Altay Tank - The New Beast on the block!

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,194
Likes
2,799
Country flag
Greece is not interested in the 400 M1A1 according to Greek news websites (would be very contra-productive, thinking of their finances
Do not believe everything that write news.. Greeks will replace their old M48 - even despite the crisis. On the contrary, they do not have extra money to buy new ones. And they are ready to receive a large shipment from the USA, including helicopters "Cobra."
 

jedigman

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28
Likes
41
I think that's pretty much it. The Altay seems from capabilites etc. pretty much to be a Turkish Leopard 2A6 pendant... that's all. The Altay production will however start more than a dozen years after the Leopard 2A6 entered service. What's the reason behind the Altay except doing something on their own (which increases costs)? How should the Altay stand a chance on export market (if it does only offer capabilities already introduced in other tanks years ago)?
The criteria under which Altay falls under is that of Merkava series of Tanks. Altay is a project in which Turkey wants to own the technology, to become a sovereign country. Turkey requested Tanks from Germany a decade ago, but was denied by Germany due to political atmosphere of Greece and Greek Cyprus.

I don't want to say "The Altay is a bad tank", because that wouldn't be true. But the Altay is not better than other already existing tanks which are proven and less expensive.
One could argue that the Altay is better because it has increased roof armour - but that can be found also in other tanks (like Strv 122, Merkava IV, T-84 & T-90, etc.) already existing/in service. One could argue that the Altay is better because it has a laser warner, IFF, etc. - but again everything can be found in other tanks already in existance/service. And that makes the Altay project a bad programme.
What makes a "bad programme" is not achieving what the "programme" is set out to do. Altay tank will be the first tank of Turkey, remember that. Altay has many follow on projects that have started, soft, hard kill system and barrel launched missile.

The FCS is made by Aselsan, who also developed an upgraded FCS for the Leopard 2 which isn't better than that of the 2A5... since the new upgrade was proposed parallel to the Altay development it could be that the Altay has the same level of FCS as NATO tanks had beginning in 1995.
Now, this is where I am confused. Do you have any sources to back your clam? Aselsan is very tactile in developing fire control systems, from M60 series of tanks, to naval cannons, to anti air gun systems, to howitzers and remotely controlled weapon systems. They have vast history in developing fire control systems, and I believe whatever they develop since Altay FCS has not been made public will be equal to that of modern tanks.

I don't think that the existence of this tank is really "justified". For example look at the four "biggest" NATO countries - USA, Germany, France and the UK - all have tanks designed differently. The Challenger 2 was designed around the L30 tank gun (which was ironically fielded to have commonality in armament with the Challenger 1, which never was upgunned). Because of the gun, it was designed with different ammunition storage and thus a completely different internal layout than the other tanks and it is incompatible with other designs (you cannot put a 120 mm smoothbore gun into it). The Leclerc's design is "dominated" by the autoloader, the M1's design is "dominated" by the idea of putting nearly all rounds into the turret rear. The Altay however doesn't have anything unique in it's design (at least as far as the images and videos show). Considering the fact that the Turkey evaluated numerous tanks - including all of the above - but still doesn't design something different, it seems that the main reason for creating the Altay is to make a tank on their own. And since we are here in Defenceforumindia.com: That's also the only reason why the Arjun was made.
Exactly, to become a sovereign country.

One thing is also that in other forums and one various websites people claim that the Turkish armed forces want to have 1,000 or even 1,200 Altay tanks - which is realistically far above the Turkish needs! With just 700 modern tanks the Turkey would be capable to beat each of it's neighbours... considering that the Turkey has 350 Leopard 2s (and plans to upgrade these) and 170 relatively modern M60T (from 2007, but they suffer from being based upon an outdated design) that would leave the need for 180 modern MBTs (assumed that all older models will be phased out). The Turkish armed forces are (like the Greece) stuck in a Cold War mentality which was abandoned by most other countries.
1,000 tanks are to be ordered, mainly to replace outdated tanks. Turkey will order these tanks in different batches upgrade and modernise them accordingly with projects continuing in Engine development, Hard and Soft Kill system and gun launched missile development.

Some images of Altay (note- Turret is a mock-up, simulating weight)




 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
@jedigman do we know schedule when real turret will be build and placed on hull?

