Al-Khalid MBT And Pakistani Armour

[Damian]

@Damian i told you anything with the made in france tag is superior hell 1 day he'll come up with a theory how the Famas is superior to AK series.
But the I agree French produced great planes Mirage-2000,Rafale but their tanks sucks big time

French tanks were not so bad at all, Leclerc is preatty good design, besides all these "baby age" problems with Serie 1 variants.

But AMX-30 is some kind of joke here, just like Leopard 1. A tank with protection so weak that even good automatic cannon in 20-30mm calliber with proper APDS or APFSDS ammunition can just wreck it without big problems.

There were no T-72s at the battle of As Salman. Would the outcome be any different if there were? Probably not with the junk non-Republican Guard units were fighting with. A modernised T-72 can take on the AMX-30B2 but not what Saddam had.

Even downgraded, export versions of T-72 for middle eastern clients had protection and firepower higher than AMX-30, in the same time when T-72 was wide spread over the world, AMX-30 main armament and ammuntion for it was outdated.

Really? So the Chinese don't trust Pakistan with the latest tank?
Tank's are not a great secret, their armour sure but nukes are a better kept secret and so are submarines.
Reason for the PA's purchase of mbt-2000 was economical.
They got the technology to produce most of the tanks, armour in Pakistan, but they are using Ukrainian engine and FCS.
Its not that China was hiding this technology, its that Ukraine offered something better.

All serious and big tanks manufacturers ans designers are solding downgraded export variants of their tanks if they can.

For example Soviet Union, a high tech T-64/T-64A/T-64B, T-72A/T-72B, T-80/T-80B/T-80U/T-80UD were exclusive only for Soviet Armed forces, when T-72M and T-72M1 + older tanks, were for export.

But of course even between export variants there were differences.

For example T-72M1 made in Soviet Union for Iraq, were different inferior to T-72M1 made in PRL, CSRS or DDR.

Even US today are manufacturing downgraded, export variants of M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams MBT's for customers around the world, of course export variant for close allies like Australia will be superior to these made for Middle East clients.

Chinese are doing the same thing, they have tanks exclusive for PLA, and they have tanks made for export, so some crucial technologies will be less vurnabale to leak somewhere, example US.

 

[ALBY]

There were 44 AMX-30s and 100 AMX-10RC at the battle of As Salman, the French were no where near Khafji. They had no loses and the enemy casualties were as follows:

3000x POWs
2000x dead Iraqis
20x T-55 and T-62 destroyed
2x T-69 captured
2x T-59 captured
17x light tanks destroyed
120x APC destroyed
107x vehicles captured
26x guns destroyed
40x guns captured
70x heavy mortars captured
700x tons of weapons/ammunitions/explosives captured
100s mortar and HMG captured
1000s AK-47 captured

There were no T-72s at the battle of As Salman. Would the outcome be any different if there were? Probably not with the junk non-Republican Guard units were fighting with. A modernised T-72 can take on the AMX-30B2 but not what Saddam had.

AMX-30 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Damian]

By the way, to defend Leclerc a bit.

Here are Militarysta for turret, and Wiedzmin from Otvaga forum hull armor estimations of Leclerc.



As we can see, hull protection is very good, comparabale to M1 series and newer Russian/Ukrainian tanks, and better than Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, turret protection is smaller than M1A1/M1A2 (0 degrees ~900-960mm, 30 degrees ~800mm), Leopard 2 (0 degrees ~800-840mm, 30 degrees ~700-740mm), Challenger 2 (0 degrees ~780-800mm) and newer Russian/Ukrainian tanks like T-90A (0 degrees ~800-840mm) or T-84M (0 degrees also ~800-840mm).

Of course these are only thickness estimations, not offered protection against KE and CE.

Also the pseudo "modular armor" of Leclerc turret, in reality these are storage boxes.

Hull ammo storage.

As we can see, 18 rounds in hull are stored in rotating drum rack, I think that this has potential to be made beter, we can easy weld there isolation bulkhead made from RHA with small ammunition port equipped with small, sliding blast doors, this would definetly improve crew survivability, also there is possibility to place blow off panels in hull floor under this drum ammo rack.

