PDA

View Full Version : Anything wrong with these details?



kingfrogger
30 Oct 03,, 21:25
Alright... I don't know half the info about most vehicles that the majority of those that frequent this site do, so I'm asking for some proof-readers.

A guy at another forum site I frequent posted the following, and I was curious as to the accuracy of his statements. If anyone could glance at it and give me any responses, I'd greatly appreciate it. I wanna toast his ass if he's wrong...


You don't hold a 120mm cannon :Correct

...hence no recoil: way WAY wrong...

Ok, it won't rip your arm off, but as for no recoil, there is nothing further from the truth. The American made M1A1/2 is a 68 ton tracked vehicle. It's main armament is a 120mm smoothbore cannon with a selection of two major rounds. The Kinetic energy round commonly known as a "Sabot Round" is a high velocity, armor defeating round. (This is the round peeps talk about sucking peeps out of tanks!!!) It's velocity is classified to an extent but is known to exceed 1.1 miles per second (yes, I said second. To give a visual picture of this speed. When you fire the tank, you get obscuration {term for dust and smoke obscuring the visual devices in the tank} With a sabot round, you can see the round "splash" a target at a range of 2k meters before the smoke blinds you.) The second round used is a HEAT round (High Explosive Anti-Tank) this round looks like a bullet with a dickhead :P It is commonly used for Light skinned vehicles, Bunkers, troop formations etc...

Ok, that short lecture was to explain that when a tank fires it's main gun, generally the front three roadwheels are pulled off the ground. (Roadwheels are the wheel-like things between that the track rotates on.) Inside the vehicle, sound is rather dulled, though it is quite possible to be killed inside the tank as the gun also recoils within the turret itself. The breach-block (Place where round is loaded) generally recoils about 2 1/2 feet towards the backwall of the tank. Seen a guy get his ribs broke from a recoil...

bigross86
30 Oct 03,, 21:54
I do know that the recoil in the tank is correct, and the sabot speed sounds right...

Stinger
30 Oct 03,, 22:07
Theres a few more than 2 rounds it can fire.... we need Snipe in Here for this.

Bill
30 Oct 03,, 22:54
" It's velocity is classified to an extent but is known to exceed 1.1 miles per second "

M829A3 APFSDSDU has a Mv of 5,512 fps.

M-1A2SEP weighs in at 70 tons.

There are four rounds currently used by US tanks.

HEAT(High Explosive Anti-Tank)
APFSDSDU(i aint typing all that out ;)
MPAT(Multi Purpose Anti Tank)
STAFF(Sabot Top Attack Fire and Forget)

A planned fifth is Beehive/Cannister, and is currently in advanced development.

TopHatter
30 Oct 03,, 22:56
It's a shame that US tanks don't carry a plain old HE or frag round but I guess it simplifies the loggie train to carry only HEAT and sabot

Praxus
30 Oct 03,, 23:28
I don't think tanks in the US are really thought to be used for that purpose.

APFSDSDU: Armour Peircing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot Depleted Uranium

;)

Bill
31 Oct 03,, 00:05
There is a round for every need.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 17:11
actually you missed the m830a1. heat rounds are also not that usefull. the splitter area is not good enough, that's why germany is going to field a he round as a replacement of the dm (the us army fielded that round slightly modified as m830). you can't also say that there is a round for every need, as i don't think the tanks get loaded always with all round types.

regards
axl



www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Bill
31 Oct 03,, 18:00
I didn't say the tank would have a round for every need, just that there was a ROUND for every need.

If the CO expects a big tank battle and loads his tracks with nothing but HEAT and APFSDSDU that aint TACOMs fault, is it?

axl
31 Oct 03,, 18:51
but there are needs that modern rounds can't support. just take the attack of soft targets. or helicopters (i know, tanks don't attack flying targets). m830 and m830a1 are nice, but not really perfect. btw, made a mistake in the earlier post. the m830a1 was in your list, but you misted m908.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Bill
31 Oct 03,, 19:01
MPAT is made for engaging helos(i said APFSDS wasn't for helos- i never said there wasn't a round for doing it).

STAFF, MPAT, and to a lesser extent HEAT all are good for attacking soft targets. Beehive is specificly designed for soft targets.

BTW, the biggest issue with engaging aircraft i had with you was the claim that a fixed wing aircraft could be attacked reliably.

