T90 Compared with Al Khalid

[desimorty]

my point exactly. would Pakistan and India ever get to that point??? or will it just be minor brush wars in the Kashmir area.

They've gone to that point before. Infact the largest tank battle after WW2 happened between these 2 armies. What the Indian army learn't from that is that the Rajasthan desert is hot, too hot for tanks and the crew. The crew get pushed to the limit fast. Also, airpower will reduce the chances of tanks, fighting tanks. But small skirmishes could occur.
Whats more important are threats faced from ATGM, and mines.

To the point of T-90 VS AK. There is not much of major difference, however given that they are both based on the same Tank design and have roughly the same weight / armor but seeems the T-90 is slightly ahead. Also given is the same size of gun. These tanks pretty much drive the same and have the same mobility given their size.

difference in electorinics FCS is marginal and keep evolving, We could compare them, but they get upgraded and changable for the most part. It would be interesting to know what the tanks can do against each other. AK has the advantage when it comes to DU rounds but the T-90 has better ERA protection and the 1 in Indian service has missile firing capability if i'm not mistaken. But all said, this is gonna come down to the crew...and Sunny Paji don't loose.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

They've gone to that point before. Infact the largest tank battle after WW2 happened between these 2 armies. What the Indian army learn't from that is that the Rajasthan desert is hot, too hot for tanks and the crew. The crew get pushed to the limit fast. Also, airpower will reduce the chances of tanks, fighting tanks. But small skirmishes could occur.
Whats more important are threats faced from ATGM, and mines.

To the point of T-90 VS AK. There is not much of major difference, however given that they are both based on the same Tank design and have roughly the same weight / armor but seeems the T-90 is slightly ahead. Also given is the same size of gun. These tanks pretty much drive the same and have the same mobility given their size.

difference in electorinics FCS is marginal and keep evolving, We could compare them, but they get upgraded and changable for the most part. It would be interesting to know what the tanks can do against each other. AK has the advantage when it comes to DU rounds but the T-90 has better ERA protection and the 1 in Indian service has missile firing capability if i'm not mistaken. But all said, this is gonna come down to the crew...and Sunny Paji don't loose.

how so? Overall AK is ahead of T90S. I dont have stats for AK-1 so cant compare the T90MS version with it. But it has a better Armour which is known to have defeated all 120 and 122mm rounds known.

 

[desimorty]

how so? Overall AK is ahead of T90S. I dont have stats for AK-1 so cant compare the T90MS version with it. But it has a better Armour which is known to have defeated all 120 and 122mm rounds known.

Okay.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Okay.

have u got any proof or specs to show that T90 is slightly ahead or something like we have been saying in the previous pages by showing specs and technical terms?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

They've gone to that point before. Infact the largest tank battle after WW2 happened between these 2 armies. What the Indian army learn't from that is that the Rajasthan desert is hot, too hot for tanks and the crew. The crew get pushed to the limit fast. Also, airpower will reduce the chances of tanks, fighting tanks. But small skirmishes could occur.
Whats more important are threats faced from ATGM, and mines.

thats why has A/C... And uses gun launched ATGMs.

To the point of T-90 VS AK. There is not much of major difference, however given that they are both based on the same Tank design and have roughly the same weight / armor but seeems the T-90 is slightly ahead. Also given is the same size of gun. These tanks pretty much drive the same and have the same mobility given their size.

Same design? T-90 is an upgraded T-72 and AK is a new tank.


Ahead in what? AK uses a 12,00 HP ..26:1 ratio engine .. And is 2 tones heavier than T-90..(46T= T-90....AK=48 tons).


Armour ? How did you arrive at that conclusion please tell? Apart from the armour it uses Laser jammers,VARTA-I APS.. Yours ? Dont.

And for Jets.. Ever hear of IR paint?

difference in electorinics FCS is marginal and keep evolving, We could compare them, but they get upgraded and changable for the most part. It would be interesting to know what the tanks can do against each other. AK has the advantage when it comes to DU rounds but the T-90 has better ERA protection and the 1 in Indian service has missile firing capability if i'm not mistaken. But all said, this is gonna come down to the crew...and Sunny Paji don't loose.

WTF? Marginal and evolving ? did you check out the systems used in both tanks-- posted on the previous page?

And he's just comparing the old prototype .. The production model itself is armed with 39+10 ammo,Data link,IBMS,etc etc... That itself makes a big Fukin difference...