Also are there some works to slightly redesign the turret, I have some issues with the gunner main sight installation method.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

methos

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
302
What makes a "bad programme" is not achieving what the "programme" is set out to do. Altay tank will be the first tank of Turkey, remember that. Altay has many follow on projects that have started, soft, hard kill system and barrel launched missile.
I think otherwise. I think a project can be judged as "good" or "bad" based on it's result and environment. The Altay may be a good tank - I don't want to argue with that - but it is not better than decades older ones. It is a very similar internal layout to the Leopard 2 (especially the turret layout is very similar), it has the same gun as the Leopard 2A6 had from 2001 and there isn't any indication that it got more armour. It also got for the first serial tanks at least the MT-883. Besides the Turkish army, I don't see any one who is going to buy it, given the fact that all traditional buyers of Turkish arms already have bought other MBTs. That leaves the Turkish army alone with all production and procurement costs, while the number of ordered tanks already exceeds the amount of tanks required to ensure the ability to protect the Turkey against all neighbour countries. This is a bad decission from the political and the financial point of view.
Currently the Altay is not going to be better than the Leopard 2 operated by the Greeks since 2006.


Now, this is where I am confused. Do you have any sources to back your clam? Aselsan is very tactile in developing fire control systems, from M60 series of tanks, to naval cannons, to anti air gun systems, to howitzers and remotely controlled weapon systems. They have vast history in developing fire control systems, and I believe whatever they develop since Altay FCS has not been made public will be equal to that of modern tanks.
Aselsan has developed various different FCS systems, but just in order to replace completely outdated onces based mostly on 1960s - 1980s technology (for example the FCS of M60A1and Leopard 1A3 is from the 1960s). Just by making many FCS doesn't mean that they make the best.
I back my claims up with the Leopard 2NG's FCS. The Leopard 2NG is (next to the Altay) the newest project for Aselsan. They have developed new sights for gunner & commander, fitted new GPS, turret drivers and much other things. What I did is I compared the data from Jane's and the Leopard 2NG brochure with data from an much older tank - the Leopard 2A5 from 1995. For sure I don't have all datas and cannot compare all aspects, but the Leopard 2A5 has a pretty good FCS with which it managed to outerperform nearly all other tanks (M1A2, Challenger 2E, Leclerc, T-80U, T-84) on different occassions (and if the rumors correct also during the Turkish evaluation). If I compare the available data of the Leopard 2NG's FCS with the Leopard 2A5s, then the Leopard 2NG is not better. In some aspects maybe, but in many aspects the Leopard 2A5's FCS is better.
Well, the Leopard 2NG is not the Altay, but it is a very modern Aselsan product (from 2011) and at least optical there are many similarities between the Altay's FCS and the Leopard 2NG's (for example the commander's sight).
 

jedigman

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28
Likes
41
@jedigman do we know schedule when real turret will be build and placed on hull?

Also are there some works to slightly redesign the turret, I have some issues with the gunner main sight installation method.
I believe we may see a few variations of the turret before 2015. This year the programme will proceed to firing tests with the FTR (Fire Test Rig) Altay, where we may see somewhat of a final look of the turret and placements of sights.

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

I think otherwise. I think a project can be judged as "good" or "bad" based on it's result and environment. The Altay may be a good tank - I don't want to argue with that - but it is not better than decades older ones. It is a very similar internal layout to the Leopard 2 (especially the turret layout is very similar), it has the same gun as the Leopard 2A6 had from 2001 and there isn't any indication that it got more armour. It also got for the first serial tanks at least the MT-883. Besides the Turkish army, I don't see any one who is going to buy it, given the fact that all traditional buyers of Turkish arms already have bought other MBTs. That leaves the Turkish army alone with all production and procurement costs, while the number of ordered tanks already exceeds the amount of tanks required to ensure the ability to protect the Turkey against all neighbour countries. This is a bad decission from the political and the financial point of view.
Currently the Altay is not going to be better than the Leopard 2 operated by the Greeks since 2006.
Well, I believe the project is excellent and well planned out, would have no problem saying otherwise it it weren't.
The programme sets out to a develop modern MBT, and as decades old MBTs can still be considered modern simply because no serious/game-changing advancement has been made in MBTs there is no point in developing a significantly different MBT which is risky. There are current projects in place that will continually improve Altay.

As for you comparison with leopard 2, Altay has a few features that Leopard 2 does not and that's modularity of it's Armour and Hydropneumatic suspension.

Aselsan has developed various different FCS systems, but just in order to replace completely outdated onces based mostly on 1960s - 1980s technology (for example the FCS of M60A1and Leopard 1A3 is from the 1960s). Just by making many FCS doesn't mean that they make the best.
I didn't mention it as to say Aselsan is able to develop the best FCS, I mentioned it simply to relay that Aselsan has great deal of knowledge and history in developing FCS. That knowledge and history should not be overlooked.

