TR Altay Main Battle Tank & Related Programs

[boredaf]

In light of lessons learned both from operations conducted by the Turkish Armed Forces and from the Russia–Ukraine War, necessary precautions have been implemented on the new ALTAY tank (an isolated-hull ammunition configuration) so that, in the event of a hit, the ammunition in the turret and chassis will not detonate and cause the tank’s destruction.

İlk İki Adet Yeni ALTAY Tankı Testler için TSK’ya Teslim Edildi

Cumhurbaşkanlığı Savunma Sanayii Başkanlığı projesiyle BMC Savunma tarafından üretilen iki adet Yeni Altay Tankı, Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip ERDOĞAN’ın katılımıyla Sakarya Arifiye’de düzenlenen törenl

www.defenceturkey.com

That's what they said, but the photo from yesterday shows they did fuck all. This is M-60s ammunition storage, does that look all that different to you?

 

[Sanchez]

I just want to understand why that photo from the assembly line indicates that it won't have isolated hull ammunition racks? What in that photo indicates that it will stay the same all the way until the end of the assembly line? According to @Sanchez it had to be installed as a whole module, but i am not statisfied with that answer. Like why, only because it was done by other manufacturers or what are the limitations to do it that way? I don't give a fck about BMC.

An isolated rack is a whole module. Tank's internal design must be fitted to it. It's not an add-on or something that can be modernized into an existing design easily. Germans only did it with the Leo2 RC 3.

Altay T1 doesn't have it, T2 will. It doesn't have it in T1 because our army saw Leo2 as the pinnacle of tank engineering, a 50 year old design; so it was seen as a not that important of an upgrade. Then our Leo2s blew up in Syria.

 

[OPTIMUS]

What are you talking about mate? The photo is literally from the tweet from yesterday, shared by SSB president:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1974122631528910978

Here it is from a different source, and below is the full photo. This fits with what was on that board.

Where is the driver's hatch?

 

[Sanchez]

Where is the driver's hatch?

Seen more easily here. Front compartment and the main part of the hull are not flush.

 

[OPTIMUS]

What are you talking about mate? The photo is literally from the tweet from yesterday, shared by SSB president:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1974122631528910978

Here it is from a different source, and below is the full photo. This fits with what was on that board.

One must not forget. ALTAY is largely based on K2. In the K2, the ammunition storage is also to the left of the driver.

It was anticipated that in the ALTAY T1, 12 shells would be stored on the right and left of the driver, respectively. But in the picture, we see 10 slots on the right and left. The rectangular empty slots (4 pieces) should make us think about whether these gaps are planned for countermeasures for possible fire suppression systems?

 

[Azeri441]

by the time Altay is entering service, the battlefield has changed, Altay is too heavy and expensive for modern battlefield, Ukraine has lost nearly all of its modern Abrams and Leopards, as they were easy targets for FPV drones, its questionable if APS can stop drones. 2nd version of Altay is needed with unmanned turret and 3 man crew in a capsule.

 

[Saithan]

We still need tanks and it's better to produce our own and make new modern ones later. than suffice with old M60 and Leo2.

 

[UkroTurk]

Here is the pure genuine Chinese MBT!
Weights 40 tonnes and has just 105mm gun!! Why?
Because the Chinese analyzed very well data from Ukrainian war.

Today:
*Tank on tank combats are exceedingly rare.
*105mm AP rounds velocity is good.
* Punching armor is not job of MBTs.
* Destroying fortifications is main job!!
* Armor is typically used to dislodge infantry from citys.
*Bigger, slower, louder giant platform have shown to be vulnerable!
I absolutely agree and we also should focus on 40 ton medium tanks.

Just 2 tank crew, most works are AI delegated , a lot of sensors etc. Here is the new ERA.

 

[harris]

China's new-type tanks are no longer just assault fortresses, but systematic and intelligent combat platforms. Through such platforms, the tanks' battlefield awareness capabilities and active defense capabilities are greatly enhanced and improved.
The destruction of the enemy's main battle tanks is mainly accomplished through beyond-visual-range (BVR) means—just like the J-10C shooting down the Rafale—destroying the enemy tanks before they are detected.

