PA TANKS comparison with contempory tanks

[TaimiKhan]

Usman Ansari takes a look at Pakistan’s indigenous main battle tank.

Due to the threat from its larger neighbour India, Pakistan continues to maintain a large fleet of MBTs (over 2,000), whilst elsewhere in the world their number is falling. The best tank currently in service is the indigenous Al-Khalid produced by Heavy Industries Taxila, (HIT). In terms of induction of new MBTs it is set to be one of the most significant MBTs in the coming decade. It is a development of the NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation), Type 90-II, which first made an appearance in 1990, and was itself a further manifestation of the Chinese requirement to field an MBT superior to the Russian T-72, (also India's main MBT). It featured substantial improvements in mobility, protection, and firepower over previous Chinese MBTs though still has a traditional MBT layout.


The Al-Khalid project is the culmination of a four part upgrade programme for Pakistan's MBT fleet. It entailed:

- Upgrade of the Type-59.

- Assembly and manufacture of the Type-69II.

- Co-production of the Type-85II.

- Production of an indigenous MBT design MBT 2000/Al-Khalid.


The Al-Khalid features a composite armour package over a welded hull. The hull front has lugs for additional armour, ERA plates and a self-entrenching mechanism. Some spare sections of track are also usually attached. A number of Pakistani companies offer detachable attachments such as track-width mine ploughs or 'rollers' (which have had some export success), compatible with the Al-Khalid but the self-entrenching mechanism seems to be the standard fit. The almost horizontal glacis plate is totally covered by large ERA plates. The driver is centrally seated under a one-piece hatch. He has use of three periscopes, the second of which can be fitted with a passive night sight.


The centrally located welded turret is similar to the Type-85 from which the Type-90II/Al-Khalid family is developed. The composite armour over the frontal arc is of modular assembly to enable replacement of damaged sections or simple upgrade to more a modern type as it becomes available. ERA plates are again added to the roof, front and sides to improve the armour and ballistic protection of the turret. The commander and gunner are seated on the right and left respectively. The commander has use of a 12.7mm with 500 rounds for AA use. There are six electrically fired grenade launchers for smoke and HE rounds, either side of the turret and a large stowage basket towards the rear, which usually houses the snorkel. A meteorological sensor is also fitted towards the rear of the turret roof to warn the crew if the tank is being 'lased' by an enemy.


The main gun is a 125mm smoothbore fitted with a thermal sleeve and fume extractor mid way down the barrel. It is reported to have a life of 500 rounds and has an attachment at the base to facilitate a quick field change. It is fed by a Russian type carousel auto-loader that holds 22 separate loading rounds ready for use. The rate of fire is up to eight rounds per minute. A total of 39 HEAT, APFSDS-T, and HE-FRAG rounds are carried in a mission dependent ratio. The APFSDS-T will penetrate 460mm of RHA at 2,000m, which is unsatisfactory. A POF (Pakistan Ordnance Factories) developed DU round called 'Naiza' is thought to also be in service with the T-80UD/T-84 MBT fleet, but whether this has been adopted for use with the Al-Khalid has not been made public. A coaxial 7.62mm with 3,000 rounds is also mounted. Though Pakistan has purchased the AT-11 'Sniper' ATGM from Belarus for use with the PA T-80UD/T-84s it is not know if it can be fired from the Al-Khalid.


125mm ammunition characteristics.

Ammunition Type.


Muzzle Velocity.

APFSDS


1760 m/s

HEAT


850 m/s

HE-FRAG


950 m/s



For targeting the commander has use of a bi-axis stabilised panoramic sight whilst the gunner's bi-axis sight is roof mounted. Pakistan has recently imported 200 more modern Italian thermal imaging devices for the gunner, details of which are unavailable. The FCS is image stabilised and incorporates a laser range finder with the gunner's sight, crosswind, tilt and velocity sensor plus ballistic computer. Able to track targets whilst engaging others it also incorporates a Pakistani produced data-link to share information with other tanks in the formation. The commander can override commands to the main armament.


The engine, transmission and cooling system can be removed in thirty minutes for a quick field change. Though the British Perkins CV12-1200 (as fitted to the British Challenger series) was evaluated it failed to cope with the harsh conditions of the Pakistani desert. The engine eventually chosen was the Ukrainian 6TD-2 six-cylinder 1,200hp multi-fuel diesel as it was more compact and robust and is coupled to the French SESM-500 automatic transmission. The six dual wheels have rubber tyres and torsion bar suspension with the drive sprocket at the rear and the idler at the front. The track return rollers are usually covered by the side skirt, (the forward section of which can be covered with ERA plates). The rubber track pads are replaceable.


A full NBC system, crew bay and engine bay explosion/fire detection and suppression system, and infrared reflective paint are fitted as standard. It can lay its own smokescreen by injecting diesel into the exhaust at the rear.


A number of prototypes were made for evaluation and fall into four categories:


- Prototype 1: Chinese 125mm and auto-loader coupled to a Chinese FCS. The engine was a German MTU-396 diesel coupled to the LSG-3000 automatic transmission.


- Prototype 2: The same Chinese 125mm and auto-loader as 'P1' but coupled to a Western FCS. The engine was the Perkins 1200hp Condor diesel coupled to the French SESM-500 automatic transmission.


- Prototype 3: As 'P2' above but with a Ukrainian 6TDF diesel engine. This was type accepted into Pakistani service.


- Prototype 4: Designed primarily for export it has a NATO standard 120mm and Western FCS. It is powered by the German MTU-871/TCM AVDS-1790 diesel engine coupled to the LSG-3000 transmission.


Much emphasis is placed on agility and manoeuvrability. With a top speed of 70km/h and power to weight ration of 26.66hp/tonne it certainly fulfils that criteria. It also shares component commonality with the other MBTs in the PA arsenal (10 percent Type-59, 15 percent Type-69, and 20 percent Type-85), therefore helping to reduce running costs. Compared to the latest Western MBTs the Al-Khalid may lack their level of armour protection but is by no means under-armoured or unsuited for the modern battlefield. It's speed; agility and systems help ensure its survivability whilst its armament is powerful enough to deal with all potential opponents.


