T90 Compared with Al Khalid

[Dazzler]

Abay bhai, kin jahilon ke saath larr rahe ho?

educating them

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

educating them

u r more like wasting your time
just one question how many times u have explained to them in the past ?did it work?

 

[Dazzler]

u r more like wasting your time
just one question how many times u have explained to them in the past ?did it work?

someday, the sun will shine

 

[Dazzler]

some random images of t-90 being tested, notice penetrated areas i.e frontal hull and turret. The tank seems to have no ERA coverage though.

 

[Dazzler]

He will not reply

Really? Who did then?

 

[SecularNationalist]

yakeen janiye MBT Al khalid is superior to even russian armata tanks and german MBT leopard 2

You for sure earned those 17 negative ratings

 

[PWFI]

T-90 is world renowned and Many Countries has brought including China, How many Khalid was exported ?.

 

[ptldM3]

First, i see plenty of knitpicking from my posts, which occus when you dont have answers, or intend to embrace an escape route.

Buddy, you are putting out blanket statements that you can not back such as the Al-Khalid's automatic transmission is better and its engine is better, how it's better? You can not prove. What you call "nit picking" i call real debating.


Prove to the readers in what way the Al-Khalids transmission is better, prove how it's engine is better. Notice you make claims that you can never, ever back. Should i even mention the fact that turbocharged engines create substantial amounts more torque then a supercharged engine, it is torque what moves tanks.



Here is your claim:

engine power (1000hp/ 1200hp), transmission, manual vs auto+ multiple reverse speed for upto 35 km backward movement for Alkhalid.

Here is my "nit picking" to your unsubstantiated fanboy claims.







An automatic transmission equals "superior"? You obviously have no experience with transmissions or driving, an automatic transmission is easier for the driver but is usually considered inferior. Manual transmissions deliver better fuel consumption and usually better acceleration(not always), not to mention they last longer and are easier to repair. There is a reason heavy haul vehicles such as semi trucks all have manual transmission and not automatic. As for 1000hp being superior to 1200hp, yes it is better to have 200 more hp but that in no way means that the engine is better. There is a thing called power curve, usable power, and torque. For a heavy vehicle torque is very important, it is what what gets tanks to pull out of heavy mud, ascend steep hills and pull it's weight. Being a 6 cylinder, i very much question how much torque the Al-Khalid has especially because it uses a supercharger which delivers power throughout the rpm range but also robs engine power just to power the supercharger. Think about it, a 6 cylinder engine drawing a good percent of power just to power the supercharger. The 1200hp is at the top end of the engine, it is not often usable, most tanks will not break 1000ph often, so what matters is where the power curve lies with both hp and torque. Ever heard the term gutless engines, it is in reference to engines that have little usable power in the lower RPM range, believe it or not vehicles with less power can often times beat vehicles with more power due to one car having a linear power curve while the other has a higher RPG power curve that is less often used, or in other words the weaker engine creates more power in certain ranges.

However, the 1A45 FCS was already OPERATIONAL on Omsk T-80U prior to being used for the Object 188 onwards. I have proved that pakistani t80ud and indian t-90S/M variants both use pretty much the same fire control complex with similar characteristics. Offcourse the major difference is is the turret design which was earlier cast only, the UKBTM designed turrets for the A adn later M version feature medium hardness steel with angular shape and new frontal armour cavity for new types of fillers being experimented at Nii Stali and UVG by that time.

The problem is you claiming the Al-Khalid has a better FCS, a fire control systems only job is to accurately insure hits. I have posted exercises in which T-90s have hit all targets while on the move, from a far as 5km and in a short time. Older does not equate to inferior, the Soviet Union built rocket engines which no country has been able to match in terms of thrust output even today. So really your statements are empty.


Here is one of your amazing posts about fire control.

i am sure you may have seen this, if not, this is a basic type-59II with inferior 100mm gun and a basic fire control system which is the ICFS-69. The target is 5 km away..

A Type-59 shooting at a mountain is your proof of a great fire control

Notice the target, it does not move and it is as big as a mountain--wait it is a mountain.