I back my claims up with the Leopard 2NG's FCS. The Leopard 2NG is (next to the Altay) the newest project for Aselsan. They have developed new sights for gunner & commander, fitted new GPS, turret drivers and much other things. What I did is I compared the data from Jane's and the Leopard 2NG brochure with data from an much older tank - the Leopard 2A5 from 1995. For sure I don't have all datas and cannot compare all aspects, but the Leopard 2A5 has a pretty good FCS with which it managed to outerperform nearly all other tanks (M1A2, Challenger 2E, Leclerc, T-80U, T-84) on different occassions (and if the rumors correct also during the Turkish evaluation). If I compare the available data of the Leopard 2NG's FCS with the Leopard 2A5s, then the Leopard 2NG is not better. In some aspects maybe, but in many aspects the Leopard 2A5's FCS is better.
Well, the Leopard 2NG is not the Altay, but it is a very modern Aselsan product (from 2011) and at least optical there are many similarities between the Altay's FCS and the Leopard 2NG's (for example the commander's sight).
You haven't mentioned what you've compared with Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2NG. From what I gather, all modern western MBT FCS are practically the same and utilise NATO ballistic data...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

methos

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
302
Well, I believe the project is excellent and well planned out, would have no problem saying otherwise it it weren't.
Just because the tank is good, it doesn't mean that the project is good. To repeat myself over and over:
Is there any need for 1,000 Altays?
No, there isn't. Just take a look at the neighbour countries of the Turkey... Syria, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Georgia, etc. all have a smaller number of tanks and for most of these countries also much older models. For having the regoinal hegemony already ~500 to 750 modern tanks should be enough. If we take into account that the Turkish forces have ~350 Leopard 2s (which Aselsans wants to modernize) and 170 M60Ts, then there isn't any defence political reason to buy more than 300 Altays max. But developing a new tank for just producing 300 of them is not very clever.
The Turkish army is just bloated, because they are stuck in a Cold War mentality (i.e. they operate a far too lage number of tanks of which many are nearly completely obsolete. During the Cold War West-Germany operated more than 5,000 tanks, the USA more than 13,000 tanks and the Soviet Union operated more than 50,000 tanks. But these times are over; curremtly Germany operates some 300 tanks, the USA have some ~5,000 tanks in service and Russia some 7,000 tanks. With 1,000 Altays, 350 Leopard 2s, 170 M60Ts and still some Leopard 1Ts and M60A3 TTS (I doubt that the Altays will completely replace the M60A3 TTS') the Turkish army is disproportional big.

Is there any reason why some export costumer should buy it?
No, there isn't.
The traditional buyers of Turkish arms all have already bought a modern third generation tank (UAE for example have the Leclerc, Malaysia the PT-91, Pakistan the Al-Khalid) or don't want to buy any (like the Phillipines).
Even if some country were interesting in buying a new tank, where the new and "unproven" (e.g. regarding reliability & ballistic gaps) Altay would still need to prove itself against the much more established designs like the Leopard 2, T-90, M1 Abrams, Leclerc, etc.
The Leopard 2 for example has a great advantage thanks to it's large userbase alone which means that much more money is invested in order to develop upgrades and much more upgrades exist than for other tanks. The Leopard 2, T-90, M1 Abrams, Challenger 2 and Leclerc all have been fitted with different engines in the past. For all these tanks uparmour kits for urban combat were made. And the costs for a replenished second hand tank are much lower than buying a new tank.

Is the Altay programme a good programme?
From the financial point of view it is not. The Turkish government is investing a huge amount for R&D and also bought South Korean technology, while there aren't much chances to export the tank. I.e. the Turkish government has to pay all the costs alone. Producing a smaller number of tanks under licence would have been a much more logical decission.
The Turkish armoured forces have many places where improvment is possible (like motorized and mechanized infantry), but the money is instead "wasted" on buying too much tanks.
From the defence political point of view it is also not a good programme. Surely introducing newer and more modern vehicles in order to replace older ones is a good idea and increases the strength of an army, but buying 1,000 new tanks while already having 500 modern and ~900 partial modern tanks (FCS) is not a good idea, if 750 modern tanks would already be more than enough to take on every neighbour country, Unless the Turkish army is preparing the invasion of their neighbour countries, they waste money.


The programme sets out to a develop modern MBT, and as decades old MBTs can still be considered modern simply because no serious/game-changing advancement has been made in MBTs there is no point in developing a significantly different MBT which is risky.
There were many game chanigng advancements. Not many advancements have reached service yet, because the big tank bulding countries don't have the money to create completely new tanks (except Russia atm). But compare the modern tank programmes which were canceled due to costs from Germany, the UK, the U.S. with the Altay... then you'll see that the Altay is lacking the advancements of the past decades (but the Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Challenger 2 don't have them either). But sooner or later these countries will put their next tank into service between 2020 and 2030.
The Russians are currently developing their Armata tank based on their previous tank programme and are expecting to finish the development 2013. Just compare the Altay with the Armata tank and you'll see what is expectable from a modern tank.


