Pakistan Army has 570 VT 4 on order and with TOT

[iLION12345_1]

Both ud and 90S have 1a45t Irtysh fcs. Asrf has done a decent upgrade on it lately. It was displayed in ideas 16.

Majority of IA 90s stil use 840hp v92$2 powerpack. UD uses 1000hp 6td
None of IAs 90s came standard with Catherine FC. Same with uds. Both had primitive Agava sights.
Theres no new or old k5 era. Both mbts feature it. 90M/MS features Relikt era but it's not with IA yet.

AFAIK Indian T90S use 1000 HP V92 engines. All versions of V92 produce 1000 HP or more. V92S and S2 included. V92S2F produces 1130 HP. 840HP was V-84MS engine in T72 and early T90A. You can tell them apart by the squared-off exhaust on the outside. Said 1000 HP V92S2 engines produce considerably more torque than the 6TD in the UD (which maxes out at 2400NM). Even the 6TD-2s torque maxes out at around 3250NM (4000 NM for V92S2 and 3300 NM for V84MS). T90S has much better forward mobility than the UD and Even the Al-Khalid, but is hampered in overall mobility, especially reverse, which we all know is laughable in T90 and T72, by a poor transmission.

Standard idle of 6TD in UD is around 800, but it does not produce enough torque to start driving the tank until nearly 1800 RPM, with peak torque around 2000 RPM. Meanwhile V92 makes more torque at 1000 RPM than 6TD-1 does at 2000. UD has nearly 313HP of drivetrain loss by the time the power gets to the tracks, the T64BM (also used 6TD-1) has 260~ HP loss because of lesser engine cooling and smaller radiator. V92 series is more unreliable than 6TD series imo.

There is most definitely old and New K5. New inserts were tested with K5 in Russian service to increase performance, I did state these were not in Indian service, T90S has a better armor and ERA layout than UD anyways, Not that it matters with ancient Indian APFSDS.

FCS is originally same on both tanks, but ASRF and HITs upgrades look to have been limited to localization and reliability, not performance, Indians have claimed performance upgrades to their FCS on T90S but I highly doubt that too.
You are right about the TIs, they were added to both tanks later, that was my bad, however some indian T90s had Catherine FCs as early as 2006. On UDs they came much later.

Indians have often claimed to have made upgrades to other parts of their T90S, some say new composites, some say upgraded ERA, some say IBMS, some say they even ordered CITV and FCS upgrades but not a single one has been confirmed to be applied apart from Thermal imagers, which even those have barely made it on to all of their MBTs, and now they are having issues installing ACs…

 

[iLION12345_1]

Here’s a fun statistic. Ukrainians did engine testing on 6TD1 and 2 with different fuel types. When they used a lower quality fuel, they got a total of 460 HP out of a 6TD1 at the tracks, and 687 HP from a 6TD-2.
Similarly the difference at 20 and 50 degrees for 6TD2 was a drop of around 50 HP at the tracks and around 150 HP for 6TD-1.

Keep in mind that the figures for 1000, 1200 etc HP are bench power figures, means they’re figures received directly from the engine when it is placed on a Dyno bench outside the tank. Once inside the tank, the 6TD1 makes around 800HP, add in cooling losses (150HP), transmission losses (70 HP) and other parasitic losses, these things are now making 580 HP at the tracks with mid-grade fuel. That’s how much Performance can vary.

And that’s why engine efficiency is such an important thing, even more so than actual engine output. The Al-Khalid originally used 6TD-2, which was already a major step up in efficiency from 6TD-1, but later AKs used 6TD-2E, which while on paper has the same power and torque output, is more efficient than the older one. And hence in field conditions will have higher power output than 6TD-2.

 

[alimobin memon]

Every number in this paragraph is inaccurate. Sorry.


AORAK MK2 does not exist. It is just AORAK.
Protection numbers of AK are not known, with or without ERA, nor are those of VT4 apart from some hints from Thai trials which were conducted with FYII and not FYIV.
VT4 is better protected from basically every angle than AK. AORAK is comparable to Kontakt-5 in its older models. Newer K5 (K-5 with newer inserts) is better than AORAK. But PA and IA only use older K5 on its T80UD/90S. VT4 uses FYIV which is considerably superior to both. AK will eventually use FYIV too.

Protection of AK and AK-1 is 100% identical.

No need to say sorry. We are in mature discussion, I am sorry for stating wrong figures.

 

[alimobin memon]

Both ud and 90S have 1a45t Irtysh fcs. Asrf has done a decent upgrade on it lately. It was displayed in ideas 16.

Majority of IA 90s stil use 840hp v92$2 powerpack. UD uses 1000hp 6td
None of IAs 90s came standard with Catherine FC. Same with uds. Both had primitive Agava sights.
Theres no new or old k5 era. Both mbts feature it. 90M/MS features Relikt era but it's not with IA yet.