To hit an A-10 with any main gun round would be a 1 in a million shot- a golden BB as they say.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 19:31
i said fixed wing aircrafts can be attacked reliably? no sir, that's what you guys wanted that i say. i say i tracked an a-10 and it is possibe to shot it down. and that just under good conditions, not always.
mpat is designed to attack helicopters. but the round is quite slow and has no terminal homing or some other type of guiding. so i still prefere apfsds. if you don't believe that this round is used to attack helicopters, just go to tank-net or steelbeasts. there are more than enough experienced tankers around. they will tell you.
staff and mpat are not really good in attacking soft targets as troops. heat is capable, but its main task is still the armour penetration. the field affected by the splitters is less optimal. that's the reason why the russians use he rounds and the germans will one day.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Bill
31 Oct 03,, 19:39
MPAT is a saboted HEAT with a proximity warhead. No it is not terminally guided, but it is still a much better option than any of the other rounds.

I don't dispute you can track an A-10, that doesn't surprise me at all. However the neccesary lead in cannot be computed by the tanks ballistic computer, and even if it could the FOV is too narrow to lead enough anyway.

Like i said in the earlier post, by the time a sabot travels 1 mile downrange the A-10 would have moves as far as 350+ feet from the time of firing.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 20:06
you think so small. just try it the other way round: under what conditions it would be possible to hit the a-10? kepp in mind modern tanks are able to attack helicopters and the cruzing speed of the a-10 is not that high. it is also loosing speed when turning.

what is the muzzle velocity of the mpat? i guss it was something around 1400m/s, right? that's over 200m/s less than an apfsds round, with negative effects on the flight path. the velocity drop during the flight is also much bigger, as the mpat has a larger diameter. and what is the diameter of the slitter area? the m830a1 is for sure better than the m830, but i'm not really exited.

regards
axl


www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Stinger
31 Oct 03,, 20:15
Originally posted by axl
under what conditions it would be possible to hit the a-10? kepp in mind modern tanks are able to attack helicopters and the cruzing speed of the a-10 is not that high. it is also loosing speed when turning.
When the Stinger/Strela teams jump jump out of their Humvees/Jeeps and start filling the air with missiles.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 20:36
do you believe in the power of the stinger? a friend of mine was german army stinger trooper and what he told me about that weapon was not as impressive. but you are right with one thing. the situation where you are able to lock on an airial target with the stinger is also a good moment for a tank to try it.

regard
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Praxus
31 Oct 03,, 20:37
what is the muzzle velocity of the mpat? i guss it was something around 1400m/s, right? that's over 200m/s less than an apfsds round, with negative effects on the flight path. the velocity drop during the flight is also much bigger, as the mpat has a larger diameter. and what is the diameter of the slitter area? the m830a1 is for sure better than the m830, but i'm not really exited.

The US uses HEAT and STAFF rounds against helicopters. They do not nore have they ever used APFSDS rounds. No other country uses APFSDS rounds against helicopters.

Of course it's possible to knock down a helicopter with an APFSDS round but no tank crew in their right mind would try it unless it was their only chance.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 20:52
where in all hell are you getting your information from? heat against helicopters? you mean m830 rounds? wake up! this round is so slow, that the hit propabilities against a point target are lower than 75% on a range of 1.500m and go more doen. helicopters move, you will never hit it.
and no country is using apfsds rounds against helicopters? strange, the russians do and also the french. and did you ever trained with the german army or did you ever talked to a german tanker? apfsds is the first choice against any moving target including airial ones. if you stop to think that air supperiority is always on your side as well as sufficient air defence, you will maybe be able to see what a tank is able to do.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Stinger
31 Oct 03,, 21:09
Originally posted by axl
do you believe in the power of the stinger? a friend of mine was german army stinger trooper and what he told me about that weapon was not as impressive. but you are right with one thing. the situation where you are able to lock on an airial target with the stinger is also a good moment for a tank to try it.

regard
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de) when the choice is between a MANPAD trying to shoot down a plane and a tank trying to shoot down a plane I'll put my money on the MANPAD any day of the week.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 21:12
with the difference that the plane will probably fly on when the manpad really hits. if the tank does, it won't.

regards
axl

Stinger
31 Oct 03,, 21:29
Originally posted by axl
with the difference that the plane will probably fly on when the manpad really hits. if the tank does, it won't.

