PA TANKS comparison with contempory tanks

[SQ8]

Early soviet designs yes... later soviet designs no.
For example..
Object 187
Object 195
Object 640
Were to be the main soviet tanks... of the 90s and the new century.... read about them and you'll see what they were upto with these MBTs... one can only imagine their fire power.

I would not appreciate the Chinese way.... It has a lot of flaws... mainly due to blindly copying designs... and trying to make them modern... there are serious flaws in the main armor of ZTZ-99 and Al Khalid tanks.

Enlighten us..when you yourself claim to have no idea of metallurgy..
Since you were not able to prove it by anything other than guesses in your past attempts.

According to the video..there are MUCH more serious flaws in the Arjun.

 

[SQ8]

There are quite a few misconceptions regarding Flat v/s Sloping armor in the region of the mantlet. And most of them seem to be born out of a 'childish' belief that shells will bounce off like a ball off a sloping surface. The first determinant is the nature of the Armor. Historically Russian designs used cast steel turrets. That combined with their desire to achieve low silhouettes (in those days- the Mk.1 Eyeball was probably the only sensor available to tank-men) resulted in the trade-mark design which still persists. It also happened to be cheaper and easier to build. In case of composite Armor, it works as efficiently with a flat face. So there is simply no need to extend it to construct sloping sides- that is just a redundancy. Which adds to costs.

As is rightly explained here (even with pictures) the Leopard series of tanks have "bolted on" sections/segments which can be added. Much more efficient that way.

Let us not forget that the keynote of Soviet tank design was to construct cheaper and easy to build tanks in vast numbers that could be operated by lesser (and lesser trained) crews. That design philosophy mainly continues with the Russians and has been susequently and whole-heartedly embraced by Ukrainian and Chinese (and consequently Pakistani) designs.

Yes, since all you have is composite armour.. not composite reinforced with ERA..which is where the sloping comes in.
The leapord 2A5 has sloped modular addon over its flat composite.. surely the Klaus cant be a redundant nut to do that.
Which is why I am curious as to what brilliant conclusion DARKY has reached through research on the characteristics of KE, HEAT rounds and a few pictures of demonstrations of the AK for public shows.

 

[DARKY]

Enlighten us..when you yourself claim to have no idea of metallurgy..
Since you were not able to prove it by anything other than guesses in your past attempts.

According to the video..there are MUCH more serious flaws in the Arjun.

Note the bolts attached to the armor module on Al Khalid shows that part is hollow.... just like the modules used in ZTZ-99.

Here's what is the main turret.

Both designs being derived from Chinese designs... and the bolts used to attach them verify this.

This leaves a gap with air in the module... behind that there is no armor... although that would certainly stop a HESH but HEAT and KE ammo would penetrate go through the gap easily thanks to the spall effect... of these and modern ATGM with tandem warhead arrangement.

Now coming to the design part.. here is a rough drawing which shows why the design is faulty... this fault is also there in Arjun.
Before you conclude... I would like to mention here that in face to face armor engagements most hits come in the 60degree arc of tank from the front.

The yellow part is all over the front 60degree arc... the put the color on sides to point out specifically... now while in T-90 design you see that it covers up the weak spot quiet smartly it is not the case with Al Khalid... and certainly not with those hollow modules on the front too.

I know the measurements can be faulty... artists/photoshop experts can help me here.

I put that side skirt coming off to extroll the troll who were ranting about Al Khalid... I know they are weak and have little to do with crew protection.. other than disabling the tank from close ranges by RPG fire or infantry action.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

bit off topic but how many of u guys r playing world of tanks?

im.......

 

[Manticore]

^ I have posted this above point and some others in the TT forum some time back.. these points are not new and are being raised on some fora for quite some time

 

[DARKY]

Yes, since all you have is composite armour.. not composite reinforced with ERA..which is where the sloping comes in.
The leapord 2A5 has sloped modular addon over its flat composite.. surely the Klaus cant be a redundant nut to do that.

