Al-Khalid MBT And Pakistani Armour

DivineHeretic

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,153
Likes
1,897
Country flag
All technologies are made in house,

Vehicle tracking/ management system and an IBMS systems are available for entire armour fleet and network centric warfare with GPS aid and satellite comm capability.

* Horus




* Rehbar1, 2







Horus
To be fair, you will not get access to GPS if at all any conflict erupts between India and Pakistan. Uncle Sam will scramble the GPS signals at the very onset. And this goes for both sides. As such I'm assuming that Pak will go for Chinese COMPASS (I hope the name is right).

Then the next problem with your netcentricity is that unless the PAF establishes at least some form of air dominance (or at the very least aggressive air denial) around your battle-groups, you will struggle under sustained and relentless EW & COMJAM operations by the IAF assets.

You cant just stroll out to the battlefield (without heavy air cover) and expect your battleNet to function in the kind of dense EW environment the IA/IAF is preparing for.

But then I just digressed from the thread topic.
 

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
317
To be fair, you will not get access to GPS if at all any conflict erupts between India and Pakistan. Uncle Sam will scramble the GPS signals at the very onset. And this goes for both sides. As such I'm assuming that Pak will go for Chinese COMPASS (I hope the name is right).

Then the next problem with your netcentricity is that unless the PAF establishes at least some form of air dominance (or at the very least aggressive air denial) around your battle-groups, you will struggle under sustained and relentless EW & COMJAM operations by the IAF assets.

You cant just stroll out to the battlefield (without heavy air cover) and expect your battleNet to function in the kind of dense EW environment the IA/IAF is preparing for.

But then I just digressed from the thread topic.
All indigenous equipment has dual satellite chips, GPS and Beidou.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neo

Neo

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
4,514
Likes
964
ISLAMABAD — Access to China's Beidou satellite guidance system for navigation and precision strike weaponry is welcomed by Pakistani analysts, but guaranteed availability of the Beidou signal cannot be assumed.

"Pakistan's armed forces cannot rely on US GPS because of its questionable availability during a conflict that has overtones of nuclear escalation," former Pakistan Air Force pilot Kaiser Tufail said.

"With Pakistani cruise missiles having satellite navigation as an option, it would actually be very naive to believe that US would abet in any such venture," he said.

The Beidou military signal will be more accurate than available commercial systems.

Mansoor Ahmed from Quaid-e-Azam University's Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, who specializes in Pakistan's national deterrent and delivery program, said the Beidou signal is vital for Pakistan's defense.

"Pakistan is likely to follow a two-pronged strategy aimed at providing redundancies in conflict situations for secure guidance of its cruise missiles," he said.

"This would call for reliance on Beidou as well as inertial guidance, the latter being used for indigenous cruise missiles like Babur, which can be used for counterforce precision strikes with or without conventional warheads," he added.

Pakistan's indigenous cruise missiles, the air-launched Hatf-VIII/Vengeance-VIII Ra'ad, and the surface or sub-surface-launched Hatf-VII Babur, use satellite guidance in addition to inertial navigation and terrain contour mapping.

Some Pakistani ballistic missiles, such as the Shaheen-II, are also claimed to have a satellite guidance option.

Despite its benefits, access to Beidou cannot be fully guaranteed.

Though Tufail believes "China would not outright withdraw [Beidou] at least in the relatively less dangerous early stages of a conflict. "¦ For Pakistan to depend on Chinese satellite guidance systems for weapons delivery [which could be nuclear too] is fraught with uncertainties driven by international concerns.

"Total reliance on the Chinese Beidou satellite positioning system in any conflict would, therefore, also have to be tempered with these stark realities," he added.

Tufail said Beidou is important mainly with regards to conventional precision strike.

"The very large destruction hemisphere of a nuclear weapon, even a low yield one, mitigates any lack of delivery accuracy of a small order," he said.

Ahmed, however, believes Beidou will have at least one important part to play regarding Pakistan's nuclear deterrent.

"Beidou would be particularly effective for a naval Babur that is believed to be the platform for Pakistan's second-strike capability," he said.

Its value will mainly be through the accurate positioning of the launch submarine rather than the guidance of the missile itself, because inertial navigation should still be sufficient for a submarine-launched weapon as long as the submarine's position is accurately determined.