With 300 ordered for the PA production is currently running at fifty units per year but could easily be increased. The Al-Khalid has been heavily promoted in Pakistani defence shows such as IDEAS 2002, FUTURZ 2003 and IDEAS 2004 during the last few years which has seen the Al-Khalid and its stable mate the Al-Zarrar (an upgrade of the Type-59), receive much interest from potential customers. There has been considerable Saudi interest in the Al-Khalid during defence shows in Pakistan. The Saudis are looking to induct in the region of 100 new MBTs to replace their French AMX-30 tanks. Trials are to be carried out in Saudi Arabia in summer 2005 leaving HIT hopeful of it first MBT export order amid heavy lobbying in its favour. However, Ukrainian reluctance to supply the 6TDF diesel engine has meant the adoption of a German engine that does not generate the same high power/weight ratio as the Ukrainian one. For compatibility purposes the Saudis are likely to require a NATO standard 120mm main gun which can be supplied by POF. As it is in direct competition with other cheap export favourites such as the T-72 and T-80 series the unit price has to be competitive. Malaysia has already chosen the Polish PT-91 (a development of the T-72), rather than opt for the Al-Khalid.


Development is ongoing of the Al-Khalid II, (though the project name is actually 'Al-Khalid I'), which is targeted for production by 2008. It is unknown if there is to be any major change in the appearance of the tank. Key areas for improvement are said to be in the areas of armour protection by inclusion of more modern types of armour, and improved systems. This includes more efficient transmission system and modern night vision systems. A new electronic counter-measures fit is currently undergoing testing at HIT. Recently the possibility has arisen of using Ukraine's 6TD3 engine which generates 1500 hp though it remains to be seen if this shall be incorporated. Firepower is also to be upgraded if ongoing discussions for the Ukrainian 'Kombat' ATGM are successful. With a range of up to 5,000m it would give the Al-Khalid a useful reach against targets such as helicopters. Furthermore, an up-graded auto loader would enable the use of 'long-rod' ammunition as used by Western MBTs, as the Russian style unit cannot currently support them.


More details of developments are likely to be available during IDEAS-2006, as the bi-annual defence show is Pakistan's opportunity to be centre stage at a defence show.


With the Al-Khalid it finally looks like Pakistan has a tank capable of meeting both domestic and foreign needs enabling Pakistan to aim for a bigger slice of the lucrative global arms market.

An edited version of the above article appeared in the September 2005 issue of Classic Military Vehicle.



The Al-Khalid

 

[TaimiKhan]

Friday, May 8, 2009
Al-Khalid: The evolving mailed fist of the Pakistani army

I’ve had, (and taken), the opportunity to sit in the Pakistan army’s Al-Khalid MBT a couple of times. My opinion is that it’s a pretty good tank with a decent level of mobility and firepower. Protection, for what it is, isn’t too bad. That is if you compare it with other ‘Eastern’ MBT designs like the Russian T-90, Ukrainian T-84, and Chinese ZTZ-99.



No one is saying the Al-Khalid, (or any of the other tanks listed above), will rival something like the Challenger 2 when it comes to armour protection. I don’t think any ‘Eastern’ tank can make so bold a claim. By virtue of its welded turret and modular composite turret ‘cheek’ armour inserts however, ERA package, and other protection measures, I’d say the Al-Khalid isn’t doing too badly for what it is.



It’s a bit of a hybrid of systems from both the East and West, but it is built around a 125mm smoothbore and a Soviet/Russian style autoloader. In the 1990s when the auto-loader was coming into service, (installed in Type-85s and T-80UDs), some Pakistani armoured corps officers were very unhappy with the idea of an auto-loader. They considered it a gimmick, and losing one man in the crew would mean replenishing and refuelling the tank under combat conditions would take longer. No tank crew wants to be stood around motionless for too long, especially with the possibility of hostile aircraft arriving on scene, or a rain or artillery rockets or shells falling on them increasing for each minute they’re motionless.



Having an auto-loader does have its benefits however, namely being able to reload the gun while moving over rough ground at speed, and reducing the tank's profile. There’s also the speed at which rounds can be fired off. The first round in any engagement is crucial, but follow-up rounds, delivered accurately and at speed, can literally mean the difference between life and death.



I do have reservations about auto-loaders myself. Any hull/turret penetration could set off loosely stowed ammunition, (only 22 separate loading rounds – round plus propellant charge – are stored in the carousel style cassette in the bottom of the hull). The propellant is after all in semi-combustible cardboard cases. I suppose this is 'ammunition stowage' rather than the 'auto-loader' per se, but this is the weakness of all the above tanks. Bar that is the T-84, the latest variants of which have a bustle mounted autoloader in line with something like the French Leclerc. Even the American M1A2 Abrams, perhaps the most combat tested modern Western MBT around, may go this way if fitted with the automated XM-360 120mm cannon. It’s currently undergoing testing for XM-1202 Mounted Combat System. The XM-360 is lighter than but as powerful as the 120mm currently fitted to the Abrams. Fitted with a 27 round bustle mounted magazine/auto-loader, it certainly sounds like something the Abrams crews may welcome, (some of the above restrictions notwithstanding).



This is something I’d like to see in the Al-Khalid, in fact, I’d like something a little better. The Jordanians are busy fitting their Challenger II chassis’ they obtained from the UK when the type was replaced by the Challenger 2, with the Falcon 2 unmanned turret. The turret was designed by British firm Claverham Limited for (or in conjunction with) King Abdallah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB). The ammunition (eleven or 17 rounds depending on number of drums fitted), is in the bustle like the new T-84, but the crew are now in the bottom of the hull. The turret is unmanned and therefore has a very small frontal cross section.



