AUSTERLITZ
SENIOR MEMBER
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/MajorGeneral.jpg)
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,025
- Reaction score
- 175
- Country
- Location
Thanks @Keshav
You see i never refuted T-90S capabilities yar all i asked was a source or atleast a pic of the turret armour tests but was given nothing just bla bla
3BM-44M Lekalo will be provided yep i saw sources of the deal. average penetration @ 2000 m, 0 deg is 600-650mm, @ 60 deg, its 300 mm.
You never disregarded our armour capabilities?Several times u said IA is 'in a mess',at a disadvantage.I gave u a source of armour trials ,it had pis too of places where the tank was hit.You also made statements like this.
''Sigh!
On arguments, well, ameteur arguments really, less substance no evidence and too much bla bla
Turret geometry covers 60 deg easily so no problem there, these theoritical arguments mean nothing.
The user (PA) has tried and tested the thing hundreds of time they had no issues. Morocco, Bangladesh and recently Myanmar also bought MBT 2000s without any issues of turret geometry.''
Bla bla blaing evrything when u didn't have any proper answer to the wekaness in al khalid's turret geometry.
Throughout the thread i contended 3 things-
1]Your point that naiza 2 was in operational service and IA was in total disaadvantage.I said naiza 2 was still in development and we too had new high penetration rounds in development.
2]On the turret geometry and weakspots on chinese design tanks,which u tried to wish away.
3]That the design of t-90 u provided was of cast turret t-72B from 1980s,not current t-90.
That is all.