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

[DESERT FIGHTER]

First as keshav said,provide any data that it is even related to knife/duplet?Coz ukrainians deny it.
duplet ERA placement looks completely different in t-84 than the al khalid ERA.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I provided him even the stills from the Aorak ERA testing video... as for placement... ur a gem...

The forum where kunal biswas,militarysta,damian,lidsky gave good info,drawings and pics.Rest may be trolls.Ur a member ther man.



Generic statements.Then why are the niaza rounds not superior in penetration to the DRDO tungsten rounds or russian apfsds rounds.Tungsten works well on composite armour.You made those assumption on steel armour only.

You win buddy... even after replying you about the same thing a billion times...

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I provided him even the stills from the Aorak ERA testing video... as for placement... ur a gem...




You win buddy... even after replying you about the same thing a billion times...

U provided stills from AORAK video,ok.But how does that make it Knife/duplet?See OPLOT ERA its nowhere similar to khalid.

 

[alimobin memon]

U provided stills from AORAK video,ok.But how does that make it Knife/duplet?See OPLOT ERA its nowhere similar to khalid.

There are DIfferent Ways to Add an Era From different angle to different. Correct me If I am wrong ?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

U still haven't made that claim of AK turret armour better than t-84 in any forum.Its simple,why aren't u doing it.Ok u don't like IDF.How about atnknet,whats ur problem there?

There are DIfferent Ways to Add an Era From different angle to different. Correct me If I am wrong ?

Placement principle is the key behind performance of Duplet/knife.
Also there is a best angular placement for evry ERA and usually placed at that angle.Like blazer,kontakt-1,kontakt -5 u can recognize at one look.

 

[alimobin memon]

Tank net:

Przezdzieblo says,
"
You need a space that allow sandwich (or flyer) plates to bulge (or move), you need also a room where HEAT jet and penetrator fragments can spread and would not be channeled into deeper parts of armour array. The clue is to have armour module volume as high as it is possible (of course with common sense and ergonomic issues in mind) while maintaining it`s weight at the lowest level, and "pure" space with air inside is probably the best here. "

TTK Ciar says,

" non-reactive armor with spaced components, the airgap is necessary for the creation of stresses in the penetrator.

For instance, in a steel/airgap/steel spaced armor array: While penetrating the first steel layer, a long-rod penetrator will compress and shorten. Passing through the airgap allows it to lengthen again. It will compress and shorten again when penetrating the second steel layer. This compress-stretch-compress action creates tensile and compressive strain in the penetrator body, either breaking it, or weakening it and rendering it less effective at penetrating deeper layers of armor.

In an aluminum whipple shield: Dozens or hundreds of aluminum/air/aluminum transitions cause rapid compressive and tensile loading in the nose of the penetrator, resulting in the destruction of some frontal length. This is similar to other "unsteady hypervelocity interactions" (such as a penetrator passing through a ceramic-filled metal matrix composite).

In an edge-effect component: Part of the penetrator's front interacts with armor, while the other part does not (passes through an airgap). Imagine a baseball clipping the top of a fence. Because the lower half of the baseball meets resistance and the upper half does not, the baseball deflects and takes on spin. Similarly, the penetrator will experience shearing forces at the airgap/armor boundry, and flexural forces in its length, inducing yaw and possibly bending or breaking it.

If the airgaps were filled with armor material, then the disparity of forces acting on the penetrator would be less acute, and the effects would be diminished or lost.
"

So My Lovely People If Ak has Air gaped armour It is indeed good. Plus AK armour is bolted means a new armour can be bolted and older is removed that is indeed a good thing as I mentioned before it has Modular composite armor.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Something i got in respect to t-84 oplot armour.It says the t-84 oplot/t-90 russian design principle has superior turret geometry than chinese tanks like type-99/khalid.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

First one is t-90,second t-84 oplot.Design philosophy russian.This is the base composite armour.Over which ERA would be placed.
What i got-
''T-90A/S and T-84M Oplot turrets, the same principle of hiding the weak side turret armor, behind strong frontal armor, within vehicle frontal 60-70 degrees arc.