regards
axl It might fly on but I bet the Pilot decides to retire for the day.... With a MANPAD I probly have on the worst day a 20% chance of hitting the plane..... with a tank on a good day its one in a million.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 21:32
how could you know? ever been a tanker? ever trained to attack a plane? ever thought that it depends on the situation and not the day?

regards
axl

Praxus
31 Oct 03,, 21:35
where in all hell are you getting your information from? heat against helicopters? you mean m830 rounds? wake up! this round is so slow, that the hit propabilities against a point target are lower than 75% on a range of 1.500m and go more doen. helicopters move, you will never hit it.
and no country is using apfsds rounds against helicopters? strange, the russians do and also the french. and did you ever trained with the german army or did you ever talked to a german tanker? apfsds is the first choice against any moving target including airial ones. if you stop to think that air supperiority is always on your side as well as sufficient air defence, you will maybe be able to see what a tank is able to do.

They do use HEAT rounds, that is a fact, an APFSDS round will do nothing unless your lucky.

Russians would use laser guided ATGM's to knock out helicopters not APFSDS rounds.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 21:40
gimme one reliable source please, just one. as you are not a tanker nor have you ever been one i don't think that you know what a tanker is doing and what not. and it one is using a hear round he is just stupid. please go to and ask tanker. you don't believe me, fine. but maybe you try to ask somebody else. i know it, i have been trained. i have informations about the hit propability of heat rounds against moving or static groundtargets. and even here it is somewhat bad. just think: you have two round
1. fast moving apfsds
2. slow moving heat
both harm the target only on impact. which one is able to hit a fast moving target? every answer different that 1 is not even logic.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Stinger
31 Oct 03,, 21:52
A guided missile has a far better chance of hitting an aircraft over an unguided ballistic projectile with a high deflection shot at a target over 1/2 a mile away. it simple mathmatics as Sniper has relentlessly pointed out to you.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 21:56
no question about it. but first the guided missile has to lock on target and be able to follow. and the stinger is not the best weapon for that. stinger has been designed to attack slow planes or helicopters, but its much overestimated. it's not the super weapon many people think.

regards
axl

Stinger
31 Oct 03,, 21:59
Originally posted by axl
no question about it. but first the guided missile has to lock on target and be able to follow. and the stinger is not the best weapon for that. stinger has been designed to attack slow planes or helicopters, but its much overestimated. it's not the super weapon many people think.

regards
axl You consider an A-10 a FAST plane?

Bill
31 Oct 03,, 22:02
HEAT is NOT used for helos, nor is STAFF, and neither is Sabot(not in the US anyway).

MPAT was designed for that. MPAT has a slower velocity than APFSDSDU, but it has two huge advantadges over all the other rounds.

1) It has a proximity fuze making a direct hit unneccesary.

2) It has a pre-etched fragmentation sleeve to maximize the burst raduis when the warhead detonates via a proximity cue.(The MPAT warhead is HEAT, so it is also effective against light armor).

ATGM's(most of them) are pretty weak against helos because they have such a low velocity. If the helo sees it coming he can just mask behind terrain until the missile slams into a tree, hillside, whatever.

I did see a guy 'hit' a Kiowa with a Dragon at NTC once(using MILES gear), but the helo was very close(about 400 meters), hovering low to the ground, and facing the wrong direction(it had it's ass to the firing troop), so he never saw it coming.

But then again, i saw a lot of crazy shit at NTC.

Never once have i heard of a tank scoring a kill on a helo at NTC with it's maingun though. MPAT is brand new, so i don't know how that has impacted things, if at all. Of course the problem with MPAT is that if you keep it loaded and you stumble on a tank you are probably giving up the first shot.

axl
31 Oct 03,, 22:14
the solution is pretty easy: us army does not train to use apfsds rounds against helicopters. but that does not mean that it does not work or that others don't do it. us army also does not give much in putting cammo on the tanks...

to act on an incomming guided missile you have to see it first. moreover you will have problems with doing something against them, they are human guided. don't see that as a face to face egagement. most of the time that won't happen. it's the same for the often taken arguments "russian atgm can't penetrate the latest abrams frontal". the simple answer is: so what? think big, think more dimensional, think realistic. its much easier for you to kill the enemy if he does not see you. so try to attack his flanks. it's always the same.

regards
axl

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 03,, 01:37
Not this again.

Axl, there are NO qualifications for anyone to use ATGMs nor tankers against helos or anything airborned. I know. I wrote those evals.