As for you comparison with leopard 2, Altay has a few features that Leopard 2 does not and that's modularity of it's Armour and Hydropneumatic suspension.
None of these features cannot be found on other tanks (like.
Besides the "modularity of the armour" doesn't mean that the armour is fully modular. It is not, the base armour is still semi-modular with some armour modules attached to it. That's nothing special, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 can also reach this degree of modularity. In Altay the chassis and turret housing are made with integrated armour, on real fully modular vehicles (like the EGS and somehow also the Valiant) there is no armour integerated into the chassis/turret housing and thus more weight can be put into the armour modules.
Regarding the hydropneumatic suspension - it's nothing new. Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams (among others) might not have it, but it is not going to be the advantage which makes up the export costumer's mind. Other tanks also have hydropneumatic suspensions. The U.S. and the FRG used a hydropneumatic suspension for the MBT-70 during the 1960s! In case of the Leopard 2 some prototypes even had it.


You haven't mentioned what you've compared with Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2NG. From what I gather, all modern western MBT FCS are practically the same and utilise NATO ballistic data...
I compared the available data like field of views, degree of magnification, quality of thermal image and also stabilization error.
NATO countries do not share ballstic data in general. A M1 Abrams won't have the data required to fire German ammunition in it's compure, the data has to be added.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
. But these times are over; curremtly Germany operates some 300 tanks, the USA have some ~5,000 tanks in service and Russia some 7,000 tanks. .
In Russia there is less then 2000 tanks. Modern less then 300:


(sorry for Polish language, I haven't time to translate)
Germany zostaną z około 225 Leopard-2A6 w linii i coś 125 2A5 w rezerwie + około 40 czołgów "pochowanych" w jednostkach szkolnych .:
http://augengeradeaus.net...der-bundeswehr/
w linii: 225 Leo2A5
całość: 350.

Czech Republic, Slovakia-statystycznie można pominąć...


Ukraina - pisałem już:
Jak w miedzy czasie - potencjał pancerny Ukrainy. Inf od tamtejszego pancerniaka zatem raczej dobre:
-96 BM Bułat (T-64BM) w jednej brygadzie pancernej.
-224 T-64BW w dwóch brygadach pancernych
- nieco ponad 320 T-64BW w 10 brygadach zmechanizowanych
~50 T-64BW w obronie wybrzeża /piechocie morskiej
~120 T-64BW w innych jednostkach.
ponad 100 T-80 (różnych wersji) w rezerwie

i wycofane do składnic oraz oferowany na eksport przeszło 2500 T-64 różnych wersji -wozy bez totalnych remontów raczej niezdolne już do walki. Oprócz tego w tym roku SZ Urainy zakupiły 10 Bułatów co nam daje:

106 T-64BM Bułat
714 T-64BW
Razem: 820 czołgów. + zapas mobilizacyjny 100 T-80 (rożne wersje)
Przy czym należy pamiętać, że wozy mają różną gotowość i baaaardzo różny stan. W zasadzie na chodzie powinno być:
106 T-64BM Bułat, oraz 224 T-64BW w dwóch brygadach pancernych czyli razem 330 czołgów, do tego zapewne spora część z 320 T-64BW w brygadach zmechanziowanych.
Reszta raczej bez remontów i zaplecza.

W linii: do 640 wozów
całość: 820 sztuk


Belarus:
96x T-80B/BW (status nie znany, raczej operacyjne)
oficjalnie 1400 T-72B i BW :lol: ale na chodzie sprzętu musi być dla 3 brygad zmechanizowanych? Z tego co się orientuję maksymalnie około 112 czołgów na brygadę (liczac etat jak dla brygady pancernej! Realnie może być mniej.) co by dawało maksymalnie ~336 T-72BW na chodzie + rezerwy w długotrwałym składowaniu jako moby.
to powyżej to maksymalna wartość tego co mogą mieć Białorusini tzn pomiędzy ~336 a ~433 (jeżeli T-80B/BW są na chodzie).

