Al-Zarrar MBT | News,Updates & Discussions.

[DESERT FIGHTER]

View attachment 400382

small question this is an al zarrar tank but is not similar to any of the recent pictures mainly the turret and the side Armour
does anyone have any details as to what happened to them??
were any of the T-59 ever upgraded to these..

Side armour is just covered with ERA.. Production variant also uses em.

 

[Penguin]

Bro,
Are their any plans to upgrade older T59/69 to AZ standards?
Ukrainian Tifon2 upgrade with more armor, 840HP engine & Hunter killer capability looks very appealing option if there are really plans for Al Zarrar 3 package .....

Al Zarrar sports many of the same improvements as Tifon 2 (e.g. raised turret, 125mm gun, engine/transmission etc) as both use Morozov (Ukraine) components.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

thnx to confirm ...

I highly doubt it.

There are still units armed with old types without any upgrades.


Buying used t-55s makes no sense, economically or otherwise.

Army wants to get rid of them.. hence even FC was given squadrons..

 

[Arsalan]

View attachment 403103


I highly doubt it.

There are still units armed with old types without any upgrades.


Buying used t-55s makes no sense, economically or otherwise.

Army wants to get rid of them.. hence even FC was given squadrons..

AZ upgrades are not a priority anymore. HIT and army is looking to increase the AK-1 product rate (which is pathetically slow by the way) and all focus is on that. Then there is a possibility of one may bee even two new programs.

 

[Inception-06]

AZ upgrades are not a priority anymore. HIT and army is looking to increase the AK-1 product rate (which is pathetically slow by the way) and all focus is on that. Then there is a possibility of one may bee even two new programs.

AL-ZARRAR now with Gun-shield

 

[Inception-06]

AL-ZARRAR now with Gun-shield
View attachment 412799

@Gryphon any thoughts how the Tanks western front can be more effective ? I have hecked the isreali Tanks and noticed that all their Tank have two Machine guns on the turret (more firepower against infantry) and chains around the turret to protect from RPG-7 (also the main threat for our Tanks):

- ERA armour around the turret

-machine gun shields or turrets

-IED sensor warnings/jammers (only for the leading Tank)

-functional and working smoke grenades


"This chain and weight arrangement protects the interface between the turret and the hull where armour is likely to be weakest. The heavy chains and their attached weights will detonate the RPG shell and prevent it from exploding in a site where it may cause more damage."

 

[Gryphon]

@Gryphon any thoughts how the Tanks western front can be more effective ? I have hecked the isreali Tanks and noticed that all their Tank have two Machine guns on the turret (more firepower against infantry) and chains around the turret to protect from RPG-7 (also the main threat for our Tanks):

- ERA armour around the turret

-machine gun shields or turrets

-IED sensor warnings/jammers (only for the leading Tank)

-functional and working smoke grenades


"This chain and weight arrangement protects the interface between the turret and the hull where armour is likely to be weakest. The heavy chains and their attached weights will detonate the RPG shell and prevent it from exploding in a site where it may cause more damage."

I would like to mention some points here.

* Large scale COIN ops are winding down. Terrorists are now confined to few heights along the border and tanks (like AZ) are no longer required to clear areas under enemy control.

* It's a matter of time army's armoured units start reverting to original locations. To fill in the void, more FC wings are being raised. Creation of Western Border Security Force (WBSF) has been proposed.

* Regarding the Israeli tanks, their add-on's are based on own requirements as they operate in populated areas in WB and along Gaza border. They engaged in urban warfare against Hezbollah in 2006, who used ATGM's effectively from concealed positions.

* FC will continue to operate Type 59/69's .... so besides the currently used cage armour, I think they should adopt this 'chain & weight' arrangement (as on Merkava) and use of IED jammers.

* Use of ERA - no. It basically throws off the explosion which can harm own soldiers and is an expensive upgrade. 2x MG on turret is another Israeli mod for urban warfare.

* Since terrorists continue to enjoy safe havens in Afg (which Americans no longer target), they will continue resorting to
(i) cross border raids on posts, (ii) IED and ambush attacks on ROP's and convoys.

