What's new

T-80UD better than Al Khalid?

Renegade

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
551
Reaction score
0
"The best tank in the armys inventory is the T-80UD, bought from Ukraine, but the Al Khalid, manufactured by Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT), and developed with much Chinese input , is also an effective fighting vehicle - mainly because it now has a Ukranian diesel power pack. The story of the Khalid goes back to 1988, when Aslam Beg took over fro President Zia as Chief of Army Staff and decide, quiet rightly, that the fliratation with the US Abraham tank had gone on too long, and that it was far too expensive and complicated (and, at that time, performed poorly in desert conditions) to justify purchase. This was a remarkably prescient decision for many other reasons, but the outcome was closer cooperation with china and joint development of MBT 2000, otherwise Khalid, from original Russians designs via the PRC's Type-90."


Page:350
A History of the Pakistan Army by Brian Cloughley
Oxford University Press

Brain Cloughley was the Austarlian defence attache in Islamabad (1988-1994).
 
.
The T-80UD was procured in the late nineties at which time the Al Khalid was in the design & manufacturing phase & not a single tank was inducted in the PA. Al Khalid was first inducted in the start of this decade, many years later after induction of T-80UD, enough time to make AL Khalid better or equal its performance to T-80UD, plus the true capability & performance of AK isn't yet known to general public. Also the AK has gone with many upgrades in the past many years & a much more upgraded version definitely better then T-80UD is in the pipeline.

So comparing the tanks from a decade old book now won't be a justice.
 
.
Read the following paragraph carefully:

"In the early 1990s, i was taken around the factory at Taxila(not then named HIt; it was the Heavy Rebuild Programme) and shown the shop floores (where Chinese personnel kept peeping aroud pillars) in addition to the entire plan for the future of Pakistan's tank and APC development and production; and most impressive it was. It covered almost all four walls of an office, and the detail, from year to year, of much of what was intended for the future has been kept to schedule as far as practicable. (It is now, of course, entirely computrised.) The delay in the projected M-113 armoured personnel carrier programme was caused by US withdrawal of support because of its sanctions, and Khalid production was delaied in the main by prolonged discussions about the engine - weather to continue with the desert-unfriendly turbine or move to diesel. The result where that the army's programme for mechnisation of infantry batallions came almost to a halt, and it became obvious that inspite of the rebuild and upgrde programmes for existing tanks (shown in great detail in the Taxila production plot) there was a pressing requirement for a modern tank.

The T-80 was trialled in pakistan in 1993, a firm order was placed for 320 tanks in August 1996
,
with deliveries from Ukranian army stocks begining the following year"


The above statement by the Author clearly states that the PA had to go for T-80's due to production problems with the Khalid as there was a pressing requirement for a modern tank.

The edition from which i am quoting is not a decade old - its the Third Edition printed in 2006. So my friend we cant fault the author with supplying outdated information.
 
Last edited:
.
Read the following paragraph carefully:

"In the early 1990s, i was taken around the factory at Taxila(not then named HIt; it was the Heavy Rebuild Programme) and shown the shop floores (where Chinese personnel kept peeping aroud pillars) in addition to the entire plan for the future of Pakistan's tank and APC development and production; and most impressive it was. It covered almost all four walls of an office, and the detail, from year to year, of much of what was intended for the future has been kept to schedule as far as practicable. (It is now, of course, entirely computrised.) The delay in the projected M-113 armoured personnel carrier programme was caused by US withdrawal of support because of its sanctions, and Khalid production was delaied in the main by prolonged discussions about the engine - weather to continue with the desert-unfriendly turbine or move to diesel. The result where that the army's programme for mechnisation of infantry batallions came almost to a halt, and it became obvious that inspite of the rebuild and upgrde programmes for existing tanks (shown in great detail in the Taxila production plot) there was a pressing requirement for a modern tank.

The T-80 was trialled in pakistan in 1993, a firm order was placed for 320 tanks in August 1996
,
with deliveries from Ukranian army stocks begining the following year"


The above statement by the Author clearly states that the PA had to go for T-80's due to production problems with the Khalid as there was a pressing requirement for a modern tank.

The edition from which i am quoting is not a decade old - its the Third Edition printed in 2006. So my friend we cant fault the author with supplying outdated information.

So ?? Whats new in this ?? First of the T-80UD got inducted around 1997 & the first AK got inducted around 2001. He said in the early 90s he took the tour & the engine problem was at that time, the problem was just of choosing which one to go with. Do you think it would have taken years to just decide that. PA had many prototypes with different configurations to check which was suitable for us.

