PA TANKS comparison with contempory tanks

[AUSTERLITZ]

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.

 

[Dazzler]

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.

Mark my words based on facts, a tank is next to useless without effective ammunition particularly APFSDS, nit picking my words will lead to "nowhere"

FACTS:

IA mbt fleet is in a mess thats TRUE whether you like it or not, i can share 50 sources and point several problems with each of IA mbt but i choose not to do so since it will be too much to swallow for you.

OFB was responsible for design, research and develop the APFSDS rounds for IA, both 120 and 125 mm. Unfortunately it is blacklisted so there goes the sole designer, now it is upto DRDO to get the job done and the world knows how they do their job.

Thats why you see rounds busting, poor propellant and storage, and even plans for discarding thousands of APFSDS (15000 of them!!) due to substandard quality. Ammo reserves are dropping, IA spokesperson was worried for a right reason

The best round IA currently has is Israeli CL-MII series with 520 mm penetration at 0 deg, at 2000 m maximum. Second is Mango, 500-520 at 200 m at 0 deg,

The "unkown" improved AMK 340 is nowere to be seen, heck even the basic AMK-340 has loads of issues and is NOT yet i service.

Arjun round has loads of problems similar to Arjun itself so leave it there

Till IA gets its hands on Lekalo or Svinets 2, situation remains as it is i.e. bleak for them.

Why i say this? simple, current PA APFSDS ammo has better values at 2500 m (yes, 500 meter beyond 2000 )

Naiza = 550

Type-II basic-550-580

Type-IIM = 620-650 mm

I exclude Naiza 2 for your convinience


However, not only Naiza-2 is in service, it is standard DU ammunition throughout PAK mbt fleet. Since no internet source is available apart of Usman Ansari's article, i chose to leave it at that.

There are atleast 2 more tungsten APFSDS round developed for 125 and 105 mm guns respectively.

I suggest you go to this website

Defence Export Promotion Organization

Turret geometry is a theoritical aspect so lets leave it at that shall we? With all the glorified/ protected/ secured turret geometry of T-72, what did it achieve?? Zilch!

I firmly believe IA commanders dont have a narrow field of view as you do or they will be looking for a 60 deg angle to HIT the AKs and T-80uds and get kicked in the process

 

[Umair Nawaz]

I confused it with the t-90M prototype that was unveiled in around 2009.They refused to induct t-90 as they have moved on to new generation armata which is in different league.
When did i say shtora is fitted on ours?Besides shtora-1 is a soft kill system,and supposedly failed in greek and indian trails.
Thats why we selected LEDS-150.
And this is the point,i never claimed u don't have high penetration rounds in development either-just ur claim that naiza 2 is operational.If its operational accross PA tank fleet,how hard can it be to get a pic.Usually in exhibitions standard ammo is displayed beside tank sometimes.



No type -99.ztz-99,where did u get type-59?

the pics u r talking about were posted in indian forum by Farhaan but were later told by Dazzler that they r of type 59 not of AK

 

[Dazzler]

Thts what im sayin... unless they want to change the gun barrel of their T-90S( which came out in 1996.... years before T-90A /Vladmir)....

And you think if they went for it, Russians will be ok with this? Imagine a Russian T-90S with a Ukrainian main gun

In that case, I can see them in greater pain than ever.

 

[Dazzler]

Al-Zarrar with Aorak ERA

Norinco Type-II M APFSDS RHA penetration @ the typical target under the fire range condition---RHA, 220mm thickness , angle of inclination: 60-70, and in this case, the angle is the 68 deg, no much difference with "international standard..

NOTE: this is a tungsten round, not a DU round

 

[Dazzler]

as per Janes, this is Type-I and II, not Type-IIM...


NORINCO 125 mm APFSDS-T rounds are separate loading munitions. They are loaded into the breech
surrounded, behind the sabot assembly, by an integral combustible propellant charge in a combustible
case and followed by a semi-combustible propellant case.
On both the 125-I and 125-II, a light alloy sabot assembly consists of a three-segment sabot and the
monobloc tungsten alloy penetrator rod forming the projectile. The penetrator rod and the sabot are
interfaced by a series of mating buttresses and the sabot is encircled by a plastic slipping obturator ring.
The 125-I penetrator rod has a diameter of 28 mm, is 554 mm long (length-to-diameter ratio
approximately 19.8:1) and weighs 4.03 kg. The penetrator rod has a light alloy windshield over the nose
and a light alloy six-finned fin assembly at the rear. It is assumed that the fin assembly contains a tracer
element. The 125-II projectile assembly weighs 7.44 kg, with the penetrator rod being 26 mm in
diameter.
The two-component propellant system is carried over from the design of the RFAS 125 mm
APFSDS-T. Both components are encased in what is described as a flammable nitrocellulose paper tube
impregnated with TNT which is totally consumed on firing. A steel stub case, weighing 3.4 kg and
containing the electrical primer, remains to be ejected after firing. The case is 140 mm long and has a
flange diameter of 171.9 mm.
Muzzle velocity of the 125-I is 1,730 m/s. Armour penetration against vertical armour at 2,000 m is
460 mm and direct fire range is more than 2,100 m. It has been stated that the projectile can penetrate
220 mm of homogeneous armour set at an angle of 61.5º at a range of 2,000 m, with `good after effects'.
At a range of 1,000 m dispersion is of the order of 300 × 300 mm.
Muzzle velocity for the 125-II is 1,740 m/s. Armour penetration at 2,000 m is 600 mm.