W linni: około 330
całość być może 430 + składowane

Russia:
Rosjanie majÄ… obecnie (w miarÄ™ na chodzie i w miarÄ™ nowoczesne:)
-210 T-90A (Ob.188A1/A2)
-130 T-90 (Ob.188)
-220 T-72BA (Ob.184A/A1)
-450 T-80U (Ob.219)
+
tocząca się modernizacja około 200 wozów do standardu T-72BA1 (Ob.184A1/A2?) +15 zamówionych nowych T-90A

Daje to oszałamiającą liczbę ~1000 maszyn w miarę na chodzie + modernizujące się kolejne 200 +15 T-90A (zakup). Przy czym należy pamiętać, że na poziomie modernizowanych wozów zachodnich (Leopard-2A5/A6, Leclerc etc) jest tylko 210 (wkrótce 225) T-90A. Wozy na poziomie miej więcej Leoparda-2A4 to T-80U oraz T-72BA i T-90.
Reszta to składnicowe złomowiska lub wozy nieremontowane o bardzo niskiej gotowości, lub jej braku -T-72B, T-80B etc W zasadzie około 500-800 T-72B i T-80B jest na chodzie -reszta nie znaju.

W linii:
około 1300 czołgów
całość licząc ze składowanym złomem do 2,5tys.


A jak u nas?
Poland
Na papierze:
128 Leo2A4
220 PT-91
351 T-72M1
czyli nieco ponad 700.
Ale jak nie liczyć mobilnych interaktywnych tarcz strzelniczych (T-72M1) to zostaje:
~196 PT-91 na chodzie
116 Leopard-2A4 + 12 zapasu
Razem: ~320-340 czołgów na chodzie.


Przy czym należy mieć świadomość, że sama wyliczanka ilości nic nie daje -realnie owe 225 niemieckich Leopardów-2A6 jest więcej warte niż 820 ukraińskich T-62BW i BM
maybe I will translate this tomorow.
 
Last edited:

hest

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
56
In Russia there is less then 2000 tanks.. Modern less then 300:
If by modern you mean T-90A + new upgrades, then more...

Do not confuse. Active: ~2000. (not total).

For last year:

12 brigades with T-80BV
1 brigade with T-80U
5 brigades with T-72BA
4 brigades with T-72BM/B3
7 brigades with T-72B
7 brigades with T-90A

This does not count training and reserve units.


Belarus:
96x T-80B/BW (status nie znany, raczej operacyjne)
oficjalnie 1400 T-72B i BW ale na chodzie sprzętu musi być dla 3 brygad zmechanizowanych? Z tego co się orientuję maksymalnie około 112 czołgów na brygadę (liczac etat jak dla brygady pancernej! Realnie może być mniej.) co by dawało maksymalnie ~336 T-72BW na chodzie + rezerwy w długotrwałym składowaniu jako moby.
to powyżej to maksymalna wartość tego co mogą mieć Białorusini tzn pomiędzy ~336 a ~433 (jeżeli T-80B/BW są na chodzie).

W linni: około 330
całość być może 430 + składowane
T-80 are kept for export. Main tank for service is T-72B (most BV and some witj K-5 or 1989 version). In total maybe more than 1000 but most in reserve.
 
Last edited:

mikhail

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
1,426
Likes
1,150
Country flag
Some components of Altay are from K2, like suspension, hull and turret structures are completely new.

Hull is modeled more after M60 and in very limited way after M1, and turret is modeled after Leopard 2.

So Altay can be called in humorous way a bastard child of K2, Leopard 2, M60 and M1. ;)
mate as you are the resident tank expert in this forum so i have a simple question for you.how well will the T-90M bhishma which the Indian Army operates fare against the pakistani armoured formations,specifically against T-80UD and Al-Khalid mk-1?i am asking this question because i have seen that pakistanis are showing evidences that T-90s don't stand a chance against their AK mk-1 and T-80UDs in some paki forum.(and as i don't understand much when it comes to tanks so i am asking for your help).anyways thanks in advance!
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
mate as you are the resident tank expert in this forum so i have a simple question for you.how well will the T-90M bhishma which the Indian Army operates fare against the pakistani armoured formations,specifically against T-80UD and Al-Khalid mk-1?i am asking this question because i have seen that pakistanis are showing evidences that T-90s don't stand a chance against their AK mk-1 and T-80UDs in some paki forum.(and as i don't understand much when it comes to tanks so i am asking for your help).anyways thanks in advance!
Indian T-90S (you do not have T-90MS version... yet) and T-80UD offers similiar protection levels, so when it comes to direct frontal arc engagements, it will be a slug fest... and a lot of luck will be needed for both sides with currently used ammunition. However Pakistan have only 320 T-80UD's so India in this regard have superiority in numbers.

The important question however is how many T-80UD's are in good condition, how good is crews training and such things, here India might have edge.

As for Al Khalid, it have typical weak spots for Chinese tanks, so as it might be formidable foe, proper analise of these weak spots and training for crews how to use them on their advantage, might also give edge for India. One of the problems of Al Khalid is that it have a lot of gaps in it's ERA, and that because of specific front armor modular design, there is not much composite armor, IMHO approx 30-40% of front armor modules are... air gaps, while rest is composite + base steel structure, without ERA it might be easy to defeat.

