Al-Khalid MBT And Pakistani Armour

[farhan_9909]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Well cost is not the issue.Majority of the tank is manufacture locally.

even if it cost under 5millions with the expensive armour.they would opt for the expensive.

Question is the capability of developing/deploying such an armour on AK.

Military budget overspending last year reached close to 10billions dollars.add this the couple of billions dollars from foriegn countries including USA,China and KSA.

the overall budget is no less than 12-14billions dollars.with the army getting a share of 58-60%

meanwhile the spending of nuclear programs must have reached 3billions dollars this year aswell.which doesnt fall under the official Defence budget.if we add the nuclear spending.than the budget might well cross over 15billions dollars.

as per the 2010 ministry of defence report.the HIT itself budget was 70millions dollars.
while for the tanks,APC,MRAP they are paid by the army.

 

[Damian]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Well cost is not the issue.Majority of the tank is manufacture locally.

It is allways issue, do you have any idea how economy is important? You can ruin whole country by overspending money.

even if it cost under 5millions with the expensive armour.they would opt for the expensive.

Why? Why spending so much money on something which is not worth that amount of money?

Question is the capability of developing/deploying such an armour on AK.

As I said earlier, Boron Carbide is lightweight and have high hardness, but is also brittle, the question is that with it's costs and characteristics, it is worth to use it in armor. As far as current knowledge says us, big tank manufacturers do not use boron carbide, not in large quantities at least. Simply because besides advantages, this material also have disadvantages and perhaps better idea is to use different materials.

Not to mention that some people are stupid enough to treat Boron Carbide as some sort of super magical material which will make their favorite tank invincible.

Military budget overspending last year reached close to 10billions dollars.add this the couple of billions dollars from foriegn countries including USA,China and KSA.

the overall budget is no less than 12-14billions dollars.with the army getting a share of 58-60%

meanwhile the spending of nuclear programs must have reached 3billions dollars this year aswell.which doesnt fall under the official Defence budget.if we add the nuclear spending.than the budget might well cross over 15billions dollars.

as per the 2010 ministry of defence report.the HIT itself budget was 70millions dollars.
while for the tanks,APC,MRAP they are paid by the army.

So in a name of making yourself some sort of super power, you would ruin your countries budget?

 

[methos]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Boron carbide is not really better than other armour materials:

The gain in protection compared to silicium carbide or even aluminium oxide is negible compared to the higher costs.

 

[farhan_9909]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

It is allways issue, do you have any idea how economy is important? You can ruin whole country by overspending money.



Why? Why spending so much money on something which is not worth that amount of money?

i dont know whether you know or not but Pakistan for majority of its past was under military rule and just recently this year for a record a democratic govt was elected.
Military has effed up the country economy.and we are in very deep trouble from the past 1 decade

As I said earlier, Boron Carbide is lightweight and have high hardness, but is also brittle, the question is that with it's costs and characteristics, it is worth to use it in armor. As far as current knowledge says us, big tank manufacturers do not use boron carbide, not in large quantities at least. Simply because besides advantages, this material also have disadvantages and perhaps better idea is to use different materials.

Not to mention that some people are stupid enough to treat Boron Carbide as some sort of super magical material which will make their favorite tank invincible.



So in a name of making yourself some sort of super power, you would ruin your countries budget?

well as i said we are not sure exactly about the armour of Al khalid.what i meant is that if the boron carbide indeed is better and within the capability of pakistan.than military is very selfish and they dont care about the rest of country.
the last govt said we have given them a hidden 627billiond pkr or more than 6billion dollars since 2009 apart from the rest of the budget.

anyway 2 months old news

from a neutral and chinese source.New armour for Ak1 is long back rumoured but we dont know more

For the new design of structure, the armor of new tank can endure the strike from all of 120~125mm caliber anti-tank shells who are on service at present.

Tungsten Alloy Penetrators in Al-Khalid Main Battle Tank

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

@farhan_9909,

An Al-Khalid will not stand a direct hit from the M338, DM53, DM63 and M829A3.

So it won't endure all 120 mm caliber shells.

 

[farhan_9909]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

I guess the engine compartment is this

 

[farhan_9909]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

I guess the engine compartment is this

 

[farhan_9909]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

@farhan_9909,

An Al-Khalid will not stand a direct hit from the M338, DM53, DM63 and M829A3.

