What is this Iranian tank?

Border-Rat

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/iranian-question/24981d1303781571-zulfiqar-3-mbt-26_147103_3d663c850f5d3fa.jpg

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8042/278702.jpg

This must be either;

I) A mockup, mostly likely. Obviously, it resembles a US M1 Tank. Why, though? To increase fratricide in a war? They've gone to some length to make an aesthetic knock-off that can't be cheap.

II) Based on captured M1. Its well known Republican Guard and former Republican Guard sold captured US equipment, e.g. the Chinese bought two downed Apaches in March 03. But thats unlikely, how do you re-produce an Abrams in less than 10 years?

Avgas

It reminds me most of the Brazilian Osorio prototype...could ENGESA have provided some of the tech? ..But a web search suggested its a domestic development.... Zulfiqar....prob series 3...see: http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=177

There are others here who KNOW tanks ..intimately.......

Probably has bits and bobs of Russian America gear copied and cloned. The box shape is just convergence in design towards spaced armour ...no need for conspiracy theories about black market M1s for sale.........

BTW do you have a source to back up the claim that Chinese bought downed Apaches........?

krissovo

Its a DIO Zulfiqar, I have never seen to much about it and only rare footage of it moving under its own power.

Its M1A1 cloned running gear and a T72 style main gun.

Border-Rat

Avgas wrote: »

It reminds me most of the Brazilian Osorio prototype...could ENGESA have provided some of the tech? ..But a web search suggested its a domestic development.... Zulfiqar....prob series 3...see: http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=177

There are others here who KNOW tanks ..intimately.......

Probably has bits and bobs of Russian America gear copied and cloned. The box shape is just convergence in design towards spaced armour ...no need for conspiracy theories about black market M1s for sale.........

BTW do you have a source to back up the claim that Chinese bought downed Apaches........?

I'm guessing if my source isn't anglo-American, you'll deem it to be 'conspiracy theorist' in Nature, so The Guaridan might suffice;

There are other sources of high-grade intelligence available to the trader wanting to be two days' head-up on the opposition. You can buy bootlegged Chinese intelligence reports in Hong Kong (apparently the Chinese have bought that downed Apache helicopter the Iraqis were dancing on) and Israeli analysis in Tel Aviv.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/07/citynews.Iraqandthemedia/print

Slozer

Obiviously they don't work, both are being towed on the back of trucks:rolleyes:

Border-Rat

Slozer wrote: »

Obiviously they don't work, both are being towed on the back of trucks:rolleyes:

Well, we can see that. Hence the discussion of them being mockups :rolleyes:

xflyer

You don't have to capture an M1 to clone it. The Tamiya kit is quite detailed.




I'd say it's far more likely a development of the M60. Take a look at the 'spare' wheel. That's quite different to the rest of the running gear more. It's easy enough to knock together a tinplate tank to test ideas. Developing a fully operational tank is quite a different affair.

A propaganda tank almost certainly.

Jaafa

The tank is operational, they've been making it since 1996, this is the 3rd variant. The main gun is a 2A46 125mm. Autoloader from a T-72, laser range finder,7.62 coaxial, 12.7mm on top. Combat weight 36 tons, 780HP engine.

krissovo

The only versions I have seen operational are the Mk1's and Mk2's. These are essentially a different beast with only 6 road wheels compared to the latest which has 7. That suggests a major change to the hull and as far I know it has not been seen moving under its own power. They are always on the back of a transporter.

Have a look at this video which show the Iranian tank industry. At 0:53 you will see one on a low loader for about a second. Then the rest of the video nothing! They even show a cloned or refurbished Chieftain coming of the production line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYkY4KWyHms

At 36 tonnes its a lightweight and comparable to APC's so amour can not be more than an inch or two thick with probably 6 at the front.

cyrusdvirus

Border-Rat wrote: »

I'm guessing if my source isn't anglo-American, you'll deem it to be 'conspiracy theorist' in Nature, so The Guaridan might suffice;



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/07/citynews.Iraqandthemedia/print

The Guuardian saying apparently the chinese bought an apache does not equal your statement that it's a well known fact....

cruasder777

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/iranian-question/24981d1303781571-zulfiqar-3-mbt-26_147103_3d663c850f5d3fa.jpg

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8042/278702.jpg

This must be either;

I) A mockup, mostly likely. Obviously, it resembles a US M1 Tank. Why, though? To increase fratricide in a war? They've gone to some length to make an aesthetic knock-off that can't be cheap.

II) Based on captured M1. Its well known Republican Guard and former Republican Guard sold captured US equipment, e.g. the Chinese bought two downed Apaches in March 03. But thats unlikely, how do you re-produce an Abrams in less than 10 years?

The Iranians deal alot with the Chinese on military stuff they look like reconfigured Chinese type 80 and 85s, which underneath is a T72.

Note the low profile.

snafuk35

Might just be made out of wood!

krissovo

krissovo wrote: »

The only versions I have seen operational are the Mk1's and Mk2's. These are essentially a different beast with only 6 road wheels compared to the latest which has 7.

I take back this statement, the mk2 by all accounts from friends who are still serving has 7 road wheels as well. The Mk1 has 6 so the DIO is a natural progression from the Mk2.

However the Mk3 is only the equivalent of "hold me in knickers" making a fat bird look semi decent, and not a decent MBT.

seanmacc

krissovo wrote: »

At 36 tonnes its a lightweight and comparable to APC's so amour can not be more than an inch or two thick with probably 6 at the front.

With no tank armour being a match for cruise missiles, hellfire missiles or virtually any smart bomb dropped from the sky a couple of inches thickness is probably all thats needed. Tanks in the modern theater just really have to bullet proof.

Border-Rat

gatecrash wrote: »

The Guuardian saying apparently the chinese bought an apache does not equal your statement that it's a well known fact....