950mm for vt4 with fy4 era at turret front. 840mm for AK1 at turret front with fy4. Big difference.

Bt4 and sejjeel apfsds reach 650mm with ease at 2000m. Both can be fired by all 125mm guns in PA.

Rest in peace IA armor.

That is equivalent to almost leopard 2A5. that means only weakness is side armour in PAK tanks.

 

[iLION12345_1]

That is equivalent to almost leopard 2A5. that means only weakness is side armour in PAK tanks.

Will also be remedied with APS and new ERA setup in VT4. Keep in mind adding ERA or add-on armor to the sides is not difficult. It’s just not done in peacetime, in wartime it would be one of the first field modifications to happen to any PA tank.

No need to say sorry. We are in mature discussion, I am sorry for stating wrong figures.

During Thai trials, VT4s turret and Hull were both rated at 800+MM with FY-II ERA against BTA-4 AFPSDS. FY-IV reduces the penetration of large caliber APFSDS by over 30%. So this figure would easily go into the 900s as dazzler stated above.

However all these numbers are very incomplete and rather meaningless at the end of the day because many testing parameters are missing. Many ammo penetration numbers are still quoted as being tested against Rolled Homogenous Armor (a type of steel armor used in older tanks), which is not really useful in the modern day because tanks use completely different armor arrays now with several layers of composites and steels. Also Western testing parameters for armor and ammo are much different than Soviet or Chinese ones. So the same tank with the same ammo can have different armor and penetration in numbers if tested by a different country.

By saying that a tank has “900MM of effective armor” we are just giving an extremely rough guess as to how good the protection is.

 

[KaiserX]

Here’s a fun statistic. Ukrainians did engine testing on 6TD1 and 2 with different fuel types. When they used a lower quality fuel, they got a total of 460 HP out of a 6TD1 at the tracks, and 687 HP from a 6TD-2.
Similarly the difference at 20 and 50 degrees for 6TD2 was a drop of around 50 HP at the tracks and around 150 HP for 6TD-1.

Keep in mind that the figures for 1000, 1200 etc HP are bench power figures, means they’re figures received directly from the engine when it is placed on a Dyno bench outside the tank. Once inside the tank, the 6TD1 makes around 800HP, add in cooling losses (150HP), transmission losses (70 HP) and other parasitic losses, these things are now making 580 HP at the tracks with mid-grade fuel. That’s how much Performance can vary.

And that’s why engine efficiency is such an important thing, even more so than actual engine output. The Al-Khalid originally used 6TD-2, which was already a major step up in efficiency from 6TD-1, but later AKs used 6TD-2E, which while on paper has the same power and torque output, is more efficient than the older one. And hence in field conditions will have higher power output than 6TD-2.

No reason to argue with this fool. Ukrainian/Russian T80 series including T84 is capable of speeds upto 15-20 km per hour in reverse speed which matches the reverse speed of most western tanks. Even the T72 series including the upgrade T90 dont have reverse speeds beyond 5km and is one if the major weaknesses recognized in the ukraine war.

In offensive defensive operation this makes a big difference as the T-84 can reverse quickly and at long ranges it would be significantly more difficult to target and hit. Compare this with the T72/T90s which have to turn their whole tanks around to evade hits leaving them in vulnerable positions from the side/back which are the least armoured and allowing the enemy more surface area to target at the same time.

There is a reason the Russian First Tank Briagde which is elite armoured unit and tip of their armoured speer all consist of T80s and they themselves have not produced more than 250 T90 instead preffering to upgrade older T72s to match the same standard.

Ukrainian T80s are even more deadly than Russian T80s because the electronics (laser range finder, thermals, jammers) have proven to be atleast a generation ahead of the Russians. The Ukrainians barely lost a dozen T80s yet have taken out hundreds of russian tanks in duels…

 

[alimobin memon]

Will also be remedied with APS and new ERA setup in VT4. Keep in mind adding ERA or add-on armor to the sides is not difficult. It’s just not done in peacetime, in wartime it would be one of the first field modifications to happen to any PA tank.


During Thai trials, VT4s turret and Hull were both rated at 800+MM with FY-II ERA against BTA-4 AFPSDS. FY-IV reduces the penetration of large caliber APFSDS by over 30%. So this figure would easily go into the 900s as dazzler stated above.

That is why m1A3 and kf21 like tanks are coming in market that means Asian tanks have reached 3rd generation peak western tanks in many forms. I know one friend who told me t80UD packs serious punch against m1a2 in many scenarios.

