Al-Zarrar MBT | News,Updates & Discussions.

[Rajput_Pakistani]

The post above you pretty much explains the "armor protection". Its a hollow shell and the original T-55 turret is still there. Any modern 120 mm-125 mm Anti Tank round could easily penetrate that, as well as anti-tank guided missiles.

If this is what we have in our arsenal, a basic T-55 with a few meager cosmetic and internal upgrades here and there, do you really expect it to stand a chance against a upgraded T-72 or T-90 both of which are latest T series designs and successors to the T-55??

We might as well as have converted them into self propelled mortar systems if we were going to waste money and resources.

Its the same old Basic Armor underneath:

My dear,

If you have read about Al-Zarrar, it has got 54 up gradations over old T-59. Engine upgrade, electronics suit upgrade, target acquisition, night fighting capabilities. So it has majorly updated in its mobility and fire power. On any day 125mm smooth bore can rip open any target that IA may present.

Now coming to Protection phase. Certainly a 42 ton tank cant be compared to 60 ton tank but that difference in armored thickness is compensated through better mobility.
(A major difference in Soviet vs West tank design)

Now this picture, clearly shows a tank which has "Burnt Out" but not disintegrated. Show me a single spot where external element had penetrated through armor. This hollow armor supposed to have ERA plates on them, but during COIN ops, when this tank got destroyed there was none. Still no crew was dead and tank still stand there in a single piece. Heck look at its barrel.
This is the level of protection of Al Zarrar (42 ton tank) without ERA.

PS: Kindly search for a thread where Iraqi Abraham tanks has been destroyed by insurgents. Also look for pictures of destroyed Merkava during Lebanon war and T72s destroyed in Chechniya.

We shall then compare those with Al Zarar protection level.

 

[Penguin]

Im not aware of any Eastern European stuff, but the Chinese T-59G is prob one of the best looking.

Uses the complete turret of the Type 96G.... much like the M-60 2000 proposed for Turkey. You can question whether you want to consider that an upgrade or a new tank.

This here Russian Upgrade sports a modified T-72 turret with bustle loader, plus a lenghtened hull with additional T-72 road wheel forward to cope with increased frontal armor....

Question is: where does upgrading cease to be cost-effective?

 

[Slav Defence]

Some very important points which I found during research:

The most common type is explosive reactive armour (ERA), but variants include self-limiting explosive reactive armour (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armour (NERA), non-explosive reactive armour (NxRA), and electric reactive armour. Unlike ERA and SLERA, NERA and NxRA modules can withstand multiple hits, but a second hit in exactly the same location will still penetrate.
Advantages of using ERA:

To be effective against kinetic energy projectiles, ERA must use much thicker and heavier plates and a correspondingly thicker explosive layer. Such "heavy ERA," such as the Soviet-developed Kontakt-5, can break apart a penetrating rod that is longer than the ERA is deep, again significantly reducing penetration capability.

An important aspect of ERA is the brisance, or detonation speed of its explosive element. ERA was first developed to counter HEAT warheads; which used a shaped charge to create an ultra-high velocity jet of molten metal. The jet's effectiveness derives more from its momentum than its temperature, so the impacting jet must be disrupted quickly as the heat-sink effect of the armour cannot be relied upon.

ERA also counters explosively forged projectiles, as produced by a shaped charge. The counter-explosion must disrupt the incoming projectile so that its momentum is distributed in all directions rather than towards the target, greatly diminishing its effectiveness.

...and I am told that latest design is hollow ie lacks Era?tell me seriously, it is a rough guess right? @Aeronaut @Dazzler @Penguin

 

[Penguin]

The post above you pretty much explains the "armor protection". Its a hollow shell and the original T-55 turret is still there. Any modern 120 mm-125 mm Anti Tank round could easily penetrate that, as well as anti-tank guided missiles.

If this is what we have in our arsenal, a basic T-55 with a few meager cosmetic and internal upgrades here and there, do you really expect it to stand a chance against a upgraded T-72 or T-90 both of which are latest T series designs and successors to the T-55??

We might as well as have converted them into self propelled mortar systems if we were going to waste money and resources.

Its the same old Basic Armor underneath:

And yet, against certain threat (e.g. chemical energy, hollow charge firing threats) spaced armor increases protection (see Leo 2 upgrades), and when you then add ERA, protection is further increased. Whether that increases protection against kinetic-energy APFSDS rounds depends on the particular nature of the ERA. Early ERA didn't help against kinetic ronuds, but moderns ERA does. And of course the original armor remains .... this applies to any upgrade that does not involve swapping an entire turret or cutting off and replacing the hull nose.