Specifications
Weights:
projectile with propellant charge - 23 kg
projectile with sabot, 125-I - 7.37 kg
projectile with sabot, 125-II - 7.44 kg
projectile, 125-I - 4.03 kg
stub case - 3.4 kg
Lengths:
projectile with propellant charge - 672 mm
basic propellant assembly - 407 mm
projectile - 554 mm
Diameter of projectile:
125-I - 28 mm
125-II - 26 mm
Muzzle velocity:
125-I - 1,730 m/s
125-II -1,740 m/s
Operational temperature: -40 to +50ºC

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...t-2000-information-pool-34.html#ixzz2ag2tRFZy

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

the pics u r talking about were posted in indian forum by Farhaan but were later told by Dazzler that they r of type 59 not of AK

The pics i am talking about are the one comparing turret geometry of t-90 with type-99.

 

[Dazzler]

ukrainian Kombat ATGM in service with PA, modified to fit both autoloaders i.e. AZ (t-72) and MZ (T-80)

armour penetration value is 750 mm BEHIND ERA..

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Mark my words based on facts, a tank is next to useless without effective ammunition particularly APFSDS, nit picking my words will lead to "nowhere"

FACTS:

IA mbt fleet is in a mess thats TRUE whether you like it or not, i can share 50 sources and point several problems with each of IA mbt but i choose not to do so since it will be too much to swallow for you.

OFB was responsible for design, research and develop the APFSDS rounds for IA, both 120 and 125 mm. Unfortunately it is blacklisted so there goes the sole designer, now it is upto DRDO to get the job done and the world knows how they do their job.

Thats why you see rounds busting, poor propellant and storage, and even plans for discarding thousands of APFSDS (15000 of them!!) due to substandard quality. Ammo reserves are dropping, IA spokesperson was worried for a right reason

The best round IA currently has is Israeli CL-MII series with 520 mm penetration at 0 deg, at 2000 m maximum. Second is Mango, 500-520 at 200 m at 0 deg,

The "unkown" improved AMK 340 is nowere to be seen, heck even the basic AMK-340 has loads of issues and is NOT yet i service.

Arjun round has loads of problems similar to Arjun itself so leave it there

Till IA gets its hands on Lekalo or Svinets 2, situation remains as it is i.e. bleak for them.

Why i say this? simple, current PA APFSDS ammo has better values at 2500 m (yes, 500 meter beyond 2000 )

Naiza = 550

Type-II basic-550-580

Type-IIM = 620-650 mm

I exclude Naiza 2 for your convinience


However, not only Naiza-2 is in service, it is standard DU ammunition throughout PAK mbt fleet. Since no internet source is available apart of Usman Ansari's article, i chose to leave it at that.

There are atleast 2 more tungsten APFSDS round developed for 125 and 105 mm guns respectively.

I suggest you go to this website

Defence Export Promotion Organization

Turret geometry is a theoritical aspect so lets leave it at that shall we? With all the glorified/ protected/ secured turret geometry of T-72, what did it achieve?? Zilch!

I firmly believe IA commanders dont have a narrow field of view as you do or they will be looking for a 60 deg angle to HIT the AKs and T-80uds and get kicked in the process

First rounds-the best rounds IA has are israeli and not 520 mm,550+.Larger penetrator round under development.
As for ur rounds,i went to the link u posted and in POF anti tank rounds section tungsten round gave 480-500 mm penetartion in official statement i think.
Nazia-550 mm-OK.
Type-II and Type-IIM- these are chinese rounds?TYpe-II is nothig special 550-580.
As for type-IIM-where did u get 620-650mm figure?Also since when does PA use latest chinese tank ammunition.
And even with that penetration even chinese type-IIm in PLA vs IA tank won't penetrate frontal armour of t-90,which withstood more at 2000m without ERA?So what 'bleak picture' u are trying to portray here.
As for naiza-2 u have for a long time kept babbling about this round that is in widespread service and not a single pic or exhibit info.Instead u posted a pic of short stubby round with old 80s style ring sabot penetrator and told this is enhanced penetrator.FAIL.