No reason to argue with this fool. Ukrainian/Russian T80 series including T84 is capable of speeds upto 15-20 km per hour in reverse speed which matches the reverse speed of most western tanks. Even the T72 series including the upgrade T90 dont have reverse speeds beyond 5km and is one if the major weaknesses recognized in the ukraine war.

In offensive defensive operation this makes a big difference as the T-84 can reverse quickly and at long ranges it would be significantly more difficult to target and hit. Compare this with the T72/T90s which have to turn their whole tanks around to evade hits leaving them in vulnerable positions from the side/back which are the least armoured and allowing the enemy more surface area to target at the same time.

There is a reason the Russian First Tank Briagde which is elite armoured unit and tip of their armoured speer all consist of T80s and they themselves have not produced more than 250 T90 instead preffering to upgrade older T72s to match the same standard.

Ukrainian T80s are even more deadly than Russian T80s because the electronics (laser range finder, thermals, jammers) have proven to be atleast a generation ahead of the Russians. The Ukrainians barely lost a dozen T80s yet have taken out hundreds of russian tanks in duels…

ukraine war is example why reverse speed for tanks is important. Agreed dear member.

Will also be remedied with APS and new ERA setup in VT4. Keep in mind adding ERA or add-on armor to the sides is not difficult. It’s just not done in peacetime, in wartime it would be one of the first field modifications to happen to any PA tank.


During Thai trials, VT4s turret and Hull were both rated at 800+MM with FY-II ERA against BTA-4 AFPSDS. FY-IV reduces the penetration of large caliber APFSDS by over 30%. So this figure would easily go into the 900s as dazzler stated above.

However all these numbers are very incomplete and rather meaningless at the end of the day because many testing parameters are missing. Many ammo penetration numbers are still quoted as being tested against Rolled Homogenous Armor (a type of steel armor used in older tanks), which is not really useful in the modern day because tanks use completely different armor arrays now with several layers of composites and steels. Also Western testing parameters for armor and ammo are much different than Soviet or Chinese ones. So the same tank with the same ammo can have different armor and penetration in numbers if tested by a different country.

By saying that a tank has “900MM of effective armor” we are just giving an extremely rough guess as to how good the protection is.

But isn't it stated that the armour is equivalent to xxmm of RHA so equivalency is checked here. So, it could be 300mm of some material or composite that is equivalent to 700 mm of RHAe. So I dont think there is much difference only some marginal error like +- 50mm.

 

[iLION12345_1]

No reason to argue with this fool. Ukrainian/Russian T80 series including T84 is capable of speeds upto 15-20 km per hour in reverse speed which matches the reverse speed of most western tanks. Even the T72 series including the upgrade T90 dont have reverse speeds beyond 5km and is one if the major weaknesses recognized in the ukraine war.

In offensive defensive operation this makes a big difference as the T-84 can reverse quickly and at long ranges it would be significantly more difficult to target and hit. Compare this with the T72/T90s which have to turn their whole tanks around to evade hits leaving them in vulnerable positions from the side/back which are the least armoured and allowing the enemy more surface area to target at the same time.

There is a reason the Russian First Tank Briagde which is elite armoured unit and tip of their armoured speer all consist of T80s and they themselves have not produced more than 250 T90 instead preffering to upgrade older T72s to match the same standard.

Ukrainian T80s are even more deadly than Russian T80s because the electronics (laser range finder, thermals, jammers) have proven to be atleast a generation ahead of the Russians. The Ukrainians barely lost a dozen T80s yet have taken out hundreds of russian tanks in duels…

I am not arguing with anyone brother, was just giving some interesting numbers.

T84 and T80UD can reverse at 32 KM/h, which is governed by its transmission, Al Khalid can reach the same speed in reverse as it shares a transmission with the T80 series. This has actually been displayed in testing by both Ukraine and the PA. These transmissions have four reverse gears, which are basically achieved by converting the 2-4th forward gears into reverse gears, hence the high reverse speeds. Even the VT4 can only reverse at 20KM/h as it has two reverse gears, but the Transmission in the VT4 is infinitely simpler and more reliable than the T80/AK ones as a result.

The T90 and T72 meanwhile have a single reverse gear, hence the abysmal reverse speed, the T90 does however have a better forward mobility than the Al-Khalid and the T80/T84 due to its significantly higher torque output at much lower RPMs.

I won’t get into the rest, but Ukraine has barely used any tanks, because they barely have any tanks. Tank on tank duels are rare and usually inconclusive, most Russian losses are to Infantry and lack of fuel/mobility kills with IEDs. Ukraine does not have better tanks than Russia, nor are Modern Ukrainian tanks anywhere near the capabilities of modern Russian tanks. Russia just has really bad logistics and tactics and no idea on how to use its tanks, meanwhile Ukraine has some of the best ATGMs and infantry borne AT weapons in the world right now due to NATO supplies.

