Significance of the Al Khalid

[crazyinsane105]

Let's please not turn this thread into an Indian bashing one. The reason I am putting this topic up is so that people here realize that the Al Khalid simply isn't a Chinese tank painted in Pakistani colors. This article was also written by a retired Indian colonel.


Significance of Al Khalid

In the haze of well-being that has enveloped us after the Kargil war, not many people seem to have grasped the significance of Pakistan's announcement that it is beginning the production of its indigenously developed main battle tank, the Al Khalid. Even those who noticed may be inclined to dismiss its significance: hasn't Pakistan just learned the hard way that the world will simply not tolerate a nuclear power entering into a conventional war with another nuclear power? So who is it going to use the Al Khalid against anyway? In any case, it is just a Chinese tank dressed up in Pakistani rags.

Neither the complacency nor the condescension are warranted. For the issue is not whether India can place an order for and deploy a tank that will neutralise the Al Khalid. It is that Pakistan's minuscule defence research establishment is far more able to meet the country's genuine defence needs than are the 36,000 scientists of the DRDO and its high profile chief, Dr. Abdul Kalam.

Let me begin with the Al Khalid. Even a cursory look at its capabilities shows that except on one parameter, where no information was given in the news report, it is an armoured corps commander's dream. In its offensive capabilities, and speed on level firm ground, it meets every requirement that the Indian army's most up-to-date GSQR for India's MBT project more than a decade ago. More important, it has a fire control system that enables it to acquire and shoot at targets while moving at high speeds over rough terrain. This is something that India's mainstay, the T-72, cannot do (some are being upgraded to have this capability). The fact that all this capability has been packed in a tank with only a 1200 HP engine, means that it has an overall weight of 40 tonnes or thereabouts against the Arjun's 55 tonnes. This will give it a lower profile than the typical MBT and make it harder to hit.

China's technological help has undoubtedly played a very important part in its development. It is even possible that most of the parts and systems are Chinese. But it would be a mistake to belittle the specific Pakistani input. For China's tanks have been designed, like European tanks, to work in relatively cool climates. An Indian or Pakistani tank must be capable of operating in Sindh in summer. This means up and down sand dunes in an ambient temperature of 50 degrees Celsius. Other than the American Abrams tank, and possibly an Israeli MBT, none of the tanks developed elsewhere has passed this test. The design of the Al Khalid would not have been sealed if it did not meet this requirement to an extent sufficient to satisfy the Pakistan Armoured Corps.

The problem that DRDO failed to resolve, but Pakistan obviously has, is that diesel engines generate heat. The bigger they are, the more heat they generate and therefore the larger the proportion of the power that has to be diverted for air conditioning. The Arjun has a 1500 HP engine, but 300 HP gets used up in air-conditioning. As a result at 50 degrees Celsius the tank is able to travel only at a snail's pace and is a sitting duck.

Attempts to solve this problem within the basic parameters of an engine that was developed in the early fifties have forced other compromises that gravely impair the Arjun's offensive capability and increase its vulnerability. Not surprisingly, the Indian army has flatly refused to induct the Arjun into the armoured corps in more than token numbers and is insisting on the purchase of the T-90. In short, after 16 years of 'research' the DRDO has produced a lemon.

How could such a monumental waste of energy, time and money have come about? Pakistan's success with Al Khalid makes it essential that we answer this question now, before the afterglow of Kargil fades. The key difference is that in Pakistan, the army decides what it wants to buy, the army owns the defence production factories, and the army manages the defence research institutes. In India the armed forces have only a distant, passive say in the acquisition of weapons. Each service decides what kind of weapons it needs and with what capabilities. This is compiled into a QR - quality requirement - and handed over to the Defence Ministry. After that its role is to attend the supplier or the DRDO's trials, and at the final stage of selection just prior to induction, carry out its own field trials. Only if the MoD has selected more than one system, does it get to indicate its preference. That almost never happens. Even then, there is no certainty that this preference will be respected. This procedure breaks one of the cardinal rules of good management, which was discovered in a landmark study of relationship between Technology, Organisation and Business success by a team of researchers headed by the late Joan Woodward of the Imperial College of Technology in 1955-58. This is the necessity, in special order batch production for a constant and close interaction between the product user and manufacturer. The primacy of the army in Pakistan has, accidentally, ensured that this rule is respected in its defence research and development. The ascendancy of the Defence Ministry has made sure that it is not in India. What this has meant is that the armed forces no longer necessarily get what they want, but also when they need it.

Examples abound. A 155mm howitzer was indented for in 1978. The Bofors was finally acquired in 1986. The eight-year delay meant that while Pakistan got its 155mm howitzers in the early eighties for $850,000 a piece, India paid $ 3 million for each gun. As if that were not bad enough, following the outcry over kickbacks, Bofors was blacklisted from 1987 till after the Kargil war began in 1999. All that while the army was left with 400 of these guns instead of the 1200 it had wanted, and was starved of shells and spares to the point where it was compelled to cannibalise some of the guns in order to keep the others functioning. Its entreaties that the blacklist be lifted were ignored.

India first failed to spot, and later took six weeks to ascertain the number of invaders in Kargil because among other reasons, its satellite did not have a sufficiently high resolution. At that precise time the government had signed an agreement with Russia for pictures from a satellite with a six times higher resolution, but they had not begun to arrive because the MoD had not paid the contract price!

The problem has been complicated by the sudden rise of DRDO as a competing weapons provider. For now the army has to contend not only with the delays that are imposed upon it by ministry officials who feel no sense of urgency about doing their job, but also by the delay that arises when the DRDO chief insists that there is no need to import a weapon because he can design and produce it at home. The Arjun lemon is by no means the worst example of the cost this can impose on the army. In 1987 the American defence department finally and reluctantly cleared the sale of a WLR - a gun locating radar that tracks artillery shells feeds the coordinates into one's own guns and directs the return fire automatically to destroy the enemy gun from which the shell came - to India. The army was ecstatic because Pakistan had had an American WLR since the eighties and the one the US were offering India was superior. The deal was finalised and the purchase was about to be made when, on the urging of Dr. Kalam, the then defence secretary cancelled it and decided to let DRDO develop a WLR instead!

Two years later, the army still had no WLRs. As a result many young men who died in Kargil, fell victim to Pak artillery fire which the Indian guns could not suppress because they did not have WLRs. The all-pervasive fear in the armed forces is that with the return of peace, the MoD and DRDO will have neither learned nor forgotten anything. If Mr. Vajpayee has a lasting contribution to make it is to shift the boot from the MoD's foot to that of the Army. So far the army has proposed and the MoD has disposed. Now the MoD and DRDO may propose but the armed forces must dispose.

[ahho]

Though a bit off topic, can chinese tank operate in the heat just like al-khalid??

also what parts of the tank is made by china

[FreeAsia2000]

Let's please not turn this thread into an Indian bashing one. The reason I am putting this topic up is so that people here realize that the Al Khalid simply isn't a Chinese tank painted in Pakistani colors. This article was also written by a retired Indian colonel.


Significance of Al Khalid

In the haze of well-being that has enveloped us after the Kargil war, not many people seem to have grasped the significance of Pakistan's announcement that it is beginning the production of its indigenously developed main battle tank, the Al Khalid. Even those who noticed may be inclined to dismiss its significance: hasn't Pakistan just learned the hard way that the world will simply not tolerate a nuclear power entering into a conventional war with another nuclear power? So who is it going to use the Al Khalid against anyway? In any case, it is just a Chinese tank dressed up in Pakistani rags.

Neither the complacency nor the condescension are warranted. For the issue is not whether India can place an order for and deploy a tank that will neutralise the Al Khalid. It is that Pakistan's minuscule defence research establishment is far more able to meet the country's genuine defence needs than are the 36,000 scientists of the DRDO and its high profile chief, Dr. Abdul Kalam.

Let me begin with the Al Khalid. Even a cursory look at its capabilities shows that except on one parameter, where no information was given in the news report, it is an armoured corps commander's dream. In its offensive capabilities, and speed on level firm ground, it meets every requirement that the Indian army's most up-to-date GSQR for India's MBT project more than a decade ago. More important, it has a fire control system that enables it to acquire and shoot at targets while moving at high speeds over rough terrain. This is something that India's mainstay, the T-72, cannot do (some are being upgraded to have this capability). The fact that all this capability has been packed in a tank with only a 1200 HP engine, means that it has an overall weight of 40 tonnes or thereabouts against the Arjun's 55 tonnes. This will give it a lower profile than the typical MBT and make it harder to hit.

China's technological help has undoubtedly played a very important part in its development. It is even possible that most of the parts and systems are Chinese. But it would be a mistake to belittle the specific Pakistani input. For China's tanks have been designed, like European tanks, to work in relatively cool climates. An Indian or Pakistani tank must be capable of operating in Sindh in summer. This means up and down sand dunes in an ambient temperature of 50 degrees Celsius. Other than the American Abrams tank, and possibly an Israeli MBT, none of the tanks developed elsewhere has passed this test. The design of the Al Khalid would not have been sealed if it did not meet this requirement to an extent sufficient to satisfy the Pakistan Armoured Corps.

The problem that DRDO failed to resolve, but Pakistan obviously has, is that diesel engines generate heat. The bigger they are, the more heat they generate and therefore the larger the proportion of the power that has to be diverted for air conditioning. The Arjun has a 1500 HP engine, but 300 HP gets used up in air-conditioning. As a result at 50 degrees Celsius the tank is able to travel only at a snail's pace and is a sitting duck.

Attempts to solve this problem within the basic parameters of an engine that was developed in the early fifties have forced other compromises that gravely impair the Arjun's offensive capability and increase its vulnerability. Not surprisingly, the Indian army has flatly refused to induct the Arjun into the armoured corps in more than token numbers and is insisting on the purchase of the T-90. In short, after 16 years of 'research' the DRDO has produced a lemon.