Ahmed does not believe large numbers of conventionally armed variants of the Babur missile will be carried on Pakistani submarines.

For the Navy "Babur primarily fits in with a second strike platform carrying nuclear warheads" he said.

In the South Asian context, the use of precision guided munitions can be hampered, however.

The skies over Pakistan are often obscured by thick fog in winter and dust storms in summer, which complicate accurate weapons delivery.

Tufail, therefore, highlights Beidou as important for aircraft navigation and conventional weapons delivery. Though he thinks Pakistan "must retain options like laser guided weapons, not withstanding their limitations in adverse weather conditions.

"In a 24-hour cycle, there are ample opportunities that can be exploited and these weapons can be useful backups," he said.

China's aid to Pakistan's goes further than Beidou, however. While as Pakistan continues to develop its own precision-guided weaponry, only China can expeditiously deliver such such munitions in volume.

The Stockholm International Policy Research Institute (SIPRI) cites deliveries of the LS-3 and LS-6-500 satellite-guided glide bombs, and the LT-2 LGB in connection with the JF-17 Thunder fighter program as the latest examples.

SIPRI also confirms the acquisition of 50 Chinese CM-400AKG supersonic standoff missiles for the anti-shipping strike role under a 2010 deal. A variant of the missile is believed to also be satellite guided for precision strikes against land targets.

He is inclined to believe the CM-400AKG will remain a specialist anti-aircraft carrier weapon for the time being therefore.

Pakistan Employs China's Beidou Guidance System, but Access Not Guaranteed | Defense News | defensenews.com
 

Blackwater

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
21,156
Likes
12,211
"This would call for reliance on Beidou as well as inertial guidance, the latter being used for indigenous cruise missiles like Babur, which can be used for counterforce precision strikes with or without conventional warheads," he added


Joooth ,babur is copy of tomahawk gifted by chinese to pakis
 

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
317
"This would call for reliance on Beidou as well as inertial guidance, the latter being used for indigenous cruise missiles like Babur, which can be used for counterforce precision strikes with or without conventional warheads," he added


Joooth ,babur is copy of tomahawk gifted by chinese to pakis

topic is alkhalid, not babur
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neo

charlie

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,150
Likes
1,245
Country flag
So if this range is true (1000-1500m) then whole Arjun idea as "long-range desert killer" is worth sh!t. The same idea killing Arjun by AK using Kobra/Swir/Refleks/Invar etc GLATGM (gun lunched anti-tank guided missaile). Just distanse is to short to use so sophisticated weapons like LHAAT or Kobra. They can give some advantage on flat desert whit 4000-5000m fire range. But on 1000-1500m? LOL no. GLATGM give nothing at that range in fact. So it will be combat on middle range whit using sabot, speed, tank mobility and fast aiming and shooting. Just like in Europe.
Thanks for that info - I was thinking that typical fire range is much longer. But if its 1000-1500m then it change a lot.


It's standard for modern MBT when target and tank is not moving :) Dutch Leo-2A5DK in A-stan was able to hit point targets (talibans) at 5000m range and now this range is given for german DM-11 round as max distance.


This 100% looks like pure propaganda :)
If you want I can give You greek tank trial result (partial of course) it was the last complex tank trial in Europe (1990s.)

During FCS tests the target was moving 40km/h gun-shield size 2,3x4,6m on 1500m distance. All tanks was moving 30km/h and shooting 10 APFSDS rounds. The pass mark for the test was achive 9/10. That level achive only: Leclerc, Leropard-2, and M1 Abrams. Challenger-2 did not participate in that test, and T-80U and T-84 had faild - both had 6/10 rounds.

