Steel turret (smooth) + ERA .
Composite turret (sharp) .
Composite turret (blocky) + ERA .
Composite turret (AK type) .
both are the same variant
That is al Khalid. Type 59 has 5 road wheels but Al khalid has 6
@Miraz05
i need help identifying and categorising this specific variant…
I saw somewhere that Al Zarrar variants have P1,P2 etc suffixes.
This one is the final stage of the old Turret Al Zarrar.
i think you mean this:
but this talks about al khalid though…
No. It was a really old website.
ah maybe the p1, p2 … designations were given to both al khalid and al zarrar prototypes
btw are these Pakistans domestic ERA panels? These look slightly thinner than usual FY-2 panels.
i have no clue abt these tbh
heres the turret base of the unknown variant…
heres the base of the AK type turret
heres the base of the blocky composite turret with era
heres the base of the blocky composite turret
heres the base of the smooth steel turret
as you can see, pictures 3 and 4 clearly show a similar turret, due to the triangular cutaway and the angled lower base perimeter…
picture 2 is ak and 5 is the one off prototype…
picture 1 though… it doesnt fit into any one of these types
I think I have figured out the order of these upgrades. Picture 5→Picture 1→Picture 3→ Picture 4→ Picture 2
If you follow this order then you can see that the turret slowly reached its final shape.
Al Zarrar with extra cage armor(Bottom picture)
seems like slat armour for the hull rear sides and a cope cage looking Anti Solar ray tarp lol
it is quite possible… next thing i know i find out another variant lmao,
theres 5 in the TT already,
AZ I, II, II and the two sharp turreted ones as squadron vehicles
I remember it’s a smooth ZTZ-59 turret with a gap armor made by thin steel.
yes this one lacks composite armor
The picture you show doesnt exactly prove that the insides are empty (or that they are meant to be, i mean). Rather just that this specific tank (knocked out, possibly scavenged by PA) has an empty interior to the overlaid armour sheet.
However i dont view this as a hill worth defending as i dont have any sourced reason to confirm nor deny the conclusion.