How could such a monumental waste of energy, time and money have come about? Pakistan's success with Al Khalid makes it essential that we answer this question now, before the afterglow of Kargil fades. The key difference is that in Pakistan, the army decides what it wants to buy, the army owns the defence production factories, and the army manages the defence research institutes. In India the armed forces have only a distant, passive say in the acquisition of weapons. Each service decides what kind of weapons it needs and with what capabilities. This is compiled into a QR - quality requirement - and handed over to the Defence Ministry. After that its role is to attend the supplier or the DRDO's trials, and at the final stage of selection just prior to induction, carry out its own field trials. Only if the MoD has selected more than one system, does it get to indicate its preference. That almost never happens. Even then, there is no certainty that this preference will be respected. This procedure breaks one of the cardinal rules of good management, which was discovered in a landmark study of relationship between Technology, Organisation and Business success by a team of researchers headed by the late Joan Woodward of the Imperial College of Technology in 1955-58. This is the necessity, in special order batch production for a constant and close interaction between the product user and manufacturer. The primacy of the army in Pakistan has, accidentally, ensured that this rule is respected in its defence research and development. The ascendancy of the Defence Ministry has made sure that it is not in India. What this has meant is that the armed forces no longer necessarily get what they want, but also when they need it.

Examples abound. A 155mm howitzer was indented for in 1978. The Bofors was finally acquired in 1986. The eight-year delay meant that while Pakistan got its 155mm howitzers in the early eighties for $850,000 a piece, India paid $ 3 million for each gun. As if that were not bad enough, following the outcry over kickbacks, Bofors was blacklisted from 1987 till after the Kargil war began in 1999. All that while the army was left with 400 of these guns instead of the 1200 it had wanted, and was starved of shells and spares to the point where it was compelled to cannibalise some of the guns in order to keep the others functioning. Its entreaties that the blacklist be lifted were ignored.

India first failed to spot, and later took six weeks to ascertain the number of invaders in Kargil because among other reasons, its satellite did not have a sufficiently high resolution. At that precise time the government had signed an agreement with Russia for pictures from a satellite with a six times higher resolution, but they had not begun to arrive because the MoD had not paid the contract price!

The problem has been complicated by the sudden rise of DRDO as a competing weapons provider. For now the army has to contend not only with the delays that are imposed upon it by ministry officials who feel no sense of urgency about doing their job, but also by the delay that arises when the DRDO chief insists that there is no need to import a weapon because he can design and produce it at home. The Arjun lemon is by no means the worst example of the cost this can impose on the army. In 1987 the American defence department finally and reluctantly cleared the sale of a WLR - a gun locating radar that tracks artillery shells feeds the coordinates into one's own guns and directs the return fire automatically to destroy the enemy gun from which the shell came - to India. The army was ecstatic because Pakistan had had an American WLR since the eighties and the one the US were offering India was superior. The deal was finalised and the purchase was about to be made when, on the urging of Dr. Kalam, the then defence secretary cancelled it and decided to let DRDO develop a WLR instead!

Two years later, the army still had no WLRs. As a result many young men who died in Kargil, fell victim to Pak artillery fire which the Indian guns could not suppress because they did not have WLRs. The all-pervasive fear in the armed forces is that with the return of peace, the MoD and DRDO will have neither learned nor forgotten anything. If Mr. Vajpayee has a lasting contribution to make it is to shift the boot from the MoD's foot to that of the Army. So far the army has proposed and the MoD has disposed. Now the MoD and DRDO may propose but the armed forces must dispose.


YESSS ! I read the article ages ago and then couldn't find it. Well done. Remember that debate about the suitability of the tank for desert warfare

[crobato]

Though a bit off topic, can chinese tank operate in the heat just like al-khalid??



Surely. Parts of China are deserts, like the Gobi and Taklamakan deserts. Let's remember where Pakistan's T-55s and T-85s came from.

[f2000]

al-khalid will be tough challenge for t-90.
with medium range weight it can move faster and
easily escape.
but t-90 have advantage with its shtora.
so it can defense itself better.
when compare to arjun ................:)

[DPRKUnderground]

The article says that the Indian army does not control R&D. Obviously they are a little slow. The Arjun was supposed to be a heavy tank like many western designs. But it would never have worked. If you look at Eastern tanks, they are much lighter. The heaviest one I know of is the Type-90! Which is like 56 tons.

[Yimmy]

I would argue that the Arjuns poor performance in the desert heat is a lie, in order to emphasise how bad the tank is. Saying only the Abrams, Israeli made tanks and the Al-kahlid are capable of operating in desert heat is also a lie, or simply not true.

Think about it, how many tanks have been used in the desert, and how many have shown themselves to be not capable of it? Tanks which were designed to fight in cool climates as found in Europe, have worked perfectly fine in the desert. As well as the Abrams, you have the Challenger (I and II) in Gulf Wars I and II, the Chieftan, M48, M60 and T72 in the Iran/Iraq War, the Centurian, Super Sherman and T55 in the Arab/Israeli wars, and further back we have the Matilder, Velentine, Panzer III and IV in Africa etc etc etc.....

[ahho]

Surely. Parts of China are deserts, like the Gobi and Taklamakan deserts. Let's remember where Pakistan's T-55s and T-85s came from.
i was a bit confused because the article said that china was following europe where tank are made to work in cool climate without the mentioning of desert which we have

[jatt]

Its another almost accurate DDM article. :nono: I've read too many in my short life already.:)
Recently at DefExpo 2006 people have learnt that DRDO and the Indian Army is having a fued over the Arjun MBT. God bless the Army because they were the ones in the first place who wanted a M1A1 challenger! And then go on to purchase T-90 off the self to counter the T-84's Pak had bought from Ukraine. Now if you think Al-Khalid spells trouble for the Indian Army, your wrong. It doesn't spell but adds to already annoying armour the rival had. Read the article carefully and you'll see that the 1000 T-72's the Indian Army has are being slowly upgraded. But hey wasn't the T-72's designed to battle in Sibera? Confusing stuff. Its the Army which in the first place wanted a air conditioned tank, that doesn't just chill the crew off but also the electronics! I've heard a lot of middle men from the Army argue over the usefullness of the tank. Atleast the general sees hope in inducting it. If inducting the tank means changing supply and mantance procedures then so be it! Its not every day you have tank that won't blow up when hit by a HESH round.

[vincelee]

"Its not every day you have tank that won't blow up when hit by a HESH round."

actually, it's everyday.

[jatt]

I thought the action in Chechnya died down?

[crazyinsane105]

Recently at DefExpo 2006 people have learnt that DRDO and the Indian Army is having a fued over the Arjun MBT. God bless the Army because they were the ones in the first place who wanted a M1A1 challenger! And then go on to purchase T-90 off the self to counter the T-84's Pak had bought from Ukraine. Now if you think Al-Khalid spells trouble for the Indian Army, your wrong.

I do have something to add here. If the Al Khalid isn't able to stand up against the Indian T-90's, then Pakistan would have probably ordered more T-84's. Basically if the PA didn't think the Al Khalid could pose a huge threat to the Indian Army then the PA would have ordered more T-84's or other high tech tanks. Also, the Al Khalid II may be out as early as next year according to Kanwa. So if the Al Khalid isn't good enough to go against the T-90S, then the Al Khalid II will be.

The action in Checnya has not at all died down. Russian soldiers are killed on a daily basis and Checnyan militants control large parts of Checnya. However, let's not get into that discussion since there is already a thread about that topic.

[jatt]

First off maybe it was politics? The Pakistani military is more so intervined in politics than her counter-parts. It is easier for Pakistan to get a liecence manufacturing of Al-Khalid than T-84 and its probabily less expensive. On top of that it most likily fares better on desert terrian because of its lower surface to ground pressure. And as much as Pakistan can try to make its armoured arm more deadlier the more protection it requires from InAF's MiG-27's and Hi-35.

[adeptitus]

First off maybe it was politics? The Pakistani military is more so intervined in politics than her counter-parts. It is easier for Pakistan to get a liecence manufacturing of Al-Khalid than T-84 and its probabily less expensive. On top of that it most likily fares better on desert terrian because of its lower surface to ground pressure. And as much as Pakistan can try to make its armoured arm more deadlier the more protection it requires from InAF's MiG-27's and Hi-35.

IMO he Pakistani Air Force is a serious weak link here. If another war was to break out between Pakistan and India today, there's just no way that the Pakistani AF can match Indian AF in quantity and quality (of aircraft). Even if the Pakistani army was victorious in tank engagements, ultimately they'd be subject to Indian air strikes.

[FreeAsia2000]

IMO he Pakistani Air Force is a serious weak link here. If another war was to break out between Pakistan and India today, there's just no way that the Pakistani AF can match Indian AF in quantity and quality (of aircraft). Even if the Pakistani army was victorious in tank engagements, ultimately they'd be subject to Indian air strikes.

In that case Pakistan would have to make sure it's ground forces were extremely fast and anti-aircraft missiles and countermeasures were effective.

In addition Pakistan would need to be able draw off sufficient Indian forces
using either other countries or it's own forces.

It can be done if planned properly

[Gollevainen]

In that case Pakistan would have to make sure it's ground forces were extremely fast and anti-aircraft missiles and countermeasures were effective.

THat leaves us to the question, what kind of airdefence can Pakistan offer to it's mobilised units? Acording to Globalsecurity, it's quite minimal, only MANPADS. Only some 144 crotales asigned to airforces command, which mean those systems aren't incorporated to Brigade/divisional level HQs. This means Pakistan lacks completly medium to short range SAMs to protect it's advancing motorized units. What effects it has on combat? Well everyone can make threir own assumptions, but 32 F-16s isen't sufficient enough to provide Pakistanese troops a completly clear sky over indian opponent....

[FreeAsia2000]

THat leaves us to the question, what kind of airdefence can Pakistan offer to it's mobilised units? Acording to Globalsecurity, it's quite minimal, only MANPADS. Only some 144 crotales asigned to airforces command, which mean those systems aren't incorporated to Brigade/divisional level HQs. This means Pakistan lacks completly medium to short range SAMs to protect it's advancing motorized units. What effects it has on combat? Well everyone can make threir own assumptions, but 32 F-16s isen't sufficient enough to provide Pakistanese troops a completly clear sky over indian opponent....