There is some debate as to whether having an autoloader that carries so few rounds is a good idea in a scenario when you may be faced with a massed enemy armoured column. That’s true, but I still think the Falcon 2 turret is the way to go. If a way could be devised for extra ammunition to be safely stored in the hull, and the autoloader replenished without having to get out of the tank, (i.e. through the bottom of the turret – it would be a hell of a tight squeeze, especially in a smaller hulled MBT, but I can safely say the number crews who would admit to wanting to stand around on top of tank feeding rounds into the auto-loader whilst hot metal was flying left right and centre, would be very small in number).



I don’t know if the Falcon 2 turret can be fitted to the Al-Khalid chassis. It is rather smaller than the Challenger II chassis, and it’s already a bit of tight squeeze inside the Al-Khalid. It is however roomier than a T-80UD, which in turn is, (I am led to believe) more spacious than a T-72. Now I’ve sat in a T-80UD, and to be honest when I was told beforehand that it was rather cramped, and you could only stretch one leg at a time in the turret, I thought the officer telling me this was joking. Considering one of the senior officers I met was rather tall (towering in fact – though with a stoop, which was explained in due course), I thought it an even bigger joke. When I actually shoehorned myself into the gunner’s seat however, (and though I’m not quite a skeleton in a durex, I am slim I must admit), I found it wasn’t a joke at all. Which means for a person to be comfortable in any way in a T-72, he’d have to be an anorexic dwarf!



For the Al-Khalid however, modernisation at present means something so drastic will have to wait. A new variant, the Al-Khalid-I, is currently undergoing testing at Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) having been developed by HIT’s ‘Advanced Armoured Research, Development and Integration Complex’. The improvements seem consist of: an improved engine, FCS, improved integrated battle management system (IBMS), improved sensors, side skirts, and track pads. Engine improvements may consist of a new more powerful type, or perhaps improvements to the existing Ukrainian 1,200hp 6TDF. Something has changed though because the engine deck appears to be shorter. The auto-loader has also been upgraded to be able to fire nine rounds a minute, and the Ukrainian ‘Varta’ electro-optical jamming system is fitted. It bears more than a passing resemblance to the Russian/Ukrainian Shotra-1, and according to HIT, decoys ATGMs, and counters laser designators and range finders by causing false readings disrupting tracking.



Less information is known about the next stage of the modernisation programme, the Al-Khalid-II, but there is a strong possibility it may end up looking like the Chinese ZTZ-99 with a wedge-shaped modular armour package over the turret front, and other such modifications. The power-pack could be further upgraded to a 1,500hp unit, and further developments made to the sensors. The possibility of the Al-Khalid-II following the example of the ZTZ-99 is quite high due to Sino-Pakistani defence co-operation, and the fact that both Al-Khalid and ZTZ-99 share some design ancestry. Without anything coming out of HIT though, this is still speculation, albeit fairly well founded speculation.



I can exclusively reveal however, (unless you’ve heard elsewhere), that the Military Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (MVRDE), have taken the Al-Khalid chassis, and are adapting it as an Armoured Vehicle-Launched Bridge (AVLB) to replace the M-47M Patton based variant. Hopefully this heralds the start of a wholesale modernisation of engineering vehicle types away from the M-47M, Type-59, and T-55 to the Al-Khalid chassis. It would also be good to see the chassis become the basis for more 155mm self propelled artillery pieces (perhaps with a Turkish or Chinese 155mm), or some self propelled anti-aircraft types, but Pakistan isn’t made of money, so we’ll just have to wait and see.



Nevertheless, the Al-Khalid is evolving, and the day when the Pakistan Army’s tank fleet consists of small numbers of Type-85s, T-80UDs and a large number of Al-Khalids is slowly drawing nearer.


Usman Ansari

 

[Arsalan]

Well, Pakistani tanks design has been influenced by the chinese, so whatever new modifications chinese do on their tanks, Pakistan will fully or adopt some of those modifications.
Abram kind of turret, i dont think PA will adopt, as they are huge due to additional armor and its a 4 man turret, PA needs stealthier tanks, meaning having low visibility.

If u see the new armor add-on on Al-Khalid & Al-Zarrar tanks, they were first employed by the Chinese on their latest tanks. Some ideas PA is taking from PLA & PLA is taking some of our approaches.

Modifications to the turret could be better FCS, improvement in the Gun Stabilization, Additional Armor plating (pasted the video of the latest chinese tanks Type 98 and the new variant Type 99 both showed), better protection of ammunition, If u look at the chinese tank turret, it has become large enough in length & width, addition of APS , improvements in the speed of turret rotation, auto loading mechanism etc etc etc

yes we have been borrowing lot of technology from chines but the AlKhalid had some plus points that even the chines lack. on of them was the hunter killer sustem as you have mentioned. secondly the targetting and laser range finder was modified according to PA requirment as the tanks were to be opperated from cold northren region to the hot punjab and further in the dusty and desert part of sindh!.
my point with turret was not about its shape or design but of the armor it will have. actually most of us will like to have a better armor turret, not only this can be met by armor platings but the tank structure itself need some upgradation. the original armor was not good enough and the tank heavily relied on armor platings, yes they are equally good, rather more friendly to use but i guess the upcomming model must be a little more beefed up. but yes, i agree that PA must not compromise on the weigh of the tank as its being light and small was one of its strong points!

A more powerful engine could be added.

that was included in the AlKhalid II spec, PA is wiling to go for an incresed HP engine. the current one is good enough for our requirment, giving speed of 75 Km/Hr and acceleartion of zero to 35 Km?hr in ten seconds, that is fair enough. even then the plan included an upgraded engine and tis to me indicates to a bit heavier tank in the making!

And the weight wouldn't be that far as Abrams, Leopard, Challenger 2, all 62 to 67 tons range, the chinese Type-99 latest variant around 54 ton, Al Khalid 1 only 48 ton, just an increase of 6 tons with much more added capabilities & protection.

agreed!

