Sir, these long (snorkeling-type) tubes at the top of the tank are only for testing purposes, or will stay?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sir, these long (snorkeling-type) tubes at the top of the tank are only for testing purposes, or will stay?
@The Eagle its better if you just post the video of AK-1 deep fording not this tweet by Brigadier as he is wrong about the "first time in AK history"
What’s the point of posting this video again and again, did you even read and see the previous posts ? This Video was already posted 3 times.
What’s the point of posting this video again and again, did you even read and see the previous posts ? This Video was already posted 3 times.
Alhamdulilah upgraded version of Al Khalid-1 (AK-1) tank. In the history of Al Khalid, first time deep fording was attempted succesfully. Its a milestone achievement. Ist batch has been handed over to Army.
PAKISTAN ZINDABAD pic.twitter.com/C6LoUcJrdI
— Brig Ashfaq Hassan (R), Sitara-E-Imtiaz (Mil). (@BrigAshfaqHasan) January 7, 2022
New Recruit
The ERA is Pakistani AORAK. It is a locally improved version of FY-2 made by Dr. AQ Khan research labs and NDC. Yes, It apparently reduces the penetration of KE rounds. but I’ve never seen any official source to back that up, I’ve only seen official sources talk about it effecting the performance of CE rounds and not KE. However there may have been upgrades/changes in it during its service to change that, it wouldn’t be entirely unbelievable because if it was too much worst than K-5, then PA wouldn’t have opted for it, they did have access to K-5 while making AK. However weight constraints may also have been a factor.Hello! Some time ago drew attention to the ERA protection of AK-1 tank, so I have some questions with the identification of the type of ERA protection on the AK-1, could anyone to clarify these nuances?:
1) This ERA protection looks a bit close to FY-1 and FY-2, so Is it possible to consider it for, for example, FY-2 in it's origin?
2) As far as I understand, it has some influence on the APFSDS, is it possible to evaluate the protection it provides? Approximately КОНТАКТ-5 ERA, about 10-15% reducing penetration level?
3) Is there any information about it's internal schema? As far as I understand, a metal throwing plate is used, but what it's thickness, compared to КОНТАКТ-5 ERA, for example? Since I suggested some common with FY-1 or FY-2 ERA, thickness of the block is within 28-35mm, I suppose?
New Recruit
Thank you for the clarification! It must be assumed, according to GJB 2336A "Specifications for reactive armor", if FY-4 ERA is able to reduce 600mm armor piercing shot about 30%The ERA is Pakistani AORAK. It is a locally improved version of FY-2 made by Dr. AQ Khan research labs and NDC. Yes, It apparently reduces the penetration of KE rounds. but I’ve never seen any official source to back that up, I’ve only seen official sources talk about it effecting the performance of CE rounds and not KE. However there may have been upgrades/changes in it during its service to change that, it wouldn’t be entirely unbelievable because if it was too much worst than K-5, then PA wouldn’t have opted for it, they did have access to K-5 while making AK. However weight constraints may also have been a factor.
Most of the information on it is lost to time unfortunately, it’s likely better in performance to FY-2, but by how much, I don’t know, either way, it’s in need of an upgrade, and the ERA coverage is more of an issue than the ERA itself.
it’s set up a few different ways, either single or double stacked on both turret and hull (usually only single bricks are seen on service tanks, I’ve only ever seen double on early tanks or display models, I assume weight plays a part here as the engine is not too strong, either way, we know it can be double or single stacked as needed for improved performance).
There aren’t really any protection numbers for it available, but dimensions are as follows;
The Dr AQ Khan Research Laboratories, well known for the design, development and production of missile and rocket systems, have developed the AORAK Mk 1 explosive reactive armour (ERA) system to improve the combat survivability of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles against attack from Chemical Energy (CE) projectiles.
So far, the Dr AQ Khan Research Laboratories have developed three different sizes of ERA modules to meet different user requirements.
They are known as Type A, B and C and differ only in their size. Each module consists of two thin steel plates between which the explosive is inserted. This in turn is inserted in a box which is then bolted on to the hull or turret of the vehicle.
Efforts have also been made to reduce the risk of accidental detonation of the ERA modules by small arms fire, shell fragments and lightning strikes as well as reducing the sympathetic detonation of surrounding ERA modules.
This armour system is claimed to have a shelf-life of 10 years and an operational temperature range of -40 to +52 º C.
Specifications
Type A
Type B
Type C
Size
305 × 305 mm
229 × 229 mm
152 × 152 mm
Weight
16 kg
9 kg
8 kg
Weight of explosive sheet
1.2 kg
0.75 kg
0.35 kg
According to some Chinese sources, new version of FY4 reduces penetration of BTA-4 APFSDS (600MM penetration) by 40% or 250MM. However some other sources also say 30% for same ammo, apparently there is a difference in the versions of FY4 here due to thickness.Thank you for the clarification! It must be assumed, according to GJB 2336A "Specifications for reactive armor", if FY-4 ERA is able to reduce 600mm armor piercing shot about 30%
Then, I guess, AORAK throwing plate (at least in type A ERA) should be approximately ~16mm and it will be able to reduce level for ~20% against APFSDS like 3БМ32, DM33, and so on level
New Recruit
According to some Chinese sources, new version of FY4 reduces penetration of BTA-4 APFSDS (600MM penetration) by 40% or 250MM. However some other sources also say 30% for same ammo, apparently there is a difference in the versions of FY4 here due to thickness.
But yes, that 20% maybe safe assumption for AORAK in case of older ammo. Maybe slightly less potent against BM42, but still better than nothing. Pakistans main adversary (india), only uses BM42 or BM-17 APFSDS.
View attachment 811118
Here is Aorak when double stacked. Or maybe that is ERA frame, but if it is a frame that would be weird because usually it’s mounted without frame. So I assume it’s double stacked ERA.View attachment 811119
New Recruit
In the base model Al Khalid, The gunner has a second generation thermal sight (Catherine FC) along with his normal day sight. The commander has an independent, stabilized and magnified day and night panoramic sight with second generation IIT (night vision) but no thermal sight of his own. He can access the gunners thermal from his screen.If possible, I would like to clarify, according to the brochure on the first page there is a thermal imaging for gunner (second generation?) and an independent commander's sight with thermal imaging (second generation)?