Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Damian]

Not to forget the mighty capable US Patton Tanks were lying in their graveyard...

The M48 and M60 series are relatively good tanks for their generation. However their protection in 1970's was allready obsolete due a fact that they use CHA armor and not special armor that was in that time at development. However M60 tanks initially was considered to use one type of special armor called Silicieous Cored Armor, unfortunetely this type of armor was never mass produced so M60 received conventional CHA (Cast Homogeneus Armor).

Also as Methos said, Pakistan never used M60 tanks.

The Indian T90s are no different from Russian ones.

Indian T-90S is different than Russian T-90A, for example Indian tank lacks OTSzU-1-7 IR jammers of the TSzU-1-7 "Shtora-1" active protection system.

Is an APU considered in ur figures??
Do a M1A2 has APU and what's its power compared to Arjun's.

APU does not generate power for mobility, only to get power for electronics.

M1A2 depending on variant have APU. The basic M1A2 have APU mounted on turret rear, it is 8kW APU type, M1A2SEPv1 have APU mounted in the left rear overtrack sponson, it can be 8kW type or newer 10kW type. M1A2SEPv2 does not have APU but a new battery pack, so called Hawker battery pack which stores more eneryg, it is also mounted in the left rear overtrack sponson.

New M1 tank variant will receive new type of APU.

But in 71 and 65 war's heavy pakistani tanks suffered a lot because of their ground pressure.
So heavier a tank with bad ground pressure more difficult it will be it to move over marshes/fertile lands etc
They just got bogged down, couldn't go over sand dunes of thar.

Their tanks were not heavy. And ground pressure have nothing to do with tanks mobility if a driver and commander are stupid enough to drive in to a mud pit, you can have very light tank and it will bog down just like heavier one.

but i guess Mk2 solved a lot of side protection issues, u don't know what material kanchan is made of it will be a secret same as chobham armor.
Front might be a little bit issue but am sure in further improvements it too will be solved.

Nothing was solved, side turret armor is as weak as it was.

As for Kanchan armor materials, it is not rocket science to get idea from what it can be made.

As for front turret armor, you would need a complete redesign of turret to improve problems there.

This is ot,but the Pakis did have better planes than us,yet they messed up in their plans. You cannot deny this fact.

This means that they were lousy soldiers. You can have the best equipment on this planet, but without good training, good command, it is useless.

 

[SilentKiller]

The M48 and M60 series are relatively good tanks for their generation. However their protection in 1970's was allready obsolete due a fact that they use CHA armor and not special armor that was in that time at development. However M60 tanks initially was considered to use one type of special armor called Silicieous Cored Armor, unfortunetely this type of armor was never mass produced so M60 received conventional CHA (Cast Homogeneus Armor).

Also as Methos said, Pakistan never used M60 tanks.

M60 Patton was not used by pakistan, i guess he got confused with M48 Patton.
In india its not known with series but with name as a whole village was name such was scores of Pattons (M48) were destroyed by inferior indian tanks
Its not with weight as i mentioned but with ground pressure.
u know M48 was defeated by much older Centurion and M4 sherman tanks.
It was said that pakistani fared quite good in marshes of katch but got bogged down in punjab a fertile area and in thar (desert).
not sure but when i get some article i will share it with u.
Russian tanks a know to have better ground pressure than western and much more rugged.

Another things soldiers r never lousy but generals r. History is known to have given such examples.
Did waterloo was lost because of lousy soldiers??

Sometimes some with superior equipment forgets that it will always be man behind that equipment who is most important.

 

[Damian]

M60 Patton was not used by pakistan, i guess he got confused with M48 Patton.
In india its not known with series but with name as a whole village was name such was scores of Pattons (M48) were destroyed by inferior indian tanks

M60 was never named "Patton". It was allways and only M60, the last tank naped "Patton" was M48. And Indian tanks at that moment were not inferior, T-54/55 is comparable with M48.

u know M48 was defeated by much older Centurion and M4 sherman tanks.