As a comparision, western tanks have thick side turret armor to achieve desired protection levels within their frontal arc.''



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Chinese design principle.
Red circles apparently indicate weakest armour spots.
Chinese design philosophy doesn't properly hide side armour behind frontal armour and corners are exposed.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The higher image clearly shows that edges and turret side are vulnerable from front slant shots,because they are not covered or hidden behind frontal armour arc as in russian design philospohy nor have extensive side armour like western MBts.

Lower right image-Red area is the one with base composite armour on chinese mbt and black colour base composite armour on russian design.Shows that despite bigger turret,chinese design philosophy offers lesser composite armour on frontal arc base armour.Base frontal composite armour in rusian design is thicker and guards the rear and turret sides well.
Now both sides add modular composite array[for chinese] and Heavy ERA ARC [for russian] over base armour.

This helped me a lot.

 

[alimobin memon]

Something i got in respect to t-84 oplot armour.It says the t-84 oplot/t-90 russian design principle has superior turret geometry than chinese tanks like type-99/khalid.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

First one is t-90,second t-84 oplot.Design philosophy russian.This is the base composite armour.Over which ERA would be placed.
What i got-
''T-90A/S and T-84M Oplot turrets, the same principle of hiding the weak side turret armor, behind strong frontal armor, within vehicle frontal 60-70 degrees arc.

As a comparision, western tanks have thick side turret armor to achieve desired protection levels within their frontal arc.''



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Chinese design principle.
Red circles apparently indicate weakest armour spots.
Chinese design philosophy doesn't properly hide side armour behind frontal armour and corners are exposed.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
The higher image clearly shows that edges and turret side are vulnerable from front slant shots,because they are not covered or hidden behind frontal armour arc as in russian design philospohy nor have extensive side armour like western MBts.

Lower right image-Red area is the one with base composite armour on chinese mbt and black colour base composite armour on russian design.Shows that despite bigger turret,chinese design philosophy offers lesser composite armour on frontal arc base armour.Base frontal composite armour in rusian design is thicker and guards the rear and turret sides well.
Now both sides add modular composite array[for chinese] and Heavy ERA ARC [for russian] over base armour.

This helped me a lot.

It is indeed a good point However It also says may have weaker armor. As it cant be decide or estimate How weaker is it ? But I agree that T90 has better turret design. Thanks for posting a really informative Theory.

 

[DARKY]

There are DIfferent Ways to Add an Era From different angle to different. Correct me If I am wrong ?

Why don't you people read some text and pdf on ERA and its categorisation.

Whatever ERA you use on Al Khalid Aorak1/2 are 1st gen ERA one is thin other is supposed to be heavy K-1 class.... no where close to 2nd gen K-5... and Nozh/Knife/duplet/triplet is 3rd gen along with Relikit and Kaktus[special armor it can be said above triplet/Relikit].

 

[alimobin memon]

Why don't you people read some text and pdf on ERA and its categorisation.

Whatever ERA you use on Al Khalid Aorak1/2 are 1st gen ERA one is thin other is supposed to be heavy K-1 class.... no where close to 2nd gen K-5... and Nozh/Knife/duplet/triplet is 3rd gen along with Relikit and Kaktus[special armor it can be said above triplet/Relikit].

You just went Full retard ! Never Go Full retard... We have 0 generation ERA and you have 10th Generation ERA Got it Now sleep ...

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Why don't you people read some text and pdf on ERA and its categorisation.

Whatever ERA you use on Al Khalid Aorak1/2 are 1st gen ERA one is thin other is supposed to be heavy K-1 class.... no where close to 2nd gen K-5... and Nozh/Knife/duplet/triplet is 3rd gen along with Relikit and Kaktus[special armor it can be said above triplet/Relikit].

