prefer is not as efficient!

I'll tell you what I'll give a tanker a call he'll be right here!

BTW the state secrets you apparently are telling us we already know. Stun us by telling us something we don't know.

So I doubt I'll be asking you anything....
Let me get a real tank crewman on line.......

 

[Blackpearl]

NOW ... any more queries ????

Yes, off course 2 questions
1. What is the first shot first hit capability/probability of Al Khalid Tank.

2. You have told the advantages of having an autoloader on board. Why Americans in their latest tank, M1A2 Abram, still have 4 man crew and does not have autoloader. What me the philisophy behind?

 

[zraver]

what made you think i am not aware of the Russian Balck Eagle Progm.... the since ever the Russians have been following the design that i made a mention of ....this is the first time they are experimenting with the idea of separate stowage compartment for ammo, with a blast shield in b/w. But that still does not deviate the subj from the fact that the basic tank designs are categorized in eastern and western blocks.
Now the inherent problems of having ammo stowed in the fighting compartment .... well, to be honest, None except the fact that if you get a bad hit, the crew has very little chances of survival. But the advantages it offers, sorta overcome the short comings. The tank crew is really not of a much use w/o a tank anyways ....
The reloading time is much shorter since the ammo is right in front, behind, above and below the gunner and the commander. Plus, if there is no time for loading up the ammo, then there is a manual method of loading as well .... which demands the loading cassettes to be brought up, projectile and the cartridge case and ram it into the chamber with a hydraulic rammer. I personally prefer the 3 man crew over the 4 man, because of better crew integration, smaller target and my personal favourite, separate cartridge and projectiles

NOW ... any more queries ????

hey Key, I am guessing this is the guy you PM'd me about.

1-

Now the inherent problems of having ammo stowed in the fighting compartment .... well, to be honest, None except the fact that if you get a bad hit, the crew has very little chances of survival

How about these facts A- A tank with a sealed Bustle rack storage system with blow out panels can often be repaired and returned to duty. B- a good tank crew is worth more than the tank. C- To get bot the tank and crew you need a much more energetic hit. A hit that only does BAE in the crew may kill the crew, but the tank can be repaired, a hit that blows out the ammo is unlikely to get the crew.

But the advantages it offers, sorta overcome the short comings. The tank crew is really not of a much use w/o a tank anyways ....

And pray tell, what advantages would those be? A rustle rack storage offers the ability to put anywhere from 60-100% of the ammunition is a single easy to get at location. Without a turret bustle ammo is stored where ever there is room almost as an after thought. Pus of course the less places that are packed full of explosives the less chance of a penetrating hit causing an explosion.

The reloading time is much shorter since the ammo is right in front, behind, above and below the gunner and the commander.

Uhmm no its not, a well trained crew with a bustle system can fire an aimed shot every 4-6 seconds that 10-12 rounds a minute.

Plus, if there is no time for loading up the ammo, then there is a manual method of loading as well .... which demands the loading cassettes to be brought up, projectile and the cartridge case and ram it into the chamber with a hydraulic rammer.

A tank using the T-72 type autoloader will be lucky to get off 1-2 aimed shots per minute if the autoloader breaks down.

I personally prefer the 3 man crew over the 4 man, because of better crew integration, smaller target

Have you ever even seen a tank in real life? The 3 man crew offers 1 type of advantage and just one. It is 25% cheaper to train each tanks crew, payroll is 25% less, barracks space and food allotments are 25% less etc what do all these have in common? They all reduce the governments burden during peace time. Now lets looks at the advantages of the 4 man crew. There are 3 not 2 men to do maintenance, hump ammo, and help other crews (assuming the commander has been called away to a briefing), there are 4 not 3 men to stand watch each night so you get more sleep, the loader can act as an air guard/missile guard on road marches, the driver and loader can trade places so that the tank can keep moving longer, if any one person gets whacked the tank can still function close to peak efficiency. What do all of these have in common? They all affect wartime combat performance.

and my personal favourite, separate cartridge and projectiles

Yes less us separate the round from the charge so that A- loading is slowed down because of the extra steps needed to load the gun, there are more steps involved so more can go wrong, the propellant bag cannot be used to extend the length of the penetrator any where near the 830mm length of the modern US M829A and thus will have reduced efficiency and a lighter weight both important in translating total Ke=1/2MxV^2=j into applied Ke and victory

Webmaster, The AK-1 is a clone of the Type 90II produced by Norinco also known as the MBT2000 project. When the PLA turned it down, the design was modified and sold to Pakistan. It is not based on the ZTZ-99 or Type 96 but was a competitor to them.