Agreed.

Pakistan's army air defense is quite appalling. Does anybody have any info on the Anza mk 3 ?
I think it's range is 15 km. I just read that when the Indian's violated pakistani waters a few days ago they loitered there for more than 2 hours !

Which means that Pakistan will in the event of a war have to either capture Indian cities very quickly or use nukes to take out Indian runways etc.

[Gollevainen]

Which means that Pakistan will in the event of a war have to either capture Indian cities very quickly or use nukes to take out Indian runways etc.

I seriosly doupt that Pakistanese would do any offensive (exept counter) movments if war would break up. No way is PA sufficient enough to be aple to perform any stratecigal manuvers towards opponet of Indian calibre...

[ArjunMk1]

I seriosly doupt that Pakistanese would do any offensive (exept counter) movments if war would break up. No way is PA sufficient enough to be aple to perform any stratecigal manuvers towards opponet of Indian calibre...


Currently Pak Army is a defensive force !! It will use ditch cum bundh defences in Punjab to hold Indian armour assault against Lahore, Islamabad , etc !! After 65 Pakistan is more or less determined of not letting any Indian assault through Punjab !! The indian option is attack through Thar desert through Pakistani states of Sind and Baluchistan by which dividing Pakistan into two and also cutting off Karachi . And in this situation Pakistan , till now, has no antidote except fighting gurella warefare within its towns and villages or the usage of Nukes !!!

Thats why Indian Army has stressed so much in desert capabilities of its tanks, thats why Arjun is facing a lot of problem in mass induction. IA sees desert warfare as its trumph card.

[jatt]

The army is suffiecent in handling the Pakistani Military. With all the SAMS InA is inducting I think there is mistrust between the Army, Airforce/Navy. But you are right about the desert thing. If the Indian Army can thrust through Thar desert then the next war is repeat of 1971.

[vincelee]

if anything, the Pakistani Navy is the weakest link. We all know just how well the PAF handled the mismanaged and not too skilled InAF during the previous war. To be quite honest, I still don't have much respect for the Indian Army's chain of command.

[jatt]

The Indian Army or Indian AirForce? As far as i'm concerned InAF got lucky that PAF underestimated their size in 1971. But as far as the Indian Army it is more...down to Earth compared to her counter-part. And its not like PN will win the war or change the outcome. The largest strenght for Pakistan needs to be her Army, and then Airforce. The unlucky PAF has a Army General as "President" who puts too much emphasis on armour these days. The money could be better spent on artillery. After all hitting a advancing T-72 from the top is as good as a kill. The PAF IMHO during 1971 forgot what her role in the war should have been. The InAF hated their birds being shot down but they new their objective was to hit Pakistani belly crawlers in a effort to end the war faster. In the end PAF glorfied their victory and the Indian Army glorfied theirs while the Indian AirForce gets a pat on the back for supporting the Indian Army with out a second thought.

[tphuang]

I honestly would like to know how Al Khalid is different from MBT-2000. Outside of the Ukrainian help, how much did the Pakistanis actually do? The entire stuff about not being able to operate in heat is rubbish. As it stands, MBT-2000 < T-84. I would agree with the licensing part about Al Khalid.

[crazyinsane105]

The PA has some pretty horrible air defense. Right now the PA has Crotale 4000, the Mk series, SA-2's, some KS-1 (very limited though), and maybe even some TY-90 missiles. The Mk series can most likely deter most Indian helicopters and other low flying aircraft, but beyond that the PA needs a new facelift on SAM's. Several years ago Pakistsan expressed some very serious interest on the FT-2000 missile system and some news reports even stated that Pakistan received several batteries but I have yet to read something official about that. Maybe Pakistan is probably waiting until China perfects their own copy of the S-300 missile series. I mean, what other SAM's can Pakistan buy that are available? American made SAM's will come with many strings attached, Russia isn't going to sell anything to Pakistan, France will rip Pakistan off, Germany and Britian and many other European countries aren't willing to sell Pakistan anything, and let's not talk about Israel. So China seems to be Pakistan's only option in regards to SAM.

Getting back to the subject (which I beleive was the Al Khalid), Pakistan did place another order for 330 more T-84's from the Ukraine. However, the order never materialized after research on the Al Khalid began. The fire control systems are of Chinese origin, not European (some beleive the Al Khalid uses Western made systems) and the Al Khalid also fires Ukrainean made anti-tank missiles.

[Red not Dead]

al-khalid will be tough challenge for t-90.
with medium range weight it can move faster and
easily escape.
but t-90 have advantage with its shtora.
so it can defense itself better.
when compare to arjun ................:)

It goes beyond a singularity. Actually tank combat has never been the trademark of the PAk forces they got mauled by indians despite better armour. I think the T-90s is just better than the Khalid despite being an older deign and a less capable machine than it's russian valdimir couterpart. FYI the indian t-90s do not have Tshu nor Shtora-2 but they could be fitted with Arena-E. Furthermore the indians are suspected to be the clients behind the newest russian Heat-FS 3Bk31M2. anyway the real deal for th eindians would be to have a two channel access to the glonass system. With that they could simply implement a multiplying force lever that would doom any pak effort to block the indians.

[ArjunMk1]

I think there is a bit of confusion abt Indian T90 .

Indian T90 is actually Russian T90(Vladimir) fitted with 1000Hp diesel 4 stroke engine !!
The 125mm smooth bore gun can also fire the 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missile system.

For active defence , Arena is possible there since its also in the upgraded T72s

Arjun tanks are mated with Israeli LAHAT gun missiles, But I donno abt T90/72s firing them!

[darth sidious]

I think there is a bit of confusion abt Indian T90 .

Indian T90 is actually Russian T90(Vladimir) fitted with 1000Hp diesel 4 stroke engine !!
The 125mm smooth bore gun can also fire the 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missile system.

For active defence , Arena is possible there since its also in the upgraded T72s

Arjun tanks are mated with Israeli LAHAT gun missiles, But I donno abt T90/72s firing them!

Iwould not put my faith in the T-72 if I were you. they are M/M1 the first dont even have composite armour the sceond is a downgraded version of the first production T-72A

the 2a46M is also modifyed by the russians to have reduced barrel life
better to have them replaced with something new insted

[Red not Dead]

I think there is a bit of confusion abt Indian T90 .

Indian T90 is actually Russian T90(Vladimir) fitted with 1000Hp diesel 4 stroke engine !!
The 125mm smooth bore gun can also fire the 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missile system.

For active defence , Arena is possible there since its also in the upgraded T72s

Arjun tanks are mated with Israeli LAHAT gun missiles, But I donno abt T90/72s firing them!


The t-90 can't fire the LAHAT since it is a 120mm system.

Point two the Indian turret isn't a welded one (I could be wrong-if yes my appologies) and more sensibly the Indian t90s don't have a dual data bus (one parallel for battlefield info exchange and another vertical for direct CC). Instead they've said to have the humpy Nevksi system wich is a bit tight for a BMS (since it is russian:D ). Anyway they do lack Tshu and Shtora.

[crazyinsane105]

The Al Khalid has a BMS. As to how effective the BMS is, well, the UAE did buy it from Pakistan and considering the fact that the oil rich countries have enough money to buy almost anything they want, the BMS must be decent.

[korean456]

BMS? What kind of BMS does Al-Khalid has? I dont quite understand.

[crazyinsane105]

BMS? What kind of BMS does Al-Khalid has? I dont quite understand.

Battle field management sytem, right? I don't know the specs of it, but it is Pakistani made and it has been sold to the UAE about a year and a half ago.

[Red not Dead]

The Al Khalid has a BMS. As to how effective the BMS is, well, the UAE did buy it from Pakistan and considering the fact that the oil rich countries have enough money to buy almost anything they want, the BMS must be decent.

The UAe hasn't got the tools to operate a BMS...they got less than 10 UAV's and all their Satellites are civilian telecom ones. That means If they have to cut the line to operate a BMS customers may get angry...:nono:

Anyway pakistan has a BMS? Do you know if it's a parallel/Dual sytem. If it's a prallel then it's useless agaisnt India.

[FreeAsia2000]

the Pakistani BMS see below

LONDON [MENL] -- The United Arab Emirates been discussing a major project that would deliver a Pakistani battle management system to Abu Dhabi's ground forces.

Industry sources said the UAE Army and Islamabad have been negotiating to acquire a Pakistani BMS that would link main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and combat vehicles in Abu Dhabi's military. The sources said the system would be capable of forming a network comprised of a range of Western platforms in the UAE land forces and would not require the purchase of Pakistani military platforms.

The Pakistani system was identified as the Integrated Battlefield Management System. The network was meant to link armored forces and provide them with situational awareness and identity friend, foe capability.

The sources said the Pakistani system was not as advanced as Western networks and could not be regarded as network-centric warfare. The system was said to employ Very High and Ultra High Frequency radio communications, with each vehicle capable of serving as a relay.

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2005/january/01_03_1.html

[ArjunMk1]

Indian tanks use GPS and frequency hopping radios !!!

[crazyinsane105]

Indian tanks use GPS and frequency hopping radios !!!

The Al Khalid also uses GPS, but I don't know about the frequency hopping radios. :confused:

[ArjunMk1]

The Al Khalid also uses GPS, but I don't know about the frequency hopping radios. :confused:

GPS is a common system but they are vulnerable to US !! In future Indo-Pak conflict US may jam or downgrade GPS signals rendering communication systems and GPS guided bombs (do PAF have this ?? ) useless !!!

India also uses its home grown satellites for communication . Actually for civillian communication in India there is a little room for GPS , Insat satellites do the job.
But I really donno about their depth in Military uses, its secret !!!