Centurion is comparable with M48, and even M4 if used properly can be dangerous, for example flank hits, especially if that M4 was armed with 76mm M1A1/M1A2 gun or 17pdr.

Russian tanks a know to have better ground pressure than western and much more rugged.

No, the really don't have better ground pressure (sometimes worse) and are not more rugged. For example T-34 tank was less reliable than M4 tank.

Sometimes some with superior equipment forgets that it will always be man behind that equipment who is most important.

True.

 

[Dazzler]

HIT reveals new information on Al Khalid-I MBT

Authoraksg Nakra, Kuala Lumpur
Last posted:2014-04-23

Officials from Pakistan's Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) disclosed new information about the greatly anticipated Al Khalid-Improved (I) main battle tank (MBT) during the recent DSA 2014 exhibition held in Kuala Lumpur.

Brigadier Ghulam Murtaza Qureshi (rtd), HIT's director of budget, marketing and procurement, stated that the development is being fast-tracked and the company plans to showcase the tank during the International Defence Exhibition and Seminar 2014 (IDEAS 2014) in Islamabad in December.

The development of the new MBT began earlier in the decade and Qureshi said it is around 50% complete. Some reports suggested it was being co-developed with China's NORINCO and was a version of China's MBT-3000.

Qureshi claimed this was incorrect and that the Al Khalid-I is an indigenous development of Pakistan's mainstay tank, the Al Khalid, which was jointly developed in the early 1990s with NORINCO (known in China as the MBT-2000) and commissioned in 2001.

The Pakistan Army's Armoured Corps operates about 420 Al Khalid MBTs, along with Al Zarrar (Type 59/59M), Type 69, Type 85 IIAP and T-80UD tanks. The Al Khalid-I will replace approximately 300 Type 85s and 320 T-80s, which are known to operate in semi-desert and desert areas of the country.

The existing Al Khalid is powered by a Ukrainian 6TD-2 power pack developing a maximum power of 1,200 bhp. It also features integrated battle management, auto transmission control, muzzle reference and active threat protection systems.

Qureshi added that the design concept of the Al Khalid-I is primarily based on further refining and improving mobility, firepower and protection. Initially, the design featured around 10 major changes over the Al Khalid hull, but due to rising costs and budgetary constraints, this has been reduced to 6.

These include a new 1,500 bhp power pack to improve its power-to-weight ratio and a digital driver manual. The HIT official confirmed that it would retain the 125 mm smoothbore barrel. As of April 2014, trials are under way to finalise the new power pack. These details concur with comments at IDEAS 2012 by a senior official at Pakistan's Ministry of Defence Procurement who told said that an improved version would feature a more powerful diesel power pack, improved command and control and better night-fighting capabilities.

HIT plans to complete trials of the Al Khalid-I with the Pakistani Army by the first quarter of 2015 and based on results, it is hoping to achieve low rate initial production by June 2015. HIT currently has the capability to roll out 20-40 Al Khalid MBTs a year, suggesting it will look to achieve a similar production schedule for the improved version.

HIT reveals new information on Al Khalid-I MBT - IHS Jane's 360



it is likely to be showcased at IDEAS 2014, the 115 engines procured from Ukraine are 1500HP, not 1200HP

 

[Dazzler]

I am not saying that we have the best design of tanks. I have no knowledge on tanks unlike you. I cannot prove anything about tanks. I am not actually saying anything about design actually.

All I am saying is trying to do something is better than sitting still,doing nothing and using other things. Well from my personal experience I once built a very crude fan. Yes that fan was poorly designed, very impractical and was never used by my family members or even by me. Also it used to stop working very frequently. However I am still proud of it. I believe if I had tried harder I could have built a better one. Trying to do something is a very important thing.
It seems the western world has only places for the very best. The weak,average people are just not seen properly as it is evident from your comments.

Also FYI in the 1972 Pakistan India war, we beat back the Pakis, who were using the latest american tanks, using our old russian tanks. Not only tanks, we even beat them on the aerial front using old Mig 21s while the pakis used the latest american planes.

facutally incorrect, pakistan didnt have anything state of the art due to sanctions, were still using m-48s and some type-59s.


65..

 

[Damian]

it is likely to be showcased at IDEAS 2014, the 115 engines procured from Ukraine are 1500HP, not 1200HP

Hmmm, 6TD-3?

Yes, INSAS - comparable to polish Beryl.

Oh come on, wz.96 is still evolving, currently most modern variant, wz.96C is still very reliable, and modern rifle.

It have better ergonomics than standard AK, added picatinny rails, very good magazines, and overall the quality is very high. I know opinions about Polish AK's in USA are very good, although they are considered as somewhat expensive.

And here you have the most modern variant I believe. New STANAG magazines magazine well, upper receiver cover integrated rail, new AR style iron sights, and hey, this thing is not even completed, they are working with new bolt mechanism that will stay in rear position after firing last round. So hey, actually our engineers can redesign old AK in to really modern rifle while keeping it's reliability.

what can be comparable whit MSBS?

Well, MSBS is a completely different league, it is probably the first example of truly modular firearms. The only comparable designs I can imagine are SCAR, ACR and ARX-160, and even then all of them lack the same modularity as MSBS have.

But hey, this is thread about MBT's, not small arms.

Oh and BTW Militarysta, BWP-2000 was actually preaty decent project, with it's 60mm automatic cannon, I doubt there would be any IFV comparable to it in terms of pure firepower of it's main armament, I wonder how much RHA could be pierced by APFSDS fired by that thing, if a 40mm automatic cannons can reach with it's APFSDS ammo around 140-150mm RHA? So it was rather decent project.

What is more important, BWP-2000 was a modular platform back then, it actually uses the same chassis as self propelled mine layer SUM "Kalina" and chassis use common components with SPH "Krab". So it was not that bad idea. The only thing I can say bad about it, it was it's size, weight and protection, IMHO it was too big, weight was too much and it had too small protection.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

do you even know why india purchasing T90? Go and read about himalayas, where no 60 ton tank can operate. So we are purchasing T90 for warfare in himalayas .
.

 

[Peter]

facutally incorrect, pakistan didnt have anything state of the art due to sanctions, were still using m-48s and some type-59s.


65..

You are posting all nonsense and made up things.

The FACT IS PAKISTAN LOST ALL ITS WARS AGAINST INDIA.

Not even once did you come close to beating us.

FYI we won 1972 with inferior weapons and armor as we had better skilled soldiers.

[Also stop posting such newsarticle. Nowadays there are free online tools to create such FAKE news article. DO post the link which is a more viable proof.
The Newspaper Clipping Image Generator - Create your own fun newspaper (This is a fake newsarticle generator)

Anyway on topic, our Arjun tank is comparatively better than your joint China collaboration(or would I say 100% Chinese collaboration and complete copycat) Al khaldi tank or whatever.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

You are posting all nonsense and made up things.

The FACT IS PAKISTAN LOST ALL ITS WARS AGAINST INDIA.

Not even once did you come close to beating us.

FYI we won 1972 with inferior weapons and armor as we had better skilled soldiers.

[Also stop posting such newsarticle. Nowadays there are free online tools to create such FAKE news article. DO post the link which is a more viable proof.
The Newspaper Clipping Image Generator - Create your own fun newspaper (This is a fake newsarticle generator)

Anyway on topic, our Arjun tank is comparatively better than your joint China collaboration(or would I say 100% Chinese collaboration and complete copycat) Al khaldi tank or whatever.

china copied it and now pakis producing it with LICENCE

 

[Peter]

china copied it and now pakis producing it with LICENCE

Yes our Arjun tank is not a collaboration but a completely indigenous tank. We have not taken the help of anyone in building such a tank. There was no Russia,US,China etc to help us. On the other the hand the Pakistani Al-Khalid was a collaboration with Chinese.