Those modules are NERA panels the sloped things are empty steel plates which are layered with Rubbers and other elastic material in between to make up for NERA.. module... the shape is chosen accordingly as we have ERA sloped... those modules are hollow.

Arjun was supposed to be having similar NERA panels but army want Heavy ERA.

 

[Manticore]

the same 'source' however also says the same for arjun

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

 

[DARKY]

the same 'source' however also says the same for arjun

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

The person who drew this drawing mistook the the armor block on the turret side of Arjun as storage box.

You can see the 1st side block is solid armor module and last two are storage box... the 1st block covers the crew hatch half way or so... ensuring protection in 60degree arc... which is absent on Al Khalid or ZTZ-99.

Those other two side boxes are just a weight saving measure and a similar solid Kanchan armor module like the 1st block can replace the two boxes.... for better protection during wartime.

 

[Dazzler]

Bill-2 top attack missile vs Russian t-80U with K-5 ERA..

 

[DARKY]

Bill-2 top attack missile vs Russian t-80U with K-5 ERA..

Epic FAIL...

1.Russian T-80U don't use K-5 ERA.
2.The tank in the picture is a T-72... and not T-80U.
3.The hit was a luck one on the crew hatch... the most vulnerable and least protected part of any tank.
4.There is no ERA present on the crew hatch.

T-80 hull wheel is not uniformly spaced... as in T-72.. 1st few wheels have more space compared to last few.

 

[Storm Force]

compare for yourselves excellent vedio somewhere near the indo pak border

 

[500]

You got to be mentioning which T-90 you are talking about... this can mislead readers.
For example the wielded turret on T-90C/S comes from the Object 187 project... which was designed beat even 140mm western projectiles of that time... on the main frontal armor... aided with 2nd gen. ERA.

1) I was talking about FCS.
2) T-90 uses same Kontakt-5 ERA as T-80U and T-72B(M).
3) Welded turret does not give much advantage over cast. Its mainly technology issue: during high rate production cast is cheaper, during low rate production welded is cheaper.

 

[Dazzler]

Epic FAIL...

1.Russian T-80U don't use K-5 ERA.
2.The tank in the picture is a T-72... and not T-80U.
3.The hit was a luck one on the crew hatch... the most vulnerable and least protected part of any tank.
4.There is no ERA present on the crew hatch.

T-80 hull wheel is not uniformly spaced... as in T-72.. 1st few wheels have more space compared to last few.

Buddy, this is in Sweden, during a trial, you are right that its K-1 ERA not K-5.

 

[DARKY]

1) I was talking about FCS.
2) T-90 uses same Kontakt-5 ERA as T-80U and T-72B(M).
3) Welded turret does not give much advantage over cast. Its mainly technology issue: during high rate production cast is cheaper, during low rate production welded is cheaper.

1. Okay but in that case too it uses the advanced version 1A45T... and not 1A45 Basic version.
2. I have doubts over this... may be a version modified for T-80U and T-80BV... but not the same as on T-90A/S/C (Object 188A1/188A2)... T-72B (Object 184) only use 4S20 Kontakt-1 ERA... T-72BM/BU were the ones with 4S22 Kontakt-5 ERA... [the most advanced T-72 version which became (Object 188) or cast turret T-90.]
3. A rolled armor will have increase in protection from 5 to 15 % compared to a comparable cast design... Besides making it more suitable for proper filling of ceramic based composite tiles.

While the gap between T-90 cast and T-90A/C/S is not much in time but the protection level is much wider.

 

[500]

1. Okay but in that case too it uses the advanced version 1A45T... and not 1A45 Basic version.

just minor modification.

2. I have doubts over this...

You should not. ALl serial T-90 have K-5.

3. A rolled armor will have increase in protection from 5 to 15 % compared to a comparable cast design...

But weaker at seams.