Any electronic engineer here ???
Any body to explain frequency hopping , VH,UH frequency radio signals !! How they can be jammed or are they jam proof ???

[crazyinsane105]

China also uses GPS for some of their weapon systems, but I am not sure how reliant China actually is on the GPS system. :confused: Anyway, I am not an electrical engineer (not yet anyway), but I have yet to hear of jam proof radios. MAYBE hopping frequency radios can be jam proof, but I will have to do more research on that.

[tphuang]

China also uses GPS for some of their weapon systems, but I am not sure how reliant China actually is on the GPS system. :confused: Anyway, I am not an electrical engineer (not yet anyway), but I have yet to hear of jam proof radios. MAYBE hopping frequency radios can be jam proof, but I will have to do more research on that.
Well, many of the Chinese systems use both GPS and GLONNASS. I'm presuming a switch to galileo would happen once that system becomes available.

I don't see why the Al Khalid or any other tanks cannot be modified really easily to use other navigational networks.

[jatt]

As much as GPS and Glonass are great they aren't under anyones control exept US and Russia. In the future India will have partnership of Glonass. BTW GPS is no big deal. UAV and live images are important.

[Indianfighter]

India also uses its home grown satellites for communication . Actually for civillian communication in India there is a little room for GPS , Insat satellites do the job.
The above statement is true.
But I really donno about their depth in Military uses, its secret !!!
They are likely to be used for military purposes also.

As an example, just as a kitchen knife can be used for cutting fruits or for stabbing, Indian remote sensing satellites (the densest cluster in the world), are probably used for this purpose also, although ISRO never publicly announces it.

Any body to explain frequency hopping , VH,UH frequency radio signals !! How they can be jammed or are they jam proof ???
Frequency hopping means that the 2 communicating entities (such as 2 cell-phones communicating via bluetooth), switch (or hop) the frequencies of communication after every fixed interval of time. The increments in frequency and the time period of transmission in one frequency before jumping to the next--must be mutually decided upon by both. Protocols exists for this purpose.

In other words say I'm talking to you at the frequency of my voice for 1 second, at an Opera singer's frequency the next and at a small girl child's frequency the next second.
So I am "hopping" in frequency transmission.

If a third entity somehow knows the hopping frequencies with the time period of transmission ( 1 second for each in our example), then it can send noise signals on those frequencies to disrupt our communication.

So he may shout mimicking my voice at the first second, sing badly at the opera singer's voice the next second, and cry loudly at the girl child's frequency the next second--if he wants to disrupt the communication between you and me.

VH and UH signals are not jam proof. If the enemy knows the communication frequency, it will send "noise" or jarring signals at the same frequency to disrupt communication between pilots or the datalink between a passive guided missile and the home radar.

The Trishul SAM missile is a very good example of frequency hopping. It is a passively guided missile.

At first it is injected in a high frequency, then on a medium frequency then a pencil beam frequency (40 Ghz). So even if enemy jammers manage to noise one part of the frequency, in a few seconds it would have switched to the next one, thus making jamming very difficult.

Due to this capability,Trishul is one of the best passively guided quick-reaction SAMs in the world.

[vincelee]

here we go, more Indian bravado.

I guess variable frequency devices are still cutting edge in the land of the curry...

[PiSigma]

this is a thread about Al Khalid, not Indian bashing or frequency responses <-- I hate this stuff already. so all of you get back on topic

[vincelee]

yeahhhhhhhh, let's take the FFT response and mate it to......I don't know, RMS values and PKK in dBV?

Done any analogue circuit design yet Sigma?

[Indianfighter]

<deleted> kindly excuse me.

[Indianfighter]

The Al-Khalid tank is meant to counter the acquisition of T-84 and T-90s tanks of India. Its deisel-engine design is meant to be revolutionary which can perform well in extreme heat conditions (as in deserts).
Also its speed and acceleration characteristics make it probably one of the most agile desert tanks in the world as compared to bulky Challenger, Merkava or Arjun tanks.

Hence it is good for countries like Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan etc. which have significant desert terrain.

Since it is cheap, countries like Saudi-Arabia, Malaysia, Egypt etc. which do not have militarily tense relations with neighbours can use them.

However, this tank is like the MiG-21 Bison of the tank community. Features such as light armour, little BMS, lesser crew, medium technology etc. do not qualify it to be a frontline battle-tank for a country like China (it itself refused to use it though it helped in its development).

Even India would not have opted for such a tank as an MBT. But, it is sufficient for Pakistan as it is co-incident with their policy of "minimum detterent".

[DPRKUnderground]

The Al-Khalid tank is meant to counter the acquisition of T-84 and T-90s tanks of India. Its deisel-engine design is meant to be revolutionary which can perform well in extreme heat conditions (as in deserts).
Also its speed and acceleration characteristics make it probably one of the most agile desert tanks in the world as compared to bulky Challenger, Merkava or Arjun tanks.

Hence it is good for countries like Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan etc. which have significant desert terrain.

Since it is cheap, countries like Saudi-Arabia, Malaysia, Egypt etc. which do not have militarily tense relations with neighbours can use them.

However, this tank is like the MiG-21 Bison of the tank community. Features such as light armour, little BMS, lesser crew, medium technology etc. do not qualify it to be a frontline battle-tank for a country like China (it itself refused to use it though it helped in its development).

Even India would not have opted for such a tank as an MBT. But, it is sufficient for Pakistan as it is co-incident with their policy of "minimum detterent".

I don't think it's the "MiG-21" of the tank community. It's not crude at all and is very capable. It might be light and can go fast, but that doesn't mean it has light armor. It's comparable to later versions of the T-72, myabe even the T-90. In systems, well the Al-Khalid was 100% accurate in firing trials in Saudi Arabia. I don't know the exact link that says it, but it was posted on PDF some time ago. I would say in systems it's less capable than the T-90. But not by that much.

[ArjunMk1]

Nothing can be 100% accurate , neither is AlKhalid !!!

Sorry I never believe PDF , its an extreme Indian bashing wet dream's forum , some times go there for fun !!

Back on point , yes AlKhalid is much like T72s , T90s are heavily upgraded T72s with newer gun,engine , electronics and communication systems !!!

[DPRKUnderground]

Nothing can be 100% accurate , neither is AlKhalid !!!

Sorry I never believe PDF , its an extreme Indian bashing wet dream's forum , some times go there for fun !!

Back on point , yes AlKhalid is much like T72s , T90s are heavily upgraded T72s with newer gun,engine , electronics and communication systems !!!

Your right, PDF is Indian=bashing. Not much quality. But it does have new systems from Ukraine and China, 2 major tank countries. As I said before, it's somewhere near the T-90 in performance.

[Kampfwagen]

You know, it is still quite ironic, dont you think? What I mean is that, the Al Kaid, despite obvious 'improvements' is still a Chinese tank. And it's most likely to gun for the T-90, another Chinese tank (Unless it is the Russian T-90 and not the Chinese Type-90.

On a more relavant note. I wonder how well this tank would do against more modern tanks such as the Super Abrams and the Type 98/99. Probably not as well as it would against the older tanks of the region I imagine. Did they mention that? God, I'm hopeless here. :roll:

[crazyinsane105]

You know, it is still quite ironic, dont you think? What I mean is that, the Al Kaid, despite obvious 'improvements' is still a Chinese tank. And it's most likely to gun for the T-90, another Chinese tank (Unless it is the Russian T-90 and not the Chinese Type-90.

On a more relavant note. I wonder how well this tank would do against more modern tanks such as the Super Abrams and the Type 98/99. Probably not as well as it would against the older tanks of the region I imagine. Did they mention that? God, I'm hopeless here. :roll:

That is why the Al Khalid II will come out. I beleive the Al Khalid was simply a tech demonstrator and that is why only 300-500 are going to be inducted. The AL Khalid II will probably be the mainstay of the Pakistani Army for some time to come.

Indianfighter, you mentioned that Pakistan got the Al Khalid to counter India's T-84's and T-90's. I beleive you are mistaken on one part: India doesn't have any T-84's. The T-84 is a Ukranian upgrade of the T-80 and as far as my knowledge goes, the IA doesn't even have the T-80.

To ArjunMKI, the Al Khalid has some pretty advanced equipment including Chinese made fire control systems, a revolutionized diesel engine as Indianfighter said, Ukrainian made anti-tank missiles, and as for the armor, well, that's being kept a secret. Pakistan is sorta like China: Pakistan doesn't just hand out all of its info about its projects.

[jatt]

Armour? About that...every T series tank has crap of armour compared to the western tanks. Chinese and Soviet tanks are kept in mind for mobile artillery. The ERA is their best armour. But ERA and even the Kontact 5 is useless...to some degree. You see the problem with ERA is that it tends to blow off from one hit. If the tank survives the initial hit thanks to ERA and not blown up due to its ammo it will be left with out much skin. Another round will finish it from another tank of course. And the other problem is you don't want infantry taking shelter behind a ERA armoured tank. Because if its hit with HESH then the ERA becomes an enemy. Imagine these heavy metal blocks flying at you! The Western concept is designed to take hits and support infantry. Its a mantanence problem but much more effiecient.

[vincelee]

wow.........you wanna tell me just who stills use the traditional tank-infantry combo in MODERN warfare? Not urban warfare, MODERN warfare. Besides, if ERA is really that dangerous, why did the TUSK upgrade for M1s specifically imported Israeli ERA blocks? Mind you, urban warfare is probably the only place you still use unprotected infantry with tanks in close proximity.

And let's not generalize about Soviet armor. Iraqis had the EXPORT version of a T-72, which was a FAST tank...in fact, the fastest MBT when it first came out. The armor on the T-80, or even the T-72A and M2s, are much more resilient. A better example would be the Israeli Arab comflicts, although they had exported versions too, the Arabs were able to use the Soviet armor to greater effect. (Iraqis can't fight)

[crazyinsane105]

wow.........you wanna tell me just who stills use the traditional tank-infantry combo in MODERN warfare? Not urban warfare, MODERN warfare. Besides, if ERA is really that dangerous, why did the TUSK upgrade for M1s specifically imported Israeli ERA blocks? Mind you, urban warfare is probably the only place you still use unprotected infantry with tanks in close proximity.