DU? Other DU.. We also use Tungsten rounds..


Better era protection yeah I'm sure? AK has era not just one front on the turret but wherever it counts,above the turret(it's roof) and it isn't the K-5 but AORAK era based on Knife ERA produced.


As for indian T-90S using Atgms got a source go that? AK also uses Red sparrow and Kombat.

have u got any proof or specs to show that T90 is slightly ahead or something like we have been saying in the previous pages by showing specs and technical terms?

I doubt that.

 

[desimorty]

have u got any proof or specs to show that T90 is slightly ahead or something like we have been saying in the previous pages by showing specs and technical terms?

No proof, because I don't know what the thickness on the frontal arc is but i'm assuming with out research that the T-90 atleast appears to have better ERA coverage, ontop of that the T-90 is heavier, most likily because of the armor even though the powerpack is smaller. But despite that, there is no major difference between the 2 tanks in armor, a slight difference in armor could make a difference but with these tanks chances of surviving the first hit from the back or sides is a lot less compared to NATO standard tanks. So I don't focus on the armor as much expecially because talking about slight difference in protection will lead to talking to about the munitions, in which case the AK does use DU rounds. Thats something to also think about, why use DU rounds... is the armor of the T-90 tuff?

Same design? T-90 is an upgraded T-72 and AK is a new tank.

Please go ahead, read out the history of the AK tank. Your AK is mutilation of the orginal T-54 eventually leading to inputs of T-72 and other lessons from Soviet tanks. You ever wonder why they have near identical weight? A new tank is absurd, its tank built on Type 90 and Type 88's and family. Has nearly the same internal space and ammo configuration not mention sharing the same size gun.

Ahead in what? AK uses a 12,00 HP ..26:1 ratio engine .. And is 2 tones heavier than T-90..(46T= T-90....AK=48 tons).

Has more ERA protection thats ahead ontop of that it said to be superior ERA. As far as engine is concerned, you may want to use torque as a reference. Tanks, rarely ever get to use the last gear expecially in combat situations. Hence why the British Challenger tank seems underpowered but really, its more that enough to move the tank.

Armour ? How did you arrive at dbag conclusion please tell? Apart from the armour it uses Laser jammers,VARTA-I APS.. Yours ? Dont.

I haven't seen AK in production or being fielded with active protection but funny thing is...The Indian army didn't believe in active protection like that. They considered it a waste of money since those things fly off the moment the tank takes the first hit. Better integrated and protected active defence suits are available like Isreals many variants. So in many ways if PA wants to spend money on APS systems then i'd like to see how it turns out. I've seen the Type 69 upgrade Al Zahar? get blown up in Pakistans internal conflicts. Very interesting use of spaced armor.
The T-90 in Indian service are equipped with Swedish defensive suite for laser warning and soft kills/hard kill methods. Cost vs effectiveness issue. The swedish system had better results.

And for Jets.. Ever hear of IR paint?

IR paint? You mean infrared reduction methods. Yea try IR paint on a tank see if it makes it invisible to infrared. Infact, various methods exists to confuse infrared devices like the gernade launchers the tried and tested method whom automatically launch when laser warning goes off in modern tanks. Others include infrared reducing blankets. Many other methods as well, like turning off the tank engine and letting it cool. But unfortunately, if aircraft always have the upper hand against tanks, because various methods exist to finding tanks on the ground from the air, the tried and tested method, is just radio signalling for aerial support. Large tank columns become prime targets for airforces and well established.

As for indian T-90S using Atgms got a source go that? AK also uses Red sparrow and Kombat.

I'm pretty sure one of those is not a gun launched ATGM but yea okay.
The Red Army of the USSR was the first army to have decided to use gun launched ATGM on mass from tanks. The reason was simple. NATO had better tanks, with bigger and more accurate guns plus protection. The Red Army had more tanks. Today cost of T-90 is half the cost of typical NATO tank like Abrahms or Challenger. So the Soviet Union would have 3 tanks for every American tank. They never intended to fight head on tank on tank battles but if it occurred that T-72-T80 spotted the enemy tank first they could also hit the enemy first thanks to ATGM. Now, it doesn't mean they will destroy that target tank completely but could possible mission kill the target tank. This was regarded as an innovation that allowed the Soviets to close the gap with superior Nato equipment. So much so, that in fact this worked out very well with Soviet tank strategy. The barrel like of T-72 and T-90 guns was designed short anyways, and ATGM launched from barrels reduced this faster. . Below is the picture of Russian Reflek missile. Do not know if the IA is in possession of such a weapon. Replacing the main gun is expensive hence the heavy cost paid to train tank crews.