Yes they had problems at that time so they went for T-80UD as a stop gap measure, it doesn't means T-80UD would be superior then AK once AK gets into production. Rather is you see the specifications of both, they are very same in many areas. After T-80UD induction the specifications of AK were also changed to make it upto the standard of PA requirement for a modern MBT.

3rd edition doesn't means the info provided has been completely updated, it could be a 3rd edition after some modifications or a 3rd edition due to its demand.

Plus am not blaming you for anything, i am countering to the information that you have quoted as at that time AK was not fully finalized & the latest versions of AK are better then the old T-80UDs we have.

This argument does not holds for now, it did held at that time, in the 90s when AK was in the manufacturing phase while T-80UD was a mature platform.
 
.
:Mod Edit:

The T-80UD was procured in the late nineties at which time the Al Khalid was in the design & manufacturing phase & not a single tank was inducted in the PA. Al Khalid was first inducted in the start of this decade, many years later after induction of T-80UD, enough time to make AL Khalid better or equal its performance to T-80UD, plus the true capability & performance of AK isn't yet known to general public. Also the AK has gone with many upgrades in the past many years & a much more upgraded version definitely better then T-80UD is in the pipeline.

So ?? Whats new in this ?? First of the T-80UD got inducted around 1997 & the first AK got inducted around 2001. He said in the early 90s he took the tour & the engine problem was at that time, the problem was just of choosing which one to go with. Do you think it would have taken years to just decide that.

^^.
My Point: Date of manufacture/design doesn't matter. Unless you're talking about WWII vs 21st century then ofcourse. :cheesy:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
The point that you seems to be missing here is that the third edition of the book published in 2006 still carries the statement that T-80UD is the best tank in the PA's arsenal. Had i been quoting from the first edition of the book that had been published in 1999, your argument would have held strength.

If you purchase a copy of the book and read it carefully you will see that not only had the author access to reliable first rate information about the PA, but also that he has updated the book with every successive edition. For eg: the earlier edition of the book had carried an opinion by the author that Zia's tenure as the president of Pakistan had left the country in a better shape than what Zia had inherited but when Dr.Ian Talbott pointed out the mistakes of the author in making the satatement he agreed and omitted the statement from the later editions.

My point here is that the author has undoubteadly updated the book with every successive edition and made changes as new facts have come to light. If it is the same case with the Al Khalid affair, how come he has failed to update the information???
 
.
:Mod Edit:





^^.
My Point: Date of manufacture/design doesn't matter. Unless you're talking about WWII vs 21st century then ofcourse. :cheesy:

Dude such statements dont help. I request you to refarin from saying anything if you dont have some thing qualitative to add.
 
.
The point that you seems to be missing here is that the third edition of the book published in 2006 still carries the statement that T-80UD is the best tank in the PA's arsenal. Had i been quoting from the first edition of the book that had been published in 1999, your argument would have held strength.

If you purchase a copy of the book and read it carefully you will see that not only had the author access to reliable first rate information about the PA, but also that he has updated the book with every successive edition. For eg: the earlier edition of the book had carried an opinion by the author that Zia's tenure as the president of Pakistan had left the country in a better shape than what Zia had inherited but when Dr.Ian Talbott pointed out the mistakes of the author in making the satatement he agreed and omitted the statement from the later editions.

My point here is that the author has undoubtedly updated the book with every successive edition and made changes as new facts have come to light. If it is the same case with the Al Khalid affair, how come he has failed to update the information???

Sir, as for his remarks about Zia era, he was corrected by someone because he had done wrong assessment, but in the case of the tanks his assessment as of 90s is correct, at that time AK would be inferior to T-80UD, he did no wrong assessment. He may have printed the 3rd edition to correct his mistakes of the first ones but he did no wrong assessment of the tanks at that time so he needs no correction as his 3rd edition may be in 2006 but the facts he is mentioning are regarding of the 90s, so he has no change to add it to. Yes if he has written this in 2006 & comparing them in 2006, plz do show me that part then as in the above of the paragraphs that you have posted he mentions 90s not the late 2000s.

Plus, it would be suggested to look for the specifications of AK & T-80UD urself & see which is better as sometimes self finding is good for one's own knowledge. Just to give a brief overview, AK has hunter-killer capability, lacking in T-80UD. AK engine is 1200hp while T-80UD is 1000hp. AK has IBMS with data-link facility which lacks in T-80UD. AK can be incorporated with additional armor blocks to increase its protection which T-80UD lacks as haven't read anywhere of such capability. AK has laser warning system & countering techniques which is not there in T-80UD as per original specification.

Many features of both the tanks are nearly equal too, so it would be advised to judge the tanks at their current specifications not the old ones.
 
