I gave you the complete Kanwa Defence Review article printed in 2007. Search it on Google and you will find it. You gave me an article printed in 2005 which was a news piece! I will believe the latter.
Where is the report of sale? The last report we have that has that contract being canceled. If it was reinstated, where is the link and for what generation of FLIR?
) coupled with Ukrainian engine and SESM 500 transmission as fitted on British Challenger.[/quote]
source
Al Khalid 1 does have APS and you can find pics in this forum with little effort.
That system lacks a hard kill ability. Do you not understand the difference?
I will stick to what i am told by a very reliable source that the gun is based on KBA3 tech acquired with T-80 ud, manufactured by China.
The gun is an improved version of the 2A46m1 L48 gun with higher pressures to boost performance. It is not superior to the 2A46m5 gun L52
Now I really find it hard to believe that Pakistani Army officials only tested it against equipment that they had and got satisfied with it. Is this how trials occur anywhere in the world? They have not one but TWO very reliable sources that can provide it with new Russian rounds (China and Ukraine!).
Source that Russia sold China or Ukraine any of the post Soviet ammunition developments. The Chinese round recorded being loaded on to Chinese MBT's was 560mm. No Chinese round has been see that is longer.
Yes, Pakistan will be out numbered and this is the reason why we developed a new variant despite little finance and less resources. It has Catherine FC, improved autoloader, new IBMS coupled with datalink, GPS navigation, APS and all the features that i mentioned in previous posts.
Source that the autoloader can handle long rod penetrators.
You have your opinion and I have mine (backed by VERY reliable sources). If you have any RELIABLE source to deny the above please put it forward.
I've put forward sources, you deny them. The auto-loader. As for your sources, I see a lot of claim with very little fact. I can source the APS used by the T-90, I can source the fire control etc. I don't have to rely on forum rumors but can source it. You have not provided any sourcing. A single defense brief with no date of publication is not a source. Improvements used on the T-90 Vladimir/T-90M did not exist until just a few years ago. China does not have it. India just got it, and is as far as I know the first and only export customer. Ukraine did not develop it, it spent it energies on a different type of auto-loader.
Nor do I buy secrecy crap, I have eyes and can see what I see. I do not see heavy ERA, I do not see an APS with a hard kill ability, I do not see a gun bigger than L48 etc.
taimikhan
Re: some questions related to number of tanks in pak army
Nabil, Problem is that Zraver is as told by him, he is an armored corps officer of the US army. So his views would be western related, meaning he will compare western tanks with russian or chinese tanks. Both have different tank doctrines. PA focus is how to counter Indian armor and weapon systems, so whatever they get PA tries to match or get a superior weapon system, quality wise not quantity wise.
I never claimed to be an officer.
A tank is judged on how well it blends the 3 following- shock, mobility, and firepower.
Gunpower alone is worthless if the tank is easily killed so firepower is more of an ability to give and take punishment on the battlefield.
Mobility is more than just top speed, but also things like trench crossing, crew comfort, range and soft ground crossing.
Shock, well when everything comes together and the tank starts killing its favorite target (cooks, fuel trucks, supply clerks etc) it delivers shock by being where the enemy really doesn't want it.