This is my proof of the T-90s fire control:



During one of the displays, T-90 struck 7 targets in 54 seconds. All were at the distance between 1500-2500m and the tank was on the move at 25km/h. While returning to position, the layer gave the control to the commander who used the gunner mode to fire to the rear of the vehicle and hit 4 more targets.



during the official trials of T-90, all of the ammunitions were fired by young conscripts who just finished training. All of the rounds – 24 of them, hit targets at a distance of 4-5km.


Indian crews quickly mastered the T-90S, they also did not have problems with the fire control and thermo-vision systems. Just after several training sessions Lt. Kapur of the Indian army acted as layer who accurately fired on to the targets at 2500-3000m. Officers from one of the panzer corps needed 20 minutes to familiarize with T-90S and successfully complete the task of destroying 4 targets at night from a distance of 3100m at an ambient temperature of 47°C.

Regarding the comparison of engines, your argument is simply flawed and has little to no weight. Not only the 6-td gives better fuel economy compared to their V-xx series counterparts, it also possesses faster response time and acceleration.



Just look around you, we have Ukrainians entering the fourth generation of Malashev 6td series touching the 1800hp mark while Chelyabinsk is struggling to manage the 1250hp in the t-90S/M/MS variants. There are plenty of issues as the 1250hp engine needs more space due to being larger than the former engiens and size dimensions is something the t-90 chassis has always struggled..

Again i will ask you for proof regarding those claims about response time and acceleration---you will ignore me as usual and keep repeating your claims. How do we know the acceleration is faster? Was there ever a T-90 fitted with the 6-td? Was there ever a T-80 fitted with the V-xx series engine to actually get objective test results? Where they tested at the same location (higher elevations results in less engine power) Where they tested in the same area and climate (hotter temperatures results in less power), were they tested on the same soil (loose soil results in slower acceleration).

As for Chelyabinsk "struggling" their new engine powering the T-14 produces 2,100-2,200 HP with all governors turned off.


As for the KMDB, it manages to get 160g/hp-h while having 6 cylinders.



KMDB - Tank Power Pack with 6TD-2 Engine




The 12Н360 (A-85-3A) which is a 12 cylinder manages 150/g/hp-h. 50% more cylinders yet better fuel consumption and overall more power, Chelyabinsk indeed is "struggling" even when their V/B series 12 cylinder engines manages lower specific fuel consumption over their rival 6 cylinder Ukrainian counterparts, indeed they struggle.

some random images of t-90 being tested, notice penetrated areas i.e frontal hull and turret. The tank seems to have no ERA coverage though.

So where is the penetration? I see obvious holes which is normal and expected but i see no proof of penetration. All modern anti tank weapons have some level of penetration, what matters is reducing how far the penetration goes.

Well, I am not a moderator but I can change the title of my posts. I call BS.

Read my post carefully before humiliating yourself on a public forum, here is proof that a moderator changes the title of my thread, also pay attention to the date and time i made the posts.


My first posted of the thread, and i was upset that a moderator changed the title of my thread without my permission, this is what is said:




#1
"Edit some moderator thought it would be funny to change the title from T-90 to Arjun."


Last edited: Saturday at 7:01 PM <<<<<<<<<<<<



#38
Who edited the title to say Arjun? The topic has ZERO to do with Arjun....nothing. The topic involves the T-90s armor, fire control and battle field management system.

I would like an explanation as to why the title was changed to something i never even mentioned.



Last edited: Saturday at 5:20 PM <<<<<<<<<<<<




Even if i changed the tile of my thread, (which i obviously proved i did not) it is none of your business.

 

[Dazzler]

Buddy, you are putting out blanket statements that you can not back such as the Al-Khalid's automatic transmission is better and its engine is better, how it's better? You can not prove. What you call "nit picking" i call real debating.


Prove to the readers in what way the Al-Khalids transmission is better, prove how it's engine is better. Notice you make claims that you can never, ever back. Should i even mention the fact that turbocharged engines create substantial amounts more torque then a supercharged engine, it is torque what moves tanks.



Here is your claim:






Here is my "nit picking" to your unsubstantiated fanboy claims.