Here's your spaced armor (or is it composite armor?) with ERA on top.

And here is spaced armor without ERA.

ERA that isn't there doesn't help much ...

 

[Penguin]

Leo2a6 spaced applique armor

Canadian Leopard 1C2, essentially a LEO1 with spaced applique armor on top of its base armor..

M60 with spaced applique armor

 

[Desert Fox]

Now coming to Protection phase. Certainly a 42 ton tank cant be compared to 60 ton tank but that difference in armored thickness is compensated through better mobility.
(A major difference in Soviet vs West tank design)

I never compared Al-Zarrar to a 60 ton Tank. I compared it to the upgraded Soviet/Russian T-72's and T-90's that the indian army is fielding in massive numbers making them the most likely Tanks to face the Al-Zarrar in the battlefield. The T-72 weighs 41 tons while the T-90 weighs 46 tons. The T-72 is in the same wight class as the Al-Zarrar and the T-90 weighs 4 more tons than the Al-zarrar, not big of a difference in weight.

A upgraded T-72 will always be superior to a T-55 no matter how much you upgrade the latter because it is a old design compared to the former. That is unless you completely redesign the armor (which isn't the case for the Al-Zarrar it seems) and improve/add other components but even then you can only do so much to a old design.

Now this picture, clearly shows a tank which has "Burnt Out" but not disintegrated. Show me a single spot where external element had penetrated through armor. This hollow armor supposed to have ERA plates on them, but during COIN ops, when this tank got destroyed there was none. Still no crew was dead and tank still stand there in a single piece. Heck look at its barrel.
This is the level of protection of Al Zarrar (42 ton tank) without ERA.

I never claimed that the armor was penetrated but rather i'm disputing the claim that the Al-Zarrar has a "brand new turret" with "composite" armor as has been claimed by many members here (even senior ones) even though that picture i posted only proves that its just the original T-55 turret underneath a hollowed out shell.


Obviously, the Taliban aren't armed with sophisticated anti-Tank weapons that could penetrate the Al-Zarrar's armor which is why i said its only good for combating terrorists. However, against a well armed, trained, and equipped conventional adversary like the Indian Army and its T-72's and T-90's, the Al-Zarrar doesn't really stand much of a chance in a toe-to-toe fight.

PS: Kindly search for a thread where Iraqi Abraham tanks has been destroyed by insurgents. Also look for pictures of destroyed Merkava during Lebanon war and T72s destroyed in Chechniya.

We shall then compare those with Al Zarar protection level.

The TTP aren't that sophisticated as the Syrian/Iraqi rebels or Hezbollah neither is Pakistan army unprofessional like the Iraqi Army who despite being equipped with advanced weapons ran away without firing a single bullet at the enemy which is why the Iraqi insurgents easily blew up the Abrams. Every tank is vulnerable to unconventional tactics if not used properly with motivated soldiers.

Secondly, you're missing the point though. Against a well armed, trained, and equipped enemy like the Indian Army and its T-72's and T-90's, the Al-Zarrar doesn't really stand much of a chance in a toe-to-toe fight, especially with its basic armor/turret design.

And yet, against certain threat (e.g. chemical energy, hollow charge firing threats) spaced armor increases protection (see Leo 2 upgrades), and when you then add ERA, protection is further increased. Whether that increases protection against kinetic-energy APFSDS rounds depends on the particular nature of the ERA. Early ERA didn't help against kinetic ronuds, but moderns ERA does. And of course the original armor remains .... this applies to any upgrade that does not involve swapping an entire turret or cutting off and replacing the hull nose.


Here's your spaced armor (or is it composite armor?) with ERA on top.


And here is spaced armor without ERA.

ERA that isn't there doesn't help much ...

Well, i'm not disputing your points which are valid that spaced armor can be used on the original turrets. However what i am disputing is the claims by some members (seniors ones too) on this very forum who stated that the Al-Zarrar had a "brand new turret" which certainly isn't the case.

And secondly, the spaced armor used for the Leo 1's as shown in the images you posted is considerably thicker and more spaced out compared to the Al-Zarrar's "spaced armor" (more like shell). Which leads one to question whether the outer shell of the Al-Zarrar was truly intended to be "spaced armor" due to its meager design.

 

[Penguin]

And yet, against certain threat (e.g. chemical energy, hollow charge firing threats) spaced armor increases protection (see Leo 2 upgrades), and when you then add ERA, protection is further increased. Whether that increases protection against kinetic-energy APFSDS rounds depends on the particular nature of the ERA. Early ERA didn't help against kinetic ronuds, but moderns ERA does. And of course the original armor remains .... this applies to any upgrade that does not involve swapping an entire turret or cutting off and replacing the hull nose.