Also it should be recommended to try to aim at side turret edges where front armor meets with side armor, due to turret geometry and lack of composite protection there, it is a weak spot.

Front hull protection is a bit mystery, I didn't figured out yet, where composite armor is placed, if it glacis or "beak".

But this is not a thread for such discussion.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
T-90M bhishma which the Indian Army operates fare against the pakistani armoured formations,specifically against T-80UD and Al-Khalid mk-1?i am asking this question because i have seen that pakistanis are showing evidences that T-90s don't stand a chance against their AK mk-1 and T-80UDs in some paki forum.(and as i don't understand much when it comes to tanks so i am asking for your help).anyways thanks in advance!
Well, don't lisen bullshit from pak forums about Al-Khalid and T-80UD. Those tanks are not better then T-90S Bhisma.

according to the Polish military press India in 2001 bought in Russia 310 T-90S tank (120made in Russia, rest in India in Avadi).
In 2003 India bought licence in Russia for build ~1000 T-90 Bhishma . As I remember there where sourious problem whit that kontrakt:
- Russians do not transfer 2A46M gun technology
- Frencht termal cameras overheat themselfs in India climate
- There where serious problem whit Refleks-M and it's integration whit thermal cameras
- quality of the tanks builded in Awadi was so bad that UVZ must ASAP send their ingeeners and some workers to "rescuse" that contract in erly phase, in fact Indian inustry is sill not able to made most of the components themselfs whit acceptable quality. Anyway, they are vehicles fitted with "blocks" made in UWZ and Russia.
Problems whit quality where so seriuous that in 2006 there was third deal between India and Russia - 330 new T-90S shoud be deliverd from Russia.

So Indian ary shoud have prety mucht T-90 in service even now - more or less in number slighty bigger then 600 tanks. It's mucht more then only 320 T-80UD for Pakistan + less then 150 Al Khalid - when first 80 was build mostly form chineese componets.
So in numbers there is big advantage in Indian side. IMHO Indian army is trained better then Pak. And Indian officers shoud be mucht better.
If You are asking about tnaks only then I have some notes:
a) T-80UD and Al-Kchalid engine and mobility is far better then in T-90S. It's only one real advantge of pak.tanks.
b) Fire power is very simmilar in T-80UD and erly bath T-90S for India. But in newest T-90S for Indian Army FCS is slighty better then in T-80UD and Al Khalid. Both countries - Pakistan and India haven't good APFSDS ammo. Pak "Naiza" 125mm APFSDS is based on Chineese clon of the BM42 and have ~460mm RHA for 2000m. India is using 3BM42 from Russia - so 460-500mm RHA for 2000m.
c) potection - it's difficult here. T-80UD whit Kontakt-5 shoud have better protection then russian erly T-90 (Ob.188) whit filter almoust the same like in T-72B (Ob.184). But younger Russian Ob.188A1/A2 -so T-90A shoud have at least the same armour portection as T-80UD. The question is what kind of armour is put in Indian T-90S (welded turrets) armour cavity? If russian ones then Im calm, but if this cavity is put indian Kanchan armour (some users here sugesst that solution due to fact that Russian don't sold their armour technology to India) then armoru protection is unkown for me, and Im not calm. And there is another posibility -tanks bought dorect from Russia (120 from 2001 deal, and 320 from 2006 dela) will have pretty good russian "special armour" and Indian made T-90 from Avadi factory will have Kanchan armour inside.
Pak Al Kchalid seems to not be better protected then T-90S.
Well IMHO it's all - writen in hurry :)








ps. Damian - "WTF" here: T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
n several tests conducted in front of Indian delegation using latest foreign ammunitions (APFSDS) of the M829A2/KEW-A2 type conducted from 250 meters against T-90S devoid of the normal built-in explosive reactive armor (ERA) Kontakt-5 (K-5) resulted in the turret being completely impenetrable. This absolute resiliency to enemy fire resulted at the end, as one of the most crucial selling point for T-90 Bhishma MBT to India.[20]
And sourse of that revelation:
The situation in the domestic tank building, truth and fiction Tarasenko, S. Tupitsyn". Arms and equipment yesterday, today and tomorrow, 2006 page 10-15. November 1, 2006.
possible to downolad here:
'Техника и вооружение' 2006
:thumb::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
ps. Damian - "WTF" here: T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
n several tests conducted in front of Indian delegation using latest foreign ammunitions (APFSDS) of the M829A2/KEW-A2 type conducted from 250 meters against T-90S devoid of the normal built-in explosive reactive armor (ERA) Kontakt-5 (K-5) resulted in the turret being completely impenetrable. This absolute resiliency to enemy fire resulted at the end, as one of the most crucial selling point for T-90 Bhishma MBT to India.[20]
And sourse of that revelation:
The situation in the domestic tank building, truth and fiction Tarasenko, S. Tupitsyn". Arms and equipment yesterday, today and tomorrow, 2006 page 10-15. November 1, 2006.
possible to downolad here:
'Техника и вооружение' 2006
M829A2 is not exported by the USA, so it is pure fantasy, however KEW-A2 is exported and it is claimed that it is based on M829A2 but does not have exactly same performance, it is said to be worse than M829A2. But how much, I do not know.
 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
496
Well, don't lisen bullshit from pak forums about Al-Khalid and T-80UD. Those tanks are not better then T-90S Bhisma.

