T-80 and T-85 MBTs of Pakistan along with Al Khalid and Al Zarrar

[Zarvan]

salam to everyone I want to start discussion on that Pakistan has two other MBT other than Al Khalid and Al Zarrar and those tanks are T-85 IIAP 300 off these tanks are in service and T-80UD which were brought by Ukraine and were upgraded with turret off T-84 and we have 320 off these Tanks so would like to know about what kind off these tanks are for how long we would keep them and their comparison with tanks off our beloved neighbor India


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80UD#Ukrainian_T-80UD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_88_tank_(China)
@ANTIBODY @nuclearpak @Aeronaut @WebMaster @desertfighter and others

 

[Manticore]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-warfare/106975-tank-designs-18.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-army/22400-pa-tanks-comparison-contempory-tanks-39.html

 

[Inception-06]

salam to everyone I want to start discussion on that Pakistan has two other MBT other than Al Khalid and Al Zarrar and those tanks are T-85 IIAP 300 off these tanks are in service and T-80UD which were brought by Ukraine and were upgraded with turret off T-84 and we have 320 off these Tanks so would like to know about what kind off these tanks are for how long we would keep them and their comparison with tanks off our beloved neighbor India


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80UD#Ukrainian_T-80UD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_88_tank_(China)
@ANTIBODY @nuclearpak @Aeronaut @WebMaster @desertfighter and others

I did hear that the T-85IIMP had many Problems with the engine and chain drive, maybe they did finde a solution for it, I dont know. Last time I did see this tank in Media was on Saudi-Pak exercise

http://www.****************/pictures/data/4761/pakistan-saudi-army-06-04.jpg

 

[Mitro]

@Zarvan why you are worried about these tank capacity believe me they are enough to destroy and kill TTP Rats

 

[razgriz19]

As far as I know, and i think i've seen in videos too, that type 85s are being used in WoT.

T-80UD are specially for eastern border along with Al-khalid.

 

[farhan_9909]

of them only t-80ud and al khalid are 3rd generation.

though i dont undertstand why they upgraded t-55 to al khalid standard with all the modern equipments,era and new engines but ignored the type 85III..when in true sense the type 85III upgraded with catherine thermal imagers,Aorak mk2 era and a better gun.

would had been alot better than upgrading the t-55

 

[airmarshal]

What are the chances of survival against mine or anti-tank weapons that India has? Russian tanks are not famous for their anti-tank protection and most of these tanks are either inspired or copied Russian designs.

 

[RAMPAGE]

of them only t-80ud and al khalid are 3rd generation.

though i dont undertstand why they upgraded t-55 to al khalid standard with all the modern equipments,era and new engines but ignored the type 85III..when in true sense the type 85III upgraded with catherine thermal imagers,Aorak mk2 era and a better gun.

would had been alot better than upgrading the t-55

the guy has a point!can any professional answer this ???

 

[Umair Nawaz]

of them only t-80ud and al khalid are 3rd generation.

though i dont undertstand why they upgraded t-55 to al khalid standard with all the modern equipments,era and new engines but ignored the type 85III..when in true sense the type 85III upgraded with catherine thermal imagers,Aorak mk2 era and a better gun.

would had been alot better than upgrading the t-55

Stupid its t59s who r modernized to Al Zarrar standards. and we offer updates of t54/55 tanks to Al Zarrar standard.

 

[alimobin memon]

Type 85 II AP is in service with Pakistan Army Which were later Upgraded to III standard after the problems were resolved. The Type 85 Can defeat the Actual armour of T72 of Russian origin So does the T72 can defeat easily the Type 85 Armour. But Their is no actual proof if both if equipped with era can fight Each other and penetrate.
Dont get fooled that Type 85 is not a good tank it is a medium role tank with Medium tech and armour. We bought it later thats why in less numbers. Al khalid came into development or in papers by then and T80UD were later purchased Which were an heavy role tanks. by heavy role I mean the Technology and protection. It can Defeat any tank of india except T90 and Arjun. So it has an important position.

 

[alimobin memon]

the guy has a point!can any professional answer this ???