Turret geometry is perfectly important,ur trying to avoid it as u are exposed to the glaring flaws of khalid's design in this case.
As t-72 being zilch,do u expect anything from monkey models,without era,useless crews,cast turret against latest abrams.Turret geometry can't help if enemy penetrates frontal armour itself.Don't try to change subject .You have till now given not a single solid answer to refute those diagrams on the weak turret design of khalid.
You have been quite proficient in bringing up anything to diss IA tanks from same forum,and same discussion..but quietly ignored this bad flaw of chinese design tanks that was discussed in detail there.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

ukrainian Kombat ATGM in service with PA, modified to fit both autoloaders i.e. AZ (t-72) and MZ (T-80)

armour penetration value is 750 mm BEHIND ERA..

IA bought over 10000 AT-11C SNIPER (9M119M1 Invar-M),and license produce 25000.Invar-m bought by IA tanks has 850 MM behind ERA.Superior than kombat.
Also remember that HEAT warheads have 30% less actual penetration than their paper RHA values against modern composite armour.This applies to both sides

And you think if they went for it, Russians will be ok with this? Imagine a Russian T-90S with a Ukrainian main gun

In that case, I can see them in greater pain than ever.

Agreed,vityaz will not be in IA armoured corps.

 

[Dazzler]

First rounds-the best rounds IA has are israeli and not 520 mm,550+.Larger penetrator round under development.
As for ur rounds,i went to the link u posted and in POF anti tank rounds section tungsten round gave 480-500 mm penetartion in official statement i think.
Nazia-550 mm-OK.
Type-II and Type-IIM- these are chinese rounds?TYpe-II is nothig special 550-580.
As for type-IIM-where did u get 620-650mm figure?Also since when does PA use latest chinese tank ammunition.
And even with that penetration even chinese type-IIm in PLA vs IA tank won't penetrate frontal armour of t-90,which withstood more at 2000m without ERA?So what 'bleak picture' u are trying to portray here.
As for naiza-2 u have for a long time kept babbling about this round that is in widespread service and not a single pic or exhibit info.Instead u posted a pic of short stubby round with old 80s style ring sabot penetrator and told this is enhanced penetrator.FAIL.

Turret geometry is perfectly important,ur trying to avoid it as u are exposed to the glaring flaws of khalid's design in this case.
As t-72 being zilch,do u expect anything from monkey models,without era,useless crews,cast turret against latest abrams.Turret geometry can't help if enemy penetrates frontal armour itself.Don't try to change subject .You have till now given not a single solid answer to refute those diagrams on the weak turret design of khalid.
You have been quite proficient in bringing up anything to diss IA tanks from same forum,and same discussion..but quietly ignored this bad flaw of chinese design tanks that was discussed in detail there.

i think either you are lost or about to lose something in the upper floor :O

I dont have time to waste on the likes of you. You have been posting the same gibberish for last two pages instead of understanding anything.

LISTEN

you didnt see this?? the man calcuated the value of Type-IIM which is in service with Pak Army. Enlarge the pic and SEE the calculated values against each shell.

You really have no idea what i said in previous pages do you? Go check them again, i dont have time to repeat the same story over and over.

And please talk with evidence with me, i had no internet proof of Naiza-2 i dropped it, either way, you bring proof for AMK-340 rounds or they dont exist at all.

Turret geometry is a theoritical thing boy, i just see the rotting T-72s with best geometry. It makes no difference when your shell cant penetrate the basic composite armour anyway.

By the way, Boron carbide composite is the hardest thing out there, integral part of M-1 and Challenger 2, include Leo-2 composite armour. Commonly known as Chobham or Burlington armour, Good luck in penetrating it with your shells

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Al-Zarrar with Aorak ERA

Norinco Type-II M APFSDS RHA penetration @ the typical target under the fire range condition---RHA, 220mm thickness , angle of inclination: 60-70, and in this case, the angle is the 68 deg, no much difference with "international standard..

NOTE: this is a tungsten round, not a DU round

Is that AORAK era supposed to impress us?The ERA coverage is incomplete leaving gaps.Just two ERA plates placed in angle with each other,no real continous ERA arc.
As for international standrad..let's not get there USA and german DU rounds M29A3/DM63 would have around 900-1000 mm penetration.Neither indo/pak/china have anything approaching those stanrad.
Lets see which new round comes with russian armata.

As for DU round and tungsten round-Comment of the very guy whose diagram u posted of old t-72b armour to measure current t-90 armour.
'' DU advantage is only 10% max. And what is the most important - DU performs better only against cast steel or stack RHA plates, against modern multilayered targets WHA alloys perform better. And now we can ask what looks modern tank armour.

Modern WHA rods have adiabatic shear during penetration. So now there left only one DU advantage - it's guite cheap metarial.''