You may THINK this can happen but it ain't on the books and it ain't happenning and I've got a question about the guys practising this? They're that good that they don't have to practise what they're paid to do?

axl
01 Nov 03,, 08:48
it aint on AMERICAN books, it is not trained by AMERICAN tankers. could you maybe start to look behind the horizon? the world is much bigger, so please ask around.

regards
axl

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 03,, 08:53
Axl,

I'm Canadian. What's more. I was at CFB Lahrs with the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group in Germany with VII Corps. In other words, I worked, trained, and examined NATO battle reqs, qualifications, and evals.

And I've reached the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. You tell me what field manual from which army at which page and which battle eval does this come from.

I suggest you leave this because I know for a fact that this ain't done and most certainly not with any A10s or any American helos which you've claimed this was designed against.

axl
01 Nov 03,, 09:11
f***ing sh**, could you please stop interpreting my words and just read them? i don't claim that any german tank has been designed against american helicopters, how senile are you? go and ask a german tanker somewhere (as you don't believe me) if they train to attack helicopters with the main gun, please do. and if you find an experienced german tanker (not one of the childs with 4 months army experience) then ask him if it would be possible to attack even slow flying fixed wing planes and under what conditions. is that so difficult? okay, you may think a lieutenant-colonel is god and knows all, but you are wrong. reminds me somehow on the "a view good men" movie, the code red was also not in the manual.

btw, i talked to some israeli tankers last year at the eurosatory. they train also to fight with the main gun against helicopters (with apfsds rounds), but they have the advantage of the auto tracker in the merk3baz.

regards
axl

Bill
01 Nov 03,, 09:58
Axl, how about a little respect?

What the Colonel is saying is that doctrinally there are no NATO training requirements or qualifications tables for tanks to engage aircraft with the main gun.

He is NOT saying that individual tank crews may or may not try these things in field problems- he is saying that there is no engagement docrtrine laid forth in any NATO field manuals- and he is COMPLETELY CORRECT to the best of my knowledge.

Our tankers used to attempt helo engagements too(i already told of an instance where i witnessed it first hand), but that has nothing to do with what the Colonel is saying.

And DO NOT insult other board members with name calling, got it?

Take heed to this warning...there will not be another.

axl
01 Nov 03,, 10:09
that was fast. just remember ..but forget it.

i'm not a library, i don't have field manuals around. you guys are telling me that you know all field manuals, fine. i don't think that there has to a doctrine or whatever you wanna call it. there is a target that you can reach, get it. i don't think that there are special doctrines for apcs and mbts and trucks and and and.
i also don't talk about what individual tank crews are thinking what they can do. the germans have the helicopters even in the simulators and attack them. that's part of the normal training! if you don't believe it, get some german tankers and ask them. oh yes, helicopter attacks are possible only since the early 1980s with the more modern fcs. and the german tankers started training it more regular with the introduction of digital simulators in the early 1990s. before there was no way to train that, except being lucky and get a helicopter in sight that you can track.

@Officer of Engineers
when did you leave germany, when did you leave the army, when did you last time talked to german tankers about that topic?

regards
axl

Bill
01 Nov 03,, 10:41
There is an FM and/or doctrine for everything the military views as useful.

The fact that there is not one for MBT or ATGM main gun engagement of aircraft should tell you something.

axl
01 Nov 03,, 10:55
maybe there is one in germany, who cares? can you guaranty that there is no in the german army? the engagement of airial targets is not much different from the engagement of ground targets. btw, leo2a5 got a modification on the lrf. its now possible to select between different laser echos. this is useful especially when attacking helicopters, as the rotor may ruine your ranging data.
release of fuse ee33 on the driver's pannel of the leopard 2 allows you to bypass the driver's hatch lock. you can then open the hatch at any turret position and even if the turret is switched on or even to stab mode. this is not written in any field manual, but still true. and in the old days it was wuite a usual thing for the drivers.

regards
axl

Bill
01 Nov 03,, 11:07
The Colonel already told you no such FM exists in any NATO military.

If the word of a field grade NATO officer isn't enough for you what difference would me telling you none exists make?