IMO, surveillance equipment and MRAP's are most needed, as terrorists will continue such attacks for at least another decade.

Corrections will be appreciated!

 

[Inception-06]

I would like to mention some points here.

* Large scale COIN ops are winding down. Terrorists are now confined to few heights along the border and tanks (like AZ) are no longer required to clear areas under enemy control.

* It's a matter of time army's armoured units start reverting to original locations. To fill in the void, more FC wings are being raised. Creation of Western Border Security Force (WBSF) has been proposed.

* Regarding the Israeli tanks, their add-on's are based on own requirements as they operate in populated areas in WB and along Gaza border. They engaged in urban warfare against Hezbollah in 2006, who used ATGM's effectively from concealed positions.

* FC will continue to operate Type 59/69's .... so besides the currently used cage armour, I think they should adopt this 'chain & weight' arrangement (as on Merkava) and use of IED jammers.

* Use of ERA - no. It basically throws off the explosion which can harm own soldiers and is an expensive upgrade. 2x MG on turret is another Israeli mod for urban warfare.

* Since terrorists continue to enjoy safe havens in Afg (which Americans no longer target), they will continue resorting to
(i) cross border raids on posts, (ii) IED and ambush attacks on ROP's and convoys.

IMO, surveillance equipment and MRAP's are most needed, as terrorists will continue such attacks for at least another decade.

Corrections will be appreciated!

I agree in every point with you,so keep on and I continue

Yes the Al-Zarrar is not needed at the Afghan Border, but my upgrades were more related for the Type-59 IIM and Type-69 IIM Tanks which are already in service. You are right the major COIN operations are over but the new threats is already there ISIS,BLA, rest of TTPs and the ANA (a agressive and uncordinated afghan army-see the list of skirmishes with ANA), the Afghan and Iran Border is becoming the same threat level as the Indian Border and the LOC. So as you have mentioned it already, the new challenge is a hostile border, where trenches,Bunker, posts and Forts are our answer.Besides the Role of the Tank as a direct fire support element, I see the Tank also as "Battlestation on the Border":

The enemy will need a lot of firepower and force to attack and tackout such a Tank, enemys main Force is the Infantry, thats why I suggest that our Tanks at The Afghan and Iran Border should have two machine Guns, one with a turret (as we have seen on some examples) and a seconde one with the MG-3 protected with a shield. Advantage of second machine gun MG-3:smaller caliber more rounds, higher fire rate on short distance result in more firepower against enemy infantry.

Other advantage of Tanks at the Border: is the mobility, it can change his position very fast from one Border-post to the under the attacked one and help it out.

The Tank takes the enemy attention on his own, can give own troops more time to restructre and locate the enemy fire and so the enemy movement/position


-Direct close and precice firesupport at day and night, at night when it gets Night Thermal imaging upgrade, which than transform the Tank in a night mobile/protected observation post

- Tanks are a moral booster for own troops and the a nightmare for the enemy infantry


Clearly we can say that it makes sense to keep on upgrading and building Tank-Wings which are permanently stationed at the Iran-Afghan Border. I would even reactivate the M-47/48 Tanks (should get a overhaul and uprade at HIT or in Turkey for a good price), see Turkey they have also stationaded the M-48 permanently as force multipliers at the border and in eastern Turkey !

• Turkish M48A5T2 variant upgraded along similar lines to the M60A1, with an M68 105 mm main gun, M60A1 fire control system and an MTU diesel engine, with thermal imaging, M60A3 fire control system and a laser rangefinder.

Thats the way how turksih Army is using older Tanks at the Border as posts/force multipliers

 

[GriffinsRule]

I think the concept is sound and should be applied to the Afghan border with Al-Zarrar tanks (which are upgraded T-59s). So basically we can continue to replace older tanks with newer ones and move the already upgraded tanks in the inventory to the NW. No need to try to reactivate M48s or the likes as HIT is more than capable of refurbishing the existing Chinese tanks in service.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Perhaps another option is to create an "Al Khalid Lite" as a cheaper option to increase production rate. Al Khalid Lite would be essentially an Al Khalid that is downgraded.
1. It would have an 840 HP engine
2. A local FCS
3. Chinese / Ukranian / Russian / Turkish / South African optics
4. Stripped down bare basic approach.