 

[acetophenol]

@jatt : We use and produce Invar ATGMs for use from our T-90

 

[Dazzler]

No proof, because I don't know what the thickness on the frontal arc is but i'm assuming with out research that the T-90 atleast appears to have better ERA coverage, ontop of that the T-90 is heavier, most likily because of the armor even though the powerpack is smaller. But despite that, there is no major difference between the 2 tanks in armor, a slight difference in armor could make a difference but with these tanks chances of surviving the first hit from the back or sides is a lot less compared to NATO standard tanks. So I don't focus on the armor as much expecially because talking about slight difference in protection will lead to talking to about the munitions, in which case the AK does use DU rounds. Thats something to also think about, why use DU rounds... is the armor of the T-90 tuff?

Please go ahead, read out the history of the AK tank. Your AK is mutilation of the orginal T-54 eventually leading to inputs of T-72 and other lessons from Soviet tanks. You ever wonder why they have near identical weight? A new tank is absurd, its tank built on Type 90 and Type 88's and family. Has nearly the same internal space and ammo configuration not mention sharing the same size gun.

Has more ERA protection thats ahead ontop of that it said to be superior ERA. As far as engine is concerned, you may want to use torque as a reference. Tanks, rarely ever get to use the last gear expecially in combat situations. Hence why the British Challenger tank seems underpowered but really, its more that enough to move the tank.


I haven't seen AK in production or being fielded with active protection but funny thing is...The Indian army didn't believe in active protection like that. They considered it a waste of money since those things fly off the moment the tank takes the first hit. Better integrated and protected active defence suits are available like Isreals many variants. So in many ways if PA wants to spend money on APS systems then i'd like to see how it turns out. I've seen the Type 69 upgrade Al Zahar? get blown up in Pakistans internal conflicts. Very interesting use of spaced armor.
The T-90 in Indian service are equipped with Swedish defensive suite for laser warning and soft kills/hard kill methods. Cost vs effectiveness issue. The swedish system had better results.

IR paint? You mean infrared reduction methods. Yea try IR paint on a tank see if it makes it invisible to infrared. Infact, various methods exists to confuse infrared devices like the gernade launchers the tried and tested method whom automatically launch when laser warning goes off in modern tanks. Others include infrared reducing blankets. Many other methods as well, like turning off the tank engine and letting it cool. But unfortunately, if aircraft always have the upper hand against tanks, because various methods exist to finding tanks on the ground from the air, the tried and tested method, is just radio signalling for aerial support. Large tank columns become prime targets for airforces and well established.

I'm pretty sure one of those is not a gun launched ATGM but yea okay.
The Red Army of the USSR was the first army to have decided to use gun launched ATGM on mass from tanks. The reason was simple. NATO had better tanks, with bigger and more accurate guns plus protection. The Red Army had more tanks. Today cost of T-90 is half the cost of typical NATO tank like Abrahms or Challenger. So the Soviet Union would have 3 tanks for every American tank. They never intended to fight head on tank on tank battles but if it occurred that T-72-T80 spotted the enemy tank first they could also hit the enemy first thanks to ATGM. Now, it doesn't mean they will destroy that target tank completely but could possible mission kill the target tank. This was regarded as an innovation that allowed the Soviets to close the gap with superior Nato equipment. So much so, that in fact this worked out very well with Soviet tank strategy. The barrel like of T-72 and T-90 guns was designed short anyways, and ATGM launched from barrels reduced this faster. . Below is the picture of Russian Reflek missile. Do not know if the IA is in possession of such a weapon. Replacing the main gun is expensive hence the heavy cost paid to train tank crews.

t-80ud and Alkhalid uses Kombat ATGM missile with a bigger warhead and slightly more range.