Also, Russian T80Us do not use the same engines and transmissions as Ukrainian ones, they use turbine engines which are significantly more powerful (and significantly more fuel hungry) than the Ukrainian diesels. The Russian T80Us are some of the fastest tanks on the planet because of their low weight and high power output. As long as you can ignore the short range and bad reliability.

 

[iLION12345_1]

That is why m1A3 and kf21 like tanks are coming in market that means Asian tanks have reached 3rd generation peak western tanks in many forms. I know one friend who told me t80UD packs serious punch against m1a2 in many scenarios.


ukraine war is example why reverse speed for tanks is important. Agreed dear member.


But isn't it stated that the armour is equivalent to xxmm of RHA so equivalency is checked here. So, it could be 300mm of some material or composite that is equivalent to 700 mm of RHAe. So I dont think there is much difference only some marginal error like +- 50mm.

“Equivalent to RHA” is outdated, since RHA is not the standard for tank armor anymore.

Even if we know that said material has armor equivalent to “700MM of RHA”. It doesn’t really tell us how the armor will fare against modern ammo, who’s penetration figures might have been tested on different materials, and again, western penetration tests require a different amount of % of the penetrator to pierce a different amount of depth into the armor to consider it a penetration, while these factors are different for Chinese and Russian armor and ammo.

As another example. Western ammo is tested usually at 0 degrees (460/0, 550/0) China does all its testing with 220MM of penetration as a standard, but at different angles (220/60, 220/61.5, 220/64 etc), while Russia uses different ranges (sometimes 1200M, sometimes 1800, sometimes 2000). So one tank with “700MM” of armor against an ammunition that can penetrate “650 MM of armor” might be entirely different from another tank from another country that has exactly these same numbers, just because they were tested under different scenarios.

What I mean to say is, you cannot compare ammunition and armor across countries 1:1, so always take these numbers as very rough estimates.

 

[alimobin memon]

“Equivalent to RHA” is outdated, since RHA is not the standard for tank armor anymore.

Even if we know that said material has armor equivalent to “700MM of RHA”. It doesn’t really tell us how the armor will fare against modern ammo, who’s penetration figures might have been tested on different materials, and again, western penetration tests require a different amount of % of the penetrator to pierce a different amount of depth into the armor to consider it a penetration, while these factors are different for Chinese and Russian armor and ammo.

As another example. Western ammo is tested usually at 0 degrees (460/0, 550/0) China does all its testing with 220MM of penetration as a standard, but at different angles (220/60, 220/61.5, 220/64 etc), while Russia uses different ranges (sometimes 1200M, sometimes 1800, sometimes 2000). So one tank with “700MM” of armor against an ammunition that can penetrate “650 MM of armor” might be entirely different from another tank from another country that has exactly these same numbers, just because they were tested under different scenarios.

What I mean to say is, you cannot compare ammunition and armor across countries 1:1, so always take these numbers as very rough estimates.

That bolded part is obvious. but at 1KM I think AK, T80UD's, VT4 will perform well against western counter part. Just my opinion and can withstand western rounds at 1KM as 0degree angle of impact of round is rarely done its always +/-. Even if that happens not many rounds can easily achieve 800+ mm except ATGMs. The point is not that we can fare with west it just means we have good tanks, Alhamdulillah.

 

[PanzerKiel]

For the moment, lets see which projectile wins the race....460 mm vs 650 mm or even 720 mm...serious development in hand.

 

[AlKardai]

As were the plains of Ukraine...

The more open the terrain, the more exposed tanks will be and easier targets for drones and other air assets.

Do you have any idea how combined arms warfare works?

Sure, drones are very dangerous to tanks, but the entire doctrine of tanks in the modern day is to perform armoured thrusts WITH air support and AA. No drone should be able to hit a tank in the ideal battlefield and if there were competent tacticians involved

 

[Trango Towers]

The plains of Punjab and Sindh are ideal battlegrounds for tanks and any armoured thrust would capture huge swathes of territory and possibly cut off supply lines.
And inundating every thread with your political bs is not a good idea.

Drones are cheap versatile agile and fast. Any armoured threat is best neutralised using drones rather tan tank vs tank. Ukraine and Armenia has proved this concept to be the best. Why are we still stuck k Toyota corolla being the best car mentality even here?

 

[AlKardai]

Drones are cheap versatile agile and fast. Any armoured threat is best neutralised using drones rather tan tank vs tank.

That's exactly why large-scale AA is always paired with tank columns

 

[Trango Towers]

That's exactly why large-scale AA is always paired with tank columns

And Ukraine and Armenia wars?? Tanks got decimated. U think their planner never thought of that? Its also down to availability and range.