All Type 85 IIAP are now III standard with Night Fighting capability. to whom it may concern It's main gun with Heat can defeat 600 mm of Armour at 1.9 km Effective. Ask any armour official. It is better than M1 abrams "original with Rifled gun, not M1A1 or A2" back in 88. The Type 85 was chosed because Pakistan army was "not impressed with original M1 abrams tank". and unconditional that day Zia-ul-haq was there to see M1 abrams in desert terrain. He wasnt impressed and IIAP provide more firepower and Performance. 600mm is good punch against any modern tank. It is an chinese punch as russia's t72. Dont get fool that t72 aint good. Leave the shitty iraqi one it wasnt the russian but custom build. However in present the Armour protection of Type 85 isn't good and did not much provided the Protection. Al zarrar is good tank with modern avionics and all but it is less or equal to 85 III standard in terms of penetration power. Al zarrar is just a Suite giving old tanks some more chance to live in the world of armed forces.

The reason Type 85 did not come in a mass production was that Chinese in no time came with better and new ideas known as type 90 series That is now evolved in Type 90II, Alkhalid,VT1A, 96 and all .

So in simple words it aint a bad tank but I would put it in the range b/w 2.5 - 3rd generation of tanks.

 

[Keshav Murali]

to whom it may concern It's main gun with Heat can defeat 600 mm of Armour at 1.9 km Effective. Ask any armour official. It is better than M1 abrams "original with Rifled gun, not M1A1 or A2" back in 88. The Type 85 was chosed because Pakistan army was "not impressed with original M1 abrams tank".

When did this trial take place? Before or after 1986? Because if it was after, US was messing around with you. M1A1IP versions were ready in 1985 and mass production started in 1986.

Of course export versions of M1 were highly degraded, they might not have offered M256 gun and instead shown old ROF L7 with old 70's ammunition. Even today, M1A2 versions sold to other countries have LOS thickness 150-200 mm less armour and extremely downgraded ammunition. M829A3 of US army penetrates 850 mm at 2 km. KEW-A2 which is offered for export can penetrate only 660 mm at 2 km. You can see the difference.

Also even if 600 mm penetration is achieved by HEAT round of Type 85, performance against composites will be poor, penetration will be only 60-70% of normal against composites.

Example is Abrams M1A1HA hull front which has 800-850 mm LOS thickness of DU+composites array (might be more vs KE and CE, DU armour supposed to add much more) could not be penetrated by mighty AGM-114 Hellfire in friendly fire incident. (Hellfire can penetrate 1200 mm of armour)

 

[alimobin memon]

When did this trial take place? Before or after 1986? Because if it was after, US was messing around with you. M1A1IP versions were ready in 1985 and mass production started in 1986.

Of course export versions of M1 were highly degraded, they might not have offered M256 gun and instead shown old ROF L7 with old 70's ammunition. Even today, M1A2 versions sold to other countries have LOS thickness 150-200 mm less armour and extremely downgraded ammunition. M829A3 of US army penetrates 850 mm at 2 km. KEW-A2 which is offered for export can penetrate only 660 mm at 2 km. You can see the difference.

Also even if 600 mm penetration is achieved by HEAT round of Type 85, performance against composites will be poor, penetration will be only 60-70% of normal against composites.

Example is Abrams M1A1HA hull front which has 800-850 mm LOS thickness of DU+composites array (might be more vs KE and CE, DU armour supposed to add much more) could not be penetrated by mighty AGM-114 Hellfire in friendly fire incident. (Hellfire can penetrate 1200 mm of armour)

Everyone knows and u are not the only one smart here who knows US is messing around. This is not called messing around its called Sharing of weapons that are no more threats to themselves. U gave urself the answer that at that time What we were offered the Type 85 IIAP was the best for our terrain.

in saudi deserts the m1 performed very poor . Saudi also refused but later when m1A1 was offered than it bought it.

FYI the M1A1 armour protection was in the range of 600 to 650 at that time for front side.

There are few incidence when RPG 7 Penetrated the Abrams armour. RPG 7 version was not a tandem but a simple variant.

For any round or missile like Hellfire to show its true penetrating power it has to hit the target at 0 degree incidence!

 

[Keshav Murali]

Everyone knows and u are not the only one smart here who knows US is messing around. This is not called messing around its called Sharing of weapons that are no more threats to themselves. U gave urself the answer that at that time What we were offered the Type 85 IIAP was the best for our terrain.