Regarding the armour thickness being better in t-90, thats a horrendous myth being spread by Russians, Indians and Fanboys. In reality, it is the Alkhalid that boasts more frontal armour protection for angles such as 0 deg - 30 degree which is where any tank is at its most vulnerable.

frontal arc composite armour protection in Alkhalid INCLUDING the armour back plate goes just over 800mm, which is more than what the t-90 has in its frontal protection. This is by keeping in mind that t-90 DOES NOT have composite protection thickness above 650mm in the frontal arc. Keep in mind that this is without including the ERA cassettes in both mbts. Infact, the Hull armour is much thicker in Alkhalid than originally anticipated, reaching almost the same thickness as the turret.


here is a calculation of Alkhalid frontal armour..

i n the above pic, there is some error, and backplate is not included - so there can be even 100-150mm armour AFTER those module.
So module only: 670mm LOS + backplate (100-150mm) = 770mm up to ~800mm





there is visible welding line when special armour cavity is ending. Frontplate is hard to see on those photo BUT it shoud be as I marked.
More or less - circa 800mm for special armour + forntplate

Well Al Khalid-1 semms to be nice protcted tank:
Turret:
special armour module: 670mm LOS + backpplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS
Hull:
special armour module at least 670mm LOS + frontplate (100-150mm) = the same




As for the T-90, here is a good estimated value..

from Fofanov's site that gives you a general idea of approximate valus and materials used at the turret and the hull front. Most likely the titanium and ceramics sandwiched between rubber and other inserts. it is evident that t-90 does not exceed 700mm mark with the ERA inserts whereas Alkalid does, at least in frontal protection.

link :
T-72B(M)/T-90 Armor Estimate

Preliminary notes:
Steve Zaloga's new book1 suggests the T-72B MBT has BDD-type armor in the turret along the lines of T-55M and T-62M MBTs. T-72B(M) and T-90 turret reportedly have BDD type armor as well. The array has 380mm cast steel and 435mm insert, but the composition is probably improved. The probable upgrade path is the replacing of Aluminum bulging plates with Titanium. Building on the figures for previous BDD equipped tanks we get

TE vs KE TE vs HEAT
T-72B Aluminum/rubber sandwhiched between cast steel 0.41 0.34
T-72B(M)/T-90 Titanium/rubber sandwhiched between cast steel + air gap 0.56 0.79
T-90 turret projection without Kontakt-5 could thus be 38cm x 0.92 + 43.5cm x 0.56 = 59cm KE (the free edge effect will reduce this further to 0.95 x 59cm or 56cm KE) and 38cm + 43.5cm x 0.79 = 72cm HEAT.

Kontakt-5 coverage seems to be about 50%.

Upper front turret is 5cm cast plus 5cm STEF at ~77-78°.

Glacis is 235mm thick with probably 105mm STEF and 30mm hard steel. The TE of STEF is 0.41 KE and 0.55 HEAT and the TE of hard steel is 1.34 vs KE & 1.3 vs HEAT. Thus the glacis should offer [3 x 1.34 + 10.5 x 0.41 + 11] / 0.38 =~51cm KE and [3 x 1.3 + 10.5 x 0.55 + 11] / 0.38= ~ 54cm HEAT armor. With Kontakt-5 the KE value is up 15-20cm KE and 40-50cm HEAT thus about 69±2cm KE and ~99±4cm HEAT.

Lower hull is 8-10cm at 64° = LOS thickness of 0.438 or 17-23cm KE and HEAT armor.

Now to the figures.

