Iran Military Forum







Author Topic: Zulfiqar Tank  (Read 12692 times)

Username and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Ayyash

  • سرگرد
  • *
  • Posts: 2829
  • us
  • Respect: +96
Re: Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #75 on: February 22, 2012, 03:08:50 AM »
0
Thank you sir.

Information like that makes me really want to see what the reported "semi-industrial" prototypes actually look like since everything I've heard about it doesn't match up with the Zulfiqar-1s we've seen. It might even be possible that they're what we're calling the Zulfiqar-3s, though that's pure supposition.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 03:11:22 AM by Ayyash »
Where i blog on the Iranian military
http://thearkenstone.blogspot.com/

Offline maydayfire

  • گروهبان دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • ir
  • Respect: +381
Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #76 on: February 22, 2012, 03:58:54 AM »
0
I dont know if you guys  remember that report  back in 2005 or 2006 where it was reported that an M-1 Abrams went missing (and possibly smuggled to Iran) after it had been damaged by an IED attack in south Iraq and its injured/killed crew were evacuated from the scene. If true, Given that M-1 Abrams uses Chobham armor extensively, No doubt it could have boosted Iran's capabilities in producing Chobham armor.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 06:53:10 AM by maydayfire »
it's time to nut up or shut up!

Offline Numbers

  • سرجوخه
  • *
  • Posts: 759
  • au
  • Respect: +23
    • World News
Re: Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #77 on: February 24, 2012, 04:28:54 AM »
0
To clear myself: What I meant is that the Ractive Amor is between the skin and the armor invisible to eye. I be curious to know why this information is false?


No. Chobham armor does not have Explosive Reactive Armor inside it at all.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^
Chobham Armor only has Ceramic Tiles layer bewteen 2 Steel Plates. Ceramic offers better protection against Shaped Charge Missiles.

The whole point of Chobham Armor is to put Ceramic Tiles bewteen 2 Steel Plates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armor
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 04:35:07 AM by Numbers »

Offline Catsoo

  • Global Moderator
  • سرهنگ دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 5561
  • Respect: +317
Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #78 on: February 24, 2012, 02:18:03 PM »
0
Quote
No. Chobham armor does not have Explosive Reactive Armor inside it at all.

Agreed but that is not what I meant. Read my post again.


catsoo

Offline Numbers

  • سرجوخه
  • *
  • Posts: 759
  • au
  • Respect: +23
    • World News
Re: Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2012, 04:56:48 AM »
0
What I meant is that the reactive armor is between the skin and the armor invisible to eye.

Please post picture if you have of Explosive Reactive Armor under the skin of Zulfiqar Tank.

How do they replenish ERA if it is "under the skin"?

Offline maydayfire

  • گروهبان دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • ir
  • Respect: +381
Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #80 on: February 29, 2012, 08:20:17 PM »
0
see this video, it say a lot about how effective M-1 Abrams chobham armor really is. Im sure the americans have improved their armor after their experience in Iraq against bunch of untrained and under-armed insurgents.
Biggest M1-Abrams Junkyard in the the world Small | Large

Online EPLO

  • اش خور
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • us
  • Respect: +3
Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #81 on: February 29, 2012, 08:53:54 PM »
-1
During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoilless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. The tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick and two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles were fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Remarkably, the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior.[32]

On November 27, 2004, an Abrams tank was badly damaged from the detonation of an extremely powerful improvised explosive device (IED). The IED consisted of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg (76 lb), that detonated next to the tank. The tank's driver received lethal injuries from shrapnel. The other three crew members were able to escape.

On December 25, 2005, another U.S. Army M1A1 was disabled by an explosively formed penetrator IED. The IED penetrated through a road wheel, and hit the fuel tank, which left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, SPC Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.

On June 4, 2006, two of the four soldiers in an Abrams crew were killed in Baghdad when an IED detonated near their M1A2.

Some Abrams were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. Although the RPG-7 is unable to penetrate the front and sides, the rear and top are vulnerable to this weapon. Frequently the rockets were fired at the tank tracks. Another was put out of action in an incident when fuel stowed in an external rack was struck by heavy machine gun rounds. This started a fire that spread to the engine.[33][29]

There have also been a number of Abrams crewmen killed by sniper fire during times when they were exposed through the turret hatches of their tanks. Some of these attacks were filmed by insurgents for propaganda purposes and spread via the Internet. One of these videos shows a large IED detonating beneath an Abrams and nearly flipping the vehicle, though it landed back on its treads and appeared to have suffered no serious damage as it was still mobile and traversing the turret following the attack. In another video, this one filmed by U.S. Army soldiers, an Abrams was attempting to crush an abandoned vehicle by running over it when a hidden IED inside the vehicle detonated directly beneath the tank, the Abrams again seeming to suffer no significant damage.[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams

Col. David Hackworth claimed:

150 tanks were damaged in battle (and later repaired on field and on the plant)
15 tanks were destroyed
among them 3 were completely destroyed by ATGM hits.