An automatic transmission equals "superior"? You obviously have no experience with transmissions or driving, an automatic transmission is easier for the driver but is usually considered inferior. Manual transmissions deliver better fuel consumption and usually better acceleration(not always), not to mention they last longer and are easier to repair. There is a reason heavy haul vehicles such as semi trucks all have manual transmission and not automatic. As for 1000hp being superior to 1200hp, yes it is better to have 200 more hp but that in no way means that the engine is better. There is a thing called power curve, usable power, and torque. For a heavy vehicle torque is very important, it is what what gets tanks to pull out of heavy mud, ascend steep hills and pull it's weight. Being a 6 cylinder, i very much question how much torque the Al-Khalid has especially because it uses a supercharger which delivers power throughout the rpm range but also robs engine power just to power the supercharger. Think about it, a 6 cylinder engine drawing a good percent of power just to power the supercharger. The 1200hp is at the top end of the engine, it is not often usable, most tanks will not break 1000ph often, so what matters is where the power curve lies with both hp and torque. Ever heard the term gutless engines, it is in reference to engines that have little usable power in the lower RPM range, believe it or not vehicles with less power can often times beat vehicles with more power due to one car having a linear power curve while the other has a higher RPG power curve that is less often used, or in other words the weaker engine creates more power in certain ranges.











The problem is you claiming the Al-Khalid has a better FCS, a fire control systems only job is to accurately insure hits. I have posted exercises in which T-90s have hit all targets while on the move, from a far as 5km and in a short time. Older does not equate to inferior, the Soviet Union built rocket engines which no country has been able to match in terms of thrust output even today. So really your statements are empty.


Here is one of your amazing posts about fire control.









A Type-59 shooting at a mountain is your proof of a great fire control

Notice the target, it does not move and it is as big as a mountain--wait it is a mountain.




This is my proof of the T-90s fire control:



During one of the displays, T-90 struck 7 targets in 54 seconds. All were at the distance between 1500-2500m and the tank was on the move at 25km/h. While returning to position, the layer gave the control to the commander who used the gunner mode to fire to the rear of the vehicle and hit 4 more targets.



during the official trials of T-90, all of the ammunitions were fired by young conscripts who just finished training. All of the rounds – 24 of them, hit targets at a distance of 4-5km.


Indian crews quickly mastered the T-90S, they also did not have problems with the fire control and thermo-vision systems. Just after several training sessions Lt. Kapur of the Indian army acted as layer who accurately fired on to the targets at 2500-3000m. Officers from one of the panzer corps needed 20 minutes to familiarize with T-90S and successfully complete the task of destroying 4 targets at night from a distance of 3100m at an ambient temperature of 47°C.















Again i will ask you for proof regarding those claims about response time and acceleration---you will ignore me as usual and keep repeating your claims. How do we know the acceleration is faster? Was there ever a T-90 fitted with the 6-td? Was there ever a T-80 fitted with the V-xx series engine to actually get objective test results? Where they tested at the same location (higher elevations results in less engine power) Where they tested in the same area and climate (hotter temperatures results in less power), were they tested on the same soil (loose soil results in slower acceleration).

As for Chelyabinsk "struggling" their new engine powering the T-14 produces 2,200 HP with all governors turned off.













So where is the penetration? I see obvious holes which is normal and expected but i see no proof of penetration. All modern anti tank weapons have some level of penetration, what matters is reducing how far the penetration goes.










Read my post carefully before humiliating yourself on a public forum, here is proof that a moderator changes the title of my thread, also pay attention to the date and time i made the posts.


My first posted of the thread, and i was upset that a moderator changed the title of my thread without my permission, this is what is said:




#1
"Edit some moderator thought it would be funny to change the title from T-90 to Arjun."


Last edited: Saturday at 7:01 PM <<<<<<<<<<<<



#38
Who edited the title to say Arjun? The topic has ZERO to do with Arjun....nothing. The topic involves the T-90s armor, fire control and battle field management system.

I would like an explanation as to why the title was changed to something i never even mentioned.



Last edited: Saturday at 5:20 PM <<<<<<<<<<<<




Even if i changed the tile of my thread, (which i obviously proved i did not) it is none of your business.