 

[Dazzler]

Is that AORAK era supposed to impress us?The ERA coverage is incomplete leaving gaps.Just two ERA plates placed in angle with each other,no real continous ERA arc.
As for international standrad..let's not get there USA and german DU rounds M29A3/DM63 would have around 900-1000 mm penetration.Neither indo/pak/china have anything approaching those stanrad.
Lets see which new round comes with russian armata.

As for DU round and tungsten round-Comment of the very guy whose diagram u posted of old t-72b armour to measure current t-90 armour.
'' DU advantage is only 10% max. And what is the most important - DU performs better only against cast steel or stack RHA plates, against modern multilayered targets WHA alloys perform better. And now we can ask what looks modern tank armour.

Modern WHA rods have adiabatic shear during penetration. So now there left only one DU advantage - it's guite cheap metarial.''

You re revealing new thnigs indeed

DU is cheap material?? LOL

is this why every modern army in the world uses it? For your info, DU is the densest material among all forms of APFSDS shells, tungsten carbide is weak against DU, yes it is cheap because it is a byproduct of nuclear waste mostly. However, DU can reath havoc over any armour, the solution to protect your crew from DU, ask Americans. They use DU armour mesh in M1A1HA, only DU can protect against DU. Why? it is like cutting iron with iron.

DU has a horrible effect on tank crew, even a slightly penetrated turret or hull causes the crew a painful death. Toxic gases realse in an instance so crew has less chance of survival.

It is sad really but this is what DU brings to the battlefield unfortunately

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

i think either you are lost or about to lose something in the upper floor :O

I dont have time to waste on the likes of you. You have been posting the same gibberish for last two pages instead of understanding anything.

LISTEN

you didnt see this?? the man calcuated the value of Type-IIM which is in service with Pak Army. Enlarge the pic and SEE the calculated values against each shell.

You really have no idea what i said in previous pages do you? Go check them again, i dont have time to repeat the same story over and over.

And please talk with evidence with me, i had no internet proof of Naiza-2 i dropped it, either way, you bring proof for AMK-340 rounds or they dont exist at all.

Turret geometry is a theoritical thing boy, i just see the rotting T-72s with best geometry. It makes no difference when your shell cant penetrate the basic composite armour anyway.

By the way, Boron carbide composite is the hardest thing out there, integral part of M-1 and Challenger 2, include Leo-2 composite armour. Commonly known as Chobham or Burlington armour, Good luck in penetrating it with your shells

A few things-
Since when is type-IIM ammo in PA service.
How did u get 620-650 mm penetration.
And when t-90 can withstand even more than that even without ERA,ur assertion that IA tanks are at total disadvantage is false.
Now onto turret geometry..for once and for all u LISTEN.Throughout this thread u have constantly tried to evade the glaring flaws in khalids armour that was discussed in detail in the same forum and threads by the same people from which u are posting ur material.Ur double standards are staggering....u cherry pick anything u can find for urself and completely deny the turret weakness exposed by the same people.Basically IT is I who don't have time to repeat same story to you,if u use those people and threads as ur sources for the material u are posting..and then denying turret geometry without a single counter argument or any logic to refute those diagrams mathematically.Because u can't..u know turret is flawed..so u are trying to evade the whole issue..while cherry picking material posted by same group of people.

You re revealing new thnigs indeed

DU is cheap material?? LOL

is this why every modern army in the world uses it? For your info, DU is the densest material among all forms of APFSDS shells, tungsten carbide is weak against DU, yes it is cheap because it is a byproduct of nuclear waste mostly. However, DU can reath havoc over any armour, the solution to protect your crew from DU, ask Americans. They use DU armour mesh in M1A1HA, only DU can protect against DU. Why? it is like cutting iron with iron.

DU has a horrible effect on tank crew, even a slightly penetrated turret or hull causes the crew a painful death. Toxic gases realse in an instance so crew has less chance of survival.

It is sad really but this is what DU brings to the battlefield unfortunately

more on DU ..

Depleted uranium IS cheaper than machinized tungsten.LOL.
And yeah DU has toxic effect,but also for ur own crews there is health risk.
Don't try to compare ur selves to USA because USA armour tech is light yrs ahead.
Rest was posted already.

 

[Dazzler]

Unless your tanks cruise sideways , 60 deg and beyond angle is a rare value and that too when you couldnt work in the front. Good luck in that

Fofanov presents even weaker values for Russian tanks side on, infact, every tank has weaker side armour including M1, Leo-2 series and Challys, Even Merkava has been penetrated from sides. Turret side is a universal weak area for all tanks so please stop singling out Chinese weak turret from side.


Oh, guess i missed this :O

T-90A vladimir, red and black spots represent penetration values. so much for impenerable turret...