Anyway here are a few pics of Arjun tank

 

[pmaitra]

@abhi_the _gr8_maratha, @Peter, @Dazzler,

I believe that news article refers to the battle in the Sialkot Sector.

India won the war. The question is, did India win every single battle?

Let's have an educated debate. I, frankly, am not well versed in the 1965 war.

 

[Peter]

@abhi_the _gr8_maratha, @Peter, @Dazzler,

I believe that news article refers to the battle in the Sialkot Sector.

India won the war. The question is, did India win every single battle?

Let's have an educated debate. I, frankly, am not well versed in the 1965 war.

@pmaitra sir

I too do not have a very sound knowledge of this war. I am frankly no military history guy. However I have heard India pretty much won all the battles there.

I did a google search which gave me two battles in Sialkot.

One was a stalemate,another an indian victory according to wiki.

Battle of Chawinda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Phillora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also about the news article he has posted, even I can make such fake articles using the online tools. We cannot believe everything on the net.

EDIT: @Dazzler. Your source of Australian is correct. However the Australian was lying even the wiki says it.

Result
Stalemate, Indian advance halted

" Despite the "huge losses on both sides", The Australian attributed the victory in this battle to Pakistan"- Wikpedia(last para of battle of chawinda)

 

[pmaitra]

What is the purpose of posting this image? What does it demonstrate? Where did you get this from?

 

[Peter]

What is the purpose of posting this image? What does it demonstrate? Where did you get this from?

You can see that by hovering over the image. It says something like arjuntank armor geometry. As I am no expert I cannot say what it demonstrates clearly. However it does show us a good outline of the tank and its turrets and other things.I got it from the internet.

 

[pmaitra]

You can see that by hovering over the image. It says something like arjuntank armor geometry. As I am no expert I cannot say what it demonstrates clearly. However it does show us a good outline of the tank and its turrets and other things.I got it from the internet.

Well, the picture is hypothetical.

I made that picture a year or more ago, by superimposing two types of armour (in black), over the image I had gotten off the internet (brown).

 

[Peter]

Well, the picture is hypothetical.

I made that picture a year or more ago, by superimposing two types of armour (in black), over the image I had gotten off the internet (brown).

Yes but the picture has become somewhat famous over the internet as it immediately comes up in my google search. It is across the Paki forums,other indian forums too. Although I think the imgurl of this one is from our site only.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Yes our Arjun tank is not a collaboration but a completely indigenous tank. We have not taken the help of anyone in building such a tank. There was no Russia,US,China etc to help us. On the other the hand the Pakistani Al-Khalid was a collaboration with Chinese.

Anyway here are a few pics of Arjun tank

I am saying same but al khalid is a licence built production rather than a joint venture

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

There have been several neutral
assessments of the losses incurred by
both India and Pakistan during the
war. Most of these assessments agree
that India had the upper hand over
Pakistan when ceasefire was declared.
Some of the neutral assessments are
mentioned below —
According to the Library of
Congress Country Studies
conducted by the Federal Research
Division of the United States[73] –
"
The war was militarily
inconclusive; each side held
prisoners and some territory
belonging to the other. Losses
were relatively heavy—on the
Pakistani side, twenty aircraft,
200 tanks, and 3,800 troops.
Pakistan's army had been able to
withstand Indian pressure, but a
continuation of the fighting
would only have led to further
losses and ultimate defeat for
Pakistan. Most Pakistanis,
schooled in the belief of their
own martial prowess, refused to
accept the possibility of their
country's military defeat by
"Hindu India" and were, instead,
quick to blame their failure to
attain their military aims on what
they considered to be the
ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his
government.
"
TIME magazine reported that India
held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory
while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of
Indian territory in Kashmir and
Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan
had lost almost half its armour
temporarily.[74] The article further
elaborates,
"

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
this is the source for my post

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

In his book "National identity and
geopolitical visions",[76] Gertjan
Dijkink writes –
"
The superior Indian forces,
however, won a decisive victory
and the army could have even
marched on into Pakistani
territory had external pressure
not forced both combatants to
cease their war efforts.
"