You are embarrassing yourself, regarding 6td, or 5td vs V series, its history that the former was a more successful and resilient design while the latter was problematic and difficult to upgrade.

Regarding t90 penetraion pic, its quite clear that the tank was the subject of trials for some Heat round, the penetrated areas are marked as well.

Your analogy on fire control is hilarious at best. Even a 70 vintage 1A33 or Marconi Centaur FCS offers similar functionality so essentially this should be enough right? What's the need to upgrade when you could achieve precise firing with old systems? Seems like innovation and improvisation is a moot concept in Russia, same applies to your rhetoric on engine, since less powerful gives more acceleration, and torque value, why to innovate and make more powerful version? Silly argument really. Not surprised

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

@ptldM3
A question for you.

All modern tanks including M1 Abrams, Merkava, Leclerc, Leopard 2 all have automatic transmission. If manual one has so many advantages as per your claim, then why these advance tanks have automatic one?
You are just behaving like Indians over Smooth bore vs rifled barrel debate. Just because I have this does not mean its better?
I can give you a list of benefits automatic transmission have over manual specially in heat of battle.

 

[ptldM3]

You are embarrassing yourself, regarding 6td, or 5td vs V series, its history that the former was a more successful and resilient design while the latter was problematic and difficult to upgrade.

The only one embarrassing themselves here is you. You have made claim after claim without any backing. In your previous post you claimed Chelyabinsk was "struggling", yes indeed a 12 cylinder engine which have lower specific fuel consumption is "struggling" over it's 6 cylinder counterpart, the same goes for your comment that "Chelyabinsk is struggling to manage 1250hp" while their latest tank engine produces over 2000HP. Also why have you not answer the questions i have asked you to prove? Where is the proof for your acceleration claims? Kind of hard to prove things that you make up isn't it?

Regarding t90 penetraion pic, its quite clear that the tank was the subject of trials for some Heat round, the penetrated areas are marked as well.

Again, where is the proof that those holes penetrated the armor? How do you know what those "marks" are? Any proof that those marks indeed are markers representing penetration and not just markers highlighting the depth of the penetration?

Your analogy on fire control is hilarious at best. Even a 70 vintage 1A33 or Marconi Centaur FCS offers similar functionality so essentially this should be enough right? What's the need to upgrade when you could achieve precise firing with old systems?

When i gave some insight on the T-90s FCS I posted demonstrations where the T-90 was hitting targets on the move, as an example a T-90 hit 7 targets in 54 seconds. All were at the distance between 1500-2500m. You, on the other hand, posted a video of a Type-59 tank shooting a mountain and then bragged about it's FCS

My analogy was also not hilarious, just because one fire control systems is older than another does not make it less accurate. Just like newer rocket engines have yet to match the trusts achieved by older Soviet designs.

Seems like innovation and improvisation is a moot concept in Russia, same applies to your rhetoric on engine, since less powerful gives more acceleration, and torque value, why to innovate and make more powerful version? Silly argument really. Not surprised

Read my post, I said turbocharged engine produce more torque. It is torque that moves heavy objects such as tanks. I further explained how power curves work, having 1200hp does not mean that you will use that power often. This is peak power. Get that through your head. An engine may produce 1200hp and say 1300 lb ft torque in 5th gear and at peak RPM, but may be easily outperformed by a turbocharged 1000hp engine in 3rd gear a 5000RPM. Having a mear 200hp means nothing, especially if we are comparing a supercharged engine to a turbocharged engine with the latter capable of more then doubling it's torque to hp ration. Unless you have a dyno chart comparing both engines under similar conditions, temperature and elevation is suggest you lower your rhetoric.

@ptldM3
A question for you.

All modern tanks including M1 Abrams, Merkava, Leclerc, Leopard 2 all have automatic transmission. If manual one has so many advantages as per your claim, then why these advance tanks have automatic one?
You are just behaving like Indians over Smooth bore vs rifled barrel debate. Just because I have this does not mean its better?
I can give you a list of benefits automatic transmission have over manual specially in heat of battle.