My opinion which i strongly believe Al-Khalid II would be nearly similar to the chinese latest variant of Type-99 tank.

i doubt it. it may have some feature that PA will be willing to adopt but the main upgrades were aimed at:
1. better armor
2. improved target accquiring ability
3. better stabilization of the Gun (there was no problems with the current system and the tank was able to hit moving targets while itself on the run wit a 99% first kill ratio and that was an amazing performance indeed!
4. counter measures were to be heavily upgraded

whatever it is like, i hope it will sort out the PA tank issues for a good 10 to 15 years time once it is inducted

regards!

 

[TaimiKhan]

yes we have been borrowing lot of technology from chines but the AlKhalid had some plus points that even the chines lack. on of them was the hunter killer sustem as you have mentioned. secondly the targetting and laser range finder was modified according to PA requirment as the tanks were to be opperated from cold northren region to the hot punjab and further in the dusty and desert part of sindh!.
my point with turret was not about its shape or design but of the armor it will have. actually most of us will like to have a better armor turret, not only this can be met by armor platings but the tank structure itself need some upgradation. the original armor was not good enough and the tank heavily relied on armor platings, yes they are equally good, rather more friendly to use but i guess the upcomming model must be a little more beefed up. but yes, i agree that PA must not compromise on the weigh of the tank as its being light and small was one of its strong points!


that was included in the AlKhalid II spec, PA is wiling to go for an incresed HP engine. the current one is good enough for our requirment, giving speed of 75 Km/Hr and acceleartion of zero to 35 Km?hr in ten seconds, that is fair enough. even then the plan included an upgraded engine and tis to me indicates to a bit heavier tank in the making!



agreed!



i doubt it. it may have some feature that PA will be willing to adopt but the main upgrades were aimed at:
1. better armor
2. improved target accquiring ability
3. better stabilization of the Gun (there was no problems with the current system and the tank was able to hit moving targets while itself on the run wit a 99% first kill ratio and that was an amazing performance indeed!
4. counter measures were to be heavily upgraded

whatever it is like, i hope it will sort out the PA tank issues for a good 10 to 15 years time once it is inducted

regards!

Well if u look at the details of Type-99 tank specially Type-99G, u will nearly find all the requirements u have mentioned & PA will just have to change or get an alternate or a better or to its requirments systems . U can see the Type 98 tank getting hit with a HJ-8 ATGM, the tank still stands pretty good.

Plus rumors are that Chinese Type-99 is using Tungsten in its armor, which is one of the most dense material including DU, DU is used in the Abram Tank Armor & DU rounds. APFSDS rounds are made of Tungsten.

HIT has already established Advanced Armor Research Center, which definitely would be looking at the armor side of AL Khalid.

 

[wangrong]

http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XODExMDkyNzY=/v.swf

 

[wangrong]

 

[zraver]

No tank crew wants to be stood around motionless for too long, especially with the possibility of hostile aircraft arriving on scene, or a rain or artillery rockets or shells falling on them increasing for each minute they’re motionless.

Using an autoloader offers no real combat advantage. No matter how fast it can load a round other factors slow it down. Assuming the tank commander has to spend his time at briefings when the tank is not moving. A 3 man crew leaves only 2 men to do all the maintenance tasks if they do not post a guard. Checking track tension, refueling, checking fluids, rearming and other normal every day tasks. This means it takes longer and thus cuts into what precious time for sleep, self care and hygiene exists. A tired exhausted crew will not fight as good as one more fresh. For certain tasks, a 3man crew means 2 tanks have to stop to do it, or one tank has to be left behind for rear area support to move up. You are not going to change a track fast or easily with 3 men assuming the commanders present. Changing track sucks, but its easier with four men than three. With four you can have to men hoisting track, 1 man ground guiding and 1 man driving. Finally when all the tasks are done and the crew can grab some sleep, 3 men means longer shifts on watch than a 4 man crew.

As a final note, as technology advances especially in the areas of managing information a real danger is developing that the commander is going to be overworked. 20 years ago he had to monitor the radio, look for targets and direct his tank (commanders/leaders also had to direct their unit). Now he has to watch the battle management system, the threat receiver/warning system as well as the other tasks. His work load is going up. More on this later.

Having an auto-loader does have its benefits however, namely being able to reload the gun while moving over rough ground at speed, and reducing the tank's profile. There’s also the speed at which rounds can be fired off. The first round in any engagement is crucial, but follow-up rounds, delivered accurately and at speed, can literally mean the difference between life and death.

See first, shoot first, win. The more alert crew has significant advantages. The longer you go without sleep, or the less sleep you get the more your body acts like its drunk in terms of coordination and reaction times.

I do have reservations about auto-loaders myself. Any hull/turret penetration could set off loosely stowed ammunition, (only 22 separate loading rounds – round plus propellant charge – are stored in the carousel style cassette in the bottom of the hull). The propellant is after all in semi-combustible cardboard cases. I suppose this is 'ammunition stowage' rather than the 'auto-loader' per se, but this is the weakness of all the above tanks. Bar that is the T-84, the latest variants of which have a bustle mounted autoloader in line with something like the French Leclerc. Even the American M1A2 Abrams, perhaps the most combat tested modern Western MBT around, may go this way if fitted with the automated XM-360 120mm cannon. It’s currently undergoing testing for XM-1202 Mounted Combat System. The XM-360 is lighter than but as powerful as the 120mm currently fitted to the Abrams. Fitted with a 27 round bustle mounted magazine/auto-loader, it certainly sounds like something the Abrams crews may welcome, (some of the above restrictions notwithstanding).

Behind Armor effects (BAE) is a serious problem for tanks using hull based autoloader systems. There have been several cases where an Abrams took a penetration to the ammo compartment and the crew got out. Or the tank to a minor penetrating hit that did or did not wound the crew but did not set off the ammo since it was stored separately. Using a bustle storage system does increase the tanks side profile and thins out protection unless weight increases but overall it seems to be the way to go. if the crew is kept safe, then even if the tank is a total write off, you don't have to train another crew or lose that crews experience. Tanks are easier to replace than skilled crews.