according to the Polish military press India in 2001 bought in Russia 310 T-90S tank (120made in Russia, rest in India in Avadi).
In 2003 India bought licence in Russia for build ~1000 T-90 Bhishma . As I remember there where sourious problem whit that kontrakt:
- Russians do not transfer 2A46M gun technology
- Frencht termal cameras overheat themselfs in India climate
- There where serious problem whit Refleks-M and it's integration whit thermal cameras
- quality of the tanks builded in Awadi was so bad that UVZ must ASAP send their ingeeners and some workers to "rescuse" that contract in erly phase, in fact Indian inustry is sill not able to made most of the components themselfs whit acceptable quality. Anyway, they are vehicles fitted with "blocks" made in UWZ and Russia.
Problems whit quality where so seriuous that in 2006 there was third deal between India and Russia - 330 new T-90S shoud be deliverd from Russia.

So Indian ary shoud have prety mucht T-90 in service even now - more or less in number slighty bigger then 600 tanks. It's mucht more then only 320 T-80UD for Pakistan + less then 150 Al Khalid - when first 80 was build mostly form chineese componets.
So in numbers there is big advantage in Indian side. IMHO Indian army is trained better then Pak. And Indian officers shoud be mucht better.
If You are asking about tnaks only then I have some notes:
a) T-80UD and Al-Kchalid engine and mobility is far better then in T-90S. It's only one real advantge of pak.tanks.
b) Fire power is very simmilar in T-80UD and erly bath T-90S for India. But in newest T-90S for Indian Army FCS is slighty better then in T-80UD and Al Khalid. Both countries - Pakistan and India haven't good APFSDS ammo. Pak "Naiza" 125mm APFSDS is based on Chineese clon of the BM42 and have ~460mm RHA for 2000m. India is using 3BM42 from Russia - so 460-500mm RHA for 2000m.
c) potection - it's difficult here. T-80UD whit Kontakt-5 shoud have better protection then russian erly T-90 (Ob.188) whit filter almoust the same like in T-72B (Ob.184). But younger Russian Ob.188A1/A2 -so T-90A shoud have at least the same armour portection as T-80UD. The question is what kind of armour is put in Indian T-90S (welded turrets) armour cavity? If russian ones then Im calm, but if this cavity is put indian Kanchan armour (some users here sugesst that solution due to fact that Russian don't sold their armour technology to India) then armoru protection is unkown for me, and Im not calm. And there is another posibility -tanks bought dorect from Russia (120 from 2001 deal, and 320 from 2006 dela) will have pretty good russian "special armour" and Indian made T-90 from Avadi factory will have Kanchan armour inside.
Pak Al Kchalid seems to not be better protected then T-90S.
Well IMHO it's all - writen in hurry :)








ps. Damian - "WTF" here: T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And sourse of that revelation:
The situation in the domestic tank building, truth and fiction Tarasenko, S. Tupitsyn". Arms and equipment yesterday, today and tomorrow, 2006 page 10-15. November 1, 2006.
possible to downolad here:
'Техника и вооружение' 2006
:thumb::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Few correction if i am allowed to make

*300 Basic AK in service(Ak1 in production since late 2009..unknown number of Al khalid I in service as well)
*Basic AK use French FCS(it is rumour that the latest AK1 has got GIDS made FCS,no official source though,just an insider info)
*Al khalid has Catherine FC thermal imagers(i guess same as on indian t-90).
*Al khalid I has sagim matis third gen Thermal imagers
*Correction Naiza has a penetration power of 550mm rha at 2km