I described many reasons why manual transmissions are better compared to automatics, fuel mileage, acceleration, controlling gear changes, maintenance, ect. Automatic transmissions are easy to operate, they require the driver to do nothing. You would be surprised how many people can not drive manual transmissions and can not learn to. Manual transmissions are in many ways better, ever wonder why the majority of sports cars have always used manual over automatic? Only recently have sports cars been using "automatic" transmissions, i say "automatic" because they are very different from traditional automatic transmissions, not to mention many people can not drive manuals so more sports car companies offer automatic transmissions for more sales. On a similar note tanks use automatic transmissions because many military recruits can not drive manual transmission, meaning it will take longer to train them and they will likely burn the clutch out causing expensive repairs and down time.

What is better a Ferrari with a manual transmission or a Ford Torus with automatic transmission? This is a no brainer, just like it is a no brainer to why big rig trucks us manual transmissions. A manual transmission can regulate how and when to switch into gear, i don't want a automatic switching me in higher gear when i'm going up hill, i want lower gears, more torque and higher RPM.

 

[Dazzler]

The only one embarrassing themselves here is you. You have made claim after claim without any backing. In your previous post you claimed Chelyabinsk was "struggling", yes indeed a 12 cylinder engine which have lower specific fuel consumption is "struggling" over it's 6 cylinder counterpart, the same goes for your comment that "Chelyabinsk is struggling to manage 1250hp" while their latest tank engine produces over 2000HP. Also why have you not answer the questions i have asked you to prove? Where is the proof for your acceleration claims? Kind of hard to prove things that you make up isn't it?












Again, where is the proof that those holes penetrated the armor? How do you know what those "marks" are? Any proof that those marks indeed are markers representing penetration and not just markers highlighting the depth of the penetration?













When i gave some insight on the T-90s FCS I posted demonstrations where the T-90 was hitting targets on the move, as an example a T-90 hit 7 targets in 54 seconds. All were at the distance between 1500-2500m. You, on the other hand, posted a video of a Type-59 tank shooting a mountain and then bragged about it's FCS

My analogy was also not hilarious, just because one fire control systems is older than another does not make it less accurate. Just like newer rocket engines have yet to match the trusts achieved by older Soviet designs.












Read my post, I said turbocharged engine produce more torque. It is torque that moves heavy objects such as tanks. I further explained how power curves work, having 1200hp does not mean that you will use that power often. This is peak power. Get that through your head. An engine may produce 1200hp and say 1300 lb ft torque in 5th gear and at peak RPM, but may be easily outperformed by a turbocharged 1000hp engine in 3rd gear a 5000RPM. Having a mear 200hp means nothing, especially if we are comparing a supercharged engine to a turbocharged engine with the latter capable of more then doubling it's torque to hp ration. Unless you have a dyno chart comparing both engines under similar conditions, temperature and elevation is suggest you lower your rhetoric.








I described many reasons why manual transmissions are better compared to automatics, fuel mileage, acceleration, controlling gear changes, maintenance, ect. Automatic transmissions are easy to operate, they require the driver to do nothing. You would be surprised how many people can not drive manual transmissions and can not learn to. Manual transmissions are in many ways better, ever wonder why the majority of sports cars have always used manual over automatic? Only recently have sports cars been using "automatic" transmissions, i say "automatic" because they are very different from traditional automatic transmissions, not to mention many people can not drive manuals so more sports car companies offer automatic transmissions for more sales. On a similar note tanks use automatic transmissions because many military recruits can not drive manual transmission, meaning it will take longer to train them and they will likely burn the clutch out causing expensive repairs and down time.

What is better a Ferrari with a manual transmission or a Ford Torus with automatic transmission? This is a no brainer, just like it is a no brainer to why big rig trucks us manual transmissions. A manual transmission can regulate how and when to switch into gear, i don't want a automatic switching me in higher gear when i'm going up hill, i want lower gears, more torque and higher RPM.

Gosh, dont you get it, V series turbocharged engines have had several issues due to this very reason, since the RPM is higher, and your beloved torque is churned out faster despite the overall reduced engine power, no wonder their Bhishmas are malfunctioning in thar desert which is a known fact and i dont feel the need to post articles spread all over google stating issues with the V series engine featuring in T-90.