Back to the impending overload of the tank commander. One advantage in converting the Abrams to an autoloader is that it keeps the 4 man crew. This leaves the crew fully staffed for non-combat tasks and lets the former loader become an assistant to the commander. Able to monitor systems and communications letting the commander fight his tank more effectively since 2 sets of eyes, ears and brains are seeing the information that is coming in.

This is something I’d like to see in the Al-Khalid, in fact, I’d like something a little better. The Jordanians are busy fitting their Challenger II chassis’ they obtained from the UK when the type was replaced by the Challenger 2, with the Falcon 2 unmanned turret. The turret was designed by British firm Claverham Limited for (or in conjunction with) King Abdallah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB). The ammunition (eleven or 17 rounds depending on number of drums fitted), is in the bustle like the new T-84, but the crew are now in the bottom of the hull. The turret is unmanned and therefore has a very small frontal cross section.

Junk! The best sensor is still the Mk. I eyeball. its better at spotting missile launchers, helicopters popping over the top of buildings/hills, RPG teams popping out of a ditch etc. A manned turret on most tanks also offers the ability to engage infantry dismounts with suppressive fire even if the main gun and coax are not aimed at them via commanders/loaders machine guns.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Well the article was just posted for information purposes, not my views. anyhow.

Using an autoloader offers no real combat advantage. No matter how fast it can load a round other factors slow it down. Assuming the tank commander has to spend his time at briefings when the tank is not moving. A 3 man crew leaves only 2 men to do all the maintenance tasks if they do not post a guard. Checking track tension, refueling, checking fluids, rearming and other normal every day tasks. This means it takes longer and thus cuts into what precious time for sleep, self care and hygiene exists. A tired exhausted crew will not fight as good as one more fresh. For certain tasks, a 3man crew means 2 tanks have to stop to do it, or one tank has to be left behind for rear area support to move up. You are not going to change a track fast or easily with 3 men assuming the commanders present. Changing track sucks, but its easier with four men than three. With four you can have to men hoisting track, 1 man ground guiding and 1 man driving. Finally when all the tasks are done and the crew can grab some sleep, 3 men means longer shifts on watch than a 4 man crew.

Well, i guess u might not know how armor units work, in a typical armor unit there are approx 48 tanks plus recovery vehicles, around 120 to 140 per brigade. Lets suppose there are 48 tanks in a typical armor unit, 48*3= 144 personnel deployed on the tanks, now a typical army unit consists of 700 to 900 or 1000 personnel. Lets take a lower figure of 700, 144 minus 700 gives a figure of 556, 556 guys are there to do aaaaalllllllllllllllllll of the tasks u said, when tanks go in battle the supporting troops are behind them to look after all the emergencies u mentioned. When the tank guys sleep, tank commander goes for a briefing, , they don't do these things in the middle of the battle field, rather at the lunching areas, forward Squadron or Company or Battalion HQs, where the whole unit is assembled and those 556 guys perform all the tasks that u mentioned & many other tasks too. So having a tank crew of 3 doesn't brings any extra work on them, what matters is how they perform i battle. PA knows what it is doing, its a professional army, combat experience has made them learn lessons, the Al-Zarrar before upgrade had 4 guys i guess, but after auto loader installed in its up gradation 3 guys left. I hope I have amicably satisfied your above mentioned concerns.

As a final note, as technology advances especially in the areas of managing information a real danger is developing that the commander is going to be overworked. 20 years ago he had to monitor the radio, look for targets and direct his tank (commanders/leaders also had to direct their unit). Now he has to watch the battle management system, the threat receiver/warning system as well as the other tasks. His work load is going up. More on this later.

Battles of armor is not for long periods of time, battles starts, lot of action but then with passage of time tanks withdraw or take up the conquered position and start preparation for next assignments. Plans are already devised and tank commanders know what to do, as for battle management system, its a graphical presentation of the battle area and tank commander & battle commanders have a picture of where the tanks are, so there is no issue in its mgt, as before going into a battle the tank commander knows where is his and where he has to go. Battle commanders are sitting in their mobile command posts carriers and direct the tanks from there. Plus our new tanks have the hunter-killer capability, meaning tank commander identifies the target, passes it on to the gunner and tank commander starts searching for a new target. The threat warning things are automatic, when they detect a threat they themselves take an appropriate action, whether it be a laser defensive module or APS, no need for the involvement of the tank crew.

See first, shoot first, win. The more alert crew has significant advantages. The longer you go without sleep, or the less sleep you get the more your body acts like its drunk in terms of coordination and reaction times.

This i guess resolved in the first paragraph, PA is not stupid to send their guys lacking on sleep into battle. Plus in battle soldiers have to perform under extreme conditions, that what they are trained for.

Behind Armor effects (BAE) is a serious problem for tanks using hull based autoloader systems. There have been several cases where an Abrams took a penetration to the ammo compartment and the crew got out. Or the tank to a minor penetrating hit that did or did not wound the crew but did not set off the ammo since it was stored separately. Using a bustle storage system does increase the tanks side profile and thins out protection unless weight increases but overall it seems to be the way to go. if the crew is kept safe, then even if the tank is a total write off, you don't have to train another crew or lose that crews experience. Tanks are easier to replace than skilled crews.

This i agree, bustle type auto loader more suitable, which we might see in next version of Al Khalid

Back to the impending overload of the tank commander. One advantage in converting the Abrams to an autoloader is that it keeps the 4 man crew. This leaves the crew fully staffed for non-combat tasks and lets the former loader become an assistant to the commander. Able to monitor systems and communications letting the commander fight his tank more effectively since 2 sets of eyes, ears and brains are seeing the information that is coming in.

There is no news of an auto loader on Abrams, all major western tanks, Abrams, Leopard & Challenger have manual loaders, French Leclerc has auto loader.
The hunter-killer capability given to al khalid is due to this tank, the gunner can also find & engage targets, while the tank commander can do his other work or find other targets while the gunner takes out the first target.

Plus the main use of an auto-loader is the rate of fire, 10-12 rounds is a standard, which a human loader may not achieve, specially if the tank is moving at high speed on a tough terain. But an auto loader has no such issues, it can load the round, even at high speeds and the tank can fire. Try doing something delicate in ur car while on a rough road, u will see .

AL Khalid having hunter-killer capability needs a fast reloading system, reason being, while the gunner is engaging one target, the tank commander identifies the next one and he needs the gun loaded fast to engage it. If its moving on a rough terrain, which we do have a lot, the manual loader may not be able to load the gun in time, for which AK will have to slow down or come to a still making AK an easy target to shoot at by enemy tank.

Junk! The best sensor is still the Mk. I eyeball. its better at spotting missile launchers, helicopters popping over the top of buildings/hills, RPG teams popping out of a ditch etc. A manned turret on most tanks also offers the ability to engage infantry dismounts with suppressive fire even if the main gun and coax are not aimed at them via commanders/loaders machine guns.

Agreed, no need for this system for al khalid for the time being.

 

[zraver]

Well the article was just posted for information purposes, not my views. anyhow.



Well, i guess u might not know how armor units work,

I don't? Damn, guess I didn't learn anything in my years as a U.S. Army tanker. Hint- thats why I wear the military professionals tag here.

in a typical armor unit there are approx 48 tanks plus recovery vehicles, around 120 to 140 per brigade. Lets suppose there are 48 tanks in a typical armor unit, 48*3= 144 personnel deployed on the tanks, now a typical army unit consists of 700 to 900 or 1000 personnel. Lets take a lower figure of 700, 144 minus 700 gives a figure of 556, 556 guys are there to do aaaaalllllllllllllllllll of the tasks u said, when tanks go in battle the supporting troops are behind them to look after all the emergencies u mentioned. When the tank guys sleep, tank commander goes for a briefing, , they don't do these things in the middle of the battle field, rather at the lunching areas, forward Squadron or Company or Battalion HQs, where the whole unit is assembled and those 556 guys perform all the tasks that u mentioned & many other tasks too. So having a tank crew of 3 doesn't brings any extra work on them, what matters is how they perform i battle. PA knows what it is doing, its a professional army, combat experience has made them learn lessons, the Al-Zarrar before upgrade had 4 guys i guess, but after auto loader installed in its up gradation 3 guys left. I hope I have amicably satisfied your above mentioned concerns.

You could not be more off base if you turned 180 degrees from where you wanted go in the first place.

Those 48 or more tanks are divided into several companies which are dived into platoons. The entire battalion will normally have a frontage of several kilometers. However except for dedicated combined arms units like the Russian Motor Rifle regiment not all of a battalions tanks will be present. Some will be detailed off to mechanized infantry formations to create combined arms teams.

of the tanks that remain, platoon A cannot reliably count on people from platoon B to help. Even inside the platoon, help from another tank is unlikely because that crew has their own tasks to deal with. excepting of course task that require multiple crews like ramming the main gun. The only people there to do each tanks maintenance tasks is that tanks crew.

As for the tank commander going to briefing when the other guys sleep-when does the commander sleep then? There are only so many hours in a day. Crew takes care of the tank- Commander gets info, intel and orders and arranges for his crews needs.

The only reason to go to a 3 man crew is peace time cost. training 3 men per tank is cheaper than training 4. same goes for pay and other costs. This lets governments have more tanks for the same cost, or the same number of tanks they used to have for less cost. The 3 man crew is not a combat adaptation.

Battles of armor is not for long periods of time, battles starts, lot of action but then with passage of time tanks withdraw or take up the conquered position and start preparation for next assignments.

Again a clean miss. One of the biggest battles in recent memory was the battle of 73 Easting. While the guns were not fired in anger until 26 Feb. The battle effectively began on the 23 when VII moved out on a non-stop pace. The Iraqis began moving not long after that. By the time something like 8 divisions impacted on one another both sides had already been moving for days. Both sides suffered serious confusion in tryign to develop the battle and plans were ad hoc. The US/Uk had the advantage haivng practiced this type of mission before but it was not a case of pull plan X out of the folder and implement it.

More recently the US drive in to Iraq in 2003 saw sustained movement and combat for days at a time. The Us had to build in pauses to let its troops get rest and the equipment maintenance. But those were not nightly pauses, they were days apart and fighting or movement was constant.

In Pakistan's own history the Battle of Asal-Uttar was a 2 day fight not counting movement to the battlefield. battles are not nice neat little 15 minute affairs. While a crew may only see combat for 15 minutes they are not sleeping and resting unless they are in deep reserve. Even local reserves need to stay fully manned and ready to go to meet the commanders needs.

Plans are already devised and tank commanders know what to do, as for battle management system, its a graphical presentation of the battle area and tank commander & battle commanders have a picture of where the tanks are, so there is no issue in its mgt, as before going into a battle the tank commander knows where is his and where he has to go. Battle commanders are sitting in their mobile command posts carriers and direct the tanks from there. Plus our new tanks have the hunter-killer capability, meaning tank commander identifies the target, passes it on to the gunner and tank commander starts searching for a new target. The threat warning things are automatic, when they detect a threat they themselves take an appropriate action, whether it be a laser defensive module or APS, no need for the involvement of the tank crew.

Strike 3.

Battle management- the tank commander has to find targets for his tank, tell the driver what to do, tell the loader what to load, check to see if anther asset has added anything to the known enemy dispositions, report his own enemy contacts, record losses, monitor where artillery or air is about to be used, keep track of the pace of his own tank and the rest of the unit....

Hunter-Killer does not remove the commanders job in finding targets. With older tanks, the commander would see a target- call it out and slew the turret towards it until the gunner said he saw it. With only a single thermal system the commander only had the mk I eyeball. With 2 systems he can see farther, and with the aid of a computer can designate 1 target, and then beginning hunting for another. That way while he is hunting the gunner is killing hence hunter-killer and the fact that hunter-killer technology requires 2 sights that move independently of one another.

of course crews and commanders are going to fall back on training, but that doesn't change the fact that a 4 man crew is likely to be more rested than a 3 man crew.