Pakistani ERA seems more like K-1 design but with k-5 materials.So design is similar to older genration,but materials performance would be similar to k-5 which is very good for subcontinent.But the ERA coverage is interrupted and with gaps due to turret shape.

 

[DARKY]

So My Lovely People If Ak has Air gaped armour It is indeed good. Plus AK armour is bolted means a new armour can be bolted and older is removed that is indeed a good thing as I mentioned before it has Modular composite armor.

1. Air gap is good in a manner small gaps are left and armor thickness is huge.... not like one huge gap on Al Khalid module.

2. Air gaps in armor as mentioned in first point makes shaped charge and HESH round useless... but KE and tandem charge warheads are effective the gap only increases their lethality for same thickness armor against no air gap... read spall effect.

The gap on Al Khalid is simply a short coming of Chinese enginnering and lack of acces to modern MBT modeling techniques.

3. Modern armor don't have air gap but different material sandwitched such as ceramic tiles, rubber, other elastic in between HHA/RHA plates to get the effect which was being talked about... It is also quiet effective on spall effect of KE round and tandem charge warheads.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Some have suggested space may be for bolting of the armour module,not entirely air gap for defense.

 

[DARKY]

Pakistani ERA seems more like K-1 design but with k-5 materials.So design is similar to older genration,but materials performance would be similar to k-5 which is very good for subcontinent.But the ERA coverage is interrupted and with gaps due to turret shape.

Have you seen what is inside K-5 only Russians know that....Americans and Nato also know since they got their hands onto one tank.

Not the Chinese and surely not the Pakistanis.... some people will here would argue that Chinese are close ally and however the fact is that Chinese never wanted K-5...they have switched towards using Creamic/composite tiles instead of ERA their ERA development stopped at 1st gen level with varrying thickness which they sell as export... the Pakistan ERA hers is the result of same export.

 

[DARKY]

You just went Full retard ! Never Go Full retard... We have 0 generation ERA and you have 10th Generation ERA Got it Now sleep ...

If you are willing to spread information spread the truth and not false rumors.... your behaviour is showing your frustration.

 

[jhungary]

Hey @Keshav Murali & @alimobin memon what would say to the proposition that the Pakistan Army explores the option of converting our huge stock of T-54/55s (Type 59s) into Armored Personnel Carriers or even Combat Recovery Vehicles like the Israelis did first with their Centurions & now Merkava chassis based Namer ?

Surely a few dozen of these would serve Pakistan quite handsomely in the Tribal Areas where we've suffered quite a few casualties due to IEDs & even RPG attacks on customized Toyotas that usually carry our boys.

Or as Alimobin pointed out even as Infantry Fighting Vehicles ? Can it be done ? Would it be worth it ?

Hmmn @DESERT FIGHTER @jhungary @F.O.X @Last Hope @Hyperion @Dillinger - Can you guys pitch in as well ?

First of all, I forgot about this post, sorry for the delay of 2 days.

Set aside can conversion could be done, for chassis like T-55/T-50, they are already too old to service. It's a lot better just scrap them and recycle the metal and made New APC out of it.......That way you probably have it cheaper.

Even if you can and did convert them into APC, you still have to service engine and stuff like that to keep them running with your latest tank, effort alone is not worth the conversion.

Then it comes to the actual conversion, it's literally quite hard to convert, however, it will take a shorter time span to do so then to build an APC from ground up. I would not see Pakistan need to convert those old relic into APC, unless a war with India is happening tomorrow. Unlike Israel, Merkava was build with Troop transport in mind, which at most you only need to remove the turret and add some ballast and you get your APC, if you want to convert old T-55/Type 59, you need to cut thru the chassis and make door......and add armour and stuff, not to mention you need a change in Engine and suspension. Probably develop a new set of drive train and gear box...That all cost you heaps

Throughout history, only a handful of Tank got converted into APC, and almost all of them are either done in War time or just make it so we can say "we can do this"

You can convert some older T55/Type into armour bridge or recovery vehicle, but that's it, no point getting massive IFV from those old tank. That's my opinion