MBT Modernization Program – A Step In The Right Direction

[CriticalThinker02]

Effectiveness of a tank is always dependent upon the interplay between armor protection (related to weight), mobility (related to engine and speed) and firepower (related to space inside for ammo and main gun). You may focus on one and then tailor your doctrine and tactics to exploit it to the full in battle,

The most successful tanks in history have always been the ones who have had the best balance of firepower, protection and mobility, tailoring to just one and limiting your doctrine of is not a got idea I think.

 

[PanzerKiel]

The most successful tanks in history have always been the ones who have had the best balance of firepower, protection and mobility, tailoring to just one and limiting your doctrine of is not a got idea I think.

You are right, but in specialized terrains, we may have to focus on one aspect than the others depending upon terrain restrictions such as accessibility, line of fire available, enemy capabilities etc.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Check the first post again. Sources can be clicked.

As for laser warning, it is there, you just had to check it properly. Alkhald does have commander independant sight which can be equipped with TI. in Alkhalid-1, it comes with a TI.
Defense sources dont think of it as a joke. They know it is a capable tank, but fanboys like you read little and shout a lot.

http://www.malyshevplant.com/en/content/6td

Gunner day sight with Thermal imager on the left. Also has independent laser range finder.

Commander's independent day/ night sight channels, with separate integrated laser range finder.

View attachment 626732

The tank has other goodies as well. Note that NONE of India's t-90s as of today have these. Only the MS has independent sights and hunter killer capability but they dont have those.

Alkhalid-1

Turret:
special armour module: 670mm LOS + backpplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS

Hull:
special armour module at least 670mm LOS + frontplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS


Hull + floor armor

View attachment 626740

1. Back plate

2. Composite+RHA armor plates

3. Front RHA plate

4. Thick floor armor

5. Roof plate

6. Front HHS steel plate

@iLION12345_1

For you.

To put Dazzler post in perspective and make it more clear for others to understand who criticize the armour protection of AK unnecessarily, I am attaching pics of AK Turret and Hull

Further I would request to those members to bookmark Dazzler post .....


Front of AK Turret:
The hollow space is +650-670 mm and it is the place where special composite armour is inserted which offer better armour protection then RHA but lighter in weight
View attachment 626762

And below is the turret of AK from inside which shows the so called 'weakest spot' of AK Turret, plz observe the depth of opening for gun port of 7.62mm Machine Gun it is difficult to calculate the thickness but If observe carefully and compare it with the above attached pic then it appear that it is approximately 100-150mm less in thickness which mean its thickness at minimum is anywhere between 500-550 mm

View attachment 626769

below is the front of Turret after attachment of composite armour
View attachment 626766
Here kindly note these are the figures which are without any additional armour protection of ERA or slant space armour which add further protection to the tank turret ....



1- Back Armour Plate
2- Special Armour Cavity
3- Frontal Armour Plate
4- Driver Sitting Place

View attachment 626784

and If we go by the below attached pic then the value of front armour thickness of AK hull is almost +900mm without any additional armour or ERA
View attachment 626787

Indigenous development of t-80UD FCS/ GCS components.


View attachment 626841



Its true. T-90S has V92s2 engine that generates 1000hp
https://ofb.gov.in/unit/pages/EFA/v92s2-engine

6td-2 of AK series does 1200hp

http://www.malyshevplant.com/en/content/6td



Not just ACs, they also lacked a dedicated APU unit for silent watch. Tanks in the battlefield need to keep a silent watch by turning the engine off, wheere the APU provides power to FCS and sensors. Even Al Zarrar has an APU from the get go.

Alkhalid's APU

View attachment 626865

below are some additional pics

First attached pic show the upper portion of side armour of Turret from another angle before welding just note the thickness of side armour plate
View attachment 626934

overall thickness of side armour of Turret
View attachment 626943
View attachment 626948

Eventually they will be upgraded with or without Ukrainians.

I take my words back, after running into so many self claimed experts online I’m both immensely impressed by the response and sorry for my first post.

I’ve been in AKs and AZs in numerous times and I’ve Driven an AZ at the tilla firing ranges. I suppose I did not know enough about them at the time to notice these things.

a few more questions regarding the armor, how does the AK have such a low weight with that great of an armor thickness? It’s nearing the armor numbers of much heavier tanks, or does it simply punch above its weight? The T90 is in a similar weight class with less armor. (It does have the 150mm backplates but the other armor is lesser I believe)
Also the numbers quoted, are they against APFSDS/Kinetic projectiles or HEAT? From what I understand Composite armor is better against HEAT but not against kinetic energy projectiles especially when compared to RHA. But it does weigh less. Is that the sole reason for the low weight?

Also the pictures show that the tank turret is Cast, if I’m not mistaken, isn’t that an outdated method of producing them?

As for the sights, the commanders sight seems too small realistically to be a thermal one,they require a lot of cooling, and even if it is, it is not an “independent” one from what I can see, because it’s a single sight with passive IR which needs to be switched on and off. Are there any pictures of it externally?
As for the gunners sights, the left one has no daytime function, it is Thermal only (I believe that’s what you meant, but I’m saying that because it also seems like you said it’s both daytime and thermal). Either way, that’s still news to me, so thanks for that.
Also the Commander has a control screen in the AK, is it possible that there could be an independent thermal sight attached to it or he can access the gunners thermals trough it?

The thing I mentioned about the engine was from here;
These are the few foreign sources I could find on the AK, they’re in Russian though.

https://topwar.ru/5641-osnovnye-boevye-tanki-chast-11-al-khalid-pakistan.html
http://btvt.info/1inservice/Ukraine/ukraina_1991_2006.htm
http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/fcs_mbt2000.htm

Edit: I barely ever visit this forum so I don’t know who’s who. I didn’t mean to insult any bodies credentials. Sorry again for that, I jumped to a conclusion too quick.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Notice the sides

AK1 turret

View attachment 626907



T-90S/A turret

The side armor in 90 is non-existent

yes but doesn’t the design of the turret neglect that, all Soviet/Russian turret designs have angled side armor to make it impossible to hit from +-30 deg shots, maybe even up to 45deg, you can only reliably hit it directly from the side. but now they want to remove the side hit risk so they are putting ERA on the turret sides as well, you can see that on all of their newer tanks, T-72B3M, T-80BVM and T-90M (This only applies to Russia though, not India thankfully).
technically its true, but it is much better designed turret than Al-Khalid and Arjun turrets because you can actually hit and penetrate those from 30deg impact, iirc Al-Khalid has steel sides only until recently where it was seen with ERA on the sides as in the pictures below.

Are these the same sights as the ones posted earlier? And what are the sights on the right of the screen in the last picture?

 

[Dazzler]

yes but doesn’t the design of the turret neglect that, all Soviet/Russian turret designs have angled side armor to make it impossible to hit from +-30 deg shots, maybe even up to 45deg, you can only reliably hit it directly from the side. but now they want to remove the side hit risk so they are putting ERA on the turret sides as well, you can see that on all of their newer tanks, T-72B3M, T-80BVM and T-90M (This only applies to Russia though, not India thankfully).
technically its true, but it is much better designed turret than Al-Khalid and Arjun turrets because you can actually hit and penetrate those from 30deg impact, iirc Al-Khalid has steel sides only until recently where it was seen with ERA on the sides as in the pictures below.

Are these the same sights as the ones posted earlier? And what are the sights on the right of the screen in the last picture?

# Turret angle is up for debate. One can ask the same question about western tanks. They never opted for the similar designs as Soviets/ Russians but instead went for heavier, thicker turrets. Still, no turret is impenetrable as we have seen many times. However, the turrets in Chinese mbts have thicker armor at 0 to 20-25 degrees. After that, they have grills that act as armor, covered by ERA plates for additional armor. This was only tested on the t-90MS, where thicker side armor can be seen.

On a side note, Alkhalid is made from high hardened steel HHS or ESR steel whereas t-90 is made from medium hardness steel MHS.

As for sights..

1. Gunner sight with LRF and TV imaging input.

2. Thermal imager sight (Gunner station)

3. gunner station with gunner and TI sight visible

4. Alkhalid interior from IDEAS 2002

5. Battle management system located between gunner and commander station

Commander is provided with a TI sight or second generation IIT sight. Different configurations are operational in PA's Alkhalid fleet. Interestingly, the FCS in Alkhalid-1 is quite advanced and offers numerous options.

 

[HRK]

Al-Khalid has steel sides only until recently where it was seen with ERA on the sides as in the pictures below.

bhai don't make assumptions about AK tank ERA coverage, its just not shown so often in full ERA coverage

Below is the pic of baseline Al-Khalid during induction ceremony after been inspected by Gen. (Retd.) Pervaiz Musharraf dated 20-7-2001

here you can not only observe ERA on the side of Turret but on the side grills and on the roof of the turret as well

BTW shape of turret of AK from the front give impression of box shaped but its actually have angle shape you can observe the point where the middle and rear part of the turret meets, its just behind smoke grenade launchers .....

 

[iLION12345_1]

bhai don't make assumptions about AK tank ERA coverage, its just not shown so often in full ERA coverage

Below is the pic of baseline Al-Khalid during induction ceremony after being inspected by Gen. (Rtd.) Pervaiz Musharraf dated 20-7-2001

here you can not only observe ERA on the side of Turret but on the side grills and on the roof of the turret as well
View attachment 627214

From my observations, if you look at AK pics from over the years you’ll realize older AKs had full ERA and in the era between 2010 to recently they only had Turret Mounted ERA at the front with not even mounting points on the Hull, the biggest examples being the ones shown on the 23rd march parades. That above one is just one picture. And the roof mounted ERA I haven’t seen in ages. I’ve been to a few regiments with AKs myself and seen no ERA at all except the frontal ones on the turret. Even if some have it, it’s not all, which is still a problem, that means some AKs are much less protected than others. The few pictures we see are much different from the on ground realities at times, I hope during wartime that isn’t the case, but it is for now.

# Turret angle is up for debate. One can ask the same question about western tanks. They never opted for the similar designs as Soviets/ Russians but instead went for heavier, thicker turrets. Still, no turret is impenetrable as we have seen many times. However, the turrets in Chinese mbts have thicker armor at 0 to 20-25 degrees. After that, they have grills that act as armor, covered by ERA plates for additional armor. This was only tested on the t-90MS, where thicker side armor can be seen.

On a side note, Alkhalid is made from high hardened steel HHS or ESR steel whereas t-90 is made from medium hardness steel MHS.

As for sights..

1. Gunner sight with LRF and TV imaging input.

2. Thermal imager sight (Gunner station)

3. gunner station with gunner and TI sight visible

4. Alkhalid interior from IDEAS 2002

5. Battle management system located between gunner and commander station

Commander is provided with a TI sight or second generation IIT sight. Different configurations are operational in PA's Alkhalid fleet. Interestingly, the FCS in Alkhalid-1 is quite advanced and offers numerous options.

I see, so some AKs will have it, some won’t. Some will have a different one than others? Sounds like kind of a complication but at least it’s there. The FCS I can’t disagree with, it’s always held in high regard.
I’m sorry to be bothering you with so many questions, including the ones asked in my second post. I’ve just finally found someone to ask.
Also what about the Firepower of the AK, the highest penetration it can achieve (that we always hear about at least)
Is the Naiza DU which different sources say can penetrate anywhere from 520-600mm of armor. Which is not bad, but still not that good, but that round is old, what newer rounds can it fire and can they Achieve higher penetration numbers?

 

[CHI RULES]

From my observations, if you look at AK pics from over the years you’ll realize older AKs had full ERA and in the era between 2010 to recently they only had Turret Mounted ERA at the front with not even mounting points on the Hull, the biggest examples being the ones shown on the 23rd march parades. That above one is just one picture. And the roof mounted ERA I haven’t seen in ages. I’ve been to a few regiments with AKs myself and seen no ERA at all except the frontal ones on the turret. Even if some have it, it’s not all, which is still a problem, that means some AKs are much less protected than others. The few pictures we see are much different from the on ground realities at times, I hope during wartime that isn’t the case, but it is for now.



I see, so some AKs will have it, some won’t. Some will have a different one than others? Sounds like kind of a complication but at least it’s there. The FCS I can’t disagree with, it’s always held in high regard.
I’m sorry to be bothering you with so many questions, including the ones asked in my second post. I’ve just finally found someone to ask.
Also what about the Firepower of the AK, the highest penetration it can achieve (that we always hear about at least)
Is the Naiza DU which different sources say can penetrate anywhere from 520-600mm of armor. Which is not bad, but still not that good, but that round is old, what newer rounds can it fire and can they Achieve higher penetration numbers?

The effective range of Naiza is only 2KM reportedly.

 

[iLION12345_1]

The effective range of Naiza is only 2KM reportedly.

The Naiza has a short rod penetrator. Most Pakistani tanks can’t take rounds with long rod penetrators.
That’s why When it was mentioned by dazzler that AK-1 received a newer auto loader that allowed it to hold longer shells I asked what shells, because that could mean it can now fire long rod penetrators, but I’m yet to see those rounds in Pakistan apart from when the VT-4s were tested here. I’ve been to HIT recently and only older APFSDS shells are displayed there.

 

[CHI RULES]

no money for better upgrades as some senior member said on this forum most of the budget goes for salary and pension payments so nothing left for hardware upgrades

Then say good bye to regular army and go for paid mercenaries. Reportedly Pakistan is going for VT4 as well as AK-2.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Then say good bye to regular army and go for paid mercenaries. Reportedly Pakistan is going for VT4 as well as AK-2.

Both VT-4 and Oplot M were tested side by side in Pakistan. From what I saw, there was more interest in the Oplot after the trials than the VT4 but no decision seems to have been made yet.

 

[CHI RULES]

The Naiza has a short rod penetrator. Most Pakistani tanks can’t take rounds with long rod penetrators.
That’s why When it was mentioned by dazzler that AK-1 received a newer auto loader that allowed it to hold longer shells I asked what shells, because that could mean it can now fire long rod penetrators, but I’m yet to see those rounds in Pakistan apart from when the VT-4s were tested here. I’ve been to HIT recently and only older APFSDS shells are displayed there.

Any views about ATGM in use by AK.

Both VT-4 and Oplot M were tested side by side in Pakistan. From what I saw, there was more interest in the Oplot after the trials than the VT4 but no decision seems to have been made yet.

Let's see. The person quoting the deal is no one from FB or Twitter but has provided credible reviews in the past. However confirmed deal on another forum.

 

[HRK]

recently they only had Turret Mounted ERA at the front with not even mounting points on the Hull,

yea that true I have even seen AK-1 pic without any ERA salted armour on Turret

That above one is just one picture.

no I have many more pics of AK (baseline) with full ERA coverage on Turret Roof, Turret side, Grills and front of Hull, that pic was posted as it was the first pic from 2001 induction ceremony

And the roof mounted ERA I haven’t seen in ages.

yaap most of of the time we don't see it, but as per my understanding it can be installed to any AK be it baseline or AK-1 at time of need

The few pictures we see are much different from the on ground realities at times, I hope during wartime that isn’t the case, but it is for now.

kinda agree with it as you are not the first one who is saying this, but may be reason is simple that tanks in peacetime are not suppose to have war time configuration .... it's just my understanding which may be wrong ..

 

[iLION12345_1]

yea that true I have even seen AK-1 pic without any ERA salted armour on Turret

no I have many more pics of AK (baseline) with full ERA coverage on Turret Roof, Turret side, Grills and front of Hull, that pic was posted as it was the first pic from 2001 induction ceremony

yaap most of of the time we don't see it, but as per my understanding it can be installed to any AK be it baseline or AK-1 at time of need

kinda agree with it as you are not the first one who is saying this, but may be reason is simple that tanks in peacetime are not suppose to have war time configuration .... it's just my understanding which may be wrong ..

I do understand that ERA shouldn’t always be mounted on tanks because it dose pose a sort of danger to people and infantry around it. Which is why most countries don’t have it mounted during peacetime. But what concerns me is that newer AKs in peacetime have the mounts for the ERA on the hull visible while many older ones don’t. Those can’t just be put on, they need to be welded on. That would take a lot of time.

Any views about ATGM in use by AK.


Let's see. The person quoting the deal is no one from FB or Twitter but has provided credible reviews in the past. However confirmed deal on another forum.

The AK can fire the Kombat ATGM, I haven’t looked into it much but If we compare it with another common tank fired ATGM (the Israeli LAHAT, also used by the USA), it has a shorter range, around 5000M as compared to LAHATs 9000 but it is said to have higher penetration (upto 950MM against RHA as compared to 800 for LAHAT)

 

[CHI RULES]

I do understand that ERA shouldn’t always be mounted on tanks because it dose pose a sort of danger to people and infantry around it. Which is why most countries don’t have it mounted during peacetime. But what concerns me is that newer AKs in peacetime have the mounts for the ERA on the hull visible while many don’t. Those can’t just be put on, they need to be welded on.

The AK can fire the Kombat ATGM, I haven’t looked into it much but I’d we compare it with another common tanked fired ATGM (the Israeli LAHAT, also used by the USA), it has a shorter range, around 5000M as compared to LAHATs 9000 but it is said to have higher penetration (upto 950MM against RHA as compared to 800 for LAHAT)

Unfortunately theoretical discussion is more as compared to little bit technical. Though reported ranges or penetration are not accurately mentioned still provide some idea about capabilities but pros avoid to discuss understandably meanwhile the people have research regarding such matters also use these threads just for sake of arguments and counter arguments.

Unfortunately theoretical discussion is more as compared to little bit technical. Though reported ranges or penetration are not accurately mentioned still provide some idea about capabilities but pros avoid to discuss understandably meanwhile the people have research regarding such matters also use these threads just for sake of arguments and counter arguments.

If AK get a hard kill APS like GL-5 any version of AK shall be able to counter most of ATGMs and other threats.