This I guess resolved in the first paragraph, PA is not stupid to send their guys lacking on sleep into battle. Plus in battle soldiers have to perform under extreme conditions, that what they are trained for.

The PA will send tired troops into battle, war removes the luxury of a 9-5 shift. Both sides are going to be tired, dirty, hungry and scared sh*tless. The 4 man crew has an edge in this environment. More sleep= better performance.


There is no news of an auto loader on Abrams, all major western tanks, Abrams, Leopard & Challenger have manual loaders, French Leclerc has auto loader. [/quote]

M1A3 on the way? - Military Photos

The hunter-killer capability given to al khalid is due to this tank, the gunner can also find & engage targets, while the tank commander can do his other work or find other targets while the gunner takes out the first target.

see above

Plus the main use of an auto-loader is the rate of fire, 10-12 rounds is a standard, which a human loader may not achieve, specially if the tank is moving at high speed on a tough terain. But an auto loader has no such issues, it can load the round, even at high speeds and the tank can fire. Try doing something delicate in ur car while on a rough road, u will see .

if the ground is too rough for a human loader to laod, the gunner can't hit anyway. A lot of people think stab systems are magic that can deal with any rate of pitch/roll/yaw the tank experiences moving across terrain. It can't and never will be able to. The faster the tank goes, the more movement is magnified and the more the stab has to work. Add speed and rough terrain and accuracy goes out the window. Across your typical piece of earth if the gunner can hit the loader can load. In the Abrams there is a switch called EL-uncpouple (Elevation uncouple) that freezes the gun at zero elevation in relation to the hull while leaving the sights free to track. The loader reaches up and flips the switch, bumps the pressure plate with his knee grabs the specified round, loads it and flips the switch reengaging the main gun. A professional loader can do a round every six seconds, the average is a round every 8 to 10 seconds.

AL Khalid having hunter-killer capability needs a fast reloading system, reason being, while the gunner is engaging one target, the tank commander identifies the next one and he needs the gun loaded fast to engage it. If its moving on a rough terrain, which we do have a lot, the manual loader may not be able to load the gun in time, for which AK will have to slow down or come to a still making AK an easy target to shoot at by enemy tank.

swing and a miss

If a human loader could not load the gunner is not going to hit. The loader still has to find the designated target, make sure its the right one, laz it for the range, select the proper ammo 9say if he had just used HEAt and now needs APFSDS) wait on the commanders order and then fire. Modern auto loaders do not speed up these criticla processes.

 

[TaimiKhan]

I don't? Damn, guess I didn't learn anything in my years as a U.S. Army tanker. Hint- thats why I wear the military professionals tag here.



You could not be more off base if you turned 180 degrees from where you wanted go in the first place.

Those 48 or more tanks are divided into several companies which are dived into platoons. The entire battalion will normally have a frontage of several kilometers. However except for dedicated combined arms units like the Russian Motor Rifle regiment not all of a battalions tanks will be present. Some will be detailed off to mechanized infantry formations to create combined arms teams.

of the tanks that remain, platoon A cannot reliably count on people from platoon B to help. Even inside the platoon, help from another tank is unlikely because that crew has their own tasks to deal with. excepting of course task that require multiple crews like ramming the main gun. The only people there to do each tanks maintenance tasks is that tanks crew.

As for the tank commander going to briefing when the other guys sleep-when does the commander sleep then? There are only so many hours in a day. Crew takes care of the tank- Commander gets info, intel and orders and arranges for his crews needs.

The only reason to go to a 3 man crew is peace time cost. training 3 men per tank is cheaper than training 4. same goes for pay and other costs. This lets governments have more tanks for the same cost, or the same number of tanks they used to have for less cost. The 3 man crew is not a combat adaptation.




Again a clean miss. One of the biggest battles in recent memory was the battle of 73 Easting. While the guns were not fired in anger until 26 Feb. The battle effectively began on the 23 when VII moved out on a non-stop pace. The Iraqis began moving not long after that. By the time something like 8 divisions impacted on one another both sides had already been moving for days. Both sides suffered serious confusion in tryign to develop the battle and plans were ad hoc. The US/Uk had the advantage haivng practiced this type of mission before but it was not a case of pull plan X out of the folder and implement it.

More recently the US drive in to Iraq in 2003 saw sustained movement and combat for days at a time. The Us had to build in pauses to let its troops get rest and the equipment maintenance. But those were not nightly pauses, they were days apart and fighting or movement was constant.

In Pakistan's own history the Battle of Asal-Uttar was a 2 day fight not counting movement to the battlefield. battles are not nice neat little 15 minute affairs. While a crew may only see combat for 15 minutes they are not sleeping and resting unless they are in deep reserve. Even local reserves need to stay fully manned and ready to go to meet the commanders needs.




Strike 3.

Battle management- the tank commander has to find targets for his tank, tell the driver what to do, tell the loader what to load, check to see if anther asset has added anything to the known enemy dispositions, report his own enemy contacts, record losses, monitor where artillery or air is about to be used, keep track of the pace of his own tank and the rest of the unit....

Hunter-Killer does not remove the commanders job in finding targets. With older tanks, the commander would see a target- call it out and slew the turret towards it until the gunner said he saw it. With only a single thermal system the commander only had the mk I eyeball. With 2 systems he can see farther, and with the aid of a computer can designate 1 target, and then beginning hunting for another. That way while he is hunting the gunner is killing hence hunter-killer and the fact that hunter-killer technology requires 2 sights that move independently of one another.

of course crews and commanders are going to fall back on training, but that doesn't change the fact that a 4 man crew is likely to be more rested than a 3 man crew.



The PA will send tired troops into battle, war removes the luxury of a 9-5 shift. Both sides are going to be tired, dirty, hungry and scared sh*tless. The 4 man crew has an edge in this environment. More sleep= better performance.