Here's your spaced armor (or is it composite armor?) with ERA on top.

And here is spaced armor without ERA.

ERA that isn't there doesn't help much ...

No spaced armor, but ERA mounted

Both spaced armor and ERA

Note how thin these ERA tiles are....

 

[Rajput_Pakistani]

I never compared Al-Zarrar to a 60 ton Tank. I compared it to the upgraded Soviet/Russian T-72's and T-90's that the indian army is fielding in massive numbers making them the most likely Tanks to face the Al-Zarrar in the battlefield. The T-72 weighs 41 tons while the T-90 weighs 46 tons. The T-72 is in the same wight class as the Al-Zarrar and the T-90 weighs 4 more tons than the Al-zarrar, not big of a difference in weight.

A upgraded T-72 will always be superior to a T-55 no matter how much you upgrade the latter because it is a old design compared to the former. That is unless you completely redesign the armor (which isn't the case for the Al-Zarrar it seems) and improve/add other components but even then you can only do so much to a old design.


I never claimed that the armor was penetrated but rather i'm disputing the claim that the Al-Zarrar has a "brand new turret" with "composite" armor as has been claimed by many members here (even senior ones) even though that picture i posted only proves that its just the original T-55 turret underneath a hollowed out shell.


Obviously, the Taliban aren't armed with sophisticated anti-Tank weapons that could penetrate the Al-Zarrar's armor which is why i said its only good for combating terrorists. However, against a well armed, trained, and equipped conventional adversary like the Indian Army and its T-72's and T-90's, the Al-Zarrar doesn't really stand much of a chance in a toe-to-toe fight.



The TTP aren't that sophisticated as the Syrian/Iraqi rebels or Hezbollah neither is Pakistan army unprofessional like the Iraqi Army who despite being equipped with advanced weapons ran away without firing a single bullet at the enemy which is why the Iraqi insurgents easily blew up the Abrams. Every tank is vulnerable to unconventional tactics if not used properly with motivated soldiers.

Secondly, you're missing the point though. Against a well armed, trained, and equipped enemy like the Indian Army and its T-72's and T-90's, the Al-Zarrar doesn't really stand much of a chance in a toe-to-toe fight, especially with its basic armor/turret design.



Well, i'm not disputing your points which are valid that spaced armor can be used on the original turrets. However what i am disputing is the claims by some members (seniors ones too) on this very forum who stated that the Al-Zarrar had a "brand new turret" which certainly isn't the case.

And secondly, the spaced armor used for the Leo 1's as shown in the images you posted is considerably thicker and more spaced out compared to the Al-Zarrar's "spaced armor" (more like shell). Which leads one to question whether the outer shell of the Al-Zarrar was truly intended to be "spaced armor" due to its meager design.

Dear our front line MBT is Al-Khalid followed by T-80U not Al-Zarrars. Al Zarrars have been upgraded to meet the modern day battle requirement. Its weight and low silhouette make it an ideal tank for planes and jungles of Punjab. It will not stuck by its weight in farmlands of Punjab where it is most likely to be employed. With its modifications it can easily hold its ground against T-72s.

You have highlighted a point about modified turret. As far as i know T59 was equipped with 100mm Rifles gun while Al-Zarrar house a 125mm smooth bore gun with auto-loader. So it cant be possible without modifying the turret?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I saw it in action in this very ex... the 125 packs a punch..

No spaced armor, but ERA mounted

Both spaced armor and ERA

Note how thin these ERA tiles are....

The first one didnt was pre production ... not used by the army... as for the ERA... Its using the same ERA as AK now.

 

[Penguin]

And secondly, the spaced armor used for the Leo 1's as shown in the images you posted is considerably thicker and more spaced out compared to the Al-Zarrar's "spaced armor" (more like shell). Which leads one to question whether the outer shell of the Al-Zarrar was truly intended to be "spaced armor" due to its meager design.

Incidentally, the Leo 1 original armor is thinner than that of the T-55....

This shows a good bit of distance between spaced applique and original turret. It's purpose is to set off HEAT rounds prematurely. These can be tank rounds, ATGW or RPG type weapons. The latter today typically have a tandem warhead, so the combination of ERA + spaced applique armor is a good one to protect the original turret armor. APFSDS will not be slowed down by such applique armor.

Most of Canadian Forces heavy armour is made up of members of the earlier Leopard 1 family. The updated Leopard 1A5 tank is designated Leopard C2 in CF service. Fifteen of these tanks were deployed to Afghanistan to provide direct fire support. (The deployed tanks had extra add-on armour protection). On these Leopard 1, the Canadians fitted MEXAS armour packs.