As of now more than 300 basic AK and 70-100 AK1(in production since late)

all over odd 400ak and 320t-80ud
with a requirement of 1200 in 3 different blocks
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
M829A2 is not exported by the USA, so it is pure fantasy, however KEW-A2 is exported and it is claimed that it is based on M829A2 but does not have exactly same performance, it is said to be worse than M829A2. But how much, I do not know.
There is diffrent point. Turret T-90A have LOS for 0. degree as 840-880mm, for sucht big LOS armour estimatous against APSFSDS will be close to the 600-650mm RHA (without ERA). KEW-A1 is based on DM43A1, KEW-A2 have slighty longer and haevy but based on monoblock DM43 (if You know what I mean..) composite sabot. Penetration (achivable) for KEW-A2 is 660mm RHA so for Russian norm (and our Polish) it will be around 600mm RHA for 2000m. Two conclusion:
a) penetrator in KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 is based in fact on DM43 whit monoblock rod (penetrator) - those kind of penetrator was rejected in German in 1994 and in USA between M829A2 and M829A3 :) Monoblock penetrator offer better RHA penetration value, but mucht worse against ERA or multialyer target.
We dont't known if KEW-A2 have baistic cap developed to overpass ERA without ignition ERA.
b) even basic T-90A armour shoud be able (whit sucht big LOS) to stop APFSDS penetrator whit at least 600mm RHA penetration. So even without ERA turret armour shoud stopped (whit big possibility) sucht APFSDS like DM43, KEW-A1, KEW-A2, M829A1, M332, etc.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
M829A2 should be around 700+mm in penetration capabilities, well I do not know. We should not derail this threat, it is about Altay.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
786
Few correction if i am allowed to make

*300 Basic AK in service(Ak1 in production since late 2009..unknown number of Al khalid I in service as well)
*Basic AK use French FCS(it is rumour that the latest AK1 has got GIDS made FCS,no official source though,just an insider info)
*Al khalid has Catherine FC thermal imagers(i guess same as on indian t-90).
*Al khalid I has sagim matis third gen Thermal imagers
*Correction Naiza has a penetration power of 550mm rha at 2km

As of now more than 300 basic AK and 70-100 AK1(in production since late)

all over odd 400ak and 320t-80ud
with a requirement of 1200 in 3 different blocks
Thank You!
Interesting I will say.
So in fact there is balance between IA and Pak in numbers of the tanks:
~600-650 T-90S vs 320 T-80UD and ~300 Al -Kchalid
Second think is that FCS is AK will be close to the T-90S, the answer is what Russian sold whit newest T-90S (Kalina FCS?).


Correction Naiza has a penetration power of 550mm rha at 2km
Indeed, sorry my mistake:


But even -still this 550mm RHA is to small number to penetrate T-90S in +/- 30 degree from longitiudal axis. But for T-72M1 Alejya its knock-out of course.

and here about Chineese APFSDS - if something is avaible in China then it shoud be avaible in Pakistan:

 
Last edited:

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
6,194
Likes
2,799
Country flag
This the theme of a Turkish tank. Compared with the Greek army, Turkish army is not that big. And know that Turkey is in a troubled region.
 

Black Blood

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
251
Likes
52
Pakistan refused to buy M1A1 in 1988, because it failed terrain tests miserably. Heavy tanks don't fare well in our terrain, even though Turkey is ALREADY pitching this tank to Pakistan, i have strong belief it will not see service with Pakistan Army, however Pakistan would be more than interested in using Altay sub systems and technology in Al-Khalid Block II. MOU has been signed for that purpose.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=570
 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
496
Pakistan refused to buy M1A1 in 1988, because it failed terrain tests miserably. Heavy tanks don't fare well in our terrain, even though Turkey is ALREADY pitching this tank to Pakistan, i have strong belief it will not see service with Pakistan Army, however Pakistan would be more than interested in using Altay sub systems and technology in Al-Khalid Block II. MOU has been signed for that purpose.

Altay MBT - Main Battle Tank - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Tanks, Vehicles and Artillery
Pakistan has already transferred armour tech to turkey.now i don't know whether that was just for ERA or tank armour

Pakistan may give name to the locally developed armour like chobham or indian kanchan
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
Pakistan refused to buy M1A1 in 1988, because it failed terrain tests miserably.
There is no reliable source confirming this story. I have allmost all books about M1 development and service history, written by authors from several countries, from Russia as well, nowhere such event is mentioned. It is IMHO convieniant history for someone, the reality was that Americans didn't liked behavior of Pakistan goverment (nuclear weapons research).

Heavy tanks don't fare well in our terrain,
What heavy tanks? :D

Do you even know that such class of tanks does not exist anymore, with medium class, both had been replaced by Main Batle Tanks. MBT's are designed as universal, can operate in different kinds of terrain, not to mention that in 1988 M1A1 weighted below 60 tons, currently operated in Afghanistan USMC M1A1FEP weights 63,1 metric tons and does not have any problems in desert and mountain terrain.

This is story is more and more a fairy tale, convieniant for Pakistans internal use.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top