There is no news of an auto loader on Abrams, all major western tanks, Abrams, Leopard & Challenger have manual loaders, French Leclerc has auto loader.

M1A3 on the way? - Military Photos

see above



if the ground is too rough for a human loader to laod, the gunner can't hit anyway. A lot of people think stab systems are magic that can deal with any rate of pitch/roll/yaw the tank experiences moving across terrain. It can't and never will be able to. The faster the tank goes, the more movement is magnified and the more the stab has to work. Add speed and rough terrain and accuracy goes out the window. Across your typical piece of earth if the gunner can hit the loader can load. In the Abrams there is a switch called EL-uncpouple (Elevation uncouple) that freezes the gun at zero elevation in relation to the hull while leaving the sights free to track. The loader reaches up and flips the switch, bumps the pressure plate with his knee grabs the specified round, loads it and flips the switch reengaging the main gun. A professional loader can do a round every six seconds, the average is a round every 8 to 10 seconds.



swing and a miss

If a human loader could not load the gunner is not going to hit. The loader still has to find the designated target, make sure its the right one, laz it for the range, select the proper ammo 9say if he had just used HEAt and now needs APFSDS) wait on the commanders order and then fire. Modern auto loaders do not speed up these criticla processes.

U win sir.

 

[Arsalan]

M1A3 on the way? - Military Photos





U win sir.

a nice way to end it once and for all!

however it was rally nice analysis by you! good inforamtive post friend, i agree with almost all of your points!
keep it up!

regards!

 

[TaimiKhan]

a nice way to end it once and for all!

however it was rally nice analysis by you! good inforamtive post friend, i agree with almost all of your points!
keep it up!

regards!

Thanks Bro, well what else could i have done ?? Zraver has been in the American military, i am talking in perspective to our requirements, what PA needs, he is bringing in the US military and its fighting concepts & requirements & wars things. I guess PA & US army doctrines of fighting are different, we get things to our needs. PA needed a 3 man tank, they got them, they are happy and are getting more & more of 3 man crews. U tell yourself do Armor Battles on our sides go non stop for days ??? A battles starts, but lasts sometime, then adversaries go to their rears, get rearmed, and other stuff and then come again face to face, its not that they are on the battle field 24 hrs facing each other and blazing their guns off. So many other things can be countered in his post, but no use as he is an american tank & doctrine expert, me looking at PA perspective.
He quoted Iraq wars, they had complete air superiority, they decimated the iraqi armor & its military, what do u expect from the iraqis then, american tanks kept rolling for miles, no one to counter them. Our battles are different then american ones.

 

[niaz]

While the discussion above has been most informative, I would like to point out the size and weight limitations. Al Khalid is a much smaller and lighter tank compared to European tanks. With all the gadgets required in the modern warfare, there may not be enough room left for the 4th man inside the tank cabin. Therefore autoloader may be a necessity rather than a luxury.

 

[TaimiKhan]

An excellent video showing how the Russian, Chinese & western bustle type auto loader in tanks work.

 

[zraver]

Thanks Bro, well what else could i have done ?? Zraver has been in the American military, i am talking in perspective to our requirements, what PA needs, he is bringing in the US military and its fighting concepts & requirements & wars things. I guess PA & US army doctrines of fighting are different, we get things to our needs. PA needed a 3 man tank, they got them, they are happy and are getting more & more of 3 man crews.

There are several reasons why Pakistan got a 3 man tank. However those reasons valid though they may be to Pakistans need, do not change the basic differences between a 4 man and 3 man crewed tank. 4 man v 3 man would be the same factors regardless of who since its a simple matter of what.

U tell yourself do Armor Battles on our sides go non stop for days ??? A battles starts, but lasts sometime, then adversaries go to their rears, get rearmed, and other stuff and then come again face to face, its not that they are on the battle field 24 hrs facing each other and blazing their guns off.

Best guesstimates on the Indian "Cold Start" say the plan is to send units into Pakistan to engage and defeat the Pakistan Army before it can fully mobilize and get in among the Pakistani people near the border so that the nuclear threshold is not breached. Say heaven forbid war breaks out and suddenly 1000 Indian tanks with other supporting assets are tryign to force their way into Pakistan. If India could and indeed did beat Pakistan to the mobilization punch you would have far fewer Pakistani assets tryign to defend your country. They have to do the work of a larger force or risk Pakistans defeat which means the work load goes up. Even if they are not sititgn guns blazing (I never implied that) they will be doing other things besides sleeping. Fueling-arming- pre-combat checks- moving to the border, moving to critical sectors in case they need to be committed to battle to strop a breech or launch a counter attack, maintenance, falling back to avoid encirclement, moving up to threaten flanks, moving under cover and/or at night to avoid Indian air or rocket artillery, rearming after battle, repairing after battle, more fueling and maintenance- the list can go on and on depending on the situation. battles are fluid and the actual fighting is but a tiny part of the complex dance of events going on. Have you ever seen those complex gear/pendulum driven grandfather clocks? They are like a battle. The visible second and minute hands are the actual fighting. However if you look behind the clock face there are wheels within wheels and thousands of teeth that must mesh of the who thing breaks down.

So many other things can be countered in his post, but no use as he is an american tank & doctrine expert, me looking at PA perspective.
He quoted Iraq wars, they had complete air superiority, they decimated the iraqi armor & its military, what do u expect from the iraqis then, american tanks kept rolling for miles, no one to counter them. Our battles are different then american ones.

1991 was 100 hours of ground combat, plus a couple of days of immediate pre-war movement. Not long as wars go, but almost non-stop. Go back to my note on "Cold Start". If India beats Pakistan to the punch, unless those Pakistani assets that do get into the fight can blunt the Indian attack, Pakistan will see Indian tanks rolling for miles. In fact best open source materials say the Indian's depend on beating the Pakistani border and quick reaction units in order to deliver a defeat and avoid a nuclear war.

Do you think those outnumbered Pakistani units trying to defend thier nation will be able to find much time for sleep?