This would create a cheaper Al-Khalid that would be less budget constrained and would fill up the numbers needed. It would also solve the long standing problem of the transmission of the Al Khalid which is often prone to breaking down (the main weakness of the tank is this transmission or so I have heard). With a less powerful engine, the transmission would not be strained.

While a higher HP tank is needed in the desert (high speed) warfare and in the mountains to the north, the main theatre of war has traditionally been around the Lahore-Sialkot sector. Here there is no room to maneuvre as both sides are fighting a Stalingrad type set piece battle, along long prepared defense in depth. Here there is little need for a more powerful engine and Al Khalid Lite would help shore up numbers against Indian armour and mechanized formations which are increasing rapidly in number and capability.

 

[Shabi1]

A

Perhaps another option is to create an "Al Khalid Lite" as a cheaper option to increase production rate. Al Khalid Lite would be essentially an Al Khalid that is downgraded.
1. It would have an 840 HP engine
2. A local FCS
3. Chinese / Ukranian / Russian / Turkish / South African optics
4. Stripped down bare basic approach.

This would create a cheaper Al-Khalid that would be less budget constrained and would fill up the numbers needed. It would also solve the long standing problem of the transmission of the Al Khalid which is often prone to breaking down (the main weakness of the tank is this transmission or so I have heard). With a less powerful engine, the transmission would not be strained.

While a higher HP tank is needed in the desert (high speed) warfare and in the mountains to the north, the main theatre of war has traditionally been around the Lahore-Sialkot sector. Here there is no room to maneuvre as both sides are fighting a Stalingrad type set piece battle, along long prepared defense in depth. Here there is little need for a more powerful engine and Al Khalid Lite would help shore up numbers against Indian armour and mechanized formations which are increasing rapidly in number and capability.

The above solution is not feasible, you can install a 800 or 1000CC engine on a Toyota Corolla instead of a 1300-1800CC and strip out features to make it lighter and cheaper but it will be a severely crappy car since the chassis size wasnt designed for that.

Pakistan needs light tanks for mountainous areas, and Al-Zarrar upgrades (and future variants) on the T59/69 series tanks will continue to meet the requirement for that. This is the reason Patton tank upgrades are still on offer.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...tank-can-it-still-fight-the-worlds-best-18228

Clarification on transmission:
MBT-2000 program had various engine arrangements (Chinese, German, Ukraine) but the option chosen by Pakistan for Al-Khalid was the French SESM ESM500 autmatic transmission which is the same one used on the French Leclerc tank and on the Leclerc it drives a 1500HP engine instead of a 1200HP engine on the Al-Khalid. So Al-Khalid doesnt have any transmission issues in PA use.
Could be that MBT-2000s delivered to Bangladesh were chosen with Chinese transmission, and your source quoting their experience.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

A


The above solution is not feasible, you can install a 800 or 1000CC engine on a Toyota Corolla instead of a 1300-1800CC and strip out features to make it lighter and cheaper but it will be a severely crappy car since the chassis size wasnt designed for that.

A cheaper and simplified Al-Khalid, in my honest opinion is very feasible. The main reason given by HIT of the slow production rate is budget. A cheaper Al Khalid exactly solves that problem.

Whether the engine can be smaller or not, I think neither you nor me can decide on that only the actual experts. However, if we note the original T-72, of similar weight to the AK, we see it was powered by a much weaker engine:
V-92S2F (T-72B3 & T-72B3M 780 hp (580 kW)

The AK among Eastern tank designs is a Ferrari - very fast. All we are saying is put a lower HP engine to make it closer to an Audi.

Be that as it may, lets not get bogged down with who is right in that matter. The main issue I want to highlight is a cheaper AK is possible and would solve the shortfall of replacement tanks discussed in this thread.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

A cheaper and simplified Al-Khalid, in my honest opinion is very feasible. The main reason given by HIT of the slow production rate is budget. A cheaper Al Khalid exactly solves that problem.