Tell me, how good is a higher RPM and a turbo charger when it gives you a brief boost power boost and then dies due to overheating issues? At the same time, i know this in person that the both 6td versions (t-80ud, alkhalid) performed tremendously well in the same desert on the other side of the border, and the 6td2 brought more improvements. Few points noted from trials of t-80ud and alkhalid, All engines were tested for 5000 kms. The 6td passed the feat

1 engine does not heat despite 50 degree Celsius

2 the air cleaning and filtration system works well, even after the quoted life of 1000 kilo meters

3 the opposed piston configuration works better than the standard configuration, rival engines that failed to perform reliably include the British Condor 1200hp, French Uni diesel, and the German MTU 396 engines. The only engine that performed on par with the 6td during trials was the German MTU ADVS 1790 but that showed poor fuel economy and had reliability issues as well.



What is visible is that you are failing to argue here but never mind

The only thing you ever posted in this thread as an evidence to your huge claim was nothing more than a darn BROKEN LINK !

 

[ptldM3]

Gosh, dont you get it, V series turbocharged engines have had several issues due to this very reason, since the RPM is higher, and your beloved torque is churned out faster despite the overall reduced engine power, no wonder their Bhishmas are malfunctioning in thar desert which is a known fact and i dont feel the need to post articles spread all over google stating issues with the V series engine featuring in T-90.

You have no idea what you are talking higher RPM equals higher HP, on one hand you claim the T-90 has higher RPM on the other you claim it has less HP--again do you have a dyno chart to back your claims, of course not, this would be about the 20th thing that you have made up out of thin in. Also Higher torque "churned out faster" is ideal because it is the force that moves objects, i want as much torque as possible in the lowest gears to get a 50 ton tank moving, torque in the higher rev range/gears is not very useful.

Tell me, how good is a higher RPM and a turbo charger when it gives you a brief boost power boost and then dies due to overheating issues? At the same time, i know this in person that the both 6td versions (t-80ud, alkhalid) performed tremendously well in the same desert on the other side of the border, and the 6td2 brought more improvements. Few points noted from trials of t-80ud and alkhalid, All engines were tested for 5000 kms. The 6td passed the feat

Stop, while you can, you clearly have no clue what you are saying, and only contradict your other statements by your ignorant use of the acronym RPM. All tanks can overheat in desert conditions, the higher power ones are more prone to it because higher power creates more heat. And what feat do you speak of? How many tanks were tested? 1, 2, 10? There are plenty of the T-90 that can operate in desert conditions too, some may overheat others may not, a lot of it depends on how hard the tank is pushed and in what condition the tank is in. If the thermostat has not been changed and goes bad the tank will overheat, in fact every engine in the world will overheat if the thermostat goes bad, if fluids are not toped off the tank will overheat, if the radiator reservoir is damaged or has an old seal, an engine will overheat, if the radiator is damaged, the engine will overheat.

What is visible is that you are failing to argue here but never mind

The only thing you ever posted in this thread as an evidence to your huge claim was nothing more than a darn BROKEN LINK !

The quote i used was from a webpage that was closed long ago, i used the same quote when the webpage was active. Either way I posted multiple official sources, such as a direct link to Kharkiv machines webpage and Chelyabinsk brochures and links to credible webpages. On the other hand what have you gave? You posted a picture of a T-90 claiming it was "penetrated", yet there was no proof and you went even further and claimed the markers next to the damage was indicators of penetration.




Earlier you claimed that the T-80UD which uses identical armor as the T-80U has better armor compared to the T-90, well like your other claims that was BS, both T-90 and T-80U were tested under identical conditions and the T-90 was superior. Here is one of your BS quotes about T-90s armor not exceeding 700mm with ERA:

from Fofanov's site that gives you a general idea of approximate valus and materials used at the turret and the hull front. Most likely the titanium and ceramics sandwiched between rubber and other inserts. it is evident that t-90 does not exceed 700mm mark with the ERA inserts whereas Alkalid does, at least in frontal protection.