Modular Expandable Armor System (MEXAS) is a ceramic composite armor, not steel. The exact composition of MEXAS is secret, but it is known that MEXAS consist of a splinter foil-like specialized Nylon, ceramics (aluminium oxide) and a backing like kevlar. MEXAS also includes a spall-liner. MEXAS exists in three versions. MEXAS-L (light) offers protection against small-calibre rounds and can also be fitted on soft-skinned vehicles like trucks. MEXAS-M (medium) protects the vehicle against autocannon and RPG with HEAT warheads. MEXAS-H is for use on heavy vehicles like MBTs. It is also used on Leo2A5.

Thick MEXAS panels added weight but provided superior protection from the main anti-tank threats in Afghanistan – large IEDs.

 

[Armstrong]

@Penguin - A noob question....I've always wondered if some sort of solidified foam type substance could be added between the spacing of the spaced armor & whether that would provide it with some additional protection against kinetic rounds !

Or whether ceramic armored plates can be added between the spacing to achieve the same ?

Possible or just an over-active imagination ?

 

[Penguin]

T-55MV6

This modernised version has almost the same level of protection as the T-80U. It is equipped with "Kaktus-5" ERA and has a modified T-72B turret with 125mm gun 2A46M and automatic loader. There are two FCS options: 1A40-1 with ATGM system 9K120 "Svir" (as T-72B) or 1A42 with 9K119 "Refleks" (as T-80U). The suspension has 2x6 road-wheels now and the tank is powered by a 690 hp diesel engine V-46-5M. Crew: 3. Combat weight: 43 tonnes.

@Penguin - A noob question....I've always wondered if some sort of solidified foam type substance could be added between the spacing of the spaced armor & whether that would provide it with some additional protection against kinetic rounds !

Or whether ceramic armored plates can be added between the spacing to achieve the same ?

Possible or just an over-active imagination ?

MEXAS employs not steel but a ceramic composite armor. See the pics above with LEO2 elements.

Late in 1988 Cadillac Gage (now part of Textron Marine Land Systems) of the United States and the China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation announced that they were jointly developing a new MBT for the export market called the Jaguar, with a target price of $1 million for production vehicles at 1988 prices.

Cadillac Gage was provided with two Type 59 MBTs by China to reduce both development time and cost.

By mid-1989 the Jaguar chassis was complete and undergoing automotive trials in Detroit, while the turret was undergoing initial firing trials. The turret and hull were mated in October 1989 and the complete vehicle then underwent extensive trials in Nevada.

The layout of the Jaguar is conventional with the driver's compartment at the front, fighting compartment and turret in the centre and engine and transmission at the rear.

An additional layer of armour protection has been applied to the chassis and turret. The driver is seated at the front left and is provided with a single-piece hatch cover and day periscopes, one of which can be replaced by a passive night vision periscope.

Army Guide - Jaguar, Main battle tank

for comparison

 

[Desert Fox]

Dear our front line MBT is Al-Khalid followed by T-80U not Al-Zarrars. Al Zarrars have been upgraded to meet the modern day battle requirement. Its weight and low silhouette make it an ideal tank for planes and jungles of Punjab. It will not stuck by its weight in farmlands of Punjab where it is most likely to be employed. With its modifications it can easily hold its ground against T-72s.

You have highlighted a point about modified turret. As far as i know T59 was equipped with 100mm Rifles gun while Al-Zarrar house a 125mm smooth bore gun with auto-loader. So it cant be possible without modifying the turret?

You are right about the Turret modification. However i was disputing the claim that the Al-Zarrar has a "brand new turret", when really its the same original turret with modifications (as you mentioned). The rest of your post i agree with.

 

[Usman Ali 1999]

note the new attachments on the main gun

 

[Penguin]

You have highlighted a point about modified turret. As far as i know T59 was equipped with 100mm Rifles gun while Al-Zarrar house a 125mm smooth bore gun with auto-loader. So it cant be possible without modifying the turret?

I think Al Zarrar involves a lot of Ukrainian input. It is one of the few sources I know of an 125mm upgrade of a T-55 series tank. This involves a modification that puts the turret higher up on/in the turret ring to create more internal space for the larger gun.

T-55 [Ukraine upgrade 1] main battle tank

The Chinese fitted a Type 59-IIA with a smooth 120mm ( BW120K) without such modicifation

THey also have a single BK1990 variant with 125mm (doesn';t look like a lifted turret)

These are one-off vehicles.