Whether the engine can be smaller or not, I think neither you nor me can decide on that only the actual experts. However, if we note the original T-72, of similar weight to the AK, we see it was powered by a much weaker engine:
V-92S2F (T-72B3 & T-72B3M 780 hp (580 kW)

The AK among Eastern tank designs is a Ferrari - very fast. All we are saying is put a lower HP engine to make it closer to an Audi.

Be that as it may, lets not get bogged down with who is right in that matter. The main issue I want to highlight is a cheaper AK is possible and would solve the shortfall of replacement tanks discussed in this thread.

The combat weight of AK is around 48 tons..

Do you think a low powered engine could pull that? No.

Infact the new AK-II variant is going for a 1500HP engine.

 

[Gryphon]

I agree in every point with you,so keep on and I continue

Yes the Al-Zarrar is not needed at the Afghan Border, but my upgrades were more related for the Type-59 IIM and Type-69 IIM Tanks which are already in service. You are right the major COIN operations are over but the new threats is already there ISIS,BLA, rest of TTPs and the ANA (a agressive and uncordinated afghan army-see the list of skirmishes with ANA), the Afghan and Iran Border is becoming the same threat level as the Indian Border and the LOC. So as you have mentioned it already, the new challenge is a hostile border, where trenches,Bunker, posts and Forts are our answer.Besides the Role of the Tank as a direct fire support element, I see the Tank also as "Battlestation on the Border":

The enemy will need a lot of firepower and force to attack and tackout such a Tank, enemys main Force is the Infantry, thats why I suggest that our Tanks at The Afghan and Iran Border should have two machine Guns, one with a turret (as we have seen on some examples) and a seconde one with the MG-3 protected with a shield. Advantage of second machine gun MG-3:smaller caliber more rounds, higher fire rate on short distance result in more firepower against enemy infantry.

Other advantage of Tanks at the Border: is the mobility, it can change his position very fast from one Border-post to the under the attacked one and help it out.

The Tank takes the enemy attention on his own, can give own troops more time to restructre and locate the enemy fire and so the enemy movement/position


-Direct close and precice firesupport at day and night, at night when it gets Night Thermal imaging upgrade, which than transform the Tank in a night mobile/protected observation post

- Tanks are a moral booster for own troops and the a nightmare for the enemy infantry


Clearly we can say that it makes sense to keep on upgrading and building Tank-Wings which are permanently stationed at the Iran-Afghan Border. I would even reactivate the M-47/48 Tanks (should get a overhaul and uprade at HIT or in Turkey for a good price), see Turkey they have also stationaded the M-48 permanently as force multipliers at the border and in eastern Turkey !

• Turkish M48A5T2 variant upgraded along similar lines to the M60A1, with an M68 105 mm main gun, M60A1 fire control system and an MTU diesel engine, with thermal imaging, M60A3 fire control system and a laser rangefinder.

Thats the way how turksih Army is using older Tanks at the Border as posts/force multipliers

Your statements are correct. One could apply few upgrades to Type 59's/69's - shielded 7.62mm MG position in addition to 12.7mm Type 54, chains & weights, smoke grenades and thermal imager for better protection and firepower.

Tanks will remain confined to the few areas with roads (Torkham, Angoor Adda, etc) . But surely, they will prove effective against terrorists resorting to cross border attacks and ANA/ABP posts while firing on the move or from dug in positions.

Regarding the M48's, the last time those were active was c. 2002. I guess most were scrapped. But, PA got lots of Type 59.

 

[Inception-06]

Your statements are correct. One could apply few upgrades to Type 59's/69's - shielded 7.62mm MG position in addition to 12.7mm Type 54, chains & weights, smoke grenades and thermal imager for better protection and firepower.

Tanks will remain confined to the few areas with roads (Torkham, Angoor Adda, etc) . But surely, they will prove effective against terrorists resorting to cross border attacks and ANA/ABP posts while firing on the move or from dug in positions.

Regarding the M48's, the last time those were active was c. 2002. I guess most were scrapped. But, PA got lots of Type 59.

A selam, Brother according to Captain Signalian, some 100-200 M-48 are stored in working condition, Who knows ?