 

[Quasar]

Here is the pure genuine Chinese MBT!
Weights 40 tonnes and has just 105mm gun!! Why?
Because the Chinese analyzed very well data from Ukrainian war.

Today:
*Tank on tank combats are exceedingly rare.
*105mm AP rounds velocity is good.
* Punching armor is not job of MBTs.
* Destroying fortifications is main job!!
* Armor is typically used to dislodge infantry from citys.
*Bigger, slower, louder giant platform have shown to be vulnerable!
I absolutely agree and we also should focus on 40 ton medium tanks.

Just 2 tank crew, most works are AI delegated , a lot of sensors etc. Here is the new ERA.

Frankly speaking China does not just have medium tanks with 105 mm, their MBT inventory still mainly consists of Type 99A, Type 99, Type 96A, Type 96, 88, 79, 59

they already had medium tanks before the Ukrainian war since their geography dictates also a need for medium tanks but sure this does not mean that they are not getting leasons from Ukrainian war... for instance their latest tank models failed to achieve the desired results during exercises because of inadequate traning levels of tank crews

 

[Ripley]

Here is the pure genuine Chinese MBT!
Weights 40 tonnes and has just 105mm gun!! Why?
Because the Chinese analyzed very well data from Ukrainian war.

Today:
*Tank on tank combats are exceedingly rare.
*105mm AP rounds velocity is good.
* Punching armor is not job of MBTs.
* Destroying fortifications is main job!!
* Armor is typically used to dislodge infantry from citys.
*Bigger, slower, louder giant platform have shown to be vulnerable!
I absolutely agree and we also should focus on 40 ton medium tanks.

Just 2 tank crew, most works are AI delegated , a lot of sensors etc. Here is the new ERA.

Regarding Russo-Ukrania War, Some points, I must agree but some others not so much.

Frankly speaking China does not just have medium tanks with 105 mm, their MBT inventory still mainly consists of Type 99A, Type 99, Type 96A, Type 96, 88, 79, 59

they already had medium tanks before the Ukrainian war since their geography dictates also a need for medium tanks but sure this does not mean that they are not getting leasons from Ukrainian war... for instance their latest tank models failed to achieve the desired results during exercises because of inadequate traning levels of tank crews

And lets not forget that they‘ve been setting up an agile landing force on Taiwan. and from what I read latter’s tank and armor force is in abysmal condition.

 

[begturan]

The Chinese are generally open to new ideas and eager to experiment. Because they don't face financial constraints, they don't hesitate to add tanks of various designs to their inventory. In the future, they will test these tanks on the battlefield and choose the best candidate to invest in.

 

[UkroTurk]

But somehow, for some reason the Chinese haven't made 60 ton huge MBTs, while their Navy constructing huge destroyers.

Geography and topography could be the reason? India border is on mountains.

Anyways today we don't see tank on tank battles, MBTs work as fire support vehicles against fortifications and buildings.

 

[Ripley]

But somehow, for some reason the Chinese haven't made 60 ton huge MBTs, while their Navy constructing huge destroyers.

Geography and topography could be the reason? India border is on mountains.

Anyways today we don't see tank on tank battles, MBTs work as fire support vehicles against fortifications and buildings.

I was trying to explain here

And lets not forget that they‘ve been setting up an agile landing force on Taiwan. and from what I read latter’s tank and armor force is in abysmal condition.

Now that I have time, I can try more in detail.
Chinese light tank concept can be a result of rapid deployment (landing) on Taiwan.
it should be light so that they can support infantry during landing and help quickly establish strongholds at the beachheads. Also, they might think that equipped with superior tech, their light tank might take obsolete Taiwanese armor quickly.

I don’t know the driving force behind such a light tank but I believe landing(s) on Taiwan might, if not the sole reason, be one of the reasons.
I’m not sure whether large size of destroyers vs light tanks is a contradiction in itself because large size destroyers is quite relevant to Taiwan as well, considering their jobs cut out for them. Namely, keeping the US navy out of reach as much as they can during an invasion of Taiwan and protect and keep logistic lines to island open.

Again, I’m not claiming that I’m an expert on Chinese armor and naval doctrines but only saying that it may be one of many reasons behind the tank. Or maybe you’re absolutely right and it was the conclusion they arrived after Russo-Ukraine War and stick to that.
I’m just not so sure if every military can/should arrive at the same conclusion. Everyone’s needs are different, I say.

