since your proven wrong again and again from the past few days
Where did I was proven wrong?
I said that it is not possible to have both thermal and night vision within single sighting system, due to space limitations not dependable on turret size. Neither Al Khalid have telescope sight as You said, everyone can back few bages back and see it.
Mate it is nice to see you defending your indigenious tank AL Khalid against this
Polish gent Mr Damian who has a HUGE Superiority complex and is always criticising our
indigenious tank ARJUN which in itself is quite a LETHAL weapon
My best wishes to you
pankaj nema You are nothing more than a kid to me, who have no knowledge about AFV's, and neither is capable to understand constructive criticism.
Such pseudo patriots like You both, are nothing more than amusing and insignificant trolls, who are unable to do any constructive discussion, based on facts, knowledge of vehicle design and constructive criticism. In fact such people are dangerous for their own countries and defense industry by their excitement and false belive that their weapon system is the best, or do not have any significant flaws, that should be known, criticized, improved later or in next design.
If any big tanks manufacturer would base his database on such people like both of You, there would have been no progress without many (to many) lifes sacrificed on the battlefields.
well the problem is that he think the eastern tank being small size are inferior
Wrong, size and weight have nothing to protection values of vehicle. There are other points I criticised many times, neither of You two, do anything to read and understand what I wrote.
such as the small size will make it hard for a western tank to hit them at longer distance
The small size didn't help Iraqi tanks, hidden in trenches against American tanks firing to them from distance of 2,000-3,000 meters, sometimes even as far as 4,000 meters, Challenger 1 hit small T-54/55 at a distance of 5,000 meters. Small size do not help much in times of modern digital fire control systems and laser range finders.
the autoloader though has smaller penetrator but are free of incident such as
same loading period even on a very rough terrain not the case with human loader
humans are prone to mistakes the round can fall from the loader due to recoil as well or can delay the process
Both loader and autoloader have advantages and disadvantages. What You said about human loader is not truth. Human loader is generally faster in loading than most autoloaders (especially the ones based on T-72 design, while also mistakes are avioded by humans by use of procedures of loading the gun.
In our Army we have both T-72M1/PT-91 and Leopard 2A4's, general opinion about tank crews that had opprotunity to serve on both tanks, is that human loaders is better than autoloader in T-72 series, similiar autoloader is used in Al Khalid.
The disadvantage of human loader is that it can be exhausted during prolonged time of fire exchange, and takes more space, than autoloader, making vehicle bigger and heavier.
i think the ideal weight for any tank is 55 tonnes
Only if it will represent the next generation with unmanned turret and crew inside hull, then while maintaining high levels of protection, by use of advanced armor and other means, we will be able to reduce vehicle weight to 50-55 tons, perhaps it can goes even further towards more flexible design with fully modular and scalable protection, but this is not easy task, demands alot of money, experience and solid scientific and industry base, so only the most rich and experienced in tank designing countries will be able to achieve this task in nearest future.