And let's not generalize about Soviet armor. Iraqis had the EXPORT version of a T-72, which was a FAST tank...in fact, the fastest MBT when it first came out. The armor on the T-80, or even the T-72A and M2s, are much more resilient. A better example would be the Israeli Arab comflicts, although they had exported versions too, the Arabs were able to use the Soviet armor to greater effect. (Iraqis can't fight)

I agree with you. But during the 91 war, the Iraqis weren't using the proper ammuniton agains the American tanks. Hell, they were using obsolete HEAT rounds against the M1's! Had they been using something like DU rounds, then more American tanks would have been destroyed. Above that, the Iraqis had deployed their entire army in Kuwait, a massive strategical error. If you place half a million men in a country barely the size of any US state along with thousands of tanks, APCs, artillery, etc. you have absolutely no way to manuever your forces or even to conduct a proper retreat. Saddam's retreat was one of the most disorganized retreats in military history. Saddam himself is going to be labelled as the most incompetent military general in history as well.

Going back to the topic, tanks with ERA blocks are not at all obsolete. The ERA will only turn into big chunks of flying steel if they are not placed properly on the tank. As vinclee pointed out, the Americans are now upgrading their M1's with ERA to further reduce the damage done by RPG's and IED's.

[darth sidious]

Armour? About that...every T series tank has crap of armour compared to the western tanks. Chinese and Soviet tanks are kept in mind for mobile artillery. The ERA is their best armour. But ERA and even the Kontact 5 is useless...to some degree. You see the problem with ERA is that it tends to blow off from one hit. If the tank survives the initial hit thanks to ERA and not blown up due to its ammo it will be left with out much skin. Another round will finish it from another tank of course. And the other problem is you don't want infantry taking shelter behind a ERA armoured tank. Because if its hit with HESH then the ERA becomes an enemy. Imagine these heavy metal blocks flying at you! The Western concept is designed to take hits and support infantry. Its a mantanence problem but much more effiecient.

I dont know where you got the idea that soviet armour is incapable but thats simply not true. In fact they where the first to invent composite armour long before the british even tried. If you are talking about the T-72 the version Iraquis used is called the the T-72M its downgraded with convential armour steel insted of the Russian combo-K. the T-72M1 also has down graded composite these are the tanks you see blowing up in Iraq. For you informationthey are also the T-72 india has thats why you always ee them buried in a thich layer of ER armour

[jatt]

But my argument still stanks that the Soviet style armour was crap compared to Western ones. So you can argue Soviet armour wasn't as bad but its still no better. So stop trying to be know it all.:D

[darth sidious]

But my argument still stanks that the Soviet style armour was crap compared to Western ones. So you can argue Soviet armour wasn't as bad but its still no better. So stop trying to be know it all.:D

the burden of proof is on you. How is soviet armour inferior campare to western armour ? I already proved perfomance in Iraq is not evidance .

the russians them self dont use their export grade weapons

[crazyinsane105]

But my argument still stanks that the Soviet style armour was crap compared to Western ones. So you can argue Soviet armour wasn't as bad but its still no better. So stop trying to be know it all.:D

If Soviet style/Russian armor is crap, I doubt India would be buying T-90's from Russia. Hell, they'd probably pay for the Israeli Merkava if the T-90 had crappy armor. Above that, when the T-72 first came out it made NATO start to shake in its pants.

[ArjunMk1]

If Soviet style/Russian armor is crap, I doubt India would be buying T-90's from Russia. Hell, they'd probably pay for the Israeli Merkava if the T-90 had crappy armor. Above that, when the T-72 first came out it made NATO start to shake in its pants.

Soviet armour are light so that they can move fast and use the lightning strike concept !!!
Nato armour is heavy and is for hold and fight concept (against overwhelming soviet armour attack) !!! India did get T72 and T90 because its light and can move easily in desert and soft plains (of Punjab) .

Arjun , though having better gun and far more protection , is heavier and will have little induction . Probably it will be with infantry regiments in hold and fight wars !! Arabian desert , Unlike Thar , is having strong ground . The sand there is fine and while Indian desert is having coarse particles and affected by shifting dunes !!!

Thats why Merkavas , Abrams ,etc . can do wel in Arabia but they will surely bogg down in Indo Pak desert or softer plains of Punjab !!! Actually Pakistan was offered Abrams M1 in 80s but it failed to secure good marks in desert tests !!! :D

[crazyinsane105]

Actually MKI I thought the same myself about the M1 Abrahams being offered to Pakistan until an ex-M1 tank driver proved me wrong. The reason Pakistan didn't go for the M1 Abraham was because of the fear that the US might stop spare parts to Pakistan in the event of a war with India. Above that, the M1 is a gas guzzler. The sand in Pakistan is quite soft I admit, but the sand in Kuwait is like snow: your feet would sink knee deep trying to walk through, yet the Abraham performs quite well in Kuwait. You may have a point about the Punjab region since the Abraham can't deal very well with mud (I saw several pics where the Abraham got stuck in mud). Probably the last reason why neither Pakistan and India aren't pursuing Western made tanks is most likely because they are quite expensive to buy and a nightmare to maintain. Chinese and Russian equipment is known for its simplicity.:D

[jatt]

A 125 mm gun can do wondars on bunkers and fortesses. If you haven't noticed the Soviets relied on ATGM heavily and artillery to hit tanks from the top. T-72 was suppose to be fast like all Soviet tanks and use speed and numbers to counter Western Armour. For every Abhram the Americans had and could build the Soviets would have 3 T-72/T-80/T-90 etc... and as for its armour. Perhaps the Chechs could tell you more about it.;)

[vincelee]

maybe the Iraqis can tell you about M1's armor....seriously, no modern tank survive urban combat for long. But Jatt, you are actually right for once in that Soviet tanks were meant to out flank and out number NATO armor. I would go one step further and say that Soviet armor is used to out run NATO tanks and for straight for logistics hub and HQs-NATO tanks are countered by Su-25s and artillery.

However, ArjunMk1 is wrong.......again.

Hold and fight my ass. Have you ever heard of the term "spear head" or "combined assault"? Tank is offensive in nature, if you use them like the Iraqis did, as turrets, then your entire armor force is dead. Hold and fight went out of style with WWII son.

[FreeAsia2000]

maybe the Iraqis can tell you about M1's armor....seriously, no modern tank survive urban combat for long. But Jatt, you are actually right for once in that Soviet tanks were meant to out flank and out number NATO armor. I would go one step further and say that Soviet armor is used to out run NATO tanks and for straight for logistics hub and HQs-NATO tanks are countered by Su-25s and artillery.

However, ArjunMk1 is wrong.......again.

Hold and fight my ass. Have you ever heard of the term "spear head" or "combined assault"? Tank is offensive in nature, if you use them like the Iraqis did, as turrets, then your entire armor force is dead. Hold and fight went out of style with WWII son.

Errm didn't the Israeli's use hold and fight against the Syrians ?

[Kampfwagen]

Using tanks as a turet is definately a strategy only used by the desperate. Typicaly speaking, all it takes is a Forward Observer to signal where the tank is, then it is bombed into dust. About the best example I can give of tanks being used as turrets is WW2, when the Germans would use King Tigers as turrets by burrying them in the street where the street was bombed out. This was however a tactic of desperation rather than legitimate strategy.

As for the whole Soviet armor is inferior thing, it sounds like the typical attidute for those raised in the west. To this day, many continue to say that the 72 was inferior to the time. Keep in mind, the T-72 could kick the snot out of an M60 Patton tank, which is what it was primarily designed to fight against (amongst other western tanks). The Iraq war can not be provided as a good example. The tread-skirts of his T-72's were repainted rubber placemats for god's sake. That, and by the time the Abrams came out, the 72 was obscelete. Though a T-90 might not be able to stand up to the Abrams or French/German modern MBT's on a straight-up fight, it is still quite a capable gun platform that can take on a good portion of the armor usualy seen in Russia's more unstable Ex-Bloc countries, or around the world for that matter.

[Red not Dead]

I do have something to add here. If the Al Khalid isn't able to stand up against the Indian T-90's, then Pakistan would have probably ordered more T-84's. Basically if the PA didn't think the Al Khalid could pose a huge threat to the Indian Army then the PA would have ordered more T-84's or other high tech tanks. Also, the Al Khalid II may be out as early as next year according to Kanwa. So if the Al Khalid isn't good enough to go against the T-90S, then the Al Khalid II will be.

The action in Checnya has not at all died down. Russian soldiers are killed on a daily basis and Checnyan militants control large parts of Checnya. However, let's not get into that discussion since there is already a thread about that topic.

What chechnya has to doo with massive armour battles? Killed on daily basis? Plesae cut the propaganda crap.

[FreeAsia2000]

What chechnya has to doo with massive armour battles? Killed on daily basis? Plesae cut the propaganda crap.

:off :off :off

I believe there's another topic for the above

Cheers !

:D

[Red not Dead]

maybe the Iraqis can tell you about M1's armor....seriously, no modern tank survive urban combat for long. But Jatt, you are actually right for once in that Soviet tanks were meant to out flank and out number NATO armor. I would go one step further and say that Soviet armor is used to out run NATO tanks and for straight for logistics hub and HQs-NATO tanks are countered by Su-25s and artillery.

However, ArjunMk1 is wrong.......again.

Hold and fight my ass. Have you ever heard of the term "spear head" or "combined assault"? Tank is offensive in nature, if you use them like the Iraqis did, as turrets, then your entire armor force is dead. Hold and fight went out of style with WWII son.

If tank is offensive in nature explain me how the fuck the Abrams can be called a defensive tank....and the russian one ment to lead an assault on NATO while being tincans...we've gone that way in the past i don't want to start a flame war.