Many thanks for Militarysta for his estimations and for finding these great photos.

 

[Armand2REP]

Also the pseudo "modular armor" of Leclerc turret, in reality these are storage boxes.

Depends on the mission, that is why it is called "modular."

 

[Damian]

And to compare with Leclerc, other MBT's armor thickness estimations:






Estimations are based on several different sources, exterior and interior photos of vehicles and some messures made on real vehicles.

Depends on the mission, that is why it is called "modular."

Leclerc do not use modular armor, Merkava Mk4 or some Chinese tanks use modular armor, Leclerc use standard for all modern NATO MBT's semi modular composite armor placed in welded turret composite armor cavitys.

Here is a photo of Leclerc turret without storage boxes, as we can see it is simple welded from RHA plates construction with integral composite armor cavitys.

Compare to real modular armor, like that on Merkava Mk4:

So once again Armand, not only You don't have knowledge about non French vehicles, but also no knowledge about French tanks.

PS. Drawings are not in scale, it is hard to get drawings of different vehicles in the same scale, however estimations seems to be close to reality, still not perfect.

 

[p2prada]

What is this painting on your tanks? I found this in one China forum, they can not figure out this is a tiger or a cat, but they make fun of this thing, they laugh that Indian do not like to do any thing seriously. Look at this drawing, it make many Chinese fans very much amused[/QUOTE]

Hmm, let them laugh away. It isn't the exact image but that is the emblem of the 31st Armoured division. The White Tiger. The Chinese killed their last tiger, so they are not impressing anybody.

The images are hand embroidered and thus does not look as impressive as photoshop images that the Chinese fanboys use for their signatures.

[IMG]http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/images/31AD.jpg

Let them know the embroidery was created in 1940, meaning the division is older than their whole country.

 

[Damian]

ZTZ-98 and ZTZ-99 armor thickness estimations.

The most interesting ones that should interest are B and B1 lenghts, A3 and C lenghts.

B lenghts are especially interesting because they are showing exposed weak zone within safe manouvering angles, that is absent in Soviet (Russian/Ukrainian), NATO and few more designs.

To ad more details I made something like this, it will explain design of front turret armor modules.



So it actually shows that ZTZ-98 and ZTZ-99 front turret armor is mostly made from simple RHA, maybe also some CHA elements, and composite armor is used in much smaller % than in it's counterparts.

This of course do not say what protection this vehicle have and I will not speculate about it, especially if there are no, rather credible informations about armor composition.

However because PRC get it hands on earlier T-72 models than T-72B, and they probably get their hands on T-80B, armor can be very similiar to these designs armor.

 

[Damian]

About the Pakistani Al Khalid tank, @sayarakd asked me if I can say something about this tank.

Well, the overall armor layout is typical for Chinese tanks, a bit of mystery is front hull, I'am still uncertain where compoisite armor is placed, on glacis plate or lower front hull, so untill I will not be certain I can't say anything about this.

Turret is equipped with ERA cassettes, however they are covering only purely front face of turret front armor modules. These modules have same design as these mounted on ZTZ-96, ZTZ-98 and ZTZ-99 series.

Here is a photo of turret without composite armor modules mounted but we can see a process of main gun mounting.



Below is ZTZ-98/99 drawing but with Militarysta estimations for Al Khalid.

Al Khalid use very good Ukrainian 6TD-1 and 6TD-2 engines, rather modern FCS and preatty good firepower due to use 125mm smoothbore gun. However ammunition, especially APFSDS is not very modern, it's level is somewhere on the 1980's ammunition level.

This is short description, but maybe later I will write more.

 

[DMF]

Hmm, let them laugh away. It isn't the exact image but that is the emblem of the 31st Armoured division. The White Tiger. The Chinese killed their last tiger, so they are not impressing anybody.

The images are hand embroidered and thus does not look as impressive as photoshop images that the Chinese fanboys use for their signatures.

Let them know the embroidery was created in 1940, meaning the division is older than their whole country.

haha, the hand painting of the tiger make the Chinese forum very much amused, they think the Indian arm not very serious about military affaires, you know, in Chinese eyes, the white tiger is an impressionist piece of art, not suitable to be on a T99 tank, is give a impression that Indian army are little romantic, not very suitable for a battle.

 

[Armand2REP]

You do not know the meaning of modular apparently. There is a module of steel, ceramic and Kevlar that goes there in combat situations. Just because you don't see it in combat doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can draw your little diagrams but can't even understand what modular armour is.

 

[Damian]

You do not know the meaning of modular apparently. There is a module of steel, ceramic and Kevlar that goes there in combat situations. Just because you don't see it in combat doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can draw your little diagrams but can't even understand what modular armour is.

So apparently You are idiot. Leclerc do not have modular armor, if in place of storage boxes You can place addon armor then Leclerc still do not use modular armor, I can place such addon armor on every vehicle, even ERA by Your definition is modular armor, but nobody who use ERA call it modular armor.

Besides this, I was talking with French tank crews, they never said anything about addon armor for Leclerc.

So Armand, this is another of Your fantasies and lies?

Go back to school You little lier, and stop wasting others time.

 

[Damian]

BTW, as allways, Armand did not use any source to at least back up his words... and there goes Your credibility Armand...

 

[Armand2REP]

�Leclerc Main Battle Tank
http://doc.danfahey.com/Tanks-ArmorMag.pdf
Leclerc Main Battle Tank | Military-Today.com
Weapon
Tanks - Chris Chant, Richard Jones - Google Books

Sure guy, everyone calls it modular except you. You don't have the authority sitting from your arm chair to redefine the meaning of the word. What a newb...

 

[Damian]

Ah, and once again internet sources. Go back to school kid, and learn what is a credible source and what is not.

And a book that is not even a monography of a vehicle but some kind of quasi encyclopedia.

Did You even studied on university? Or You are another weakly educated half inteligent?

BTW it only shows what specialists stands behind these opinions.

Even if we see on the photo that Leclerc have standard for 90-99% of all MBT's, turret welded from RHA plates with integral composite armor cavitis, all of these "specialists" like maniacs just copy one opinion, probably misunderstanded or badly translated about modular armor that don't exists.

Not to mention that non of them even said once such BS, like Armand did.

You do not know the meaning of modular apparently. There is a module of steel, ceramic and Kevlar that goes there in combat situations. Just because you don't see it in combat doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can draw your little diagrams but can't even understand what modular armour is.

Just beautifull, and where do You put this "module" in to storage boxes mounted to turret? This will be very thin, not effective add off weight.

Or maybe You mean composite inserts that have just the same "modularity" as in any other MBT with composite armor.

Do You even can read with understanding? Did someone in school teached You such ability normal for any intelligent form of life?

Go away amateur! I don't even need to make You an idiot, You are making idiot from Yourself by Yourself.

A modular armor that do not exsit!

Where do You see it armand?

Do anyone seen a non existing modular armor somewhere?

BTW, I'm not Your guy, stop calling me that or I will be less nice than I'am allready.

 

[Vladimir79]

I see the modules all over it. You try to argue that the Leclerc armor is not modular but add-on when you miss the difference between the two. The Leclerc was designed from the ground up to have battlefield change-outs or upgrades to its armor package. The modules aren't attached by bolts or paste but premade clips on the hull. They are prefabbed for the optimum gradient to deflect impact and have specific places that they fit. The fact that they have stow box modules only emphasizes the "modularity" of the concept.

Add-on is after the fact of design and you either bolt/paste it on or have to make modifications to the vehicle. Modified add-ons are modular armor but still called add-ons because it is after the fact of design. Both the Leclerc and Merkava Mk IV have modular armor designed from the ground up, the main difference being the Leclerc tank crew can change it in the battlefield while the Merkava has to go back to the shop to switch it out.

Sure guy, everyone calls it modular except you. You don't have the authority sitting from your arm chair to redefine the meaning of the word. What a newb...

It is a troll without a clue.

 

[Damian]

I see the modules all over it.

These storage boxes?

Can I smoke what You are smoking right now?

You try to argue that the Leclerc armor is not modular but add-on when you miss the difference between the two.