Online Ayyash

  • سرگرد
  • *
  • Posts: 2829
  • us
  • Respect: +96
Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #82 on: March 01, 2012, 12:37:17 AM »
+1
I've been doing some thinking about the use of an autoloader vis-a-vis the internal configuration of the Zulfiqar-3. I've always maintained that it probably has an autoloader, or the non-mockup prototypes do at least. I've always believed the claim the official claim that the tank has an autoloader in part because I believed that the two-part ammunition of the 125 mm 2A46M gun would make manual loading prohibitively slow. This might not be the case though.

I've been doing some more research and I've discovered that both the Al-Zarrar and the Type-59G (very similar to one another) both use the 125 mm gun with a semi-automatic loader. I can't find any details about the exact nature of the semi-automatic loader, but the important part is that they retain the fourth crewman in some capacity.

Furthermore, British tanks like the Challenger and Chieftain have also used two-piece ammunition and although they often load slower then comparable one-piece NATO 120 mm rounds, they're still competitive and there are actually some advantages to doing so. For one, they don't have to use metal casings so overall weight is reduced, and because the charges and projectiles are separated, it's much safer for for them to be stored in the turret.*

* - this might be particularly true when talking about the bustle on the Zulfiqar. It's too small to hold a full combat load like on the M1, but it might hold APFSDS rounds  while the propellant charges are kept below the turret ring to reduce the chances of them being hit in combat and igniting inside as tends to happen with the T-72.

One of the major issues I'm having right now with the possibility of an autoloader inside the Zulfiqar is the overall height of the tank. I mentioned this in my previous post, but one of the prime reasons the autoloader was installed in the first place was to reduce the overall height of the tank. Loaders tend to work standing up with means their height is the minimum height of the fighting compartment. If there was an autoloader inside the Zulfiqar I'd expect it to be relatively short, but it's not, its almost 3 m tall. If it was using an unmodified T-72 autoloader there would be a huge air-gap between the carousel and the turret floor! I think that scenario is unlikely so either it was modified and the hoist was lengthened or a different system is used. Neither scenario is unrealistic IMO. It should be noted that in the original T-72, both the gunner and commander sat with their legs virtually sticking straight out, so merely proving a space to properly "sit in" so-to-speak may fulfill this condition.

I initially hoped the position of the gun-sight may have pointed to the gunner sitting on the left-side of the turret (and thus indicating the use of an autoloader because loaders are extremely unlikely to be found sitting alongside the commander on the the right side of the turret), but now I'm not sure. On one hand, you have the Zulfiqar-1 where the gunsight is positioned directly above the gunners station, but this isn't required with the EFCS-3-55/KAT-72 because on the Safir-74/Type-72Z it had to be installed on the previous sight mount in front of the loaders hatch. That being said, there's no prior mount on the Zulfiqar like there was on the T-54/55s. At the end of the day though it's a wash and I don't think we can say the position of the gunners primary sight is any indication of the crew-size.

The only other indicator I can think of is the relative height of the crewman standing on their seats in parade. The loaders seat tends to be lower than the commanders, but in a three-man crew the gunner sits at about the same height as the commander (a smidgen lower, but not by much). You can observe this phenaomana if you compare Chieftains, M-60s and T-54/55s on parade versus T-72s. IMO the relative height of the crewman standing in the hatches of the Zulfiqar more closely resemble the those in the T-72 than those in tanks with a four-man crew, but that's certainly up for interpretation and I'm not entirely convinced of this.


---

By the way, does anyone know how tall Supreme Leader Khamenei is? Or Generals Firouzabadi and Salehi?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 03:06:43 AM by Ayyash »

Offline Emirzaad

  • سرباز دوم
  • *
  • Posts: 394
  • ir
  • Respect: +132
Re: Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #83 on: March 01, 2012, 01:17:45 AM »
+1
Syed Ali Khamanei is around  5'10 to 6 ft . Salehi seems in same range .

Offline Numbers

  • سرجوخه
  • *
  • Posts: 759
  • au
  • Respect: +23
    • World News
Re: Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #84 on: March 02, 2012, 04:55:24 AM »
-1
It say a lot about how effective M-1 Abrams Chobham Armor really is.

Yes, Chobham Armor is effective. Ceramic Tiles if thick enough can stop RPGs and HEAT rounds.

However, Explosive Reactive Armor and Autoloader are also effective.

So Tank should have all 3 of them. Chobham Armor, Explosive Reactive Armor and Autoloader.

Online Ayyash

  • سرگرد
  • *
  • Posts: 2829
  • us
  • Respect: +96
Zulfiqar Tank
« Reply #85 on: Today at 05:21:10 AM »
0
Forgot to post this here during Army day, better late than never I suppose. Dimensions are approximate; any estimate is best taken in composite with other images (if anything, err on the side of it being slightly smaller than what's represented)
« Last Edit: Today at 05:37:22 AM by Ayyash »

 

SMF 2.0.2 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.454 seconds with 22 queries.