[vincelee]

The Jews definitely did not use tanks as turrets, at least not consciously. If anything, the IDF used quite a bit of CAS/BAI on tanks. Also, the quality of Arabic military leaders is......not the best. Much better than the pesky Iraqi and the moronic Saudis over all, however.

[Red not Dead]

the Pakistani BMS see below



http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2005/january/01_03_1.html


Thank you so it's parallel system. Not bad...But sensible to jamming nevertheless.

[vincelee]

If tank is offensive in nature explain me how the fuck the Abrams can be called a defensive tank....and the russian one ment to lead an assault on NATO while being tincans...we've gone that way in the past i don't want to start a flame war.

I'm afraid you've lost me. I was, first of all, talking about doctrine, not tanks. And I don't think I've ever labelled tanks as "defensive" or such.

[FreeAsia2000]

I'm no expert on tank warfare but the way i read it during 1973 a few Israeli
tanks managed to ward off an invading syrian tank force which heavily
outnumbered them.

The americans then spoke to the Israeli soldiers involved and use this as
a basis to change their military doctrine against the warsaw pact in the early
1980's

The M1A1 was a result of this doctrine.

[Red not Dead]

I'm afraid you've lost me. I was, first of all, talking about doctrine, not tanks. And I don't think I've ever labelled tanks as "defensive" or such.

Actually i wasn't targeting your point of view as such but the implicit assertion everyone makes ...blah blah blah the Soviets were trying to attack the West...:coffee: . And that's right you have not said it.

[Red not Dead]

I'm no expert on tank warfare but the way i read it during 1973 a few Israeli
tanks managed to ward off an invading syrian tank force which heavily
outnumbered them.

The americans then spoke to the Israeli soldiers involved and use this as
a basis to change their military doctrine against the warsaw pact in the early
1980's

The M1A1 was a result of this doctrine.


The Isralis did not repelled a "huge" tank force. They merely defeated small columns but suffered as well. And saying the Israeli-Arab wars are fact of proof about a Soviet potential invasion then you must imediately consult a shrink. The Syrians advanced quite hastily and with some sucess but marked an "operational break" to "regroup and asses the situation". Things they actually never did. Further more the AA umbrella on wich the Syrian-Arab forces were had not sufficient assets to provide a cover. Wich actually led to a complete crack of the Arab forces..

[Red not Dead]

oups double post

[FreeAsia2000]

The Isralis did not repelled a "huge" tank force. They merely defeated small columns but suffered as well. And saying the Israeli-Arab wars are fact of proof about a Soviet potential invasion then you must imediately consult a shrink. The Syrians advanced quite hastily and with some sucess but marked an "operational break" to "regroup and asses the situation". Things they actually never did. Further more the AA umbrella on wich the Syrian-Arab forces were had not sufficient assets to provide a cover. Wich actually led to a complete crack of the Arab forces..

:)

You misunderstood.
I never said anything about a Soviet potential invasion.

I said the Americans re-examined their tank doctrines after 1973 based
upon the Syria-Israel theatre.

Like I said, I'm no expert. I read the book ages ago

[adeptitus]

As previously mentioned (in other threads), the T-72 is an inexpensive mass-production MBT made for Soviet conscripts & export, while the T-64 was the real heavy hitter that was never exported. At the time US didn't have anything to counter the new Soviet armor, so they pushed the MBT-70 project, which later diversed into M1 and Leopard II MBT's.

Iraqi T-72's were poor copies of old Soviet export models, and cannot be comparred to the T-72's in late Soviet-era service or any modernized vairant today, such as the PT-91 series. Yes the T-72 is inferior to the M1, but they're of different generation and it's like saying F-15 is better than MiG-21.

I think most of us would agree that in modern combat, your tank force is better off being mobile than dug-in at some fixed position, waiting to be bombed. =/

p.s. a suggestion -- can we use "Israeli" instead of "Jew"? Israeli Druze (Arab) are required to serve in the IDF and hold pretty high ranks.

[Baibar of Jalat]

Origionally from vincelee
The Jews definitely did not use tanks as turrets, at least not consciously. If anything, the IDF used quite a bit of CAS/BAI on tanks. Also, the quality of Arabic military leaders is......not the best. Much better than the pesky Iraqi and the moronic Saudis over all, however.

You dont have to be so offenive to the groups mentioned above.
If you dont agree with them then its upto u but generalising them in a common negative stereotype is wrong.

[vincelee]

about the Jews or the Iraqis/Saudis?

I use "Jews" for Israel, as it IS a Jewish state. No offense intended there.

Now, as for the Iraqis and the Saudis...I think performance (or the lack of) should speak for themselves.

[FreeAsia2000]

I think we're going slightly :off

The discussion is about the Al-Khalid remember...

Ok how effective are the al-khalid's AA measures ?

[Gollevainen]

Mean Anti-air??? Well frankly it's as good (or worse) as in any tank which has 12.7 mm AA machinegun. You see the difference of different kind of machineguns isen't so big that it would make any difference. All AA machineguns nowdays are more just to irritate, confuse and jam lowflying aircrafts. Only theoretical change to actually hit something is when you suddenly see a hovering helicopter about to launch missiles towards you. And does you burst of fire make any difference? Well i guess it's all down to the actual situation, but in general, the AA machinegun is much more usefull against soft ground targets than shooting actual aircrafts...trust me, i've tryed to hit wiht NSV to small 1m x 1m targets and even when the gun and the targets were all static I still barely hit anything...so imagining to shoot from moving tank to moving ground attack plane....;)

[ArjunMk1]

Mobile forces generally use mobile gun-Missile carriages not ack-ack guns !!

Pakistan has Anza manpads and French Crotale missiles mounted on trucks .

India has SA-6 missiles on BMP-2 and Tungushka gun-missile carriages !!! Also India has got Igla manpads . Akash missiles are currently for testing only.

[Red not Dead]

Mobile forces generally use mobile gun-Missile carriages not ack-ack guns !!

Pakistan has Anza manpads and French Crotale missiles mounted on trucks .

India has SA-6 missiles on BMP-2 and Tungushka gun-missile carriages !!! Also India has got Igla manpads . Akash missiles are currently for testing only.


You hit it. I was speaking about the other AA suite that will follow your armor...SPAAG/SPAAM not about the AA gun on tank.

[FreeAsia2000]

Why don't tanks have anti-aircraft missiles ? Besides what use is a
AA gun against a Warthog ?

[Gollevainen]

You hit it. I was speaking about the other AA suite that will follow your armor...SPAAG/SPAAM not about the AA gun on tank.

Ohh my mistake....Well as i stated before Pakistan lacks completly medium/short range AAMs assigned to mobile units. Those MANPADS cannot be sufficient enough for any sort of stratecigal offensive movments (nor are they insufficient for defencive purposes as well) AAA selfpropelled or not wihtout target aqustion radars are pretty much as usefull as AA MGs on tanks...slightly better changes to actually hitting something, but mainly used for harrashing enemy planes than bringing them down...

[FreeAsia2000]

Ohh my mistake....Well as i stated before Pakistan lacks completly medium/short range AAMs assigned to mobile units. Those MANPADS cannot be sufficient enough for any sort of stratecigal offensive movments (nor are they insufficient for defencive purposes as well) AAA selfpropelled or not wihtout target aqustion radars are pretty much as usefull as AA MGs on tanks...slightly better changes to actually hitting something, but mainly used for harrashing enemy planes than bringing them down...

Isn't the Anza Mk3 a medium range AAM ?

I thought the whole point of MANPADS was to force aircraft to go to ranges
where they could be acquired by radar ?

In any case how effective is AA MGs against a warthog type tankbuster ?

[ArjunMk1]

Isn't the Anza Mk3 a medium range AAM ?


Anzas are only manpads !! They are IR guided .


I almost forgot , India has also OSA AKM and Strela-10M3 mobile missile launchers !!!


Actually Tank m/c guns are good against low flying choppers and even UAVs !! An anti helicopter round has been developed for Arjun tanks , now Russians may also have got such thing for their T-90/72s !!!

[adeptitus]

Why don't tanks have anti-aircraft missiles ? Besides what use is a AA gun against a Warthog ?

I think if you pit another 7 barrel 30 mm gatling gun (like the LD 2000 system) against an A-10, whoever shoots first will probably shred the other to pieces:
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/ld2000.asp

A MBT's job is to kill other armored vehicles, so the platform is optimized for that role. Usually they'd depend on dedicated anti-aircraft units for protection. Here's a PZA Loara AA platform based on the T-72 chasis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZA_Loara

There are some exceptions, like the Slovakian T-72M1 with 2x 20mm AA guns:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t72/t726.html

But if you compare the 2, I think you'd agree that the PZA Loara, a dedicated AA platform with 2 radars that can track 64 aerial targets, would do a better job at shooting down enemy air units.

Here's another interesting one, I think it's Finnish (Gollevainen can prolly verify) - the ItPsv 90 Marksman AA platform:
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/6512/cat/500/page/7

The platform consists of a Polish T-55 chasis, UK-made turret, and Swiss 35mm Oerlikon guns. Interesting mix of Eastern and Western technology.

[Gollevainen]

yeah the ItPSv 90 marskman...nice thing, one of my friend served in the amoured AA battalion that the things are assigned...

[FreeAsia2000]

yeah the ItPSv 90 marskman...nice thing, one of my friend served in the amoured AA battalion that the things are assigned...

How much do they cost and how effective ?

[Gollevainen]

well for cost im not sure, but the thing was kinda bargain as the hulls came as scrap metal prices from poland...but the things is as effective as any radar controlled 35mm SPAAG, Im not certain wheter we use 3P ammunition in these but still...

[adeptitus]

IMO the Finnish tank conversion is a very ingenuous use of old T-54/T-55 chasis. The Israelis are also masters at this. They have a lot of old US made M113 APC's and captured T-54/T-55 tanks, and found that the M113's could be destroyed by a RPG round. So they converted the T-54/T-55's to APC's:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/achzarit/Achzarit.html

And the M113 APC's to air defense units:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/m-113/Machbet.html

The M113 was originally armed with just a machinegun. They replaced it with a 20mm Volcan gun, EL/M 2106 radar, and 4xSAM launcher box.