To be honest, I don't care if you believe me or not. By the way, they were shot down when a fleet of 24 of them were repulsed using WW2 equipment.

cyrusdvirus

Border-Rat wrote: »

To be honest, I don't care if you believe me or not. By the way, they were shot down when a fleet of 24 of them were repulsed using WW2 equipment.

As manic has pointed out to you in another thread referring to that particular action, no one ever said the Iraqi's were dumb.

Manic Moran

Border-Rat wrote: »

I'm guessing if my source isn't anglo-American, you'll deem it to be 'conspiracy theorist' in Nature, so The Guaridan might suffice;



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/apr/07/citynews.Iraqandthemedia/print

Doesn't mean it was delivered.
The wreckage was apparently recaptured (after being bombed) in the vicinity of Baghdad Airport. Initial attempt to destroy it failed, it was then trucked to Baghdad, where it met its end.

For the record, ZPU-4 and ZU-23-2 are the two most likely candidates for the weapons used in the shootdown, they're both postwar. But the point is valid. I've always told my crews never to underestimate inferior equipment well used. Only one was shot down in that incident.

Back on topic, 36 tons seems excessively light for that tank. I'd be more inclined to believe 46.

NTM

Cardinal Richelieu

Jaafa wrote: »

The tank is operational, they've been making it since 1996, this is the 3rd variant. The main gun is a 2A46 125mm. Autoloader from a T-72, laser range finder,7.62 coaxial, 12.7mm on top. Combat weight 36 tons, 780HP engine.

This source seems to differ on the engine and weight.

TankNutDave.com

The first model that entered production was the Zulfiqar-1, which is in service with the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and as of 2001, 100 Zulfiqar-1 are said to have been produced. The Zulfiqar-2 is a test vehicle and Zulfiqar-3 is in full production.
In order to maintain commonality and logistical support of munitions’ the vehicle uses the same 125mm 2A46M smoothbore cannon used on the Iranian licensed built T-72S. It’s suspension system is torsion bar and based on earlier M60’s and a 12 cylinder diesel engine, generating 780 hp. The Zulfiqar-1 uses the Slovenian EFCS-3 fire control system (which allows the vehicle to fire whilst on the move).
The was said to have entered production in 1999. There are currently no clear figures as to the number of Zulfiqar-3’s that have been produced.
The Zulfiqar-3 has been up-graded with a 1000 hp diesel engine giving a top road speed of 70km/h,fire control system and the autoloader used in the T-72S, reducing the crew to the driver (hull front) the commander (right of turret) and gunner (left of turret) with the autoloader in the centre of the turret. The vehicle is equipped with day and night vision sights, an NBC system, a coaxial 7.62mm MG and a further 12.7mm MG on the commanders cupola. Different sources report the vehicle to have either passive or composite armour. The vehicle’s weight is 40tons, so therefore must have passive armour.
There are a number of visual differences between the Zulfiqar-1 and Zulfiqar-3. Zulfiqar-3’s hull is shaped more commonly to the US M1 Abram’s series

Border-Rat wrote: »

Well, we can see that. Hence the discussion of them being mockups :rolleyes:

There seems to be a certain snobbery when it comes to the development of weapons by countries considered 2nd or 3rd world. The Iranians weapons designers have had recent enough combat environment experience, when you leave behind the Islamist image of Iran you find a country with a rich history of scientific invention and research who is very open minded to new technology and its development. In Asia only South Korea publishes more high level science papers than Iran. So perhaps these tanks are more than towed mock ups.

Scientific output has grown 11 times faster in Iran than the world average, faster than any other country. A survey of the number of scientific publications listed in the Web of Science database shows that growth in the Middle East – mostly in Turkey and Iran – is nearly four times faster than the world average.
“Iran is showing fastest worldwide growth in science,” said Eric Archambault, who authored the report.
“Asia is catching up even more rapidly than previously thought, Europe is holding its position more than most would expect, and the Middle East is a region to watch,” he added.
According to Archambaut, while Iran’s publications have somewhat emphasized on nuclear chemistry and particle physics, the country has also made significant progress in medical science and agriculture development.
Archambaut said Iran’s technological advancements this year have been to an extent that they may even outshine those of China, whose prominence in world science is known to have been growing.
Despite more than thirty years of Western-imposed sanctions, Iran has made great strides in different sectors, including aerospace, nuclear science, medical development, as well as stem cell and cloning research.
Among the country’s most recent accomplishments, which has garnered international acclaim, was the February 2 launch of Kavoshgar 3 (Explorer 3) satellite carrier into space with living organisms — a rat, two turtles and worms — onboard.
In January 2010, the country became the first Middle Eastern country to produce transgenic animals, such as sheep and goats that express foreign proteins in their milk and are, therefore, considered valuable sources of protein for human therapy.
Also Iran has become one of the few countries that have the technology and the means to clone farm animals, which could lead to advances in medical research, including using cloned animals to produce human antibodies against diseases.

krissovo

With weights for tanks two measurements are the norm, bombed up battle weight and unladen. 4 tonnes in ammo, fuel, vehicle equipment, water and of course the crew and their kit does not seam unreasonable.

There seems to be a certain snobbery when it comes to the development of weapons by countries considered 2nd or 3rd world. The Iranians weapons designers have had recent enough combat environment experience, when you leave behind the Islamist image of Iran you find a country with a rich history of scientific invention and research who is very open minded to new technology and its development. In Asia only South Korea publishes more high level science papers than Iran. So perhaps these tanks are more than towed mock ups.

Its not snobbery, well not on the style of my VW beats your skoda sense. There really is that much gap between the capability of the kit. Getting a tank rolling is one thing, add fire control systems and amour and this is where the differences are.