Last edited:
. .
According to Usman Ansari's article, "The T-80UD in Pakistani Service." (an edited version of this article appeared in the May 2008 issue of Military Machines International):
Though overshadowed in Pakistani Army (PA) service by the indigenous Al-Khalid, the T-80UD is indispensable. While no longer the most modern or technologically advanced PA MBT, it will remain the most numerous modern MBT until surpassed by Al-Khalid production. Even then, it will continue to serve in the PA as a key armoured asset for many years to come.

By the time the Cold War ended the PA MBT fleet, (mostly Type-59s), was facing mass obsolescence, and faced with a huge number of Indian Army T-72s. The Pakistani MBT modernisation programme undertaken with the co-operation of the Chinese (up-grade - Type-59; license production - Type-69/Type-85IIAP; and indigenous design/manufacture – MBT-2000/Al-Khalid) was proceeding too slowly and there was the danger that Pakistan would fall too far behind for it to be able to catch up with its limited financial resources. Hoping to purchase a stopgap advanced MBT, Pakistan settled on the T-72. Despite the terrible reputation it earned for itself in the 1990s, largely due to the 1991 Gulf War and debacle in Chechnya, not to mention the auto-loader's established reputation for 'eating' gunner's arms, the T-72 was not a bad choice. It could cope with the extremities of the Pakistani climate, especially the fiercely hot deserts which have become increasingly important in terms of armoured warfare. Russia, the manufacturer of the T-72, was almost destitute and quite willing to sell tanks to a former adversary from the Afghan War for much needed hard cash. The T-72s were very cheap, more advanced than most current PA tanks, and importantly, available very quickly on payment. It was everything Pakistan was looking for. Under the circumstances what was better to counter an MBT threat than to acquire the same model for oneself? Unfortunately for Pakistan, Indian pressure forced Russian to abandon the deal. Even though the Type-85IIAP (designed by the Chinese specifically to combat the T-72), was more than a match for the T-72, it was not available in sufficient numbers. Under nuclear related sanctions from its former ally and provider of much needed modern military technology, America, the options were diminishing. The UK had large numbers of surplus Chieftain's but they were deemed over-priced, old and unreliable. They were also considered unsuitable for the harsh Pakistani climate and terrain they would be expected to operate in. Furthermore, the UK was not judged too reliable a supplier, (an important factor considering Pakistan's history of sanctions).

Matters were not looking good, but it was at this point that Ukraine offered the solution, the T-80UD.
The Ukraine had been an important province of the Soviet empire, and independence saw it left with vast stocks of ex-Soviet military hardware that it was more than willing to sell. More importantly in terms of long-term economic health, it possessed the huge Morozov tank factory/design bureau at Kharkiv, which had been the main builder of the best of the Soviet MBTs, the T-80. At the time of the collapse of the USSR, the plant had been building the latest model, the T-80UD that had a diesel engine instead of the gas turbine of the T-80U. Pakistan was very impressed with what it saw when the T-80UD was trialled in Pakistan in 1993 and 1995, and thought the T-80UD to be clearly superior to the T-72. It signed a deal for 320 T-80UDs from the Ukraine in August 1996, and 52 Soviet Army T-80UDs, which had been completed but undelivered, formed part of the first batch delivered in 1997.
...

Special thanks to Major M Khan, Major Aurangzeb ISPR. Officers and men 1 Armoured Division/41 Horse.
 
Last edited:
. . .
the following statements DESTROY the credibility of the author

In the early 1990s, i was taken around the factory at Taxila(not then named HIt; it was the Heavy Rebuild Programme) and shown the shop floores
(where Chinese personnel kept peeping aroud pillars)
 
.
the following statements DESTROY the credibility of the author

In the early 1990s, i was taken around the factory at Taxila(not then named HIt; it was the Heavy Rebuild Programme) and shown the shop floores
(where Chinese personnel kept peeping aroud pillars)

it shows that many people are going to bring down the reputation and ability of their opponents in manfacturing sectors all the time by releasing fake news to guide the public opinion to influence government decisions, so we readers must always be careful:bounce::police:
 
.
The T-80UD was procured in the late nineties at which time the Al Khalid was in the design & manufacturing phase & not a single tank was inducted in the PA. Al Khalid was first inducted in the start of this decade, many years later after induction of T-80UD, enough time to make AL Khalid better or equal its performance to T-80UD, plus the true capability & performance of AK isn't yet known to general public. Also the AK has gone with many upgrades in the past many years & a much more upgraded version definitely better then T-80UD is in the pipeline.

So comparing the tanks from a decade old book now won't be a justice.

Do you have any source for the bold part.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom