What's new

PA TANKS comparison with contempory tanks

New Indian Express, 12 October 2004
Pak claim fires Army to test DRDO's Arjun against Russian T-90
NEW DELHI: The Indian Defence establishment may not like to admit it but Pakistan President Musharraf's claim that their
indigenous Al Khalid main battle tank is superior to the DRDO's Arjun tank has prompted Army headquarters to review the
latter's capabilities. The Army top brass have directed the Armoured Corps to compare the Arjun with the Russian-made T-90,
through extensive trials beginning this month in the Mahajan ranges of Rajasthan. According to South Block sources, the five
Arjun production-series tanks, handed over by the DRDO in August, will be tested against the T-90s before any decision is
taken on inducting more indigenous tanks. It is already clear that the missile-firing T-90, not the Arjun, will be India's main
battle tank. Due to shortage of attack helicopters, the Army has to rely on tanks in case hostilities break out. The Army has
also instructed the DRDO to speed up production of Arjun tanks rather than handing them over in piece-meal basis. But before
placing its next order, it will wait for the result of the Arjun versus T-90 tests this winter.

Sir. The said article is very old and invalid as of today. The IA has modified aviation units for ATGM role with HAL Dhruv and Chetak/Cheetah suitably modified to carry ATGMs and plenty of these are operational ..... pure attack helicopter in terms of Mi-35 type is limited as of now with India likely to induct the HAL-LCH which is undergoing trials as of now ......
 
Thanks, its been so long since I've been here people don't know me anymore.

Don't worry I still remember you dude though it really has been a while since you last posted here :)

Always valued your ability to seperate fan boy lunacy and reality.
 
The Indian Army had to invest $3.9 million :crazy:to develop three rail cars to carry the new Arjun tank. The railways has classified the new tank as an ?over-dimensional consignment? requiring an increase of 150 per cent over normal transportation rates.
:woot::woot:
 
Zraver sir,
I never expected to find you here. It is good to see you. Love your posts in WAB.
 
So in Pakistan only one loaded truck at a time is allowed on a bridge? @ trucks would exceed 80 tons.

I don't know if you have ever been to South Asia, but the roads are truly terrible. There are no 18 wheelers as exist in US, Canada, or Australia. 40 ton trucks would over time destroy alot of bridges in Pakistan. Also, I am an engineer, and I can assure you that moments created by point loads are very diffrent than those created by distributed loads. Trucks are much longer than tanks, and two of them would be split in such a way that the internal moments created in the bridge by 2 40 ton trucks would be much lower than 1 80 ton tank. How much lower depends on the largest span in the bridge and the precise position of the trucks.

As a tanker you probably know that drainage is an issue on roads where tanks pass often. It is hard to make culverts that won't collapse over time. The army corps of engineers spends lots of money trying to make roads that tanks won't just destroy. That is why they try to keep tanks off of the pavement when possible.

You probably know all this already, but the post left the impression that most roads and bridges can handle tanks. Most can a couple of times, but extended use destroys them, and I think weight is an important concern.
 
I don't know if you have ever been to South Asia, but the roads are truly terrible. There are no 18 wheelers as exist in US, Canada, or Australia. 40 ton trucks would over time destroy alot of bridges in Pakistan. Also, I am an engineer, and I can assure you that moments created by point loads are very diffrent than those created by distributed loads. Trucks are much longer than tanks, and two of them would be split in such a way that the internal moments created in the bridge by 2 40 ton trucks would be much lower than 1 80 ton tank. How much lower depends on the largest span in the bridge and the precise position of the trucks.

As a tanker you probably know that drainage is an issue on roads where tanks pass often. It is hard to make culverts that won't collapse over time. The army corps of engineers spends lots of money trying to make roads that tanks won't just destroy. That is why they try to keep tanks off of the pavement when possible.

You probably know all this already, but the post left the impression that most roads and bridges can handle tanks. Most can a couple of times, but extended use destroys them, and I think weight is an important concern.


learned from reliable source within PA that Pakistan army is integrating AT-6 with Al-zarrar tanks. So far the results have been excellent. Integration of AT-6 is done with italian Galileo Day and night tracking system for target acquistion from Al-zarrar tanks. high speed tests yeilded 47 direct hits out of 50 missiles fired. if you ask me these are excellent results, 94%+ hit rate from Alzarrar. All these results were conducted betwen the range of 500m till 5.5kms... Tests are done with both radio and IR based AT-6 missiles


Thanks for Ukranian engineers on grounds helping PA with AT-6 integration. One question i want to ask, why did PA choose AT-6 over AT 11 or other advanced anti tank ATGMs.. obviously al-zarrar doesnt have laser systems then... these missiles can be easily defeated by smoke screen and decoys
 
I don't know if you have ever been to South Asia,

no

but the roads are truly terrible. There are no 18 wheelers as exist in US, Canada, or Australia. 40 ton trucks would over time destroy alot of bridges in Pakistan. Also, I am an engineer, and I can assure you that moments created by point loads are very diffrent than those created by distributed loads. Trucks are much longer than tanks,

if they are longer, how are there no 18 wheeler types? Also the weight distribution is a function of ground pressure. Tanks put a lot more contact down on the road so the weight is not focused on a very narrow contact patch. Tires have a much smaller footprint and so wheeled viehicles often have higher ground pressures.


and two of them would be split in such a way that the internal moments created in the bridge by 2 40 ton trucks would be much lower than 1 80 ton tank. How much lower depends on the largest span in the bridge and the precise position of the trucks.

Depending on the design, the bridge still has to be able to bear that 80 tons on one set of supports

As a tanker you probably know that drainage is an issue on roads where tanks pass often. It is hard to make culverts that won't collapse over time.

Any road with heavy traffic has that problem if it is not paved.


The army corps of engineers spends lots of money trying to make roads that tanks won't just destroy. That is why they try to keep tanks off of the pavement when possible.

Put rubber track pads on the tanks, and build a deep enough road bed with a thick enough road and the roads won't break down. Of course if you do that, and you face any risk of invasions your helping your enemy.

You probably know all this already, but the post left the impression that most roads and bridges can handle tanks. Most can a couple of times, but extended use destroys them, and I think weight is an important concern.

1 or 2 good crossing points is enough. Tanks can ford minor obstacles, and any bridge that won't support them, wont support extended heavy military convoys either. Plus its safe to assume that any bridges will be targets and coming down anyway. My point was an MBT can function in the environment if the government wanted it to.
 
The Indian Army had to invest $3.9 million :crazy:to develop three rail cars to carry the new Arjun tank. The railways has classified the new tank as an ?over-dimensional consignment? requiring an increase of 150 per cent over normal transportation rates.
:woot::woot:

can you provide a link for the claim about the investment figure you have quoted? do you know how much does redesigning of a FAT carriage to be upgraded to BFAT without change in the basic chasis cost Indian Railways?
 
Last edited:
I don't know if you have ever been to South Asia, but the roads are truly terrible. There are no 18 wheelers as exist in US, Canada, or Australia. 40 ton trucks would over time destroy alot of bridges in Pakistan. ...

I think I may have seen some 18 wheelers in Karachi. The usual cargo load on a truck varies between 100 and 150 tons, since I've seen kaantay (weighing pads) for trucks with scales going upto 150t.
 
I think I may have seen some 18 wheelers in Karachi. The usual cargo load on a truck varies between 100 and 150 tons, since I've seen kaantay (weighing pads) for trucks with scales going upto 150t.

The idea that a modern society could survive without trucks capable of carrying weights in-excess of 40 tons is ludicrous. There are single parts to some industrial and construction projects that weigh more than a tank, they have to be transported overland.

http://blog.cleveland.com/world_impact/2009/02/large_Pakistan-Bridge-Feb3-09.jpg
 
I've seen bits of a gas powered electricity generation plant being transported somewhere along Makran. That truck was LONG, I believe I saw more than 50 pairs of wheels! That may seem ridiculous, but it was more of a road based train. Wretched luck of tarmac!
 
I've seen bits of a gas powered electricity generation plant being transported somewhere along Makran. That truck was LONG, I believe I saw more than 50 pairs of wheels! That may seem ridiculous, but it was more of a road based train. Wretched luck of tarmac!

After I got out of the army I drove truck for a living for about 5 years. I liked to take country roads around big cities to avoid traffic. One time I am cruising along and suddenly up ahead a motorcycle cop makes me stop and pull off the road. I could see power crews working to loosen the power lines and eventually here comes this massive generator turbine on a similar set up. I think I counted 28 axes. Biggest thing I have ever personally move on land.
 
fox

something for you to go through to understand that the figure you quoted is BS at best ..... the R&D and infrastructure is NOT variable and the existence of such cars in Indian Railways is there .... only the designation varies for military purpose and hence namre of FAT and BFAT systems ..... will post specific links for these 2 if can find

but for now you can go through list of existing flat cars in india as also their carrying capacity

[IRFCA] Indian Railways FAQ: Rolling Stock - II
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom