Al Khalid Main Gun Target Range

[InsightDubai]

---

---

What is the Al-Khalid MBT MAin Gun Target range, I know that M1 Abrams can eliminate hostiles at 3-4 kms away. Where does Al-Khalid MBT stand? What is the Maximum effective range against moving hostiles and well as stationary?

[Sid]

If I remember correctly, I think it was 2 Km.

[sword9]

InsightDubai,
Here is some data on the 125mm (smoothbore) main gun of the Al-Khalid.

MAIN ARMAMENT AMMUNITION

125-mm APFSDS-T
Maximum Aimed Range (m) - 3,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day - 2,000-3,000
Night - 850-1,300
Armor Penetration (mm) - 590-630 at 2,000 meters
125-mm Frag-HE-T
Maximum Aimed Range (m) - 5,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day - N.A
Night - 850-1,300
Armor Penetration (mm) - N.A
125-mm HEAT-MP
Maximum Aimed Range (m) - 3,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day - N.A
Night - 850-1300
Armor Penetration (mm) - 650-750
125-mm HEAT
Maximum Aimed Range (m) - 3,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day - NA
Night - 850-1,300
Armor Penetration (mm) 700-800

[InsightDubai]

Thanks, does Al-Khalid MBT have the necessary software to track and destroy hostiles at ranging speeds. M1 Abrams 120mm (smoothbore) main gun is fully auto, once the target is in sight the software takes over, works out the distance and hit propability, speed of the target and sends the firing solution to the commander of the tank who only needs to press the button and Boom.

How does Al-Khalid MBT work and how long will it take to homin on targets, any snapshots of the interior of the Al-Khalid MBT?

Any video clip of Al-Khalid MBT firing a shot, training videos, trials videos or even defence exhibitions videos? I would love to see Al-Khalid MBT in action..

[InsightDubai]

What about the armour? what kind of armour is used on Al-Khalid. What kind of penetration is needed to disable the tank.

Can Rpg fire penetrate the armour from the sides?

[sigatoka]

Originally posted by InsightDubai@Mar 21 2006, 08:28 PM
What is the Al-Khalid MBT MAin Gun Target range, I know that M1 Abrams can eliminate hostiles at 3-4 kms away. Where does Al-Khalid MBT stand? What is the Maximum effective range against moving hostiles and well as stationary?

Quoted post

While the Americans always claim that Abrahams could destroy targets out to four Km, I have always found that hard to believe. Is there any tests that actually show Abrahams destroy tank sized targets out to four kms and what is the hit probability at that range?

[InsightDubai]

Well i have many documentaries on Discovery Military Channels and PBS documentaries, that Abrams took out Irqai MBT from a range of 3.5kms and the iraqi would start to shoot from a range of 2kms. th actual tanks commander in iraq was revealing many batle ground scnerious on some forum, which i cant remember. Plus the iraq munition would bouce off and not openetrate the abrams armour...

He managed to kill many himself and take out 100's of infantry from his tank... i think it was in *********** forums or some western forum where i was a member during the invasion of Iraq....

Any comments?

[sword9]

What about the armour? what kind of armour is used on Al-Khalid. What kind of penetration is needed to disable the tank.

Composite armour plating with options for explosive reactive armour.

Can Rpg fire penetrate the armour from the sides?

Some defence source estimate that the turret frontal armour is 600mm, now assuming that the side armour is always a little less than the front the following PG varients used in RPG-26, RPG-27 & RShG-1
launchers can penetrate the turret:-
- PG-7VL at 300 mtrs can penetrate 600 mm.
- PG-7VR at 200 mtrs can penetrate 750 mm.

[InsightDubai]

i really think AK need to do more than this, i seriously believs that the current turret shape is not effective, how about the Merkava shape with reactive armour.

[sword9]

i really think AK need to do more than this, i seriously believs that the current turret shape is not effective, how about the Merkava shape with reactive armour.

All tanks suffer from this vulnerability. One cannot make all sides of the armour capable of 600mm plus RHA, thte tank will become too heavy for propulsion will be a major problem. Like the sides and rear of the hull are generally between 30 - 80 mm RHA.

The Merkava's turret design is unique in this regard and offers more protection than most tanks. It is one of the tanks that is under continues evolution.

[sigatoka]

Well i have many documentaries on Discovery Military Channels and PBS documentaries, that Abrams took out Irqai MBT from a range of 3.5kms and the iraqi would start to shoot from a range of 2kms. th actual tanks commander in iraq was revealing many batle ground scnerious on some forum, which i cant remember. Plus the iraq munition would bouce off and not openetrate the abrams armour...

He managed to kill many himself and take out 100's of infantry from his tank... i think it was in *********** forums or some western forum where i was a member during the invasion of Iraq....

Any comments?

I have read and seen the same. I have never seen an actual test that the Abraham can destroy targets further than 3km. I think there is a lot of spicing up of the Abrahams capabilities.

[InsightDubai]

ya you are right, a target at 3 kms will appear like a *** and in the desert like a mirage, but they did manage to knock out iraqi armour with minimum losses, thats what amaizes me.

how about we make the turret more slopy or sleek, i like the design of the new russian desert eagle desingn see here, i think it should be more sleek...
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1780&catid=244

[sigatoka]

ya you are right, a target at 3 kms will appear like a *** and in the desert like a mirage, but they did manage to knock out iraqi armour with minimum losses, thats what amaizes me.

how about we make the turret more slopy or sleek, i like the design of the new russian desert eagle desingn see here, i think it should be more sleek...
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1780&catid=244

That was because the Iraqi military had been demoralised by the continuous Airbombing and had been deployed in the open. Life is a tough teacher, she gives the test first and the lesson afterwards. Unfortunately 12,000 Iraqi troops lost their lives in order for the lesson to be learnt that Armoured forces should never be dug in the open to face the American military.

Another mistake the Iraqis made was that they deployed their forces too thinly AND not long enough. This may seem like a contradition, to deploy in depth always means that your front will have to be shorter. But Iraqi forces could have deployed in greater depth and greater "apparent lenght" if they had made their front from Kuwati city and swung it around to the outskirts of Basra. In this manner they would not have been deployed so thinly protecting useless desert sand AND they would not have been outflanked in such a devastaing manner.

I hope somebody could post a map of Kuwait and souther Iraq and I would be better able to show what I mean.

[sword9]

Sigatoka,
Defence in desert warfare is through defensive nodes/strong points combined with maneuver. The Iraqi had no clue they were preparing DCB (ditch kum bund) type defenses, that could be punched through by just a armoured/ mech battle group.

[sigatoka]

---

---

Sigatoka,
Defence in desert warfare is through defensive nodes/strong points combined with maneuver. The Iraqi had no clue they were preparing DCB (ditch kum bund) type defenses, that could be punched through by just a armoured/ mech battle group.

Thats why the Iraq maneuver into the Saudi town with armour was such a disaster. The strategy you are repeating is only useful against players who have similiar capabilities.

I repeat, Iraq's best strategy was to reduce its supply lines and reduce the length of its front by withdrawing from Kuwaits Southern borders to Kuwait City and establishing a defensive perimeter around the city backed with hundred of Artillery pieces and tanks.

By spreading their line so thinly and attempting to defend every square inch of Kuwaits barren desert, they opened themselves to flanking. Reduced their abiltiy to resist armoured punch of the allies and unnecesarily made difficult their resupply of Military units.

What exactly do you think the Iraqis did wrong then?