Result for other tests:

Fire to fixed target during tank moving:
"Аbrams М1А2" - 17 / 20;
"Leclerck" - 20 / 20;
"Leopard 2А5" - 19 / 20;
"CR 2Е - broke down :) (LOL);
Т-84 - 3 / 8 after eight shoot T-84 broke down

Fire to target during night from static and moving tank:
"Аbrams М1А2" - 20/20;
"Leclerck" - 19/20;
"Leopard 2А5" - 20/20;
"CR 2Е" - 10/10 , CR 2E didn't fire when tank was moving! (so only static position)


Fire in hunter-killer mode to appearing suddenly gun-shield (after some time gun-shield was hidden):
"AbramsМ1А2" - not fired due to lack of ammunition (not delivered on time ...);
"Leclerck" - 13/20 effectiveness ~0,65
"Leopard 2А5" - 17/20 effectiveness ~0,85
"CR2 2Е" - 8/20 effectiveness ~0,40
Т-84 - 9/19 effectiveness ~ 0,47
Well I met a scientist who worked on Arjun project, he said the army required the tank to hit a target at 5000m in desert and he said the visibility in the desert was barely around 4000m.

Having said that, the visibility in Punjab region is far better and in desert it's around 3000 to 3500m so LAHAT or Kobra is going to be useful.

Why do you think Indian army would buy Lahat or pakistan would buy kombat if they had to fight at 1000-1500m ?
 
Last edited:

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
317
Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

But it doesnt change fact that comander sight in T-90A is cloned TKN-3.
Its funny, how can a "poor copy" be better than the first class original one.

OTOH, here is an Image intensifying sight made at GIDS Pakistan, for mbts and APCs, used in old Type-59s and 69s and M-113 series of APCs.

Driver's Night Sight (DNS-3)


Category : Driver's Night Sight (DNS-3)
Manufacturer :
Detail

It is a passive image intensifier based Night Sight for all T-Series tanks.It has an effective range of 200 meters and can be run on either 3 volts or 24 volts.It comes with a relaxed-view eye-piece to maximize comfort for the operator. Another version DNS-4 has also been developed for APC's.

Relaxed View
Effective Range 200 m
Can be Fitted in Tanks and APC'S



From type-96/ 85 series

 
Last edited:

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
317
Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

talking of fire control system, some unseen goodies....





 

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
317
Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Yes, becouse Type-96 frotnal hull gemotery is almoust the same as in T-54 :)
And on those photo set we can see thicknes of layers, and type of welding between upper paltes and lower hull plate. And it's esy to rescale this using track width as marker :)
And layers visible on photo give circa 140mm -even if there is more then layout max 150mm thick and slopped at 20. = 400mm max 450mm LOS
There is no other option in reality :)

About turret - yes, while Type-85 III and erly type-96 are measured then lets syay "late" Type-96 have diffrent layout and armour modules mounted by using top screws. And it's thickens is indeed diffrent then erly type-96.
And I have small problem to rescale it
Sorry mate, you are generalizing things, unless we see the inner composition of plate thickness+number of plates+air gap or other insert to separate the plates, it is just generalization.

By the way, the tank in the pic is an early prototype, a conversion of type-85 to type-85II version ;)


 

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
317
Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

BTW:
You have right about Type-96...



but hull was recalculated again using other factor and still: 450mm max :)

From what i know about the typ-85IIAP experience, there were two versions, IIM and III, both had similar external layout but vastly different inserts+thickness and composition.




type-85III or 96 with 125mm gun




85 casic with 105mm gun (notice hull shape and slope that is different to the original 85







Despite i have reservations about hull armour since i cant conclude on the hull armour+insert mix and thickness thing unless there is conclusive evidence for inner cavity+ inserts, its fun to have a good discussion with you :)
 
Last edited:

shiphone

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
2,163
Likes
2,479
Country flag
Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

quite some mistakes should be corrected , but it would be a time-consuming job.........
=======================

it's a Type-85/Type-85 II prototype... 105mm main gun, 4 crews.. 730HP engine
this is the result or successor of "Storm 1" and "Storm 2" 2nd Gen Export tank projects.
--------------------------------------------
this is ZTZ96- type96 late varient...the early varient in PLA service was called as Type 88C which is most close to the Type85-IIAP

evolution : Type85--> Type85 II -->Type85IIM (125mm gun )--> Type85 II AP (type-85M simplified version)-->Type88C and enter into the PLA service--> renamed as Type96(ZTZ96... later) with some improvement

-------------------------------------------


only this one with ERA could be called as Type85 III...just one(or quite few) prototype... 1000 HP engine...lost to the T80UD in PA held contest...