Type 85-IIAP was best choice then. I agree completely.

in saudi deserts the m1 performed very poor . Saudi also refused but later when m1A1 was offered than it bought it.

FYI the M1A1 armour protection was in the range of 600 to 650 at that time for front side.

Only performance of engine was poor. After tropicalization of engine took place, Saudis were satisfied.

Disagree for armour rating since I know better.

FYI M1A1 initial variant had 550-600 mm Line of Sight thickness. In reality it was around 650-700 vs KE and 1000-1100 vs CE. LOS and real effectiveness are two different things. M1A1HA TUSK had 750-800 mm LOS thickness. In reality 900 mm+ vs KE, 1300+ vs CE. M1A2SEP values are even more.

There are few incidence when RPG 7 Penetrated the Abrams armour. RPG 7 version was not a tandem but a simple variant.

For any round or missile like Hellfire to show its true penetrating power it has to hit the target at 0 degree incidence!

RPG-7 penetrated weak rear armour and turret rear. Not frontal. RPG-29 managed to blow off the tracks. Till now, only IED has been 100% effective and US recognized that and 200 mm of belly armour has been added to the initial 50 mm. And ERA is being added as part of TUSK.

As for Hellfire, there is no need for it to hit at 0 degree for FULL effectiveness since effective construction allows it to be atleast 80% effective even if impact angle is more than 60 degrees.

You seem to be better informed than your companions on this forum. I like the way you debate

 

[alimobin memon]

Type 85-IIAP was best choice then. I agree completely.



Only performance of engine was poor. After tropicalization of engine took place, Saudis were satisfied.

Disagree for armour rating since I know better.

FYI M1A1 initial variant had 550-600 mm Line of Sight thickness. In reality it was around 650-700 vs KE and 1000-1100 vs CE. LOS and real effectiveness are two different things. M1A1HA TUSK had 750-800 mm LOS thickness. In reality 900 mm+ vs KE, 1300+ vs CE. M1A2SEP values are even more.



RPG-7 penetrated weak rear armour and turret rear. Not frontal. RPG-29 managed to blow off the tracks. Till now, only IED has been 100% effective and US recognized that and 200 mm of belly armour has been added to the initial 50 mm. And ERA is being added as part of TUSK.

As for Hellfire, there is no need for it to hit at 0 degree for FULL effectiveness since effective construction allows it to be atleast 80% effective even if impact angle is more than 60 degrees.

You seem to be better informed than your companions on this forum. I like the way you debate

Thanks for the compliment you too are good thats why I am discussing with u. At the time Type 85 IIAp was ordered by pak only initial variant were in US army . my figures are approx that it had around 600-650 which is equivalent to what you provided. and for hell fire to be around 80% effective means 960 mm so that means the angle does effect.

Furthermore it is rare that tanks fight face to face so even for today M1a2 has around 600 mm in its weak parts that is sides or hull against an KE and reality almost all tank to tank battles the tanks now use KE or DU rounds to fight so of course The M1a2 isn't as good as it is taken in reality that it is invincible. what m1a2 makes more powerful is that its main gun power and Range that it first fires then the most modern tanks I believe it has defeated an Armour at the range of over 7 km with Target designator. but in Urban areas the tank engagement is around the radius of 2 km max even that is rare. according to the Iraq war studies it was found the t 72 lion of Babylon had the first hits in face to face fight due to urban areas but the poor iraqi variant did not had enough power as any t72 of Russian and soviet era. My point is simple The Type 85IIAP can defeat M1A2 sep in urban areas at the range of 2 km but with one condition that is the abrams side armour is towards the gun sight of Type85IIAP at the range of atleast 1.8km which is good for urban areas. t72 of today can even at greater range fight abrams as t72 is improved at the marvellous range. What the Type 85IIAp lacks is its self protection that it wont survive abrams even at ranges beyond 3km . So its chance of fighting and survivability is only in urban areas.

Abrams in reality hasn't seen the war against any capable tank but has only fought t60 series of soviet era and t72 assembled in iraq with poor quality just 300mm of front armour and 60 mm of side armour that is just suicide for tank crews.