I guarantee what you mention wrt the Leo II is in the maintenance manual.

axl
01 Nov 03,, 11:23
you are telling me that somebody knows ALL field manuals of ALL nato countries by heard? c'mon, wake up.

there is no "leo3 maintenance manual", but several different technical guidelines. i have seen tonns of them, but none mentioning the described problem.
another point: german army tank units release own manuals or extensions to official manuals. this is simply because not all fields of modern tanking are covered and changes need too much time. leopard 2 is given also with a max combat range of 4.000m as that is the max range the lrf hands over to the fcs. but still there are tables how to attack static targets on higher ranges. but that is not in the shooting manual leopard 2. so what?

regards
axl

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 03,, 11:27
Originally posted by axl
@Officer of Engineers
when did you leave germany,

When 4Bde left but been back several times on my way through to UNPROFOR, I/SFOR.


Originally posted by axl
when did you leave the army,

Officially, I'm still in as part of the secondary reserves.


Originally posted by axl
when did you last time talked to german tankers about that topic?

Don't need to. An AD regt is still standard TOE of all NATO bdes. I know what each bn is required to pass battle eval and for the arm'd bn, AD engagements ain't on the requirements. In case, you don't know (and it sounds like you don't), my job is to make sure my bde is combat qualified and that means a checklist that every battalion must perform and what you're stating ain't on that list which is a NATO list.

axl
01 Nov 03,, 11:28
found a manual: AnwFE 226/662
as you know all nato field manuals you should know also this one. now get a copy and have fun. i can't send you a copy, it's only for using within the german army.

regards
axl

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 03,, 11:29
Originally posted by axl
you are telling me that somebody knows ALL field manuals of ALL nato countries by heard? c'mon, wake up.

As part of my job, I have access to all NATO manuals and yours ain't there.

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 03,, 11:31
Originally posted by axl
found a manual: AnwFE 226/662


Will check it out Monday morning to see if your AD engagement is in there.

axl
01 Nov 03,, 11:43
wait a second. its not a requirement of tank units to do air defence. fine. but that means also that they are not able to and that they don't train it? if you take all your knowledge out of books and don't see a need to talk to people, don't you think you miss something? you have kinda like a poor attitude, don't you think? i have a book that the world is a disk and stay with this opinion until i get a better book which describes that the eath is a globe.

is in your official requirement list something about tanks being able to ford up to 4 meters or go 90km/h fast?

regards
axl

Stinger
01 Nov 03,, 14:23
Oh please Snipe Please modify the ROE with this guy..... That last was a poorly vailed insult to the Col. and for that matter you.

Officer of Engineers
01 Nov 03,, 15:33
Originally posted by axl
wait a second. its not a requirement of tank units to do air defence. fine. but that means also that they are not able to and that they don't train it? if you take all your knowledge out of books and don't see a need to talk to people, don't you think you miss something? you have kinda like a poor attitude, don't you think? i have a book that the world is a disk and stay with this opinion until i get a better book which describes that the eath is a globe.

is in your official requirement list something about tanks being able to ford up to 4 meters or go 90km/h fast?

regards
axl

Son,

My qualifications include seeing combat, bringing my people home. I've lost people. I've buried friends. I've received fire. I've returned fire. I've shot at people who dropped and to this day, I don't know if it was my bullet that did it or someone else's and I rather not know. I've been asked by a little girl why her father ain't coming home no more. I've seen dogs eating dead babies - at least I hoped they were dead before the dogs started eating them.

So, think long and hard before you start questioning my attitude.

Field Manuals are IMPORTANT. They tell you IN WRITING the EXACT procedure on how a thing is done so that there can be no mistakes. If it's important enough to train for, it's important enough to have a FM for it.

And one last thing - simulators DO NOT qualify as battle eval. ALL Battle Evaluations are based upon LIVE FIRE exercises. In this case, even if it's a drone. Computers ain't the real world. That's one bit of experience you should take to heart.

Bill
01 Nov 03,, 17:53
This matter is up for review by the admin Stinger.

Jay
03 Nov 03,, 12:57
Al-Khalid marvel of Tank-tech sets new world record
CAN ANYONE ON THIS FORUM CONFIRM THIS???

ISLAMABAD, Oct 20 (APP): A 23-member Royal Saudi Land Forces evaluation team headed by Maj Gen Ahmed Bin Saeed Al-Shehri visited Pakistan for evaluation of indigenously manufactured products of Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT). The evaluation team was warmly welcomed by the Chairman HIT, who gave them an exhaustive briefing on the capability of HIT and its potential for marketing sophisticated weapon systems suiting the dictates of modern warfare.

