Tronic

wow... i didn't know that??? means ****'s got a better tank... i have been living with the concept that T-90 is the best tank in the world (lez not bring in the Abrams here, lol, we already know Abrams are good)


(why did then filter the word p.aki above??? lol, when did p.aki become an offensive word??????????)

raj

i hit ur raw nerve right??????
even in 65 with a good tank like patton u guys were able to do $hit, i dont hope u guys would do any better with the worst tank like al-kida

__________________
saw this in some site dont remember the name tough

-{SpoonmaN}-

Am I the only one who finds all this Nationalist posturing petty and foolish? India and Pakistan are never going to war again, neither wants it and neither can afford it. Either both countries learn to get along or both countries will find themselves locked in an endless cycle of poverty and instability.

kNikS

T-80U and T-72BM and T-72BU (T-90) all have composite armor. Talking about capabilities, difference between T-72BM and T-80U is mainly in FCS, vision devices and engine. But Russian experiences showed that T-72 has some advantages over T-80 and on trials T-90 demonstrated better protection than T-80U. Although there was a stream (for example the chief of main Russian armor directorate) that considered T-80U better.

Talking solely about capabilities of Indian T90S and Pakistani T-80UD they both use M series of guns, slightly different autoloaders, similar FCS and gun stabilization, similar armor configuration… At the end I would give some advantage to Indian tanks and their crews.

__________________
For King and Fatherland ~ Freedom or Death

kNikS

Actually Al Khalid has about half of Chinese Type 59/69/80 series and rest is new design (although maybe not technologically new) with some subsystems from T-72 or Type 88.

3 men + autoloader isn’t a bad concept, think about Leclerc and Japanese Type 90. For example you don’t need several tons of armor to protect 4th crew member. And always consider salary and that would be one funeral more if tank is destroyed. Also consider that WWII (e. g. T-34/85) tanks had 5 crew members. Reduction of crew is a logical step, would it be particullary good or bad solution is a matter of technology.

Problem about vulnerability isn’t in turret size or autoloader but in ammo placement. If there is a penetration, ammo stowed in lower part of crew compartment will ignite (although it isn’t always the case and especially not often as people usually believe), not ammo in autoloader. And only IF there is a penetration. On trials T-90 without K-5 ERA was shot by 3BM42 from T-80U from a distance of 1500m (and specified max penetration is 650mm on 2000m) and there was no penetration. In addition to that crew entered the vehicle, activated it and prepared for firing.

kNikS

Good point. They sacrificed crew safety for low silhouette. But crew safety never was in Russian Top 5, possibly not even in Top 10. And considering their estimation of average time that tank would spent in nuclear battlefield in Europe, that was a good compromise.

JBodnar39

[

3 men + autoloader isn’t a bad concept, think about Leclerc and Japanese Type 90. For example you don’t need several tons of armor to protect 4th crew member. And always consider salary and that would be one funeral more if tank is destroyed. Also consider that WWII (e. g. T-34/85) tanks had 5 crew members. Reduction of crew is a logical step, would it be particullary good or bad solution is a matter of technology.

Good points. A three man crew is cheaper all around, but still less effective

kNikS

If we look at the performance of T-72 in Gulf, obviously yes. But it isn’t a fault of autoloader (+ 3 man crew) but ammo placement. Not to mention that all other subsystems of a Iraqi T-72 was outdate by that time.

On the other side there are Leclerc, Type 90, Ukrainian T-72 and T-80 with 120mm guns and ammo placement out of the crew compartment and even Black Eagle if you want. Neither of them would have that problem.

War Angel

It's yet another T-72 rip-off. Meaning, it's a fairly good tank, but nothing special. I suppose that because it's cheap and simple that it would be good for Pakistan.

American_Raider

IMO.

Al Khalid is Chinese Type-90 II with Ukrainian Engine on a modified T-72 chase. T-72 might not be a great Tank but the it does have a good chase & tracks.

Al Khakid comes equipped with 125mm gun (same ones on Chinese Type-96, 98 & 99 MBT) & auto_loader, it can fire up to 8 rounds per min. 600mm frontal armor protection (same as Russian T-90). it can also fire chinese made anti-tank & anti-air missiles from its main gun with range up to 5km.

Pakistan is manufacturing this Tank with Chinese & Ukraine parts, I think this is a good performance medium tank with a low price.

indianguy4u

Saudis are looking to buy AK . Will also rent adequate no.of pakistanis too.

__________________
Hala Madrid!!

lemontree

In some other media sources I have read the ROF as 13 rds per minute. Manual loading tanks can fire 18-20 rounds per minute.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

kNikS

This thing with Al Khalid is overpumped – it’s a mix of older Chinese designs and T-72, I don’t see anything revolutionary about it.

Greatest problem with Al Khalid is in logistics… people are buying practically same thank as Chinese or tank of lower capabilities that Russian or Ukrainian from Pakistanis, and they are buying parts from Ukrainians or Chinese.

Thing that all of you talking here is theoretical rate of fire, not practical. Practical is rate of fire is what is important, it depends of a lot of factors FCS, gunner for example… There were Finnish, German and US tankers on the board with pretty good discussion about that topic…

Here: T-95 vs M1A2 (discussion about rate of fire starts from page 5 but I suggest you to read whole thread, it’s pretty informative)

lemontree

kNiks,
That was an interesting thread. However, the ROF mentioned by me of 18-20 rds per minute has been seen by me in a fire-power demo. Tank was a vintage Vijayanta (Vickers Mk3) firing its 105 mm L7A1 maingun.

The Centurion was also equipped with the L7A1, the rate of fire is remarkable when firing from static positions in defence. During the 1971 Indo-Pak war an Centurion armoured troop (less 1 tank) of 17 Poona Horse destroyed a charging squadron of 13 Lancers (Pak Army) equipped with M48 Patton tanks.

A tank firing manually can hit a target with 20 rds, faster and accurately than a rifleman firing semi-auto a target in one minute. That is the level at which tanks crews train.

kNikS

Yes Sir, but in thread I pointed somebody mentioned term “under ideal conditions”. I don’t know all factors that affected engagement you mentioned but training (with 105mm rounds from static position as you described) fits term “ideal”. Also I’m pretty sure that Indian army tankers in T-72M1 and T-90S (T-90 firing 3 shots in 13 seconds) could show better level of effectiveness regarding shot/hit ratio.