~80-90cm LOS cast mantle x 0.6-0.71 = 54-56cm KE & 80-90cm HEAT
81.5cm LOS x 0.72 [Cast/Ti-BDD] = 59cm x ~0.953 = 56cm plus K-5 = 74±2cm KE
81.5cm LOS x 0.88 [Cast/Ti-BDD] = 72cm plus K-5 = 118±4cm HEAT
70-72cm LOS x 0.72 [Cast/Ti-BDD] = 50-52cm x 0.993 = 49-51cm plus K-5 = ~67-69±2cm KE4
70-72cm LOS x 0.88 [Cast/Ti-BDD] = 61-63cm plus K-5 = 104±5cm HEAT4
44-48cm LOS x 0.66 [Steel/STB] = 29-32cm KE plus K-5 where present = 48±6cm KE
44-48cm LOS x 0.77 [Steel/STB] = 34-37cm HEAT plus K-5 where present = 70±16cm HEAT
[3 x 1.34 + 10.5 x 0.41 + 11] / 0.385 = ~51cm KE plus K-5 = 69±2cm KE
[3 x 1.3 + 10.5 x 0.55 + 11] / 0.385 = ~54cm HEAT plus K-5 = 94±4cm HEAT
17-23cm KE and 17-23cm HEAT
Side turret ranges from 40-60cm thick near front thinning to ~ 15-20cm around back. This is probably half and half cast/STEF thus the KE armor is 0.66 while the HEAT armor is 0.77. The effective KE armor ranges from 40cm narrowing quickly to 26cm and 10-13cm around back. The HEAT armor ranges from 46-31cm near the front down to 15-12cm Around back. In the side and rear turret are mounted external storage boxes ~50cm thick that will offer a modicum of spaced armor, this may amount to an additonal ~13-15cm HEAT armor. Additionally K-5 is mounted around the front side of the turret.
The side hull is 6cm thick rolled steel but the lower side hull around the wheels is probably only 2cm thick; side skirts add 25 mm thick reinforced rubber [with steel?] plate plus 60cm airgap increasing the HEAT armor by about 15-17cm against 2nd gen and 26-28cm against 1st gen warheads. This rubber skirting is unlikely to add more than 1cm to the KE side armor, due to deflection. The fuel tanks along the sponsons should add 65cm x 0.1 KE and 0.3 HEAT or an additional 6-7cm KE and ~ 20cm HEAT armor. Over the front half of the side hull Kontakt-5 is mounted which probably adds ~30cm HEAT and at least 5 cm KE resistance.
The rear armor is unlikely to be more than 4cm but fuel tanks mounted there could offer 0.1 to 0.15 Te resistance to APFSDS and 0.34 resistance to HEAT. The HEAT armor would range from 3-4cm to as much as 18cm additional HEAT armor.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

No proof, because I don't know what the thickness on the frontal arc is but i'm assuming with out research that the T-90 atleast appears to have better ERA coverage, ontop of that the T-90 is heavier, most likily because of the armor even though the powerpack is smaller. But despite that, there is no major difference between the 2 tanks in armor, a slight difference in armor could make a difference but with these tanks chances of surviving the first hit from the back or sides is a lot less compared to NATO standard tanks. So I don't focus on the armor as much expecially because talking about slight difference in protection will lead to talking to about the munitions, in which case the AK does use DU rounds.

Here is an old pic .. You can see the ERA displacement on it:

As for T-90 being heavier than AK.. Hence having a better armour Seriously ?

AK = 48 ton

T-90s = 46 ton

Thats something to also think about, why use DU rounds... is the armor of the T-90 tuff?

Because we can ! Because it goes more punch .. You would do too .. if you coup actually even make better rounds ..

Apart from DU we also use Tungsten .. !
Because we can and because we have developed them !



Also don't you "think" systems like FCS,gunner sights,commander Sights,Hunter killer etc are much more important ?

Please go ahead, read out the history of the AK tank. Your AK is mutilation of the orginal T-54 eventually leading to inputs of T-72 and other lessons from Soviet tanks. You ever wonder why they have near identical weight? A new tank is absurd, its tank built on Type 90 and Type 88's and family. Has nearly the same internal space and ammo configuration not mention sharing the same size gun.

It is based on the Type-90 series .. The same series which gave birth to chinese Type-98 and Type-99!

We already produced Type-90IIAP under license (although we modified it according to our needs.. Instead we started our own program .. Type-59 has nothing on AK.. They don't share a single similarity.

The gun on AK itself is based on the Ukranian KBA-3 ..

Has more ERA protection thats ahead ontop of that it said to be superior ERA.

Check out the pic above!

As for "superior" ERA.: Ukranian ERA is better than the K-5s everybody would agree on that .. Meanwhile our AORAK is based on Knife ERA .. We surely took help from the Ukranians on this one.

As far as engine is concerned, you may want to use torque as a reference. Tanks, rarely ever get to use the last gear expecially in combat situations. Hence why the British Challenger tank seems underpowered but really, its more that enough to move the tan

Ok boss!

I haven't seen AK in production or being fielded with active protection but funny thing is...The Indian army didn't believe in active protection like that. They considered it a waste of money since those things fly off the moment the tank takes the first hit. Better integrated and protected active defence suits are available like Isreals many variants. So in many ways if PA wants to spend money on APS systems then i'd like to see how it turns out.