The General Dynamics 20mm Vulcan gun can fire at rate of 3,000 rounds/min. Armed with APDS rounds, it has an effective range of up to 3.5km.

=====

So the original question was Pakistani's ground force's anti-air capability. According to Pakistani defense web site, Pakistani has over 850 M-113P with local manufacturing facility:
http://www.****************.com/PakArmy/ArmyInventory.html

Plus pending order for up to 2,000 "Talha" APC's by 2010:
http://www.****************.com/DefenceProduction/HIT/APC_Talha.html

IMO there's no reason why they cannot copy Israeli concept and convert some APC's to short-range anti-air units. They can purchase technology from the PRC, such as those used on the TY-90:
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airdefence/ty90.asp

Just add some AA guns to it and you're good to go.

========

Here's one more T-55 tank conversion (recycled chasis?) from Poland:
http://www.wze.com.pl/zasoby/newa3.jpg

The S-125/Newa SC replaces old SA-3 system with updated digital electronics, and mount the missile launcher on a T-55 chasis.

Yugoslavia was known to operate 14 SA-3 batteires with ~60 launchers, credited with a F-117 downing.

[darth sidious]

IMO the Finnish tank conversion is a very ingenuous use of old T-54/T-55 chasis. The Israelis are also masters at this. They have a lot of old US made M113 APC's and captured T-54/T-55 tanks, and found that the M113's could be destroyed by a RPG round. So they converted the T-54/T-55's to APC's:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/achzarit/Achzarit.html

And the M113 APC's to air defense units:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/m-113/Machbet.html

The M113 was originally armed with just a machinegun. They replaced it with a 20mm Volcan gun, EL/M 2106 radar, and 4xSAM launcher box.

The General Dynamics 20mm Vulcan gun can fire at rate of 3,000 rounds/min. Armed with APDS rounds, it has an effective range of up to 3.5km.

=====

So the original question was Pakistani's ground force's anti-air capability. According to Pakistani defense web site, Pakistani has over 850 M-113P with local manufacturing facility:
http://www.****************.com/PakArmy/ArmyInventory.html

Plus pending order for up to 2,000 "Talha" APC's by 2010:
http://www.****************.com/DefenceProduction/HIT/APC_Talha.html

IMO there's no reason why they cannot copy Israeli concept and convert some APC's to short-range anti-air units. They can purchase technology from the PRC, such as those used on the TY-90:
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airdefence/ty90.asp

Just add some AA guns to it and you're good to go.

========

Here's one more T-55 tank conversion (recycled chasis?) from Poland:
http://www.wze.com.pl/zasoby/newa3.jpg

The S-125/Newa SC replaces old SA-3 system with updated digital electronics, and mount the missile launcher on a T-55 chasis.

Yugoslavia was known to operate 14 SA-3 batteires with ~60 launchers, credited with a F-117 downing.


I not sure the sa-3 could qualify as a effective anti-aircraft weapon
most of the stuff you mentioned here can be seen as a form of updated WWIIquad cannon mounted on tank hulls

but pak manpad didi manae to shoot down one indian MIg-23 proveing it atlest have some anti-air ability

PS does any one have info on the serbian truck mounted R-73 missile
it does not appear to have a radar attached how does it even aquire its target

[crazyinsane105]

I not sure the sa-3 could qualify as a effective anti-aircraft weapon
most of the stuff you mentioned here can be seen as a form of updated WWIIquad cannon mounted on tank hulls

but pak manpad didi manae to shoot down one indian MIg-23 proveing it atlest have some anti-air ability

PS does any one have info on the serbian truck mounted R-73 missile
it does not appear to have a radar attached how does it even aquire its target

The Pakistani manpad shot down a Mig-23 and a Mig-27.

[ArjunMk1]

The Pakistani manpad shot down a Mig-23 and a Mig-27.

Actually a Mig23 and a Mi17 chopper was shot down by manpad , the other jet crashed due to engine problems !!!

[crazyinsane105]

Actually a Mig23 and a Mi17 chopper was shot down by manpad , the other jet crashed due to engine problems !!!

From Wikepedia:

Anza MKII

It appears to have incorporated US FIM-92 Stinger technology into the missile indirectly via the Chinese QW-1. Entered service with the Pakistani army in September 1994. Has been produced in Pakistan since October 1994. The missile can be ready from the march in less than 10 seconds, and from a standby state in less than 3.5 seconds. The battery has a life of about 50 seconds.

It has been used in combat during the 1999 Kargil conflict with India; it downed a Mi-17 helicopter and a MiG-27 jet and it also damaged a Canberra bomber.

[xihaoli]

Hmm......Al-Khalid -> .50cal machine guns -> mobile low level missile defences and AA + some crap about how Iraqis can't fight? A little off topic don't you think?

Personally i think the Al-Khalid represents to the Pakistani Army what the Khalid (Agosta 90B) means to the navy.

They both represent "decent" technology, the Agosta more then the Al-Khalid of couse, and basically represents a huge boost in Pakistani indigenious designs. Remeber, anything imported can, and probrably will be compromised and used agunist you (747 bugginngs...especially true for electronics) The ToT transfers are similar to the transfer of t-34 and mig-17 productions to china during the sino-russian "honeymoon" period. It aint the best....it aint the cheapest.....it ain't nothin to be proud of.....but its a start. (091s.....)

Although the issue of wartime production may seem insignifigent due to modern flanking/blizkreig warfare, (Yes the americans used this during GWI, two thrusts, one from SA and one from Isreal/Turkey = one messed up Iraqi armed forces forced to retreat) and the small landmass of Pakistan, it may ultimately decide the nation's ability to recover and sustain it self during and after a future conlfict with its neighbors. Besides, its always cheaper to make it yourself instead of importing it from others for a loss..... The new t-55/59 upgrade definitely has traits of the Al-Khalid (turret shape, gun, fire control?)

[Gollevainen]

PS does any one have info on the serbian truck mounted R-73 missile
it does not appear to have a radar attached how does it even aquire its target

It was an emergy adaption, not a full mass product thing. It aquires targets similar ways as MANPADS....wiht visual opservation...

BUt as someone said, we are bit offtopic now, lets make a new thread about different SAM systems and concerrate on Alkhalid on this one, shall we?

[Indianfighter]

They both represent "decent" technology, the Agosta more then the Al-Khalid of couse, and basically represents a huge boost in Pakistani indigenious designs.
No.Pakistan manufactured Agosta submarines under licence from France just like India manufactured MiG-21s under licence. They are not indigenous submarines of Pakistan.

Similary, the Al-Khalid is an upgrade of the Chinese Type-90 tank.
Considerable Chinese and Ukrainian input has gone into the tank (Ukraine provides engines).

But I would like someone to make some clarifications on the following claims on Al-Khalid :

1] "Navigation is assisted by the use of Global Positioning and Inertial Navigation Systems."
How does INS help in navigating a slow-moving tank ?

2] "It is the only tank that has the ability to auto-track the enemy's tanks."
What does auto-track enemy tanks mean, and is this claim true ?

3] "The Al-Khalid tank's performance is much better than the Russian T-90-S tank"
I dont believe its true.

Source:
www.****************.com/PakArmy/AlKhaildMBT2000.html

[MIGleader]

We could argue all day and night on whether the AL-khalid is superior to the t-90s or not. Frankly, i think the internal command systems of the al-khalid are superior to the ones on the t-90. Russian C&C is not up to date yet, even with all their modifications.THe 1A4GT is something that western tanks had by the first gulf war.

The Al khalid may be slightly more powerful then the improved 2A46M, but this may be nulled out by the t-90s ability to fire ATGMs such as Refleks. Armor plating is equal on the tanks, but the t-90 has Shtora for som extra defence.

Conclusion: The al-khlid has a good chance of getting the first hit on the t-90. When the t-90 is damaged, its advantages over the al-khalid are decresed.

[Red not Dead]

Hmm......Al-Khalid -> .50cal machine guns -> mobile low level missile defences and AA + some crap about how Iraqis can't fight? A little off topic don't you think?

Personally i think the Al-Khalid represents to the Pakistani Army what the Khalid (Agosta 90B) means to the navy.

They both represent "decent" technology, the Agosta more then the Al-Khalid of couse, and basically represents a huge boost in Pakistani indigenious designs. Remeber, anything imported can, and probrably will be compromised and used agunist you (747 bugginngs...especially true for electronics) The ToT transfers are similar to the transfer of t-34 and mig-17 productions to china during the sino-russian "honeymoon" period. It aint the best....it aint the cheapest.....it ain't nothin to be proud of.....but its a start. (091s.....)

Although the issue of wartime production may seem insignifigent due to modern flanking/blizkreig warfare, (Yes the americans used this during GWI, two thrusts, one from SA and one from Isreal/Turkey = one messed up Iraqi armed forces forced to retreat) and the small landmass of Pakistan, it may ultimately decide the nation's ability to recover and sustain it self during and after a future conlfict with its neighbors. Besides, its always cheaper to make it yourself instead of importing it from others for a loss..... The new t-55/59 upgrade definitely has traits of the Al-Khalid (turret shape, gun, fire control?)


the new type 59...is called the AL Zarrar.

And Migleader...how in the hell the "detection equipment could be better on the Al Khalid than on the T90s. You've yet got to make something as well implemented as the FINDERS BMS that was transposed on the T-90 as the "Nevski System". Granted it's the russian produced version of it but man are you sure the AL-Khalid has the latest up to date detection and recognition systems built in the West?