So it won't endure all 120 mm caliber shells.

indeed it wont..but can be good against the present APFSDS in south asia.
atleast until india has not inducted the t-90ms

 

[Damian]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

I guess the engine compartment is this

No, this is view from turret interior through gun mantled. Funny, it seems that base turret is cast steel, not very good thing these days, cast steel is from 5 to 15 % weaker than rolled platek, if not more these days when metallurgy progress and rolled plates can be even better.

 

[farhan_9909]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

No, this is view from turret interior through gun mantled. Funny, it seems that base turret is cast steel, not very good thing these days, cast steel is from 5 to 15 % weaker than rolled platek, if not more these days when metallurgy progress and rolled plates can be even better.

well the picture was from a ukraine site.along with many other picture of 6td-3 engine mentioning with al khalid caption

why would they do so?May be it could be cheaper though sacrifying 15% of armour strength

 

[Damian]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

well the picture was from a ukraine site.along with many other picture of 6td-3 engine mentioning with al khalid caption

why would they do so?May be it could be cheaper though sacrifying 15% of armour strength

Casting is indeed cheaper for some countries, especially these without more advanced metallurgy industry these days... and don't forget, Al Khalid is in it's esence Chinese tank, most of them, even the more modern ones, have cast base turret.

But most other countries switched to rolled armor plates long time ago, simply because they offer better protection, and it is easier to integrate composite armor with them.

 

[farhan_9909]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Casting is indeed cheaper for some countries, especially these without more advanced metallurgy industry these days... and don't forget, Al Khalid is in it's esence Chinese tank, most of them, even the more modern ones, have cast base turret.

But most other countries switched to rolled armor plates long time ago, simply because they offer better protection, and it is easier to integrate composite armor with them.

this is concerning indeed...i hope the latest Ak1 atleast doesnt has the cast based turret..

 

[Dazzler]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

@farhan_9909,

An Al-Khalid will not stand a direct hit from the M338, DM53, DM63 and M829A3.

So it won't endure all 120 mm caliber shells.

Because its enemy doesnt have DM-53, M-338, M-829A3, rather 3BM-42, 3BM-42-M, (not sure if India has 44, 46 ) at best. It will do pretty fine against them

 

[Dazzler]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

What a bollocks, how funny is to read posts of people that do not have even smallest idea about subject they talk about.

There were no 3 phases of Burlington armor or Chobham as that guy calls it, not to mention that Chobham armor is someones invention, not a real codename. And Burlington armor is not used by USA from 1988 and by UK from 1990's, and was replaced by Heavy Armor Package in USA and Dorchester armor in UK.

There are so many mistakes, lies and other BS written by this guy, that I give up, it seems that collecting reliable knowledge is beyond some people capability.

Ok I will explain... again...

British (and later also with American cooperation), composite armors were developed within a secret program codenamed "Burlington", within this program several different armors were developed. During development some of the armor projects were abandoned as not promising enough, some were promising and their development was continued.

Now the important thing, we do not know which armor types were choosen, we only know, that general design of these armors, was a composite non energetic reactive armor array, this is all we know for certain, I also seen a mention of a second type which in such array, used also build in explosive reactive armor, but nothing more about it.

These different armor types did not had any codenames, in documents they were only reffered as for exampe "armor array no.4" or "buiscuit no.1" etc. No codenames. So technically these armors should be reffered only as special armors, without codenames.

But for simplicity they are called as "Burlington" armor.

"Chobham" armor is someones invention, nobody really knows from where it came, but it is not official codename for armor development program or any of these armors developed.

Also the US side, had it's own part in whole program, and their development had codename "Starflower" but it is still not a codename for armor itself, M1's armor prior 1988 should allways be reffered as "Special Armor" or "Burlington" and after 1988 it was replaced by "Heavy Armor Package" or HAP for short.

As for generations of armor. The "Burlington" armor had several different variations, only Americans have clearly distinguished two variants of this armor, early used on M1, and later used on M1IP and M1A1.

In 1988 USA fields M1A1HA with new type of armor, HAP, this was it's 1st generation, in 1990 2nd generation is fielded on later production of M1A1HA and new M1A1HC and in 1992 on M1A2. In 1999 3rd generation is fielded on M1A2SEP and in first decade of XXI century and in 2011-2014 period is also integrated with M1A1SA and M1A1FEP.

HAP will soon be replaced by new armor type developed for M1 tanks within ECP modernization.

