Numbers of New Tanks in army

[JK!]

Are there any dedicated Armoured Engineer vehicles like the British Army's AVRE (Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers), ARRVs and any tank transporter vehicles?

I know these aren't as glamorous as MBTs but they still play an important role on the battlefield and tend to get overlooked.

 

[Iceman]

Yes we do have dedicated armoured recovery vehilces (ARVs) ... some are of American origin. ... such as M-88 that we had gotten along with M-47s ... we phased out the 47s in late 90s but kept the M-88s for their use in regts with heavier tanks such as T80s, Al Khalids and 85s s...but they are lesser in number.. we have a chinese ARV as well ..that goes by the nomenclature of W653... based on type 59 chesis .. but honestly they are not that reliable and have inherent problems with the hydraulic systems ..... Unfortunately this aspect is quite neglected and so far pakistan has not come up with a any progm to upgrade its existing fleet of ARVS .....

 

[Iceman]

We have two systems of tpt tanks into any any sit .. one ofcourse is by rail ... for which a comprehensive system of trains and rolling stock is aval .. plus we have numerous types of tank tptrs ...very adv and sophisticated vehs of Merc brand and some italian brands such as iveco as well .... they are also present in sufficient number and dedicated units are aval to each armoured fmn

 

[JK!]

Thanks Iceman,

What is your opinion of Al Zarar in terms of effectiveness against more modern MBTs?

 

[Keysersoze]

interesting discussion on this in this thread

http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-forces/7768-al-zarrar-comparison-other-tanks.html

 

[JK!]

interesting discussion on this in this thread

http://www.defence.pk/forums/land-forces/7768-al-zarrar-comparison-other-tanks.html

Very interesting seems even I have posted there!

Just wanted a Pakistani tankers take on things.

 

[Iceman]

Al-Zarrar and world MBTs...... that ought to be an interesting comparison ...for sure ....Al-Zarrar is a hybrid kinda project that has been designed and tailored specifically to meet the requirements of Pakistan Army. The export possibility of Al-Zarrar was probably never in mind once the go ahead for modifications was given. But it did arouse some interest in ctys operating the T-55 / Type 59 tanks, who saw a new possibility of major upgradation in their existing fleet w/o really going for a new tank.
As far as comparison is concerned, the claimed modifications should really place the Al-Zarrar amongst the leading tanks in the world ... but i am quite sure, it is not the case, since i have operated on them. The tank has undergone a number of modifications. The suspension system has been improved to bear the weight of 125 mm gun. The gun itself, NBC protection system, Explosion supression system, semi-auto loader, new FCIs. The size of the hull remains to be that of the original tank where as a new turret, mostly on the designs of t-85 has been placed atop. The turret seems slightly larger on the hull thus giving it an awkward kinda look so say ..... nevertheless the mobility performance of the tank has improved than the original ones owing to better power pack ,,,, 730 HP turbo supercharged deisel engine and better suspension. The major maintenance problem is with the Engine top plate .... since the turret has grown larger, the gun has to be traversed sideways to make room for opening the engine top plate .... thus making a routine maintenance operation a cumbersome ordeal, specially once the tank is parked in the MT sheds .. .the firing performance of the tank is par acceptable limits, but not out standing .....in comparison to other tanks, i dont know really ... may be you could place it equal to a T-72 with all the improvements and all .... but anything beyond that .... hmm i dont think so ...

 

[JK!]

Do you know about any of the new Talha based vehicles and local APC production in Pakistan?

I'm particularly interested in the Saad APC.

 

[MastanKhan]

Iceman,

Thankyou---Al Zarrar is what it is---a fill in the gap tank---again as I have stated many a times---POF and heavy equipment industry have done a tremendous job with the available resource---they have re-made this tank within its desired capabilities of what the hull and frame could carry and deliver and stayed within the given resources.

We cannot expect this tank to perform miracles in combat against the T 90's, but we have gained credible deterrence against the T 72's. We have also taken our abilities of rebuilding heavy equipment to the next higher level. It is fascinating how success breeds success and successful projects breath a new life into obsolete machinery.

So, my question to you Iceman is---why do chinese GUNS have a slightly larger bore than the american guns---.

 

[Iceman]

The caliber of the gun .... well .... 5 mm difference is what we are talking about here ... the NATO ctys prefer the Rifled 120 mm, where as the eastern block tanks have the 125mm smooth bore guns .. well most of them that is ...with advanced in weaponry, the tank gun gre larger and larger. The western disigners somehow stopped at the 120 mm where as the eastern designers cont upto 125 mm, and some are still experimenting with the idea of 155 mm. I cant really put a finger on why part of the question. I guess the americans went satisfied with the idea of a 120 mm delivering what they were asking for, whereas the eastern designers still wanted a larger gun. You can imagine it with the idea of ATGMs launched from tank barrelled, something that the russians and the chinese are still working with, whereas the Americans abandoned the idea in the 80s. I guess, with so much of A tk arsenal aval to the americans in the form of gunships, A-10s and PGMs of all sorts, the americans probably didnt deem it nec to go beyond 120.

 

[JK!]

Does the army have any missiles like AT11 or the chineses equivalent for its MBTs?

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Iceman,

You are right---eastern designers are going for the larger calibres---the reasoning behind that is that they are unable to penetrate the armour of m1a2---their thinking is that a bigger round will having more mass will have more kinetic energy and the impact will be disasterous for the crew.

 

[Keysersoze]

Hi Iceman,

You are right---eastern designers are going for the larger calibres---the reasoning behind that is that they are unable to penetrate the armour of m1a2---their thinking is that a bigger round will having more mass will have more kinetic energy and the impact will be disasterous for the crew.

Thats actually flawed. They tend to use two piece ammunition which means for example that the KE rounds are shorter and lighter. Therefore the energy they apply will be less.
Single piece ammunition allows the KE rod to be longer.

 

[Iceman]

Pakistan is still toying with the idea of an ATGM that can be launched from a tank barrel ... we a re basically looking at a standard system that can be installed on all 125 mm tanks. Trials were conducted with 9M119/9M119M Svir/Refleks laser beam riding guided anti-tank missiles for T-80, T-85 and Al-khalid tanks some time back, but the trials did not go all that well ... still the HIT is not resting on the issue. The a/m msl is very effectively installed on the T-80, but as i mentioned earlier, we are looking for std of eqpt and need a sys that can be eff installed on all the 125 mm tanks rather than only one. I am not sure of the present status of the progress, but i know for sure that the same eqpt with modifications for all the tanks will be presented by for trials very soon.

 

[Iceman]

KE penetrators for modern tanks are commonly 2-3 cm in diameter, and 50-60 cm long; as more modern penetrators are developed, their length tends to increase and the diameter to decrease. However the development of heavy forms of reactive armour designed to shear long rod penetrators has prompted the reversal of this trend in the newest US rounds. To maximise the amount of kinetic energy released on the target, the penetrator must be made of a dense material, such as depleted uranium (DU) alloy. I have seen the LRPs on a single piece ammuntion of a 105 mm. The projectile part of the ammo is almost the same in size.
I guess the reason for a 125 mm two piece ammo against a 120 mm one piece is more on the lines of having to fit a one piece in an autoloader and also to move the ammo inside the fighting compartment. If you happen to sit in a 80UD u will realize that there is hardly any space for a person to move inside, let along a single piece ammo.
In case of a two piece, 125 mm APhe cartridge case APFSDS, the cartridge case is known as a semi-combustible one. In which the entire cartridge case along with the propellant charge is burnt inside the chamber. What remains is a copper or steel base of hardly any size. Again the reason for this is the lack of space. The auto-extractor cannot extract a long sized cartridge case, so the concept of semi-combustible arose. Plus the projectile of 125 mm is covered in a combustible casing. Only the front end of the sabot and a part of the LRP is visible. This is known as a secondary propellant charge. The base of this casing is made of a gauze so that the transfer of flame is not a problem and the simultanous combustion of the entire propellant charge, the primary (cart case) and the secondary takes place. I cannot really place formulas here, but i am sure that the performance of the two piece KE round is not lesser by any std than the one of the one piece rds.