And btw the only autotrack is tracking back a lazing tank. That works like that...tank lases you for shot, your sensors signal the threat and your turret rotates at the direction of the laser source and fires or arms a round waiting for your comand. That's a freaking old feature in soviet tanks first implemented on T-80U. But the real auto-tracking tanks mean capting radio and heat sources wich is impossible without on board radar. Well that Radar is non existent in current tanks. And even GPS use is highly impossible to backtrack other tanks since the Indians will be probably using Glonass wich hasn't the same frequencies as the GPS system. So how in the world are you going to back up this miracle. You won't be on the same "planet". *******************? C'mon get real about this. and how the russian C&C isn't up to date yet? We're speaking about India right? What Russia has to do with that?

Mod edit: Lets be carefull with religious remarks shall we?

[ArjunMk1]

Russia has more than 60 yrs of tanking experience , I don't think the Chinese C&C and Gun systems(in AlKhalid/Type 90) are superior than current Russian items !!! Neither the Ukranians can beat Russia , SORRY ....

[PiSigma]

i don't think years of experience is the only measure we have for building weapons. the chinese had gunpower for 500 years longer than any other nation in the world, does that mean we have better small arm than everyone else? and is 500 years ahead? of course not. Germany invented jets, yet they are not the best jet producers in the world. so your arguement is false. its not all about how much experience, it's also about money and R&D, and many other factors.

[Red not Dead]

i don't think years of experience is the only measure we have for building weapons. the chinese had gunpower for 500 years longer than any other nation in the world, does that mean we have better small arm than everyone else? and is 500 years ahead? of course not. Germany invented jets, yet they are not the best jet producers in the world. so your arguement is false. its not all about how much experience, it's also about money and R&D, and many other factors.

Well in this case we're not speaking about gun powder we're speaking about the same equipment and derivatives...

[vincelee]

Russia has more than 60 yrs of tanking experience , I don't think the Chinese C&C and Gun systems(in AlKhalid/Type 90) are superior than current Russian items !!! Neither the Ukranians can beat Russia , SORRY ....

You should look into just how many Soviet MBTs were designed and manufactured in Ukraine. As for Chinese systems, just compare the material science sectors and you'll understand.

[maglomanic]

the new type 59...is called the AL Zarrar.
You won't be on the same "planet". Mohamad will come back and inspire your al khalids with his holy word or something?

I have no problem with anyone arguing for or aganst Al-Khalid, but just leave the religion out of it unless ofcourse if it's too hard for you to....

[Baibar of Jalat]

By PiSigma
i don't think years of experience is the only measure we have for building weapons. the chinese had gunpower for 500 years longer than any other nation in the world, does that mean we have better small arm than everyone else? and is 500 years ahead? of course not. Germany invented jets, yet they are not the best jet producers in the world. so your arguement is false. its not all about how much experience, it's also about money and R&D, and many other factors.

Hi Pisigma
Great to see some more people on this Furom that are not Naive and closed minded. You can argue time is meanlingless in regards to a nation, fifty years or one hundred years ahead what does it mean? Techonology leaps is common when a nation tries to catch up we see this we the rise of Japan after 1860s and also Germany who industrialised later then Britain but overtook it in a short space of time.

P.s
Mod's edit: ************************************
Personal attacks are stricktly forbidden, watch it or you will end up getting warnings!!

[MIGleader]

Chill guys. This is going to turn into a China Vs. Indian Vs. Russia thread and its going to get closed real soon.

Until we factor in everything, including training and logistics support, its silly to say one tanks is superior to the other. maybe China should buy a t-90 from russia and pit it against an Al-khalidm and see what happens. That way well know for sure.

[ahho]

just one question, didn't they said that al-khalid fire atgm also??

[MrClean]

If you ask me, when it comes down to it any of the MBT's of any of the world's major armed forces could destroy any other. I don't think any tank can take a direct hit from any 120/125mm rifled or no. So it doesn't matter what tank your in really, but the circumstances and tactics in which the tank is used. In a 1 on 1 battle, any tank whether it be an M1A2, Leclerc or Type 98/99 either tank can potentially penetrate the other and be the victor, but this doesn't mean that one is over all better than another, there are just some tanks that have better performance in certain areas such as speed.

And btw, yes the Al-Khalid can fire the Refleks.

[Kampfwagen]

That one SA-3 platform on the seventh page looks like a bad mama-jamba, but I imagine that it would be rather dangerous. The tank looks like it is directly in the way of the exaust of the missile. Er, disregard that.

Anyway the T-90 V.S Al-Khalid discussion really needs to rest. Maybe you could ask a computer graphics expert to make a simulation like they did on that one Discovery Channel show. You know, the one where they made situations between animals and counculate who wins?

[ahho]

If you ask me, when it comes down to it any of the MBT's of any of the world's major armed forces could destroy any other. I don't think any tank can take a direct hit from any 120/125mm rifled or no. So it doesn't matter what tank your in really, but the circumstances and tactics in which the tank is used. In a 1 on 1 battle, any tank whether it be an M1A2, Leclerc or Type 98/99 either tank can potentially penetrate the other and be the victor, but this doesn't mean that one is over all better than another, there are just some tanks that have better performance in certain areas such as speed.

And btw, yes the Al-Khalid can fire the Refleks.

since modern tank vs tank engagement chance of winning is who shoot first and what kind of support they have, how is survivability of al-khalid in guerilla warfare where the tank have to enter into a city or village

[ArjunMk1]

since modern tank vs tank engagement chance of winning is who shoot first and what kind of support they have, how is survivability of al-khalid in guerilla warfare where the tank have to enter into a city or village

Actually AlKhalid is for desert and open plains where it can do manuaveurs , just like T72 . For urban warefare heavily protected tanks like Merkava Mk4 are useful .

[jatt]

But that doesn't mean Markeva can't "run" as fast. Well it does but not like it'll make a difference.;) What makes a tank? Armour and fire power according to Nato. According to Soviets; armour fire power and a lot of them (tanks).:D

[Vytautas]

According to Soviets; armour fire power and a lot of them (tanks)
No its mobility,armour,firepower,speed.Speed and firepower take the same place.

[FreeAsia2000]

No its mobility,armour,firepower,speed.Speed and firepower take the same place.

Hi Vytautus ! Long time no post.

Merkava had a few problems in urban terrain in Lebanon
even WITH airpower

[Vytautas]

Lets not drift off to discussing how merkava performes in urban enviroments.
Al Khalid may be a good desert tank,but we all know that northern pakistan is covered in mountainous terrain,furthermore its the most possible place where Al Khalid would be deployed in case of a conflict with India.
How would it perform in rough terrain?

[Baibar of Jalat]

Vytautas have you seen a geographical map of Pakistan in the center there is the Thar desert that consists of flat land. True in the north there is mountains but any India thrust be in the lowlying centre, as someone has already stated. However, Firstly people should look closer to a map and see that any thrust towards Karachi is very difficult due to Salt marshs along the border plus the indus delta that covers a large area includes farmland and mangroove forests. Secondly the central part is desert but along the Indus river the area is heavily irregated, with a variety of width and depth of canals.

Someone mentioned i think it was Argun(sorry if not) on previous pages that the Pak army will not be willing to concede Lahore, which i also believe would be case, thus the Indian divisions would try to cut the nation into two but due to the mighty Indus and the huge irregation network (one of biggest in world) Pakistan with well trained infantry divisions could in theory stop an Indian dividing thrust, plus with other military assets Pakistan could repel any attempt throught this area. Also Pakistan could easily flood the area as like the Germans did in the Rhur valley.

What do you guys think?

P.s I does not matter if you decide it is a Chinese tank painted in Pakistani colours its all good, Pakistan has saved money but just as important it has gained experiance.

[FreeAsia2000]

How does the PT-91M compare to the Khalid ?

[jatt]

I think you need to give your self a second thought. It was possible for PA to flood northern India back in the day. Not anymore. With IA's new doctrine and quick reaction its more risky than ever. PA has become defensive and IA has become offensive. A change in role. The IA already has numerious bridge layers. Perhaps you should visit BR once in a while. Add together IAF's airlift capabillity.

[Baibar of Jalat]

I think thats a reply to me.

Sorry Jatt i think you are mistaken i thought i was saying flooding the indus valley(Pakistan) by that i mean letting more water to be allow to flow from Dams thus making the land more impassable not by drowning everyone. Also PA flooding Northern India, which i think could not happen before or anytime. but please explain.

[jatt]

I was talking about how PA could have cut off IA from Kashmir and perhaps reach Dehli in 1965. After these incidents Pak realized that the India had too much depth. They had quantity and the will to use it once it was moblized. Today the Pak doesn't even have the same reaction as India. The recent earth quake tragedy is a example.

[MIGleader]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was talking about how PA could have cut off IA from Kashmir and perhaps reach Dehli in 1965. After these incidents Pak realized that the India had too much depth. They had quantity and the will to use it once it was moblized. Today the Pak doesn't even have the same reaction as India. The recent earth quake tragedy is a example.




Yeah, and India's reaction to the 12/12/04 tsunami was lightening fast, right?:roll:

Dont compare a militaries readyness by it's ability to react to natural disasters. Does the U.S military have poor reaction because it could not save the people of New orleans from katrina? Of course not.

[jatt]

Yes it was Miggy ol'chum.:rofl:
Maybe you need to look at how InAF reacted more closely. The relief effort was much better on the Indian part. Even during the earth quate disaster. India had a much larger helecopter fleet and transport aircrafts.

[crazyinsane105]

OK guys. Let's get off the subject of the earthquake. To jatt, the earthquake killed nearly 10,000 Pakistani soldiers in Kashmir. The entire nation was in disarray because of the disaster. A disaster does not show prove how effective a military is. A military is good at fighting, not at helping with disasters.

Now the topic was the Al Khalid. Let's get back on track shall we?:nono:

[piya]

Red not dead

You should not think about Muhammad(PBUH) this way. Nither of GOD's prophets did this nor any of them was sent for making wars and to kill people as we think of them now. They all promoted peace, freedom and respect for others. Specially if you study Islam, you will find that Muhammad(PBUH) demonstrated a civilization based on humanity that was examplary in that time. So dont blame on Muhammad(PBUH) for what others do.
Hope you got the point.