 

[boredaf]

I was trying to explain here


Now that I have time, I can try more in detail.
Chinese light tank concept can be a result of rapid deployment (landing) on Taiwan.
it should be light so that they can support infantry during landing and help quickly establish strongholds at the beachheads. Also, they might think that equipped with superior tech, their light tank might take obsolete Taiwanese armor quickly.

I don’t know the driving force behind such a light tank but I believe landing(s) on Taiwan might, if not the sole reason, be one of the reasons.
I’m not sure whether large size of destroyers vs light tanks is a contradiction in itself because large size destroyers is quite relevant to Taiwan as well, considering their jobs cut out for them. Namely, keeping the US navy out of reach as much as they can during an invasion of Taiwan and protect and keep logistic lines to island open.

Again, I’m not claiming that I’m an expert on Chinese armor and naval doctrines but only saying that it may be one of many reasons behind the tank. Or maybe you’re absolutely right and it was the conclusion they arrived after Russo-Ukraine War and stick to that.
I’m just not so sure if every military can/should arrive at the same conclusion. Everyone’s needs are different, I say.

I think you are right about a possible Taiwan invasion mate, but I also believe they did take notes from Ukraine. Western tanks sent there all underperformed at best, outright failed at worst. Ukrainians heaped praise on Bradleys and CV90s far more than any tank that were sent there.

Western doctrine have been all about getting the air superiority and bombing the enemy back to stone age before putting boots on the ground for a long time, I think that is why Ukraine became a wake up call to everyone. As in, "Wait, what the fuck do we do if we cannot achieve air superiority?" Well, suddenly, your MBTs are artillery bait, or, drone bait. So, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see more medium tanks in the future.

Also, Chinese are claiming that 105mm cannon provides equivalent performance to other 120 mm cannons, due to penetrators and whatever propellant they use, might be true, might be bluffing. Who knows with China.

But somehow, for some reason the Chinese haven't made 60 ton huge MBTs, while their Navy constructing huge destroyers.

Well, yanks are making 60 tonnes MBT, Abrams X, while also making huge destroyers.

 

[Saithan]

Remember that terrain plays a part in all this. Our border with Syria is pretty much flat.

Under any circumstances we need new armor in thousands

 

[UkroTurk]

Please remember that the Chinese also have flat Terrain border with Russia where they killed some Soviet tanks.

Sino-Soviet border conflict - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Azeri441]

But somehow, for some reason the Chinese haven't made 60 ton huge MBTs, while their Navy constructing huge destroyers.

Geography and topography could be the reason? India border is on mountains.

Anyways today we don't see tank on tank battles, MBTs work as fire support vehicles against fortifications and buildings.

You also have to consider the wider region, Asia doesn't have heavy tanks like Europe, with the exception of a few countries, most rely on light or medium tanks, and the infrastructure in Asia, such as bridges in many of the countries cannot support a 60+ ton tank, so a heavy tank will be bugged down in possible conflicts outside of Chinese borders, and of course Taiwan, where getting the most numbers per ship is more important than more protection.

 

[UkroTurk]

I would like to know about weight limit of our Turkish bridges, on the other hand Anatolian Terrain is not flat.

Priorität should be medium tanks rather than heavy MBT

 

[AzeriTank]

the main reason i believe is the thermal signature, even russians use electrical motorcycles. tb2 is able to see tanks from 80-100 km away, so hybrid tanks is the future. FNSS also said 2 years ago that they work on hybrid Kaplan, which is around 35 ton. as the vehight goes up, its harder and more expensive to make that strong electrical motors. i think Kalpan or hybrid Tulpar( max, in 2-3 years at least) could offer way more. also, if they are sitting to monitor around, with those batteries they could be at silent watch for 2 days at least, without giving any thermal signature. as MKE makes Firtina e, also willing to update 50 ton m60 tanks, making a new electrical (hybrid) tanks would make breakthrough in international market, but here comes the rare earth materials for those batteries, electrical motors and so on.
for example, Only China, South Korea and Turkiye are able to make Lion batteries from scrach of metal