The Saudi team showed keen interest in state-of-the-art and pride of Pakistan Armour, Al-Khalid tank and APC Saad, and carried out intensive in-house technical evaluation and trials.

During the arduous trials under most inhospitable environments, the roaring Al-Khalid, a marvel of tank technology performed astoundingly well. It is for the first time that a Main Battle tank (Al-Khalid) attained 100% hits at a distance of 4,000 meters and set an unprecedented record in tank technology. Al-Khalid also fired while moving, on a moving target at various ranges upto a distance of 3,000 meters and achieved 100% Results. ...NOW I HAVE SEEN THE PERFORMANCE OF A LATEST CHALLENGER IN RECENT GULF WAR. THE GUNNER (WHILE STATIONARY) HAD TO FIRE SEVERAL ROUND BEFORE HE COULD BRING A TELEPHONE/ELECTRICITY POLE (ABOUT 15-20 INCHES WIDE) DOWN BEING ONLY 20-40 METERS AWAY FROM IT.

The lethality and accuracy of the weapon stations of Al-Khalid, its high power to weight ratio and manoeuvrability demonstrated in the most hostile terrain speaks volumes of its agility and combat capability to challenge any tank of the world.

Saudi Master Gunner, Subedar Major Yahya Bin Ahmed Atif achieved the rare feat of hitting a bulls eye at extreme ranges with 100% accuracy and achieved record firing results with a few days training only, indicative of user friendliness of Tank Al-Khalid.

>> is it reall rare or may be its rare bcoz its a saudi gunner??

The delegation was highly impressed with the performance of tank Al-Khalid and APC Saad during arduous trials. The new generation, APC Saad of Pakistan Armed forces has also been totally manufactured in Pakistan with a vision to meet the demands of 21st century battlefield. Pakistan is rightfully proud of its engineers and technicians who envisioned, designed and manufactured such combat multipliers, giving its Armed Forces the power punch and capability to face any challenge to its national security.

>> can some tankers here tell me WTF the author was smoking when writing this article and how true his claims are??

Copied it from PDF...wher else :D

Jay
03 Nov 03,, 13:02
>>btw one more ranting by anohter versatile tanker, who indeed compared AK Vs Abrams and said AK's r better!!



AK just impressed the hell outta the Saudis ........ the reports are thr ......... ok then u shrugg it of as propoganda ........ well my frnd auto loader is just an added luxury ........ AK can always be manually loaded it has off course both mechs ........ DU armour ......... well if its required it can always be added on for some more cash (OMG :D )......... i didnt dismiss the optics and electronics ....... off course the brand names have proved themselves ........ i said that if AK doesnt have branded stuff it doesnt mean AK's subsystems are not good ......... (........reading?) ......... n then AK costs 1.5 Million $ ......... M1 6~7 Million $ ......... AK has options for upgrades ....... which can be filled up when required so ......... we r even i guess ......... and yeah ........ the desert is AKs home ........ M1 ....... well ......... u knw what it does in the desert .....(OMG :D ).

Bill
03 Nov 03,, 18:01
Yeah, i know what the M-1 does in the desert.

NTC, Desert Storm, OIF....not too bad.

axl
03 Nov 03,, 23:55
@jay
please be realistic. the al khalid is a modified t-72, not more and not less. it's nice, but the "who is better" discussions lead to nowhere. 100% hit accuracy is a nice value if you forget to say against what targets and under what conditions. usually this value depends also on the gunner and not only on the tank. the al khalid is based on the chinese type 90III and so based on the soviet t-72 design. the basic armour is not that good, so the tanks has been equipped with era. there are many claims about the fcs (most guys say it is french), but the sights look exactly like the ones of the type 98. there should be also an auto tracking system, but nobody can explane me that (i know what it is, but not where the one of the al khalid should come from). the power of the fcs is not that high, as it would produce alot of heat and the al khalid does not have air condition. on the other hand al khalid is claimed to be designed for extreme hot climate.
export customers will have a problem with the tank. the design comes from china, the engine from the ukrain. this is resulting in a logistical and political nightmare. people could go directly to china (type 98) or ukrain (t-84) instead of getting a mix.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de (http://www.kampfpanzer.de)

Jay
04 Nov 03,, 00:44
AXL,
Thanks. You pretty much re-iterate the same stories that has been brweing for a while.
We pretty much argued about AK to death, but was just surprised to see this article in press and just wanted to have a laugh with you all.