Peotective suites and jammers ? AK also employs them (although our are indigenous - produce by Pakistani companies)
Which such suite does indian army use? A source would be nice.

I've seen the Type 69 upgrade Al Zahar? get blown up in Pakistans internal conflicts. Very interesting use of spaced armor.

Nice isn't it? IEDs,multiple RR and RPG shots and the crew still survives to tell the tale !.. No penetration of the turret or hull.. Even that baby is rolling with a 125mm,Thetis system and other goodies !

The T-90 in Indian service are equipped with Swedish defensive suite for laser warning and soft kills/hard kill methods. Cost vs effectiveness issue. The swedish system had better results

Which one and a link .. Thanks.

IR paint? You mean infrared reduction methods. Yea try IR paint on a tank see if it makes it invisible to infrared. Infact, various methods exists to confuse infrared devices like the gernade launchers the tried and tested method whom automatically launch when laser warning goes off in modern tanks. Others include infrared reducing blankets. Many other methods as well, like turning off the tank engine and letting it cool. But unfortunately, if aircraft always have the upper hand against tanks, because various methods exist to finding tanks on the ground from the air, the tried and tested method, is just radio signalling for aerial support. Large tank columns become prime targets for airforces and well established.

Yeah sure but doesn't hurt if you have taken all the precautions you can take .. Between IR paint is used by every country that can afford it .. NATO is an example !

I'm pretty sure one of those is not a gun launched ATGM but yea okay.

The Red Army of the USSR was the first army to have decided to use gun launched ATGM on mass from tanks. The reason was simple. NATO had better tanks, with bigger and more accurate guns plus protection. The Red Army had more tanks. Today cost of T-90 is half the cost of typical NATO tank like Abrahms or Challenger. So the Soviet Union would have 3 tanks for every American tank. They never intended to fight head on tank on tank battles but if it occurred that T-72-T80 spotted the enemy tank first they could also hit the enemy first thanks to ATGM. Now, it doesn't mean they will destroy that target tank completely but could possible mission kill the target tank. This was regarded as an innovation that allowed the Soviets to close the gap with superior Nato equipment. So much so, that in fact this worked out very well with Soviet tank strategy. The barrel like of T-72 and T-90 guns was designed short anyways, and ATGM launched from barrels reduced this faster. . Below is the picture of Russian Reflek missile. Do not know if the IA is in possession of such a weapon. Replacing the main gun is expensive hence the heavy cost paid to train tank crews.

I believe (could be wrong) the chinese Refleck copy is called red sparrow .. But Kombat ATGM is the real deal for AK .. Aswell as our UD's whih themselves are on par with the T-84s.. Thank to russian sanctions and the Ukranian loyality.

 

[Dazzler]

alright dont start a rumor mill guys, get a ew things straight...

To date, indian t-90s are NOT fitted with any active protection systems, if anyone has a proof, bring it or rather shut up. AGain, indian t-90s have no battle management system and most of them even lack an ECS or AC for short

Their FCS is the same as the standard 1A45T used in all export model t-90s to date and there is little to no improvements in that department. I have been hearing they are being upgraded since 2004 at least, till today.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

t-80ud and Alkhalid uses Kombat ATGM missile with a bigger warhead and slightly more range.

Regarding the armour thickness being better in t-90, thats a horrendous myth being spread by Russians, Indians and Fanboys. In reality, it is the Alkhalid that boasts more frontal armour protection for angles such as 0 deg - 30 degree which is where any tank is at its most vulnerable.

frontal arc composite armour protection in Alkhalid INCLUDING the armour back plate goes just over 800mm, which is more than what the t-90 has in its frontal protection. This is by keeping in mind that t-90 DOES NOT have composite protection thickness above 650mm in the frontal arc. Keep in mind that this is without including the ERA cassettes in both mbts. Infact, the Hull armour is much thicker in Alkhalid than originally anticipated, reaching almost the same thickness as the turret.


here is a calculation of Alkhalid frontal armour..

i n the above pic, there is some error, and backplate is not included - so there can be even 100-150mm armour AFTER those module.
So module only: 670mm LOS + backplate (100-150mm) = 770mm up to ~800mm





there is visible welding line when special armour cavity is ending. Frontplate is hard to see on those photo BUT it shoud be as I marked.
More or less - circa 800mm for special armour + forntplate

Well Al Khalid-1 semms to be nice protcted tank:
Turret:
special armour module: 670mm LOS + backpplate (100-150mm) = 770-850mm LOS
Hull:
special armour module at least 670mm LOS + frontplate (100-150mm) = the same




As for the T-90, here is a good estimated value..

from Fofanov's site that gives you a general idea of approximate valus and materials used at the turret and the hull front. Most likely the titanium and ceramics sandwiched between rubber and other inserts. it is evident that t-90 does not exceed 700mm mark with the ERA inserts whereas Alkalid does, at least in frontal protection.

link :
T-72B(M)/T-90 Armor Estimate

Darn please educate us about the AORAK ERA... Once again... Thanks!