 

[zraver]

Autoloader is the main reason by which low signature tanks have been developed. but the magazine in the auto loader accommodates a ltd no of rounds say ... 20 out of the main gum ammo of 46 ( i am not talking of any specific tank) the rest of the ammo has to be stowed inside the fighting compartment. separate compartment is not a viable option in these tanks since there is no room for the crew to stand and load the ammo into the magazine. therefore the ammo is stowed all around them in such a manner that the magazine can be reloaded w/o getting into much fuss and while remaining seated on the station. The advantages of this design is much smaller size tanks, specially in ht,

Al Khalid 2.4m tall M1A2 Abrams 2.44 meters .04 meters shorter .04 meters is minuscule at the ranges moder tanks fight at, its not even noticeable to the naked eye. The Al Khalid is also taller than the Arjun by double the amount it is shorter than the Abrams.

lighter,

Which means less armor

with higher rate of fire (a tank fitted with auto loader can deliver 6-8 or even higher at times, projectiles in one minute) unlike the one with manual or semi-auto loading method (mostly depending on the loader's proficiency) i.e. 4-6 rds / min.
any further query

A well trained tank crew with a human autoloader with 1 piece ammo can fire 10-12 rounds a minute

 

[EagleEyes]

Sir do we have T84s ????????????

or had we changed some other versions to T84???

We only have advanced T-85IIAP.

I obviously dont know the name of the engine, but it is going to be 1500 hp diesel engine from Germany (according to Mark Sien here) instead of the Ukrainian one. We are asking for much more powerful engine.. and German engine fits the bill for such that.

 

[Keysersoze]

The T-84 is also a development of the T-80 UD from Ukraine. I do remember a rumour that a lot of the later model T-80's delivered to Pakistan incorporated features from the T-84

 

[Iceman]

ohh k. . so much of criticism ... the real .. tank crew .hahaha .. trust me children i am as real as it gets ...
let me take on everything one my one ..

Yes, off course 2 questions
1. What is the first shot first hit capability/probability of Al Khalid Tank.
....Can't lay a specific / exact figure here ... the manual boasts around 90% hit on static to static and 70% on Mov to Mov (which is incredibly higher) but i my personal experience tells me that a lot depends on the intangible factor of crew training and gunner proficiency ... still static to static results have been achieved and in controlled envts, even mov to mov have been proven, but this result will vary drastically in fd conditions and under varying crew proficiency. I have operated on Al-khalid and mostly it delivers what is boasts.. i said mostly .. since there are minor short commings that the HIT is looking into and further improvements are being made. There are no major issues with the machine. First hand experience.

2. You have told the advantages of having an autoloader on board. Why Americans in their latest tank, M1A2 Abram, still have 4 man crew and does not have autoloader. What me the philisophy behind?
..... One of the ctr arguments to auto-loader is in case a tank is hit, there is a possiblity that the auto-loader gets stuck and is unable to func any further, meaning by, waste of valuable main gun ammo. More over, they do not wish to stow any kind of ammo in the fighting compartment as a safety measure for the crew, meaning by auto-loader is out of question, where the crew practically sits on top of 20 main gun rounds. No-auto loader system can cater for bringing the ammo out of a seperate compartment and then ram it into the chamber. Another maj reason for americans sticking to semi-auto loader is the fact, the loader not only loads the ammo, but also mans the radio sets and carries out basic comm, while the comd is free to observe and direct fire. In case of the three man crew, the responsibilities of the comd are multiple and very taxing. Personal Experience certainly verifies that.


ZRAVER --- i never contested the point on the advantages of a tank bustle .... it is just that we dont have and the western block tanks have them ... the advantages of course are there ... and the one w/o the bustle have numerous short comings. Given ... point was never conteste..
as far as a real ... tank ... 14 under my command right now. No personal hit please .. i'd like to keep it very civlized please ...

Now it is my turn to ask ..are you aware of the table of org of an armr regt in pakistan........let me enlihten you .despite Pakistan army having inducted 3 men crew, has not done away with the trade of the operator from any armr regt. So all the lesser barrack space, and lesser food and what all other mentions, dont apply to our army and certainly have never been a consideration. Pakistani armr regts with 3 men crew are still operating with complete complements of a 4 man crew tank regiment..

3 or 4 men .. you obviously are a very theoretical guy and have no first hand practical knowledge of how things really work ... 10-12 round ...what do you have .... Hulk Hogan in the tank .. please tell me ... where i can find a loader that can load 10-12 rounds i'd recruit him in my regt right away ... he might not be able to load on an 85 but will atleast be able to stow ammo in my tanks ... with a lot of efficiency ....

and yes .. lighter means .. less armr ...
and when i was talking of reloading time .. i was referring to the reloading time of the magazine . not of the main gun ....

and last but not the least ..... State Secrets . what state secrets .... if it was state secret my friend .. i never would be dwelling it ...
you ppl have seen it all from a distance and on papers ... i live it ....

 

[Iceman]

avg height of a 3 man crew tank is 2.2 m... (not specifically talking of Al-Khalid) and that of a 4 man crew is 2.4-2.5 m ... thats almost a 1 foot .. and yes at longer ranges if does not really matter .... but y it matters to us ... is the way we operate ... i will not want to go into the operational armr tactics here .. but when luring in the en in a killing zone, the normal range of engagement may even drop down to 1500 m ... and it matters ... every inch of it matters ...once looking for a place to hide in the vastness of a desert, even an inch plus minus comes into play ....that is y it matters ...

 

[Iceman]

btw. .. the black eagle does not have a 120 mm gun .. but the 125mm but may even be experimenting with the idea of a 152 mm gun

sorry but ..recent dev also suggest that the Black Eagle program has been halted due to the acceptance of the T-90 into the Russian military. This is also compounded by the fact the company responsible for the Black Eagle's design, Omsk Transmash bureau, has been in a state of bankruptcy since 2002. If it were to be offered to the Russian Army, it may be in competition with the T-95 tank, a new design with an unmanned turret. Please upgrade your knowledge on the subj before arguing with a real tank man .... NO OFFENCE ...

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

A well trained tank crew with a human autoloader with 1 piece ammo can fire 10-12 rounds a minute

I cannot believe this!.....

Any source to verify such sensational Human Ability claims!

Without autoloader.... 6-8 Rounds seems logical (8-10 seconds for loading)

 

[EagleEyes]

Guys, lets not mock each other on "who knows better". Stick with the discussions in hand.

Much appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Iceman]

Message received, understood and will be complied

 

[zraver]

ohh
ZRAVER ---

3 or 4 men .. you obviously are a very theoretical guy and have no first hand practical knowledge of how things really work ... 10-12 round ...what do you have .... Hulk Hogan in the tank .. please tell me ... where i can find a loader that can load 10-12 rounds i'd recruit him in my regt right away ... he might not be able to load on an 85 but will atleast be able to stow ammo in my tanks ... with a lot of efficiency ....

The longest time in tank gunnery is the gunner acquiring the target, lazing it and then firing. As soon as the loader heres the round command from the commander he can load the round in less than 2 seconds. In the Abrams a knee operated pressure pad opens the blast door, the loader then reaches in and grabs a round marked with a grease pencil on the strike plate (S- sabot H- heat) pulls it by its base drops the strike plate towards his lap as he pivots the tip towards the breech and then slams the round home in one motion, then he closes the arm while the door closes automatically and the tank is "up"

BTW that is not theoretical knowledge, thats crewing experiance.

avg height of a 3 man crew tank is 2.2 m... (not specifically talking of Al-Khalid) and that of a 4 man crew is 2.4-2.5 m ... thats almost a 1 foot .. and yes at longer ranges if does not really matter .... but y it matters to us ... is the way we operate ... i will not want to go into the operational armr tactics here .. but when luring in the en in a killing zone, the normal range of engagement may even drop down to 1500 m ... and it matters ... every inch of it matters ...once looking for a place to hide in the vastness of a desert, even an inch plus minus comes into play ....that is y it matters ...

You said eastern designs were shorter and western were taller, I provided examples that show in the modern post-Patton era this is not the case.