I will not even mention bollocks this guy writes about Leopard 2 armor.

And what makes him certain that Al Khalid uses "Combination K" , what, Pakistanis are still using obsolete alluminium insterts with some ceramic spheres?

Also what makes him think that they use Boron Carbide, one of the most expensive ceramics? A richer countries do not have money to use Boron Carbide on a large scale, and here we have guy that thinks that a relatively poorer Pakistan is capable to find a money to pay for a large batch of one of the most expensive ballistic ceramics... is this guy stupid or insanse, or perhaps both?

no need to go into panic mode man! i clearly mentioned it being just a forum post but nothing else has been found on Boron Carbide use in AK armour yet so i shared.

Whats the fuss?

 

[Dazzler]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

I guess the engine compartment is this

These are Type-59 cast turrets brother, NOT AK turret, AK series has welded turrets.

please do some research before posting misinformation.

 

[Dazzler]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

No, this is view from turret interior through gun mantled. Funny, it seems that base turret is cast steel, not very good thing these days, cast steel is from 5 to 15 % weaker than rolled platek, if not more these days when metallurgy progress and rolled plates can be even better.

Its Type-59 turret, not AK

 

[Dazzler]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

indeed it wont..but can be good against the present APFSDS in south asia.
atleast until india has not inducted the t-90ms

T-90MS is not a monster, despite a respectable facelift in electronics, autotracking, armour, a BMS and better thermal imagers, it still has the same APFSDS ammunition i.e 3BM42 Mango, 3B42M , 3BM48 svinets or even 3BM44M Lekalo. (IF Russia ever exported it to India i.e.)

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

 

[Dazzler]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Tungten Alloy for ZTZ-99 Main Battle Tank



In terms of firepower, when the 125mm smoothbore gun of ZTZ-99 main battle tank which has high gun pressure is utilizing tungsten alloy armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot(APFSDS), the tank can penetrate homogenous armor which has thickness of 850mm from a distance of 2000m. While the smoothbore gun is utilizing special alloy armor piercing (Hedo alloy penetrators) (the length to diameter for bomb core ratio is 30 to 1), the tank has penetration to armor by more than 960mm. Tungsten alloy is welcomed in military industry with its strong tensile strength, yield strength, hardness and elongation. In contrary, the U.S. M1A2 main battle tank has penetrating power for 810mm from a distance of 2000m. Germany Leopard-IIA6 has the penetrating power for 900mm. While Japanese Type 90 main battle tank has penetrating power for 650mm.

So the qualification of ZTZ-99 main battle tank is superior others in terms of power. Otherwise, ZTZ-99 main battle tank is equipped with 9K119 laser guided gunshot missile (called as AT-11 Sniper missile in the West) which is molded on Russian missile. There are 4 missiles in the tank. New artillery system is equipped with laser transmitter in gunner sighting device of tank, during improvement. The propellant powder of missile is lengthened and the weight of missile is increased too. The missile can choose complicates flight path and fly to target at low altitude, in terms of attacking conditions (such as attacking at a standstill ).


Tungten Alloy for ZTZ-99 Main Battle Tank

 

[militarysta]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

the tank can penetrate homogenous armor which has thickness of 850mm from a distance of 2000m.

Bullshit.

While the smoothbore gun is utilizing special alloy armor piercing (Hedo alloy penetrators) (the length to diameter for bomb core ratio is 30 to 1), the tank has penetration to armor by more than 960mm.

Super bulshit.

the U.S. M1A2 main battle tank has penetrating power for 810mm from a distance of 2000m.

Propably overestimated a lot.

Germany Leopard-IIA6 has the penetrating power for 900mm.

Bullshit again.

While Japanese Type 90 main battle tank has penetrating power for 650mm.

overestimated

So the qualification of ZTZ-99 main battle tank is superior others in terms of power.

Chineese propaganda wet dream.

Tungten Alloy for ZTZ-99 Main Battle Tank

This source is shit. No single data in tekst is correct.

 

[militarysta]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Because its enemy doesnt have DM-53, M-338, M-829A3, rather 3BM-42, 3BM-42-M, (not sure if India has 44, 46 ) at best. It will do pretty fine against them

Indian Army have old 3BM42 Mango and Israeli clone of the CL. MkII. Both no trulluy better then 500-520mm RHA at 2000m for 90.