-----------------------------------------
BTW, export Type85IIM's protection in early 1990

Turret : 550-600mm
hull: 400-450mm
 
Last edited:

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
317
Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

quite some mistakes should be corrected , but it would be a time-consuming job.........
=======================



it's a Type-85/Type-85 II prototype... 105mm main gun, 4 crews.. 730HP engine
this is the result or successor of "Storm 1" and "Storm 2" 2nd Gen Export tank projects.
--------------------------------------------


this is ZTZ96- type96 late varient...the early varient in PLA service was called as Type 88C which is most close to the Type85-IIAP

evolution : Type85--> Type85 II -->Type85IIM (125mm gun )--> Type85 II AP (type-85M simplified version)-->Type88C and enter into the PLA service--> renamed as Type96(ZTZ96... later) with some improvement

-------------------------------------------


only this one with ERA could be called as Type85 III...just one(or quite few) prototype... 1000 HP engine...lost to the T80UD in PA held contest...

-----------------------------------------
BTW, export Type85IIM's protection in early 1990

Turret : 550-600mm
hull: 400-450mm
ahh! pick and choose..

the discussion was solely on HULL ARMOUR THICKNESS in different versions, every one could see one has a 105mm and the other has 125mm smoothbore.

And, turret composite armour thickness in T-85IIAP is more than 600mm, it has been changed, twice.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

btw:
Dazller, really i check this not onece, not twice, not tripple but more and Im confused:




front hull armour is well visible - backpate geometry is like in T-54 on this is added armour.
And it's thicknes is visible - and in ALL measurments/estimatous is the same result:
hull armour thickens is 50-55% of the turret armour thickens

So if turret have 800-850mm LOS for 0. then hull must be 400-450mm thick...

of course they are many way to estimatous thickenss, I made this many time and in case good quality photo i have error circa 3.5% in case bad qaulity photo it's ussaly 7,5-8%...
in case chineese tanks there is no many good quality photos so it's difficult.

But in case Leo-2A4, T-90A, and other tanks I had really small error... (les then 3%)
IMHO chineese tank developers are not stupid -type 96 is light tank in term weight - 42t is really small weight, and turret thickens (800-850mm) is almoust like in Leopard-2A4.
IMHO chinese armour is not conected whit Burlinghton/Coban but les sophisticated and weight mucht solution...so turret armour weight rather a lot, and this may be a reson sucht geometry, and IMHO thin hull armour. But it is in some way resonable - turret alway incarase 75% hits so better protected turret then hull is obviously choice in limited weight.

IMHO Type-96 protection for hull is between 400-450mm RHA vs APFSDS and turret whit sucht LOS (800-840mm) and heavy weight sucht give protection between 550-600mm RHA vs APFSDS so rather good.
 

Dazzler

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,160
Likes
317
Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

IMHO chineese tank developers are not stupid -type 96 is light tank in term weight - 42t is really small weight, and turret thickens (800-850mm) is almoust like in Leopard-2A4.
IMHO chinese armour is not conected whit Burlinghton/Coban but les sophisticated and weight mucht solution...so turret armour weight rather a lot, and this may be a reson sucht geometry, and IMHO thin hull armour. But it is in some way resonable - turret alway incarase 75% hits so better protected turret then hull is obviously choice in limited weight.

IMHO Type-96 protection for hull is between 400-450mm RHA vs APFSDS and turret whit sucht LOS (800-840mm) and heavy weight sucht give protection between 550-600mm RHA vs APFSDS so rather good.

IMHO, the 800-850 figure is not correct, it should be around 600-650mm fro 0 deg frontal LOS at best. Ironically, we do not know the quality of chinese composite/ ceramic ERA so commenting on that would be mute. As far as weight is concerned, it is lighter for sure, as type-96 is just over 41 metric tonnes, newer 96G should be around 43 tonnes due to additional arrow shaped frontal turret and hull armour cover.

However, back in the 80s, when it was conceived, it was an ambitious project to counter the Soviet mbt fleet of t-72s, 64s and possibly even t-80s. The point being, when type-85/ 96 was developed, it was meant to be the top of the line mbt, to confront the soviet threat. It only took a secondary role when much advanced and heavier type-99 was inducted, by late 90s.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top