Nope, Leclerc is using integral semi modular composite armor, no addon or modular armor on it, do You also was not educated to read with understanding?

The Leclerc was designed from the ground up to have battlefield change-outs or upgrades to its armor package.

And this is because it is using semi modular composite armor... but hey, all composite armors are semi modular, and composite inserts can be replaced if needed, You just need to cut off cover plate over cavity, take out insert from cavity, replace it, and weld on cover plate... that's all.

The modules aren't attached by bolts or paste but premade clips on the hull. They are prefabbed for the optimum gradient to deflect impact and have specific places that they fit. The fact that they have stow box modules only emphasizes the "modularity" of the concept.

There is no modularity here, if we replace storage boxes with armor modules then these armor modules are addon, everyone can do that with their machines.

Add-on is after the fact of design and you either bolt/paste it on or have to make modifications to the vehicle. Modified add-ons are modular armor but still called add-ons because it is after the fact of design.

Incredible "logic".

Both the Leclerc and Merkava Mk IV have modular armor designed from the ground up, the main difference being the Leclerc tank crew can change it in the battlefield while the Merkava has to go back to the shop to switch it out.

You are author of this BS or someone told You a nice story? Leclerc to not have modular armor, nor Merkava Mk4 crews need to go back to maintnance area to replace armor modules, it can be done in the field with a help of ARV or some crane.

It is a troll without a clue.

Yes, yes and You are super specialist, that will just show us a proper photos to proove his rights.

I give a photo that shows no modular armor.

So who is a troll here eh?

 

[pmaitra]

Hmmm, so now we have two Defense Professionals at loggerheads.

This is very entertaining indeed!

 

[pmaitra]

These storage boxes?

Damian,

I am not a mechanical engineer nor do I claim to be a tank expert. You have done a lot of research and you have provided some valuable information and sound analyses.

In this particular case, where you are disagreeing with Armand2REP and Vladimir79, I am compelled to say that you are playing with semantics. It does not matter who call those boxes what. Those are modules as far as I am concerned.

Definition of MODULE

1
: a standard or unit of measurement

2
: the size of some one part taken as a unit of measure by which the proportions of an architectural composition are regulated

3
a : any in a series of standardized units for use together: as(1) : a unit of furniture or architecture (2) : an educational unit which covers a single subject or topicb : a usually packaged functional assembly of electronic components for use with other such assemblies

4
: an independently operable unit that is a part of the total structure of a space vehicle

5
a : a subset of an additive group that is also a group under additionb : a mathematical set that is a commutative group under addition and that is closed under multiplication which is distributive from the left or right or both by elements of a ring and for which a(bx) = (ab)x or (xb)a = x(ba) or both where a and b are elements of the ring and x belongs to the set


See module defined for English-language learners »

See module defined for kids »

Examples of MODULE

• factories that build engines, transmissions, brakes, and other modules for cars
• a memory module for storing information

Source: Module - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Ever heard of the Kvant-2 module in the then Mir Space Station? It was a storage cum gyrodyne module. Today, the ISS also has storage module.

So that picture you showed is indeed modular in structure. I repeat it is modular in structure. Replace those storage boxes with ERA arrays or ice-cream freezers, it does not matter. It will still remain modular, no matter how much you disagree. Again, I am not saying those storage boxes are armour. No, they are not. However, it is modular. I hope I have made myself clear.

Now let us get over with this playing with semantics, shall we?

 

[JBH22]

I do agree with Damian see it may be modular boxes but if you used it as a tool box then it doesn't increase armor protection.

 

[pmaitra]

I do agree with Damian see it may be modular boxes but if you used it as a tool box then it doesn't increase armor protection.

I never said "tool box = modular armour." All I am saying is that it is a modular structure.

So that picture you showed is indeed modular in structure. I repeat it is modular in structure. Replace those storage boxes with ERA arrays or ice-cream freezers, it does not matter. It will still remain modular, no matter how much you disagree. Again, I am not saying those storage boxes are armour. No, they are not. However, it is modular. I hope I have made myself clear.

Now let us get over with this playing with semantics, shall we?