@jatt : We use and produce Invar ATGMs for use from our T-90

@jatt : We use and produce Invar ATGMs for use from our T-90

Bhai ji you got a source for that??

 

[OrionHunter]

yakeen janiye MBT Al khalid is superior to even russian armata tanks and german MBT leopard 2

Like some of our esteemed Pakistani friends even equate their JFs to the Rafales!! Some even go further to say the JFs have an edge!! Oh yeah! And a couple even said the PAF is the best in the world! They may be good, but best? The delusions of some on PDF are spectacular in scope!!

 

[Dazzler]

Like some of our esteemed Pakistani friends even equate their JFs to the Rafales!! Some even go further to say the JFs have an edge!! Oh yeah! And a couple even said the PAF is the best in the world! They may be good, but best? The delusions of some on PDF are spectacular in scope!!

can u read the title of this thread??

 

[acetophenol]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

India has two variants of the T-90 -> T-90S and T-90M "Bheeshma"

Since 2001, 310 T-90S tanks were supplied by Russia, about half of which were partially or completely assembled in India.

T-90S tanks are equipped with 1000hp engines and weighs 46.5T. It can fire FSAPDS and ATGMs along with other types.

T-90S tanks for India withstood direct hits from M829A2/KEW-A2 APFSDS at 250M without the ERAs in demonstrations

T-90M "Bheeshma" is the later variant of T-90 that India made with help of Russia and France.

^^^OFB built COMMANDER SIGHT TKN-4S FOR T90 S

^^^OFB built DRIVER'S SIGHT PASSIVE FOR T-90 S

^^^OFB built THERMAL SIGHT TI-ESSA FOR T-90S

^^^OFB built GUNNER SIGHT IG46 FOR T-90

T-90M "Bheeshma" features several improvements over the T-90S, and many of these improvements have been later adopted into the T-90S already in services, hence the shares designation.

T-90Ms are being produced in India, at HVF Chennai, with the first Indian made batch being inducted on 2009

T-90Ms has Kaktus K-6 ERA on hull and Kontact-5 ERA along with Semi-active baffle plates and ceramic layers with high tensile proprieties of the T-90 base armour and advanced armour composition for the Indian variants.

 

[acetophenol]

T-90M has french Catherine-FC thermal imager

Other than the said above,There are several upgrade and equipment substitutions, the exact status are unknown

***Post Courtesy :Kunal Biswas,DefenceForrumIndia-2011***

India`s own effort to upgrade existing T-90S

User-trials of a T-90S MBT equipped with IRDE-developed and BEL-built commander’s panoramic sight and driver’s uncooled thermal imager (derived from that developed for the Arjun Mk1A MBT) have just gotten underway. If all goes well, then these two items will be retrofitted on to both the first 310 T-90S MBTs acquired for the Indian Army just about a decade ago, as well as on 1,000 T-72M1 MBTs that are due to undergo a deep upgrade. For both MBT-types, VRDE has already developed the APU, which too is now undergoing user-trials.

In addition, the IV528-2 digital ballistics computer has given way to an indigenous solution developed by TATA Power Strategic Electronics Division, while the IRDE-developed driver’s uncooled thermal imaging night sight has replaced the TVN-5 night-vision device.

Furthermore, a DEAL-developed MMW-based IFF system has been installed for enhancing the MBT crew’s situational awareness.

T-90S’ track-wraps have been indigenised by AMW-MGM Forgings Pvt Ltd, which has also developed tracks with metal/rubber-brushed parallel pin-jointed gearings, stamped track-links adapted to accept rubber pads, with steel needles on the track-pins providing conductivity and picking up static electricity from rubber-brushed pin-jointed gearings during movement.

***End of Crossposting Kunal's Posts***