Yet the T-90 withstood 2 out of 5 Kornet hits, which according to the manufacture can penetrate 1200mm steal. I am not even going to mention how hilarious your other quotes are, such as the T-90s armor is 'exaggerated by Russians' and yet you do an eyeball analysis of the Al-Khalid and claim it to have thicker armor





Anyways here is proof the T-90 has superior protection compared to the T-80U/UD and even more proof that you lied about the T-90 not exceeding 700mm with ERA. Heck the T-90 withstood hits from weapons rated at 650mm RHA without ERA.




T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99



On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.

T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.

One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.

The following weapons were used:

• Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
  • RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
  • RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
  • RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
• ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
  • Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
  • Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
  • Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
  • Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
• APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.
The trials yielded the following outcome:

• ATGLs
  • T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
    No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
  • T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
    Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
• ATGMs
  • T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
  • T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
    No other ATGMs could penetrate.
• APFSDS
  • T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
    Without ERA, one round penetrated.
  • T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

 

[Dazzler]

You have no idea what you are talking higher RPM equals higher HP, on one hand you claim the T-90 has higher RPM on the other you claim it has less HP--again do you have a dyno chart to back your claims, of course not, this would be about the 20th thing that you have made up out of thin in. Also Higher torque "churned out faster" is ideal because it is the force that moves objects, i want as much torque as possible in the lowest gears to get a 50 ton tank moving, torque in the higher rev range/gears is not very useful.
Stop, while you can, you clearly have no clue what you are saying, and only contradict your other statements by your ignorant use of the acronym RPM. All tanks can overheat in desert conditions, the higher power ones are more prone to it because higher power creates more heat. And what feat do you speak of? How many tanks were tested? 1, 2, 10? There are plenty of the T-90 that can operate in desert conditions too, some may overheat others may not, a lot of it depends on how hard the tank is pushed and in what condition the tank is in. If the thermostat has not been changed and goes bad the tank will overheat, in fact every engine in the world will overheat if the thermostat goes bad, if fluids are not toped off the tank will overheat, if the radiator reservoir is damaged or has an old seal, an engine will overheat, if the radiator is damaged, the engine will overheat.

The quote i used was from a webpage that was closed long ago, i used the same quote when the webpage was active. Either way I posted multiple official sources, such as a direct link to Kharkiv machines webpage and Chelyabinsk brochures and links to credible webpages. On the other hand what have you gave? You posted a picture of a T-90 claiming it was "penetrated", yet there was no proof and you went even further and claimed the markers next to the damage was indicators of penetration.
Earlier you claimed that the T-80UD which uses identical armor as the T-80U has better armor compared to the T-90, well like your other claims that was BS, both T-90 and T-80U were tested under identical conditions and the T-90 was superior. Here is one of your BS quotes about T-90s armor not exceeding 700mm with ERA:











Yet the T-90 withstood 2 out of 5 Kornet hits, which according to the manufacture can penetrate 1200mm steal. I am not even going to mention how hilarious your other quotes are, such as the T-90s armor is 'exaggerated by Russians' and yet you do an eyeball analysis of the Al-Khalid and claim it to have thicker armor





Anyways here is proof the T-90 has superior protection compared to the T-80U/UD and even more proof that you lied about the T-90 not exceeding 700mm with ERA. Heck the T-90 withstood hits from weapons rated at 650mm RHA without ERA.




T-80U and T-90 Trials 20.10.99



On October 20, 1999 extensive trials of T-80U and T-90 protection from various types of threats were conducted at TsNIIO 643a Testing Grounds. The tests involved firing large amounts of ordnance (including several versions of RPG ATGL, light and heavy ATGMs, and APFSDS rounds) at frontal projections of T-80U and T-90 MBTs both protected with Kontakt-V ERA and stripped of it.

T-80U and T-90 MBTs were represented by 3 vehicles each, one with Kontakt-V ERA, one with removed explosive packages and one reserve vehicle. For the ERA part of trials, knocked-out ERA packages were replaced after each shot.

One more T-80U MBT was used for special trials that focused on testing of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS.

The following weapons were used:

• Infantry ATGLs (fired at a distance of 40m)
  • RPG-7 (using advanced 105mm grenade PG-7VR with a tandem warhead, pen. 650mm RHA)
  • RPG-26 (disposable launcher, pen. >500mm RHA)
  • RPG-29 (advanced 105mm launcher, pen. 750mm RHA)
• ATGMs (fired at a distance of 600m)
  • Malyutka-2 (pen. >600mm RHA)
  • Metis (pen. 460mm RHA)
  • Konkurs (pen. 650mm RHA)
  • Kornet (pen. >850mm RHA)
• APFSDS (fired from T-80U MBT at a distance of 1,500m, the most likely round is 3BM42)

Each weapon was fired 5 times at each target, for a total of 20 shots per weapon. The total number of shots fired during the trials thus exceeded 150.
The trials yielded the following outcome:

• ATGLs
  • T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
    No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.
  • T-80U: RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
    Of all other grenades, one PG-7VR penetrated the stripped target.
• ATGMs
  • T-90: No ATGMs could penetrate the ERA-equipped target. One Kornet ATGM penetrated the stripped target.
  • T-80U: 2 Kornet ATGMs penetrated the ERA-equipped target, all 5 penetrated the stripped target.
    No other ATGMs could penetrate.
• APFSDS
  • T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
    Without ERA, one round penetrated.
  • T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

You r becoming hilarious you know, the trial link u gave consisted of a t-80u that was made in Russia not the Ukrainian object 478BE made by Kharkov plant in Ukraine. Now ill have to list the differences between the two? There is a world of difference between the two including armour and others. The composite cavities in both have different materials and inserts/ fillers. But more on that later .

The tests only included HEAT rounds and funnily, the rpg-29 was the stand out performer leaving kronet and others behind. No apfsds penetrators were used which raised question mark on the selective criterion of those tests.

Regarding the alkhalid armour, I showed u the pic with a apfsds penetrator could not penetrate the first composite layer, leaving the remaining five fully intact. Bring something off equal value to refute my claim

 

[ptldM3]

You r becoming hilarious you know, the trial link u gave consisted of a t-80u that was made in Russia not the Ukrainian object 478BE made by Kharkov plant in Ukraine. Now ill have to list the differences between the two? There is a world of difference between the two including armour and others. The composite cavities in both have different materials and inserts/ fillers. But more on that later .

The tests only included HEAT rounds and funnily, the rpg-29 was the stand out performer leaving kronet and others behind. No apfsds penetrators were used which raised question mark on the selective criterion of those tests.

Regarding the alkhalid armour, I showed u the pic with a apfsds penetrator could not penetrate the first composite layer, leaving the remaining five fully intact. Bring something off equal value to refute my claim

You made the claim that the T-90 is overhyped by Russians, you made the claim that the T-90 can not withstand 700mm penetration even with ERA. That was proven to be a lie, the T-90 withstood hits from a Kornet that according to the manufacture can penetrate 1200mm armor. Even without ERA the T-90 withstood anti tank weapons capable of 650mm RHA. Clearly you lied.

As for your claim that "no apfsds penetrators were used", open your eyes and read my source again, they were used:



APFSDS

• T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
  Without ERA, one round penetrated.
• T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.

Your other point about the T-80UD having superior armor to the T-90--the T-80U in that test uses the same armor as the T-80UD and it was clearly inferior to the T-90 in armor penetration testing. I don't care about the "478BE", your tactic is simple, you make a claim where you outright lie then start either avoiding proving your claim with sources or you tap dance around your claim and change the subject into something else, you never mentioned anything about a Ukrainian built 478BE. You mentioned T-80UD, so top trying to tap dance your way out of a lie by mentioning another tank altogether.

Also in your picture of a supposed hit to the Al-Khalid proves nothing, we can't even see if it really is an Al-Khalid, lets even say that it is true, your tactics are deceitful, on one hand you posted pictures of a T-90 with damage where you claimed the T-90 was penetrated even though you provided no proof, on the other hand you posted pictures of a hole in a supposed Al-Khalid that never penetrated. There is also a question of APFSDS penetrators, Pakistani APFSDS rounds are less then spectacular.